1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Monday, May 24, 2004 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 May 24, 2004 2 PAGE --- Commissioners' Comments 4 3 1.1 Authorize use of courthouse parking & grounds 4 for Memorial Day ceremony 7 1.2 Approve road name for privately-maintained road 8 5 1.3 Allow Constable Pct. #3 to seek grant funding for in-car video/audio system for patrol car 9 6 1.4 Set Public Hearing for alternate plat of Lots 12 & 13, Hidden Valley Ranch, Pct. 2 15 7 1.10 Discuss Kerr County Information/Technology Policies 16 8 1.12 Approve application for Tobacco Compliance Grant 18 1.13 Consider reclassification of nurse position to 9 Nurse/EMT position 22 1.14 Approve 36-month subscription agreement with 10 Thomson West to replace inmate law library with CD-ROM library 24 11 1.11 Discussion & demonstration of digital camera system for adult detention center 29 12 1.5 Public Hearing on Alternate Plat Process for Lots 14 & 15 of The Horizon, Section One 30 13 1.6 Open bids on 5-year lease of a backhoe loader 31 1.15 Consider expenditure authorization for right-of- 14 way acquisitions for Hermann Sons Bridge Project 33 1.7 Public Hearing on alternate plat process for 15 Lots 32 & 33 of The Horizon, Section One 38 1.16 Report on status of Administrative Services 16 Agreement with Employee Benefit Administrators 39 1.8 Discuss steps necessary for previously 17 subdivided Bettac/Rickert property & road to be in compliance with Subdivision Rules 43 18 1.9 Presentation on AquaSource rate increase 48 19 4.1 Pay Bills 78 4.2 Budget Amendments 79 20 4.3 Late Bills -- 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 82 21 5.1 Reports from Commissioners, Liaison/Committee 22 Assignments 83 23 --- Adjourned 84 24 25 3 1 On Monday, May 24, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., a special meeting 2 of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the 3 Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, 4 Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me call to order 7 the special Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for this 8 date, Monday, May the 24th, 2004 at 9 a.m. It is that time 9 now. I'll call on Commissioner Baldwin. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. If you'll 11 join me, I have a special guest with us today to do the 12 opening prayer, and I want to introduce y'all to him before 13 he comes up and does that. Many years ago, I used to go 14 down to a lake in the afternoon, go down to Hunt School and 15 throw the football around with some young kids, and one of 16 those kids went on later on to become a big football star at 17 Tivy, and then A & I, which is now A & M at Kingsville, and 18 recently -- actually, a few years ago, retired from the NFL, 19 Kansas City Chiefs, Mike Dyal. Mike's agreed to come and do 20 the opening prayer for us today. Mike? 21 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Mike. 23 Thank you very much. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Dyal. At this 25 time, if there's any member of the public that wishes to 5-24-04 4 1 come forward and be heard on any matter that is not a listed 2 agenda item -- that is not a listed agenda item -- you're 3 privileged to do so at this time. If you want to be heard 4 on an agenda item, we -- we would ask that you fill out a 5 participation form; they're located at the back of the room. 6 It's not absolutely essential. Sometimes it even helps me 7 to not miss you when that item comes up. Not always, but 8 sometimes. So, if there's anybody that wants to come 9 forward and speak on an item not on the agenda at this time, 10 why, feel free to come forward. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Being nobody coming forward, 13 let's get on to the next item. I'm sure Commissioner 14 Baldwin would -- would defer to the most important 15 announcement of the day that needs to be made by 16 Commissioner Precinct 3, and will allow Commissioner 17 Precinct 3 to make that announcement. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I will do that. Be 19 honored to, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I presume that 21 announcement is the birth of my little boy. For those who 22 don't know, Karen and I adopted a little boy. Samuel Becker 23 Letz was born Thursday at 12:56; he was 7 pounds, 13 ounces; 24 19 inches. Both Karen and I were in the delivery room. 25 Quite an experience, and he's home, doing great. 5-24-04 5 1 (Applause.) 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bubble gum cigars. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Now that we have the important 4 announcement out of the way, we'll go to you, Commissioner 5 Baldwin. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I can't think 7 of anything to say. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just got back from 10 four or five days on the left coast of the United States of 11 America, which never ceases to amaze me, what goes on out 12 there. For those of you who are griping at the gas pump, 13 it's $2.65 a gallon out there. And that's good for them, 14 and not so good for anybody else, I guess. But what really 15 caught my attention out there was the incredible amount of 16 home building going on in this particular area. I was 17 visiting a brother who lives in North County, which is about 18 35 miles northeast of San Diego. They cannot build houses 19 fast enough out there. They build them 200, 300, 400 at a 20 time, and there's a waiting list of people to buy them; 21 they -- they bid and outbid each other. The rate of -- of 22 value increases on new homes by about $1,000 a month, the 23 average. It's just absolutely unbelievable. So, I'm glad 24 I'm here. It's fun to go, but always glad to get back, and 25 the hill country never looked better. 5-24-04 6 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Do you have 2 anything else for us, Commissioner Letz? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just hope everyone will 4 bear with me, 'cause I really haven't spent as much time as 5 usual on the agenda, so I may have to read a little bit as I 6 go through today, as I just picked up my -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Last time you get to 8 use that excuse, though. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson? 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, I want to brag 11 a little bit about our Road and Bridge Department. This is 12 the May/June edition of Lone Star Roads, and we got some 13 good press. The Rural Technical Assistance Program of 14 Texas, whose mission is to help rural counties and small 15 urban areas improve their roads and street operations 16 through technology transfer and training, has recognized our 17 Road and Bridge Department as being the first one in the 18 state to complete the basic Road Scholar requirements for 19 all the current employees, and there's a list of all of our 20 current employees, and everybody, including the 21 administrator and the secretary and all the -- all the 22 hands, completed the course. It's my belief these kind of 23 things help stretch taxpayer dollars. We do a better job 24 and get more productivity because we do these kind of 25 things, so congratulations to Road and Bridge on that. 5-24-04 7 1 The second thing is the Hunt Volunteer Fire 2 Department is having its annual barbecue fundraiser this 3 Saturday. Best brisket you'll ever have, and all the 4 trimmings. It's from 1:00 to 5:00 in the Hunt firehouse. I 5 don't remember what it costs, but it's not -- it's not much. 6 And, you know, we're pretty desperate out there for funds, 7 so if you could show up and leave us a few dollars, it would 8 be good. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you reading that 10 out of that book, too? 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, it's just on 12 here. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all I got, 15 Judge. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought that was 17 cute, "Road Scholar." 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I don't have 19 anything of particular note this morning, so let's get down 20 to business, gentlemen. First item on the agenda is 21 consider and discuss authorizing the use of courthouse 22 parking and grounds adjacent to the war memorial area for 23 Memorial Day ceremony to be held Saturday, May the 29th, at 24 10 a.m. I was asked to put this on the agenda for the 25 obvious purpose. I thought at first that it was on the same 5-24-04 8 1 date as Market Days, but as it turns out, it's not, so we 2 don't have any -- any use sharing to be concerned about. It 3 can go on as it's happened for a number of years in the past 4 out there on the -- in the west parking area adjacent to the 5 memorial. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 9 approval of the agenda item. Any further question or 10 discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right 11 hand. 12 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 14 (No response.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next 16 item on the agenda is to consider approving road name for 17 privately maintained road in accordance with 911 guidelines. 18 Mr. Odom? 19 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Thank you, Judge. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Good to have you here this 21 morning. 22 MR. ODOM: Well, thank you. Truby asked me 23 to -- I think she was on the agenda, but asked me to talk 24 about this. This is Road Number 1385, and I think the 25 supporting document shows it at the end of Stony Hill and 5-24-04 9 1 McDonald Loop. And we have the road name changed to Feather 2 Ridge Road from Road 1385, and we have all the people that 3 live on it -- I believe there's two or three people that 4 live on it. They have agreed to that name change, and there 5 shouldn't be any -- any problems as far as -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 9 approval of the agenda item. 