1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, January 25, 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, CommissionerPct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4
~
0
..~..
G'6
_._.
~
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I N D E X
January 25, 2010
--- Commissioners' Comments
l.l Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
reducing registration fees to $1 during rabies
drive
1.2 Report to Commissioners Court of total monies
collected by Court Compliance for 2009
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
authorize Freese and Nichols, Inc., to complete
engineering, prepare bid specifications, advertise
for bids to repair Flat Rock and Ingram Lake dams
and provide construction representation
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
conduct an acoustic bathometric survey of
Flat Rock Lake to obtain lake bottom profile
and depths and density of silt on lake bottom
1.7 Consider/discussion of information provided by
Freese & Nichols regarding general description
& typical approach to evaluating and remediating
silt accumulation in a typical lake reservoir
1.3 Public Hearing for revision of plat for Lots 132
and 133 of Vistas Escondidas de Cypress Springs
Estates, Precinct 4
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve final revision of plat for Lots 132
and 133 of Vistas Escondidas de Cypress Springs
Estates, Precinct 4
1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
permission to sell surplus equipment and scrap
metal and to use the proceeds to purchase
additional equipment
1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
accept Misty Lane in Megan Manor Subdivision
for maintenance, and release Surety Bond
#060170271788, Precinct 4
PAGE
5
14
16
18
19
19
41
41
42
46
25
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
	I N D E X (Continued)	
	January 25, 2010	
		PAGE
1.13	Consider/discuss, take appropriate on request	
	from Child Services Board to use a portion of	
	courthouse square for a display during month	
	of April for Child Abuse Awareness Month	48
1.8	Open bids for proposed Law Enforcement Annex/	
'	Adult Probation Building and refer bids to	
	appropriate personnel for consideration and	
	recommendation	49
1.9	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action	
	regarding property appraisal reports from TAC;	
	Courthouse appraisal value increased to	
	historical reproduction cost	51
1.10	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to go	
	out for annual bids for road base, cold mix,	
	aggregate, emulsion oil, & corrugated metal pipe	56
4.1 Pay Bills 57
4.2 Budget Amendments 60
4.3 Late Bills --
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 60
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments 62
5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads 62
Adjourned 72
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 25, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., a special
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 0 C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Let -- let me call to order this regularly scheduled meeting
of the Kerr County Commissioners Court posted and scheduled
for this date and time, Monday, January 25th, 2010, at 9 a.m.
It is that time now. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Would you rise
with me for a word of prayer, and then we'll do the pledge of
allegiance.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, if there's any member
of the public or the audience that wishes to be heard on any
matter that is not a listed agenda item, this is your
opportunity to come forward and tell us what's on your mind.
If you do wish to be heard on an agenda item, we'd ask that
you fill out a participation form. They could be -- should
be located at the back of the room. That helps me to keep
track of folks that wish to be heard on those agenda items.
1-25-10
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Notwithstanding that, if you wish to be heard on an agenda
item, when we get to that item, get my attention in some
manner and I'll give you the opportunity to be heard. But
right now, if there's any member of the public that wishes to
be heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, come
forward and tell us what's on your mind now. Seeing no one
coming forward, we will move on. Commissioner Baldwin, what
do you have for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to bring up
one issue. Down the hallways of my mind, I remember that we
have budgeted -- I think we have budgeted some money to do
some improvements at the Ag Barn, specifically in the arena,
I think the conversation was. And I just -- you know, I
don't know how much it is and where it is, but I-- I think
that if -- if that money is there, I think let's go ahead and
do it. I just wanted to get that on the table. If there --
if there's -- there's plenty to be done, and if there's -- if
the money's there, let's go ahead and do it. Let's don't
hesitate on that issue. That's all. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've told the Court on an
earlier occasion, the AACOG road show is coming to town on
Wednesday, February 3, and it will be at the Dietert Senior
Center from 5:00 to 7 p.m. I've asked the members of the
press to stay with me for a minute or two afterwards so we
1-25-10
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
, can talk about this, and impress folks on the importance of
I, this meeting. In addition to AACOG, the services they render
that are available to Kerr County residents, U.S.D.A.'s going
to participate as well and talk about some of their programs.
So, we'll be hopefully talking to the press after the meeting
on this. On another matter, Judge, I received word from
Texas Water Development Board that they have officially
accepted our Category A report, which is the first of four
parts of the planning that's under way right now for the
T.W.D.B. grant. And in a second letter, they have authorized
the Texas Department of Health Services to conduct a-- a
nuisance survey for the proposed service area. And I think
~i we all know from previous discussions that if that finding is
i
appropriate or is what we would hope that it would be, and I
don't know how it could be anything other, that goes a long
way toward providing additional grant help, as opposed to
loan help, from T.W.D.B. So, I'll be working with the
Environmental Health Department people and Texas Department
of Health and whoever else we have to, to make certain they
understand there are nuisances over there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three things. I guess the
first, I think everyone knows, up here anyway, it was a great
1-25-10
~
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
', stock show. The weather was just fantastic. It seemed like
there were record crowds to me; I can't ever remember seeing
so many people out there, but it was a great -- great event
again. Second is that last Thursday, we had -- the appeal
was heard by the Water Development Board on the GMA-9 DFC,
and it went better than I possibly could have imagined.
Probably what happened was one of the most important water
stories for the state of Texas this year, if not longer,
because what happened at the Water Development Board -- and
the board even went further than the staff recommendation --
was that they went back and looked at how the DFC's are
calculated, which are being done statewide. They said they
cannot ignore exempt wells; they have to be put into mix,
which the DFC only deals with permitted wells. They have to
set aside in their allocation water for private property
owners, which are the exempt wells, essentially. So, it was
a huge win for private property rights.
In addition to that -- and basically, they sided
and agreed almost 100 percent with the appeal that we and
Region J and U.G.R.A. all put together, and it will have a
big impact on the Trinity, which is what we're really looking
at, because the Edwards-Trinity is not as important a water
source for Kerr County as the Trinity is, but it's going to
mean that the Trinity -- they have to allocate water for the
private property owners as well. This has implications for
1-25-10
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
city of Kerrville -- well, everybody, and it's really a good
decision. And the second thing they did, they also agreed
with us and said that the model that was used by GMA-9 was
not the correct model; that it should have used the
Edwards-Trinity model. And that model had a-- and the
reason for that was that the Edwards-Trinity model has what
is called a river drain package included in it, which
accounts for water flow in the springs, which the Trinity
model really doesn't do that. So, that was good. I can get
on my soapbox a little bit about the regional water planning,
how that process needed to be part of the GMA's and all of
that, and Vice Chairman Hunt concurred, and as did Weir
Labatt on that, two of the five members of their board,
echoed the same thing that I had said. So, it was a good
day. GMA-9 folks were not too happy when we left that
meeting, but I think -- and I really don't think they
understand some of the details of it. I don't think they
understand exactly what happened from the standpoint of the
permitted water versus exempt water.
The other thing, last week, I think it was last
Tuesday, I was at Southern Edwards Plateau Habitat
Conservation Plan meeting -- initial meeting, which is part
of the endangered species process. And it is the process
that allows development to continue in the -- I guess around
San Antonio, primarily. There's, I guess, $1.8 million
1-25-10
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
funding this group. I'm not sure, but I'm about to be
chairman of that, it looks like. I-- I tried not to be, but
then Kirby Brown, who many people know; he's executive
director of the Texas Wildlife Association, he was nominated,
and then he nominated me, and he and I talked afterwards.
Looks like we might be co-chairs. Neither of us wants to do
it, because it's going to be a lot of work over the next
couple of years. What this plan will do for Kerr County is
that Kerr County has a lot of endangered species habitat.
It's well-known, mapped by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
that process will allow people that want to, on a voluntarily
basis in Kerr County, to basically set aside their tracts of
land and they can be compensated by developers in San Antonio
that want to destroy habitat.
In Bruce's area, for example, the Stowers Ranch,
there's huge conservation on that, and this mechanism --
they've already decided to go down that road, and it allows
them to get compensated for their property. The value of
these easements can be equal to the property value there;
it's right in, you know, the market value, with the
stipulation that they can never be subdivided. It has to
always stay like a preserve. So, there are a lot of families
in Kendall County, Kerr County, Gillespie County, Bandera
County that would like to do this. This allows them the
opportunity to keep family ranches together and still realize
1-25-10
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
the -- the gain from the value of the land. So, it could be
a win-win, and this whole process determines how that is
done. I'm sure everyone's just totally interested in that
, process. But -- but, anyway, that is how -- what I spent a
lot of last week doing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the vote of the
I board?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Unanimous.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Great.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, two things -- actually,
about three things. It came to my attention last week that
now that we have two helicopter services that provide medical
transportation -- Air Evac has been here a long time, and
they sold a lot of inemberships out in the west end of the
county. I think they may have even sold a lot in other
areas. That was all fine and good, but now we have another
one in this Lifeflight, and for -- until October the 9th,
which is what I found out in my investigation last week, they
were honoring the insurance of Air Evac. Well, all of a
sudden they stopped, and so whenever you're a member of Air
Evac right now and you call for service, you may or may not
get the company that you have the membership with. And if
1-25-10
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
you don't get the one you have a membership with, you can get
a very large bill. I think that's something we need to work
on. I think that's kind of Commissioner Baldwin's alley with
EMS. I've been -- I've talked to all of them. Well, it is.
