1
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, March 22, 2010
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4
O
~i
p
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
		2
	I N D E X	
	March 22, 2010	
		PAGE
---	Visitors' input	6
---	Commissioners' comments	7 '
1.1	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	approve purchase of software license upgrade	
	for QuickBooks using past year's computer	
	software capital monies	11
1.2	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	approve new telephone system service for the	
	county courthouse	13
1.3	Consider/discuss, take appropriate for approval	
	of new broadband services and authorize County	
	Judge to sign same	24
1.8	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	authorize reimbursement for sums paid for county	
	debris placed at local landfill by Community	
	Service Infusion (CSI) teams and volunteers on	
	CSI work day scheduled for March 27, 2010	32
1.4	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for	
	approval of regional Video Teleconference system	
	grant application; authorize County Judge to sign	35
1.10	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	recommendation of Economic Development Task Force	40
1.11	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	designate board member to represent Kerr County	
	on KEDF Board of Directors pursuant to recom-	
	mendations of Economic Development Task Force	58
1.12	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to award	
	annual material bids for road base, cold mix,	
	aggregate, emulsion oil, & corrugated metal pipe	60
1.13	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	amend the contract with Tetra Tech, Inc., to	
	accommodate revised Scope of Work for engineering	
	services relating to Kerrville South Wastewater	
	Project, Ranchero Road elements	62
1.5	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	reducing registration fee to $1 for rabies clinic	
	at Doyle Community Center on April 10, 2010	72
1.6	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	allocate funding from 2007 or 2010 capital funds	
	and approve air duct cleaning of courthouse & jail	74
1.7	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	problems associated with new telephone system	77
1.9	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	replace current Pitney Bowes postage meter with	
	new meter, enter into new contract, and authorize	
	County Judge to sign same	87
		
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
I N D E X (Continued)
March 22, 2010
1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
identify eligible Kerr County projects for
presentation and consideration by TexDOT at
subsequent meetings of ARRPO
1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve concurring with waiver request for well
location in Hill Country Ranch Estates
1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
status of ETJ agreement with City of Kerrville
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding Kerr County's position with respect to
funding Airport CIP work
1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action relating
to Kerr County providing airport administrative &
support services under Airport Services Contract
for F.Y. 2010-2011
1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve request by Kerrville/Kerr-County Joint
Airport Board to reappoint Mark Cowden, Corey
Walters, and Tom Moser for 2-year terms of
office beginning June 1, 2010
1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
confirm authority of Kerrville/Kerr County Joint
Airport Board to also act as Joint Airport Zoning
Board
1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
proposed LCRA transmission line route(s)
including possible route adjacent to I-H 10
1.22 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
clarify Court Order #31654 to enter into a
contract with Bickerstaff, Heath, Delgado,
Acosta, LLP, as consultant for redistricting
in 2011 as a result of 2010 Census; authorize
County Judge to sign contract for same
1.23 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
designate an individual employed by the County
to serve as Records Management Officer
1.24 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
declare April 2010 "County Government Month" in
Kerr County
1.25 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
confirm and implement 1.5o increase in compen-
sation as budgeted for all Kerr County employees
effective April 1, 2010
1.26 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
declare March 27, 2010, "Bark for Life" and
"A Toast to the Animals" day in Kerr County
PAGE
89
90
93
120
129
138
139
139
148
149
155
155
160
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
	I N D E X (Continued)	
	March 22, 2010	
		PAGE
1.27	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	allow KARFA (Kerr Area Rural Fire Association)	
	to use Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center free of	
	charge for Emergency Vehicle Operators Course	
	training on June 5th and 6th, 2010	1.65
1.28	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	approve continuing disclosure dissemination agent	
	agreement to provide dissemination agent services.	
	in connection with continuing disclosure obligatio	ns
	of Kerr County regarding certain bond issue(s)for	
	which County has agreed to make annual filings	
	pursuant to SEC Rule 15c2-12	167
1.29	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	appointment of Rob Henneke as County Attorney	
	(Executive Session if necessary)	170
4.1	Pay Bills	179
4.2	Budget Amendments	179
4.3	Late Bills	180
4.4	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	182
5.1	Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee	
	Assignments	183
5.2	Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads	184
---	Adjourned	196
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
On Monday, March 22, 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 O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Let me call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the
Kerr County Commissioners Court posted and scheduled for this
date and time, Monday, March 22, 2010, at 9 a.m. It is that
time now. If you'll please stand and join me in a moment of
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Please be seated. At
this time, if there's any member of the public that wishes to
be heard with respect to any matter that is not a listed
agenda item, this is your opportunity to come forward and be
heard. If you wish to be heard on the agenda items, any
agenda item, we'd ask that you fill out a participation form.
They should be some located at the rear-of the room. It's
not essential that you do that. It helps me, however, when
we come to that item, to not miss you. But right now, if
there's any person 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.


3-22-10
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
6
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I would like to
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Julie Leonard is the new
president of the Historical Commission, and she has asked to
come and bring us greetings from Center .Point.
MS. LEONARD: Greetings, everybody, from the Kerr
County Historical Commission. I want to invite all the
Commissioners. We're having a dedication for the Great
Western Trail Marker on April the 10th at 2:30 at Bill
Rector's, Dr. Bill Rector's entrance to his ranch, and that
is 2 miles north of Interstate 10 on Harper Road. And I
don't know if y'all know, the Great Western Trail that
Charles Schreiner, and I think the other man with -- a
Mr. Light, and they did all the cattle drives, gathered all
the cattle from this area and took them to all the northern
markets. So, it's quite exciting to have this marker
dedicated. And we also have another one coming up in May,
and that's the Apelt Armadillo Farm, and that's going to be a
really fun one. Hope everybody can come. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. Thank you very
'I JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Is there anyone else
j that wishes to be heard on any matter that is not a listed



3-22-10
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
agenda item? Seeing no one else wishing to be heard, we'll
move on. Commissioner Baldwin, what do you have for us this
morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I do have an item
here. You know that we proclaim April Child Abuse Awareness
and Prevention Month here in the county. I wanted to let
everyone know there's be going be some. signs be put out on
the lawn Wednesday, the 31st, in the evening. And also on
Wednesday, April the 7th is Go Blue Day. That's a whole lot
like, "Go, Tivy fight never dies" thing, but Go Blue Day.
And we're asking everyone to wear some kind of blue. You
know, we put out those little -- those little blue ribbons
that you put on your -- and everyone's lost them, I know, but
I have a couple extra, and we have some more coming as well.
And then these -- these bracelets -- do you remember these
bracelets, Jon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we'll have some more of
these coming as well. And so on April the 7th, we're all
going to wear blue to show that we care more than everybody
else. So, anyway, Judge, that's about it, I guess for the
day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
3-22-10
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge Tinley, you and I had
the opportunity to have breakfast this morning with about 400
of our closest friends at 7:30 this morning at the Inn of the
Hills, the purpose of which was the Alamo -- the Area Council
on Governments, and the Alamo Area Aging Group was sponsoring
a statewide convention on aging. And there are about 400
delegates statewide here in town for that purpose. I'll let,
the Judge tell you exactly what he said; he spoke on it for
about 40 minutes, and most people missed their breakfast, but
it was a fun time for all. (Laughter.) And we did make it
in time for court. Thank you, Judge. You're next.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we'll just get on with
the agenda. I got enough on there to talk about.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, me too. That's --
that's good.
JUDGE TINLEY: I was wondering why they invited
Commissioner Williams and I for a statewide conference on
aging, and I think it's beginning to sink in. (Laughter.)
Be that as it may, a couple of items. First off, I'd like to
offer the best wishes of the Court to Ilse Bailey, who has
been our acting County Attorney for some time now, who's done
a wonderful job for us downstairs in the County Attorney's
office, and she will be leaving County Attorney's office at
the end of this month, and we wish her well in her endeavors,

3-22-10
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
familiar with Ms. McEntyre. She's been very, very active in
animal issues state-wide, county-wide. She's been at the
forefront of -- of disaster issues, rescue issues. I think,
if the truth were known, she's written most of the procedures
and protocols and S.O.P.'s for the statewide emergency
management procedures dealing with animals. As most of you
will recall, there was a significant problem with Katrina in
New Orleans; a lot of people refused to leave because they
could not take their pets with them, and they did not know if
their pets were going to be cared for or not. It caused a
tremendous problem. In subsequent disaster relief efforts,
there were -- there were provisions made, in large measure
with Ms. McEntyre right in the thick of it, dealing with
those issues, and the evacuations went much, much better.
Recently, Ms. McEntyre received a communication from Mr. Jack
Colley, who's the Chief of the Texas Division on Emergency
Management, and I'd like to read that to you at this time.
"Dear Ms. McEntyre, I want to take this opportunity
to congratulate you as the recipient of the Pedigree Breed
Rescue Hero of the Year award. The award is deserved,
deserving recognition for someone who has done so much to
3-22-10
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
help animals in need, particularly in your role as director
of the local Citizens' Emergency Response Team and Companion
Animal Rescue and Response Team, and Diamond Dachshund Rescue
of Texas. You and your team expended countless hours and
energy on behalf of the citizens and animals of the state of
Texas, as evidenced by your response to hurricanes Katrina,
Rita, Gustav, and Ike, the north and central Texas fires,
Eagle Pass tornado, and numerous cruelty seizures. You are
clearly a role model for those who unselfishly seek to make a
difference in the state of Texas. Thank you for your
commitment, dedication, and all that you do for the great
state of Texas. Sincerely, Jack Colley." She's done a
wonderful job, and she's to be commended. And she just sits
I down there and grinds it out, and she's truly an individual
that has done a lot for animals in the state of Texas.
The other thing I'd like to call to your attention
is, as most of you are aware, we're building a new building
out adjacent to the Law Enforcement Center. It's going to be
a Sheriff's Office annex and Adult Probation offices. It's
about a 14,500 square foot structure. The site work portion
of that is being conducted by our Road and Bridge people.
They are doing an absolutely fabulous job with their work out
there. Those people are truly, truly professionals, and have
done as good a job as any contractor we could hire at any
price. They have truly done a great job, and they're
3-22-10
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
bringing that thing up so as to be able to put that building
in place. And I want to thank them and all the guys out.
there, and gals that are working out there on that -- that
project. We thank you very much. Okay, let's get on with
our agenda. First item is to consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to approve purchase of software license
upgrade for QuickBooks using past year's computer software
capital moneys. Mr. Trolinger?
MR. TROLINGER: Good morning. Thank you. We have
a -- a need to consolidate our QuickBook licenses to the
Enterprise edition. We've got three major offices using
QuickBooks, and the Auditor's now requested another license.
And we have these individual box licenses we purchased, and
', we want to consolidate it with Enterprise edition. The cost
is about $3,110 on the research I've done, and I recommend
that we -- we take this from the previous 2008 capital
outlay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's using QuickBooks, and
who will be the new user of QuickBooks?
MR. TROLINGER: The Sheriff's Office, commissary in
particular, motor vehicle, the Tax Office on the tax
collection side, and the Auditor's office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: By buying a consolidated license,
will we end up spending less money for licenses overall than

3-22-10
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
12
the way we're going with these individual licenses?
MR. TROLINGER: The cost is a little bit more, but
the management is much lower. It allows us to change
computers much more easily. And if we need to add another
computer to the system, it's much more manageable, mostly
from the database standpoint. It centralizes the data,
because right now they're kind of spread out. It allows the
Auditor to oversee it also, or in a better fashion than it's
done right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: If -- if we don't do this license,
we cannot centralize the database?
MR. TROLINGER: Correct. They are separate
databases right now.
I JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the money's coming
from?
MR. TROLINGER: The 2008 capital outlay that was
designated for software.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. 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.)
J
3-22-10
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
13
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 2; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
approve new telephone system service for the county
courthouse. Mr. Trolinger again.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. After some extensive
amount of research and some really good competitive pricing
from the three providers here in town, we looked at the -- at
the big picture, and -- and what I'm going to recommend is
that we -- for our telephone service, that we use Time-Warner
Cable to provide our PRI line inside the courthouse here.
They are a little bit -- little bit more expensive than
Windstream. Windstream did come down in their pricing, but
our two major reasons, the billing issues that we've had. with
the Auditor's office are probably -- probably the big one, on
performance. We just have an ongoing issue with billing, and
we want to get that resolved. And then the performance that
we're having with our existing new telephone system, we Jsnow
that the Time-Warner service will work with the new phone
system. So, there's -- those are the two major
considerations in bringing this recommendation to the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: John, so the -- you're
saying that Time-Warner will fix this T-1 issue?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.

3-22-10
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
14
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Kerrville Telephone will
not? Not Kerrville Telephone.
JUDGE TINLEY: Windstream.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Windstream.
MR. TROLINGER: Well, I'm not saying that
Windstream would not. I believe that it would fix -- it
would fix the echo with the new equipment from Windstream.
I~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They would -- they would
', change out -- they would take out the T-1 and install
something new that's more compatible?
I
i
MR. TROLINGER: That's right. They would provide a
I
~I piece of equipment, a piece of hardware that would resolve
the issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So that's a moot issue,
then. And then what -- what's the problem with the billing
thing?
MR. TROLINGER: Well, we --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't follow that.
MR. TROLINGER: We've had recurring issues with the
~I billing, and the Auditor's office was involved in this
II project from the get-go on deciding the provider. We had a
II, sit-down with Windstream, and then a sit-down with
III Time-Warner, and I think the Auditor's office would be
pleased that I've chosen Time-Warner because of the billing
issues.
,~


3-22-10
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
15
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we know that
MR. TROLINGER: I've been assured that they will be
on the telephone side. And, of course, they're our existing
provider for broadband.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay,. thank you.
MR. TROLINGER: You're welcome, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm a little bit confused
by this worksheet that you -- or spreadsheet, or your idea of
what a spreadsheet looks like, at the tail end of your
presentation here. And, needless to say, I'm confused by it.
I really don't understand who's on first and who's on second,
and the differences in terms of levels of service, what we're
getting for our dollars, and how many dollars we're either
going to expend more or less than. Can you enlighten me a
little bit?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir, and I apologize for not
providing current backup. That was the backup from the
previous agenda item. I was out sick over the week, at she
end of the week and over the weekend. But to summarize,
those are my notes, and I wanted to put -- since this is a
very public issue, I wanted to throw everything in there to
make sure everything that I considered was available for
review. But the bottom line is, the existing service, we pay
about $1,150 a month on average for telephone service and
3-22-10
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
long distance. With the new service, it'll be about $600 a
month for telephone service and long distance. That --
that's my estimate. That's the bottom line.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if I'm reading your
notes correctly, there's a little disparity there. You're
talking about existing 1,137; that's pretty close to 1,150.
And the new is going to be 1,095. Can you help me understand
that?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. I was factoring in the
broadband. I've broken it down into two separate agenda
items, but what I did was I compiled the data and the voice
when I was considering this, so it's the big picture. And
the end result is, once we -- once we go with the additional
broadband services, that it'll be an overall slight reduction
in cost over what we're being billed for today for broadband
and voice.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Trolinger, based upon the
numbers furnished to you, my understanding is, based on what
you've just told us, is that the lowest cost provider
proposal comes from Windstream?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: I assume that Time-Warner is the
next lowest cost?
MR. TROLINGER: They are.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then other proposers were
3-22-10
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
greater than that. The recommendation that you're making is
based solely upon the -- the issue of billing difficulties
that we've had previously, as well as -- what was the other
MR. TROLINGER: Well, the -- the interface to the
new telephone system; I've been assured that it's a known
I
good thing, that it will work, and that the Time-Warner
engineer and the contractor will work together to make it
perfect.
JUDGE TINLEY: But you have nothing to indicate
that that same interface cannot be provided, and, in fact, is
part of the proposal from Windstream? Is that what I'm to
understand?
MR. TROLINGER: True. It's an unknown. I'm sure
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TROLINGER: But it's an unknown.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Ms. Hargis, give me some --
give me some elucidation about this billing issue.
MS. HARGIS: Well, the billing issue goes to the
fact that -- that we, for years, had a -- a method of billing
where we separated the phone numbers so that we were able to
charge the proper departments for the long distance, and I
think all of you are aware of the problems that we had with
that. And we had to do it by hand, which took almost eight

3-2~-10
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to ten hours to do. We were overbilled; we were billed for
know where they came from, we have to check out. It's been a
nightmare. And we have talked to them. They do not do this
locally; we have to talk to someone out of the Houston
office -- actually, out of Sugarland, and it took us two or
~, three months to get to that person. And they have made it
~i
somewhat easier, but they still come up with all these calls
that -- that say unidentified, and we sometimes we get three
pages of unidentified calls. And what we do is we try to
look at the numbers and match them to try to see where they
come from, or even if they're ours. We -- you know, we go
through that phone to make sure we're paying for what -- so
it makes it very uncertain that we're even making these phone
calls. So -- and we have worked and worked and worked with
them. This is a constant problem. Now, you know, they are a
big company, and a lot of phone companies are difficult to
deal with in this regard. They have given us a person out of
the San Antonio office that will deal with us directly, with
Time-Warner. That's what the representative told us. We
told them the format that we needed, and they agreed that the
format would be designed to fit our needs. And, you know,
that's the only -- that's -- I met with him on that, and as
far as Windstream is concerned, I'm -- I'm certain we'd have
to go through the same procedures that we've already been

3-22-10
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
going through. Now, whether that's a -- a deal breaker for
the Court, that's up to you. I mean, we'll deal with
whatever you give us. But we are concerned about the
billing, because we don't know whether those unidentified
phone calls, being sometimes three pages, sometimes as many
as 100 -- that's a lot of unidentified calls, and we never
had that before. And that's been going on now for about two
~ years.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- this billing issue that I
gather you've been spending a lot of time on trying to chase
down, how long have you been trying to resolve that issue
with Windstream?
MS. HARGIS: Two years.
JUDGE TINLEY: Over what period of time?
MS. HARGIS: Two years.
JUDGE TINLEY: And it's still not fully resolved?
MS. HARGIS: Hmm-mm.
JUDGE TINLEY:' Does it appear to be easily
resolvable, based upon the experience factor that you've had?
MS. HARGIS: It's just a constant monthly problem.
You know, we get the bill; we have to call. They have to
research, or we have to research. The problem is that we
have the main trunk line, and when someone picks up the phone
and it just happens to be coming in, then it doesn't work.
And when they don't know what line they picked up -- they


3-22-10
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
should, because we all put our codes in, but apparently it
doesn't work. And so I don't know why the -- the prior
company could get it right and now we can't get it, but it's
a problem for them. They've designed it as well as they can,
and then they just have to help us with it, but it's very
time-consuming.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, in two years, in trying to
resolve this and make it doable for our purposes, they've
been unsuccessful, and it just appears that if we continue,
it's going to be more of the same? Is that what I'm hearing?
MS. HARGIS: As far as I know. I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ms. Hargis, the -- do we have
any -- well, I guess not "assurance." How do we know it's
going to be different with Time-Warner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the question.
MS. HARGIS: I can't guarantee you that. Okay. I
mean, and I agree. I mean, that's what I've said. I mean,
the representative said that they would design the bill
according to our needs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And Windstream's told us that
too, correct?
MS. HARGIS: Right. So -- so I don't -- you know,
I mean, that is a factor. But I -- you know, I can't tell
the Court that that would, you know, be ultimately resolved
3-22-10
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
by a new company. That's your decision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I guess, to me, I want
more than Windstream saying they're going to work with us. I
want a penalty provision if it doesn't work to our standards.
If they're going to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Time-Warner?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. If we're going to make
the change based on billing, I want a serious penalty in
their contract that if they don't work it out to our -- or,
you know, whoever's standards, there's recourse. Maybe
that'll get their attention.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Could work the same way going
I with Windstream.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree; it's the same thing.
But it's -- obviously, we're not getting the attention that
I we need with Windstream, and I'm not -- Time-Warner certainly
is a big company, or probably a lot bigger -- whole lot
bigger. And it's going to be just like working with Sprint
and AT&T and everybody else, which is like -- it's a
nightmare. So I think if we're going to make a change, we
need to address that issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: The sense I'm getting from the Court
is that let's get -- let's get a little bit more meat to this
situation before we move forward?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
3-22-10
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my thought, Judge. I
would -- I would like to see us bring this back in two weeks,
if we have that time, and give Windstream an opportunity to
come forward with some solid -- 'cause they're the low bid.
They're the low bid, and I think that that is a major part of
this thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, now, we're obligated in the
taxpayers' interest to get the best value for the taxpayers'
money. Obviously, if -- and generally, that's the lowest
number. If there are other factors that come into play
that -- that cause the overall cost in terms of manpower,
time expended, efficiency and so forth, well, certainly,
that's a difference. But looks like we got some more work to
do on this, John.
MR. TROLINGER: Well --
JUDGE TINLEY: Can you work on that some more?
MR. TROLINGER: It will delay our -- our ongoing
problems with the phone system.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'd rather delay it
than complicate it. And I also would like to have, next time
you come back with this issue, something more definitive than
what I'm looking at. Levels of service being offered by each
of these providers, what it is. I'd like to have some
explanation of who maintains the data from an extension
number, and/or the code that the user puts in. That data is

3-22-10
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
23
someplace, which goes to the billing issue. You know, where
is that data, and why don't we have access to it? I'd like
to have all those answers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Final point, and I think that
if we're going to have another two weeks on this, I think I
heard during this conversation that Windstream could fix the
phone problem too. I want that in writing, with penalties
for both. I mean, if we're going to make this switch based
on that. And I'm uncomfortable on having to make a change
for that reason, period. We bid the contract for the phone
system. In my mind, that phone system should be compatible
with the technology that we had at the time we did that
contract, so I don't think that that should be -- in my mind,
shouldn't even be a consideration why to make a change. The
contractor will just have to figure out how to fix that
problem. And if that means running whatever, so be it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or some acknowledgment that
that wasn't examined when the RFP's came in and we took a
look at them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, John, if Windstream
doesn't want to -- or if they struggle with this billing
issue, tell them we're going to send Jon Letz over there to
visit with them. And that's a threat. That is a threat,
so --

3-22-10
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll be right behind him.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Two Germans.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They don't want that to
happen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Send two Germans instead of one,
huh? (Laughter.) That will bring them around. Anything
else to be offered on that? Let's go to Item 3, if we might.
Consider, discuss, take appropriate action for approval of
new-broadband services and authorize County Judge to sign
same.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. Thank you, Judge Tinley.
I don't know if we're going to end up delaying this as well.
Time-Warner, again, is my choice for the data services.
The -- the price is not the lowest, but I believe it's the
best service. We've budgeted for an additional $500 per
month ongoing for expanded broadband services, and by -- by
using Time-Warner's carrier grade class, they bring
fiberoptic in the courthouse and make the connection mucYi
more reliable than it already is, which is just spectacular.
We've had very little trouble with the courthouse Internet
connection. And it'll give us a little bit better service as
far as broadband, because it will be expanded, but then we'll
keep the copper -- the old cable modem and provide us with a
second additional new fiberoptic line, and that'll give us
3-22-10
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the redundancy that we need to insure that we can do
business.
JUDGE TINLEY: What bandwidth are you -- are you
seeking?
MR. TROLINGER: It's 20 mbs up, and 20 mbs down.
That's megabits per second, is "mbs."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you say Time-Warner at
the beginning of your talk?
MR. TROLINGER: I did say time-Warner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh?
MR. TROLINGER: I did, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm looking at Hill Country
Telephone here in my backup material. Why are we talking
about Hill Country -- Time-Warner when we have before us a
proposal from Hill Country Telephone?
MR. TROLINGER: Oh, I provided the backup in
confusing spurts. The backup from last week was combined --
or from the last meeting was combined together with the --
with the telephone from the second agenda item. And I did.
provide you with a new proposal that Hill Country sent after
-- after I'd received -- after I put in the initial agenda
I item.
JUDGE TINLEY: This kind of rides in tandem with
the -- with the other service?
MR. TROLINGER: It does. They go hand-in-hand.
3-22-10
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
Even though they're -- we've been able to break out the two
services, two separate contract, the -- the service does go
hand-in-hand. It comes in on the same fiberoptic line,
telephone and the data.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're coming back with
this? Is that my understanding?
MR. TROLINGER: No, sir, it's my recommendation to
use Time-Warner. I've got the -- I don't have the
Time-Warner contract reviewed by the County Attorney yet.
It's the same -- it's the old contract with no changes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: John, does it affect it in
any way if we -- in two ..weeks, we decide to stay with
Kerrville?
MR. TROLINGER: It would not. They're separate
contracts.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I -- I can't imagine
I what -- how it would affect it. Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not prepared to vote on
it, because you're talking about Time-Warner, and then you're
giving us an illustration of a proposal from Hill Country
Telephone. I'd like to see it all put together.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there a Time-Warner
presentation in here?
MR. TROLINGER: No, sir. Apparently, I did not
I include it.

