1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Regular Session 10 Monday, September 8, 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 September 8, 2003 2 PAGE --- Visitors' Input 3 3 --- Commissioners' Comments 8 4 1.1 Presentation of all 4 Constables' qualifications 10 1.2 Consider waiving platting requirements for a 5 revision of plat 14 1.3 Actions and/or remedies to cure the complaints 6 regarding storage behind Kerr County Extension Service Office 20 7 1.4 Discuss legal procedure for enforcement of repeated OSSF violations when reported to County 8 Attorney's office by the Kerr County D.R. 34 1.7 PUBLIC HEARING - proposed Kerr County O.S.S.F. 9 Rules and Regulations 53 1.8 Adoption of proposed Kerr County O.S.S.F. Rules 10 and Regulations 70 1.5 PUBLIC HEARING - road name changes for County- 11 maintained roads, and regulatory signs 72 1.6 Road name changes for County-maintained roads & 12 regulatory signs as discussed in public hearing 72 1.14 Open proposals for Information Technology 13 maintenance service work 76 1.9 PUBLIC HEARING - proposed Archive Fee for the 14 preservation/restoration service performed by the County Clerk as per SB 1731 76 15 1.10 Adoption of the proposed Archive Fee for the preservation and restoration service performed 16 by the County Clerk as per SB 1731 77 1.11 Approval of the proposed FY 2003/2004 Public 17 Officials' Salary, set public hearing on same 78, 97 1.12 Approval of the proposed FY 2003/2004 Budget, 18 set public hearing on same 84, 111 1.13 Approval of the proposed FY 2003/2004 Tax Rate, 19 set public hearing on same 122 20 4.1 Pay Bills 126 4.2 Budget Amendments 130 21 4.3 Late Bills 137 4.4 Read and Approve Minutes 139 22 4.5 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 140 23 3.1 Action taken on Executive Session matters 142 24 --- Set price for proposed FY '03/'04 budget books 143 25 --- Adjourned 147 3 1 On Monday, September 8, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., a regular 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning. It's a minute 8 or so after 9 o'clock. I'll call to order the regular 9 Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for this date and 10 posted accordingly here on September the 8th. I believe 11 Commissioner Letz will lead us this morning. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would everyone please 13 stand and join me in prayer? 14 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner Letz. 16 At this time, if there's anyone here with us this morning 17 that wants to talk to us about any item that is not on the 18 agenda -- if you want to speak with us about an item that's 19 on the agenda, we would ask that you fill out a public 20 participation form. They're at the back of the room. If we 21 run short, why, give us a wave and we'll replenish the 22 stock. The only reason we ask you to fill these out is so 23 that we won't miss you and we'll be able to get to you when 24 that item comes, and it helps us in that planning function. 25 But, otherwise, if you want to say anything to us about 9-8-03 4 1 anything that is not on the agenda, you should feel 2 privileged, and we would welcome to you come forward at this 3 time and give your name to the reporter and tell us what's 4 on your mind. Is there anyone here in the audience that 5 wishes to talk to us about any item that is not listed on 6 the agenda? Yes, sir? 7 MR. MANN: I don't know what's on the agenda, 8 but I sure want to talk to you. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: What does it relate to, sir? 10 MR. MANN: 911. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't believe it's on the 12 agenda this trip, is it? Come forward, sir. Would you give 13 your name to the reporter, please? 14 MR. MANN: My name is Linn Mann, L-i-n-n, 15 M-a-n-n. I live at 101 Pyracantha Lane, Kerrville, Texas. 16 I've lived there since 1972. This -- a few days ago, I 17 received a communique from this illustrious body telling me 18 that after the first of the year, I can no longer live at 19 101 Pyracantha Lane, Kerrville, Texas; that I must live on a 20 road that's nonexistent. It says Lynn -- Lynn Drive. Now, 21 I have searched, and I can't find anywhere in the county a 22 road or a street by that name. Now, I resent anyone who 23 takes away some of my freedom, tells me where I can live and 24 where I can't live. And this is just -- just wrong. I 25 don't know where -- who brought this idea up. I assume that 9-8-03 5 1 the people running 911 brought it up, so let me say a couple 2 of words about 911. 3 Those people need three things to operate. 4 They need the location of the problem, they need the 5 characteristics of the problem, and they know who's 6 calling -- they need to know who's calling. That's all they 7 need. They don't need any more addresses; they've got them 8 all, because these things would not have been delivered if 9 they didn't have them. If they want -- and addresses are 10 not sufficient to the need. Let's get -- let's take a case. 11 Old -- old Jake decides to go deer hunting. He's going out 12 to Y.O. Ranch. We all know where the Y.O. is. He gets in 13 his jeep and he drives 7 miles or so from the ranch house, 14 and he rolls the jeep, breaks two legs. He's got his -- his 15 little cell phone, and he calls 911. "Hey, this is Jake. I 16 rolled my jeep. I broke two legs. I need help." "Well, 17 where are you?" "Well, I'm out at the Y O." Got the 18 address. Well, what good is that address? 19 Let me give you an example. A few years ago, 20 a Jeep station wagon was lost out on the range at the Y.O. 21 Eight years later, they found that bugger. Now, this is 22 where old Jake would -- would end up. What we need is to 23 use a new tool called -- called a GPS, global position 24 system. Now, throughout the history of mankind, we have 25 resisted using new technology, things like this. I remember 9-8-03 6 1 my dad when I was so, commenting on automobiles. "They'll 2 never last." This happens all the way down. Now, I don't 3 know who is holding up using GPS, because it is so -- it is 4 so simple to use. It's -- it is user-friendly, it is 5 extremely accurate, and it doesn't cost much. All we need 6 is -- is, at each residence, attached to their phone, the 7 coordinates when they pick it up. Susie calls, "Hey, this 8 is Susie Smith. The old man just fell off of the -- the 9 roof. Come and help me." "Well, Susie, where do you live?" 10 All she has to do is give the coordinates. The operations 11 people down there at 911 gives that -- that coordinates to 12 the driver of the emergency vehicle, and they poke it in and 13 they go right to it. No problem. 14 You know, I don't understand what is holding 15 up going to GPS. If people don't understand it, if they'll 16 turn on the TV tomorrow at 8 o'clock, and switch over to the 17 History Channel, they will educate you, all you need to 18 know. It's going to be there. The people who came up with 19 this idea, I don't understand, because all it will add is 20 confusion. This -- this casts -- for instance, one little 21 item. This casts a -- a cloud on -- on my title to my 22 property. Unless I go down over here and pay them $5 to get 23 that thing changed, I know you -- I know somebody else isn't 24 going to do it. If I don't do it, someday that house will 25 be turned over, and -- and the people who lived in there for 9-8-03 7 1 10 years -- they live at 104 Lynn Drive, which is 2 nonexistent now, and they go down and search the record 3 before they make the deal. They come back and say, "Why, 4 you don't own any property down there." Well, I thought I 5 did. Been living here 10 years. 6 We got enough confusion in this world without 7 us manufacturing it, and this is -- and this is 8 manufacturing a lot of it. I would ask the Court to rescind 9 this. Rescind this. It will take 10 years to get all of 10 this stuff changed. In 1972, when old Roger Stone approved 11 the two roads that I built, I started changing addresses, 12 and, you know, I haven't got them all changed yet. There's 13 one person that I correspond with quite often. I got a 14 letter from her yesterday to my old address, which I lost in 15 1972. This -- I fail to see anything that this thing will 16 enhance 911. Now, 911 is a good idea, but it's not the most 17 popular thing in my life. There are a lot of other things 18 that -- that I've got to worry with. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 20 MR. MANN: Thank you for putting up with me. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Appreciate you 22 coming forward with your comments today. Are there any 23 other citizens that wish to speak on a matter that is not 24 listed on the agenda? If not, we'll move forward. 25 Commissioner Letz, do you have anything to offer this 9-8-03 8 1 morning? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just congratulations to 3 the Comfort football team as they continue on their winning 4 ways. They have another outstanding season, at least the 5 start of an outstanding season. And a -- a comment, not 6 really for Mr. Mann, but for anyone who wants to pay 7 attention, that I would encourage people that have questions 8 on 911 and the cards to contact 911. There's a number on 9 the back of the card. They'll be glad to set up a meeting, 10 and they can explain in pretty much detail to anybody the 11 reason for the changes. You know, exactly -- if there's a 12 problem on any of those cards, and we know there are some, 13 they can be corrected. But that is the -- the procedure 14 that's been set up, is to visit with -- certainly, you're 15 welcome to visit with your Commissioner as well, but visit 16 with 911 and they will set up a specific time if it's a 17 complicated situation, or even if it isn't, to come in and 18 visit. They encourage everyone -- I'd really encourage 19 everyone to call 911, because that's part of the process to 20 get the addressing system finalized and complete throughout 21 the county. That's all I have. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner 23 Nicholson? 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I pass. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin? 9-8-03 9 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I just want 2 to echo Commissioner Letz in regards to the 911. We sent 3 out those cards last -- early last week, and there was 4 supposed to be a code number on the front of the card that 5 corresponded with the date that you were to call to work out 6 your information with 911. And the C.D. that we sent to the 7 printer had that code number on there, but it just failed to 8 make it on the card, so everyone's calling at one time. I 9 went out to 911 Thursday morning to help answer the calls, 10 and spoke with Mr. Mann, actually. And the -- it was a 11 nightmare. We probably answered close to 1,000 telephone 12 calls out there in the morning time. It was wild. But -- 13 and I'd gotten some -- Mr. Mann's nice, but I've gotten some 14 fairly ugly phone calls, and a couple of ugly e-mails. But 15 what I want to get straight this morning is, this 16 Commissioners Court names roads. 911 assigns numbers and 17 addresses. So, you know, we're -- I'm going -- we're going 18 to talk about that a little bit later, setting up a meeting 19 and getting that straight. I guess Mr. Mann's new address 20 is -- I'll have to confess, I created a fictitious street 21 name in my precinct trying to get him to live over there so 22 I could get one more vote, but obviously he's not interested 23 in that. So, that's all I have to say. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Of the 20-some-odd 9-8-03 10 1 people who called me about 911, I told them, "Forget the 2 code; just pick up the phone and call." Let it go at that. 3 I just want to advise the Court that Lin Navarro's husband, 4 Swinford, passed away Saturday morning about -- early 5 Saturday morning, and the funeral service -- memorial 6 services are pending. That's it. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. On the 911 issue, 8 it's unfortunate that the code didn't get on there, but I'm 9 sure the people at 911 will augment themselves as necessary 10 in order to take those calls as they come. And the quicker 11 they can get through those calls, the quicker we can get on 12 to the next phase of it. So, everybody, just -- when you 13 get your card, go ahead and call them, and if you got a 14 problem you need to try and discuss with them or work out 15 with them, why, go ahead and do that. If that's all you 16 have, we'll move to the business at hand. The first item is 17 consider and discuss the presentation of the four 18 constables' qualifications in accordance with Section 19 86.0021 of the Local Government Code. Constable Pickens. 20 MR. PICKENS: Morning, Judge. Good morning, 21 Commissioners Court. As per Commissioner Baldwin's request 22 to reset this for today, I have done that, and the other 23 constables are present as well. And, for the record, I have 24 completed all requirements to meet within the 270 days. I 25 have proof here for the Court. 9-8-03 11 1 (Discussion off the record.) 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 3 MR. PICKENS: I have a letter there from 4 TCLEOSE saying that I have met requirements. If anybody has 5 any questions about that? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do not. Looks good, 7 Bobby. Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, do we 9 accept these? Is that appropriate, just for the record? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I believe that's the procedure 12 that the applicable provision in the Local Government Code 13 describes. Commissioner Baldwin has been the one that was 14 kind of at the point on that, and I believe that's correct, 15 isn't it, Commissioner? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, it is 17 correct, or at least that's the way I understand it. Of 18 course, you understand a lawyer wrote that, so sometimes I 19 grab ahold of it, sometimes I don't. But it looks like it's 20 all in order, and we -- and that's what I wanted to do, is 21 officially accept them so they'll go in the record and in 22 the minutes. You want to -- Judge, but my question to you 23 is, do you want to do them individually, or are there more 24 coming forward? Or -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, other 9-8-03 12 1 constables back there. 2 MR. AYALA: I think we all have them. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Great. 4 MR. AYALA: Copy of my license and all any 5 TCLEOSE hours. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good, thank you. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: We've got all four constables 8 on their feet here. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're coming forward. 10 MR. TERRILL: Your Honor. Excuse me. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Bob. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. 13 MR. TERRILL: Commissioner. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. You only 15 made one copy, Commissioner -- constable? 16 MR. AYALA: I just brought one, I'm sorry. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. I passed it 18 on to the clerk. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: And Constable 3 -- 20 MR. GARZA: Yes, sir. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- is waiting for his turn 22 here. 23 MR. GARZA: Morning, gentlemen, honorable 24 Commissioners. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Constable Garza. 9-8-03 13 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll just pass those 2 for you. 3 MR. GARZA: I'll do it. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 5 MR. GARZA: There's a copy of my license on 6 the back page, my appointed peace officer's license issued 7 in 1993. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion that the 10 credentials as presented by constables for Precincts 1, 2, 11 3, and 4 be accepted? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 15 the credentials of the constables for Precincts 1, 2, 3, and 16 4 be accepted by the Court. Any further questions or 17 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 18 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. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is my opinion that 24 we have four licensed, complete constables in Kerr County. 25 Thank you very much. 9-8-03 14 1 MR. PICKENS: Thank you. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it, gentlemen. The 3 next item is the consideration and discussion of waiving a 4 platting requirement or requirements for a revision of a 5 plat. Apparently, this is in Precinct 3. Commissioner Letz 6 asked that that be placed on the agenda. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I did, and the -- 8 Christina Lovett is in the courtroom to answer questions 9 about the property we're talking about. This is a -- I 10 guess, a difficult situation. It's one that I've talked to 11 Ms. Lovett about; been going on probably the past two months 12 now, and I'll try to summarize it. And, basically, 13 Ms. Lovett has a tract of land in my precinct, in a platted 14 subdivision. Subdivision was platted about 1975, so it was 15 a -- predated any subdivision rules in the county. The 16 lot's about 2.4 acres, little bit over that. The rules -- 17 or the -- I guess the Subdivision Rules clearly allow for a 18 division of a subdivision of a lot in that subdivision down 19 to a minimum lot size, I think, of .7 acres. 20 However, when we first instituted our 21 Subdivision Rules, there had been some updates, and the 22 update in probably 1987 said -- maybe before '87, said 23 2.5-acre minimum lot size. And, all of a sudden, situations 24 like this prevent Ms. Lovett or anybody else from dividing 25 their -- their lot, if you're -- 'cause you have to do a 9-8-03 15 1 revision of plat, and the revision is subject to the new 2 rules. We don't get many of these before us. On 3 frequent -- not frequent, but several time since I've been a 4 Commissioner, we've had older subdivisions where we have 5 waived this rule, but we've done it in a different 6 direction. When there has been, for example, three 1-acre 7 lots and they wanted to combine them into two 8 acre-and-a-half lots, we have done that. So, we've done -- 9 figuring that was, you know, a betterment, even though it 10 still didn't meet the Subdivision Rules. 11 In this situation, there are two houses on 12 the lot. The -- the request, if we were to grant a waiver, 13 would be there would be two wells and two septic systems. I 14 believe there's enough property to do both of those things. 15 The -- both houses were built a number of years ago, 16 certainly eight or nine years ago or older, so this is not 17 something that was done recently. It was a situation -- and 18 it's not really real pertinent, but it is something 19 regarding that Ms. Lovett was divorced, and that's part of 20 the reason now that she's requested that we -- or that she 21 be allowed basically to sell one of the houses on her lot. 22 I've thought about this a lot. You know, clearly, from an 23 environmental standpoint and any other standpoint, she's 24 willing to meet the county rules of O.S.S.F. and the 25 Headwaters and all of that, so that's not really an issue 9-8-03 16 1 here. 2 I guess it goes down to lot size. And there 3 is clearly, in my mind, a precedent that is set by doing 4 this, because it's -- you know, once you kind of open the 5 door, it's hard to close it. And we have a lot of old 6 subdivisions in this county; a lot of them have lot sizes 7 that are currently below our minimum, and it's allowing them 8 to go kind of in a direction the Court has not been going, 9 lot size-wise, in the last probably 15, 20 years. However, 10 I also think this is a unique situation, because there are 11 two houses, and there really -- I don't see any -- anything 12 negative that's going to happen by doing this. And that is 13 because, I mean, basically, there are two houses there. 14 We're not going to increase septic, we're not going to 15 increase water, not going to increase really anything. The 16 situation exists, and it's existed this way for a long time. 17 So, in this situation, I'm willing to make a motion to grant 18 a waiver for this instance only, and to allow Ms. Lovett to 19 subdivide her lot into two lots. That's my motion. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second, with a 21 comment. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 23 the request for waiver on division of a -- of a lot which 24 would otherwise be in nonconformance of present platting 25 requirements be approved. Any question or discussion? 9-8-03 17 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I just have 2 a comment. Ms. Lovett? 3 MS. LOVETT: Yes, sir? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you Ms. Lovett? 5 MS. LOVETT: Yes, sir. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to say 7 to you that a couple of weeks ago, your Commissioner came to 8 me and discussed this issue with me, and I thought at that 9 time that this would be a bad thing to do because of the 10 precedent set. But I -- your Commissioner has thought 11 through it very, very carefully. 12 MS. LOVETT: I appreciate that. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And he's showing great 14 leadership here, and an interest in you and your -- your 15 issues out there, so he's come back to me and he's convinced 16 me that it's the right thing to do, to grant this waiver and 17 allow you to do it, and I agree. 18 MS. LOVETT: Thank you, gentlemen. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 20 MS. LOVETT: I appreciate it. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question? 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ms. Lovett, looking 23 at the plot plan here, I'm getting that you access the large 24 house from this South Riverpark Road? 25 MS. LOVETT: Yes, sir. 9-8-03 18 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What will be the 2 access to the small house should you -- 3 MS. LOVETT: Hermann Sons Road. It's on the 4 paved road -- county road. 5 (Discussion off the record.) 6 MS. LOVETT: This road is Hermann Sons. I'm 7 not quite sure what we're on. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hermann Sons. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A lot of these lots 10 that access that road have a driveway. Do we know -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some of them -- I believe 12 some of them down towards the river, which is kind of to the 13 north, just looking at the plat, do access off of -- I'm not 14 sure if they're in that subdivision or not. I know there's 15 driveways along Hermann Sons in that area. 16 MS. LOVETT: Right. Thank you, gentlemen. 17 Appreciate it. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A comment that I'd also 19 make, I think this is -- you know, and another reason that 20 I, you know, really appreciate, I guess, Ms. Lovett's 21 persistence, and also agree to give her -- hopefully her 22 waiver goes through, is that she tried to do it the right 23 way. She came to me, and she's been, I think, literally -- 24 I don't know how many times we visited over this issue and I 25 tried to talk her out of it, but to no avail. She tried to 9-8-03 19 1 do it the right way. There are, in my opinion, many 2 situations in the county where people are doing this and we 3 just don't know about it, and it's a problem. And it's a -- 4 you know, and it's something that I -- it's one of the 5 reasons -- I mean, I know everyone on the Court knows that 6 I'm going to recommend some changes to our Subdivision Rules 7 and Regulations, and one of the holdups is the enforcement 8 issue. Some situations have come up in my precinct where 9 people are doing things that I don't think are technically 10 right, and they're in violation of one rule or another, but 11 once you get a second house built out there, I don't know 12 that we've ever said, "You've got to tear your house down." 13 And short of that, what's the enforcement that we can do? 14 So, I mean, I'm really wrestling with some of 15 the issues that come by all the rules. And I see a former 16 Commissioner nodding his head as I'm talking right now, 17 and -- in the audience, Commissioner Oehler. But it's just 18 something that we really need to think about, and I think we 19 need to probably have a workshop with the County Attorney to 20 go over enforcement, how we enforce and what the 21 ramifications of the enforcement of our Subdivision Rules 22 are, and our related rules. And I would throw in the 23 O.S.S.F. rules, well requirements, manufactured home, all of 24 those areas, because, you know, we have some pretty strict 25 rules in the county. And, you know, most people are 9-8-03 20 1 following those rules, but there are some that are not, and 2 I don't see that we do anything to those that don't. And I 3 really think -- and I really have trouble with that. So, 4 it's something that I just want to bring up, that I think we 5 need to have a workshop, probably the best date with the 6 County Attorney, and I'll meet with him in a little bit to 7 kind of go over it a little, maybe do some research as to 8 how this is handled in other counties. