1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Regular Session 10 Monday, July 14, 2003 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: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X July 14, 2003 PAGE 2 --- Visitor's Input 3 --- Commissioners Comments 7 3 1.19 Discuss contracts with VFD's effective Oct. 1 10 1.7 PUBLIC HEARING-Kerr County Parks Long-Range Plan 48 4 1.8 Approve Kerr County Parks Long-Range Plan 49 1.30 Review changes to Animal Control rules & fees 54 5 1.1 Approve Farmer's market at courthouse square on 1st, 3rd, & 5th Saturdays of 2003 growing season 79 6 1.2 Change County rules regarding rabies vaccinations 89 1.3 Consider merit increases, Road & Bridge Dept. 90 7 1.4 Consider releasing Letter of Credit for Stablewood Springs Ranch Condominium project 96 8 1.5 Preliminary plat, The Horizon, Section Two 103 1.18 Accept petition to create an emergency service 9 district in Mountain Home, set public hearing 116 1.6 Road name changes, privately-maintained roads 128 10 1.9 Approve recent contract award under TCDP for some of 25% matching grants from FEMA & NRCS 133 11 4.1 Pay Bills 136 1.10 Appointment of election judges & alternates 140 12 1.11 Appointment of central counting station manager/ judge, and tabulating supervisor 142 13 1.12 Discuss consolidation of polling places 143 1.13 Approve job descriptions for Sheriff's Dept. 145 14 1.14 Resolution to appoint signators for TCDP con- tract, Kerrville South Wastewater, Phase 3 149 15 1.15 Review of 2003/04 budget schedule, set workshops 153 1.16 Approval to negotiate new contract with UGRA 16 concerning administration of OSSF rules & regs 162 1.17 Discuss proposed new OSSF Rules & Regulations as 17 recommended, set public hearing on same 175 1.20 Approve proposed Community Plan for Kerr County 206 18 1.21 Approve Kerr Central Appraisal's 2004 budget 213 1.22 Consider Terrorism Risk endorsement to existing 19 law enforcement insurance coverage 219 1.23 RFQ for Architectural/Engineering services 238 20 1.24 RFP for Plumbing, Electrical & HVAC service 246 1.25 RFP for insurance coverage 248 21 1.26 RFP for employee benefits (health coverage) 261 1.27 RFP for information technology maintenance 277 22 1.28 Burn Ban status 295 1.29 Approve inclusion of CRNA services as optional 23 service under Indigent Health Care program 296 4.2 Budget Amendments 300 24 4.3 Late Bills 320 4.4 Read and Approve Minutes 326 25 4.5 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 327 --- Adjourned 329 7-14-03 3 1 On Monday, July 14, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., a regular 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 TINLEY: Thank you for being here. 7 I'll call to order the meeting of the regular Commissioners 8 Court scheduled for Monday, July 14th, at 9 a.m. It's a 9 couple minutes after 9:00, and Precinct 2 Commissioner, I 10 believe it's your honors this morning. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you please join 12 me in a word of prayer, followed by the pledge of allegiance 13 to our flag? 14 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. At this 16 time, if there's anyone present here today that wishes to be 17 heard about any matter that is not on the agenda, this is 18 the time for you to be heard. If you have an interest and 19 want to address the Court on a matter that is on the agenda, 20 we have some public participation forms at the back of the 21 room, and we would ask that you fill those out. It's not 22 essential, but it helps us when we get to that particular 23 agenda item to be sure and not miss you and fail to 24 recognize you, and at that point in time, you'll speak on a 25 matter that's on the agenda. However, if there's anyone 7-14-03 4 1 present that wishes to speak on a matter that is not on the 2 agenda, they're privileged to come forward at this time, and 3 we'd be happy to hear them. 4 MS. BOCOCK: May I -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, ma'am, please come 6 forward and please give your name so -- 7 MS. BOCOCK: Yes. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: -- the reporter might take it 9 down. 10 MS. BOCOCK: I'm Martha Bocock, and how are 11 all of you all? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mrs. Bocock. 13 MS. BOCOCK: Nice to see all of you. Nice to 14 see all of you. I tell you what I'm here for. I'm here 15 representing the people -- property owners; there are 12 of 16 us that live on Wren Road just off Goat Creek. And before 17 Bill died a year ago, for about four years, we had been 18 working with the then-Commissioner trying to get our road 19 repaved. Not paved, just topped. And so far, we have not 20 had that happen. They come out and they throw that little 21 black stuff in those holes, and it comes right out. And so 22 I've come before you today to kind of plead with you, ask 23 if -- because that property has become rather expensive, and 24 I have 60 acres that face that. And there are 12 -- there 25 are 12 of us, 12 owners; Barbara Cole, Martha Bocock, Mike 7-14-03 5 1 Wren, Brady Wren, Mrs. Mike Wren, Sr., Ralph and Joanne 2 Faust, Frank Williams, Dr. Fred Speck, Peter and Mary 3 Mitchell, Elmer Williams, David Huff, and another gentleman 4 whom I have not met. And so I plead with -- I have talked 5 to Mr. Odom, and he promises me maybe -- we've gone through 6 all of these years during the topping season, saying, well, 7 it might be July, it might be August, it might be September. 8 And then we've had all these floods, and I understand that 9 perfectly, but we still need some help. And so I plead 10 before you to give us some attention, and to convince 11 Mr. Odom that he really does want to top our road in -- now 12 he said July, but now he says August. But then they said 13 June. And so I realize that we're getting to the end of the 14 topping season, and so if -- Judge, if you have any 15 influence, please -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He doesn't. (Pointed 17 to Commissioner Nicholson.) 18 MS. BOCOCK: -- would you -- he's through. 19 He's the -- he's the guy. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Bocock. 21 MS. BOCOCK: Thank you. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you being here. 23 MS. BOCOCK: All-righty. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the benefit of 25 the Court -- the Court knows, but for the benefit of those 7-14-03 6 1 in the audience who may not know, it was Mrs. Bocock's late 2 husband and she who donated the civil war cannon to the 3 County and placed it on the courthouse lawn with the pad and 4 the benches and the -- everything that's out there. So, we 5 give them thanks for helping us beautify the courthouse 6 lawn. If it's any consolation, Mrs. Bocock, I've been 7 trying to get the inner courthouse driveway paved for two 8 years, and I haven't got anywhere. (Laughter.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there anyone else who 10 wishes to be heard? Yes, sir? 11 MR. SCHELLHASE: Walter Schellhase, 529 Water 12 Street. I'm here representing the Kerr County Historical 13 Commission. As past chairman, Joe Herring, the current 14 chairman, asked me to make this presentation. The Kerr 15 County Historical Commission was selected for the 16 distinguished service award from the Texas Historical 17 Commission for the Year 2002, and I'd like to make that 18 presentation. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. 20 (Applause.) 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Photo op. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very nice. Very nice. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Where do we safe-keep this? 24 I'm going to give this to the clerk for right now, but -- I 25 thought about handing it to you, Buster, but then I had 7-14-03 7 1 second thoughts. 2 MR. SCHELLHASE: Judge, the last time we won 3 the award, it's posted up here. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anyone else that 5 has wonderful news like that for us? Anyone else that has 6 any other news, good or bad? If not, then we will move on 7 to the next item. Commissioner Williams? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the little town 9 of Center Point made the front page of the paper today; in 10 fact, it took just about all of the front page of the paper, 11 with a lot of good things happening there this past weekend. 12 They had their down-home parade, which is a fun parade for a 13 small town, and it's a large one and a lot of people 14 participate. What's always so interesting is the number of 15 different things that come out in the parade, not the least 16 of which was somebody dressed up as a Bedouin shooting water 17 at the crowd. But the town spruces up for it, and it's 18 really great. Those of you who were there probably noticed 19 that the first major step for the Center Point Historical 20 Preservation Group took place this weekend in which they had 21 erected the framework of what will become their gate and 22 entrance to the new Center Point Historical Park. 23 If you recall, about five years ago, or four 24 years ago perhaps, you remember that the piece of property 25 that will now become the park was absolutely dismal; it was 7-14-03 8 1 just a terrible piece of property, rundown, trash had been 2 there for eons. And some local citizens got ahold of that 3 piece of property, not -- not the least of which was former 4 Commissioner Lackey. He and Junior Fritz of the Mini-Marts 5 and Delmas Hesseltine and some others, and they bought the 6 piece of property and eventually turned it over to the 7 Historical Preservation Association, and good things are 8 beginning to happen there. Raising funds there; they intend 9 to have a museum, pavilion for civic events, and things are 10 good. So, I just wanted to let you -- the Court know that 11 not everything is bad in the eastern part of the county. 12 Things are pretty good. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Letz? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a few things. 15 Over the 4th of July, Comfort had its annual 4th of July 16 parade and pageant, and that all went very well. I think we 17 had -- there was 96 entries in the parade. Theirs was also 18 very well-attended, and despite a bit of rain early in the 19 morning, there was a huge turnout for the parade. Also, for 20 those that follow Little League baseball, the Kerrville 11- 21 and 12-year-old All-Star group won district, and they will 22 be playing in the sectional tournament starting tonight in 23 Fredericksburg. And then another item that just slipped 24 right out of my memory bank, but -- so I guess that will be 25 the only two things I'll mention, those two. 7-14-03 9 1 Congratulations to the All-Stars. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson? 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I see we've got a 4 number of volunteer firefighters here with us today, and 5 we're going to be talking about a couple-three issues 6 involving volunteer fire departments. You all have heard me 7 say before how much I appreciate our volunteer fire 8 departments. They're very well equipped, they do a good 9 job, and they come at a good price. We're very fortunate to 10 have them. The item that is scheduled is scheduled later on 11 in the meeting, and I'd like to move it up toward the front, 12 with your consent, Judge, so that these men and women that 13 have jobs can get back to work. That's all I have. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have nothing, sir. 16 Thank you. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I would like to encourage 18 all of you here, and ask you to encourage your neighbors and 19 friends and other citizens to go see what I think is a very, 20 very beautiful display that we have out at the local V.A. 21 Medical Center. The local chapter of the Vietnam Veterans, 22 on faith, committed and brought that Vietnam Memorial Moving 23 Wall here, and it's on display through next Thursday 24 afternoon. It's on the V.A. Hospital grounds. It is open 25 24 hours a day, for those of you that would like to visit it 7-14-03 10 1 at a time when you might have some more private moments. 2 There will be volunteers there to assist you. I think we're 3 very, very fortunate to have that memorial here in 4 Kerrville, and I think it's a fitting tribute to our sons 5 and daughters that were lost in that conflict. I would ask 6 all of to you consider going. It's quite a nice memorial. 7 That's all I have. Let's get down to business; we got a 8 pretty good agenda here. As requested by Commissioner 9 Nicholson, if no one has an objection, we will move to -- 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 19, Judge. 1.19. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: -- Item 19 on the agenda, 12 which is the consideration and discussion and action on the 13 form of contracts between Kerr County and volunteer fire 14 departments, to become effective this coming fiscal year, 15 October 1, 2003, and approve contracting with Tierra Linda 16 and/or Junction departments to provide services to Kerr 17 County. Commissioner Nicholson. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Edwards, would 19 you help us with this, please? Everybody knows Danny 20 Edwards, former judge, attorney of the City of Kerrville, 21 author, probably got some more talents that I'm not aware 22 of. One of the things that we've done here is that 23 consulting with the Kerr Area firefighters -- Rural 24 Firefighters Association and with the fire departments, 25 Mr. Edwards has helped us draft this contract that we're 7-14-03 11 1 proposing today. And I'd like for him to present it, if you 2 will, Mr. Edwards, and explain the changes that we're 3 proposing. 4 MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, Commissioner. The 5 changes that we've submitted to the County Attorney's office 6 back in May I don't think make any substantial substantive 7 changes in the way that either the volunteer fire 8 departments or the County operates. In essence, what we 9 have tried to do is to bring the contract in line with the 10 way they are operating, from all practical aspects, both 11 administratively and operational. The primary focus is on 12 the fact that the current contract attempts to provide -- or 13 to contract with each individual volunteer fire department 14 to serve in its area. As a matter of reality, that's not 15 possible. By virtue of mutual aid agreements that they're 16 required to sign with the Texas Forest Service, they are 17 required to serve where they are needed. And even if they 18 weren't required, I think all of you would agree that that's 19 the way it ought to be. 20 And, as a result, we've just simply changed 21 some of the wording to show that Kerr County is contracting 22 with each volunteer fire department to serve both inside and 23 outside what has been -- someone dreamed up the term 24 "primary fire response area," which explains what it is, I 25 think. It's not an official term. And -- but these fire 7-14-03 12 1 departments, as all of you know, go outside their, quote, 2 unquote, primary fire area all the time. And if they 3 didn't, and if I were sitting on the bench, I would probably 4 jerk their funds if they refused to do so. So, that's just 5 the way, in reality, it operates. And most of the changes 6 have gone to make that clear, that they are still under the 7 contract, even if they work outside of their primary area. 8 Probably the biggest change in it is to 9 provide for reimbursement for catastrophic losses when they 10 go outside of their own area. If they're working inside 11 their own preferred area, then it's not applicable, but if 12 they're providing services in Kerr County outside of the 13 department's primary assigned area and they have a 14 catastrophic loss, such as happened when we had the big 15 fire, some of these departments took losses of $7,000, 16 $8,000, $10,000 in equipment, tires, et cetera, et cetera. 17 And some of that money could have been refunded through 18 FEMA, but I don't think it ever was, and it would have been 19 the County's responsibility to seek that. So, we've tried 20 to include in here a provision that if there's a 21 catastrophic loss while they're operating outside of their 22 assigned area, and that loss exceeds or requires damage -- 23 repairs or replacements in the -- in an amount exceeding 24 $500, which is sort of a deductible, I guess you might say, 25 then the County will assist in reimbursing those funds in 7-14-03 13 1 addition to the contracted amount, the $11,000 that's 2 provided for in the contract. 3 The rest of the language goes to -- as I say, 4 reflects that this is a reimbursement rather than a 5 prepayment. And it is, in fact, a reimbursement, because 6 they have to submit an invoice for each and every dollar 7 that they request under the contract. So you're, in effect, 8 not making a prepayment. You're -- you're reimbursing the 9 funds on a -- on an as-needed or as-required basis. And 10 you've got provisions in there that they have to be audited 11 and they have to show the records and this sort that are 12 administrative, which we feel can be taken out in light of 13 the fact that each and every invoice, before they receive 14 any money, has to be approved by the Auditor and by the 15 Court. So, once you've done that, you've, in effect, 16 audited every payment to come about, and to require 17 examination of their books or cause them to provide 18 additional financial information subsequent to that would 19 seem a little bit redundant, one way or the other. 20 And, finally, we've changed the limits of 21 relationship. There's concern -- there was an Attorney 22 General opinion this -- 2002 concerning whether or not the 23 County had liability in the event that something happened 24 through one of the volunteer fire departments. The past 25 Legislature passed a bill which has gone to the governor, 7-14-03 14 1 but I can't tell you that it's been signed, that speaks to 2 that very issue one way or the other. Pardon me. What 3 we've done in Paragraph 14 is to try to exemplify the fact 4 that this is not an agency relationship, which would -- 5 would possibly create some liability on the part of the 6 County, and to try to separate the County and the volunteer 7 fire departments' operation so that there will be no 8 liability back on the County, and being that there's cause 9 for liability by virtue of an act under the volunteer fire 10 department. 11 I think those are the major points, quite 12 honestly. Final one is that you have requested that -- 13 pardon me -- each volunteer fire department provide you full 14 copies of all their insurance policies, et cetera, et 15 cetera, et cetera. And we've simply substituted that they 16 will provide for you a certificate of insurance to show that 17 they are properly insured in the proper amounts, and that 18 they make that primary contract available in the event of 19 litigation or any actual need for it. But we think it 20 serves the purpose for you simply to have a certificate of 21 insurance, rather than try to provide you all of the 22 multiple copies of insurance policies they might have. Some 23 of the fire departments carry insurance in different forms. 24 And I came through -- into this through Hunt 25 Volunteer Fire Department, for instance, which carries its 7-14-03 15 1 own workers comp insurance. Your contract provides that you 2 will provide us with workers comp insurance, but Hunt 3 carries their own because they get it cheaper, and it gives 4 them a discount on other insurance that they have. So, 5 you're really not providing them their workers comp 6 insurance. And I think those are the major -- major changes 7 we're requesting. I don't see anything -- there's anything 8 that's substantive of any magnitude, other than the possible 9 reimbursement for catastrophic losses if they're serving 10 outside the area. Everything else seems to be housecleaning 11 and administrative clarifications, as far as we're 12 concerned. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge Edwards, this 14 catastrophic issue, what would be wrong -- it seems to me 15 that it would be simpler if this Court simply increased each 16 fire department's budget by "X" amount of dollars, 500 or 17 whatever it is, and then -- and then, if there is some kind 18 of problem in some other -- if they use equipment or 19 equipment's broken in some other precinct, simply fix it, as 20 opposed to creating a new line item. And I would assume 21 that each volunteer fire department would get the $500 for 22 reimbursement. It just -- what goes through my mind is, if 23 Turtle Creek -- my precinct -- if Turtle Creek turns in a 24 bill for tires, and it's $500 tires, and Mrs. Bocock from 25 Precinct 4 comes along and says, "Commissioner Baldwin, I 7-14-03 16 1 want you to prove to me that these tires were blown up in 2 some other precinct," then I'm going to ask for proof. And 3 how do we prove that? 4 MR. EDWARDS: To speak to your general 5 question, I think it would be -- could be inequitable to 6 just give everybody the same amount, because one fire 7 department might suffer $8,000 and every other department 8 suffer nothing. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 10 MR. EDWARDS: As an example. Secondly, the 11 invoice, itself, could be required to show that it took 12 place on a particular fire at a particular time. But I'd 13 have to let the fire chiefs speak to the equity or inequity 14 of just getting a flat $500. It doesn't seem equitable to 15 me from a practical standpoint, because everybody's not 16 going to suffer the same catastrophic loss, and some of them 17 may not suffer any catastrophic loss. Because they're 18 getting the money, anyone that does suffer the catastrophic 19 loss is not getting sufficient moneys. And -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what you're 21 saying, then, is just put it in one big pot, and then if 22 Turtle Creek comes along and uses all -- needs all $2,000 or 23 whatever the pot may be, then they get it all, and then 24 everybody else is out of the picture? 25 MR. EDWARDS: Well, I'm sure not going to 7-14-03 17 1 tell you how to structure your budget, but I'm sure you have 2 a rainy-day fund existing somewhere in the budget. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 4 MR. EDWARDS: No? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Danny, you were the 6 judge here. 7 MR. EDWARDS: I bet I can find one, Buster. 8 That -- that's a budget process you'll have to speak to, and 9 I certainly wouldn't pretend to tell you how to do that. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question, 11 Judge. Danny, the word "catastrophic" conveys to me 12 something really, really, really major. 13 MR. EDWARDS: It's intended to, actually. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But $500 or greater 15 doesn't seem to fit the catastrophic definition, in my mind. 16 I'm wondering if we're talking about reimbursement for 17 losses of equipment. I understand what took place up in the 18 fire at Kerrville South, and a lot of fire departments did 19 suffer losses, for which FEMA has not yet reimbursed the 20 County, even though the County did, in fact, try to get that 21 money. 22 MR. EDWARDS: Good. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And still trying to 24 get that money. I'm wondering whether or not we're really 25 talking about reimbursement for equipment losses, as opposed 7-14-03 18 1 to catastrophic losses. 2 MR. EDWARDS: We've defined it, and it's just 3 loose wording, as "any equipment damage requiring repairs or 4 replacement in an amount" -- so it speaks to equipment 5 specifically, Commissioner. And equipment, of course, is a 6 broad word when you're talking about firefighting equipment. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if equipment 8 becomes redundant because it appears elsewhere, then I would 9 prefer seeing the word "catastrophic" eliminated. 10 MR. EDWARDS: Well, like I say, we're not 11 married to the language, as long as we effect the desired 12 needs of the -- of the departments. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: While we're on that same 14 -- over in that paragraph, deleting workers compensation -- 15 and Hunt doesn't do it, but I believe other fire 16 departments, we do cover them, because I remember on our 17 last bill we had several bills that I noticed, and I think 18 one that they were out of Center Point Volunteer Fire 19 Department. I think that if we're -- you know, we need to 20 have this language so that can be -- workers compensation, 21 to me, is included in that paragraph, and if the fire 22 departments choose not to -- 23 MR. EDWARDS: Absolutely. Just let them opt 24 out of it. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- I mean, but I'm -- 7-14-03 19 1 you really need to try to keep the exact same contract, I 2 think, for every fire department. I think there's a 3 likelihood of us adding three new fire departments, so we're 4 just getting to be more -- 5 MR. EDWARDS: That was discussed among the 6 group, and we agreed that it should be left in, and those 7 who don't choose to take it can just opt out of it or 8 scratch that part out of their contract. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 10 MR. EDWARDS: And initial it. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other, on the 12 catastrophic loss, I kind of -- I guess I have the same or 13 similar problems that the other two Commissioners mentioned. 14 And that comes back to -- you mentioned blown out tires. I 15 don't consider that catastrophic. I mean, I understand what 16 y'all are trying to do, and I don't see a problem with the 17 County trying to really help out the fire departments, 18 'cause we're getting a great deal in the county, I think, 19 with the coverage we get from our volunteer fire 20 departments. But if it's -- you know, I would -- I can see 21 almost every fire department having damage to equipment 22 every year under this paragraph, and what comes to my mind 23 there is how we budget for that. I mean, this could be 24 easily -- you know, I could easily see this, you know, going 25 $10,000, $20,000 potentially. And if you have a big fire, 7-14-03 20 1 something major gets lost, it's just -- so I have -- I'm not 2 sure how we handle that part of it. And my other -- I guess 3 that leads me to the next question, is the -- and either you 4 or some of the other members of the fire departments here 5 can answer this. The insurance that they cover -- I presume 6 they have insurance on their equipment, and -- you know, 7 like trucks and all that, anyway. Is that covered if 8 they're fighting a fire anywhere in the county, or only in 9 their area? 10 MR. EDWARDS: It's my understanding they'd be 11 covered anywhere, but the fire departments could speak to 12 both the catastrophic loss feature and that better than I. 13 I just tried to take their suggestions and put on it paper. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm trying to figure out 15 what the exposure is on catastrophic loss compared to what 16 your insurance covers if you have those same losses. 17 MR. EDWARDS: Any chiefs? Dutch? 18 MR. TRAVIS HALL: Because basically, what the 19 insurance does that we've got is just the liability 20 insurance. We don't carry comp on them. Like -- excuse me. 21 I don't think comp is -- we do carry comp, and -- but I 22 don't think it covers something like that when you're 23 fighting fire. It's going to be other instances, my 24 understanding. Is that right or not? 25 MR. HINTZE: It -- the comprehensive coverage 7-14-03 21 1 covers the loss of the vehicle. In other words, if you roll 2 a vehicle or it's burned or something of that nature. But, 3 for instance, if you blow a transfer case or 13 tires, that 4 gets to be exceptionally expensive for a fire department 5 that's working at a very limited budget, and it basically 6 puts the trucks out of commission. So, the whole thrust of 7 this is to try to get the trucks back in operation as 8 quickly as possible. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think the 10 rationale here is that the citizens of a certain community, 11 whether it's Ingram or Hunt or Mountain Home, are supporting 12 and paying for that fire department. And if they're -- if 13 the Mountain Home Fire Department is fighting fire out there 14 at Mountain Home and has damage to its equipment, then 15 they're going to pay for that some sort of way, through a 16 fundraiser, through contributions or something. But if 17 Mountain Home is out in Kerrville South helping fight a fire 18 and they have damage to their equipment, then the -- the 19 people in the Mountain Home community shouldn't be required 20 to pay for that. So, we're asking the Court to say that if 21 we have large losses, which, by definition, exceed $500, 22 when fighting a fire outside their primary area, then we're 23 asking the Court to -- to reimburse the fire department 24 going outside of their primary area for those losses. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I understand 7-14-03 22 1 that, and I've -- I've been one of the huge proponents of it 2 on the Court, of increasing the funding to fire departments. 3 But -- and the logic of -- of what you just said, 4 Commissioner, is that if Center Point is out in Mountain 5 Home fighting, it's -- you know, it helps -- it works both 6 ways. And the fire departments work very closely with each 7 other and, you know, fighting in other areas to help. So, I 8 don't have a problem really with trying to figure out a way 9 to increase funding to the fire departments. I'm just 10 trying to wrestle that concept with how to budget for 11 something that we have absolutely no idea what it's going to 12 be each year, and -- and I just don't see how we can get a 13 handle. I mean, from what some of the chiefs just 14 mentioned, you know, say they're in a truck over in, you 15 know, Comfort area, and a transmission goes out. Well, 16 okay. I presume the transmission in one of their newer 17 trucks -- or older trucks; any of the trucks, for that 18 matter -- we're talking $5,000, $6,000 to repair, based on 19 what it costs to get my truck repaired when something like 20 that happens. So, I think there's a -- I mean, I don't 21 think this -- if we go with this language, I think we're 22 going to use a fair amount of money. I think there has to 23 be some sort of a -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ceiling. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a ceiling, or 7-14-03 23 1 increased funding across the board to the fire departments 2 by a little bit larger amount, some way for us to be able to 3 budget for it, because I can just see a big unknown. And 4 when it's unknown, we have to budget really, in all 5 likelihood, a higher amount to try to cover it. And then 6 you -- it just ends up eating up funds that we can't use on 7 other things that we may end up doing as well. 8 MR. EDWARDS: Sheppard Rees fire -- pardon 9 me. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to 11 respond to Commissioner Letz. The illustration you gave us, 12 Commissioner Baldwin and I had a conversation about how this 13 might be limited, because I can see -- I can see an 14 unlimited amount of money being expended. And one way to do 15 that would be to -- to cap it. Replacement in an amount 16 requiring repairs or -- or replacement in an amount over 17 $500, but not to exceed $1,000. That would take care of 18 tires and things of that nature, but it wouldn't take care 19 of transmissions or, God forbid, if they had an accident 20 going from one end of the county to the other and destroyed 21 a truck, and perhaps took out a car and just destroyed 22 something else. That would leave the County wide-open in 23 terms of liability. 24 MR. HINTZE: Commissioner Williams? Your 25 question, liability insurance that the fire departments are 7-14-03 24 1 required to carry in Texas state law would cover that 2 eventuality of having an accident. But the budgeting 3 problem is not any dissimilar for the fire departments than 4 the problem that you gentlemen are -- are facing here. Our 5 expenses are dependent upon the amount of activity that we 6 have, and we can't program that. And throwing more money at 7 the fire departments is not really the answer. It's the 8 problem of having the money available when it's needed. 9 And, quite honestly, the need is a rarity. Hopefully, we're 10 not going to have another Sheppard Rees fire in a hurry, so 11 the incidence of having to call upon the County for 12 reimbursement of those costs would be a rare instance 13 indeed. 14 MR. EDWARDS: Sheppard Rees is probably as 15 good an example as you're going to have, as far as 16 anticipating budgetary needs, I would imagine. I don't know 17 what the demands were at that time; I only know what Hunt 18 had. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I'm confused, 20 then, based on -- on the comment as to what catastrophic is, 21 because I would think that you're going to have repairs, or 22 -- I guess, how would you -- what's the difference between 23 "maintenance" and -- and "catastrophic"? Because tires 24 being blown out on -- you know, on someone's ranch, wherever 25 it is in the county, I would think is a pretty likely 7-14-03 25 1 occurrence. Or something happening -- I mean, to me, 2 catastrophic is rare, but what I'm hearing of blown-out 3 tires, transmissions, things of that nature, are not rare. 4 Maybe I just don't understand what you all are trying to 5 say. 6 MR. HINTZE: Commissioner, for instance, on 7 the Sheppard Rees fire, on our two trucks, we blew a total 8 of 13 tires. Those tires can cost as much as $500 apiece. 9 We really have to shop for them. But that really puts a 10 dent in our operating expenses and the very limited budget 11 that we -- that we have. Blowing tires on a ranch is a 12 relatively frequent occurrence for any of the fire 13 departments, when you get out in that flintrock. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the term 15 "catastrophic" may be a misnomer. What we might be looking 16 at for more certainty to resolve this thing would be to, 17 number one, have it, as I believe it is, to equipment losses 18 which occur outside the particular department's primary 19 firefighting -- 20 MR. EDWARDS: That's correct. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- responsibility area, number 22 one. And, number two, to the extent it exceeds, and only 23 that amount which does exceed $500. And then, thirdly, 24 because of the uncertain aspect of the economics and the 25 budgeting, we may want to put a cap of whatever number of 7-14-03 26 1 dollars on a -- on a particular occurrence basis. You know, 2 whether you've got one piece of equipment there or four 3 pieces of equipment there, that particular occurrence would 4 put a ceiling on loss to all equipment to that department, 5 only to the extent that it exceeds the -- whatever the floor 6 is, $500 or whatever amount. That would seem to be a way to 7 approach it and to have it more clearly defined, is what I'm 8 hearing. 9 MR. EDWARDS: Obviously, the wear and tear on 10 fighting a two-week fire, however long Sheppard Rees was, is 11 -- puts more strain on equipment than going out and fighting 12 a brush fire for three hours. So, it's obviously -- it's 13 obvious, or it would seem obvious to me, that you're going 14 to have more, quote, unquote, major losses during a two-week 15 fire or a three-week fire than you are fighting a three-hour 16 brush fire out in west Kerr County or anywhere else, for 17 that matter. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think there's any 19 question that Sheppard Rees was -- I mean, was an 20 extraordinary fire, and -- and took a toll on, I think, 21 every fire department that probably fought out there. But 22 this paragraph is going to be -- is not limited to Sheppard 23 Rees-type fires; it's any time they're outside their area. 24 MR. EDWARDS: What's the chances of -- if we 25 come up with some kind of language to make the Court and the 7-14-03 27 1 fire chiefs happy, what's the chances that when, for 2 instance, the FEMA money that Commissioner Williams 3 mentioned -- is there any chance that the County could go 4 ahead and advance that, in advance of receiving 5 reimbursement from FEMA? Because these fire departments are 6 not in quite as good a position to operate for a year, year 7 and a half, without the money as the County is. And if you 8 could -- if you could advance the funds prior to receiving 9 the FEMA money, that would certainly be assistance, I would 10 think, also. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would we be 12 advancing? 13 MR. EDWARDS: I'm sorry? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much would we be 15 advancing? 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In the case of -- 17 Dutch Hintze was talking about the Sheppard Rees fire 18 blowing out 13 tires. With a $500 deductible, the tires 19 probably cost $9,000. We would have been, for example, 20 advancing $8,500. 21 MR. EDWARDS: To answer your question, 22 Commissioner, I would assume what these fire departments 23 would have to do would to be submit their invoice request, 24 just like any other, and you would know what those requests 25 were when you made your FEMA request for reimbursement. So, 7-14-03 28 1 that would be the limit, I would think, that you would put 2 on it, however much money FEMA returns to you. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought in this 4 particular case we'd already done that. 5 MR. EDWARDS: I'm sorry? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We had received from 7 the fire departments an estimate of their damages, and that 8 was included in the County's request to FEMA, was my 9 understanding. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is it possible that 11 we might trigger this provision only when it's -- a disaster 12 is declared? That if we have another Sheppard Rees-type 13 fire, the Court declares that it's a disaster, and then this 14 extraordinary loss provision would kick in? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That takes it away 17 from your three-hour brush fire. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I don't see that as 19 meeting their needs. Because, I mean, I think we've had one 20 fire that's been a disaster, which is Sheppard Rees. You 21 know, granted, they go out for other disasters as well, and 22 whenever we have a flood, a lot of times fire departments 23 are out and -- you know, at the same time. I mean, I don't 24 have a problem at all with -- if we can figure out a way -- 25 if there's some sort of a cap and, you know, trying to 7-14-03 29 1 define what the loss is. Like the Judge said, I -- I don't 2 have a problem with doing it, 'cause I'm -- you know, we -- 3 you know, I -- anyway, and I'm sure all the citizens of the 4 county are very appreciative that the fire departments do go 5 outside their areas. I mean, and I think that -- you know, 6 I don't have a problem with using tax dollars to assist the 7 fire departments in that way, as long as we can get a handle 8 that we can budget for. And I don't have a problem -- to 9 me, the easier way is to go ahead and increase the annual 10 amount for all the fire departments and let them set aside a 11 rainy-day fund internally. In the budget request that I 12 submitted to the Judge, I show an increase to all the fire 13 departments, and we'll get to that during the budget 14 hearing. But if they would rather have it done the other 15 way, I don't mind, as long as I can get a handle on what it 16 is and we can budget for it realistically. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But you have to put a 18 cap on it; there's got to be a cap somewhere. You can't 19 just leave an open-ended -- I mean, a fire truck burn up in 20 a fire this week and another one burn up next week, and 21 we're going to -- and the County taxpayers pick up the tab 22 on it. It's got to stop. You got to put a -- put a 23 roadblock on it somewhere. 24 MR. HINTZE: Gentlemen -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think -- excuse me. 7-14-03 30 1 And I think that you just -- something similar to what 2 Mr. Williams has said, up to $1,000 or $2,000 or whatever 3 the number might be, add that verbiage in there, and that's 4 it. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I made a couple 6 changes. I don't know if they're acceptable, but changing 7 "catastrophic" to "equipment." On the last line, changing 8 the amount exceeding -- changing exceeding to over -- an 9 amount over $500, comma, but not to exceed $1,000 in any one 10 incident. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the next 12 incident? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, limit them to 14 one incident a year? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I mean, that -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Opens it up. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you don't, it just 18 opens up the -- I mean the County -- forget this budget. 19 Forget the budget and -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $1,000, period? Okay 21 with me. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- wasting the next 23 three or four months. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just put $1,000 in 25 and let it go at that? 7-14-03 31 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know what that 2 base is, but -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, that's only giving 5 each fire department $500 a year. I'd rather increase their 6 overall budgets by -- I mean -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it may not give 8 them any if they didn't go outside their area, under this. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure, I understand that. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In my view, giving 11 them $500 or $1,000 a year of coverage doesn't provide any 12 incentive or -- or safety net for them to go outside their 13 primary area. 14 MR. EDWARDS: Aside from that one issue, do 15 the Commissioners have any difficulties with the other 16 requested changes? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I think there's an additional 19 item in here that has not been addressed in the agenda item. 20 We've got two departments that are actually outside of Kerr 21 County, but which provide firefighting services to property 22 and citizens inside Kerr County. And I noted that as being 23 part of this agenda item. I don't know what the other -- 24 Court's feelings is. We've got Tierra Linda department, 25 which is located just to the north of the county line off 7-14-03 32 1 Harper Road, and responds, according to my understanding, in 2 the area of Kamira, Northwest Hills, all of that area down 3 to I-10, I believe; probably includes Kerrville High Country 4 Estates. Pretty significant area where there's a pretty 5 significant number of structures. And then, secondly, we've 6 got the Junction Department, which responds to the 7 northwestern areas of the county adjacent to U.S. Highway 83 8 out by the Y.O. Ranch, and -- and significant number of 9 structures out in that area. Have I -- have I correctly 10 stated the areas that -- that you -- you gentlemen serve in 11 your departments? 12 MR. LEE HALL: Yes, sir. We will come in a 13 little bit off of I-10 to assist with Mountain Home type of 14 calls, but majority of what we're looking at right now is 15 that northwest part off of 83. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: And that would essentially be 17 a primary area of responsibility for you, would it not? 18 MR. LEE HALL: Yes, sir. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But as a secondary -- 20 I'm not sure there's a definitive line. You would come all 21 the way on down to Mountain Home and areas? 22 MR. LEE HALL: That would be more secondary 23 off of 10 than primary on 83, yes, sir. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on that topic -- 7-14-03 33 1 and as I discussed with you and you're aware, I'm requesting 2 an additional fire department in the southeastern part -- 3 well, northern Bandera County also be included or added, 4 Castle Lakes, which serves part of far southeastern Kerr 5 County. Now, I -- just because these gentlemen are here, 6 certainly, I support including all three of those fire 7 departments, and I think -- but, to me, it's more of a 8 budget issue as to how much we budget for it. But since 9 y'all are here, I would certainly support -- probably even 10 we can vote. It would be fine to include them, but to me, 11 any fire department that, you know, provides service to Kerr 12 County, we should support financially. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I -- as you and I have 14 discussed, I see it as a budget issue also. But the 15 citizens here may not be aware of -- of the interaction of 16 these out-of-county departments that protect property and 17 citizens here inside the county, so I wanted to bring that 18 point out. But you're right, I believe it's a budget issue. 19 We put it on the table and we make that decision then. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to add 21 right quick, though, that from Junction, there's former Tivy 22 Antler great Lee Hall, is who that is. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Colonel Hintze? 24 MR. HINTZE: Sir, I'd like to address 25 Commissioner Baldwin's concern, and I think it's valid. 7-14-03 34 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's good. 2 MR. HINTZE: The word "catastrophic" may be 3 causing a problem, but I ask the Commissioners to keep in 4 mind that a catastrophic loss; for instance, the loss of a 5 truck, that's covered under our comprehensive coverage. The 6 County would not be asked to cover that. What we're 7 talking -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 9 MR. HINTZE: -- talking about is an equipment 10 failure that would immobilize a truck, put it out of 11 commission for a prolonged period. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Thank you very 13 much. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've also got Danny 15 here, that's president of the KARFA. 16 MR. FELLER: Yes, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we were -- if we 18 were going to stick with the $500 deductible minimum and set 19 a cap on losses, what would be a reasonable cap for the -- 20 in the view of KARFA members? 21 MR. FELLER: I tell you, I can't estimate a 22 real -- you know, a cap on it, because you have no way of 23 knowing what your loss might be. It may be -- like, we had 24 13 tires in Sheppard Rees, or you may be 50 tires, depending 25 on the terrain and the area you're at. I understand that 7-14-03 35 1 when Kerrville took their brush truck out, they jerked the 2 rear end out of the truck. There's -- there's not any way 3 to really set a cap. I think that's something you just have 4 to use some common sense on and go by way of saying, you 5 know, "You've had this happen, and so we can afford to do 6 this percentage out of a contingency fund, and we'll help 7 you this much on it." As far as -- you were talking about 8 raising the whole reimbursement to the fire departments 9 $500. Well, we figured that in our department, the amount 10 that's set forth last year covers about 12 percent of -- of 11 what it takes to operate our fire department, so adding $500 12 to an annual fund is -- is basically not -- not helping 13 anything at all when you -- when you get outside of your 14 primary areas and that sort of thing. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Gentlemen, let me see where we 16 are. Are we in a position to offer a definitive motion at 17 this time? Or are we back to the drawing board to see if we 18 can come up with something more definitive and consider it 19 later? What's your pleasure? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's a 21 budget-type issue that we would address even the specifics, 22 although I -- I assume that we're talking contract here. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, we are. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I can't agree to 25 this contract until we get those numbers crunched down and 7-14-03 36 1 what's going to be in an actual budget line item. 2 MR. EDWARDS: What portion of the -- 3 Mr. Baldwin, do you not agree with? Just that one on 4 catastrophic? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 6 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. The rest of these I can 7 tell Mr. Motley -- or, basically, y'all have no problem 8 with? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In my opinion. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only one I have a 11 question on -- and if it's up to the -- there he is. 12 MR. EDWARDS: Lost so much weight I didn't 13 recognize you. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the audit question, as 15 long as we're not required to have that in there -- I 16 thought there was some language before that if we were going 17 to give money, we had to have the right to audit the funds. 18 And if the County Attorney says we don't need that there, I 19 don't have any problem with it. But if we need to have an 20 audit provision in there if County funds are used, then we 21 do need it in there, and that's up to the County Attorney, 22 and not for me. And my last thing I really have to say is, 23 you know, while we're talking about -- we have a lot of 24 representatives from the fire departments here. I would 25 like -- prior to our final budget, I would like some input 7-14-03 37 1 from the various departments if they like the change we made 2 last year where we give all volunteer fire departments the 3 same amount, or if they liked it better prior to that when 4 we gave different amounts, but kind of -- you know, I 5 wouldn't say at random, but it was kind of based on the size 6 of the departments. You mentioned that, you know, 12 and a 7 half percent of the fire departments. I presume that was 8 the Hunt Fire Department's budget, but if you go to some of 9 the smaller departments, like Elm Pass, you know, it may be 10 25, 30 percent of their budgets. I mean, so I would just be 11 interested to hear from all the chiefs, and maybe at y'all's 12 next meeting, what you think is the most equitable way. Is 13 it better for us to give everyone the same? Or is it better 14 for us to kind of look at the size of the area and kind of 15 the population and number of -- and the size of y'all's 16 departments and figure out if it's -- try to divvy up the 17 pie that way, if that's fair. I probably am opening up a 18 hornet's nest, as I see two Commissioners looking down at 19 me, but anyway, I think it would be -- it would be helpful 20 to me. I think -- remember, the total size probably is 21 going to be roughly the same. 22 MR. FELLER: I think I can address that 23 issue. And I hope I don't -- I'm not stepping on anybody's 24 toes, but I think the way that it's done now is -- is a 25 comfortable way to do it. It keeps everything even across 7-14-03 38 1 the board, and I think it -- it kind of eliminates any 2 misunderstandings or disagreements between the departments 3 themselves, as they've all got to work together on the whole 4 thing. Everybody's getting the same piece of the pie, 5 and -- and you've got that to work with. Back on the -- on 6 the contingency issue or the catastrophic issue, I just had 7 one more thing to add to it. When you're considering that 8 issue, you're looking at -- you're asking about a cap. 9 Well, one thing you need to consider is, a department like 10 Hunt is -- we're a rather strong department and we've got 11 quite a few resources. And if we lose a truck, it goes down 12 or something, we've got something that we can step in and -- 13 and back it up with. In the case of some of the smaller 14 departments; Elm Pass, Center Point, Mountain Home, these 15 guys, if they lose a truck or something or have an event 16 that puts them out of action, you may be -- by putting the 17 cap on it, you may be preventing them from providing any 18 fire protection at all in that area by not being able to 19 step up and say, hey, we -- we've got to do this. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me see if I can 21 move us along. I would be prepared to make a motion that 22 would say -- won't say this, but this contract issue has 23 been going on a couple years that I know of; I'd like to put 24 it to bed as much as we can. I'd like to make a motion that 25 says that we approve the form of this contract, and the 7-14-03 39 1 annual amount will be blank, whether it will be $11,000 or 2 be something else, but it won't be in there. And that this 3 equipment loss thing would be to say that we -- for purposes 4 hereof, an equipment loss is any equipment damage requiring 5 repairs or replacement in an amount exceeding blank dollars, 6 but limited to blank dollars. We could get the form of the 7 contract approved today, and as two of the other 8 Commissioners said, in the budgeting process we could decide 9 what those -- fill in those blanks. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion on the floor. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I need to find out -- 12 I need to clarify something. You're talking about the 13 elimination of two references to "catastrophic"? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. "Equipment" 15 would be substituted for the "catastrophic" in both places. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you're talking 17 about a form that would establish a floor as well as a 18 ceiling? 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But with the amounts 21 to be determined? 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you also 24 mentioned something else. You mentioned a blank in terms of 25 the amount -- the dollar amount that we currently give to 7-14-03 40 1 all volunteer fire departments. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. The form of 3 the contract would reference compensation in three places. 4 It would be the annual budget that we give them for their 5 operating expenses, which is currently $11,000. That's 6 blank, 'cause that will -- could change in the budgeting 7 process. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: May be the same, but could. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And then the minimum 10 and maximum for equipment losses would be blank. And we 11 could determine that in the budgeting process. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'll second 14 that motion, and -- but I -- 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can I add -- could I 16 add onto it just a little bit? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll take my second 18 back, then. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Also, part of that 20 motion is to -- to provide contracts to Tierra Linda, 21 Junction, and -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can't put the other 23 one on it, I don't believe. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tierra Linda and 25 Junction. And, again, the compensation will be blank. In 7-14-03 41 1 my view, it will be a minimal amount of compensation. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, what if we have 3 to do a different kind of contract with Tierra Linda and 4 Junction? As an example, that we would compensate them on a 5 per-run basis. See, the verbiage would be different than 6 this contract. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me make that 8 motion too, that we'll -- we will develop and negotiate a 9 contract with Tierra Linda and Junction. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We going to have to 11 hire a lawyer to do all this? 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have one 14 additional question. It has to do with the workmen's 15 compensation. Are we going to -- 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we going to 18 provide a contract -- a standard contract that includes 19 workmen's comp, that a fire department must opt out, take 20 it -- take it out and initial it as having taken it out? 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As an aside, I would 22 encourage the other fire departments to take a look at that 23 and see if they can get better coverage at a lower price, 24 and get the County out of the worker's compensation 25 business. But, yes -- to answer your question, yes, 7-14-03 42 1 Commissioner. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, did you 3 second that? Did you second that already? 'Cause I have a 4 couple of comments if you hadn't. Or if you have, I'll make 5 comments anyway. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I have some 7 comments too. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's first find out if you 9 seconded it. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm thinking. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm thinking. Several 13 things have actually popped up. Yes, I'll second it, so we 14 can have this conversation. Shouldn't be having this 15 conversation without a second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: There you go. All right. 17 Now, what are your thoughts? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number one, I didn't 19 follow all of Commissioner Letz' comments a while ago about 20 us having the ability to audit, but there's no question in 21 my mind that we should have that ability to audit at any 22 point we want to. County funds, audit any time. I can't 23 remember what it was. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I'm going to come 7-14-03 43 1 back to it. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My comments are, now that 3 the motion has been made, that I think it's being overly 4 complicated by having the issue of the other fire 5 departments in the contract. I think it should be two 6 separate motions. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also, I have a 9 question, after Commissioner Baldwin's last statement, as to 10 whether the audit provision is deleted in the motion that 11 Commissioner Nicholson made. And you've -- you said you 12 didn't want that. But, anyway -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my point. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But he's -- anyway, my 15 final point is, though, I agree with what Commissioner 16 Nicholson is saying on the language. As long -- and the 17 audit provision, I'll leave that to the County Attorney. 18 But I would prefer that we bring the contract back after I 19 can look at the contract, because there's a lot of changes 20 floating around, and I can't vote for a contract that I 21 can't see. And we've talked about -- you know, I don't mind 22 a motion as to what the contract's going to contain, but as 23 to voting on the contract, I need to see it before I can 24 vote for it. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe the motion 7-14-03 44 1 should be amended to bring back a new draft. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's up -- not up to 3 me. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me make one more 5 comment, then I'll withdraw my second; we won't have any 6 choice. 7 MR. EDWARDS: Which you can't do 8 procedurally, but that's okay. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See what I'm telling 10 you? We do not need lawyers. (Laughter.) 11 MR. EDWARDS: That's Roberts Rules of Order. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But -- yeah, but 13 procedure says there shouldn't be any discussion after you 14 made the motion. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So the whole thing's 16 moot. But the comments -- the comments from Hunt about them 17 not being able to provide numbers because they don't know 18 what's going to happen out there; well, neither do we. So 19 when we start building numbers for the budget, they need to 20 recommend to us what numbers that they want plugged in 21 there, and then we'll take it from there. But it's not 22 something that we should figure out, well, we're going to -- 23 they're going to blow out six tires this year. That 24 shouldn't happen. They should be coming with a request of a 25 number to be plugged into the budget. I'm pretty firm on 7-14-03 45 1 that. And I withdraw my second. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before we pass on, 4 gentlemen, at the rate we're going today, we have 30 items; 5 we're going to be here 30 hours. 6 AUDIENCE: Not me. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we ask the 8 Commissioner to bring back another draft? I don't think it 9 requires a motion. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We probably ought to vote 11 on the first one. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We don't have a 13 second. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, okay, that's true. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know if we need any 16 further discussion. Colonel Hintze, have you got some sort 17 of comment? 18 MR. HINTZE: Yes, sir. We most sincerely 19 appreciate the budgeting problem that you gentlemen have. 20 And I think that the fire departments that you're dealing 21 with do a commendable job of operating within the $11,000. 22 We're not coming in and asking for an increase of that. And 23 I invite your attention to the article that was in the San 24 Antonio paper yesterday of the problem they're having in 25 Boerne. In Boerne, with six volunteer fire departments, 7-14-03 46 1 they're coming in and asking for $338,000 to operate their 2 departments. We're not asking for that at all. So, I ask 3 you please to keep that in mind; we're not blanketly asking 4 for an increase. We're willing to do the job in the amount 5 of money that you gentlemen stipulate. But what we're 6 asking for is consideration for this outlandish catastrophic 7 or unusual loss that we might sustain, which would be a rare 8 occurrence. Thank you. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate that point. Mr. 10 Hall? 11 MR. LEE HALL: I just want to make some 12 sense -- I want to let y'all understand that as Junction -- 13 even though we want to protect the department, we're not 14 asking for a similar type budget. As Mr. Baldwin -- 15 Commissioner Baldwin said, look at either a per-run basis or 16 a small flat amount. We're very flexible on all that. 17 We're not asking anywhere close to what you're doing with 18 the Kerr County departments. I just want to let y'all 19 understand that right up front. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate that. And -- and 21 I know all of you gentlemen that give your time to these 22 departments, the small amount that you receive from Kerr 23 County is woefully inadequate in order to be able to operate 24 your department, and a lot of you -- a lot of you folks dig 25 in your own pocket and pay your own expenses and kick into 7-14-03 47 1 the kitty, and -- and we appreciate that. And it appears 2 that we've got something that we need to do some refining 3 on, and we got some budgetary issues that we need to 4 address. And -- and hopefully we can try and get those 5 plugged into this upcoming year's budget. That seems to be 6 the -- the direction that we're going. I think it follows 7 two tracks, the contract format track and the budgetary 8 track. And my sense of it is -- is that we need to get the 9 contract more tightly defined in a more complete form, and 10 then look at the budgetary aspects of it also. 11 MR. FELLER: Could I add one more thing? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Are we going to get through 13 here pretty quick? 14 MR. BIGHAM: I just want to throw this out at 15 you. Everybody sitting here pays county taxes, whether you 16 live in the city or whether you live in the county. If the 17 fire departments go under, I think the law reads that the 18 County has got to provide fire protection for the county. 19 So, keep that in mind. If it's $10,000 for -- if 20 catastrophic -- if Commissioner Letz is hung up on 21 "catastrophic," let's throw catastrophic out and use another 22 word. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we already have, Fred. 24 MR. BIGHAM: Have we already? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think we're already 7-14-03 48 1 there. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're beyond that. 3 MR. BIGHAM: And I'm not sure what 4 Commissioner -- Buster is hung up on. But -- (Laughter.) 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Watermelon. 6 MR. BIGHAM: You know, we organized our fire 7 department as the first line of defense because the closest 8 fire department to us was Center Point, and that was a 9 30-minute run. We have a very small department, but we're a 10 first line of defense, and if we go down, I don't know 11 what -- just keep that in mind. I don't think the County 12 could afford to pony up enough money if the volunteer fire 13 departments go under. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate that, Fred. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think that's 16 where we are, Fred, in this discussion. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on. We've got us a 18 timed item, public hearing item. So, I will recess the 19 regular Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for this date, 20 and I will open a public hearing at this time, that public 21 hearing being the Kerr County Parks Long-Range Plan, noted 22 as Item 7 on the agenda. 23 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:06 a.m., and a public hearing 24 was held in open court, as follows:) 25 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 7-14-03 49 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there -- any member of the 2 public who wishes to be heard with respect to the Kerr 3 County Parks Long-Range Plan? Anyone here today that wishes 4 to be heard on that? I'm looking at Bob Miller, thinking 5 that maybe he has some things to say. 6 MR. MILLER: I came to listen. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 8 MR. MILLER: Full support. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you being here. 10 Any member of the public that wishes to be heard on the Kerr 11 County Parks Long-Range Plan? Hearing none and seeing none, 12 I will declare the public hearing for consideration of the 13 Kerr County Parks Long-Range Plan is closed. 14 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:07 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court 15 meeting was reopened.) 16 - - - - - - - - - - 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I will reconvene the regular 18 Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for this date, and we 19 will go to Item 1.8, consideration and discussion and 20 appropriate action on Kerr County Parks Long-Range Plan, 21 since it is a companion item. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. 23 What the Commissioners have before them is the plan as we 24 presented it in workshop form with the corrections and 25 additions that were suggested by the Commissioners and 7-14-03 50 1 others at the -- at the workshop. In addition to that, you 2 will find on Page 21a, for about several pages, the results 3 of a citizens' survey that was conducted. I would note, 4 just for information purposes -- this all takes us to 21a 5 through j. The last time the County did this, there was 6 something like 70 or 75 or 80 responses to the survey. This 7 time the solicitations resulted in 279 responses, all of 8 which have been noted and scored. And, for your 9 information, there are a lot of interesting comments that 10 people made on the surveys. And some of them are good, some 11 of them are bad. But if you take a look at it as a whole, 12 people are saying we like our parks and we'd like for you to 13 improve them. If you have the money, we want you to do so. 14 It also calls attention to the need for a festival grounds, 15 which I think Mr. Miller is keenly interested in. And that 16 likely will take place on land leased by the Texas State 17 Arts and Crafts Fair, leased from the County. So, unless 18 Commissioners have some questions about the survey or other 19 things in there, I think we're probably ready to take action 20 on it and close out this item. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 12, Goals and 24 Objectives. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Number 12, okay. 7-14-03 51 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This festival grounds 2 facility. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Remind me again what 5 that consists of, and who's paying for it. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we're not. It 7 will be money coming from -- raised by the Texas Arts and 8 Crafts Fair folks. But I would defer the bulk of your 9 question to Mr. Miller, let him explain to you just exactly 10 what they hope to include in that. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the 12 amphitheater? 13 MR. MILLER: It's the presentation that I 14 made to you last time. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. That's 16 fine. And then the very next item, dredge out the silt from 17 behind the dam at Center Point River Park. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's one of my 19 favorites. I've been wanting to try to accomplish it, too. 20 It will take grant money; it won't take money out of the 21 County treasury. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, my question is, 23 though, through the years, occasionally we've done that with 24 Ingram Lake as well. And I'm wondering, is -- I can't 25 remember when the last time we've done that. Is it time to 7-14-03 52 1 look at Ingram Lake again? Should it be added into -- 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We plan to ask for 3 it to be drained and rehabilitated winter after this winter. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, include it in 5 here, Commissioner? 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: By winter, if that's 7 included -- yeah. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It sounds like to me 9 that's the kind of things that need to be put into -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's add it. Center 11 Point Park and Ingram Park. Fine. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then I'm 13 wondering, aren't you going to expand the top of Flat Rock 14 Dam for fireworks displays? (Laughter.) 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. That was the 17 only questions I had. I'm a little leery of national -- 18 National Recreation Park Association reports and guidelines 19 and standards, us trying to adopt them. As an example, to 20 provide one acre of park for each 100 population. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was suggested 22 standards, and they were contained in the earlier -- in the 23 existing Long-Range Plan. They're just revised -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's cool. I'm 25 simply leery of those kinds of things, of bringing in 7-14-03 53 1 national standards and guidelines and applying them to Kerr 2 County. But, anyway, just a concern. That's all I had. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Baldwin 4 answered -- I had the exact same questions about Page 12, 5 basically. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would move 7 the adoption of the Kerr County Parks and Recreation 8 Long-Range Plan. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Am I to understand that that 11 includes -- where the second item under 12, to include so 12 that it would read "and Ingram Lake"? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, that's 14 as -- as amended. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Include Ingram Dam 17 Park. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 19 seconded to approve the Master Plan as amended to include 20 Ingram Lake Park. Any further questions or discussion? If 21 not, all in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 22 right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 7-14-03 54 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We'll now 2 go back to -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Item Number 1? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: No. Actually, I'm going to go 5 to the addendum item, if I might, because of some of the 6 public participation that we have here, and I think it may 7 be helpful to us in facilitating the movement of another 8 item on the agenda. The addenda Item Number 30, consider 9 and discuss review of proposed changes to Kerr County Animal 10 Control rules and fees. Commissioner Nicholson. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. Over the last 12 couple of months, I guess, we've met with -- Kerr County 13 Animal -- Rabies and Animal Control, with, I believe, all 14 the vets in the county. Might have missed one or two, I'm 15 not sure, but all of them have been involved with it whether 16 they met with us or not; and Humane Society and City of 17 Kerrville participation, and we bring -- we're bringing to 18 you some recommendations on essentially two things. One, 19 recommendation is that we -- we revise our code on -- on 20 rabies vaccination to allow rabies vaccinations on a 21 three-year cycle instead of one-year cycle. The change in 22 state law permits this. Doesn't require it, but it permits 23 it. And we've had lengthy discussions with the vets over 24 this issue, and it's not as clear-cut as it appears to be. 25 Our conclusion is that, for most animals, it's okay to be on 7-14-03 55 1 a three-year cycle. For some more at-risk animals with 2 higher exposure, the vets will recommend to their owners 3 that they be vaccinated on a more frequent basis than every 4 three years. 5 Another concern we had about it was that our 6 percent of compliance with the rabies vaccination code will 7 slip because it's on a three-year instead of a one-year 8 cycle. It's just easier for people to forget or lose track 9 of whether or not they're up-to-date on that, so it's going 10 to take some work on the part of the vets and the public and 11 Animal Control to make sure that this doesn't happen. We're 12 also proposing to change our current fee schedule. And I've 13 given you a document there that -- that increases certain 14 fees to be more in line with today's costs, and that we make 15 a significant effort to -- to convince the public that -- 16 the pet owners that they need to register their animals. 17 It's the law, and there's a good reason for it. And we 18 currently have a very low rate of compliance. It's not 19 getting better. So, we're suggesting a campaign -- that we 20 embark on a campaign to cause more public awareness of 21 animal control, and to -- and of our registration laws to 22 enhance compliance. I'd like to ask Marc Allen to come up 23 and comment on these changes. 24 MR. ALLEN: Well, our registration program is 25 very weak. We've got about 600 people registered in this 7-14-03 56 1 county, and I know just about everybody here has a dog. 2 I'll bet hardly any of you are on my list. The way the 3 registration is done now, most of the registrations are done 4 by the vets, probably 95 percent. We're wanting to take the 5 registrations away from the vets and do all the 6 registrations out of the Animal Shelter. We want to issue a 7 separate tag, and make sure everybody's wearing that tag. 8 The vets don't have any enforcement ability as it is right 9 now, so they're dealing with their client, and then they're 10 going to ask them for money to register their animal on top 11 of that. Well, that's almost a conflict, a little bit. But 12 we need to either have a very strong registration program or 13 just drop it altogether. And the registration program is to 14 help support the Animal Control program through the year 15 anyway, so we need to go one way or the other. We're 16 proposing to raise the altered fee up to $10 from $5, and -- 17 or unaltered, and altered fee would go from $2 to $5. We've 18 got 600 registrations right now. The first year, I'd be 19 shooting for 2,500. If I could get 2,500 animals registered 20 a year, that's a lot of income. That's going to help us 21 out. 22 That's pretty much all I got to say on the 23 registration. As far as the rabies -- the rabies law going 24 from one year to three years, I don't think it's going to 25 make any difference. It's going to be the responsibility of 7-14-03 57 1 the pet owner to show us proof anyways, so they're -- it has 2 to be up to them to show us the proof. We go out 3 door-to-door, you know, the animals get impounded. They've 4 got to provide us with proof. We don't have to go asking 5 for it, so it's not going to matter whether it's one year or 6 three years. We haven't had a confirmed case of rabies in a 7 domestic animal in, I know, the eight years since I've been 8 here. So -- 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One other point. In 10 addition to updating the fee schedule for neutered animals 11 or non-neutered animals, we're also proposing to offer a 12 lifetime registration, and it would be $25 for neutered and 13 $50 for non-neutered. And so if you had a puppy, you could 14 register for that price, and it doesn't have to be 15 reregistered. Reviewing the fees, like other fees, you have 16 to pay to register your automobile, and that -- those funds 17 that go to support things that are needed because people 18 have automobiles. And we think that pet owners ought to pay 19 fees that help support the services that are provided 20 because -- because they have pets. 21 MR. ALLEN: If your animal's registered 22 wearing a tag, we're going to give you a ride home, 23 basically, is what it is. But if it comes into the shelter, 24 we don't know who it belongs to. That dog can't tell us, 25 you know, so we hold that dog however long we hold it, and 7-14-03 58 1 then it either goes up for adoption or it's euthanized. Our 2 euthanasia, we're still doing over 2,000 animals a year, 3 dogs and cats. That's not counting the wildlife, but we 4 probably averages about 2,400 animals a year. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question is -- 6 goes back to the registration. First of all, I don't like 7 the difference between neutered and non-neutered, because I 8 think that -- I just -- I know why you're doing it, 'cause 9 you want to encourage animals to be neutered, but at the 10 same time, I don't know why you should penalize someone that 11 wants to breed -- you know, they have a dog they want to use 12 to breed. So, anyway -- but even though the bigger picture, 13 registration -- you know, if there's a realistic expectation 14 that we can register even the majority of the animals in the 15 county, it's probably a good idea. And I'm one of those not 16 in compliance right now. I didn't know until a couple weeks 17 ago, we were talking about it, there was really even -- the 18 County had a rule to register them and pay a fee. And I'm 19 just wondering, is it realistic to register animals? That's 20 one part. The other part is, in the City of Kerrville, do 21 they register? And do we have authority to set fees for 22 them? 23 MR. ALLEN: We do, but the City Council has 24 to pass it. And right now, the City Council or the Health 25 Department for the City is in the process of rewriting all 7-14-03 59 1 of their ordinances, and we've had meetings with them, and 2 they're looking at the fee schedule just like we are. We -- 3 in fact, it was the City and -- and Dave that we sat down 4 and discussed this, this fee schedule and the registration 5 and the rabies law, 'cause that was our three main topics we 6 had to cover at the time. And -- and they look like they're 7 going to pass -- they said it's probably going to be around 8 October 1st, but they're really looking to pass the same 9 thing. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess the other -- 11 my final comment is, I can see the argument for taking it 12 away from vets and doing it internally, but I can also see a 13 great argument to doing it with the vets, because most dogs 14 -- I mean, anyone who's going to register their pet is going 15 to get a rabies shot. There's probably a whole bunch that 16 don't register -- I mean, don't get rabies, but those 17 people, I can almost assure you, aren't going to register 18 them. 19 MR. ALLEN: What we're proposing is we're 20 going to leave an application for registration at the vet's 21 office. They take it, mail it in to us. This way, it 22 changes hands twice before I get it. And I know several 23 people who have registered dogs -- their dogs, you know, 24 with the vet, and I ask them, "Where's your proof?" Well, 25 they don't have any proof. The vet's supposed to write on 7-14-03 60 1 the rabies certificate, "Licensed." That changes hands 2 twice. I'm not saying that the vets are doing anything 3 wrong, but what if they forget to write it on there? If 4 they say, "I paid it," how do I enforce that? I have to be 5 fair to everybody. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Likewise, the Humane 7 Society facilitates registration. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right. I -- 9 if we stay with the registration, I like that idea. That 10 works. I would be inclined more to go the other direction. 11 I mean, I know that one of the purposes is to try to 12 generate revenue by fees, but I just think that you're going 13 to not get -- by $10 an animal for a non-neutered, that's a 14 lot of money. And a lot of people have several pets, and 15 you're talking, you know, $30 a year or more. And some 16 people, that -- you know, I just think that's a lot. I 17 would go the other direction, go to $2 an animal. Unless -- 18 unless the purpose is really trying to fund the Animal 19 Control Department, you know. 20 MR. ALLEN: Well, it's also promoting spaying 21 or neutering. You know, I mean, if you're going to have a 22 dog that's not neutered, which I know you do, which you have 23 nice hunting dogs and probably want to breed, but there's a 24 whole lot of people that have nice Rottweilers and Pit Bulls 25 that they want to breed too. If we do get them spayed or 7-14-03 61 1 neutered instead of backyard breeding -- I'm not saying 2 you're irresponsible, but there is a lot of irresponsible 3 people out there, and that's contributing to our pet 4 overpopulation. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe $5 and $2. $5 for 6 -- you know, I just think that $10 is a lot to ask to 7 register an animal. Just my opinion. 8 MR. ALLEN: That's comparable to other cities 9 of our size, too. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We did a survey, and 11 that would be sort of mid-range of what other small towns 12 are charging. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have two questions, 14 one of Marc and one of Commissioner Nicholson. If you were 15 to achieve 2,500 animal registrations a year, what type of 16 increase to your manpower to handle this volume would you 17 need? 18 MR. ALLEN: I don't need any. I can do it 19 with what I've got. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, that's one 21 question. Second, Commissioner, help me understand. 22 Lifetime registration. I was always of the impression that 23 registration was predicated on vaccination for rabies and 24 other things. How do we accomplish a lifetime registration 25 if it's predicated on the vaccination and/or update to -- 7-14-03 62 1 periodic updates of that rabies shot or whatever? How -- 2 help me understand that. 3 MR. ALLEN: It's just a proposal as of right 4 now. I've never worked with a lifetime license yet, so -- 5 every registration program I've ever worked with was annual, 6 but it was -- some people were talking that that might be a 7 way to go also. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's an 9 unanticipated consequence, Commissioner. I didn't think of 10 that. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I don't think the 12 registration is a consequence in connection with the rabies 13 vaccination. That's a totally independent -- 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Two different 15 things. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Totally independent. We 17 presently have a requirement on the books that people who 18 are residents of Kerr County that have domestic animals must 19 register those animals. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let's see if I 21 understand, Judge. You're confusing me. So, I can register 22 my dog, if I had a dog, but I could say to him at the time 23 of registration, I don't want him to be vaccinated? 24 MR. ALLEN: No. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: You don't tell him one way or 7-14-03 63 1 the other. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The loophole, if 3 there is one is currently, it's an annual registration and 4 an annual rabies shot, and we won't register a dog unless 5 it's got its rabies shot. 6 MR. ALLEN: Exactly. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So if you wanted to 8 avoid giving your dogs rabies shots in the future and take a 9 chance it gets picked up without one, then you could get the 10 rabies shot once, get a lifetime registration, and not get 11 any more rabies shots. You would still be taking the chance 12 that your dog's going to get -- or cat's going to get picked 13 up and not have its rabies tag on it. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, they're not 15 mutually exclusive. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: No, not if there's a 17 requirement for a current -- there is a requirement for -- I 18 didn't see this here -- for the registration, for there to 19 be a current rabies vaccination. 20 MR. ALLEN: That's correct. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 22 MR. ALLEN: It has to be, or you don't get 23 your registration. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And the same problem 7-14-03 64 1 exists with -- if we stuck with our current one-year rabies 2 vaccination, we wouldn't know -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: One-year rabies. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- the second year 5 whether or not the -- so -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. How do you -- 7 well, do you have -- do the animals have to come in to be 8 registered? I guess not. 9 MR. ALLEN: No. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just come by your office 11 and pick up a sheet -- I mean, the little form? 12 MR. ALLEN: Currently, yeah, you can come in, 13 pay your $2 or $5, whatever; we'll write you a receipt. But 14 we're -- we're putting together an application and we're 15 really wanting to get a little more strict and make it to 16 where we can enforce it, you know. It's not fair that, you 17 know, the responsible people do it, and then the 18 irresponsible people don't. But how do I prove it? You 19 know, they tell me the vet did it. Well, the vet should 20 have wrote it on there. How do I know? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many animals -- dogs? 22 Are we talking about dogs, or are we talking about all 23 animals? 24 MR. ALLEN: Dogs and cats. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many dogs and cats do 7-14-03 65 1 you estimate are in the county? 2 MR. ALLEN: In the county? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That are owned by people, 4 not wild. 5 MR. ALLEN: Well, I'd say every other person 6 has a dog or a cat, or two. And there's 40,000 people in 7 Kerr County. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, we're looking 9 at -- okay, say there's 100,000 pets, then, in the county, 10 which is probably conservative, because a lot of people -- 11 I'm just thinking -- I mean, I didn't then even think about 12 cats until you mentioned cats. Then, all of a sudden I 13 remembered the four or five cats that my wife has in barns 14 and other things, too. Her cats, not mine. (Laughter.) All 15 of a sudden, I'm thinking that it's a lot of animals. I'm 16 just -- I mean, I'm going back to my original thing as to 17 how do you do it? I mean, it's -- aside from being 18 expensive, you're talking about someone who has a ranch, and 19 most of them have multiple -- I mean, 'cause ranches 20 probably have more animals than others. You're talking $60, 21 $70, $80 a year, which maybe that's what the County should 22 do. I'm not -- I'm not -- sure seems like a lot of money to 23 me. 24 MR. ALLEN: You could also have a kennel, and 25 under Establishment Fees, a kennel with less than six 7-14-03 66 1 animals, you could pay a $20 yearly fee, and it registers 2 all your animals. But you have to provide proof of a rabies 3 vaccination for all those animals, and I think we even have 4 to come out and take a look and see your facilities and 5 check your animals. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that. 7 MR. ALLEN: Which you could get by. I mean, 8 a kennel with 7 to 49 animals, you're looking at $30 a year. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not -- I'm just 10 trying to figure out the -- I guess the wisdom of having any 11 law on the books that we don't get compliance with and that 12 we really don't have a lot of way to enforce it. 13 MR. ALLEN: Well, that's why we're wanting to 14 change it, so we can enforce it. Because it's hard to 15 enforce now. That's why we don't have very many people 16 registered. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 18 MR. ALLEN: We tell people about it, but is 19 it fair for me to write this guy up and not write this guy 20 up? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand your dilemma 22 totally. 23 MR. ALLEN: So that's why I want to get a 24 little more stringent. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, $10 a piece, 7-14-03 67 1 100,000 animals, that's a million dollars. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll give you another 3 one here. There's a dangerous dog category. What, besides 4 a Pit Bull, qualifies as a dangerous dog? 5 MR. ALLEN: Well, you can't discriminate 6 against any particular breed. The animal has to be declared 7 dangerous for an incident that happened, an unprovoked 8 attack. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 10 MR. ALLEN: Off of its property. It can be 11 declared dangerous. Right now, currently, we have one 12 animal that is registered as a dangerous animal, and it's in 13 the city limits. And he pays his fee every year. He's got 14 his good cage, the whole works. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, my pit Chihuahua 16 could be a dangerous dog, right? 17 MR. ALLEN: Yes, it could. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure could. 19 MR. ALLEN: That's correct. Most -- most 20 people don't want to do it. They don't want to come up with 21 or they can't come up with $100,000 worth of liability 22 insurance, the secure enclosure and the whole works. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I -- 24 I'm not real overly inclined to vote for this whole thing 25 anyway, but is there a way to put in there a multiple 7-14-03 68 1 animal -- like, for individuals, not kennels. Kennels 2 are -- to me, that should be a kennel. I don't want to try 3 to figure out a loophole there. You know, like, $25 if you 4 have multiple -- like, three to eight animals, for $25 you 5 can do all your animals at one time. I just think that I 6 would -- 7 MR. ALLEN: Well, that would be the same way 8 as -- as an establishment fee. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Registration -- I 10 think it's a good idea. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just think -- I mean, 12 but not -- have a new category. Just have neutered, 13 non-neutered, or just another category across the paper; 14 just say all your animals, however many you have, flat fee. 15 I think that would be a lot easier for me to palate than the 16 way it is right now. 17 MR. ALLEN: That would fall under, like, an 18 establishment fee where you have a ranch or -- you know, 19 you -- it falls under Flying A Ranch or something. And -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: All animals of an 22 individual owner, $25. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, he says that's 24 included under the other animal establishments. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh, you can do that 7-14-03 69 1 there? Oh, okay. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it should be 3 promoted. That should be -- you know, I'd pull that line 4 out and put it up with registration, because it's not a 5 kennel, and it's -- it's multi -- you know, however it 6 works. 7 MR. ALLEN: Right. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Multiple animals, per owner. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 10 MR. ALLEN: But it would still have to be an 11 establishment of some kind, instead of just a homeowner. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would let it be a 13 homeowner to try to encourage it, 'cause I think what we 14 want to try to do is encourage it and not -- 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The financial 16 consequences of this are not insignificant. This first 17 year, stepping up from less than 1,000 to 2,500 is fairly 18 ambitious. But if we could get -- we wouldn't even have to 19 get a majority of the animals; maybe 30, 35 percent 20 registered, and that would be paying the costs of our Animal 21 Control. I think that's good government. 22 MR. ALLEN: The way the city ordinance reads 23 right now, it says that the animals in the city limits must 24 be done by a veterinarian or the local health department, 25 and they're changing -- tying to change that. Ours doesn't 7-14-03 70 1 say that, so, I mean -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Must be registered? 3 MR. ALLEN: Or -- yes, registered. That's 4 correct. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: The registration. 6 MR. ALLEN: The registration. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: City ordinance must occur 8 through a veterinarian? 9 MR. ALLEN: That's correct. That's what's it 10 reads right now. They're changing that. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: City has agreed to 12 bring these changes and other changes in their code to the 13 City Council soon. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What does our current 15 court order say? Registration is a must? 16 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 19 MR. ALLEN: It doesn't specify -- specify 20 where; it just says it must be done. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree it must be 22 done, and I'd like to see us strengthen it. 23 (Discussion off the record.) 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we're proposing 25 to add, under Registration Fees, multiple animals? 7-14-03 71 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Single owner. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Single owner, $25 3 annual or $100 lifetime. I'll make the motion that we -- we 4 move from the -- requiring rabies vaccination on a one-year 5 cycle to three-year cycle, with the aside that -- that 6 veterinarians are going to recommend that some at-risk 7 animals be vaccinated annually, and I move that we adopt the 8 fee schedule with the one change that -- of the $25 per year 9 and $100 per lifetime registration fee for all animals owned 10 by an individual. 11 MR. ALLEN: Are we adopting this now? Is 12 that what you're telling me? 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I made a motion we 14 have. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what the motion is. 16 MR. ALLEN: We probably should add livestock. 17 Remember, I was -- livestock and boarding for livestock; 18 that just came up. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that already in 20 our current -- 21 MR. ALLEN: No, it's not. I called you 22 Friday about it. And it -- when you -- when you estray an 23 animal, the estray fees -- that's a little bit different, 24 but there has been an instance where we had to impound a 25 horse through the city, and I think that's something we're 7-14-03 72 1 going to have to put on there. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, those words -- 3 MR. ALLEN: Livestock impound. That's not 4 something we do a whole lot, but it does come up. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How much? 6 MR. ALLEN: $50. That was the old fee. 7 Boarding is $10 a day; it hasn't changed. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I heard those as two 10 motions. I'll second your first motion. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: First motion is on 12 one- to three-year? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's easier to deal with 14 one at a time, I think. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That motion is 16 changed to a motion that we adopt the three-year cycle on 17 rabies vaccinations, instead of the one-year cycle we 18 currently have. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's take them one at a time, 20 with your permission, Commissioner Nicholson. We'll come 21 back and give you the full -- with respect to the motion to 22 adopt the three-year rabies vaccination cycle, as opposed to 23 the one-year, is there any question or discussion? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I have a 25 note here that says, "It is advisable that a public hearing 7-14-03 73 1 be held to adopt any new local rabies regulations. Kerr 2 County Attorney." Public hearing. I would think maybe even 3 on that fee schedule as well. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was going to make that 5 comment on the fee structure. I think we need to do a 6 public hearing on the -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Public hearing on it. 8 And you don't have the verbiage couched here to even have a 9 public hearing. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I would tend to agree with 11 you. Mr. Motley, I appreciate you bringing that to our 12 attention, and your assistance. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: While the County 14 Attorney's here and this is before us -- question, David. 15 David? Question. I want you to listen to my question I'm 16 getting ready to ask the Judge. Many times we have -- 17 because of not having it on the agenda to set a public 18 hearing, we haven't done it. And my question is to the 19 County Attorney, does it have to be on the agenda for the -- 20 to call for a public hearing on an item? 21 MR. MOTLEY: Do you have to have on it the 22 agenda previous to calling for it? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Do you have to 24 have an agenda item to call the public hearing, or can we 25 just set a public hearing and give the proper notice? 7-14-03 74 1 MR. MOTLEY: You know, I think the latter 2 sounds reasonable to me. I really -- to tell you the truth, 3 I've never researched that, but it sounds -- as long as 4 proper notice is given to people who would be concerned and 5 you posted it, it would, in effect, be the same thing. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that. And 7 we've gotten hung up on this several times in the past year. 8 While you were sitting here and it came up, I thought we 9 could get that clarification. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Makes sense. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we don't have to 12 always have an agenda item just to set a hearing. 13 Certainly, we have to have an agenda item to take -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the question in this 15 case was the agenda item called for the discussion of the -- 16 the change in the rabies frequency and the new schedule of 17 fees, but the agenda item did not specifically mention 18 setting a public hearing. You're of the belief as you sit 19 there now, without having dug into it, that we could go 20 ahead and -- with that agenda item as it is, and by -- by 21 motion passed, set a public hearing on that matter today; is 22 that correct? 23 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I think -- and the posting 24 is "consider and discuss." I believe it would be, you know, 25 fair under Open Meetings to go ahead and just set -- set the 7-14-03 75 1 public hearing on it. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 3 MR. MOTLEY: I don't think that that -- I 4 think any possible error under Open Meetings would be cured 5 by the fact that you're giving public notice. And I have 6 not researched that, and I actually tried and didn't find 7 anything specific on that point. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would think any one 9 of us could basically call a meeting of some sort, a public 10 hearing, a workshop. I mean, I think we ought to do one, 11 and just do it. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You set up a meeting 14 with the City of Kerrville without asking me. Same thing. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I did? (Laughter.) 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure did. And I -- 17 that wasn't anger -- yet. Yeah, it's the same thing. You 18 just called a meeting, and in my opinion, the same thing. 19 Call -- call a meeting, public hearing. I dare you, do it. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, what 21 distinguishes is, of course, you're going to advertise it as 22 a public hearing; the public's going to know. And that 23 seems to me to be a big, giant step forward in satisfying 24 the law. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 7-14-03 76 1 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second on 2 the table, but I think the question here is, do we move 3 forward in light of the -- in light of the County Attorney's 4 opinion? Since we're bound by those opinions, my belief is 5 we can't move forward on the motion at this point. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about amending 7 the motion to include and set a date for public hearing? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In other words, a new 9 motion to set a public hearing. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I'll move 11 that we set a public hearing for -- 12 MS. SOVIL: August 11. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- 10 a.m., 14 August 11th, for the purposes of discussing changes to the 15 county Animal Control fee schedule and altering the County 16 Code to provide for a three-year cycle on rabies 17 vaccination. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that a regular 19 Commissioners Court meeting? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it would again 22 have the partner item on the agenda to -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: For action. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the date 25 again? 7-14-03 77 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Eleven. August 11. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Are we -- is that requiring -- 4 do we require 30 days notice? If we do, that's not going to 5 make it. 6 MS. SOVIL: That is not 30 days. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I know it is not. Are we 8 required to give 30 days notice, is my question, for a 9 public hearing? Or are we talking about some shorter period 10 of time, such as 10 or 14? 11 MR. MOTLEY: Beats me. I think 14 sounds 12 good. (Laughter.) I really don't -- you know, I -- I can 13 tell you about my research on it if you want to really be 14 bored. I would -- you know, I think as long as you give an 15 appropriate notice, you know, properly published and posted, 16 I think it's okay. Should be like any other meeting, I 17 think. As Commissioner Baldwin suggested, he wants to call 18 a meeting. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to have a 20 meeting. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: As he indicated, he's probably 22 privileged to do so. 23 MR. MOTLEY: And it does make it -- I mean, 24 it is something different in that we're talking about county 25 regulations and such, so there needs to be plenty of notice. 7-14-03 78 1 So -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: So it's your opinion that 3 adequate notice, rather than mandatory 30 days -- 4 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Off the top of your head. 6 MR. MOTLEY: Yeah. Just off the top of my 7 head, 'cause -- because I have not researched it. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a second to the 9 motion? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 12 seconded to set a public hearing for August the 11th at 13 10 a.m., public hearing being for the purpose of 14 consideration of the changing of the rabies vaccination 15 schedule from one year to three years, and adopting a new 16 animal fee schedule for Kerr County. Any further questions 17 or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by 18 raising your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Okay, 23 gentlemen. It's time to take a break. We'll come back here 24 at -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 4 a.m. I'm revising 7-14-03 79 1 my time. 2 (Discussion off the record.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Five to 10:00, we'll 4 reconvene. 5 (Recess taken from 10:43 a.m. to 10:58 a.m.) 6 - - - - - - - - - - 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I'll call the meeting 8 back to order, if I can have a word, please. The -- we'll 9 reconvene the regular Commissioners Court meeting scheduled 10 for this date. The next item on the agenda is -- we're 11 going to go back to the beginning, by golly. It's consider 12 and discuss request for approval for the farmer's market at 13 courthouse square on the first, third, and fifth Saturdays 14 of each month for the remainder of the 2003 growing season. 15 Ms. Anderson. 16 MS. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. Good morning. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning. 18 MS. ANDERSON: My name's LuAnn Anderson. I 19 reside at 4190 Fredericksburg Road in Precinct 1. I'm here 20 today representing the Kerr County Market Association. 21 You've had already a very busy morning, so I'll try to be 22 very brief. This past Saturday we did celebrate the first 23 birthday of Kerr County Market Days, and so perhaps the 24 timing is appropriate that we're back here once more to ask 25 for your permission for another proposal, but I did want to 7-14-03 80 1 mention that as part of our first birthday celebration, we 2 said a special thank you to Commissioner Baldwin. He was 3 the first one who listened to our idea and had the faith and 4 trust to bring it before the entire Court, and say thank you 5 to the Commissioners Court for giving us a chance to have 6 Market Days for this past year. One of the things that we 7 originally wanted and what we originally had as a concept 8 was a farmer's market, and that's what we thought we were 9 going to be doing. It turned into something far different, 10 so our proposal today is really to take us back to that 11 original concept and work to bring more in the way of fresh 12 produce to the marketplace here at the courthouse. 13 What we're proposing here for the first, 14 third, and fifth Saturdays would be in addition to the 15 existing Market Days held on the second and fourth 16 Saturdays. The proposal for the new farmer's market, just 17 to hit a few high points, it would be for a half-day only. 18 We would limit it to produce and plants only. So, second 19 and fourth Saturdays, we'd still have the big Market Days; 20 produce, plants, arts and crafts. First, third, and, when 21 there is one, a fifth Saturday, we'll do produce and plants 22 only. We'd like to begin this next Saturday, with your 23 permission, and we would expect to end probably early 24 November, depending on Mother Nature. This would be 25 determined by the growing season. My Texas Almanac tells me 7-14-03 81 1 that the average day of the first killing frost in this area 2 varies between November 6th in Kerr and Gillespie Counties 3 and November 17th if you get down into Real County. So, 4 we're saying we'd probably end in early November. 