You're the liaison.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And so I think that I will
fill him in more after the meeting so that maybe he can work
with the dispatch, as well as maybe those two services to see
if they can come up with some kind of agreement to where
whoever gets called, the person will be served, and somehow
not have to pay a huge bill or huge difference. It will take
a while, but I think it can happen. In this instance, the --
the guy that -- he actually requested his membership, which
was Air Evac, and he got a bill for $21,000 because
Lifeflight showed up. The reason they showed up is 'cause
Air Evac was not available.
' COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, you and I
talked about this the other day, and there used to be a
reciprocity agreement between the two, Air Life --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's gone away; is
that right?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That went away as of
October 9th, but I don't think that anybody -- they didn't
1-25-10
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
let it be known, and so a lot of people think -- especially
in my area, 'cause we have such a large area, that, you know,
they're going to get the service that they contracted for,
and that's not necessarily true, because the 911 dispatch
alternates whenever they get called. Or they get the one
that's -- that has the best ETA.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We should try to put this on
the agenda.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Might be good, and get --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have we signed a contract
with these people yet?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's just informational. I
just wanted to let it be known.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have we signed a contract
with these people yet?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I gather.
MS. BAILEY: We could put that on the agenda.
Maybe it would be better to discuss it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We can discuss it. I was
just mainly --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The County Attorney and I
are now best friends.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. Other thing is, I-- I
concur with Commissioner Baldwin's deal on the Ag Barn, and I
1-25-10
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
' think what we need to do is also maybe put that on the agenda
to authorize going out for grants. We've waited around long
enough on the City to do whatever it is they're going to do.
Other thing is, we have another little issue with Animal
Control not being able to communicate with the city police
department, which we will -- I have contacted one of the
Councilman and we will get to the bottom of that issue,
hopefully. Other than that, that's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Following up on Commissioner Letz'
comments, I was amazed at the number of people at the
district show livestock show on Friday. It was literally
wall-to-wall people. You couldn't stir them with a stick. I
don't ever remember the crowd being that large. I think good
weather probably had something to do with it. Roy Walston
told me the number of entries were up, which probably had
something also to do with it, but which does prompt the
question -- I heard a lot of comments about, You guys are
going to have to figure out a way to upgrade, enlarge,
various similar type comments being made. And we may want to
go back and take a look at the plan that we had prepared and
that we participated in back in the latter part of '08 and
see where we're going on that. And there may be some things
that are going on elsewhere that might impact what we do or
don't do there, but I think we need to -- we need to start
making some steps in the right direction. I think under
1-25-10
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
'~ any -- any plan, it appears that the indoor arena is -- is
going to remain intact, and so that we can at least address
some issues that we have with that particular facility,
knowing that what we do there won't be lost. It'll -- it
will accommodate and -- and be able to be used in conjunction
with whatever else we do. But that's a subject for another
day, and we'll get to that. I haven't heard the results of
the sale yet. The only result I heard was down from, like,
185, 190, something -- somewhere in there, that the numbers
were running about on track of what they had in the past. I
was a little concerned early on by some of the -- some of the
results that I saw, the animals being gaveled down. My sense
was that they were a little soft, but I'm told that 180, 190,
somewhere along in there is pretty much due course, so we'll
wait until we get the final number. Let's go ahead and get
on with our agenda. We've got a few items to attend to
today. First item is to consider, discuss, and take
I~, appropriate action on reducing registration fees to one
dollar during the rabies drive. Ms. Whitt?
MS. WHITT: Good morning. We have our rabies drive
coming up, which will be Saturday, February 6th, from 1:00 to
3:00. We are asking that you approve reducing the
registration fee to one dollar. Now, so you know, there has
been a couple of changes this year. The vets have -- have
asked, number one, that we advertise no checks, no credit
1-25-10
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
, cards, strictly cash. And also, they are raising the
vaccination rates by two dollars, so it will no longer be $6;
it'll be $8. And if we don't agree to this, then they've
I~~ decided they no longer want to do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, and with that, the
~~, vaccination is no longer a-- an annual event now, because of
', the medicine they use. It's -- you don't have to vaccinate
' every year; it's every three years now.
MS. WHITT: Well, it's three years in the county.
It's still one year in the city. I am working with the city
on changing that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So, the -- what I'm
-- my point is, though, is that -- that that $2 increase is
well worth it.
MS. WHITT: Yeah, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's very -- that's
reasonable, very reasonable. They're still losing money on
this. It's more of a public service.
MS. WHITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval, with the --
what changes you recommend.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
1-25-10
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
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 2. That is a report to Commissioners Court of the
total moneys collected by the Court Compliance for calendar
I year 2009.
MS. LYLE: Good morning. Just wanted to report to
Commissioners Court my first full year after I've taken over
Court Compliance. And I'm happy to report we've collected
over $825,000 for the year for the county. Earliest data
that I have to be able to report from Odyssey collections in
the prior years is as of May 2006, so 2006 is only going to
be from May till the end of the year. And that's due to
the -- it's just getting Odyssey in 2006 and no data being
reported till May. On Page 2, we kind of give you an
analysis of how many payment plans. These are payment plans,
not actual cases, but payment plans that are paid in full.
From June 2008, since that's when I took over the office was
June 2008, through the end of the year, we've had 405 payment
plans paid in full. As of December -- I'm sorry, January
through December 2009, we've had 811 paid in full. The
1-25-10
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
17
difference between the last full year that collections was in
operation before I took over and the first full year, we
collected $274,889 more. Total payment plans we have right
now, currently we stay pretty close to what we -- we run
every month, is 1,787 payment plans. That's something we use
all the time.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what you got working right
now?
MS. LYLE: Yeah, at all -- all the time.
JUDGE TINLEY: About 1,800?
MS. LYLE: Almost 1,800 payment plans.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Ms. Lyle, let me ask you, is
there a way that you can, without a great deal of difficulty,
track what has accrued under your payment plans for each
court, and what is actually paid? Now, I don't -- I want to
try and compare apples to apples, so I don't want to -- I
don't want to go back into a prior period. But what accrues
during a particular calendar year if an individual's
obligated, say, to make $100-a-month payments, the accrual is
$1,200 that year, and gauge that as against what was actually
collected in that case during that particular period, and
then accumulate it as to each of the courts. Is that
something you -- you might be able to take a look at and tell
us -- I'm looking at percentage of collections accrued.
MS. LYLE: I can certainly look into it. I will
1-25-10
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
18
probably have to get with maybe the Auditor's office to
assist me in that, but I'm sure that's something we can come
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. If that's something that you
can come up with, I think that would be revealing information
as to -- as to where we need to put the pressure, as it were.
MS. LYLE: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's a good report.
I thank you for your efforts.
MS. LYLE: Thank you. Anybody else?
JUDGE TINLEY: Other than just receiving the
information, you don't desire any action by the Court?
MS. LYLE: No, just wanted to give you a report.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. We appreciate the
report. Let's move to Item 5, if we might. Consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to authorize Freese and
Nichols, Inc., to complete engineering, prepare bid specs,
advertise for bids to repair Flat Rock and Ingram Lake Dams,
and provide construction representation. Commissioner
Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I've got
these on the agenda because it's time for us to take a look
at repairing our two dams. Commissioner Oehler and I have
had a lot of discussions over the last several months about
1-25-10
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
how we do this, and we've broken this thing down into three
separate items, the first being -- and maybe, Judge, if you
don't mind, maybe we can call all three of those items,
because they really do end up being interconnected.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have any
objection? Let me go ahead and.call, in addition to Item 5,
Items 6 and 7. Item 6 is to consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to conduct an acoustic bathometric survey
of Flat Rock Lake to obtain lake bottom profile and depths
and density of silt on the lake bottom, and Item 7 is to
consider and discuss information provided by Freese and
Nichols regarding general description and typical approach to
evaluating and remediating silt accumulation in a typical
lake reservoir. Okay, we got them all out on the table now,
I Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. The
first item has to do with the dam repairs, and I'd like to
introduce to the Court Mr. Les Boyd of Freese and Nichols,
who's been working with us on this. They are the engineering
firm that officially did the preparation work for the NTD,
the nondestructive testing that took place in both dams to
determine the extent of the voids underneath the cap. And --
and in all three of these agenda items, we're working from
Mr. Boyd's communications to Commissioners Court on that
topic. So, Les, would you step us through what you're
i-zs-io
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
telling us with respect to dam repairs?
