1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Monday, July 22, 2002 11 9:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X July 22, 2002 2 PAGE 3 --- Visitors' Comments 3 --- Commissioners Comments 5 4 1.1 Pay Bills 9 1.2 Budget Amendments 9 5 1.3 Late Bills 22 1.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 25 6 2.2 Final revision of plat for Lot 11 of Hidden Hills 26 7 2.1 Final plat for Hidden Hills Two, Precinct 2 27 8 2.3 Discuss sale of property in Y.O. Ranchlands and 9 Dominion Ranch 28 10 2.4 Request for support and funding of Hill Country Alternative Dispute Resolution Center, Inc. 38 11 2.5 Request to the Comptroller of Public Accounts to 12 allocate a portion of unclaimed money received from electric co-ops back to Kerr County 57 13 2.6 Approve appointment of election judges and 14 alternate judges for November general election 59 15 2.9 Consider Non-Financial Cooperative Agreement for Workfare, a program of the Alamo Area Development 16 Corporation 64 17 2.7 Approve 2000 Texas Community Development Program Colonia Planning Study 72 18 2.8 Set public hearing for July 30, 2002, at 6 p.m. 19 on T.C.D.P. Colonia Fund applications for continu- ation of Kerrville South Sewer Collection project 20 and Disaster Relief programs 77 21 2.10 County Attorney's budget workshop 97 22 --- Adjourned 125 --- Reporter's Certificate 126 23 24 25 3 1 On Monday, July 22, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., a special meeting 2 of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the 3 Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, 4 Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning, everyone. It's 7 9 o'clock in the morning on Monday, July 22nd, and we will 8 convene this regular special session of the Kerr County 9 Commissioners Court. Commissioner Griffin, I believe you 10 have the honors this morning. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, okay. Will you 12 please stand, join me in a moment of silent prayer, followed 13 by the pledge of allegiance. 14 (Silent prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, any citizen 16 wishing to address the Court on an item not listed on the 17 regular agenda may do so. Is there any citizen who would 18 like to address the Court on an item not listed on the 19 regular agenda? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think there is one. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Mr. Flores? Come 22 forward, sir. 23 MR. FLORES: Do I come up here? 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, sir. Please give your 25 name and your address, and tell us what's on your mind. 7-22-02 4 1 MR. FLORES: My name is Richard Flores, and 2 my address is 15 Valle Verde North. I -- the County, last 3 year, come and dug a ditch in front of my house. It's been 4 there for 20 years, and nothing ever happened. Now, with 5 this rain, most of my property -- a lot of my property 6 washed off. And I keep going to the County and road people 7 up there, and they just tell me, "We'll go, we'll call you," 8 and nobody's done nothing. And I just thought maybe -- I 9 have to talk to somebody. And they dug a ditch deeper than 10 the Mississippi, and it was there for 20 years without no 11 ditch, and then water was running out and everything. I 12 don't know why and whose idea it was to dig a ditch. Then 13 they dug up a drain pipe that was there for -- cement pipe, 14 and then it took them all day to break it up. Why'd they 15 dig up a perfectly good drain pipe and break it up, and then 16 they put in another one? I can't understand what was the 17 reason for that. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. 19 MR. FLORES: And then my property washed out. 20 I don't know why they dug that ditch that deep. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What street do you 22 live on? 23 MR. FLORES: Teri Lane and Valle Verde, right 24 on the corner, 15 Valle Verde. I've been there for 20 25 years. 7-22-02 5 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Flores, I won't 2 guarantee you anything. I will guarantee you a phone call 3 from the Road and Bridge Department. 4 MR. FLORES: They've been telling me that, 5 and nothing's ever happened. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm guaranteeing you 7 that phone call. 8 MR. FLORES: I've been over there two or 9 three times. They just smile and say yeah, and that's it. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 11 MR. FLORES: Okay. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Mr. Flores. 13 MR. FLORES: Thank you. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there anyone else who 15 would like to address the Court on an item not listed on the 16 regular agenda? One more time, is there anyone else who'd 17 like to address the Court on an item not listed on the 18 regular agenda? Seeing none, we'll turn to the 19 Commissioners' comments and start with Commissioner Griffin. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Nothing this morning, 21 Judge. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I want to 24 remind everyone that this coming Saturday is our second 25 farmer's market program on the courthouse square. Of 7-22-02 6 1 course, two weeks ago they had the first one, and it was a 2 roaring success, and I just want to remind everyone of that. 3 I guess this is really information for the Judge. I met 4 with FEMA -- along with our Road and Bridge Department, met 5 with FEMA last week, and we turned in -- filled out and 6 turned in our request for public assistance. So, we -- that 7 is in the -- that's in the mill and rolling. Also met last 8 week with AACOG on the homeland security program. It's kind 9 of an interesting thing. You know, the federal moneys now 10 are beginning to come down there on the state level, and 11 they will -- AACOG has been chosen to be the clearinghouse 12 of that. And the particular group that I -- that I'm 13 associated with are the First Responder bunch, which is 14 police and fire and that kind of thing, and it's really 15 interesting. They -- we broke up into committees, and of 16 course, me being a bigmouth, I'm chairman of a committee 17 down there. 18 (Laughter.) 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, as well, City of 20 Kerrville Fire Department is on a committee, and City of 21 Kerrville Police Chief is also on a committee, so Kerrville 22 and Kerr County's well represented down there. They are 23 planning on doing things -- you know, a lot of training and 24 communications and -- and if there's a disaster in San 25 Antonio, how -- exactly what the people from Kerrville -- 7-22-02 7 1 the First Responder people from Kerrville are supposed to 2 do, their position in all of this. And it's kind of neat to 3 see a real plan come together like that, and it's -- I think 4 it's going to be a lot of fun to work on. And they're 5 actually talking about, in Kerrville, Texas, the weapons of 6 mass destruction. They will -- we will train our local 7 people to handle those kinds of situations. That was a 8 little bit scary when I -- when the reality hits. You know, 9 god, we're preparing right here at home for stuff like that. 10 So, anyway, that's -- that's what's going on with that. I 11 thought I'd report it to you guys. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Appreciate it. Bill? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only that Precinct 2 14 Justice of the Peace Dawn Wright met with an accident 15 Friday, I believe, coming out of Schreiner's Department 16 Store and fell and broke her leg in a couple places; is in 17 Intensive Care at Sid Peterson Hospital. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Intensive Care? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She was. But I guess 20 the trauma of it -- she's got a bad back as it is, and 21 whatever, and they had to do a rod and a pin and so forth. 22 Didn't have the right pins or rods and had to fly them in 23 from San Antonio or drive them in from San Antonio. So, 24 she's experiencing a good bit of pain and trauma. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan? 7-22-02 8 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I'll move to the 2 baseball front; I think actually on two fronts this morning, 3 but Little League, the 9- and 10-year-old All-Stars are 4 playing tonight for the championship. If they win, they'll 5 be going to the state tournament in Waco, which is the 6 second time in Little League history of Kerrville that the 7 team has advanced that far. So -- and they have a pretty 8 good shot at making it to the state tournament; they would 9 have to get beat twice by Uvalde to not go. So, they're in 10 the winner's bracket. So, I wish them the best success. 11 And, for those that didn't notice, the old baseball field's 12 gone, as is the old softball field at Tivy. Demolition is 13 moving rapidly along, and Home Depot has told the school to 14 get everything off that property by this Friday, and 15 bulldozers are moving in. So, that project's on the fast 16 track from Home Depot's standpoint, and also on the fast 17 track considering K.I.S.D. is trying to build new fields, 18 which is quite an undertaking. That's it. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. I'd like to thank 20 everyone for jumping in and helping out while I was on 21 vacation last week in search of the perfect marguerita. 22 You'll be happy to know I haven't found it yet, but I'm not 23 giving up my search. I particularly want to compliment the 24 article I read in the Kerrville Daily Times about the Road 25 and Bridge Department. They were out on the roads 7-22-02 9 1 constantly during the flood event, performed admirably, as 2 we all expected, and I was very happy to see their 3 accomplishments and dedication recognized by the newspapers. 4 So, my thanks particularly to the Kerrville Daily Times for 5 that recognition. Without any further ado, let's get down 6 to the business at hand and pay some bills. Mr. Auditor, do 7 we have some bills to pay? Does anyone have any questions 8 or comments regarding the bills? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the 10 bills. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 13 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 14 authorize payment of the bills as presented and recommended 15 by the Auditor. Any questions or comments? If not, all in 16 favor, raise your right hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget 21 amendments. Budge Amendment Number 1 is for the District 22 Clerk's Office. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: The District Clerk has asked 24 -- requested a transfer of a total of $818.63, $390 from 25 Telephone line item and $428.63 from Office Supplies. 7-22-02 10 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 5 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve 6 Budget Amendment Request Number 1 for the District Clerk's 7 Office. Any other questions or comments? If not, all in 8 favor, raise your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget 13 Amendment Request Number 2 is General Fund, Nondepartmental, 14 Road and Bridge. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. I'm asking for an 16 increase in the budget in this amendment. We have -- we 17 have a bill from Texas Association of Counties for worker's 18 comp. It's for the final quarter of this fiscal year. 19 Total's $55,314.75. At this point, it's difficult to find 20 $34,172 out of the General Fund this late in the year. So 21 -- and the same applies to Road and Bridge. I know that 22 Road -- we all know that Road and Bridge will need every 23 dollar they have between now and the end of the year, so my 24 recommendation is to declare an emergency and take this 25 fund -- take these amounts from surplus in those funds. 7-22-02 11 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From surplus in each 2 of those funds? You're not talking about General Fund 3 surplus? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, in the General Fund 5 surplus, I'm recommending that we take the $34,172.30, and 6 $21,142.45 from the surplus fund in Road and Bridge. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: How -- go ahead, Jonathan. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why is this quarter -- 9 have all the quarters been running high, and it's just 10 catching up to us? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: They've all been this amount. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just that now we've 13 run out of money? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: We just did not budget enough 15 for worker's comp. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: We tried. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is there any reason to 18 think, at this point, Tommy, that the -- that next year is 19 going to be a lot worse than this one? Or -- I'm sort of 20 thinking ahead to the budget process. But -- 21 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know what our 22 experience rate is. TAC is -- TAC has told us that, from a 23 base rate, we -- we can -- we'll probably see the same -- 24 about half of what we saw last year, as far as base rate. 25 But not knowing what our experience rate is, I can't give 7-22-02 12 1 you a good answer, because I don't -- that's -- that's the 2 item that really makes a difference. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. And it is 4 whatever it is. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. And the Treasurer's 6 office knows -- I mean, they have the information as far as 7 for next budget year as to what our -- what to expect as a 8 result of our experience rate. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I don't think 10 there's anything we can -- I don't think there's an 11 alternative to what Tommy's outlining as a recommendation. 12 Anybody -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not unless there's 14 $55,000 somewhere. And you can't -- 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Not this time of year. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: There are funds in -- you 17 know, in Road and Bridge. I mean, they have not used all 18 their funds, but I just can't see that we -- between now and 19 September the 1st -- 30th, that we won't use that. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I would rather use 21 it out of Road and Bridge now and declare an emergency for 22 flood, as opposed to declaring an emergency for -- I mean, 23 there's not any difference; it's going to be the same, but 24 it's just a matter of what you're -- I mean, you can't -- I 25 understand that when we do the budget, we don't know exactly 7-22-02 13 1 what the worker's comp rates are going to be, but at the 2 same time, if we declare an emergency, I'd rather do it for 3 the flood, as opposed to worker's comp. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think I agree with 5 that. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's what the 7 emergency funds are for. Surplus is to take care of 8 emergencies. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sure that there's 11 a question in someone's mind in this audience, what if we 12 did not pay it at all? Is that an option? Let me just ask 13 that. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: If we don't have worker's 15 comp for our employees, I don't think that's an option. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, why don't we -- the 18 first item, the general workmen's comp, I mean, we'd have to 19 have two pages of budget amendment orders in order to fund 20 $34,000 somewhere. So, my suggestion would be that we act 21 on the first one, and then either prior to the conclusion of 22 this meeting or at the next meeting -- or if Tommy has it 23 now, he can identify the source for the Road and Bridge 24 workmen's comp. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I'm sure -- I'm sure we 7-22-02 14 1 have a -- there's funds in the Contract Fees for that 2 amount. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather do it that 4 way. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 9 second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court declare an 10 emergency and increase the budget in item -- Line Item 11 10-409-204, Workmen's Compensation, by the amount of 12 $34,172.30, and further take the amount of $21,142.45 from 13 Contract Fees in Road and Bridge Department and transfer to 14 Item 15-611-204, which is Workmen's Compensation Insurance 15 for Road and Bridge Department. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: We had a second. Any other 19 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 20 right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 3 is 25 for the Law Library. 7-22-02 15 1 MR. TOMLINSON: This -- this request is 2 essentially -- it's similar to the first -- to the prior 3 amendment, in that we don't have the funds budgeted for -- 4 for books -- for additional books for the Law Library. We 5 have -- we have a bill for $1,101.40 that we need to take 6 from surplus funds in the Law Library. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, Fund 18 surplus. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 12 Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 13 approve Budget Amendment Request Number 3, declare an 14 emergency, and increase the budget in Item 18-650-590 by the 15 amount of $1,101.40, with the funds to come from the surplus 16 reserve balance in that fund. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have a question. 18 Tommy, I think the last time we did this I had the same 19 question. I thought when we went to the new Law Library, we 20 were going to use less books, or more computer -- more of a 21 computer-based system, and we budgeted computers for that 22 purpose. The question is, is that number less than it was 23 two years ago as a total for the year, or are we not 24 following our plan? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: I can't give you a good 7-22-02 16 1 answer without -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you can look into it? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Sure. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because, you know, I 5 don't see that we -- 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think you missed the 7 District Clerk's budget workshop. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I did. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: We did ask her that question, 10 and she said it's called Books, but it's still -- a lot of 11 it is computer software. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: But the question as to 14 whether the balance is in line, or in the -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's still getting 16 some of the pocket parts for these books. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I knew there was 18 some expenditure for books there, but I think the total line 19 item is supposed to decrease over time. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or 21 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget 7-22-02 17 1 Amendment Request Number 4 for the 198th District Court and 2 216th District Court. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: This is a broken record here, 4 but this amendment is necessary because of -- of the 5 court-appointed -- court appointments that are being made 6 under Senate Bill 7. The request is to transfer $6,954.52 7 out of Special Trials in the 216th court, $6,130.15 out of 8 the 198th court, $4,211.35 to go into Court-Appointed 9 Attorneys line item for the 216th court, $3,270.50 into 10 Court Transcripts in the 216th court, and $5,586.72 into 11 Court-Appointed Attorneys for the 198th court, and $16 12 for -- into the Books, Publications, and Dues line item in 13 the 198th court. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 17 Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 18 approve Budget Amendment Request Number 4 for the 198th and 19 216th District Courts. Any questions or comments? If not, 20 all in favor, raise your right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Amendment 25 Number 5 is for County Court at Law. 7-22-02 18 1 MR. TOMLINSON: This amendment transfers 2 $3,252.75 from Court-Appointed Attorneys line item in County 3 Court, and transfers that to the Court-Appointed Attorney 4 line item in the County Court at Law. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 8 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve 9 Budget Amendment Request Number 5 for the County Court at 10 Law. Any other questions or comments? I think we're 11 getting pretty close to having tapped that one out. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, we are. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: All in favor, raise your 14 right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, could you give 20 us, just real quick, a brief on Senate Bill 7 and what -- 21 what has really caused this? 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Very quickly, Senate Bill 7 23 changed the timing and the requirements for appointment of 24 court-appointed attorneys for indigent defendants, where, 25 depending on the nature of the offense, you have to appoint 7-22-02 19 1 an attorney within 24 or 48 hours after their magistration. 2 Before that, many times the attorney was not appointed until 3 they came up for their arraignment, which would have been 4 several weeks later. So, it's accelerated the process of 5 appointment of court-appointed attorneys, and also has 6 changed the rules on interpreters. It's added a significant 7 burden to local government without the benefit of funding. 8 Surprise. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm shocked. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: In a nutshell, that's it. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that expedite the 12 system, though? Or do they get into the courtroom quicker? 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: No. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I appreciate all 15 the help. Thank you. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Once again, the Texas 17 Legislature have solved the problem in Harris County on the 18 backs of the rest of Texas. Okay. Number 6 for Sheriff's 19 Department. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: This is a request from the 21 Sheriff to transfer $1,000 from Vehicle Equipment, $750 from 22 Crime Prevention, and $1,521.55 from Prisoner Supplies. He 23 wants to transfer $800 into Employee Medical Exams -- 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: $600. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: $600, yeah. My copy is not 7-22-02 20 1 very good. And $1,750 from Vehicle Repairs and Maintenance, 2 and $921.86 to Prisoner Medical. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 6 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 7 approve Budget Amendment Request Number 6 for the Sheriff's 8 Department. Any questions or comments? 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just for the record, 10 that last item was $921.66. It's a little hard to read on 11 your copy. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: I have a faxed copy, and 13 so -- 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: If not, all in favor, raise 16 your right hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 7 is 21 for the 216th Adult Probation Department. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: This budget amendment is to 23 transfer enough funds for utilities for the remainder of the 24 year for that department. We anticipate to need $3,350, and 25 we're transferring that from the D.O.E.P. Instructor line 7-22-02 21 1 item to Utilities and Maintenance. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 5 Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 6 approve Budget Amendment Request Number 7 for the 216th 7 Adult Probation Department. Any questions or comments? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand the 9 utilities going up, but I don't understand that much money 10 left over in the instructor line. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Instructor line item is based 13 on the demand. Correct, Tommy? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: And if there's not that much 16 demand, then we didn't get paid that much. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: The funds from that -- for 18 those instructors comes from the defendant. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: There's a $65 fee for that 21 course, and once -- once the course is given, we -- the 22 County gets that $65 to pay for those instructors. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions? If 24 not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7-22-02 22 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget 4 Amendment Request Number 8 is for J.P. 1. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: This request is to transfer 6 $100 from Books and Publications to Office Supplies. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 10 Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve 11 Budget Amendment Request Number 8 for J.P. Number 1. Any 12 other questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise 13 your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Do we have 18 any late bills? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, I do. One is for $37 to 20 the Kerrville Postmaster, postage for Treasurer's office. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 24 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve 25 a late bill and hand check in the amount of $37 payable to 7-22-02 23 1 Kerrville Post Office -- Postmaster for the Treasurer's 2 office. Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor, 3 raise your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: I have another one for the 9 Kerrville Postmaster for $37 for postage for Constable of 10 Precinct 2. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 14 Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 15 approve a late bill and hand check in the amount of $37 16 payable to the Kerrville Postmaster for Constable, Precinct 17 2. Any other questions or comments? If not, all in favor, 18 raise your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The next one is to 24 Stericycle. It's for $51.08, and it's for medical waste 25 disposal for the jail. 7-22-02 24 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: That is to who? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Stericycle. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Stericycle, okay. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 7 second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the 8 late bill and hand check in the amount of $51.08 payable to 9 Stericycle for waste disposal at the jail. Any other 10 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 11 right hand. 12 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 14 (No response.) 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. I have three -- three 17 more; they're all payable to the same individual. It's to 18 Emily Elizabeth Mosty Harlan. The first one is for $2,500; 19 it's for the initial payment for the radio tower in Center 20 Point. I have -- the next one is for $500; it's for the 21 months of May and June for the monthly tower rental site. 22 That's already passed. And the other one is for $250; it's 23 for the tower site rental for July 21st through August the 24 20th. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 7-22-02 25 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz, 3 second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve late 4 bills and hand checks in the amount of $2,500, $500, and 5 $250 payable to Emily Mosty Harlan for the ground lease on 6 the radio tower in Center Point. Any questions or comments? 7 If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: That's all. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's all? Okay. At this 14 time, I would entertain a motion to approve and accept the 15 monthly reports as presented. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 19 Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 20 approve and accept the monthly reports as presented. Any 21 questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 22 right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 7-22-02 26 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, it's been 3 requested that we do 2.2 first, as opposed to 2.1. 4 (Discussion off the record.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Let's do Item Number 2 6 first. I've been informed that the proper sequence would be 7 to do Item Number 2 and then Item Number 1. We'll call up 8 Item Number 2, consider final plat revision of plat for Lot 9 11 of Hidden Hills, Precinct 2. Commissioner Williams. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Johnston or Mr. 11 Voelkel. Is Mr. Johnston here? Hidden Hills, the original 12 Item Number 2. We'll do Item 1 next. 13 MR. JOHNSTON: I think the proper sequence 14 would probably be if we do Item 2 first. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's what we just called. 16 MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. I was in the middle of 17 something back there. Item 2 is a plat revision of Lot 11, 18 and includes a new road. We have a Letter of Credit to 19 guarantee the new road being 1,700 feet or so, whatever that 20 is. I think everything's in place. Recommend approval. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I would move 22 final consideration and approval for final revision of plat 23 for Lot 11, Hidden Hills, as presented. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 7-22-02 27 1 Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 2 approve the final revision of plat for Lot 11 of Hidden 3 Hills, Precinct 2. Any questions or comments? If not, all 4 in favor, raise your right hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Then we'll 9 take up Item Number 1, which is consider the approval of the 10 final plat for Hidden Hills Two in Precinct 2. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Johnston? 12 MR. JOHNSTON: This is a tract of land 13 acreage which is divided into four lots, and they face this 14 new existing road that we just approved. They'll have 15 access to it. And I recommend approval. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Franklin, I don't see 17 the "Kerr County not responsible for road maintenance" 18 disclaimer on the -- the second plat. 19 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, actually, on this plat 20 there are no roads. The road's on the other plat. That 21 does have access. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good reason 23 for it not to be there, but what about in the future? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: It does have access to the 25 road. 7-22-02 28 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. All right. 2 Judge, I would move the final approval for final plat of 3 Hidden Hills Two Precinct 2, as presented. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 6 Baldwin -- Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that 7 the Court approve the final plat for Hidden Hills Two in 8 Precinct 2 as presented. Any questions or comments? If 9 not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item 14 we'll take up is Item Number 3, consider and discuss the 15 sale of property in Y.O. Ranchlands and Dominion Ranch. 16 Franklin? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: I brought this today. The 18 owner of that property would like some clarification on the 19 division of his property. I'd like to go over just a little 20 background. Part of his property's located in a platted 21 subdivision. It's, like, five lots, and he wanted to sell 22 those in a different configuration. I think that's pretty 23 straightforward. I think that requires a plat revision. 24 The balance of his property is in a -- is known as Dominion 25 Ranch. Mr. Cummings told us he bought this property in 7-22-02 29 1 various tracts and then put it together into this ranch 2 property. There's an existing road that accesses this 3 property from the highway known as Dominion Ranch Road. I 4 don't know what condition that road is in, but it was -- it 5 was existing when he bought it. It's on the north side of 6 his property. Commissioner Griffin and myself met with 7 Mr. Cummings last year, and we talked about him dividing off 8 part of this property, and the part he was talking about 9 actually had access to that ranch road. It's on the north 10 side, and we assumed it was in the configuration that one of 11 those tracts that he bought, and we felt at that time it did 12 not require platting, mainly because it had access to a 13 pre-existing road. And we're basing that on the County 14 Attorney's opinion that any property over 10 acres with 15 private road frontage, regardless of the road condition, as 16 long as it was existing before the property was -- was 17 purchased, could be resold with that access, but they didn't 18 change the description of the property. I think if new 19 roads were required, new roads were constructed, and/or the 20 tract descriptions changed, that would trigger a plat -- 21 platting process. Mr. Cummings, I think, is here, and he'd 22 like to address the Court and ask some questions. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Before we do that, does 24 anyone have any questions of Franklin? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. The question I 7-22-02 30 1 have is, clearly, if a new road is outside of the existing 2 subdivision, but if a new road is involved, or right-of-way 3 or easement, whatever you want to call it, it would require 4 platting. But if it's over 10 acres and it fronts an 5 existing road, I don't see that the legal description of the 6 property makes any difference. I don't see -- in other 7 words, whether he's changing the configuration of the 8 tracts, I don't see that that makes a difference. 9 MR. JOHNSTON: That was an issue on another 10 question we had here a few months ago up by Ingram Dam, 11 whether or not it -- they could resell property, and I think 12 the answer then was if it didn't change the configuration of 13 the property, they could do it, and if they actually 14 combined it or changed it, then it required platting. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that was less than 16 10 acres, wasn't it? 17 MR. JOHNSTON: That was less. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think it was. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, that's -- 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And Jonathan and I 21 discussed this a little bit, but I think if the easement for 22 that road was there, even if there was no road, that it is 23 still exempt from platting, right? As long as there's 24 access to that property. 25 MR. JOHNSTON: Access -- that's my 7-22-02 31 1 understanding. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Not so much a -- a 3 road there, but there's access to it, and I think that's 4 where the defined technical question that we're looking at 5 here is. And -- and maybe -- 6 MR. JOHNSTON: That's a legal question; I 7 defer that to the County Attorney, but that was kind of my 8 understanding of it. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Maybe this is a good 10 time for Mr. Jackson or Mr. Cummings to address this, but if 11 there is an easement there for those properties -- for the 12 properties as they want to sell it off, then I think that's 13 okay. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: David? 15 MR. JACKSON: Sir. My name's David Jackson. 16 I represent Mr. Cummings and Dominion Ranch. My address is 17 820 Main, office; 516 Sand Bend here in Kerrville, 18 residence. The history that Franklin has related is 19 essentially true, and to answer the specific question that 20 Mr. Griffin has raised, all of the tracts that they will 21 sell will have access to the existing road and will be 22 greater than 10 acres. Having said that, I think it would 23 be my client's intent and preference to sell the tracts as 24 they were originally configured when he bought them back in 25 the 1980's, but for a couple of three reasons, that 7-22-02 32 1 configuration may change. One of the reasons is, if you go 2 back to 1980/'81 -- there were several years involved with 3 the acquisition of those tracts -- some of the very tracts 4 that were sold to him did not have access to this existing 5 road. And I have a map here; I don't know how much 6 information you want, but it's a rough sketch of where the 7 existing road was, and you'll see some of the tracts 8 actually don't touch that road as originally purchased. So, 9 one of the things he's encountered after his discussions, as 10 Franklin related, was that he may have to reconfigure those 11 to get them to the existing roads. 12 The second area is that, in some instances, 13 the tracts are going to be slightly smaller than the 14 original size, which relates to topography, which relates to 15 access, and which relates to just a desire to sell a 16 particular piece of property, but they'll all be greater 17 than 10 acres. I think what's happened here is that there's 18 a road there since the '80's, if not before. That road will 19 be repaired and improved, of course, as all roads are, but 20 no new roads will be constructed. In other words, there's 21 no laying out of any roads; there's not a new road to run to 22 any particular tracts, but what will happen is the existing 23 tracts in the present configuration with the required access 24 will be sold in a different size or configuration. Some of 25 them will actually be larger, I think, probably, by the time 7-22-02 33 1 you actually get them to the road. Mr. Cummings is here; 2 I'm sure he can answer any questions, but I think we're all 3 kind of in agreement, those are the facts that are before 4 you. My reading of the law, both the state law as well as 5 your regulation, is that the State has said and you have 6 said that if it's greater than 10 acres and if I have access 7 to a road, it does not require a plat. And the way you get 8 there, it's not a subdivision. 9 What's interesting about this is there was a 10 subdivision of the property way back in the '80's, before a 11 lot of regulations were in place, that actually laid out all 12 these tracts in a subdivision as part of the of Y.O., up in 13 that area, and in a sense, it was a subdivision then that 14 didn't have access. But that was then, not now, and what's 15 happening here is really an improvement. The tracts that 16 will be sold in greater than 10 acres, the existing road 17 will be configured so that they absolutely do have access, 18 which actually is improving the problem. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You confused me on your 20 last sentence. It's in a subdivision or not in a 21 subdivision? 22 MR. JACKSON: Not a subdivision. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 24 MR. JACKSON: It was in a divided piece of 25 property; it was divided back in the '80's. 7-22-02 34 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Divided by metes and 2 bounds; going to be sold by metes and bounds. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: The reconfigured tracts will 4 have direct access to the existing road? 5 MR. JACKSON: Yes. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: No -- no landowner will have 7 to go through another landowner's property in order to get 8 to the road? 9 MR. JACKSON: No, not to that road. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 11 MR. JACKSON: 'Cause that's all within the 12 Dominion Ranch. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the road -- everyone 14 has access already; there's no problem on access on that 15 road? 16 MR. JACKSON: No. No, because it comes off 17 the highway. The highway road goes through. It's been 18 there forever; it serves I don't know how many thousands of 19 acres back there. And you get to the edge of the Dominion 20 Ranch, if you will, then you come in, and the existing road 21 I'm referencing is within that property. That will be in 22 its present location from the '80's forward. And -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No new roads? 24 MR. JACKSON: And there will be no new roads, 25 right. 7-22-02 35 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: I want to make sure, though, 2 we're not setting up a situation where you have the road 3 here and a tract here and a tract here, and the person up 4 here goes through -- 5 MR. JACKSON: No. No, the -- the actual 6 legal ownership will touch the road before it's sold. And, 7 as was explained, we kind of got halfway in this project and 8 making these sales with the belief that what was being done 9 was just fine, and it was after some discussions -- and so 10 we appreciate the opportunity to come to clarify that. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think the intent is 13 met, but I'll defer to Jonathan on this, as I told him 14 earlier, because there is a -- perhaps some language that we 15 need to consider adding to our Subdivision Rules that 16 clarifies that. Because I think if we're dealing in large 17 acreage tracts, we're not building a new road, it is not a 18 subdivision, then I think the intent of the law and our 19 regulations has been met to allow the kind of thing which -- 20 which ensures access to an existing road for all of those 21 tracts that will be sold. I think that is an improvement. 22 MR. JACKSON: As I appear before you, I've 23 read the state law and what interpretations there were and 24 how we came to have the state law read like it is, and I 25 think your regulations are consistent with the state law. 7-22-02 36 1 So, I'm -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, the 3 way I read the state law and our law, which is one and the 4 same, it qualifies. I mean, if there's a question, I would 5 defer to the -- either Attorney General or County Attorney 6 for an opinion, but I really -- to me, it meets that. It's 7 not a subdivision. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This doesn't really 9 require a motion or anything? 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't think so. I think 11 it's clear that the situation there with regard to the Y.O. 12 Ranch itself, those lots must be replatted. 13 MR. JACKSON: And we understand that. As a 14 matter of fact, I think the replat's already in process, may 15 have even been filed, and so we understand that issue. No 16 problems, no questions. And it's two separate deals. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: And with regard to the 18 Dominion Ranch situation, the understanding is that, so long 19 as the lots are greater than 10 acres and have direct, legal 20 access to a preexisting road, then there's -- they're not 21 subject to -- they're not a subdivision and therefore not 22 subject to platting. 23 MR. JACKSON: There had also been some 24 discussion of the two being connected in some way, so I'll 25 make that clear; they're not. That's two separate 7-22-02 37 1 situations. The same owner owns them, as Franklin pointed 2 out, but that's -- one's in the Y.O. Subdivision; this is 3 not. Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And my last comment is -- 5 and I think you've said this -- that the -- it's not just 6 the road is there. You can't change the easement or the -- 7 however -- the legal access to that road can't change, 8 either. 9 MR. JACKSON: Correct. Absolutely fixed, as 10 it always has been. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: One final comment. I 13 just want to say that sometimes -- sometimes we have to come 14 back to address an issue like this, but I want to express 15 appreciation to both you, Mr. Jackson, and to Mr. Cummings 16 for having come to us first. 17 MR. JACKSON: Sure. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And there might have 19 been a little bit of misunderstanding on what ought to 20 happen, but I would encourage anyone who is in this 21 business, when you start to deal with the land, to come to 22 the County Engineer and get the Commissioner involved that's 23 proposed, and sort of understand where you're going, because 24 if we answer these questions beforehand, it just makes it a 25 lot easier. And I thank you both. 7-22-02 38 1 MR. JACKSON: You bet. Thank you. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, there might be 3 someone in the audience that would like to speak. I 4 understand some of the homeowners' association are here. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: We had one person indicate a 6 need -- is there anyone else who'd like to address the Court 7 on this issue? 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Apparently not, Commissioner. 10 Okay. Thank you. Thank you, David. Let's go to Item 11 Number 4, consider and discuss a request for support and 12 funding on behalf of the Hill Country Alternative Dispute 13 Resolution Center, Inc., and Kerr County Bar Association. 14 Now, when did you fall and break your leg? 15 MS. BAILEY: Last weekend -- well, not this 16 last weekend, the one before. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She just wants us to 18 feel sorry for her. 19 (Laughter.) 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dispute resolution? 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that how you solved your 22 dispute, Ilse? You got in a shin-kicking match or what? 23 MS. BAILEY: Yeah, I was resolving a dispute. 24 Good morning, Commissioners and Judge Henneke. I appreciate 25 the opportunity to address you this morning. It's usually 7-22-02 39 1 with some trepidation that people appear at this point in 2 the year asking for funding, so this is a little bit of an 3 unusual circumstance, and therefore I -- I felt like, even 4 though it was late in the year, that we could come and 5 approach you with this request. I don't want to go over too 6 much of something you may have already been familiar with, 7 but just to make sure that you understand where we're coming 8 from, I want to go over the presentation that we've made in 9 writing to you. 10 As you all probably recall, in 1987, the 11 Texas State Legislature recognized he advantageousness of 12 alternative dispute resolution, including mediation and 13 arbitration and so forth, and thereafter adopted a set of 14 laws in recognition of the need to provide a forum for this 15 kind of resolution outside of the courtroom setting. And 16 they also needed to set up a method for funding these 17 forums, so the Legislature passed a statute -- and I've 18 attached a copy of that chapter in the Civil Practice and 19 Remedies Code -- whereby the Legislature allowed counties to 20 collect as a court cost in civil cases up to $10 in each 21 filed civil case. That money was to be set aside in a 22 dedicated fund, dedicated solely for use in mediation or 23 alternative dispute resolution practice. 24 In 1997, 10 years later, the Kerr County 25 Commissioners Court, in accordance with this legislative 7-22-02 40 1 enactment, adopted an order -- in my written filings, I have 2 said it was a $5 fee, but actually we did adopt, as you'll 3 see in the attached court order, the entire $10 fee, so 4 there's an error in my materials there. So, since 1997, in 5 every civil case filed, we have been adopt -- we have been 6 collecting a $10 fee that goes into this fund that is 7 dedicated solely for use in mediation practice. As of the 8 end of June of 2002, this fund contained $70,270, and if you 9 divide that out for 1997, I believe it comes to an average 10 of about $14,000 a year. So, that is the money that is 11 sitting in the county coffers waiting to be utilized for 12 these purposes. 13 In 1993, a group of local citizens -- and, of 14 course, this was before the fund was being collected -- some 15 lawyers and other nonlawyer citizens got together and tried 16 to develop an alternative dispute resolution system, and 17 went fairly far in that direction. They developed a 18 corporation, they had a board of directors, and the 19 corporation was filed with the Secretary of State's office, 20 and it was called the Hill Country Alternative Dispute 21 Resolution Center, Incorporated. And those were approved 22 and filed with the Texas Secretary of State in October of 23 1993. Unfortunately, because of the fact that to start up 24 something like this is pretty intensive in terms of time and 25 also of money, the effort somewhat died out. Not that the 7-22-02 41 1 people were no longer interested, but they simply didn't 2 have the time or the funding to dedicate to really 3 developing it into a going deal. 4 For the last couple of years, the Kerr County 5 Bar Association and various other people in the community 6 that are concerned with this matter have tossed around the 7 idea of getting it started up again, and then this year the 8 Kerr County Bar Association specifically authorized the 9 board of directors for the Bar Association -- I'm the 10 president of that board at this point in time -- to really 11 make an effort to go forward and start this back up again, 12 so we've done that. And we sort of found the corporate 13 articles with the Secretary of State's office and have 14 contacted the former board of directors for the original 15 corporation. I have gotten several local people who are 16 interested in assisting, and decided to go forward. 17 Now, the two things that you need in order to 18 get this process moving are time -- someone's time to put 19 into it, and money. We're very fortunate in that I was 20 contacted early in the year by Mimi Brinker, who you may all 21 know as Mimi McGrover; she lived in this community and was 22 very instrumental in getting the CASA program up and going. 23 She is a certified mediator; she has experience in grant 24 writing, and she has expressed agreement to be the person to 25 go ahead and pursue the process if she could be funded for 7-22-02 42 1 that. She's not going to do it on a volunteer basis, but 2 she would like to be hired to do it. That, putting it 3 together with the fact that we know there's this fund 4 available, we thought that this would be an opportune time 5 to come to the Commissioners Court and ask for a release of 6 some of that funding in order to try to get the process 7 started again -- to have a person who could get it started, 8 and to have the money to actually pursue developing the 9 mediations. 10 So, at this point, the Kerr County Bar 11 Association, on behalf of the Hill Country A.D.R. Center, 12 Incorporated, is making request of the Commissioners Court 13 for funding to pay -- be paid out of the fund that the Court 14 has set aside for that. And the other thing that we're 15 requesting is that we be permitted to utilize space in the 16 Kerr County Courthouse. Linda Uecker had suggested that 17 there was a portion of the Kerr County Library that would be 18 appropriate, just exactly the right size to put a desk and a 19 person and a phone and computer. I'm not suggesting that's 20 the only place; I'm just suggesting that that is a place 21 that is available. And what we need is certainly not only 22 the person and the funding to do it, but a place to operate 23 out of. So, we'd have to either rent other facilities or to 24 utilize a place in the courthouse that's not being utilized 25 at this time. 7-22-02 43 1 One of the advantages to being at the 2 courthouse is that many of the mediations we anticipate 3 would be held in, say, jury rooms or meeting rooms that 4 already exist in the courthouse, and we would do this 5 coordination with the court coordinator so that they would 6 not interfere with other usages that are already existing in 7 the courthouse. I don't know -- I had actually intended to 8 make sure that Linda Uecker was here to address that, and 9 having fallen and nearly broken my leg sort of put me a 10 little bit behind in a lot of my planning process, so I 11 apologize for that. But I have spoken to her about it, and 12 she -- she recommends that. And I suspect that there may 13 also be other areas in the courthouse available. 14 And, in that regard, I would ask you to 15 review the statutory information I attached after the court 16 order, because, as you can see, it was the intent of the 17 Legislature that a Commissioners Court either run an 18 alternative dispute resolution center or own it, or that it 19 contract with a private nonprofit corporation to do the 20 same. And we're proposing the second of those two 21 alternatives; that we would -- the corporation exists. One 22 of the things that would be the job of the general manager 23 initially is to obtain the 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation 24 status so that we would then fall under this particular 25 provision in the statute. And then the Commissioners Court 7-22-02 44 1 is allowed to do all necessary acts to make the alternative 2 dispute resolution system effective, including contracting 3 with a private, nonprofit corporation, a political 4 subdivision, a public corporation, or a combination of these 5 entities for the purposes of administering the system. They 6 can make reasonable rules regarding the system, and may vest 7 management of the system in a committee selected by the 8 County Bar Association. So, we've tried to follow that 9 format so that we're doing things according to the statutory 10 framework. 11 At any rate, so, what we're asking for is 12 approval for funding, and I've attached a budget -- proposed 13 budget. Since we've never done this before, I can't tell 14 you that the budget is going to be exactly appropriate, but 15 I thought we can't get started until we have some kind of 16 budget. My thought is that we would ask for this amount, 17 with the understanding that the corporation would probably 18 be coming back -- certainly coming back in the following 19 year for a new budget, but possibly even in the middle of 20 the year if they came up with something necessary -- that 21 the Court found necessary to -- or appropriate to fund; that 22 we don't want completely locked into this. 23 The personnel -- excuse me. The personnel 24 expense, our thought would be that the County funds that are 25 requested for that amount would pay the salary for the 7-22-02 45 1 manager for the first six months, and that during that six 2 months it would be the manager's duty to also go out and 3 make grant applications to secure additional funding for the 4 remainder of the year's salary. Because the problem with 5 the fund that we have is, even though it does generate a 6 substantial amount of money every year, it does not generate 7 enough to make this center self-supporting, so it's going to 8 have to be additionally outside-funded, but we won't know if 9 we're able to do that until we get the process moving. So, 10 that's a little bit about why the budget is -- is set up the 11 way that it is. 12 Let's see. At any rate, Judge, to clarify 13 what we're asking for, once the Court were to approve the 14 funding and to approve either the specific usage that I've 15 recommended or to approve perhaps appointing a Commissioner 16 to work with the Bar Association to identify a place that 17 the center could use, then we are of the -- the corporation 18 would commit to, within the first year of operation, 19 acquiring 501(c)(3) nonprofit tax-exempt status, adopting 20 appropriate bylaws to provide for the continued operation of 21 the center in conjunction with recommendations by the 22 Commissioners Court, to elect a new board of directors that 23 will be responsible for and actively involved with the 24 operation of the center and the supervision and direction of 25 the center's budget and staff. And then, also, in 7-22-02 46 1 conjunction with the center's staff, draft and approve 2 operational rules that will assure that the services of the 3 center are available on an equitable basis to all citizens 4 within our service area. And we have reviewed this with the 5 existing but dormant board of the Alternative Dispute 6 Resolution Center. 7 If anyone has any questions, I'd be glad to 8 address them. Also, Ms. Brinker is ready to answer to you 9 what she would propose to do as the interim manager of this 10 effort. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it legal for us to 12 release these funds before you become a 501 -- 501(c)(3)? 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What did you say? 14 MS. BAILEY: Well, since the statute says 15 that you can -- I'll get to it. You can contract -- you can 16 do all necessary acts to make this system effective, 17 including contracting with a 501(c)(3) or a political 18 subdivision or a public corporation or combination of 19 entities. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Ilse, I don't think it says 21 contracting with a 501(c)(3). 22 MS. BAILEY: Well, contracting with a 23 private, nonprofit corporation. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's -- you're already 25 there. 7-22-02 47 1 MS. BAILEY: Yes, we're a private nonprofit. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: You don't have the tax-exempt 3 status, but you're already a private, nonprofit corporation. 4 You don't need to take any further steps in order to qualify 5 for the funding. 6 MS. BAILEY: To qualify for contract, but I 7 think that it would be appropriate to do. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: It would be, but let's make 9 sure everybody understands that 501(c)(3) is not the 10 necessary designation for a nonprofit corporation. 11 MS. BAILEY: Yes. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's an I.R.S. status. 13 MS. BAILEY: So, yes, it would be 14 appropriate -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That answered my 16 question. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We would have -- we 18 would have to have a draft contract to approve, right? 19 That's for sure. We would have to have a contract to 20 approve to start the ball rolling. 21 MS. BAILEY: Right, and it would be -- my 22 recommendation would be that maybe one Commissioner be 23 assigned the duty of doing that coordination between the 24 group and the Commissioners Court, so that we don't have to 25 make a full-blown presentation every time we have some 7-22-02 48 1 little aspect of it to -- to address. But, again, I 2 certainly think that's -- the main thing is we want to get 3 it started, and it's always been a problem that getting it 4 started couldn't happen, 'cause there was never anyone that 5 had the time or the energy or the funds to go do it. So, 6 now we're able to do that, and I feel like we can get this 7 jump-started pretty quickly. But I would like -- and I 8 think the statute requires oversight by the Commissioners 9 Court if we're using your money. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's a great idea to 11 put it in the County Law Library; that's a grossly 12 underutilized facility. I'm all in favor of this. I'll be 13 happy to act as liaison, if that's what the Commissioners 14 Court wants me to do. The major problem I have is timing. 15 I mean, you're asking for a six-month budget three-quarters 16 of the way through budget year. 17 MS. BAILEY: Well, my thought -- 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's going to throw 19 everything off. 20 MS. BAILEY: Well, my thought is we can make 21 it effective October 1st, because I don't think 22 Ms. Brinker's in a position to move here immediately. But 23 if -- but if we get it approved right now, then we have a 24 little lead time to get it kind of figured out and the 25 details settled before October 1. Would that be more 7-22-02 49 1 appropriate? 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's entirely 3 appropriate. That way we can also get it cranked into our 4 budget process. We'll have to set up a line -- 5 MS. BAILEY: Then its annual budget would be 6 the same. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- won't we, Tommy, for 8 grant? Or do we have to get -- 9 MR. TOMLINSON: The fund already exists now. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: But we'll have an expenditure 11 item, maybe under County-sponsored, like we do with CASA. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I think that we can 13 budget out of that fund. There's a fund set up for it. And 14 I think we just pay for -- 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll have to have an 16 expenditure line item somewhere. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question I have is -- and 19 maybe, if I'm reading this right, I don't see how you can 20 project using more funds than you're annually taking in from 21 the County. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I was going to ask the 23 same -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So was I. 25 MS. BAILEY: Well, as I said, I think that 7-22-02 50 1 there's not any way that these funds can be used for -- used 2 to solely support any alternative dispute resolution center. 3 So, we've -- we have to set it up with the assumption that 4 part of the manager's duties will be grant writing, seeking 5 funding. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But, I mean, as I 7 look at this, I mean, assuming you're taking in $14,000 a 8 year, and you're -- you know, are you just basically going 9 to -- planning on depleting that fund? And then what 10 happens? 11 MS. BAILEY: Well, no. My thought is that, 12 certainly, the first year will be the largest amount of 13 expenditure of funds, because we're training mediators and 14 we're, you know, traveling and that sort of stuff. But 15 after that point in time, for one thing, there will be -- 16 our plan is, anyway, that the mediations won't be free. 17 People don't take seriously services that they get for free, 18 especially in the legal arena. So, probably, they will -- 19 they will certainly be low-cost, 'cause the whole point of 20 this is to make low-cost services available to the poor, but 21 they'll be on some kind of a sliding scale, so there will be 22 income from the services that are provided. 23 There will also be income from grants, one 24 would hope, and then additionally, both District Judges have 25 suggested that this really ought not to be a Kerr County 7-22-02 51 1 center, but one that serves both of the judicial districts 2 that the two judges -- District Judges serve. Some of those 3 counties do not collect this fund. Some collect it and, 4 again, have not spent it, like Kerr County has not. So, our 5 -- the big picture, long-term goal is to incorporate 6 services for all of those counties, and perhaps tap into 7 funds from all of those counties. But, again, that's kind 8 of putting the cart before the horse, because there's a lot 9 of kind of communicating and talking back and forth until we 10 get to that point to figure out how much money there really 11 is and how much services we can really provide to outlying 12 counties. 13 I know that the Bar Association in Kendall 14 County -- I've spoken with some of their lawyers, and 15 they're very interested in participating. And Kendall 16 County certainly has a big enough set of civil cases that 17 are filed that there either is or could be a substantial 18 income from that as well. But, you're right. I mean, at 19 this point, if that budget remained the same with the income 20 that we're making, we would just deplete the fund. So, 21 that's not -- that's not what we want to do. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But what -- what 24 happens, Ms. Bailey, if we set it up for six months of the 25 budget at $21,200, and your activities are unable to 7-22-02 52 1 generate the other 18,7 that's part of your expense load? 2 So, what happens? Do you come back to the County for more 3 money or what? 4 MS. BAILEY: I think at that point we'd have 5 to -- to reassess. That would be the board's job, to assess 6 whether the lack of funds is due to the staff's failing to 7 make appropriate requests for grants, or whether the money's 8 simply not out there. And if the money is not out there, 9 then whether or not they want to come back to the County and 10 ask for additional money, or if they want to just say it's 11 not going to work in the hill country. We just don't know 12 if it's going to work until we try. I have a lot of faith 13 in Ms. Brinker's ability to raise money, because she's 14 proven that she has that ability, and she's also real 15 enthusiastic about the project. So, I think that if anyone 16 can -- can do that, I think she's the person to do it. But 17 I'm not going to stand here and tell you that it's a 18 guaranteed deal. We might get six months down the road and 19 go, "Now what? People aren't interested in alternative 20 dispute resolution. It's not working. We're not -- we just 21 can't project making enough money to make this thing a going 22 concern." And then the Court may say, "Well, thank you for 23 trying, but we're not going to add any more money to this 24 particular project." 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ilse, the alternative 7-22-02 53 1 -- I'm sorry. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Go ahead. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There is one area that 4 you really haven't talked about, which is my favorite. When 5 you're resolving disputes, that's taking a load off of our 6 courts, is it not? 7 MS. BAILEY: Yes, and that I think is one of 8 -- one of the reasons that the Legislature has been 9 promoting this for such a long time. For instance, I 10 anticipate that it might reduce the amount of 11 court-appointed court costs that you have to pay. 12 Certainly, people are still going to be appointed an 13 attorney in a criminal case, for instance, but -- and David 14 Motley and I have talked somewhat about doing mediation in 15 criminal cases. It's not a real standard practice across 16 the state, but it's done in a few locations. And sometimes 17 really complicated, nasty cases that could take up a lot of 18 attorneys' time can be mediated, and if they can, then you 19 save all kinds of money. Similarly, you're saving all the 20 expenses -- you know how when you have to have a jury trial, 21 you don't think about the expenses that are involved, but 22 you've got all the jury fees and the court time and the 23 personnel and costs associated to the county. Certainly, 24 litigants have their own private costs, but those costs, if 25 you can resolve a case without a jury trial, you reduce that 7-22-02 54 1 cost to the county. So, I think that the idea is that, if 2 it's run properly and efficiently, in the long run, you 3 actually do save money to the County. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if you 5 were in here this morning when we paid the bills and saw how 6 much we spend on court-appointed attorneys or not. 7 MS. BAILEY: That's why I thought of that, 8 because I thought, well, this might be one of those things 9 that could -- could avoid that. A lot of -- especially at 10 the justice of the peace level, a lot of kind of 11 neighborhood disputes that end up being filed as criminal 12 cases there really could, I think, be resolved prior to 13 being filed as criminal cases, as neighborhood dispute 14 resolution, if we can get that process going. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just one thing. I 17 would -- I would say to our court liaison, who I will 18 address this to, really, is that perhaps an alternative to a 19 six-month budget would be a one-year budget at whatever that 20 number is, so that -- I think you've got to give it a year, 21 and it may take that one year to keep it rolling with County 22 money while you're getting grant money and all that sort of 23 thing. And I would -- I would say 12 months, just a 24 standard budget input at the beginning of October 1st for 25 whatever that amount is, will be better than a six-month 7-22-02 55 1 budget. 2 MS. BAILEY: Well, I -- 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Without trying to be 4 in a rush to spend it or whatever. 5 MS. BAILEY: I'll tell you that Ms. Brinker 6 and I were speaking about that very matter this morning, and 7 she had some trepidation about the way I had set the budget 8 up, because she said that when she was getting CASA started, 9 that -- that one of the problems was that they started on 10 such a short shoestring that -- that they kind of never 11 really caught up; they were always scrambling. And I think 12 that she would support that as a -- as a proposal. I just 13 didn't feel that, you know, I could come in and ask the 14 County to, you know, throw that much support behind a 15 completely untested activity, although it's something that's 16 been done. We've had a lot of support from the Bexar County 17 Mediation Center. They have given us all kinds of -- of 18 assurances that once we get this started, they'll come up 19 and help us set things up, show us how to do things. We 20 don't have to reinvent the wheel. We have also some support 21 from the Austin mediation folks, so it -- so it's not like a 22 whole untested deal. But that -- I think that might even be 23 a better proposal than what I've proposed. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, I think that 25 there's -- unless someone disagrees with me, that there is 7-22-02 56 1 evidence that the Commissioners Court supports the notion, 2 and that I'm willing to work with the Bar Association and 3 the Dispute Resolution Center Board of Directors to bring it 4 back to the Commissioners Court, the full package. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Part of that package -- 6 and you've kind of alluded to it -- should be a resolution 7 from the local Bar asking us to do it. You referred to some 8 members of the Bar of being involved, but I think if you're 9 going to be a success, you need to get the whole -- I mean, 10 as many as you can of the Bar behind it, because they're the 11 ones using it. 12 MS. BAILEY: Yes, sir. We have actually held 13 a formal vote, but we don't have any written resolution, and 14 I can certainly approach the Bar -- the members of the Bar 15 at our next board meeting to get an official written 16 resolution. I think that would be appropriate. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I also think that 19 we need to decide specifically what area of the library. 20 You're talking about going in the door in that cubbyhole 21 over there -- 22 MS. BAILEY: On the left. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So that we can make 24 sure that there is computer wiring and all those things. 25 MS. BAILEY: Right. If you authorize that as 7-22-02 57 1 a -- as a proposal, certainly, then, I guess we can approach 2 Mr. Holekamp and have him tell us if the facility is 3 appropriate for that kind of hookup. Would that -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Put it on Fred; make 5 Fred do it. 6 MS. BAILEY: I'm crippled; I can't do it. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Anything else? 8 MS. BAILEY: That's it. I sure appreciate 9 you listening to our proposal this morning. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Ilse. Okay. 11 Moving on to Item Number 5, consider and discuss a request 12 to the Comptroller of Public Accounts to allocate a portion 13 of the unclaimed money received from electric co-ops back to 14 Kerr County under Section 74.062 of the Texas Property Code, 15 to be used to fund an appropriate program under Section 16 381.004 of the Local Government Code. Tommy? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: The County received a notice 18 from the Comptroller's office that these funds were 19 available, and we have to make application -- the Court has 20 to make application in the month of July. So, I have -- 21 I've drafted a letter for the Court to approve to submit to 22 the Comptroller's office for -- for obtaining those funds. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see that 24 letter. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know the amount. And 7-22-02 58 1 I don't think we will know the amount until we receive it, 2 because the information that I -- that we have does not 3 indicate the total amount of dollars that are available. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't have the 5 letter. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see the 7 letter. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: I gave a copy -- I gave a 9 draft to Thea for -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, we still don't 11 have the letter. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I didn't bring it 13 either, so -- 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't know that we 15 necessarily need to see the letter. The notion is to 16 approve the request. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: And then, just to remind 19 everybody, we set up a Section 381.004 program -- economic 20 development program last fall, and we contract with KEDF to 21 administer that program, so these funds could be used and 22 will be used to offset that contractual cost with KEDF. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have any -- go 24 ahead, I'm sorry. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, this can be $5,000 7-22-02 59 1 that we contribute annually, to help fund that $5,000? 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Exactly. We don't know how 3 -- again, as Tommy said, we don't know how much unclaimed 4 money there is, but whatever it is would go towards that. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make a motion 6 that we approve the filing of the request, and get the ball 7 rolling. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Whatever we've got 10 coming. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 12 Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court 13 approve a request to the Comptroller of Public Accounts to 14 allocate a portion of the unclaimed money received from 15 electric co-ops back to Kerr County under Section 74.602 of 16 the Texas Property Code, to be used to fund an appropriate 17 program under Section 381.004 of the Local Government Code. 18 Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your 19 right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Thanks, 24 Tommy. Item Number 6, consider and approve appointment of 25 election judges and alternate judges for the November 7-22-02 60 1 general election as per Chapter 32, Texas Election Code. 2 Jannett? 3 MS. PIEPER: We're going to start gearing up 4 for our November election. On the agenda item request -- 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is this a different 6 letter? 7 MS. PIEPER: This is a different one. The 8 Republican and Democratic party chairs have submitted their 9 list. I just received this list from the Republican county 10 chair that has one or two newer names on there. The 11 Democrats will be the alternate judges. The Republican 12 persons submitted would be the judge for the election day 13 polling locations. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Jannett, there's a blank here 15 for 320. What does that mean? 16 MS. PIEPER: That means we don't have a judge 17 for 320. They're still in the process of trying to locate 18 somebody for that one. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: What happens if we don't 20 locate someone? 21 MS. PIEPER: We will have to consolidate in 22 the different precincts, get with another precinct. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do -- which is not a 24 bad idea, in my opinion, considering the problem with 320. 25 But the question I have is, how does that -- is that a 7-22-02 61 1 problem, consolidating? 2 MS. PIEPER: No, it's not a problem. It's 3 just more work. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, you have to go to the 5 Justice Department to -- 6 MS. PIEPER: We have to get preclearance from 7 Washington. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Has to be posted everywhere. 9 MS. PIEPER: Right. Notice of consolidations 10 that have to be sent out, posted by the Sheriff's 11 Department. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason -- I mean, I 13 would say I'm in favor of doing that, because there is not a 14 good location in Precinct 320 to vote -- 15 MS. PIEPER: Well, there is -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that's convenient to 17 any of the people. 18 MS. PIEPER: My next step is going to be 19 coming to y'all with the questions of -- of how you want -- 20 because November is a county election. You know, back in 21 March, that was basically -- even though I did a lot of the 22 work, it was basically the party chairs. But this being the 23 November election, this is a county election; therefore, the 24 Commissioners Court approves the polling locations, so 25 that's going to be what I'm going to start working on next. 7-22-02 62 1 So, I'll be talking with y'all to find out if you want to 2 consolidate or move any of the locations. The one we had at 3 the old Midway Store I'm not sure is going to be available, 4 or the one on Harper Road at the K.C. Hall I'm not sure is 5 going to be available. There's a question in Precinct 202 6 with the American Legion building, that they have requested 7 that we move the elections there. So, that's just something 8 that we will -- we need to discuss, you know, a little bit 9 later. The first step is to appoint our election judges and 10 clerks, and although you may decide to consolidate, then 11 whatever precinct we're holding the actual election in, that 12 is the actual judge that will be the judge for that one. 13 And we may not use each judge that is listed or each 14 alternate that's on here. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any consolidation has 16 to be within the precinct, though, right? 17 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move -- 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: It has to be within the 20 precincts that are consolidated. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it has to be 22 within Precinct 3 -- we're not consolidating a Precinct 3 23 box within -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can't combine 2 and 3. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can't combine a 2 box 7-22-02 63 1 within a 3 precinct. 2 MS. PIEPER: That's correct. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not a problem. 4 MS. PIEPER: Precinct 2 doesn't vote on 5 Precinct 3 stuff. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move we 8 approve the appointment of election judges and alternate 9 judges for the November general election, as per Chapter 32. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 12 Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court 13 approve the election judges and alternate judges for the 14 November general election as per Texas Election Code Chapter 15 32, as recommended by the County Clerk. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which does include 17 both Democrat and Republican -- 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: They're the alternates. Any 19 other questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise 20 your right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 25 MS. PIEPER: Thank you. 7-22-02 64 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's do one more item before 2 we take a break. I'm going to suggest we do Item Number 9, 3 since we have some people from -- I guess from San Antonio 4 here. Item Number 9 is consider and discuss a non-financial 5 cooperative agreement for Workfare, a program of the Alamo 6 Area Development Corporation proposed for Kerr County. 7 Commissioner Williams. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, Gaylyn 9 Dieringer of the Texas Workforce Center in Kerrville 10 contacted me a couple weeks ago with respect to this program 11 and asked for some consideration. I agreed to put it on the 12 agenda, invited Gaylyn and a colleague -- Mr. Plummer, I 13 believe it is -- to come to the Court and tell us what this 14 program is about. She said on the phone it was free, so 15 that's good. Let's talk. 16 MS. DIERINGER: My name is Gaylyn Dieringer. 17 I'm the Center Manager of the Texas Workforce Center at 819 18 Water Street, Suite 116. I would like to introduce Randy 19 Plummer. He is the employer liaison, and he's going to be 20 discussing, going over the nonfinancial agreement with 21 y'all. Have y'all had a chance to look at it? Do y'all 22 have a copy? 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, we do. Welcome, 24 Mr. Plummer. 25 MR. PLUMMER: Thank you, Commissioners, 7-22-02 65 1 Judge. Appreciate y'all seeing us this morning. What we 2 have is an opportunity for the County to enter into an 3 agreement with the Texas Workforce Center here in Kerrville 4 and covering the county. What this opportunity is, is for a 5 nonfinancial agreement so the County would not be 6 responsible for any finances; we cover all of the expenses. 