3-22-10
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dang, John.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's bring it back, John.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're making it tough.
MR. TROLINGER: Okay. So, do you want the
telephone and the data in one proposal? Is that the
direction I'm receiving?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Spreadsheet, so I can
understand it, so we're talking about what levels of service,
what we're buying and what we're saving.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's two separate items,
John, because they're -- one's not interdependent on the
other.
MR. TROLINGER: Okay, I understand.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, if you'll bring back two
separate items, we'd appreciate it, okay?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before we --
JUDGE TINLEY: We're still on-it? Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leave these two. The biggest
issue that I hear about is the fax issue.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: W.e received some -- is there a
way to patch that for the next three weeks? Because I
believe we meet in three weeks, not two weeks, which is one
of those long --
MR. TROLINGER: No, sir, not that I can find.


3-22-10
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have fax service available?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, outgoing and incoming.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are those on limited circuits
where -- where we need to identify them so people can know
I where to access that?
MR. TROLINGER: No. Each office has -- has their
outgoing fax machine available. The problem is that the
offices that we're -- that are on the telephone switch cannot
receive faxes on that same machine. It now comes in via
e-mail. The other problem is for the outgoing faxes, there's
an inconsistent result. Sometimes it'll go through,
sometimes it won't. It's not 100 percent, which is what we
want faxes to be, 100 percent, when you send out a fax. And
we're still nailing down a couple of individual fax machines
with problems, trying to nail clown issues.. with those.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the problem that I received
an e-mail about last week about one of our employees having
to testify in court, has that been resolved?
MR. TROLINGER: I didn't get a copy on that. I
don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: County Court at Law.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
3-22-10
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. BAILEY: It has not been resolved.
JUDGE TINLEY: County Attorney's office.
MS. BAILEY: John, it has not been resolved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Has not been revolved.
MR. TROLINGER: The County Attorney's fax is the
same as it was three weeks ago.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We had --
MS. BAILEY: We're not able to receive certain
faxes, and we're not able to send certain faxes. It'll get
fixed; then it won't send or receive. That particular issue,
we had to receive proof of service on someone so we could get
a protective order, and we were not able to receive the proof
on our fax machine, or two or three other fax machines in the
county. Fortunately, the Judge allowed Barbara Holmes to
testify that she had spoken to the person that served the
respondent with that. That's not generally permissible; that
is hearsay. So, if he'd shown up, we wouldn't have been able
to make our case.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you indicating you
didn't know about this?
MR. TROLINGER: I had -- we received a call on the
problem. I didn't know the details of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So --
JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to bring those back?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
3-22-10
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I'm still -- Judge, I don't
want to leave that at the moment, because I think it's a
problem. You're saying that they're going -- you can't use
the machines, but you can use the faxes on the computers; is
that correct?
MR. TROLINGER: The -- the outgoing works on the
machines -- on the fax machines. Inconsistently. Not --
it's not 100 percent.
MS. HOLMES: Very inconsistently, if I may add.
MR. TROLINGER: Very inconsistently. And the..
~ incoming faxes are -- that we're on the -- on these same
machines are now coming in via e-mail. It was my
understanding that that is working very well. Of course,
receiving contrary to that report now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we -- can the outgoing go
via e-mail? I mean --
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it seems -- I just want
to make sure that our employees can function. And there's a
little bit of -- faxes are a very important part of that. If
we can -- if there's a way to use -- you know, not use the
current fax machines and use our computer system, whether
e-mail or whatever, I think everyone needs to be aware of
that, and needs to be trained on that.
MR. TROLINGER: And many offices do that now. They

3-22-10
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
take their -- their document; instead of sending it via fax,
they just send it via e-mail.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They scan it, I'm presuming?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then you receive it, then you
-- is that an acceptable patch to the County Attorney's
office, I guess? Which --
MR. TROLINGER: Well, the -- let me speak up on
that. The County Attorney's -- they must get these
documents. They need a guaranteed method of sending and
receiving. And right now, what they're saying is it's not a
sure thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The faxes is not?
MS. BAILEY: The trouble with that last week was
not only that we could not receive it in our office, but we
tried three other offices in the county, and none of the --
none of those faxes could receive the information that we
needed, so we ended up having to go to the hearing without
the information.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, could that
information have gone via e-mail and been acceptable to the
courts?



MS. HOLMES: The information that we were getting
was from the Llano County Sheriff's Office. The lady told me
no, they were not able to e-mail that information to us.

3-22-10
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
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They only had faxing
capability; is that correct?
MS. BAILEY: Correct.
MS. HOLMES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're not going to
resolve this one, Judge, so we should probably move on.
JUDGE TINLEY: Got some problems that need to 'get
resolved, John. Thank you.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. You're welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to our 9:30 timed item,
Item 8; to consider, discuss, take appropriate action to
authorize reimbursement for sums paid for county debris
placed at the local landfill by Community Service Infusion
teams and volunteers on CSI workday scheduled for March 27th,
2010.
MR. HEWITT: Good morning.
JUDGE TINLEY:.- Good morning.
MR. HEWITT: I'm John Hewitt. I'm this year's
chairman for Community Service Infusion,- which is -- we refer
to that as CSI. It's a program that Partners in Ministry
sponsors, and Bill Blackburn with Partners in Ministry is
here with me this morning. This is our fourth year. It's a
day when churches, nonprofits, schools, and civic groups come
together to work on projects for individuals in need of
3-22-10
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
We've got some river cleanup
projects, highway cleanup projects. As a part of that, we've
worked out an arrangement with the City of Kerrville for the
projects that are in the city of Kerrville; we're going to
take items to the dump, and they're going to reimburse
Partners in Ministry for the cost of that. We think we have
15 -- 10 to 15 projects in the county. We think there will
be about ten loads, and so we're asking for some sort of a
waiver on those fees at the dump or reimbursement for taking
those items to the dump.
JUDGE TINLEY: Of course, we don't have the ability
to issue waivers. That's operated by Allied Waste, I think,
and the only way we'd be able to accommodate you is by
reimbursement. Which, of course, if you're picking up the
debris in the county and -- and getting that out of
22
23 loads.
24
25
MR. HEWITT: We're estimating it would be about ten
JUDGE TINLEY: How much per load?
MR. HEWITT: $500, $600.

Mr. Garcia's hair, as solid waste that would otherwise be --
it would seem appropriate that we'd reimburse you for those
fees, whatever they may be, and I'm sure you'd be in a
position to tell us what they are.
3-22-10
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Total?
MR. HEWITT: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ray, is that in your budget,
available?
MR. GARCIA: We can -- we can find it. Take it out
of maybe the Kerr County Nuisance Abatement program.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which program?
JUDGE TINLEY: Nuisance abatement.
MR. GARCIA: Nuisance abatement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That seems appropriate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Up to 500? Or just leave it
open-ended?
JUDGE TINLEY: You know, I'm not sure what the
number's going to be. I don't think it's going to be a
horrendous number, though.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you talking about
dumpsters?
MR. HEWITT: Well, it would be trash that we pick
up along the highways and along the river, and then some of
the lumber and stuff from the homes that we'd be working out
in the county on.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're talking possibly.
10 tons.
MR. HEWITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Runs about 50 bucks a ton, I
3-22-10
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I believe.
MR. HEWITT: I think that's right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Somewhere in that
neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that we
authorize reimbursement to the Community Service Infusion
group, sum not to exceed $600, as reimbursement for dump
fees.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER ~ETZ: Those funds would come out of
the Environmental Health Department's nuisance abatement line
item.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. We appreciate it.
MR. HEWITT: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate the work that you do
also. Let's go back to Item 4; consider, discuss, take
3-22-10
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
appropriate action for approval of a regional video
teleconference system grant application, authorize County
Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have two questions
on that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One would be, are we
planning on spending any Kerr County taxpayers' money far
other -- another county to hook up?
JUDGE TINLEY: That would not be my intention.'
But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you've been kind of
driving the thing --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- for a couple of years. I
was just wondering.
JUDGE TINLEY: "A couple" is somewhat charitable.
More like six, I think, Commissioner. But the -- the grant
application would be for a regional hookup, and the -- the
cost that we would expend would be for Kerr County's portion
of that cost.
MR. TROLINGER: Well, there are end points that we
would provide to counties that would go in their courtrooms,
but as far as the actual hookup, the connection, the data
service, we would not provide that as part of this project.
3-22-10
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hardware that would go in Menard County?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes. The Judge would be -- would
use a piece of video teleconference equipment on a cart, a
display and a box, if you would. And that would be
provided -- that end point would be provided by this program.
JUDGE TINLEY: By the program, but what about Kerr
County funds?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: This has a match portion to it?
MR. TROLINGER: That's correct. The match is'
50 percent, and the cost is about $150,000, so it's a $75,000
match.
counties for their pro rata portion, I would not want to move
forward on -- with Kerr County dollars. I think we're going
to have to get that worked out first.
MR. TROLINGER: I see. Well, all's I have at this
point are the -- are the District Judges and yourself signed
on to, you know, to support this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, the district -- the
District Judges would have to go through their budget cycle
and ask that it get included in their budget, I would --

3-22-10
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: District Judges or the
County Judges?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, that's my second
question. I'm not real interested in what the District
Judges think about it. I'm interested in the County Judges,
the budget officers of each one of those counties. Have. they
signed off on it? I mean, not to belittle the District
Judges, by all means. But --
bit, and I'm sure that's one avenue, is -- is to go to Rosa
and ask that question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What we're seeing in this
diagram is all -- is eight counties -- one, two, three, four,
five, six, seven -- nine counties. No, eight actually for
the two districts, Kerr being the hub for both of the two --
of the two judicial districts. And so I guess that goes back
to the question the Judge raised and Commissioner Baldwin
raised. Have each of these other counties appropriated what
they should be appropriating to hook up_to this video
conferencing system?
MR. TROLINGER: No, sir. This, of course, is the
grant application.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that.
3-22-10
: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
MR. TROLINGER: It's Tier 2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you said it has to be a
50 percent match.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I would -- I would want to see an
assurance from the County Judges in each of these other
counties that whatever their pro rata portion is of the -- of
the match requirement, that they would shoulder that
responsibility.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't believe we should.
JUDGE TINLEY: Kerr County should not be -- you
know, even though we've got our two judges that reside here,
and that's primarily to service those two district courts, I
don't think it's our responsibility to -- to install this
system at our cost for their benefit. And that's been my
discussion with these judges from the get-go, starting six
years ago, that they would have some costs involved, as well
as the cost of service on an ongoing basis. But -- and
generally they've been receptive to me. But without some
sort of assurance from them, I don't want to be fronting that
cost and just playing the card that maybe they'll feel good
about us and send us a check. I mean, we're -- we're nice
guys and all, but some of the those counties are -- are
pretty hard-strapped, as you know. You know, when you look
at Menard County, and one cent on the tax rate raises
3-22-10
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$13,000, it's pretty tough. So, we've got to get that
assurance before we move forward as to any -- anything other
than what the grant covers.
MR. TROLINGER: Very good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Appreciate you saying that,
Judge. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's -- let's go to our 9:45 timed
item. Number 10, consider, discuss, take appropriate action
on recommendation of the Economic Development Task Force. We
have Mr. Mark Armstrong with us today, who is a vice chair of
the Economic Development Task Force that worked on that'
particular matter. Included within your backup material is a
copy of the Power Point presentation that was made to
Kerrville City Council on -- looks like February the 23rd.
And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have that.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Mr. Armstrong -- it should be --
MR. ARMSTONG: I think you have it in printed form.
I think you have it in non-power, no-point form.
JUDGE TINLEY: Jody, did you not put that on the
electronic backup?
MS. GRINSTEAD: I'm sorry?
JUDGE TINLEY: The Power Point presentation.
MS. GRINSTEAD: It should be on there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
3-22-10
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't see it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to go back and
check. Okay, I got it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Armstrong indicated that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got it.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- he, like myself, is somewhat.
technologically challenged, and so he elected not to do the
Power Point.
MR. ARMSTONG: Bruce will back me up. Fry cooks
have certain limitations when it comes to technology.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see. I'm with you.
MR. ARMSTONG: Has everyone found it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a separate -- it's a
separate one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where is it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's right behind the
agenda item, the second -- just the next -- the next frame.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we're on -- whatever
we're on. We're on 10 -- it's 10a or something like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10a?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whatever.
3-22-10
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ARMSTRONG: I also had some fears that Brucye
might get ahold of the laser pointer and --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, that's right. I may
point it at you just for fun.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Blind you?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll find it here in a
second. Much easier to fry catfish.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think Mark's found that to be true
also, haven't you?
MR. ARMSTONG: Yes, sir. Watching TV last night,
thinking about how easy health care was. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was a sausage-making
episode, wasn't it?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We all feel better this.
~ morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Notice, everybody is here in good
health.
MR. ARMSTONG: Yeah. Plan on staying that way.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He's discriminating against
me. Didn't give it to me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't get it either.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Jon and I are in the dark,
which is nothing unusual.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's all right. Go ahead,
Mark.
3-22-10
~~ 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
MR. ARMSTRONG: I'll lead you through it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm sure --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'11 figure it out.
MR. ARMSTONG: City Council initiated our task
force a while back in an effort to learn what was going on
with economic development in our community, amongst all the
partners, and to come up with maybe a better way of doing it.
The task force members were -- were Mike Huff, large employer
representative, myself as a small employer representative,
Todd Bock from the City, Bill Crumrine from E.I.C., Stephen
Fine from KPUB, Steve Huser representing KEDF, Trevor Hyde,
who is with us today to cover my back, from -- representing
the Chamber of Commerce, Bob Miller from the C.V.B., the
Judge representing Kerr County, and Dr. Dan Troxel from.
K.I.S.D. Our charge was to draw the economic development
partners together into one resource to work out a development
structure that would be quantifiable, measurable, and
accountable to the citizens. Our charge was to come up with
basic recommendations in the areas of organizational
structure, funding, and implementation.
Our major findings were that all the major
stakeholders must be included. The current KEDF board has,
like, 40 members on it. We felt that should be limited'to
nine. It was important to us that no single entity should
end up with absolute control. We feel that the program must
3-22-10
44
1 have a degree of autonomy. We feel that the economic
2 development priorities and objectives must be established
3 through joint efforts of all the stakeholders. We believe
~ the stakeholders should have a financial commitment, and that
> the outcomes and expectations must be clearly defined,
F
c
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
including routine reporting. The organizational structure
that we suggest for the new KEDF -- and, basically, what's
going to happen here is if this goes through, is KEDF as we
know it today is basically going to vote to dissolve itself
and reorganize as this entity.
And, basically, what we have is the seven spokes of
the wheel -- "spokes of the wheel" is kind of a key phrase
that we latched onto and held onto quite a bit -- with the
Chamber, K.I.S.D., KPUB, C.V.B., E.I.C., the City and the
County, and then the two at-large representatives. Each of
the spokes would designate their own representative, and then
the seven spokes would come together and appoint the two
at-large business representatives, three-year staggered
terms, no more than two terms. The board's responsibility
would be to hire and fire the Economic Development Director,
approve a budget, and submit funding requests. Funding,
which is what it always comes down to, you all have been
generous contributors for many years, and hope to see that
continue, along with the City, KPUB.
And what we are really pushing for is approximately
3-22-10
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
10 percent of E.I.C.'s annual budget, along with private
donations. So, we would continue to look for that 25,000
from the County, City, KPUB, and private donations, and then
roughly $250,000 a year from E.I.C. That number may be a
little high; depends on how things are, for a total of about
a $350,000 annual budget, which would cover routine operating
expenses, including marketing. That budget would be
submitted to the governing body for approval, and then
funding requests submitted after approval of a budget, namely
The implementation of this plan is to take this
plan which we have adopted, which hopefully is more
controllable and achievable and organized, and everyone
participating, than some of the more scattered approaches
that we have seen in the past. What we are doing is we are
going around and presenting our findings to all of the seven
partners that I mentioned and requesting ratification. We
are hoping to have that done by the end of March. And we are
here today requesting your go-ahead to continue the process.
I will say that no one who has heard the presentation has
bought every word of every line, and basically what we are
looking for is a -- is a thought that, yes, this is a good
idea and a good process, and the process should move forward.
With those ratifications, the .new body will be
created. And once the members are named to that body, we'll
3-22-10
d} 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
establish roles for the partnering entities, prepare an
action plan, prepare a budget, and submit funding requesl~s by
July. We want to insure that all partners have input. We
want to insure that we have goals and priorities and annual
routine evaluations. We want to formalize priorities and
objectives of economic development within the area. I'm not
going to say the City or KEDF or the County; just with --
with everyone. We want to improve transparency and
accountability, and in my opinion communication. And we'hope
to provide an enhanced level of service, a more proactive
effort, and a ready response team. We feel like that
insuring adequate resourcing for this project is what has
been lacking for -- for many, many years, and we would like
to see a steady revenue stream. 'As I said, we have given
this -- we are in the process of giving this presentation to
all of the spokes in the wheel. We have gotten the go-ahead
to continue to process from Council, E.I.C., the Chamber, and
KEDF, and today we are asking for yours.
In some of the prior presentations, some of thk=_
topics prompting discussion were number_of members on the new
board. The task force believes that all the spokes listed in
the wheel shown on the presentation are partners or
stakeholders in the process and that all bring something
important to the table. In our meetings, every participant
contributed significantly to our overall product. Our task
3-22-10
~~ ~
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
force was basically kind of a test drive of this new board '
structure, and I think we proved and practiced just how
functional the wheel that you are looking at can be. And I
would also say that anyone who has concerns about the makeup
of the new board was not afforded the opportunity to attend
any of our meetings. It was really a special group, and I
felt like great things could come from that group in the.
future. Because of the spokes in the wheel, not the
individuals that served on the task force, but because of the
spokes of the wheel, I think it will remain a special group.
There was discussion about who should have
oversight of all the board appointments, and we felt that
each of the individual spokes are more than capable to do an
adequate job of appointing their individual representative.
It was discussed that the director should be a City employee.
This was a topic that the task force specifically addressed
at some length, and the conclusion was a unanimous no. And I
would add that we believe that to be not only the best answer
for KEDF, but for the City, and more importantly, the process
itself as well. We believe the autonomy of an independent
executive employed at the will of the board is crucial to the
overall process and the success of that process. We believe
that the official capacity in which a city employee must
function could prevent that executive from being able to
address certain aspects with certain prospects in a needed
3-22-10
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Council and E.I.C. voiced concerns about the
responsibility of properly ,looking out for the citizens' best
interest, and I would certainly anticipate hearing that
~~ question from you as well. The task force believes that is
exactly where we are trying to take this initiative. When
the E.I.C. tax was originally presented to the voters and
approved by the voters, it was not billed strictly as an
infrastructure program. It was billed and passed as a
vehicle to spur economic development, both through specific
tangible works that would facilitate and encourage growth,
and create a program to help secure that growth. The
accomplishments of E.I.C. are many, and we all benefit from
those data. However, we have failed from the beginning 'to
dedicate E.I.C. funds to an ongoing program targeted
specifically at development. As a member of E.I.C. for four
years, and a past chair, I certainly share in the guilt of
that. We kind of got so excited about doing the things with
the money that we really have neglected for far too long to
create and structure a program to go after.
So, on behalf of the task force, I would tell you
that we believe we are, in fact, looking out for the best
interests of the citizens by urging E.I.C. and you to commit
to consisting -- assisting in the effort to achieve real
economic development by adequately supporting a well thought
3-22-10
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
out plan and structure to both retain and go after economic
development. We believe that was the citizens' desire when
they approved the tax, and we believe it still is today.
Appreciate your letting me come see you today. As I said,
the two things that we are looking for -- and I'll take a few
questions in just a second -- are, number one, a -- a
resolution of support for this process, and also for you to
name a representative to the new board. The Judge did just a
fabulous job as a member of the task force; brought a whole
lot to the table. The representative is anyone the County
wants to appoint. It can be the Judge, one of you, or it can
be a citizen who you think will act on your behalf. Now, if
you have any questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mark, I have three
questions.
MR. ARMSTONG: Three?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 'Yeah. One, is your
restaurant open today?
MR. ARMSTONG: Sir, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
(Laughter.) That's the important one.
MR. ARMSTRONG: I should say I hope it is. I'll
know here in a little while.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If it's there. Now, you
made a statement, you all would like to see a steady revenue
,~

3-22-10
`.~ 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
stream. What did you mean by that? Does that mean that the
County participates sometimes, and sometimes they don't? Or
what do you mean by that?
MR. ARMSTRONG: The County has been a consistent
participant. We are looking for.--
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll go right by that one,
I then .
MR. ARMSTRONG: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Then you say you want our
go-ahead to continue the process. Now, I've only been here
18 years, so does that mean that you want our go-ahead to
continue the process, or you want our money? What does that
mean?
MR. ARMSTRONG: No money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're not talking money?
MR. ARMSTRONG: No money. When the new board is
formed, they will create and present their own funding
request.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good.
MR. ARMSTRONG: What I was trying to say is that I
would like approval and ratification of every word of every
line that is -- that is in the package that at least some of
you got. But I've gotten too scared to do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The process, yeah. I like
it. You know, seems like to me it was about a month ago, I
3-22-10
~~ 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
made a motion in here and we approved appointing the Judge as
a member of this group. We have to do this every couple of
months?
MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, no. No, he -- you know, I
don't know what you have done, but he was on the task force.
The task force and new board.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Although, basically, they're the
same -- the same group, it will be different individuals.
The members of the task force were appointed to serve on the
task force. Our work is done. We're going home.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Given all the fuss and
feathers that have taken place on this topic over the last
two years or more, I consider that to be a major step
forward. And, as you well know, 'cause you and I
participated for years in this, economic development is a
life stream, a life blood for Kerr County and the city of
Kerrville. And when I say that, I mean that in the context
of the whole. Not the city, not the county, but the whale.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I consider this to be a
major step forward. I would support the reorganization of
what seems now to be Kerrville Economic Development
Foundation into a smaller, more concise, and probably more