MR. BOYD: To the dam repairs?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before you get started, I
want to make just one point. Excuse me. I want to make the
point very clear for the press and the public and the city of
Kerrville that the actions that the Court takes today or does
not take today, but as we move forward, none of these actions
requires the lowering of the lake level. So, let's dismiss
that real quick. We're not taking the lake level down, not
causing residual problems, and we're going to try to move
forward with things that are important to us. Thank you.
Les, go ahead.
MR. BOYD: Okay. The repair item is basically
based upon the nondestructive test program that was done
approximately a year and a half ago. There's some voids
under the caps on both of the two dams, and the program to
put that to rest is to go through with a series of groutings
wherein you drill holes through the concrete and you inject
grout, and you have bleed holes where you can chase the grout
out and try to get a solid foundation beneath the crest of
the dam. The problem with it is, if you don't have that,
I you'll continue to get erosion beneath the cap, and
eventually you'll erode enough soil beneath the cap that the
cap will collapse, and then the dam will be in jeopardy. So,
the idea is to -- to do the best we can to identify the
1-25-10
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
21
number of voids, drill the holes, and grout them. It's a
very unknown quantity at this time. We took the data from
the nondestructive testing, and assumed a general void area
and did a volume calculation on that, and that's the basis
for the quantities that we -- we've used thus far. That's
not to say it won't be more, it won't be less, until we get
out and actually start doing it. There is also a period of
time of greater than a year in which it's been subjected to
some floods and some additional movement of materials,
perhaps, beneath the cap. So, this -- we think this is a
range of what we would expect for hiring a grouting
contractor to come out and basically do a"fit to the needs"
~ type solution.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From this point forward,
, then, what would be the -- what would be the order of the
~ process?
MR. BOYD: What we would do is assemble a set of
project plans and specifications to put out for -- for public
bid, try to get as many bids as we can. Right now, the
bidding world is pretty good. Construction industry's a
little slow, so on projects where, in the past, we had
received four or five bids, we now get maybe as many as 12,
' so it's a good time to be out trying to get this work done.
But we'd assemble plans and specifications, advertise it for
bid, evaluate those bids, and then make a recommendation to
1-25-10
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
22
the Court as to which bid to accept. And then we also have
in there a construction representation, wherein, while the
grouting contractor's there, we would observe what he's doing
and assure that it's adequate, or as best to our ability that
it's adequate. The T.C.E.Q. will be involved in that.
You'll wind up needing to submit the repair set of plans to
them and get their approval on it, and they want to know that
it's been basically observed or inspected by qualified
professionals. And then, when it's completed, we'll have to
certify and send them a completion letter.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we're talking in this
case, the amount that you're recommending or are indicating
that it might cost is for both Flat Rock Lake and Ingram Dam?
MR. BOYD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. When we did the NTD
testing, we did not lower the level of the lake, and there
was some discussion that maybe we had not identified clearly
all the voids that are in there. And in subsequent
discussions you and I have had, we talked about how maybe to
do that. Would you enlighten the Court about that for just a
' second?
MR. BOYD: The -- we ran, like, I think three lines
of -- of basically a sonar; you sound and see what -- the
time it takes to get the signals back. Gives you a plot of
what you think the -- the void areas are, and then the firm
1-25-10
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
that did that does that very often, and they gave us a set of
plots and a-- their best estimate of the void areas that
they expect to be under the caps. I don't really feel like
there's a big advantage to going and doing more of that.
There's -- they've identified that the problem's there. To
quantify it, you'd spend as much -- not as much, but you
could spend a very large sum of money quantifying that,
whereas you could spend that same money towards getting it
repaired. So, it's our opinion that the thing to do is to
proceed with it and address the voids as it exists instead of
trying to quantify them at this time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, if the Court acts today, --
MR. BOYD: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the potential exposure of the
Court would be for the preliminary engineering to put
together the plans and the specs and -- and the other
associated engineering matters, and is that the -- the 12,000
~I figure that we're looking at?
MR. BOYD: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's step one?
MR. BOYD: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then step two would be if we
proceed later down the road, after getting that information
in-hand, to authorize bid -- requests for bids, we get the
1-25-10
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
24
bids, act on the bids, and then we would be looking at
', construction representation?
'i
~ MR. BOYD: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which, of course, you folks would be
involved in, and follow up to the T.C.E.Q. and all those --
all those other sorts of things.
MR. BOYD: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question, Judge, on that.
'Cause I'm looking at -- I'm looking at a spreadsheet. It
says that plans and specs -- it's under engineering. It says
plans and specs, bidding, and award, 11,603. That's the
12,000. So, the 12,000 gets us through the whole bidding
process?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that correct?
MR. BOYD: Yes. It just doesn't get you the -- I
mean, you have the bids and our recommendation of award, and
then you have to proceed from there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then we -- so, I mean, you
don't -- there's no -- I mean, we need to make sure we have
the money before we do the 12,000. I mean, there's no reason
to bid -- we can do the engineering first, but there's no
reason to bid it until we know we have the money to pay for
the bids. Otherwise, we're wasting money.
1-25-10
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
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's true. We
can't go to bid unless we know we can pay for it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, how much of the 12,000 is
just the engineering portion of it that we could -- or is it
even worthwhile? I mean, it's not worthwhile, so we just
go -- we need to go ahead and probably do the engineering and
bid it, and then if we don't have the money -- well, we have
to have money before you can do that step.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right, exactly. We
anticipate that that will be in place.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, essentially, if the Court takes
action today, we're looking at the engineering phase, which
is exposure for approximately $12,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bottom line, that'll get us to the
point where we can advertise for bids, and through that
process, and where they can make a recommendation on any bids
that are received.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much, Bill, Bruce,
or Jeannie, did we put in the budget for this project?
MS. HARGIS: I think we have about --
JUDGE TINLEY: Quarter of a million.
1-25-10
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
26
MS. HARGIS: We have -- we have 250 for this part
of it, but we also put more in there for the water project.
I want to say -- is it four? 400, I think. At least 400.
We may have gone up to five.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we have enough money
budgeted for this project, okay. That's -- I just wanted to
make sure we had the money budgeted for what we thought it
was going to cost.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think we put some extra in
I there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's included in the
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So the first item, then,
would be for the Court to authorize the -- Freese and Nichols
to complete the engineering and prepare bid specifications
and advertise for bids to repair Flat Rock and Ingram Lake
Dams.
necessary.
JUDGE TINLEY: And approve the funding to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And approve the funding
JUDGE TINLEY: For approximately $12,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Of $12,000, right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is a motion.
1-25-10
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
27
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second.
Further question or discussion on that motion? All in favor
of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go to
~ phase whatever.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The next item is the
acoustic bathometric survey. I have a problem with saying
all of that, because I have a problem understanding all of
that, and so that's why -- the reason why Mr. Boyd is with us
here today. Les, if you would be so good as to step us
through the acoustic bathometric survey of Flat Rock Lake and
what we would hope to gain from that exercise.
MR. BOYD: Okay. The first thing with the silt --
addressing the silt item is to quantify how much you have,
whether you've got 100 yards of it or 100,000 yards of it.
And you don't presently have any previous surveys. The
problem with getting a silt survey is, silt's stacked up; you
need to know what the profile of the top of the silt is, and
you need know what the profile of the reservoir is beneath
the silt so that you can take that difference and come up
I
I with a quantity. So, what you eventually do is you just
1-25-10
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
28
dissect the reservoir every so often and then run a-- a
bathometric survey, which is basically a sonar mounting on a
boat, and it -- they have the capability now to where he can
sound and pick the density between the top of the silt and
the bottom, so he can identify in that the profiles of both
the top of the silt and the reservoir. That's something that
hasn't been around, I don't think, a very long time.
And we've used it -- this same particular gentleman
that's presenting it here has worked for us on some areas in
north Texas doing these silt surveys, and the expense of the
silt survey comes from how accurate you want the information,
whether you slice it three times or 300 times through the
length of the reservoir. And he's put together a price --
basically, what he'll do, it will take him the better part of
two or three days to set up his equipment, dissect the lake.
