1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Regular Session 10 Monday, September 22, 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 22, 2003 2 PAGE 3 --- Commissioners' Comments 4 4 1.1 Approve facility lease to Triad Holdings, Inc. 6 1.2 Approve proposed annual 2004 budget for Kerr 5 Emergency 911 Network 13 1.3 Consider whether Kerr County Subdivision Rules 6 apply to land partitioned by legal action 25 1.4 Set public hearing for plat revision of Lot 1, 7 Village West Industrial Park, Phase IV 43 1.9 PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed salary, expenses, other 8 allowances of elected County or Precinct officers for FY 2003/2004 47 9 1.10 Set salary, expenses, and other allowances of elected County/Precinct officers for FY 2003/2004 48 10 1.5 Clarification of term, "roads shall be designed" in Section 7 of Kerr County Subdivision Rules 48 11 1.6 Allow Road and Bridge to use unencumbered balance of 2002/2003 to complete the sealcoat projects 58 12 1.7 Consider going out for formal bid on buzz bar 61 1.8 Consider approving sign policy for private roads 62 13 1.14 PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed FY 2003/2004 Kerr County budget 73 14 1.15 Adoption of the proposed FY 2003/2004 budget 77 1.21 PUBLIC HEARING - proposed FY 2003/2004 tax rate 100 15 1.22 Adoption of the proposed FY 2003/2004 tax rate 101 1.11 Consider and discuss setting Sherriff's and 102, 16 constables' fees 120,137 1.12 Request budget amendment in Election Department 17 for constitutional amendment election expenses 104 1.16 Action and/or remedies to cure complaints regard- 18 ing storage behind the Extension Service office 106 1.17 Reappointment of Charles Lewis as Kerr County's 19 representative to the 911 Board 108 1.18 Begin process to change Main Highway to 20 Highway 27 111 1.13 Request for approval of Kerr County jury selec- 21 tion plan to comply with Texas Government Code 132 1.19 Discuss draft of new contract for O.S.S.F. 22 administration between U.G.R.A. and Kerr County 140 1.20 Burn ban status 151 23 1.23 Transfer 2.1 acres of land owned by Kerr County to the Mountain Home Volunteer Fire Department 152 24 1.24 Consider joining Association of Rural Communities in Texas (ARCIT) for 2003/2004 155 25 1.25 Establish policy concerning use of courthouse facilities 159 3 1 I N D E X (Continued) September 22, 2003 2 PAGE 3 1.26 Approval of parking spaces striping plan for courthouse parking 164 4 1.27 Acknowledge September as Destination Dignity Month as requested by the Hill Country Community 5 M.H.M.R. Center 167 1.28 Approve resolution to apply for Indigent Defense 6 Grant program 168 1.29 Nomination of up to five candidates for 7 submission to Kerr Central Appraisal District for board member of KCAD 169 8 1.30 Designate day of the week on which Court shall convene in regular term each month 172 9 1.31 Authorize County Attorney to investigate, take any necessary or appropriate action to recover 10 balance of unreimbursed funds expended for health care services provided to former County employee 174 11 4.1 Pay Bills 177 12 4.2 Budget Amendments 179 4.3 Late Bills 189 13 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 190 14 3.1 Action as may be required on matters discussed in Executive Session 191 15 --- Adjourned 193 16 --- Reporter's Certificate 194 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 On Monday, September 22, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., a regular 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the 3 Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, 4 Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning. I'll call the 7 meeting to order. This is a meeting -- special 8 Commissioners Court meeting, as posted for Monday, 9 September 22nd, at 9 a.m. It's just a smidgeon after 9:00 10 now. I'll call on Commissioner, Precinct 4 to open things 11 up for us. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Please join me in 13 prayer. 14 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Please be seated. 16 At this time, if there is any member of the public or 17 audience who wishes to address the Court on any item that is 18 not listed as an agenda item. If you want to address the 19 court on an agenda item, we would ask that you fill out a 20 participation form. There should be some forms at the back 21 of the room. It's not mandatory that you do so, but we 22 prefer it in order that we can schedule the time 23 accordingly, and most importantly, not miss you when -- when 24 that item comes up. So, if it's an agenda item, please fill 25 out one of these participation forms. With regard to any 9-22-03 5 1 item that is not listed on the agenda, is there any member 2 of the public that wishes to come forward and address the 3 Court about any matter at this time? There being no one 4 indicating a desire to speak, we'll move on to 5 Commissioners' comments. Commissioner 4? 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No comments. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: One? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No comments. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Two? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No comments. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Three? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can't go with no 13 comments. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Come on, Jon. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can do it. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just -- I just have to 17 make a note about the Comfort football team, who so far is 18 3-and-0 this year. And it's a 2A school, but has beat two 19 3A schools so far. So, they're in line for another 20 outstanding season. And -- and I might also say, Kerrville 21 Tivy won in decisive fashion as well. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Center Point won, 23 and Ingram is the only one in the county that got beat. But 24 would you say that Comfort squeaked one out? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was close. 9-22-03 6 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I'd say so. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it was a W. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it? Thank you, 4 gentlemen. Let's move right into the matters that we've got 5 ahead of us this morning. Item 1 is consideration and 6 approval of a facility lease for Triad Holdings, as sole 7 general partner of Triad Manufacturing, Limited, doing 8 business as B.A. Products. Mr. Pearce? 9 MR. PEARCE: Thank you, Judge and 10 Commissioners of the Court. What you have before you today 11 is a lease for what is commonly known as B.A. Products. 12 They're a manufacturer of bird feeders, fish feeders; 13 relocated approximately two years ago from Ingram, started 14 off as a small company, gradually migrated up to a number of 15 -- I believe it's 19 right now. Their business is expanding 16 rapidly. They're busting at the seams, so to speak. We 17 have a facility on the airport which will support their 18 expansion right now. It's 2,500 square feet, which they've 19 asked to lease and to have it coincide with the main 20 facility lease. The market rates of comps in class is in 21 the area of $3.14 per square foot. They've signed the 22 lease. They want it for four years, with an additional 23 clause in the lease, should we be able to enclose an 24 overhang portion and fund that, they will also take that 25 area for $3.14 a square foot. As you're aware, we are 9-22-03 7 1 working with E.I.C. to capture additional funding for that. 2 In essence, what this lease does, it takes us from $1.80 per 3 square foot to $3.14 per square foot for four years on an 4 existing facility that they're -- they're in. With your 5 support, we ask that you sign that. We'll forward it on to 6 the -- the City here for tomorrow night's meeting. Any 7 questions? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Pearce, the $3.14 9 a square foot is the market today. What -- what is -- what 10 rate do we have with them presently? 11 MR. PEARCE: Currently, we have a rate of 12 $1.80 per square foot. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going from $1.80 14 to $3.14? 15 MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir, absolutely. How the 16 rate was established was before my time, but we -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. 18 MR. PEARCE: -- we spent a lot of time with 19 Chris Barley, the president. We looked at all of the comps 20 in class of the area. I asked him to take some time over 21 the last couple months and do some comparisons on his own. 22 He called me back and said, actually, we're more than fair, 23 and signed it on the spot. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. The only final 25 comment I have is, talking about the additional 1,950 feet 9-22-03 8 1 of trying to obtain E.I.C. money to upgrade that facility, 2 that is what E.I.C. money is for. 3 MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir, absolutely. The 4 existing lease right now, this will actually cover two 5 areas. It covers the existing area, 2,500 square feet, and 6 should we have support of the funding for the additional, 7 they'll also lease that portion for $3.14 a square foot. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that is a space 9 lease as opposed to a ground lease? 10 MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the unenclosed space 12 now, is that presently being utilized by B.A. Products? 13 MR. PEARCE: No, it is not. What we have 14 under there, it's a roof that actually goes over some ground 15 area. We park some mowers and some other things -- 16 equipment out there at this current time, but being adjacent 17 to the facility that they're in, it will work perfectly for 18 them. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have a feel for the 20 cost of what it's going to take to -- to enclose that 21 particular area that's currently under the roof but not 22 otherwise -- 23 MR. PEARCE: $24,700. We have a very 24 detailed quote on that to enclose that. E.I.C. has done 25 careful analysis. What that would amount to, basically, 9-22-03 9 1 should we do that, we would have a 2.2-year payout return on 2 our investment, and a four-year lease, which is pretty -- 3 pretty competitive. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: What -- what is your feel 5 about the receptiveness of E.I.C. to coming forward and 6 giving us assistance on this project? 7 MR. PEARCE: I don't want to speak on their 8 behalf -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. 10 MR. PEARCE: -- but it was very favorable. 11 The folks that I had talked to, both during the E.I.C. 12 meeting and even prior to and afterwards, said it was 13 really, in their terms, a no-brainer. The payback of two 14 years, two-year payback for -- for the investment, an 15 increase of four positions, the increase in inventory, if 16 you took all that into account, actually it'd probably be 17 about a one-year payout return on our investment. So that's 18 a pretty good return. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any expectation that 20 you perceive from E.I.C. that lease moneys will be returned 21 to them until the amount they've expended for those 22 improvements has been returned to them? 23 MR. PEARCE: No. This is -- this is 24 actually, I guess, for the best term, is a -- hope I term 25 this correctly -- forgivable loan. Basically, there is no 9-22-03 10 1 payback to them. This is -- this is a grant from E.I.C., if 2 you will, because it does exactly what they would like to 3 do, and that is entice businesses to expand and grow; it 4 does give something back to the community in the way of 5 jobs, tax base, those type of things. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I hate to bring up 7 anything possibly negative, 'cause it's a good financial 8 deal, clearly. My question, though, is -- and I note that 9 the County Attorney -- there's two County Attorneys in the 10 room. The question is really directed at them. Do we have 11 any -- on leasing property at the airport, can we just lease 12 with someone that comes to us and wants it? Or do we have 13 to do some kind of proposal and every time we go up to -- 14 you know, when you talk about leasing, it's always a -- a 15 difficult question as to what our authority is. 16 MR. PEARCE: If I might interject a couple of 17 things there, basically, on a -- a federally-funded airport, 18 we have some certain criteria under our grant assurances 19 what we -- we need to fulfill. The primary one is that it's 20 open to the public, it's open to everybody, that we charge 21 market rates, and we try to obtain self-sufficiency. With 22 that in mind, that's how we obtain our -- 90 percent of the 23 funding. As far as advertising each individual lease, no, 24 that is not what we are required to do. We charge a market 25 rate for that facility. We negotiate a market rate, and 9-22-03 11 1 we -- we process it through there. For instance, because of 2 the fact that the property actually reverts to the ownership 3 of the City and the County at the end of most facility 4 leases, if a business had to relocate there, not knowing 5 every time the lease renewed whether they could stay or not, 6 that's where you'd cap the development on the airport. It 7 would actually die where it stands. So, as long as we have 8 the space, we do not discriminate. We charge equal and fair 9 values. If anybody else wants to relocate, we have space. 10 We have 540 acres, and I'm here to talk to anybody who's 11 interested. We will continue to proceed. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have any kind of a 13 -- I guess a -- I guess it's public from the standpoint that 14 all our County and City records are public, but a public 15 information sheet of available properties at the -- or kind 16 of a description of what's there so that the public is 17 aware? And anyone can kind of come at any time and -- you 18 know, to any of our facilities out there? Kind of a status 19 of all the properties out there? 20 MR. PEARCE: Yes, we do, and we have a status 21 of the cost, we have a status of the -- where it has been 22 platted, the types of acreage. One thing that's a little 23 bit different on airports is, they're treated very much 24 like -- as far as platting, very much like a college campus, 25 in that -- that you don't say this space is strictly for 9-22-03 12 1 lease, because you don't know the types of facilities that 2 the individuals are going to come into. So, you accommodate 3 each individual when they're going to do a development. It 4 may be a 15,000-square-foot hangar, it may be a 5 40,000-square-foot hangar. We'll lease that plot to a 6 company, their development -- their specific development, 7 and it's sited, it's surveyed, and that's the way it goes 8 from there. If that makes sense. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: By way of further explanation, 10 Commissioner, Kerr County's not actually leasing that 11 property. Kerrville/Kerr County Joint Airport Board is 12 leasing the property. Kerr County and the City of 13 Kerrville, as the record title owners of the property, are 14 merely confirming that lease, so we're not actually doing 15 the deal. We're just kind of ratifying it, is what it 16 amounts to. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I understand that 18 part of it. I just want to make sure that we're -- that 19 it's an open playing field for everyone in the public, and I 20 want -- as Mr. Pearce was saying, I think it is the -- you 21 know, kind of the property is available always for 22 negotiation and to the public. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would move 24 approval of the lease facility to Triad Holdings, Inc., sole 25 general partner of Triad Manufacturing, doing business as 9-22-03 13 1 B.A. Products, as proposed by the Airport Manager. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I assume that carries with it 4 the authority of the Judge to -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To sign same. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Signature? We have a motion 7 and second to approve the lease and authorize the signature 8 of the Judge on the same. Any further question or 9 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 10 your right hand. 11 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 13 (No response.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank 15 you, Mr. Pearce. 16 MR. PEARCE: Thank you, Judge. And if I can 17 ask you for those four copies, I'm trying to get those over 18 to the City. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Very good. 20 MR. PEARCE: Appreciate that. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: The next item will be consider 22 and discuss approval of proposed annual budget for 2004 for 23 the Kerr County 911 -- Kerr Emergency 911 Network. 24 Mr. Amerine. Good to see you this morning. 25 MR. AMERINE: Good morning. State Health and 9-22-03 14 1 Safety Code, Chapter 772, requires the Executive Director of 2 Kerr Emergency 911 Network to present an annual budget to 3 all the jurisdictions that are applicable. In this case, it 4 would be the City of Ingram, City of Kerrville, and the 5 County. Budget materials were presented to the County some 6 weeks ago for review, so I'm going to try to hit on a 7 summary here, talk about the fundamental changes in focus on 8 this budget versus last year's budget. 9 First of all, let's talk about the revenue 10 that 911 receives. All of our revenue comes from service 11 charges for all residential and commercial land lines, as 12 well as a surcharge on wireless handsets. The wireless 13 handset income comes from the State of Texas, as it's 14 divided out based upon population density, so it's not 15 necessarily a representative one-for-one service charge that 16 we receive there; however, it is a one-for-one service 17 charge for all land lines. We project in this budget about 18 a 1 percent growth, and in talking to the State and to 19 various cellular and land line providers, it would appear 20 that we have significant growth in the wireless handset 21 area, with a stagnant growth in the handset -- or the wired 22 phones, so we're not looking at a big growth in revenue in 23 the next year. As a matter of fact, if -- if you look at 24 the projections of revenue for the end of this year, it kind 25 of undershoots what was originally forecasted last year when 9-22-03 15 1 the budget was put together. 2 Last year's focus on the budget -- not being 3 here, I'm taking this from talking to my staff and the 4 previous board members or current board members -- was focus 5 on providing the staff necessary to finish addressing in 6 2003. This is a rather significant investment, both in 7 capital costs for materials, as well as payroll. And, God 8 willing, we're going to get through that this year. We've 9 had good progress so far after the mailing of the cards. 10 And with that being said, the emphasis going forward has to 11 address three improvements to our 911 system, those being 12 improvement in wireless capabilities for 911 system, and 13 improvement in the data that we currently have housed in the 14 911 system and a replacement of the PSAP, the Public Safety 15 Answering Point equipment, which is now seven years old and 16 reaching the end of its usability. I'll go through each of 17 these items, and then I'll -- I'll hold off and let 18 questions be asked. 19 Our budget's broken up into five major 20 categories, the first being payroll expense. Last year's 21 budget payroll was budgeted at 196 -- $198,588. I've 22 projected that at the end of this year, due to voluntary 23 attrition and some other changes, that we'll actually only 24 spend $188,283. We'll have a $10,000 surplus over what was 25 budgeted. Next year's payroll expense budget is actually 9-22-03 16 1 less than this annualized budget. We're budgeting $182,103. 2 In that figure are raises for our current staff. The 3 voluntary attrition I mentioned earlier was not replaced 4 with another full-time member, but a part-time member who 5 will probably work only six months of next year to finish up 6 some of the addressing maintenance. Raises for my staff are 7 based on three weighted criteria: Parity with the average 8 income of various skill sets within Kerr County. The basis 9 of that study -- salary study was the Kerr Economic 10 Development Foundation Salary Wage Assessment for 2003. 11 Each skill set has a low end and a high end wage per hour, 12 and a 40 percent weighted criteria was given to this study 13 for adjusting my staff's income. 14 Another portion of the raise was based upon 15 merit. On the current staff members that I have remaining, 16 we looked at the hours they put in, the kind of work that 17 they've done, the development that they have -- 18 self-development that they've gone through to provide 19 quality work for 911. And, finally, and the least 20 important, but it was a factor all the same, was a parity 21 comparison to the other 911 entities that are -- that are 22 districts within Texas. And, as you saw in my summary -- 23 and this is -- I say this and it sounds really dramatic. I 24 don't mean it to be, because these salaries are based upon 25 district size, and we're one of the smaller districts, so I 9-22-03 17 1 want to say that so the press doesn't misquote me on what 2 I'm about to say. With that being said, the fact that we're 3 one of the smaller districts, we're still in the bottom 4 12 percent of what we compensate our staff for in the state 5 of Texas. 6 The other funds that you see there, overtime 7 wages, as you notice, will be decreased somewhat. Payroll 8 taxes, medical insurance, which increased by 20 percent this 9 year, other expenses, and contract labor correspond and are 10 either increased or decreased based upon the payroll 11 increases that we provided. That budget overall is $16,000 12 less than what was budgeted in 2003. Any questions on 13 payroll? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How much is the 15 average - how much -- what percent of increase are the 16 current employees getting? 17 MR. AMERINE: The average increase percentage 18 was 15 percent. That's not -- that's varied. Some people 19 got a little bit more, some got a little bit less, based 20 upon merit. Yes, sir? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Part of that -- that 22 increase -- let me make sure I understood what you said. 23 You basically restructured your office, reassigned duties, 24 reducing staff, and in doing that, some of the savings you 25 redistributed amongst the remaining employees? 9-22-03 18 1 MR. AMERINE: As a matter of fact, job 2 descriptions were rewritten. The responsibilities of the 3 individual who voluntarily resigned were redistributed 4 amongst my staff, and appropriate with that, of course, is 5 being paid for what they do. So, yes, those job 6 responsibilities were reapportioned. Those raises weren't 7 strictly based upon the skill sets they brought into this 8 year. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: With that being said, I 10 mean, I think that you're -- what you've done is something 11 that this Commissioners Court this year has supported, and 12 along with salaries, from the standpoint of reorganizing, 13 trying to become more efficient and overall reducing the 14 budgets. However, I still have a concern that we don't -- 15 that, basically, government employees of a county are 16 associated with or comparable to County employees. And this 17 just being said, that, you know, in future budgets, I don't 18 have a problem with what you're doing this year, because I 19 think there's a restructuring, but I think that there is a 20 need for parity between County employees and other entities 21 that are very closely related to the county. 22 MR. AMERINE: Agreed. And the 911 staff has 23 -- the Board of Managers and the Executive Director are 24 sensitive to that. As a matter of fact, when we used that 25 salary study from the County, we didn't shoot for mid-line, 9-22-03 19 1 you know, what the mid-range was for those skill sets. We 2 actually shot for the lower range; to get up to that lower 3 range is what -- where we went. Also, I think most 4 organizations do this, even public organizations. Every 5 several years, you have to take a look at where you are in 6 public service versus the community, and make sure that your 7 salary stays competitive so that you don't lose staff. And 8 I don't anticipate doing this every year, this salary 9 assessment. As a matter of fact, next year I plan on doing 10 strictly merit raises based upon what funds are available 11 after we do the hardware upgrades that we need to. I mean, 12 this was a one-time adjustment in my initial tenure to get 13 people where I think they need to be. Any other questions 14 on payroll? 15 Now, this next line item, operations of the 16 PSAP, this is where the real significant change -- the focus 17 on this budget went. Last year, like I said, we staffed up 18 considerably in both part-time contract and permanent staff 19 to -- to do addressing for Kerr County. Next year, our 20 staff will be reduced and we'll be focusing strictly on 21 infrastructure upgrades to provide the level of service that 22 we need for our citizens, and that will be PSAP upgrade, 23 additional services that we have to contract with 24 organizations such as Intrado for wireless location 25 information, and other enhancements to our 911 system. More 9-22-03 20 1 of an infrastructure expense than personnel expense. This 2 budget actually exceeds 2003's budget by $16,000, and the 3 biggest budget line item is the introduction of Intrado 4 service charges, which run about $1,550 a month. 5 Further explanation of what we get from 6 Intrado, right at this point in time, they're about the only 7 show in town on providing location information for our 8 wireless handsets. This is really important for Kerr 9 County. Despite our size, 40 percent of my calls -- I've 10 mentioned this before to the Court -- comes from wireless 11 handsets. That's about 6,000 calls a year. Today, with our 12 current PSAP, our current hardware and interconnectivity, 13 what we receive is a pseudo phone number which tells us only 14 that this is a wireless call. We get no name of the 15 customer or the citizen. We get no call-back number. We 16 get no location. This is a real problem, and it's a problem 17 for a couple reasons. Because we all know cell calls drop 18 frequently, and it's difficult for our dispatchers to call 19 back and even reestablish who they were speaking with. We 20 need to get -- we actually have until 2005 to get to 21 compliance with Phase 2 wireless location, but we're going 22 to shoot for that next year. It's important. 23 More and more people -- as a matter of fact, 24 in this addressing project, I -- to digress a little bit, 25 I've talked to a number of citizens who have foregone having 9-22-03 21 1 land-wired phones in their homes and are using their cell 2 phones. And that makes it even more critical, when people 3 have crises or emergencies in their home, that these 4 wireless phones will provide location information. So, this 5 expense is absolutely necessary to get to us where we need 6 to be. Any questions on the PSAP operation? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: With the expenditure of 8 that $18,604 on the Intrado, does that mean -- basically 9 mean that all cell phones, you know where they're coming 10 from? 11 MR. AMERINE: We have 11 cellar providers in 12 our area. Seven of them provide services right now in some 13 degree of density for Kerr County, and depending upon their 14 technology -- and there's three different cellular 15 technologies out there. We suspect that even with this 16 expense, we'll only get about -- and I'm going to say that 17 about 50 to 60 percent of those users will get all the data 18 that I mentioned. All of them will provide call-back number 19 and name of the customer or the citizen. Not all of them 20 will provide the same level of accuracy or any location at 21 all. We suspect, for those like Sprint, who uses GPS chips 22 in their handsets, that we'll get good location information. 23 T-Mobile and Verizon use what we call cell tower 24 triangulation, which is an issue. In a sparse density area 25 like ours, there aren't that many cell towers to actually 9-22-03 22 1 triangulate a good location, but we will get a lot more 2 information than we're getting now. Even getting within 100 3 meters, which is what they say you can get with 4 triangulation, is better than not getting any location 5 information at all. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bill, is this 7 hardware, software -- 8 MR. AMERINE: It's both. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- or service? Or 10 all of the above? 11 MR. AMERINE: All of the above. There's 12 going to be an upgrade to our server system to be able to 13 store that information. It will be some hardware trunks and 14 other interconnectivity with our local phone companies, as 15 well as probably a major company like SBC. There will also 16 be a service contract and some up-front engineering costs 17 with Intrado. Out of our capital funds we have set aside, 18 we're probably going to have to spend just under $17,000 19 just for Intrado to come in and do the engineering, see what 20 it will take to facilitate that local operation. That's not 21 part of this budget, 'cause it's capital and not out of 22 revenue, but that is set aside for the purpose. Any 23 questions? Any other questions on operations? 24 Direct services are just the cost of doing 25 business, and this is where I was able to find most of our 9-22-03 23 1 savings. Rather than looking at building contingency line 2 items for worst-case scenarios, we looked at in the budget, 3 as you see in my summary workup, of what I really 4 anticipated we'd need to have to spend to support those 5 areas. This budget comes in almost $17,000 under what was 6 previously budgeted in 2003. Again, this is a refocus of 7 slimming down the organization to facilitate these 8 infrastructure upgrades I mentioned. Any questions on any 9 of this specific ones? Now, one note where we saved quite a 10 bit of money this year, we have got a signed lease with the 11 City of Kerrville. They will be putting -- on 1 October, 12 they're transferring the EMT organization, along with the 13 billing for that, in our building over there, and that's 14 going to allow us to save about $11,000 a year on rent cost, 15 plus I think that's a good partnership between the City and 16 the 911 organization. It's a real good location over there 17 for them for that -- for that group. Any questions on that 18 budget line item? 19 Finally, this is the miscellaneous, and 20 that's just kind of the catch-all for all the things that we 21 had difficulty categorizing anywhere else. Awards, dues, 22 public education and advertising, local meetings, 23 telecommunication costs. That might seem misplaced, but 24 that's really the cost of all of our phone service at our 25 facility, at our office, as well as the network that we have 9-22-03 24 1 for our computer system over there. And then, of course, 2 sundry. That is a $2,104 savings over last year's budget. 3 Final budget presented is $345,940 which is a $19,000 4 surplus over 2003's budget, and with a nominal 1 percent 5 increase in revenue, we will have a surplus at the end of 6 the year -- this is a balanced budget -- of just under 7 $10,000. Assuming that there's no growth -- the worst-case 8 scenario -- in our revenue, we'll still have nearly a $5,600 9 surplus at the end of the year. Now, one of the questions 10 asked by -- I believe it was the City of Ingram, what do we 11 do with those surpluses? Periodically, like this year, we 12 need -- we are carrying some surplus in our operating 13 revenue. We move that over to capital, and then we earmark 14 that for future upgrades, future hardware and enhancements, 15 those kind of things. We're not -- we're not in the 16 business of saving that money and then making money on 17 interest right now. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the total reserve 19 you have in that capital account? 20 MR. AMERINE: Currently, right now we have 21 approximately $90,000 in a cash capital account, and we have 22 slightly over $129,000, I believe, in a C.D. $55,000 of the 23 $90,000 that I mentioned, the cash, are earmarked for the 24 PSAP upgrade that I mentioned and the Intrado service 25 engineering. That leaves about a $40,000 cash reserve 9-22-03 25 1 there. The $129,000 C.D. we don't touch. That's our 2 contingency C.D. If there was a catastrophic failure of the 3 PSAP or a fire at Kerrville Police Department that wiped out 4 all of our equipment, that money would be needed to replace 5 that equipment. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Amerine, I just 7 want to personally commend you for this budget. This is so 8 far superior to what we've had presented to us in the past, 9 it's just like daylight and dark, and I thank you for that. 10 MR. AMERINE: Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move we 12 approve the annual budget -- 2004 annual budget for Kerr 13 Emergency 911 Network. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 16 the -- that the annual proposed budget for 2004 Kerr 17 Emergency 911 Network be approved. Any further questions or 18 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 19 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. The next 24 item is consideration of whether the Kerr County Subdivision 25 Rules apply to land partitioned by legal action, and if 9-22-03 26 1 access road shall be built to Kerr County standards. The 2 County Engineer has asked that this be item be placed on the 3 agenda, and we do have a speaker who has asked to be heard 4 on this matter, and he will be recognized. Mr. Johnston? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: Morning. Property in question 6 is a little over 200 acres. It fronts -- only fronts 7 Highway 27, a small area, I think 120 foot wide. You have, 8 I think, a sketch in there that shows the dimensions of the 9 property. This was owned, I guess, by a partnership, and it 10 was subsequently split to the two partners by a partition 11 deed which is on file in Kerr County. So, the land's 12 legally divided and it has two portions, owned -- the larger 13 portions, yellow and orange -- by the two sides, and the 14 common area, the access, which is the blue, is -- contains a 15 road, as such. Not a county road or anything, but just a 16 driveway-type road accessing the two parcels. The question 17 came to me kind of on a piecemeal process. They -- I got 18 calls for specific questions, and finally we went out and 19 we -- Commissioner Williams and I looked at the -- at the 20 site and visited with the -- two of the parties, anyway, 21 involved; there's three total. And we kind of came to the 22 conclusion that this has been divided, and probably the 23 Subdivision Rules don't apply. That if there's subsequent 24 division of each parcel or any of the parcels, then the -- 25 then it needed to be subdivided and proper road built to 9-22-03 27 1 the -- to the property. But right now, it's just a 2 driveway-type access and two large parcels used primarily 3 for agricultural use. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think one point, 5 Franklin, that was brought to our attention when we met with 6 one of the property owners was that property owner number 2, 7 identified as Number 2, has intentions of selling that 8 parcel and his ownership in 3, and the property owner number 9 1 remains the same. So the question comes up as to whether 10 or not Number 3 represents a road that has to be brought to 11 County standards. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: That was one of the questions 13 he had. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As a result of the 15 fallout of the sale. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that one of the 17 questions, or is that the question? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's predominantly 19 the question. 20 MR. JOHNSTON: First question is, does there 21 need to be a subdivision plat filed after this partitioning 22 deed has been filed? And, two, does that road, which is in 23 -- you know, not to Kerr County standards right now, I would 24 say, need to be upgraded to the Subdivision Rule standards, 25 or can it be left as it is for like -- you know, like a 9-22-03 28 1 ranch road? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Johnston, if we -- if the 3 answer to the first question is no, the Subdivision Rules 4 don't apply, and therefore it doesn't have to be platted as 5 a subdivision, do we even get to the second question? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: I think that would answer the 7 second one also. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's my thinking. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Johnston, the -- 10 the property identified in blue, which is the road easement 11 and agreement, does that serve any -- any properties other 12 than those identified as 1 and 2? 13 MR. JOHNSTON: No, it's just strictly -- it's 14 owned in common by 1 and 2, and only for their access. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it clearly is not 16 subject to platting. I mean, it's under H of our rules; a 17 tract is divided and all parts transferred to persons who 18 own undivided interest. That's clearly what they did. Had 19 a partnership, it was divided, and they had an undivided 20 interest. They split it up. It's not subject to 21 Subdivision Rules. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way we 23 thought it read, but we wanted to get the sense of the Court 24 on it. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. But as soon as -- 9-22-03 29 1 but if they do anything, when they -- you know, if they sell 2 it again or do something, that road at some point, you know, 3 would likely have to be brought up, upon their taking -- 4 MR. JOHNSTON: If it's redivided, right. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or if either -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even if the road changes 7 its character, if they deed that road to a -- you know, I 8 guess change the deed on that road, I think it very well 9 might trigger platting, which would require that it be 10 brought up to standards. As long as they're just the only 11 two parties using the road, as -- as the partnership has 12 always had that, it doesn't, but as soon as they start 13 changing ownership in that road, it probably would trigger 14 platting. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or if either property 16 owner 1 or 2 had an intention of subdividing, that would 17 trigger it as well. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 19 MR. JOHNSTON: So, if 2 sold his property and 20 half of his interest in 3, then that may -- or I guess we 21 need to decide today, does that trigger the road upgrade to 22 the minimum standard? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think if they 24 sell it as it is, but if they change that into a -- you 25 know, something with the easement, it could. If they're 9-22-03 30 1 just selling what they currently have, I don't think it 2 would trigger the platting, but if they change something, 3 whether by sort of a subdivision -- I mean, dividing it or 4 giving -- you know, I guess some other access to that road 5 beyond what it currently is. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For a new owner -- 7 parcel number 2 is up for sale, so if somebody who purchased 8 number 2, if they had intentions of changing it 9 subsequently, that would trigger platting and so forth. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only when they 11 subsequently did it. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. 13 MR. JOHNSTON: That's what we were -- 14 Commissioner Williams -- the conclusion we came to, but we 15 wanted to get the Court's conclusion also for the parties 16 involved. I think someone else may have a comment. 17 MR. ODOM: I do. I want to -- 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. -- 19 MR. ODOM: I would like -- I agree if they 20 change it, but the wording will say "I would like." Can we 21 change that to "shall" change it? I mean, be specific that 22 the road would be upgraded if they subdivide that? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think if they 24 subdivide, it's subject to our Subdivision Rules. 25 MR. ODOM: Okay. And they will, and they 9-22-03 31 1 shall. Not, "I would like them to." I just heard you say 2 that. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 4 MR. ODOM: I just want to make sure, if 5 someone came back in the records, that they are -- they 6 don't misinterpret that. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're subject to the 8 rules. They're subject to all the rules. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Hart? 10 MR. HART: Yes, sir. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. William Spencer Hart has 12 filed a participation form to comment in connection with 13 this matter. Mr. Hart? 14 MR. HART: I filed this primarily to seek 15 clarification. I represent a client that's in the process 16 of buying this property, and he doesn't plan to subdivide 17 it, but he wanted to be sure that the day he bought it, that 18 it was in compliance with the Kerr County rules. And I 19 think what I'm hearing today is there would be a ruling that 20 it could be conveyed to this third-party -- my client is Jay 21 Colvin and a company he owns, and that's -- that's the 22 primary thing, is he doesn't want to have to acquire it -- 23 we do have a suit pending in district court where this is 24 the issue. Does it have to be up to county road standard? 25 And I think y'all are clarifying it that it does not have to 9-22-03 32 1 be up to county road standards when he acquires it. Is 2 that -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I'm hearing, 4 Mr. Hart. 5 MR. HART: Thank you, Judge. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: As long as owner number 1 7 conveys the entirety of his tract and his interest in the 8 road as it now sits, or owner number 2 does the same thing 9 on an intact basis, what I'm hearing is that that doesn't 10 trigger any of the Subdivision Rules. Some subsequent 11 action of resubdividing either one of those tracts or 12 repositioning that road very well could, though. 13 MR. HART: I see. Okay, thank you, Your 14 Honors. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No action is 16 required; just a clarification. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Colvin has a 18 question. 19 MR. COLVIN: Commissioners, I just wanted to 20 make one comment, 'cause I'm part of the subject, but I 21 think that y'all -- 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's your name? 23 MR. COLVIN: Jay Colvin. Excuse me, 24 Commissioner Nicholson and Commissioners. This goes back to 25 Mr. Muller. And y'all have been told some things by 9-22-03 33 1 Mr. Muller that I wasn't privileged to and -- and no part 2 of. And the Rickerts and the Beddicks I don't think were 3 any part of it, so it's not their problem either. But this 4 is also something that's going to affect a lot of people in 5 the county in time to come, so this has to be given some 6 thought, this ruling, because anyone that can come before 7 Commissioners Court or apply this rule for partitioning in 8 the future can just come up here and say, "I've got a piece 9 of property and I'm going to partition it; then we don't 10 have to subdivide it." And these Subdivision Rules have 11 been given a lot of thought over the last many years, and I 12 know y'all put in a lot of time, so this is directly because 13 of me that this is here. 14 And I've met with Commissioner Williams, and 15 also County Engineer Franklin Johnston, and there's a letter 16 that is not part of public record that I've asked them to do 17 this back in August, I believe is when we met, to try to 18 handle this situation. And this particular piece of 19 property is part of a -- a lawsuit now, because I've tried 20 to get the Rickerts to sell me the property according to a 21 contract, and that's why they -- and I'm glad that they're 22 doing this to get this cleared up, but it's going to affect 23 a lot of people in the county and these regulations if this 24 law is applied in some way. So, I'm asking everybody to 25 give that a lot of consideration. And that's the only thing 9-22-03 34 1 I want you to be aware of; that is part of a lawsuit. It is 2 part of Muller's plan a long time ago, maybe. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't care about Mr. 4 Muller's plan. I have a question, though. Reading this 5 again and listening, maybe I misunderstood something here. 6 Okay. If it's a tract, as I read the rules, which is state 7 law, once it is -- if two people own a piece of property and 8 they go to -- they divide it any way they want, they have 9 undivided interest in it. If they divide it amongst 10 themselves, platting is not required, but once it's sold, it 11 is, 'cause I would think that is further development. I 12 mean, the provision reads -- I'll just read it. "A tract is 13 divided and all parts are transferred to the persons who 14 owned undivided interest in the original tract and a plat is 15 filed before any further development of any part of the 16 tract." That means as soon as it's sold again, platting is 17 required. And I think -- and that's not what I just said. 18 That's -- when I read it closely, further development would 19 mean further sale, I would think. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: In its entirety? Is that how 22 you're interpreting -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I think if either 24 part gets sold. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At some point, it 9-22-03 35 1 has -- through sales, it has to become a subdivision. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, because if you 3 don't, what you can -- I think, you know, you could have -- 4 you know, anyone who has undivided interest, you can divide 5 it and then you can avoid the platting. What Mr. Colvin is 6 saying I think is correct. You can kind of bring in some 7 undivided interest -- you could bring in a hundred people, 8 undivided interest, and then say, oh, we're going to, you 9 know, divide it a hundred ways, and then each one of those 10 hundred people can sell their tract, and then it can be done 11 a hundred times. So, I -- the only logical way to interpret 12 the rule, to me, is that as soon as that first sale happens, 13 you have to plat it, after the division. If they just 14 divide it -- divide their undivided interest, they don't 15 have to; it's not subject to platting. But as soon as one 16 of those parties that owns a new divided interest sells, 17 that it does require. Mr. Motley, do you have any -- 18 MR. MOTLEY: I'm not sure if you're selling 19 what was partitioned by the court. If it's partitioned into 20 two parts and you're selling what was partitioned by the 21 court in its entirety to another buyer, that constitutes 22 subdivision, and have you to lay out the lots and -- and 23 such as that in order to be subdivided, as I understand the 24 state and the county rules. I think it would have to be 25 laying something out, lots and setting out roads, parks, et 9-22-03 36 1 cetera, in order to be subdividing. If it's sold in its 2 entirety, that would be a different situation, it seems to 3 me, and then if that purchaser wanted to then break it up 4 into lots, et cetera, in order to -- to sell lots for 5 subdivision purposes, it seems to me that would certainly be 6 required at that point. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's what we 9 said originally. 10 MR. HART: Gentlemen, Mr. Motley made a very 11 interesting point, that if it's "partitioned by a court." 12 This property wasn't partitioned by a court. This was 13 partners in a real estate venture dividing their property. 14 This wasn't a court-ordered partition of the property, and I 15 just want to clarify that, because I know one of the 16 regulations you're looking at is Chapter 12, Section 17 12.02(g) of the Property Code, and that applies to a 18 partition by a court. It doesn't apply to a partition of -- 19 by two individuals. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Voluntary partition. 21 MR. HART: Voluntary partition. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Of the undivided interest 23 only. 24 MR. HART: Yes, sir. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I think, in looking at our 9-22-03 37 1 Subdivision Rules, the -- when a plat is filed before any 2 further development of any part of the tract, I guess then 3 the issue is, what constitutes development? If -- if we've 4 got a hole that we need to close, maybe we need to put a 5 subterfuge provision in there that -- that you can't -- you 6 can't use undivided interest to -- to avoid the application 7 of these rules to permit the requirement that you file a 8 plat. But in the ordinary situation, I think, unless and 9 until -- as long as these tracts that are being partitioned 10 out to the respective owners -- unless there's actual 11 development, as I understand that term, as long as they 12 remain intact, they can be sold on and on and on to 13 subsequent owners, intact and in their entirety. But once 14 one of those owners decides to engage in any sort of 15 development, as defined under these rules, then you trigger 16 the application of these rules. 17 If -- the problem may be that we might 18 need -- when we revisit refining or amending or adopting new 19 Subdivision Rules, that we need to put in a subterfuge 20 provision that they'll not be utilized in such a manner so 21 as to avoid the application of rules by acquiring property, 22 an undivided interest in multiple owners for the purpose of 23 effecting a subdivision without the application of the 24 rules. I'm getting some nods of some heads; I guess I'm 25 being understood. Or maybe I'm just -- people are being 9-22-03 38 1 kind to me. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we all want to 3 be nice to you. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate that. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't necessarily 6 agree with everything, but I agree with you. As long as it 7 stays intact, it's intact. But once it starts breaking up, 8 you get, you know, to David's law language of alleyways and 9 streets and byways and highways and all that. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a change of 11 ownership as opposed to a subdivision of the land; is that 12 what you're saying? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jay had his hand up, 15 Judge. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Jay, you had -- 17 MR. COLVIN: Well, I just want to alert the 18 Commissioners Court, because I don't want to be a party to 19 something that you're not aware of. And I'm not a party 20 by -- voluntarily a party, but there's a letter 21 circulating -- has nothing to do with me either, but there's 22 a letter that I come in contact -- been given to me, and I 23 didn't get it till last Friday, but I did show it to County 24 Engineer Franklin Johnston. And, see, they were using your 25 name as -- that you had already determined this road as 9-22-03 39 1 legal, as-is. And that -- using Commissioner Williams, 2 saying it's determined, which is not true. But that's the 3 way some attorneys are interpreting this, and it's not fair 4 to you as a body, or Commissioner Williams or County 5 Engineer Johnston. Or the County Surveyor either, for that 6 matter, Lee Voelkel, who's the one that actually alerted me 7 to this a long time ago. He said this should be determined, 8 because he thinks that some people actually take advantage 9 of these things. And since I was trying to buy this land, 10 you know, he said, "Are you aware of this?" And I said no. 11 He said, "Well, these things can actually come back to haunt 12 you later. If the County Commissioners so chose, they could 13 actually come back and say you need to file a plat, and that 14 could be very expensive." 15 Well, I already had that in my earnest money 16 contract, that they would have to make it legal, whatever 17 the law was. Just prove to me that it was legal. So we 18 sought an amend -- not an amendment, a variance, if one was 19 required. If none was required, we didn't care. We just 20 wanted a determination. So, if the road is legal, that's 21 fine with me, or if the property's legal, that's fine. We 22 just wanted a determination. So, the sooner the better, far 23 as I'm concerned. We've been trying to buy the property for 24 seven months or eight months now, nine months. But if it's 25 legal, we just want a determination. And I'm sure other 9-22-03 40 1 people are in this position. And I can give you a copy of 2 this letter; I don't mind. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jay, not that it has 4 any bearing on what we're talking about, but out of 5 curiosity, what is the nature of the litigation which you're 6 involved in this property? What is the nature -- 7 MR. COLVIN: I bought -- I have an earnest 8 money contract that requires the -- and it's a matter of 9 public record, the earnest money contract. Isn't that 10 correct, Spencer? 11 MR. HART: It is. The court -- the case is 12 pending in district court. And we wanted to be sure that 13 the property, upon his acquisition of it, was compliant with 14 the laws of Kerr County, the subdivision laws. And that's a 15 condition of the -- previously, the County Engineer had 16 indicated that we would have to seek a variance for an 17 unpaved country lane, and that there might be some -- 18 MR. COLVIN: County lane. 19 MR. HART: County lane? Actually, it is 20 country lane. 21 MR. COLVIN: Okay, excuse me. 22 MR. HART: But at this point in time, it 23 sounds like that variance is not necessary so we'll be able 24 to resolve the lawsuit and close the sale of the purchase. 25 MR. COLVIN: But if you want to see the 9-22-03 41 1 contract, I can make a copy, but it's -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't want to see 3 it. 4 MR. HART: The wording is the property be 5 delivered compliant with the laws of the State of Texas and 6 County of Kerr. And he just wanted to be sure that when we 7 acquired it, he wouldn't have to then come in with some 8 compliance. And, at this point, I think we're of an 9 understanding that the engineer and your actions today will 10 make it in compliance. 11 MR. COLVIN: It goes back to this flag lot 12 development problem that we had with -- a concern I had with 13 Mr. Muller, 'cause I own property -- or my family owns 14 property on both sides of this property, and I've been 15 alerted to the possible problems, and so we just asked them 16 to go down here and go through this process. Well, then 17 they didn't want to go through the process, 'cause they said 18 it was going to take time. I said, "Just takes one 19 Commissioner's meeting to put on it the agenda and let them 20 read it, and then they go back, do another one." They 21 didn't want to do that. They wanted us to buy it without 22 that. So we met with y'all, and you suggested amendment -- 23 or a variance. And we thank you for your time. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I want to make a comment. 25 Our rules are exactly the same as the state laws, so if 9-22-03 42 1 there's a loophole there, there's -- it's a state loophole 2 that we can't close. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably true. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there is a 5 loophole there. But, rereading the state law and our 6 language and the terms that are defined, which is 7 "developer" and "development" -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could we not footnote 9 that section somehow? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think we'd be 11 prevented from -- from making a statement of the spirit of 12 the Subdivision Rules, and -- and indicating that subterfuge 13 methods not be utilized to try and avoid the application of 14 the rules. I think the spirit of the rules is what you're 15 trying to get compliance with, anyway. Even though there 16 may not be a like provision in state rules, I -- I think 17 it's merely an expression of -- of intent that -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But state rules are 19 pretty clear, and when counties tried to eliminate flag lots 20 before the State did it, they were knocked down. So, I 21 mean, the State -- you can't make rules that restrict the 22 State. You can change them, but that's the reason the whole 23 flag lot issue had to be resolved by the Legislature, not by 24 individual counties. It's pretty clear, our language is 25 exactly the state law. 9-22-03 43 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it would be 2 worth our time, though, to ask the County Attorney to look 3 into it and see if there is -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do, too. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- see if there's a 6 way to do that. 7 MR. MOTLEY: I didn't hear what he said, what 8 Buster said. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll get with you when 10 we go over the rules. I think that's what's you said, 11 Buster. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I thought the 13 Judge had already asked the question. We about through with 14 that? I want to make a comment. These two gentlemen that 15 are up here, Mr. Colvin is a third-generation Hunt boy, and 16 his lawyer over here is the former Tivy great, Bill Hart. 17 So, these guys didn't just blow into Kerrville and fall off 18 a turnip truck or anything; been here a long time. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But Mr. Colvin has seen 20 the way and has moved to the eastern part of the county. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, yeah, yeah. 22 MR. COLVIN: Moved to Kerrville. 23 (Discussion off the record.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that all we have on 25 Item 3? Very good. We'll go to Item 4, set a public 9-22-03 44 1 hearing for plat revision of Lot 1, Village West Industrial 2 Park, Phase 4. 3 MR. JOHNSTON: This is an alternate process, 4 less than four lots, plat revision. So we need to set the 5 date of a public hearing, and then do the plat all at that 6 time. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The comment I have on 8 this -- and I think this is really just more direction to 9 the County Attorney on the process. You know, the intent of 10 our rules was to allow minor revisions to go through at one 11 time, and I think the County Attorney can already set a 12 public hearing, you know, without coming to the Court. 13 Otherwise, if you don't allow him that flexibility, we 14 totally negate the reason for having -- they have to come to 15 Court twice; once to set the public hearing, and once to 16 hold it, which is no different than coming, you know, like 17 they're doing in the old process. So I think that the -- 18 under these situations, I think the County Attorney, you 19 know, implied, has the authority to set these public 20 hearings in the future. Just my point of view on it. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. When would you 22 like to have the public hearing? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: Was that something we need to 24 clarify too in the rule changes, how we set the public 25 hearing? 9-22-03 45 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess so. 2 MR. JOHNSTON: Doesn't really say. It does 3 take twice coming to court to do it. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sounds like it's 5 already clear to Commissioner Letz. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can make it clearer. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we're here, so let's set 8 a public hearing. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I'll move we 10 set a public hearing for 10 a.m. -- how much advance notice 11 do we need, Thea? 12 MS. SOVIL: 14 days? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, there's 14 a suggested -- 15 MR. JOHNSTON: 14 or 30? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- date in your -- the 17 memo. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's 30. 30, I 19 believe. 20 MR. JOHNSTON: I think the second meeting in 21 October would meet that. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I make a motion we 23 set a public hearing for October 27, 2003, at 10 a.m. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 9-22-03 46 1 a public hearing be set at 10 a.m. on October 27, 2003, on 2 the plat revision for Lot 1, Village West Industrial Park, 3 Phase 4. Any questions or discussion? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One comment. We can 5 clarify it in our -- well, to me, it is clear, but we can 6 clarify the risk to them of not coming twice is that if 7 there's a problem, it's not going to get approved and it 8 will have to come back at a second meeting. So, there's a 9 little bit of risk to a person doing the developing, that 10 everything is in order. And it could be a minor thing, just 11 an error on a plat, typo-type thing can require it to come 12 back. But it doesn't really affect this. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 14 discussion? 15 MR. VOELKEL: Can I make a comment, Judge? 16 Just so you're aware of it -- I know Buster will love 17 this -- this is another one of those ETJ deals, so we're 18 also going through the City of Kerrville for their approval. 19 Just so you're aware of that fact. And I don't know why I 20 get stuck with all the ETJ plats. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Your brilliance, I'm sure. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because you're a 23 smooth operator. (Laughter.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 25 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 9-22-03 47 1 your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Does that 6 clock say 10 o'clock now? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, it does. 8 MR. JOHNSTON: Pretty close. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: One minute till. We have a 10 timed item for 10 o'clock, and my view of the clock from 11 here indicates that it's 10 o'clock, that being a public 12 hearing, so I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting, 13 and I will open and convene a public hearing on proposed 14 salary, expenses, and other allowances of elected county or 15 precinct officers for the fiscal year of 2003 and 2004. 16 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:00 a.m., and a public hearing 17 was held in open court, as follows:) 18 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the 20 public that wishes to address the Court on the item upon 21 which the public hearing has been called? Any member of the 22 public that wishes to address the Court on the proposed 23 salary, expenses, and other allowances of elected county or 24 precinct officers for Fiscal Year 2003/2004? I see no one 25 stepping forward or otherwise seeking attention on that 9-22-03 48 1 matter, so I will close the public hearing. 2 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:01 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court 3 meeting was reopened.) 4 - - - - - - - - - - 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I will reconvene the 6 Commissioners Court meeting, and we will go to Item 1.10, 7 consideration and discussion of setting the salary, 8 expenses, and other allowances of elected county or precinct 9 officers for Fiscal Year 2003/2004. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval of the 11 salary schedule submitted. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 14 the proposed salary, expenses, and other allowances of 15 elected county or precinct officers for Fiscal Year 16 2003/2004 as submitted be approved. Any further questions 17 or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by 18 raising your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Let's come 23 back to Item 5, consider clarification of the term "road 24 shall be designed" in Section 7 of Kerr County Subdivision 25 Rules. We have the County Engineer with us again. 9-22-03 49 1 MR. JOHNSTON: This was brought to my 2 attention by the County Surveyor. He wanted to clarify that 3 term in light of the -- does that mean that road contractors 4 can lay out a road in a subdivision, or does it have to have 5 an engineer -- professional engineer design the road, using 6 the term "design" with a full set of plans and profiles and 7 cross-sections and all that, like they do on a state 8 highway? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Johnston, if I'm reading 10 these provisions correctly, they state "in accordance with 11 the specifications set forth in the Kerr County Road Design 12 and Construction Specifications." 13 MR. JOHNSTON: Mm-hmm. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: From that, I'm given to 15 understand that there are some uniform design and 16 construction specifications that are in existence for 17 various classes of roads, I presume. 18 MR. JOHNSTON: We have that. We have all the 19 materials specified. I think when they talk about design, 20 they're talking about the cuts and fills and that type of 21 thing, which necessarily can't be a part of the general, you 22 know, rule; it has to be site-specific on the -- on a road. 23 So, that's what they're asking. Does that have to be 24 designed by an engineer, or the way we've been doing it by 25 tradition? 9-22-03 50 1 JUDGE TINLEY: You say design and 2 construction specifications. Do they not provide for 3 certain criteria for curves or radiuses or shoulders and -- 4 MR. JOHNSTON: They do. They're all -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: -- that sort of stuff? 6 MR. JOHNSTON: They do. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: And you merely apply these to 8 a given situation? 9 MR. JOHNSTON: That's true. They apply to 10 the slopes and the -- about everything you need except 11 actually drawing it out on a plan. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see the need to 13 have an engineer prepare it, but I see that it's -- I don't 14 think our rules require that, but I think it would be pretty 15 difficult to meet our rules without an engineer doing a lot 16 of it. I mean, you've got to meet -- I mean, the -- the 17 material has to be built to certain standards that are 18 established by the State. You have to have the grades 19 established, you have to have drainage issues. And I -- you 20 know, but I think that if they could -- it's potentially 21 possible for a developer to get drainage studies and get a 22 lot of different information and do the road design 23 themselves, and I think that meets our requirements. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the language may be 25 more appropriately phrased, "roads shall conform to and be 9-22-03 51 1 constructed in accordance with the specifications set 2 forth." And as long as they comply with the -- as long as 3 they comply with the design and construction specifications, 4 that's adequate. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My thinking is they 6 build the roads, and if they can satisfy the County Engineer 7 that they've been constructed to our requirements, then 8 that's good enough for me. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like the Judge's 11 new suggested language. When we do the rules, update the 12 rules, that will take care of that argument in the future. 13 MR. JOHNSTON: All we're asking is 14 clarification. I think Lee may have some comments also; 15 he's on the way up. 16 MR. VOELKEL: Maybe a question. I'm not real 17 clear. Lee Voelkel is my name, County Surveyor. Are you -- 18 what you're saying is that you will allow a road contractor 19 to go in there and build a road by himself; basically just 20 go out there and start bulldozing and blading and grading 21 and putting inside slopes, and whatever -- whatever grade of 22 the road is up to him, and then is it Mr. Frank Johnston 23 that's going to come along once the road is built and sign 24 off on the road? Is that -- is that as simple as it's going 25 to be for private roads? 9-22-03 52 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that if they 2 don't build it to the standards, it's not approved. 3 MR. JOHNSTON: I think all those things you 4 mentioned are in the rules. 5 MR. VOELKEL: I guess my question is, who 6 verifies that it's been built that way if an engineer has 7 not designed it? In other words, is Frank going to be able 8 to tell that that road is less than 12 percent grade? Or 9 what proof is he -- what scientific data does he need, I 10 guess, to be able to verify those things, site slopes 11 3-to-1? If the contractor's just going out there building 12 the road, can Frank just come out there after it's built, 13 look at it, and say that's adequate? Is that all it takes? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the issue of 15 inspection you're bringing up is a good point that we need 16 to probably look at. I think the issue, though, of an 17 engineer designing it, the same thing can happen -- you can 18 have an engineer design it and turn it loose to a 19 contractor. What's to guarantee that it's going to be built 20 to the specifications of the engineer? So, I think the fact 21 that an engineer didn't design it isn't the issue, as long 22 as they follow the specifications and conform to those. But 23 it is critical that we have an inspection procedure that 24 guarantees that it's built to our standards. 25 MR. VOELKEL: And the inspection would be 9-22-03 53 1 Mr. Johnston or somebody outside, or either? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're getting 3 ready to look at that shortly in coming meetings. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I think in any -- in any 5 event, my preference would be to have whoever files that 6 plat, the record owner of the property, certify to the Court 7 by the filing of the plat, tendering the plat for filing, 8 that all of the roads and drainage, whatever there may be, 9 are built in accordance with and conform to the Kerr County 10 road design and construction standards, so that we've got 11 some -- some accountability there. 12 MR. VOELKEL: I hear you. 13 MR. JOHNSTON: That's always the way it's 14 been. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Whether that goes back on -- 16 MR. JOHNSTON: The owner -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: The owner then has -- can look 18 to maybe a contract engineer that he hired to design it or 19 whatever, but we're going to demand the accountability, I 20 would think. At least that would be my preference. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think the other 22 part of that -- and this is -- and we would have probably 23 done it today, except we had a very long agenda -- our 24 meeting with the County Attorney as to what enforcement 25 powers the Court has when someone doesn't build them to our 9-22-03 54 1 specifications. What -- what's our options? And I think 2 there are some situations where that may have happened, and 3 we've -- we just -- we don't -- I don't have a real clear 4 idea as to exactly what our options are when a developer 5 doesn't build to standards that we require, and it slips 6 through. Whether we -- you know, certified or not, our 7 rules are pretty clear as to what you have to do. What 8 happens when they're not is the issue. 9 MR. JOHNSTON: I think that's always been the 10 case. When they're inspected, it's always up to the 11 developer to prove that it meets the standards by testing 12 which we require, by the drainage already designed and 13 signed off by engineers, and hydrology. Also slopes, that 14 type of thing; if there's a question, that they do it. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that 16 certification that the Judge mentioned is a final thing to 17 make the developer responsible for all of the -- all of 18 those things one more time. 19 MR. VOELKEL: Right. And, in reality, he 20 would have to hire a professional to be able to prove those 21 things to him if he's doing it right, correct? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the County 23 Engineer would, in the course of this process, sign off on 24 that; is that right? If they have met our standards and our 25 design criteria. 9-22-03 55 1 MR. JOHNSTON: Have to show that they met 2 them all. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But the key to the 4 whole thing -- none of this -- in my opinion, none of that's 5 going to work until we apply enforcement. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not just Road and 8 Bridge's, but all across the county spectrum, is that we 9 don't enforce things like we should. And until we get to 10 that point, I mean, it's just a moot point, in my opinion. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just so much 12 verbiage. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just words. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: That one pretty well wrung 15 out? Mr. Plangman? You -- you had a couple questions? 16 MR. PLANGMAN: I got one question in there. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't you come forward, 18 Mr. Plangman? 19 MR. PLANGMAN: Thank you, Judge. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Give your name to the court 21 reporter. 22 MR. PLANGMAN: I'm Jewell Plangman, 625 23 Rimrock Road. I'm a civil engineer, and I don't understand 24 how you're going to find out whether it meets specifications 25 if you don't have plans to draw up and show you what 9-22-03 56 1 drainage is supposed to be and how it's supposed to be, and 2 the construction of it. That's just my point of view. I 3 think you need plans as well as you need specifications, 4 'cause it -- County Engineer has a hard time if he doesn't 5 have some plans to go by. Thank you. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Plangman. As I 7 indicated, my thinking would be all of that burden should be 8 placed upon the developer in order for the project to go 9 forward. And what he does is up to him, but we're going to 10 have to be satisfied, number one, that it's done, and number 11 two, that he's accountable. And then, as Commissioner 12 Baldwin said, we're going to figure out a way to enforce it 13 before we get through. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: I think one more person wanted 15 to speak on that. He has something different to say. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Please come forward and give 17 your name to the reporter. We'd be happy to hear from you 18 on this matter. 19 MR. HARVEY: My name is Les Harvey. My local 20 address here is 212 Clay Street. I was interested in this 21 issue because it mainly has to do with driving safety of the 22 public. The Kerr County rules are very specific on what 23 materials are to be used, how those materials are to be 24 installed. There are multiple Kerr County road 25 classifications, and it has to do with width, thickness of 9-22-03 57 1 base material, surface topping, right-of-way width. I'm 2 also a civil engineer, and -- but what is not in the Kerr 3 County rules is design criteria for vertical and horizontal 4 alignment for different classifications based on acceptable 5 speed of that classification. For example, a minor 6 residential street may have a 30-mile-an-hour speed limit. 7 For vertical and horizontal alignment for a 8 30-mile-an-hour -- 30-mile-an-hour speed, there is certain 9 design criteria that is entered into construction plans that 10 some road contractors may be familiar with that criteria, 11 some may not. My only concern is that when roads are 12 constructed and inspected for installation compaction, 13 dimensions, widths, the one thing that is unseen is -- is 14 radiuses for curves and roads. Are reverse curves in roads 15 long enough to be safe for a particular driving speed? It 16 also has to do with vertical alignment, and not grade. It 17 has to do with sags and crests in roads, because those sags 18 and crests have to be at a certain length for that driving 19 speed for a safe stopping distance. I'm not concerned about 20 the materials that are used, the dimensions of the different 21 classifications. I'm just concerned that roads might 22 continue to be built that are not crafted or matched well 23 with their driving speed. My whole issue has to do with the 24 driving safety of the public. Thank you. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. We 9-22-03 58 1 appreciate your comments. Anything else on Item Number 5? 2 If not, we'll move on to Item 6, consider allowing Road and 3 Bridge to use unencumbered balance of '02/'03 to complete 4 the '02/'03 sealcoat project program. Mr. Odom. 5 MR. ODOM: Good morning, Judge. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, sir. 7 MR. ODOM: In reference to this item, in the 8 past we have done this, and then currently in the last 9 couple of years, the Court has cut us off at 1 October. 10 We're working very hard to complete our scheduled sealcoat 11 projects; however, we may not be able to complete all of 12 them. And I know -- I think I've addressed the Court that I 13 saw at least two to three roads that I would not get into 14 the current sealcoat program, and it is still looks that 15 way. What I'm asking the Court at this time is to consider 16 allowing us to use all unencumbered funds in this '02/'03 17 budget year to complete the work through the month of 18 October, because I'm -- probably, that's when this weather's 19 going to cut us off; it's getting cool very quick. I can't 20 say specifically how much it would be, whether there would 21 be any, because we've already paid the bills and everything 22 goes into a pool. And my authority is -- is to -- because 23 I've already programmed this next budget year on line with 24 what we projected, I would ask the Court to allow us to 25 extend that time. Don't cut me off at 1 October; let me go 9-22-03 59 1 in a little bit into the budget year, unless GASB's got 2 something I don't know about for accountability. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Auditor? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: It's all right to do that. I 5 would just like to -- to go ahead and budget that amount, or 6 an estimated amount for '03/'04. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's cleaner 8 that way too. I mean, I'm not sure if we can carry over 9 like that. I think Tommy's right. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Determine what the 11 unencumbered amount is that he feels like he needs to 12 complete this current-year sealcoat program, do a budget 13 amendment, throw that into his '03/'04 budget? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: That will work for you, won't 16 it, Mr. Odom? 17 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Either way? 19 MR. ODOM: Either way. I don't know. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I know the rain's been 21 catching you here the last week or so. 22 MR. ODOM: Right, sir. Every time we turn 23 around. And in August, we had it for a week; had 5 and a 24 half inches of rain up there in the Hunt area while we were 25 doing work in Hills 'n Dales. And just, you know, messes 9-22-03 60 1 you up. You have to start over, cover that up, and it's a 2 hard guess with hurricane season. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If y'all would just 4 stay in Precinct 1, you wouldn't have the rain problem, see? 5 Just work in Precinct 1. 6 MR. ODOM: Precinct 1. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or 2. 8 MR. ODOM: We'll consider that in the new 9 process. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 11 MR. ODOM: But I understand. I will try to 12 give them an estimate. I can give an estimate. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll get with the Auditor 14 and figure out what -- what those numbers are, and then we 15 can -- we can amend the budget to increase what you've got 16 for your sealcoating project -- 17 MR. ODOM: Okay. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: -- for next year. 19 MR. ODOM: That will be fine, sir. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: That will work for you? 21 MR. ODOM: Because what we don't do this year 22 is going into -- I've already worked it into next year's 23 budget, so they'll be done. They have a high priority on 24 that. Thank you. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have anything 9-22-03 61 1 further on Item 6? Let's move on to Item 7, consider going 2 out for formal bid on a buzz bar. Mr. Odom again. 3 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. In the budget process, 4 in workshops and all, we discussed this. This is one item 5 that, at this point, I am not finding that it would be in 6 the governmental purchase, so I'm asking for permission of 7 the Court, in the next budget year starting 1 October, if I 8 could go out for bid for this specific item if I cannot find 9 a comparable -- I'm looking at this point. There may be a 10 way to do it, but the way it was presented, the 11 demonstration of that vehicle, those people were not in the 12 program. They said they were, but they were not in that 13 program. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 17 permit the Road Administrator to go out for formal bid on 18 the buzz bar. That's a piece of equipment for clearing 19 brush. 20 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 22 discussion? 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. 9-22-03 62 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Thank you, 3 Mr. Odom. Next item is your item also, Item 8, consider 4 approving the sign policy for private roads. 5 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. In the last week, we 6 met in a little workshop, two Commissioners and 911 7 Director, and we were going over the sign program and what 8 was projected and some questions we had. The Court -- the 9 two members had asked us to bring this agenda item to the 10 attention of the Court to see if we can pass on this -- our 11 recommendation. Private road signs shall be given green 12 blanks with 4-inch white reflective letters for name, 2-inch 13 for suffix and geo region, strip of red reflective tape 14 that's placed atop the sign to signify that there's a 15 private road. That's how we can tell now, and our people, 16 when they go up, they see a green sign with a red strip on 17 top, that says it's a private road; there's no question 18 about it. In the past, the Court has directed us that we 19 charge $70. What we've seen, our costs have gone up; that 20 we would like to have $100. A private sign installed on a 21 public right-of-way, for us to do it costs us about $100. 22 That's our cost, you know. And the nameplate, if the -- if 23 the pole is there and we -- or if they wish to put it on 24 some structure, that cost on the sign, reflective tape and 25 all, is $30. The sign and hardware to be installed by the 9-22-03 63 1 owner on private property runs about $70, our labor for 2 that. The cost of the sign includes replacement and/or 3 repair for three occasions or instances. After the third 4 time, the property owner is expected to pay for replacement 5 costs. In the past, we gave them in perpetuality for a 6 private road. And so we've charged $70. We have some of 7 them that are going as much as -- in some of the areas -- 8 well, you know your own precincts in the -- 'cause you hit 9 some of them. We're going and we're doing this for 10 perpetuality, and we say that on private roads, for 11 taxpayers, I think we should limit it. And I think three 12 times is fair; then they come back and pay again if they 13 wish to have it. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I think three times is more 15 than fair. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do, too. I think 17 once is enough. 18 MR. ODOM: But it is getting to the point of 19 being ridiculous on some of them, and it's not right to ask 20 taxpayers to do that on a private road. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of the 22 new policy. 23 MR. AMERINE: Can I make a comment before you 24 make the motion? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 9-22-03 64 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Now 2 we'll have some discussion. Mr. Amerine, do you want to be 3 heard on this? 4 MR. AMERINE: Please. It's not directly to 5 address the subject of the dollar amount, but this thought 6 came to mind after we had our workshop last week about a 7 phenomenon, even though it's rare, that creates a public 8 safety issue in the naming of private roads, in that we did 9 this last year to serve public safety, to address people off 10 these private roads, and a very slight phenomenon has 11 occurred. And I don't know whether this is appropriate for 12 this motion or not, but I'd like to see some wording added 13 to the policy behind when we name private roads. What's 14 happening is people want to name and sign their private 15 road, but they want to be addressed off the main 16 intersection road, almost like a prestige plate that they 17 want to have that creates a public safety issue, because 18 people are looking for addresses directly off that main 19 road. So, I don't know whether it's an appropriate thing to 20 ask for or not, but I'd almost like to see Road and Bridge 21 say if you want a road named and signed, then you must be 22 addressed off that road. Otherwise, what we have is 23 emergency service people screaming down that major county 24 road and going right past that named road looking for an 25 address that they're not going to find. Just a thought. 9-22-03 65 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you, I 2 do. And I also agree with you, I don't think it's 3 appropriate for today. 4 MR. AMERINE: Okay, I just bring that up. I 5 didn't know, with the wording that was being done on this, 6 whether this was an appropriate time to bring it up, but 7 it's something that I think needs to be addressed with Road 8 and Bridge and whether they approve these named roads or 9 not. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: On your standards that you 11 have for addressing, you have the ability to plug those 12 things in there, and I think that would be a starting point 13 for where, maybe, that ought to be. 14 MR. AMERINE: Okay. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: And then if it needs to come 16 here, we -- I even have a question whether it needs to come 17 here, since you have the right to amend your addressing 18 standards and rules. 19 MR. AMERINE: I see. Okay. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I think you can handle that 21 there. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's right. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- well, I think 24 it does have to come here, 'cause I think it does impact 25 Road and Bridge, at least from a -- must be like a service 9-22-03 66 1 standpoint. I think that the -- we probably ought to have 2 a -- when people get a private sign, they have to be advised 3 of what Mr. Amerine is stating; that when you get this sign, 4 your address is now going to be that road, not the other 5 road. And I think when they're doing the -- if they make 6 them sign an application to get it, that's the time where 7 they need to be aware of these -- make them sign something, 8 because I think that we -- you know, otherwise, how will -- 9 how is the public going to be aware of this policy? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If it's in their 11 rules, they become aware. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they're aware of the 13 rules, but in reality, who's going to look at the addressing 14 guidelines rules for 911? It's not going to happen. I just 15 think, from a public standpoint, we ought to try to make the 16 information as available as possible. And if -- and we 17 should require, I think, people that request a -- I think we 18 do -- to sign when they request a private road name, when 19 the public does. If we mandate it or do it, then it's done 20 by us, but I think that they ought to be -- you know, the 21 request -- they ought to be told what's happening when they 22 do that. 23 MR. AMERINE: I don't think -- that's why I 24 bring this up. I don't think folks realize that when they 25 request that their private ranch road or private drive be 9-22-03 67 1 named and then they want to sign it, that they -- without 2 creating an address change for them, that creates a public 3 safety issue. And we've had, just in this addressing area, 4 probably a handful of folks who have wanted to name and sign 5 the road that have gone through the process. Then, after 6 the fact, when they receive the address card with an address 7 off this road, they're upset; they want to maintain their 8 original address. With that being said, we certainly -- and 9 I'll take Your Honor's recommendation. We can adjust our 10 address guidelines, since we're part of that process of 11 approval, and advise folks at that time, but I didn't know 12 whether Road and Bridge's policy needed to be amended as 13 well. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think this -- this 15 policy is fine the way it is, but I think this issue needs 16 to be addressed. And I -- and as to your -- the addressing 17 guidelines, while they are under the authority of 911 to set 18 those guidelines, it's been done in the past two ways. 19 Originally, the Court approved those guidelines. Whether we 20 had to or not is unclear, but we did. But, clearly, I think 21 if -- you know, make sure that the Court gets an update of 22 those guidelines. 23 MR. AMERINE: Certainly. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: There may be some coordination 25 that needs to take place. Another policy where Road and 9-22-03 68 1 Bridge, when they're requested to make one of these private 2 roads signs, that they be provided with some sort of 3 documentation from your office that, in fact, that is the 4 address this person has been -- 5 MR. AMERINE: Given. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: -- given. And that's where 7 the two of them would tie in at that point, I would think. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or the naming of the 9 road. When this Court names a road, then that document is 10 sent out with their rules on it. Either -- either way, sign 11 or -- probably sign as well. You'd have more contact with 12 the public on the sign than you do changing the name, 13 wouldn't you? Yes, is the answer to that. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that we need 15 to -- once we've done so many of these road naming changes 16 this year -- this has been an abnormal year. I think that 17 we need to get back with Road and Bridge, 911, and this 18 Court, and develop a policy to handle it so there's a good 19 paper trail and a good, clear understanding between all of 20 the entities as to exactly how we're going proceed with name 21 changes. We've just had so many this year that it was -- 22 you know, it was kind of let's get them done the best way we 23 can. 24 MR. AMERINE: Thank you. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 9-22-03 69 1 discussion on the motion concerning the Road and Bridge sign 2 policy for private roads? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 4 MR. ODOM: Yes, too. Go ahead. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have is, 6 the -- and it's kind of an Auditor/County Attorney question. 7 The money for signs are deposited to Road and Bridge, you 8 know -- 9 MR. ODOM: To that line item. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- to the line item, 11 15-611-457. One, I don't know that we can do that, 'cause I 12 think all fines -- all money we get, I think it goes into 13 the general fund, or can we put it in a specific line item? 14 MR. ODOM: You have precedents already set. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not following you, 16 Commissioner. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The money we 18 collect for -- say we get $100 for naming a private road. 19 Where does that money go? Does the money go right back into 20 the same line item, or go into the general fund and then 21 come -- 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I can -- 23 MR. ODOM: We have a program now with -- with 24 corrugated metal pipe, when we put them in. And the reason 25 we did that -- 9-22-03 70 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I think it probably needs to 2 just go in Road and Bridge revenue, and then increase their 3 budget. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- we just need to 5 make sure, however that's handled, that it's handled the way 6 the Auditor feels it needs to be handled between the funds, 7 because it's -- I know many times, most revenue we receive 8 goes into the general fund, whether it's our general fund or 9 possibly your fund. 10 MR. ODOM: Right. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But not into -- 12 MR. ODOM: In the past, when we upgraded our 13 policy to provide service to the people with driveways, when 14 they paid for the pipe, then, of course, we didn't have no 15 way to know how many we're going get in a year. Then the 16 Auditor takes that money and puts it back into that line 17 item. That's the same program we've had for several years, 18 so we could control what's going on. The people are just 19 paying for the cost of the pipe. Then we put it in, so we 20 could have control of, you know, the flowage, the ditches 21 and all. So, the same thing here -- what we're asking here 22 would be the same thing we've been doing for several years. 23 If the Court has no problems, we've been doing that for 24 several years now. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. 9-22-03 71 1 MR. ODOM: Now, the other one is -- that we 2 discussed also, that Road and Bridge will begin installing 3 private signs on roads that have never been -- had a name as 4 time permits. In other words, not wait till January. Since 5 we have a private road, I see no reason why we couldn't go 6 ahead and do this, instead of waiting into December sometime 7 before we start installing those name changes. But if we 8 have a private road, we see no reason why we -- once the 9 name is approved by 911, we could put it in and save that 10 congestion and that time during December. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this is an answer to 12 the current moratorium? 13 MR. ODOM: That's correct. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is lifting that 15 moratorium? 16 MR. ODOM: Lifting that moratorium for 17 private roads, not the name changes on the others. That we 18 would have on -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we ought to make 20 that as a specific motion under this item, because it is 21 listed on the attachment, so it's clear. Otherwise, it's 22 going to be lost in the -- in the minutes. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe so. The 24 attractive part of it, you know, we have a number of -- 25 because of the moratorium, we have a lot of signs that need 9-22-03 72 1 to go up, and with this program, we can -- between Christmas 2 and New Year's -- of course, they're down to kind of a 3 skeletal group anyway, a little downtime for them. We can 4 go from, like, one sign guy to several sign guys, and they 5 can go out and put up signs en masse and knock this plan 6 out. That, to me, is the attractive part of it. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: That's on the public roads. 9 MR. ODOM: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. 11 MR. ODOM: On public roads. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I'll make a second 13 motion after we vote on this one. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 16 discussion upon the motion? All in favor of the motion, 17 signify by raising your right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under the same private 22 road sign policy, I make a motion that we rescind the 23 moratorium on installing private road signs effective 24 immediately. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 9-22-03 73 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 2 the current moratorium for prohibiting the installation of 3 road signs be suspended effective immediately for installing 4 those signs on private reads. Any further question or 5 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 6 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. 11 MR. ODOM: Thank you. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. We'll now go to 13 Item 1.14. I will adjourn the Commissioners Court meeting, 14 and I will convene and open a public hearing on the proposed 15 Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Kerr County budget. 16 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:34 a.m., and a public hearing 17 was held in open court, as follows:) 18 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the 20 public that wishes to be heard relative to the proposed 21 2003/2004 Kerr County budget? Mr. Schellhase? Come 22 forward, please, sir. 23 MR. SCHELLHASE: Walter Schellhase, 529 Water 24 Street. I'm here to address the budget for Dietert Senior 25 Center. In the past, we've -- you, the Court, has given the 9-22-03 74 1 center a total of $20,000; $5,000 dedicated to 2 transportation, $15,000 for nutrition and other programs. 3 This year you have chosen to reduce Dietert to $7,200, and 4 transportation to AACOG, $7,800. I think your math is wrong 5 in some sense. AACOG evidently has provided you with some 6 sort of an overall amount of money they need to continue to 7 operate transportation, which Dietert could not do because 8 AACOG would not provide the adequate amount of money to do 9 it on a break-even basis, so Dietert gave up that program. 10 There is no reason for me to believe that the 11 counties involved in this will pay the amount of money that 12 the counties have been assessed, I would assume, as opposed 13 to investigate as to the cost of conducting that 14 transportation. It's hard for me to understand how you can 15 discontinue a program from the needy, the elderly, the 16 Dietert Center as a whole, to reduce the amount of money 17 from $15,000 to $7,200, which is about a 56 percent 18 reduction, and at the same time increase the amount of money 19 for transportation to an agency that is funded by the 20 federal government and the State, and to have County funds 21 being given to an agency that proposes a program, and we all 22 automatically assume those moneys have to come from County 23 funds to make that program function. 24 Dietert is in a hard place for moneys right 25 now, as well for 2004. It would appear we're going to have 9-22-03 75 1 a $170,000 deficit. Those deficits have to be fixed in some 2 fashion, which will obviously be the reduction of services. 3 One of those that will help us redo that was a reduction of 4 transportation, which was costing a considerable amount of 5 money annually. There was no indication that AACOG had 6 additional moneys to do this job. In fact, we were losing 7 about $30,000 a month. It would appear that AACOG has 8 arbitrarily assessed the five counties involved probably 9 somewhere along that amount of money, and Kerr County has 10 arbitrarily taken on a $7,800 amount of money to pay to 11 AACOG. I see no reason why AACOG should be provided any 12 money from County funds, when all of the other agencies in 13 the area are short funds. 14 The Commissioners Court made a decision to 15 reduce those funds provided to social services 16 across-the-board. We hope it was across-the-board. If all 17 of those social services are reduced by at least 56 percent, 18 perhaps what's happened to Dietert is not any different than 19 what's happened to the other social services. There's been 20 some discussion and articles in the paper about the Court's 21 decision, and perhaps we should not be providing social 22 services funding whatsoever. Perhaps that's true. That's 23 not for me to decide, but for the Court. But, however, it 24 is for me to bring to your attention that Dietert provides a 25 great service to this community, and to cut those funds is 9-22-03 76 1 not proper at this time, especially with the crunch in other 2 areas, when at the same time you're assuming another 3 obligation of AACOG at a higher rate than we had in the 4 past. So, therefore, I would like to request that this 5 Commissioners Court adjust the budget and put the $15,000 6 dedicated to that line item back in Dietert for the purpose 7 of nutrition and other functions. Thank you. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Is there anyone 9 else who wishes to -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this a public 11 hearing? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Mr. Harris? 13 MR. HARRIS: My name is Walter Harris. I 14 happen to be the Court-appointed representative on the 15 Council of Aging at AACOG. I just want to say, I ditto what 16 the general said, and I don't think I could add anything to 17 it. I do not think that we should be sending County money 18 down to AACOG. I think they should be deleted, and that 19 money be reimbursed back to Dietert Claim. Thank you. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Is there 21 anyone else who wishes to address the Court on the proposed 22 2003/2004 Kerr County budget at this public hearing? Anyone 23 else? No one else stepping forward, I will close the public 24 hearing on the proposed 2003/2004 Kerr County budget, and I 25 will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting. 9-22-03 77 1 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:38 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court 2 meeting was reopened.) 3 - - - - - - - - - - 4 JUDGE TINLEY: And we'll move to Item 15, 5 consideration and discussion of adoption of the proposed 6 2003/2004 Fiscal Year Kerr County budget. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have -- do 8 have a comment, that I agree with most everything that was 9 said this morning in regards to the -- that particular line 10 item. Personally, I think that at some point, that we might 11 get -- get to the point to where we would cut services or 12 funding to Dietert. But just -- you know, and I commented 13 earlier during the budget process, when we were talking 14 about those other social services, that it's difficult for 15 me to just cut them off automatically, because that affects 16 their budget and their planning and everything else. So, if 17 -- you know, if we have thoughts about decreasing the 18 funding to them, I would think that we would -- we would 19 continue the funding this year, and tell them -- and then 20 send them a message that the cut in funding could happen 21 next year, to -- in order to give them time to prepare and 22 -- and do their planning and their budget. Now, restoring 23 the line item from $7,200 to $15,000, that would -- that 24 would change the bottom line of the budget that the public's 25 been looking at for the last week or so, and I -- I 9-22-03 78 1 personally I think that that's a bad thing to do, is to 2 change -- to come in here this late in the game and change 3 the bottom line. So, I am in favor of restoring the Dietert 4 money, but I'm not in favor of changing the bottom line. 5 So, in order to do that, we would have to move something 6 around inside the budget to -- to accomplish that feat. 7 That's all I have to say right now. I mean, that's my 8 thoughts. And if -- if we agree that we need to move -- you 9 know, not change the bottom line and move money around in 10 the budget, then I have some further thoughts, but if we're 11 not going to get to that point, I'd like -- I'll just hold 12 my thoughts until then. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Court will 15 recall, I raised -- raised that issue -- excuse me -- during 16 budget discussions and pointed out that there were, as 17 Mr. Schellhase noted, two line items, one being the $5,000 18 public transportation, which Dietert gave up doing public 19 transportation, and the other being $15,000. I believe, 20 Judge, you told me in that discussion that it was your 21 decision to take the $15,000 and cut it at the point that 22 you did, giving Dietert 72 and transportation 78, as per the 23 formula that was provided for transportation. And, in so 24 doing, the $5,000 that had been there for public 25 transportation fell down in through the cracks and went 9-22-03 79 1 away. The easier way to have done it would have been to add 2 $2,200 or $2,800 to the $5,000 in public transportation, 3 bringing us up to the formula suggested for reimbursement of 4 public transportation, and leaving Dietert alone in terms of 5 its nutritional programs and other senior programs. So, I 6 support what Commissioner Baldwin said. I've always been a 7 supporter of Dietert in that regard, and if we can find a 8 way, without going back and redoing the entire budget, to at 9 some point later in this process, after the budget has been 10 placed, restore that level of funding, I'm in favor of that. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Are we prohibited at this time 12 from -- from making changes to that budget? I don't think 13 we are. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're not prohibited. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. I just -- I 16 certainly don't want to give a foot -- foot to the thinking 17 of, "Well, those idiots are up there bumbling around with 18 the budget again," which is -- is a conversation out in the 19 community. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Again? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As usual. And that 22 conversation -- this year, I even had some close friends 23 come and say, "Are y'all through with that budget yet? 24 What's taking so long?" I tell you, that angers me a little 25 bit. Because, by god, the public better be happy that we 9-22-03 80 1 take care of every penny that comes across this table. And 2 I take that very seriously, and I know you guys do too. So, 3 I really don't want to hear that any more. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Well -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From concerned 6 friends, friend or foe. My ears are going to close off to 7 that nonsense. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm somewhat like you; you 9 can't have too much discussion about an item. When you get 10 concerned is when there's no discussion. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right, 12 I agree. The -- but I think that we could change it. It 13 just doesn't look good. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question which 15 kind of -- you know, I agree. Well -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page are you on 17 there? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 64, which is 19 County-sponsored activities. As I look back, we've 20 discussed this page quite a bit. And we've done -- we 21 changed it around quite a bit, and when I looked at it 22 again, it's actually different than I thought it was. 23 The -- out of all the County-sponsored activities, the final 24 proposal that's in the budget -- well, the final budget 25 numbers we changed, basically, or we didn't -- changed two 9-22-03 81 1 entities; Big Brothers/Big Sisters were completely deleted 2 for funding. They had been at $3,000; now they're at zero. 3 And Dietert Claim went from $15,000 to $7,117. And the 4 public transportation number went up. First question I have 5 is really probably directed best to Commissioner Williams as 6 to the public transportation, $7,883. Do we have to fund 7 that, is the basic question. What happens if we don't give 8 AACOG any more money? Because they certainly get enough 9 from the federal government, it seems. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, a lot -- a good 11 portion of this has to do with their ability to match the 12 federal money by reason of whatever form that's come down 13 through feds to TexDOT, and it also has to do with the 14 formula for reimbursement of transportation. The 15 transportation program of Kerr County is changing in that it 16 is not -- it is no longer serving just seniors. It is going 17 to be serving, as it always should have been serving, 18 anybody who has a need for public transportation, and a 19 formula for that for the number of trips and the distances 20 and so forth, and the fare structure will change as well. 21 Senior transportation is funded under a separate line item, 22 and those dollars come down, and there is -- there is not a 23 set reimbursement for that. There can be a set 24 reimbursement for, however, other transportation. My 25 understanding is that it's used -- this 7 hundred -- 7883 is 9-22-03 82 1 based on formulas for all counties. Not just Kerr County, 2 all counties who participate in the Regional Transportation 3 Program. It is not used for administrative, but is used 4 essentially to draw down funds or match funds where needed 5 and when available, and this would be our proportionate 6 share of the whole pot. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So there is not an option 8 to cut that AACOG funds? I mean, if you cut the AACOG 9 funds, it totally cancels Kerr County out of the public 10 transportation? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It could take us out 12 of the regional program. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could or would? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. I 15 don't know. 16 AUDIENCE: No. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. Would 18 or could. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've got some 911 20 directors back here telling us you can't. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can't what? 22 MR. AMERINE: Managers. Directors are being 23 silent. Managers are speaking. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're pretty 25 close to being right. 9-22-03 83 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, if -- I mean -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who is? He is or I 3 am? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Both of you. You're 5 saying you don't know, and he's asking the question, would 6 we be X'd out of it? This is our portion of -- prorated 7 amongst the counties. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have resolved to 9 participate, and we've been given a formula for 10 participation. Most of those dollars go to help AACOG match 11 the federal and state funds available for public 12 transportation. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it -- I don't -- 14 I've never understood AACOG and how the various COGS around 15 the state work. I mean, they -- some COGS seem to get a lot 16 more for their counties than our COG does for our county. 17 Why that is, I don't know. Maybe I should go to one of the 18 AACOG meetings, but -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, a lot of that 20 has to do with there being 11 rural counties surrounding one 21 humungous, big urban center, and the funds are -- are 22 divvied up proportionately to that. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Woods? Do you have any 24 sense of -- of whether or not we would be deleted from 25 service for the Rural Transportation Program if we were not 9-22-03 84 1 to make our assessed contribution or some significant 2 portion of that to AACOG? 3 MS. WOODS: I don't believe we would be 4 deleted, simply because they've made a significant 5 investment here already with the transportation center. The 6 two ways that we received transportation funding was through 7 the 5311 program, which was the Rural Public Transportation; 8 we got approximately $69,000 for that service. The aging 9 portion of it, we received about $20,000. The whole concept 10 with -- as I understand the Alamo Regional Transit, is to 11 promote public transportation, and that's certainly the 12 lion's share of the funding. If they desired to pull out of 13 Kerr County, they would be losing at least $69,000, and the 14 aging money would not go to them either. So, I think they'd 15 be very interested in staying here. They've got commitments 16 with Kerrville Bus Company to operate that center, and they 17 are planning to dispatch out of this center for Gillespie 18 and some of the other counties, so I would not think they 19 would pull out. They would lose that money, and I don't 20 think AACOG likes to lose any money. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think they do 22 either, and I think you make a valid point. They've got an 23 investment here, and whether they would or could alter the 24 service to Kerr County is something that we'll have to wait 25 and see. What we had originally structured was -- and has 9-22-03 85 1 been structured for a long time, was $5,000 to public 2 transportation. So, the issue before the Court only was 3 whether or not to increase that by $2,800 -- $2,883. The 4 original issue wasn't to cut Dietert from 15 to 7. That 5 happened here as an action of the Court. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that -- I 7 mean, on that point, that the -- you know, it was divided 8 up, you know, I guess by the Judge's original 9 recommendation, and we agreed with it, to take $15,000, 10 divide it up between public transportation and Dietert. My 11 feeling is -- I mean, and I kind of share Commissioner 12 Baldwin's feelings that it is not appropriate, in my mind, 13 to cut some of these agencies without notice, which 14 essentially we have done this year. But, at the same time, 15 I think that the -- the time, in my mind, is coming when we 16 need to stop funding all social agencies except those that 17 are part of county government. And "part" may be a -- like, 18 the one that comes to mind the most is Historical 19 Commission. It's something that, by statute, we have -- and 20 I think there's an obligation for those types of 21 organizations, to fund them. I am not aware of how Dietert 22 falls into that category as to something that -- that we 23 have to, by statute, you know, have Dietert or fund Dietert. 24 That being said, I'm not sure there's that tie with some of 25 these others as well, so I don't have a problem with 9-22-03 86 1 restoring Dietert to their amount of $15,000. However, 2 Dietert and all the other agencies are going to have to 3 prove to me before next budget year why they should get 4 County funds and why they're entitled to County funds, 5 rather than it being just something that is good to do for 6 the community, because that doesn't work any more for me. I 7 think we need to be consistent, and I don't think we have 8 been consistent in the past, and we need to change that. 9 As to where the money comes from, I mean, I 10 agree with Commissioner Baldwin; I don't want to increase 11 the budget. Right now, I'd take it out of public 12 transportation. Put the -- restore $15,000, put public 13 transportation to zero, and see what AACOG does. And my -- 14 you know, what Ms. Woods is saying about the transportation 15 center, I suspect that there's some things that the City or 16 County have done to help with that -- I don't remember all 17 the details of how that facility got built. I'm sure we 18 were involved, and that can be our contribution. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, if you remember, 20 when we were talking about -- when AACOG first requested 21 this -- this money, I brought up the point of that they get 22 funds -- you know, they get their little -- when this 23 federal -- when federal grants come through -- block grants 24 come through there, they rake off a little or a lot into 25 their pockets, and now they're coming to the local counties. 9-22-03 87 1 And, to me, that was a double-dipping issue. They sent us a 2 letter stating that I was wrong about that. I know you find 3 that hard to believe. But seemed to me that -- that their 4 letter explained it like Mr. Williams explained it; that it 5 was our -- our portion of the grant process. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. 7 Draw-down to help make the match. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right, the 9 matching part of it. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The administration of 11 the -- of the programs is a very modest amount of money. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And, of course, 13 what Mr. Letz is saying, let's just pull it out of there 14 and -- and really hold AACOG accountable and find out what 15 they're really about, I'm not against that kind of thing at 16 all. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm thinking that we 18 probably can renege on our paying our fair share to AACOG. 19 It's a question of whether we should. I wonder what would 20 happen to this program if all of the other government 21 entities reneged on their commitment to it. So I'm not 22 going to support that. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I won't support the 24 reneging either. The original request for budget that the 25 Court had was for $15,000 for Dietert, and public 9-22-03 88 1 transportation for $5,000. That was the original request. 2 All that would have been required of the Court at that time 3 would have been to increase the public transportation 4 portion by $2,883, as per the request, for the match, and 5 leave Dietert alone, and that's where I think we should be. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge -- I mean, not 7 Judge. Commissioner, I don't -- the fact that it was 8 requested doesn't mean we need to do it. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've changed many 11 requests, and Big Brothers/Big Sisters requested $3,000. 12 They get nothing. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean -- 15 MS. WOODS: May I add something? The City 16 also gave us $5,000 towards public transportation last year, 17 and to my knowledge, they're not -- they're certainly not 18 giving Dietert any money for public transportation, so there 19 might be access through City funds to support whatever the 20 allocation for AACOG -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know whether 22 there is -- whether the City has been given a proportionate 23 sharing request. I don't know. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's probably not wise 25 to zero out the transportation. It's not a smart thing to 9-22-03 89 1 do. So, we can -- we can go ahead and adopt the budget the 2 way it is, and then come back next week and make a budget 3 amendment when the budget is one week old. Or we can go in 4 and find moneys somewhere else in the budget to -- to lift 5 up to the $15,000 now, today. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or we can -- or we can 8 adopt a budget today that's bigger than the one that we 9 approved two weeks ago -- or last week. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Or we can leave it 11 as-is. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or we could leave it 13 as-is. I'd like to restore them up to the $15,000, find it 14 somewhere else in the budget. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: The Auditor's trying to get 16 your attention, Mr. Baldwin. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: I'd just like to make one 19 comment about -- about the difference between -- I mean, 20 there's been some conversation about social services, and I 21 don't have it in front of me and I haven't read it recently, 22 but I think that the state constitution allows county 23 government to fund -- to fund services for the youth and 24 aged, so I think we can -- I think county government can 25 fund Dietert Claim as a -- as a program for the aged under 9-22-03 90 1 the constitution, and not under a contractual basis. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we're doing 3 anything illegal. I think we can fund it. The issue we 4 have is, how do we pay for a big increase, with which fund? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: But I think there's a 6 difference between what's a service that the constitution 7 allows, rather than a -- than a service that we contract 8 with. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I agree with that, 10 but what I'm saying is, take Y.M.C.A. They have sub -- they 11 greatly subsidize youth that can't afford to participate in 12 their programs; they provide free access or reduced costs. 13 Why don't we fund Y.M.C.A.? I mean, there's -- I mean, 14 there's a youth -- 15 MR. TOMLINSON: I think we could. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we -- I think we 17 could. I don't think we should, is what I'm saying. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Woods? 19 MS. WOODS: May I add something? Perhaps 20 it's not clear. We use the county money for our Meals on 21 Wheels program. We do about 150 meals a week. 80 percent 22 of those are seniors are over age 81, and they can -- we ask 23 for a donation, but only about, I think, 40 percent of them 24 can contribute to that program. AACOG provides us roughly 25 $70,000 towards that program, and it costs us approximately 9-22-03 91 1 $150,000 to operate that; it's about $1,000 a year per 2 person. So, we use that county money for our Meals on 3 Wheels program. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Strictly? 5 MS. WOODS: Yes. Those folks can't -- they 6 don't have the resources, and they certainly need us or 7 they're not going to eat, or will require a higher level of 8 care. So, just so its clear so y'all understand how we use 9 that money. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Meals on Wheels is a 11 program I can see that government should be involved in. 12 Those are folks that are -- can't get out of their home. 13 They need help, and that's what government's about, in my 14 opinion. Meals on Wheels is a great program. Great 15 program. I'm all for it. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In looking for places to 17 come up with the money, 'cause I'm not in favor of -- I'm in 18 favor of restoring Dietert, but I'm not in favor of 19 increasing the budget. I see the Nondepartmental 20 Contingency as an option. I see Professional Services in 21 the Commissioners Court line item as an option. There's 22 $25,000 in Contingency, $12,500 in Commissioners Court 23 Professional Services. Contingency's probably a better 24 spot, if we're going come up with the money, 'cause it's 25 kind of a catch-all. And I don't know -- I can't think what 9-22-03 92 1 else we have that we -- I guess not a required or kind of 2 a -- not designated as of this point. Really, the only two 3 items that I -- or only item is really Contingency. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What were the two? 5 Contingency -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nondepartmental 7 Contingency is $25,000 currently. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Professional Services. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Professional Services 10 under Commissioners Court is $12,500. Both of those are -- 11 are funds that we use each year, and therefore, unknown ones 12 that we -- Contingency is obviously for contingencies. 13 Professional Services is, we know we're going to have 14 lawsuits, generally, and that's what it's used for, to cover 15 the lawsuits. Just an estimate. I think Contingency's a 16 better source, unless some other Commissioners come up with 17 other areas. And, you know, it's a -- I think -- well, 18 that's my opinion. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that we 20 amend the budget -- well, wait a minute. Not amend it, but 21 move to restore the $15,000 to Dietert Senior Services, 22 and -- and adhere to the funding request of $7,883 for 23 public transportation, which would amend lines 410 and 420 24 under County-Sponsored Activities, and that those funds be 25 transferred from Nondepartmental Contingency and/or 9-22-03 93 1 Professional Services as required. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: And that the budget otherwise 3 be adopted? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to tell 6 us -- I want to know how much is coming from each one of 7 those lines. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good question. Let's 9 see. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: $7,883. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, $7,883 goes 12 back to Dietert. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And $2,883 gets added 15 to public transportation. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: It's already there. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Already there. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: It's already there. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Okay. So, 21 then, all we're really talking about is $7,883 to restore 22 Dietert to its position of $15,000, and that can come from 23 Nondepartmental Contingency, or split equally between 24 Nondepartmental Contingency and Professional Services. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Contingency is 9-22-03 94 1 better. Take it all out of Contingency. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's okay with me. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: What's your motion? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take it from -- take 5 it from Nondepartmental Contingency. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The only change would 8 be to the Dietert line item. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that $7,883, or is 11 that $7,800? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $7,883. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where's the 83 come 14 from? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the amount to get 16 Dietert back to $15,000. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the amount 18 required to get Dietert back to the $15,000. If you look at 19 the two numbers right now, the 410 and 420, those two total 20 15. So, all that's required to get Dietert back to $15,000 21 is $7,883 to be taken from Nondepartmental Contingency. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. Or third or 23 whatever. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion made and 25 seconded that the Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Kerr County budget 9-22-03 95 1 be adopted, with the following change: That Dietert Claim, 2 Line Item 410, under County-Sponsored Activities, be 3 increased by $7,883 to a total of $15,000, and that those 4 funds be taken from Nondepartmental Contingency, that being 5 Item 571. The current $25,000 will be reduced by the 6 $7,883. Any further questions or discussion? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment that I have, 8 really -- we'll probably vote in favor of it; however, we 9 are taking Contingency down quite low to do this. And the 10 one area or item in our budget that's probably going to take 11 that hit is Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center. We're 12 probably taking money that possibly is going to be needed 13 for studies, doing some work out there, and deleting that. 14 So we, possibly, to help Dietert, are deferring action, 15 likely, on that -- on getting too far along on something 16 that needs to be done out there. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, something out 18 there also could come under Professional Services, 19 particularly if we get an engineering -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You could. I suspect 21 that's going to be used up by lawsuits. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 23 discussion? 