3-22-10
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it for a long time. Nine -- seven or nine, whichever --
seven, I guess it is, is better, and I would support that
wholeheartedly. I think that your recollections about how
funding needs to have come about are accurate. There have
passage of the 4B sales tax, and for one very major reason.
That very major reason was to support economic development,
among other things, that the 4B sales tax will allow to take
place. And some have taken place, but I think economic'
development as a topic, as a structure, as an organization,
as a goal or a task, have been sadly lacking in terms of
funding. And I think this moves toward accomplishing that
particular goal, and I support that wholeheartedly.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Well, thank you very much.
There -- there's been some selective memory problems with the
process back in the day. I thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wouldn't be surprised of
that, but, you know, I remember it. And I remember all the
pitches that went before the 4B sales tax was taken -- was
taken to the voters. I support it wholeheartedly, and T
thank you for your involvement.
MR. ARMSTRONG: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I want to thank Mark in


3-22-10
~~ 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
particular as a member of the task force. It was Mark that
insisted upon the history of the 4B and economic development
to be presented to the task force as a major component of our
work, and I think it opened a lot of eyes of folks that
either weren't there, or who weren't paying a great deal of
attention to the process when 4B came into being. The
history is that there was a thought about 4A for
infrastructure, and then the move was to -- well, let's look
at 4B, because we want an economic development function, even
to the point of creating a contingency fund. And we batted
that term around, and we've heard it more recently both at
council and at E.I.C. That was to be utilized for the
purpose of the economic development function, and the
replenishment of that contingency fund in an amount equal to
10 percent of the revenue stream received by E.I.C., the 4B
administrative body, on an annual basis. And Mark was very,
very insistent that that history be brought forward, and it
was because of that I'm convinced that the E.I.C. funding
function of $250,000 got plugged in.
The historical data would reflect that of that
one-half sent, there was discussion about one-fourth or
one-eighth of that being segregated specifically for the
economic development function. Be that as it may, it didn't.
We came up with the contingency fund, and that has faded from
memory. It came back into memory just the other evening at
3-22-10
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the E.I.C. meeting. Sandra Yarbrough, who, of course, has
been in charge of accounting for many years at the City of
Kerrville -- not in charge of accounting, but involved in
accounting -- had a recollection that she acknowledged to me
about the contingency fund exists, it doesn't exist, now it
exists again. But Mark was insistent upon that history being
brought out. And the -- the initial proposal that was
brought forward at the insistence of Council was brought.
forward by City Manager Todd Parton, and he brought forward a
model that, amazingly enough, was taken almost totally from
our Economic Development Strategic Plan that both the City
and the Council -- City Council-and this Court approved after
about a year and a half of work, and that model was in there.
He brought it forward. The Council, for a number of reasons,
declined to adopt it, and after an effort to -- to take the
economic development function in-house by the City, which was
disapproved, this task force was formed.
So, that's where we got to where we are. But City
Manager Todd Parton deserves a lot of credit for his initial
work on this, because that was the launch point for what we
-- for what we started with. And the end result is very,
very close to that, because it is from our Economic
Development Strategic Plan, which this whole thing is a
process of. It involves all of the stakeholders, and it
provides a funding stream for an adequate economic
3-22-10
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
development function. Now, whether or not -- on an ongoing
basis, whether it's going to be totally adequate, we don't
know. We don't know what the future holds. But it will
conform in large measure to the original intent for citizens
that they expressed in adopting the 4B tax. The business
community sold that 4B to the citizens, establishing that
additional tax on themselves, and so I think it's incumbent
upon to us approve this recommendation to attempt to move
this entire function forward, and~I would ask the Court to do
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A couple comments, Judge.', I
agree with everything you said, and Commissioner Williams and
Baldwin, for'that matter.. This is a -- you know, certa~.nly a
step in the right direction. I appreciate all that Mark's
done, and the -- you, Judge, serving on this task force, and
appreciate the City's, -you know, participation in getting it
moving in this direction. I think it is -- this is a
critical issue for the county and city, one and the same,
economic development. And I think this provides a mechanism
that works. With that, I'll have a little bit of a caution,
or just something to remind those that -- probably, Judge,
the only area that I have a concern in here is that, you
know, E.I.C. is the proper funding for that, clearly for a
large portion of it. But I hope that this new group --.and I
hope -- I think it will -- that forms will continue to look
3-22-10
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And I'm saying this for a very specific reason.
Comfort, which is on the county line, just attracted a new
employer, a manufacturing facility that's going to employ 200
-- or 60 people, I believe. Metco is getting ready to apen
up a plant right outside of Comfort, inside their water.
district boundary. I've been told that it's a pretty good
possibility -- likelihood, and they're just waiting on some
other details to be tied in, right outside of Comfort,
another facility with 250 employees is getting ready to be
announced, a company moving in, manufacturing facility from
California. And then one of our local residents has been in
the paper; Granger MacDonald is opening up a 65-unit
apartment building in Comfort. And I'm bringing this up as
these are all right on the county line. And with the whole
east water -- east Kerr County water and wastewater project,
this is an area ripe for economic development, if we can get
all this done, between Center Point and Comfort.
And while it may not -- you know, I just hope that
this group, even though it's going to, you know, have E.I.C.
funding, which is -- comes out of Kerrville, essentially,
even though I think all county taxpayers participate in it, I
hope that they look at that area, because it will be a
benefit to the City of Kerrville and Kerr County if we can
3-22-10
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
across the county line. Then we will, you know, generate the
tax revenue. The people will shop in Kerrville. A lot of
people in Comfort shop in Kerrville already, and will
continue. So, I just hope that the -- this continues -- and
I think the same argument could go out towards Junction .and
the far western areas. And it's a big county. We obviously
focus on the center around Kerrville, 'cause it's very
important, but the far extremes are very important as well,
and I hope that this new group will look at that as a benefit
to the whole county and city. That's it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well said.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sounds like a good plan to
me. Been a long time coming. Pretty different from the way
it used to be. This way's got to be better.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would offer a
23			
24			
25			
	3	-22-	10
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Totally separate?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good.
motion that Commissioners Court approve the organizational
restructure of the Economic Development as proposed by the
Kerr Economic Development Task Force.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the board member?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a separate item.
1
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.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item 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: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 11.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, whoa. I don't see.
how -- I think we need to take the agenda item -- okay. I
guess -- I'm sorry; I apologize. It's a recommendation.,
Your recommendation was that we proceed with the new
direction, okay.
MR. ARMSTONG: I thank you very much, and
appreciate your support.
JUDGE TINLEY: Item 11, consider, discuss, take
appropriate action to designate board member to represent
Kerr County on Kerrville Economic Development Foundation
Board of Directors pursuant to recommendations of Economic
Development Task Force. That's the second item that you were
referring to, Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. And once again,
it's a great privilege to nominate or move that Judge Pat


3-22-10
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
Tinley be that person on that board. And -- and once again,
I want to say why that I endorse Judge Tinley on this kind of
board, is because of his desire and ability to see the
difference between the commercial tax base and the ad valorem
tax base. And I think that is one of the biggest issues of
all that this group needs to focus on. And he's talked about
that, and I know that's one of his issues, that -- and I
appreciate him doing that, and I think it's -- it's
important. Very important. So, that's my motion, is to
appoint you, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would second that motion,
and make a comment along the same lines, Commissioner; that
Judge Tinley has been a strong proponent of economic
I
I~ development in Kerr County and the city of Kerrville, and in
the whole. And the -- the comments that Commissioner Letz
made with respect to economic development that's going to
take place in the eastern part of the county is going to be
very major over time, and -- and very much a part of that is
the infrastructure project that we are undertaking, and the
Judge has been a strong supporter of that. So, I heartly
endorse Judge Tinley being our representative to Economic
Development.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second.
3-22-10
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you,
gentlemen. We appreciate you being here.
MR. ARMSTONG: Thank you, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a couple of 10 o'clock
items. The first one is-Item 12; we'll go to that now.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to award the
annual material bids for road base, cold mix, aggregate,
emulsion oil, and corrugated metal pipe. Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Good morning, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, sir.
MR. ODOM: On March the 8th, the last Commissioners
Court, you opened the bids. We've had time to review those,
and we recommend the awards as follows: Corrugated pipe,
Contech Construction Products, Inc. Base material, Allen
Keller was low bid, but we also ask the Court to have
Wheatcraft, Incorporated, as a backup, depending upon the
location, because of the freight. We've done that in the
past. Allen Keller would be the first choice. Martin
Marietta gave us a bid, but that bid was f.o.b. San Antonio.
I don't think that's feasible, so they're not in the running
there. I don't wish to run my trucks to San Antonio to get
base. Emulsion was Ergon Asphalt and Emulsions, Inc.
3-22-10
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
Asphalt products, black base, was Vulcan Construction
~~ Materials. Cold mix was Martin Marietta, and paving
aggregate was Vulcan Construction Materials. You have the
backup data that we have, and last year's bid. You can see
that we continue with -- the asphalt products are escalating.
We're over $2 a gallon now. I think in the last four years,
from my memory, I think we've gone from around upper 80's to
$2. And in 2008, we had a barrel of oil at 147, and we have
it now around $80, $85, and we're still above where we were
in 2008. So, all the products, everything is going up, which
we'll do the best we can when we -- it's just getting mare
difficult to keep your preventive maintenance up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard, who is the pipe?
~ Who did you -- corrugated metal pipe?
MR. ODOM.: Contech is a contractor out of west
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the corrugated pipe, there's
a difference in the spread of those.
MR. ODOM: Sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The spread on the corrugated
pipe I thought was pretty large.
MR. ODOM: It is large.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Surprising.
MR. ODOM: I really was -- Wilson sometimes comes
3-22-10
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
in or doesn't, and that spread is getting -- well,
commodities, when you hear things now, commodity prices are
going up. What you're seeing is people anticipating either a
great revamp of the economy, or inflation, and I think it's
probably looking at inflation. Dr. Odom here. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: They've got a pretty good economics
department down there at Brazos Bottom, don't they?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, they do. They stick you to it
pretty good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move we accept the
recommendation of the Road and Bridge Administrator.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to accept
the recommendation of the Road and Bridge Administrator for
materials as indicated. 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 carries. We'll go to
Item 13, again a 10 o'clock timed item. Consider, discuss,
take appropriate action to amend the contract with Tetra
Tech, Inc., to accommodate a revised scope of work for
engineering services relating to Kerrville South Wastewater
3-22-10
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Project to Ranchero Road elements. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. This
hopefully will be the last time we have to bring this to the
Court, and we can proceed. Just a little bit of history.
We've had a -- to say "difficult" would be an understatement,
but a rather intricate and lengthy set of circumstances and
negotiations and discussions involving the property owner of
Oak Grove Mobile Home Park for expansion of an existing
utility easement, the City of Kerrville with respect to its
ability to maintain a sewer line in a 10-foot easement or its
inability to maintain a-sewer line in a 10-foot easement,
with property owners with respect to taking a major piece of
their property if we continue to examine putting that pipe in
an extended utility easement behind their property and behind
the Oak Grove Mobile Home Park. And, finally, that has led
us to reexamining placing that service line on the Ranchero
', Road side of those eight -- eight dwellings that comprise a
block between Highway 16 on Ranchero Road and Ripplewood.
There are eight pieces of property that -- that are part of
the funding of the grant we received to wind up the Kerrville
South wastewater project. The other element is the mobile
home park -- what's the name of it, Keller?
MR. DROZDICK: The --
3-22-10
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
And that one's okay. Now, we've examined this and reexamined
Mr. Voelkel to check his records going back to the date when
his father was involved in the relocation of Ranchero Road or
the movement Ranchero Road, and we have discovered -- with
', Mr. Odom's help and Mr. Voelkels' help, we have discovered
I that there is sufficient right-of-way owned by the County on
the Ranchero Road side to be able to accommodate this
particular service line. The service line would be laid in
front of those homes, and in each of the locations of those
24
25 while;
3-22-10
MR. DROZDICK: Certainly. We haven't had this in a
homes, there would be a -- a -- the hookup that would
involve, I guess, a grinder pump to push the material up to
-- to the service line, which would end up going down to
Ripplewood and hooking into the sewer line that's in place on
Ripplewood. I asked Mr. Drozdick, who is our engineer from
Tetra Tech, to be with us this morning, because I figured the
Court was going to have some questions with respect to how
can we do this, and in the amount of utility easement
available to us on Ranchero Road? And so, Keller, without
further ado, if you would be so good as to explain the
revised scope of work and how you see our ability to lay this
sewer line and get this accomplished without a total
disruption of the traffic on Ranchero Road. It's all yours.
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
the concern over the traffic. That's why we spent so much
time trying to get it on the back side of these properties,
away from Ranchero Road. Once that proved nearly infeasible,
we went back and looked at Ranchero Road, and after
investigating with the .surveyor, our on-site investigations,
including review with your Road and Bridge folk, we found two
pleasant surprises. One was that we have about 10 feet of
right-of-way remaining between the right-of-way line and the
curb itself. We spoke to some contractors, particularly one
of the ones that had worked on Phase III, the previous phase.
He indicated he had no problem keeping his construction work
within a 10-foot easement for the kind of pipe we were
proposing, small sewer pipe laid at not too great a depth, so,
he should be able to do that work and stay entirely within
that -- within that boundary, not impacting the traffic
significantly at all.
In addition, we found that the road -- Ranchero
Road in that area is actually quite wide, much wider than
typical for a two-lane. Could put about three or four lanes
in there if you needed to. So, what we're planning on in the
design is the first option being keep all construction within'
the right-of-way. That does incur some additional expense,
scheduled impact, so we will plan for a potential contingency
of having that dump truck traffic be in the road itself, but
only if that does not impact the traffic flow; that any use
3-22-10
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
of the road would require two lanes to be maintained with
thru-traffic at all times. Given the amount of room in that
road, that should be viable, but that would not be allowed
JUDGE TINLEY: Question. What are you looking at,
time frame, for this work to be accomplished?
MR. DROZDICK: Typical is about 12 months start to
finish, but that's for the entire package. This one stretch
I would expect will take about three to six months.
JUDGE TINLEY: What -- do you have a projected
start date? What I'm looking at is, obviously, the school
vacation. That would be an optimum time. If -- if you're
going to have stuff in the way, that would be the time to do
it, because the school traffic is what is the killer there,
coming and going on Ranchero Road.
MR. DROZDICK: We'll try to get this one -- you
know, we've got the survey nailed down. We're planning on
finalizing the design drawings; we're revising them, getting
them back to the City for review. No later than end of next
week, hopefully this week, she can do the review process, get
this out for contract. I'd like to be able to advertise it
in April, will be preferable. One of the constraints on this
is funding. This has been around for a long time; starting
3-22-10
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
to run up against deadlines. There are a lot of forces
pushing us to get the contract out sooner rather than later.
If we can get it out roughly that time frame, it's possible
that, because, Judge, following up on your question, we've
already asked for and received one extension of the grant
funding, and if we don't get the shovel in the ground pretty
quick here on this, we stand to lose the funding, and that
would not be a good thing. The point is, the -- you're
making, Judge, is that if we could accomplish this when,
school's out, that would be so much the better. And I think
what you're indicating, Keller, is that we can do that?
MR. DROZDICK: Looks like it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Particularly by undertaking
that piece first. Or, in the alternative, if we get started
before school is out, to go work on the Southwind part,
because they're really two separate elements, to finish up
this thing. If we need to start with the Southwind piece,
get that done or well along the way until school is out, and
then -- then undertake this piece the beginning of -- as soon
as school is out, and complete it before school resumes
again, that would be preferable. But bottom line is, we
don't have any other options available. And I want to extend
my thanks at this point to Ms. Bailey. She's been involved
3-22-10
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
with me on numerous meetings, and where we tried to negotiate
an extension or an addition to the existing utility easement
next to Oak Grove Mobile Home Park, to no avail. The owner
of that park has an inflated understanding of what he thinks
the value of his property is. And -- (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a nice way to put it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I don't see the Caunty
participating in making him a little richer by -- by
purchasing any more easement from him. .This is a viable
solution. If the Court will approve the extension and
revised scope of work, we can get moving forward. And, if
necessary, we'll break the thing into two sections to
accomplish the point the. Judge has made with respect to
traffic.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, back on the school
some, as long as there is no work on the road, you know,
during the -- 7:00 in the morning to 9:00, or -- and then
2 o'clock on. I mean, there can be a window in the middle of
the day when it could be used if needed, if you need to go
that route, and that should be part of any contract. That if
it is -- you know, to at least keep that road completely free
at opening and closing of the school. Another question I had
is, one of you mentioned -- I think Bill mentioned grinder
pumps that would then pump the -- pump some of the -- pump
3-22-10
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21-
22
23
24
25
the waste up to this line. I'm guessing that's going to cost
more to the property owners than would a gravity flow to the
back side of the property. Who pays for that additional
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The hookups are part of the
grant, because all these properties are eligible for the
grant funding, so that should be borne by the grant.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Does the -- the
operating cost of those pumps --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then that becomes the
property owners' responsibility, ongoing operating expense.
But the installation cost is borne by the grant. Once it's
in, we don't -- you know, we're finished as far as the County
and the project is concerned. We have no further involvement
in terms of the operational, anything that takes place
operationally.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this is part of the -- of
-- I guess I'm -- well, I'm sure the City will it do in .their
review, anyway, of this plan. But it just seems if you have
these pumps that are the responsibility of the homeowners, I
just want to make sure that it's not going to -- all of a
sudden, the pump goes out; the person doesn't fix it, and
then we have a new problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that would be the
individual homeowner's problem if that were allowed to
3-22-10
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
happen, and I would think that common sense would dictate
that we get that fixed and get that moving again. But that
is a property owner's obligation after it's hooked up. And I
want to say one other thing -- thank you, Commissioner. I
want to say one other thing with respect to involvement by
our friends from the City. The engineering department has
been very helpful. They laid forth their case that they
cannot maintain that line in the utility easement that
currently exists back there. There's just not room enough to
be able to service that line under any circumstances. And
the last meeting we had on the -- on the site, the County --
and I'm not sure -- a whole bunch of us, but the City
indicated this was a preferred option and that this would
pose no problems for ongoing service.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is it you're asking us
to approve today?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Revision of the scope of
work, which is to their engineering. That will allow us to
move forward with this exclusion, putting the line in on the
Ranchero side.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The 10-foot easement that
somebody can work inside of?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
MR. DROZDICK: Well --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is a county easement, so
3-22-10
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: The enlargement of the scope of work
would increase the engineering services, but those two would
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As a matter of fact, it's
probably going to be paid for out of the match that U.G.R.A.
provided some time ago. We were talking to Ms. Hargis about
that, but U.G.R.A. put up a $25,000 match before they
transferred that system to the city of Kerrville some time
ago. And that's been -- it was tendered to us some time ago,
and received and acknowledged, so those dollars are in place.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that the Court
approve the agenda item revising the scope of work for
engineering services relating to Kerrville South Wastewater
Project, and Ranchero Road elements.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded 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: All opposed, same sign.
3-22-10