7 What happens is, we have participants who are receiving food 8 stamps in the county, and what we are looking to do is have 9 them train somewhere here in the county for an opportunity 10 for them to gain personal experience and gain some 11 experience that they are otherwise not able to obtain at 12 this time, because they may not have all of the abilities or 13 skills to go out and find employment in our area. What we 14 do is we take the amount of benefits that they are 15 receiving, we divide this amount by $5.15, and that is the 16 amount of money that they are earning from us working for 17 you. 18 So, what we would be doing is, as we have 19 participants who come in, if they are nonemployed at the 20 time, what we do is, through this agreement, we set up 21 with -- with the County to have these participants come in 22 and work for you for a set period of time, for a set period 23 of months, not to exceed three months. Some of these 24 participants do have jobs, and they are not able to work up 25 to the maximum amount of their benefit, so they are required 7-22-02 66 1 by the State to go out and find alternate forms of 2 employment to pay for this -- for the food stamp training, 3 and that's where the County would come in. That's where 4 this agreement would be set up. So, Kerr County would not 5 be making any agreement to hire these people once they have 6 gone through this training period, so please don't feel like 7 they would be going into that. We would request, though, 8 that the supervisor, whoever this person is working for, 9 would be able to go over and check timesheets, make sure 10 that they are correct, and sign off on those so that that -- 11 that participants could return them to our office. 12 We are looking at activities that this 13 participant would be able to -- capable of participating in. 14 In other words, we do not want to put someone in positions 15 above their abilities, but there should be many 16 opportunities in the county for them to be able to learn. 17 And the other thing that we would like to do is just to 18 provide some skills and opportunities so that once they do 19 complete this agreement, they're able to go out into our 20 area, out in our -- on our county and provide, you know, 21 services to an employer in the long run. That's -- that's 22 the main purpose of this -- of this whole Workfare. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You said the funds 24 were divisible by $5.15? 25 MR. PLUMMER: That's correct. 7-22-02 67 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who picks up such 2 things as FICA, taxes, and so forth? 3 MR. PLUMMER: That -- that is not exactly 4 covered under this because of the -- because of the status 5 of receiving a benefit from the State. 6 MS. DIERINGER: It's their welfare dollars. 7 MR. PLUMMER: It's their welfare dollars. 8 There is not an actual paycheck. This is the food stamps -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not subject to Social 10 Security taxes or Medicare or Medicaid or whatever? 11 MR. PLUMMER: Correct. So we're not actually 12 -- they're not actually working for us. This is just in 13 return for receiving a benefit from the government. They 14 are working for those benefits. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What type of work did 16 you have in mind? 17 MS. DIERINGER: I was thinking, like, the 18 Hill Country Ag Barn, animal shelter. 19 MR. PLUMMER: Roads. Road and Bridge, any 20 type of opportunities like that. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's take that last 22 one, for example. Say they're working -- well, any of them, 23 really, working in any of those departments and they get 24 injured. Tell us about that. 25 MR. PLUMMER: Right now, we are in the 7-22-02 68 1 process of renegotiating a contract for workmen's comp. So, 2 we currently -- we are expecting to have an idea and know 3 for sure by the beginning of August. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As to who accepts 5 that liability? 6 MR. PLUMMER: Correct. Well, and we already 7 have a company under -- for different organizations that 8 already have entered into Workfare; they are already 9 covered. At this time, we are renegotiating for different 10 organizations entering into new contracts. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As we speak this 12 morning, how many eligible persons do you have that you're 13 looking to place? 14 MR. PLUMMER: It would be a limited number. 15 Right now, I believe we have two potential here in Kerr 16 County who could utilize this service, but it -- we try to 17 keep that at a limited number. Our main goal through this 18 whole process is to get people this experience so they can 19 go and find employment so they can get off of the food stamp 20 rolls. That is the whole purpose of this. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm a big fan of 22 welfare-to-work. I think y'all are doing the exact right 23 thing. And I can see us participating in it in the 24 departments that they mentioned; Road and Bridge, Animal 25 Shelter, Ag Barn, those kinds of things. But if you -- if 7-22-02 69 1 we branch out into the individual elected official's 2 offices, we're going to have to get a sign-off from them 3 before we even attempt that. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, as far as us -- 6 we are concerned, those departments would work great. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, once again, 8 what's the limited time you've assigned most people? 9 MR. PLUMMER: It would be a maximum of three 10 months. There would be an individual agreement, though, for 11 each different person, because each person's benefit is 12 different. So, we would -- we would definitely have to set 13 that up on an individual basis, but we do have a form for 14 that. But it is covered under this -- this agreement. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do you work out -- 16 you say you have a candidate -- or you have two candidates 17 right now. How do you figure out -- and who -- you know, 18 where they're going to be placed, if they're going to -- I 19 mean, what if Road and Bridge decides these people are not 20 going to be a help to them? 21 MR. PLUMMER: First of all, they've worked 22 with a case manager in our organization, and we would not 23 refer someone who we did not feel had the abilities to fall 24 into that type of position. So, physical -- someone who 25 could not physically meet the requirements of Road and 7-22-02 70 1 Bridge, then we would not even bother you with that -- with 2 that person. What we would do is, we would take people who 3 we feel are adequate -- have adequate skills for the 4 positions available, and then we would do a referral form, 5 let the supervisor of whoever would be over this person meet 6 them. If we agree at that point, then we would go ahead and 7 do the paperwork that I discussed. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, if the supervisor of 9 Road and Bridge doesn't want the person -- 10 MR. PLUMMER: We will find a different 11 organization. Not a problem. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or 13 comments of Mr. Plummer? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I guess it 15 would require a motion that we adopt the program and work 16 out the details, right? I would move that we approve the 17 Non-Financial Cooperative Agreement for Workfare, which is a 18 program of the Alamo Area Development Corporation, working 19 through the Kerrville, Texas, Workforce Center 20 administration, as submitted. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And authorize the 22 County Judge to sign same. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And ask the County 24 Judge to sign same agreement -- or request. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 7-22-02 71 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 2 Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 3 approve the Non-Financial Cooperative Agreement for Workfare 4 between the Alamo Area Development Corporation and Kerr 5 County, and authorize County Judge to sign same. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a term in the 7 agreement? A term? 8 MR. PLUMMER: Such as? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As in -- 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How long? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- how long? Is this 12 going to go on forever? 13 MR. PLUMMER: It could go on forever, or it 14 could be ended -- 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: It could be terminated on 30 16 days notice. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason I'm asking 18 is that after we've done it for a while, six months or a 19 year, I'd like to come back to the Court, because I can see 20 also -- I mean, if it doesn't work out from our standpoint, 21 it's more of a burden to our people than -- than benefit to 22 the County, in which case I'd like to, you know, cancel. 23 But the only way we're going to know if it's working or 24 isn't working is if we get those departments that are 25 utilizing it to report back, and I'd recommend six months. 7-22-02 72 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sunset review type 2 thing. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would accept that. 4 Six months. Subject to review at the conclusion of six 5 months. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't we make it -- okay, 7 that's fine. All right. Does everyone understand what 8 we're voting on now? Okay. All in favor, raise your right 9 hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Thank you. 14 MS. DIERINGER: Thank you. 15 MR. PLUMMER: Thank you for your time. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, gentlemen. At this 17 time, let's take a break and be back at a quarter to 11:00. 18 (Recess taken from 10:30 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.) 19 - - - - - - - - - - 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, let's reconvene the 21 regular special meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners 22 Court. Next item for consideration is Item Number 7, 23 consider and discuss approval of the 2002 Texas Community 24 Development Program Colonia Planning Study for reference use 25 by Kerr County, and submit the planning study to the Office 7-22-02 73 1 of Rural Community Affairs for its final review. 2 Commissioner Williams. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, in accordance 4 with the regulations as put forward for grants of this 5 nature, we did conduct a public hearing -- the final public 6 hearing. It had been originally scheduled for July 2nd, I 7 guess, or whatever; was postponed until the 16th because of 8 the flooding and raining conditions. We had the public 9 hearing here. Commissioners Griffin and Baldwin and I were 10 in attendance. There were probably between 15 and 20 people 11 in attendance at the public hearing. Mr. Hartzell conducted 12 the Q and A, basically, in which he fielded questions and 13 comments from the citizens in attendance with reference to 14 the revisions of the plan. And, Mr. Hartzell, if you'd step 15 to the podium, we can maybe go through that. I have the 16 final plan here. I think it's safe to report that the folks 17 in attendance were satisfied that the revisions that they 18 had suggested had been, in fact, incorporated, and the areas 19 of concerns that were originally included were excluded. 20 And the final plan as presented at the public hearing and 21 here today is, in fact, one that represents all the changes 22 that had been talked about by the Court previously. Eric, 23 is that your understanding and are there other comments 24 you'd like to make? 25 MR. HARTZELL: All right. Eric Hartzell with 7-22-02 74 1 Grantworks. Yeah, as far as -- the meeting went fairly 2 well. We had a few additional comments, and most of the 3 changes that had been made previously were well received. 4 All the changes, I guess, were well received, and we had no 5 additional calls for changes to the plan, as it was 6 provided. And so -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what remains for 8 the Court to do today is to approve the plan. It is for the 9 County's reference use, if it -- just to refer to it for 10 future planning purposes, and to submit it to the Texas 11 Community Development Program for its review and final 12 approval, or whatever it is they do. Is that correct? 13 MR. HARTZELL: That's correct. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question, before you 16 get too far in there. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Eric, I have some 19 constituents that are in the audience today that are fairly 20 new to the process, and wanted you to assure them that the 21 Upper Turtle Creek area has been deleted from the final 22 plan. 23 MR. HARTZELL: Yes, Upper Turtle Creek was 24 deleted, I believe, following the public hearing that we had 25 in -- in June. And it's removed. And those draft versions 7-22-02 75 1 are not going to be provided to the State or to the County 2 or anyone. They're on our computer; that's it. And they 3 will -- the final plan does not include Upper Turtle Creek. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are two volumes 6 here which will have all the maps and all the comments of 7 the -- of the plan itself and all the various maps and 8 studies that have been done. There is a C.D. that 9 accompanies these two volumes. These will be on file with 10 the County Clerk. Anybody that wishes to avail themselves 11 of them for whatever purposes is welcome to do so. And -- 12 where is the County Clerk? Madam clerk? This is yours. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A question I have is, 14 what is the process with the State? I mean, does the State 15 just read it and do something, or do they read it, accept 16 comments from the public? 17 MR. HARTZELL: The State's process is a desk 18 review. They sort of performed a preliminary one at the 19 Court's request a couple months ago, just to make sure that 20 the contractual obligations of the County's contract with 21 the State were met, and that basically is that certain 22 elements were included in the plan. There's no review for 23 the specific recommendations, the specific areas named or 24 anything like that at the State level. They just want to 25 make sure that we covered the bases. And, at that point, 7-22-02 76 1 that's a review of less than a week; it will be finished in 2 less than a week. One -- the reviewer will take a look at 3 it and will send a letter back to the County saying it looks 4 good. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then what happens? 6 MR. HARTZELL: Then the project's closed out. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are there any of the 8 others who want to comment, Judge, before I make a motion? 9 I don't know. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else who'd like to 11 make a comment on this? 12 (No response.) 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would then move 14 approval of the 2000 Texas Community Development Program 15 Colonia Plan Study for reference use by Kerr County, and to 16 the submittal of the planning study to the Office of Rural 17 and Community Affairs for its final review. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 20 Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court 21 approve the 2000 Texas Community Development Program Colonia 22 Plan Study for reference use by Kerr County, and authorize 23 submittal of the planning study to the Office of Rural 24 Community Affairs for its final review. Any questions or 25 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 7-22-02 77 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number 5 8, consider and discuss public hearing for July 30th, Year 6 2002, at 6 o'clock p.m., regarding Kerr County participation 7 in the 2003/2004 Texas Community Development Program and 8 Colonia Fund application for continuation of Kerrville South 9 Sewer Collection Project and Disaster Relief and Home 10 Disaster Assistance programs, with Grantworks to advertise 11 and conduct a public hearing. Commissioner Williams. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Once again, Judge, 13 this is our effort to get in line for additional funding for 14 the Kerrville South and wastewater collection project. When 15 we adopted it originally, we had indicated our desire for 16 the project to move as quickly as possible, knowing that the 17 first grant totaling three-quarters of a million dollars 18 would not get the job completed, and that we would get in 19 line and see if we could get some additional funds for that 20 project to keep moving. So, that's one of the two items 21 under this agenda. The second is that in the backup 22 material that you have, Grantworks has provided us with some 23 information which T.C.D.P. has programmed for public 24 assistance, local match of the 25 percent that Kerr County 25 might have to come up with -- will have to come up with as a 7-22-02 78 1 part of our rehabilitation of our roads and bridges and so 2 forth. And I invited Eric to be part of today's meeting to 3 discuss what this is and how we might avail ourselves of 4 those funds, and I invite you to come tell us about that, 5 Eric. 6 MR. HARTZELL: Okay. I have a handout here 7 that kind of goes over disaster relief funds. I have some 8 extra copies as well, if anyone in the audience would like 9 to look at one. I don't have too many extra copies. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we go back to Item 11 Number 1, too? I have a question -- 12 MR. HARTZELL: Sure, definitely. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- about that, please. 14 Originally, we'd gotten around three-quarters of a million 15 dollars to do -- to start the project in Kerrville South -- 16 the sewer project in Kerrville South. Remind me and tell 17 the audience how far that three-quarters of a million will 18 go, and how much will it take, do you think, that we're 19 going to apply for to total turnkey completion of the 20 project? 21 MR. HARTZELL: All right. The area -- that 22 target area that's being looked at right now is the area 23 along Ranchero Road from Highway 16 to the creek, to Camp 24 Meeting Creek on the south side, primarily. In addition, 25 there are some apartment complexes and mobile homes on the 7-22-02 79 1 north side of the road, but not in a continuous stretch. 2 They kind of -- there's several segments of or areas of 3 those. Those are -- those are the target areas for the 4 sewer system; that's where the majority of the failing 5 septics were identified, and where the lower income 6 residents reside. Right now, the three-quarters of a 7 million that's available will be used to, number one, 8 upgrade -- upsize a line in the city of Kerrville system to 9 allow for adequate sewer flow from the area. Number two, to 10 lay collection lines to about 120 households in that target 11 area remaining to be served, including the area of Loyal 12 Valley, which is -- George Muck? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: George Muck, Loyal 14 Valley. 15 MR. HARTZELL: Exactly. There are still 16 about 220, 240 households that need to be connected, so 17 we're looking at probably another $750,000 to $1 million 18 worth of construction to finish those areas. That has not 19 been applied for at this point. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much will we 22 apply for this round? 23 MR. HARTZELL: Let's see. This round is a 24 September due date for the Texas Community Development 25 Program's Community Development Funds. It's a smaller 7-22-02 80 1 grant, a quarter of a million. Immediately following that, 2 a month later, there will be a deadline for the Colonia 3 Fund, which will be half a million. So, up to 4 three-quarters of a million by the end of the year. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which you think would 6 be sufficient to get this project -- 7 MR. HARTZELL: It will be sufficient to get 8 the majority -- the vast majority. There may be one more 9 small grant to wrap it up. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the public 11 hearing that we're talking about will be to cover both 12 aspects? Both the -- 13 MR. HARTZELL: That's right. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- sewer project and 15 the disaster relief? 16 MR. HARTZELL: Right. The Community 17 Development Program requires one public hearing for all of 18 its programs, and this lasts for six months. So, we can 19 cover everything in one public hearing. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what about this? 21 MR. HARTZELL: Okay. The handout that I've 22 provided to you summarizes the disaster relief fund. As we 23 -- as was discussed earlier, it's used to provide the 24 25 percent local -- or a portion of the 25 percent local 25 matching funds for the FEMA assistance that you receive for 7-22-02 81 1 public assistance. That's infrastructure and facilities. 