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I'd like to 25 reiterate something that Commissioner Letz alluded to 9-22-03 96 1 earlier, that -- that all funds that we spend on 2 nonessential government services are -- or services that are 3 not essential to Kerr County government are under the 4 microscope, and between now and this time next year, we need 5 to rationalize why we're spending that. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 7 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 8 your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We'll 13 break now and we'll reconvene at 11:15, and at that time 14 we'll take up the timed item for 11 o'clock. 15 (Recess taken from 11:06 a.m. to 11:20 a.m.) 16 - - - - - - - - - - 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's reconvene. It's a 18 little after 11:15 now. The Auditor brought something to my 19 attention on the budget item on 1.15, and before we leave 20 that item, let's hear from him. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1.15? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. That's the budget. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the budget. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the item that we were 25 on when we took our break. 9-22-03 97 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Earlier -- earlier, 2 there -- there was an agenda item to carry over an 3 unencumbered fund to Road and Bridge, and I think the -- the 4 way to handle that is to increase the '03/'04 budget by the 5 amount that they requested. And Leonard gave me that 6 number; it's 14,000 -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: $14,622. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 622? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. We can -- we can add 11 that amount to the budget line item for Asphalts, Oils, and 12 Emulsions. It's 15-611-552. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: And you're suggesting that, 14 because of the earlier discussion with Mr. Odom, we need to 15 amend the budget to add that item to it on -- on the 16 previously uncommitted funds to add that to his coming year? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: I do have another issue, too, 20 I'd like to run before the Court. It has to do with -- with 21 training classes for the First Responder program. That -- 22 that program is underway, and if we -- under the '02/'03 23 budget, we budgeted sufficient funds to complete that 24 program. Because of the timing situation, they're not able 25 to complete the program under this current budget year; 9-22-03 98 1 however, there are not enough funds budgeted for '03/'04, to 2 complete the program. What remains in the '02/'03 budget is 3 $4,128. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: 4,000 what? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: 128. In order to complete 6 the program and pay the instructors for the classes, we need 7 to increase the '03/'04 budget by that amount, by the 8 $4,128. It's the same issue, essentially, as what we did 9 for -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Road and Bridge. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: The Auditor wasn't clear that, 13 as part of that change that we were making to Dietert, that 14 we were also adopting the budget, and that's the reason he 15 didn't wave his arms or scream loudly before, or he would 16 have had that in on the -- on the previous motion. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me take a crack 18 at it, see if we can get something before the Court to act 19 on. I move we amend the Fiscal Year 2003/'04 Kerr County 20 budget by 14 thousand six -- $14,627? Is that right? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: $14,622. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 622, for Road and 23 Bridge, and add that amount to the line item for Asphalt and 24 Emulsions, and add $4,128 for First Responder -- 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Expenses. 9-22-03 99 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The First Responder 2 program. And that would be what line item? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: 10-630-502. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: 502, Training. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say it again? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: 10-630-502. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Add the $4,128 to 8 Line Item 10-630-502. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second the 10 motion. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 12 the '03/'04 Kerr County budget be amended to provide -- to 13 carry over $14,622 and add that to Asphalt, et cetera, Line 14 Item 552 in the Road and Bridge budget, and carry over 15 $4,128 -- actually, it's not a carry-over. It will be an 16 increase in Line Item 502, First Responder Training. Any 17 further question or discussion? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just a comment. I 19 don't know that I totally agree with the First Responder 20 issue, but I'm going to go along with it. And this is the 21 shortest budget in history that -- before it was amended. 22 Hasn't even made it to October 1 yet. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question, before we vote 24 on that. And I can't remember the details. One of these -- 25 the tax rate or this vote, that has to be a record vote? 9-22-03 100 1 One of them have to be a record vote. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Tax rate. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tax rate is, but not this 4 one, okay. There's a way out of amending the budget. If we 5 didn't vote right the first time, we'd have to do it again 6 anyway. But we did it right, evidently. All right. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 8 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 9 your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We'll now 14 go to Item 21. I will recess the Commissioners Court 15 hearing, and we will open and convene a public hearing on 16 the proposed 2003/2004 Fiscal Year tax rate for Kerr County. 17 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 11:26 a.m., and a public hearing 18 was held in open court, as follows:) 19 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the 21 public or the audience that wishes to be heard on the 22 proposed Fiscal Year '03/'04 tax rate for Kerr County? 23 Anybody that wishes to be heard on that item? There being 24 no one seeking attention on that, I will close the public 25 hearing on the proposed Fiscal Year '03/'04 tax rate for 9-22-03 101 1 Kerr County, and I will reconvene the Commissioners Court 2 meeting. 3 (The public hearing was concluded at 11:27 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court 4 meeting was reopened.) 5 - - - - - - - - - - 6 JUDGE TINLEY: And we will take up Item 22, 7 consideration and discussion of the adoption of the proposed 8 '03/'04 tax rate for Kerr County. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move adoption of the 10 '03/'04 tax rate -- as presented? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably same as the 12 last one. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As previously presented, 14 and I'll read the rates. The total tax rate is .3721. That 15 is broken out as General Fund, .2472; Fire Protection, 16 .0096; Public Library, .0171; Parks, zero; Indigent Health, 17 .0198; Certificate of Obligation, .007; 1998 tax 18 anticipation note, .0185; Jail Bonds, 1994, .022; Permanent 19 Improvements, zero, for a total M & O rate of .3412. Road 20 and Bridge operating, .0309. Total Road and Bridge, .0309, 21 for a total county rate of .3721. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Who did you pick up as 25 seconding that? This one or this one? 9-22-03 102 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion made and 3 seconded that we adopt a proposed Fiscal Year '03/'04 tax 4 rate for Kerr County as read into the record. Any question 5 or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by 6 raising your right hand, and we'll take a record vote. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Commissioner 1? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aye. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 2? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aye. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 3? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aye. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 4? 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Aye. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Does the -- does the law 17 require that the chair vote on the motion on the record? 18 The motion does pass. Next item will be Number 11, consider 19 and discuss setting the Sheriff's and constables' fees as 20 required under L.G.C. Section 118.131. The Clerk had 21 brought this forward on the setting of fees. That's an 22 annual requirement, is my understanding. Is that correct, 23 Ms. Pieper? 24 MS. PIEPER: That is correct, Your Honor. 25 And I have spoke with the Sheriff, and he does not wish to 9-22-03 103 1 raise his fees, but I have not heard back from the 2 constables. 3 MR. PICKENS: Your Honor, due to the fact 4 that I had a death in the family, I've not really had a 5 chance to discuss with Ms. Pieper in reference to this. I 6 talked to Constable Ayala; he's supposed to be on his way 7 over right now to present his opinion on wanting to raise 8 the fee on the writ of possession, on the standby. He has a 9 little more information on that than I do at this time. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I gather what I'm hearing is 11 that you'd like to defer this matter until later on in the 12 meeting, come back to it and pick it up after Constable 13 Ayala has an opportunity to be here; is that correct? 14 MR. PICKENS: Yes, sir. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone on the Court have any 16 objection to that? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None whatsoever, 18 Judge. Do you think that they could provide us with a -- a 19 document that -- like the Sheriff's fees were laid out? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Hopefully, we can -- we can 21 get them to do that. 22 MR. PICKENS: Yes, sir. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Yeah, the constable is 24 indicating when they get it in-hand, they'll get some copies 25 made and get it to us. Well, we'll not take any action on 9-22-03 104 1 Item 11 at this time, but rather come back to it. We'll 2 move onto Item 12, consideration and discussion of request 3 for budget amendment for specific line items in the Election 4 Department for the constitutional amendment election 5 expenses, and authorization for the Treasurer and the 6 Auditor to pay the election expenses on or before 7 September 24th of this year. This is the current budget 8 year we're dealing with, fortunately. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'm curious 10 about something. Why -- why is this -- this budget 11 amendment an agenda item and not in the -- with the other 12 budget amendments? I'm just curious why it -- 13 MS. PIEPER: Commissioner, I can answer that. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I appreciate that. 15 MS. PIEPER: Prior to the election, I came 16 before y'all to find out how we were going to fund this, and 17 I was told at that point, once the election is over, then 18 come back. So now I'm back, and I am requesting the budget 19 amendment. And if we take everything out of the Election 20 Expense line item out of Machine Repair, that will cover all 21 of our expenses. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 25 the request of the County Clerk for a budget amendment for 9-22-03 105 1 the payment of the constitutional amendment election 2 expenses and authorization for the Treasurer and County 3 Auditor to pay those expenses on or before September 24th of 4 this year be approved. Any further question or discussion? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I wondered 6 from the Auditor, does this have your seal of approval? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, good. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 10 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 11 your right hand. 12 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 14 (No response.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item, 16 consider and discuss a request for approval of the Kerr 17 County Jury Selection Plan to comply with Chapter 62 of the 18 Texas Government Code, and adding provision of House Bill 19 2188. What happened to District Clerk? She was here a 20 moment ago. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can see if I can go 22 get her. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's just pass on that item; 24 we'll come back to it. Next item. We'll move on to Item 25 1.16, consider and discuss action and/or remedies to cure 9-22-03 106 1 complaints regarding the storage behind the Kerr County 2 Extension Service office. This is a carry-over item. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be mine. 4 Yes, sir? 5 MR. MILLER: Good morning. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good morning. How are 7 you? 8 MR. MILLER: Good morning, Judge, 9 Commissioners. Y'all had asked me to come back today and 10 tell you what our plan was to stop your telephone calls. 11 We've gone out for a bid for about 140 feet of cedar fencing 12 to cover the Highway 27 side, wrapped around the corner to 13 the gate on that storage yard, and also to -- about -- it's 14 about 12 or 14 feet on the Extension Agent office side, 15 which would blank what you would see driving down the 16 highway around that thing. I have not got any bids back at 17 this point, but my board has approved the funds to go 18 forward and do that. We still haven't worked a schedule for 19 October 5th. Going to try real hard to get the materials on 20 hand and get it installed on that date. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're going to try 22 real hard to get the fence and -- 23 MR. MILLER: Installed by that work date, 24 yeah, when I have Chuck Dickerson's crews coming to help us 25 on October 5. We are going to set up our front entrance to 9-22-03 107 1 the site that day. We may be able to do both, get the cedar 2 arbor and fencing installed, and get the fence panels up 3 too. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just a side question 5 here. Who is Chuck Dickerson's people? 6 MR. MILLER: The probationers, or -- or the 7 -- what do you call them? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Community service workers. 9 MR. MILLER: Community service workers, yes. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, are those yours 11 or are those Chuck Dickerson's? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They won't be the 13 in-house outside trustee program we have. They are probably 14 some -- municipal court does order community service for 15 people to pay traffic fines and things like that, so it 16 could be some of that. It could be some of the County Court 17 ones that were also ordered community service. I think a 18 lot of that's kind of a mixture that Danny Edwards runs over 19 at the probation office, but it won't be in-house ones. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How high is that fence 21 going to be? 22 MR. MILLER: 6 foot. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6 foot? Have y'all 24 checked to see if 6 foot gives a good blockage? 25 MR. MILLER: It's as high as the barbed wire 9-22-03 108 1 strand is across the top of that at this point. It's not 2 going to cover -- I know the ticket booths are taller than 6 3 foot, but I can't -- it's going to get ugly-looking if we 4 get much taller. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 6 MR. MILLER: It will block probably 80 or 90 7 percent of what's in that yard. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None, sir. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: -- for Mr. Miller, or any 12 comments? I gather we don't need to take any formal action 13 here. That was mainly just an update, wasn't it, 14 Commissioner? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, 16 it is. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Miller. We 18 appreciate you being here. 19 MR. MILLER: Thank you. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move on to Item 17, 21 consider and discuss the reappointment of Charles Lewis as 22 Kerr County's representative to the 911 Board of Managers. 23 You don't want me to tell them about our discussion, do you, 24 Chuck? 25 MR. LEWIS: Just the big one, sir. 9-22-03 109 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Just the big one. 2 MR. LEWIS: Then I don't have to worry about 3 it. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You put this on, 5 Commissioner Letz. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda 7 because Charles' -- or Chuck, as we finally know him, his 8 term is expiring. I think it's the end of this month or 9 something like that, or close to the end of this month. And 10 I think he's served us, you know, fantastically. I think 11 he's really taken the bull by the horns out there; he's gone 12 through a lot of difficult periods and a lot of work out 13 there and getting things organized, and has done a great job 14 along with our other County representative. And I'm very, 15 very happy to reappoint him, or make a motion to reappoint 16 Chuck Lewis as our representative for the 911 Board. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm very, very happy 18 to second that motion. And it seems like 911's been in 19 place for about 15 years, and since we have put Chuck and 20 his faithful sidekick on -- on that board from Commissioners 21 Court is when they got around the corner and started really, 22 really getting things done. So, this Court should be very 23 proud of our appointments on that -- on that particular 24 board. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. 9-22-03 110 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But today, especially 2 Mr. Lewis. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 4 Mr. Charles Lewis be reappointed as the Kerr County 5 representative to the Kerr 911 Board of Managers. Any 6 further questions or comments? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One brief comment. And 8 this is just, you know, something that really -- I really 9 appreciate, being on this Court, that both Mr. Harris and 10 Mr. Lewis have done, is they frequently come to our meeting. 11 When we have items on our agenda related to 911, they come, 12 and I wish that all of our appointees would be as diligent 13 and do as much, and give us, you know, the feedback that we 14 like to get -- enjoy getting, and representing the boards 15 they're serving. I really do appreciate the amount of time 16 y'all spend with us, sitting here listening to us talk about 17 a lot of things that aren't related to 911. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate the service of 19 both of you gentlemen. 20 MR. LEWIS: Thank you, sir. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further comments? 22 Questions? 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. 9-22-03 111 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item, 3 Item 18, is consideration and discussion of beginning 4 process to change Main Highway to Highway 27. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda; 6 it's a little bit more of a -- because it's one of the 7 larger changes that I see since we did the addressing -- or 8 since we sent the cards out, anyway. Three years ago, under 9 the guide -- naming guidelines and guidelines that we were 10 operating under, we tried to put a name on every highway, 11 state or -- I think every state highway in the county. And, 12 in doing so, we kind of grasped at some of them, cause some 13 of them didn't really have names. Highway 27 west of town 14 is commonly known and referred to as Junction Highway, but 15 Highway 27 east of town really didn't have a name. It was 16 at one point kind of referred to as San Antonio Highway, but 17 that was -- that's really gone by the wayside in the past 20 18 years, too. It's just known as Highway 27. 19 But, because our guidelines said we had to 20 name them, we created a name and called it Main Highway, and 21 then I really never thought about it again. And in the 22 last, sort of, subsequent years -- well, we sent the cards 23 out, and all of a sudden I heard about it by a lot of 24 people, that where'd "Main Highway" come from? And I, you 25 know, pretty much called 911 and said, "Where'd we come up 9-22-03 112 1 with that name?" They gave me a little bit of history on 2 that. But I think that the purpose of our naming and 3 addressing is for public -- EMS service. That's the bottom 4 line. And Highway 27 on the east side of Kerrville is known 5 as Highway 27, and that is the best name, in my opinion, to 6 call that name and to address it accordingly. 7 There is a little bit of an issue because of 8 the city limits and what the City chooses to call Highway 27 9 as it goes through the city of Kerrville. So, my 10 recommendation is that we change the name -- at first, I 11 wanted to do it at Loop 534, but then it became an issue 12 that the Veteran's Hospital is -- right at that point, it's 13 called Memorial Boulevard still, and rather than make it 14 real difficult, it seemed easier to me to change it at Third 15 Creek, where Highway 27 crosses Third Creek. The numbering 16 system will stay the same; it's just changing the name from 17 that point to the west. And I guess we really have to talk 18 to the City a little bit about it. I tried to look at 19 street signs as I was driving back and forth to my 20 residence, and the City has chosen not to put any street -- 21 any names on every street that they have in the city limits 22 past Loop 534. But I presume that it's Memorial Boulevard 23 for a ways. Road and Bridge is addressed as San Antonio 24 Highway. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. So is 9-22-03 113 1 the Ag Barn. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So is the Ag Barn. 3 Little League across from the Ag Barn is not San Antonio 4 Highway, to my knowledge. They're Highway 27. So, anyway, 5 I think we need to try to simplify it best we can, and I put 6 it on the -- really, the agenda to kind of give 911 a little 7 bit of direction as to where we were going and what needed 8 to be done with communication with the City as to what our 9 desires were, to kind of clean up this naming Highway 27 in 10 the eastern part of the county. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we hear from Bill 12 Amerine about that? Only question I had -- you touched on 13 it -- had to do with where do we start? Do we start at 14 Memorial? Do we start at Spur 100 or Third Creek? And I'm 15 just -- 16 MR. AMERINE: If we look at Main Highway or 17 Highway 27 as a stand-alone highway, it really makes no 18 difference, public safety-wise, what we call it. My 19 problem, from a public safety perspective, is that as you 20 traverse this county, we have one continuous roadway, 21 Highway 27, that now has six names, and the road signs 22 aren't there to communicate when they change. I haven't 23 gotten any confirmation from the City of Kerrville that 24 they're going to consolidate the three names that they 25 currently use for Highway 27, which are Broadway, Memorial, 9-22-03 114 1 and Main, into Main, which was what the guidelines 2 established. So, if we -- if we go back to Highway 27, I 3 want to address this, because we talked about it in the 4 workshop. It affects about 170 addresses that we have done, 5 but from a public safety perspective, for those folks who 6 are out in the county, I just don't see a big issue. My 7 concern is more still with the city of Kerrville and the 8 three or four names that we have for that same roadway, and 9 within the city limits. Does that address your question, 10 Commissioner? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, sort of. I 12 guess I just wanted to know where we begin. Do we begin at 13 Memorial, at the loop, or do we begin at Spur 100, or do we 14 begin at Third Creek? And is it just Highway 27, or is it 15 Highway 27 East? 16 MR. AMERINE: I think it's Highway 27 East, 17 as far as the conversations that we've had so far. And I 18 don't think we can really make that determination until we 19 sit down with the City Planner in Kerrville and actually 20 have the same discussion with them. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 22 MR. AMERINE: Because whatever we decide, 23 again, is going to be somewhat meaningless if we don't have 24 concurrence with Kerrville. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with 9-22-03 115 1 Commissioner Letz, we ought to change it. 2 MR. AMERINE: And just kind of complementary, 3 as a matter of practice, we're finding in this whole 4 addressing effort that there are some road name changes that 5 were made that we're having second thoughts about. And the 6 litmus test here is, does it serve public safety to change 7 it? If it doesn't, then I think we need to back off and let 8 people's addresses stay the same. The basic guidelines are 9 that odds are on one side, evens are on the other, and 10 there's a normal progression of numbers for the houses. And 11 that's what I keep telling the Commissioners when they ask 12 me, "Can we look at this?" As long as it serves that, I'm 13 okay. And I think that that guideline I just mentioned 14 applies to Highway 27. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And one of the reasons, I 16 think, for the -- when I say safety issue, we don't know 17 what City of Kerrville is doing, so if you leave it Main 18 Highway, you're going to have potentially Main Street, 19 Memorial Boulevard, Main Highway, and then you get into, 20 right across the county line, your Main Street in Comfort 21 again, and that's a different road in Comfort. So, anyway, 22 there's too many Mains right there, I think. You know, so I 23 think it's confusing there, and I think it was a bad choice 24 to begin with years ago. And the other part of it is, if 25 somebody, you know, calls in on a cell phone, I feel they're 9-22-03 116 1 going to refer to that like a -- you know, a person other 2 than a -- you know, a resident, they're not going to know 3 Main Highway. They're going to say, "Where are you?" 4 "Highway 27." You know, if they -- and so I think it's 5 going to be more descriptive to most of the public. 6 MR. AMERINE: And just one last thought. I 7 don't think we need to take this thing that we're going to 8 do with Highway 27 and try to then apply uniformity across 9 all of our state highways, because Bandera Highway and 10 Medina and some of the others are commonly known by the 11 residents for the entire length of those roads as that, and 12 changing those would actually cause a disruption for them 13 from a public safety -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I think you 15 have to look at each highway -- look at them individually. 16 I think farm-to-market roads, the same thing. They're 17 better served -- 18 MR. AMERINE: Some are better served by 19 names; some are better served by numbers. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is the -- is Highway 21 27 from Third Creek to the city limits or to the county line 22 at Comfort, is that all in one geo-region? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 24 MR. AMERINE: It's two. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you're going to 9-22-03 117 1 have Highway 27 East-West, or East-North, or East-South? 2 MR. AMERINE: No, I don't -- yeah, we'll 3 have -- we'll have the unique addresses to make sure that we 4 -- in case there's -- there won't be any duplication of 5 numbers. You're making me think here. There won't be any 6 duplication of lot numbers. That's all right, because 7 regardless of where we start -- and this is still to be 8 discussed -- the sequence of numbers will continue, 9 regardless of the geo-region, all the way out. But to 10 answer your question, yes, there will be two geo-region 11 qualifiers at the end of the address, because we traverse 12 two geo-regions going out that direction. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're going to hear 14 about that. 15 MR. AMERINE: Well, people -- once we explain 16 the purpose of the geo-region -- a lot of those folks, when 17 they've seen the cards, are confused. "Well, there's no 18 North Road or South Road or East or West Road." Once we 19 explain to them that that's not a street directional 20 indicator; that that -- because we don't display a community 21 on the 911 display when they dial 911, that that indicator 22 helps us point to the right part of the county for emergency 23 services, I haven't had anybody say, "Well, that's a stupid 24 thing. Let's not do that." So we may -- initially, you'll 25 hear some criticism about that geo-region indicator, but 9-22-03 118 1 once they understand what it's for, they get it. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe you should just 3 use the geo-region indicator and leave off -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The east? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- the east part on 6 27. 7 MR. AMERINE: That's what I would recommend, 8 yes, sir. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That fine. That's good. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The one comment I'd 11 like, because it seems to us in our public safety part of 12 it, where we are is, I would work more on the City's problem 13 from city limit sign to city limit sign. Personally, our 14 officers always have responded, and what we get it as is 15 pretty well the city limits sign east. From there on, it's 16 Highway 27 West. We don't like San Antonio Highway, 'cause 17 we have San Antonio Street going through downtown Center 18 Point, which messes officers up. But I think if you stay at 19 the city limit sign east, Highway 27 East; from there on, 20 city limit sign west, and it's Highway 27 West, it helps us. 21 And then get with the City on correcting what they have 22 going through town. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is the city 24 limits? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Past the airport. That's 9-22-03 119 1 the problem. See, but they refer to it by one or two more 2 names. They have San Antonio Highway in there. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's why I'd work with 4 them, try and combine all those into one main name. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It doesn't make any 6 difference to me where -- I don't have a problem with -- but 7 the City does need to work on their names. 8 MR. AMERINE: Absolutely. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have any control 10 over the City, but we do have control over the county. 11 MR. AMERINE: We probably need to do that 12 right away. I have talked to Paul Menzies, the City 13 Planner, about this particular issue after we met last week, 14 and so this won't be a surprise to them when they sit down 15 to discuss it. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that we need 17 a -- a motion at this point. I think it was more a 18 discussion item to kind of give direction to 911. And when 19 it comes back, it will come back as a road name change. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It shouldn't come as 21 any surprise to us, considering how many name changes have 22 been made in the last two or three years in the interest of 23 implementing 911 and public safety, so that doesn't bother 24 me that we have to come back and make some adjustments. 25 And, in fact, I'll probably be back in here in a week or so 9-22-03 120 1 with a proposal to restore the name Sleepy Mountain Road. 2 So -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And if there's a 5 handful of them, that should be -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did it awaken and 7 somebody called it to your attention? 