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
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Why don't we
take about a 15-minute recess.
(Recess taken from 10:34 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to order, if
we might, please, get back onto our agenda. We will pick
back up with Item 5; to consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on reducing the registration fee to one
dollar for a rabies clinic at Doyle Community Center on April
the 10th, 2010. Ms. Whitt?
MS. WHITT: Actually, that date has been changed to
the 24th instead of the 10th. Dr. Barbutti will not be
available on April 10th. And, as I mentioned during last --
briefly during last Commissioners Court, we're wanting to put
on a small rabies clinic at the Doyle Community Center, and
we're asking that you consider reducing the registration fee
to one dollar for that day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Bailey, is it going to be
necessary that we re-agenda that item for the 24th? 'Cause
it is specific as to the 10th.
MS. BAILEY: It probably is. You could approve it
and then come back and ratify the change in date at another
time, but you probably need to fix it in another meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: What you're saying is approve the
3-22-10
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
item at a date to be determined by Animal Control Department?
MS. BAILEY: Yeah, because you have the -- you
still have time before that new date to come back and -- and F
specify the date -- correct the date.
JUDGE TINLEY: Would it not be just as easy to wait
until the 12th of April?
MS. BAILEY: You could do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: 'And just do the whole thing then?
MS. BAILEY: That would be probably just as good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Unless she needs this time
frame of getting things set up with doctors.
MS. WHITT: Well, and that's why I believe
Dr. Barbutti moved it to the 24th. That would give us a
little bit more time to advertise in that area, and then get
things, you know, set up and all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, what you're looking at is
the 24th, but an expression of interest from this Court as to
the willingness to having a reduced registration fee --
MS. WHITT: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- of one dollar at that particular
location at a future date to be determined by you?
MS. WHITT: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have any
negative thoughts about that?
3-22-10
"7 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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. I think that we've
always -- we've always participated in that type of program.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that good enough for you?
MS. WHITT: Yes, sir. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Thank you, ma'am. Let's
go to Item 6 then; consider, discuss, take appropriate action
to allocate funding for -- from the 2007 or 2010 capital.
funds and approve air duct cleaning of the courthouse and
jail.
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir. Thank you, Judge. Here a
couple weeks ago, we had a problem over in County Court at
Law'with Judge Brown. We cleaned out his duct system. And
we had that problem -- we don't have that problem any more.
Here a couple months ago, we had a problem over in the
clerk's office where we had a smell coming in that office.
We .could not find it. So, I know it's coming out of that
duct work. So, the only way I know to resolve this problem
is to clean the ducts here at the courthouse, and to clean
the ducts at the jail while we're at it. I have taken the
time to get two bids. I have one bid from -- from Cornbread
and Sons, and I have another bid from Steamatic and Airtech.
Airtech and Steamatic will work together on this project. ,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's your recommendation?
MR. BOLLIER: My recommendation is Steamatic and
Airtech. But the only way we can go forward with this
3-22-10
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
project is if Jeannie, our Auditor, to find the money.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a pretty good thing
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hargis? Got any ideas for us?
MS. HARGIS: Well, we have some items on the 2010
-- I mean 2009 bond issue that we could use, but we need to
wait just a little bit longer to make sure that those items
are complete, that being the: radios, and there's some money
left from radios. There's some money left in some of the
automobiles, but I haven't found 30,000 yet. I can come up
with about 10. I haven't found the full 30,000. So, we do
have -- of course, we know the building out -- the annex is
costing us a lot less, but I didn't know if we wanted to use
any of those funds or not. So, there is some money there,
but I -- there's projects still outstanding, and I want to be
sure those are complete.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Bonier, are the different
locations broken down separately under these proposals?
MR. BOLLIER: Just -- just one is. Cornbread and
Sons has broke it down. Now, Steamatic and Airtech did not
break it down; they just give me one complete bid for both
places.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
3-22-10
"7 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
MS. BAILEY: Did we go out for bids on this?
JUDGE TINLEY: No. It's just -- they just --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Under 50,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- solicited quotes.
MR. BOLLIER: It's under 50,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much?
MR. BOLLIER: The Steam -- Steamatic and Airtech
were 29,000 and some change, and Cornbread and Sons was
almost 32,000. And Airtech and Steamatic, they're going a
little bit further than what Cornbread and Sons were going
to, because Cornbread cannot tou-ch my -- the A/C units,
because they're not licensed to do so. That's the reason
that Steamatic and Airtech are doing this -- are doing this
together, so that way Airtech can come in, check the
air-conditioners, and they're coming and doing it all and
making sure that all coils are clean, and everything else in
that air-conditioner is clean.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's the subcontractor and
who's the contract with?
MR. BOLLIER: Airtech.
JUDGE TINLEY: They're our current provider for
HVAC services under our master bid program. Ms. Hargis, do
you suppose it might be necessary -- it might be that by next
meeting, you could --
MS. HARGIS: Let me review some items, bring them
3-22-10
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: So, let me make sure that the items
that I know where we have some surplus are complete. Some of
the cars are coming in now. I want to make sure that the
cost factor on those is -- is what we have budgeted, and then
we'll bring back those areas where I know that there's
surplus and have you approve it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. And, Mr. Bonier,
the other thing I would ask you to do is see if you can get
Steamatic/Airtech to segregate theirs as between jail and
courthouse. We may want to do this in two increments.
MR. BOLLIER: Okay. I can do that, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's -- can you do that?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir, I will.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And we'll take a look at it
come April 12th.
MR. BOLLIER: Okay. Thank you, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Let's go to Item 7;
consider, discuss, take appropriate action on problems
associated with new telephone system. I have here
Commissioner Baldwin, Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When did you move?
3-22-10
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
78
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm still trying to get
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:' I've observed you all this
time, and I found out if I just keep chipping away, I'll end
up with something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It will be a long slog,
Commissioner. Keep on going.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't give up easy. Now,
when we put this on here, I -- we had some telephone
problems. Do we have telephone problems today?
MR. TRAINUM: Not that I -- that I'm aware of. We
actually -- I mean, everything in our help desk and the punch
list that I.T. gave us has been completed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. The one that -- the
complaint that stood out in my mind was in the County Clerk's
office. Like, if the phone's ringing, a clerk is sitting
there and hears the phone ringing somewhere in there.
MR. TRAINUM: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She couldn't tell whose
phone by looking at her phone. She -- nothing blinked or not
the correct one blinked or something like that.
MR. TRAINUM: I was never made aware of that issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that still a problem?
MS. PIEPER: It's the ring tones that is our
3-22-10
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ring tones, okay.
MR. TRAINUM: And generally, my company never
covers ring tones, 'cause it is a user setting. I showed
I I.T. Department how to upload the ring tones to the phone and
change them, so --
MS. BAILEY: We're still having the problem of
people calling in and ringing a couple of times and
disconnecting or going straight to voice mail when we're
sitting there, and our phone doesn't ring.
MR. TRAINUM: I need to know which phones are doing
that. I --
MS. BAILEY: I know Barbara's did last week, and
mine does it on a pretty regular basis. The other ones may
as well; I don't know.
MR. TRAINUM: But, I mean, it's hard for me to fix
a problem if I don't know about it.
MS. BAILEY: We notified you of that one, Drew.
MR. TRAINUM: Right, but .you didn't tell me which
phones. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Would it be appropriate if any of
these malfunctions, that we keep a master list going with
I.T.? Wouldn't that be the logical place?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what we do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
3-22-10
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~, MS. HYDE: That's what he's got.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And for some reason, we
can't get over the hump.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm particularly interested about
this fax issue that we've heard so much about.
MS. PIEPER: The echo and the fax.
MS. HYDE: The echo and fax.
MR. TRAINUM: The echo's the T-1. Right now, .like,
let's say someone calls 792-2257; 257 is the identifier for
that line. So what's happening is, the way it's coming in is
it's coming in as 2, 25, 257. It's sending three packets for
every one packet. Which I have no control over that. That's
something that's on Windstream.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the -- PSI?
MR. TRAINUM: The PRI.
JUDGE TINLEY: The PRI. That's going to solve that
~ problem?
MR. TRAINUM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Irrespective where we procure that,
that's going to solve that problem?
MR. TRAINUM: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: But that's what it's going to take
to solve the problem?
MR. TRAINUM: Right, and that also should fix most
of the problems with the outgoing faxes, 'cause right now,
3-22-10
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
all your incoming lines are coming -- a majority of the
incoming lines are coming in on that T-l. All the outgoing
lines are coming in on POTS -- or going out on POTS lines, or
plain old telephone lines. So, when you get a PRI, it's a
dual-channel, which means both your incoming and outgoing are
handled by the same one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tell us what PRI is,
~ please.
i voice.
I circuit.
MR. TRAINUM: It's 100 percent digital circuit for
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: T00 percent digital
MR. TRAINUM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is not what we
currently have?
MR. TRAINUM: Y'all have an RBS T-1.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that is?
MR. TRAINUM: It's a 20-year-old model of the T-1
that's never been upgraded.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What?
MR. TRAINUM: It's the way they did the T-1's 20
years ago.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not digital?
MR. TRAINUM: It's partially digital.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Partially digital.
3-22-10
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TRAINUM: Right. That's the main issue, is
it's not 100 percent digital.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it's in the plans to
~ upgrade that anyway, isn't it?
MR. TROLINGER: I'm doing my best to get the item
approved, yes, sir. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Keep trying.
MR. TROLINGER: I feel ill prepared this week. I
~ apologize.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; Don't give up, John.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to work on that some
more, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you finished,
Commissioners, down there? The -- when I call in and try to
get Jody -- usually it's -- 90 percent of the time, that's
who I'm trying to get on the phone. The -- the recording,
the hold music or recording music is -- it is just awful, and
loud.
MR. TRAINUM: I changed the volume of the holm
music. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You mean that jazz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that's not on that list,
John? That's my --
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir, I believe that was
resolved on Friday.
3-22-10
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TRAINUM: Yes, it was Friday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, I'll call in and find
I out .
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Call and see.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you talking about that
jazz stuff?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know what it was. I
couldn't hear, it was so loud.
MR. TRAINUM: It's now -- it's acoustic guitar now,
i so --
MS. PIEPER: Our headsets are not working, either,
like they used to.
MR. TRAINUM: Yes. And -- okay, I got a printout
from Plantronic that says those_head sets are compatible.
Also, too, in the manuals to those headsets, it says you
should only use the headset part if you're not using
automatic handset lifter, and if you have a preprogrammed
headset button on the phone. In this configuration, you must
press the headset button on your phone and the call control
button on the headset to answer incoming calls. So,
therefore, the handsets are -- the headsets are working as
described in the manual.
MS. PIEPER: Well, used to we could be across the
room; if our phone rang, we could just punch the button.
MR. TRAINUM: You had lifters on them.
3-22-10
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. PIEPER: But even with my lifter, I can't do
MR. TRAINUM: You should. Then it's hooked up
wrong. If you're using your lifter, you have to actually
plug it into the handset, not headset.
MS. PIEPER: Okay, I'll doublecheck that.
MS. HYDE: Okay, it's already double-checked on
these. It's already plugged in; those little headset things
pop up like they're supposed to. The bottom line is we paid
$300 and $400 so that people can be mobile.
MR. TRAINUM: Right.
MS. HYDE: And -- excuse me. And we've talked
ringing when we're 50 yards away, it was very nice to be able
to answer those people, the public when they called, or
employees when they called. And now what we're being told is
we need to be sitting at our desk, push that little button,
push another button -- and they don't work. Bottom line,
they don't work. You yourself told me in my office that they
wouldn't work; that that was not how they were designed.
MR. TRAINUM: I told you that they would work
according to this. You hear sound through them. You can
talk back and forth through them. They work.
MS. HYDE: As long as we're sitting at the desk
3-22-10
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pushing the buttons every single time.
MR. TRAINUM: But can you get up and walk around
while you're talking after the --
MS. HYDE: After we answer the phone.
MR. TRAINUM: Well, then they work.
MS. HYDE: That's not-what it was doing.
MR. BOLLIER: I want to go back to the fax machine.
I got to go back to -- my fax machine is a crucial part of my
work, because all my work orders come in on my fax machine.
My fax machine hasn't worked in over a month, and it still
doesn't work. And., yes, I have asked you about it, and yes,
you run a new fax line down to my fax machine, but my fax
machine does not work. Now, when all these 300-plus ladies
that work for Kerr County start getting on me, I'm going to
send them to you, my friend.
MR. TRAINUM: Well, your fax machine -- I didn't
know that it didn't work after you ran the fax line.
MR. BOLLIER: I told you, Drew. I --
MR. TRAINUM: I never got --
MR. BOLLIER: I'm not in here for an argument, but
I'm telling you now, my fax machine doesn't work, and I need
it fixed.
MR. TRAINUM: Okay, I will look at it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Get those in writing to
Mr. Trolinger. All these issues on malfunctions, get them to
3-22-10
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Trolinger. As you can tell, Drew, we're -- we're getting
some frustration levels here that are higher than I want to
contend with.
MR. TRAINUM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And I want performance. I want
these things operating properly. I understand the -- going
from the T-1 to the PRI is another issue, and we got to get
that solved, and we will get that solved.
MR. TRAINUM: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: But these things that are not
dependent upon that, those need to be resolved forthwith. ,
MR. TRAINUM: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you got to stay down here, you
know, through the middle of the night, that's -- so be it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I want to go back to
~ my letter --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that I brought up last
time, and Drew was not in this room. This is a letter to l
Drew from acting County Attorney Bailey, and it was mailed on
February 24th, and it says, "Please be advised that if you
cannot provide the Commissioners Court and the I.T.
Department with some real and immediate assurance that the
remaining items will be addressed to their satisfaction
within the next ten days, it may become necessary for the
3-22-10
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Court to exercise its available options to have the system
completed by another vendor. If this becomes necessary, any
damages, including additional costs to the County, will
become your financial responsibility." Now, that -- that was
26 days ago. She gave you 10 days to get 'er done.
MR. TRAINUM: And those were completed for the.
majority of the 10 days.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And today is 26 days, and
we're in here .fussing. And I'm not saying -- I'm not saying
we need to cut you off and hire somebody else. I'm not...
saying that. But I'm saying that that's coming.
MR. TRAINUM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we don't get this stuff
fixed pretty dadgum quick. I mean, this is not a school
class -- playground. This is a government. We've got to be~
up and running.
MR. TRAINUM: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Thank you for your
time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have
anything further on that? Let's move to Item 9; consider,
discuss, take appropriate action to replace current Pitney
Bowes postage meter with a new meter, enter into a new
contract, authorize County Judge to sign same. Ms. Williams?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Good morning, gentlemen.
3-22-10
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Morning.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Morning.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't call us a bunch of
gentlemen.
j MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Unless you want to.
MS. WILLIAMS: Four gentlemen and...
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: We won't go there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Four gentlemen and Buster.
MS. WILLIAMS: And Buster, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Gocd shot.
MS. WILLIAMS: The current Pitney Bowes postage
meter that I have, the contract will be expiring in July of
this year. That machine was down, there when I got there, not
realizing that is actually a commercial contract. That is
why our cost is a little bit higher on it right now. I can
get that one replaced with a new meter which is just one step
down, and it will cost me, if I go with the five-year
contract, the 60-month contract, $53 a month. I'm paying
probably about $70 a month right now. So, I would like to
get the Court's approval to go ahead and change out my
postage meter.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So moved.
3-22-10
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question. This is a government contract subject
to annual appropriation, I assume?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. And I had the County --
the acting County Attorney check the terms and conditions
before I ever put it on the agenda, and she's given it her
blessing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: And it is bid through Buy Board, so
it's already been bid.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you.
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Item 14 is
consider, discuss, take. appropriate action to identify
eligible Kerr County projects for presentation and
consideration by TexDOT at subsequent meetings of the Alamo
Regional Rural Planning Organization. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. As I
indicated two weeks ago, I would bring this back for the
3-22-10
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Court to identify for me any projects that fall under the
categories that we've outlined in the backup statement;
safety projects, bridge structure replacement or
rehabilitation, on- or off=system, either one, preventive
maintenance or rehab projects, which could include
sealcoating, road-widening projects, storm-related projects,
and if you wish for it to be considered, I've given you a
co of the District Engineer's letter with respect to the
pY
great program TexDOT has called High Dollar Pass-Through,
which means we pay, they reimburse, sometimes in your
lifetime. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Somebody's lifetime.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somebody's lifetime. So,
if we have any of those, if you'll give them to me before
next Wednesday -- not before, a week from this Wednesday,
when we have the next A.A.R.P.O.,meeting with the District
Engineer, I'll be happy to advance them on behalf of Kerr
County. That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're merely making a request to
the various commissioners as to their own precincts?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just give me a note, tell
me what it is. We'll go from there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further, gentlemen? Let's
move on to 15; consider, discuss; take appropriate action to
approve concurring with waiver request for well location in
3-22-10
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hill Country Ranch Estates. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I apologize for the wording on
that. I think a few words might have got left out somewhere
during the translation, but what we're talking about here is
120 Riojas, Hill Country Ranch Estates. There's a property
there, and they want to drill a well. There is a --
', Headwaters has a setback requirement from the property line
to get a well permit. We are the property line owners,
'cause it's the county right-of-way that they need the
setback from. They physically cannot get a well location
that required setback requirement under Headwaters rules from
the front property -- or from our county right-of-way. So,
what the -- they can get it about 40 feet off the road. I
think it's -- I believe it's 75 foot is their standard --
what they require. But to process this application, they --
Headwaters doesn't have any problem with it, but we need to
give a -- grant a waiver to let them locate the well closer
than the minimum required Headwaters rules, and that will
come in the -- the actual waiver will come in the form of a
property line separation request from Headwaters at the time
that they actually need it. And I'll make a motion that we
~ authorize the County Judge to sign the property line
separation request granting the waiver to let the property
owner at 120 Riojas locate their well closer to the county
right-of-way.
3-22-10
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Further question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's 40 feet now?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's going to be about 40 feet
where they need to put it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's going to be about '40
I feet .
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I cannot remember what the
setback requirement is. I think it's --
MS. BAILEY: I thought 40.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe it's 50 feet.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what I thought.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, they want to get
whatever the minimum is that Headwaters requires. And
Headwaters -- Gene Williams looked at it, and they just..--
the rig falls off a cliff, literally. I mean, the way the
lot is configured.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't think it would be
important to put a particular figure in there from what we're
going to allow? Or just --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- give them whatever?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could -- I think that's a
good point. We could add to it that it will be as far from
3-22-10
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the property line as possible, and in no event closer than
30 feet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There you go. Fantastic.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I like that. Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, that's your corrected
motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Very well. And we have a second?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: 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 carries. We'll go to
Item 16; to consider, discuss, take appropriate action on
status of ETJ agreement with the city of Kerrville.
Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This has been a fast-moving
target recently. You might recall that at our last court
meeting, I gave an update that Councilman Motheral and myself
met on the 25th of -- I guess we were going to meet on the
25th of February to go over it, and we did that. At that
meeting, we agreed to meet the following Wednesday, which was
3-22-10
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
March 2nd, with Mike Hayes and Ilse Bailey at that meeting,
because there were some legal issues that had come up,
primarily related to the model subdivision rules that Kerr
County has adopted as being a Subchapter C county, or under
Chapter 232, and also some other requirements just of state
law, legal issues that both Councilman Motheral and I thought
were appropriate to get answered, because we were for the
most part very close, other than some verbiage changes, to
working out a blended set of agreements.
The following -- last City Council meeting, which,
~I I guess, was March 9th, I wasn't present, but evidently
Councilman Motheral came in and wanted to go -- a
recommendation, from what I've been told, to go to
arbitration, and a lot of comments were made about how
difficult I was to work with, and they were frustrated and on
and on about that. And it took me by -- by shock when I got
that, and I was -- obviously, I wasn't very happy. I
probably said some things that I probably shouldn't have.
But Bruce never brought up at their Council meeting that we
were currently waiting on the City Attorney to give us some
information on some legal issues that are very critical to
this whole process. And at that meeting, the joint meeting,
it was clearly said, in my opinion, anyway, that -- I think
Ilse can say if it wasn't -- that we were very close on the
issues of roads and drainage and all that. We were --
3-22-10
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
basically had an agreement on those. There were some things
we had to work out, but these legal issues were very
One of them is -- and it's in the current draft
that -- well, let me go back a little bit further. There are
two things that have happened since then. Last Thursday, a
lengthy document was provided to me and I think the rest of
the Court from the City Manager, which contained a new
agreement -- new draft agreement. And then on Saturday,
Councilman Motheral revised that agreement again and sent
over a new version again of the draft. So, I haven't really
looked at the final draft, other than looking through it off
and on during the break today, trying to see what changes
were made and not made. Needless to say, you know,
basically, I got it this morning when I walked in, the final
version. By glancing at it, there are still things that
would put us in violation of state law that we clearly, in my
opinion, cannot sign; would put us in violation of model
subdivision rules, which puts us in violation of Chapter 232,
Subchapter C. And I don't think -- you know, therefore, I
cannot support going through with this.
I'm currently in a discussion on a lot of these
issues, both with the Attorney General's office and the Water
Development Board's legal staff, and pretty much they flat
told me last week that we woul-d be in violation if we went
3-22-10
y6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
forward with this agreement right now. So, clearly, we -- in
my opinion, I can't approve this document. And I've got some
other problems. As a lot of you know, they're fairly minor
from the standpoint of, you know, getting -- moving forward,
but they need to be resolved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, would you give us an
example of what it is that we would be -- the state law is in
place, and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The most clear one is that. the
model subdivision rules require that we enforce a provision
that there is only one dwelling or residential unit per lot.
The draft came in from the City is on -- goes up to four,
four residential units per lot. That's a conflict. I mean,
and it may be something that can be worked out between, you
know, the agreement and the Water Development Board's legal
staff, but it's something we can't approach. And I don't
think this document -- I mean, unless we adopt the model
subdivision rules completely into this agreement, it has to
go to Water Development Board's legal counsel for approval,
because we don't have authority to change that. Some other
areas that are broad areas of concern, I think we all know
there's a series of exemptions that are allowed to all
property owners outside of municipalities under 232 --
Chapter 232, such as if you finance it through the Veterans
Land Board, you're exempt from platting. Those are not part
3-22-10
~~ 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I don't understand how a county -- how we can enter
-- and there's 12 or so exemptions, I believe. I don't
understand how we can enter into an. agreement that tells the
citizens of Kerr County that, you know, they're not -- they
don't have to comply with state law, or we're going to, you
know, put them in a position where they're not going to be
able to get the exemptions that the state law gives them.
And the issue comes in that those exemptions aren't under
212, which are the city's rules. And, you know, Kevin
Coleman -- I see him nodding. We've talked about these
things a year and a half now, and -- some of these. So,
anyway, they're things that just need to be resolved. I
thought we were very close. Councilman Motheral evidently
feels otherwise. And the document that was received from the
City Manager last week, the recommended action is that they
basically approve the draft document and send it to us, give
us 30 days. If we don't approve it, we go to arbitration.
Well, since I don't think we can approve it, 1:
think we just go to arbitration today. If the City doesn't
want to sit down and continue to negotiate, which they
evidently don't, let's go to arbitration and start Phase 3 of
these things, which should not be that difficult. I think
it's sad, to me, that we can't get there. My opinion is that
one of the biggest problems is that I've been very close to
3-22-10
r,~ g
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
having agreements with City staff, and then it gets to City
Council and it falls apart. I had a meeting -- when I talked
with Todd Parton on March 3rd, I believe -- no, it was
March 4th. No, excuse me, it was .after City Council; it was
the 11th. He made the comment to me -- it really telling.
He goes, "I don't understand why we can't just come up with a
set of rules that we can agree on. I don't care who enforces
them." I go, "Todd, the issue is Councilman Motheral doesn't
look at it that way. He has been adamant that the rules will
be enforced by the city of Kerrville." So, I mean, right
there -- if we have a City Manager telling me one thing, City
Council saying something different, or one member of City
Council saying something different. So, I mean... Now, I do
agree at this point, I don't think it's productive for
Councilman Motheral and myself to continue to try to work out
a deal, because Councilman Motheral doesn't appear to want to