2 It can't be used for debris removal, for example, which 3 you'll be getting some assistance with as well, but this is 4 only for infrastructure; for hard, fixed assets up to 5 $350,000. Depending on how much damage you have in the 6 county, you probably could use more than that, I would 7 guess, for your 25 percent. That's the maximum that they've 8 imposed. The funds are available now. It usually takes 30 9 to 45 days after applications are made to receive your 10 award. And as the County moves forward with its 11 improvements and its renovations and its repairs, the funds 12 would be drawn down as -- as funds -- as the funds are 13 expended from the County, you're reimbursed from the State. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is -- Eric, do you know 15 if the City of Kerrville is pursuing these two grants? 16 MR. HARTZELL: Yeah, I believe I read in the 17 paper that the Assistant City Manager was looking into 18 assistance, and he mentioned -- they mentioned the Texas 19 Department of Housing and Community Affairs, which is the 20 agency that used to run this program. I'm assuming that 21 they're talking about this program. I don't know that for 22 sure. We've contacted the City, but not had any contact 23 back. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How -- on these two 25 grants, how does Grantworks get paid? 7-22-02 82 1 MR. HARTZELL: We get paid from the grant 2 funds, and typically our fee is about $20,000 to $25,000 for 3 the administration. What's involved in administration is 4 keeping a cost accounting of all the ins and outs and the 5 cash flows for the project. Also, we provide -- we do all 6 the paperwork on the County's end. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Eric, is the 350 a -- 8 a block grant of 350, or is -- is the County eligible for 9 funds up to 350, depending on the amount of damage the 10 County had to expend? Explain that, please. 11 MR. HARTZELL: Okay. If your 25 percent 12 matching requirement is $350,000 or more, you will apply and 13 be awarded $350,000, in all likelihood. If your 25 percent 14 is below $350,000, you will be eligible for that amount, up 15 to -- you know, let's say that your total damage is a 16 million; 25 percent would be a quarter of a million. That's 17 how much you'll be eligible for. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if our damage was 19 $1.4 million, the 350 would be our piece, and we'll be 20 eligible for that? 21 MR. HARTZELL: That's right. If your damage 22 is $20 million, the most you can get from this grant is 23 still $350,000. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Generally, what are 25 the qualifications for a county to be eligible? 7-22-02 83 1 MR. HARTZELL: For the program, only that you 2 are what is called a "nonentitlement county," and that's 3 counties of under 200,000 population. So, for instance, 4 Bexar County will not be eligible to receive this program. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Over 200,000. 6 MR. HARTZELL: Over 200,000, yeah. Bexar 7 County gets these block grant funds directly from H.U.D., 8 and so the State doesn't spend its block grant funds, which 9 are reserved for the smaller communities, in those larger 10 counties. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a -- is the -- I 12 guess, the grant maximum per entity? Per -- 13 MR. HARTZELL: Per entity, yeah. The County 14 can -- the County and the City can each receive $350,000. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But not for the same 16 thing? 17 MR. HARTZELL: Not for the same -- well, if 18 you have a joint -- 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Same flood. 20 MR. HARTZELL: Same flood. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not damage to the 22 same -- 23 MR. HARTZELL: Right. If you had a 24 jointly-owned facility, then you could do it that way. You 25 could use the funds for that same facility, for your portion 7-22-02 84 1 of that. But, otherwise, yeah, you're talking -- City's 2 going to be looking at the city infrastructure and County's 3 going to be looking at county infrastructure. The 1998 4 floods were the most recent use of these funds in this area. 5 That would have been Medina, Bandera, and Kendall all 6 received $350,000 grants for assistance. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They did? 8 MR. HARTZELL: To recover from those floods, 9 yes. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The public hearing, is it 13 for both programs? 14 MR. HARTZELL: Yeah, the public hearing would 15 cover everything under the Texas Community Development 16 Program, which is disaster relief, colonia, and community 17 development, so the water and sewer grants that are being 18 used for Kerrville South and the disaster relief grant would 19 all be covered under one public hearing. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about the disaster 21 assistance? 22 MR. HARTZELL: Okay. This is a separate 23 program. It's the Texas Home Program, and this is for 24 housing assistance, and it is about a -- up to half a 25 million dollars. This differs a little bit, because a -- 7-22-02 85 1 whereas the infrastructure grants are only awarded to cities 2 and counties, these grants can be awarded to cities, 3 counties, and also to 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations. 4 And what they're used for is to provide grants to homeowners 5 whose homes were destroyed or severely damaged. Typically, 6 they're targeted at elderly, low-income, and disabled 7 homeowners, but not exclusively. The program will provide a 8 grant to that homeowner to rebuild their house if they don't 9 have adequate insurance. And that's something that is 10 available to the County, but the County would have to make 11 the decision to apply for that. The City, I believe, is 12 looking at the Home program. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Application deadline 14 for these programs is what? 15 MR. HARTZELL: There is no specific deadline 16 for these programs. They're accepted on a rolling basis; 17 however, they tend to be first-come, first-served. That's 18 true of the Community Development Program, I'm sorry. The 19 disaster relief grant, the Home program will set -- they 20 will set a deadline for that program, but it will be several 21 months from now. That has not -- they have not even thought 22 about deadlines at this point in the housing program. But 23 the disaster relief funds, where the infrastructure -- the 24 25 percent match, that is an as-needed basis, so you need to 25 -- we would want to apply as soon as possible to beat the 7-22-02 86 1 rush, I guess. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The request that came 3 from FEMA last week is to identify what the location -- 4 which I don't think we did, because we figured that FEMA had 5 that information better than we did. It's -- are we 6 aware -- or are you aware -- and I'm really speaking to 7 Buster or the Judge -- aware of any homes in the county that 8 would qualify for this? 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Williams 10 identified a bunch of homes in his precinct. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, there are homes 12 on Verde Creek that would qualify for this. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do mobile homes qualify? 14 MR. HARTZELL: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We were talking about 16 qualifying -- just help me out here a little bit, Eric. Are 17 we talking about substantial damage? Just rising water 18 within, or infrastructure under a house damaged or what? 19 Give me a little sense of that. 20 MR. HARTZELL: Typically, we're talking 21 about -- well, the reason -- you'll see about halfway down 22 this section, the typical grant range is $25,000 to $45,000. 23 The damage to the home may be significantly less than that, 24 but because these are federal funds, we have to raise the 25 house to above floodplain level, 100-year floodplain level, 7-22-02 87 1 which can add some expense. Plus we also would be required 2 to bring the house up to federal housing standards, which 3 are, like -- have you heard of -- I don't know if you're 4 familiar with Section 8 Federal Housing Guidelines? Okay. 5 For instance, you know, you need to have -- all the windows 6 need to have glass in them and those kind of things. 7 They're kind of basic housing quality standards. And, in 8 order to do that, there's some -- usually some additional 9 expenses related to raising those standards beyond the 10 actual flood damage repairs. So, we're talking about anyone 11 who has, you know, I would guess $5,000 to $10,000 of damage 12 and up, is what we'd be looking at. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can I assume, if a 14 homeowner filed with FEMA and was given -- I understand they 15 do this; an inspector can come out and write a check on the 16 site. If they received FEMA funds, they would be ineligible 17 to take this; would that be a fair assumption? 18 MR. HARTZELL: If they received FEMA funds, 19 they may be ineligible if the funds were sufficient to -- to 20 rehabilitate the house. If the funds were insufficient, 21 say -- there's a cap on the FEMA award. If the funds were 22 insufficient, then -- let's say there's a total loss. 23 $15,000, I believe, is the cap from FEMA, and you wouldn't 24 necessarily be able to rebuild your house for the cap. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's flip the coin. 7-22-02 88 1 Let's assume that a homeowner did not file for FEMA funds -- 2 and I happen to have one who, for whatever reasons, has 3 determined not to call the FEMA number -- but sustained some 4 significant damage. Would they be eligible? 5 MR. HARTZELL: They would be eligible under 6 the state guidelines for the assistance. The Court can set 7 stricter guidelines if you chose. One thing about this 8 particular program -- and, again, you're not obligated to 9 apply for any of these grants, but if you did, the Home 10 program, they've -- they've made it fairly flexible by what 11 they call local guidelines. And the guidelines allow you to 12 set thresholds and standards for the type of assistance and 13 the type of households that are going to be assisted. That 14 can be more stringent or as stringent as you want to make 15 them, but there are minimum state standards that would have 16 to be followed. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are there any other 18 requirements of the County with respect to the Texas Home 19 Program? I mean, County funds are not involved? 20 MR. HARTZELL: That's correct, there's no 21 matching funds. There's -- and there are no local funds 22 required. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, again, 24 Grantworks would administer the distribution of these funds? 25 MR. HARTZELL: That's right. 7-22-02 89 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. The 2 application would come through the County, and -- 3 MR. HARTZELL: That's right. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- be forwarded to 5 Grantworks for -- 6 MR. HARTZELL: That's right. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- for administration 8 purposes? 9 MR. HARTZELL: Yeah, we handle -- we would 10 handle the application process. It would be taken -- it 11 would be taken at the courthouse, probably, and maybe 12 several locations around the county, depending on where the 13 damage was most prevalent. And the Court's action would 14 involve approving the guidelines -- the standards 15 guidelines, and then, once all the applications are taken in 16 and scored according to those guidelines, the Court approves 17 a final list. That's it. They don't actually pick -- 18 hand-pick the people who will receive benefit. We've done 19 this type of program in -- we're doing it right now in 20 Medina County with the disaster relief that they had from 21 some tornadoes and flooding earlier in this year. We have 22 done this in about 140 cities and counties in Texas. We do 23 about 60 percent of the work in the state. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't use the 25 County's system to pass the money through it in any way? 7-22-02 90 1 MR. HARTZELL: The county receives -- yes, 2 the County -- yes, the County financial system will receive 3 the draw from the state, and then it will be distributed to 4 the individuals. That's right. At that final -- after 5 everything's approved, after the houses have been inspected 6 and approved and the homeowners have signed all the 7 paperwork. Nothing's paid until the very end. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'd want to ask the 9 Auditor if he would like to do that. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's sitting back 11 there listening intently. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, is he here? 13 Little churchhouse mouse. What about -- I'm going to ask -- 14 this is probably the third time it's been asked this 15 morning, but I still haven't heard an answer. If we have a 16 public hearing on July the 30th for the Community 17 Development Program -- 18 MR. HARTZELL: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- will this Texas 20 Home Program be included in that public hearing? 21 MR. HARTZELL: Okay. There's not a required 22 public hearing for the Texas Home Program, believe it or 23 not. However, we will discuss it at the public hearing, 24 just to keep people informed. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm definitely in 7-22-02 91 1 favor of having a public hearing so the public can hear it. 2 MR. HARTZELL: That's a good idea. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we'll know what the 4 taxpayers want to do. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question a lot 6 on that Texas Home Program -- and I don't know how we find 7 out if people want it. I mean, I know that you have a 8 public hearing, but, I mean, is that the -- 9 MR. HARTZELL: Sure. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I guess the best way? 11 Hopefully the press will publicize it, that if people are 12 interested, they need to come to the public hearing to let 13 us know that they want us to apply for it. I mean, I -- 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's a chicken and an egg. 15 But, given the situation, I think it would be worse for us 16 not to move forward until we had perhaps more certainty, 17 because by the time we do that, we may be so far down the 18 road that funds are exhausted or people have had to make 19 other arrangements out of sheer desperation. So, I think 20 it's incumbent upon us to put ourselves in a position to 21 take advantage of all these funds available, whether we 22 choose to or not. Let's don't slow down the process at this 23 stage. 24 MR. HARTZELL: You don't commit to anything 25 by holding a public hearing, at least as far as the State's 7-22-02 92 1 concerned, with -- with applications. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. One more question. 3 MR. HARTZELL: Sure. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The $500,000 is a cap to 5 the entity? 6 MR. HARTZELL: For the Home Program? Yeah, 7 that's a cap to the entity. If there are nonprofit 8 organizations that would wish to apply also with -- that 9 would serve Kerr County, they would do that independently of 10 the County. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. City of 12 Kerrville -- let's assume they had $750,000 of damage. 13 MR. HARTZELL: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They get $500,000 and the 15 County gets -- or, you know, part of that. Can, basically, 16 the County use its funds in the city limits of Kerrville if 17 the City didn't fund the program? 18 MR. HARTZELL: Exactly, yeah. The -- as an 19 example, well, the Medina County Home Project, the City of 20 Hondo also applied and received a half million dollar grant. 21 The County received half a million, the City received half a 22 million independently of one another. The majority of the 23 funds that the county is spending on its program are within 24 the city limits of Hondo. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can these funds, 7-22-02 93 1 under the Texas Home Program -- I think I know the answer, 2 but I'm going to ask the question anyhow -- be utilized for 3 anything other than homes? For example, Little League field 4 that the community has put together through various and 5 sundry fundraising efforts destroyed as a result of the 6 storm and a dam breaking. 7 MR. HARTZELL: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could funds from one 9 of these programs be used for that? 10 MR. HARTZELL: The Home Program, no. It's 11 only for housing. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 13 MR. HARTZELL: The Community Development 14 Program, there's a possibility, although your funds are very 15 limited. $350,000 is a small amount of money, considering 16 the scope of the disaster. I know that if, for example, the 17 County owned land that a Little League park was built upon 18 and it owned some of the improvements, that it could include 19 that in its request for public assistance and receive part 20 of the match from the grant. However, if the majority of 21 the improvements in there -- improvements were owned by a 22 nonprofit entity, those part -- that portion of it owned by 23 the nonprofit entity would not be eligible for the C.D.B.G. 24 funds. Public facilities -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Little League 7-22-02 94 1 field across from the Ag Barn could qualify. The one in 2 Center Point could not. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. From the County 4 standpoint, I don't think Little League in Kerrville will 5 apply for funds. We'll make people go out there and fix the 6 problem. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions of Eric 8 on these potential funding sources? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's important, 10 and I don't know who -- the best person probably, really is 11 the Judge, if he would, to coordinate with Ron Patterson at 12 the City. Because I think -- I mean, I don't see the County 13 has a whole lot -- maybe Commissioner Williams has some for 14 the Texas Home Program, but I think the City of Kerrville 15 has a substantial amount along Quinlan Creek. If we can use 16 some of -- if the City applies for funds, I'd be strongly in 17 favor of the County trying to get the same amount allocated 18 so we can help the City of Kerrville constituents that are 19 also our constituents. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure of the 21 total home count and residence count, but I bet you in 22 Precinct 2, there are four areas, two on Verde Creek, where 23 there's substantial residential damage. There are two areas 24 in Center Point where high water's coming up; not only flood 25 waters, but water's coming up. There's substantial damage 7-22-02 95 1 to homes. So, all-told, there may be 25 or 30 homes that 2 are -- that could be eligible for this participation. 3 Judge, I would offer as a motion approval of the public 4 hearing for July 30, 2002, at 6 p.m. regarding Kerr County 5 participation in, one, the 2003/04 Texas Community 6 Development Program and the Colonia Fund application for 7 continuation of the Kerrville South Wastewater Sewer 8 Collection Project, and two, application for Disaster Relief 9 and Home Disaster Assistance programs, with the 10 understanding that Grantworks advertises and conducts the 11 public hearing. That's essentially the motion. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where would that be? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would be in the 14 Commissioners Courtroom, 6 p.m. on July 30th. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner 17 Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, regarding the 18 approval of public hearing for July 30, Year 2002, at 6 p.m. 19 in the Kerr County Commissioners Courtroom regarding Kerr 20 County participation in the 2003/2004 Texas Community 21 Development Program and Colonia Fund applications, a 22 continuation of Kerrville South Sewer Collection Project, 23 and participation in the Disaster Relief and Home Disaster 24 Assistance programs. Any questions or comments? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Comment. If Grantworks 7-22-02 96 1 could, in their public notice, mention the disaster 2 assistance, even though it's not required? 3 MR. HARTZELL: Sure. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And maybe we can get some 5 people from -- you know, aware that we're looking at that; 6 get them to the public hearing from the information 7 standpoint. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Good point. Any other 9 questions or comments? Yes, ma'am? 10 MRS. RACKLEY: On that -- 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Please identify yourself. 12 MRS. RACKLEY: I'm Shirley Rackley, and I 13 live in Boerne. I have a question, though. Has a study 14 been done on the processing plant to process the sewage on 15 Ranchero Drive? Is it going to be able to handle that? 16 MR. MOTLEY: Yeah, the facility that's going 17 to process the wastewater will be the City of Kerrville's 18 capacity, and yes, they have adequate capacity to serve that 19 area. 20 MRS. RACKLEY: Okay. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or 22 comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 7-22-02 97 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Thank you, 2 Eric. 3 MR. HARTZELL: Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 5 (Discussion off the record.) 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item for consideration 7 is Item Number 10, which is to consider and conduct a budget 8 workshop on the County Attorney's office. This was 9 postponed from a previous time due to the unfortunate 10 illness of Mr. Motley. This is Tab 9, gentlemen, in our 11 budget workbooks. David, it's all yours. 12 MR. MOTLEY: I have some handouts here. 13 Maybe -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 15 MR. MOTLEY: Sure. 16 (Discussion off the record.) 17 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. Well, let's see here. 18 It's not exactly complete, but it's pretty complete. I 19 don't know if the way to go about doing this is for y'all to 20 ask me questions or what. I don't know exactly what your 21 preference is on this. So -- 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: What we've done up to this 23 point is rely on the department head or elected official to 24 point out and explain any significant deviations from what's 25 been approved for this current fiscal year. 7-22-02 98 1 MR. MOTLEY: Are you talking about the fiscal 2 year we're in? 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. 4 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. Well, for the next fiscal 5 year, I mean, I'm looking for additional staff. I'm looking 6 for an additional secretary, an additional attorney. I want 7 you to take a look at those graphs, and in particular, I 8 think the second page, the one that looks like this. This 9 is our weighted staffing, as compared to cases in the County 10 Court at Law. What I've said before is that regardless of 11 the representation on the, say, nonconstitutional or 12 extra-constitutional matters in the Commissioners Court, our 13 office needs more attorneys. The duties in our office have 14 increased 54 percent in County Court at Law, 304 percent in 15 juvenile court, 541 percent in the number of hot checks 16 processed. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: What's the time frame? 18 MR. MOTLEY: On that, I would say that's 19 probably from about, I think -- is that from the beginning, 20 '91? 21 MS. HANNA: Yes, sir. 22 MR. MOTLEY: Well, that's the full range, 23 then, that's depicted in there. A lot of the work that we 24 are accomplishing has only been -- we've been able to 25 accomplish by hiring interns and such as that, and I've kind 7-22-02 99 1 of tried to break those charts down individually. You can 2 get some idea of the numbers of cases. And, of course, on 3 2002, for juvenile cases filed, County Court at Law cases, 4 and juvenile detention hearings, those, of necessity, are 5 estimated. County Court at Law are based on six months 6 experience, and the other two are based on five months 7 experience, and so those are numbers that we're projecting. 8 Our workload has increased very dramatically in our office. 9 I would like to point out just one historical fact that you 10 may not be aware of. Kerr County has had three attorneys in 11 the County Attorney's office since 1986. Matthew Powell was 12 hired on July 16th of 1986, and he was the first of the 13 three -- the third attorney, so to speak, in our office. 14 I want the Court also to be cognizant of the 15 different areas of responsibility that our office has. I 16 know the Court is mainly concerned with representation of 17 the Court in its -- in its issues and questions and such, 18 and I would tell the Court we're endeavoring to get caught 19 up on a backlog of some of those -- those issues, and yet 20 try to do the current things as they come in. And it's a 21 little bit difficult with the staffing the way it is. I 22 really don't have the luxury of having enough people to 23 assign these things to, with, you know, just an exception 24 here and there. But they're -- they're loaded up with 25 juvenile court and County Court at Law, which is the primary 7-22-02 100 1 duties of the other two attorneys in the office. The 2 juvenile court is really becoming -- in order to do a good 3 job, it seems to me the juvenile court is becoming such that 4 you could have an attorney in there full-time. 5 One other thing that's happened in our 6 office, staffing-wise, that's of consequence is that the 7 administrative legal secretary, Ms. Hanna, who really also 8 functions as my secretary, hasn't been able to do much in 9 the way of assisting me because of the juvenile case load 10 increase. She's pretty much been devoted full-time to 11 preparing and getting stuff ready for the juvenile hearings, 12 so I'm without much in the way of assistance in that regard. 13 Also, I believe the Court has an expectation -- or has 14 expressed an expectation that, in staffing the office and 15 looking at those numbers, that -- that I carry a full case 16 load, which leaves no time for any sort of administrative 17 work, which is essential to do in the office, and kind of 18 keep tabs on the way things are going. That's a very 19 important function. And I know virtually every other office 20 in the county has that privilege, it seems. 21 One other problem that I have is that when we 22 -- when Travis left us on September 30th of last year, it 23 took three and a half months to find another attorney. And 24 I know Commissioner Letz at that time made a comment that if 25 it takes three and a half months to find an attorney to 7-22-02 101 1 replace somebody, that we would not be able to provide 2 consistent legal help that the Court feels that they need, 3 and I can understand that, but that's not a problem of our 4 making. It's not our fault that we are not able to attract 5 people or we're not able to compete in the marketplace for 6 attorneys. Positions -- again, I remind you that right out 7 of law school, Guadalupe County is paying these people 8 $45,000. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: What are we paying them? 10 MR. MOTLEY: For the low-paid position, it's 11 36,7. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: And how much do they get from 13 the Hot Check Fund? 14 MR. MOTLEY: I really have to look at that, 15 but I would say -- 16 MS. HANNA: It's $2,000 a year. 17 MR. MOTLEY: Yeah, it's $2,000 additional a 18 year from the Hot Check Fund. Thirty-eight. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do they get a bonus, then, at 20 Christmas? 21 MR. MOTLEY: We don't -- 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: A lump sum payment at 23 Christmas? 24 MR. MOTLEY: We don't do anything entitled 25 "bonuses" or "Christmas bonuses." That is -- 7-22-02 102 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: You don't make lump sum 2 payments at Christmastime? 3 MR. MOTLEY: We don't refer to it by such a 4 title. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: What do you call it and how 6 much is it? 7 MR. MOTLEY: I think that's included in their 8 $2,000, isn't it? 9 MS. HANNA: Yes, sir, $2,000 total. 10 MR. MOTLEY: It's a contractual -- it's a 11 contract we enter into with each person, and we distribute 12 this additional funds in a way -- and they can arrange it 13 however they want the money distributed. If they want it 14 distributed monthly, if they want it biannually, you know -- 15 semi-annually, I should say, at Christmastime, whatever, 16 this is money that we feel that they've earned, and it's 17 additional funding, and that's the way we do that. And 18 that's, by the way, done in every county in the state that 19 operates with a Hot Check Fund. That's not in any way 20 unusual at all. And what I was going to say is the 21 situation, it seems to me -- and I took a cursory look at 22 the results in the Nash study, and it seems to me that every 23 department -- every department in the county, but for ours, 24 the employees in those departments received the suggested 25 salaries from the Nash study. We did not. Ours was 7-22-02 103 1 recommended to be $39,444 for the entry level attorney. 2 That was several years ago, based on salary studies that 3 were even a year older, $39,444. Our higher-paid attorney 4 right now is exceeding that by $130 a year. Those are not 5 competitive wages. 6 And that -- I'm proud of the people that we 7 have hired in the office. They're good, qualified 8 attorneys. It just takes longer to find someone who has a 9 particular reason to want to give up salary in order to live 10 in Kerrville, and that's really what's happened. We have 11 three people, two of whom were fresh out of law school last 12 year, and we offered the entry salary and they flat turned 13 us down for -- they would have to take a cut in pay for the 14 different places they were. And I'm not quite sure why it 15 is that we can't get the salaries recommended by the Nash 16 study and other departments can. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, on that, is the -- 18 if you count the Hot Check Fund, whatever you want to call 19 that funding, does that get the salary -- or did that get 20 the salary to the recommended amount? 21 MR. MOTLEY: No, it still doesn't. It still 22 does not. 23 MS. HANNA: And that's not what other 24 counties are compared to. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: I have to say that I disagree 7-22-02 104 1 with your statement about the Nash study. 2 MR. MOTLEY: I'm sorry, the statement of 3 what? 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: The Nash study. 5 MR. MOTLEY: Well, that's -- again, I said -- 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: We increased every employee 7 category salary that the Nash study recommended up to the 8 recommended level. 9 MR. MOTLEY: Well, ours was sure, I believe, 10 higher than that, if I'm not mistaken, and -- and I believe 11 it was $39,444, and ours is not there. So, I mean, I'm 12 going to pull up the Nash study. If you'd like to, we can 13 take a look at it, but we did not receive the benefits of 14 that. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my -- I'm -- I 16 don't remember, certainly, singling out any department not 17 getting what was recommended. I thought it was an 18 across-the-board motion to get them. So -- 19 MR. MOTLEY: Well, here it is right here. It 20 says suggested for entry level attorney. The median figure 21 is $39,499.20 right there. That's for our entry level 22 attorney, who at the time was one month on the job, Rex 23 Emerson. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's not a recommendation 25 from the Nash study. 7-22-02 105 1 MR. MOTLEY: Well -- 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's just a statistic. 3 That's not the recommendation. 4 MR. MOTLEY: The recommendation was that the 5 job was dramatically underfunded; that's what I believe was 6 recommended for the salary. So, I -- you know, I'm just 7 saying that that's the median, which I believe was the goal 8 in the Nash study. I could be wrong about that, but I 9 believe the goal was to bring us up to a competitive level 10 with the median of the other departments -- you know, the 11 other places around the region that we compete with. So -- 12 and I don't believe that there's -- I mean, again, if you 13 want me to go pull the rest of the study -- I just pulled 14 this page. If you want me to pull the rest of the study, 15 I'm happy to do that. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I'm going to send 17 a request to the personnel manager, Barbara Nemec, and ask 18 her to find -- look at the court order, see if we did that. 19 I don't think -- I don't recall singling out any department. 20 And it's very easy to solve the question by asking the 21 County Treasurer to research it and see if -- just wait a 22 minute -- did you or did you not get what was recommended 23 under the Nash study. It's pretty simple. I mean, I 24 don't -- we'll do that. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we should. We 7-22-02 106 1 need to know. I don't recall that either, David. 2 MR. MOTLEY: The -- 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin, you 4 headed the appeals committee for the Nash study; is that 5 correct? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: And several department heads 8 came before you and your group and said we don't agree with 9 what's being recommended. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't believe the County 12 Attorney was one of those, was he? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I don't recall 14 that at all. That's what Commissioner Letz is saying. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to go 16 back and review and see what happened there. 17 MR. MOTLEY: That's fine. We'll -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, on your 19 behalf, you know, let's find out what happened. 20 MR. MOTLEY: That's fine. All I'm saying is 21 I think that it -- the salary being somewhat less than 22 competitive causes us to have a longer amount of time and 23 downtime till we get that other attorney hired, if we're 24 trying to maintain a three-attorney staff. That's where 25 we're seeing, you know, the -- the real lag, and that's, I 7-22-02 107 1 think, partially responsible as to why we got behind this 2 year on some of the civil questions that were asked. And, 3 again, we tried to prioritize as best we could and answer 4 the ones that were, you know, sort of on fire first, and 5 that's what we endeavor to do. But, in any event, 6 historically, I mean, the years between December of '95 and, 7 oh, I would say January of 2000, those are aberrant years in 8 the sense that there's only two attorneys in the office. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two attorneys, you 10 and one other? 11 MR. MOTLEY: Yes, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or you plus two? 13 MR. MOTLEY: Right. They've had three 14 attorneys total in the office since July 16th of 1986. I 15 mean, that's 16 years. Except for the four years that, you 16 know, I've mentioned there -- four or five, whatever that 17 was. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And what was the reason 19 in '96? 20 MR. MOTLEY: The reason what in '96? I'm 21 sorry. Oh, that it went down? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 23 MR. MOTLEY: In 1996 -- in December of '95, 24 actually, that was when Mr. Danford left the office and went 25 to the Administrative Appeals Department at the Department 7-22-02 108 1 of Public Safety, and Commissioners Court at that time 2 decided that they did not want to approve hiring anybody to 3 replace him; that they were going to use outside counsel at 4 that time. That's when that began. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: David, there's a 6 state supplement that comes to all County Attorneys' 7 offices; is that correct? 8 MR. MOTLEY: Well, it actually doesn't go to 9 all, but the vast majority it does. There's some that are 10 excluded. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a supplement 12 that comes to Kerr County? 13 MR. MOTLEY: Well, the state supplement 14 doesn't go to the office, it goes to the elected official. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And it's to be 16 used for what purpose? 17 MR. MOTLEY: It's to be used for salary. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One salary, or 19 salaries within the department? 20 MR. MOTLEY: The -- that is contemplated as 21 salary for the elected official. Now, there are -- there 22 are parameters in there where it could be doled out in 23 different ways. It could be -- part of it could be used for 24 additional office expenses and such as that, but it is a 25 salary enhancement bill for the elected official. And, in 7-22-02 109 1 any event, we've had a dramatic increase in what we do, 2 again, outside of the Commissioners Court. I -- I sometimes 3 feel as if the Court is not aware of our other obligations. 4 You know, we literally are on call to appear in 10 courts. 5 Sometimes it's not actually so much the number of cases we 6 have as the number of bodies we have in order to go to those 7 places. But, you know, there's juvenile court and 8 Commissioners Court and all four J.P. courts, mental health 9 court, two district courts. You know, you can add them up 10 pretty quick and see that we have some responsibilities. We 11 are required now by law to appear in J.P. courts, and they 12 certainly have an active docket. And those dockets, 13 although we were not able to get figures from J.P. court in 14 time to do this, they do have an increase in case load; I 15 can say that. We provide a lot of advice to elected and 16 appointed department heads. We've been very busy working 17 with Road and Bridge on a number of matters, as well as the 18 Sheriff's Office, as well as the constable in Precinct 4. 19 We've had quite a few issues that have come up. Those are 20 all things that take time. 21 And I was endeavoring to finish Commissioner 22 Williams' last submission to me and I was getting pretty 23 close, and the lady called me, and I think it really was 24 with some sense of urgency, a lady from Dallas that 25 Commissioner Baldwin had referred to me, and ended up pretty 7-22-02 110 1 much having to drop what I was doing in order to hopefully 2 get her situation resolved and write her back and try to -- 3 it's a long and ongoing -- real thorn in people's side, and 4 I thought maybe I'd be able to help her out with that. And 5 then, kind of right in the middle of that, we ended up -- I 6 ended up being advised that the issue today about 7 Mr. Cummings' improvement on the ranch out at Y.O. was an 8 issue, so again -- again, we've pretty much had to drop both 9 Commissioner Williams' request and the first request from 10 Commissioner Baldwin. It's a very difficult thing to try 11 and prioritize and do -- you know, everybody pretty much who 12 wants anything done -- I won't say everybody, because there 13 are slight exceptions, but it's often the case that people 14 who want things done want it done right now, and need it 15 done right now. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I appreciate you 17 coming up on that Y.O. thing today. It wasn't near what I 18 thought it was, but I appreciate you looking at it anyway. 19 David, I am -- I'm kind of -- I don't know if impressed is 20 the right word or not, but the number of cases filed, that's 21 a pretty good increase. 22 MR. MOTLEY: It is. It's a substantial 23 increase. And I'll say this -- and I can't tell you the 24 precise timing of it, but let me say that at some point 25 there, 200 cases a year came out of this file number, 7-22-02 111 1 because we're handling them separately with the computer 2 system for hot checks. So, had we not done the computer 3 system -- which, by the way, the software and I believe most 4 of the equipment was paid for with the Hot Check Fund -- all 5 these blue numbers, the case file would be 200 higher 6 across-the-board somewhere from the middle over to the 7 estimated values for 2000. So, we took out about 200 a 8 year; at least at the time we took it out, it was 200. That 9 might be, in fact, a higher number now, because we've had a 10 general increase in the number of cases of hot checks, a 11 541 percent increase in the number of hot checks processed. 12 So, that's -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I noticed in Year 14 2000, you disposed of more than were filed, though. 15 MR. MOTLEY: Well -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How do you do that? 17 MR. MOTLEY: You know, that is a -- this is 18 an effort -- this -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Some laid over from 20 previous year kind of thing? 