You'll wind up with a computer set of points that only a
mainframe computer can solve. He'll come back through and
give us a-- a volume of silt that he expects to be in the
reservoir based on the information that he's obtained.
That's the first step in it. If you didn't choose to do it
with a bathometric survey, you would need to hire surveyors,
and they would be shooting lines in boats across the
reservoir, trying to determine by dropping something -- or a
rod to where the silt starts and where the bottom of the
reservoir is. It gets very slow, cumbersome, and probably
1-25-10
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
29
more expensive than doing it this way. So, this is -- this
is a GPS system that's -- that's set up along with the sonar.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do you have any idea what the
cost of that is?
MR. BOYD: Say it again?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do you have any idea what the
MR. BOYD: This one he has quoted, he's given us
two levels of precision, and depending on which precision you
want, it's between $14,000 and $30,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't think we need to be
too precise. I think we're just trying to get a good
estimate.
JUDGE TINLEY: The 15 percent, if I read the
information correctly, the low end of it, the 15 percent, the
engineer feels comfortable that he can successfully
interpolate that to really give us a good idea of the volume
that we have in there, if I understood the material
'~, correctly.
MR. BOYD: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this is just to do Flat
Rock, correct?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
1-25-10
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
30
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We don't need to do --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not Ingram.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's not necessary.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why would we want that
MR. BOYD: Because there -- can I skip to Item 7?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, please. Please do.
MR. BOYD: This was presented to you along with
Item 7, which is a letter that details how you go about
addressing silt in a reservoir. And the first item of
business is to determine how much silt you have. And until
you know that, you can't really develop a plan for addressing
it, or a means of removing it. So, if we put together Item
7-- and this is basically a step-by-step menu on -- on
typically how you would address a silt issue. And you
quantify the quantity of silt in the reservoir, and that's
Item 1 on that letter. And the easiest way to do that is
with one of these bathometric surveys. Or you can do it with
a physical survey, and that will give you the quantity of
silt that you're trying to deal with, okay? After you've
quantified what you're dealing with, then you need to
characterize it by running tests on the silt to see if it has
any contaminants in it that you're going to have to deal
with, because it could have -- I don't know all of the
facilities around here, but if you have chrome plating or
1-25-10
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
31
electrical manufacturing, fertilizers, agricultural uses,
some of the different things can contribute toxins in various
contaminants to silt, so you --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that EPA, or is there a rule
that makes us do that? Because, obviously, we live here, and
I don't think we have anything that's going to be
contaminants into the lake, you know, other than just runoff
from nature.
MR. BOYD: Well, you will have to characterize it,
because you're going to have to dispose of it somewhere. And
when it comes time to dispose of it, someone's not going to
take it if they don't know exactly what it is, okay? And
that's the reason you have to characterize it. And then
after you've got it characterized, depending on -- if it's
not contaminated, how are you going to remove it? And you
can -- there are several methods. You can go in with a
backhoe or clamshell and dig it out, put it in trucks and
haul it away. Or they have dredges, hydraulic dredges,
basically a pump mounted on a barge that can suck the silt
off the bottom of the lake, pump it on shore, put it in
drying beds, pick it up and take it to another site. So, the
disposal method is going to depend. If you had some
contaminants in it, it's going to have to be handled in a
completely different method. It would probably have to go
into lined ponds so it didn't dissipate in the soil. So
1-25-10
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
until you know all those front-end things, it's hard to
develop a plan for it. Then comes -- after you've determined
, how much silt and what's in it and where you're going to put
it, then you start trying to get the permits. And you're
going to have to go to the state to get a permit to dispose
of it. If things went well and it wasn't contaminated, you
had a rancher somewhere that needed some -- and it's good and
fertile, you might work out a deal with him and just simply
get the permits based on that. If it's contaminated and you
have to put it in a-- a classified landfill, then there's --
the cost just goes up astronomically.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They almost make it
impossible to do, don't they, Bill?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Getting very close.
MR. BOYD: Well, what happens -- you say you want
to get rid of the silt. That's a good thing to do, but
you've got to go through some various steps. And I didn't
want to lead you down a rosy path and say, "Oh, yeah, we can
I get rid of it for $2 a yard," and find out, you know, it's
i
~ got some PCP's or whatever it happens to be. So, really just
need to do kind of a due diligence type approach to it to
quantify and characterize it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This will tell us whether we
can or can't.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
1-25-10
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or how much we're going to
~ be dealing with, all of that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does this initial phase, if we
authorize that, does that include a determination if there
are any contaminants within this silt?
MR. BOYD: The bathometric survey that you have
right now does not do any testing. It just does a volume
quantification.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So -- but then we'd have to
go into taking some core-type samples.
MR. BOYD: Have to get someone to take --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And do this under the
scenario that we're speaking to right now.
MR. BOYD: Yes, someone would need to develop an
acceptable sampling plan, number of tests, types of tests.
JUDGE TINLEY: In terms of dollars and cents, what
are we looking at to accomplish that, ballpark?
MR. BOYD: Per test? Say again, please?
JUDGE TINLEY: The plan. In order to be able to
have a valid sample so that it'll pass muster with Corps of
Engineers, E.P.A., T.C.E.Q., A.B.C.D., whomever --
MR. BOYD: Right. You would basically -- we have
environmentalists. They could put together a plan for us on
sampling, give us a certified laboratory that could perform
the test and determine what number of tests you would want.
1-25-10
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
34
I can't speak to the cost of the tests, because you don't
know yet what they would be. You know, there are some that
are real easy and quick and cheap, and there's some that are
slow and expensive, and so until that part developed --
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we need to know the amount we've
got in there first, really?
MR. BOYD: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. BOYD: Yeah, because if you only got over in
one pocket of the lake, you may just need one sample. If
it's from the top end to the bottom end, you may need 25
samples.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. BOYD: So I can't --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We need to -- one thing we
MR. BOYD: I can't really answer that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One thing we need to remember
is, we don't -- we don't need to be doing any testing or any
of this stuff over on the other people's side. It needs to
be on the county's side to the middle of the lake, basically.
The channel is going to be on the south side of Flat Rock,
closer to those homes and stuff over there. The county's
i part basically goes -- follows that channel to the north --
or to northeast.
1-25-10
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
35
MR. BOYD: All right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So we don't really need -- I
don't -- in my opinion, we don't need to test for amounts or
any of that sort of thing that we're not planning on removing
under what we're -- what we can pay for or what we can spend
funds on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- Bruce, I mean, the
lake's ours. The fact that they own property next to it
doesn't mean -- I mean, we own the lake from shore to shore.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right, but you don't own the
dirt in it, I don't think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't own what?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't know that we own all
the silt in it. I think we -- I don't think there's any
question to the part that we actually have deed to it. But a
lot of those other folks, even though they sit on the water,
they can clean up their own, just like the city of Kerrville
owns that by the state -- by the park.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to -- Ilse, are
you listening? We need to have a determination of who owns
the silt, because -- really, before we do. Because, I mean,
you know, I think that -- I mean, logic tells me that most of
it's going to be near Flat Rock Park, because that's just the
way the river runs.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm.
1-25-10
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think before we start going
there and doing something, we need to find out who owns it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I agree with that.
But we're not going to go in there and start doing that until
we've made a determination of what it is, how much we're
dealing with, so we know the magnitude of that project.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But I think we still --
I think no matter how much, we'd want to go from shore to
MR. BOYD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whether we do it over there --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause that's not going to cost
that much.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: At least it wouldn't be that
much more to add that little bit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'd get a better profile of
the river.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think your point is
really valid. The County Attorney can address that in terms
of ownership of silt within the lake itself, which we had
defined as -- as Flat Rock Lake. And some of this comes into
play when you do the contours of the bottom, you have a
1-25-10
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
37
I better understanding what you're dealing with on both sides
MR. BOYD: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So -- okay. Go ahead, Les.
I'm sorry.
MR. BOYD: Okay. The next -- the next step after
you had the -- the permits obtained, you would put together a
set of construction plans for dredging or excavating silt
from the lake, disposing of it off-site. When you get the
cost for trucking and the disposal fees and all that stuff,
it will be put together in a bid package that would come to
you for evaluation, and then select that contractor that you
want to proceed with the work and get the project going.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In order to do the -- the
batho -- acoustic bathometric survey, whatever it is, there
is a construction -- there is a document you'd have to
prepare for that as well before another firm is engaged?
MR. BOYD: We -- we could do a subcontract to that
BranchWater Services, or you -- the County could deal with
them directly. But you will need to tell them the accuracy
that you want in the survey, meet with them if you do that,
or we can do it with kind of an oversight charge. And you're
probably looking at, you know, a few -- few hours worth of
work two or three times to get the information to them, to
look at what they put together, and to decide whether it's a
1-25-10
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
38
reasonable approach.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, about $1,000 for your fee?