work out a deal.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that statement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I think that if it --
if I could -- you know, if it .was the City Manager or, you
know, city staff -- I think that Kevin Coleman and I carne
very close to coming to an agreement before. But if Council
is going to continue to want to negotiate a deal -- which, to
me, is not their responsibility, but if they want do it that
way, that's their prerogative, certainly -- I don't see that
3-22-10
99
1
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 there. And that's -- it's sad. I see
Councilperson Keeble in the back of the room. I think it's
right after she was elected to Council last June, she made
the comment, "We'll probably just go to arbitration; we're
not going to get there." And, unfortunately, I think she's
right. I don't think that we're going to be able to get a
deal with -- working with Council one-on-one. I think we can
get a deal working with -- through the City Manager's office,
because I think that, you know, we're there almost right now.
But I don't like ultimatums.
JUDGE TINLEY: Jon, other than the legal issues
occasioned by the model subdivision rules that -- that we
have signed onto as a component of some significant
financing --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- requirements that we have pending
under the Water Development Board, other than those issues
that would revolve around the model subdivision rules, are
there any other major -- well, first, are there other issues?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There are a lot of small
issues. One that's not -- there's a lot of small issues, but
I think they can be resolved. There are things -- I would
want to talk with Len Odom again about some of the
right-of-way widths. These are county -- these are roads in
the E.T.J. that are going to be county responsibility more
3-22-10
1C)0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
than city responsibility. I understand we just need to make.
sure that we're all exactly -- that the County can work on
this situation, and City can. The City has less right-of-way
than the County does on a lot of roads, and I want to make
sure that for a -- while we require a 60-foot right-of-way,
they require a 40-foot. In lots of parts of this county, you
know, 40 foot's not enough. I think the city rules, though,
allow for a greater right-of-way if needed, so I think it can
work. But there's a few things I just want to check off.
There is a provision in there that I'm very happy
that Councilman Motheral has agreed with, is that P & Z,
which is the mechanism under the draft that's being looked at
most right now, does the approval process, but they cannot
approve it until they get a certification from Len Odom that
he's happy with the road construction, things like that. And
that is a big plus. That's something that I've been very
adamant about. But what is not included is how a developer
gets a road from -- going through P & Z system into the
county road system. It's kind of part of the platting
process with us when we're handling it all. But if a
developer -- we have to formally accept a road. We can't
give that authority to P & Z. So, if a development's in the
ETJ and they want it to be a county road, there has to be a
clear way for the developer to -- you know, somewhere in this
process, that they`re going to have to jump from P & Z back
3-22-10
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to the County, and that's not really addressed, other than it
just has to be done. That's pretty much where it is. And I
don't like things that just have to. be done; I like to have
And an issue that I have a little -- a problem
with, and I don't know how we're going to get around it,
'cause I don't -- it doesn't make that much difference to me
if the City administers these rules, but there's some issues
that -- it goes to city -- a lot of the city's subdivision
ordinances refers to city standards, "then current city
standards." We're not approving city standards. We're.
approving an agreement, and the City can change those after
-- you know, as things happen, which then changes the
standards in the county. And I don't know how we get around
that. But I think it's a little bit of an issue. I think we
can work it out, because I think our standards are --
technical issues are very, very close. Drainage, I think
we're almost exactly the same right now. Roads, we're
slightly different, but we're very close. So, I think, to
answer your question, we're almost there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me just throw out a couple of
items here, if I might, Commissioner, dealing with the
acceptance of roads by the County. If the -- if these rules
were to merely make reference that if the road lies within
the county, if they are to be maintained, must be accepted
3-22-10
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for maintenance by the County under existing county
procedures. It just makes a reference over --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: But would that not solve the
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would solve the problem.
You know, so there's lots. I mean, but there's a lot of
things like that. There's one in there on bond requirement
for a road. The bond is -- the bond for a county road is
approved by the City Engineer. Well, no, I don't think that
I want the City -- anybody in the city approving a bond on a
county property. I think it either needs to go to the County
Attorney's office or Auditor, something like that. That's
not a big problem. I think it's easily fixable. I'm sure
when Councilman Motheral wrote this draft, he said, okay,
City Engineer does it for the city; just leave it like that.
So, I mean, they are certainly fixable. And I called these
minor issues; that's what I've said for quite a while, that
we're past the problems on the substantive issues. There are
some substantive legal questions that have to be resolved on
how some of these things are done. Water availability is
another one. You know, I'm not positive on what the City's
authority is on .water availability. All of our rules are
based on lots and water availability. I don't know how the
-- you know, and I just truly don't know. I don't know if
3-22-10
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the City has water availability,	if they	have their --	the
same legal authority that we do	under the	Water Code.	You
know, Kevin's nodding yes, but it's -- we just need to make
sure all of these things are addressed and that they're
looked at legally. Now, I'm not happy with the idea of them
going through P & Z. But the other option was to come up
with another entity, and I don't know that that's any better
either, so I just -- I've agreed. I said yeah, I'll live
with P & Z. I don't like it, but, you know, if that's the
way to get us moving down the road, so be it. But it's just
the -- you know, the approach that Councilman Motheral took
most recently really set me back, and was irritating and
frustrating.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me weigh in also on
what you said earlier, Commissioner, with respect to the
model subdivision rules. In my box this morning was a letter
from Water Development Board with respect to the Center
Point/East Kerr County wastewater project. And we are moving
systematically through their process for planning. And the
letter I have here is a letter confirming approval of the
Section B of the -- of the four-phase planning that we're
engaged in right now. We're undertaking, with the engineer
that was here earlier, Section C and D. The model
subdivision rules are extraordinarily important, and we're
not going to -- at least I'll say this Commissioner is not
3-22-10
1C)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
going to agree to anything that infringes upon our ability to
get this project completed. So, if we have to make some
amendments to this issue in order to find -- or the City has
to make some amendments to this issue for us to find accord,
then so be it. That's the way it has to be, because we're
not going to do anything, in my opinion, that's going to
breach this agreement with Water Development Board to move
this project forward.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess what frustrated me
so much with Councilman Motheral's actions were when we met
five days or six days prior to him changing course at City
Council, their last City Council meeting, what I asked was
for the City Attorney to look at"this and contact the Water
Development Board's attorneys. I mean, they're the ones that
have the ability to approve it. They may look at city
standards and say, "That's good enough for us. We'll sign
off on it." But I don't think the County has authority --
well, I know the County does not have authority to make that
call. That's a call that has to be made by the Water
Development Board's legal staff. And -- you know, and for it
to come up in City Council that -- that I'm throwing out new
things, that bring up -- I brought this up to Councilman
Motheral in our meeting in early November, when I first
brought up the issue of model subdivision rules. And it came
up that he was working off an outdated set of county rules to
3-22-10
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
start with. I said, "No, Bruce,-those aren't the right
rules. You need to get our current set of rules." So, you
know, I truly thought we were there. I think I've told
Council; I've told the Court that yes, it's been a difficult
process working with Councilman Motheral, but we're getting
there. But after this last change by the City, I don't know.
I mean, I think if we're going to work with -- you know,, my
preference would be to work with the City Manager, 'cause I
think we can come up with a resolution then. But I'm not
willing to meet with Councilman Motheral one-on-one any more.
I'll put it that way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Finally said it.
MR. COLEMAN: I don't think you have that date set.
JUDGE TINLEY: Don't think we've got that meeting
firmed up, do you? .
MR. COLEMAN
Might I -- if I can?
JUDGE TINLEY: Surely. Surely.
MR. COLEMAN: Y'all know me, Kevin Coleman with the
City of Kerrville Development Services. This is a tough --
you guys have been on this rope with us for a while. I'm not
certain that -- what I heard Tuesday night, and I was there a
couple Tuesdays ago, was maybe just what you just said, that
the process between you and Councilman Motheral has gone
about as far as it can go. He presented that idea about
bringing it to arbitration, and Council said, well --
3-22-10
1C)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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me say something. That is
not where I was prior to that.
MR. COLEMAN: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we were doing fine.
MR. COLEMAN: That question of applicability of
232, chapter -- or Subchapter C, I'd looked -- it's really
frustrating to me that, you know, we don't operate in a
vacuum. Every county and city in the state does it.
Certainly, we're not the only group that's ever suffered
through this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's a problem all across
MR. COLEMAN: It's a problem all over, but there's
got to be a resolution that we can model here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
MR. COLEMAN: And I don't know -- Jon, you know
well enough how other, even, areas between -- you know, in
kind of our area, how Boerne may do that, or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I can answer the
question, is that generally, statewide -- and I get from the
task force, that state-wide task force I'm on on these
issues, is that generally, it's the municipalities that adopt
the model subdivision rules. Therefore, they change their
ordinances, because you don't get the money without the
rules.
3-22-10
1C~7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. COLEMAN: And is that generally specific to
these areas?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That is --
MR. COLEMAN: Is it tied to those funding cycles?
I mean, is that kind of the path most go down, where -- where
whatever the service area is, that the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It can be that way. It can be
very specific and it can be broader. We are -- our rules
currently require it to be county-wide.
MR. COLEMAN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think -- I mean, I think
it can be resolved. It just can't be resolved by me.
MR. COLEMAN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or Bruce.
MR. COLEMAN: So, that -- that said, I think that
volume of stuff that y'all had gotten from the Manager's
office last week, which really is his effort to kind of
recount some history to you as well, and kind of remind
everybody that we've been in the ditch with this for a while.
And there is more history than the last couple weeks; maybe
raise that conversation to that level. I don't think -- and
you mentioned the third -- I don't know that I've seen a
third kind of agreement floating around out there. But, at
any rate, I don't think an agreement you guys have is one
that the Council is going to entertain the next -- at their
3-22-10
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
108
those are provided more -- more or less as background to this
conversation, general conversation. So, that -- I wanted to
make sure y'all heard that. And -- and, again, I think in
terms of just the details of the blended standards, aside
from maybe a difference between how, from a commissioner's
point of view and a councilman's point of view, we read
what's written, I don't think there's much margin of
difference in that blended standards that kind of has been
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me go back to something,
Kevin, if I might. Recommended action. Staff recommends the
City Council accepts the draft ETJ standards and forward them
with a draft interlocal agreement -- cooperative agreement.
This agreement should including the following items: Number
3, the draft standards dated March 9th, 2010, would be
implemented. That's what the City Manager said.
MR. COLEMAN: Right. Right. And I'll just beg
your forgiveness; I haven't talked one-on-one about this with
City Manager Parton, but will before tomorrow. And so I'm
not sure. I think what he offered out was kind of, you know,
our old interlocal that was an '05 document, one that we kind
of kicked around in the summer months, and we were talking
about sort of a jurisdictional map. As -- to kind of get us
off square one, to get us someplace to go besides
3-22-10
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
arbitration. I think it's clear that, though -- and I guess
bottom line of my message is, if --'if the Court leaves this
solely in Commissioner Letz' hands, and the Council leaves
this discussion solely in Motheral's hands, we will be at
arbitration. So, I --
JUDGE TINLEY: We've come to that conclusion.
MR. COLEMAN: You got that clear? Yeah. And I
think, laying that out just -- again, they did bring it up,
and they mentioned the "A" word, if you will. I don't think
anybody wants to go there. But I think we kind of
collectively need to come up with an alternative path. And
-- and if this subsection -- Subchapter C is a deal killer,
then I think the Council looks for you guys to figure -- or
propose a way that that's worked in other cities or other
city/county relationships that protects y'ap's interests and
the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not so sure that is a
part of other city/county relationships where you're going to
find the answer. The answer is, the problem lies within the
qualifications of the parameters of the EDAP program put
forth by Texas Water Development Board. There are a lot of
cities in the state of Texas and counties that don't have
anything to do with EDAP program. This is very unique and
special, and this Court is very aware of it. So, you know,
let's figure out how we comply with the standards of the EDAP
3-22-10
11.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. COLEMAN: Sure. And I think -- and I don't
mean to discount the uniqueness of it. What I mean to say
is, truly, there's got to be a model we can use where other
folks have broached this hurdle.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could be.
MR. COLEMAN: And -- and if y'all could figure out
a way, or give us a path out of that, then I think --
JUDGE TINLEY: I can give you a path right now, Mr.
Coleman. You put a provision in these rules that,
notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, to the
extent these rules in any manner are in conflict with the
model subdivision rules, and if there's a source of them,
then those model subdivision rules shall prevail. That will
solve the problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:' It will indeed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway, I think they're --
I think we can get there, still. I do agree with you that I
think it's not productive for Councilman Motheral and I to
continue to meet, because I don't think that's going to -- I
don't want to meet with him any more one-on-one. I mean,
I'll be glad to meet with him in a room with some other
people that are witnesses, but I'm not going to meet with him
one-on-one any more, at least not on this issue.
3-22-10
11.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. COLEMAN: Again, we're here to kind of listen
and report back tomorrow night, and so I'll sit back down and
do some listening.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- Mr. Coleman, I think the
big issue is the resolution of these model subdivision rules,
because our funding on this East Kerr project, we have -- we
have tied that to the requirement that we adopt the model
subdivision rules, and have done so, so we've got to keep
those in place. These other issues, I see ways to work
around them. The issue of -- of the standards, for example,
where they're incorporated, as -- insofar as they involve
standards in the ETJ, the standards must be concurred with or
mutually agreed to by City and County. There's all sorts of
things we can do to-get this thing resolved, I think. But
the model subdivision rules, I think, are the real deal
killer, as you mentioned, and we've got to figure out a way
to work around them.
MR. COLEMAN: I got you. And Commissioner Letz did
mention there is a significant difference in just the -- just
the background to how we deal with this. Our subdivision
ordinance is simply just the roadmap for platting. We kind
of lean toward other documents to come up with standards for
improvements and public improvements. Y'all's is all kind of
together in that same rule book. That's been an issue that I
don't think we've settled from the beginning how we
3-22-10
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
incorporate those two significant differences. That -- that
said, I do think, though, that there are -- there's got to be
a path out of here that other folks have used, that we can --
that we can model our path out of. I -- I mean, you guys
know that subchapter better than anybody at the City does,
and so you know that. But I bring that because our rule
book -- and I think what state statute calls for us to do is
make sure that~the platting process follows the same rule
book, not necessarily the improvement process follows the
same rule book. And I think that's been a piece that we've
been hung on for a while. So, you know, where the plat comes
in and how it exits the process is really what we're called
to come together in agreement of. How we handle improvements
tied to those plats, I think we can separate those
conversations. That may be a piece of this solution,
something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- on that point,
Kevin, I think the issue comes a little bit that the -- the
enforcing person in the Water Development Board on model
subdivision rules ties it to platting.
MR. COLEMAN: Right.. I follow you, right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, there -- you know, which I
think is -- is very bad, not because of our problem. They've
got -- those rules are -- we're looking at some of those
rules too, because they're onerous, very onerous on
3-22-10
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
developers, cities, counties, on how you handle them. There
are situations where you have septic systems that have had to
be bonded in developments, and the governmental entity,
whether it be the city or county, are having to keep track of
all these bonds right now. So, I mean, there's -- you know,
there's -- but the reality is that those are the model rules,
and we're working through it. Fortunately, the State
realized there's a problem, and that's why myself and 22 of
my best friends up there -- if you think these meetings .are
contentious, you ought to see some of those in Austin. We're
trying to write a new set of model subdivision rules and redo
Subchapter B and C right now.
But, you know, the historical perspective a little
bit, I think it is good to look at, 'cause I know that some
members of Council said publicly that this has been going on
for'five years. Well, that's really not accurate. We had a
deal in 2005, and it went for a while. And if you look at
the records of it, and when we started having problems was
when we adopted the model subdivision rules, and all of a
sudden we weren't in compliance any more. That has been the
issue, the driving thing that has -- that was why we had to
cancel the agreement, because we were not in compliance. In
2008, when we came to realize it, we had to cancel the
agreement, you know. And it was a -- several mechanisms were
tried by the County, including a -- a court order in January
3-22-10
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of 2009 asking then City Manager Don Davis to go into kind of
an interim process. That was never acted on by City Council.
So, I think that there is some value to looking at the
historical part, but there's a reason it fell apart -- two
reasons, in my mind. One, there was just some problems with
the way it was being implemented by the City, and the other
problem was model subdivision rules, which is most important
to the County.
I think that -- you know, I know that some feel
that I'm hard-headed. Probably most in the room may think
that way. But I also think -- you know, hopefully Kevin
would agree that I'm reasonable. I mean, 'cause he and I
have talked hours and hours and hours on this, and we don't
always agree, but I think we've come pretty close to figuring
out that we've-got to get this done. And I was -- you know,
all I intended to do at our meeting of -- when I had the City
Manager and City Attorney present, and Bruce -- Councilman
Motheral, was to say these legal points, including the model
subdivision rules, have to be addressed. And for four
months, Councilman Motheral had not addressed those. And one
other point, and then I'll be quiet on this issue. A lot was
made -- or some was made at City Council meeting, from my
understanding, about that I said I was writing a different
set of rules. Councilman Motheral and I decided early on
that .the best way to come up with a set of rules, so we
3-22-10
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
didn't miss things, he took essentially the city ordinance
and blended it to the county. I took essentially the county
ordinance and blended it to the city. That was the only way
that we could both be sure that we weren't going to mess
something, because our rules are very different. Councilman
Motheral got his done first, so we have been working off of
his draft, because I didn't see a whole lot of point in
having two. And when I made the comment that I'm working
on -- going through the same process while -- you know, based
on more the county set of rules, you know, he knew this all
along, which is frustrating. It came across all of a sudden
that I was going to drop a new set of rules on them. Well,
no. I've told them all along that I was doing a different
set of rules so that we can make sure we weren't missing
anything. So, it just seems like it's -- you know, I hope we
can get through this. But I would like some guidance
tomorrow night, 'cause I will be going to City Council.
AUDIENCE: Oh, no.
JUDGE TINLEY: Behave..
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, be your usual
lovable self.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, I think that there's
a -- I have a -- I've been told some things that were said at
Council meeting, but I wasn't present, but I do have a tape
3-22-10
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of that portion of the meeting; I will listen to it before
'Cause I want to know exactly what
two Council people in particular said.
JUDGE TINLEY: County Attorney? I'm sorry.
MS. BAILEY:, I'd just like to reiterate, because I
was at the meeting with the City Attorney and Councilman
Motheral and Commissioner Letz, .that it was very clear to me
that -- when we left that meeting on March 2nd, that no
further action was going to be taken until the two attorneys
had an opportunity to review and perhaps come to some kind of
recommendation on what needed to happen on the legal issues.
It was very cordial. And since then, this is my first having
heard about anything-going to Council, any discussion in
Council. So, I believe that that -- that part of the
process, in my mind, was a little bit out of line from what
we had agreed on in the meeting on March the 2nd. So, it's
not just Commissioner Letz's perception; that's exactly what
was going on.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think on the -- you
said to behave.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What does that mean?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, is it the -- I think we
need to	have a -	- at	this	point, it'	s been	going on a long
period	of time.	If	we're	not going	to go	to arbitration,
3-22-10
1.17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
which I'm getting the sense from the Court that that's not
the avenue to go, I think we need a little bit of a revision
to the process of it just being myself and Councilman
Motheral, because that has become a -- in the last two weeks,
has become a major obstacle. I don't know if it needs to be
the -- someone from the County Attorney's office, another
member of the Court, Len Odom. I mean, I'll be glad to have
someone from here. I think, in my mind, from the City --
it's the City's decision on their side, but it should be the
City Manager or Kevin Coleman should be in attendance.
They're the ones that do it. But -- I'll be glad to go do it
alone, but if the City's perception is that I'm, you know,
the problem, well, let's bring someone else from the county
over there, and have, you know, Councilman -- sorry,
Commissioner Baldwin and myself. We started out meeting with
Councilmen Hamilton and Motheral.. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Didn't take me long.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Didn't take long. He said it
wasn't going to go anywhere, so I continued to follow up with
that. So, I think that we need to have a -- I would like to
have something to go to Council and say, "There is a problem
in the process. Here is what the County would like to have
go forward." And -- because I would rather be speaking from
the county standpoint rather than just Commissioner Letz.
So, if y'all would give me some guidance, I'd appreciate it.
3-22-10
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like there's some
beer involved here, far as I'm concerned. I bet you that
they're going to think through all this stuff, everything
that you've said today. They'll have to get the minutes to
get through it all, though. But I would be willing to bet
you that there's going to be a solution from their side as
far as whether we like Bruce or not -- Motheral. And --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thank you. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we like Councilman
Motheral, and I think he's going to be part of the solution
from the city standpoint. He should be. He's part of
Council. But, you know, it's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As far as you and him
working one-on-one, --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- I think that they will
come up with some kind of solution to that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think your -- your point
is valid, Commissioner, about the makeup of the negotiating
team. And as far as I'm concerned, I -- I trust you
implicitly in this matter, and I want to see you --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:- Bill, don't get carried
away.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to see you continue.
However, I think that maybe the County Attorney being your
3-22-10
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that's the only way
you're going to get through it, you know, prior to
arbitration. Hopefully it'll happen before it goes that far.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll do what we have to
do. We have a vested interest that has to be protected, and
Commissioner Letz has done a tremendous service for this
Court in trying to make people understand what this is all
about. It's not trying to be arbitrary or disagreeable or
anything of the kind. We have a vested interest that
benefits Kerr County long term, long after we're gone. And
to see it breached because somebody doesn't want to
incorporate one simple thing, to me, is unreasonable. You
know, I just -- it's just totally unreasonable. Mr. Coleman
is correct in saying that somewhere out there, there's a road
that leads to a solution. He's right. Somewhere there is.
Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees. But I
think that Commissioner Letz needs to continue. He is the
sole source of total information with respect to subdivision
rules for this Court, and I don't want to see that missing in
the continuation of this process. And so my suggestion is
County Attorney, existing or new, and if it's the new one,
get your books out, buddy. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you know that if it
3-22-10
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
wasn't for the trees, there wouldn't be a forest?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't know that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thought I'd throw that out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you happy with that,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move on, then. Let's
talk about Item 17, to consider, discuss, take appropriate
action regarding Kerr County's position with respect to
funding airport C.I.P. work. Commissioner Williams, I'm
going to leave this with you, since I expect Jon's a little
wore out by now.
COMMTSSIONER WILLIAMS: Goodness. Let's see. This
is --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He'll need oxygen here in a
minute.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is a fun day at the
Commissioners Court. Commissioner Letz and I have this on
because we both serve as the Court's liaisons to the Airport
Board. And I have to tell you right at the outset that
working with the -- observing and working with the Airport
Board, as it is currently constructed, is -- is truly a
pleasure. We have five individuals dedicated to the
perpetuation of a good airport, and making it happen and
3-22-10
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
doing that. And also that goes .for our Airport Manager, who
does an excellent job. He's here in the audience right now.
I'll talk to you, Bruce, about that compliment.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's lunch? Is that what
have a couple issues, and we'll deal with them, I guess,
back-to-back, Judge, although they are separate. And this
particular one, if you'll refer to the backup material
provided to you, it really kind of stems from two things,.
First of all, the longstanding discussions that Commissioner
Letz and I have -- have listened to with regard to the
engineering and planning for improving the water system to
take care of the deficiencies for fire suppression that has
been identified by the fire marshal -- is that a fair
statement, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so our concern and our
obligation, we think, is to participate fifty-fifty with the
City, as per the C.I.P. agreement, for the correction of that
deficiency as it applies to fire suppression. That said, we
have listened to a lot of engineering stuff, some of which is
gobbledygook, goes in one ear and out the other with respect
to the details, but the engineers have designed some sort of
a solution for fire suppression that includes -- and if I'm
3-22-10
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
wrong, somebody will correct me -- that includes some
elements that the City would like to see to improve their
overall distribution of water from Highway 27, so forth and
so on, to the airport. We think that our position and our --
our obligation, if you will, is to participate fifty-fifty
with respect to the improvement for fire suppression
purposes. Okay. In the proposed solution that will
ultimately go to bid, there are three elements of the
engineering design that pertain to fire suppression. There
are two elements of the engineering design that have other
purposes that are not related to fire suppression. If I'm
wrong, Bruce, you stand up and say heresy or whatever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So -- let me finish the
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So this issue stems from
the fact that the -- there was a letter directed to the
County Auditor with respect to our putting up our $350,G00,
which is 50 percent of the estimated -- estimated cost for
fire suppression improvements, water -- water for fire
suppression improvements. We have a firm belief that the
three elements that. are involved that will take care of the
fire suppression issue are going to come in a great deal
under $700,000, or our half of 350 --.our half being
3-22-10
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$350,040. And while we have every inclination and desire to
participate in funding our obligation, we don't see that it
is our position to fund a portion of that plan that's being
-- will be let out for bid with two alternatives that are