21 MR. MOTLEY: Well, you know, that's always an 22 ongoing battle in any criminal court, is to try and get it 23 -- to try and get rid of cases. And you know, we -- we do 24 try to get rid of more than we file. And looks like, you 25 know, the first couple years were successful; a few here and 7-22-02 112 1 there. But, again, the jump from 2,189 to -- 2,187 in 2000 2 up to 2001 figures at 2,589 is a substantial jump. That's a 3 substantial jump in number of cases filed. And all I've 4 ever said to the Court was we want to continue to do the 5 Court's civil business, and we want to get caught up where 6 we're able to do that, but we're overwhelmed with what we 7 do. There's -- you know, you can just look at these numbers 8 yourself and just see that everything is going -- now, of 9 course, if you look at these juvenile cases, they're all 10 over the board, but the trend is up. You know, the trend is 11 up. Same for the detention hearings. And, you know, pretty 12 much everything we're doing is up. Everything's up, and 13 we've had the same basic staff level in our office that 14 we've had since 1986. We have one more, I think -- we have 15 -- well, let's see. We have two full-time secretaries 16 still, and we include -- we added an Administrative 17 Assistant from -- part-time clerk went up to Administrative 18 Assistant, and then we added somebody that's the same level 19 as the secretary, so we've added one and a half employees, 20 in essence, during that time. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you're asking for 22 another attorney, and I see his salary is not what you said 23 it was supposed to be. 24 MR. MOTLEY: I've got to look on my list, 25 but -- 7-22-02 113 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're asking for 2 another attorney and a legal secretary for that attorney, I 3 assume, and then you're asking for an investigator? 4 MR. MOTLEY: Well, these are things that we 5 think are going to be necessary to -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you want me to vote 7 on your budget, you answer my question. Is that what you're 8 asking for? 9 MR. MOTLEY: Well, now, are you looking at 10 the figures -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm looking -- 12 MR. MOTLEY: -- on the budget requests for 13 '02/'03? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm looking at -- 15 MR. MOTLEY: Let me take a look at what 16 you're saying, because I don't see that on mine. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here is -- looks like 18 a new attorney. 19 MR. MOTLEY: Okay, I see -- I know where you 20 are now. Right, you're absolutely right. And it is -- the 21 number there is the number that -- that we've used for 22 Mr. Bonner. It's the -- you know, that's the number that 23 apparently is approved entry level for our attorneys. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it's not the 25 number that the study recommended? 7-22-02 114 1 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I don't believe so, and 2 Judge Henneke may -- may well have read it differently than 3 I did or something. I was thinking that that suggested 4 number I saw in that analysis was carried through. It said 5 it was a very poor opportunity and needed to be raised the 6 equivalent of two steps or something like that, is my 7 recollection. I don't have the whole study here; I should 8 have brought it. But the things we're asking for basic 9 increases in, we're asking for postage increases due to 10 the -- you know, the increased 9 percent, approximately, 11 across-the-board on postage. We're going to have some 12 additional maintenance on a new printer that we acquired, 13 another $134. We're going to have -- we have a reduction in 14 our cost of Software Group, so that's $66 less. That's a 15 change. But the other items are -- you know, we're just 16 not -- you know, I guess it becomes a question of can you do 17 something or can you do it well? 18 Somebody asked me the other day, well, how 19 many cases can somebody handle? The last figures I was able 20 to obtain were published by the National District Attorneys 21 Association, and for criminal cases handled, averaging in 22 the United States, per prosecutor, handled per year is 400. 23 And looking at our last complete year is 2,589, almost 24 2,600. And that's Jerry in that court, with a little bit of 25 Don. So, I mean, you got about a third of Don and one of 7-22-02 115 1 Jerry, and so they're handling 2,500 cases between them. If 2 they were at the recommended level, they'd be handling about 3 530 -- not recommended level, the statistical average. I've 4 been trying to obtain more up-to-date figures than that, but 5 I could only find felony cases, which are substantially 6 lower, if you imagine there's less felony cases filed than 7 misdemeanor cases. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: David -- I have a 9 question for you, David, if I may. 10 MR. MOTLEY: Sure. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under -- on the 12 investigator person that you're looking for -- 13 MR. MOTLEY: Yes, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- why isn't the Sheriff 15 doing those things? 16 MR. MOTLEY: Oh, let me say that we -- we do 17 get good support from the Sheriff's Office. We get good 18 support from the Kerrville Police Department, Ingram 19 Marshal's Office. We -- but let me say that, if you looked 20 at their graphs and their numbers and their cases, they are 21 up dramatically as well. The problem becomes once one of 22 these officers completes a case and gets it all arranged, 23 runs it through his, you know, sergeant, it runs upstairs 24 through the detective's department and their 25 sergeant approves it, it comes over, then to go back and 7-22-02 116 1 say, well, we really need statements from these three people 2 or this additional piece of evidence, there's sort of a 3 disincentive for them to then stop what they've gone on to 4 in a loaded case load and then go back and do this. I mean, 5 I think they're under the gun and under pressure to produce 6 and get cases out just like we are. The investigator does 7 things for us -- or would do things for us that police 8 officers don't do. It's really almost the rule in a 9 criminal case that the victim as well as the perpetrator are 10 difficult to find. They're hard to find, and I've been out 11 myself many nights going around Ingram Hills looking for 12 victims and speaking to people who can't speak English, 13 trying to figure out where they are. And -- and 14 sometimes -- you know, about half the time, I find them; 15 about half the time I don't. If we have an investigator who 16 could kind of be working ahead on that process and get -- 17 get his people lined up, he can also serve warrants on hot 18 checks. 19 Just to give you an example -- I know it's a 20 much larger jurisdiction, but something we have familiarity 21 with -- Jerry Phillips came from the Lubbock D.A,'s office. 22 The way their courts are configured, for every County Court 23 at Law, they have an investigator -- I mean, excuse me, a 24 lead attorney and a second chair attorney and two 25 investigators for that court. They work as a unit together, 7-22-02 117 1 anything that comes in the court. A lot of the -- and I'm 2 very active in the Texas District and County Attorneys 3 Association. I've found, speaking with my colleagues over 4 the years, that many of them, the way their offices are 5 configured that are different from ours, is that many times 6 each of these prosecutors may have two secretaries, and 7 they're able to multiply the amount of work they do by 8 keeping two people. Because I -- right now, I'm in a 9 situation, as I've told you, Ms. Hanna is pretty much 10 totally occupied with juvenile cases, and doesn't leave much 11 time for her to assist me in the things that she normally 12 would like to assist me in. And it's -- so we're just 13 having some trouble. And I do believe that this is 14 something that we brought to the attention of the Court 15 before; perhaps not the Court as presently configured, but I 16 think we've brought it to the attention of the Court that 17 we're understaffed. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One last question. 19 Between the legal secretary and the new attorney, which is 20 the higher priority to you? 21 MR. MOTLEY: Well, you know, I really -- to 22 be honest with you, I probably would say the legal 23 secretary. Although I would -- and we may have some room to 24 find a place for them. We don't have -- our physical space 25 is very limited. We have people sharing areas now. Two of 7-22-02 118 1 them are shared by people -- we have some temporary summer 2 clerks and things that we're using, law students and such 3 from St. Mary's and other places, other students. And -- 4 and one of them is not able to work in the confines of our 5 office, has to go to the County Law Library or work from 6 home or something, and so we don't have a place to put them. 7 But, you know, I can -- I can appreciate the Court's concern 8 about the civil issues. And I will tell you that, you know, 9 I enjoy doing the civil cases. I enjoy working on these 10 things. I always learn a lot that I didn't know. Took 11 quite a bit of time to prepare today on this road issue out 12 at the Y.O., and I enjoyed knowing about more about it. 13 It's something that I really haven't felt like I had the 14 time to do because of the way things were going. And I did 15 get to look into something; had a lot of questions that have 16 been in the back of my mind, so I was able to answer them. 17 But, in any event, that's about all I guess I could say. 18 I'll be happy to answer questions for you. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: David, your numbers 20 and your charts/graphs are interesting and they're 21 instructive and they're pretty, and I don't know if you can 22 quantify in a graph like this the civil work. I really 23 don't, 'cause I don't know what kind of -- how often my 24 colleagues or the Judge refers things to you and so forth. 25 But how do we address that, when we bring those things to 7-22-02 119 1 you? 2 MR. MOTLEY: I do them. I'm the guy that 3 does them. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have a need -- 5 MR. MOTLEY: I do them, but I -- I might be 6 able to quantity them, but I would not tell you that I 7 believe in any way that they're up. I don't think that 8 there's a drastic increase in the amount of items that have 9 been referred by members of the Commissioners Court. We've 10 had a lot of stuff lately from -- and a lot of it runs 11 cyclically. We've had a lot of stuff from the Sheriff's 12 Office, and we are about to come up on a process of 13 negotiating a new mental health interlocal agreement between 14 Kerr County and, like, 26 other counties. That contract -- 15 originally, I drew that contract, and I will tell you 16 honestly, it took 80 hours to draw the contract. It was 17 extremely difficult to go through and source out all the 18 court costs and figure out where they were. I have to go 19 through and revisit that. It shouldn't take that long, but 20 that's something that they're just begging for at the 21 Clerk's office, and I just don't know when I'm going to have 22 time to do it. I don't know. I just can do -- you know, 23 have so many hours in the day, and that's all I can do. 24 And I will say that, you know, probably y'all 25 don't -- I didn't bring anybody in here and introduce them 7-22-02 120 1 to you, but I will tell you that we were very lucky in the 2 people that we hired in our office; that Jerry and Don add 3 really useful experience to the office, things that they've 4 done in the past. Now, neither one -- Jerry's had, I think, 5 some very limited experience in county government, but 6 nether one of them has particularly the background that you 7 want for somebody to come in here and really tend to the 8 issues that come up, you know, just all -- off-the-cuff, 9 almost. And the problem is, we had a lady -- we had a lady 10 that lined up, came and applied, and just before we brought 11 her back for a second interview, looked at her again, she 12 took a job with -- from City of San Antonio, went to the 13 City of San Antonio Airport Authority taking $68,000 a year. 14 We just -- you know, we just can't compete. We've been 15 lucky in the past to have people that had -- some pretty 16 good persons who were very curious about this area of the 17 law. But we have been fortunate. You know, you can't 18 expect necessarily to get somebody who has the depth of 19 experience that I think you guys want and need for, you 20 know, $37,000 a year. That's just not there, when you can 21 just walk over wet behind the ears and go to Guadalupe 22 County for 45 and start. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My -- this is my final 24 comment, 'cause I'm getting hungry. I mean, I appreciate 25 your presentation. You did a good job, you know, I think, 7-22-02 121 1 presenting what you need. Better than -- you know, probably 2 one of the best presentations you've done, in my opinion. 3 I'm sympathetic with your need. I know your staff has 4 worked hard. But also, I know that the budget is extremely 5 tight this year. I don't know where we're getting funds to 6 do the things we need to do, for that matter, much less hire 7 additional personnel. I think, you know, we have been 8 pretty tight on hiring personnel county-wide for some time, 9 since I've been on the Commissioners Court. We've added 10 some here and there in spots. So, I don't know what we're 11 going to do, 'cause I just don't know where the funds are 12 coming from this year. I do think that you have done a -- a 13 much better job handling the Court's work in the past three 14 to four months. I think there was a period early in the 15 year when you were way behind, or whatever happened; it was 16 probably -- it was a real big problem, to my mind. I don't 17 see that any more. I appreciate your coming up here today, 18 you know. So I think that, you know, things are improving 19 on the civil side. I don't see a great deal of civil work 20 for the Court coming up. I think when that change was made 21 several years ago, there was some huge lawsuits that were 22 pending, and that was -- may have been part of the reason. 23 I wasn't on the Court when the decision was made. 24 MR. MOTLEY: We want to do the work. I'm 25 going to say that we do want to do the work. I will also 7-22-02 122 1 tell you that there is a backlog. I went through the -- and 2 I'll tell you right now, I think the total backlog right now 3 is about eight projects, and I'll tell you that I pushed 4 them back as far as I could, because we had things coming up 5 very frequently that just commanded more immediate 6 attention, and I apologize if somebody's is one of the 7 eight. You know, I can sit here and think of several of 8 them and tell what they are. The plan on bloodborne 9 pathogens and how to handle that, we've not -- we haven't 10 done it. You know, we're hopefully going to get it out 11 within about a month now; I think we're really starting to 12 see the end of -- the light at the end of the tunnel. I 13 think things will be a lot better when we get the backlog 14 cleared up and are able to kind of more efficiently plan the 15 stuff that's coming in. 16 But, it's very difficult for me to -- and, 17 you know, let me say this to you. I mentioned earlier about 18 me having a full case load. Now, what's happened is Don 19 Bonner is handling the juveniles. And the things really, as 20 far as regular case load that I'm responsible for, would be 21 mental health, and I would say I take maybe every third, 22 fourth on average, protective order, and then we all fill in 23 whenever something needs to be -- you know, somebody needs 24 to cover. I was scheduled to try a case tomorrow in Judge 25 Wright's court. We're not sure how that's going to work out 7-22-02 123 1 now, because she broke her leg -- and I don't know if y'all 2 know about that, but she's injured, and we don't know if 3 there's going to be a case tomorrow -- or I say tomorrow. 4 Wednesday, excuse me. Wednesday. And so we all try very 5 hard to be cross-trained, in the sense that we can cover for 6 each other. I'll tell you now, Mr. Bonner is working on an 7 agreement between Kerr County and the City of Ingram on a 8 platting -- a common platting procedure. He's working very 9 hard on that. He has several issues that he's kind of 10 trying to work on. So, we are trying to spread it to some 11 degree, but it's just a matter of trying to get caught up. 12 There's nothing really more difficult than climbing out of a 13 hole when you keep on getting stuff, you know, kind of -- 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: What percentage of your case 15 load in County Court at Law or juvenile court are contested, 16 in the sense that they actually go to a non-agreed-upon 17 determination? 18 MR. MOTLEY: There's low. They're low. I've 19 never, you know, put the pencil to the paper. There's 20 actually an explanation, at least in County Court at Law, 21 for some of that. Again, a lot of times, I think we give in 22 on cases that we would more feel are appropriate to fight on 23 because we don't have the time and the staff in order to 24 really fully investigate and put up our dukes and go for 25 a -- for a challenge. As I said, I was talking to an 7-22-02 124 1 individual recently, and, you know, "How many cases can you 2 handle?" I guess it comes down to how many cases can you 3 handle, how well. If you really wanted to really fight on 4 every case and really, you know, file the cases you think 5 are good cases and really put up a fight on each case, that 6 takes more time than just kind of whizzing through the same 7 number of cases, try to make some deal that makes everybody 8 happy and hope you get them the next time sort of a thing. 9 So, you know, how well and how deeply you handle the case, I 10 think, is an issue to be considered as well. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: The other thing I'd say 12 before we adjourn is, on behalf of the Auditor and the 13 Treasurer, I'll remind you that if the Treasurer's going to 14 write salary supplement checks to your employees from the 15 Hot Check Fund, then that amount of money has to be included 16 in the budget. 17 MR. MOTLEY: We intend to do that. We've -- 18 Barbara can tell you at any time that -- 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm not saying you don't. 20 I'm just saying that you took what was last year's budget 21 and reworked it, but since last year's budget, you 22 included -- we set up a separate line item, I believe, 23 Tommy, didn't we, for the Hot Check salary supplement, in 24 order for the Treasurer to be able to -- 25 MR. MOTLEY: We'll be happy to fund that. 7-22-02 125 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: So I'm just reminding you 2 that that needs to be in this budget someplace. 3 MR. MOTLEY: Now, are you saying it needs to 4 be funded for the entire year? We had talked to Barbara. 5 She said she didn't care if we funded it, you know, every 6 other week, monthly, or what. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm not talking about 8 funding, other than I'm talking about a line item. 9 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: There has to be a line item 11 that includes those funds in this budget. Okay? 12 MR. MOTLEY: We'll certainly -- we have been 13 talking to Barbara. You know, we're actually going to get 14 some figures. I think we don't have the precise numbers 15 that she feels are necessary for us to put into that 16 account. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, that's it. Thank you. 18 MR. MOTLEY: Are we going to have another 19 hearing on this? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely not. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: At some point, we'll get back 22 together again on the budget. We are adjourned. 23 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:59 a.m.) 24 - - - - - - - - - - 25 7-22-02 126 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 30th day of July, 2002. 8 9 10 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 11 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 12 Certified Shorthand Reporter 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7-22-02