MR. BOYD: Probably on that -- I don't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: He's tight.
MR. BOYD: He is, isn't he? (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I was thinking about 550 or
600.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You guys are good
negotiators. So, the issue before the Court, really, today
is the second issue. Do we want to quantify what we've got
in the lake bottom?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: At some point, we need to.
think now's as good a time as any.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can't do anything else
until we know what we're dealing with.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I totally agree with you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think as long as the fee's
reasonable, not to exceed $1,000, I think I'd rather have
them coordinate it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would rather have them
coordinate it, for certain. I don't want to coordinate it,
'cause I don't -- I can't even say what it is we're doing.
MR. BOYD: We'd be glad to help.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, we're back to
I
1-25-10
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
the second issue in terms of the acoustic bathometric survey,
and the question is how deep we want to go and how much we
want to know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it seems to me that the
-- the $14,000 amount would be sufficient to give us an idea
as to a rough -- the 15 percent, how much is there. Add
1,000 to that, so we have $15,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you concur with that,
I Les?
MR. BOYD: I do. I can't speak for this gentleman.
This is just his take at it from an aerial map, and his
general procedures. He will need to come out and take a look
at the site on the ground and see if he's got -- somebody's
got a 20-foot-high fence he can't get across like that or
something. But I would look for it to be in this range, but
I'd hate to tie it straight to the 14,000 when he was giving
you a range.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe it would be a better
approach if we invited him down to take a look at the lake,
so forth and so on, and then bring his information to the
Court, like you've been so good in bringing your information
to us.
MR. BOYD: And he's -- and that may be a cost he
can absorb up front, you know, and he'd probably be glad to
do so. He had an e-mail to me before I came. He sent it
1-25-10
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
40
Friday, I believe, and I replied to him that this was on the
agenda today and I would get back to him.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'l1 invite him down for
that purpose, and then if we determine to move forward with
him based on his findings in the lake and actually looking at
the lake, your firm would do the oversight for us on that; is
that correct?
MR. BOYD: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. BOYD: Glad to do so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on those three items,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. Thank you very much,
Les, for coming, and I really appreciate it.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'm wondering, do you
think that the silt ownership will rise to the level of
cattle guards?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If so, we can take them out
to Wilson Creek Road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See? See how easy this is?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got a solution.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Governing, there's nothing
to it.
1-25-10
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
41
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just got to think outside
the box -- outside the cattle guard.
JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, I will recess the
Commissioners Court meeting, and I will open a public hearing
as our 9:30 item, which we've run past, Item 3.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 9:52 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open
court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: I will convene a public hearing for
the revision of plat for Lots 132 and 133 of Vistas
Escondidas de Cypress Springs Estates, and located in
Precinct 4. Is there any member of the public that wishes to
be heard with respect to the revision of plat for Lots 132
and 133 of Vistas Escondidas de Cypress Springs Estates,
located in Precinct 4? Seeing no one coming forward, I will
close the public hearing for the revision of plat for Lots
132 and 133 of Vistas Escondidas de Cypress Springs Estates.
I (The public hearing was concluded at 9:52 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court hearing. And we will go to Item 4, which
is to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
approve the final revision of plat for Lots 132 and 133 of
Vistas Escondidas de Cypress Springs Estates, and located in
1-25-10
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
Precinct 4. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Good morning, Judge. This is a revision
of plat in Precinct 4 and in Cypress Springs. The property
owners wish to combine two lots into one, and at this time,
we ask the Court for their approval of the final revision of
the plat for Lots 132 and 133 into one lot, 132R, of Vistas
Escondidas de Cypress Springs Estates, Precinct 4.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. 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. Let's go to
Item 11. That agenda item is to consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action for permission to sell surplus equipment
and scrap metal and use proceeds to purchase additional
equipment. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. You see before you the
pictures and the different various items that we wish to
sell. This is scrap metal as well as pieces of old equipment
that we have there that have been -- we feel like is excess,
1-25-10
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
and would like for the Court to declare it as such. Also,
you'll find the list as well as pictures, and then also
attached to that, we gave you a list of equipment, if we have
enough money, we would like to look at to purchase with this
surplus money. And we ask for your approval to sell it, as
well as to approve the possibility of purchasing the list of
equipment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, how do you -- are you
going to do, like, an auction like we did last time we sold?
MR. ODOM: Well, my understanding, this
govdeals.com is what we were going to go through -- is what
we were referred to, which is on the internet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. Isn't that -- yeah, I
guess one time we did eBay; one time we had an actual
auction. But, yeah, this kind of stuff will bring
potentially a little bit of money -- I mean, a fair amount of
~ money.
MR. ODOM: We think it will bring us some pretty
good money. Maybe the bids may come from south of the
border, but we think like some of this equipment is still
22
23 not?
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Most of it is usable, is it
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or runs?
usable.
1-25-10
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
44
MR. ODOM: It is. And while I'm thinking about it,
before I forget, on our list here of the equipment, Item 15
we discussed this morning, was that V-10 Dodge pickup, that
3500 series, dually. We're going to take that out. The
supervisors discussed wanting to try to keep that to use that
as a backup, as well as for Tommy Bridges to use at night
when he's called out sometimes. But I'm sort of thin on
backup in case a supervisor's truck goes down. And being a
V-10, I don't want to run it too much, so it won't be run
I that much.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, you want to remove Item 15?
MR. ODOM: I want to remove Item 15, yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: From what you wished to have
declared surplus?
MR. ODOM: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I noticed you had another
couple of items up here under -- looks like 6 and 7, or 7 and
8, I'm not sure exactly which ones.
MR. ODOM: Backhoe, yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: "Take off the side loader?" "Keep
the bed?" Some notations here. Are all those items -- 6, 7,
8, and 9, so forth, all the other items to remain as part of
what you wish to have declared surplus? And so --
MR. ODOM: I'm -- ask me again, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. On your -- on your equipment
1-25-10
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
listing here, --
MR. ODOM: Uh-huh.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- you've got some notations out to
the right in that roster to "Take off the side loader?"
Question mark. "Keep the bed?" Question mark.
MR. ODOM: Okay. What we have is a couple of
trucks that are -- have been salvaged for parts off the old
6-yard, so you may have a cabin chassis that's not workable
and have a dump bed on it, and we want to try to maybe take
that dump bed, which is in excellent condition, and sell it
and use maybe the cab and chassis as -- as surplus, or
somebody may want to buy the whole thing. We feel that
there's value in the dump bed, even if the truck may not be
of value right now. We may have taken an axle off or
something, and which we do have back there. So, a side
loader that's old and beat, that's not workable for us.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, everything else on that
list, other than that Dodge 3500, remains --
MR. ODOM: To be sold.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- to be declared surplus and sold?
MR. ODOM: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
I
', COMMISSIONER LETZ: I certainly have no problem
I with declaring everything surplus. Once you gets the funds,
I I might want to look at the list of where you spend the
1-25-10
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
money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: Well, certainly, we gave -- that list
was to give you an idea of where it's at, and we can
certainly come to the Court at that point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion to approve
the list to declare the items surplus as recommended, with
the inclusion of removing the -- Item 15?
, JUDGE TINLEY: Dodge 3500.
~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Item 15, the Dodge 3500 pickup.
I
~~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: And authorize the sale on
i govdeals.com?
I, COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and authorize the sale
I on govdeals.com.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second as
indicated. Further question or discussion on that motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Al1 opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Let's move to
Item 12, to consider, discuss, take appropriate action to
accept Misty Lane in Megan Manor Subdivision for maintenance,
1-25-10
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and release of Surety Bond Number 060170271788. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is a project that's been
going on for some time. We had some difficulties with
finishing. I've had Wayne out there to take a look at it, as
well as myself, and -- and at this time, we ask the Court to
accept Misty Lane for maintenance and release the C.N.A.
surety bond, which is in Precinct 4.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second for
approval of the agenda item. You said "C.N.A." The backup
material talks about Western Surety.
MR. ODOM: Well, I'm sorry. I-- what I have, it
sure does. C.N.A., I don't -- that is a surety bond,
060170271788.
JUDGE TINLEY: Right. That's in the agenda item,
and on the bond number list.
I MR. ODOM: Kelly, do you have an answer to that?
MS. HOFFER: Yeah. If you look at the -- let's see
what page it would be. Right after Wayne's invoice, if you
look at the next one, that top one, it was a faxed copy.