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. At this point, 10 gentlemen, is it your pleasure to wade into Item 19, and 11 then try and get through with that and come back at about 12 1:30? Or do you want to go to lunch now and come back at -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see the constable 14 came in back there. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The constables came 17 back in. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, do they have all the 19 information together? 20 MR. AYALA: Yes, sir. On our fees, there's 21 just one item that I'd like y'all to consider. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: We're back on 1.11. Item 11, 23 okay. 24 MR. AYALA: That being the writ of 25 possession, which is the second part of the -- of the 9-22-03 121 1 eviction process where we actually go out and physically 2 move the tenant out onto the street. I'd like to see us put 3 a four-hour minimum on -- on that fee. I think the current 4 fee's about $205. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: $200, it shows here. 6 MR. AYALA: $200, okay. There are times when 7 we -- we've been tied up for two or three days in that 8 process. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: When you say a two-hour -- you 10 mean four-hour maximum, not four-hour minimum? 11 MR. AYALA: Yeah, four-hour maximum. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 13 MR. AYALA: And then figure out an hourly 14 rate after the four hours. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Standby. 16 MR. AYALA: A standby, yes, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What, four at $50, 18 and then another rate? Or what are you talking about? 19 MR. AYALA: Well, the $200 is the actual fee 20 for the writ of possession, where we actually go out and 21 physically remove the property from the residence. A lot of 22 times the landlords are not punctual. They don't get there 23 when they say they're going to get there; they don't have 24 the help that they say they're going to have. Therefore, 25 we're there for a day or day and a half sometimes. The 9-22-03 122 1 longest one I've been on is two and a half days. And I just 2 think that if we limit -- if we put a set time, that the 3 landlords will be more punctual, and if it takes longer, 4 then, you know, we can charge more for them for the -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What will you charge if 6 it takes longer? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Hourly rate. 8 MR. AYALA: Travis County charges $50 an hour 9 over four hours, and that's starting to be a normal type 10 limit. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Four-hour maximum, hourly 12 standby rate thereafter of $50 an hour? 13 MR. AYALA: Yes, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are all the writ of 15 possessions in the county executed by constables? 16 MR. AYALA: Yes, sir. It's the second and 17 final part of the actual eviction process. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we have authority to 19 -- to put a time limit and hourly rate on this? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. All 21 I've ever seen is these actual figures. I don't know 22 anything about time frames and et cetera. That's a County 23 Attorney question, I think. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have not ever seen an 25 actual time figure on any of these. They're straight fees. 9-22-03 123 1 We looked at all of them across the state, and Kerr County's 2 right about the median; some things are a little bit higher, 3 some things a little bit lower. That's why I haven't asked 4 for any kind of changes until maybe next year, when we look 5 at where we stand statewide. But the publications I seen 6 that come from the Comptroller's office, I have one of those 7 publications at the office, but I hadn't seen in those 8 publications whether it publicized an hourly rate on top of 9 your fees. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Constable, you had indicated 11 that Travis County -- 12 MR. AYALA: Travis County, Houston County -- 13 or Harris County, some of the bigger counties have gone to 14 this because of the time involved in some of these deals 15 when you're evicting somebody. You know, they tie up one or 16 two officers for several days on some -- in some instances. 17 Therefore, I think the commissioners courts, if I 18 understood, in those two counties are the ones that set the 19 rates. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I hate to rely on Harris 21 County. Harris County allows constables to contract out. 22 The Attorney General has explicitly declared that 23 unconstitutional. So -- 24 MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, if I can say 25 something also, prior to issuing a writ of execution, we get 9-22-03 124 1 the money up front, so if we go on an hourly rate, then 2 we're not going to know how to calculate that. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You get the $200 up 4 front? 5 MR. AYALA: Right, when they come in. 6 MS. PIEPER: I get $200 up front before we 7 issue any kind of execution. 8 MR. AYALA: And that's the way it works in 9 justice court. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: But, if I'm understanding the 11 constable correctly, once the four hours is run, he's off 12 the clock and he leaves the premises, and if the landlord's 13 not there to -- with whatever bonds that are required or 14 whatever facilities are needed to place these items, why, 15 the constable just takes a walk after four hours. 16 MR. AYALA: Or they can pay "X" number of 17 dollars per hour to be there on a civil standby. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could we require, in 19 a situation like that -- and I guess I'm really kind of 20 asking my question through you to the County Attorney or to 21 Justice Elliott standing there -- could we require that if, 22 in a situation where the constable had spent four hours in 23 an attempt to -- to do this service, and was stood up, so to 24 speak, that would require that -- that would be the end of 25 that writ of possession, and the landlord and whoever with a 9-22-03 125 1 property owner would have to come in and get a new one? As 2 opposed to going to an hourly rate? 3 MR. MOTLEY: I don't have any idea. You 4 know, I -- I've not had any advance notice to research this. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Neither have we. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The one thing I do see 7 in here, Harris County -- I don't see where they have that 8 added fee. I do see where their writ of possession fee is 9 $100, where ours is already $200. 10 JUDGE ELLIOTT: That was the original reason 11 I wanted to -- 12 (Discussion off the record.) 13 JUDGE ELLIOTT: The constituents in Precinct 14 1, the landlord specifically, they're very tired of the fact 15 that if they have to evict someone for nonpayment of rent, 16 they're just throwing another $200 away for a constable to 17 come out and stand by. The constable's not required to move 18 anything out of the house. The constable is there as a 19 standby security procedure, security while someone else 20 moves the things out, so that if the tenants came back and 21 said, "Hey, what are you doing?" and tried to start trouble, 22 there would be a law enforcement officer there at the scene. 23 That's the purpose of the fee. They feel that $200 is 24 excessive. And, if anything, I would recommend that the 25 Court lower the fee to $100. 9-22-03 126 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The other comment -- I 2 looked up Travis County. Travis County does have writ of 3 possession; if move-out time exceeds two hours, an 4 additional fee of $35 an hour is set. But their original 5 filing fee and everything was $130, where ours is already 6 $200. That's why I didn't recommend we change anything and 7 add more language into it. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- well, my 9 question still goes. You know, do we have authority to do 10 an hourly rate? I mean, just because Harris and Travis 11 County -- I think, frequently, counties have to get specific 12 authority, and until we know we can do it -- 13 MR. AYALA: Nine out of ten of those writs 14 are, you know, one- or two-hour deals, but occasionally -- 15 and I'm going to have one probably next week moving a 16 junkyard out on 173 that may involve several days of being 17 out there. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Landlords are 19 already burdened by deadbeat renters. 20 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Yes, they are. 21 MR. AYALA: Yeah, they are. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm sympathetic with 23 them. I don't want to burden them any more. $200 seems 24 like a lot of money, to me. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we -- is there 9-22-03 127 1 a way to have a scaled rate of $100 for up to four hours, 2 and $200 for over four hours? That way, if it's -- I mean, 3 generally, you're going to have a -- the larger the 4 property, the larger the -- I mean, I would think the longer 5 it would take, the larger the -- I guess, the amount at 6 issue, or back rent will likely be. But that also -- that 7 would help, I think, people that just have a small 8 apartment; they're just -- you know, they're already, like 9 what Dave said, stuck with a deadbeat renter. 10 MR. AYALA: I agree with Judge Elliott, and 11 the tenants are burdened first. And the first part of 12 eviction is $62? 13 JUDGE ELLIOTT: That's correct. 14 MR. AYALA: And then they get five days, and 15 then if they're not out, they have to come in and pay $200 16 for the writ, so they are burdened. And I agree with him 17 about lowering the writ fee to -- to $100. Because, like I 18 say, nine out of ten of those people are out usually with no 19 problems. There's just a handful of instances where, you 20 know, it takes all day or two days to get those people out. 21 And -- and we have to stand by that whole period of time 22 until they're out. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Personal opinion with 24 where our fee scale's been compared to all the other 25 counties around, and without getting into having to keep 9-22-03 128 1 track of hourly stuff and things like that, I think our fees 2 right now are -- is very equitable and cover most of the 3 costs that we could -- any of us could end up being. We 4 just try and arrange it with landlords. That's what I would 5 recommend, that they have everything in order and ready to 6 go before the constable, or even sometimes our officers, get 7 there to make sure that there isn't a hesitation at the 8 scene. But, looking at the -- the 2003 fee scale, I see 9 writ of possessions is going anywhere from $50 up to $200. 10 This County set theirs at $200. I think that would cover 11 any of the hourly costs or extra time we have to spend on 12 those. I don't see raising it or lowering or changing our 13 whole fee scale. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would still rather 15 split it. I mean, if someone -- if most of them -- I mean, 16 it's a way to encourage them to cooperate by lowering it to 17 $100 for those that can do it with less than two hours. And 18 if it's over two hours, make it $200. And I -- seems to me 19 that we have that ability. I mean, we can set it at $200, 20 the whole thing. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like the $100 part 22 for sure. I'm just not real clear Motley's going to say we 23 can do the -- after so many hours, you can change it and all 24 that. I would be uncomfortable about adopting it until we 25 get a nod of some sort. But I like the $100 thing. I think 9-22-03 129 1 it's a major burden on people. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would -- Mr. Motley, 3 do you have any idea how long would it take to research this 4 as a possible -- 5 MR. MOTLEY: I -- like I said, I don't know. 6 The question that Commissioner Williams asked initially 7 about the -- whether or not you would terminate one writ of 8 execution and get another, I think that places an inordinate 9 burden on the landlord and the justice court. I don't think 10 that's a good idea. I would -- I don't think it would take 11 terribly long to research it. I would have to find the 12 appropriate section of law and see what amendments were made 13 in this last session and take a look at it. I would assume 14 that Harris County and Travis County are proceeding lawfully 15 in what they do by having an hourly rate over a certain -- 16 what I was interpreting y'all were saying was a minimum 17 amount for up to four hours of standby time, but I -- you 18 know, I'd have to take a look at that. And, I mean, I can 19 run and try to do it now if you want me to do that, but -- 20 well, I don't know how long it would take to get something 21 on it. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have to do it 23 before October, or can we do it -- 24 MS. PIEPER: October 1. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Has to be done by October 9-22-03 130 1 1? 2 MS. PIEPER: By law, these must be accepted 3 by October 1 and reported to the Comptroller's office. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I would recommend 5 that the County Attorney -- we're going to be in here for a 6 little bit this afternoon. If the County Attorney can give 7 us an answer by -- before we leave today, we can 8 maybe change it. If not, we'll leave it as-is for this 9 year, look at it for next year. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't see it as a 11 problem that has to be solved today if we can't get all the 12 information we need. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want to do 14 something that's not right, not legal. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: So, you want to defer taking 16 any further action, come back to this later on today? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Later. And if the County 18 Attorney's office can look at this between now and the time 19 we leave, great. If not, we'll just, you know, adopt it, 20 leave it the way it is. 21 MR. MOTLEY: I'll see what I can get for you. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. At this point, it's a 23 bit after straight-up noon, so why don't we go ahead and 24 adjourn, and -- and reconvene at 1:30? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Recess. 9-22-03 131 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Recess. Excuse me, recess. 2 Not adjourn, recess. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're recessed. 4 (Recess taken from 12:04 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 5 - - - - - - - - - - 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It's 1:30 now, and we 7 will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for 8 this date, Monday, September the 22nd, 2003. We recessed at 9 about lunchtime, and -- let me see where we are now, 10 gentlemen. Do we want to go ahead and -- we don't have the 11 County Attorney, so we don't know what we're going to do on 12 constables' fees. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Linda's pointing at 14 herself. 15 MS. UECKER: I'm here. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: You weren't here when you were 17 supposed to be. 18 MS. UECKER: Hey, you told me you'd know 19 where to find me if you needed me. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I remember that. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Still know where to find you. 22 MS. UECKER: Right. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I thought you'd want to 24 participate in some of these other discussions that we had. 25 MS. UECKER: What? I don't think so. 9-22-03 132 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 13 so we 2 won't have to dally any longer. Consideration and 3 discussion of request for approval of the Kerr County Jury 4 Selection Plan to comply with Chapter 62 of the Texas 5 Government Code, and add provision of House Bill 2188. 6 MS. UECKER: Okay, thank you. Although Kerr 7 County already has a jury plan in place for the electronic 8 provisions of Chapter 62 for pulling and maintaining jury 9 lists, this is an update based on the fact mainly, because 10 the old plan was done back in 1980 -- '81 or '82, as I 11 recall, and included specific algorithms that were applied 12 only to the computer system that we were using at the time, 13 the state system, and no longer complied with what the 14 Software Group was doing. So, what I did -- and the reason 15 this is a very important issue is, in trying a capital 16 murder trial, the first thing a good attorney will do in a 17 capital murder trial is -- is subpoena the clerk and the 18 jury plan to make sure that the jurors were selected as per 19 the plan on file. And that's actually happened to me. And 20 at the time, fortunately, you know, our plan was in good 21 form. But I know there's been other cases where the plan 22 has not been, and the indictment was quashed and they had to 23 start all over. 24 Now, the other thing I did on this -- well, 25 the first thing I did was made this plan more generic, but 9-22-03 133 1 it still very much complies with Chapter 62.001. Also, 2 House Bill 2188 passed this last session. That was actually 3 filed by Travis County, and it was bracketed for a while, 4 but it allowed Travis County to communicate and post all of 5 their jury summonses, reassignments, forms for claiming 6 exemptions on their web site. Well, at some point, they 7 removed that bracket of Travis County so it could apply to 8 all -- all the counties in the state. And, although Travis 9 County's application of House Bill 2188 is very much -- is 10 very different as to what I -- I intend to use it for, it 11 still allows us to -- let's say if we have jurors that have 12 attached their e-mail addresses, we can -- we can send them 13 responses to requests for exemptions, postponements, any 14 type of exemption or request for excuse, you know, if we 15 wanted to. I'm not saying that we're going to use this as, 16 you know, a policy, but it would allow us to do that if some 17 juror were to e-mail us and say, you know, "I need a jury 18 excuse. Can I get one?" And we can respond. This would 19 allow us to legally make that response. So, that's how 20 we -- and that is on the second page. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Linda, does that mean 22 that -- that your office is given that authority to respond 23 now? As opposed to a district -- 24 MS. UECKER: Not assignments, no. And 25 sometimes in -- in specific cases, the Judge may send back a 9-22-03 134 1 list that says, you know, we need these jurors back on 2 certain-certain date. It's not the court administrator's 3 responsibility to do that, it's ours. So we could, if we 4 had their e-mail addresses, do that via e-mail or even fax. 5 It doesn't make us legal now as far as doing the faxes. 6 It's actually Paragraph 3 and 4 on the page that's signed by 7 both of the judges, "Jurors selected under this plan may 8 appear in response to a jury summons by..." and then the 9 next paragraph is the jury selected under this plan, the 10 county officer designee. What it does, whatever the 11 correspondence is, it legally allows us to correspond with 12 jurors for whatever purpose. And the reason this came to my 13 attention was I was asked to do a presentation last week in 14 Austin on the importance of the jury selection plan, so 15 while I was in the process, I went ahead and rewrote our 16 plan, 'cause I was getting a little nervous about not being 17 in compliance with several high profile cases coming up the 18 next year. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Linda, on Item 1, source 20 of names -- 21 MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- one of the sources is 23 driver's license. 24 MS. UECKER: Right. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In Texas, do you have to 9-22-03 135 1 be a citizen to get a driver's license? I mean, a U.S. 2 citizen? 3 MS. UECKER: I don't think so, no. 4 (Discussion off the record.) 5 MS. UECKER: You do have to have a Social 6 Security number. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'm just 8 wondering -- I mean, if we're using a driver's license list, 9 are they disqualified if they're not citizens? 10 MS. UECKER: I'm sorry? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're using driver's 12 license as a potential -- as a list. 13 MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just wondering, how 15 do you know -- I mean, I think you have to be a citizen to 16 serve on a jury. 17 MS. UECKER: You do, and that question is on 18 the return form. There's -- there is two new automatic 19 exemptions that came into effect, I think, two years ago. 20 One is, are you a resident of the state of Texas, and are 21 you a citizen? And if -- if you answer no to both of those, 22 you're automatically off the list. Now, it's the 23 responsibility of the Secretary of State and the D.P.S. 24 office to make sure that those two lists come together and 25 duplicates are taken off of the list, but it doesn't happen. 9-22-03 136 1 Sometimes. Because -- and the reason there's duplicates is 2 because if you go and get your driver's license under 3 Jonathan Letz, and you're a registered voter under Jonathan 4 Paul or whatever, or just Jon Paul, your name's going to 5 show up both ways on a potential jury list. But D.P.S. is 6 supposed to clean up those lists for the Secretary of State, 7 not by name, but by identifier; Social Security, date of 8 birth, stuff like that. But they're still having problems 9 with that, but it's getting better. It's getting a lot 10 better. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Permitted exemption 12 because of age is age what? 13 MS. UECKER: 70. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 70. 15 MS. UECKER: We highly encourage Kerr County 16 citizens not to claim that exemption, number one, because we 17 have a very high amount of jurors that are called that are 18 over 70 because of our population base, and two, we feel 19 like those are our best jurors. And all of the -- on Page 20 1, the source of name, method, official in charge, those are 21 all requirements of the statutes. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move approval of the 23 Kerr County Jury Selection Plan as presented by the District 24 Clerk. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 9-22-03 137 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 2 approve the Kerr County Jury Selection Plan as presented to 3 the Court by the District Clerk. Any further questions or 4 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 5 your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 10 MS. UECKER: Okay. I think you have the 11 original, don't you, Judge? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Next item, I note 13 that we have the County Attorney here. Are we ready to hit 14 the issue of constables? 15 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I suppose we're about as 16 ready as we'll ever be. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We'll go back to 18 item 11, then, and do whatever we're going to do on that 19 one. 20 MR. MOTLEY: Well, I reviewed the statute, 21 and -- in question. It's 118.131 of the Local Government 22 Code. And in essence, really, what it says is that the -- 23 the Commissioners Court may set fees that are not higher 24 than necessary to pay the expenses of providing the 25 services. That is basically the cap on the fees. May set 9-22-03 138 1 these fees once a year. They do have to be, I would say -- 2 you know, again, not tied necessarily to pay the fees. And 3 we attempted to try to -- we attempted to contact Travis 4 County Attorney's office during the lunch hour. We didn't 5 have any success. After lunch we contacted them. We were 6 not able to find anybody readily available who knew anything 7 about these fees and how they had done that. I think Webb 8 County has done something similar. We did not try to call 9 Webb County, given the time constraints of being back here. 10 The -- you know, you could argue that setting a fee says it 11 has to be -- not necessarily -- it does not necessarily say 12 it has to be a flat fee, only that it has to be set and 13 published. I mean, I think you could argue that. It does 14 have to be a fee that is set in advance, and for no more 15 than what it costs to do the service. So, I don't think I 16 gave you exactly -- but I found no authority nor Attorney 17 General's opinion, no statutory authority, no other 18 authority that specifically spoke to the issue of hourly 19 fees on top of a minimum or anything to that effect. And we 20 were not able to confer with these other counties to see by 21 what authority they were doing this. So, I don't know if 22 that answers your question or not, but that's what I was 23 able to find out on that. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I don't want to 25 do it. 9-22-03 139 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Me either. It 2 doesn't -- these incidents of protracted move-out periods 3 don't occur every often. A two-tier system or hourly system 4 would not be employed very often; be difficult to 5 administer. I think we got a solution looking for a problem 6 here. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. If we do 8 anything, we need to lower this $200 to $100, but I'm ready 9 to rock and roll. 10 MR. MOTLEY: One other issue that came up in 11 discussion was charging fees for unsuccessful service or 12 unsuccessful attempt. There is an A.G. opinion that says 13 the Court may set a fee for that. So -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if it becomes a 15 problem, we'll look at it. It's not a problem now. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we need to take 17 action on 1.11? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we set 20 the Sheriff's and constables' fees as required under L.G.C. 21 118.131 at a rate as submitted and documented with the 22 agenda item. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 25 we adopt the -- the Sheriff and constables' fees as 9-22-03 140 1 presented to satisfy the requirement of the Local Government 2 Code, Section 118.131. Any further question or discussion? 3 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 4 hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We now go 9 to Item Number 19, discuss draft of new contract for 10 O.S.S.F. administration between U.G.R.A. and Kerr County. 11 Commissioner Letz? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda 13 for a couple reasons. One, I had a draft of a contract. 14 But, two, and probably more importantly, I knew it was on 15 U.G.R.A.'s agenda last Wednesday to discuss this issue, and 16 I wanted to be able, because of the time that we're faced 17 with, with October 1 right around the corner, to have 18 something on the agenda so we could discuss O.S.S.F. 19 administration. Based on what U.G.R.A. didn't do, and some 20 conversations with Greg Etter, what they're planning to do, 21 you know, in the near future, it does not appear to me they 22 are going to proceed with setting or adopting new rules. 23 They're going to continue to leave status-quo with their 24 1980 rules for the time being, as I understand it. That 25 being said -- and my position all along, certainly, on the 9-22-03 141 1 committee has been that one of the -- whoever administers 2 the rules has to be a -- I guess, a party that is 3 responsible for the rules. And that being said, I think 4 that we need to bring the O.S.S.F. administration back to 5 Kerr County. Therefore, I see no need to continue on this 6 agenda item. 7 I do think that -- and I have visited with 8 some members of the U.G.R.A.'s board, and also their General 9 Manager. They're aware of what I was going to say today 10 and, you know, they didn't have any problem with it. I 11 think that time is of the essence. I think that there -- I 12 think, based on the letter that we received from Greg Etter, 13 October 18th is the actual cutoff date. I think there's 14 some flexibility in that, 'cause there needs to be some 15 transition. We really were not going in this direction; 16 didn't -- I didn't think we were going to go in this 17 direction till the past couple of weeks, when things rapidly 18 started happening. I think that U.G.R.A. has expressed 19 strong willingness to continue to work with the County and 20 do everything they can to facilitate this transition, and I 21 think they still want to be involved and have an input in 22 the rules, but they showed no indication that they were 23 going to submit their new rules. And, therefore, I think 24 it's -- in the whole county, it's going to be up to the 25 County to administer. 9-22-03 142 1 So I think -- you know, I don't know whether 2 we can really do it under this agenda item or not. We 3 probably could, because it's part of the -- where we're 4 going with the administration, but I think that we need to 5 set up a -- my recommendation would be to set up a committee 6 to figure out how to do that, and to meet with U.G.R.A. a 7 little bit. There is staff over there that's going to be 8 affected. I think we need to, you know, get into a pretty 9 high -- or fast mode as to how we're going to set up a 10 program in the very near future. Kind of -- that's kind of 11 what I have to say. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we need to 13 leave the committee in place that's in place. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just move forward. 16 You guys are doing an excellent job. You're doing exactly 17 the opposite of what I would want you to do, but -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That makes two of us. 19 So you might as well keep on doing it. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, at least there's no 21 ramping up; they're already up to speed. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Already there. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not quite sure. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Once we get it back, 25 they can be in charge of it. 9-22-03 143 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We tried to tell them, 2 didn't we? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I guess you guys can keep on 4 keeping on. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I guess 6 Commissioner Nicholson and I will meet with some staff or 7 board at U.G.R.A., or their committee members and 8 potentially with some of their staff that deals with this, 9 and kind of figure out where we may be going. I think 10 Mr. Etter probably is already -- talked to him this morning; 11 he was aware of what was going to transpire here today. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, this time frame 13 draws nigh and critical, et cetera, et cetera. So, when -- 14 when will you come back for -- with real, firm 15 recommendations? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to 17 probably -- well, next week we can. I mean, if we want, if 18 we're doing a special meeting. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Next meeting is -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next meeting, I think we 21 can have a -- a roadmap. But I think that it -- and the 22 other part of that we'll need to have at that meeting is an 23 RFQ -- RFQ's, whoever we're going to hire to administer 24 this, whether it's the current person or not. I think we 25 need to get that ready to go out as soon as possible. And I 9-22-03 144 1 think we may, you know -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why -- why would we 3 need an RFQ if we're going to take it back? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, who's going to 5 administer it? Who's going to be head of that department? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just be an employee 7 hire. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a hire? Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I -- what you've 10 said is exactly my -- my thinking, Commissioner. In 11 anticipation of that, I did contact Greg Etter and asked him 12 to provide us copies of anything in their files that would 13 help us in our effort to employ somebody or some persons to 14 operate an O.S.S.F. and floodplain program, so he said he 15 would do that. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Incidentally, one issue 17 is on administration of floodplain. I forgot that. 18 Something we -- we tend to forget to talk about frequently 19 is floodplain administration. There is no reason it needs 20 to be tied with O.S.S.F. And, in my mind, it is really 21 better suited where it is across the river, because it is a 22 river function. I mean, the reason for the floodplain 23 administration is the Guadalupe River in this county; I 24 mean, probably 90 tributaries. So I really think that, you 25 know, if they're willing to keep it, it's something that I'm 9-22-03 145 1 in no anxious -- no hurry to get that back. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the sense of -- that 3 you gained about their continued administration of 4 floodplain program based upon the discussions that the two 5 of you have had? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Currently, Stuart Barron 7 is the only one licensed or certified, whatever you have to 8 have, whatever designation you have to do to be a floodplain 9 administrator, but I believe they have another person on 10 staff, Scott Loveland, who is very close to being certified. 11 I think they would probably -- and my feeling is, from 12 talking with Greg Etter, that they think it fits very well 13 in their shop. But I also told him, I said, it is a County 14 function, not a River Authority function, to be head of that 15 program, so we're talking interlocal agreement. Whether -- 16 you know, in any event, as I understand it, it's a County 17 function, not a -- like I say, not a River Authority. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know it's a minor 19 item, but we just approved the budget, and there's no money 20 in the budget for a full take-back of the administration of 21 O.S.S.F. I assume the subcommittee, of course, has thought 22 about that? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't think I've 24 thought about it. I don't think there's any option. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, 9-22-03 146 1 I've -- some time ago, and again in the last few days, I've 2 put together some numbers that are admittedly pretty rough; 3 they're estimates of what it would take, and I estimate that 4 we could reestablish an Environmental Health Department and 5 include O.S.S.F. and Solid Waste in that department, staff 6 it with three people, and -- and the cost would be more or 7 less what we're paying U.G.R.A. plus the cost of our Solid 8 Waste function today. So I think, with three people, we can 9 do it, and I think we can do it at -- at no more than our 10 historical cost. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not -- I think it's 12 going to cost us quite a bit more. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So do I. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- I mean, I think 15 that there's a -- especially if we're going in the direction 16 on new rules, we are cutting almost all of the -- or the 17 large part of the revenue side out of it completely, and the 18 expenditure side certainly isn't decreasing, so I think it 19 -- I think it's going to cost more. It's just going to be 20 something that we're going to have to deal with. But if -- 21 I mean, if U.G.R.A. is -- they have chosen, up to this 22 point, and they're not pursuing it based on their inaction 23 on Wednesday, to pursue updating their rules. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm curious, 25 Commissioner, as to why U.G.R.A.'s failure to update rules 9-22-03 147 1 or continue an authorized agent status, why that has a lot 2 of bearing on what we do, considering that we enact rules 3 for the entire county. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the reason it has 5 bearing, to me, I think one of the problems in the 6 administration of O.S.S.F. in the past, since I've been a 7 Commissioner, has been that there -- basically, the County 8 rules are being enforced by a third-party. And I think it 9 -- it was -- and it caused a disconnect between this Court 10 and the administration of the rules, because they're being 11 administered by basically a contract person. And I think 12 that it -- that is the root of almost all of the 13 difficulties that both entities have had with the agency, 14 because, I mean, it's -- you know, it's just a bad match. I 15 think that if you're going to be responsible for enforcing 16 them, you need to be running them, and I think that hasn't 17 been the case. 18 Now, they have -- you know, as I understand 19 it, and this is a -- you know, one loose end that we have no 20 control over tying up. U.G.R.A. has and is going to 21 continue to have authorized agent status in Kerr County. 22 And the area -- I talked to Ken Graber again, and he said 23 they're going to keep on having it. You know, and I asked 24 Ken that, and -- but it's something -- you know, I can't 25 change what U.G.R.A. has in that their status they're going 9-22-03 148 1 to choose, as I understand it, and based on them not 2 pursuing anything else, to leave it as a status-quo, which 3 is basically going under County rules. But they're not 4 willing to -- as I understand it, not willing to subsidize 5 or help pay the cost. And if they're not going to pay the 6 cost, you know, it's a County program, and I don't think it 7 has worked well having the administration done by a third 8 party, which they are. Now, I was under -- during the -- 9 the reason there's a change in my position is, I was hoping 10 that U.G.R.A. was going to update their rules, adopt the 11 same rules the County had, and then we would basically have 12 the O.S.S.F. Rules as a partnership, and they would be 13 responsible for their 1,500-foot area and they'd be 14 responsible for the cost of that as well. There -- they 15 have -- are not pursuing down that path any longer. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was pointed out to 17 me a couple of days ago that one of the reasons that the 18 County sent it over there in the beginning was for 19 convenience reasons, one-stop shopping theory. A person 20 that's dealing with all these issues can go there and get -- 21 get all their stuff done. And, you know, now we're kind of 22 spreading it out, which I -- I don't see that as that big of 23 a deal, but may -- may be -- we may have to stumble around 24 with it for a little while, especially if you have the 25 O.S.S.F. program over here and the floodplain program over 9-22-03 149 1 there. And what else? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well permitting 3 someplace else. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, you know, just 6 talk something out. There's no reason that this department 7 can't be officed over there. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's probably 9 true. I'm just -- I'm just saying, you know, keep that in 10 the back of your minds. If that's something that -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think at the time when 12 that was made, I think you're right, Headwaters was also 13 there, and Headwaters may be moving back over there. I 14 don't know if that's going to happen or not. But, I mean, 15 there is some convenience there, but it's -- I mean, to me, 16 we are a little bit under a reactionary standpoint now. I 17 think they're not going to pursue it; therefore, it's our 18 rules. And they're the ones that sent us the letter saying 19 that they're not going to renew the contract, so it's kind 20 of -- it's in our court at this point. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I admit I've not 22 talked to any members of the board, but I had a discussion 23 with Mr. Etter after he wrote the letter to the Court 24 telling us of what his board's action was in terminating the 25 existing contract. But I specifically asked him if that 9-22-03 150 1 board action meant that U.G.R.A. was opposed to a new 2 contract that embodied the things that you two had been 3 working out with them. He said it was not -- he did not 4 believe that it was an impediment to it. They were doing 5 this because they were cutting the cord and wanted everybody 6 to know they were not going to continue to do this under the 7 current terms of the current contract. Therefore, the best 8 way to cut that cord is to do it. But it didn't preclude 9 them doing it again. However, having said all that, if I'd 10 been sitting over there taking all there abuse they've taken 11 for the last two years, I'd tell the Kerr County 12 Commissioners Court to chuck it, too. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think that 14 the -- you know, and I don't know when you talked to 15 Mr. Etter. I mean, I think the -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last week. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But before or after the 18 meeting? I think it makes some difference, 'cause I was not 19 at the meeting. There was a lot of -- evidently, quite a 20 bit of discussion there. And I don't want to put -- I'm not 21 trying to put words in their mouth, but, I mean, I talked to 22 Mr. Etter three times, I think, on Friday, and which I'm 23 trying to figure out where we need to go to get a program up 24 and running. And he knew that this was on the agenda, as it 25 was styled to use the draft contract. And out of all those 9-22-03 151 1 conversations, I came out of it saying what I said earlier, 2 that I think it's coming back to the County. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whatever. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's a disconnect 5 here, too. What the facts are is that the U.G.R.A. Board 6 had a recommended contract on their table, just as the 7 Commissioners Court had a recommended contract on its table. 8 And it was a contract that was richer for U.G.R.A. than it 9 had been in the past, but we would assume a larger share of 10 the costs. Neither the U.G.R.A. Board nor Commissioners 11 Court has acted on those recommendations developed by two 12 U.G.R.A. Board members and two County Commissioners. In the 13 middle of that, the U.G.R.A. Board votes to terminate the 14 current contract. That's what I call bad-faith bargaining. 15 They didn't act on -- on the recommendations. They chose to 16 blind-side this Court by -- by sending us notice that they 17 were terminating the contract. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the bottom line is, we 19 can't discuss this contract if we're not going to consider 20 doing it. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move on to the next 23 item, Item 20, consider and discuss the burn ban status. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I recommend that we 25 cancel the burn ban. 9-22-03 152 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 3 the burn ban be canceled. Any question or discussion? All 4 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item, 9 consider and discuss the 2.1 acres of land out of Survey 656 10 owned by Kerr County and the transfer of that acreage to the 11 Mountain Home Volunteer Fire Department, and authorize the 12 County Judge to sign the appropriate documentation to 13 effectuate the sale. Commissioner Nicholson. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's 2.1 acres of 15 land located on Highway 27 in Mountain Home that's 16 contiguous to the Mountain Home Volunteer Fire Department 17 property. This is property that was purchased by Kerr 18 County about 40 -- no, more than 40 years ago; 50 years ago. 19 And it was leased to the Texas Department of Transportation 20 for 40 years, and then we got it back in 1990. We've used 21 the property, our Road and Bridge has, intermittently to 22 store materials in there working out in that part of the 23 county. The Mountain Home Fire Department is -- has had an 24 interest in acquiring use of that property. The property, 25 by the way, has a building on it also, kind of a dilapidated 9-22-03 153 1 building, and their interest in acquiring that property 2 is -- well, they're interested in rehabilitating that 3 building so they can use it in connection with their 4 Volunteer Fire Department, but would not be willing to do 5 that -- to go to those costs unless they had some assurances 6 that they had a -- were going to have a long material 7 interest in it. 8 We've talked about a situation where that 9 could be beneficial to both Road and Bridge Department, as 10 well as the Mountain Home Fire Department; where we could, 11 either through a long-term lease or transfer of title of 12 that property, give them the assurances they need in order 13 to invest, and they could use it for their purposes and our 14 Road and Bridge Department could use it for a place to put 15 equipment, put materials, and also erect a water tower that 16 would be used by both the fire department and the Road and 17 Bridge Department. In fact, Mr. Odom's working now on 18 acquiring a 10,000-gallon tank that, if we can work this 19 out, would be placed there, and it would -- it would be a 20 productivity improvement for his department in that when 21 they're working that part of the county, the water would be 22 more accessible and quicker. And it would also be used by 23 the fire department to -- to fill up their tanks. The quid 24 pro quo in all this would be that we would continue to have 25 use of the property, we would have a source of water, and 9-22-03 154 1 the fire department would have their assurances that they 2 have a long-term interest in it. 3 As it turns out, we're -- we are still taking 4 a look at the -- how we would go about transferring title or 5 whether or not that's the right course, and we need more 6 time on it. So, instead of asking you today to approve a 7 long-term lease or transfer of title, I'm simply telling you 8 -- informing about what our intentions and desires are for 9 that property, and we'll bring it back at another time. 10 David, do you -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You touched on one of 12 the questions I was going to have, which was why not a 13 long-term lease? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My -- I would favor a 15 long-term lease, I would think, because it is a -- I mean, 16 who knows what's going to happen with that volunteer fire 17 department or our needs from a Road and Bridge standpoint? 18 So, I think a long-term basis is sort of better suited, in 19 my mind, if it works with them. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, working with 21 the firefighters out there, David and I will -- we'll come 22 up with a specific recommendation, come back next 23 Commissioners Court meeting. You okay with that? 24 MR. MOTLEY: There's also, I think, going to 25 be some fencing and the refilling of that tank as part of 9-22-03 155 1 the consideration. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom? 3 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: You're -- I've seen you nod 5 your head a few times. This is a program that you feel like 6 is one that's worthy for everybody? 7 MR. ODOM: I think it's worthy for everybody. 8 I think it's a quid pro quo. My -- my point would be that I 9 think that they need to build that security fence around 10 this entire 2.1 acres, and then I can, on a quid pro quo 11 situation, base out that area that I want to stockpile and 12 put that water tank in there for everybody's use, for the 13 citizens -- particularly to protect the citizens out there. 14 Water's quite scarce out in that area. But I -- to me, I 15 think it will -- it's a win-win situation. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 17 MR. ODOM: And we would be able to use those 18 facilities -- that building if we needed to, but it would be 19 on a basis of when we're in that area working those deals. 20 I just think it's logical. Thank you. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anything further 22 on that item? Let's move forwards to Item 24, discuss and 23 consider joining Association of Rural Communities in Texas. 24 I put this on the agenda because of the invite that we 25 received. I would note that there's a cost involved, $300. 9-22-03 156 1 The only other thing that I would offer is that this 2 association is becoming a larger voice because of the 3 increase in their membership numbers. I don't have those 4 numbers for you, but from pieces that I've seen over the 5 past few months, their membership rolls have been 6 increasing. It's not just counties, it's counties and 7 cities, primarily in the rural area. As I'm sure 8 Commissioner Baldwin knows, the -- the voice of -- the rural 9 voice is rapidly vanishing in the state of Texas. The 10 Legislature, the metropolitan interests are pretty well 11 taking that over. We all sometimes have questions about 12 Texas Association of Counties, because of the heavy 13 concentration of the metropolitan interests even there. So, 14 it's -- it's optional. If you want to, fine. If you don't, 15 why, that's fine too. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have a 17 question here. I kind of know about these folks, but I know 18 that the metro-rural war is coming. Been watching it for 19 years. It's coming, and it's begun to really heat up here, 20 and on the -- on the invoice page -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- down below Kerr 23 County, there down below the middle there with Fred 24 Henneke's name on it. Anyway, it says the dues have 25 remained the same this year as we increase our services to 9-22-03 157 1 you. What services? You know, I'm not asking you, 'cause 2 you probably don't know. But are they more than a lobbying 3 effort for rural counties? Or -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: We get an immense amount of 5 paper from those people. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Lots of paper, I see. 7 Well, if I -- you know, we took a look at this a couple 8 years ago. I can't remember. It seems -- I still haven't 9 figured out what they do, but -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's a lobbyist 12 group. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Primarily, I think that's 14 correct. Any motion to be offered? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. Let's 16 talk through it here a little bit. You know, you have Texas 17 Association of Counties, which is -- I mean, they do lots of 18 things, but included in that is the lobbying effort. But -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I can tell you, 21 they lean toward the big counties. When it comes to 22 approaching legislators and dealing with issues, it -- they 23 have more money; that's exactly what they're going to do. 24 And I don't -- I don't know that the rural counties really 25 have much of a voice out there at all. And this is a major 9-22-03 158 1 deal coming down the pike. This is going to be huge before 2 it's over with. So, wish I knew more about it. I mean, I 3 wish I could recommend something. But I know that we 4 need -- we need more representation. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How frequently do 6 they meet and so forth, Judge? Do you know, Judge? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't -- I don't have the 8 benefit of that information. Do you want to just pass on it 9 now, maybe take a look at it later? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we pass on it 11 and ask Judge Evans, our neighbor to the south, to come up 12 here and explain to us what they do? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: He's on the board. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I mentioned 15 his name. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's an 18 excellent idea, if we can get him over here. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if it's not worth 20 him coming over here, maybe it isn't worth us joining. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe. I just don't 22 know if he ever travels that far or not. You know those 23 Bandera people. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We don't have a motion 25 to offer? 9-22-03 159 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He goes to San 2 Antonio. I see him every month. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to Item 25, 4 discuss and consider establishment of policy concerning use 5 of courthouse facilities. I put this on here, gentlemen. 6 As -- as you know, I'm -- I am the, quote, maintenance and 7 courthouse facilities liaison, and so use of courthouse 8 facilities requests come to me. And I was -- I attempted to 9 find a policy. I've not been able to find one, and I would 10 like some sort of guidance from the Court as to what the 11 policy and parameters are. And I -- I made a couple of 12 references in there that whatever policy is adopted, I think 13 it needs to be nondiscriminatory; that is, if you let one 14 civic group use it, you got to let them all. If you let one 15 religious group use it, you got to let them all. You let 16 one political group use it, you got to let them all. And 17 another concern about -- about the aspect of using it after 18 normal business hours, where you got some additional 19 considerations that I think need to be taken into account, 20 and that is security, and whether or not you need to have 21 people here to lock up after them and so forth. You may 22 have overtime or compensatory time for County employees. 23 But I'm just looking for some guidance from you gentlemen. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you 25 something. Do you have requests to use the actual inside of 9-22-03 160 1 the building? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't know that. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What kind of -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I think one of the first 7 requests I had was from a political group, and by -- when I 8 got back with the political group, I was -- I was in a 9 position to decline their request on the basis that, you 10 know, if we did it for this political group, you know, 11 the -- the American Green party, the Communist party, 12 whomever, you know, would -- should have the same privilege. 13 But when I called these -- called the number back, the 14 individual told me that they had made arrangements to meet 15 somewhere else. Notwithstanding that, I went ahead and told 16 them that it's probably just as well, because I was probably 17 going to have to decline. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would balk at using 19 the inside of the facility, because you're dealing -- like 20 you said, you're dealing with the security issue. Our 21 cleaning people have a schedule; I wouldn't want them to 22 have to hang around till 10:30 at night just to lock the 23 doors and that kind of thing. That's bordering on 24 ridiculous. So, to me, that shuts off using the inside of 25 the facility. To me, that's -- we don't even have to have 9-22-03 161 1 that conversation. But the outside of the facility is a 2 little different story. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, yeah. There are a lot 4 of groups that -- week before last, I think, the people that 5 do the United Way wanted to put their sign up over again on 6 the corner. I saw that as a no-brainer. Occasionally, I 7 think Board of Realtors, the Golden Girls or some of those 8 high school groups, band boosters maybe, want to do a garage 9 sale. I tell them to work it out -- just coordinate it with 10 the Market Days people, and they've always worked that out. 11 And that's not too much of a problem, because you don't get 12 into these other issues. But I -- I can -- I can see a 13 problem if you open the door, even if you just do it during 14 -- during normal business hours. If you open the door, I 15 think you've got to be nondiscriminatory, and that -- that 16 -- that could lead to no telling what. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good idea 18 to have a policy. I thought we -- I thought we adopted one 19 by court order a couple years ago, but maybe I'm wrong. But 20 the -- I mean, I'd recommend you come up with a draft and 21 bring it to the Court. I mean, I think it needs to be 22 nondiscriminatory. You mentioned that the United Way sign 23 is a no-brainer, and I think it's been up there every year 24 that I've been a Commissioner. But the other side of that 25 is -- I never really had thought about it -- is that there 9-22-03 162 1 -- what's to prevent, you know, every other organization to 2 put up their sign for -- related to fundraising or, like I 3 say, Y.M.C.A. wanted to put up their Little Dribblers 4 registration sign on our courthouse lawn. So I don't have 5 any problem with any of them doing it if they want to, but I 6 think we ought to designate where that's done so we don't 7 get them stuck all over. I mean, or -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The problem is not so 9 much in putting them up. They forget to take them down. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or maybe, you know, 11 charge a fee if they don't; I mean, if we have to do it. I 12 think the -- I don't have a problem with letting most of the 13 public use our courthouse square, but if they cost the 14 County money, and meaning all the citizens of the county 15 money, I think that organization should have to pay for 16 whatever they do or don't do. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think a policy 18 ought to be that the courthouse itself is restricted to 19 county courthouse business. The grounds are open for civic 20 and other purposes, and set some guidelines for that. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think as part of 22 that policy, I would like to see a -- a moratorium on 23 anything else being added to the courthouse square. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Such as? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cannons, trees, 9-22-03 163 1 fountains, -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Birdhouses. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- birdhouses. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Big cactus. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I say that just 6 joking, but I'm quite serious. I mean, since I've -- it's 7 very easy, I think, to -- whoever is having to make a call 8 to the liaison can say we have a moratorium. We'll find 9 another place to put it. But it's very hard for us to -- 10 once they get their foot in the door and get on our agenda, 11 it's real hard to say no. And we end -- that's how we ended 12 up with a cannon and a birdhouse, and -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's been saying that 14 since the day he walked in here. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: How many has he told no? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I recall he voted in 17 favor of the cannon. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right. That's 19 what I say; it's hard to vote against them when they get 20 here. I'm trying to head them off before they get on the 21 agenda. I did vote against the birdhouse. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's true. 23 Well, personally, I think that we should appoint the 24 Administrative Assistant to the Commissioners Court to work 25 up a -- a program and then bring it back to Commissioners 9-22-03 164 1 Court at some point. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: A draft for that? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A draft, mm-hmm. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's the only one 6 around here that really knows what goes on. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, as part of the 8 policy, there should be a -- I don't know how often it is; 9 I'll leave it up to them, her discretion or his discretion 10 as to the -- when to post it or to put it in our box as to 11 what the schedule is on the courthouse lawn. I don't know 12 if it's monthly or biweekly or what it is, but it's just 13 nice to know, you know, what events are going to transpire 14 on the courthouse. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't know. 15 MS. SOVIL: If we know. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, of course, we 18 want to wait to adopt this, and I'm going to put the Ten 19 Commandments out here in the hallway. We want to wait -- a 20 big one -- wait till we get through with that, and then we 21 can adopt this thing. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. No motion on that one. 23 We'll move forward. Discuss and consider approval of 24 parking spaces striping plan for courthouse parking. I 25 think the plan is to do the striping next Sunday; is that 9-22-03 165 1 correct, Mr. Odom? 2 MR. ODOM: I hope next Sunday. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Weather permitting, of course. 4 MR. ODOM: Weather permitting. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: They got the topping done out 6 here, and -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Looks great. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looks good. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Excellent. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: What they've done is, on the 11 striping plan, across the front of the south side, they're 12 going to all diagonal parking there, which would increase 13 the number of parking spaces. And then, on the east and the 14 west side, on the inside curb, they're not permitting any 15 parking there. They're not going to have any parallel 16 parking. But the net -- there will be a net increase of -- 17 MR. ODOM: 31. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Of -- got 174 under the new 19 plan, and 143 under the current plan. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we're talking about 21 eliminating the -- what kind of parking do we have out there 22 right now? 23 MR. ADLER: Diagonal and parallel. On the 24 inside is parallel. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Diagonal being 9-22-03 166 1 slanted? 2 MR. ODOM: Slanted. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Slant in? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Facing the street, 5 diagonal. 6 MR. ODOM: Facing the outside radius of the 7 circle there. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But you're not talking 9 about a straight pull-in? 10 MR. ODOM: No, it will be at an angle. And 11 then -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cool. 13 MR. ODOM: -- like the Judge said, on this 14 end that faces Sid Peterson, where it's parallel parking, 15 we'll eliminate that and come in at a diagonal there. 16 That's where we'll pick up about 31 spaces all together. 17 We'll still have the same parking that we have behind you, 18 and then employee parking. But we can add the spaces 19 because of that. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you proposing to 21 eliminate -- does this plan propose to eliminate parallel on 22 the inside of the interior road? 23 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All the way around? 25 MR. ODOM: All the way around. Except on 9-22-03 167 1 that portion that's in the middle out here, that will be 2 diagonal on both sides right there. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: But on the inside curb on the 4 east side and west side, there will be no parking? 5 MR. ODOM: No parking. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, where are you 8 going to park, Bill? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under the tree like I 10 usually do. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Park there anyway? I 12 think it's a great plan. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 17 we approve the parking space striping plan as presented for 18 courthouse parking. Any further questions or discussion? 19 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 20 hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item, 25 consider and discuss acknowledging September as Destination 9-22-03 168 1 Dignity Month as requested by the Hill Country Community 2 Mental Health/Mental Retardation Center. This was presented 3 to me by the Hill Country Community M.H.M.R. Center. This 4 is -- would be pursuant to the Governor's proclamation, and 5 the County would just follow suit. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 9 we acknowledge September as Destination Dignity Month, as 10 requested by the Hill Country Community M.H.M.R. Center. 11 Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 12 signify by raising your right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item 17 is consider and discuss approving resolution to apply for 18 Indigent Defense Grant Program. This is in search of bucks 19 for Indigent Defense in connection with criminal and 20 juvenile cases. The allocation that they've made presently 21 is a little over about $22,500, but we've got to apply for 22 it before we can get the money. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. I think it's 25 very wise, Judge. 9-22-03 169 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 2 we approve the resolution to apply for the Indigent Defense 3 Grant program. Any questions or discussion? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, is this a new 5 program, or have we done this in the past? Or -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's probably one that 7 we've been involved in before. There are so many different 8 ones that came into being as a result of the Fair Defense 9 Act and House Bill 7 that I hadn't tried to match them up, 10 very frankly. If I saw we could get some money, I -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was just curious. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: -- put it on. Any further 13 questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 14 signify by raising your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item, 19 consider and discuss nomination of up to five candidates for 20 submission to the Kerr Central Appraisal District for board 21 member of KCAD. This is part of the nomination process, and 22 KCAD wrote us a letter, and we've got to submit those by 23 October 15. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a couple 25 questions, Judge, if I may. 9-22-03 170 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What are the duties 3 of a board member? Is it like a typical board that set 4 policy and review things, or are they actively involved in 5 the appraisal process? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Our illustrious Tax 7 Assessor/Collector will enlighten you, everything you need 8 to know. 9 MS. RECTOR: Since I am currently on the 10 board, the Board of Directors oversees the function of the 11 Appraisal District; i.e., hiring a chief appraiser, budget, 12 that type of thing, just like Commissioners Court oversees 13 county government. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They are not 15 hands-on involved in determining values? 16 MS. RECTOR: No, that's what the Appraisal 17 Review Board does. We are totally separate from that. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, this is a 19 typical board that's involved in policy -- 20 MS. RECTOR: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- reviews? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Very similar to 911 23 Board. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, Paula, you're 9-22-03 171 1 that member today? 2 MS. RECTOR: Yes, I am. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And are you willing to 4 serve again? 5 MS. RECTOR: Yes, I am. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Generally, I mean, as I 8 recall, it's a weighted voting system, and Kerr County has 9 enough weight to get one member. And we put all of our 10 votes on that one person, and Paula Rector continually 11 serves on that. I'll nominate Paula Rector -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- to be our appointee or 14 nominee. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 16 we send forward our nomination of Paula Rector for -- as our 17 candidate for submission to the Appraisal District for its 18 board membership. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I think -- I think 20 that we apply all 907 votes to -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Every vote we got. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. That's good. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 24 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 25 your right hand. 9-22-03 172 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As a comment, the -- I 6 don't know if Commissioner Nicholson knows or not, but the 7 school districts have a large control over that board, 8 K.I.S.D. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 'Cause they collect 10 most of the taxes. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have the biggest 12 budgets. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Next item, consider and 14 discuss designating a day of the week on which the Court 15 shall convene in a regular term each month during the next 16 fiscal year. This is required by Section 81.005 of the 17 Local Government Code. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is today a regular 19 meeting or is today a special called? 20 MS. SOVIL: Special. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Special, I think. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: The agenda which I have says 23 it's a special meeting. So, the first Monday -- I mean the 24 second Monday is regular, and the fourth Monday would then 25 be special. 9-22-03 173 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 2 MS. SOVIL: Wait a minute, I have something. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I already made a motion. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hasn't been seconded, 5 though. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can discuss it after. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What did you want to 8 do different? 9 MS. SOVIL: Oh, I don't want to do anything 10 different. I think in your motion you need to declare that 11 October 13th and November 10th are holidays that fall on 12 Monday, and you got to say that those -- except -- save and 13 except those two days have to be on Tuesday. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not what this 15 is about. This is about establishing a regular day. 16 MS. SOVIL: That's correct. And it's on 17 Monday, and those Mondays are holidays. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, Thanksgiving Day 19 in Canada. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion to adjourn? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second Monday of each 22 month, right? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second Monday, and if the 24 first Monday -- I mean, if the second Monday of each -- of a 25 month happens to fall on a holiday, the regular meeting will 9-22-03 174 1 be on the preceding Tuesday. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Preceding or following? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Following. Following 5 Tuesday, sorry. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I seconded that 7 motion. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 9 the day of the week for our regular meeting is the second 10 Monday of each month, unless that day is a designated 11 holiday, in which case it will be the following Tuesday. 12 Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the 13 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item, 18 discuss and consider authorizing the County Attorney to 19 investigate, take any necessary, appropriate action to 20 recover balance of unreimbursed funds expended by Kerr 21 County for health care services provided to a former County 22 employee. I think the Court will generally recall the 23 incident that -- that's in question here. Bottom line is, 24 Kerr County has expended about approximately $200,000 -- 25 authorized a total of 400, but approximately $200,000 of 9-22-03 175 1 which it has not received any reimbursement for. If there's 2 any way that we can get that money back, I'd like to get it. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with you 100 4 percent, so far. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is any -- "take any 6 necessary or appropriate action," does that include 7 litigation? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I suppose the way it's worded, 9 it could include that, yes. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I want to know 11 what the options are. I mean, what -- you know, I have no 12 idea how we could recover the money. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who would we be 14 suing? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. I mean, 16 because that's why I think the -- I mean, the County 17 Attorney -- if we need to pass a motion or an order to get 18 the County Attorney to pursue what we can do, if anything, 19 I'm in favor of doing that. But I don't want to just go -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- you know, take any 22 action necessary. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the -- I 24 understood him to say exactly that. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 9-22-03 176 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To find out -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What we can do. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do an investigation 4 and find out what we can do. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: If I -- if I understand what 6 you're saying, you're -- you want the County Attorney to go 7 forward and look at what potential options are available to 8 us to attempt to recover that money, and once that has been 9 done, then come back and report to the Court for further 10 direction? Or -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's my motion. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 16 the County Attorney be authorized in accordance with the 17 language of the motion. Any further question or discussion? 18 All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. I don't 23 think we left any. We finally got everything -- went back 24 and picked it up, haven't we, gentlemen? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want to take 9-22-03 177 1 care of the approval agenda before we go into Executive 2 Session? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, why don't we do that? 4 Let's move on to the approval agenda. First item is to pay 5 the bills. Mr. Auditor? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Good timing on my part, 7 wasn't it? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, excellent. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: We're trying to catch you 10 unprepared, but we didn't quite make it, did we? Anybody 11 have any questions about any of the bills? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have a 13 comment, that this reimbursement to me is the same one the 14 Court approved two weeks ago, but a check was not issued. 15 And maybe the Auditor can tell you why it's back on the 16 agenda. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we did the amendment 18 before we wrote the check. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. You did that 20 all right; you did the amendment, but the check was never 21 written. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Are you sure? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm positive. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: I'll check on it for you. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we're not going to 9-22-03 178 1 approve it again? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Same amount so, this 4 one comes out -- 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Is it on there again? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Is it on there again? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was told by the 9 Treasurer's office that the reason they did not issue a 10 check was because you didn't ask for a check -- a hand 11 check. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Oh. It's my fault, then. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But it's already been 14 approved, so does that come off the list or what? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: No, let's leave on it there. 16 That way I'm for sure we'll get you a check. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we'd be 18 approving $139 twice? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's a good 20 question. We've already approved payment, but payment 21 hasn't been made. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: I'd like to just leave it 23 there. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And I promise 25 you I'll only take one check. 9-22-03 179 1 JUDGE TINLEY: You're on the record there. 2 Okay. Do I hear a motion approving the bills? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 6 the bills be approved and paid as presented. Any question 7 or comment? All in favor, signify by raising your right 8 hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Budget amendments. Budget 13 Amendment Number 1. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for Rabies and 15 Animal Control. The request is to transfer $1,000 from 16 Utilities line item to Radio Repairs. I have with that a -- 17 a need for a hand check payable to Advantage Communications 18 for $3,884.25. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: $3,884.25. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Try again? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: $3,884.25. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Current expense, $1,139? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I'm paying -- part of 25 this payment is from another -- another budget. I held -- 9-22-03 180 1 JUDGE TINLEY: 3,884 -- 2 MR. TOMLINSON: 25. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: We had a lightning strike on 5 some radio equipment. This is a repair of that. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second -- third. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 10 Budget Amendment Request Number 1 be approved and a hand 11 check to Advantage Communication in the amount of $3,884.25 12 be issued. Any questions or discussion? All in favor, 13 signify by raising your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget 18 Amendment 2. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Two is for Indigent Health 20 Care. First of all, I have payments of $74,709.66 to health 21 care vendors, $3,361.93 to third-party administrator, and 22 $134.23 to the hospital for our -- the remaining part of our 23 share of our person's salary, our Indigent Health Care 24 person's salary for this fiscal year. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We obviously ran out 9-22-03 181 1 of money. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, we did. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And will this carry us 4 through the year? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: This is for the rest -- the 6 remainder of the year. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Missed it by one 8 month. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I move we pay 11 it. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 14 Budget Amendment Request Number 2 be approved. Any further 15 question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify 16 by raising your right hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any late bills? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: I have one more amendment. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? One more amendment, 23 okay. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: While he's handing 25 that out, I want to talk about Indigent Health Care just for 9-22-03 182 1 a second. At some point, used to -- Tommy used to hand out 2 the list of people that were on the -- on the Indigent 3 Health Care rolls, and you could see -- you could see -- we 4 could sit up here and see how the -- basically, how the 5 system worked. You know, who was using it and what kind of 6 services were being used and who we were paying, you know, 7 the hospital here and the pharmacy there and that kind of 8 thing. You could kind of see it. And I'd like for us to go 9 through that one time just so everybody could be clear how 10 the thing works and how it -- and how the program works. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did we discontinue 12 it? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I think he quit 14 handing out the list, because -- for a number of reasons. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Confidentiality. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: Confidentiality, names on the 17 list. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you could delete the 19 names and show where -- the amounts and what it's going to. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, we do have a different 21 list of who the vendors are. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, on your -- on your list 23 of bills there towards the back, it tells you who the 24 money's going to. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Are you 9-22-03 183 1 saying that we're not allowed to see the names any more? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Not in a public meeting. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm not talking 4 about handing it out to the press. I'm talking about, as a 5 Commissioner, like -- like we used to. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Not in a public meeting, no. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Okay. We'll 8 talk about it later, then. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I think it was 11 good to -- when we -- you know, before we realized that we 12 couldn't do it, I think it was a good -- I agree with 13 Commissioner Baldwin. And I'm -- I understand con -- 14 confidentiality -- can't even say it. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Confidentiality. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, whatever that word 17 is. But if they're accepting government funds, public 18 funds, why is it confidential who gets it? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: 'Cause the law says it is. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's the answer. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm going to 22 tell you, there has been -- there has been -- there's been 23 some of those that have come across this table, though, that 24 we -- that I or others -- other members of this Court have 25 recognized as not -- not eligible for indigent care, and 9-22-03 184 1 have taken that name to the administrator over at the 2 hospital, and those things have been fixed. And so you'll 3 be able to recognize some people that you know that are not 4 indigent by any stretch of the imagination. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Former Commissioner 6 Lackey used to make that comment often. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. So it was just 8 -- I wanted y'all to see it, but obviously we can't -- you 9 can't see what you're paying for; it's confidential 10 information. Meet you in the broom closet with a 11 flashlight. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Budget Amendment 13 Request Number 3. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: This amendment is to increase 15 the Alternate Housing line item by $20,458.23, and it's a 16 result of -- of a Title IV-E state funding that the County 17 received. So, I'm -- the request is to increase the amount 18 of the -- of that line item by the amount of the grant. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: These are flow-through 20 funds? Or are these -- 21 MR. TOMLINSON: They're -- it's a direct 22 payment. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're Kerr County 24 money, or -- is it Kerr County money? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Yes, it is. State 9-22-03 185 1 funds, but when we receive it, it's Kerr County money. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, they come to the 3 Juvenile Board. I mean, don't they? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the ultimate control, I 6 think. 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. Yeah, that's right. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I made a motion. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion to approve? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second. And I'll 12 have some comments. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Second, okay. Any question or 14 comments? 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is the budget 16 item we talked about and put together a budget where we had 17 a budget of $130,000, and we overspent that by some $65,000. 18 And if -- if I understand, this is -- when we have a 19 juvenile in front of one of our courts, this is the funds 20 that goes toward incarcerating that juvenile. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Or placing him in what we call 22 alternative placement, or out-of-home placement. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not incarcerate. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Alternate placement. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Aside from you, what 9-22-03 186 1 other judges are involved in that process? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Possibly Judge Brown, and 3 Judge Prohl has on occasion handled Kerr County cases. But, 4 for the most part, it's myself. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This $20,000 is some 6 money that we're getting from the State to offset part of 7 those costs? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's not the right 10 time to talk about it, probably, but it does occur to me 11 that Kerr County brings in a lot of juveniles from around 12 the state at the Hill Country Youth Ranch and 3-H Ranch, 13 K'Star, and they hopefully are able to help salvage -- some 14 of them get in trouble, and then we pass them on. And -- 15 and what I'm saying is, we're spending money to take care of 16 children from other counties. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, in some respects, that's 18 where some of it goes. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is the wrong 20 place for that discussion. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: If you're talking about if 22 they come in to, say, the youth ranch or the 3-H, and then 23 they end up in our juvenile justice system, yeah. If you 24 consider them as being out-of-county. Now, we do have a 25 number of -- of children that are in our detention facility 9-22-03 187 1 that are from out-of-county, but those are placed by the 2 courts in their county, their own home county, and we 3 receive -- we receive payment from those counties for every 4 day that those children are incarcerated. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If the State of 6 Texas places a child from San Antonio with one of our local 7 youth facilities, youth ranch, 3-H or whatever, and that 8 child winds up in our -- our judicial system, we're paying 9 those costs, and my question is, could we get that other 10 county, the place the child comes from, to pay those costs? 11 This is not the right police for the discussion. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I see where you're coming 13 from, and that's an extraordinarily good idea. And I've got 14 some of that same problem with respect to guardianships 15 which they're asking to be created for individuals who are 16 at the State Hospital, who are now residents of our county 17 because they're physically located here, but are really 18 residents of other counties. And I've got that same issue, 19 yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quick, before we vote on 22 it, since we brought it up talking about the juvenile 23 housing, several years ago, I think when the County first 24 took over that facility, we tried to get up to speed; the 25 Court went out there and went -- basically went on a tour of 9-22-03 188 1 that facility. We haven't done that in a while. Might be a 2 good thing to do again, because it's very educational as to 3 what -- how that facility is used, and it gives you a lot 4 more -- or gave me a lot better appreciation of the value of 5 that facility, because I think it's an extraordinarily run 6 and good facility. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the expansion 8 complete? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: It is not complete; it's 10 underway. Actually, they're in middle of a building program 11 that would double the capacity of that facility out there. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe when that -- maybe 13 when that expansion is complete would be a good time to have 14 a court -- you know, take it on a tour of the facility, 15 'cause it really -- I think it's a -- it's a real good 16 opportunity for us to see what's going on out there. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I think Ms. Brown would be 18 excited to give everybody on this Court a tour of that 19 facility. Any further question or discussion on this Budget 20 Amendment Request Number 3? All in favor of the motion, 21 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 does carry. Any late 9-22-03 189 1 bills? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. We're going to spend 3 the 20. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: We're going to spend the 6 $20,000 that we just approved. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I figured that. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: I have two invoices from 9 Pegasus Schools, Inc., in Lockhart, one for $2,827.82 -- I 10 actually have two of those the same amount. One from Gulf 11 Coast Trade Center for $2,325. I have one from Rob Roy 12 Post-Adjudication Facility in San Angelo, $2,073. Another 13 one from Ever-Change in Hondo, Texas, for $3,696, and from 14 Hays County for $2,759. The total is 16,508.64. I need 15 hand checks for those. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 19 late bills, as outlined by the Auditor to Pegasus, Gulf 20 Coast Trade Center, Rob Roy, Ever-Change, and Hays County be 21 approved, and that hand checks be authorized and issued. 22 Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the 23 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9-22-03 190 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. I have 3 before me monthly reports from the District Clerk, County 4 Clerk, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4, Justice of the 5 Peace, Precinct 1, and Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2. Do 6 I hear a motion that those reports be approved as submitted? 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 10 the reports as designated be approved as submitted. Any 11 further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 12 signify by raising your right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Do we have 17 any other monthly reports? Any reports from Commissioners, 18 elected officials, department heads? Road and Bridge is 19 gone. Maintenance is not here. At this time, I believe 20 there was a desire to go into closed or executive session to 21 discuss one or more of the items that was enumerated on the 22 agenda; is that correct? I ask that -- that the room be 23 vacated, except for Commissioners and the reporter. The 24 Court will go into -- go out of open session as of 2:45, and 25 we will now go into closed session, executive session at 9-22-03 191 1 that same time. 2 (Discussion off the record.) 3 (The open session was closed at 2:45 p.m., and an Executive Session was held, the 4 transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) 5 - - - - - - - - - - 6 JUDGE TINLEY: We will end the executive, 7 closed session at 4:20 p.m., and we'll now go back into open 8 session. Do I hear any motions or actions to be taken as a 9 result of the matter in executive and closed session? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would offer 11 a motion that Commissioners Court ask the Administrative 12 Assistant to post an agenda item for a special called 13 meeting on Friday morning, at a time to be determined by 14 your contacting our appointments to the Airport Board to 15 determine the best time, and that will be a meeting at that 16 time Friday morning for the purpose of discussing airport 17 governance matters. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second that. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioners, are 20 we going to limit it to Friday morning or Friday afternoon? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Friday sometime. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Friday, okay. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just do it as Friday at a 24 time you will determine, having talked to Dr. Davis, 25 Mr. MacDonald, and Mr. Miller. Whatever time works for 9-22-03 192 1 those three gentlemen, that will be the time of the meeting, 2 and it will be for Friday. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Should we -- should we 4 consider an alternate date in case those three guys are busy 5 and can't do it on Friday? 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's pretty likely 7 that one of them will be busy. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At least one of them. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we can get two 10 out of the three. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we need to go 12 ahead with it. 13 MS. SOVIL: What is the posting? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Posting a special 15 meeting of Commissioners Court. 16 MS. SOVIL: I understand that, but what -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Agenda item? 18 MS. SOVIL: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Talk about -- the 20 item is airport governance. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: To discuss status of 23 governance of matters at the Kerrville/Kerr County Airport. 24 MS. SOVIL: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a motion. 9-22-03 193 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I seconded it. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further discussion 3 or questions? All in favor of the motion, signify by 4 raising your right hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Anything else 9 that we need to -- anybody has to offer in the way of formal 10 action as a result of the executive or closed session? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we do anything for 12 the City of Ingram? Mountain Home? We did -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're about to do 14 something to the City of Kerrville. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further, 16 gentlemen? If not, I'll declare the meeting adjourned. 17 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 4:25 p.m.) 18 - - - - - - - - - - 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9-22-03 194 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 29th day of September, 8 2003. 9 10 11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 12 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9-22-03