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with you. 10 Two more agenda items are going to give you another 11 illustration as well. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 13 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 14 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. The next 19 item on the agenda is consider and discuss actions and/or 20 remedies to cure the complaints regarding storage behind the 21 Kerr County Extension Service office. Commissioner Baldwin. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Mr. Miller? 23 Come up, please, and let me chew on you just a little bit. 24 MR. MILLER: Surely. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You were in a month or 9-8-03 21 1 so ago, and brought us an outline of what -- what y'all -- 2 your intentions were out there, and -- and I'd like to read 3 a couple of sentences out of your plan here. It says, "Our 4 plans for the near future are to move two metal buildings to 5 the site parallel to Highway 27 that will block the view 6 from the highway of the yard. The plans are to move the 7 buildings as soon as possible. Additionally, we have been 8 offered crepe myrtle trees to plant along the side of the 9 maintenance yard fence to improve the view." 10 That's good and all, but let me -- we have 11 received -- or Judge Tinley has received a letter and I have 12 had two phone calls that causes concern about the way the -- 13 the yard looks out there. And, I quote in the letter to 14 Judge Tinley, the "pile of rubbish," and I guess we can 15 translate that in Kerr County talk, there's a bunch of trash 16 out there, or trash-looking. But the point is -- and I'm 17 assuming that I can read this and find out you're going to 18 fix it, but the point is, is that there's obviously some 19 public that are offended by the way that looks out there. 20 And -- and I can only speak for myself; I can't speak for 21 the rest of the members of this Commissioners Court, but I 22 don't think that we go and purposely offend the taxpaying 23 public that owns that property and owns this property and is 24 our bosses, et cetera. 25 So -- and I know that you have intentions -- 9-8-03 22 1 I mean, I can read here that you have intentions of fixing 2 it, but getting down to the bottom line, it has to be fixed. 3 And I'm not interested in crepe myrtles in September or any 4 of those kind of things. We need to get that cleaned up 5 now. To me, we have two options. We either clean it up, or 6 we need to go back and revisit the contract, one of the two. 7 So, that's all have I to say. I don't like to get ugly 8 phone calls. I don't like people calling me and fussing 9 about county property looking bad, particularly that county 10 property out there that's -- that is prominent. And that's 11 all. That's as nice as I can put it. 12 MR. MILLER: Well, my first comment is that 13 one man's rubbish is another person's assets. The pile of 14 rubbish out there is -- are the assets that the Arts and 15 Crafts Foundation uses to put on the annual Arts and Crafts 16 Fair. It consists of -- of ticket booths, it consists of a 17 front entrance, it consists of tables and chairs and those 18 sort of things which are in storage. And I hate to say 19 this, hope it won't offend anybody, but that is the object 20 of that yard. It is a storage and maintenance yard. That 21 was the purpose of it when we placed it there. And let's go 22 back to square one. We had a two-day design sherette, which 23 established what was going to go where on that piece of 24 property. Our park is oriented to the river and to Flat 25 Rock Lake Park. The -- the place that yard is is really the 9-8-03 23 1 only logical place on that -- that piece of property to have 2 a yard and do the park like we would, you know, like to do 3 it. 4 The complaints that I have heard have come 5 directly from -- all of the complaints I've heard have come 6 directly from the Ag Extension Agent's office, and I 7 understand that. I mean, all of a sudden, they've got a 8 yard sitting behind there where they didn't before. But 9 we're also developing 7-plus acres there, which we have 10 cleared. You know, the -- Mrs. Osborn's letter mentions the 11 rodents and the rubbish and whatnot. We've spent quite a 12 lot of money out there clearing that piece of property. In 13 doing that, I think we probably eliminated a place where the 14 rodents and the -- you know, and the wild things go -- go to 15 hide. We've also eliminated the looting from the Indian 16 mounds out there. We've eliminated a place for the 17 transients to sleep and the hunters to hunt on that little 18 piece of property out there. I feel like, at this point, 19 that we've really, you know, gone quite a ways. 20 Our equipment has been out there 90 days; 21 that's all it's been out there. You know, I'm asking for 22 some time for us to go forward and complete the building 23 program. There's going to be a 3- to 5-year building 24 program. During that period of time, I'm sure there's going 25 to be times where it's going to look like it's a mess, but 9-8-03 24 1 if we get down the road and look at what we're trying to 2 build out there, I think we'll have a really beautiful asset 3 for the County. When you say "clean it up," we have -- at 4 the end of July, we went out there and rearranged everything 5 and tried to really clean it up and arrange things as nicely 6 as we could. And that's what's there today, in my opinion, 7 is a storage yard with things pretty well in there. If 8 you're offended by anything in particular. I'll be happy to 9 discuss it with you and talk with folks. Nobody from the Ag 10 Extension Agent has talked directly to me about what they 11 would like done. What I did hear from one lady was that, 12 you know, that the cat's out of the bag already, 'cause the 13 yard is there. But there was an opportunity for everybody 14 in this city and county to speak to that during that design 15 sherette. The public was invited. The public spoke, and 16 their input was listened to very carefully. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, number one, I 18 haven't -- I haven't had any comments from the Extension 19 Service. 20 MR. MILLER: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's don't chunk a 22 rock at them. They haven't said a word to me. It's general 23 public folks that have made the comments. But if you would 24 like, I will go out there and put my hands on each 25 individual piece of rubbish. 9-8-03 25 1 MR. MILLER: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To -- you know, to -- 3 and maybe we can get some of these folks to go and make a 4 recommendation for you. But what you're saying is you're 5 happy with it. I'm unhappy with it. 6 MR. MILLER: Well, let me give you the other 7 -- you know, I got nothing but bad news, I guess, today. 8 Our plans were to move those two mobile buildings out -- our 9 two storage buildings out there as quickly as possible. 10 After talking to Mike Butler, he told me to go to TexDOT and 11 get their drainage information for the drainage that ran 12 through there. Mr. Boyd at TexDOT informed me at that point 13 that we had a drainage problem from Third Creek coming down 14 Spur 100 during the July flood. At that point, the 15 architect and everybody else said we need to wait until our 16 major engineering study is done to figure out how we're 17 going to handle that drainage, you know, when it comes 18 across the road right there, 'cause we're right opposite 19 that piece of road. So, moving the buildings is put on hold 20 at this point. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it seems to me 22 that -- I mean, I think I understand it's an equipment yard, 23 but it also -- it can be screened. And I think it can be 24 screened at a pretty minimal cost for most of it. I mean, 25 you can get the -- you know, like they use on outfield 9-8-03 26 1 fences for baseball, little louver things that go in chain 2 link -- I don't know what you call it, but a screening -- or 3 you can get, you know, that nylon kind of green stuff that's 4 like a -- a net, sort of. And that can be put on any kind 5 of fence. And that's what I would say, and that's not that 6 expensive. I mean, it seems to me -- and you mentioned -- 7 or the letter mentioned crepe myrtles. That is an excellent 8 long-term solution, but that's, you know, several years down 9 the road. You're not going to be able to plant trees, 10 obviously, that are huge. And there's other things -- and 11 bushes and things that can be planted, but it seems to me 12 that -- that because most of the -- whatever you want to 13 call the stuff, rubbish or assets, are inside a fenced area, 14 and that fence can be screened pretty easily. 15 MR. MILLER: We have some shade material 16 which we tried to use to screen it when we were out there at 17 the end of July, and we hung it on the fence along the side 18 of Highway 27 and drove past it, and it absolutely did not 19 screen. It was shade material, not screen material. We can 20 sure look at that. I can take that back to my board and see 21 if we can round up some money to do that. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the chain link -- 23 MR. MILLER: It's not chain link, it's field 24 fence. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Field fence? And that 9-8-03 27 1 may be a -- you know, another -- 2 MR. MILLER: One of the problems also is the 3 road's a little bit higher than the yard. That's what we 4 noticed when we drove by with the screening. Some of the 5 things that stick up, that are real visible from the road, 6 are the ticket booths, and that's not -- there's also ticket 7 booths that go back to the Hill Country Youth Exhibit 8 Center, stored alongside of the barn in the back of the 9 barns also. Those kind of things are going to be there. I 10 mean, that's long-term. That's where they will be when 11 there's an event not going on, 'cause the whole idea is to 12 leave the physical footprint on that park as small as 13 possible. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But isn't there -- I 15 mean, isn't your plan -- well, the flood issue may -- 16 drainage issue may change this, but there was a metal 17 storage shed -- 18 MR. MILLER: Two 24-foot buildings we were 19 going to put alongside parallel on Highway 27, which we felt 20 would block that view pretty well. They were big buildings. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. It just 22 seems that a -- a lean-to-type, hay barn-type structure, I 23 mean, for lack of a better term -- I mean, just, you know, 24 some pipes in the ground and -- with a tin facing Highway 27 25 and, you know, 24 feet out would be a lot cheaper than 9-8-03 28 1 buildings. 2 MR. MILLER: We already own the buildings. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even with the building, 4 it seems it would be a -- a relatively inexpensive -- I 5 mean, I would think that you could build a small -- I mean, 6 build a shed that will also get that stuff out of the 7 weather. I think the stuff being out in the weather is -- 8 MR. MILLER: Well, and that's a problem. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The cost -- I know it's 10 going to cost to build the structure, but at the same time, 11 you're losing money by not getting that stuff under a 12 building. 13 MR. MILLER: The plans were originally to 14 build a metal building. We just do not have the funds to do 15 that at this point. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The call I got was 17 not from the Extension Service either; it was from an irate 18 resident of Hunt. That's 25 miles away from the rubbish 19 pile, I guess. I'm surprised that you haven't taken steps 20 to clean it up or move it, or -- or stop the complaints 21 about it. And in fact, I've -- my interpretation of the 22 contract you've got with the County is that you're in 23 violation of the contract. You're in violation of your 24 agreement to operate the premises in a reputable manner and 25 in violation of your agreement not to create a nuisance. 9-8-03 29 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Notwithstanding the 2 -- the potential stormwater runoff problems from Third Creek 3 down Spur 100 and across Highway 27, isn't it possible to 4 move your storage buildings out there and jack them up on a 5 higher level? Temporary, if need be? 6 MR. MILLER: If I knew how high to jack them 7 up, yes, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? 9 MR. MILLER: If I knew how high to jack them 10 up, but I don't till the engineering study's done. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who is -- who -- I mean, 12 I know the water came down Third Creek -- or down Spur 100 13 during that flood, but that flood was an extremely unusual 14 event, and it was just -- it was on Third Creek, is where 15 that rain hit. That and Quinlan Creek; those two creeks are 16 the ones that got hit so hard. It doesn't seem to me to be 17 real hard to get those buildings elevated just a little bit. 18 I don't think the water's going a foot across there. 19 Probably a couple inches, maybe three. 20 MR. MILLER: I thought there was water in the 21 Ag Extension building, 6 or 8 inches. I don't know. I 22 didn't think -- 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It flooded our Road 24 and Bridge yard. 25 MS. HARDIN: It was high. Buster wanted to 9-8-03 30 1 go up -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was there. It was 3 scary. 4 MR. MILLER: I'll be happy to go back to our 5 board and try to round some money up and do something. We 6 want to be good tenants, and it's our -- you know, we want 7 to do everything we can. And I'll be happy to meet you out 8 there, Mr. Baldwin, and -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd rather not. 10 MR. MILLER: -- if you have some particular 11 thing that you -- you know, that you're displeased with, 12 we'll see what we can do. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, just -- you 14 know, just clean the thing up and make it pretty out there. 15 And -- 16 MR. MILLER: Just build the screening? Will 17 that satisfy that problem? Or is there something else I'm 18 not aware of? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If it were me, I'd 20 move it back on the other road on the back end of the 21 property, but I don't like screening, myself. But I don't 22 know. Try it. Spend a little money and try it, and we can 23 always come back. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would -- screening is 25 going to be difficult on the type of fence you have without 9-8-03 31 1 building just a -- you know, like, a -- some sort of a -- 2 like pipe fence, basically. Or side of building, basically. 3 That's the only way you're going to get a true screen. And 4 that's what we required -- or I guess we didn't require; the 5 County kind of did it with them, King Salvage down in 6 Comfort. There was a -- a similar unsightly issue, and -- 7 and right-of-way concerns and consideration, other stuff. 8 Anyway, they, you know, put tin put up alongside, so it was 9 just a true screen. You know, I think, to move forward, if 10 you could go back to your board, and then at our next 11 meeting, come back with a plan, and -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That'd be fine. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: At least as to -- you 14 know, because, clearly, we're not happy, which isn't a good 15 thing. So, if you can go back to your board and come up 16 with a -- you know, some options, maybe get some proposals, 17 different things, and let us help -- you know, I mean, I 18 don't want you to go out and spend money if it's not going 19 to solve the problem. From our standpoint, I'd rather have 20 you come back with some screening options, and/or building a 21 lean-to or something, and some kind of an estimate. 22 MR. MILLER: Let me ask a question, then. 23 Are we concerned with screening Highway 27? Are we 24 concerned with screening all four sides of that yard? What 25 -- you know, what are we talking about? 9-8-03 32 1 JUDGE TINLEY: In my opinion, it would be 2 Highway 27, would be first priority, and then probably the 3 west end, because of traffic flow coming from the west. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think short-term, 5 and I don't know that it -- and just because the visibility 6 may not be all of the west side. I mean, I think, 7 ultimately, I'd like all four sides of it screened. I don't 8 -- I mean, I don't think you want that to be an unsightly 9 corner. I mean, it's a visible property. I know it makes 10 sense, from the use of the property, to use that area, but I 11 think it can be done -- you know, you would have to build a 12 solid fence around it, which is not really that expensive, I 13 mean, in the big scheme of things, to build a -- just put 14 some steel posts up, some pylons or angle iron, and 15 tight-weld some, you know, metal to it. 16 MR. MILLER: Corrugated metal would make you 17 happy? That would be pretty enough? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would screen it. It 19 could be painted green. You can get a green enamel. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Paint it blue and 21 gold. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can sell advertising 23 on it. 24 MR. MILLER: I think our plans are not for 25 corrugated metal. I think we'd like it a little prettier 9-8-03 33 1 than that. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It can be a cedar fence. 3 There's a lot of different ways to build a fence. I think 4 it can be screened, and I think I understand -- I think the 5 Court understands it's going to be -- it's not a real cheap 6 fix. And you're under budget constraints, but, you know, 7 it's a priority to get that property looking right to start 8 with. 9 MR. MILLER: Okay. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: County Engineer had some 11 thoughts, I think, he wanted to offer. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, instead of -- my 13 comments would be instead of waiting for an extensive 14 engineering study, the Road and Bridge office did not go 15 underwater during that flood. Probably a 500-year event, so 16 you probably have a 500-year base level elevation of the 17 floor of the Road and Bridge office. 18 MR. MILLER: Okay. We'll take a look at it. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Shoot off of that. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would tell you 21 how high to put your storage buildings. 22 MR. MILLER: Yeah. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which might be a 24 better solution. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just put some base down, 9-8-03 34 1 build up to that height. 2 MR. MILLER: Okay. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Does that -- is that 4 the end of this issue for now, gentlemen? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it is. Mr. 6 Miller, thank you very much. 7 MR. MILLER: I'll give you a call, 8 Commissioner Baldwin. We'll go out there and look at 9 specific -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll pass it along to 11 Commissioner Letz. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I understand. I 13 expect -- Mr. Miller? Our expectation at this point is that 14 Mr. Miller will get with his board and will come back to us 15 in our next meeting to give us their ideas about thoughts on 16 how they might proceed. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The 22nd of September. 18 That is what I understand, as well. 19 MR. MILLER: Our board meets on the 16th, I 20 believe. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: You have time to get back. We 22 thank you for being here. 23 MR. MILLER: Thank you. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is 25 to consider and discuss legal procedure for the enforcement 9-8-03 35 1 of repeated O.S.S.F. violations when reported to County 2 Attorney's office by the Kerr County D.R. Commissioner 3 Williams. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. 5 Last week, Commissioner Baldwin forwarded a telephone call 6 over to me from a young lady who lives out deep into my 7 precinct, and she had some pretty serious problems, and so I 8 placed this agenda -- item on the agenda for at least four 9 different reasons; to allow the Court to learn of the ways 10 that a property owner can deliberately manipulate or 11 compromise or, for the most part, ignore our existing system 12 of O.S.S.F. inspections that lead to issuance of citations 13 for serious violations. This particular case I want the 14 Court to learn of this morning has been ongoing since May of 15 2000. It's a pretty good textbook illustration of how a 16 property owner has avoided responsibility for a creation of 17 a serious public health and safety problem, and the owner 18 has done so with impunity. 19 The second purpose has to do with what I 20 consider to be inordinate delays in the prosecution of 21 O.S.S.F. violations, and the backup material I provided to 22 all the members of the Court lists at least five enforcement 23 cases for which there's been no activity from the County 24 Attorney's office since January or February of this year. 25 And, thirdly, as a Commissioner, I would not have known 9-8-03 36 1 about this young woman's problem -- I'm going to ask her to 2 come forward in just a moment -- if she had not made a 3 telephone call or contact with me. And, as a result of her 4 attempts to get some help, I visited her firsthand and saw 5 the conditions that she and her family were enduring. And I 6 read the complete file compiled by our designated 7 representative. This led me to inquire of Precinct 2 8 Justice of the Peace, Dawn Wright, how frequently or 9 infrequently cases come before her, O.S.S.F. cases. 10 The bottom line is, I think, in this case 11 which we're going to be talking about for just a few 12 moments, is that we need a better line of communications 13 established between the designated representative -- and I 14 want to point out that I don't think that this case 15 illustrates any neglect on the part of the designated 16 representative. I think, however, there is some breakdown 17 in communications, not only there to this Court, but the 18 County Attorney's office to this Court, so that 19 Commissioners, when they learn of these things, have a 20 better opportunity to follow up on them. And if they learn 21 about them in advance, perhaps we can communicate and get 22 some things done a little more expeditiously. And the last 23 reason has to do with violation of Kerr County Subdivision 24 Rules. 25 Here's a pretty good illustration of a 9-8-03 37 1 property owner who has surreptitiously put four dwellings -- 2 well, he had one there to begin with, but three additional 3 dwellings on a small piece of property. The first one had 4 septic. The second one was put in with no septic, and the 5 occupant went in that particular building, urinated and 6 defecated outside the back door or in bottles or cans or 7 whatever he had in his dwelling. The third dwelling has no 8 septic, and we're going to learn about that in a minute. 