That was the most recent when they did the renewal on this
last one. If you look at the very top, it's C.N.A. Surety.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HOFFER: The upper left. The other ones are
1-25-10
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
48
from the past, because it was such a long project; for, like,
two and a half, three years is how long this project went on.
That last one was the most recent, and that was the renewal.
JUDGE TINLEY: C.N.A. and/or Western Surety or
both, as the case may be.
MR. ODOM: Yeah. You can see it up there at the
top, it's C.N.A. Surety, which is another name.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
I hand .
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's look
at Item 13 quickly. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action on request from the Child Services Board to use a
portion of the courthouse square for a display during the
month of April for Child Abuse Awareness Month. Commissioner
Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Judge. The Kerr
County Child Services Board is requesting permission to
display multiple boy- and girl-shaped signs on paint
stick-type stakes, one for each child currently in C.P.S.
~, care. As of January, there were 136. These will be
displayed throughout the month of April as part of Child
1-25-10
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
49
Abuse Awareness Month activities. There will also be a sign
posted with the cutouts explaining what they mean and giving
some child abuse statistics. The board thinks that the
visual impact of the high number of signs will be a great
awareness tool. And this Commissioner agrees with that
100 percent. I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. It is
10 o'clock, so we will go to our first 10 o'clock timed item.
Number 8, and that will be to open bids for the proposed Law
Enforcement Annex/Adult Probation building, and refer bids to
appropriate personnel for consideration and recommendation.
The first bid that we have is from Kendall -- Kendnel Kasper
Construction, Incorporated. I'm just going to read the total
of all of the various bid packages by each bidder.
The first bidder, Kendnel Kasper Construction,
$1,044,046. The second one is from Central Builders, Inc.
The total, $1,616,974. The next bid is from W.R.
Construction, Inc. Total is $1,262,415. Next bid is from
1-25-10
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
50
R.M. Techcon Construction. The total is $1,208,900. Next
bid is from Suburban Construction Company, $1,240,000. Next
bid is from Keller-Martin Organization, Inc., $1,122,000.
Next bid is from Huser Construction Company, Inc. The amount
is $1,064,735. Next bid is from J.M. Lowe and Company. The
bid is $1,142,500. Next bid is from D. Bandy Constructors --
D.L. Bandy Constructors, Inc. $1,126,000. The next one is
from D. Wilson Construction Company, $1,137,000. Next one is
from Merrell General Contracting, L.L.C., $1,102,986.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 86?
JUDGE TINLEY: 986. Next one is from Select
Building Systems, Inc. d/b/a S.B.S. Construction, $1,165,053.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last one, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: The last one is from Zuber
Construction, Inc. $1,178,849.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we accept all bids and
refer them to Peter Lewis for review and recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that emotion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion on that motion? Al1 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.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, who was --
1-25-10
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
51
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who did you want to hand it
to?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pewter Lewis.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And group?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And group?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this -- is Peter doing it
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, Peter Lewis Architects.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And will there be --
MR. LEWIS: I'll do it in consult with the Judge,
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably need Tim and Leonard
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tim and Leonard. That's
what I'm looking for, thank you. And I see, Peter, that you
brought the heavyweight with you.
MR. LEWIS: I brought Gary, yes, if you want
something done.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. We appreciate your
interest, gentlemen. Our next 10 o'clock item is Item 9;
consider, discuss, take appropriate action regarding property
appraisal report from TAC, Texas Association of Counties.
Courthouse appraisal value increased to historical
1-25-10
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
52
reproduction cost. Ms. Hargis? Ms. Soldan?
MS. HARGIS: At the Court's request, we went back
to check some of the values, and we -- we presented you with
a memo regarding the courthouse itself. And we did get a
little bit of help from our local group over here. It
appears that, you know, we have two ways to go with this,
because it's a stone building. We either pick, you know, if
it totally is destroyed, or we pick if it's just burned. So,
I kind of need y'all's explanation as to what you'd like to
do. If -- because it is a stone building. It's a masonry
building that the -- generally, the Historic Commission
doesn't feel like it's going to totally burn down, so
therefore, they're estimating 300 a foot. If you want to say
it's going to be totally destroyed, then we need to go to
$400 to $500 a foot. So, it's up to the Court. We'll insure
it for -- you know, we need to go up definitely, but it's up
to you as to -- as to the extent. It's kind of a-- you
know, as you -- you've got your slab and different things
like that, that, you know, are going to still be intact, or
should be, unless we have a hurricane or something like that.
For a fire --
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we looking at the replacement
cost, essentially?
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, the issue is replacement cost.
1-25-10
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
53
And we're looking at this portion, the older portion?
MS. HARGIS: The historical part of the building.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You got any off the top of
your head thoughts, Mr. Lewis?
MR. LEWIS: Well, in fact, Tracy had consulted with
me for the last couple weeks, and I've researched -- we don't
do a lot of work like this for restoration, but I talked to
some folks that do, including Mary Wagner. I talked with a
friend of mine that teaches and had worked at Texas Historic
Commission, and we kind of came up with a range. And the
concept of the building not being totally destroyed came from
them. They said, typically, a-- you know, these older
courthouses, a fire will get all the wood pieces, but the
stone will be there, as Jeannie said, and the foundation will
be there. And they had some recent -- among my
conversations, had some recent comparables, and that's where
we came up with this $290, $300 a foot. And, again, if you
-- if this -- you had an earthquake and this thing sunk into
a pit, you had to replace it, that's going to be on the top
end of -- I think she said $500 a foot. And then we know
pretty much what it costs to build a building like the annex
using conventional construction. And that was sort of my
game plan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is the difference in
premium? I mean, it is negligible, I would think, on
1-25-10
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
54
something like that.
MS. HARGIS: You know, it's -
usually. I don't imagine it's extreme.
we submit it. They're waiting for us t
submit. So, we can submit both and see
going to be, and then you can decide on
y'all want to do it.
- it's by 100,000
I won't know until
~ give them a value to
what the premium's
that. It's however
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd probably err with putting
in the higher number, because I don't -- I think it's going
to cost hardly anything more to do the higher number than the
lower number. If you do the higher number, they know that
it'll still probably only be 300. And they -- you know, they
know their actual -- or they're going to figure out what it
should be. I'd say go with the higher number.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with Commissioner
Letz; I think he's on the right trail this morning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the recommendation of
the Auditor to take the 9.5 --
MS. HARGIS: Do you want the 400 or do you want
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are those the two numbers
that are --
MS. HARGIS: Yeah, it's between 400 and 500, we can
I go for.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 450 is fine.
1-25-10
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
55
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 450's fine.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: I'll still get the bid for both, just
in case.
JUDGE TINLEY: I noticed that the memo said we have
~ until February the 2nd.
MS. HARGIS: Right, or they're going to adopt what
they gave us, so we need to get it in to them now so they
don't --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: They gave -- they presented us with a
list, which you have a copy of, and they told us that we have
until February the 2nd to dispute that list. Otherwise,
they're going to raise to those values. Because --
JUDGE TINLEY: If we want to increase coverage, can
we do that after February the 2nd, I guess, is my question.
MS. HARGIS: We probably can, but I think it's
going to get more complicated if we do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the reason for my asking the
question is, if that's the case, I think it's appropriate to
pass an order that we obtain coverage on the courthouse --
the annex is okay insofar as how they computed that. As to
the older part of the courthouse, based on $450 a square
foot.
MS. HARGIS: Right.
1-25-10
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
56
JUDGE TINLEY: In order to nail this thing down and
let you go forward prior to February 2.
MS. HARGIS: I appreciate that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do I hear a motion to that
effect?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. 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 carried. Let's go to our
10:10 item. Consider, discuss, take appropriate action to go
out for annual bids for road base, cold mix, aggregate,
emulsion oil, and corrugated metal pipe. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. We're having our annual bids
now. We're asking the Court to give authority for us to go
out for these bids on road base, cold mix, aggregate,
emulsion oil, and corrugated metal pipe. Once we put out the
bids, we will come back to the Court, open the bids on
March 8th, 2010, at 10 o'clock, Commissioners Court, and
follow up the following meeting, March the 22nd, 2010, at
10 a.m., to award it.
1-25-10
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
57
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's go to
Item -- Section 4 of the agenda, payment of the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the
; bills. Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: As was done previously, we received
a register of the direct payables, January 14 and January 21.
These are outside of the normal listing that we get on the
bills that we just approved. Do I hear a motion that those
direct payables, as shown by those two registers, be
approved?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
1-25-10
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
58
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second, with a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that the
direct payables, as shown by two registers, be approved.