5 And, although my track record for predicting 6 growth of the market is not very good, I do think that this 7 would always be a rather small market, and that it would be 8 possible to keep it contained within the current employee 9 parking lot closest to Jefferson and Sidney Baker. The 10 advantage here would also be that our customers would have 11 close-by parking, very easy access in and out to the market. 12 Vendors who would participate in the first, third, and the 13 fifth Saturday's market with their plants and produce would 14 automatically be admitted the second and fourth market days. 15 This -- this, as I said, is an effort to come back to our 16 original concept. The one real disappointment that we have 17 had with Market Days has been the limited amount of fresh 18 produce. And we try, and we've gone out all over many 19 counties in this area trying to recruit growers, and the 20 thing I've learned from the growers is that they need a 21 regular and frequent place to make their sales. They need 22 to be able to sell at least once a week or their produce is 23 not fresh, and they need to be able to sell it in the same 24 place each week so they can build up a customer base. So, 25 hopefully by -- by this addition, we will be able to 7-14-03 82 1 accomplish that. 2 The market would be open to farmers, as well 3 as home gardeners, and fees would be minimal; $5 a Saturday 4 for up to an 8-foot table, $8 a Saturday for up to 16 feet 5 of table. We would allow any locally-grown plants and 6 produce. We would also allow homemade food products, like 7 jams and jellies, as long as the seller met the City of 8 Kerrville health regulations. And everything that's sold 9 would have to be labeled as to -- or specified in some type 10 of poster as to where it was grown and how it was grown. 11 One, that it was locally grown, and two is whether 12 pesticides were used or whether it's organic, whether it's 13 not organic, all of those considerations. We would apply 14 all of our current Market Day rules; respect for the 15 courthouse property, proper cleanup, sales tax. Anything 16 that would require sales tax to be collected, the person 17 selling would have to have a sales tax permit. We'd also 18 certainly continue to work with our community organizations, 19 civic groups, the schools to support their fundraisers and 20 any events they might like to plan in conjunction with the 21 market. 22 Catch my breath, and I'll close. We think 23 this will really be an enhancement to the current Market 24 Days events. We think it will be a further positive step 25 for our downtown area and for our local businesses. And, 7-14-03 83 1 most of all, we think it will help us address the one thing 2 which we've had most requested by attendees of the Kerr 3 Market Days, and that is they want more fresh veggies, and 4 that's what we're trying to do. With that, I thank you for 5 your time. That concludes my presentation. I'll try to 6 answer any questions. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions for 8 Ms. Anderson? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So if, on a Saturday 10 afternoon, I have relatives pop in from out of town and I 11 want to buy a couple of pounds of squash, yellow squash, to 12 make my favorite dish that mother used to make me, I can 13 just run down and buy three pounds of squash, couldn't I? 14 MS. ANDERSON: I would suggest that you come 15 early. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Morning. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the morning. Yeah, 18 in the morning. Everybody just parses on words here today. 19 MS. ANDERSON: Yes, to the extent that we 20 have it available and Mother Nature lets us have a good crop 21 and we can get it here. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, my question was, 23 I could just buy a handful of squash, though? 24 MS. ANDERSON: That's right. If you want to 25 come in -- we have people that come up and say, "Can I just 7-14-03 84 1 buy one tomato?" And we say yes, absolutely. I'll sell you 2 one tomato or I'll tell you a half a bushel of tomatoes, 3 just any way you want to go. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's neat. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many vendors do 6 you think you -- growers do you think you're going to 7 attract? 8 MS. ANDERSON: Right now, I've got four that 9 told me that they -- if they have the product, they will be 10 there. And, with your approval to go forward with this, 11 we'll certainly go out and be trying to recruit some more. 12 We're optimistic about, by being once a week at a regular 13 location, we'll be able to get a few more in. Hopefully, 14 I'd like to have six or eight. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You've asked for the 16 parking lot area for these extra dates. Are you intending 17 that they would, likewise, be in the parking lot area on 18 your regular Market Days? 19 MS. ANDERSON: On regular Market Days, we 20 will probably mix them in with our other vendors, because we 21 try to keep -- because it's so busy, we have so many people, 22 we try to keep that as a handicapped parking area for our 23 customers. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 25 MS. ANDERSON: And so we would continue to 7-14-03 85 1 keep that as the handicapped parking area on the second and 2 fourth Saturdays for the big market. Handicapped parking 3 would be available first, third, and fifth in your regular 4 designated sites, so we'd just kind of switch them a little 5 bit on the second and fourth Saturdays. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- on that, I had 8 the same -- I was going to have the same question, but it 9 makes sense that you're going to set up for handicapped on 10 the bigger days. But I would recommend that -- seems to 11 make sense to move them right next to that spot so that 12 they're -- I mean, people that are coming to shop for 13 vegetables, they're coming back on a weekly basis, I think 14 want to kind of be in and out. They don't want to really 15 mess with the rest of the -- the crowd. And, to me, this -- 16 they would be right, basically, at the exact same location. 17 Plus, if you're shopping for vegetables, you kind of want to 18 shop for vegetables. You -- 19 MS. ANDERSON: Right. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As opposed to -- okay, 21 they had squash over there, and they had this over here, 22 having to walk the whole square one time to see what's even 23 here. If they're all kind of together, to me, it would make 24 more sense. But, anyway, I'm not -- I'll turn over the 25 running of it to you. You've done a fantastic job so far. 7-14-03 86 1 MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. Well, I think 2 that's certainly a consideration. We do have some people 3 who permanently reserve some spots, particular spots, so 4 we'd kind of have to work around that. But -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 6 MS. ANDERSON: -- with the flexibility we 7 still have, we'll certainly look into that. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I believe -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Uecker? 10 MS. UECKER: Something just dawned on me, and 11 fortunately this hasn't happened within the last year. 12 It -- and it's not going to happen very often, and I'm 13 certainly, you know, glad that we're -- we've got this. 14 What I need to know is what the procedure might be if this 15 happens. Sometimes we have big cases and we have a judge 16 from out of town coming in here, and he wants to finish a 17 case, and there's been many times when we've had court and a 18 lot of people here on Saturday mornings. So, you know, I'm 19 not saying -- fortunately, that hasn't happened in the last 20 year, and I hope it doesn't, but I need to know what the 21 procedure might be in that instance. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure we have any 23 procedure. Certainly, Mrs. Anderson and her people have 24 always been very accommodating if there were any other 25 users. I think the key has been communication about these 7-14-03 87 1 other needs and other users, and it's always been able to be 2 worked out before. We've got a good deal of parking that's 3 still available down below. 4 MS. UECKER: Yeah, maybe. I just -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: In designated spots. 6 MS. UECKER: Just make sure that that is 7 roped off. And maybe I need to get Ms. Anderson's phone 8 number so, you know, we can communicate should that happen. 9 MS. ANDERSON: Absolutely. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: There have been a number of 11 instances over the past year where there have been other 12 activities going on out here. The Tivy Golden Girls, I 13 think, had an activity. The Board of Realtors had -- 14 several of them. And there was always an ability to work 15 that out, just as long as there was advance communication. 16 That seems to be the key. 17 MS. UECKER: Okay. Yeah, I'll get your 18 number later, and -- 19 MS. ANDERSON: We can work it out. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for 21 Ms. Anderson? I -- I want to personally thank Ms. Anderson 22 and Ms. Kayne for their efforts of putting on this Market 23 Days. I think it's been tremendously successful. It's -- 24 I've never seen a single scrap of paper coming back here 25 after their event that has been left. The only down side 7-14-03 88 1 I've heard is they want more fruits and vegetables, and 2 that's what she's trying to accomplish. I think she's -- 3 she's established her track record with this Court and -- 4 and with the citizens of this county, and I think -- I think 5 she's got a gold star sitting there. 6 MS. ANDERSON: Thank you, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got a motion. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's hear it. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move that the 10 Kerr County Commissioners Court grant permission to Kerr 11 County Market Association to conduct Kerr County Farmer's 12 Market on the first, third, and fifth Saturdays on the 13 courthouse square during the remainder of the 2003 growing 14 season. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 17 seconded. Is there any further questions or discussion? If 18 not, all in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 19 right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Thank you, 24 Ms. Anderson. We appreciate it. 25 MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. 7-14-03 89 1 JUDGE TINLEY: The next item, and this may be 2 a moot item at this point, is consideration and discussion 3 of changing the county rules and regulations to conform to 4 state law, shown here as 169.29 -- I guess that's Health and 5 Safety Code -- regarding rabies vaccination. Ms. Mayo. Is 6 she here, present with us today? 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I believe, Commissioner 9 Baldwin, she had mentioned that item to you, if my 10 recollection -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: -- serves me. It may be, if 13 she was here earlier, that she heard the result of the 14 addenda item, and that effectively answers the questions and 15 concerns that she has here. Is that your understanding? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. She was not 17 here. This is the second round that she hasn't made an 18 appearance here, so I assume that she's lost interest in it 19 or whatever. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I think Number 4's 22 issues are going to cover exactly the same things. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is there any member of 24 the Court that wishes to offer a motion on Item 1.2 on the 25 agenda? 7-14-03 90 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: If not, we'll move on to 1.3, 3 consider merit increases. This was put on at the request of 4 Mr. Odom, our Road and Bridge administrator. Good morning 5 to you. 6 MR. ODOM: Good morning, sir. May I start to 7 say that this morning -- my request doesn't relate to this, 8 but in regard to Mrs. Bocock and the courthouse, we will -- 9 we've been trying -- I've explained to everybody -- 10 Mrs. Bocock who spoke, we will try to work everything in 11 within the budget, and we'll see what happens this week with 12 the hurricane coming into Corpus Christi. We hope it stays 13 down there and not up here, but we'll see. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We want some of it. 15 MR. ODOM: Well, I don't mind some of it. I 16 don't want a repeat of July of last year. Last -- at the 17 last court, I brought this to you, and what I present to you 18 now is more of substantiating information to you as far as 19 merit increases. I understand the Court and your position 20 there. I wanted to reiterate what I had. There was a 21 question as far as being able to do this in next year's 22 budget, so basically what I've presented here is showing 23 exactly, if I presented this to you and you enacted that 24 during this budget year, that the increase would be $712.50. 25 Now, I know that that's -- and it is -- well, it can be 7-14-03 91 1 done. However, I understand the Court's -- the objections I 2 had before. What I would like to assure the Court is that 3 we were presented a flat budget, that Road and Bridge had 4 attained a flat budget. As far as that's concerned, we're a 5 dollar under this year's budget. So, what I'm showing you 6 here is that it is very attainable; that I can do it during 7 this budget year as well as next budget year, and follow all 8 the criteria that's given to Road and Bridge. I -- being -- 9 being realistic, I understand; I leave it to the Court to 10 decide. What I would ask the Court to do is to allow us to 11 at least give these individuals, the four individuals, this 12 merit increase in the next budget year, if it's not to be 13 this year. But I'm ready for discussion, if there's any 14 questions about the money or anything like that. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, did I hear you say 16 that you're taking the original issue off the table, and now 17 you're proposing that we do it in next year's budget? 18 MR. ODOM: That's -- that's a practical way 19 to approach it. I -- from what I heard last year -- I mean 20 last meeting, it was not acceptable to you for this budget 21 year. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I kind of -- I have a 23 different idea. And I -- I thought a lot about this, and 24 I'm -- and someone tell me if there's a problem with my 25 thinking on this. Is it possible to approve it for the 7-14-03 92 1 remainder of this year, and then with a subject -- a 2 possibility for next year, but until we look at next year's 3 budget a little bit closer, look at next year's -- and I 4 would even -- because we've drug this on, I would make -- be 5 willing to make this retroactive to June 1st. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I support that. 7 Principle of compensation is that merit increases reinforce 8 and encourage that exceptional performance, and part of that 9 principle is that the increase should closely follow the -- 10 the performance that you're trying to reinforce and reward. 11 So, on the basis of that and the basis of the way it's been 12 presented, that the money is available for other reasons, I 13 would support doing it now or doing it retroactive. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wasn't here for the 15 last discussion when the Court took this topic up to begin 16 with, but I do agree. I agree with Commissioner Nicholson's 17 thoughts on this. If we depend on these people to do the 18 work under normal circumstances, and they do extraordinary 19 work under extraordinary circumstances, the very least we 20 can do is to recognize their efforts. So, I do support it. 21 You have shown to me that you can handle it in your current 22 budget. 23 MR. ODOM: In the current budget. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I guess what 25 you're trying to do with this presentation is to advise the 7-14-03 93 1 Court, when it gets into budget discussions, that it can 2 also be handled within the framework of your proposed budget 3 for next year. 4 MR. ODOM: That's right, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that correct? 6 MR. ODOM: That is correct. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I support that. All 8 right. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have a motion? 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll move that we 11 grant the increases effective June 30, 2003. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Is 14 there any further discussions? Any questions? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a -- I mean, I see 16 a question in the audience from the Treasurer, but I -- the 17 comment that I have is that I support doing this as a merit 18 increase, but that it is not -- I'm not voting to increase 19 it for next year. In my mind, they're back down to their 20 current grade, you know. It's not automatic in the budget. 21 It may be it will happen in the budget process next year, 22 but it's not automatic that this is where they are for next 23 year. This is just for the remainder of -- or June -- for 24 part of this year. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That was my understanding, 7-14-03 94 1 that the motion covered the -- from June 1st through the 2 remainder of the current year -- budget year. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Everything's up for 5 renegotiation next year. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Be up to Leonard to 7 present it. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, yeah. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next year. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: You had a question? 11 MS. NEMEC: I was just wondering if the Court 12 would object to the effective date being July 16th, or do 13 you want me to go back and figure out the difference and go 14 retroactive and pay them what they should have gotten? 15 Paychecks are already done for tomorrow, today. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my point was -- I 17 mean, I don't have a problem with doing it, I mean, 18 starting -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion was June 1, is what I 20 heard. Whatever adjustments need to be made, let's make it 21 right. 22 MS. NEMEC: June 1st or June 30th? 23 MR. ODOM: June 30th. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we can't do it in 25 this payroll, we -- 7-14-03 95 1 MS. NEMEC: Which means July 1st, then, 2 because that -- then that would be just one day in that pay 3 period. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, July 1st. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: July 1 should be the 6 day. 7 MS. NEMEC: Just so the Court knows, it will 8 not be reflected on this paycheck. We'll have to make up 9 for it on the next pay period. 10 MR. ODOM: But the money is there to cover 11 anything like that. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: If it -- if it's going to be 13 the June 30th payroll, that will cover mid-June through the 14 end of June. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. That's why it 16 needs to be July 1, right? 17 MR. ODOM: Mm-hmm. This would be -- 18 basically, what I was trying to do was pick up 1 July. I 19 think that pay period was -- was 30, but I would certainly 20 -- I have the money to do that too for the people. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: The original request to be 22 paid on the June 30 payroll would include the second pay 23 period in the month of June. 24 MR. ODOM: That's right. 25 MS. NEMEC: Starting June 16th, then. 7-14-03 96 1 JUDGE TINLEY: That's right? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that where we are? Is that 4 the motion? 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, to be paid on 6 the June 30, 2003 payroll, which means go back and make it 7 retroactive. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further questions 9 or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by 10 raising your right hand. 11 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 13 (No response.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 15 MR. ODOM: Thank you, Judge. Thank you -- I 16 thank the Court. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 18 MR. ODOM: The men thank you, and the lady. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: The next item is consider 20 releasing Letter of Credit Number 7037450, Stablewood 21 Springs Ranch Condominium. Are you here to present that 22 item, Mr. Odom? 23 MR. ODOM: I'll answer the questions, but I'm 24 not that well-briefed on it. I believe that Mr. Nicholson 25 has been briefed by Franklin. Going back by his agenda item 7-14-03 97 1 here, he is saying that -- well, before I make any comment, 2 I think I should turn it over to Commissioner Nicholson. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I think what I 4 understand is that what's being asked for here is to be -- 5 for the release of one of two remaining Letters of Credit, 6 and that that release of this Letter of Credit be 7 conditioned upon the follow-up to finish certain screen and 8 drainage pipe and silt flowage issues. However, the -- the 9 secondary issue here is that -- that Stablewood Springs has 10 been asked to denote the existence of certain easements on 11 the plat plan, and that has not happened as of the end of 12 last week. So, I -- I will -- I am not going to support the 13 release of this Letter of Credit until those -- such time as 14 those two easements are noted on the plat plan. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Until everything's 16 been done that are supposed to be done? 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: We had two members of the 21 public who asked to be heard on this matter. Ms. Frost? 22 MS. FROST: I just got on the agenda in case 23 I needed to speak, but Catherine has something. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Fox? 25 MS. FOX: Yes. My name is Catherine Fox, and 7-14-03 98 1 concerning the Letter of Credit, I'm here this morning to 2 concur with my Commissioner, Mr. Nicholson, and also to ask 3 the Court as a total entity to not release the Letter of 4 Credit, as recommended by the County Engineer. The project 5 is not complete. In the letter to you dated July 1, 2003, 6 from Mr. Johnston, he states that he has inspected the 7 drainage structures on Stablewood property. He writes, 8 quote, "They" -- and here I assume he is referring to the 9 structures, "appear to be constructed in accordance with the 10 plans submitted with the final plat," unquote. 11 This concerns me a great deal, because the 12 structures "appear to be constructed" properly? Does this 13 mean that Mr. Johnston simply looked at the structures and 14 is now recommending that the Letter of Credit be released? 15 Either the County Engineer -- and I mean this respectfully, 16 with no disrespect -- knows that the structures are built 17 properly, or he does not. And I would hope that this would 18 involve more than a visual tour of the structures, commonly 19 referred to as the detention ponds. He then states, quote, 20 "The only items not installed was the screen at inlet of 21 drainage pipes and silt fences to control silt collection 22 and buildup until vegetation is established," unquote. This 23 statement confirms that the project is not complete in its 24 entirety, as was agreed upon in our last meeting before this 25 Court on April 14th of this year. 7-14-03 99 1 Mr. Johnston's assurance that, quote, "I will 2 verify the above items when I make the final road 3 inspection," unquote, does not put my mind at ease. In 4 fact, this statement creates more concern. Why not simply 5 wait until the structures are 100 percent complete before 6 releasing the Letter of Credit? Is there some urgent reason 7 why this Letter of Credit needs to be released today? As 8 the drainage structures fall under a separate Letter of 9 Credit, amounting to a sum under $50,000, which is a small 10 amount in a grand-scale project such as Stablewood, what is 11 a little more time versus the assurance that the project is 12 built properly and is followed through to completion, as was 13 agreed upon? Debris screens and silt fences are not minor 14 technicalities when the detention ponds they are to be on 15 are extremely close to neighboring properties. 16 And, on behalf of my father, George Vlasek, 17 who cannot be here today, and Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Bachofen, 18 who could not be here today, those silt screens and silt 19 fences are imperative and extremely important. That is on 20 their behalf. With their permission, I give you that 21 information. On behalf of all concerned, I therefore ask 22 the Court to not release this Letter of Credit until the 23 project is 100 percent completed and a qualified individual 24 has inspected the ponds in such a way that that individual 25 can appear before this Court confidently vouching in an 7-14-03 100 1 exclamatory fashion for the proper construction of the 2 structures. Thank you. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much, Ms. Fox. 4 Any other questions or discussions? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge? 6 MR. ODOM: No, sir. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Yes, ma'am? 8 MS. RAMSEY: I'm Judy Ramsey with Stablewood 9 Springs. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Please come forward, if you 11 would, please. I'm sorry, Leonard. 12 MS. RAMSEY: Hi. I'm Judy Ramsey with 13 Stablewood Springs. The pictures were sent to Franklin 14 probably two weeks ago. The cages have been put on, the 15 silt fencing has been put on to where he requested me to put 16 the silt fencing on. And I just wanted to let the Court 17 know that we have abided by -- and as far as the easements, 18 I'm not -- I don't know what that's about, and -- maybe 19 David does. But the cages and the silt fencing has been put 20 up. Thank you. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Ramsey. 22 Mr. Odom? 23 MR. ODOM: No, sir, I'm just going to stand 24 back up here and just tell you that I'm not -- I'm not 25 familiar with that project. I don't know what all was said. 7-14-03 101 1 That's the reason I told you, yes, I'm here, but I would 2 turn it over to the Commissioner. I'm -- I don't -- some of 3 the questions, I don't have the answers, and I don't want to 4 lie to you. I -- I really don't know, other than what's -- 5 what Franklin's presented you, which you have in front of 6 you. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I appreciate it. 8 Does -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, if 10 everything has been done, then Franklin can release the 11 Letter of Credit. I don't think it needs to come to the 12 Court to release it. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It hasn't all been 14 done. The plat plan has not -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think -- I 16 believe that's subject -- I don't think we can withhold a 17 Letter of Credit for something else. I mean, we could check 18 with the County Attorney, but I think the Letter of Credit 19 is for one specific act, and once the act's done, I don't 20 think we can not release it because something else wasn't 21 done. 22 MR. MOTLEY: Are you saying easements weren't 23 in the Letter of Credit? Is that what you're saying? I 24 think the Letter of Credit is for a specified act. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, you know, 7-14-03 102 1 there's other action we can do to make sure that the plat is 2 done -- updated the way it was agreed to, but that doesn't 3 affect the letter -- nothing to do with the Letter of 4 Credit, I don't believe. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Does any member of the Court 6 have a motion with regard to this item? 7 MS. FOX: Has Mr. Johnston, Judy, been out to 8 see that personally? 9 MS. RAMSEY: He was leaving -- he was leaving 10 town and told me to send pictures. 11 MS. FOX: And did you send the pictures? 12 MS. RAMSEY: Yes, ma'am. 13 MS. FOX: Well, I would like to please ask 14 the Court not to approve the Letter of Credit until Mr. 15 Johnston can be here and tell me, so that I can relay this 16 to everyone else to my own personal satisfaction, that 17 they've been done or that he can show you the pictures and 18 verify that everything has been completed. And that is not 19 to imply that Ms. Ramsey's not telling the truth. She and I 20 communicate frequently, and I know she's telling you what 21 she knows to be true, but I just would like it verified. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Court's not -- we're 23 not going to do anything. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: The sense I get is that no 25 action is going to be taken at this time, Ms. Fox, unless 7-14-03 103 1 someone speaks rather quickly. We're going to move on to 2 the next item. We'll move on to the next item, to consider 3 the preliminary plat for The Horizon, Section Two. 4 Mr. Domingues? 5 MR. DOMINGUES: I'm Charles Domingues, 6 Domingues and Associates. You should have in your packet a 7 copy of the preliminary plat. This development -- excuse 8 me -- is a development which is in both the county and the 9 city ETJ jurisdiction, and it will be on the city Planning 10 and Zoning Commission meeting this coming Thursday. The 11 only comment that I've gotten so far from the City is the 12 length of the cul-de-sacs on the plat does not comply with 13 city regulations. And we've submitted -- and they pretty 14 much assured us that we will get a variance to their city 15 subdivision regulations for a cul-de-sac, maximum length of 16 600 feet. The reason is -- is because of the fact that the 17 very long one up on top of the hill has an easement where it 18 could be extended into the adjacent property to the east. 19 And the lower one really only has three building sites that 20 connect it. The one up on top only has 10 building sites. 21 And there's subdivisions like The Summit up here that has 22 hundreds of lots in the city that is on a cul-de-sac. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are they eliminating that 24 provision, I hope? Just a comment. 25 MR. DOMINGUES: And I've talked to the fire 7-14-03 104 1 department and the police department about it. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it is -- there's 3 no telling how cumbersome this has become, dealing with the 4 City and the County, and just in the fees that they have to 5 pay. Just -- 6 MR. DOMINGUES: Well there's a $1,500 fee to 7 the City to review this. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. I 9 understand, to do absolutely nothing. The -- the only 10 question I have, Charles, is I notice the note on here about 11 the easement coming out to the property line. Do this. 12 (Mr. Domingues nodded.) 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. On 14 Lot 10. 15 MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, 60-foot 17 easement. 18 MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Am I reading this 20 correctly, that this is the berm and easement -- is that one 21 and the same that the note is referring to? 22 MR. DOMINGUES: There is a -- a berm that we 23 are putting across there to divert the -- the water that 24 would possibly -- the additional water that would accumulate 25 on that Lot 10, to kind of divert it to the south, rather 7-14-03 105 1 than going down that draw into the detention areas. That 2 will be in the lower valley down at Lot 17. This valley 3 would eventually have -- I think three is what we've 4 planned, detention areas in it. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 6 MR. DOMINGUES: To detain the 7 post-construction runoff. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does that answer your 9 question? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not really. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't think so. 12 MR. DOMINGUES: I'm sorry. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This note on here, Lot 14 10 is subject to a 60-foot easement out to the future road 15 connection to the next property. 16 MR. DOMINGUES: Uh-huh. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that note -- 18 (Sheriff's cell phone rang.) 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's a $200 fine. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not yet. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That note is referring 22 to this berm and easement, I guess my point is. 23 MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, that 24 note is referring to that. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 7-14-03 106 1 MR. DOMINGUES: There is a -- a berm right 2 there, but that berm is going to be outside of the area 3 where a road would be built. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You keep bringing up 5 this berm, and I'm going to address that, then. 6 MR. DOMINGUES: Sure. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wasn't concerned 8 about that until this point. Now, 30 years down the road, 9 when -- after this property has changed hands 12, 15 times, 10 and the property next door develops and we see a way to 11 connect some roads in there, is that berm going to be in the 12 way at that point? 13 MR. DOMINGUES: No, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good. 15 MR. DOMINGUES: In the -- in the construction 16 of the road in which -- you know, that can be handled to 17 where it should not create a problem. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz, do 19 you see any -- is this a -- is this the way that we address 20 this, by putting this note and drawing an arrow, and then 21 with the word "easement" across there? I can't tell that 22 there's -- I can't tell that there's a little -- wait a 23 minute, I can too. Those large, dark dots? Is that what 24 that is? 25 MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir, that's what that 7-14-03 107 1 is. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. I didn't 3 see them till just this moment. I'm -- I want you to know, 4 I pored over this thing for hours and hours all weekend. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the dotted line is 6 the 60-foot easement, and I think from a preliminary 7 standpoint, it's fine. I think we need to be a little bit 8 clearer on the final plat as to where that easement is. 9 MR. DOMINGUES: As you recall -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, I'm not finished on 11 that point, though. The question I have, it seems odd to me 12 to have an easement cutting in -- that may be a future road 13 bisecting Lot 10, and you end up with a corner of it that's 14 not usable for anything, doesn't appear to me. 15 MR. DOMINGUES: When I originally designed 16 this, I had the road easement kind of the -- the center of 17 the road easement or something like that. And I got to 18 thinking about it, and it would be a whole lot easier to 19 work with one property owner rather than two property 20 owners, 'cause I think in -- in the original section of The 21 Horizon, we did the same thing, where we put a road easement 22 and we had it to where the easement was 30 feet on one lot 23 and 30 feet on the next lot. And I got to thinking about 24 that and looking at it. You know, dealing with one property 25 owner would be a whole lot easier than two, and that's the 7-14-03 108 1 reason why I have the easement on one lot. Now, the corner 2 that is -- it cuts off down there, that's totally unusable 3 land, but it's on the side of a steep hill, so it's really 4 unusable for them. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see a problem 6 with doing it this way, except that -- well, I do see a 7 problem, 'cause it's not contiguous then, and by our rules 8 the lots have to be contiguous, with that road in the 9 middle. So, that corner needs to be put over with Lot 12. 10 MR. DOMINGUES: Yeah, we can change that. I 11 have no problem with that. I was just trying to make it 12 easier in the future to -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you still can put 14 the easement totally on Lot 10, but just the little corner 15 needs to be switched over, and it's not going to change it. 16 MR. DOMINGUES: That won't be any problem. 17 MR. ODOM: How would that change the 18 description we have in the country lane, if you're going to 19 have an extension? Then changing the definition of 16-foot 20 pavement is not sufficient, when that becomes a collector 21 or -- 22 MR. DOMINGUES: Well, this -- 23 MR. ODOM: Another 15 or 20 more lots. 24 MR. DOMINGUES: This property is a closed 25 subdivision, and really the only development that can happen 7-14-03 109 1 within that is really to allow access through the closed 2 development. In other words, there would have to be a deed, 3 like the rest of it, because the property is high-fenced and 4 gated. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the answer to the 6 question is, if that road -- after the -- you expand the 7 subdivision and that road goes to a higher classification, 8 the builder will then -- or the developer will then have to 9 upgrade that entire road. 10 MR. ODOM: That's right. 11 MR. DOMINGUES: Yeah, if it does. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, if they expand it. 13 But I don't -- I think we can leave it the way it is right 14 now, but I think that if it ever is, that road -- the entire 15 road has to be brought up. I think maybe put a plat note on 16 that or something to that effect. 17 MR. DOMINGUES: Between you and me, I don't 18 think it will be extended due to the fact that just outside 19 of the contour of this property, there's a humongous house 20 on that hill. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I'm just 22 saying -- but -- so, from a -- I know the City wants you to 23 be able to connect, and that's probably -- so does the 24 County. That's the reason it's on there. But I think all 25 you have to do now is build it to a country lane standpoint, 7-14-03 110 1 but a plat note should probably be on there that if this 2 road's extended, it needs to be built to the specifications 3 of whatever that feed-through road would be classified as. 4 MR. ODOM: Yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One question. I 6 assume that the -- The Horizon, Section Two, was covered by 7 the concept plan that was filed before The Horizon, Section 8 One was approved by the Court? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know we had a concept 10 plan -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Everybody's looking 12 down here. Ask it again, I'm sorry. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Was there a concept 14 plan filed prior to approval of Section One that also 15 covered Section Two? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. My memory says 17 that, yes, the whole -- it was the plan for the whole thing 18 to happen, but it definitely was not detailed like this. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But there was -- 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Charles, don't you 21 agree with that? 22 MR. DOMINGUES: Yeah, we had a kind of a 23 concept idea. Excuse me. The problem that we had in the 24 concept plan at that time -- excuse me -- was dealing with 25 the City. We were trying to deal with the City and the 7-14-03 111 1 County, so we kind of separated them out into two different 2 things so that the County -- you know, the City wouldn't 3 start looking at County stuff -- development. But that 4 mostly was kind of to work within the guidelines at that 5 time of the City's requirement of 5-acre minimum and the 6 County's requirement for these lots of 1-acre minimum. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: All right. That's 8 good. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've got to 10 consolidate this platting process between the City and 11 County. Got to be done. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve the 14 preliminary plat for Horizon, Section Two. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's made and seconded 17 that the preliminary plat for The Horizon, Section Two, be 18 approved. Any further questions or discussion? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one 20 question. Mr. Domingues, can we assume that the -- the -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Drainage study. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, the drainage 23 study will be prepared and ready prior to coming in here for 24 final? 25 MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir. 7-14-03 112 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If not, we don't 2 approve it. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions? 4 MR. DOMINGUES: We've got two people -- two 5 entities looking at it now. Four city engineers. Four -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, 7 signify by raising your right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if I may make a 12 brief comment related to the -- the City, or combining the 13 platting, I have met several times with some representatives 14 of the City and met one time with the counsel, and that is 15 moving forward based on their timeline and our timeline 16 both, redoing some -- making some minor changes to our 17 rules, and then making the major change in their rules. It 18 looks like September is a fair time to get something, 19 hopefully, approved with one set of rules for the public to 20 use in the ETJ. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just to follow on to 22 those comments, I read that letter to the editor about the 23 difficulty that one person had with that, and was pleased to 24 see that at least Commissioner Baldwin was trying to help 25 out with that, and I would like to help however I can to 7-14-03 113 1 resolve that issue so it doesn't happen in the future. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Our -- I mean, 3 the -- the City has given me copies of their draft language, 4 and I am currently trying to figure out if there's any big 5 mines that we're going to really have a problem with. I 6 think, on the conceptual issue of it -- I don't know if I 7 mentioned this to the Judge or not, but we can certainly 8 discuss that at the joint City/County meeting if it's 9 appropriate. I think it's -- it is, in my mind, very 10 important that the County be the driver in the ETJ, 11 especially the way the ETJ has been formed recently, and 12 with the tentacles going out to City of Kerrville. I think 13 if you don't have the County doing it, you can end up with 14 some real problems for the public. So, anyway, I think it's 15 a good time to talk about the conceptual directions in our 16 meeting coming up, but the details are -- probably look like 17 September. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your point's 19 well-taken, and particularly as the City gets closer to 20 extending its ETJ by reason of population. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So, anyway, so 22 it's -- it's slowly working. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Did we ever get an answer to 24 the question whether we're bound by the official census by 25 the U.S. Department of Commerce at the beginning of each 7-14-03 114 1 decade, and determining the population for this ETJ 2 distance, or whether we can go on each year's individual 3 estimated population? Did we ever get a question -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't believe we have 5 an answer to that. 6 MR. MOTLEY: We had something come up in that 7 -- I'm trying to think in what context that issue arose. I 8 believe it was something related to some septic rules, and 9 in that context, population was generally defined as being 10 the decennial -- the official decennial census figures. I 11 don't know if it was limited to that particular thing. I 12 think it might have come out of Code Construction Act; said 13 population is defined by the 10-year census. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: As opposed to a -- in a 15 specific application? 16 MR. MOTLEY: I'm thinking this is 17 generally -- population generally means the census 18 population, because I suppose the estimates are subject to 19 error. But the official census is -- I remember that we 20 were waiting to reach, I think, 40,000 population or 45,000, 21 and we went over, like 43,000-something, and tripped a 22 provision we hadn't had before on some septic rules. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think -- and I know -- 24 I know I've seen them, and I suspect you have too, in a 25 number of statutory contexts. They'll say population of 7-14-03 115 1 whatever according to the last official United States 2 census, or words to that effect. And that clearly indicates 3 the -- the census by the Commerce Department at the 4 beginning of each decade. But where it doesn't say that, 5 really, is where my question is. So -- 6 MR. MOTLEY: I just think population 7 generally means that, but again, I haven't been requested to 8 do that except in the context of that septic question. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I think it would 10 be a good idea to get that answered. That certainly is not 11 of earth-shattering importance, but -- 12 MR. ODOM: Would that not also -- within the 13 city limits, in their statute, that requires a municipality 14 to expand -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's what's we're 16 talking about. 17 MR. ODOM: -- the ETJ. By this population, 18 it wouldn't have to be on the census. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what we're trying 20 to figure out, which number census dates, or whether it 21 even -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: If we're using the official 23 2000 census, or whether or not the 25,000 is what we're 24 talking about, where the limit jumps to probably 2 miles. 25 MR. ODOM: To 2 miles. 7-14-03 116 1 JUDGE TINLEY: And -- and I suspect it's in 2 the -- what is that, Article 671, or what used to be Article 3 671, I think. If you'd look into that for us, Mr. Motley, 4 I'd appreciate it. We'll move on to the next item. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Excuse me, Judge. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Bernard Syfan is 8 here for Item 1.18. I wonder -- that's a long time from 9 now. I wonder if it would be possible to move that up in 10 the schedule so Mr. Syfan can get on about his business? 11 This is the -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, 18. I thought you said -- 13 I was looking at 1.8. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- emergency service 15 district for Mountain Home. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Does any member of the Court 17 have any objection to taking that out of order? If not, 18 we'll move forward with 1.18, consider and discuss accepting 19 a petition to create an emergency service district in the 20 Mountain Home area, and set a public hearing on that matter. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For those of you 22 that may not be aware, Bernard's brother Tom had triple 23 bypass surgery following a heart attack last week, and he's, 24 you know, I expect hurting, but he's recovering. So -- 25 Tom's a very active, important member of our community, so 7-14-03 117 1 our prayers are with him. Bernard, do you want to talk 2 about emergency services? 3 MR. SYFAN: I'll correct him; it was a 4 quadruple, and he's doing all right, I think. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is Bernard 6 Syfan that lives on Byas Springs Road. 7 MR. SYFAN: Hmm? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm acquainted with one that 9 lives on Beach Road. 10 MR. SYFAN: How do you spell that? 11 (Laughter.) The fire department started out -- Travis Hall 12 came up with the idea. They just needed to get a little bit 13 more credit where they can borrow and get a better truck, 14 and that's what kicked this off, and I was asked by Dave 15 to -- to investigate it and see if we couldn't do something 16 about it. And we have contacted the State and had the State 17 people out here. Very, very cooperative and very helpful. 18 We've gotten the necessary form of petition, have completed 19 the petition. The County has checked the names on the 20 petition and verified, I guess was the word, or at least 21 acknowledged that we have the necessary 100 signatures, and 22 we are now petitioning the Court through the Judge to set a 23 public hearing. I think that's all we need. Any questions? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- so, in order to 25 create -- let's see, what was the language? Emergency 7-14-03 118 1 service district, which is new words for fire district -- 2 MR. SYFAN: Fire district had a -- a specific 3 use, apparently. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. 5 MR. SYFAN: And they're doing away with fire 6 districts. We originally were applying for the fire 7 district, but they said no, you can't do that, because as of 8 September you're going to -- all fire districts are going to 9 be requested to convert into emergency service districts. 10 And so we're an emergency service district, but we'll be -- 11 we intend at this time only to run a fire operation out of 12 it. But -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the State -- if I 14 remember right, they -- they outline it pretty specific in 15 order to create one of these things. And, you know, your 16 100 names was obviously a -- probably 10 percent of the last 17 election that voted for the governor, some weird thing like 18 that. 19 MR. SYFAN: I think it was arbitrary. I can 20 find out. It doesn't tie up -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you get a 22 petition, you present it to the Commissioners Court, and 23 then the Commissioners Court sets up a public hearing? 24 MR. SYFAN: That's right. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then how many more 7-14-03 119 1 steps are there after that? 2 MR. SYFAN: Once the public hearing is set, 3 then January of the following year, the Judge appoints a 4 Board of Directors, I guess it's called, of five people to 5 represent the district, and -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have to have an 7 election at some point. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, yeah. 9 MR. SYFAN: They have an election, yeah, 10 sure. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: To confirm the confirmation -- 12 to confirm the establishment of the district. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 14 MR. SYFAN: You're right. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: At the next uniform election 16 date after -- that's after you hold the public hearing. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: After the public 18 hearing, then you have the election, and then you appoint 19 the board of directors. How do you go about actually 20 designating the area? 21 MR. SYFAN: Well, we went to the fire 22 department -- the volunteer fire department, and they went 23 about it by looking at the access. It's on -- if you'll 24 look at the map -- I didn't bring it along, but I can. And 25 the roads that are served best from Hunt are left to Hunt. 7-14-03 120 1 And the roads -- the district -- the volunteer fire 2 department that has a district, the only one in the county 3 now is Ingram, and we abut it for a short distance. And we 4 don't leave anything out or include them. It's all -- we 5 don't overlap or underlap them; we touch them. And any 6 future fire districts will abut us. But it's established by 7 access, how we can best serve the area, and we left that to 8 the fire departments to determine. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I can probably answer 10 Commissioner Baldwin's question. I have here a copy of what 11 was presented to me as required by that particular chapter, 12 and which has now been filed with the County Clerk, and 13 there are two different identifying measures. One is -- 14 this is a -- a map by abstract surveys that was included, 15 and then also attached is a metes and bounds description of 16 the -- of the district itself. So, both of these are 17 attached to the petition, along with the petition containing 18 over 100 names that have been checked and verified by the 19 Tax Assessor. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you don't 21 necessarily just go out and pick a -- a highway or a road 22 which is -- 23 MR. SYFAN: You could. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, but seems like 25 to me you would -- there would be some no-man's land -- 7-14-03 121 1 possibility of some no-man's land in between your district 2 and the -- let's say Ingram's district. 3 MR. SYFAN: There is a possibility, but we've 4 avoided that. We actually touch. We've investigated it, 5 and I've got the maps. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I knew you 7 would, but I was just kind of wondering how that worked. 8 MR. SYFAN: And there actually is a portion 9 of Gillespie County that is on our side of I-10. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, no. 11 MR. SYFAN: And they said don't touch that 12 until we do get this district in hand. Do it one step at a 13 time. We can serve that better than Harper can. And so we 14 have an agreement now to service it on call, but I am 15 assured by the people inside that little triangle that 16 they're going to be wanting my help to help them come in and 17 annex that. But we were cautioned by the State, do it one 18 step at a time. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Syfan, is it 20 proposed that this -- this district would have taxing 21 authority as well? 22 MR. SYFAN: Yes, it does have -- it's just a 23 state thing. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that, likewise, 25 convey bonding authority, or is that separate? 7-14-03 122 1 MR. SYFAN: I don't know anything about any 2 bonding authority. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- I think that would 4 have to be a separate -- separate election item by the 5 voters to come, if I'm not mistaken. 