going to be equivalent of $700,000. That's just not our
obligation. Now I'm finished.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only possible correction,
the two portions that you mentioned that the City would want
for future distribution and such, they do have a benefit to
fire suppression, in that it gives .redundancy. But it's not
a requirement, and there's certainly not redundancy out there
right now, but it does have a benefit. You know, but I agree
with your overall statement that I don't think that it's our
responsibility to participate in that redundancy,
necessarily. The -- this came to the point of this letter,
and this is largely driven by our Auditor, who, you know, at
the last Airport Board meeting -- what's his name?
AUDIENCE: Mike.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mike, the city -- I guess the
auditor, finance director -- the finance director leaned over
and said to me, "Hey, I need -- the County hasn't sent over
the $350,000 yet." And I kind of listened. Then shortly
after that, the Auditor came in, and I said, "Talk to her
about it." And the -- the issue, I think, is -- I mean, our
money is sitting in a bank or a fund somewhere. We have this
3-22-10
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
unknowns as to whether they're going to -- the Airport Board
is going to want to go with Option A, B, C, D, or E, and
there are five options on this contract that's going to be
let as to how far this water line goes. We shouldn't put our
money -- or, you know, °fund our portion until the contract is
awarded. And I think the issue came up, from what Mike told
me, was that, well, the City won't bid a contract until they
have all their funding in place. And -- and I said -- and I
said fine to that. But the fact that we have the money in
our account should certainly be sufficient for the City to
bid it, and as soon as the Airport Board decides what the
contract -- what amount they want to let on that contract, I
think then we would know the dollar amount; we would send
that dollar amount over to the City. Is that accurate,
Ms. Hargis?
(Ms. Hargis nodded.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's the way it's going to
I be .
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's the --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There's no -- that's not up
for negotiation. We're not going to pay a bill that hasn't
been incurred. We're not going to pay any more than our fair
3-22-10
125
1
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: And the obligation is
for -- just for the sake of discussion, say there's A, B, C,
D, and E. If A, B, and C are required to satisfy the
deficiency in fire suppression, that's what we'll correct.
We'll participate in that correction. If D & E are on the
wish list, we're not going to participate.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Absolutely not. And we will
not pay before there is an actual --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the sense of this
agreement, just to clarify. And so the -- I think the
Airport Board -- and the City knows the County's position,
that we will -- money's in the bank, and it will be funded as
soon as the contract is --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It was specified for that
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If that's not good enough,
then maybe we shouldn't. even do the deal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see the Assistant City
Manager nodding her head, that's fine.
MS. ONDRIAS: I don't see that as -- Kristine
Ondrias, Assistant City Manager. I don't see that as a huge
issue. Something that you may want to consider in that
3-22-10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Z3
24
25
126
contingency issues with infrastructure, awarding a certain
amount of contingency with that. But, certainly, we can bid
the project. We can.-- when we do the bid, we can hold those
bids for 30, 60 days. Sometimes that does affect your bid
price if you hold it longer. But once we do that, then we
come back to you guys, or you can send your money at that
time. We can award and then move forward, so I don't think
any of that is a huge issue. I would suggest that you award
some amount of contingency with it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think contingency
is a problem at all.
MS. ONDRIAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My understanding, and I
think Commissioner Letz's as well, is that the three elements
reglaired for fire suppression -- we'll say A, B, and C for
the sake of discussion -- they're going to be bid as the
primary part of the --
MS. ONDRIAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS.: -- of the project, and the
othex two are alternate bids?
MS. ONDRIAS: That's correct. There's -- in order
3-22-10
127
1
2
,3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~ different colors on the map. It's a nice color-coded map.
I
This issue that you were talking about, that -- that does
actually -- it affects the water system and the -- and, the
fire suppression. It's the redundancy that ties that system
back. It creates the loop for the system. Today, if your
water goes down, you have a water main break somewhere prior
to coming into the airport, you have no redundancy; the
airport has no water. And that was one of the fixes that the
engineering staff looked at when we did this project, the
consultant that we hired, which. was BWR. And so -- but in --
in looking at the cost estimates, we really can't afford that
at this time. Until you're looking at again still needing to
flush the line, and in creating that redundancy at this
point. Unless you end up with a significantly lower bid.
'I But, no, you're absolutely right. We can -- we can award the
base bid, and then any alternatives at that point that the
Board, the Council, or the Commissioners Court -- from the
Council's standpoint, we have awarded a budget, and up to
that amount, they can do that improvement. If they choose to
use that money for anything else, then they would need to
come back to the City Council or the Commissioners Court to
make a request to use that for -- I think at one point, we
talked about T-hangars, and using some of the that money for
T-hangars.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's down the line.
3-22-10
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
.7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That's a separate project.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you need any action from us,
or is this just fine from the standpoint --
MS. ONDRIAS: No, this is -- this works for us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it should take
any additional time to award that contract. I mean, I don't
know how -- I mean, we can --
MS. ONDRIAS: I think we're bidding next month?
MR. McKENZIE: Should be in April.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think from the standpoint of
us -- of ours, the funds are in-house. So, as soon as a
decision is made by the Airport Board, it can be funded the
next day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Those contracts typically are -- are
good for 30 days, by and large, unless you ask them to be bid
lonr~er.
MS. ONDRIAS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Standard period, I believe, is 30
days.
MS. ONDRIAS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And they customarily include a
contingency provision, because of scope of work, extras and
so forth. Those --
MS. ONDRIAS: And we can do that up front in the
bidding process if -- if you'd like us to do that.
3-22-10
1 ~? 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1.8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's usually the way it's
I handled.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 18; to consider,
discuss, take appropriate action relating to Kerr County.
providing airport administrative and support services under
the airport services contract for FY 2010-11. Which one of
you guys --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is going to be
Commissioner Letz. I did the other one.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He got a break.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At the -- and I'll try to
summarize this. At some point late last fall, I believe the
City Manager asked the Airport Board to make a decision on
the 2010-11 -- or is it '11-'12? The 2011-2012 management
contract at the airport. And I don't recall if it was on an
airport agenda or not. It was brought up again at the list
meeting, formal action to go with the -- you know, to, I
guess, ask the City for -- the Airport Board to ask the City
for that contract -- management contract for 2011-2012
period. And they asked me at the board meeting if I had any
problems with it, and I was kind of taken aback, and I -- but
I said, "No, it's the Airport Board's decision." After that,
3-22-10
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I talked with, again, the Auditor and Commissioner Williams,
and what came up is that starting next year, the County funds
100 percent of the operations at the airport as part of our
deal, the trade-off of the library. It's the final year of
And the concern was, from the Auditor's standpoint,
to be done by the City under that contract when we already
have the infrastructure in-house to do it, being H.R.,
accounting, and legal, essentially. Those areas that we nave
-- we're already fully staffed in those departments, and for
us to pay the City to do that, essentially, we're paying
twice. We already have the infrastructure in place to do it.
So, this is on the agenda kind of as -- as to -- one more
thing. The impression I got at the Airport Board meeting was
that if -- it was an all-or-nothing deal with the City of
Kerrville on the management contract, which included those
services, and that these particular services couldn't be
carved out. And Commissioner Williams and I talked about it
a little bit; said, ",Well, we need to bring it to the Court,
because I don't think that it's appropriate for the
Commissioners Court to fund for services that we're already
paying to do ourselves." And that's why it's on the agenda
and it's styled the way it is, because if the City -- well, I
want the Airport Board to make its decisions on most of this
3-22-10
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
stuff, as long as it isn't costing the taxpayers additional
money. This is one that would cost additional money. .The
rest of the management contract, it's up to the Airport Board
to choose how they want to get things done at the airport.
We styled the agenda item this way, that if the City holds
true and says it's an all-or-nothing contract, then there are
services out there that need to be done, and this is styled
so that the County could pick up all those services if the
Airport Board wants us to look -into that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You said -- you said
'11-'12. You really mean '10-'11.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it '10-'11?
MS. HYDE: '10-'11.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It could end up being
'11-'12 and '13-'14.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's still putting us out
there, you know, the -- a year into advance when we're paying
100 percent of the management cost at the airport, so that's
the reason it's on the agenda. And I think the agenda item
is styled so that, you know, A, the County feels that it
should take over those professional services, and in my mind,
they're already paid for by the taxpayers. There's no
additional charge to the airport to do those services; we do
them. So, you know, it should be a reduction in the cost to
operate out there under the management contract. And the
3-22-10
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rest of the contract, if they would like to talk to the
If they want a proposal, we can give them a proposal.
JUDGE TINLEY: What you're suggesting, then,
Commissioner, is that the Airport Board receive the
administrative services -- the H.R., legal, so forth,
finance -- at no cost?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that they, in essence, bid as a
separate item to maintain their autonomy the other
maintenance services function, and, you know, then award that
bid under ordinary procedures?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whatever they want to do. If
they want to keep using the City Streets Department for the
majority of it, that's their decision. If they want to use
the County, that's their decision. If they want to use a
private entrepreneur, that's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or formulate an RFP to
which we will respond.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I think that the --
I mean, I've thought about this. It doesn't make sense to
me -- we don't bid out or apportion out our legal and H.R.
and accounting portion to other functions, so I don't know
why we should do it to the airport now that it's 100 percent
funded by the County. It just -- it doesn't make sense.. We
3-22-10
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don't do it for any other department; why should we do it to
them? And when there was a mixing of funds, it made a
difference. So, bottom line is, in our mind -- or my mind,
this should reduce the cost of the management contract by
whatever professional services part were in there, so the new
contract should be less.
JUDGE TINLEY: As an alternative, Commissioner, in
order that the Airport Board maintain its autonomy, which --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- they need to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: They need to do. That's a separate
body; they're in charge out there. They should request two
different proposals, one for administrative, legal,
financial, H.R., so forth, and another for the -- for the
maintenance services. And it seems like a redundant process
if -- if we're going to, bid that we'll do that for nothing,
but if they feel like that's necessary in order to maintain
their autonomy, so be it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's fine. But our --
yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But by us offering the
administrative services for free, it sounds like to me,
though, that we're viewing them as a -- a county office. You
know, it's just -- it has that appearance. I don't know.
3-22-10
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
134
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it kind of -- in my mind,
from that standpoint, it is a county -- it's not a
department. It's not,-- you know, there's other departments,
I think, that are kind of similar.
COMMISSIONER .BALDWIN: If you look at them as a
county department, that's not autonomous at all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, not a county department,
but it's a county -- something that we fund. What about
216th? 216th is a -- or some of the other dotted-line things
that we fund. We don't charge -- we don't figure out how
much legal time some of those departments take. The --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But they would -- but would
you put it out for bids anyway, the administrative side of it
as well?
JUDGE TINLEY: If that's what the Airport Board
wishes to do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, right.
JUDGE TINLEY: At their discretion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:. If we happen to come in
free, and they choose --
JUDGE TINLEY: Hard to beat.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Be hard to beat. And they
I choose us --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, I don't know that I agree
with the Judge on that point, because the issue is that we
3-22-10
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have to handle the money. I mean, we don't -- it's not
something -- if you bid it out, it goes to somebody -- to an
accounting firm? I mean --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It would still be their
choice, wouldn't it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a package of services.
You know, administrative, legal, H.R., whatever, whatever,
whatever. And if those services are available here under the
same conditions that they would have -- have included in an
RFP for anybody to bid on, the point that the Commissioner's
making is that we've already -- we've already paid for those.
They're available to them. They're available to them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If it would make it any.
better, charge them again.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we don't need to charge
them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I mean, if it smooths
out this stormy issue, --
JUDGE TINLEY: To resolve the issue, go ahead head
and bid something for it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- let's charge them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we pay -- it's kind of like
the Juvenile Detention facility.
JUDGE TINLEY:~ Exactly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
3-22-10
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
136
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Put the money in on this side,
and we pay it over here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've done that before.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:' That's a very good analogy.
It's really just like the Juvenile Detention facility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take it out of the left
pocket, put it back in the right pocket.
JUDGE TINLEY: But you do have the ability to know
where your costs are allocated that way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And from a cost accounting basis,
it's beneficial --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- if you're allocating some cost to
it. And whether or not it's an appropriate cost or not, you
can look at after the fact.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think the -- I guess the
issue is bidding it. Unless someone else is going to do it
for zero -- and I guess it doesn't make any difference. It's
just -- it's just accountability as to how you do it if it's
not done internally. But, anyway --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we've got to maintain that
airport in an autonomous situation. We've got them there,
3-22-10
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for goodness sakes. Let's keep them there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right, that's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, what we're -- what we're really
talking about is them carving this thing up into two separate
components, administrative services and a maintenance
~ function, is really what we're talking about, and asking that
I
~I they do it that way so as to facilitate --
I COMMISSIONER~LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I kind of think he's on the
II right track here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does this require any
I action?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we can't tell them what to do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. Don't tell anybody I
agreed with a lawyer today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does -- is that sufficient,
I Bruce?
JUDGE TINLEY: He's been listening.
MR. McKENZIE: The pleasure of the board.
JUDGE TINLEY: All he can do is take it to them and
say, "Here's how the discussion went. Here's what their
suggestion was. What do you think?" Okay, gentlemen, it is
almost a quarter after. What's the Court's pleasure? We got
3-22-10
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
several more items.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Several.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we want to break for lunch? Do
we want to plow forward`?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's finish this page.
JUDGE TINLEY: I can do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then what's your pleasure?
Don't give me a dodge; give me a commitment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to go eat.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anybody else have any
thoughts differently?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We might go through those items
related to the airport, 20 and those last --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, okay. Let's take Item 19;
consider, discuss, take appropriate action to approve request
for Kerrville/Kerr County Joint Airport Board to reappoints
Mark Cowden, Corey Walters, and Tom Moser for two-year terms
of office beginning June 1, 2010.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
3-22-10
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
.7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carried. Item 20, to
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to confirm the
authority of the Kerrville/Kerr County Joint Airport Board to
also act as the Joint Airport Zoning Board..
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 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 does carry. We'll be in
recess until 1:30.
(Recess taken from 12:15 p.m. to 1:37 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if
we might. Next item is Item 21, to consider, discuss, take
appropriate action on proposed L.C.R.A. transmission line
route or routes, including possible route that runs adjacent
to I.H. 10. I put this on the agenda because of a
considerable amount of activity recently dealing with some
new routes that apparently L.C.R.A. Transmission Services
3-22-10
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
impetus for looking at, for example, the I-10 route,
according to my understanding, was the folks up at the
northern end, Mason, Menard, up in there, seized on some
language that Representative Hilderbran may have given to
them, utilizing existing right-of-ways, including I.H. 10.
And this Court also did a resolution back when that
substation just north of town was still on the table; had a
resolution very similar to that. It -- it occurs to me that
they now have one very potentially viable route marching
right down I-10, where it carves out around the major
commercial areas. I'm not exactly sure. I'm sure it cuts
out some, but for that reason, and because circumstances have
changed, I put it back on the agenda in case the Court wants
to take any action.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, actually, I mean, I -- I
was planning to put this on-the next agenda for the reasons
you just outlined, but also because a lot of time has passed
since our first resolution.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, you know, I don't know
that I disagree with much of what we said in our first one;
probably very similar to that, but I was going to put it on
the next agenda to have another resolution, and mainly
3-22-10
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
because the time has drug out longer than originally thought.
That was -- that's probably close to a year ago, we did that
first resolution, and just to make sure that we are -- our
voice is heard, even though my thought would be it's probably
going to be general guidance again, as opposed to any kind of
specific route, 'cause I don't want to go down that road,
picking a route. But certain -- certain criteria. And I
think one of the other criteria that -- I don't think we
really directly said it, but I think probably should be
included is endangered species a little bit, and that any
route that -- you know, because that is a concern on -- on
some of the new routes that I -- or I guess the maps that
I've seen. There are so many lines on it, it's real hard to
figure out exactly what lines you're looking at, but some of
them are going through very rugged areas, potentially, or
crossing them. And, you know, that's an issue as well, and I
think we need to look at that. But, you know --
JUDGE TINLEY: Were you wanting to do more research
before you --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we can.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- put it on the agenda?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can, unless you have a
resolution prepared.
JUDGE TINLEY: I do not.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, if I could get until
3-22-10
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Fine with me. I just -- there was
some new developments in that whole process, so I wanted to
give the Court the opportunity, if they wanted to take it, to
have some other expression of intent. Ms. Hofmann with
L.C.R.A., their customer service rep, is here. Any --
anything new and exciting from L.C.R.A. that you wish to
report, Ms. Hofmann?
MS. HOFMANN: ,Well, if you want to give me an
opportunity to talk to you, I appreciate it. The only thing
I would really like to highlight for you all, and for the
public, is just kind of some lessons learned. I think from
last year -- and I call this kind of Part B of the process,
since we had to get a delay, a motion for delay, and then
expand our study area to look at two other route corridors
that we were directed to look at by the P.U.C., that
including the I-10 route. But we heard a lot from
commissioners courts. We heard a lot from the public. We
heard from state representatives, and we heard from the folks
who attended the open houses. And what we're hoping to do
this time around, while this is a very emotional issue, and
it's something that's certainly not going to result in
pleasing everyone, what we have a certain amount of control
over is how we communicate the message, and given it's a
3-22-10
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
regulatory process, we are attempting to be as transparent as
we possibly can within the legal parameters of the process.
So, with that in mind, we've created a DVD, which
I've dropped off to y'all's offices. That was an attempt to
provide folks with a foundational understanding of what this
is all about. What's this renewable energy goal in the state
of Texas? What does CREZ mean? Why is L.C.R.A. involved?
It's not -- it was not developed to be a big promotional
effort on L.C.R.A.'s part, but more of a -- you know, "Here,
everyone, this is what's going on," and highlighting some
commonly asked questions and concerns that folks have had.
We've also created an e-newsletter that we have over 900
e-mail addresses listed already, and we're attempting to
provide up-to-the-minute information to folks who have
requested to be kept informed of what's going on with the
process. So, as something new .occurs, we're attempting to
get the word out and notify folks. We've issued more press
releases. We've tried to go into a little bit more detail
about why we do the things we do.
For example, we have a lay-down yard where we've
already taken delivery of steel lattice pieces to build steel
lattice structures, which, of course, caught people off
guard, thinking, well, what do you mean? Has the P.U.C.
directed you to build lattice towers yet? Well, no, they
have not yet. But we did attempt to explain why we did that.
3-22-10
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
144
We haven't ordered all of our lattice structures for the
entire route, but we've ordered about 30 percent of it. It's
kind of a risk management approach that we took in securing
the steel that we'll need, we think, at some point for maybe
portions of the line. But we remain open to hearing from the
public, the elected officials. We're certainly going to be
directed by the P.U.C. with what route to build and what
structures to use. So, beyond that, you know, I -- I welcome
y'ap's input on how you think we can better communicate as
well. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: What -- what is the current
MS. HOFMANN: Right now, the -- the McKamie D to
Kendall to Gillespie route, which is the one that affects
Kerr County possibly, will be filed with the Public Utility
Commission on July 6th, our recommended and alternative
routes. The P.U.C. will then entertain intervenors for 30
days. So, folks who are along any of the routes that we file
as preferred alternative will be notified simultaneously when
we notify the P.U.C. They will then have 30 days in which to
decide whether to request to intervene in the case officially
or not. Following that time will be a time of testimony from
all parties, and hearings by the Public Utility Commission,
and the administrative law judge will then make a
recommendation to the commissioners, and the commissioners
3-22-10
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will consider then and make their final recommendation. That
will all happen within a matter of 180 days. So, we're
looking at January 'll, end of process time frame.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, you're not prepared
MS. HOFMANN: No. No. In fact, we just completed
our open houses, and we asked that folks try to let us know
by March 10th already, and so that date's already passed.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Last thing that I received, I
believe, was -- looked like there were three routes on it,
the maps that you sent me a week or so ago, where you have
one of those kind of north going through --
MS. HOFMANN: .Three-new -- new routes?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, not necessarily new,
MS. HOFMANN: Because everything that was on the
table back in May, except for the Westwind substation that
went away, that's all still in place. Now, there are a few
links of some of those preliminary routes that fell off,
because we were ready to file in October. And that's when we
had to issue the motion for delay, because we had to go back
and look at I-10 and Menard, Mason. So, we -- we have all
kinds of counties involved with this process now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You mentioned the one line, the
McKamie to -- Kendall?
3-22-10
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HOFMANN: Kendall.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To Gillespie.
MS. HOFMANN: To Gillespie.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But isn't Kerr County also hit
by the other line that comes -- I mean, as I understand it,
there's two lines going in or out of Comfort. There's one
line coming in -- I mean, you got to get to Comfort, and you
got to get back out of Comfort. And that's what -- from what
Dennis told me -- Palafox -- at the meeting, and that there's
-- and the	way those	new maps are	shown, two of	those	lines,
they could	parallel -	- they could	parallel each	other,	so
there's actually -- I mean, there could be two lines there.
MS. HOFMANN: The area between Kendall and
Gillespie, that is that parallel option that we were directed
to look at as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So that means -- so
it's possible the line would come in and go out, even though
it'd have to be a wider right-of-way, 'cause, I guess --
MS. HOFMANN: Right, could be two 345 lines
I paralleling each other.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I had a lot of comments from
a lot of the people around about the I-10 route, thinking
that's really not a good route, mainly because of aesthetics;
if you're driving through Kerr County, you're going to drive
next to it for lots of miles, all the way across Kerr County,
3-22-10
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
basically, 'cause if it runs down I-10, some of that's pretty
rough territory. Of course, you do have a wide right-of-way,
but I've had, you know, some concern from people in my end of
the county wondering if that's really a good route or not,
and they don't think so. None of us want it in Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, wherever it's
going to go, you're going to have people -- "not in my back
yard," and people -- you know, so that's just going to be
there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it better to put it along
I-10 so everyone sees it, or put it in an area where some
people are impacted really big by it?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, which is better?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Don't have a good, clear
answer to that.
JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding of the proposed
I-10 route is that it would be located to the north of I:-10
generally. Is that correct, Ms. Hofmann?
MS. HOFMANN: Well, it varies, depending on where
you are ,along the route. But through Kerrville, it is on the
north side.
24
25
3-22-10
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We sure have a lot already.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, you want to --
148
l
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'll put it on the agenda.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- do some more work on it, bring it
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anybody else have anything to
offer on that one for now? We'll get another crack at it,
then. Okay, Item 22; consider, discuss, take appropriate
action to clarify Court Order Number 31654 to enter into a
contract with Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP as a
consultant for redistricting in 2011 as a result of the 2010
census; authorize County Judge to sign contract for same.
This is a cleanup item, is it not, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. I think I referred --
in the motion, I believe I said the 2011 census, and it
should have said the 2010 census. It was a matter of getting
the; year straight, because this is a -- and I elected to put
it back on the agenda just because there is some pretty
important legal ramifications with census things. Need to
make sure we're talking about the right one.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, what your proposed agenda item
would do, if approved, would -- would modify the 31654 order
to provide that it's the 2010 census, as opposed to 2011?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Except that the
redistricting actually takes place in '11.
3-22-10
149
1
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: Right, but it's the 2010
I census.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Item 23, consider,
discuss, take appropriate action to designate an individual
employed by the County to serve as the records management