9 And the fourth dwelling, we're not sure, because it's 10 screened underneath and can't find out what's wrong with it, 11 but if I were a betting man, I'd bet it probably didn't have 12 one either. So, I'd like the Court to hear for just a 13 moment or two from a young lady I spoke with last week about 14 this particular problem. Her name is Terry Botello, and she 15 has a pretty interesting story. Terry, will you come 16 forward, take just a couple minutes, please, and bring the 17 Court up to date on this particular instance and 18 illustration of septic violations unattended to? 19 MS. BOTELLO: Yes, sir. My name is Terry 20 Botello. I recently moved from Center Point off of 21 Stoneleigh and McDonald Loop. Where I live -- or I lived; 22 let me rephrase that. The house that we lived in, my 23 children were getting sick, and I didn't know why. I took 24 them to the doctors several times. The smell was 25 horrendous, so I asked the -- my neighbors, which is the 9-8-03 38 1 property owner's son, what was the smell? And he told me 2 that his septic was running in a hole in the back yard; that 3 they hadn't had the money to have it -- to have it put in 4 yet. Meanwhile, their dogs are running through it 5 constantly. My kids are playing with their toys outside; 6 footballs, baseballs. Their dogs are playing with them as 7 well. Now my son has -- sorry. My son has a parasite 8 that's eating holes in the lining of his stomach, causing 9 ulcers. He's 11 years old. He also has ADD/ADHD, which 10 doesn't help the situation any, and acid reflux. My son 11 lays in bed at night crying because his stomach hurts, and I 12 can't do anything about it. The medication he's on, I can't 13 give him anything to calm his upset stomach, and it bothers 14 me knowing that these people put other families at risk like 15 this, knowing the situation that the grounds are in. 16 The water smells like sewage. I had it 17 tested. It has hydrogen sulfide in it, which was causing my 18 kids diarrhea, keeping them dehydrated. Kerrville 19 Wastewater has the information on it; they're the one that 20 tested it for me. My kids spent two months helping me make 21 a garden that they cannot eat out of. They love the little 22 cherry tomatoes and the cucumbers; they can't eat those. 23 It's making them sick because of the neighbor's septic 24 that's running in the hole in the back yard. My kids 25 couldn't play outside because the smell was making them 9-8-03 39 1 sick. So, this weekend, I -- I finally had had enough, and 2 I had to find a different location for my kids to live in so 3 that they can be kids and play outside and not be sick. And 4 my concern is, something needs to be done about the septics. 5 This has gone on -- I've lived there for eight months. It's 6 been like this -- my sister lived there before me a year, 7 which at the time she didn't know what the smell was, and 8 didn't ask. She lived there a year, and it has been like 9 this the whole time. And they're constantly renting these 10 places out to families with children, and it's absurd that 11 our children are getting sick because these people don't 12 care. They don't have children; they don't care, and my 13 kids are having to pay the consequences for it. I just 14 don't -- I think they need to have something done with it. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Terry. 16 MS. BOTELLO: Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This -- this is a 18 pretty good illustration of where we break down in our 19 enforcement. And this case has been going on, like I 20 indicated earlier, since May of 2000. What it illustrates 21 is that once a septic problem is detected and inspected and 22 deemed to be in need of repair, designated representative 23 writes it up. They'll check or recheck. The property owner 24 will make a phone call and will say, "Oh, yeah, we're 25 working on that," and the D.R. will give him additional 9-8-03 40 1 time, legitimately. And nothing happens. And they check it 2 again, and there's still raw sewage, and they give them 3 another phone call or another letter. The property owner 4 says, "Yeah, we're going to get that fixed. We're going to 5 come in and get an application," and they give him 6 additional time. 7 And so they come in, they make an 8 application, and the application is faulty, or the plans 9 that they put before them are faulty, and they don't -- 10 they're denied a license for construction, and so they've 11 got additional time. And it goes on and on and on and on 12 and on, to the point that you have a case that started in 13 2000, and here we are in 2003, in September, and it's now 14 being referred to the County Attorney. To me, that's 15 unacceptable. I think we need a better system that gets it 16 to the -- gets the job done. I think it's okay to give 17 license to people for some time, "license" meaning give them 18 a little time to get their house in order. But, my god, if 19 you can't get your house in order in three years, you're not 20 going to get it in order. And I think that's a problem we 21 have to deal with. 22 The other part of this issue is -- has to do 23 with delays. I have a list here of -- one, two, three, 24 four, five different cases, and have I no idea how many more 25 there are, but they've been pending since January; no 9-8-03 41 1 activity, no activity since a letter was sent out. We're 2 looking at January and February. And my question to the 3 County Attorney is, why? Why can't we pursue these in a 4 more expeditious fashion? And the third item has to do with 5 violation of Subdivision Rules. Here's a case where -- and 6 we wouldn't have known about it had this young woman not 7 contacted -- I don't go by McDonald Loop and Stoneleigh that 8 often. But, nonetheless, in the dark of the night, we have 9 a situation where, on two-plus acres of land, suddenly you 10 go from one dwelling to four dwellings, one with septic, and 11 who knows about the other three? One we know now is a 12 cesspool, and we don't know about -- we know one doesn't 13 have, and we suspect that the fourth one doesn't have 14 either. I think we just have a need of -- a need for better 15 communication. If these things are brought to light early 16 on, either by the designated representative communicating to 17 his Commissioners; just say, "Commissioner, you got a 18 problem in your precinct, and we're working on it." I think 19 if the County Attorney could say, "Hey, I'm getting ready to 20 file on so-and-so, and I want you to know about it," I think 21 we're better served, and that's the reason I brought it to 22 the Court today. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- a comment on -- 24 well, several comments. There are -- as Commissioner 25 Nicholson is aware, too, there are -- I don't know how many 9-8-03 42 1 pictures we looked at during the joint committee in working 2 out the recommended current rules. This is not isolated; 3 there are quite a few open cesspools in the county, "quite a 4 few" being probably less than 10, more than 5, somewhere in 5 that area, you know, if memory serves me. Which is -- one 6 is too much, because they are such significant health 7 standards -- health problems. So, I think that -- you know, 8 and the issue goes in as to what do you do? It goes kind of 9 to the Subdivision Rules. What do you really -- what is 10 this Court prepared to do to someone who violates those 11 rules? Do we, you know, throw them out? I don't know what 12 our -- you know, what the Court can do. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why I think 14 we've got to hear from the County Attorney. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I want to do 16 the workshop on Subdivision Rules. This goes right in with 17 that request with the County Attorney to really look at the 18 enforcement side of subdivision and septic and manufactured 19 home rules, because I'm not advocating any of those things 20 if we're not going to enforce them. We need to be able to 21 enforce them and have -- you know, and we'll we have to do 22 that, in my mind. The other side of it is, the -- there is 23 a -- a pretty significant loophole in our Subdivision Rules, 24 and I don't think -- you know, I don't know that we can do a 25 whole lot about it unless they're manufactured rental homes 9-8-03 43 1 that are being put in. There is nothing in our Subdivision 2 Rules. Regardless of acreage size, if you -- if they have a 3 lot, they can build as many houses as they want on that lot, 4 and as long as there's only one ownership, they can do what 5 they want. You know, we cannot prevent people from building 6 two, three, four, five. 7 I know of a situation in my precinct where 8 there's a residence and four other residences that are all 9 rented, and we can't stop that. We have no provision in our 10 Subdivision Rules, and state law doesn't give us any 11 provision. Now, if they're manufactured rental homes, then 12 we do have some authority there that was granted under, I 13 guess, the 2001 Legislature, and we have rules to that 14 effect. And we are addressing some of those in my precinct 15 where they do happen to be manufactured rental homes that 16 are -- you know, and they qualify as rental communities. 17 But if they were to build an actual residence, we can't do 18 anything. So I really think that, you know, we need to go 19 back to a -- back to a workshop again and kind of talk with 20 the County Attorney a little bit about how we can do things. 21 And I think the other area of this is, we 22 need to make sure that our -- our septic rules, O.S.S.F. 23 rules should kind of match our Subdivision Rules a little 24 bit closer. I think one of the problems that we have right 25 now is that, you know, under state law, under subdivision, 9-8-03 44 1 you can have, you know, one lot and five houses on it, and 2 rent the houses. There's nothing that our O.S.S.F. -- that 3 Stuart, our designated representative, can do to stop them 4 from doing that. And even in a rental community, if it is a 5 rental community, our rules say that it is illegal for the 6 utilities to be hooked up. Anyway, we kind of basically 7 threw the monkey on the utility companies; phone, electric, 8 septic, and that's illegal for them to do it. They threw it 9 back and have, to me, verbally said, "By law, we're required 10 to provide that service." You can't make us -- you can't, 11 you know, say -- we're going to listen to the State before 12 we listen to the County. So, we have a conflict there that 13 we're kind of relying on the utility companies for the 14 enforcement side, and they're saying, "Huh-uh, king's X. 15 And the State says we have to provide water, we have to 16 provide electricity, we have to provide phone, you know, if 17 someone requests it." So, anyway, we need to really look at 18 all that and see how it works together, 'cause we have some 19 problems. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Motley, do you think it 21 would be appropriate to possibly have your office 22 participate in a joint workshop with the Commissioners Court 23 to kind of give us the parameters that we're dealing with, 24 and maybe what procedures we might put into place to get a 25 better handle on this problem? 9-8-03 45 1 MR. MOTLEY: Yeah, that would be a good idea. 2 I don't have any problem with that. I don't have any 3 problem with that at all. There are remedies that can be 4 taken. And on the case that Commissioner Williams, I guess 5 you'd say, highlighted today, that's like a lot of cases. I 6 think he makes mention of the fact that there are delays 7 granted for somebody who is actively -- as long as they're 8 actively trying to fix their system, leeway is given to 9 them. And I'm -- my understanding of the particular case 10 that was mentioned today was that -- by the way, that case 11 was presented to us on August 29th of this year. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know. 13 MR. MOTLEY: And it's been filed last week, 14 that one and another more serious nuisance case. The five 15 cases that you made reference to, one of them we thought had 16 been filed by the previous Assistant County Attorney; it was 17 not filed. And four of them are just cases that just need 18 to be filed. They need to be filed. We have sent 19 compliance letters, but I want to also emphasize that 20 there's been in excess of 100 cases where compliance -- 21 which is the goal; what we're seeking is compliance -- have 22 been achieved. And in Precinct 2 and Precinct 4, there have 23 been many cases where there has been compliance, and nothing 24 really is mentioned about this. And there -- there are -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's because we don't 9-8-03 46 1 know. 2 MR. MOTLEY: Right, I understand that. But 3 there have been, I'm sure, in excess of 100 cases where 4 we've accomplished the goal. The five cases you mentioned, 5 none of them are anywhere near as severe as the case that 6 you highlighted today. They're not -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I realize that. 8 MR. MOTLEY: They're not like that. And they 9 will be -- we've been working on those for about a week, and 10 they're going to be -- my best knowledge, going to be filed 11 this week. You know, it just happens, I suppose, sometimes 12 that certain things may get put on the back burner or 13 something like that; we send a letter and we -- you know, 14 maybe we don't follow up. But those five cases are in the 15 process of being worked up and filed. The other two -- 16 well, the two more serious cases, including the one you 17 mentioned, have been filed, and we put a priority on those 18 once we find out about them. But, in any event, you know, 19 we go to the court, and often the Judge will tell the 20 defendant in the case to -- you know, 30 days or 60 days, 21 and get it done and then come back to court. So, there's 22 always an effort to assure compliance. And that -- 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. I 24 understand that, Mr. Motley. 25 MR. MOTLEY: But this case is a bad case, and 9-8-03 47 1 I understand that too. And we've -- as I say, we've filed 2 that case, and within a week of having learned of it, and 3 there are other cases that have -- you know, have just, for 4 lack of a better term, have been put on the back burner. We 5 just haven't -- for some reason or another, it goes out of 6 somebody's current thought process, and they get left 7 behind. Those five will be handled. And -- and it's -- you 8 know, we'll get those cases filed. I'm not -- I'm not -- I 9 can't make any excuse for those, but again, I wish you would 10 consider, you know, the other side of the coin, which is 11 there have been many cases which have been successfully 12 prosecuted, to the point of having -- and I have a list of 13 some of those. I mean, I didn't go through and look up all 14 the cases; that would be virtually impossible to do, but 15 there have been a lot of cases that have been successfully 16 prosecuted. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sure that that's 18 true; I commend you for that. But you are helping make my 19 point, that if we don't know the status of a problem, we 20 can't commend you or criticize you. 21 MR. MOTLEY: I'm not looking for 22 commendation. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If the designated 24 representative were not made aware of what the problem is 25 and where it is and what the status of it is. I think 9-8-03 48 1 that's one of the points I'm trying to make. 2 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I'm going to say that 3 the -- the communications back and forth between U.G.R.A. 4 and our office have sometimes been kind of, you know, 5 confused. But right now, I think that, you know, I have no 6 complaint with the designated representative or U.G.R.A. I 7 think that, on this issue, we're doing -- you know, we have 8 a good communication; we're working well together. I don't 9 have any real problem with that. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't bring the 11 case up this morning to heap criticism on the Upper 12 Guadalupe River Authority -- 13 MR. MOTLEY: No. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- for its role as 15 designated representative. As a matter of fact, I think 16 this highlights the fact that they have been on the job. 17 But what it illustrates is that an unscrupulous individual 18 or a person with no -- no desire to correct a problem, for 19 whatever reasons, can really beat the system. He can beat 20 it, manipulate it, compromise it, and whip it to death, and 21 we sit here ignorant, dumb, fat, and happy, and we don't 22 know about it. That's my point. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I think it might be well if we 24 try and get a workshop scheduled, maybe participation from 25 your office, as well as the designated representative and 9-8-03 49 1 any others that need input, possibly a health official, 2 because some of these issues have some pretty serious health 3 consequences, and that might be the appropriate thing to do 4 where we have all the input and we can streamline and -- and 5 get a little comprehension of these communication issues, 6 and make sure that everybody's on the same page and getting 7 all the information. 8 MR. MOTLEY: That's fine to me. I want to 9 stress that we do place a priority on the O.S.S.F. cases, on 10 the nuisance cases, these sorts of cases. They do tend to 11 get the initial -- you know, the handling a little bit 12 quicker. And we realize it's an urgent situation, and so we 13 try to act accordingly. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I think, you 15 know, on the workshop, I think that's the -- what we need to 16 do. And I would just, you know, suggest that, maybe on the 17 afternoon of our next, probably -- I see several workshops, 18 but for several meetings, have a workshop on this topic to 19 try to go through it. Because I think if we try to tackle 20 it all at once, it's going to be almost overwhelming. I 21 think that the -- I mean, to me, the first step that I'd 22 like to see is to have the County Attorney present to us, 23 what are our options? What are his options and his 24 procedures, and what are the Court's options and procedures 25 for subdivision and O.S.S.F.? And -- I mean, on the 9-8-03 50 1 enforcement side. Just plain and simple, let us understand 2 and discuss that. And then we can go into the Subdivision 3 Rules and -- and how the other rules -- how we need to get 4 things to work, and also how we get the communication 5 between all the entities worked up a little bit better, 6 which I know has been one of Commissioner Baldwin's 7 concerns, is to get everyone on the same page and so we can 8 all know what other county agencies are doing. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's all we 10 want to talk about today, Judge. I think if we can do that, 11 we can move it along. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got some 13 comments. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Several. One, I 16 appreciate Commissioner Williams bringing this issue into 17 clear focus. It's long since past due that we take action 18 on this, and the idea about holding workshops and getting 19 better coordination and improving the communications and 20 that is needed, and I want to do that. But I also recognize 21 that we've -- this young woman who was in here, who's -- 22 who's had her children's health impaired by unlawful 23 activity of her -- apparently, her landlord, that we still 24 got a problem with this, and we can't -- it can't wait to be 25 solved until we have some workshops. I'd like to know, from 9-8-03 51 1 the -- from the County Attorney or the Sheriff or the 2 constable or a J.P. or somebody, what we can do today to 3 alleviate this unlawful activity. 4 MR. MOTLEY: Well, there will be a case set 5 in the J.P. court. Now, that's not going to happen today. 6 That would be on the criminal enforcement side of it, and 7 there certainly have been more than enough -- there's been 8 more than enough latitude given. But, you know, an 9 injunction could be filed to stop the water from going into 10 the premises. Civil fines may be assessed, something akin 11 to a criminal fine. Civil fines can be assessed. So, an 12 injunction is a possibility in the case, and in any case 13 where there's noncompliance. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Motley, I think 15 we ought to handle this like it's an emergency; that 16 whatever weight behind the law that we can put, we ought to 17 take it. The most -- we ought to take whatever action we 18 can take to abate this as soon as we possibly can. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to thank you, 20 Commissioner. I want to add one more thing into this. I 21 just learned this morning from Mrs. Botello that -- that in 22 her effort to move, to get her family out of this condition 23 into a safer environment, she and her husband, and I guess 24 family members, moved one truckload of their -- of their -- 25 of their personal belongings and furniture, and when they 9-8-03 52 1 came back to move the rest of it, the landlord had 2 confiscated the rest of their stuff. So, if you got a 3 moment or two, I'd like for you to talk with that young lady 4 and find out what you can do to help her out in that regard 5 as well. 6 MR. MOTLEY: I'll be happy to. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Motley. 9 Ms. Botello? 10 MS. BOTELLO: Yes. The -- I don't know if -- 11 did you give them a copy of the medical reports? Or show 12 the medical -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I didn't. I've 14 got it, but I didn't give them -- I knew you would mention 15 that. 16 MS. BOTELLO: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you have it, give 18 it to the County Attorney. 19 MS. BOTELLO: Yes, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He'll meet with you 21 privately outside here. 22 MS. BOTELLO: I wanted to let you know, it's 23 already been turned in to the Department of Health, because 24 the doctor told me that I had to, because if I didn't, and 25 the other children were getting sick, that I would have 9-8-03 53 1 C.P.S. come and take my children away because I was 2 neglecting to do something about it. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Thank 4 you, Mr. County Attorney. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. That's all we have 6 on that issue? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's enough. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: At this point, we will recess 9 the Commissioners Court meeting, and we will take up -- we 10 will convene a public hearing concerning proposed Kerr 11 County On-Site Sewage Facility Rules and Regulations that 12 was set for this date at 10 a.m. 13 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:10 a.m., and a public hearing 14 was held in open court, as follows:) 15 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 16 JUDGE TINLEY: At the outset, prior to 17 calling for public comment, I apologize for being somewhat 18 tardy in getting the information to the members of the 19 Court, but there were some matters brought to my 20 attention -- the County Attorney was provided a copy -- from 21 attorney Vernon Harrison with respect to certain 22 requirements pursuant to the Texas Administrative Code and 23 those cases in which a -- a designated representative 24 proposes to adopt On-Site Sewage Facility rules or 25 regulations which are more stringent than those specified in 9-8-03 54 1 those -- in the standard ones promulgated by the Texas 2 Commission on Environmental Quality. I thank Attorney 3 Harrison for bringing that to our attention. I have 4 reviewed that information. It appears that his concerns in 5 this respect are legitimate. That's my personal opinion. I 6 would defer to the County Attorney on this issue about 7 whether it's appropriate for us to proceed with a public 8 hearing at this time, or whether or not we should instead 9 submit any proposed rules or orders that we want to place 10 into effect first to the Executive Director of the Texas 11 Commission on Environmental Quality for that office's review 12 and/or approval, and only upon receiving that, going forward 13 with our public hearing here on the county -- on the county 14 level. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, before you turn it 16 over to the County Attorney, if I might, I've talked to our 17 designated representative, and he agrees on the technical 18 procedure, that now is not correct. I visited with him late 19 last week, and he -- you know, we probably could have gotten 20 it to Austin and back, but I was uncomfortable and told him 21 no, that I would rather -- I recommend canceling the hearing 22 today. The -- and the reason was that I think the Court 23 needs to approve the -- the language justifying -- or 24 basically the language that goes to T.C.E.Q., not the D.R. 25 And so, for that reason, I said -- you know, I said I would 9-8-03 55 1 rather have it -- you know, and told Stuart just to not 2 bother with that, and we would just redo it. 3 I will also note that the procedure we're 4 using is the same that we used last time. And I guess -- 5 and it's a -- it's not an excuse, but I think T.C.E.Q. 6 doesn't have a problem with us going with the procedure we 7 were using unless someone disagrees with it, and then they 8 agree that, no, we need to go there. We could probably get 9 it preapproved, bring it back and send it back. Takes a 10 little bit longer, but, you know, that is the -- I guess the 11 reason for the oversight. There wasn't any intent to -- 12 it's just a matter of -- I kind of looked at it, and I think 13 Stuart did what was done last time. And it was the same 14 basic procedure followed, but since there is -- an issue has 15 been brought up, I think that we probably need to -- I mean, 16 we do need to follow the exact procedure. And T.C.E.Q., I 17 think, you know, acknowledges same. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that -- Mr. Motley, is that 19 your opinion, that you concur in the conclusions reached by 20 Attorney Harrison concerning the issues that are before us 21 on the public hearing? 22 MR. MOTLEY: I believe Mr. Harrison is 23 correct on this. I think 285 requires the procedure that 24 Jonathan just outlined. And it may -- may take a while 25 longer, but it would be better to do that. We're talking 9-8-03 56 1 about -- I think, in particular, he highlights this 10-acre 2 limitation or restriction, and by eliminating that, he 3 maintains that that would be making the local rules more 4 strict, and I believe he's correct in his analysis of the 5 law. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think that -- you 8 know, I think the appropriate thing to do is to bring it 9 back. And I know it's going to -- the only negative thing I 10 can see about this, really, is the fact that it's -- it 11 delays the process in the middle of budget and trying to 12 figure out some things, but so be it. We should have done 13 it right the first time. But we will bring the language to 14 the Court, 'cause it's not an agenda item, at our next 15 meeting for the -- to send it to Austin. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Submission to the T.C.E.Q.? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To T.C.E.Q. You know, we 18 do -- have done that today probably pretty quick. It's not 19 an agenda item, so the next agenda item will be that long, 20 and then we'll send it to -- the procedure will then be to 21 go to Austin. Then it will come back, then we'll set the 22 public hearing and proceed. And if -- Stuart, do you have 23 any comments? 24 MR. BARRON: Since there's lot of the public 25 here today, I was going to offer -- T.C.E.Q. said we could 9-8-03 57 1 have the public hearing too, since the public was going to 2 be here today, and have another public hearing after it's 3 been approved that would comply with their rules also. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- I mean, I never 5 have a problem hearing from the public, but I just don't see 6 the point of hearing a lot of things until they know what 7 the hearing's about. But we're willing to listen. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I know that there were a 9 number of individuals who have taken the time to come here 10 today to speak on this issue, and it being on the agenda -- 11 and, very frankly, the error was one which was our error -- 12 my error. I'll take responsibility for it; I have no 13 problem with that. We put it on the agenda, and I think if 14 any member of the public wants to come forward at this time 15 and talk about the proposed O.S.S.F. rules -- there will be 16 another opportunity, I can assure you, but certainly, I 17 don't want to prohibit anybody that may have taken the time 18 to come down here today. I would hope that we don't get too 19 repetitive, because we are going to talk about this again, 20 and you'll have an opportunity at that time to look at the 21 specific, exact language that the proposed rules will 22 consist of. But if there are any that wish to come forward 23 at this time, we'd be happy to hear from them. Ms. Botello? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She just stepped 25 outside. 9-8-03 58 1 JUDGE TINLEY: She just left. I think we've 2 probably heard her concern about the proposed rules. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: And that was a very graphic 5 situation. We also have Mr. Stacy. Judge Stacy, do you 6 wish to be heard at this time, or do you prefer to wait 7 until we've got the exact rules before us? 8 MR. STACY: Thank you, Judge. I may be able 9 to speak here. Bill Stacy. In 1991, I guess it was, we 10 made some rules. A subsequent Court threw those rules out, 11 and I was never told why they were thrown out, and it would 12 be interesting. For some reason or another, these rules, 13 285, were adopted. The County stopped the Environmental 14 Health Department we had, which, incidentally, gentlemen, 15 would have stopped a lot of the questions that y'all have 16 discussed this morning. I rise to the occasion, if it does 17 any good, to ask you to stand up with a little backbone. 18 I'm asking you to do two things -- and, as the Commissioner 19 told me, he knows exactly what I'm going to say. For 40 20 years, we had three cells and a leach line that worked. 21 Here comes the State of Texas, and they don't know what they 22 want. In my little subdivision, we have three or four 23 different types of so-called "approved" septic systems. Our 24 designated representative, if he worked for me when I had my 25 camp, I would have fired him. He doesn't know what a leach 9-8-03 59 1 line does. He told me if I dug a trench, that the digging 2 stayed the same. If you dig a trench in this floor, 3 obviously, you've dug a trench and you've changed it. That 4 doesn't get into his hair. 5 And as long as you have these people 6 interpreting these rules, they're going to interpret them 7 like they want them. The designated representative told me 8 in his office I needed an aerobic system. I said, "Wait, 9 you haven't been there." You need an aerobic system. I had 10 a state-of-the-art system when it was put in, two cells and 11 a leach line. Did not exactly adhere to what they wanted to 12 license. I went to the installer and asked the installer, 13 if we change it, put in a third tank, put in a leach 14 line...? No, aerobic system. $6,000 later, I put in an 15 aerobic system. I got an approved situation. Gentlemen, 16 out on Flat Rock Lake, my wife told me they're going to 17 solve so much problem out there for $12,000. It's out of 18 control. Commissioner Baldwin will tell you, his system is 19 -- aerobic system has failed. And if you allow one more 20 going into Kerr County, he should be put in the county jail. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me? 22 MR. STACY: No. Aerobic -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just wanted to check. 24 MR. STACY: I think you have. Now, I was 25 called Saturday morning and couldn't get there, but I 9-8-03 60 1 understand they're now putting in something called "panels." 2 They're nothing more than an old-fashioned cesspool. I'm 3 asking that the Court and Commissioner Nicholson -- 4 Commissioner Williams is on city sewer, so he can probably 5 recuse himself, but I ask you to look into your rules and 6 put in three cells and a leach line, and that works. It 7 worked for 40 years, and it will work tomorrow if you 8 approve it and get rid of the -- the digging of a line in 9 the ground, and the ground staying the same. Good luck, and 10 get a little backbone. And maybe you ought to take over the 11 Environmental Health like it used to be when the County ran 12 it and we ran it right. Thank you. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Judge Stacy. Is 14 there anyone else that wishes to come forward and be heard 15 on this issue? If you would, please, come forward and give 16 your name to the reporter, and we'd be happy to listen. 17 MR. SYFAN: Gentlemen, Bernard Syfan, 18 Mountain Home. About a month ago, maybe a little more, I 19 went before the U.G.R.A. Board and I complimented them on a 20 change in attitude that I felt. I'm before you today to 21 rescind that. The -- the present board of the U.G.R.A. is 22 making an attempt to divide this county. There's no reason 23 for that. Water is water, and -- in my mind, and I think 24 eventually it will happen that we're going to have an agency 25 that takes care of water, whether it's on the surface or 9-8-03 61 1 underground or coming out of the sewer system, being 2 treated; it will all be under one head. Water is water. 3 Ought to be one agency, and it should not be this agency. 4 Should not be this Court. You've got a lot of other things 5 to do, and they ought to be elected. They ought to be an 6 elected board, five people, just like you are. If you want 7 seven, that's not too bad. But I'm encouraging you to stop 8 and think of this: Water is water. 9 I would not want to put this authority into 10 the hands of U.G.R.A. as it's presently constituted. They 11 were appointed by the State. Appointed by the State. There 12 are some on that board that misunderstood, I'm sure. They 13 thought that the governor said "anointed," and they were not 14 anointed. There are people out here, and they were run 15 roughshod over for several years, and they pretty well have 16 made a turnaround. But their attempt to split this county 17 into two agencies is dead wrong and on the wrong track. 18 There should not be two agencies in this county. One agency 19 ought to be taking care of all the water, and that agency 20 ought to be elected by the people. Thank you. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Syfan. Is 22 there anyone else that wishes to come forward and be heard 23 on this issue? Mr. Vernon Harrison? 24 MR. HARRISON: Thank you, Judge. I'm Vernon 25 Harrison from Hunt, Texas. 9-8-03 62 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you for providing us 2 with the information. 3 MR. HARRISON: Yes, sir. And I appreciate 4 your consideration of it. My position is that, as long as 5 there's going to be very technical rules that are applied 6 very technically -- and that's what most of the complaints 7 have been when people have come in here, is that the 8 O.S.S.F. Rules are technical and applied very technically. 9 As long as that's the case, then I would like to see that we 10 comply with all of the law, and I would point out a couple 11 more things. The reason I rise is not to beat the same 12 horse I beat in that letter, but to point out there are a 13 few other things. One of the things that I heard discussed 14 here today was the problems of existing O.S.S.F. systems and 15 how they shall be prosecuted, and I would point out to you 16 that in the Health and Safety Code, Section 366.032 -- 17 that's 366.032 of the Health and Safety Code, which is part 18 of the chapter which provides for local enforcement of 19 on-site septic systems -- it provides in Section (c) -- I'm 20 sorry, correction, (a)(3), that the order that you adopt 21 must -- must include a written enforcement plan. 22 So that when -- I would point out that part 23 of the problem being addressed here today, and in talking to 24 the County Attorney about how are we -- what are we going to 25 do about enforcement, the law requires that you have a 9-8-03 63 1 written enforcement plan, so I think that it is very good 2 that you're having that workshop and that that be done. I 3 would also point out that one of my reasons for wanting to 4 be sure that all of the requirements were followed, as far 5 as how the rules were adopted, was the requirement, which 6 was included in my letter, that any more stringent rules be 7 justified based on greater public health and safety 8 protection, and that the justification be submitted in 9 writing to the Executive Director. And the reason that is 10 important to me is the next time we have a public hearing, 11 part of what the public will be able to comment about is 12 those justifications and whether or not they, in fact, 13 justify more stringent rules. 14 And, thirdly, I would point out that I think 15 there continues to be a problem with the term "designated 16 representative." I know the County has entered into an 17 agreement with U.G.R.A. The U.G.R.A. cannot be the 18 designated representative. The law requires that the 19 designated representative hold an installer's license. 20 U.G.R.A. does not hold one. Now, Stuart Barron, who you 21 kind of refer to as your designated representative, I 22 understand does hold such a license. If he is, in fact, the 23 designated representative, then he is the designated 24 representative, not the U.G.R.A. And if he's the designated 25 representative, I see serious problems if he works for the 9-8-03 64 1 U.G.R.A. and takes orders from people who are not licensed 2 on-site inspection installers. So, I see a real problem, 3 and I'm addressing that as to the relationship of the 4 designated representative and who exactly it is and how they 5 serve. So, that's all -- those are my continuing concerns, 6 and I just want to bring them up today, too. Thank you. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much, 8 Mr. Harrison. Anyone else? Mr. Eller? 9 MR. ELLER: My name Charlie Eller. I live in 10 Greenwood Forest. My address is very much in doubt these 11 days. I can't figure out what it is. Every time I get a 12 postcard, I get more confused. I may not be here for the 13 next public hearing, so I want to get mine in today. First, 14 I urge you to delete Rule 10, as it is a ridiculous rule. 15 It makes just exactly as much sense as requiring you to have 16 your safety inspection done on your automobile only when you 17 sell it. Okay? Second, this Court is responsible for the 18 O.S.S.F. rule enforcement. You merely hired a subcontractor 19 who's a political appointee to do your job, and I urge you 20 to terminate that contract and actually perform the duties 21 assigned to you by the State. I believe the taxpayers are 22 entitled to have their elected representatives and employees 23 carry out their responsibilities. 24 Third, I suggest the people are the best 25 qualified to identify failing septic systems. There's a lot 9-8-03 65 1 of mystery about inspecting septic systems, and most of it 2 has to do with fees collected. A failing septic system 3 produces liquid on the surface and odor in the air, and a 4 neighbor can sure find it. If my neighbor has a failing 5 system, I'm going to report it. I just need to know who to 6 report it to. And, fourth, I suggest the people be 7 encouraged to report failing systems, that the contact point 8 be the County Commissioner for that precinct, and then you 9 can decide who does any required actual on-site inspection 10 and what action to take, if any, against the owner. Thank 11 you. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. 13 Eller. Is there anyone else that wishes to address us? 14 Yes, Mr. Wheeler? 15 MR. WHEELER: Good morning. Jerry Wheeler, 16 Mountain Home. As with Mr. Eller, I may not be here for the 17 next meeting, so I'd like to address the Court now. I 18 presently hold a Class D wastewater license. I went to 19 school; I got that license because I wanted to know more, 20 and I learned a lot. And I'm going to remind three members 21 of this Court, and make sure that the other two members who 22 weren't here for the workshop with the State -- that the 23 question was asked, question was answered. If we used the 24 state regulations with no Section 10, is the environment 25 protected? The answer was yes. So, my question still to 9-8-03 66 1 the Court and to U.G.R.A. is, why would we be doing any 2 more? And I just want you to keep that in mind. Thank you. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Wheeler. 4 Anyone else that wishes to come forward? Mr. Taylor? 5 MR. TAYLOR: Judge, Commissioners, I'm Eddie 6 Taylor from Center Point. I'm here to express all my 7 concerns about everything we're hearing here today, and I 8 heartily agree with a great number of them. One thing is my 9 attention -- and I am sorry, I don't have pictures. It's a 10 system that was authorized by T.N.R.C.C. It's an 11 infiltration system that they're allowing, and I went to 12 school in '97 and '98 over in New Braunfels for a couple of 13 days to learn how to put it in. They would put in certain 14 specifications and type of soil and everything. At that 15 time, they were trying to really get it effective in Texas. 16 Since then, they have got it approved by the T.N.R.C.C. 17 I contend that you -- in the workshop and 18 discussion, you should check into this system very closely. 19 It is put in with a panel. It looks like a pipe with about 20 40 percent sawed off. It's corrugated, sawed off of the 21 bottom, and you just run your drainfield in there. They 22 claim that you can go gravel -- it has to be a Type 1, 2, 23 or, I think, 3 soil, and it has no gravel in it. The 24 ditches have to be a certain width to fit a certain panel, 25 and the idea of it is -- let me pass this around and y'all 9-8-03 67 1 look at it while I'm talking. Appreciate it. I borrowed 2 that book, 'cause I threw mine when I didn't like the -- the 3 septic part of it. I contend that if we can have a septic 4 tank, one-, two-, or three-compartment, and run it out into 5 a hole, put tin or cedar posts over it, that it's a cesspool 6 to me. We're going to meet all state specifications, but in 7 your two and three tanks, whether it's a pressure deal or 8 what, two tanks are a certain size, two compartments, and 9 then we run it in this panel. You can run shorter panels, 10 because they claim the effectiveness is a lot better than 11 putting it in a drainfield, or you can go ahead and run it 12 in about a hundred 25 or 30 percent more -- I may be a 13 little off on those figures -- in a gravel bed. 14 They like it, and I can see why they like it 15 and why people go for it around here. It's a much cheaper 16 installation because you don't have to buy 40 yards of 17 washed gravel, but the way they're putting them in -- and I 18 observed two or three in the last month. They're digging a 19 ditch. If it's a 36-inch panel, should be a 36-inch ditch, 20 and that's the way they filter. People -- this thing was 21 designed up in Connecticut and comes from Connecticut, and 22 the idea of having that ditch is, when you set those panels 23 in there, then they don't kick out the bottom, because the 24 ditch is tight. In other words, it's fit in here. You can 25 run over it with a tractor and all that. But I noticed most 9-8-03 68 1 of the boys putting it in are putting it in with Bobcats to 2 cover it and stuff like that. I'm wondering if maybe the 3 Commissioners Court should look into that before they let it 4 get too far in Kerr County. And I certainly appreciate 5 y'all and appreciate your time you put in. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. 7 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Is there anyone 9 else who wishes to come forward at this time and be heard? 10 Mr. Oehler? 11 MS. OEHLER: Well, I'm going to have very 12 little to say. Judge and Commissioners, Bruce Oehler. I 13 think my new address is something like 529 Highway 479, but 14 I'm not sure. Has nothing to do with this, but... You 15 know, this controversy's been going on for 17 years, and I 16 think you could end it if you just adopt the state regs. 17 You wouldn't have to worry about going to court and trying 18 to justify if you're over and above the regulation that the 19 State requires. They've done the testing. That's why they 20 have the rules that are enforceable and defensible, of which 21 you can do the very same thing. If you do that, the lady 22 that was here today -- and if you enforced the rules, she 23 wouldn't have had that problem, nor would anybody else. 24 Make it simple, but make it defensible and make it right and 25 fair for everybody. 9-8-03 69 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Oehler. Anyone 2 else that wishes to come forward at this time? If not, we 3 will -- we will close the public hearing. 4 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:38 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court 5 meeting was reopened.) 6 - - - - - - - - - - 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretty big public 8 hearing not to have a public hearing. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have no topic to 11 vote on. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: As we call it public hearing, 13 with everyone knowing that, of course, we'll have at least 14 one more on this issue. At this point, I would suggest that 15 we take our mid-morning recess and reconvene here at 16 approximately -- 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I've got a 18 couple comments in relation to the public hearing. Can we 19 not do that? I know we're not going to vote. Can I make 20 some comments about what we've heard? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to call 1.8 as a 22 matter of course. So, we'll stand in recess until 10 of or 23 a little after. 24 (Recess taken from 10:39 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.) 25 - - - - - - - - - - 9-8-03 70 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to 2 order. It's about 5 minutes until 11:00. Just in order to 3 remain consistent, we'll take up Item 1.8, that I know we 4 cannot take any formal action on. Consider and discuss 5 adoption of proposed Kerr County On-Site Sewage Facility 6 Rules and Regulations. I think Commissioner Nicholson had a 7 statement or comment that he wanted to make. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think just one 9 thing, really. We've been dealing with the issues of 10 Section 10 for a long time, and some of you have been 11 dealing with it for a long time, much longer than I have, 12 and there's a clear intent to eliminate the real estate 13 transfer rule. And that's going to -- that's taken a long 14 time. It's going to take some more time, and so I'm 15 speaking to our designated representative, Stuart. I'd like 16 for to you do whatever you can to make sure that the -- keep 17 that bureaucratic process to -- to a minimum to make sure we 18 -- we get those things out expeditiously and help people 19 with the real estate transfer. I'm not talking about 20 changing the rules. I'm talking about making it as 21 efficient as you can to -- to keep it from holding up 22 transactions. That's all. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that 24 agenda item, 1.8? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I'll make is 9-8-03 71 1 that the -- no, I won't make a comment. That's my comment; 2 no comment. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Your comment is no 4 comment. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That means I have to 6 put off my 10 pages of prepared comments till next time; is 7 that right, Judge? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: When was it that you were 10 going to be out of town, Commissioner? I think maybe we -- 11 we've been talking about having a special meeting. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: We have yet to set it. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll let you know 15 when I'll be out of town, Judge. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The next item was a 17 timed item set for 10 o'clock, as was the previous one, and 18 that is a public hearing concerning road name changes for 19 Kerr County. So, now that we're back in the meeting, I will 20 recess the Commissioners Court meeting and convene a public 21 hearing concerning road name changes for county-maintained 22 roads in accordance with 911 guidelines, and regulatory 23 signs. 24 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 11:00 a.m., and a public hearing 25 was held in open court, as follows:) 9-8-03 72 1 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I would note that Mr. Linn 3 Mann, who was here previously and addressed the Court under 4 Visitors' Input, filed a participation form to speak on that 5 item -- or someone had filled in 1.5 there; maybe he didn't. 6 I'm not sure whether his particular road falls under the 7 roads under consideration here today, but -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It does not. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: It does not, okay. His 10 comments were generally about 911 and roads and addressing. 11 Is there anyone here with us today that wishes to have 12 public input concerning the road name changes for the 13 County-maintained roads in accordance with the 911 14 guidelines and regulatory signs that was to be heard today? 15 There being no one to come forward, I will close the public 16 hearing. 17 (The public hearing was concluded at 11:01 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court 18 meeting was reopened.) 19 - - - - - - - - - - 20 JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the 21 Commissioners Court meeting, and we will take up Item 1.6; 22 that is to consider road name changes for County-maintained 23 roads in accordance with 911 guidelines, and regulatory 24 signs. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if I could make a 9-8-03 73 1 comment on these, most of these are in my precinct. These 2 were all names that were approved previously by the Court 3 and were included in the 911 mailout. And the reason for 4 the hearing was just a timing issue that we couldn't have 5 this public hearing prior to that mailout. And the other 6 comment I have is on the second -- well, the first name, 7 Hasenwinkel, it's actually a spelling correction, because 8 that's been back and forth a couple times, which way to 9 spell it. We decided to put it as it is now, formally; the 10 new name is the correct spelling of Hasenwinkel. And, there 11 is a site issue on Cypress Creek Loop North, the first one. 12 A little portion of the new road is actually called North 13 Creek in the records, so we will probably have that little 14 piece, I think, back on the -- for another public hearing at 15 our next time. I think we can go ahead and change our 16 records accordingly. No one lives on it. It's -- it may be 17 100 yards long. No one lives on it; just as to the way it 18 was mapped at one point. I don't really -- doesn't affect 19 this, doesn't change this, doesn't make anything inaccurate 20 that was posted. It's just that we need to add that one, 21 and it is a County-maintained road, so it does need to have 22 a public hearing that little piece of North Creek. Other 23 than that -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one comment, 25 Judge. I think some time ago, probably at the request of 9-8-03 74 1 the Veterans Administration, because it has a cemetery 2 located on Spur 100, the name Veteran's Parkway North was 3 adopted. Whether it was intended to go for the full length 4 of the road or just to that portion that gets -- gets you to 5 or past the cemetery, I really don't know, but the majority 6 of the people live on Spur 100 Road North. They know that, 7 they understand that, and that's the name they'd like to 8 have. And so that's the reason for getting it back where it 9 should be. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other comments? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move approval of the 12 road names as -- the new names as presented, and also the 13 regulatory signs as presented. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 16 seconded that the road name changes for the 17 County-maintained roads as presented and the regulatory sign 18 changes or additions as presented be approved. Any further 19 question or discussion? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to 21 just make a comment real quick that's a sideline to this 22 particular issue, is that we're going to have a -- a 23 committee meeting -- Commissioner Letz and I are the 911 24 liaisons, and I'm going to ask a couple of the 911 Board 25 members to meet with us and start -- start talking about the 9-8-03 75 1 sign installations and the cost and all those things that we 2 had kind of declared a moratorium on. But it's -- it's time 3 for us to start bringing that back, so I just wanted to 4 inform y'all that that is -- that we're going to jump back 5 in that thing here pretty quick. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And on that, to follow up 7 on Commissioner Baldwin's comments, there are also -- there 8 are some road names that probably still need to be changed, 9 and we've kind of put a moratorium on that. I think some 10 are County-maintained, some are not, and now we need to, you 11 know, think about those in your precinct. And I think at 12 this same committee meeting, we're going to discuss a little 13 bit as to when we want to do that. Do we want to try to 14 make the changes between now and the end of the year, or 15 wait until later or -- and/or do them case-by-case? But if 16 you have any in your precinct, just get with Commissioner 17 Baldwin or myself and let us know where they are. I know 18 those in mine. I think he probably knows his, but I'm 19 clueless what's going on in 2 and 4 when it comes to road 20 names. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 22 comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 23 your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9-8-03 76 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next 3 item you'll find in the addendum. It was a timed item also 4 for 10 o'clock. Not bad, I suppose; it's only a bit past 5 11:00. Mr. Auditor, do we have any sealed proposals for 6 information technology maintenance service work? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: No, we don't. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: We have none? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Well, it was set 11 for the bids to be -- if any received, to be opened as of 12 this date. There being none, why, unless someone wants to 13 have some sort of discussion on that item or 1.15, we will 14 consider those items eliminated from the agenda at this 15 time. We'll move on to the next timed item, which was for 16 10:15, which was a public hearing on proposed archive fee. 17 So, at this time, I will recess the Commissioners Court 18 meeting, and I will open the public hearing on Item 1.9, 19 that being a public hearing on proposed archive fee for 20 preservation and restoration service performed by the County 21 Clerk in accordance with Senate Bill 1731. 22 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 11:06 a.m., and a public hearing 23 was held in open court, as follows:) 24 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there anyone here that 9-8-03 77 1 wishes to be heard on the proposed archive fee as set forth 2 in Senate Bill 1731? Any member of the public wishing to be 3 heard? There being none, I will close the public hearing. 4 (The public hearing was concluded at 11:06 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court 5 meeting was reopened.) 6 - - - - - - - - - - 7 JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the 8 Commissioners Court meeting and take up Item 1.10, that 9 being the consideration and discussion of the adoption of 10 the proposed archive fee for the preservation and 11 restoration service to be performed by the County Clerk in 12 accordance with Senate Bill 1731. The material, I believe, 13 is in -- in your package. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not mine. 15 MS. SOVIL: No. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: It's not? All right. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's privileged 18 information, but I'm going to vote on it anyway. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Obviously, it was. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the dark. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Vote in the dark. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: If we can get the County Clerk 23 to give us just a quick thumbnail of what that consists of, 24 Ms. Pieper? 25 MS. PIEPER: If you don't mind me standing 9-8-03 78 1 here, I think I can speak loud enough that Kathy can hear 2 me. This is just a new bill that has recently been passed, 3 and it is an archival fee for the records -- public records 4 from 1990 back. This is a $5 fee, or can be assessed up to 5 $5, and this will help to -- help our budget. That way we 6 can get all of our old records restored. And this fee will 7 only last for a period of five years. So, after the 8 five-year period, then it drops off and we go back to our 9 other filing fees. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd move the Court adopt 11 a $5 archive fee per SB 1731. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 14 Kerr County adopt an archive fee in accordance with Senate 15 Bill 1731 in the sum of $5. Any further question or 16 discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by raising 17 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. Next item 22 is Item 11, consider and discuss approval of the proposed 23 '03-'04 public officials' salary and set a public hearing on 24 the same. I prematurely placed this item on the last 25 agenda, and we weren't quite ready for it then, but I think 9-8-03 79 1 we maybe are now. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, it seems to me 3 that we would have somewhat of a schedule here, or are we 4 just talking about all -- all elected officials getting a 5 $1,000 salary increase, excluding the Commissioners Court 6 and Rusty? Is that the general thing? Or is there -- is 7 there a myriad of people that we need to be looking at? Are 8 there different things throughout the list of elected 9 officials? Different numbers? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- as you're aware, 11 Commissioner, there have been a number of proposals noted in 12 the budget requests of various elected officials. There 13 were some requests. There was one proposal that had to do 14 with the thousand that you've mentioned, with some 15 exclusions. I've heard other questions raised about, does 16 the term "elected official" include the -- the District 17 Judges, the County Court at Law Judge, the public -- the 18 County Surveyor? So, I think -- frankly, I don't know where 19 we are. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I would -- I 21 definitely want a schedule. I want to see the salaries, and 22 I think it includes everyone that gets a COLA as well. 23 'Cause I recall the Commissioners, even though they don't 24 get an increase, per se, from a merit standpoint or whatever 25 you want to call it, we are subject to the COLA, and the 9-8-03 80 1 COLA needs to be reflected in there, 'cause it is 2 technically an increase in our salary. So, I don't think we 3 can act on this -- I can't act on this until I see a 4 schedule. 5 MS. NEMEC: I gave an updated position 6 schedule to the Auditor, which includes everything that 7 y'all just talked about. It has all the employees on there 8 too, though; it's not just elected officials. It's just a 9 position schedule. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I guess the issue at this 11 point is, number one, if -- does anyone want to offer a 12 particular motion? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, if it's -- if 14 it's a thousand -- a thousand-dollar raise for all elected 15 officials, excluding Commissioners Court and the Sheriff, 16 yes. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And constables. 18 Constables, we changed those -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Constables -- 20 excluding Commissioners Court, constables, and Sheriff, yes, 21 I would offer a motion. But if it's anything different from 22 that, we've got to see what we're voting on. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's somewhat 24 different, in that the constables, we -- you may recall, we 25 later went back and visited that item and put the constables 9-8-03 81 1 in for the increase, and we took $1,800 out of their budget 2 for the varying expenses. So, it does include elected 3 officials, all, with the exception of the Commissioners 4 Court and the Judge. The COLA applies to everybody, top to 5 bottom. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we're changing the 7 constables' technical salary; therefore, theirs has to be 8 listed as a new salary. We took $1,800 out of that, so 9 there's -- it's not just the current salary plus $1,000 plus 10 a COLA. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're right, yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, we need to 13 see a -- I think we need to see a schedule. 14 MS. NEMEC: Are y'all going to be back this 15 afternoon? I can go type out a schedule real quick, if you 16 want. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the answer is 19 yes, 'cause I think that -- I mean, I'd like a little bit of 20 time when we get to the next budget item. I don't know how 21 the Court feels about acting on the full budget, but I would 22 like a little bit of time to review it, 'cause I have not 23 had time to do that. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't we have a 25 meeting this afternoon? 9-8-03 82 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we're pretty 2 much -- we're almost done except for budget issues. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To meet the new -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: The applicants for the -- for 5 the Extension Service. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: 2 o'clock. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 2 o'clock, see? So, 9 we could -- all we have to do is run this on in the 10 afternoon. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is fine. I'd 12 rather -- my preference would be to recess now, or maybe go 13 through anyway and find out if there's any additional 14 information we'd like to have. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Does anyone have a motion that 16 he wants to offer on Item Number 11? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Auditor -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: I think there -- there could 20 be a -- a technical issue concerning the J.P.'s, concerning 21 the supplement. If -- if the supplement is left in the 22 budget, then the amount of their COLA will be different. If 23 you -- if you reduce their salaries -- what is now their 24 salary by the amount of the supplement, then the amount of 25 the COLA that they receive on their current salaries would 9-8-03 83 1 be different than it would be if -- if the supplement is 2 left at $6,000. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could we not adopt a 4 policy across-the-board that -- supplements, to me, should 5 be subject to a COLA. I mean, a supplement is a -- to me, 6 it's an additional salary if you're doing additional 7 service, and I don't -- and I think the same logic, to me, 8 applies. You shouldn't get paid less, you know, one -- you 9 know, from the preceding year. We take into account 10 inflation, so I think the -- it should be -- basically, COLA 11 should apply to all supplements. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're right, because 13 it's a supplement to salary. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's just -- but it's 15 different than I think we've handled it in the past. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that -- I think that 17 there's some confusion among staff as to whether or not a 18 COLA applies to supplement. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, that's what I'm 20 saying. I think we should clarify it. To me, supplements 21 should get a COLA, always. You know, that's just my 22 personal feeling on that. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Now, that would be a policy 24 issue, certainly, that probably needs to have a decision 25 made on it. Does anyone wish to offer a motion in 9-8-03 84 1 connection with Item 11? If not, we'll move on to Item 12. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a second, Judge, 3 before you call 12. Are we leaving Item 11 without a 4 motion, pending a recess, at which time we'll have an 5 opportunity to examine a -- a printout from the Treasurer? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. Absolutely. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So you intend to come 8 back? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah. We can certainly 10 revisit 11 or any other item, as far as that goes -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: -- that the Court wishes to 13 come back to. Item 12 is consider and discuss approval of 14 proposed '03-'04 budget, set a public hearing on the same. 15 Commissioner Letz had indicated he had some concerns about 16 wanting a bit more time to review before we actually approve 17 the budget. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: So what I'm hearing, then, is 21 that there's no one at this point that is in a position to 22 offer a motion on Item 12? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is it that we're 24 going to look at more? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paper. And I think that 9-8-03 85 1 the -- I mean, I -- I just -- I was gone -- actually, I was 2 here Friday, so I don't know when this came out, but I have 3 not looked at the new run, and I just want to go through to 4 make sure that the changes that -- that I thought we made at 5 our last workshop, or recommended -- or last meeting are in 6 here. And then there's a couple of -- you know, there's one 7 area that I'd like to look at. I just want to look at it; I 8 think it needs to be brought up again whether the right 9 amount's in this budget. I don't think it should take a 10 great deal of time. I mean, the changes aren't that 11 significant that I know of. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, do we want to try 13 to do everything at once, or do you want me to do some of it 14 now? When are we going to do this visiting? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would say either, you 16 know, 1:30 or after the reception or tomorrow morning. 17 Makes no difference to me. I don't think -- I mean, the 18 changes I have are -- you know, we can go through some of 19 them right now. You know, we can -- 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Why couldn't we do 21 it right now? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I suppose we could. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But maybe -- I have 24 to think. I'm going through it for a while. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's get on with it. 9-8-03 86 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: While you're digging 2 around over there, Commissioner, I've been asked to bring up 3 one issue, and that has to do with our holiday schedule. 4 The request is that we get -- take Good Friday instead of 5 July -- somebody help he here -- July 4th? 6 MS. SOVIL: Yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: July 5th. We have 8 previously talked about taking July 5th as a holiday, and we 9 don't want to do that any more, but we do want to have Good 10 Friday off before Easter. 11 MS. NEMEC: No, Commissioner. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I knew it. 13 MS. NEMEC: This is the schedule that -- that 14 we discussed and the Court agreed on. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 16 MS. NEMEC: And July 5th is not on there. We 17 took July 5th to give us an extra day during holidays -- 18 during Christmas. We took July 5th off if we could have the 19 26th during the Christmas holidays. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we have already 21 done that? Is that what you're telling me? 22 MS. NEMEC: Yeah, we discussed it, and -- and 23 I -- yeah, y'all -- y'all even made a motion to approve that 24 schedule. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Thank you. You 9-8-03 87 1 want this back? It has pretty blue ink on it. Would you 2 like to have it? 3 MS. NEMEC: You can keep it. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Shucks. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Shucks. 6 MS. NEMEC: I'll let you have it. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're embarrassing 8 me. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner 10 Baldwin, I'm going to take July 5th off either way. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I am too. Well, 12 while Jon's over there shuffling papers, I'd like to ask a 13 question. What did -- did we do with road -- the Road and 14 Bridge -- with Truby with Road and Bridge? What did we do 15 with her salary increase? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: Remained the same. There 17 wasn't any change that I know of. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way I 19 remember it as well. But a couple of months ago, we gave 20 her some kind of stipend that is, -- 21 MS. NEMEC: Merit. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- I'm sure -- 23 MS. NEMEC: Merit increase. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Merit increase. That 25 it becomes a permanent fixture in the budget. Yes? 9-8-03 88 1 MS. NEMEC: That's correct. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, other than 3 that -- okay, thank you. 4 MS. NEMEC: She got longevity and the 2 and a 5 half percent -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 7 MS. NEMEC: -- added to the merit increase 8 that she had gotten a few months ago. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's good. Thank 10 you. While Commissioner Letz is shuffling his paper -- come 11 on, Jon. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I told you it's going to 13 take a while. I need to go through these things. I think I 14 heard an issue that Tommy brought up about COLA. If that's 15 going to be a policy, that's not in here right now, so 16 that's a change to the budget. And, I mean, I'm in favor of 17 that. I think that supplements, you know, should be -- 18 COLA's should be -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can accept that as 20 a -- even if we adopted it, we adopt it with that change. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As long as we don't have 22 too much changes. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Would it be better if we were 25 to take an early lunch -- 9-8-03 89 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably so. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: -- and come back? I'm just 3 trying to -- I know we've got a commitment at -- at 2:00 4 that I think most of us want to make with regard to the new 5 Extension applicants. I've got hearings scheduled beginning 6 at 3:00. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question, 9 Judge. It's related, but it's the next topic, and it has to 10 do with the setting of the tax rate. We usually get a 11 printout that gives us some sense of what the tax rate is, 12 what the rollback is, and I haven't seen a revised printout 13 of that. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: There is not a revised one; 15 it's exactly like it was from the -- the one I gave you, 16 like, a week ago. There's been no change to that. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When I look at 19 constables' salary, estimated actual '02-'03 is identical to 20 the recommended '03-'04. That's not what I recall. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, what page are 22 you on? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 47. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did you say? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 47. 9-8-03 90 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 47. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that the net 3 change was basically an $800 reduction, because we gave them 4 the $1,000 raise, but we took out the travel allowance, 5 $1,800 that we had put in there several years back, and it 6 amounted to an $800 reduction, but that -- it's really not a 7 true reduction, 'cause that amount was totally put back in 8 their budget and a bunch more for car expense-related items. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, in response, the 10 figure's not the same. It's -- there's some dyslexia 11 involved here, apparently. It's 492, and it ended up 429. 12 But I ran that figure. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: And what I did was, I used the 15 $29,492 and I -- I added the COLA to it, and then I 16 subtracted out the $1,800 that was peeled off, and then I 17 added back the thousand, and it comes up to $29,429, as 18 stated. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: So, what it includes was the 21 adjustment of the $1,800, but it also includes something 22 that, apparently, from what I understand from discussion a 23 bit ago, has not been finalized on the $1,000. But I -- 24 that's the rationale of how that figure is where it is. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's just a matter of 9-8-03 91 1 coincidence, the numbers are very close and I have dyslexia. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably not a coincidence 4 that you have dyslexia. But -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's it. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: I had an issue with that too 7 when I saw it. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: I thought I was having 10 dyslexia. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Before you leave that, 12 when -- when we send the budget down to the clerk's office 13 for public viewing, what will -- what will 001 line show? 14 Will it show $1,800, or is it going to continue to show zero 15 like today? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: It will show zero. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then the one that 18 Commissioner Letz was talking about, Constable Precinct 3, 19 as an example, you have -- let's see, we have the gasoline 20 and vehicle repair and maintenance, and we intended to break 21 those out in two separate lines? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And insurance. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Three categories. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three -- and 25 insurance. And they're all that way? 9-8-03 92 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And they're all an 3 equal amount? Okay, thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under Park Maintenance on 5 Page 44, this shows nothing under Capital Outlay, but don't 6 we have Capital Outlay at the parks? Or is it not under 7 Park Maintenance? Is it under Parks? 8 MS. SOVIL: Different. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in the other 10 Parks budget. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Other Parks? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, different fund. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: You're talking about the two 15 items, -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two items. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: -- the L.C.R.A. money and the 18 FEMA money? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: That's in the other one. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: That's Fund 31. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other item -- and I 24 almost -- no, I won't bring it up. I think it would be an 25 emergency issue, if it happens. It's going back to O.S.S.F. 9-8-03 93 1 Really, it's just a -- I see a lot up in the air there 2 still, and you can't budget for that, so I think we'll just 3 leave it where it is. But, you know, that number may or may 4 not be exactly where it needs to be, but we just don't know. 5 We don't have a better number, so leave that where it is. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I had raised a question with 7 the Treasurer about the Technology Information Specialist on 8 Page 8, and I've not had an opportunity -- I just raised it 9 with her this morning. I've not had an opportunity to get 10 her explanation. My calculation of what that last number 11 should be is $32,481, and her figure's about $800 higher. 12 MS. NEMEC: Yours is correct, Judge. What 13 happened was, I was looking at his in particular, and 14 noticed that last year when he was supposed to get a step 15 increase, he was not -- that was when each department was 16 doing it, and he was -- it wasn't sent to me that he should 17 have received one, so I added that step to it, making it a 18 23-3. But I had already done it with a 23-2, so it should 19 be that amount, $32,481. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 21 MS. NEMEC: Now, you know, he was shorted 22 $783 this past year, and I don't know what we want to do 23 about that, but -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't we correct 25 some others that had been overlooked as well? 9-8-03 94 1 MS. NEMEC: No, I don't think there were any 2 that were overlooked. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Really? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I believe there were 5 some longevities and that in our office; we corrected them 6 in there. 7 MS. NEMEC: But are you talking about with 8 the revised policy, that we're overlooking the revised 9 policy? 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. There was one or 11 two that didn't get them after their one year. They're 12 corrected now, but they weren't then. So -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I 14 thought. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, they're all 16 corrected now, but they weren't. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So if that one needs 18 to be corrected, then the number in the budget -- 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Would be correct. Is 20 that right? 21 MS. NEMEC: Well, actually, if we're going to 22 correct his, then it should be corrected in this budget year 23 and give him the $783, because then if we move him up 24 another step, then the following year it's going to impact 25 the following year's. He's going to stay at that higher 9-8-03 95 1 step, which we really shouldn't -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. Okay. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: We may go back and -- and 4 begin his count for the three -- three-year subsequent 5 longevity increase starting with the last year. That's 6 probably the only -- 7 MS. NEMEC: I did that. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: -- adjustment we can make at 9 this time. But the correct number for this year should be 10 the $32,481. 11 MS. NEMEC: That's correct. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: If I understand correctly. 13 MS. NEMEC: That's correct. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: And we don't have any more 15 like this, Ms. Nemec? 16 MS. NEMEC: No. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Where in here do I 19 find the three-quarters of one percent lateral road tax 20 increase? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: It's in -- it's reflected in 22 the tax rate on the tax schedule. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The 750 -- $750,860 24 includes that? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it does. 9-8-03 96 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all we have to offer 3 at this time? We'll come back to this when we -- when we 4 pick back up, and we'll have an opportunity to raise other 5 issues. Do we want to go forward now and -- and consider 6 Item 13, the approval of the proposed tax rate and setting 7 of a public hearing on that item? Are we ready to do that 8 yet without the other two items being completed? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd rather do them 10 all at one time, Judge. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Personally. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: That being the case, then, I 14 think probably the best course of action would be for us to 15 adjourn at this time -- 16 MS. SOVIL: Recess. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: -- and come back at 1 o'clock. 18 MS. SOVIL: Recess. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Recess. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Recess, excuse me. I 21 apologize for that poor choice of words. So, we'll stand in 22 recess until 1 o'clock. 23 (Recess taken from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.) 24 - - - - - - - - - - 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, it's 1 o'clock. I'll 9-8-03 97 1 call us back to order, and we will resume the Commissioners 2 Court meeting scheduled for this day. We went into recess 3 at approximately 11:30 a.m., to resume at 1:00. It's now 4 1 o'clock. It would appear that we need to revisit Item 11, 5 dealing with consideration and discussion of the approval of 6 the proposed fiscal '03-'04 public officials' salary and 7 setting a public hearing on those. I'm -- I'm a little 8 confused. My -- my impression and understanding was that 9 Commissioner Letz was looking at this issue in an attempt to 10 try and figure out what -- what the other half was, as a 11 result of a commitment that was made by a previous Court 12 where they voted some increases and then cut them up into 13 pieces and -- and gave approximately half, or supposedly 14 that was the plan, or maybe it was some other plan. 15 But I had received in my budget discussions 16 with various members of the elected officials and department 17 heads that they were desirous of having, quote, "the other 18 half," and Commissioner Letz took on the task to try and 19 figure out, if that was possible, what that was. My -- my 20 impression was that what he was able to ascertain was that, 21 with the exception of, I believe, two of the J.P.'s and the 22 members of the Court, that all of the other elected 23 officials had not only received a half, but had received the 24 whole. And where we've transitioned that from, apparently, 25 at some point in the middle, there was a request by at least 9-8-03 98 1 one for the other half of a figure of $640, if I recall 2 correctly, which -- I'm not sure it was ever verified, but 3 we're now -- we've now transitioned all the way to the point 4 where a suggestion has been offered that we're going to have 5 something on the table where every elected official in this 6 county, with the exception of the Court, just be given a 7 flat $1,000 raise. Is that -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. It seemed 9 like the personnel officer recommended that to keep 10 everything in -- in line with the step and grade system, is 11 the way I -- way that I remember it. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- several -- 13 it became very difficult through this whole process to 14 determine what was -- how the adjustments made in 2000-2001 15 were done. I think that was the year that we did that 16 adjustment -- how they were done. I believe the Treasurer 17 had a different schedule. Auditor came up and did a 18 different schedule. I guess they had one, the Auditor had 19 one, and I think -- you know, there's lots of different 20 numbers, and I don't know that anyone ever agreed as to what 21 was -- how it was done the first time and if there -- if 22 there was or was not a second half. And my impression was 23 that the entire -- that whole discussion was just shelved, 24 and somehow we came up with a -- what you said was $1,000 25 for everyone except Commissioners Court. The constables -- 9-8-03 99 1 well, the constables got it, but there were some other 2 adjustments in theirs, and then the Sheriff was taken out. 3 It was the Court and the Sheriff. And the other -- other 4 part of that was that a new study would be done this year 5 for all elected officials county-wide. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my 7 recollection. We could put our fingers on what we did two 8 years ago, 'cause that's obvious; you can see it. But 9 nobody -- we could not reach an agreement as to what 10 remained to be done. There was differences of opinion as to 11 what happened, should have happened, or didn't happen. And 12 we agreed that every elected official, except Commissioners 13 Court, would get $1,000, with the exception of the Sheriff, 14 who would get 10 percent to put him above his deputy -- 15 chief deputy. That's the way we left it, as I recall. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, that's -- to my 17 recollection, it was just that. We couldn't -- we agreed 18 that we owed elected officials the other half, whatever that 19 was. We couldn't decipher what the other half would be. We 20 concluded that $1,000 looked about right, and we -- we'd 21 keep that promise. And we excluded the Commissioners Court 22 and the Sheriff, and agreed on $1,000, and we -- we voted 23 and approved that 4-0. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a -- I mean, 25 one thing that -- well, Barbara -- the Treasurer is not 9-8-03 100 1 here. The question was, approximately what does $1,000 2 equate to on a -- on the step/grade scale? I mean -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, for most of 4 them, it would be less than 2 and a half percent. For most 5 elected officials, they're at $40,000 and change, right? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we're not dealing with a 7 step and grade schedule with elected officials, anyway. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know that, but I'm just 9 wondering -- you know, I don't want to treat elected 10 officials better than we treat our employees. And a lot of 11 the employees that have been around awhile have got a 12 longevity increase, and that's the reason I brought that up. 13 I know there's no direct relationship, but kind of -- it 14 just doesn't set well with me when you raise -- you know, 15 you give a -- a two -- equivalent of a two-step increase to 16 elected officials and a one-step to the employees. So, it's 17 kind of -- that's kind of where I was going, is that, you 18 know, I think you need to do a study and need to do some 19 adjustments. But I just hate -- I just don't think it's 20 good -- it's proper or good business just to give the -- 21 the, quote, "bosses" more of a raise than you give the 22 workers. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what Congress 24 does. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I think -- 9-8-03 101 1 you know, we've tried -- and generally, I think this Court 2 has tried to exclude itself. I think one time there have 3 been some adjustments other than cost-of-living, but -- and 4 that also has resulted in the -- in this Court getting 5 further out of balance with other commissioners courts 6 around the state, but so be it. It just kind of -- you 7 know, I do agree that the elected officials and department 8 heads should be paid more than the people that are working 9 for them, but I don't know that you should, across the 10 board, necessarily give a raise. I did vote for the $1,000 11 that day, but I've also thought about it some more since 12 then. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I guess the question at this 14 point, then, is, does the term "elected official," in fact, 15 mean every elected official in Kerr County? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Except -- no. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we need to identify 18 them, if it's not clear. For example, there was an item on 19 the agenda relative to a salary supplement for the 216th 20 District Judge of $1,080. This Court declined to approve 21 that, and are we now turning around and putting $1,000 back 22 where there was $1,080 that we declined to approve? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In my mind, no. That's 24 why I'd like to see a schedule. And the reason is that -- 25 you know, and I don't know how you develop the schedule, 9-8-03 102 1 because with the District Judges, their pay is set not by 2 this Court. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Set by the State. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Set by the State. But 5 that $1,000 portion is set by the County. And, you know, it 6 certainly was not my intent on that earlier vote -- and that 7 earlier vote may not even pass muster with me today. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I 9 recall your discussions in 2001. You had survey data that 10 showed that elected officials need to be paid more in order 11 to be on par or on average with certain other counties, and 12 there was a discussion about how should we do this? There 13 was agreement, I think, that they needed to be paid the 14 average of those other counties, and you talked about 15 40 percent now or 60 percent now, and you landed on 16 50 percent now. And then the -- and you made that decision 17 and you granted a certain percentage, and then it appears -- 18 and I think there's evidence that, for whatever reasons, 19 last year, you didn't follow through on the second half of 20 that. And so here we stand now, and I -- I'm agreeing with 21 you, with your conclusion that we ought not be treating 22 elected officials better than everybody else. I'm just 23 saying we're -- we're keeping the other half of the promise. 24 We don't really know what the promise was, and $1,000 sounds 25 about right. 9-8-03 103 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I think if 2 you look at the data that I was able to develop piecemeal, 3 what we did in 2000-2001, I think most of the elected 4 officials received the full adjustment that they requested. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there's -- some 7 of them did not, but some of them were also -- that just 8 shows me they weren't entitled to any increase. So, I mean, 9 you know, unfortunately, my memory doesn't, you know, 10 enlighten me on how those were done then, so that's why I 11 think, to me, we ought to drop we what we said in 2001 -- or 12 2000-2001. And I don't think anybody got more than a $500 13 increase back then, other than the Court. I think 14 Commissioners did. Sheriff might -- there were a few 15 people. But, I mean, the majority of them did not. I think 16 most of them were, like, a couple hundred dollars, so a 17 $1,000 increase is a lot more than the -- than they got back 18 then with that adjustment. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I seem to 20 remember that there were some pretty decent ones. Maybe the 21 Treasurer could enlighten -- 22 MS. SOVIL: Constables and J.P.'s got the 23 most. 24 MS. NEMEC: This is what everybody got. I 25 don't have enough copies; I've given y'all a copy already. 9-8-03 104 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is what we were 2 looking at when we said $1,000 looks right? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's -- ten of them 4 were less than $1,000. So the increase is -- I mean, $1,000 5 definitely is -- what is it, 18 elected officials? And 10 6 of them -- if you get rid of the Court, that's five; 10 got 7 less than $1,000, then. So -- but I think -- I think, to 8 me, the -- I mean, I think -- I'm favor of us relooking at 9 elected officials' salary. I think they need to be 10 competitive with other counties that are comparable. How we 11 decide what's comparable is -- you know, we can decide on 12 that during the year. I don't have an extremely strong 13 feeling one way or the other. I mean, if it's $500, if it's 14 $1,000, or wait till next year, doesn't make that much 15 difference. We have told them -- I think most of them think 16 they're getting $1,000. I don't have a problem with going 17 along with that, those that were here, 'cause the court was 18 pretty full at that workshop. That's my recollection. Kind 19 of where I stand. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the Treasurer has 21 provided us with a -- a position schedule on certain elected 22 officials. It does not include all of them. The best I can 23 tell, it excludes the District Attorneys, the District 24 Judges, County Court at Law Judge, and that's about it, 25 isn't it? 9-8-03 105 1 MS. NEMEC: County Court at Law's on here. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 3 MS. NEMEC: County Court at Law is on here. 4 The District Attorneys and the District Judges, we don't pay 5 them anything. So -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 MS. NEMEC: I mean, we give them that 8 Juvenile Board money, $1,200, but that's it. And on -- on 9 that one, Judge, I just noticed that I didn't add 2 and a 10 half percent to that $1,200 on yours, and I don't know if 11 I'm supposed to. I think the consensus was -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think so. 13 MS. NEMEC: Not on that particular one. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: No, I don't think so, not on 15 the Juvenile Board. 16 MS. NEMEC: Okay. That was the only one I 17 didn't add the -- the 2 and a half percent. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I -- nevermind. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where does that leave 20 us? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Your recollection, 22 Commissioner Nicholson, is that on the 2nd when we were 23 here, essentially, what we did was take this very action 24 that's reflected on this schedule, or that was the -- your 25 belief of what the Court was intending to do, 9-8-03 106 1 notwithstanding it may have said all elected officials, with 2 the exception of -- 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. I think 4 this is what we agreed to do. Whether or not we made a good 5 decision, I can't say on that. But in my mind, we weren't 6 thinking about judges -- County Court at Law Judge, District 7 Judges, or those people. We were thinking about people who 8 are on our payroll who are Kerr County elected officials. 9 MS. NEMEC: I'd like to explain the 10 constable, Precinct 4. The reason I put $1,405 on there is 11 because, when you publish this, you need to show what he was 12 actually making, and in order to bring him comparable to 13 what the other constables are making, that is actually the 14 increase that he is getting. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under County Court at 16 Law, Barbara, why was there not that $1,000 increase there? 17 Is his salary tied straight to the District Judges? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: It's $1,000 under the 19 District Judges' salary. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 21 MS. NEMEC: I always leave that the same 22 unless I'm told otherwise. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I think if we were to raise 25 his salary on this end, they'd deduct it over at the State, 9-8-03 107 1 wouldn't they? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: They might. I don't know for 3 sure. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I think they probably would. 5 If he -- if he's -- if he's capped at that level, I think 6 they'd just reduce their supplement. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Barbara, why don't 8 you show the state supplement for the County Court at Law 9 Judge? 10 MS. NEMEC: Let me look at something real 11 quick. Of course, I did this really quick right now, so 12 there could be mistakes on there. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it just doesn't 14 show it. 15 MS. NEMEC: It should. I should put it on 16 there, and I will. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would be what? 18 MS. NEMEC: $29,466. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 464? Okay. 20 MS. NEMEC: $29,466. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 466, thank you. 22 MS. NEMEC: Did y'all bring me a hamburger 23 back? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin was going 25 to take care of that, I thought. 9-8-03 108 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You didn't get it? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: You didn't get it? 3 MS. NEMEC: Oh, I didn't get it. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I saw you carry it down there. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I had Sally take 6 it down there. You didn't get it? Seriously? 7 MS. NEMEC: I didn't eat it. That's all 8 right. I think you were trying to tell me something. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It got down there; she 10 just didn't eat it. So, what's the problem with all this? 11 I thought we agreed that we were going do this $1,000 deal, 12 and let's do it. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So did I. It's in 14 the last printout, is it not, Tommy? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: The last printout reflects 16 this schedule you just -- you just received. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 19 MS. NEMEC: Minus the 2 and a half percent on 20 the mental hearings and supplements? Or -- 21 MR. TOMLINSON: It does not reflect a 2 and a 22 half percent on any supplement. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks like it does. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: No, on this schedule, he's 25 talking about. 9-8-03 109 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm talking about the 2 printout. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Now, your printout also showed 5 the Mental Health line item in the County Court budget to be 6 $6,000. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding of 9 Commissioner Nicholson's motion was that -- that it was 10 increased to 16, with the proviso, just like it was on the 11 other one, that the combined gross of the recipients should 12 not be higher than their total that they would otherwise 13 have, and it would not be less than that, was my 14 understanding on that. Correct, Commissioner Nicholson? 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you said that 16 they didn't get an increase in their $2,000, yes. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way I 18 remember it. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 20 MS. NEMEC: And, Judge, what I did on your 21 $4,000, I didn't add the 2 and a half percent in there, 22 because we added it on the $9,000, so then that one just 23 shows the four. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Shifting. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is what we discussed 9-8-03 110 1 at our last meeting, as I recall it. Whether we're treating 2 some elected officials, you know, better than appropriate, 3 you know, who knows? We'll adjust them again at the end of 4 this year, or hopefully during the year sometime. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I guess, at this point, it's 6 appropriate to have a motion that this is what we publish 7 and have a public hearing on. Would that not be 8 appropriate, gentlemen? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe so. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it would be. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do I hear a motion to 12 that effect? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 16 the proposed '03-'04 public officials' salary, as reflected, 17 be -- as reflected on the schedule that's provided by the 18 Treasurer, I suppose, with the addition of the state 19 supplement for the County Court at Law Judge, and that a 20 public hearing be set on the same for -- next meeting? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 22nd. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: September the 22nd. At 23 10 a.m.? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine with me. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Does that conform with what 9-8-03 111 1 your desired motion was, Commissioner Baldwin? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, 3 that'll be fine. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any further 5 questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 6 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. The next 11 item that we have is consider and discuss approval of the 12 proposed '03-'04 budget, setting a public hearing on that 13 item. Have you found any more items that you want to bring 14 to our attention, Commissioner Letz? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, sir. I pretty much 16 think it reflects the -- our last meeting when we voted on 17 them item-by-item. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have an issue 19 I'd like to bring up. And before I bring it up, though, you 20 have to promise me y'all are not going to throw rocks at me. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have any rocks. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about water? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's just -- I can't 25 -- it's one of Mr. Nicholson's issues; I can't get my mind 9-8-03 112 1 around this, and that's this merit increase thing. I'd like 2 to have a discussion about it, and to -- I'm not -- I mean, 3 I don't understand all of it, and I'm not real convinced 4 that everybody at the table understands all of it, and I'd 5 like to just kind of clarify what -- what we're doing and 6 how we're doing it, et cetera. The way I understand it, 7 tell me again about -- we put "X" amount of dollars in -- 8 out there in a little pot, and the elected officials then 9 make a decision of who gets the merit increase, and then 10 they come to the Commissioners Court for -- how did that 11 work again? 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think our 13 agreed-to principle was that -- that a certain few employees 14 should be rewarded and recognized for productivity 15 improvements, outstanding performance, or those kind of 16 things, and we set aside a -- a pot of money, a fund to do 17 that. And we would wait -- we would be six months into the 18 budget year when we would spend that money. In the interim, 19 we would develop guidelines based on this principle about 20 how you identify productivity improvements or outstanding 21 performance. And then, based on those guidelines, 22 department heads would nominate employees and provide a 23 justification for that nomination, and then this Court would 24 decide on that, decide who gets the money based on the 25 guidelines. 9-8-03 113 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We would possibly be 2 making a decision that a District Clerk employee would get 3 it, and a Tax Assessor/Collectors' employee may not get it? 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's an example of 5 the kinds of decisions we'd be making. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How would we evaluate 7 our own -- 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On the same basis, I 9 would think. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We would also -- we 11 would judge that ourselves? 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. One or more 13 of us might nominate that person, provide some 14 justification. That justification would have to meet the 15 same standards or hurdles as in other departments. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I apologize. I just 17 see stormy waters. I'm not -- I think it's a great idea, 18 but I just see -- I just sense that there's major stormy 19 waters involved with that whole thing. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not in the budget, 21 is it? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: $10,000. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is in the budget? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: $10,000, Nondepartmental line 9-8-03 114 1 item. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I must have walked out of 3 the room for a minute. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You did. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Would you like me to tell you 6 about the other six items while you were out? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I also want to 8 talk to you about your medication. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 10 (Laughter.) 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And not taking it. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I just -- you 13 know, I've just -- we've done that before, not -- not 14 exactly your plan. Your plan may work, Commissioner. I 15 just -- I can't see it real clear. But we have -- we have 16 done the merit program before, and I don't know if it was 17 abused or not, but I've heard people talk about that it was 18 abused. I had no idea that -- I mean, I don't know. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would expect that 20 it would upset some employees, and it probably wouldn't be 21 working very well if it didn't. Those who -- and I'm 22 guessing we -- there will probably be 10 percent of our 23 total employment would participate in it. And I would 24 expect there to be some sour grapes, and I'd expect they'd 25 be beneficial. If we truly are rewarding good performance, 9-8-03 115 1 and there's no bias in it, then that will help demonstrate 2 what good performance is. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think what we 4 agreed to do was -- because it does raise questions, and I 5 think we talked about last time it raised questions that we 6 would support the recommendation of one department head to 7 the distinction of another department head, who later comes 8 and says, "But, you know, you didn't think about what my guy 9 does," and puts us in that position of making those judgment 10 calls. But I think we agreed to put it in there on kind of 11 a trial basis this year; it's only in there for this year. 12 And the rules -- I think the Commissioner's writing the 13 rules or the parameters for that, and we'll see where it 14 takes us. And one of those -- one of those parameters was 15 that in no event could -- could a merit be given before six 16 months deep into the budget year. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: They have the first six months 18 in the budget year to prepare and submit their nominations, 19 each department would. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would see us 21 approving the whole package at one time, not -- not 22 dribbling these nominations in, so we can compare and make 23 solid and like decisions about who's deserving and who's 24 not. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if the amount of 9-8-03 116 1 those that we're going to make a decision on it exceeds the 2 amount available, that's -- everybody gets scaled back to 3 fit the pot. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Or we may not spend 5 the whole pot. We may decide that we didn't have 6 10 percent. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we will -- you know, 8 I'm still not real wild about it, but we will have -- 9 they'll only come to us one time during the year. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, by your own 11 admission, there's going to be mad people. Why in the hell 12 would we want to create something to make people mad? I 13 don't -- I'm not following that. I mean, I've got septic 14 tanks to think about. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And mail. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And mail. And 17 addresses. And I just don't know why I'd want to create 18 something to make people mad. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's different 20 schemes for compensation. There's a thousand of them, 21 probably. A very common scheme, and particularly where you 22 have unions, is to pay everybody the same. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, in my mind, 24 that's kind of what we just did, you know, to me. I mean, 25 we're paying people and giving them salary increases, and I 9-8-03 117 1 don't think this is going to make anybody mad. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, it will. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Giving them $1,000 -- 4 yeah, I understand. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They might not be 6 glad. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have it there. 8 You're right about that. I just struggle with it. I guess 9 it's just because of my ignorance, and I can't see around 10 the corner like you can. I just -- I have a hard time -- 11 hard time doing this, but I guess I'm the only one. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think -- I mean, 13 my preference is to do it in the budget cycle. The -- 14 really, the only good thing, I think -- you know, and it 15 could be done in the budget cycle. The only advantage that 16 I can see -- and, you know, I don't know how big an 17 advantage it is -- is that during the budget cycle, we get 18 so busy with other stuff. This kind of frees our time a 19 little bit right at the budget, so we can actually spend 20 enough time on this issue. And I -- and I know Dave is -- 21 you know, occasionally has referred to our -- his and my 22 private work experience as somewhat similar, and it was done 23 off business cycle in the private sector, and we called it 24 PDR's, professional development reports, and it's the same 25 thing. And they're done -- it was incorporated in the 9-8-03 118 1 budget, but it was -- so much time was spent on those that 2 it needed to be done out of the budget cycle. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we were giving 4 merit increases to Commissioners, for example, Commissioner 5 Baldwin would get one, because he went down and answered the 6 phones at 911. The other three of us would be angry. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my next item. 8 I thought maybe I'd get a little more compensation -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a pretty good 10 analogy. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- for that. And I 12 was going to bring that up in just a second. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much do you think 14 you're worth? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, that's not a good 16 question. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: We do have one correction on 18 the Information Systems Specialist technology information -- 19 technology specialist, where we made that one correction. 20 MS. NEMEC: I provided Tommy with that 21 correction so that he can make the amendment, but there is 22 the position -- corrected position schedule that needs to be 23 filed with the budget, without names. I'm sorry. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. This is the whole -- 25 MS. NEMEC: And that reflects what y'all did 9-8-03 119 1 today on this. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And all other employees 3 as well? 4 (Ms. Nemec nodded.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Looks like everybody's here. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What have you got 7 there, Judge? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: It's the whole thing, all the 9 way across-the-board. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's adopted as part of 11 the budget, correct? 12 MS. NEMEC: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we do it now, or do we 14 do it at the end of the -- 15 MS. NEMEC: At the end. You just file it 16 with the budget. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Barbara, will you 18 provide this copy to all of us in our box later? 19 MS. NEMEC: I will. And I wanted to do that, 20 but my printer's -- next year I'm going to have to ask for a 21 new printer. The Daily Times told me they would provide one 22 for me, because they sat there while I had to print 23 something. They were there half the afternoon. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: And did they -- the Times 25 indicated they were willing to provide you with a new 9-8-03 120 1 printer? 2 MS. NEMEC: They would ask if they could. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did we put money in 4 to repair your sick printer or get you a new one? 5 MS. NEMEC: I need a new one. It's just too 6 slow. It's not sick, it's just slow. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Daily Times, is that a 8 commitment that we heard? 9 MS. TAYLOR: Before my time, I guess. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would move 11 that we approve the proposed Fiscal Year 2003-'04 budget as 12 provided, with corrections noted, and set a public hearing 13 for September 22 at -- what time? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: 10:30? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 10:30 a.m. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and 18 seconded that the proposed Fiscal '03-'04 budget be approved 19 with corrections noted, and that the public hearing on the 20 same be set for September the 22nd, 2003, at 10:30 a.m. Any 21 further questions or discussion? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we be a little bit 23 more specific about "corrections noted"? As to what -- what 24 has been noted? I mean -- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: The one notation that -- 9-8-03 121 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Page 80. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, that's wrong. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 48 or something. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I know on Page 80, the 6 Information Systems Specialist, there was a correction to 7 that particular salary, and it was corrected to $32,481. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's the only 10 change. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only change? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the only one I 13 made note of. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just wanted to be real 15 clear. 16 MS. NEMEC: And then the 2 and a half percent 17 on the supplements. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct, the 2 and a half 19 on the supplements. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Two and a half percent 21 additional to be added for salary supplements, okay. That's 22 all the corrections/changes as noted that we have. Is 23 everybody satisfied with that? Any further question or 24 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, 25 signify by raising your right hand. 9-8-03 122 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item 5 is consider and discuss approval of the proposed '03-'04 tax 6 rate and setting a public hearing on the same. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we approve the 8 '03-'04 tax rate as presented on the sheet from the Auditor, 9 which shows a total County rate at no change, at .3721. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: .3721? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Does that provide for Road and 14 Bridge to be increased by .0075? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it does. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion made and 17 seconded that the '03-'04 County tax rate be set at a total 18 of .3721, with the County Road and Bridge rate being 19 increased by three-fourths of a cent, or .0075 from the 20 previous year, and included within that total rate. Any 21 question or discussion on that? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, do you think 23 that it would be appropriate for the press that are -- that 24 is here to talk about that increase in the Road and Bridge 25 rate some? 9-8-03 123 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go ahead. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, actually, I think I'm 3 the one that threw it on the table first. If -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. And I agree 5 with you. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Possibly Commissioner Letz 7 can -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need some kind of 9 explanation, I think. I'd hate to see somebody leave the 10 room and not understand what had happened there. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it's merely a -- it's 12 actually a shifting back of part of the tax rate. Over the 13 past several years, that tax rate had been shifted away from 14 Road and Bridge into -- well, what I'm going to call the 15 general or Maintenance and Operation funds. And, as a 16 consequence, why, their resources over at Road and Bridge 17 have gotten a little thin. And because they operate off of 18 a separate tax rate -- and anybody that gets a tax statement 19 and looks at it can see that there are actually two 20 different components to their county tax bill. One is just 21 their regular tax bill, and then the other one is Road and 22 Bridge. So, this permits more of the ad valorem tax 23 resources to be reallocated back to the Road and Bridge, and 24 that was my rationale, was to start giving it back to them, 25 because I think they need it to build their reserves over 9-8-03 124 1 there. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I guess the bottom line 3 is, does this show -- is there a tax increase for the 4 taxpayers or not? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Overall tax increase? No, 6 sir. Total -- total overall tax rate remains the same at 7 .3721. It's just merely kind of an internal shifting, but 8 because of the way that the two components of the tax rates 9 are set up legally, you've got to state them separately, 10 because they are different components. Any further question 11 or discussion or explanation on this? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- you know, at 13 one point last week, we were talking about a possible 14 10 percent tax increase, or maybe even 12. And we came from 15 there to zero through hard work, these men sitting at the 16 table, and the elected officials who are willing to 17 participate. That's the way -- that's the -- the way things 18 work, and that's the way we all get along. Done a good job, 19 and I appreciate everybody. This is a great job. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question, comment, 21 or discussion on the -- on the matter before us? All in 22 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 9-8-03 125 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The public 2 hearing on that item -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 22nd. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: -- I have set for 11 a.m. Is 5 that satisfactory with all of you gentlemen? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Trying to space them out 30 8 minutes apiece. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it 9/22 or 9/23? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: It's 22nd, I believe. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 22. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we have any matters 13 for closed session? 14 MS. SOVIL: Yes, sir. Mr. Motley wanted -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have some matters that 16 you want to take up in closed session? 17 (Mr. Motley nodded.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I see the Auditor 19 raising his hand. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: You still haven't approved 21 the bills. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand that. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand that. If we 25 don't do that, can we save some money? 9-8-03 126 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Well -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll have some mad creditors, 3 but we'll save some money. 4 MS. NEMEC: We already have some irate 5 vendors in my office. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: But they're in your office. 7 MS. NEMEC: Yeah, they're in my office. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't see them out here, so 9 I feel okay. Unless -- would the Court like to go ahead and 10 take care of the approval agenda, and then come back to 11 the -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we move on to 14 the approval agenda, then, and go ahead and deal with the 15 items that we can go ahead and finish up in open session. 