6 MR. SYFAN: It's a limited taxing authority. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is a limited taxing 8 authority? 9 MR. SYFAN: Well, the old fire district was 3 10 cents per $100, and the new one, the one we're in, is 10 11 cents. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ten? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Up to. 14 MR. SYFAN: Up to 10. But the -- what we're 15 going to do, as soon as I can find our needs, and also get 16 an assessed valuation on the district, which I don't have 17 yet, I got to guess at it, and I know pretty well what it 18 is, but as soon as we get that, we're going to set one at 19 below 3. And the law is that after you set one, you can't 20 raise it more than -- I think it's 8 percent in any one 21 year. 7 percent? 22 (Discussion off the record.) 23 MR. SYFAN: 8.7. You can't do that, so you 24 can't just explode. And the district is really just a sugar 25 daddy for the fire department, and they're completely 7-14-03 123 1 separate. And the district would be handled by a board 2 that's appointed by you people once a year. Every year, you 3 would either change it, extend it, or it comes up for 4 reappointment every dang year. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to -- I mean, I 6 appreciate all the information. I think it may be 7 worthwhile to have a workshop. I've never -- we've never 8 done one since I've been on the Court. I'm kind of 9 intrigued by it. It seems a lot easier than I thought it 10 would be to form a fire district, or a -- 11 MR. SYFAN: I'll assure you, it's not real 12 easy. I mean, I've been working -- but we've pretty well 13 got the ducks in a row, and I volunteer to come give you all 14 the information I can. We've got -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just need to sit down 16 with you over lunch and you explain it all to me. 17 MR. SYFAN: Good steaks. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can get the 19 O.R.C.A. guy down here. Extremely helpful. 20 MR. SYFAN: He's great. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Tremendously helpful. He -- 22 he came down on -- it was a Friday evening, came from -- 23 from the offices in Austin and met with a pretty good-sized 24 group from out in that area. 25 MR. SYFAN: We had 24 people that were 7-14-03 124 1 interested. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: And was there for two, two and 3 a half hours, as I recall. 4 MR. SYFAN: Yeah. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Answered every question, 6 brought a tremendous amount of printed materials. Really, 7 really did a fantastic job. 8 MR. SYFAN: But it's -- the ducks are in a 9 row. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to me that 11 this -- I mean, I can see that it would be beneficial to 12 much of the county to go this route, and it would address a 13 whole lot of what we're talking about this morning. And, I 14 mean, I think it's a -- you know, and doing it by volunteer 15 fire department makes -- you know, makes sense. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just take a look at 17 what Ingram's done with it. Extremely successful. 18 MR. SYFAN: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's very 20 important. I think it's got applications elsewhere. It 21 might be a good reason -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we could 23 invite -- maybe have a workshop and invite the fire chiefs. 24 MR. SYFAN: I'll agree to have lunch with you 25 any time. 7-14-03 125 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Better establish who's 2 buying. 3 MR. SYFAN: I do what I can with this. 4 There's a learning curve, but it can be done. 5 (Discussion off the record.) 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll make a motion 7 that we accept the petition to create emergency service 8 district in the Mountain Home area and set a public hearing 9 on the same. For? 10 MS. SOVIL: How many times does have it to 11 run? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Twice. But the first notice 13 must be not later than 21 days before the date prior to the 14 hearing. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not later? 16 MS. SOVIL: Does it say 30 days? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: It does not say 30 days, but 18 it does say not later than the 21st day before the date the 19 hearing is held. There's a posting and there's also 20 publication in a newspaper for two consecutive weeks, the 21 first of which shall occur not later than the 21st day 22 before the date on which the hearing is held. So -- 23 MS. PIEPER: There's also preclearance -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I understood that. I realize 25 maybe the rest of you didn't. 7-14-03 126 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which I didn't. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jannett had an important 3 point. 4 MS. PIEPER: There's also preclearance to 5 Washington, that the deadline has already passed. I can 6 request expedient consideration as long as we get all of 7 this done as soon as possible. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, for the election 9 day? 10 MS. PIEPER: In order to get it on 11 September's ballot. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That won't impact 13 the hearing date, just the -- whether or not we can get it 14 on the election. 15 MS. PIEPER: Right. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can go ahead and 17 set the hearing date, and we can work on that. 18 MS. PIEPER: But we need the hearing as soon 19 as possible. 20 MS. SOVIL: The 11th is exactly 21 days. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Can't happen then. 22 MS. SOVIL: The 25th is the next one. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: That's where we are. 24 MS. SOVIL: Next meeting. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 7-14-03 127 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Your motion would include -- 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 10 a.m. on the 25th 3 of August. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you have any 6 problems with that, Mr. Syfan? 7 MR. SYFAN: No. No. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's made and seconded 9 that the Court set a public hearing for August the 25th at 10 10 a.m. for a public hearing on the creation of emergency 11 service -- Kerr County Emergency Service District Number 1 12 in the Mountain Home area. Any further questions or 13 discussion? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a comment. 15 Judge, it's the same comment I made when we put the Ingram 16 Fire District in years ago, and that is that the County 17 should continue its funding to them for three years as 18 start-up costs, and it needs to be cut off; they need to 19 stand on their own two legs from that point on. I know that 20 this is not going to happen, but I -- I thought I'd throw 21 that out. That's the way I think. 22 MR. SYFAN: I believe, right now, the Ingram 23 district is still on your -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Not by my 25 wishes. 7-14-03 128 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why he said that. 2 MR. SYFAN: All right. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not by my wishes. 4 MR. SYFAN: I'll -- no comment. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: We're a long ways away from 6 that point in time. No sense beating on that horse. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can probably beat 8 that horse some more in the budget process. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 11 discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion, signify by 12 raising your right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Thank you 17 very much, Mr. Syfan. 18 MR. SYFAN: You bet. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go now to -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1.6, then lunch. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- 1.6, consideration of road 22 name changes for privately maintained roads in various 23 locations in Kerr County, in accordance with 911 guidelines. 24 MR. MOTLEY: Just -- I did some checking real 25 quick on the break there. All codes are -- definitions are 7-14-03 129 1 controlled by the Code Construction Act, and population is 2 defined as the most recent decennial census in all codes. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I appreciate that. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're going to find 5 it interesting that -- the numbers they use in that bill, 6 though. As -- thank you -- it talks about a county with 7 1.9 million population or within 50 miles of the 8 international border, or -- 9 MR. MOTLEY: Part of the -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- or contiguous to a 11 county with 40 gazillion -- 12 MR. MOTLEY: 700,000. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Something like that. 14 And I couldn't find -- I sent you a note Friday. I know it 15 hasn't arrived -- you have it in your hand. And -- that's 16 all. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: My intention is to try and get 18 through this particular item and 1.9 so that our Road and 19 Bridge people can get on about their business; we'll be 20 through with them. So -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I apologize. Just 22 trying to show you how smart I was. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We got to get out to 24 Wren Road. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. My only 7-14-03 130 1 question is, the Louis Real Road on Upper Turtle Creek. 2 MS. HARDIN: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So that's beyond 4 Precinct 1 and has gone into Precinct 4? 5 MS. HARDIN: Correct. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions for 8 Truby here? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have, 10 Truby, are those at Peek Ranch? 11 MS. HARDIN: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are they -- are the roads 13 more, I guess, identifiable on-site than they are on the 14 map? I mean, it appears like all of a sudden we're just 15 changing names in the middle of the road by the maps that 16 are attached, and I was just wondering. Does it look that 17 way, or do you have any idea? 18 MS. HARDIN: I have no idea. I'm not even 19 sure I could find Peek Road. 20 MR. ODOM: That's back there at Hermann Sons. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: At Hermann Sons, where 22 the bridge goes through to Kendall County. I was just -- my 23 question, I presume a lot of these -- these all came out of 24 911? 25 MS. HARDIN: Correct. 7-14-03 131 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I presume they have 2 them done the way they want them. 3 MS. HARDIN: On the first form I sent you, 4 there were 28. They sent me three more after the agenda 5 item was submitted. All those are in Commissioner 6 Nicholson's area. But they're kind of on a deadline, I 7 think. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions? 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. Truby, como se 10 dice en Inglés, Los Sobrinos? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cousins? 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Cousins? Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make a motion to approve. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 16 we approve the road name changes for privately maintained 17 roads in various locations in Kerr County, in accordance 18 with 911 guidelines as presented. Any further questions or 19 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 20 your right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 7-14-03 132 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I may make one comment 2 to Road and Bridge and to the Commissioners -- I think 3 Commissioner Baldwin already knows this -- at our next 4 meeting will be an item on the agenda to put a moratorium on 5 any more road changes for the rest of this year, so if you 6 have any in your precinct, get them on the next agenda. 7 After that, nothing else can be done. And that will -- any 8 county roads that need to be changed will be on that, or 9 they -- and the public hearing will, obviously, be held 10 later; they will be included. I know there's three in my 11 precinct to be on that list. But -- 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the need for 13 that moratorium? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 911 has to -- basically, 15 we're sending the letters out with new addresses in early 16 September, and we have to have a -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're getting too far 18 ahead of them? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. We just need to have 20 a stop date so they can all of a sudden start running 21 numbers and printing and everything else, and we can't keep 22 changing. They're just going to go out with numbers on 23 them. And we can keep on doing the changes, but nothing's 24 going to be effective until after January 1. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Next item, 1.9, 7-14-03 133 1 consider and discuss approval of the recent contract award 2 under the Texas Community Development Program between Kerr 3 County and O.R.C.A. for some of the 25 percent matching 4 grants from FEMA and NRCS, and authorize County Judge to 5 sign same. Mr. Odom? 6 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I believe that you have 7 that. Were there any questions about that form? Or I'm 8 open to any questions about O.R.C.A. and funding that they 9 propose to do for us. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Basically, my understanding 11 is -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that this contract 12 authorizes you to do certain work on certain projects that 13 you've identified within a specific time frame, beginning 14 last May up through -- 15 MR. ODOM: May the 1st this year. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Up through what date? 17 MR. ODOM: 1 May, '03. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That -- 19 MS. HARDIN: That's the beginning date. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, right. That would 21 authorize you to, in essence, earn the 25 percent matching 22 grant funds. 23 MR. ODOM: That's right. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Due from FEMA and NRCS. 25 MR. ODOM: Right, sir. 7-14-03 134 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not to exceed 83 2 thousand -- $83,766; is that correct? 3 MR. ODOM: Is that the amount? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my question. 5 MS. SOVIL: Not to exceed. 6 MR. ODOM: Not to exceed that, yes. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 8 MR. ODOM: But it will be -- everything that 9 will be finished from that point may -- anything prior to 10 that's not -- not counting from after -- 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So these moneys 12 spent on -- as a result of the damage that was done because 13 of floods. 14 MR. ODOM: That's correct, sir. Anything 15 from FEMA or NRCS, and then they were to participate with 16 25 percent. We had 25 percent matching, with the 75 from 17 FEMA and NRCS, and then they would propose to pick up that 18 25 percent slack, but the way this has rolled, it's going to 19 be the starting date 1 May. Any projects completed after 20 that date, then we will get funded for. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Off the top of your 22 head, do you know about how much total money we received 23 from FEMA or -- or any other agencies? 24 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir -- well, I had a note. I 25 can tell you that what I received from them -- I show 7-14-03 135 1 261,000 that we spent, 104, and I believe there's 10,000 -- 2 what is that, 365? So, we probably received $255,000 from 3 them, so I'm about 10,000 in surplus. And which this -- 4 O.R.C.A. would help me -- I don't have that exact number, 5 but O.R.C.A. should help me clear everything. In other 6 words, we won't be in reserves. We should be able to -- to 7 come out maybe a little bit ahead. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions of Mr. 9 Odom? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 13 the Court approve the recent contract award under the Texas 14 Community Development Program between Kerr County and 15 O.R.C.A. for some of the 25 percent matching grants from 16 FEMA and NRCS, and authorize County Judge to sign same. Any 17 further questions or discussion? If not, all in favor, 18 signify by raising your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We'll 23 stand in recess until 1:30. 24 (Recess taken from 12:10 p.m. to 1:33 p.m.) 25 - - - - - - - - - - 7-14-03 136 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I'll call the meeting back to 2 order. We recessed shortly after lunch to reconvene again 3 after -- at 1:30. It's a few minutes after 1:30. Prior 4 to -- prior to reconvening, it was suggested to me that, 5 because of logistical requirements, we need to go ahead and 6 consider the bills so that some of the staff can move 7 forward making arrangements to get those paid in a timely 8 manner, rather than wait until probably sometime after 9 dark-thirty this evening. So -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move we pay 11 the bills. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 14 seconded that we pay the bills. Any questions or comments? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have questions, but 16 they'll wait till next month. They'll be there again. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Page 6, Mr. Auditor. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I just have an 20 observation, and it won't require any discussion. This 21 Software Group, Inc., lots of invoices and lots of money 22 being paid to that. So, in the budgeting process, I'd like 23 to learn a lot more about that, how we go about supporting 24 our systems and computers. That's all. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Come by this evening. 7-14-03 137 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Come by this evening. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's been going on 5 for about 14 years like this. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Once they get you in the trap, 7 they just keep turning the screws on you, I think is the 8 name of the game. 9 (Discussion off the record.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: For informational purposes, I 11 have been assured by some that are knowledgeable, in my 12 belief, in information technology, and what I hear from them 13 is there are some other alternatives, but they're in a 14 developmental stage now. They won't be fully developed for 15 probably three to five years. Page 6, two payments to 16 Software Group charged to the Tax Assessor's budget. They 17 are in like amounts. I assume those are quarterly or 18 semiannual payments? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: They're quarterly. I'll have 20 to get the bills and see if it's for -- for two quarters. 21 But -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's an invoice dated 23 September 10, one of them, and -- two of them, actually, and 24 then in like amounts for June. We left out -- I guess we 25 did January somewhere. Did we -- did we just miss the 7-14-03 138 1 June -- September ones last year for some reason? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: I'd have to look at it and 3 see. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You have the same 6 anomaly for Voter Registration, Judge. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: We do pay the same amount 9 quarterly, so my -- let's see. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: You got three of them for 11 9/1/02, and then you got six of them for 6/5/03, and they're 12 for like amounts. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: 151586? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 15 (Discussion off the record.) 16 MR. TOMLINSON: I think it's right here. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: While you're looking at that, 18 Mr. Sheriff, how big of a hot water heater do we have out 19 there at that jail? 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We've got big ones, 21 actually. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: $8,000 worth, huh? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Minimum. There's three 24 of them. They actually consider them boilers at that size, 25 but yeah, they take up an entire room by themselves and they 7-14-03 139 1 furnish 40 cells altogether. So, yes, they're very large. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, that is for the first 4 quarter. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: First quarter of last 7 year? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: This fiscal year. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: September '02. If they'll 10 stand still that long, why don't we just stack them for a 11 while longer? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Okay. That's all the 14 questions I have. Motion's been made and seconded that we 15 pay the bills. Any further questions or discussion? All in 16 favor, signify by raising your right hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Thank you. Our creditors 21 will appreciate it. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about the budget 23 amendments? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, he's going to come back 25 for the budget amendments, I assume. 7-14-03 140 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll get those later. This 3 is so that the people downstairs can get rolling on getting 4 these bills paid before -- before sundown today. The next 5 item we have is to consider and discuss the appointment of 6 election judges and alternates for the term of one year 7 beginning August 1, '03, in accordance with Texas Election 8 Code. County Clerk. 9 MS. PIEPER: This is just a formality that we 10 have to do every July. And the list is submitted by the 11 Republican County Chair and the Democrat County Chair as to 12 their selections for judges, and then any elections that 13 come up between then, this is our judges that we use, that 14 we pick from. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we accept the list 16 as presented. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 19 seconded that we accept the list as presented. Any 20 questions or comments? 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Comment. The -- the 22 polling place of -- of Precinct 410 is -- is very 23 inconvenient for a large number of voters, and it's the high 24 school, and it displaced the traditional place that many of 25 those voters went to; that was the Sunset -- or Sunrise 7-14-03 141 1 Baptist Church. And we'd like to move it back there, but we 2 can't, 'cause it's not in our precinct, so we've got a real 3 dilemma there. I just wanted to let you know that we -- 4 we're losing some voters out there. We've got some unhappy 5 people because of the inconvenience of that polling place. 6 That's all. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I note in one of these lists 8 there's a -- there's a -- there's an asterisk by some of the 9 names denoting bilingual, Spanish/English, with a reference, 10 "satisfying the law's requirement for bilingual election 11 workers." The other list contains no such annotation. Is 12 there something there that's missing? Or -- 13 MS. PIEPER: No, sir. It's -- it's just an 14 added benefit that the Democratic County Chair let us know 15 that those people with the asterisks are bilingual. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any requirement in 17 the law that you have -- 18 MS. PIEPER: The requirement in the law is if 19 we can find, you know, either a judge, an alternate, or 20 clerks that are bilingual, that we use them, and we've 21 always tried to do that anyway. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So there's no 23 requirement that you must have someone that's bilingual? 24 MS. PIEPER: No, but we do have to make -- if 25 we do not have a polling location that does have somebody 7-14-03 142 1 bilingual, then I have to have staff on standby. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And -- and you satisfy 3 our requirement, of course. 4 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further questions 6 or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by 7 raising your right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Number 11, 12 consider and discuss the appointment of central counting 13 station manager, judge, and tabulating supervisor as per 14 Chapter 127 of the Texas Election Code. 15 MS. PIEPER: This is just more formalities we 16 have to go through. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's made and seconded. 20 Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by 21 raising your right hand. 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Next item is 7-14-03 143 1 consider and discuss consolidation of polling locations for 2 the September 13th constitutional amendment election. 3 MS. PIEPER: I am requesting that we 4 consolidate into four polling locations, if it's approved by 5 y'all. This is going to save on my budget tremendously. 6 So, what I've done is I attached a sheet that shows each of 7 the polling locations that we've used in the past, and if 8 you want to just go down and each Commissioner pick out one 9 location, or two if you desire, that's strictly up to y'all. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before you get into that, 11 I mean, there is one -- I've thought a little bit about 12 this. I know -- and it was a bigger election, granted, but 13 several years ago we consolidated these, and I had a lot of 14 very unhappy constituents. And you get into a dilemma where 15 you -- for all the -- you know, for Dave and I, you kind of 16 -- those that have the far reaches of the county, if I 17 consolidated the rural areas, people in the city are mad. 18 If I consolidate in the city, the rural people are mad, so 19 I'm really -- you know, I heard you say two, so two -- I can 20 probably go with two. 21 MS. PIEPER: You can go as many as you want, 22 Commissioner. That's just my suggestion. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. But, I mean, I 24 think the -- if you allow, you know, two -- or not allow. 25 If you -- if that's acceptable, that would probably work 7-14-03 144 1 from my standpoint, but I'm opposed to one. But since I'm 2 talking on it, I'll say Cypress Creek Community Center and 3 the courthouse. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll take the 5 American Legion and Extension Office. Center Point American 6 Legion. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: First Presbyterian 8 Church in Ingram and Western Hills Baptist Church. 9 MS. PIEPER: Precinct 1? Commissioner 10 Baldwin? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 107 and 119. 12 MS. PIEPER: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That needs a court 14 order? 15 MS. PIEPER: Voting on the lower level of the 16 courthouse. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Need a motion? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move the locations 20 as noted. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 23 the voting locations -- polling locations for September 13th 24 Constitutional Amendment election be at the -- at the two 25 locations designated by each County Commissioner in their 7-14-03 145 1 respective precincts. Any further discussion? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As per the request of 3 the County Clerk? I'm joking with that. We can always 4 blame her. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? All in 6 favor, signify by raising your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item, 11 consider and discuss approval of job descriptions for 12 Sheriff's Office and police. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: First off, I would like 14 to mainly address Commissioner Baldwin and the rest of the 15 Court, because I do apologize for my phone going off 16 earlier. And I normally come in and set it on vibrate, and 17 I did not. So, I agree with Judge Ables' ruling that cell 18 phones should not be in, and I do apologize, although I have 19 to keep one with me, but it shouldn't be -- should have been 20 on vibrate. Secondly, these job descriptions, Nash group 21 study is the one that actually set the job descriptions. We 22 are not changing the exempt status or any of the legal 23 requirements that he had set out in any of the job 24 descriptions with the Sheriff's Office. All we've been 25 trying to do is clean them up. For a long time -- the last 7-14-03 146 1 job description, to give you an example of how we're trying 2 to clean them up, it had the Chief Criminal Investigator was 3 responsible for scheduling all patrol deputies' work 4 schedules and traffic control, and that has nothing at all 5 to do with Chief Criminal Investigator's job duties. So, 6 his job description did not fit that, all right, and so all 7 we've been doing for the last number of months is going back 8 through -- going back through everybody's deal and setting 9 job descriptions according to what their duties actually 10 are, trying to clean this up so we can actually issue them 11 to every employee we have. 12 And the only other thing that we changed on 13 any of them -- and this is -- that changed mainly due to the 14 County starting to award officers for their education and -- 15 and longevity, but mainly to do with education. In the 16 original job description, it had chief deputy could be just 17 a basic certified peace officer. I've changed that to an 18 advanced certified peace officer, because I think if they're 19 going to get education, we need the more experience -- the 20 more advancement in these placements and who's eligible for 21 that job, and that's all we've done. And they need to be 22 approved by the Commissioners Court so I can give Barbara 23 Nemec and the clerk a copy. We need to make copies for 24 everybody. I have visited with Barbara about this. I 25 visited with her this morning -- she was out a lot last 7-14-03 147 1 week -- and showed her a lot of these, and she had no 2 problem with them. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Am I missing something? 4 Or -- I don't have them. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have them 6 either. 7 MS. SOVIL: They were circulated. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Real big, thick 9 package. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's about this size, 11 so if you had it, you would know it. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have it. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, he does 14 that on purpose so you don't read all of it. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All the stuff's 17 hidden. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Nothing changes -- these 19 are mine, but we -- there were so many in different ones. 20 You may look at them, but they're set out exactly how Nash 21 had them set out after the study. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff, as I 23 understand this, you're simply updating those so they're 24 useful to the job incumbents and their supervisors? It 25 doesn't have anything to do with job capacities or 7-14-03 148 1 exempt/nonexempt, what-have-you? 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. Nothing 3 to do with step and grade pay or anything else. It's just 4 upgrading them so that they're real. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move that we 7 approve the job descriptions as presented by the Sheriff for 8 his office employees. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 11 the job descriptions, as prepared by the Sheriff, for the 12 Sheriff's Office employees be approved. Any further 13 questions or discussions? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If the Commissioner 15 of Precinct 1, who's the liaison of the Court to the 16 Sheriff's Office, says they're okay -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're okay. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's vote. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Except we didn't give 20 him a job description. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doesn't cost anything. 22 That's the deal. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next meeting. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Would you be kind enough to 25 give us his job description? 7-14-03 149 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, sure. I'll fix one 2 up real quick, Judge. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 4 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 5 your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item 10 is -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think he wants that 12 back, Judge. You're not going to be able to read it. 13 What's wrong with you? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Consider and discuss and take 15 appropriate action on the resolution to appoint designated 16 signators for Texas Community Development Program Contract 17 723095 for continuation of the Kerrville South Wastewater 18 Project, Phase 3, covering West Loyal Valley, George Muck, 19 and Shannon Drive. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. 21 This is a requirement of the Texas Community Development 22 Program that we have in place a resolution designating 23 signators. This is the new contract. We have done nothing 24 under this contract yet, and will not until we have this in 25 place and the contract is signed by the Judge. So, I offer 7-14-03 150 1 the resolution for approval as presented. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that 3 motion. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions? Discussion? 5 What we're approving here is only the designation of the 6 signators on this order of business; is that correct? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which has, in the 8 past, Judge, been the County Judge, this Commissioner, and 9 the County Treasurer. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I got some 12 questions. Is it -- is it usual for a County Commissioner 13 to be a signator to a contract? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm told so. But the 15 County Judge is the important one. 16 (Discussion off the record.) 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess probably, 18 Commissioner, because I'm supposed to have some feel for 19 what the project's all about. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, my reason for my 21 question is, I wouldn't want that responsibility. But -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to give 23 it to you if you wanted it. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Then my second 25 question goes back to discussions we've had earlier. I 7-14-03 151 1 still don't know how Groves and Associates got a contract 2 with the County, and what that contract is that we -- how 3 did we select Groves and Associates? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We selected -- it was 5 selected early on by the river authority who put up the 6 matching funds for engineering purposes. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have a -- I 8 don't have a warm feeling about that. I don't -- I don't 9 have a good feeling that -- that, with all the engineering 10 service firms that can provide this kind of work, that 11 Groves and Associates is the right one to do it, and the 12 proper processes and procedures have been followed to select 13 them. I know they worked for U.G.R.A. a long time, and -- 14 and U.G.R.A. spent a lot of money with them. And I don't 15 have a good feel for how they selected Groves and 16 Associates, either. This doesn't feel right to me. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I seem to recall they 18 went through the proper processes for the selection of them 19 in the original development of their long-range master plan 20 for water and wastewater, and that goes back several years. 21 And I believe their board approved the expenditure of the 22 matching funds and selected Groves for this project. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. In earlier 24 discussions, we were told that Groves and Associates had 25 sold to Tetra Tech. Is Groves and Associates a subsidiary 7-14-03 152 1 of Tetra Tech? Is that deal off, or was that bad 2 information or what? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Far as I know, Groves 4 is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tetra Tech. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all I've got. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- Groves probably -- 7 I mean, I presume that Groves can sign on the -- the name is 8 still in existence and the entity still exists; it just is a 9 subsidiary of a different company. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And Brad Groves, I 11 think, is the executive vice president for this area, and he 12 executes the contracts. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there additional 14 engineering work under this contract? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There will be 16 additional engineering work. There's additional engineering 17 work that's got to be done for the phase we're about to 18 enter into, and this is for the subsequent phase that's 19 coming up later. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why is everybody looking 21 at me? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I said why are they 24 looking at me? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. 7-14-03 153 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I wasn't. Do I need to? Any 2 further questions or discussion? All in favor of the 3 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 4 (Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz voted in favor of the motion.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6 (Commissioner Nicholson voted against the 7 motion.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next 9 item of business is consider and discuss review of 2003-'04 10 budget schedule and consider setting workshops concerning 11 the '03-'04 budget. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Calendar. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was waiting for the 14 Judge to say -- he started -- he said he'd turn it over to 15 me. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, sure. I'm sorry, 17 Commissioner Letz. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just waiting. Judge, may 19 I ask -- the reason I put this on the agenda was so we can 20 set up some budget workshops, because my schedule for July 21 and August is getting very full. And I thought that it made 22 sense to me to wait until after we received the recommended 23 budget from the Judge. So, my first question would be, 24 Judge, when do you think we will get the recommended budget? 25 And then -- well -- 7-14-03 154 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I can't give you a definitive 2 date at this point in time. I'm holding my one-on-ones with 3 the various elected officials and department heads. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is the -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I can assure you that if 6 there's a deadline under the law that I've got to lay it on 7 the table by, I'll make that deadline. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, my concern is that 9 there's ample time for -- you know, for me and for, I 10 presume, the rest of the Commissioners, if they want to, to 11 go through the budget with the elected officials. And it 12 doesn't make a whole lot -- and any changes that will be 13 made to your recommended budgets, I think, will be done, in 14 my mind, at that time. And the criticism that we've had in 15 the past is that they weren't aware of -- of any changes. 16 And I like the fact that we're doing these workshops later 17 in the process so they would be aware and have input into 18 any changes that the Court makes, but we need something to 19 start off -- I mean, to work off of to make a worthwhile 20 exercise. Just my viewpoint. I don't know how the rest of 21 the Commissioners feel about it. But, I mean, it's -- you 22 know, we're looking at 1st of August, do you think? Or 23 middle of August? Or -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I'd say somewhere between 25 those two dates. 7-14-03 155 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, then I 2 would say, from a planning standpoint, starting around the 3 15th of August, try to block out four days between then to 4 do a -- I think, Commissioner Baldwin and Williams, is it 5 about four days to go through -- three or four days, it 6 usually takes, to go through all the budget workshops? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I seem to recall 8 that, yeah. At least three. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thea, what is the -- I 10 was looking for Paula, but you probably know the answer. 11 What are the date deadlines as -- I know we start getting 12 close to a hearing and start backing up as to when things 13 need to be -- 14 MS. SOVIL: It's according to -- it's 15 dependent upon whether you're going to raise taxes or not. 16 There's -- there's -- if you keep the same tax rate, then 17 it's one set of rules. If you raise the taxes, it's another 18 set of rules. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you're going to 20 raise taxes, you have to begin the process earlier? 21 MS. SOVIL: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm thinking we 23 probably -- probably ought to be on the safe side and start 24 it the earlier time, so in case we -- a tax raise was 25 necessary, we could make that deadline. 7-14-03 156 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would be helpful 2 in this discussion to hear what the Judge has in mind. He's 3 talked about one-on-ones. Are you going to do all the 4 one-on-ones, Judge, and then give us a package with your 5 recommendation? Or -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- or what? Okay. 8 Having heard the Judge's plan, so then if we did a series of 9 budget meetings, and we heard from a particular department 10 head, something that you didn't hear -- or didn't agree 11 with, where does that leave us? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My mind -- my mind-set is 13 that I'm trying to figure out how we can go through the 14 budget one time where the elected officials and department 15 heads know their budget. I mean, that's -- know the changes 16 that we're making. I'm guessing -- I'm not positive, but I 17 am guessing that there will be some changes between what was 18 submitted and what the Judge recommends, so there's going to 19 be a difference there. And I would like to have the 20 opportunity for all the elected officials and department 21 heads to come to the Court and say -- to the Court as a body 22 and say, "We don't like the Judge's recommendation," or, "We 23 do like the Judge's recommendation for this reason," and 24 give us a little bit of guidance as we're doing the final 25 tweaking. And that's kind of my mind-set, the way hopefully 7-14-03 157 1 it will work this year once we get the recommended budget 2 from the Judge. So, I -- you know, based on what he said, 3 I'd say we just pick out four dates towards the -- towards 4 the end of August that we can block out as budget workshop 5 dates. 6 MS. SOVIL: That's awful close. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't know that 8 we have a lot of choice. If we're not going to get the 9 budget until close to the 15th, the recommended budget, we 10 can't -- I mean, I think a workshop's pointless if we don't 11 have a recommended budget to work off of. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When do we learn 13 what our tax revenue's going to be? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Generally, it's the tail end 15 of July, first part of August. 16 MS. SOVIL: Law says they have to have it 17 certified by the 24th of July. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the law saying that and 19 getting it that way may be two totally different things. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're usually pretty 21 close. 22 MS. UECKER: Are we going to know what the 23 Judge's recommendations are prior to what you're requesting? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you going to know what my 25 recommendations are? 7-14-03 158 1 MS. UECKER: Yeah. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. Once I prepare the 3 initial proposed budget that the law requires me to do, I'm 4 going to throw it on the table, and it's wide-open at that 5 point. I say it's wide-open. I presume it is. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm very supportive 7 of what Congressman Letz -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Congressman? 9 (Laughter.) 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I appreciate that. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's something I 12 want to tell you. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we get this done 14 before he leaves for Washington? 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 16 (Discussion off the record.) 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We need a lot of 18 time with the -- with the department heads and elected 19 officials, and if you say four days is a lot of time, you've 20 got that experience. I want to go over it with them and ask 21 questions, and I expect that changes would be made. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. August 19, 23 20, 21, and 22? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four days right in a row 25 are bad for me. 7-14-03 159 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: August 19, 20? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What days of the week 4 are those? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tuesday and Wednesday. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The following 7 Tuesday-Wednesday? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, hold on. Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What are those 10 dates? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be 26th and 12 27th. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll be here. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thea, are those too far 15 back? I think it's okay still. 16 MS. SOVIL: It's -- a lot has to do with when 17 the Judge gets his presented and we get it disseminated 18 through the department heads so that they have an 19 opportunity to look at it before the budget workshop. I'd 20 hate to see them get it the day they're supposed to come in. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could we move the 22 26th and 27th back to the week before the 19th? The 22nd 23 and 23rd? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You mean the -- 25 MS. SOVIL: You might start on a Friday. The 7-14-03 160 1 15th? 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about Friday, the 4 15th? How about the -- 5 MS. SOVIL: And then Friday the 22nd. That 6 would give you four days. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 15th, 22nd -- 8 MS. SOVIL: No, 15th, 19th, 20th, and 22nd. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15, 19 -- what? 10 MS. SOVIL: 20 and 22. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How does -- I mean, in 12 the past, we've -- this usually conflicts with judicial 13 responsibilities for the Judge. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: The only one I got a problem 15 with there is on Tuesday, the 19th, in the morning. 16 MS. SOVIL: We could start them, like, at 17 1:30 in the afternoon, or 10:30, 11:00. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Start them at some -- just on 19 Tuesday at 10:30, that would be all right. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we start them 21 all at 10 o'clock? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: What you got to understand is 23 my -- my -- at that point, I'll be a lot like the fifth 24 wheel, except for any questions y'all may have of me of how 25 I arrived at what I arrived at. And -- 7-14-03 161 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, yeah. I anticipate 2 that, though. I mean, I would like -- I mean, I view that 3 as the opportunity to hear your -- I mean, if there's a 4 difference, I mean, I would think that if you're in 5 agreement and elected officials are in agreement at that 6 point, it's pretty much everyone -- I mean, pretty good 7 agreement. But it's the differences where, you know, I 8 think discussion is going to be helpful, to me. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Judge, there is one thing we 10 don't want to forget, that we -- we do have a 15-day 11 notification period from the time that the budget is 12 actually proposed; we have to file it for 15 days for public 13 view before -- before it's finalized. So the sooner, in my 14 mind, the better. As -- from a tax hearing standpoint, from 15 what I can see right now, the -- the preliminary numbers 16 look like that we're going to have, like, a 2 and a half 17 percent increase in value, 2 and a half to 3 percent, so 18 that probably will not require us to have what's called a 19 notice of a hearing for the tax rate. So that hearing, 20 unless you -- unless you increase taxes, probably would not 21 have to have a hearing for that purpose. Because the thing 22 that's -- with that small an increase in value, the -- the 23 effective rate probably won't go beyond the 3 percent. In 24 other words, if you go beyond 3 percent effective rate, then 25 you have to have a notice of hearing about the change in 7-14-03 162 1 effective rate. But, from what I see so far, we're not 2 going to have enough change. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. I'll make a 4 motion that we set budget workshops for August 15th, 19th, 5 20th, 22nd, each day starting at 10 a.m. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was that, the 19th? 8 MS. SOVIL: Starting at what? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10:00. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: It's okay -- 10:00's okay. I 11 may be 30 minutes late. Any further questions or 12 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 13 your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Next item, 18 consider and discuss approval to negotiate new contract with 19 U.G.R.A. concerning the administration of Kerr County 20 O.S.S.F. Rules and regulations. I'll turn this over to 21 Commissioners in Precinct 3 and 4. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was the author of it. 23 I'll start out with this. This is the -- I guess, in a 24 nutshell, what the joint committee agreed upon as a starting 25 point. And that doesn't say that we're going to have a 7-14-03 163 1 contract with U.G.R.A. definitely, but if we can work out 2 the terms subject to the recommendations set forth, we would 3 have a contract at that point. And I'll just read through 4 it. The basic parameters that we -- that we set early on in 5 the committee was that both Kerr County and U.G.R.A. desire 6 to maintain the authorized agent status. That being said, 7 there should be one set of O.S.S.F. rules for all of Kerr 8 County, and there should be one administrator of O.S.S.F. 9 rules for all of Kerr County. Based on some changes that 10 have been made at U.G.R.A., and also some -- I guess the 11 result of the committee work, the recommendation is that we 12 attempt to enter into a contract for U.G.R.A. to administer 13 the O.S.S.F. program for one year. The first -- we're 14 actually hoping it will be more than one year, but it's kind 15 of a trial one year, with a 120-day out clause. 16 The basic things that need to be ironed out 17 and the details, the cost of the administration of the 18 O.S.S.F. program will be proportionately shared based on the 19 actual workload, which means inspections, permits, et 20 cetera. And these will be tracked by using R numbers 21 supplied by the Appraisal District. So, basically, if 22 80 percent of the work is done in the county, then if 23 there's a -- if they have a budget loss or shortfall, we pay 24 80 percent of whatever that shortfall is. If there's a 25 surplus, we'd get 80 percent of the surplus. Each party 7-14-03 164 1 will bear their proportionate costs. Pretty simple. This, 2 you know, may or may not be a substantial change in the 3 program analysis. We're trying to figure out the budget 4 impact of this, if this is approved by the Court. 5 Second point is that U.G.R.A. and the County 6 will develop a new fee structure, and also expenditure 7 structure, and expenditure structure is aimed at really 8 trying to see if we can cut back on some of the 9 expenditures, cut back and reduce the cost of administering 10 the program, something both parties would have to agree to. 11 Next point is the O.S.S.F. program enforcement will be 12 enhanced, and this will be enhanced using data from the 13 Appraisal District related to new construction, to make sure 14 they're in compliance. Kerr County and U.G.R.A. will 15 develop an informational, educational pamphlet to be 16 available to the public. And I probably should have said 17 emphasis to public, to realtors, and people that are -- 18 Chamber of Commerce, people that are buying property. And 19 in that, it will be state, period -- it will be recommended 20 that there is a real -- an inspection upon real estate 21 transfers. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again, 23 please? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There will be, in the 25 pamphlet, a recommendation that anyone buying property get 7-14-03 165 1 the O.S.S.F. inspected at that time, but it will be 2 voluntary. Kerr County and U.G.R.A. will look into 3 developing an assistance program to clean up failing 4 systems, which I think is -- I think I mentioned this once 5 before, that there is some sort of a grant or guaranteed 6 loan or something. I don't think we'll probably have that 7 in place immediately, but I think this is something we would 8 like to strive to get to. We also feel that if we can come 9 up with some money, there's probably some grant funds 10 available to help with that. The initial agreement will be 11 for a one-year trial basis. Either party may opt out of the 12 agreement with 120 days notice. 13 Kerr County Commissioners Court will be more 14 directly involved in the appeal process. Based on our last 15 committee meeting, if there is an appeal from what the 16 Designated Representative, whatever his determination is, we 17 will probably let the -- Greg Edder, the General Manager at 18 U.G.R.A., try to resolve it in about a two-week period, and 19 at that point it comes straight to the Commissioners Court. 20 It will not go through the U.G.R.A. board or anything like 21 that, but there would be a period so that the U.G.R.A. is 22 aware of it before it comes to us. All correspondence and 23 literature will be on Kerr County Commissioners Court 24 letterhead. And U.G.R.A. will present, on a regular basis, 25 status reports to the Commissioners Court. So, those are 7-14-03 166 1 the basic points. Stuart's in the room -- Barron's in the 2 room. I believe I have captured everything that we had 3 discussed at our final meeting? He's nodding. 4 MR. BARRON: Yes, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, Commissioner 6 Nicholson? Do you have anything else to add? 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's see. The -- 8 I'm looking at our agenda. The -- the discussion of the 9 rules changes is a separate item. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, separate item. 11 This is just -- this is just the contract, who's going to 12 administer the program, whatever the rules end up being. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just a couple of 14 comments. First, I want to say that Commissioner Letz 15 has -- has taken the lead on this and done a whole lot of 16 the work, and I feel pretty good about the recommendations 17 we're making here today. I don't like all of them. When 18 you're working in a four-member committee, you're not going 19 to like everything that comes out of it. I'm sure that the 20 other three members would like to change one or two things 21 on here, and I would also. I -- I continue to believe that 22 Kerr County can administer this O.S.S.F. and floodplain 23 program, and do it at a lower cost and do a good job of it 24 than can U.G.R.A. However, that's a compromise that I'm 25 willing to wait -- to make, particularly with this -- with 7-14-03 167 1 this provision that if it mires down again and it's not 2 working again, we have -- we have an out from the contract, 3 120 days notice or something like that. So, that -- all 4 that is to say that any one of us would have probably 5 written a different set of recommendations, slightly 6 different, but these are -- these are good, and they're 7 workable. And the changes that I've seen in the way the 8 U.G.R.A.'s doing business give me some confidence that we 9 can iron out the problems we've had in the past. That's my 10 view of it. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I understand 12 correctly. Basically, on the -- on the allocation of the 13 costs, U.G.R.A. will be charged for any costs associated 14 with any system that is within 1,500 feet of the river or 15 its major tributaries, as they defined them, and -- and if a 16 system is in that location, the costs associated with that 17 particular system will be charged to them. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Correct? Now, what about the 20 revenues generated? Likewise, it will be offset -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: -- to that? Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one minor 24 correction, Judge. The rivers and tributaries is determined 25 by the U.S.G.S., which is essentially very -- very much the 7-14-03 168 1 same as it has been in the past, but it's not an arbitrary 2 determination by the U.G.R.A. It's determined by the 3 U.S.G.S. map. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: How does that differ from the 5 U.G.R.A. map that identifies the river and, I believe -- 6 what is it, 39 major tributaries? 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Hardly any 8 difference, if any. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: In terms of the named -- the 10 named or designated tributaries and their length or -- 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And their length. 12 The dotted line that the U.S.G.S. puts on the map indicates 13 the flowing stream is the criteria that's used. Only reason 14 I'm making -- have anything to say about this is I want 15 people who live out there on those tributaries to know that 16 it's not an arbitrary decision; it's a U.S.G.S. map. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- the maps show a 19 dotted blue line for a spring and a solid blue line. We're 20 using the solid blue line. Where the -- where the -- which 21 means that it's a -- according to that map, it's a permanent 22 flowing stream, even though in many cases they're not 23 permanent-flowing. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: And the dotted blue is an 25 intermittent stream? 7-14-03 169 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. So we're using the 2 permanent blue line on the maps. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As opposed to dotted? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As opposed to dotted. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How does that -- does 6 that match up with the -- the streams that are identified in 7 their authorized agent documents? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, we're using the 9 streams set forth, and then using the blue line. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: All those same 11 streams will be in there. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we're not going to 13 have to argue later on about a stream? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Length of them may 16 vary a little bit. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I want to 18 commend you both for taking the time and doing the work, and 19 I am pleased to see that we're going to continue to attempt 20 to make our program operable and administering it through 21 the river authority and the designated representative of our 22 choice. So, I appreciate that very much. I have some 23 comments which I think I will reserve until we get into the 24 next agenda item, but it does -- it does tie -- my comments 25 do tie in with what I will submit to the Court in a few 7-14-03 170 1 minutes; probably ties into your anticipated form -- one, 2 two, three -- bullet number four. But I'll reserve comments 3 for later. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the contract, do 5 you -- present contract, it shows that the County sends 6 $30,000 over to U.G.R.A. Do you see that that will continue 7 with that particular number? 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Go up. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It'll probably go up. 10 But that -- but there won't be a flat -- the contract we 11 worded now is saying we will pay our proportionate cost; it 12 is estimated to be this amount. So, really, the payment -- 13 you know, it will be quarterly or monthly payments, whatever 14 the two financial people think is easier to work out and 15 balance. And then -- and we'll start out with an estimated 16 number the first quarter, and then it will go up or down 17 based on reality. And it's -- which is going to make it 18 difficult to budget for. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we have a 20 worst-case/best-case scenario? 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The simple formula 22 for it is just -- for example, these numbers aren't real -- 23 give you some round numbers. Say it costs $300,000 to 24 operate. Say fees bring in $200,000, and say 80 percent of 25 the -- the activity is in the County's area. That means we 7-14-03 171 1 would owe $80,000 of the $100,000 shortfall. I don't 2 think -- I don't think we're going to owe 80 percent of the 3 shortfall, but I think we'll owe more than the $30,000 that 4 we've been -- I'm guessing we'll owe $60,000 to $70,000 a 5 year. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you got to take a 7 look at the fee structure. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. We're looking at 9 the fee structure. The difficulty comes in the next agenda 10 item. When we change the O.S.S.F. rules, then we really 11 throw out a whole lot of -- we'll throw out all the 12 historical data on fees, so the revenue side becomes very 13 questionable, so you just have to make a best guess. And 14 the same -- yeah, well, and the fee structure, you know, was 15 set up. If the Court agrees, you know, to proceed, I think 16 the timeline would be we want to have this in place, 17 certainly, by next -- beginning of -- or by September 30th. 18 I think there would be periods of coming back to the Court 19 for small approvals, such as the fee structure, once we get 20 a -- we just didn't feel it made any sense for us to really 21 delve into and try to come up with budget numbers and fee 22 structures if the Court didn't agree with the basic concept. 23 So all we're looking at, really, here is the basic concept. 24 And, you know, if the Court doesn't agree, that's fine. We 25 can try to find some other way to do it. 7-14-03 172 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One bullet here says 2 Kerr County Commissioners Court will be more directly 3 involved in the appeals process. What I heard you identify 4 as -- as a general outline of the appeals process was very 5 little different than exists now. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's really -- the 7 difference is there will be a little bit more of a time 8 period -- I'm not sure what the exact process was before; I 9 don't recall it, but there'll be a -- up to a two-week 10 period that a person is going to have to wait if they don't 11 agree with the D.R.'s position. There's, like, a two-week 12 period till it gets to us, and it comes straight to the 13 Commissioners Court as a whole. Before, I believe it went 14 to the U.G.R.A. board at one point, and it doesn't do that 15 any more. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think it ever 17 went to the board. It went to the G.M. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: G.M.? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, so it may not be 21 that much of a change. But it's going to be -- I think a 22 lot of it is awareness to the public that -- you know, that 23 this is -- they're administering it, but it's our program. 24 And if it's appealed, it's appealed to us. I think a lot of 25 people felt that it was -- the County was out of the loop, 7-14-03 173 1 and that's why we're switching letterhead and just trying to 2 make it much more clear to the public that this is the 3 County's O.S.S.F. program. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have any 5 problem with that. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am not sure -- help 7 me understand this. Before we do the next agenda item and 8 have that discussion and do those things, which are part of 9 this document as well, how -- how do you -- how are you 10 going to put together a contract without knowing really what 11 this Court wants to do? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I look at these as 13 totally separate issues. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Judge, I move 15 that we approve for Commissioners 3 and 4 to negotiate a new 16 contract with U.G.R.A. concerning the administration of Kerr 17 County O.S.S.F. Rules and Regulations. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Floodplain? Is that 20 part of it? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Didn't say. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doesn't say that here. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: All right. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: You never know where 25 negotiations might lead. It may include that by the time 7-14-03 174 1 you get into the negotiations. Motion's been made and 2 seconded. I want to commend both of you gentlemen for what 3 I know has been a lot of hours and a lot of work that you've 4 put in on this thing. And I realize you've got it boiled it 5 down to a pretty concise few points, but I don't think 6 that's representative of the amount of work and time that 7 you put into this thing, which I know this has been a 8 contentious issue ever since I knew what a septic tank was 9 in Kerr County, and that goes back a year or two at least. 10 And I think you deserve to be commended for that effort, and 11 I appreciate it. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. And also, I'd 13 like to give credit to three other people; one, Stuart 14 Barron, who is our current Designated Representative. He 15 got any information we asked for. I'm certain he, I think, 16 rolled his eyes a lot of times; we'd say, "Well, how about 17 giving us rules for all the surrounding counties?" But he 18 did anything we asked, and I appreciate that. And then also 19 the two U.G.R.A. board members, Ronnie Pace and Jerry 20 Ahrens. They put in a lot of hours, likewise. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: My thanks go out to them also, 22 and thank you very much, Stuart. I appreciate your work. 23 MR. BARRON: Thank you. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 25 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 7-14-03 175 1 your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item 6 of business is to consider and discuss proposed new O.S.S.F. 7 Rules and Regulations for Kerr County, as recommended by the 8 joint committee, and setting a public hearing on the same. 9 Commissioners 3 and 4 again. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll take the lead on 11 this one. And this is a -- the -- I guess everyone working 12 together gets a little bit further apart when it gets to 13 this item; we're not quite in as much agreement. What I 14 have done was taken, I guess, the overall consensus of the 15 committee and put it into a new order form so we can see 16 what we're really talking about. And my recommendation 17 would be, even if there's -- you know, unless there's 18 just -- everyone thinks we're -- I'm an idiot for putting it 19 together this way, in which case we can start over, but to 20 go to a public hearing. I think we're at a point we really 21 need to get public input. And the way this is drafted is to 22 guarantee the maximum public input, for two reasons. 23 Section 10 currently has a mandatory real estate transfer. 24 That entire verbiage that's in there has been deleted, and 25 real estate transfers or requirement for an inspection at 7-14-03 176 1 real estate transfer is completely deleted. 2 Section 10, though, is not blank. You will 3 notice that there's a reference to Subchapter A, a 4 general -- general provisions, Section 285.3. And this is 5 the paragraph in Section 285 that grants the 10-acre 6 exemption. Now, I took it out exactly as it's written. The 7 way it's worded right now, we are eliminating the 10-acre 8 exemption, so that all new systems would be required to be 9 licensed systems, and any major repairs to a system or, you 10 know, anything that would trigger a -- not really major 11 repair. Major repairs could, but also if you add on to a 12 house, anything that now requires a licensed system, you 13 know, on a small tract is required on a large tract of land. 14 The reason this -- my -- two reasons; then 15 I'll turn it over to Dave. One, for getting rid of the real 16 estate transfer. Based on my time and studying this for the 17 past couple of months, I do not believe there is any way to 18 do a real estate -- or inspection of any septic system 19 without doing -- or making it very intrusive and costly to 20 the person doing the -- having the inspection done. You 21 cannot inspect a septic system by a surface -- by walking 22 over the surface. You may find a nuisance system by doing 23 that, but you can't -- you're really not doing anything. 24 You don't know if the system's working or not, and I don't 25 see that there's any way -- from talking with Stuart and 7-14-03 177 1 others, that there's any way really to do a viable 2 inspection upon real estate transfer without doing an 3 intrusive, very expensive inspection. 4 And the other side of it is, if you go to 5 10-acre exemption, if you look at the -- what's spelled out 6 on the -- in the Section 10 presented, A, B, C, and D, I 7 suspect that the majority of the properties probably don't 8 qualify for all of those. Especially -- and it's the last 9 one -- the single-family dwelling is the only dwelling 10 located on the tract of land. Most of the large tracts have 11 multiple septic systems on them, and for that reason -- and 12 I don't think the installers are being real up-front with 13 people, and I think they're going out there from a -- trying 14 to get the work or whatever. And we got this from meeting 15 with the installers, that they're not telling the public 16 what Section 10 really says, and they're going out there and 17 saying, "Oh, you're over 10 acres; you're exempt." So, I 18 think there's a lot of things being done improperly, not 19 because people are trying to circumvent the system; they 20 don't know what the rules are. So, I thought it would be 21 best to eliminate that exemption. 22 I think that by doing the public hearing 23 based on what is presented, we will hear from the real 24 estate community, if they are unhappy, and I think we'll 25 hear from the large landowner communities, if they're 7-14-03 178 1 unhappy, and I suspect we'll hear from both. But I -- 2 that's just kind of where I came down. Commissioner? 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree with 4 Commissioner Letz that the current Section 10, the real 5 estate transfer inspection, is not effective in protecting 6 the environment, and it is expensive, and potentially will 7 be a lot more expensive if we attempted to make it an 8 effective inspection. The second part of it is the -- the 9 eliminating the 10-acre exemption. I've had quite a bit of 10 trouble with doing that, and it begins with the premise 11 that -- that these large tracts are not damaging the 12 environment. They could have a problem out there in the 13 middle of a 10-acre tract, and it would not impact our 14 groundwater or the neighbors', most likely. It's another 15 one of those compromises that are necessary to make progress 16 and move forward on this. I'm willing to support the 17 elimination of the 10-acre exception, and I understand that 18 this is not going to impact the current large landowners. 19 We're not going to be going out there and digging up their 20 septic systems. It's just from here on out, we're putting 21 everybody -- whether you got 5 acres or you got 5,000 acres, 22 you're going to meet the same requirements for septic 23 systems. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- and I 25 failed to mention the grandfather provision of this. If you 7-14-03 179 1 are -- if you have one -- you know, 100 acres and you have 2 10 septic systems on it right now, and even though it was 3 all done not appropriately, you're grandfathered. But if 4 you go out there and upgrade one of those, that one system, 5 you know, has to be -- or if you go out there and do the 6 house where that one system is, and you double the size of 7 that house, then that one system has to be upgraded, but the 8 rest of them do not. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How are you going to 10 know that happened? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How are you going to know 12 that they upgraded? That's just -- hopefully through the 13 appraisal records. I mean, that's the -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good question. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the installers -- I 16 mean, if you upgrade it, the installers are going to be 17 doing it, and they're going to -- they're going to be, I 18 guess, in jeopardy with their license if they're doing 19 things illegally. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Yeah, big deal. 21 The -- I love the idea of putting arms around the Appraisal 22 District and start using that as one of the tools. It just 23 -- I can't get it out of my mind, though, that somehow we 24 need to -- we need to inspect -- you know, I know -- I know 25 once -- I mean, I know this as well as anybody in this room. 7-14-03 180 1 Once you start inspecting, it's a slippery slope, quote, 2 unquote, and it never ends. I mean, you tear up people's 3 yards, you dig up their entire lines. Do you pull up the 4 tank and inspect the underneath, make sure it's not broken 5 under there? I don't know how far you'd go. I don't know, 6 but it seems like to me that they're -- I don't know. It 7 just seems like to me that we need to have some kind of 8 inspection that says, yes, this is a good system. No, this 9 is not a good system. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we can find a way to 11 do it, that's the issue. That's the question I have. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you know, we've 13 been doing it, kind of. You know, to what extent do you -- 14 what extent is the inspection? Do you pull off the top and 15 just stick your head down in the tank and look around? 16 Or -- or is it those other things that I just listed? I 17 mean, how far do you go with it? I don't know. It just -- 18 it just seems to me we need to do something. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Stuart provided to 20 us a procedure that will result in an effective inspection, 21 and on the -- Stuart can talk to this better -- a whole lot 22 better than I can, of course. On the septic system that I 23 have at my house, that I built in 1997, if I were to sell my 24 house and a full, complete inspection is required, they 25 would dig somewhere between 9 and 14 holes and tear up a 7-14-03 181 1 whole lot of landscaping, ruin my lawn, just generally make 2 a mess of things, and I'm guessing it would cost me a couple 3 -- or the buyer, whichever, a couple thousand dollars. It's 4 unnecessary. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if -- well, let 6 me go one more -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if -- what if 9 it's -- it is truly failed? Whatever "failure" means. What 10 if it's truly failed and we don't catch it, and, I mean, 11 it's really damaging the environment? Your 2,000 bucks, you 12 know, is not as important as the -- I mean, as the -- 13 flooding the river with effluent. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I agree. I think 15 the -- there's two things that I see we have going forward 16 to getting inspections done with us out of the loop, the 17 main one being with current real estate contracts and 18 disclosure information. If you have realtors involved, 19 there's a certain amount of disclosure that has to come out, 20 and sign off things are working to the best of your 21 knowledge. So there's a little bit there, you know, on the 22 -- that side with the realtors. You also have lending 23 institutions that are getting more and more involved in it 24 because of an issue, so they're kind of encouraging it too. 25 And I think that if we encourage people to do it, they'll at 7-14-03 182 1 least know to ask the question. And then as soon as, you 2 know, someone has -- you know, first -- as soon as they ask 3 a question, if they get lied to, well, then there's other 4 recourse they have against whoever they bought the property 5 from. If -- if you don't have realtors involved, I think 6 it's a little bit more difficult. But the other -- the 7 other thing -- the problem I have with the inspections, say 8 you do a -- you don't do -- you don't tear up the whole 9 yard; you just go out there, kind of walk around, say it's 10 okay. Well, then all of a sudden -- we've had this happen, 11 too -- all of a sudden, you have an individual relying on 12 the County that's saying this system is good, and then the 13 system fails. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-huh. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And all of a sudden, 16 they're relying on -- you know, on an inadequate inspection 17 and they're saying, well -- come to us and say, "Well, you 18 said it was good last year." And I think that's -- you 19 know, that's almost -- that's another situation I'm trying 20 to avoid. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That happened. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. 23 MR. BARRON: Maybe I can address some of 24 those questions. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me just -- just a 7-14-03 183 1 second, Stuart. Let me get my two cent's worth in here. 2 Comes as no surprise to any of you, I happen to agree with 3 Commissioner Baldwin about the value of real estate 4 inspections. I understand the arguments that you've put up 5 about the fact that they may not be the most effective way 6 and that we may have unnecessary -- may be unnecessarily 7 putting somebody to some level of expense. But I don't 8 think, over the long haul, that the elimination of it has 9 any great relative value to Kerr County. 10 However, having said all that, mama didn't 11 raise a total idiot; I see the train leaving the station on 12 Section 10. But I think we're missing something here, and 13 if we're going to abandon -- if this Court's going to 14 abandon inspections at the time a piece of property changes 15 hands, one of the things that we're losing in that whole 16 equation is that we're failing to gather up and catalog 17 information about septic systems in Kerr County; where they 18 are, how many are there, and everything else that's relevant 19 to them. You make some -- you make some reference about 20 obtaining information from the Appraisal District. Well, 21 that's fine. That's new construction, and then you catalog 22 all the new ones. But you haven't done -- we haven't done 23 anything in this process that I'm hearing so far in being 24 able to determine how many others are out there and what is 25 their relative -- relative condition. 7-14-03 184 1 I've spoken long and loud about Kerr County 2 becoming a buyer-beware county, and I really feel strongly 3 about that, but I'm willing to -- to back away from it to 4 the extent that we do something that makes a buyer be aware. 5 And, in that context, I'm going to propose some language for 6 you -- for your consideration, for the Court's 7 consideration, that would set up a basis for the buyer 8 learning about the septic system that he or she is going to 9 acquire without having an inspection, and it would be 10 that -- what this document sets out is that there be no 11 transfer rule or inspection or permitting required at the 12 transfer of property, but we would ask a policy to get 13 information regarding septic to -- and notice to buyers, but 14 call it a "buyer be aware" as opposed to "buyer beware." 15 And in that process, all existing septics which have not 16 been permitted or registered would be required to report at 17 the time of transfer and register, without inspection, at 18 any time the owner -- desired by the owner, but required at 19 any transfer of ownership. And the owner could, if he 20 desired to do so, permit the septic, but he would not be 21 required to permit the septic. 22 The advantage of that permit is to -- is to 23 confirm compliance with septic rules. If a septic is 24 permitted, report on transfer of ownership will be required. 25 A report would include the names of the seller, the buyer, a 7-14-03 185 1 legal description of the property, permit registration 2 number, and any other pertinent information that's relative 3 to it, but you're still not having to have it inspected 4 prior to certifying that. The notice would be provided by 5 the seller of the property to the buyer of the property, 6 with the buyer being required to sign the notice, similar to 7 a notice which is required in the utility districts. The 8 notice would state that the buyer is responsible for the 9 O.S.S.F. rules of Kerr County. I understand that the buyer 10 is assuming the responsibility of the septic system and its 11 compliance with Kerr County rules. The seller would affirm 12 that the seller's knowledge -- to the seller's knowledge, 13 that the septic is not malfunctioning, and the buyer would 14 agree to report any subsequent malfunctioning if he 15 discovered same. The notice will be filed with the County 16 Clerk or -- and the Designated Representative. 17 Those are kind of the -- that's kind of a 18 broad brush of it, and I've attempted to put in some 19 language because I think it's important that we find a way 20 to catalog all systems and know what we've got out there so 21 that we can begin the process of dealing with them when it 22 comes time to deal with them. So, I'll offer it to you for 23 your consideration. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just as you're going 25 through it, when you say "permitted," you mean licensed, 7-14-03 186 1 correct? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. If I misspoke, 3 that's what -- licensed. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, this -- licensed. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stuart, want to see a 6 copy of it? 7 MR. BARRON: Sure. Please, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- your thought on 9 this would be that -- I guess, where would it be? Where 10 would this be? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At the title company. 12 I guess, when you're signing the documents and changing 13 property, be a couple documents that would be executed at 14 the time of transfer. Notice to the seller and notice to 15 the buyer. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my -- I don't 17 have a -- a problem with it, but I'm probably looking to the 18 Judge for -- from a legal guidance standpoint. I mean, we 19 can ask them to hand it out; we can make them aware and 20 available to the public, but I don't know that we -- could 21 we require, under our powers? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Given the authority by the 23 State Legislature, we could, but I'm not aware of any 24 specific authority. You mentioned a while ago the seller's 25 disclosure notice, and what we're talking about in large 7-14-03 187 1 measure is residential properties. There's a provision of 2 the Property Code, I believe it's 5.081, thereabouts -- it's 3 either Chapter 3 or Chapter 5; I believe it's in 5 -- which 4 requires a seller of the property to give a disclosure 5 concerning his knowledge about the property, and also any 6 knowledge of any defects or malfunctioning or anything 7 that's not working, and there is an inquiry about sewer 8 systems. And, you know, that is a state law requirement on 9 transactions that that applies to, and basically it applies 10 to residential property. There are some exceptions where 11 it's not required, that -- for example, if a -- if a 12 property is being sold by a mortgagee who's foreclosed, if 13 it's being sold by a trustee in bankruptcy, if it's being 14 sold by an executor/administrator of an estate, instances 15 where -- where the one selling the property, it's pretty 16 well-known they don't have knowledge. They're in there 17 'cause they didn't -- you know, they were forced to be 18 there. But there's a requirement under that particular 19 seller's disclosure requirement. Whether or not we would 20 have the authority to mandate to licensed realtors or to 21 title insurance companies, escrow closing agents to utilize 22 this, I have serious, serious reservations if we would. But 23 I -- but I think -- I think this issue that you're going to 24 is, in large measure, already addressed under state law 25 under that particular provision of the Property Code. 7-14-03 188 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think you 2 could -- through a pamphlet, you could stress this, which 3 was, I think, the intent of the committee, was that you try 4 to get a -- an official-looking, you know, pamphlet; not 5 something Xeroxed and folded together, something that's 6 printed. And get it to the title companies, get it to the 7 Chamber of Commerce, get it to the realtors, and -- you 8 know, and ask if they will hand this out and, you know, make 9 something like this -- either include it in it or part of 10 it. I mean, tell them if -- if you're a septic system, we 11 really recommend you get it inspected. But I think it 12 should still be, you know, voluntary. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If I understand, 14 this satisfies part of what Commissioner Williams is after, 15 but it doesn't build -- it doesn't continue to build a 16 database. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And how is the 20 database useful to us? In protecting the environment? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I would defer 22 to Stuart on the answer to that question, because I think -- 23 I think -- I personally think it's important to know where 24 every septic is and, to the extent possible, that you can 25 determine its condition. 7-14-03 189 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to know 2 that. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can you throw a 4 little more light on it, Stuart? This is new to him. He's 5 not seen this. Okay? 6 MR. BARRON: First of all, I'd like to thank 7 y'all for being at the committee and -- and looking at a 8 bunch of different ideas that we have. And this is not the 9 first draft of something like this that we -- that I propose 10 that we get the buyer to sign, or -- and the seller to sign. 11 However, we didn't feel that we -- that we could force any 12 real estate entity to make a buyer or a seller sign any 13 document. So, the next best step was to make a -- a flyer, 14 like Commissioner Letz was saying, that just notified 15 everybody. And we would have it on -- on all the -- just 16 everywhere; at the Chamber of Commerce, at all the title 17 companies, all the real estate companies, telling the buyers 18 -- just ask the question, "What about the septic system?" 19 We would still have a fee structure where we 20 could go out and inspect all the septic systems. If a buyer 21 wanted to get them inspected, they can do it through us or 22 they can hire an individual from out of the county to do 23 this inspection. If they wanted your Designated 24 Representative to do it, the only inspection that we would 25 do -- we would not go out there and tell them if it was 7-14-03 190 1 working. We'd go out there and tell them if it met state 2 standards. The definition of "working" is not defined in 3 any of our -- in any of our documents. We do, however, have 4 the definition of does it meet state standards? Does it 5 have Schedule 40 pipe? Is the drainfield long enough? Is 6 it deep enough? Too deep? Is it in solid rock? Most 7 septic -- well, almost all septic systems, about one-third 8 of treatment happens in the tank and two-thirds of it 9 happens out in the drainfield. And if we don't get to 10 digging the drainfield and we just walk over the surface, 11 the surface of the drainfield, that's where it's somewhat of 12 a disservice, just by looking in the tank and seeing is the 13 tank holding water or not, 'cause we're really not being 14 able to -- to say yes, this is a working septic system. 15 As far as making a database of all the septic 16 systems, it's a good idea to have that. We did, at one 17 time -- when they had the 25-acre exemption, it did get 18 people to come in and apply for an exemption. It really 19 didn't do anything. It -- you came and you applied for 20 exemption. You got the exemption, you could go do what you 21 wanted to do. We don't have anything in those files. They 22 came in, they got an exemption number, they wrote down why 23 they were exempt, we gave them the exemption. We didn't 24 track what they put in there. We really don't -- we don't 25 want to track a lot of what goes in there, 'cause there's no 7-14-03 191 1 inspection done. Somebody sends us the paperwork, you go up 2 there and you pull one of our files, and it's got the design 3 in it, the design criteria. You assume that that was put in 4 the ground. We don't -- we can't certify any of those on 5 any of the exempt properties. So, unless an inspector goes 6 out there and verifies what we have in our files, it is not 7 valuable to us. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not valuable? 9 MR. BARRON: No, sir, 'cause anybody can 10 falsify or just not represent it properly. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the way you're 12 talking about, I agree with that. It's probably true; it 13 probably does -- some of the information is probably 14 suspect. But if, at the time of transfer, you require the 15 buyer and the seller to execute a document, the buyer 16 identifying -- the seller identifying the system and 17 certifying in writing, to the best of his knowledge, this 18 system is functioning -- 19 MR. BARRON: I agree with that 20 wholeheartedly, but we don't have a vehicle to make the 21 buyer or the seller do that. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm wondering 23 out loud -- County Attorney's not here. I'm wondering out 24 loud if we can put into the Section 10 O.S.S.F. Regulations 25 a requirement, which is in there right now to have it 7-14-03 192 1 inspected -- I don't know why we can't put in, as a 2 substitute for that, that they have to sign a document 3 certifying that they have a system, and what it says is 4 they're certifying it as a functioning system. That's kind 5 of a question mark. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have a problem with 7 that. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You have to certify 9 a lot of things; have to certify that your equipment works 10 right and your foundation's okay. This is a more important 11 item. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One more step. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. If we can do 14 that, I'd -- I'd sure support that. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the thing is, 16 you go back to -- I mean, he just got through saying to us 17 that there is no definition for "working." 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't say 19 "working" in there. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's no definition 21 for "failure," you know. I mean, what would you be 22 certifying it to do, then? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Notice of the 24 transfer will state the buyer is responsible. The buyer 25 would be responsible for compliance with the O.S.S.F. rules 7-14-03 193 1 of Kerr County. That's pretty straightforward. I'm buying 2 a property and I'm saying by my signature here, yeah, I 3 understand what they are, and I am in compliance with them. 4 And he further assumes responsibility for the septic system 5 and its compliance with the rules. And the seller is 6 affirming, to the sellers' knowledge, the O.S.S.F. is not 7 malfunctioning. Doesn't say that it was -- that didn't say 8 that it is in compliance. He's saying, I'm selling you this 9 piece of property, and I'm telling you that as I sign this 10 document today here, or whatever it is, it has not 11 malfunctioned. It's working at the time of the transfer. 12 And the buyer would agree to report any subsequent 13 malfunction to Kerr County or the Designated Representative 14 when they discover the malfunction. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, any malfunction, I 16 think, would -- you'd get from an installer fixing it. A 17 major malfunction would have to be brought up to license. 18 That part -- I think it maybe has been done. 19 MR. BARRON: How are we going to make the 20 buyer -- excuse me. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is not written 22 in stone. If anybody wants to tool it, make it better, fine 23 and dandy. It's an idea I'm kicking around for discussion. 24 MR. BARRON: The only problem I see is 25 getting the -- the seller -- who's going to get the seller, 7-14-03 194 1 when they've signed that document and they live in Oklahoma 2 and when they're outside of our jurisdiction, of getting 3 them to honor this agreement? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who gets them to sign 5 the papers now? 6 MR. BARRON: No, I mean if they're -- if it's 7 legal; that they know there was a malfunctioning septic 8 system there. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To the best of his 10 knowledge, it's functioning. 11 MR. BARRON: But he lied about it, and say, 12 you know, he said, "I'm going to California anyway." 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Question is, how are 15 we going to enforce it? 16 MR. BARRON: Yes, sir, exactly. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think the intent is 18 not for us to enforce it. It's to make the public be aware 19 of it. And if there's an enforcement action, it gives the 20 buyer a little bit better case for civil action against the 21 seller. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's 23 correct. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not involved in 25 that. All we're doing is saying -- requiring them to sign 7-14-03 195 1 basically a disclosure statement. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's 3 exactly right. It would give a buyer a leg up to civil 4 action, saying, "You told me it was not malfunctioning." 5 That's my compromise offer, Judge. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: What effect would that have on 7 the -- say you got a system that's grandfathered. Any time 8 it's transferred, you would put the onus on both the seller 9 and the buyer to sign such a document? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. Yes, sir, 11 that's what it would do. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Judge looks perplexed 13 now. I mean, I think the -- related to the agenda item, you 14 know, two things can happen now. We can either go forward 15 with the public hearing the way it's written, or if we want 16 to try to come up with some language for that part of 17 Section 10, and then bring it back to the Court. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you telling me that if we 19 don't have that as alternative language in what we're 20 looking at today, it can't be even considered in the public 21 hearing? Wouldn't that be the purpose of a public hearing, 22 to air this thing out? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, yes, but I think 24 that you need to get that on the table so people understand 25 what we're even contemplating. We need to put it of record 7-14-03 196 1 for people to look at the language we're talking about. I 2 mean, I don't have a problem with, you know, taking 3 something out after a public hearing, but I do have a 4 problem with listening to -- having a public hearing and 5 talking about a bunch of things, and not have this even in 6 the document; then, all of a sudden, add this after the 7 public hearing. I don't think that's right. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, this relates to 9 Section 10. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what you're 12 proposing for Section 10, if the Court were to go along with 13 this suggestion. It would be included in the language as 14 published in the paper, the notice of public hearing. 15 That's what we're talking about. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but I think we 17 need to get the exact language put in the document that we 18 put with the County Clerk. I don't think we can do -- just, 19 "Hey, we're thinking of doing something like this," and 20 expect public comment off that. I think we need to have the 21 exact language and put it in the form of -- you know, 22 similar to this, under Section 10, so people can look and 23 say, okay, this is what the Commissioners Court is thinking 24 of doing, and then commenting on it. I mean, it can be done 25 by our next meeting if someone would come up with the 7-14-03 197 1 language. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it could be. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, I think you 4 ought to have -- I think whatever we put for the public 5 hearing ought to be what we are pretty certain we want -- 6 you know, that we're at least -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't want to have 8 a public hearing on a haphazard document. I mean, you want 9 something out there hard and firm for people to look at and 10 advise us, as their representatives, to vote on. Let me 11 change horses just a little bit. I couldn't find it 12 anywhere in there. Did y'all talk about variances and how 13 they come into the picture and how they're used, and -- how 14 they would be used? And -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We -- no. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or would they be used? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess there's always a 18 -- I mean, a chance for a variance, but it's not addressed 19 as to -- you know. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I -- I can tell 21 you, some of the public out there already -- and I'm going 22 to give you a heads-up -- that, by taking Section 10 out and 23 doing tweaking here and there, feel like that that opens the 24 door for more variances, and there's -- there's a large 25 contingent of anti-variance people out there. They want a 7-14-03 198 1 firm set of rules, and we'll live by those rules exactly the 2 way they're written, and -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm one of them. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am too. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that there's -- 7 and I think the -- the variance issue -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bring me some 9 handcuffs over here. Going to end this thing. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- I think 11 there is more likelihood of variance-type issues with the 12 real estate transfer, because it's so ambiguous. I think 13 we're making the rules very clear. If you have a new 14 system, or -- in Kerr County, or a major upgrade to this 15 system, it's licensed, period. There is no variance, the 16 way I look at it. And -- you know, so -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way I look 18 at it too. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- so I wouldn't -- I 20 don't think, I mean, we're doing anything related to 21 variance one way or the other, really. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have had a real 23 estate person in this room before tell us that -- that they 24 -- when they sell a piece of land, they get the buyer and 25 seller to sign a document. They do. And I don't -- I don't 7-14-03 199 1 know if that was universal in Kerr County or just that one 2 real estate person or not. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to see it be 4 universal. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would too, and I 6 think that is one of the answers. I don't know how you do 7 it legally, but maybe not -- you know, it's a strong 8 suggestion, kind of. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me offer a -- 10 just a suggestion here, so you don't end up down a dead 11 alley. If the Court will defer action on the rules until 12 next meeting, I'll get with you two gentlemen and we'll 13 tweak this thing so that everybody can understand what we're 14 trying to talk about, and bring it back. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is there any way 16 to -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got to get with one 18 of you, rather. Can't get with both of you. Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-huh. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is there any way -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: We nearly caught a -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We had them up against 23 the wall for a minute. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dangerously close. 7-14-03 200 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Williams and 2 Nicholson can work out this language. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is there any way to 4 word a motion now that would allow us to -- in the public 5 hearing, to deal with the -- the proposed abolishment of the 6 current Section 10, changing Section 10 to deal with the 7 10-acre exemption and deal with this -- this process? Can 8 we -- can we tack this on to what we're already doing and go 9 ahead and have our public hearing as soon as the law allows? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think -- 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I was asking the County 12 Attorney previously about these timetables. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is he? 14 MS. SOVIL: He's at the State Hospital at 15 hearings. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He's at the State 17 Hospital? 18 MS. SOVIL: He's doing hearings at the State 19 Hospital. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- by 21 delaying this until our -- currently, if we set a public 22 hearing today, the date has to be August 25th. If we delay 23 our action until July 28th, we'll be the first meeting in 24 September, which is -- I can't figure out that -- when's the 25 first meeting in September? 7-14-03 201 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Calendar-man? 2 MS. SOVIL: 8th. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: About the 8th or 15th. 4 Don't take our word for it. The 8th. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Less than two weeks, the 6 public hearing. I mean, just because of the way the 7 calendar falls. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could we now -- to 9 have a -- have a motion and a court order that said we're 10 going to have a public hearing August whatever, and the 11 purpose of the hearing is the abolishment of the current 12 Section 10 requirement for real estate transfer inspection, 13 the abolishment of the -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: 10-acre exemption. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- 10-acre 16 exemption, and the establishment of a process for seller and 17 buyer notification at the time of transfer? Some 18 language -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Make that a motion 20 and I'll second it. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I just did. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I second it. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Somebody tell me what 24 the motion is, then, 'cause I got lost. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Motion is to hold a 7-14-03 202 1 public hearing to -- to -- on the subject of abolishing the 2 real estate transfer inspection requirement, of abolishing 3 the exemption -- 10-acre exemption, and establishing a 4 process for seller and buyer notification upon sale of a 5 property. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When is that public 7 hearing? 25th at 10 o'clock? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in September. 9 MS. SOVIL: 25th at 10:30. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: August 25th? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At 10:30. I'll third 13 the motion. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there discussion now? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. 16 Comments? Questions? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To have a public hearing, 18 we have to be able to present the public with a document to 19 review as to what the language is. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have any 22 language. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, you do. You do 24 have language. It could always be tweaked after the public 25 hearing. 7-14-03 203 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you're saying just add 2 this -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For discussion 4 purposes. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Add this into Section 10? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You could always 7 tweak it, do whatever you want to do with it later, but 8 there you have a basic -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's -- that 10 makes us look foolish, if we put something in there that we 11 know is not going to be the language we use. I don't see 12 the harm in waiting two weeks and deferring until the -- 13 setting the -- I don't mind setting the public hearing so 14 the public's aware for September 8th, and then at our next 15 court meeting, we could finalize the language, and then make 16 it aware to the public; we have 30 days. I don't mind doing 17 that. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we do that? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine with me. But, I 20 mean, I just want to have -- I want us -- the public has to 21 have time to look at the document that we're going to have a 22 hearing on. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. 24 But if we're going to set a public hearing today, we're 25 doing what you said we can't -- we shouldn't do. We're 7-14-03 204 1 offering up a public hearing on a document that's not yet 2 completed. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because we have -- we 4 won't -- we're setting the date, but we'll have two weeks to 5 get the document put together. We don't have the time if we 6 don't do it that way. 7 MR. BARRON: On this particular one, we only 8 need 72 hours to have a public -- to have a public hearing. 9 It has to be published 72 hours in advance, so -- I'm sure 10 of that. 11 (Discussion off the record.) 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, either way, I still 13 want to have the document -- I won't vote for it unless we 14 have a document that we can vote on. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. If we can 16 do it at the next Commissioners Court meeting, firm up our 17 thought structure here, the document -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- for inclusion in 20 the -- into the O.S.S.F. Rules as part of septic, I have no 21 problem. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on 72 hours, we can 23 do it our first meeting in August, and move our schedule up. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll withdraw my 25 motion. Do you want to make another one? 7-14-03 205 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll withdraw the 2 second. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anybody have anything 4 further to offer on this subject? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good god, no. 6 (Laughter.) 7 MR. PLANGMAN: Judge, can I say one thing? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Plangman? Now that all 9 the smoke is cleared and all the blood has been let, you 10 want to come in? 11 MR. PLANGMAN: No, I just want to say one 12 thing. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. 14 MR. PLANGMAN: The -- I was on the ad hoc 15 committee that drew up these rules. Our main concern was 16 the environment of Kerr County. That's all. We weren't 17 trying to penalize anybody. That -- the 10 acres were 18 given -- if somebody owned 10 acres and had one residence on 19 it, they were exempt. Now, if you put two or three on 20 there, then it wouldn't be exempt. But I just want to pass 21 that on; our concern was the environment. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate that, Mr. 23 Plangman. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's the right 25 target. 7-14-03 206 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right. I agree. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can I make one -- one 4 second. Which one of you two gentlemen wants to get with me 5 to refine the rule? 6 (Commissioner Nicholson raised his hand.) 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dave, you and I will 8 meet on that. Okay, Thea? You cool with that, sir? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I am. I am very, 10 very cool. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: We've done Items 18 and 19. 12 Consider and discuss approval of the proposed Community Plan 13 for Kerr County. I put this on here because if we're going 14 to go forward with AACOG and get some more money, we're 15 going to have to -- we're going to have to approve a 16 Community Plan. And Diane Oehler, thank goodness, has 17 worked very, very hard on this, and has done so in past 18 years, working very, very hard on it, in conjunction with -- 19 I don't know whether it's the Sheriff or some of his people; 20 probably some of his people out there, but in large measure, 21 she's obtained other input. But that is the proposed 22 Community Plan which she has presented to me. And -- 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it subject to some 24 additions or corrections? 25 MS. SOVIL: That is the result of a committee 7-14-03 207 1 of all the organizations that -- the support organizations 2 here in this community. They identified the needs which 3 AACOG requires. They have identified what they -- what 4 their goals are, and that represents many, many hours of 5 input from all the different service organizations in town. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that, 7 and I commend them for their efforts. That's good. I just 8 noticed that in some of the -- that some of the 9 identifications, by category, there are some -- there are 10 some employers missing, and there are some -- I don't know. 11 A couple things that come to mind. On the newspapers, 12 there's one newspaper missing. Employers that are under 13 banks, there are some banks missing. 14 MS. SOVIL: I know Diane would appreciate any 15 -- if you want to make notations, and I'll see that she gets 16 it. I'm sure she'll appreciate it. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Restaurants -- 18 there are restaurants that hire significant numbers of 19 people missing. I'm not being critical. I'm just saying 20 that the -- 21 MS. SOVIL: No, I'm sure she'll appreciate 22 it. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's some things 24 that need to be addressed. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would agree on the -- 7-14-03 208 1 in the categories, they should be as inclusive as possible. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't hear y'all 3 saying things like this last year. It's almost the same 4 deal. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under utilities, 6 Bandera Electric serves Kerr County. They're not 7 identified. 8 MS. SOVIL: Yes, sir. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, Judge, 10 what's the -- 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think there's any 12 critical time fuse on this. 13 MS. SOVIL: Yes, there is. We need to get it 14 approved as quickly as possible and get to it AACOG. 15 They're waiting on it. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Can't we 17 approve it subject to some -- the additions to make the 18 various categories as complete as we possibly can? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion and 20 appoint Commissioner Williams to do that. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 23 we approve the Community Plan subject to -- subject to 24 making the major employers as inclusive as possible to be 25 current, with Commissioner Williams to do the update. 7-14-03 209 1 (Discussion off the record.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, what do you have to 3 offer? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Normally, we get to see 5 one of those. I haven't seen it yet this year at all. And 6 there is one dire need in the county, which AACOG does fund 7 and have grants for, and I don't know whether it's in there 8 or not. I just want to make this comment, and that is on a 9 crime victim assistance liaison coordinator that helps with 10 victims of crime, this county's never had one, and it is a 11 -- a need that has definitely come up strong, and can be 12 funded. A lot of your counties do have them. And I didn't 13 know if that's in some of their needs stuff, or if it can be 14 incorporated. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Page 12, Victim Services. 16 "Services to victims of felony crime, of child abuse, of 17 domestic violence, and sexual abuse." 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's for any victim -- 19 actually, they're for any victims of crime. The way this 20 county's operated all these years is each prosecutor's 21 office and both D.A.'s, the County Attorneys, and each law 22 enforcement agency has always had somebody that's just kind 23 of helped volunteer to help process that paperwork and get 24 these victims -- especially if there's hospital bills and 25 you're at the hospital, you go through three or four 7-14-03 210 1 different people, and nobody really knows. Our last double 2 homicide we had, it's actually being helped -- being 3 coordinated by Crime Victim Assistance out of Kendall 4 County, because they had funded a full-time person and 5 they're not getting shifted around, and it's a lot more 6 organized. It's something we have been looking at, and 7 which would free up a lot of time for the prosecutors and 8 that. And there is a grant specifically for that through 9 AACOG, which I think this County should look at strongly, 10 and I didn't know if that was there. That was one of the 11 things we were hoping to get in there, but I haven't been 12 consulted on it yet this year. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would -- Judge, on Page 14 10, the paragraph you just read, would that include that, or 15 do we need to expand that slightly? Under services to 16 victims of felony crimes, do you want to say -- you could 17 say misdemeanor and felony crimes. And that these programs 18 should provide -- maybe have the word "aid" in there. 19 Probably be better on Page 14. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I'm thinking. 21 That's where the major problem is. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Expand that Victim 23 Services paragraph. Or -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll look on the -- the 25 top of Page 13, goal is to provide full spectrum of victim 7-14-03 211 1 service programs; would assist each victim of a crime -- 2 that doesn't distinguish between felony and misdemeanor -- 3 with direct services such as benefit application, 4 counseling, advocacy, provide education to whole community. 5 If there's something in here that the Sheriff has any 6 particular heartburn about, I'd -- 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm looking at it right 8 now for the first time. Again, I'm getting my first look at 9 this, Judge. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just from what I'm 12 looking at, on Page 10 under Victim Services, and 11, and 13 then what you were just stating about 13 may cover a lot. 14 It's just I don't want to knock us out of the possibility of 15 getting help for these victims through some of this grant, 16 and we didn't specify that we would even need it in this 17 county. And we do need it. As long as this is written well 18 enough that it will pass AACOG's deal, that yes, this is one 19 of the priorities. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think 21 Commissioner Williams is going to get with Ms. Oehler. So 22 you've got -- isn't that -- so I think you've got time to 23 get with Mr. Williams and work that out. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: On Victim Services also. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 7-14-03 212 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think the list of 2 major employers is not as incomplete as it appears to be. 3 They're only listing those with 30 or more employees. So, 4 for example, I assume that Mountain Sun has fewer than 30 5 employees. 6 MS. VAN WINKLE: Well, depends on whether you 7 consider it as a group or only one. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just using that as 9 an example. Hotels, I'm assuming they're not in there 10 because they have few -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That may be the case, 12 but there are some other things that need to be addressed. 13 For example, City of Ingram is not there. It's government. 14 One of the school systems, I think -- does Mountain Home 15 have a school system, or is it Divide? 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Divide. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not there. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: About 35 employees. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Several banks are not 20 there. We'll work on it. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think on Page 14, the 22 Victim Services may be written enough in there to take care 23 of that -- 14, number 2, programs that provide services for 24 victims. I think that would probably -- and it's listed as 25 a priority, that that can probably suffice in getting 7-14-03 213 1 eligibility for that grant. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty broad. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, it's pretty broad. 4 (Discussion off the record.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: We got a motion. You made the 6 motion. Commissioner Baldwin seconded it. Any further 7 discussion or comments? All in favor of the motion, signify 8 by raising your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Okay. 13 It's a bit after 3:00, so we'll take a mid-afternoon break, 14 and everybody go gather up their sleeping bag, and we'll 15 come on back here at about -- about 3:25. 16 (Recess taken from 3:14 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.) 17 - - - - - - - - - - 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I'll call the meeting 19 back to order. The next item on the agenda is to consider 20 and discuss the approval of the Kerr County Central 21 Appraisal District's operating budget for 2004. I think 22 we're ahead of the curve, as it were, according to the 23 timetable about approval or disapproval. I think, under the 24 scheme of things, that after they formally adopt it -- it's 25 all set out in here, but after they formally adopt it, then 7-14-03 214 1 we have a specific period of time in which to approve or 2 disapprove. If not, we're deemed to have approved it and so 3 forth. But I wanted to go ahead and get this before you as 4 quickly as possible in order that you might begin 5 considering it. They've set August 5 of this year for a 6 public hearing, and we have 30 days after they adopt the 7 budget, which apparently could not occur before August 5, to 8 pass a resolution that we disapprove it. But I think the 9 quicker we take a look at it and -- and give them our 10 thoughts on it, maybe it might be appropriate. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I make a motion to 12 not approve the budget based on salary increases stipulated 13 in the proposed budget? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a motion. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion that we 17 disapprove the Kerr County Central Appraisal District's 18 proposed operating budget for 2004 based on salary increases 19 as set forth therein. Is that correct? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's correct. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second the motion. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 23 seconded. Do we have any discussion or questions? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I do have a 25 question. The Appraisal Board -- and I ask this question 7-14-03 215 1 every year. The Appraisal Board voted on this budget and 2 then sent it over here. 3 MS. SOVIL: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Board of 5 Appraisers, whatever they call them. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Board of Directors, board 7 members, whatever. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How did our board 9 member vote? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have a clue. 11 MS. SOVIL: Do you want me to call her and 12 ask her to come down? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to have -- 14 I'd like to know how -- how our representative that we -- 15 that we appointed to that board, how that person -- and it's 16 obviously a she -- 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Letz, 18 could you elaborate on -- is it because 6 percent's too 19 high? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. I think that these 21 budgets should be in line with the County increases, and 22 County increases will not be 6 percent, unfortunately. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, they've got 24 some in here, 5, 12, 7. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they're -- it's the 7-14-03 216 1 -- the one that -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Overall increases, 3 across-the-board, it amounts to 6 percent overall increase. 4 Ms. Sovil, do we have our representative en route? 5 MS. SOVIL: She's on her way. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nobody got less than a 7 5 percent. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: For my edification, Ms. Sovil, 9 who is our representative? 10 MS. SOVIL: Paula Rector. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Rector, thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's actually 13 co-chair. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Co-chair. And also, as I 15 recall -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Vice chair. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Vice chair. The reality 18 is that -- I think the director can verify this. The 19 reality is, we have no say because we don't have enough 20 clout or voter strength. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: In response to Commissioner 22 Baldwin's concern, I think this is a -- a budget which they 23 have preliminarily adopted, and for which, according to the 24 transmittal, they've set a public hearing for August 5 to 25 consider it. And, if approved at that hearing, it will take 7-14-03 217 1 effect immediately for the tax year unless the participating 2 agencies, within 30 days thereafter, disapprove it. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we -- we come 4 along and approve or disapprove, and then the Appraisal 5 District Board approves after? Is that what you're saying? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: No. I -- I think, besides 7 today, we have another shot, is what I'm telling you. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see. Okay. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: But this is the budget. They 10 have issued notice of public hearing for August the 5th to 11 consider. 12 MS. RECTOR: The only time it can be vetoed 13 is if all the entities turn it down. If the County says no 14 and the school districts say yes, it's a go. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: For your information, I 16 made a motion and it was seconded to deny approval based on 17 the salary increases. 18 MS. RECTOR: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And my question was 20 how our representative voted, as a member of the -- 21 MS. RECTOR: I did not vote on that. They 22 know how I feel about that. But I think the consensus of 23 the other board members is, if you want good people, you 24 have to pay them. And they've got a real good group of 25 people out there, and I think y'all have the same feeling 7-14-03 218 1 about the County employees. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. We have a great 3 group of people too, and we want to pay them as much as we 4 can, but -- and I don't -- I haven't talked to Commissioner 5 Letz about it, but I'm willing to bet that his thinking and 6 certainly mine is -- is that if we can't afford to pay our 7 employees -- give our employees a salary increase like that, 8 why would we vote to approve some other board to do that? 9 MS. RECTOR: Well, and I agree with you, 10 Commissioner Baldwin. That's the feeling that I projected 11 to them in our last meeting, and they know every year I have 12 a problem with this. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We went through the 14 same thing last year. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last year. And it's 16 just -- I mean, I just do it as a statement, because it 17 doesn't do any good. Because the school districts, in the 18 past, anyway, have always gone along with the increases 19 recommended. But it's not only that they're getting a 20 higher increase. Indirectly, it's hurting the County 21 employees for them to get a higher amount, because we're 22 having to use tax dollars, you know, for that purpose, which 23 depletes even more as we go into more of a deficit every 24 year, or deficit-type situation. Then it hurts our 25 employees more. It's not just that it's -- they're getting 7-14-03 219 1 something that we're not. They're hurting ours. 2 MS. RECTOR: Well, I think the other board 3 members feel like the bottom line is just a 3 percent 4 increase overall, and they're okay with that. Their total 5 budget is just a 3 percent increase over last year's. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 7 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 8 your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next 13 item is consider and discuss the acceptance or rejection of 14 Terrorism Risk endorsement to existing law enforcement 15 insurance coverage. I put this on the agenda. Our Auditor 16 brought me a terrorism risk endorsement, received, I assume, 17 from the -- from the agent who writes our law enforcement 18 insurance coverage. And I didn't feel like I had the 19 authority to unilaterally approve it or disapprove it; kind 20 of a separate, mini-policy, and I thought it was a 21 prerogative of this Court. Mr. Furman, I believe you're the 22 agent for our terrorism risk -- I mean our law enforcement 23 insurance coverage; is that correct? 24 MR. FURMAN: I'm not sure I'm the agent for 25 the terrorism -- 7-14-03 220 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I misstated that. Law 2 enforcement insurance coverage. 3 MR. FURMAN: Yes, sir, that's correct. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 MR. FURMAN: That's correct. I don't know 6 what you would like for me to address. After 9/11, the 7 insurance industry got hit with things that they never 8 thought could happen. And, as a result, they lobbied and 9 the federal government has passed this Terrorism Act, and 10 the federal government will subsidize an act of terrorism. 11 I can't tell you the ins and outs of the law, because it's 12 quite voluminous and I haven't read it, but the law defines 13 terrorism -- if there is a terroristic loss in excess of 14 $5 million, the act comes into play. Presently, terrorism 15 -- terrorism has been excluded heretofore. Because of this 16 act, terrorism as defined by the act can be covered. There 17 is an additional charge for doing so. The additional 18 charge, in the case of the Sheriff's policy, is $303. In 19 the case of the juvenile facility, $59. So, the decision 20 for you all is, do you want to include the federal 21 government terrorism coverage or do you want to reject it? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you saying that if we have 23 terrorism -- or, number one, is there a specific exclusion 24 from coverage in our existing law enforcement liability 25 policies from any loss as a result of terrorism or terrorist 7-14-03 221 1 activities? 2 MR. FURMAN: Judge, I have not -- this is 3 sort of short notice for me, although it's been a number of 4 days, but I have not read this recently; it's been a while. 5 And I would like to tell you my memory is good enough to 6 remember all those details, but it's not. Going from what 7 is in the letter -- have you seen the letter that came from 8 C.N.A.? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, uh-huh. 10 MR. FURMAN: Okay. Judging from within the 11 letter, it's talking about part of the exclusion is 12 temporarily void and without effect subject to your 13 decision. So, that indicates to me that there is a pretty 14 much absolute terrorism exclusion, but, because of this act, 15 that exclusion is basically illegal. You need to make a 16 decision, either we want the coverage or we don't want the 17 coverage, as far as it's defined in the act, the federal 18 act. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: It only applies if you have a 20 single occurrence which results in $5 million or more in 21 loss or damage? 22 MR. FURMAN: Yes. Now, that doesn't mean to 23 any one individual. That doesn't mean to any one piece of 24 property. That means whatever is involved in that terrorism 25 act, as I understand. 7-14-03 222 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I don't understand 2 how this falls under the Sheriff's policy. Seems to me this 3 is a -- I mean, unless -- I mean, it's something -- to me, 4 this is more of our general property coverage. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Physical loss. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, physical loss 7 coverage. I don't see -- 8 MR. FURMAN: I think that the -- maybe the 9 greater loss, Commissioner, in 9/11 was not the buildings 10 coming down. I can't imagine what the workers comp loss was 11 to New York and the Port Authority of New York and New 12 Jersey, who lost so many employees. Plus employees that 13 were lost in the -- as the Trade Centers went down. Workers 14 comp losses must have been fantastic. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So this is related to 16 basically injury or death of Sheriff's Department or 17 Juvenile Detention Department? 18 MR. FURMAN: Well, this is a liability 19 policy, so if it's not -- but, as I understand it, the 20 $5 million takes in all losses as a result of the 21 terroristic act. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: It could be an inmate. I 23 mean, if -- there could be -- I mean, there could be a 24 hundred and some-odd inmates that might be subject to that 25 act also, I would think. That -- that -- to me, that's 7-14-03 223 1 where our liability is. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got some 3 questions and observations. On one hand, the premium is not 4 very great. On another hand, I don't know if we'd exceed 5 $5 million. Assuming we kill all of -- everybody out there, 6 I guess we -- and the $5 million-dollar formula includes 7 people, I guess that could happen, but maybe it's all a moot 8 point. We didn't -- we did not respond no later than 9 March 17th, 2003. 10 MR. FURMAN: Well, we didn't get it by then. 11 This -- this came to us in June. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are we still 13 eligible? 14 MR. FURMAN: Yes, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I'm -- I'm still 16 not sure exactly what -- I mean, you're right, it's not a 17 lot of money. And that's probably because there's not a lot 18 of chance of ever being -- occurring. But the occurrence, 19 if you do have it -- can you imagine what we talked about 20 this morning, about a catastrophic -- I'm just trying to 21 figure out what this coverage -- if we went with this, what 22 are we -- what coverage are we increasing? I mean, if it's 23 not the personnel -- 24 MR. FURMAN: You're removing part of an 25 exclusion, to the extent that if there is a terroristic act, 7-14-03 224 1 as defined by the federal government -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 3 MR. FURMAN: -- Secretary of the Treasury 4 certifies it so, and that means it's in excess of 5 $5 million. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 7 MR. FURMAN: Then that would trigger the 8 coverage. And what it amounts to is, the company would be 9 involved if you had a loss under -- bearing in mind this is 10 a liability policy. If you had a loss under the liability 11 portion of this policy, that the company would be reimbursed 12 80 percent of what they paid out. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But aren't -- 14 MR. FURMAN: Over -- over -- and I don't know 15 how in the world they decide who bears the $5 million. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you're -- but this 17 coverage, the liability coverage we're talking about, is -- 18 the law says -- maybe the Sheriff's Department or the Jail's 19 dealing with third parties, and having some -- you know, 20 whether someone gets killed who's an inmate or they make a 21 false arrest or something like that. And I'm trying to 22 figure out how -- I guess the inmates -- okay, the bomb goes 23 off out there or something happens, and the inmates get 24 killed. Okay, there's a liability there. But, other than 25 something that happened to the inmates, I don't see how a 7-14-03 225 1 terrorist act is something that needs to be insured, 2 because, like -- I mean, maybe I'm missing something. 3 Rusty's jumping up. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I think, you know, 5 looking -- and none of us understand this terrorist act part 6 of this, and I don't know exactly how to answer it. But 7 some -- one of the main scenarios that I would be very 8 concerned about with a terrorist act in this county is one 9 of our officers stopping somebody on the interstate 10 transporting a type of terrorist bomb, whether it be 11 biological, chemical, or just damage; not finding that bomb 12 in that vehicle, arresting the subject for something, that 13 vehicle getting towed somewhere, put in impound, put in 14 storage, then going off. There's a liability I would 15 imagine going to be associated with that, okay? That -- 16 that, to me, would be more realistic. The other part of it 17 that I think we would all see is a terrorist act -- actual 18 terrorism act in Bexar County, in the San Antonio area, us 19 sending personnel and officers there to help with that, 20 okay, and something happen to that -- to those people or 21 something they do while they're there in an official 22 capacity as belonging to -- being loaned to that agency. 23 How would that affect our liability on that? So, at that 24 point, the $300 isn't that big of a deal to make sure we're 25 covered under that. I don't know, because I don't know what 7-14-03 226 1 the government -- government's decided is an act of 2 terrorism and what all their little stuff is in there. But, 3 without seeing it or knowing about it till today, that would 4 be my -- 5 MR. FURMAN: Congressman Letz may have been 6 involved. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Congressman Letz may be 8 involved in it. Those are -- you know, just trying to think 9 off-the-cuff, Jonathan. That's the only thing I can think 10 of. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- I hadn't 12 thought of that angle, and that makes sense. And, I mean, I 13 think the -- the premium's low, the risk is low, but the 14 flip side is, if something does happen, it's major. So -- 15 MR. FURMAN: I have difficulty envisioning 16 something, quite frankly, where you could be involved in it. 17 On the other hand, I have seen things happen that I had a 18 lot of difficulty envisioning before they happened. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: In light of Commissioner 20 Nicholson's statement that the premium is due March 17th, 21 the premium quoted, obviously, is for a year; it shows 22 effective date, 1/1. Are we going to prorate that, if we 23 decide to -- 24 MR. FURMAN: I presume it would be prorated, 25 but I don't know that. 7-14-03 227 1 JUDGE TINLEY: We're more than half into the 2 year, of course. 3 MR. FURMAN: I think, basically, it's a 4 retroactive thing, but I'm -- we received this on June the 5 16th, incidentally, when we received it, and it's dated June 6 the 11th. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I can see on the 8 statement, as of 6/11. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The bad experience 10 we've had last year and continuing into this year with our 11 employee health insurance has given me a -- as I was talking 12 earlier, I didn't have a warm feeling about professional 13 service contracts for engineering services. I sure don't 14 have a warm feeling about the way we're managing our 15 insurance programs. Y'all have been dealing with it for a 16 long time. I may be wrong on that, but it just doesn't -- 17 doesn't -- the errors I've seen don't inspire confidence. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The errors? 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Errors -- well, 20 yeah. I'd say it was a mistake to -- to take on that 21 $400,000 liability, in retrospect. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's health care. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I personally would be 25 reluctant to recommend to the Court, if they -- if the 7-14-03 228 1 Court's decision were to not desire the -- the 2 endorsement -- terrorism endorsement, that they specifically 3 opt out of it. And the reason would be because if they say, 4 "I specifically reject it," there may be some scenario under 5 the existing policy under which there would be coverage. As 6 you said, there have been a lot of things that you didn't 7 anticipate that you've seen happen before your eyes during 8 your lifetime, and there might be some scenario by which 9 there might be some coverage that could have some degree of 10 relationship to terrorism. If we specifically decline to 11 have any coverage for terrorism activities, if one of those 12 events were to occur where we otherwise may be in a position 13 to try and point to coverage under our existing policy, I 14 would fully anticipate that the -- the carrier would say, 15 well, even if it was, you've negated that coverage by virtue 16 of the rejection here. 17 MR. FURMAN: I think that's absolutely 18 correct. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe I'm suspicious, but 20 that's just my nature. 21 MR. FURMAN: No, I think you're absolutely 22 correct. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: So, I -- even if they -- if 24 the Court says, you know, I don't think we need this 25 terrorism endorsement, I would not recommend, then -- you 7-14-03 229 1 know, if the Court votes to tell me to sign a rejection of 2 it, I'll do that, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, don't they call 4 that extortion? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, insurance. 6 MR. FURMAN: It's called premiums, 7 Mr. Baldwin. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I think everybody's right. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Been a long day. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Well -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'd like to put 12 the thought that, for a modest amount of money, I wouldn't 13 want to take the risk of them pulling the rug out from 14 underneath us on the other coverage if something happened, 15 unforeseen. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move we authorize 17 the County Judge to accept the terrorism risk endorsement to 18 existing law enforcement insurance coverage and sign the 19 agreement to do that. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 22 seconded to accept the terrorism coverage risk endorsement 23 and authorize County Judge to sign the acceptance of same. 24 Any further questions or discussion? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Can we get -- 7-14-03 230 1 can we ask our agent to get proration based on the fact that 2 they didn't get the notice to us till mid-year? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think -- if that's an 4 annual premium, I don't think we ought to pay more than half 5 of it. 6 MR. FURMAN: I'll ask that question. I don't 7 know the answer. I can find that out tomorrow, but I don't 8 know the answer. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm on to the next item. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: You're going to have a 11 condition, satisfactory proration of premium? 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Want to condition it 13 on that, or just you want to -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, that wasn't a 15 condition of it. I was just asking him. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I think 17 just -- 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All in favor of the 19 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Thank you, 24 Mr. Furman. 25 MR. FURMAN: Thank you. 7-14-03 231 1 JUDGE TINLEY: The next item, consider and 2 discuss authorizing Request for Qualifications for 3 architectural -- I'm sorry? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Can we go back to 5 another item real quick, Your Honor? On -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Did you take a long lunch? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I haven't had lunch yet 8 today. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go back to another 10 item? 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: To a different item. On 12 your workshop dates for the budget, on Item 15, I visited 13 with Paula on that to see, if there is a possibility that 14 there would be have to be a tax increase, if those dates are 15 going to allow enough time to get all that done and still 16 have a tax increase or not, based on what Thea had said, 17 that there's different timetables. And with Paula here now, 18 I think Paula can address that, that with this schedule, 19 there would not be enough time. That may affect that 20 greatly. 21 MS. RECTOR: I just have some concerns that 22 we're -- we're not giving ourselves enough time. 'Cause we 23 know -- I know some of you that have been through the budget 24 process several years, it's a long process, and it takes a 25 lot of work. And it's always go back to the drawing board, 7-14-03 232 1 go back to the drawing board. The tax rate has to be 2 adopted by September the 30th. That is done to allow me the 3 time I need to get my work done and get those tax statements 4 ready to be put in the mail in October. So, my concern is 5 that we're pushing it a little too far into August to 6 accomplish everything we need to accomplish, and in the end, 7 if we find that there absolutely has to be some type of a 8 tax increase, we're not going to allow ourselves enough time 9 to get that done in my time frame, because the publications 10 that I have to do in the newspaper that are required by law 11 have to be done at certain times. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: What -- what publication 13 requirements are you faced with? 14 MS. RECTOR: Okay. My first publication will 15 be the publication of the effective tax rate. As soon as I 16 get the certified values from the Appraisal District, which 17 should be the early part of next week, I start my process of 18 calculating effective tax rates for all the jurisdictions 19 that I collect for and publishing those in the newspaper. 20 And then the budget process is going -- you have a -- a 21 benchmark of what kind of tax rate you're looking at to 22 generate the revenue that we need for this year. And you 23 really don't know until I get that published. And with the 24 values like they are this year, I just think we're running 25 ourselves out of time to get everything I need to get done. 7-14-03 233 1 JUDGE TINLEY: What is the publication for 2 the -- for an increase in the tax rate, for example, for a 3 tax rate that must be finalized by September 30th? 4 MS. RECTOR: Well, right -- those timeframes, 5 if there's an agreement that there's going to be an 6 increase, then I have to publish a quarter-page ad, and it's 7 no less than 3, no more than 14 days from the date of the 8 public hearing after that takes place. And we set another 9 date for the -- the next public hearing, which is the same 10 type of thing. So, I've got time frames that I have to meet 11 according to law. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what -- to answer the 13 void, what date does the Court need to agree upon a budget? 14 What's our last date that we can agree on so that you can 15 go -- have time to go through your calculations? 16 MS. RECTOR: Well, the tax rate has to be 17 adopted by September 30th. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're talking 19 about six weeks here. 20 MS. SOVIL: How much publication time do you 21 need? 22 MS. RECTOR: Depends on the newspaper. I 23 have to call and set aside quarter-page notices for them, 24 and if I know what direction we're going, I can plan that 25 ahead, to know how many ads I'm going to have to publish. 7-14-03 234 1 MS. SOVIL: You need 14 days? 21 days? 2 MS. RECTOR: Mm-hmm. 3 MS. SOVIL: 14 or 21? 4 MS. RECTOR: Well, 14. 14 for the first one, 5 and if there's a tax increase, then there's another time 6 frame of publication. 7 MS. SOVIL: Is that another 14 days? 8 MS. RECTOR: Yes. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: First 14 is for your 10 calculation of the effective tax rate? 11 MS. RECTOR: No, no, no, no. That is my 12 first publication, is the effective tax rate. The second 13 one will start the public hearing process on the budget, and 14 the tax rate. If there's going to be a tax increase, then 15 there has to be another publication that goes in with all of 16 that. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At the same time? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we have one public 19 hearing for a budget, and then if -- if budget's adopted and 20 there's a tax increase, then you have another public 21 hearing. 22 MS. SOVIL: We've always done them on the 23 same day. 24 MS. RECTOR: On the budget and adopting the 25 tax rate. 7-14-03 235 1 MS. SOVIL: Right. 2 MS. RECTOR: Yeah. Yeah, we have done the 3 budget and the tax rate on the same day, but then we also 4 have to have time after that budget's adopted for it to be 5 open to the public for their inspection. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me try. If 7 we're going to have a tax increase, what's the latest date 8 that we can decide we're going to do that? 9 MS. RECTOR: The latest date? 10 MS. SOVIL: 14th of September. 11 MS. RECTOR: Yeah. 12 (Discussion off the record.) 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the process 14 this year is very different than in the past. I think 15 there's not going to be -- I mean, I think once the 16 workshops are gone through, we're -- that's being done 17 almost at the end of the process. I think we'll be -- by 18 the end of the workshops, pretty much the budget will be 19 fixed. 20 MS. RECTOR: I was kind of basing it on what 21 we went through last year. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 23 MS. RECTOR: The time it took for us to 24 accomplish that whole budget process was -- it took quite a 25 while. 7-14-03 236 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Well, the -- the 2 Judge's approach, as I understand -- I've been -- it's been 3 a learning curve to figure out the process, but I think I've 4 got it, that we're -- he's waiting -- or he's meeting with 5 everyone and coming up with a recommended budget. We used 6 to do the workshops first and then do the -- the Judge did 7 the -- the budget. This time he's kind of doing a whole lot 8 of work ahead of time, coming up with the recommended 9 budget, and then the workshops is really just for us to go 10 over with elected officials any changes. Any -- you know, 11 if you submitted one budget and he's talked or will talk to 12 you. 13 MS. RECTOR: We're not going to go through 14 the process of coming in before the Court and us going over 15 those? That will be done prior to this? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we'll go through 17 it, but I think when you leave that meeting, you're going to 18 pretty much know your budget. It's going to be done. I 19 mean, there's not going to be a -- a void, like we have in 20 the past, of no communication. I mean, you're going to -- 21 if there's a big change, you're going to know at the end of 22 that workshop. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And unlikely a major 24 change. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And unlikely minor 7-14-03 237 1 change. So, I mean, I think that the -- the workshops are 2 much later. It's a big concern of mine also, but I think 3 they're at the end of the process; a lot more work's being 4 done earlier. 5 MS. RECTOR: Before -- 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Say that August 22nd 7 workshop is your last one, and there are some changes. Is 8 the Auditor and Paula and them going to have enough time 9 between it, August 22nd and September 30th, or whatever that 10 date is, to make sure the budget is actually printed out for 11 the public inspection in time to have all the public 12 hearings and all that? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so. I mean, I 14 think -- I think so. 15 MS. SOVIL: Our first meeting in September is 16 the 8th. You can set a public hearing at that time for the 17 22nd -- that's 14 days -- and adopt a budget on the 22nd. 18 You're still in the time frame. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: With the tax increase at 20 that same public hearing, if there happens to be one. 21 MS. SOVIL: Well, we'll know by the 8th if 22 there's going to be a proposed tax increase. And you have 23 to set a hearing -- public hearing on a proposed tax 24 increase. 25 MS. RECTOR: Right. 7-14-03 238 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I think it 2 will work. 3 MS. RECTOR: Okay. I just -- when I saw 4 those dates, I was a little concerned that we were pushing 5 ourselves into a corner. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For your 7 information, this article in the County Progress outlines 8 a -- what somebody thinks is a good calendar for this 9 process, and they recommend August 1 through 16, 10 Commissioners Court budget workshops. So, we're just a 11 little -- our proposed plan is just a little late on that 12 schedule. A week. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, next item. Unless the 15 Sheriff wants to go back and visit some more. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't think so, Judge. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not yet. Let's go on 19 down through it; we'll find something. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Consider and discuss 21 authorizing Request for Qualifications for architectural 22 and/or engineering services for Kerr County Youth Exhibit 23 Center. This is an item that's been lingering for a while. 24 And there's a number of RFP's or RFQ's that are before us 25 today; that's just one of them. I guess the next question, 7-14-03 239 1 obviously, is, so what if we like an architect? How in the 2 world are we going to pay him? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By the time we get 4 there, it will be another budget year. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe. Could be. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my question is, 7 same reason I voted for going out for even getting this far, 8 is that I haven't -- I don't know what we're trying to do 9 yet. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Your -- your point is 11 well-taken, insofar as trying to, quote, identify the 12 project. Actually, what we're wanting to do is obtain these 13 architectural or engineering services to help us identify 14 the project. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's been my 16 understanding. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: That's really what I see, 18 where we're going. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But what -- then what's 20 the criteria that we're going to -- I mean, by reading this, 21 are we going to -- we're going to enter into a contract in 22 the form specified here? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the point system, of 24 course, you can put any point values you want to. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's another whole 7-14-03 240 1 issue about affirmative action point system. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But my -- I mean, my 4 question on this is, I -- okay, we go out for RFQ's and we 5 get back all this information, we meet with these people. 6 What are we basing -- what's the criteria going to be for 7 the selection? I mean, is it going to be hourly? 'Cause we 8 don't have any -- is it going to be hourly rate, or a flat 9 fee? Or what are we asking them to -- I mean, I don't know. 10 I'm trying to figure out what we're asking. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Here again, all I can say is 12 that's an excellent question. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it is. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Because we're asking them to 15 help us identify what the project is, or what the possible 16 projects are. And the -- the costs affiliated with each 17 alternative, an estimate of those costs. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mind going 19 through the process -- the whole process, as long as I know 20 where we're -- how we're going to make our decision. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me make this 22 inquiry of you. Have you ever had a customer say, "Come 23 look at my lawn or my landscape out here at my house that 24 I'm building, and I really don't know what I want to do, and 25 I want you to develop a plan of some alternatives for me to 7-14-03 241 1 landscape my property." Do you do that? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, yeah. But you can 3 do it in lots of different ways. I can say I'll do a flat 4 design fee. If I get the job, I'm going to charge this 5 much; I'll give you credit back. I mean, there's lots of 6 ways. And if I'm bidding against somebody, I think you need 7 to know what -- the ways you're bidding. I mean, if I'm 8 going on an hourly rate to do it, or if I'm going -- I'm 9 going to spend all my time doing all this design work; if I 10 get the job, I get paid, and if I don't get the job, I don't 11 get paid. I mean, it's going to vary, how I'm going to -- 12 whether or not I'm going to even, you know, respond is based 13 on how the compensation is going to be. Because, I mean, I 14 would not -- if I thought there was a -- a very small 15 likelihood of me getting that contract, it would be a very 16 small likelihood of me giving them a proposal. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I think you're going to have 18 that same kind of reception and the same kind of responses 19 on -- on the various compensation methods, whether you end 20 up doing the job, don't end up doing the job. Here's your 21 design work. You paid for it; you own it. I think you have 22 all those options open to you. But I think we've come 23 around the circle again. And if you're going to go forward 24 out there at that facility, I think we got two things to do. 25 We either, number one, need to get us some professional help 7-14-03 242 1 that tells us what our options are and what the costs are so 2 that we might then try and reach some consensus of what we 3 can afford and/or what we want, maybe in reverse order or 4 maybe in tandem, or maybe we need another RFQ drafted by 5 someone that is better able to identify what the project is 6 in order that you're comfortable with it. Or we do nothing. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, there's another 8 option. We can do bids on a metal building and tear down 9 that old goat barn and put up a metal building and go on. 10 There's another option. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Third option -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Judge stated it 13 right. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Third option would 15 be to get bids to fix the roof, get bids to fix the 16 air-conditioning, get bids to fix the electrical. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Put it back in the shape 18 that it was 20 years ago, and we don't need any professional 19 advice on it. Wouldn't include knocking out any walls or 20 building anything new. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is an option. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I think, at that point, I -- 23 and I very well could stand corrected -- if you're going to 24 do any major repairs out there, I think you're going to have 25 to make that thing ADA-compliant, and I think you're -- 7-14-03 243 1 you'll then be faced with -- with having to get some expert 2 engineering/architectural services. The reason I don't know 3 the answer to that question is because the engineers and the 4 architects are the ones that know that. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think you would 6 have to do that. The lawyers know that also. And that 7 would be a fourth bid -- bid to figure -- make this 8 ADA-compliant. My -- my thinking is the same as it was the 9 last time. I'd like to -- the lowest cost approach to 10 putting that facility back into the shape that it was a few 11 years ago. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'm somewhere 13 between one and four. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Three's between one and four. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why the RFP 17 makes sense. So -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I just -- my 19 problem with the RFP is I see us doing a whole lot more 20 study. We studied this -- we've studied this thing probably 21 as much as any project in the history of Kerr County, and I 22 don't know that we need to study any more. I think we -- 23 you know, we may need to hire, because the law requires it, 24 an architect or an engineer, but I don't know that we need 25 any more studies out there. And the only reason I want an 7-14-03 244 1 architect or engineer is because they say we have to. So, I 2 mean, if that's the intent of the RFQ, I don't have a 3 problem with it. But if we're going out there, I mean, 4 we've already -- just more and more studies. I mean -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't say anything 6 about studies in here. The word's not used. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I think probably most of the 8 responders to this -- most of them would respond that if 9 there's -- if they're selected and end up supervising the 10 work, a lot of their compensation would be rolled into 11 supervising the work, which we're going to have to have then 12 anyway, or signing off on it, whatever. I don't know that, 13 but that seems to be a rather common approach for it. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But on this, as I recall, 15 we can't discuss any of that until -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's under 17 design-build. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I thought with any 19 professional services, you can't discuss -- you pick the 20 company, then try to work out a price arrangement. I didn't 21 think you could negotiate -- have pricing as a consideration 22 in RFQ. Or -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: No. They got a pretty good 24 lobby, but I think if you're looking at hiring an architect 25 or engineer to guide you, I think you -- insofar as their 7-14-03 245 1 costs to develop the information, unless I've missed the 2 boat here somewhere. If that's the case, I don't want to 3 talk to them either, if they can just strap any price on us 4 they want to when they get through. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- I mean, but the 6 selection's made on who we want to use. Then we try to work 7 out a contract with them. And if we don't -- and in the 8 contract, we specify how they're going to be compensated. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How they're going to 10 charge us, what they're going to charge. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And on the -- and why do 12 we have affirmative action getting any points? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: You can rate that any way you 14 want to. You can pull the whole thing out. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mind the other 16 ones. I'd get rid of affirmative action, put that 5 points 17 up to experience. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: You may want to look more on 19 just a generalized statement, that the best overall -- the 20 best overall proposal in the interests of Kerr County, and 21 not necessarily related to costs. Or you may want to leave 22 it -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: -- wide-open. Okay. Anybody 25 have anything to offer there? 7-14-03 246 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we adopt the 2 Request for Proposals as presented on the agenda. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a second? 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion dies for lack of a 6 second. Let's move on to the next item, 1.24, consider and 7 discuss authorizing Request for Proposals for plumbing, 8 electrical, HVAC service for Fiscal Year 2003/2004. Here, 9 again, there's a sample in there for various services. Got 10 one for plumber, electrician. I don't think we have one 11 specifically for the HVAC. The only thing different will be 12 the -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, the -- 14 insurance numbers, are those fairly accurate? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Far as I know, these are 16 current legal requirements. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: They were represented to me as 19 being current legal requirements. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If one of you can 21 help me out a little bit here, how is this different than 22 the approach we've taken before to plumbing, electrical, and 23 HVAC? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've only went out for 25 bids one other time, and the difference is this is a lot 7-14-03 247 1 simpler format. It was -- I don't remember the exact 2 details, but it was a length -- much more lengthy than this. 3 I think the basic content wasn't -- isn't that much 4 different. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, whoever's got -- 6 doing this work now got that job by competitive bid? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we threw them all 8 out. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: No. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We threw them all out 11 because we didn't get -- we got very limited response. And 12 that's why I -- you know, I'm very happy with these. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I appreciate the 14 competitive bidding process and support this too. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move acceptance of 16 the RFQ -- RFP's -- are these P's or Q's? -- RFP's for 17 plumbing, electrical, and HVAC services, as presented. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 20 the Request for Proposals are approved and authorized. I 21 assume you're authorizing that they be advertised? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be advertised, with the 23 proposals due back -- I don't know. August 25th? 24 MS. SOVIL: That would be before our budget 25 meeting. 7-14-03 248 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about August 11th? 2 MS. SOVIL: That's not enough time. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's got to be the 25th. 4 August 25th. 5 MS. SOVIL: The 18th is our meeting -- no, 6 25th, I'm sorry. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: With -- with response to the 8 Request for Proposals by 9 a.m. on August 25th. Bids for 9 all those will be opened at that time. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions? 12 Comments? Discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify 13 by raising your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (Discussion off the record.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I voted for it, I'm 19 sorry. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Consider and discuss 21 authorizing Request for Proposals for Kerr County insurance 22 coverage and the policy period of same. This was another 23 RFP that was discussed, what, a month ago? And I think one 24 of the additional factors that we've got here that doesn't 25 exist in the electrical/plumbing/HVAC is there's a lot of 7-14-03 249 1 information that has to be added to it. I don't think it's 2 that complicated. It's a matter of gathering up from 3 different sources about loss histories, inventories of 4 equipment, and I suspect that our existing policies have 5 that, or they should have it adequately inventoried. And 6 as, for example, old equipment is deleted and new equipment 7 is added, there should be appropriate endorsements on those 8 policies, but there will be some significant additional 9 detail to be added to the proposal. To the degree that that 10 affects the -- the timing of the proposal, I doubt seriously 11 whether we can -- we're in a position to insist that that be 12 back in order to consider it for the beginning of this 13 coming fiscal year. However, personal preference is that we 14 get this back on a fiscal year basis for budget planning 15 purposes. The -- the existing policy runs through 16 December 31. I certainly think we ought to have it in 17 advance of that, and maybe with the understanding that we 18 want the initial policy period to run for a period of nine 19 months, ending September 30, and then annually thereafter, 20 but that's personal preference. You can call it like you 21 see it. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just help me out 23 again here, Judge. When we talk about the employee health, 24 which is next item on the agenda, is the timing issue going 25 to be similar there? 7-14-03 250 1 JUDGE TINLEY: You got the same problem 2 there, yeah. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, that helps me. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: You got the same problem on 5 both of those big insurance issues. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It would be 7 desirable to have our insurance coverage the same as our 8 fiscal year period. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: That's my thinking. 10 Apparently, there was some effort made a few years ago to 11 have it be on a calendar year basis, and for budgetary 12 planning purposes, that doesn't make complete sense to me. 13 But for -- from the standpoint of work flow, where a lot of 14 this -- a lot of this burden fell mainly in the Auditor's 15 lap, I can understand why he didn't want the whole world 16 crashing down on him at one time. And that probably had 17 some effect there, so that he had a little bit of respite. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: I was going to make a comment 19 about what you said about timing. In my experience of 20 trying to gather this information -- this information 21 together and getting it to an underwriter and having them 22 have the time to get it back, I think it's a minimum of 90 23 days. So, I -- I think we'd be putting pressure on 24 ourselves, as well as prospective bidders, to -- to ask them 25 to get it back any sooner than that. So, I -- to get a good 7-14-03 251 1 bid, I think we need to give them as much time as we can 2 afford to give them. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if we chose to 4 go that route -- and I think I'm paraphrasing what you 5 said -- this first time we'd ask for the -- the data back -- 6 proposal back maybe October, November, something like that, 7 and then it would be for a nine-month policy. And from 8 there on -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Beginning January 1. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. There on out, 11 we would be on a fiscal basis. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Annual, yeah. Probably at 13 this point, you'd probably be looking at probably November 14 at the earliest, if you got the other -- the other 15 attachment data gathered up, the -- the loss histories, 16 the -- the equipment, the vehicle inventories, schedules of 17 buildings and so forth. We -- most of that we can get from 18 existing policies and just update it, except for the -- for 19 the loss histories on some of the -- the law enforcement 20 liability. For example, the -- the health coverage. We're 21 not there yet, but you got that same issue there. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, again, for this 23 transition period for this first year, we -- for budgeting 24 purposes, we know our insurance costs through the end of 25 this calendar year, but we wouldn't know our -- our 7-14-03 252 1 insurance costs for the next time. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Isn't that the way it 3 is now? 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's not different 5 than the way it is now. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: No. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How do you deal with 8 that uncertainty? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't, 'cause 10 you're going pay more for a short-term contract. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, as far as for budget 12 purposes for -- for liability and health insurance -- I 13 mean, not health insurance, but property coverage, I have 14 visited with our underwriter -- I mean, Texas Association of 15 Counties, and specifically asked questions about what -- 16 what changes they made in their base rate, both in liability 17 and -- and property coverage, and the -- and property 18 coverage, they had not made any change. The only -- the 19 only difference we're going to see is -- is for new 20 property. For example, we have $900,000 in radio equipment 21 that we're going to have to cover once -- once the vendor's 22 coverage leaves. So, you know, that we can plan for. They 23 -- TAC does not -- does not see any base rate change in -- 24 in liability as well. And liability premiums are based 25 on -- on gross expenditures. I know the -- the general 7-14-03 253 1 liability coverage and the public official's coverages for 2 next year will be based on -- on expenditures for this year, 3 so whatever that amount changed from the prior year will be 4 the amount of change that will be in our premium. So, I -- 5 so I have -- or I think -- I feel like I do have a handle on 6 what property and liability coverage will be, and I can't 7 answer that for -- for workers comp or health insurance, but 8 I -- I do know that I have a good -- good feeling to where 9 we're going to be as far as those coverages. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: And workers comp and the 11 health coverage are the real killers. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. You know, that 13 workers comp is just solely based on experience. So -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, loss experience rating. 15 And classification of employees, sometimes, if -- 16 MR. TOMLINSON: We're -- we've gained some 17 ground on there. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's good. You know, 19 sometimes you got a little wiggle room. Even -- even if 20 you're already right, sometimes you can be a little bit 21 righter. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: You're being ingenious, and 24 we'll just put some thought into it. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me see if I 7-14-03 254 1 understand this. We're asking for bids for a term -- for 2 insurance coverage for a term of October 1 through October 1 3 of the ensuing year; is that correct? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: No, we would not be. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what it says. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: January 1 through 7 September 30, isn't it? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I apologize if -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 6. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let me look. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: January 1. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't catch that. I didn't 13 -- eventually, that's what we'll do, is actually say October 14 1 through September -- through September 30th. That's set 15 up for a fiscal year basis. The first -- first one out, 16 we'll be asking for January 1 through September 30, and, the 17 initial one, we'll have some language -- two additional -- 18 instead of additional being there, the two 12-month periods 19 at the discretion of the Court. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: January 1 through 21 September 30. So, for this current budget year that we're 22 working on, the new budget year -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- what numbers are 25 we going to plug in for October 1 through December 31? 7-14-03 255 1 MR. TOMLINSON: They've already been paid. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: We've already got them. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's all done? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: They're already paid. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we 8 authorize a Request for Proposals for Kerr County insurance 9 coverage for a policy period January 1, 2004, through 10 September 30, 2004, for the coverages listed on Page 7 of 11 the -- of the document we were provided. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 14 the Court authorize issuance of Request for Proposals for 15 Kerr County insurance for the coverages listed on Page 7, 16 policy period January 1, 2004, through September 30, 2004. 17 What about -- what about return of and opening of bids? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does that need to be 19 in the motion? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Well -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: If we're going to get it on 23 out, we need to -- we need to give enough time for them to 24 bid it, but we need to give enough time ahead of that to 25 gather up all this information that ends up being an 7-14-03 256 1 attachment to this thing upon which they can base their bid. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd say early to 3 mid-November? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: How does that sound? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: I think November will be 6 fine. We have to have enough time to review them, too. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. Do you have 8 an early November date, Thea? 9 MS. SOVIL: I'm not sure that November 10th 10 isn't a holiday. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is, I believe. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's -- 13 MS. SOVIL: Veterans Day. The official 14 Veteran's Day is the 11th. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 16 MS. SOVIL: But I think we've got the 10th 17 off. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 19 MS. UECKER: No, I think the 11th off. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is it possible to 21 say just the first Commissioners Court meeting -- court 22 meeting in November, 9 a.m.? 23 MS. SOVIL: Do what? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The first Commissioners 25 Court meeting of November. 7-14-03 257 1 MS. SOVIL: Would be the 11th, as far as I 2 can tell. That's a Tuesday. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's -- that's the 4 official holiday. 5 (Discussion off the record.) 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The question was, 7 instead of saying date-specific, can the motion just say at 8 9 a.m. on the first meeting of the Commissioners Court in 9 November? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you're going to have to 11 put a date certain in the RFP when it goes out and when you 12 advertise. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Have them due back here 14 by that Friday before. It doesn't mean -- you don't have to 15 open them until the first meeting. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's too logical. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we won't -- 18 MS. SOVIL: Well, I didn't do myself any 19 favors. 20 (Discussion off the record.) 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Holiday's on Tuesday, 22 isn't it? 23 MS. SOVIL: Yes, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Holiday is on Tuesday, the 7-14-03 258 1 official Kerr County holiday? 2 MS. SOVIL: Well, when I looked it up on the 3 internet, I wrote down Monday, but I wrote down the 11th, 4 and the 11th is on Tuesday, so I'm not sure. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about the Friday 6 before? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Isn't there a designation -- 8 no, we haven't -- 9 MS. SOVIL: We haven't -- we have not. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: We haven't done holidays? 11 MS. SOVIL: Not for that year, sir. That's 12 in our new -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Fiscal basis? 14 MS. SOVIL: No, sir, that's in our new 15 budgets. The holidays are in your general provisions at the 16 back of your budget book. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's one thing I -- 20 MS. UECKER: And Veteran's Day -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did you say? 22 MS. UECKER: And Veteran's Day has always 23 been taken on the holiday itself, rather than the Monday. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree with 25 that. 7-14-03 259 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we have will 2 have a Commissioners Court meeting -- 3 MS. SOVIL: On the 10th. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So the motion is to 5 open those bids -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: State the dates 7 again, please? The term dates. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Term dates, January 1, 2004, 9 through September 30, 2004. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Bid opening, 9 a.m. November 12 10, 2004 (sic). Is that where we are, gentlemen? Any 13 further questions or discussion? All in favor of the 14 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 19 MS. SOVIL: I'm sorry, what time? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: 9 a.m., we're going to have a 21 bid opening. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question 23 about this Tuesday thing. Thea, November 11th, 2004, is on 24 a -- 25 MS. SOVIL: Three. 7-14-03 260 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He said four. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: No, that's policy period. 3 (Discussion off the record.) 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it's three on 5 November 10? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: For bid opening, yes. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 2003. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: If I said 2004, I misspoke. I 9 should have said 2003. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's one of your 11 jobs. Throw something at him when he does things like that. 12 MS. SOVIL: We're getting stir-crazy. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Next item, consider and 14 discuss authorizing RFP's for Kerr County employee benefits, 15 health insurance -- 16 MS. SOVIL: Did y'all vote on that? You 17 didn't vote on it. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we just voted on it. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 20 MS. SOVIL: I got the motion and second, but 21 no vote. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We voted, yeah. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me defer to the reporter 24 here. Did we vote? 25 (Court reporter nodded.) 7-14-03 261 1 JUDGE TINLEY: It was unanimous, wasn't it? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with Thea; I don't 3 remember. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't either. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A little late. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I had your proxy. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: RFP's for employee benefits, 9 health insurance. And, here again, we got the policy period 10 consideration, same -- same set of circumstances. We've got 11 all that data; just a matter of attaching it, and they're 12 going to want to ride it just as long as they can. Just as 13 long as they can, won't they? To see what develops? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, yeah, that's the worst 15 part of it. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: They want to -- they want to 18 see what happens. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: But if we -- if we put a bid 20 opening time and date, 9 a.m. on November the 10th, if 21 they're going to be in the game, why, they got to be here by 22 then. 23 MS. SOVIL: 9:30? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: I haven't seen the proposal. 25 Are -- are we -- we going to ask for -- for two types of 7-14-03 262 1 bids for -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Self-insured and 3 partially-insured -- and partially -- 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, the option's 6 there. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we getting to health 9 insurance? Are we going to have -- when we get into 10 language that I'm not real comfortable with understanding, 11 are we going to have any consultant, adviser, somebody help 12 us look at it? I mean, the forms you put together are real 13 simple, but somehow I don't think they're going to come back 14 quite in that form. And someone needs to be looking at the 15 details. That I'm not qualified to do, I don't think. And 16 I'm not sure we have anyone on the County staff that is an 17 insurance expert. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe you can do an RFP for 19 expert services, Commissioner Letz. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Possible. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll let you work on that. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Maybe we can get a 23 retired insurance executive to do it pro bono. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And I think we can 25 go ahead and continue on setting this time schedule, but I 7-14-03 263 1 think at some point, we need to bring someone on board who 2 can help us in this area. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a concern 4 about this, that I don't really have any answers to. I know 5 you all have talked about it in the past. I'm concerned 6 about the cost of it, but I'm equally concerned about the 7 provisions of it. Is it the right price and have we got the 8 right stuff in there, the right coverage? And maybe the 9 indicators I'm looking at are not good indicators, but the 10 low level of participation tells me something's wrong. We 11 don't -- not enough employees involved in this, as you would 12 expect to see. It may be the cost of it, maybe coverage is 13 not good enough, may be that they're not paid enough to be 14 able to afford it. Could be probably a half a dozen 15 factors, but is there some way to not only get some 16 competition going on price, but get some input or advice or 17 competition going on -- on coverage? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think one of the -- and 19 it kind of doesn't really answer that, but kind of is right 20 next to it. I think that one of the problems we have is 21 that we're a small pool, and we just get hammered from year 22 to year if we have a few major health problems. And I think 23 we really need to figure out a way to get included into a 24 larger pool, whether it's using TAC or -- or, you know, 25 school district or other, you know, political entities in 7-14-03 264 1 the area or what. But it seems to me that it would be to 2 our benefit if we could be included in a larger pool. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's 4 important, and that's why we get -- we get hit so hard on 5 experience. But I think the Commissioner makes a good 6 point. Are the coverages we're offering, have offered, are 7 they what our people need and what they can afford? Because 8 if we don't have the participation, we're going on a 9 slippery slope down. We go higher for fewer people. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I think the 11 other thing is that I have not seen a real -- or our current 12 coverage, to me, does not provide a lot of incentive for 13 preventive -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Medicine. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- medicine. I think 16 that's real important. I'd like to see more in that area. 17 MS. PIEPER: I can tell you, it's not what we 18 can afford at all. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again? 20 MS. PIEPER: It's not what we can afford. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Too expensive. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: You're talking about the 23 spouse/dependent coverage? 24 MS. PIEPER: Right. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, I could have told you 7-14-03 265 1 that. That's the reason that you got -- you got 2 participation by the employees, because it's provided, but 3 beyond that, I'd be surprised if we had more than 10 percent 4 of the -- of spouses or other dependents covered. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You got real dis -- you 6 got real dissatisfaction with the employee with the way the 7 insurance company treats them and pays. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are any of you here 9 -- I'm not sure this is good protocol, but I'll do it 10 anyhow. Any of you here, is the county insurance your 11 primary insurance? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's not for me; 14 it's hard to for me to evaluate. Tell me how you feel about 15 the coverage. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They don't pay on half 17 of what you try and get done. That's the whole thing. 18 They'll reject it for something. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff, do they not 20 pay because it's not covered, or because they're arbitrary? 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, when you go to 22 have some normal -- and most of my employees -- one showed 23 me her deal this morning. She was ill, went to the doctor, 24 okay, ended up at the E.R. They did lab work, and the 25 insurance didn't cover any of the lab work. 7-14-03 266 1 MS. UECKER: Probably hadn't hit her 2 deductible. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's not the deductible 4 part; she had met it before. They just excluded lab work. 5 Well, now she's having to go back and argue with them about 6 it. They've already turned it over, and it's that kind of 7 stuff that they're getting tired of. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I use our insurance 9 virtually none. You know, I use it maybe every -- every 10 other year for a physical, lab work that goes with it. And 11 I've had a headache every time on the lab part of it. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's terrible. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is supposed to be 14 covered, but if the doctor doesn't go -- it's got to be some 15 sort of preventive annual -- you know. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, and you're 17 supposed to have the physical, but there's so little that 18 they allow on the physical part, 'cause I do have a yearly 19 physical. It does for cholesterol, you know, the stress 20 test, and it doesn't pay for half of what that physical is. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- 22 MS. UECKER: I'd like to see more of the 23 wellness put into it. And my husband works for Avery's, 24 and, you know, our insurance does not even compare close to 25 what Avery's can offer. Of course, that's an independent 7-14-03 267 1 business, too, but they require their employees -- their 2 insurance requires the employees to get an annual physical, 3 and they pay for it. And what it does, it eliminates these 4 huge, catastrophic -- you know, cancer and heart attack and 5 things like that. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Diabetes. 7 MS. UECKER: They have very few large claims, 8 because they're caught in the annual physical. They're 9 required to get a -- an eye exam every year, but it's paid 10 for. Same way with the tooth exam on your teeth -- dental 11 exam; it's paid for. So many things are caught -- the 12 catastrophic things are caught like that, that it's -- you 13 know, it's paid over and over again for itself. The 14 wellness -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I wish we could 16 go a step further and get more in the preventive end of it, 17 to where we do -- 18 MS. UECKER: That's what this is. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- take care of 20 part -- I mean, even a step further, and take care of part 21 of a health club thing, where you have to go and work out. 22 MS. UECKER: Yeah. I know -- I think 23 Williamson County has that. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: City of Kerrville has -- 25 it's not Ultra Fit, but they have at the other one the same 7-14-03 268 1 thing. And I visited with them, and they visited with us, 2 and what they do is, this membership costs, like, you know, 3 $50 or $40, whatever it is, and the City of Kerrville, for 4 their guys -- and, you know, their fire department, all of 5 them do it. If the person attends it, the employee, so many 6 times a week, because it's a monthly amount, then the 7 City -- they can get reimbursed by the City for that monthly 8 premium. If they do not attend it that certain number of 9 times a week -- if they only go once or twice when the 10 City's requiring three or four times, then the City will not 11 reimburse them the monthly fees. So, it encourages them to 12 do it, you know, three or four times a week, and -- and stay 13 in physical fitness. And we're doing -- you know, we've 14 been encouraging our guys to try and be a member of that 15 forever. 16 MS. UECKER: I've had two people recently, 17 just in the last couple weeks, that joined Ultra Fit, and I 18 asked what the membership fee was, and they said -- they 19 both told me that they got it for half price because they 20 were County employees. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We've worked with them 22 and they've tried to help us on a lot of that. They're 23 doing all our new employees' physicals now, including 24 cardiac stress tests and everything. But Ultra Fit's tried. 25 I'm not saying other ones won't. 7-14-03 269 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To get back to my 2 regular question, is the proposal to get bids for premium 3 costs for our current coverage, or are we considering 4 reexamining our current coverage? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for asking 6 that question. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Everything's on the table. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Reexamining, in my 9 opinion. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So we need to know 12 how to get some help doing that reexamination. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Now, if -- as a matter of 14 information, apparently the City of Kerrville just revamped 15 their program. The City Manager told me that prior to doing 16 so, they engaged the services of an insurance specialist/ 17 consultant. I believe the figure he told me was it cost 18 them $30,000, but the savings that he obtained for them was 19 many, many times that, and in his opinion, the coverage was 20 better. So, that's another option that we could be looking 21 at. But I would imagine that if you -- if you get an 22 insurance consultant, you know, we probably need to hide 23 behind that, because we got coverage coming up again 24 starting January 1, and time's a-wasting. The other thing 25 is that I don't know what their feeling's going to be about 7-14-03 270 1 shortening the policy period. I don't know that it will be 2 a great impediment, because customarily in the industry, I 3 don't think it's expected that you RFP those every year. 4 Isn't that correct, Tommy? For the -- for the health 5 coverage? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: As a general rule, no. I 7 don't -- I don't think you do it every year. I -- you were 8 talking about a consultant. If the Court decides to have 9 someone look at our coverage in the health field, I would -- 10 I would personally like to see us do that for -- for 11 everything; for our workers comp, property, liability. I 12 think if we had -- if we have -- if we think we're going to 13 have someone to revisit our -- our coverage for the health 14 insurance, I think it might be worth our time to -- to have 15 someone do -- available at the same time, since we're doing 16 it at the same time, to have that person available for 17 our -- for other advice as well as health care. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll tell you about 19 an experience I had a couple-three years ago. I do know a 20 little bit about employee health insurance, but not enough 21 to -- that I could advise you. For example, I saw some 22 studies and had some studies done that showed the wellness 23 programs. Physicals didn't have an impact on medical costs, 24 so the expert told me. He said the physical examination 25 doesn't keep you from dying, just tells you when you're 7-14-03 271 1 going to die. That could be wrong, too. I don't know. At 2 the youth ranch -- Hill Country Youth Ranch, we got a local 3 insurance provider, a local executive who was a member of 4 our board, to look at our coverage and give us some good 5 employee coverage, and give us some good advice about how we 6 can stretch our dollars and provide better coverage, and -- 7 and I think save money. So, that -- that's a possibility. 8 I don't know how -- how you go about getting services for -- 9 from him or somebody like him. In an organization like the 10 youth ranch, it's easy; you just do it. But the government, 11 I don't know how you go about doing it. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I -- I don't -- the fact 13 that we're a government entity I don't think prevents us 14 from listening to anybody that we feel like has something 15 worthwhile to say. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And the idea that a 17 300, 400, whatever it is, pool of employees, potentially, 18 quite a bit more than that, the idea that that's not an 19 attractive client of an insurance company -- no, we're not. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They'll jump through 22 hoops to get that. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the other one was 24 talking about pooling up with someone else. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's better. Any 7-14-03 272 1 time you get bigger is better. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: The bigger the pool -- the 3 bigger the pool, the more stable the risk. But some of 4 these -- I think, for example, TAC, I think they let you in 5 even if you've got a horrendous experience rate. If you 6 want to go join up with four or five other counties or 7 municipalities or water districts or whatever they may be, I 8 think you can voluntarily pool those together. But I think 9 the key there is voluntary. And if -- if we got a 10 horrendous experience rating and we go over to the 11 tri-county insurance pool, say, as Bandera, Medina, Real, 12 and Edwards Counties, and say, "Let us in," they'll say, 13 "Thanks, but no thanks," you know, if our experience rating 14 is -- is that poor. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, the -- 16 JUDGE TINLEY: But that just forecloses an 17 option. But getting back to what you were talking about, 18 the -- I think we need to rattle the bushes and see if we 19 can get somebody that has some knowledge about the industry. 20 The question I have -- what you're talking about, Tommy, 21 looking at the whole program, a lot of times people that are 22 specialists in the employee benefits health field, they 23 don't mess with liability and casualty, for example, and 24 vice-versa. Occasionally you'll find some -- because some 25 of the -- each of those areas has gotten so compound and so 7-14-03 273 1 complex that -- that they just don't really feel comfortable 2 getting into -- into both of those areas and -- and being an 3 expert, as it were, on both. So, you know, if we can find 4 one person, hopefully someone that's recently retired, 5 that's been through the entire game and is at the top of his 6 game, who'd be willing to step forward on -- be nice if it 7 were pro bono; beyond that, a nominal basis, I'd say we'd be 8 real, real fortunate to take advantage of that. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would prefer going 10 that route before we let this go, 'cause we're -- we're not 11 identifying in the detail I think necessary for these people 12 to give us a bid. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: On the health coverage? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I was thinking 15 of health. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Well, there's a lot of 17 different options in there -- 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is there any -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: -- to plug in, and it's hard 20 to look at, say, apples to apples. Very seldom can you do 21 that. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do we have enough 23 time to do both things? To first try to get some advice 24 about what should be included in the coverage and 25 alternative approaches, and then do the RFP approach? 7-14-03 274 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just got to extend 3 our current coverage. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: We could -- I mean, we could 5 ask TAC to help us. I mean, I know they're a bidder, but I 6 -- that is one of their services. And they -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: They have people that work in 9 each field, and they're, quote, experts in each -- each 10 field. I mean, I know that the last -- the last time that 11 we looked at health insurance, their -- TAC's person -- his 12 name is Norwood, I believe -- came down and visited with us. 13 And -- and what we did was based on what his recommendations 14 were after -- after we had a chance to look at it. And at 15 that -- at that time, what I'm remembering is that -- well, 16 his recommendations were, because of our experience, was -- 17 was to wait. I tell you, it was like two years until 18 some -- some of our bad experience rolled off before -- 19 before we went into a pool. In other words, he -- they kind 20 of shied off themselves. I mean, they were -- they were 21 like the Judge just explained. They didn't -- you know, 22 they weren't real anxious for us to be a part of the pool. 23 But, you know, that may change. But I do think that they 24 would get us some -- some guidance. 25 MS. UECKER: What about NACo? Would they 7-14-03 275 1 have anything to offer? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not members. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I personally have a 4 base reluctance to engage a potential bidder to give us 5 consult up front. I think that -- I don't think you get 6 your best answers that way. I'd rather see us go to an 7 independent consultant. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, you know, TAC -- we are 9 basically self-insured with TAC, really. I mean, they -- 10 they do sell part of their -- of their coverage -- 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, they buy reinsurance. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: They buy reinsurance. But, I 13 mean, they are just our representative. And -- I mean, so I 14 don't know why they wouldn't give us a straight answer. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're right. 16 I don't know in what departments and how far in-depth that 17 they'll go. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Well -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I think you're 20 exactly right in your -- in all your comments. That's what 21 they do. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We're members of them, 23 and that's what we're paying for. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Might as well use it. 7-14-03 276 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, they have always been, 2 in my experience, limited though it may be, very, very 3 responsive to any request we've made for any kind of 4 assistance out of them. In the area of this worker's comp, 5 their rep was over here a few weeks ago. Their -- their 6 safety rep was over here a couple of weeks ago. You call 7 them, they come. They're -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: -- pretty responsive. Now, 10 you know, whether or not, in addition to that, you want to 11 talk to somebody that is totally independent and doesn't 12 have even the potential of having a dog in the fight, you 13 know, that sure wouldn't hurt either. The difficulty we 14 have right now on that is identifying this individual and -- 15 and getting him on board, or her, as the case may be. But 16 we can sure -- sure start with our TAC people, and if we're 17 able to ascertain -- you know, this fellow that Commissioner 18 Nicholson mentioned, is he recently retired? 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, he's -- he's in 20 the investment banking business also, and he handles 21 insurance. So, he would meet that criteria that could be a 22 concern; he would tailor his advice to what he has to sell. 23 MS. UECKER: What type of -- 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A lot of retirees, a 25 lot of talent in this town. 7-14-03 277 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Now that we need the media to 2 put the word out for us, I notice we've got a large raft of 3 them present. We need to construct a separate press 4 gallery, don't we, Commissioner Baldwin? They seem to be so 5 interested in the business we're conducting here. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner 7 Williams could tell you about that a lot. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They have to meet a 9 deadline, and have supper before they do it. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Where do we want to 11 go with this? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with Commissioner 13 Williams; I don't think we ought to go out with the RFP 14 right now. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: On the health? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the health. I think 17 it's premature, and I think we need to put it back on the 18 agenda to figure out -- try to figure out, you know, who to 19 hire. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do too. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Nobody has anything 22 they want to offer in the way of a motion on that one? 23 Okay. Let's move on, gentlemen. Consider and discuss 24 authorizing Request for Proposals for information technology 25 maintenance services, Fiscal Year 2003 and '04. 7-14-03 278 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is basically the 2 same format as the plumbing, electrical, HVAC. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Pretty close, yeah. Pretty 4 close to that. Some of the criteria are a little bit 5 different, but then we're asking for response time rates and 6 so forth. But, yeah, it's fairly similar. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- is there a -- 8 I guess I don't see in here kind of a -- a question fee. Or 9 I envision -- I've needed to call and get advice, and not 10 necessarily a repair job or something like that. I'm 11 thinking of a consultation, or a certain hour -- number of 12 hours a week or something along that line. That if -- for 13 example, if Linda has a problem on her computer, she can 14 call up and give -- it will give her some advice on, you 15 know, something -- 16 MS. UECKER: Yeah. Probably -- maybe a 17 hundred bucks an hour. A hundred bucks a phone call. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But, I mean, 19 that's why it needs to be -- I mean, I think that -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think that 21 would be useful, that type of -- 22 MS. UECKER: Yeah, it would be useful. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is entirely 24 different than that systems support services that I 25 mentioned earlier. 7-14-03 279 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The computer 3 group -- whatever, Software Group. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. This is more -- 5 MS. PIEPER: Is this more in line of 6 Shaun's -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, this is in line of 8 Shaun's. 9 MS. PIEPER: His job? Or -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: This is in lieu of Shaun. 12 MS. UECKER: The only real concern I have -- 13 and, you know, I understand where you're coming from about 14 the contract with a service company, but probably having 15 more sealed records than maybe anybody else here, I really 16 have a concern letting sealed records and court records out 17 to someone that I can't recommend to fire or get rid of or 18 whatever, because of them. And, I mean, right now there's 19 so many counties out there that are having problems; they're 20 finding their own records for sale out on the internet. 21 Happened in Fort Bend County just recently. Fort Bend? No, 22 that's close to Houston. Anyway, there are several counties 23 out there that have really had some problems. And -- you 24 know, and I may be all wet. I don't know, but I can't -- I 25 really feel uncomfortable putting my records into the hands 7-14-03 280 1 of someone that I don't know isn't going to sell them or 2 distribute the information or whatever. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The same concern 4 should register for the Sheriff as well. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And -- 6 MS. UECKER: Absolutely. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- it does, greatly, 8 because you talk about juvenile records and all that. 9 Personally, what I think here, the County at one time had an 10 outside company doing a lot of our stuff, and it was a total 11 disaster. 12 MS. UECKER: That was mainly hardware. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, it was hardware, 14 coming out, fixing things, sending computers over to him to 15 get it fixed, but it was a total disaster. Personally, I 16 see this as -- as, one, being an employee evaluation 17 problem. If there's no employee evaluation process to take 18 care of an employee, that's not being beneficial and not 19 fulfilling the needs. Or else that part of the county is a 20 department that is too small and needs more employees to 21 help take care of the needs of our computer services, the 22 way they are. I don't know that it's actually -- we want to 23 release this out or give this out to a -- to a company. I 24 think it needs to stay in-county, where we can call our own 25 employee; you're not having -- having to worry about going 7-14-03 281 1 out to other -- other places. But there's a problem. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you hit the 3 nail right on the head, Sheriff. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Hmm? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you hit the 6 nail right on the head. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, and the 8 private sector -- I do acknowledge they're different in the 9 private sector than government. It's very common and 10 increasingly more common for companies to outsource this 11 kind of work, to get outside the company and find that they 12 can get it done better and cheaper. And the same kinds of 13 confidentiality issues exist there, more as -- Jonathan's 14 been there. If I'm doing your seismic data storage, I can 15 sell those seismic for a million dollars on the black 16 market. And there are ways to -- to avoid those -- avoid 17 those risks. I think same thing exists here. I -- I've had 18 experience with a local contractor who is -- is more 19 valuable than -- than any of the big companies I know of, 20 solving my software and hardware problems on the computer, 21 and he can usually do it on the telephone in about five 22 minutes. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: The security issue, I think, 24 is which is more dangerous? Someone who has access to your 25 data while you're there or someone who has access to your 7-14-03 282 1 data when you're not there? Simple question. Obviously, 2 the latter. 3 MS. UECKER: Either way, I base my opinion on 4 the fact that there are criminal penalties for the release 5 of this information. And only to me, nobody else. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's different 7 between having an employee that's on our payroll causing 8 that exposure or a contractor who's not on our payroll 9 causing that exposure? The result is going to be the same 10 either way. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: I think you have more control 12 over a person that you have under your employment. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Your security's going to 14 be a little bit more with your employment -- you know, the 15 person. One of the main things, what you're talking about, 16 a lot -- a lot of it, I don't think there would be a 17 difference in your answer, whether it's when you're there or 18 when you're not there, you know, depending on who it is. I 19 think if it's another County employee that intentionally 20 does it, that's hired by the County, then there are a lot 21 more recourse the County has with that one, but we'll get 22 into that a little bit different. What my concern is, like 23 Dave's saying, well, you can call a lot of these places and 24 they can get you fixed up over the phone. What we're 25 finding in this county -- and Tommy may or may not agree 7-14-03 283 1 with me -- I see it a whole lot in my office, is we're 2 operating off a lot of old equipment and a lot of equipment 3 that's not even used by people any more. The over-the-phone 4 doesn't work for us with all the different things that are 5 tied in. You're going to have to have somebody come out 6 there and actually physically work it. We're having a 7 serious problem with getting our current one out there to do 8 this. I don't know if it's time management. I got my 9 opinions. 10 MS. UECKER: He says he's always over at your 11 office. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. I have a -- I 13 have a serious deal with the current employee. But I think 14 if you look at the number of computers and the number of 15 computer-related systems that this county has with the 16 number of employees -- you know, I've got fingerprint 17 equipment, I've got TLETS, I've got just -- you name it; 18 we've got it out there. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We know. We paid for it. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Huh? We didn't have to 22 pay for it. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: That's why nobody else has 24 anything, 'cause you got it all. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, but most of my -- 7-14-03 284 1 but my computer equipment is real outdated. And there's a 2 lot of -- like the virus protection system the County has 3 here doesn't work on ours out there because of the distance 4 between, so we're constantly fighting different viruses. 5 But I think you're looking at something that would be more 6 beneficial. If you can handle it over the phone, that'd be 7 great, but 90 percent of the Sheriff's Office problems 8 cannot be handled over the phone. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Rusty? 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Have to have somebody 11 come out. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I was using the 13 over-the-phone as an example, just to say -- 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I understand. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This guy drives 16 25 miles out to my house and sits down, fixes the problem 17 for me. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I don't know what 19 Shaun -- 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: At a reasonable 21 rate. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know what 23 Shaun's salary is; I don't care to know, but I know what the 24 company that -- before was getting for just coming out there 25 and picking up a computer was $75. And with the amount of 7-14-03 285 1 work we have to have done, you -- with what the County was 2 looking at paying that company, we could probably pay for 3 four or five Shauns. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We might get these 5 bids back in and they say no, we can't do this. 6 MS. UECKER: Well, and the other concern I 7 have is, you know, we're all using Ableterm. And I don't 8 care which company we go with, whether it's Landata, whether 9 it's Ableterm, whether it's ImageTek, I don't care who. 10 They're all, you know, separate programs, and I think if you 11 contract that, Dave, I think that's going to have to be 12 someone that's really going to have to be familiar with 13 Ableterm. Because you got the court's package, the jury, 14 you've got the Sheriff's package, we've got the Tax 15 Assessor, two or three packages. You know, I've got four -- 16 four right now. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is our present 18 employee familiar with those programs? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, he is. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. The whole problem 21 right now is we cannot get people to fix it when we need it 22 fixed. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: That's something I'd like 24 to -- 25 (Discussion off the record.) 7-14-03 286 1 MS. UECKER: It's not that he doesn't know; 2 he just won't do it. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: What difference does it make, 4 then? 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's exactly it. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: That's my point. 7 MS. PIEPER: I feel very uncomfortable having 8 somebody having access to my office 24/7 when I'm not there. 9 That really bothers me. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Jannett, I had -- I have -- I 11 had it when I was doing it. I had -- 12 MS. UECKER: I don't have a problem with 13 that. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: I had a passkey for every 15 office in this building. 16 MS. PIEPER: But you're licensed and bonded. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: He is too. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think the whole 19 difference is, I think there's a certain employee in this 20 position right now that nobody -- at least I know nobody in 21 my area, and I think I may speak for -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be careful we don't go 23 into a personnel issue. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're dangerously 7-14-03 287 1 close. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think you need to look 3 at personnel issues more than anything else, to put it 4 mildly. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you have to 6 look at something else as well, because if you send this out 7 the way it is, you're asking for response times and rates 8 and so forth and so forth and so forth and so forth. At 9 some point in time, we're going to have to lay these rates 10 against experience. What have we done over the last two 11 years? How many calls? How many services? How much of 12 this and that and the other thing? And we haven't done that 13 yet. 14 MS. PIEPER: I think one thing that would 15 help and that would ease my mind is when I put in the work 16 orders -- I'm not sure that's what they're called. If I'm 17 having a problem with a computer and I, you know, put -- I 18 fill out that form and go put on it his door, once he gets 19 that completed, if he will, you know, write on the bottom, 20 "I've completed this," and give it back to me, then I think 21 that would help as well. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, an employee issue. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: I'd like to -- judging on my 25 -- on my knowledge of what I've had to do in the past, we're 7-14-03 288 1 going to spend tons more money on -- on this process than we 2 are right now. Just this month, Microsoft came out with an 3 update on their operating software. Shaun has 100 to 150 4 hours in installing or reinstalling that update. I did the 5 math on it; that's, like, $13,000 to $15,000 worth of time. 6 And what our problem is -- I mean, 80 percent of our service 7 calls is directly related to internet. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To what? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: To internet problems. The 10 State of Texas and CIRA, which is -- which is a Texas 11 Association of Counties -- it's called the County 12 Information Resources Agency. 13 MS. UECKER: Stan Reid's -- 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. They -- the State of 15 Texas has a policy for the use of internet and -- and 16 personal computers, and it's -- I mean, it's very 17 restrictive. And I -- I think that if the County could 18 adopt a policy for the use of -- of computers, we would 19 cut -- I think we would cut our -- our need for hours of 20 service in half. I mean, you -- I'm not going to tell you 21 what I've seen on computers in this courthouse, but I 22 have -- I have pictures that I personally have taken off of 23 computers in this courthouse that I would not show in mixed 24 public. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, go get them. 7-14-03 289 1 We're going to go in executive session. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: I mean -- so, I mean, they're 3 -- I mean, I've -- I have witnessed total abuse of the 4 internet. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that. And I 6 see no reason for employees to be using the internet, other 7 than data going from us to other state agencies, really. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: If you give me a chance, I 10 would like to explain why I think that, is that in '96, 11 before the -- the Court decided to give everybody internet, 12 to use our -- our system, the tax system, the courts, 13 Sheriff's package, we didn't need a computer. Today we 14 don't need a computer. We can -- you know, we can access 15 our computer system with a $200 dumb terminal. In fact, 16 there's a piece of software that goes on a computer -- Linda 17 talked about it a while ago -- called Ableterm. Ableterm 18 tells the computer that it's not a computer. In fact, our 19 system will not talk to a computer. It will only talk to it 20 unless it thinks it's not a computer. So, we have -- we 21 have a big system that everybody talks to to get their basic 22 information out of; the courts, financials, Sheriff's 23 Office. Okay, that -- that communication goes to, I would 24 say, half of the computers. The other half of the computer 25 use is for internet, Microsoft Office products, you know, 7-14-03 290 1 those -- those kinds of -- of things that we use to run our 2 office. Those two pieces have nothing to do with the other. 3 All of our problems lie in the half that has to do with the 4 internet, not -- not the side that goes to our -- to our 5 system. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The Software Group's 7 package, the whole county system that runs Sheriff's Office, 8 Linda's, mine, you know, his, everybody, what he's saying is 9 that system that the County has is not what we have the 10 problems with at all. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you want us to 12 eliminate internet access? 13 MS. UECKER: No. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: No, I want to control it. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mean eliminate 16 it, but control it substantially. 17 MS. UECKER: Yeah. And, just recently, I 18 have implemented a policy in my office, and I had a meeting 19 two weeks ago that you will communicate via the internet 20 with other agencies and offices as much as you can, because 21 it saves so much more time. I mean, if -- if one of my 22 staff calls out to the Sheriff's Office, it ends up -- you 23 have to go through the, "How are you's?" "What you doing?" 24 And it ends up being a 20-minute personal phone call. The 25 internet, they can go on and say, you know, "What's this?" 7-14-03 291 1 You know, "Send it back to me when you can." It's much more 2 efficient, as far as I'm concerned, than making those -- 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's a lot of 4 personal business on it that doesn't need to be. 5 MS. UECKER: That's why I'm saying control. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It needs to be 7 controlled. The County just needs to get good personnel in 8 that department, division, or whatever, and come up with 9 some good policies on the part of the computer usage; that 10 is the Microsoft Office, Microsoft Word. That -- because 11 that doesn't have anything to do with the County's computer 12 system. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If there's going to be 14 internet access to all the computers, it's the department 15 heads and elected officials that are going to be 16 responsible. That's the only way it can be. 17 MS. UECKER: Right. And I'm taking that full 18 responsibility. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All the -- I mean, and I 20 don't know how -- and when we first hired a -- a computer 21 consultant, the issue was, oh, you don't want -- or no one 22 wanted him spying on what we were doing. The only way we're 23 going to be able to control it is -- 24 MS. UECKER: He's going to have to at least 25 look and see where they're going on the internet. And if 7-14-03 292 1 they're going -- there's going to have to be repercussions 2 to these employees. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's where we need the 4 person -- the employee with the County that's in charge of 5 the computer technology. For me to go in and find out who 6 might have -- I don't know how to do that. I don't try 7 and -- you know, how do you do that? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No one wanted that to 9 happen. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The thing about the 11 County -- when he's coming out, fixing problems, he can give 12 me a deal saying, "This is coming off of this computer. You 13 got an employee that's doing something they shouldn't be 14 doing." Then I'll take action immediately. That's what's 15 we need. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: The reason -- when we hired 17 the current person, we interviewed, like, 20 people for -- 18 18, 20 people for that job. That person was the only one 19 that knew anything about the Unix operating system. Unix -- 20 Unix operating system is an IBM product. That operating 21 system is what drives our software. In order -- in order to 22 successfully install a computer in any -- in any location, 23 you have to know something about Unix operating system. I 24 mean, and one -- one person out of -- out of 18 to 20 knew 25 anything about that operating system. 7-14-03 293 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are you saying Unix, 2 U-n-i-x? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. It's an IBM product 4 that -- that drives our software. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's the operating 6 system? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, it's the guts of our 8 system. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Moving along, it seems 10 that we are not going to go out for RFP's on this item at 11 this time. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you convinced of that? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm convinced. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We're not doing it 15 today. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not today. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not that we're not doing 18 it, but not today. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But this has been 20 worthwhile. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Enlightening. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Only thing I want to 24 say about it is, I'm not -- I'm not sure that this body 25 needs to make some kind of policy. We can, but it's -- 7-14-03 294 1 there's not anything wrong with it, but I'm with Jon about 2 it, that the department head/elected official needs to 3 handle those things in their own office. 4 MS. UECKER: I'd like -- you know, if -- I'd 5 like for the computer person to let me know, you know, 6 what's going on so I can take that action. The other thing 7 is -- and I ask Tommy about it every year. Is there a way 8 that Ableterm can use Word -- is that right? Windows? 9 Windows. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Ableterm -- 11 MS. UECKER: But it's going to cost the 12 County. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: -- can use Word if everybody 14 uses it. That's the key. 15 MS. UECKER: I've been saying, okay, I'm 16 everybody, you're everybody, you're everybody. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We've all said yes; it 18 just hasn't been budgeted yet. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask Tommy one 20 question. Tommy, do we have DSL throughout the entire 21 system? Sheriff, courthouse, everywhere, all the computers? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: For the most part. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there any way of 24 metering the utilization by computer on DSL? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. I think the 7-14-03 295 1 phone company probably could -- could do that for us. I 2 said I think the phone company -- there might be a way for 3 them to do that. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That might be 5 something we need to do. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only other thing we've 7 done with some of our computers, especially in the jail area 8 and that, is we took off Internet Explorer. You take that 9 program off, it doesn't matter if you have DSL or not; they 10 can't get out -- 11 MS. UECKER: Somebody that knows how can go 12 back up. I think the biggest problem we've had is in the -- 13 the Law Library, there's been some kids up there that have 14 been pulling up stuff. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We've wrung out Item 16 27, looks like. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For now. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, for the immediate time 19 being. Let's move on to Item Number 28, consider and 20 discuss burn ban status for Kerr County. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I recommend no action at 22 this time. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ten-four. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just about hit the 25 bottom of the pile. 7-14-03 296 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Boy, that was significant, 2 wasn't it? Anybody have anything further on 28? Next item, 3 consider and discuss approval of the inclusion of CRNA 4 services as an optional service under the Indigent Health 5 Care Program, and authorize County Judge to request approval 6 of such inclusion by Texas Department of Health. Let me go 7 straight to the bottom line, gentlemen. Under our Indigent 8 Health Care Program right now, we have not included a nurse 9 anesthetist as an optional service, so anytime there's any 10 sort of surgical procedure where anesthesia is required, a 11 physician anesthetist is used in our Indigent Health Care 12 Program. If we adopt if CRNA services as an optional 13 service and report it as such to the Texas Department of 14 Health, we can use nurse anesthetists where cheaper than 15 physician anesthetists. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That cut to the 17 bottom line, too. Judge, I move that we approve the 18 inclusion of CRNA services as an optional service under the 19 Indigent Health Care Program and authorize the County Judge 20 to sign the same. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any 23 further discussion? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Is this -- 25 is this recognized by the State as a -- is this nurse 7-14-03 297 1 position on the state list there? I mean, are they eligible 2 for reimbursement? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, but only if the 4 Commissioners Court in the county approves it as an optional 5 service and requests the approval of that inclusion by the 6 Texas Department of Health. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. Now, who's 8 next in line to get in on the deal? If we approve this one, 9 who's the next? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have a clue. I just 11 know we save money by using the nurse anesthetist, rather 12 than -- if we don't approve it as optional service, they'll 13 use a physician anesthesiologist, and we'll get to pay 14 whatever the allowable rate is for him, which is -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Substantially more. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not convinced that 17 it's reimbursable. Are you going by this list in this 18 letter from Mr. Massey? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going by some discussion 20 that I had with -- what's Judy's last name? 21 MS. SOVIL: I don't know. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Who is our Indigent Health 23 Care qualifying representative at Sid Peterson Hospital? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Bledsoe. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Bledsoe, yeah. 7-14-03 298 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I thought -- I thought there 2 was a master list of procedures that -- that the State would 3 reimburse you for if you ever went over the limit. And I 4 always was of the impression that -- that optional services 5 weren't included in that. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, here's the problem. If 7 -- if you have someone that qualifies under the Indigent 8 Health Care -- this is reported to me by Ms. Bledsoe, and 9 there's a procedure which involves the administration of 10 anesthesia. If they're qualified under the Indigent Health 11 Care Program, we're on the hook for it. Now, if we don't 12 adopt the CRNA as an optional service, where it can be 13 performed by a nurse anesthetist, then -- and it has been 14 heretofore performed by a physician anesthesiologist. And 15 the rate is higher for the physician than it is for the 16 nurse anesthetist, and so they -- they will not use a nurse 17 anesthetist on those patients because they can't get paid 18 for it. And so they've used the physician, and we're paying 19 the higher rate. That's the bottom line. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, they are on the 21 list? The nurse is on the list for reimbursement? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you use the term 23 "reimbursement." I'm talking about what we pay. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, they're saying, 25 though, if we go over the 6 percent or whatever it is, will 7-14-03 299 1 the State reimburse us if we're not using a doctor? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That's -- I didn't get into 3 the excess, over 8 percent issue. Right now what's 4 happening is, if there's anesthesia administration required, 5 because -- because we haven't adopted as an optional 6 service, and therefore it's not a qualified expenditure 7 under our Indigent Health Care Program, they're using a 8 physician anesthesiologist, and we pay for that. If we 9 adopt it as an optional service and certify it as such, and 10 request the inclusion with Texas Department of Health, they 11 can then use, instead of the physician anesthesiologist, the 12 nurse anesthetist. And we'll pay the nurse anesthetist, but 13 it will be a lesser sum than the physician. We're going to 14 pay either way. We just pay less with the nurse 15 anesthetist. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who makes the -- who 17 makes the call at the hospital as to whether we have a -- 18 the doctor or a nurse anesthetist? Somebody has to make 19 that judgment call. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Right now, if it's an Indigent 21 Health Care, the nurse anesthetist won't show up, 'cause 22 they can't get paid. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I understand 24 that, Judge. I'm just talking about in terms of the 25 procedure, the severity of what's taking place in the O.R. 7-14-03 300 1 or whatever. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Treating physician obviously 3 would make that -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the question. 5 Okay. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. And in most cases, you 7 can use a nurse anesthetist. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say it three times fast. 9 Isn't there a motion? 10 MS. PIEPER: You have a motion and second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there a motion and a 12 second? Any further discussion? All in favor of the 13 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Okay. We're 18 next going to consider items that we very seldom hear about, 19 budget matters. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's only 10. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: No, there's not. There's 12. 23 (Laughter.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Turn that air down. 7-14-03 301 1 MS. SOVIL: Buster, our record is 32. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pardon? Pardon? 3 MS. SOVIL: Our record is 32. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nevermind, it just 5 went off. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: A few carryover items; we may 7 make that here pretty quick. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: While he's getting those 9 out, in case you didn't get the message from the attorney 10 for Frigerio, Judge, on the final lawsuit that was 11 pending -- 12 (Discussion off the record.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Did you get a 12? I didn't 14 get an 11. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got a 12 and 11. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: No moving on 11 till I get a 17 copy. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Here, I've got it. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. You got two of 20 them? Well, no, you got one. Okay. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Judge, the final 22 lawsuit, at least the Sheriff's Office had pending, it's a 23 1999 lawsuit, I think. The one -- you may know the one; 24 original figures asked were, like, $5 million over an 25 investigation indictment. I got a call last Friday -- 7-14-03 302 1 Thursday from Mr. Frigerio. That lawsuit -- and the 2 training issue was a big issue in that thing -- has also 3 been thrown out. There was a summary judgment issued by a 4 federal judge last week. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Summary judgement, federal 6 court? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So they can appeal it, 8 but that's still -- should have taken care of that. And 9 that was the final one we had. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Budget Amendment 11 Request Number 1. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: From the County Treasurer, to 13 transfer $33 from Office Supplies to Postage. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 17 approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any discussion? 18 All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget 23 Amendment Request Number 2. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: This is for Nondepartmental 25 and Commissioners Court, to transfer $1,603 from Capital 7-14-03 303 1 Outlay in Nondepartmental to Commissioners Court Capital 2 Outlay for the replacement of a computer. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this to replace the 4 one that Thea broke? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded, 10 Budget Amendment Request Number 2 be approved. Any further 11 discussion? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are we doing with 15 $4,000 left in our Capital Outlay? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: That -- that Capital Outlay 17 line item is -- oh, for -- for 409, for Nondepartmental? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Be for Nondepartmental. 20 MS. SOVIL: We didn't have any in ours, 21 Buster. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see. So, it's 23 going down this time. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Nondepartmental to 25 Commissioners Court Capital Outlay. 7-14-03 304 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Usually you have them 2 moving up. Sorry, you're right. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion or 4 questions? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 5 your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget 10 Amendment Request Number 3. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: This is for County Court at 12 Law, 198th District Court, and the 216th District Court. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This one's large. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Request is to transfer 15 $1,122.81 from Court-Appointed Attorney line item in the 16 198th Court, $41 from Court-Appointed Attorneys line item in 17 the 216th Court. $332.81 goes to Court-Appointed Attorney 18 line item in County Court at Law, $41 in the Books, 19 Publications, and Dues in the 216th Court. $25 goes to 20 Books, Publications, and Dues in the 198th Court. $665 21 transfers to Court-Appointed Services in the 216th -- 198th 22 Court, and $100 into Special Court Reporter for 198th Court. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 7-14-03 305 1 Budget Amendment Request Number 3 be approved. Any 2 discussion or questions? All in favor of the motion, 3 signify by raising your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget 8 Amendment Request Number 4. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: This is for the Sheriff's 10 office, to transfer $1,059.57 from Software Maintenance, and 11 $925.75 to Investigation Expenses and $133.82 to Radio 12 Repairs. I have a late bill attached to this to H.E.B. 13 Grocery for $229.89. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doughnuts? 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I was hungry. It's film 16 development for photos. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: H.E.B. does charges late 18 charges if we don't get bills paid. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the H.E.B. 20 number? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: $229.89. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 7-14-03 306 1 Budget Amendment Request Number 4 be approved. Any 2 questions or comments? All in favor of the motion, signify 3 by raising your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Auditor, let me ask you, 8 should that motion have included a hand check to H.E.B.? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Yes. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's back up on that one. 11 Did, in fact, the motion that you made include the hand 12 check? Wasn't it you, Commissioner Nicholson? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it did. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question, 15 Judge. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The $1,059.57 does 18 not include $229.89, so that number has to change, right? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it does; it includes it. 20 It's for Investigation Expenses. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, no, I'm talking 22 about the total, $1,059. That's coming out of Software 23 Maintenance to cover the first two items. It does not 24 include the $229 for H.E.B. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Well -- 7-14-03 307 1 JUDGE TINLEY: It's in the $925.75. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: It's in the $925. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, got you. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Budget Amendment 7 Request Number 5. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This is for Judge 9 O'Dell, J.P. 3. Her request is to transfer $400 from 10 Part-Time Salaries to Office Supplies. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's an awful lot of 12 office supplies. Truck load of pencils. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: I do have a bill for $256.40. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Who's it to? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Bear Graphics. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 19 seconded that Budget Amendment Request Number 5 be approved, 20 and authorize hand check to Bear Graphics for $256.40. Any 21 further questions or discussion? All in favor, signify by 22 raising your right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 7-14-03 308 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget 2 Amendment Request Number 6. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: This request is from Glenn 4 Holekamp for the Ag Barn, to transfer $2,508.78 from Major 5 Repairs to Equipment Repairs. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's he fixing? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Hmm? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is he fixing? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: He fixed a vehicle. It went 10 to Krauss Garage. There's three invoices; one for $508.79, 11 one for $1,200, one for $800. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three different vehicles? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: This invoice does not have 14 the vehicle ID's on them, so I -- I don't -- I don't know 15 for sure which one it is -- which one it was. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just seems like that's a 17 lot of repairs for one time at the Ag Barn. There's not 18 that many vehicles. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: There are three different 20 dates; one is June 1, June 17, and June 30th. But I don't 21 -- I don't have the individual tickets for those, so I don't 22 know. We haven't paid the bill, so -- I mean, that's the 23 reason I have it here, is they don't have the money. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I get the impression 25 that the Major Repairs category is sort of a fund to -- 7-14-03 309 1 funded within -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a fund that's been 3 in there -- it's been a point of contention while it's in 4 there. It's been used recently if something major happens 5 that has to be fixed, not something that needs to be fixed. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sort of an emergency 7 fund, not a planned spending fund. I move we approve. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 10 Budget Amendment Request Number 6 be approved. Any further 11 questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 12 signify by raising your right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Budget Amendment Request 17 Number 7. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This request -- this 19 request is to transfer $12,136.02 from Nondepartmental 20 Contingency to County-Sponsored department for the Kerr 21 County Appraisal District contract payment. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What happened? We 23 didn't budget enough -- 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Didn't budget enough. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- at the beginning 7-14-03 310 1 of the year? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: We have one quarter payment 3 to make for $27,320.84, and we have $15,184.82 balance in 4 that -- in that line item. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, the budget 6 balance for the contingency, is that after this number comes 7 out, or is that before this number comes out? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: That -- what it is, the 9 $12,161.42 is what it is before it comes out. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, there's 30 bucks 11 left in the contingency line? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good piece of 14 information. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: $25. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $25. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: When is the KCAD -- KCAD 18 budget was known in advance of the adoption of this 19 current-year budget, wasn't it? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm sure it was. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: So our obligation -- it was a 22 fixed obligation, wasn't it? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: It's no different than -- you 24 know, than it is this year. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I guess the only -- only 7-14-03 311 1 response to it is that we just missed it. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It happens. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Obviously, it did. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 9 Budget Amendment Request Number 7 be approved. Any further 10 questions or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising 11 your right hand. 12 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 14 (No response.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget 16 Amendment Request Number 8. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: This is from Justice of the 18 Peace, Precinct 2. Her request is to transfer $26.78 from 19 Miscellaneous, $186.78 from Lease Copier, $115.06 goes to 20 Conferences, $98.50 goes to Bonds. And I have a late bill 21 attached that I need a hand check for to First Insurance 22 Agency for $71 for renewal of a notary bond. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Notary? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 7-14-03 312 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 3 Budget Amendment Request Number 8 be approved, and authorize 4 issuance of a hand check for $71 to First Insurance Agency. 5 Any further questions or discussion? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we can see here 7 that her Conference line should be at least $1,115 now in 8 the next budget year. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- nevermind, I 10 won't even comment. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just making a point, 12 that it's going over what it was budgeted last year. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a lot budgeted, I 14 think. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions, 16 comments, or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 17 signify by raising your right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget 22 Amendment Request Number 9. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 9 is for the District 24 Clerk. Her request is to transfer $552 from her Lease 25 Copier line item, $6,885 from Deputy Salary line item, the 7-14-03 313 1 $6,885 transfer to Part-Time Salary and $552 transfer to 2 Software Maintenance. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a deputy clerk 4 out for an extended period of time? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: It's a slot that's not filled. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: She has a place that's not 7 filled that she uses part-time. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 11 Budget Amendment Request Number 9 be approved. Any 12 questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 13 signify by raising your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 MS. ALFORD: Judge, who seconded the -- who 16 made the second on that motion? 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I seconded it. 18 Jonathan made the motion. 19 MS. ALFORD: Okay. Thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm getting weak 21 over here; can't hear me. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Okay, are we through 23 there? Budget Amendment Request Number 10. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 10 is for 25 County Court at Law. Judge Brown requests a transfer of 7-14-03 314 1 $155 from Telephone line item to his Insurance line item. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: I do have a late bill that I 4 need a hand check for to First Insurance Agency for $177.50. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve it 6 and approve the hand check. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 9 Budget Amendment Request Number 10 be approved and authorize 10 issuance of a hand check to First Insurance for $177.50. 11 Any further discussion or questions? All in favor of the 12 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget 17 Amendment Request Number 11. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is going to be a 19 good one. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This is a one-sided 21 budget amendment, but I have an invoice from Voelkel 22 Engineering for $5,877.50, and it's for the surveying for 23 the right-of-way for Hermann Sons Bridge. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, would you read 25 that handwritten note on there, please, into the record? 7-14-03 315 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is -- I'll say this 2 is a -- the budget amendment is per my request. Last 3 year -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't wait to hear 5 this. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last year we were in the 7 middle of the budget process when the flood came and took 8 out the temporary bridge at Hermann Sons, and it was 9 discussed, as I recall, that -- not to make any adjustments 10 to the budget, because we didn't know what we were going to 11 be faced with. Last year's -- in last year's budget, we had 12 money set aside for the right-of-way, but did not put any 13 money back into it, because we were not sure of what 14 TexDOT's position was going to be. Now we are aware of what 15 TexDOT's position is, and not only do we have this facing 16 us, we also have probably a similar bill coming from the 17 appraiser who appraised the property, and we have about -- 18 in the neighborhood of $30,000 of right-of-way acquisition 19 costs facing us, and they will probably be in this budget 20 year. These funds -- they're not budgeted, so we're going 21 to have to -- and I don't think there's any funds anywhere 22 in the budget where we could find the amount we're talking 23 about. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: No, sir. I visited with 25 Leonard about it, and he just thinks that that's a little 7-14-03 316 1 much for him to find a place. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, yeah. The -- the 3 funds originally, I believe, came out of special -- out of 4 the reserves in Special Projects, is where the money was 5 budgeted two years ago, and I would recommend that we 6 declare an emergency and go into that fund, the reserves in 7 Special Projects. I believe it's a separate fund for that. 8 (Mr. Tomlinson shook his head.) 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't think so either. 10 Truby swore there was. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: No, there's not. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other option would be 13 Flood Control. I mean, I don't know which fund we want to 14 go into, but it takes an emergency, I think, to go into -- 15 to get these funds, and it will be -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's back up here. 17 What do you mean, there's not a fund for special projects? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: The Court voted to 19 consolidate those Road and Bridge funds about a year and a 20 half ago. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And there's a license 22 plate fee, $10 license plate fee, that was designed to go 23 into a special -- what did we do with it? Where does it go 24 into? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: We -- all the road -- all the 7-14-03 317 1 Road and Bridge funds, except for the Schreiner Road Trust, 2 was consolidated into one operating fund for Road and 3 Bridge. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we need to -- I will 5 make a motion that we declare an emergency and take these 6 funds out of that Road and Bridge fund. 7 MS. SOVIL: Flood Control? There's money in 8 Flood Control. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can do it either way. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there money in Flood 11 Control? I thought -- 12 MS. SOVIL: In reserves. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the reserves. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, there is. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't know which is 17 better. I mean, you know -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: More accurate to come 19 out of Flood Control. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I would think so. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, take it out of 22 Flood Control. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I agree with the 24 Flood Control, but you were fixing to say out of the -- 25 what? 7-14-03 318 1 MS. SOVIL: I was going to say, if not Flood 2 Control, the Road and Bridge reserve fund. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So there is a Road and 4 Bridge reserve fund. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a fund. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: There's a fund, but it's -- 7 all the funds are consolidated. You're thinking about 8 or 8 10 years ago, when we first started talking about the High 9 Water Bridge project. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: We established a fund at that 12 time, because we thought the -- you know, the Court thought 13 that we -- that the County would be obligated for half a 14 million dollars for -- for the High Water Bridge project for 15 the County's portion. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: So we started setting aside 18 funds for that purpose out of -- out of that $10 fee. Then 19 it came about that we didn't need the money; that all we 20 were going to have to do is purchase the right-of-way, so we 21 consolidated those funds back into the regular Road and 22 Bridge operating account. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, like I say, there 25 are -- there's another bill which will be coming soon from 7-14-03 319 1 the appraiser, and then the right-of-way acquisition costs 2 also, but most of that's going to hit this budget year. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you make the 4 motion? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I made that motion to 6 take this out of Flood Control. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This next bill, 8 we'll probably do the same thing. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 11 discussion? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I made the second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, 14 signify by raising your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Number 12. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 12 is for the 198th 20 District Court. This was a last-minute bill that we -- that 21 we -- that came in for 6 -- I need to transfer $630 from 22 Court-Appointed Attorneys out of the 198th District Court 23 into Court-Appointed Services. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Hand check? 7-14-03 320 1 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 5 Budget Amendment Request Number 12 be approved. Any further 6 questions or discussion? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Court-Appointed 8 Services? Psychiatric evaluations and those kinds of 9 things? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it's for evaluation. 11 (Discussion off the record.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, 13 signify by raising your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Okay, 18 we've handled all of the late bills and the budget 19 amendments? Or -- 20 MR. TOMLINSON: I have two more. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: I have a request for 23 reimbursement from Commissioner Precinct 2 for his travels 24 to AACOG, and there's no funds left in -- in Commissioners 25 Court budget for conferences, so I'm asking for guidance. 7-14-03 321 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much is it? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: It's $91.76. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, he spills that 4 much on Saturday night. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought it was going to 6 be $25; I knew where $25 was. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can take up a 8 collection. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Pass the hat. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Want to get the audience 11 included in this? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, big time. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Where can we find 14 the funds to pay that? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, there's $5,600 in 16 Professional Services in the Commissioners Court budget, but 17 I don't know what's out there that would be paid out of 18 that, that would be coming in, so I wouldn't know how to 19 advise on that one. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we have 21 anything. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I wouldn't -- 23 now that we've stumbled through the Ag Barn thing today, I 24 don't think there's anything out there coming in, unless 25 there's a -- some of Mr. Pollard's lawsuit stuff still 7-14-03 322 1 needing -- 2 MS. SOVIL: Insurance adviser, you were 3 talking about. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're not going to 5 stop doing anything less than that for less than $100 travel 6 expenses. I'd suggest we take it out of that. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And when we're 10 building the budget, I really think that -- that our -- our 11 travel line that we have in -- or our Conference line that 12 we take -- that he takes his COG travel out of, I think -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where it's 14 coming now. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Needs to be 16 separated out, in my opinion. I think our Conference lines 17 are for those issues that the State requires us to do, and 18 that's going to conferences and getting those hours. And 19 his COG travel, it needs to be separated out. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's what he's 21 proposed, out-of-county travel line. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I put in one to that 23 effect. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, then. Fine. 25 I'm just trying to be helpful here. 7-14-03 323 1 JUDGE TINLEY: We're a little ahead of that 2 curve. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm on a short fuse 4 this afternoon. Happy hour. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good idea. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: I have one more late bill. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That wasn't approved, 8 was it? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, let's get this nailed 10 down. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we take 12 it out of the Professional Services line. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why are you watching 14 that so close? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got to pay my gas 16 bill. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 19 the Budget Amendment Request Number 12 -- or, no, that's the 20 late bill to reimburse Commissioner Precinct 2 for AACOG 21 travel, in the sum of $91 and 70 -- 22 MS. PIEPER: Six. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: 76 cents. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: 76 cents. All in favor of the 25 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 7-14-03 324 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. You got 5 another late bill? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. I have one payable to 7 the Department of Information Resources for $195.74. This 8 is a state agency for -- it's called the Tex-An III services 9 that the Sheriff's Department uses for -- for your CJIS 10 communications. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tex-An's an old state 12 telephone system. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: That's it. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right. That's 15 the phone line. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: That's it. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you do with 18 it? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: They -- 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Several different parts 21 that use that. The CJIS system, the Criminal Justice 22 information reporting, part of that fingerprint stuff, but 23 where it gets reported directly from the County, okay, to 24 even all the clerk's offices and all of us using it. That's 25 how it goes into their -- 7-14-03 325 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Since we -- since we're 2 reporting to a state agency, we're going through their 3 telephone system. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. 5 MR. TOMLINSON: So we're paying for access to 6 Tex-An, is what we're doing. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Kind of like your -- kind of 8 like your cell phone line; you pay it whether you're calling 9 or receiving. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You got it. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you -- how much was 12 it? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: $195.74. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: $195.74. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And where's the money 16 come from? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: We have -- out of his 18 Telephone line item. We have the money. We just -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, it's a late bill, 20 sorry. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: We need to pay it. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Forgive me, I'm sorry. 23 Second. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I did it after the 25 second. 7-14-03 326 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Old, weak guy over here. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: First motion I've seen 3 him make after a second. That's good. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're getting giddy. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 6 late bill to Department of Information Resources for $195.74 7 be approved. All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 8 your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Any more late bills? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: That's it. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's talk about the 15 minutes, then. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I have before me the minutes 19 of the transcript of the regular Commissioners Court meeting 20 of Monday, June 9, 2003, verbatim transcript of the Kerr 21 County Commissioners Court workshop, Monday, June 16, 2003, 22 dealing with O.S.S.F. Committee Status Report and 23 Subdivision Rules Update, and transcript of special 24 Commissioners Court meeting, Monday, June 23, 2003. Do I 25 hear a motion that the minutes are approved? 7-14-03 327 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 2 MS. SOVIL: You already have a motion. 3 Williams and Nicholson. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 5 seconded for approval of the designated transcripts. All in 6 favor, signify by raising your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Reports. I have presented to 11 me the following reports: Justice of the Peace Precinct 4, 12 County Clerk, Sheriff, Justice of the Peace Precinct 3, 13 Justice of the Peace Precinct 2, and Justice of the Peace 14 Precinct 1. Do I hear a motion that these reports be 15 approved as presented? 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Motion to approve as 17 presented. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't we accept them? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, we accept them. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Approve or -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Accept. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I've got them. I've accepted 25 them. I got them in my hot little hand. Do you want to 7-14-03 328 1 accept them? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've already looked at 3 them. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It will be approved and 5 accepted, accepted and approved. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine. Either way, as 7 long as there's an "accepted" in there. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All those in favor, signify by 9 raising your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Do we have 14 any reports from any of the Commissioners? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have an hour of 19 reports, Judge, on my trip to Pittsburgh for AACOG, but I'm 20 going to defer it to another day. (Laughter.) 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're right. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I was hoping you would give us 23 the report while the matters were fresh on your mind. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll stick around 25 and listen to it, Bill, after the meeting. 7-14-03 329 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any reports from 2 elected officials or department heads? Any reports from 3 boards, commissions, committees, Road and Bridge, or 4 Maintenance? Being no other reports, I'll declare the 5 meeting adjourned. 6 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 5:56 p.m.) 7 - - - - - - - - - - 8 9 10 11 STATE OF TEXAS | 12 COUNTY OF KERR | 13 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 14 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 15 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 16 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 17 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 25th day of July, 2003. 18 19 20 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 21 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 22 Certified Shorthand Reporter 23 24 25 7-14-03