officer of Kerr County. I put this on the agenda as a result
of communication which I received from the state archives
library -- state archives folks that their records reflect
that we don't have one of those.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do they do?
JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What does that -- what does
this records management officer do?
JUDGE TINLEY: The records management officer
generally --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Manage the records?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, you got it. (Laughter.) I'm
3-22-10
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
amazed at your intellect on some occasions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I tell you, buddy, my
kidneys just kicked in. ,
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do we have somebody that
wants to volunteer to do that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ms. Hyde.
MS. HYDE: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Did she volunteer for that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, but I think she's --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: She looks surprised, like she
didn't know anything about it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way she acts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we had either
designated the County or District Clerk.
MS. HYDE: I thought it was the County Clerk ar
District Clerk.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought about the District
Clerk.
MS. HARGIS: It's the District Clerk.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of the above. If you
loak at the court --
MS. PIEPER: By statute, the elected officials are
the records management of their office, so that may be
talking about department heads under y'all or something.
Because as far as a declaration, I have a declaration of
3-22-10
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
compliance that I've had since 1999 on my office.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought that it was already
-- we had done this at some point in the past.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, she does. That's what
she saying, she does.
MS. PIEPER: But I only do it for my office.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I understand.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Linda does it for hers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MS. BOLIN: Recently I went to the records archive
courses, and that's how that came about. They gave that to
me saying that I hadn't been designated, and I had for my
office. What they're looking for is for all the offices that
don't have elected officials.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Back to Ms. Hyde. (Laughter.)
MS. BOLIN: Like your office, the Animal Control.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that the dumping grounds
for anything nobody else wants?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does Animal Control need one
or not?
MS. BOLIN: They have records that they have to
keep, so --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So what about --
MS. BOLIN: They're a department head, as opposed
to being an elected official.
3-22-10
152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't they just make us
a list and let's vote on them -- vote them in, get on down
the road?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, what we could do,
Commissioner, is designate one individual as the records
management officer for Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. How about
Robl Henneke?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have somebody in
mind, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, as a matter of fact, I don't.
But it -- we're not precluded from designating, to my
.knowledge, an elected official or any other employee of the
county.
COMMISSIONER IaETZ: County Attorney's office may
not be a bad spot for this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Really?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm sure she's excited about
~ doing it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She's smiling.
MS. HYDE: Okay, sure. Sure. Whatever -- at the
pleasure of the Court. Take it while I'm not arguing. I'm
kidding, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Catch you at your weakest moment.
MS. HYDE: You got me at a weak moment. My belly's
3-22-10
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.full.
MS. HARGIS: I think it really should be one cf the
clerks, because they're familiar with all the statutes and
things of that nature, and all the records, so they already
keep up with it. To me, it should either be the District
Clerk or the County Clerk, 'cause they deal with those
records and things of that nature that pass down to the rest
of us as well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which clerk did you have in
I mind?
MS. HARGIS: I think get one of them to volunteer.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Are you talking about law
enforcement records, as far as offense reports and things
like that?
MS. HYDE: You're elected.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: They just need one person that they
can call in the county, and then you can call that -- the
elected official. I mean, that's been on the books for a
long time.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Good.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do you want to volunteer for
this?
MS. PIEPER: I'll volunteer.
MS. HYDE: Thank you, Jannett.
3-22-10
154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. I move we -- wait a
minute, where is it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do it quick.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we designate the
County Clerk as the records management officer of Kerr
County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Question
or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Jannett.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MS. PIEPER: Let me put my two cents worth in,
though. I will send each of the departments information.
Now, if they do not abide by that information from the Texas
State Library, that's on their back, and not me. But I will
provide them the information that they need to know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Seems reasonable.
3-22-10
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. PIEPER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Seems reasonable. But you have the
background, the experience, and the knowledge about those
matters. That's what's important.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you're also a resource for
people. They can go to you and ask ,a question, "Do you think
I this needs to be kept or not kept?"
MS. PIEPER: Okay, yeah. That's no problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Item 24, consider, discuss,
take appropriate action to declare April 2010 as County
Government Month in Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next item,
25; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to confirm and
implement 1.5 percent increase in compensation as budgeted
for all Kerr County employees effective April 1, 2010, as
outlined in Court Order Number 31447, September 14th, 2009.
Ms. Hyde?
3-22-10
156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. I just gave y'all a copy of
the court order. I just wanted to let y'all know I'm getting
ready to key it.
JUDGE TINLEY: The court order is pretty
self-explanatory, isn't it? Bingo. Yeah. No bail-outs on
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MS. HYDE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What do you mean, "no
bail-outs"?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the -- I'm talking about the
court order.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We were supposed to review it
on April -- before April 1 to decide if we were going to let
it go through or not, the way I remember it. It was done
back during budget time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just caught the tail end
of that. What did you say?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The 1.5 was to be reviewed to
see if we were going to do that April --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- 1, or whether we would not
allow the 1.5 to go in place.
MS. HYDE: I just happened to bring the minutes
with me.
3-22-10
157
1
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: What did they say?
MS. PIEPER: I didn't remember it that way, but --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's the way I remember it.
MS. HYDE: I have Pages 123 all the way through
144. I did not make copies, because I assumed that we
wouldn't -- but just in case, I brought it. Notes began on
Page 140, really, concerning this. We had three different
~, motions. Commissioner Letz started the motions, and wanted
to give a 2 percent across the board at midpoint of the
budget, April 1. Ms. Hargis was asked what would that be.
'~i It would be about 130,000, give or take. Ms. Hargis said,
"Yeah, about." Commissioner Williams: "Just under 200,000?"
Ms. Hargis said, "65 onto 130 is 195." Commissioner William
says, "Let's try again." Judge Tinley says, "We've got a
motion," and Commissioner Oehler said to exclude -- this is
where it got difficult. They were going to exclude the
Auditor and her staff along with all District Court staffs,
because they were not true county employees. Then the second
motion -- that one died because no one seconded it. The
second motion came when we were talking about "oppose" or
"reject." And Commissioner Baldwin doesn't like the word
"reject"; he wanted "oppose," 'cause that was two different
things in your mind, reject and oppose. And y'all talked
about that for a little bit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is she talking about this
3-22-10
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HYDE: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
MS. HYDE: Continuing about the "oppose" versus
"rejected." Commissioner Oehler said he would use "oppose"
instead of "reject." Y'all were okay. Then the next one was
Ms. Hargis that, "We only pay one-fourth of the district
budgets." And everyone said okay. The clerk says, "Is this
under Item 24 or 25?" Judge Tinley says 24. Commissioner
Oehler says, "Yep, 24." And then the last thing you guys had
was, "We're going to try it again." Commissioner Williams
says, "I would move that all Kerr County employees be granted
a cost-of-living., allowance in the amount of 1.5 percent, to
be effective April 1, 2010." Commissioner Letz seconded it,
and y'all voted. The discussion was back in the earlier
pages. Because we asked for an across-the-board raise
October 1, and y'all said, "No way, Jose."
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But I think I also remember
saying that, yes, that could -- that could be -- that motion
did pass, which there's no doubt that it did, but just
because that was a court order didn't mean that we could not
rescind that order.
MS. HYDE: That is correct. You said that on Page
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I knew I did.
3-22-10
1.59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HYDE: You said it on 125. Then they went all
the way through --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We could rescind that order,
absolutely.
MS. HYDE: Absolutely, we can rescind any order
that you'd like.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It doesn't just become
effective automatically, unless we don't rescind it.
MS. HYDE: I mean, you can, right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, we can always cancel.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought you said that on
Page 124. (Laughter.)
MS. HYDE: No, 125.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It 'was 125?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're slipping.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm slipping, man.
MS. HYDE: You were close.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are you saying, Bruce,
I now?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm saying that we don't --
we have the option to give that or not give it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I mean, if we do nothing, it
3-22-10
160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
automatically goes in place.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But if I make a motion and I
don't get a second, it still gets automatically put in place.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
MS. HYDE: Right, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So I would offer that motion.
I would recommend that we rescind the Court Order Number --
MS. HYDE: Would you like the court order?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- 31447 that -- that grants
a 1.5 percent raise, increasing compensation for all Kerr
County employees effective April 1.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion. Do I hear a
I second?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion dies for lack of a second.
Any other --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- motions in connection with this
item? Okay. Let's move to Item 26; consider, discuss, take
appropriate action to declare March 27th, 2010, Bark for Life
and A Toast to the Animals day in Kerr County. Commissioner
Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: In Precinct 1 this time.
3-22-10
1b1
1
2
3,
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Precinct 1, yes, sir. Back
-- back on. That -- the 27th, of course, is this coming
Saturday. The Bark for"Life program is the second, sometimes
annual, and out at the River Star Park. Last year it was
really one of the neatest things. Last year they had right
at 200 dogs participate in this thing. They're going to
double that this year. And they've got all kinds of
sponsors, and there's all kind of prizes and all that kind of
thing, and it's for -- it's honoring -- it's a fundraiser
honoring cancer survivors, and it's kind of the front end of
the big cancer program that they'll have later on out at the
stadium; just a kind of thing to get everybody in tune.. And
then later on that very same day, in the evening is A Toast
to the Animals out at the Museum of Western Art. You know,
they -- they have animal lovers out there, and they have a
raffle and auction, and they're having wine and music and --
I
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there an admission fee for that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, there is, and it
benefits the Humane Society of Kerrville. So, I just thought
that, being the nice people that we are, we'd just go ahead
and take a swing at both of those. And the Bark for Life
deal, my precious Daisy and I are the -- I don't know what we
are.
JUDGE TINLEY: Grand marshals.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Grand marshal, I guess, for
3-22-10
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
152
the little parade. And she -- she's going to give a little
talk, and, of course, I'll have to tell everybody what she
says, 'cause I'm the only one that understands her. Her and
her one eye. But it's a cute little thing, and I just think
it would be kind of neat for us to declare Kerr County that
day, Bark for Life and A Toast to Animals day in Kerr County
this coming Saturday. I so move.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that in the park, or where
is that? It's all going to be at the Museum of Western Art?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, the one in the evening
is. The Toast to the Animals is at the museum. Ours is at
the -- out there by the Ag Barn at the Star.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's time's your --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: River Star?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: River Star, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:- What time?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ours starts at 9 o'clock. I
think Daisy and ,I go on at 10:00.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In between breaks, you can go
to Comfort. It's opening day at Little League, too.
MS. GRINSTEAD: Right across the street, Kerrville
opening day.
3-22-10
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
163
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, that's right. I forgot
Little League opening day.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What if your dog won't bark?
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, I haven't thought
of that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Buster will.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll do it for him.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mine howls.
JUDGE TINLEY: You got to interpret anyway, you
~ see.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had a comment, Ms. Whitt?
MS. WHITT: Yes. I was just going to say, I'm
pleased to say that they have asked us to participate again
in the Bark for Life, so we're really excited, and we're
going to -- we'll have two officers there.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got a question for you. The
Commissioner said that the amount of animals participating in
this this year is going to be double. What happened to your
spay and neuter program? (Laughter.)
MS. WHITT: I can say that. they -- with us being
there last year, they have made some changes, and this year
they are requiring all the participants to provide proof of
3-22-10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2~ 0 ,
21
22
23
24
25
164
rabies vaccinations and registration, so that's a good thing.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: May be back to 200, Judge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can take a page out of
the Obama textbook and say if we didn't hadn't done this, it
would have been more. (Laughter.)
MS. WHITT: And that was -- you know, they talked
to us about that, and they decided that would be a really
good idea.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Proof of rabies? Is that
what you said?
MS. WHITT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do I have to wear those
little tags?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MS. WHITT: That's required by law.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: But you don't have to get a new one,
'cause you're within your three years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That,'s right, okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The owners aren't subject to
the same things.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or just promise not to bite
anybody?
JUDGE TINLEY: That'll work.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If you need some barking, you
3-22-10
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
165
can just go by Animal Control; take your recorder anytime,
and you can get that on tape.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Arf.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bow-wow.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Let's go to Item
27; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to allow
KARFA -- that's the Kerr Area Rural Fire Association -- to
use the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center free of charge for
their emergency vehicle operations course training on June 5
and 6, 2010. Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, Jody called about this
the other day, and when she got the call to ask for the use
of the Ag Barn, mainly the parking lot and another area, but
I thought that was good for us to put that on the agenda to
give formal approval of that, rather than individually just
saying, "Oh, yeah, that would be fine." So, I'll move that
we -- we allow KARFA to use the Youth'Exhibit Center free of
', charge for an emergency vehicle operators course training on
June the 5th and 6th, 2010.
3-22-10
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
166
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Waive all fees?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER Waive .all fees.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second with a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Question
or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is anything else scheduled out
there that weekend?
JUDGE MITCHELL: Yes, my family reunion. That's
why I was here.. My family reunion is, scheduled on the 5th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can enroll them in the
~ training.
JUDGE TINLEY: How big is your family?
JUDGE MITCHELL: I already talked to Jody about it,
so, I mean, I was already --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Why'd you speak up?
JUDGE MITCHELL: Because you said was anything else
scheduled. '
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I just want to make sure
we didn't have any -- better be careful how I proceed on this
one. Want to make sure we had -- the parking lot was not
being used for other functions.
MS. GRINSTEAD: They said the park -- the actual
driving will probably be done on the 6th. On the 5th, they
3-22-10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
g.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1.6 7
want the classroom that's located upstairs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. GRINSTEAD: So there should be no conflicts.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That works.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Let's go to Item
28; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to approve
continuing disclosure dissemination agent agreement to
provide dissemination agent services in connection with the
continuing disclosure obligations ofKerr County regarding
certain bond issues for which County has agreed to make
annual filings pursuant to S.E.C. Rule 15c2-12 -- 2 through
12. Ms. Hargis?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which one of these lawyers
wrote all that?
(Ms. Hargis raised her hand.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're guilty?
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Get a rope.
MS. HARGIS: When we sold our last bond issue, we
3-22-10
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
168
obligated ourselves to continuing disclosure. Prior to July
the 1st of 2009, we were considered a small issuer and did
not have to do this, but the S; E.C. has decided that all
issuers after July 1, 2009, will make continuing disclosure.
It requires us to send our financials and some other
pertinent information, very similar to the official statement
that we filled out to do the bond issue. Our financial
advisers have agreed to do this free, but they want this
contract in place in order to do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Has the County Attorney reviewed it?
MS. HARGIS: No. -
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jeannie, what is -- what is
-- what do you mean by "certain bond issues"?
MS. HARGIS: The certain -- we have other issues,
and it only applies to this one issue. That's why they say
"certain bond issues." Only any issue after July 1 of 2009
would apply.
COMMISSIONER.BALDWIN: Okay. That's a "certain
bond issue"?
MS. HARGIS: It's a legal term. What can I say?
MS. HYDE: Issuance.
MS. HARGIS: It actually says "issue." Issue.
MS. HYDE: But I think he's thinking that --
"issue." Issue, not issuance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, actually, the word
3-22-10
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
169
that's throwing me is "certain."
MS. HARGIS: That's the way it's written.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- Judge ought to
answer this, but usually "certain," as used here, refers to a
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Certain type.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- certain specific one.
MS. HARGIS: A specific --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Isn't that correct, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, designated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're the lawyer.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Essentially, what you got is
Bob Henderson, RBC -- or RBC Capital have agreed to be that
agent at no cost to us.~ They will be a conduit for our
disclosure requirements, and they will help us make sure
we're complying with those disclosure requirements that we
have under our credit agreements with this past issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in
III favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
3-22-10
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
170
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 29; consider, discuss, take appropriate action on
employment of Rob Henneke as County Attorney. Commissioner
Baldwin, you put this on the agenda, noting "executive
session if necessary." Is it necessary that we do that in
I executive session?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any part of this in executive
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't -- I don't see it,
Judge. I can't imagine --
JUDGE TINLEY: Very well. All right, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I just wanted to bring
Mr. Henneke in and visit with him. You know, I had -- I have
some thoughts, and I'm hoping that we'll all take turns going
around the table like we always. do. There are -- there are
certain times that -- and I'll just give you an example.. I
desire for you to -- and you probably already know, but I
want to say this anyway -- that you know or get to know the
Open Meetings and Open Records Act. That is -- those are --
those are things that are important to this Court. You know,
I know that it is -- the day we had lunch together, I told
you that I -- you know, I'm sure that you have an interest in
the courtrooms and the prosecutions and all those things that
the County Attorney does, and I think that's fun, but my
3-22-10
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
171
issue is this Commissioners Court, and more particular, me,
keeping me out of jail. And so, you know, those things like
Open Records and Open Meetings, to the County Attorney, at
times we -- we get up here and we get into a hot discussion,
and we get off base. We get off of the agenda item. We
meeting behind closed doors, you know, those kinds of things.
And, you know, I want you to understand those laws that
you -- so you don't let us run off in the ditch. That's --
you know, and that's my -- kind of my thing.
We have -- and, like, Open Records, we kind of have
a -- just a standing agreement between us up here that, you
know, if anybody was to walk in to Jody and ask her for a
copy of a record, we don't say, "Well, give us something in
writing." We give them what they want. You know, that kind
of thing. And I just -- you know, those kind of things are
important to me. Commissioner Letz is always talking about
subdivision regulations and ETJ and water and, you know,'all
those things, and Bill has his and Bruce has -- has his own
concerns. And I just want to let you know that there's going
to be times where we -- we hand you a -- I don't know how to
say it; maybe hand you a list of things that -- that we want
or need. There's going to be times that we -- it will just
pop up in here where we -- where we're going to have to have
an opinion in order to take a next step on an issue, where
3-22-10
172
1
2
3,
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you're going to have to have your opinion, or you go off to
the state attorney and get an opinion from them, one of the
two. But it's, you know, just those kinds of things. I just
wanted to say that to you.
MR. HENNEKE: Well, thank you, Commissioner. Of
course, it's critical that we comply with the law, both with
TORA and TOMA, and I'll be on top of that. In fact, I will
be doing the training within the next 90 days, because the
law requires that I take training on the Texas Open Meetings
Act in the statute I was looking at last night, and it's an
important part of what this Court does, is complying with the
laws, and I'll be on top of that. I look forward to working
~ with you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. Thank you very
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to go another
direction. Appreciate :you being here today and sitting
through this entire session. It gives you a pretty good --
pretty good illustration of the variety of topics that came
before the Court on any given meeting day. But I also think
it's important not only that you participate here, as
Ms. Bailey is doing and as you witnessed today and will
undoubtedly in the future do, but in my experience on this
Court, there was a period of time when the County Attorney's
office was kind of like a deep hole of Calcutta, and you'd
3-22-10
173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7'
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
send a request down there for something, and it seldom saw
so old and ancient that you forgot why you sent the memo to
start with. So, my -- my thought is that the County Attorney
needs to be responsive in all aspects of this Court's
business, whether it's in the formal setting like today, or
whether it's a memorandum that any of us could direct your
attention about any given subject. And we do so because
there is some constituent out there who's raised an issue
with us, or a problem has arisen and they expect a response,
and in turn, so do we. And so, you know, that's just my
thoughts. I know you're going to do that, but I feel
compelled to make that .illustration for you.
MR. HENNEKE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I take one more --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- whack at this thing? Talking
about the black hole of Calcutta, I remember the time that we
had a County Attorney here that just basically refused to do
any work for the Commissioners Court, and then in turn, we go
out and hire an attorney in the community to do the -- to do
our work for us. Now, that's a sad day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was a sad day, and I
3-22-10
174
1
2
3~
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HENNEKE: Commissioner, I'll be responsive,
', I'll be accurate, and I believe in showing my work, so y'all
will know when you want to know it and you'll know where I'm
coming from when I deliver the answer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the only thing -- I
mean, I agree with what both Commissioner Baldwin and
Williams said. The only other thing that I would really add
to that is that the -- that whole -- the black hole of
Calcutta days versus where we are now, largely Rex Emerson
got -- made that transition and change down there, and put
together a staff and a group down there that are -- are
really good. And, obviously, it's going to be -- you're
autonomous; it's going to be your office. But, really, get
to know how that system works down there, what the staff down
there are doing, 'cause it is a first-class operation in my
opinion. And, you know, obviously, you'll want to make some
modifications once you're in office, but I would move -- just
a word of caution. Move slow. It works very, very well down
there. When Rex got appointed, Ilse, I think, basically
pretty much just let that machine continue to work. You get
a request -- obviously, you do a lot of work. We're most
concerned about work for us, but every other office in the
county relies on the County Attorney's office, and it's a
critical function for all offices to work smoothly. So,
3-22-10
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
175
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Pretty much the same thing.
I visited with Rob a little bit about these things, and --
and, you know, being responsive to everybody in this
courthouse and everybody that works for the county is very
important. And working closely with everybody, where they
have the confidence to come see you about issues, and -- and
action gets taken fairly quickly is very important. And look
forward to having you do just that.
MR. HENNEKE: Thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, Rob, one thing I'd add is
.that, obviously, your time is going to become, you know,.
really compressed and a lot of demands on you. And, you
know, I expect you -- I think the rest of us up here, we have
our own priorities. I may have four or five things floating
around down there. If it gets to be too much, say, "Hey, I
can't get to that for a while."' I would rather know that
it's going to be a couple of weeks or a month till you can
really get into some of this stuff, as opposed to saying.--
you know, then I can act accordingly. I mean, obviously, as
quick as you can get things, I'd appreciate it, but knowing
where things are is as important as getting the answer a lot
of times, just knowing the status. I'd appreciate it. And
feedback goes both ways, 'cause, obviously, I know that, you
3-22-10
176
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know, sometimes Commissioner Baldwin's going to ask for
something, I'm going to ask for something, and mine's going
to be the priority. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Always is, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There you go; 1, 2, 3, 4.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:, That's the way it's been all
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And a question I do have, also,
is I know that on acting on the agenda item, the
appointment -- can someone fill me in legally as to what. we
-- where we are and dates and times? I know that we have a
letter of resignation that's requested to be effective --
JUDGE TINLEY: March 31st.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- March 31st. Can action be
taken today, or a future date, or do we have to wait until
after that date, or where are we?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Give us a couple of minutes;
I'll show you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You got it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Henneke, welcome aboard. The
thing that I think is -- that you're going to find is you're