Question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It appears there's -- a lot of
these are insurance-related. Is there a reason that they go
differently? I figured there would be. Can you tell me what
the difference is, just --
MS. HYDE: Two things. One, when they go through
the payable process, because of time limitations, we only
have five days to get these payments in. They can't turn
them that quickly. We've put as many things through the
payable system that we can. Jeannie and I talk about it
quite regularly, 'cause sometimes they don't go through as
fast as we want them to. But that's why.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. HYDE: They have to be paid.
JUDGE TINLEY: These are payments that are normally
made on behalf of our employees?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. And those -- just so you
know, those are also reviewed, not by name, but by totals,
with Mindy and Ms. Hargis before they are approved for
I payment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one question.
MS. HYDE: Counter-check and check.
1-25-10
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
59
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where do we provide the
Direct TV satellite services? For what department?
Sheriff's Office?
MS. HYDE: Direct TV?
MS. HARGIS: Actually, I actually think that's
I the --
MS. HYDE: J.D.C.
MS. HARGIS: Out at the J.D.C., yeah. Out at
juvenile, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Juvenile?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Shoot, I thought everybody
knew that, Bill.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought everybody knew
I that .
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that where you go to
watch cartoons?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: That's why we want you to see them
I all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
1-25-10
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
60
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget
amendments. We've got two budget amendment requests as shown
on the summary. Do I hear a motion that they be approved
as --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- indicated on the summary?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the Budget Amendment Requests 1 and 2 shown on
the summary. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
~' (The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Al1 opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Any late
I bills?
MS. HARGIS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any monthly reports? I've been
handed monthly reports from Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2;
District Clerk; Constable, Precinct 3; Justice of the Peace,
Precinct l; Kerr County Treasurer for December '09; and Kerr
1-25-10
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
County Payroll for December '09. Do I hear a motion that
these reports be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that the
indicated reports be approved as presented. Question or
discussion on the motion?
'~ MS. HARGIS: Mine should -- the audit should have
been included. If you need it, I'l1 --
JUDGE TINLEY: This is our audit?
MS. HARGIS: These are two audits; they're going to
come in as monthly reports. You should have all gotten a
copy of them, and that's the way they're going to be
submitted now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I got it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the box.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we're adding to the monthly
reports the current audit reports for the first quarter of
fiscal year '09-'10 from the Auditor's office. Is that
correct, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
, JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. With that addition, any
i further question or discussion? Al1 in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
1-25-10
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
62
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go to
Section 5 of the agenda, reports from Commissioners in
connection with their liaison/committee assignments.
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing I haven't already
announced, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nothing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, I already said mine
JUDGE TINLEY: Would you mind sitting on Rusty?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, you don't. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any reports from elected
officials or department heads?
MS. HYDE: Which one?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Which one?
' MS. HYDE: This one's quick. Everyone should have
gotten an e-mail this morning about A.X.A. coming on the 23rd
and 24th of February for the 2010 review. In there, it also
1-25-10
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
states that our return on investment for the past 12 months
was anywhere from 10 percent to 16 percent for our employees,
which is pretty darn good. We are in the process of getting
ready to order the Hep A and B shots, so the department heads
and elected officials will be getting a list so that I know
how many to buy. Also, the same for tetanus. The AirLife,
today, we will finish adding those in today. They have till
noon to get signed up, and then we can do laters, but we got
to get them in and then -- yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I make a-- make a comment?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't sign anything.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You missed a conversation with
Mr. Oehler earlier. You may want to visit, because there's
some problems with this whole thing.
MS. HYDE: Oh, dear.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, not --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, because if our employees
are signing up and thinking they're going to get it, and
they're not going to get it because 911 dispatches a
different ambulance, because it's alternated, that's all I
MS. BAILEY: It will be on the agenda next time,
23 right?
24
25
1-25-10
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On our next agenda.
MS. BAILEY: It will be on the next agenda.
can say.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
MS. HYDE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll talk to you about it.
MS. HYDE: So, are y'all telling me to not do it
j today?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sit on it.
MS. HYDE: Do not take it out of their payroll?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I don't --
JUDGE TINLEY: We've already approved the payroll
I deduction.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MS. HYDE: Okay.
MS. BAILEY: But you might not want to make the
cutoff until after the next agenda.
MS. HYDE: Okey-dokey, I'm done. (Laughter.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just a jail status. As of
this morning, total population in-house was 148. 198th has
29 awaiting trial, 216th has 36, County Court as Law has 27.
And Gillespie County, we're housing 14 of theirs. And as we
stated last time, without any side comments, the problem is
females still, with 27.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the total, Rusty? I
didn't get that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 148. We got 121 males, which
is good in that population category for that. But it's the
1-25-10
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
27 females still.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did you happen to check if
Bandera has female capabilities?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Bandera did not. At the time
I had the offer of one in La Salle County, and the second
offer, closest would be Guadalupe County at $50 a day per
inmate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's something I don't
understand about all this. You need to help me understand
this, or someone does. We have -- this Court has -- on
Friday morning, there's a court out at the jail, and we have
hired a special judge to sit, and we have hired a special
prosecutor and the whole thing. The reason that we've done
all that is to try to get those people out of the jail, okay?
To reduce the numbers of prisoners. And just about -- I
mean, almost everything they do out there on Friday morning
is 216th, out of the 216th court. And that number is still
higher than the 198th. Why is that, Rusty?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well --
MS. BAILEY: Buster, I think that might be good to
put on the agenda, invite them to come address that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would like to make one
comment. Not responding to that, because that is an agenda
item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, sneak around it and
1-25-10
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
answer it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I won't. But I will -- I will
say that, if you remember, prior to starting the court out at
the -- out there on Fridays, and with that special prosecutor
and judge coming in, the jail was running an average
population into the 160's and 170's all the time, okay? We
were overpopulated. Regardless of what the female population
is, we're down to 148 this morning. That's a Monday morning
after, you know, the weekend and everything, which you always
have a few more in there waiting to get magistrated, get cut
loose. So, we have dropped our population probably by 20
since that -- since this Court started that, which I think is
good. We are just at one of those points where, when we only
have 32 female beds -- and as I was talking to one of the
chief probation officers the other day, there were -- there's
over 800 people in Kerr County on -- on probation, just out
of one court. And you get the violation of probations in
there that carry a no bond. I think that court, which was
the 216th, or -- and I think he has some of the other ones,
but they had actually violated 17 females this year, which --
or through the last year, through 2009. So, we're just --
we're at a point where I don't know how much more space we
can do. I can invite the Jail Commission down. We can look
at the structure inside our jail, see if there's any way that
I can revamp and get a few beds. But most of the time, if I
1-25-10
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do that, it's going to be a 16-bed block, because that jail's
made in eight and eight, and if I drop the male population by
16 and increase the female population by 16, then we're going
to be overcrowded on males. So, we're just getting to an
issue. If we do have to house out of county, I'm hoping that
we can continue to house enough Gillespie County inmates to
offset the cost to where we don't have that. It's just going
to be more on transports and that. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other elected officials or
department heads? Do we have any items to --
MS. HARGIS: Executive?
JUDGE TINLEY: Before we go into executive session?
Why don't we go ahead and take a 15-minute recess. We'll
come back, and then we'll handle our executive session item.
So, we'll be in recess for about 15 minutes.
(Recess taken from 10:28 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order. We
were in recess. Before we go into executive session, there
was one more matter that we had from an elected official.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just real quick, just to let
you know, we were approved for the grant for the five more
cars on top of what we're getting through the budget process.
Those cars in the grant process were put in as Crown Vics.
In talking to them, and my chief deputy dealing with them, it
1-25-10
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
was going to add about a$13,000 difference to upgrade those
to Tahoes, and between donations and my seizure fund, that
amount can be covered without using any of the county money.
And I'm just letting y'all know that the grant people said
there was no problem with that. So, my intention is to
upgrade those last five to Tahoes. I think that the return
' later on in the county is better with the possibility, and
that will give us 15 Tahoes coming this year.
', JUDGE TINLEY: And you're going to be able to get
' something from the -- from the grant people that indicates
that's acceptable to them, as long as you're not looking for
the funds?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: And the Court does understand that
they upgraded the vehicles -- five of the vehicles in our
bond issue from Crown Vics to Tahoes?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did he use bond money to do
I that? Or --
I MS. HARGIS: It's my understanding he's using
seizure funds to take those up to Tahoes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Donated funds.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Donated funds.
MS. HARGIS: Seizure and donated.
1-25-10
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
69
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about the
same five he's talking about?
MS. HARGIS: No. He's upgrading the ones that we
got with the grant, with the stimulus grant. Then he's also
upgrading the ones that we have in the bond issue itself.
Not all. We have ten in there, but he only upgraded five.