16 First item is payment of the bills. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move we pay the 19 bills -- second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Question. Mr. Auditor, Page 21 1, Commissioners Court. Continental Casualty. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's mine. That's 23 my question. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, excuse me. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 1, 9-8-03 127 1 Commissioners -- it's a good question, Judge. Thank you. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: That is a -- that's a law 3 enforcement issue, I think. Let me look it up, make sure, 4 but I believe that's right. 5 (Discussion off the record.) 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. That's a -- a 7 non-lawsuit suit. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: A non-lawsuit suit? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, that's a good 10 explanation. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Is this a claim against the 12 Kerr County Sheriff's Department? 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This was an incident 14 that occurred in the jail a year and a half ago that they 15 felt there would be a lawsuit filed over, which there was 16 never a lawsuit filed over, but we went ahead and forwarded 17 all the reports over to the insurance people anyhow, so I 18 guess they billed us for that. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Buster? Don't you think we 20 ought to make the Sheriff pay for it, then? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take it out of his 22 budget. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He didn't volunteer? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: No, he didn't. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: It's the deductible part of 9-8-03 128 1 our coverage for J.W.M. Specialties Company, which is the 2 company that represents Continental Casualty. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Why didn't it come out of 4 Nondepartmental? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: All -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Relating to our general 7 insurance coverages? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: All the professional fees are 9 budgeted in that -- in that line item. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All insurance? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Professional fees. Not 12 the -- not the coverage. This is -- this is legal -- this 13 is a bill for legal services, and all -- all of those 14 professional fees or legal services have been budgeted for 15 -- for that line item. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: It related to a claim which, 17 if they're -- under a policy that we pay for out of 18 Nondepartmental, but because it was for legal services, you 19 charged it against that Contingency account in Commissioners 20 Court; is that what you're telling me? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I guess it's got to come from 23 somewhere. The next item -- page -- 24 MS. PIEPER: You need to vote on that -- oh, 25 I'm sorry. I thought you was going to go on to the next 9-8-03 129 1 item. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: No -- I am. The next item on 3 Page 6, at the bottom of the page, under County-Sponsored 4 Activity. Apparently, that was for some work that was done 5 out at the Union Church? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. I think that's the 7 Historical Commission. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: That's over on Page 11. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Comes out of their 10 budget, right? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, are those two items 13 being charged against their budget of $2,500 that was 14 approved for them last year? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And the funds were 17 there? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: There would be a budget 19 amendment if there weren't, so yes. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Then back over on 11, 21 the balance of those items were taken directly out of an 22 account that -- a different account that you maintain for 23 them? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You've answered my 9-8-03 130 1 question. Thank you. Any other questions or comments upon 2 the bills? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 3 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 1. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for County Court 10 at Law, 216th, and 198th District Courts, transferring 11 $3,545.30 from Court Transcripts from the 216th Court, 12 $1,424.50 for Court-Appointed Attorneys in County Court at 13 Law, $372.50 to Court-Appointed Attorneys in the 216th 14 Court, $1,697.60 to Court-Appointed Attorneys in 198th 15 Court, and $50.70 into Court Transcripts in the 198th Court. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 19 approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any further 20 question or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising 21 your right hand. 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion -- all opposed, same 24 sign. 25 (No response.) 9-8-03 131 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget 2 amendment request 2. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: This -- we have a need to 4 transfer $667.79 in the Indigent Health Care Fund from 5 Eligible Expenses to the Third-Party Administrator line 6 item, and it's for the services of our third-party 7 administrator. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't recall seeing 9 that before. Is that -- is this the annual payment, or is 10 this -- 11 MR. TOMLINSON: No, this -- this -- we have a 12 contract with VeriClaims. They're our third-party 13 administrator for indigent health care claims, and their 14 charge is 4 and a half percent of the claims paid. And 15 we -- we are at the point that our -- our claims are -- our 16 4 and a half percent is larger than what we budgeted, so we 17 have a claim -- they have just recently paid claims of 18 $17,762.35. Four and a half percent of that is $844.31. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, are you still 20 happy with VeriClaims? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: I think they've done us a 22 great job. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I knew you liked them 24 at first. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 9-8-03 132 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 3 approve Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any further 4 question or discussion? All in favor, 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 carries. Budget 10 Amendment Request 3. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is for the jail and 12 Sheriff's Department, request from the Sheriff to transfer 13 $821.59 from Software Maintenance in the Sheriff's 14 Department, $670.57 to Operating Supplies in the jail, and 15 $43.02 to Investigation Expenses for Sheriff's Office, and 16 $108 to Vehicle Repairs and Maintenance for the Sheriff's 17 Office. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 21 approve Budget Amendment Request 3. Any further question or 22 discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right 23 hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9-8-03 133 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget 3 Amendment Request 4. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 4 is for the 5 Commissioners Court. The request is to transfer $138.68 6 from Professional Services into Conferences. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I might clarify, 8 that's for transportation only to the TAC conference. No 9 lodging, no food, and for one trip to COG meetings. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 13 Budget Amendment Request 4 be approved. Any further 14 question or discussion? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just believe I would 16 hold off on my COG trips till October. Surely they can't do 17 any damage to us without us being there. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably not. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One time. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 21 comment? All in favor, signify by 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 carried. Budget 9-8-03 134 1 Amendment Request 5. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: 5 is for the Sheriff's 3 Department, transferring $678.82 from Capital Outlay to 4 Operating Equipment for the purchase of some body armor. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's part of that grant. 6 Yeah, you, Judge. We're buying you your own set. 7 (Laughter.) 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded, 11 Budget Amendment Request Number 5 be approved. Any question 12 or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right 13 hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget 18 Amendment Request 6. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: 6 is for the County 20 Treasurer. The Treasurer requests a transfer of $296 from 21 Office Supplies to Postage. We've got to have -- I need a 22 hand check for that amount to the Kerrville Postmaster. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved, authorize a 24 hand check. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 9-8-03 135 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 2 approve Budget Amendment Request 6 and authorize hand check 3 to Kerrville Postmaster for $296. Any further question or 4 discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right 5 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 7. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Request Number 7 is from the 12 County Court at Law Judge. The request is to transfer 13 $90.83 from Telephone line item, $190 from Books, 14 Publications, and Dues. Total of that amount transfers into 15 Conferences in the amount of $130.83, and into Special Court 16 Reporter for $150. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 20 approve Budget Amendment Request Number 7. Any further 21 questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 22 signify by raising your right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 9-8-03 136 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget 2 Amendment Request 8. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 8 is for the County 4 Treasurer. We're transferring $120.80 from Computer 5 Supplies out of the -- out of Nondepartmental, and $120.80 6 in Machine Repairs in the Treasurer's budget. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: That was the printer she was 8 having problems with? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: It's a check -- check-signing 10 machine. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Different one. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: It was duplicating the 13 signatures on the -- on the checks, and we had to have it as 14 emergency repair. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 18 approve Budget Amendment Request Number 8. Any further 19 question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify 20 by raising your right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Do we have 25 any late bills? 9-8-03 137 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I have one, payable to the 2 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. It's for 3 $111.25, and it's for the application of a temporary permit 4 to divert water for one year. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To do what to water? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Divert water. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: That was in connection with 8 some road projects that Road and Bridge is doing that allows 9 them to obtain water to use for compacting base material. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 13 the Court approve a late bill and authorize hand check to 14 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for $111.25. Any 15 further question or discussion? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- so, T.C.E.Q. 17 comes along and catches us drawing water out of the creek 18 and asks us, who do we think we are, and we say we're the 19 Kerr County Road and Bridge Department, and we really did 20 not have a permit? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: No, there -- there's been a 22 permit applied for for the coming year. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. But we 24 got caught the other day; they stopped one of our trucks and 25 took down the driver's name and all kinds of things. 9-8-03 138 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I was unaware of that. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you're aware of 3 it now. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, sure am. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I just was 6 wondering if that's what triggered -- then we decide to run 7 out and get a permit, or -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Sounds like that might be what 9 happened. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That might be the 11 case. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we -- we had 13 a -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought we did it 15 just an annual, automatic -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've had a permit -- 17 yeah, we've always had a permit to do that. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I thought. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a renewal of the 20 permit, right? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe it lapsed and we're 22 renewing. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe we're one week 24 late. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just like inspection 9-8-03 139 1 on your car. 2 (Discussion off the record.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question 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. I have 10 before me minutes of the emergency session of Kerr County 11 Commissioners Court held on Friday, August the 29th, 2003, 12 at 1 p.m., the minutes of the regular Commissioners Court 13 meeting held on Monday, August the 11th, at 9 a.m., and the 14 minutes of the special session of the Kerr County 15 Commissioners Court held on Monday, August 25, 2003, at 16 9 a.m. Do I hear a motion that the same be approved as 17 presented? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would make that 19 motion, Judge. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 22 the designated transcripts and minutes be approved as 23 submitted. Any further question or discussion? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question, if I might real 25 quick. Is this -- is that 25th meeting the one where we had 9-8-03 140 1 the long list of agenda items? Is that that meeting? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: No, no. That was September 3 the 2nd. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: You're talking about the 30 -- 6 35 to 40 -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couple of those orders we 8 need to look at real carefully, I think, just to make sure. 9 We were jumping around a bit that day. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 11 comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 12 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. I also 17 have before me a report from the Sheriff and from the 18 Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3. Do I hear a motion that 19 those two reports be approved as presented? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved -- second. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 23 the monthly reports from the Sheriff and Justice of the 24 Peace, Precinct 3 be approved as presented. Any further 25 question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify 9-8-03 141 1 by raising 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. Do we have 6 any items under the information agenda that anybody wishes 7 to offer at this time? Hearing none, we will come back to 8 the Executive Session. The County Attorney has asked for 9 the opportunity to talk with us in closed session. It 10 appears that we need only the members of the Court, the 11 reporter, and the County Attorney. We would ask that the 12 rest of you absent yourself from the room, if you would, 13 please. 14 (The open session was closed at 1:59 p.m., and an Executive Session was held, the 15 transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) 16 - - - - - - - - - - 17 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll now go back into open 18 session. Our trusty doorman has thrown open the doors. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't see anybody 20 out there. 21 MR. MOTLEY: Ran them all off. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll come back into regular 23 session -- open session of the Court. Do I hear any motion 24 to be offered in connection with the matter discussed in 25 Executive Session? 9-8-03 142 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, in conjunction 2 with Item 1.4 on today's agenda, I would move that we 3 authorize the County Attorney to take whatever legal 4 actions, both civil and criminal, that are available to him 5 to correct or cure the problems as discussed under 1.4 for 6 violation of septic rules and regulations. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 9 authorize the County Attorney to take any necessary civil or 10 criminal action in connection with the matter discussed 11 under Agenda Item 1.4. Any question -- any further question 12 or discussion about that item? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. Commissioner 14 Williams, do you have an exact address as to where this is, 15 so that we can -- because of lack of agenda backup in the 16 formal files as to exactly the location? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I do -- I do 18 have, yes. If it's not in the packet I gave you, I'll see 19 that you get it. 20 MR. MOTLEY: I don't believe -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's more for the order. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Court order. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, I see. Okay. 24 The proper site reference is going to be Stoneleigh Road and 25 McDonald Loop, Center Point, Texas, which has a legal 9-8-03 143 1 description of R23141, B&R Ranches, Lot 249-A in Precinct 2. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you very much. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 4 discussion on that? All in favor of the motion, signify by 5 raising your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go back, if I might, 10 very quickly to Item 1.12. 11 (Discussion off the record.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: When we were dealing with the 13 proposed budget, setting a public hearing, I know in years 14 past that -- that we had -- when that budget was adopted and 15 filed and opened for public inspection and review and public 16 hearing pending, if I'm not mistaken, we had made copies 17 available of it to members of the general public for a flat 18 fee of $10. And there was a question raised earlier about 19 if we were going to continue to do that, rather than compel 20 these people, primarily the fourth estate, to pay a dollar a 21 page for it. Right now, that's what they're faced with if 22 they want -- if they want a copy of that budget, is to pay a 23 dollar a page. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A dollar a page? 25 That's too much. 9-8-03 144 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's unlawful, too. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd probably agree. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The Open Records Act 4 tells you that you can charge a -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Reasonable fee. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 13 cents or 15 7 cents. It's set by Texas A & M. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the copy -- copy under 9 other statutes for records in the County Clerk's office show 10 -- we can clarify that if we were to adopt this as part of 11 that, adopting the motion and setting the public hearing on 12 the budget, authorizing the copies to be had for 10 or 15 or 13 whatever might be an appropriate sum of money. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I show 120 pages here 15 of this. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: At about 10 cents a page, that 17 would be $12, wouldn't it? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 19 MR. MOTLEY: Judge Tinley raised a good 20 point. If there's another section anywhere that provides 21 for higher copy cost than the 10 cents a page, that would 22 supersede in case of a District or County Clerk. So, it's a 23 buck a page. I mean, that's what they -- you can set it, I 24 think, wherever you want to. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Unless we give the 9-8-03 145 1 County Clerk different authorization, they will be compelled 2 to ask anybody who wants a copy of this budget for a dollar 3 a page. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, absolutely. We 5 need to charge $12 for the copy -- for the copy of the whole 6 budget and go on. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under budget item 1.12, I 8 propose or make a motion that we set the copies of the 9 budget at $12 per copy. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 12 any member of the public desiring a copy of the proposed 13 budget, as filed under Item Number 12 of the agenda, pay -- 14 be required to pay a cost of $12. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And that is 10 cents 16 a page? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Approximately, yeah. Any 18 further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 19 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. 24 MS. PIEPER: Okay. Judge, just so -- because 25 I just walked in, that's going to be $12 for the whole 9-8-03 146 1 thing? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 3 MS. PIEPER: Or 10 cents a page? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: No, $12. 5 MS. PIEPER: Okay. 6 MS. SOVIL: I called the people out at the 7 Extension Office. They're on the way down here, so you 8 don't have to go. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- item where we 14 authorized the County Attorney -- you have a clerk in here 15 now that didn't get any of that. And just wait until -- is 16 there any vodka back there? 17 MS. SOVIL: Sir? 18 (Discussion off the record.) 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For our County 20 Clerk's benefit, we authorized -- it's in the minutes. We 21 authorized the County Attorney to proceed, both criminal and 22 civil procedures, whatever's necessary with relation to 1.4 23 in the agenda. 24 MS. PIEPER: Okay. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have anything further, 9-8-03 147 1 gentlemen? Anything further? If not, I'll declare us 2 adjourned. 3 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 2:36 p.m.) 4 - - - - - - - - - - 5 6 STATE OF TEXAS | 7 COUNTY OF KERR | 8 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 9 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 10 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 11 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 12 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 15th day of September, 13 2003. 14 15 16 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 17 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 18 Certified Shorthand Reporter 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9-8-03