going to have to become an expert in time management, because
you got a whole bunch of clients, all the various departments
of Kerr County;	for example,	Juvenile Board.	That's	someone
else that you -	- that you get	to respond to.	And if	-- if
3-22-10
177
1
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 we are entitled to rely on your opinion. If you issue a
written opinion in a given matter, we are entitled to rely
upon that, and that gives us, in essence, immunity if our
actions are based upon that opinion. So, it's very, very
~~ critical that any opinion that we get is something that we
feel comfortable relying upon, and I'm sure you don't want it
any other way. But you're going to have -- you're going to
have relationships running out-your ears. before you know it
because of all the various departments, and -- and you got a
lot of J.P.'s that you're going to be serving, and -- and
there's going to be all sorts of matters just falling out of
the sky on you. And just hitch it up and get ready, because
it's coming. And best of luck, and welcome aboard.
MR. HENNEKE: Thank you, sir. Thank you,
Commissioners, Judge. I look forward to working with y'all.
Look forward to getting up to speed and bringing what I bring
to the table to it, and to continue to serve, along with you,
the great -- great people of Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to say
congratulations on your election, but more importantly,
congratulations on your new son.
MR. HENNEKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What a thrill that is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bingo, yeah.
3-22-10
178
1
2-
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, I move that we appoint
Rob Henneke as Kerr County Attorney effective April 1, 2010.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Let me ask for clarification on that,
Commissioner. That is to fill the current vacancy in that
position?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct, sir.
', JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you like to have that
language in there, in the order?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we just clarified it on the
I record.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comment on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Come
April 1, you're it.
MR. HENNEKE: I'l1 be ready to go.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good. Good. Okay, gentlemen.
Anything else on the main agenda that we've not taken care
3-22-10
179
1
2
3
4
5
6-
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of? If not, we'll go to Section 4. First item, pay the
bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 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: The motion carries. I gather that
that does include the direct, as well as the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. Okay, budget
amendments.
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Looks like three of them.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- three budget amendments as shown
on the Budget Amendment Request Summary. Do I hear a motion
that the budget amendments as shown on the summary be
approved?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
3-22-10
180
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approval of the budget amendment requests as shown on the 22
March 2010 summary. Question or discussion? All in favor of
the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Did you vote, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Late bills.
I show one late bill to Kendnel Kasper for some setup work
that they've done in connection with the project.
MS. HARGIS: 27,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: After -- after deduction and
retainage, it was approved by the architect and submitted for
payment.
MS. HARGIS: I have one other one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MS. HARGIS: I have one other one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: You don't have that in front of you,
'cause it was handed in at break. One of the Tahoes that we
ordered for the Juvenile Probation Department did come in,
and we have taken receipt of it. And that is grant funds, as
you may recall, and it's 35,225.75.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 35 what?
3-22-10
181
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21'
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: 35,225.75. I've asked --
JUDGE TINLEY: That is payable to whom?
MS. HARGIS: That's payable to Holiday Chevrolet in
Whitesboro, Texas.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sorry, I didn't catch the last.
MS. HARGIS: Whitesboro, Texas.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: We have the title and all the
paperwork, and I have it right here in front of me.
JUDGE TINLEY: We got possession of the vehicle and
all the legal documents?
MS. HARGIS: The vehicle is parked along the side,
actually, right next to my car, so those of you that would
like to see it, please -- that's -- that is complete. The
Juvenile, he got the one sedan and then they got the Tahoe,
so I would assume that maybe the rest of our Tahoes will be
', coming in shortly.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On ours, they're telling us
ours should start arriving about the middle to last week of
April. But then there's still a lot of equipment that has to
be added. I doubt if we'll see them on the road until the
~ middle of May.
MS. HARGIS: We -- we're very fortunate with these
grants being reimbursed almost -- I think we talked about
this. I actually sent the report in on the lst, and the
3-22-10
182
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9_
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion that these two
late bills, one to Kendnel Kasper and the other to Holiday
Chevrolet, as delineated, be approved?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the late bills as designated. Question or
discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
I (No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. I've been
handed monthly reports from the District Clerk; Justice of
the Peace, Precinct 2; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4;'
Constable, Precinct 4; Kerr County Treasurer for
February 2010; and Road and Bridge Department. Do I hear a
motion that these reports be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
3-22-10
183
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13-
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Okay,
reports from Commissioners in connection with their liaison
or committee assignments. Commissioner. Baldwin, do you have
anything for us?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:- Sir, I don't, but thank you
for asking.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not particularly, but I do
want to take this opportunity to thank Ms. Bailey for her
service to Kerr County. We appreciate what you've done.
MS. BAILEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wish you well in all your
future legal endeavors.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nothing to add.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: How about elected officials,
department heads?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You knew Rusty was going to
I be first.
3-22-10
1,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9'
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
184
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You knew I was going to.
JUDGE TINLEY: Should have taken that out of order.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I could have given you his
report. It would have been a lot quicker.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -Jail report is not good. For
the last couple weeks, we've been running as high as 178,
with as many as 28, 29 females, and in a 32-bed female
facility. This morning we were lower; we had some that
shipped out and got sent to other places. We were at 168,
with 23 females. Currently, there are 30 County Court at Law
ones that still need to go to court, 38 198th ones, and 52
216th. 216th also had grand jury today, with 42 more on the
grand jury list. I do not know how many of those will be
true-billed or not. We've got 23 inmates with over 100 days
23
24
25 money.
3-22-10
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Murder.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, murder. I thought he said
in jail. The longest one's 525 days, and that's a 216th case
still waiting. 198th has eight of them with over 100 days;
the longest is 300 days. I've got 12 in there for parole
violations, and I've got 29 that are serving out sentences or
waiting to be shipped out. Got 65 that are in there for
violation of probations, and then I've got five in there for
murder. So, it's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For what?
1
2
3
4
5'
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
185
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, they're not getting that
~ part .
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thirteen in there for
immigration violations, and five for organized crime.
JUDGE TINLEY: Immigration violations ought to be
gone fairly soon, shouldn't they?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Some of those also have other
charges pending.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
i
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Some of the those also have
other charges pending.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh.
MS. BAILEY: Most of them do, don't they?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, most of them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we experiencing a problem with
the -- with the Friday court docket?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot of things, I noticed,
are getting reset more and more. I couldn't tell you the
reason why there has not been that much activity on the
Friday court docket. Last Friday, I think all the dockets
were reset; I'm not sure. We had hardly anybody going. But
I can't -- I haven't looked into that individually enough to
be able to give you an accurate answer on what's happening.
I know that all -- last week, every morning there have been
anywhere from 10 to 20 people put in jail overnight. A lot
3-22-10
186
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24'
25
of those get out right away, but some of them don't. I don't
know whether it's spring break, whatever, but there was just
a lot going on, and hoping it slows down. But it -- I don't
know what to tell you. It's going up.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Buster, you need to go to
work on those judges -- that judge on the Friday docket? You
need to work on that a little more, push that along?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Heck, yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You have 65 with violation of
probations or parole violations; those people aren't going
anywhere until the Court gets done with them. Those are no
bonds.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are the violations of probation, are
they mostly misdemeanors? Or --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Probably about half and half.
It's just an educated guess, without going through it all.
And we're ending up now just with more and more of them with
problems, with either mental status -- and the jail staff --
and you can see it in newspaper articles, like lately where
now P.D. says they were fighting when they got them to the
jail. Well, that's when P.D. or S.O. leaves, and the jail
staff deals with them: So, it's been -- been very
interesting. I don't know what's going on, but they've had
to fight a number of them, put them in restraint chairs.
It's just been a -- we've got a number of them that have
3-22-10
187
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 .
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20`
21
22
23
24
25
attempted suicide, things like that lately. It's just --
close to full. So far we haven't had a problem getting ours
in. Once they're paper-ready, I mean, they're still running
right up to that 45, 50 days before they take them, but
that's been the way that's been. The hardest one getting
them into are your treatment facilities, ISF, things like
that; those are taking a while. But that's kind of where we
are. Other than that, we're waiting on the -- the cars to
start coming in.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe we need to consider that
additional unfinished space in the new building for housing
inmates, as opposed to the 216th District Attorney.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I don't think the
construction will fit the requirements that our nice state
Jail Commission's going to require as far as how we construct
it for housing inmates.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who's going to tell them?
JUDGE TINLEY: Who, the inmates?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, who's going to tell the
3-22-10
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
188
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Department heads? Okay.
MS. HARGIS:~ I think all of you received a packet
.from me regarding the financials. Through the 15th --
basically, both of them are through the 18th of this month.
This is not a full six months, because we -- we don't get the
clerk's fees until after the end of March, so I did kind of a
synopsis on the side for you to -- to kind of see your pluses
and your minuses. I will point out that we are behind on the
sales tax. Same time this year as last year is the best'
not great. You can see where I have brackets, it's below.
Where there are no brackets, it's above. You see that on the
first page, we're ahead of the tax collections, thanks to
Diane's office. We appreciate that. Sales tax is behind.
Bail bonds is a little behind. Your permit fees are -- are
ahead. Your state-shared revenue, which is, you know, some
of these things come in once a year. Most of them do come in
once a year. You're ahead there actually 1,528.95.
Environmental Health, we are behind, but again, the
building, you know, during the wintertime is not as much. as
it will be in the spring and the fall. We -- the
3-22-10
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
189
I
out-of-county prisoners, we're ahead. Again, we didn't have
any of those last year. And our constable fees and our --
-and all of their fees of office, we are ahead right now,
combined. Not necessarily each department, but combined.
Justices are a little bit behind; the J.P.'s are way behind,
which was the -- was the case last year. They're still
running very far behind in their civil fees. The criminal
fees are ahead. Sheriff fees are ahead. Our reimbursements
are ahead. Interest earnings, we kind of knew those would be
not there. The next one is all of our varied fees. Again, a
lot of these are one-time fees that come in once a year,
but -- so that's one reason we may be a little bit behind
there. But I do want to point out to you on the very last
line that we did get some money from the State, unexpected,
unbudgeted, of 47,889, which kind of offsets our 127 a little
bit. So, the total revenues are actually ahead 1,218,464.52.
I -- I don't want you to get a false sense of
security here, 'cause I'm not real pleased with these
revenues. We are watching them very closely. They're not
running what we need them to run, especially in all the
clerk's offices. We're behind -- still behind even what we
budgeted. So, I want to bring this again probably when we
start our budgeting process maybe in May when we've got a
clear six months, but I didn't want to wait until the end,
and I want y'all to be kind of on board to know what I know.
3-22-10
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
190
Expenses, on the other hand, are fine. Most everybody is
under, or right where they need to be. Considering at this
time, they should be at about 58 percent, if you'll notice,
most of them haven't even used that much yet. So, all of the
spending is -- is way -- is intact. It's where it should be.
It's the revenue side that we don't have a lot of control
over. I'm hoping now that we got a lot of rain -- we
didn't -- you know, with the drought last year, maybe we
didn't have as many people --.the camps didn't have as many
kids. I'm hoping that will all pick up.
Sales tax is the -- the State Controller; we were
running right with the state, which was 14 -- about
14 percent. And in the newsletter that we received from the
Controller's office, they have seen that come up statewide
down to 8.8 percent behind, so it is coming up. Now, that's
-- you know, affects each -- each area. We're not as bad off
as -- as the city, budget-wise. If you look at it, it's way
behind, but you understand the budget's divided by 12, so
that's why I showed you year-to-date, 'cause it's a little
better. But, you know, I'm hoping that comes up. We have
collected our ad valorem tax pretty much. We'll be done --
'~ it will trickle in a little bit more until July 1, but we
have that semiannual payment in July, so that kind of skews
ours a little bit. So, then we get a big kick in July, and
then it tapers back off again. So the real test will be to
3-22-10
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
191
see how our fees are coming in in the next couple of months.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And sales tax.
MS. HARGIS: And the sales tax. So, I'll keep you
up to date on that. I just want you to be constantly aware
of that. I would like to send out a letter, even though
everybody's doing a great job, and say, you know, if you
don't really need it, don't buy it. Just conserve as much as
we can, so that we can -- you know, we can't help the
revenue; we can certainly cut our expenses.
JUDGE TINLEY: Try and offset as much as possible
with fund balances?
MS. HARGIS: Right. So, if y'all don't mind, T
will send out that letter. It's just a, you know, "please
help me" type of a letter. Nothing, you know, that's
demanding that they cut back, because they are doing a good
job. Most of your departments, if you'll look at them,
they're in the 65, 70 percent range. They haven't even used
any of their -- you know, a lot of discretionary money,
they're holding onto it. So -- but, please, if you have any
questions regarding revenue or you're concerned about it at
any time, you know, please just let my office know. We'll
work with you, provide you what you need. I want y'all to be
on board with me month by month on this deal.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hargis, has the Comptroller
3-22-10
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
192
issued any guidance or -- or any numbers that deal with the
MS. HARGIS: I have to look back. To be honest
with you, there was something not this month, but the prior
month, about Internet sales, so I'll have to look back on
that and see how that's affecting us. The -- you have to
also understand, one of the reasons that we've got, I think,
a deflated sales tax -- and I've -- you know, when gas went
up, we got the sales tax. We all liked to die, but gas went
up; we got the sales tax off of it. When the gas fell, so
did the sales tax. So, a lot of that was an inflated sales
tax that we got due to gasoline. We've also had a lot of
businesses in -- you know, if you've lived here long
enough -- you know, I feel like I've lived here long enough,
I can say that there's a lot of businesses, even in the
downtown area. We lost one out at -- you know, we lost Grape
Juice to Kerrville, so we -- you know, in Ingram. We needed
that. We don't have it any more. So, there's still a lot of
businesses that aren't doing that well. I had a visit from
one of the executives ,of Wells Fargo Bank, and he said a lot
of our businesses waited; they're just now feeling it really
bad, and they waited till the last minute to come to them,
and there's nothing they can do. So, I think we're going to
see some more of our businesses go down, you know, as a
result of this economy. So, we just need to keep up with it
3-22-10
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
193
and be cognizant of it, knowing that next year, we -- we're
going to have to maybe pull back even more than we have in
the past. But I just -- I feel like I need to bring the
message. It's not real bad yet, but I just want you to know
we need to watch it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for Ms. Hargis?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only in -- this is a report
that you generate monthly? Or just periodically?
MS. HARGIS: Well, the financial statements are --
I you can pull them down yourself, and I will show each one of
you how to do that. You can do a summary that I gave you;
you can pull that down any time. But I converted this to
Excel, because I thought it was a little easier for y'all to
read, and I wanted to see myself. We've been running it,
unbeknownst to y'all, for about -- that intern that I hired,
I've had him doing a report for the last three months, and it
just kept bothering me. Our percentages were just not there.
And, of course, I worry about -- I worry about budget to
actual, but not as much as budget to last year, 'cause last
year we were running the same -- pretty much the same budget
as we did last year. So, if we have the same revenue as last
year, but we're -- we're in good shape, but we're not running
that either, so that's what concerns me. And, you know, some
of the other counties, and now the city has cut back a
~ million dollars. But I'm not going to cry wolf yet, but I
3-22-10
194
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22-
23
24
25
will be glad to come over and show each one of you how to
pull those down so you can keep up with them if you have --
if you're curious about them.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, what's the total amount
of the one and a half percent increase in salary from April
through end of the year?
MS. HARGIS: I figured total; it's about $88,000.
Otherwise, I would have been up here. I -- I had to weigh --
and that's why I've been looking at this, believe me. That's
why I had to put it on the agenda. It's not that I didn't
want this to go through, but I did want everybody to know,
you know, that we're down a little bit. But I think we can
stand -- it was already in the budget. It's already plugged
into the budget, so I think we'll be all right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for her? Thank
you, ma'am. Other department heads?
MS. HYDE: Two things. One, everyone knows what
happened this morning, right? With health care?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Happened last night.
MS. HYDE: Well, I went to bed.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we don't know really what
~ happened.
MS. HYDE: Don't really know.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We know how many hands went
up on one side and the other.
3-22-10
195
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18~
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HYDE: I'll keep y'all up to date, but I'm. not
going to bombard you with all the stuff that's out there. We
won't know anything for a while. You guys have been around
this long enough and understand the game. This doesn't go
into effect till 2014. There's a lot that can change between
now and then, so I'll leave it there. It's not going to
impact us this year as far as insurance, and it probably will
not impact us next year on insurance cost, which is good
news. I will be gone part of the month of April. I have
three conferences that I need to go to, so I will be in and
out, but I'll give you guys a -- you'll know where I'm at and
how to get ahold of me. And you will be getting invitations
to get your Hep A and B shots, gentlemen. You got one
invitation and I didn't get any responses. This is an RSVP,
i so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What shot?
MS. HYDE: Your Hep A and B shots. And if you need
I tetanus --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Isn't that -- didn't we
decide -- pretty much decide we didn't need that up here?
That was only for people at risk.
MS. HYDE: Just tell me, "I don't want it," so I
don't order it. If y'all don't want it, that's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Buster promised not to bite, so
that's -- that's a help.
3-22-10
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
196
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I went through my distemper
thing a while ago. Is there something new now?
MS. HYDE: Yeah. You got Hep A and B and tetanus,
so just check with your physicians, and they'll be an e-mail
that goes out. Elected/appointed officials will need to have
a response by the end of the month so I can order.. We held
off, trying to see if the prices would go down. They have
gone down. Saves us a little bit of money. That's all I
got.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, that does include
tetanus. That's a good thing.
MS. HYDE: Oh, yeah. You get your tetanus too., and
we'll have lots of fun giving shots.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You need a tetanus?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other department heads? Anybody
else? Going once. Going twice. Going three times. We're
adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 2:46 p.m.)
3-22-10
1
2-
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
197
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 29th day of March, 2010.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3-22-10
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY:
Kathy ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
ORDER NO. 31658
SOFTWARE LICENSE UPGRADE FOR QUICKBOOKS
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of March, 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 purchasing a software license upgrade for QuickBooks using the 2008 Capital
Outlay that was designated for software.
ORDER NO. 31659
REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUMS PAID FOR COUNTY DEBRIS PLACED AT
LOCAL LAND FILL
Came to b~ heard this the 22nd day of March, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize reimbursement to the Community Service Infusion (CSI) group, not to exceed
$600.00, as reimbursement for dump fees, with those funds to be paid out of the
Environmental Health Department's Nuisance Abatement Program.
ORDER NO. 31660
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of March, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by ~ vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the organizational restructuring of the Economic Development Board as
proposed by the Kerr Economic Development Task Force.
ORDER NO. 31661
APPOINTMENT OF COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE TO KERRVILLE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Came to b~ heard this the 22nd day of March, 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 the. Resolution as presented, and appoint the County Judge Pat Tinley as the
County Representative to the new Kerrville Economic Development Foundation Board of
Directors.
ORDER NO. 31662
AWARD BIDS FOR ANNUAL ROAD & BRIDGE MATERIALS
Came to b~ heard this the 22nd day of March, 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 the' recommendation of the Road & Bridge Administrator to award the annual
material bids for road base, cold mix, aggregate, emulsion oil and corrugated metal pipe
as follows:
Corrugated Pipe to Contech Construction Products, Inc.
Base Material to Allen Keller Company, as the low bid, and to Wheatcraft, Inc., as the
backup, depending on the location in the County, because of the freight
Emulsion to Ergon Asphalts and Emulsions, Inc.
Asphalt Products:
Black Base to Vulcan Construction Materials, LP and
Cold Mix to Martin Marietta Materials
Paving Aggregate to Vulcan Construction Materials, LP
ORDER N0.31663
CONTRACT WITH TETRA TECH, INC.
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of March, 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 amending the Contract with Tetra Tech, Inc. to accommodate a revised Scope of
Work for engineering services relating to Kerrville South Wastewater Project, Ranchero
Road elements.
ORDER NO. 31664
PITNEY BOWES POSTAGE METER FOR COUNTY TREASURER
Came to b~ heard this the 22nd day of March, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by''a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve replacing the current Pitney Bowes Postage Meter with a new Meter, entering
into a new Contract, and authorizing the County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 31665
WAIVER REQUEST FOR WELL LOCATION IN HILL COUNTRY RANCH
ESTATES 3
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of March, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize the County Judge to sign a Property Line Separation Request, granting the
Waiver to lit the property owner at 120 Riojas, in Hill Country Ranch Estates 3, locate
their well closer to the county right of way, with it being as far from the property line as
possible, and in no event closer than 30 feet.
ORDER NO. 31666
KERRVILLE/KERB COUNTY JOINT AIRPORT BOARD MEMBERS
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of March, 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 request by Kerrville/Kerr County Joint Airport Board to reappoint Mark
Cowden, Corey Walters, and Tom Moser for two year terms of office beginning June 1,
2010.
ORDER NO. 31667
KERRV'ILLE/KERR COUNTY JOINT AIRPORT BOARD TO ACT AS JOINT
AIRPORT ZONING BOARD
Came to b~ heard this the 22nd day of March, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by', a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Confirm the authority of the Kerrville/Kerr County Joint Airport Board to also act as the
Joint Airport Zoning Board.
ORDER NO. 31668
MODIFY COURT ORDER #31654 TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH
BICKERSTAFF, HEATH, DELGADO, ACOSTA, LLP AS CONSULTANT FOR
REDISTRICTING IN 2011 FOR 2010 CENSUS
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of March, 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 modifying Court Order #31654 to enter into a Contract with Bickerstaff, Heath,
Delgado, Acpsta, LLP, as the Consultant for the Redistricting in 2011 as a result of the
2010 Census; and authorize County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 31669
KERR COUNTY RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of March, 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 designating the Kerr County Clerk to serve as the Records Management Officer
of Kerr County.
ORDER NO. 31670
DECLARE APRIL 2010 "COUNTY GOVERNMENT MONTH" IN KERR COUNTY
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of March, 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 declaring Apri12010 "County Government Month" in Kerr County.
ORDER NO. 31671
DECLARE MARCH 27, 2010 AS BARK FOR LIFE AND A TOTAST TO THE
ANIMALS DAYS IN KERB COUNTY
Came to b~ heard this the 22nd day of March, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve declaring March 27, 2010, as "Bark for Life" and "A Toast to the Animals" day
in Kerr County.
ORDER NO. 31672
ALLOW KERB AREA RURAL FIRE ASSOCIATION (KARFA) TO USE THE HILL
COUNTRY YOUTH EXHIBIT CENTER AT NO CHARGE ON JUNE 5 AND 6, 2010
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of March, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by!a vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the" Kerr Area Rural Fire Association (KARFA) to use the Hill Country Youth
Exhibit Center free of charge for Emergency Vehicle Operators Court (EVOC) training
on June 5 and 6, 2010.
ORDER NO. 31673
CON~'INUING DISCLOSURE DISSEMINATION AGENT AGREEMENT
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of March, 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 Continuing Disclosure Dissemination Agent Agreement with RBC Capital
Markets to provide dissemination agent services in connection with the continuing
disclosure obligations of Kerr County regarding certain bond issue(s) for which the
County has agreed to make annual filings pursuant to SEC Rule 15c2-12.
ORDER NO. 31674
APPOINTMENT OF ROB HENNEKE AS COUNTY ATTORNEY
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of March, 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 appointment of Rob Henneke as County Attorney effective April 1, 2010, to fill
the current vacancy in that position.
ORDER NO. 31675
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of March, 2010, came to be considered by the Court
various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	263,576.87
14-Fire Protection	$	25,512.16
15-Road & Bridge	$	45,658.29
16-Capital Projects	$	55,504.71
18-County Law Library	$	2,375.54
19-Public Library	$	25,000.00
21-Title IV-E	$	406.65
23-Juvenile State Aid Fund	$	22,860.00
27-Community Corrections	$	3,600.00
28-Records Mgmt & Preserv	$	1,662.73
37-Center Point Wastewater	$	10,166.55
50-Indigent Health Care	$	5,612.49
72-SO Equip/Donation Fund	$	10,404.88
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	4,145.95
77-LEOSE Funds	$	3,870.00
82-SO Law Enforcement	$	1,693.00
83-216t" District Attorney	$	2,791.01
86-216`" CS~D	$	296.33
87-Community Service - 003	$	103.33
TOTAL $ 485,240.49
Upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts, including
the Direct Payables.
ORDER NO. 31676
BUDGET AMENDMENT NOS. 1 THROUGH 3
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of March, 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 Budget Amendment Nos. 1 through 3, as presented.
ORDER NO. 31677
LATE BILLS
COUNTY AUDITOR AND JUVENILE PROBATION DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 22°d day of March, 2010, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 issue a hand check in the amount of $27,274.12 to Kendnel
Kasper Construction for the Law Enforcement/Adult Probation Annex Building; and
issue a hand check in the amount of $35,225.75 to Holiday Chevrolet in Whitesboro,
Texas, for ot~e of the Tahoe's for the Juvenile Probation Department, to come from grant
funds.
ORDER NO. 31678
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of March, 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 the';Monthly Reports from:
District Clerk
JP #2
JP #4
Constable Pct #4
Kerr County-,Treasurer for February, 2010
Road & Bride Department