Is that right? Or do you --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: All 15 vehicles coming now
will be Tahoes, and not --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Going from 5 to 10 to 15.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's 10 in the issue that
was done as part of the budget, because we're not ordering
any next year. We got them all because of the -- the bond
issue and that. Everything's in there. That was the 10. We
had applied separately for a grant through AACOG and the
state for five other vehicles on top of that, and we were
awarded those, so we now have 15 vehicles. All those
vehicles will be Tahoes.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that'll put you into the next
century, right?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I wish.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It will put him for a while,
because he's gotten five more this year than he was planning
~ to get .
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, to cover next year.
1-25-10
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only thing -- well, the
only thing is -- you have to look at is I have 20 vehicles
right now with over 120,000 miles on them.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, that's nothing.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. It is when you're
talking a pursuit package police car.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can put a couple female
prisoners in each one of those trucks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Overnight.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. Put them out for
I breakfast.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that the way you transport
out of Kerr County?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way we always did
it, yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what I understand. I
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the Julius Neunhoffer
solution, one-way nonrefundable bus ticket.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There were a lot of those.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had something additional you
wanted to throw into the fray here?
MS. HYDE: I got caught up real quick during the
break. Commissioner Oehler is going to talk -- contact Air
Evac; I'm going to contact AirLife, to have them both here.
1-25-10
~l
1
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're going to get the County Attorney to help us make sure
that they understand that this is not -- they need to be
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HYDE: And that way they can discuss, and we
can tell them what we expect, because we might not decide to
do what we've decided to do. But I'm going to go ahead and
, pull the money; we'll have the money in case from the
employees, and then I can always give it back to them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure, okay.
MS. HARGIS: Judge, I have one. We might want to
tell the Court that on Wednesday at 12:00, the Judge and I
are going to be on television to discuss the bond issue and
some inter -- general interview questions that may come up,
at the local station.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You and who?
MS. HARGIS: Judge Tinley.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: K.V.H.V.?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Got a--
MS. HYDE: Invitation from them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Nielsen rating on K.V.H.V. is 28.6.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's got to go up higher.
JUDGE TINLEY: Indications are they're going to
want to be talking about our debt issue and our capital
improvements, those sorts of things primarily, probably this
1-25-10
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
building that we just opened the bids on. But -- okay.
Anything else? I will -- I will go out of public or open
session at 10:53 to go into executive or closed session.
MS. PIEPER: Judge, this executive session, I
think, affects my office. Is it okay if I stay in?
JUDGE TINLEY: I would assume so, yeah.
MS. HARGIS: And the H.R. Director.
JUDGE TINLEY: H.R. Director, okay. And we have
the County Attorney also.
(The open session was closed at 10:53 a.m., and an
executive session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: It's 11:28. We will go into public
or open session now. Any member of the Court have anything
to offer with respect to any matters discussed in executive
or closed session? Anything else to come before the Court
today in accordance with the agenda? We'll be adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:30 a.m.)
1-25-10
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
73
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 27th day of January,
2010.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : ~a~
Kathy anik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
1-25-10
~
k
ORDER NO. 31595
REDUCING REGISTRATION FEE TO $1.00 DURING RABIES DRIVE
Came to be heard this the 25th 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 reducing registration fee to $1.00 during rabies drive on February 6, 2010.
ORDER NO. 31596
AUTHORIZE FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC., TO COMPLETE ENGINEERING,
PREPARE BID SPECIFICATIONS, ADVERTISE FOR BIDS TO REPAIR FLAT
ROCK AND INGRAM LAKE DAMS AND PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION
REPRESENTATION.
Came to be heard this the 25th day of January, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Freese and Nichols to complete engineering and prepare bid specifications,
advertise for bids to repair Flat Rock and Ingram Lake Dams and provide construction
representation, and approve funding in the approximate amount of $12,000.00
ORDER NO. 31597
FiNAL REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOTS 132 AND 133 OF VISTAS ESCONDIDAS
DE CYPRESS SPRINGS ESTATES
Came to be heard this the 25th 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 the final revision of plat for lots 132 and 133, into one lot, 132R, of Vistas
Escondidas de Cypress Springs Estates, located in Pct. 4.
ORDER NO. 31598
ROAD & BRIDGE DEPARTMENT TO SELL SUPLUS EQUIPMENT AND SCRAP
METAL AND USE PROCEEDS TO PURCHASE ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT
Came to be heard this the 25th 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 the list provided by the Road & Bridge Department, to declare the items as
surplus as recommended, with the inclusion of removing item 15, the Dodge3500 pickup,
and authorize sale on govdeals.com.
ORDER NO. 31599
ACCEPT MISTY LANE IN MEGAN MANOR FOR MAINTENANCE AND
RELEASE OF SURETY BOND
Came to be heaxd this the 25th 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 accepting Mitsty Lane in Megan Manor Subdivision located in Precinct 4 for
maintenance and release the CNA Surety Bond #0601 70271788.
ORDER NO. 31600
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES BOARD TO USE A PORTION OF THE
COURTHOUSE SQUARE FOR A DISPLAY DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL FOR
CHILD ABUSE AWARENESS MONTH
Came to be heard this the 25th day of January, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve request from Child Protective Services Board to use a portion of the Courthouse
square for a display during the month of April for Child Abuse Awareness month.
ORDER NO. 31601
OPEN BIDS FOR PROPSED LAW ENFORCEMENT/ADULT PROBABTION
ANNEX AND REFER BIDS TO APPROPRIATE PERSONNEL FOR
CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Came to be heard this the 25th day of January, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve acceptance of bids and referring bids to Peter Lewis Architects, Tim Bollier,
Leonard Odem and the County Judge for consideration and recommendation.
KENDNEL KASPER CONSTRUCTION, INC. - $1,044,046.00
CENTRAL BUILDERS, INC. - $1,616,974.00
WR CONSTRUCTION - $1,262,415.00
RM TECHCON CONSTRUCTION, LLC - $1,208,900.00
SUBURBAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - $1,240,000.00
KELLER-MARTIN ORGANIZATION, INC. - $1,122,000.00
HUSER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. - $1,064,735.00
JM LOWE & COMPANY - $1,142,500.00
DL BANDY CONSTRUCTION - $1,126,000.00
D. WILSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - $1,137,000.00
MERRELL GENERAL CONTRACT, INC. - $1,102,986.00
SELECT BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC., DBA, SBS CONSTRUCTION -$1,165,053.00
ZUBER CONSTRUCTION - $1,178,849.00
ORDER NO. 31602
PROPERTY APPRAISAL REPORT FROM TAC
Came to be heard this the 25th 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 property appraisal report from TAC and obtain coverage on the Courthouse
based on the appraisal value increased to $450.00 per square foot, to Historical
reproduction cost.
ORDER NO. 31603
ANNUAL BIDS FOR ROAD BASE, COLD MIX, AGGREGATE, EMILSION OIL
AND CORRUGATED METAL PIPE
Came to be heard this the 25th 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 Road & Bridge Department going out for annual bids for road base, cold mix,
aggregate, emulsion oil and corrugated metal pipe, with the bids to be turned by on
March 4, 2010 by 5:00 pm, bids to be opened March 8, 2010, at 10:00 am and bids to be
awarded March 22, 2010.
ORDER NO. 31604
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 25th day of January, 2010, came to be considered by the Court
various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	339,379.01
12-Election Services	$	1,520.00
14-Fire Protection	$	15,416.67
15-Road & Bridge	$	28,929.04
16-Capital Projects	$	53,306.29
18-County Law Library	$	3,459.71
19-Public Library	$	25,000.00
23-Juvenile State Aid Fund	$	15,580.00
27-Community Corrections	$	208.00
28-Records Mgmt & Preservation	$	350.00
33-District Records Mgmt	$	300.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$	3,349.39
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	4,843.08
83-216th District Attorney	$	3,028.21
86-216th CSCD	$	234.08
87-Community service - 003	$	42.50
TOTAL $ 494,945.98
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts.
ORDER NO. 31605
DIRECT PAYABLES JANUARY 14, 2010
Came to be heard this the 25th 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 paying the Direct Payables for January 14, 2010, and January 21, 2010, as
presented.
ORDER NO. 31606
BUDGET AMENDMENT NOS. 1-2
Came to be heard this the 25th day of January, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve paying the Budget Amendment Nos. 1-2 as presented.
ORDER NO. 31607
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 25th 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 the Monthly Reports from:
JP #2
District Clerk
Constable Pct #3
JP # 1
Kerr County Treasurer for December, 2009
Kerr County Payroll for December, 2009
Audit Report - 2009-10 Fiscal Year for Kerr County Tax Assessor Collector, Ingram Tax
Substation and Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4.