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: The motion does carry. Next 16 item on the agenda is consider and discuss allowing the 17 Precinct 3 constable to seek grant funding for in-car 18 video/audio system for his patrol unit. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, that's a 20 timed -- it has a specific time beside it. Or this one -- 21 this does, I'm sorry. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I 23 thought I saw him here just a minute ago. 24 (Discussion off the record.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: There he is. 5-24-04 10 1 MR. GARZA: Thank you. I was making copies. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Constable Garza, are 3 you ready to go on your item? Looks like you are. 4 MR. GARZA: Yes, sir. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, you may proceed. 6 MR. GARZA: Good morning, Commissioners. I 7 just want to come before you to ask your permission to seek 8 grant funding, from whatever source I can locate, to get a 9 video camera for my vehicle. And I have a copy of the unit 10 I'm looking at and the costs associated with it, if the 11 Court is interested in looking at it. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much are you 15 looking for? 16 MR. GARZA: Sir? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much are you 18 looking at? 19 MR. GARZA: The video camera, sir, will be 20 about $3,000. I don't know if that includes the 21 installation. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would this be 23 comparable to what the Sheriff has in his vehicles? 24 MR. GARZA: Mobile-Vision? I believe so. 25 I'm not sure. 5-24-04 11 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The second group we have 2 from the D.P.S. grant that they did last year are 3 Mobile-Vision's, and that's -- and that figure may be a 4 little bit low. Installation will run them about $100. But 5 I don't know if D.P.S. is still running their grant program. 6 If not, there's several other grant programs that he could 7 apply for that pay it 100 percent. And we'll help him with 8 it if he needs help. Those are very needed tools in the 9 cars. 10 MR. GARZA: I would appreciate the Sheriff's 11 input on this. The reason that I had to come before the 12 Court, of course, is to get the permission of the Court, but 13 also, on these grant applications, they do require the 14 entity to sign off on it; like, in this case, it would be 15 the County Judge. If this was the city, it would be, like, 16 the mayor. So, that's why I come before the Court to ask 17 your permission to allow me to -- if do I find a source, 18 that when I apply, that the County Judge is authorized to 19 sign on behalf of the County for the grant. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment -- I'm 21 glad to make a motion on this, but that the -- I guess, the 22 grant you seek is not from a -- a local grant company, such 23 as Peterson Foundation or Cailloux Foundation, because I 24 think if we do go with that, it starts causing problems to 25 have one constable going to one of these other agencies. If 5-24-04 12 1 this is a federal or state-type grant, no problem 2 whatsoever, and I'll make a motion with that proviso. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 5 approval to seek grant funding for the in-car video/audio 6 system for Precinct 3 constable's patrol car from state or 7 federal sources. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- and the Judge 9 to sign it when it -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: And authorize the Judge to 11 sign the grant application. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. He had a -- 13 MR. GARZA: I'm sorry. If I may, I was also 14 asking on behalf -- if it's possible for Precinct 2 15 constable, since Constable Ayala and myself are the ones 16 that do the traffic enforcement and drug interdiction. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you preempted 18 half of my question. 19 MR. GARZA: Yes, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is fine. Why 21 not Precincts 1 and 4 as well? 22 MR. GARZA: They're not interested, that I 23 know of. I mean, Constable Ayala and myself are the ones 24 that are interested in getting this for safety reasons, so 25 we can do drug interdiction and highway interdiction on the 5-24-04 13 1 interstate and county roads. We're the ones -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you would be 3 seeking funding sufficient to accommodate two installations? 4 MR. GARZA: Well, yes, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hopefully? 6 MR. GARZA: Yes, sir, Commissioner. My 7 intention was just to come before the Court to ask for the 8 permission to -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's all 10 right. 11 MR. GARZA: And, of course, I was trying to 12 include Precinct 2, but I wasn't sure if he would have to 13 come on his own to ask permission, or if the Court -- or if 14 I could do it. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we could make 16 that broad enough approval that you seek grant funding for 17 equipment for constable vehicles. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll amend my motion to 19 include all four constables. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only comment I would 21 have, Jonathan, is on your part of the motion about staying 22 with federal or state funding. Our first grant that covered 23 a -- the majority of all our cars, we only got, like, four 24 or five out of the D.P.S. grant, 'cause it wasn't even 25 available back then. And Ingram Marshal's grant that 5-24-04 14 1 covered theirs did come from local funding -- local grant, 2 and I think cutting that off may be detrimental to being 3 able to get a grant, 'cause I don't know what federal ones 4 are even out there any more. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't have a 6 problem, necessarily, of going back and retalking about 7 that, but I think that when we start going to some of the 8 local sources, I think the Court needs to look at it real 9 hard, because there may be, county-wide, a better reason to 10 go for a grant. I'm not saying that this is -- I think 11 safety of our employees -- certainly, constables -- is a 12 high priority, but when we start going to some of the -- I 13 mean, we're very fortunate in this community to have some 14 fantastic foundations, and I just think that we need to use 15 -- use them judiciously. I'm not sure that, you know, right 16 now is the time to approve going to them. But, certainly, 17 pursue the others. If you can't make any headway, come 18 back. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 20 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 21 your right hand. 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank 5-24-04 15 1 you very much, constable. 2 MR. GARZA: Thank you, Judge. Thank you, 3 Commissioners. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Next item on the agenda is to 6 set a public hearing for the alternate plat of Lots 12 and 7 13 in Hidden Valley Ranch in Precinct 2. 8 MR. JOHNSTON: Morning. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning. 10 MR. JOHNSTON: I think you have a drawing of 11 this. What they're doing is moving the boundary line 12 between Tract 13 -- 12 and 13 by 50 feet, so it's alternate 13 platting process. They need a public hearing. I'd suggest 14 June 28th meeting as the public hearing date. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're expanding 16 Tract 13 from 5.30 to 5.57; is that correct? No, looks like 17 they're both -- 18 MR. JOHNSTON: They're reducing that one, 19 increasing the other one. They're moving that line about 20 50 feet. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 22 MR. JOHNSTON: Something to do with the 23 stream or something in there. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we need a public 25 hearing on this? 5-24-04 16 1 JUDGE TINLEY: He indicated -- suggested 2 June 28th, '04. What, 10 o'clock? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd move we set a 4 public hearing on June 28th at 10 a.m. for the plat revision 5 for Hidden Valley Ranch. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 8 setting a public hearing on the agenda item. Any further 9 question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify 10 by raising 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. Let's move on down to what's listed as Item 10 on the 16 agenda, consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on 17 the Kerr County Information Technology Policies. 18 Commissioner Williams? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. This is 20 the revision that incorporated all of the changes that were 21 requested and suggested and made at the workshop that we 22 held on February 23rd. In your packet is the red-line which 23 shows what went out and what went in, and behind that is the 24 clean copy. I assume we got all the changes. We reviewed 25 all of the minutes of the workshop, reviewed the marked-up 5-24-04 17 1 copies, we tried to incorporate everything and everybody's 2 thoughts. Is that correct? So, to the best of our 3 knowledge, this is the finished product, unless, of course, 4 the Court has some other ideas and wishes to make some 5 additional changes and modifications. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Honestly, I haven't read 7 it -- read the revised copy, but I think that -- you know, I 8 would prefer that we give all the other elected officials 9 and department heads a little bit more opportunity, 10 possibly, to look at it. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fine. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make it available -- or 13 actually, probably send a copy to each of the elected 14 officials and department heads. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No problem. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then bring it back at the 17 next meeting. Then, that way, if everyone is agreed, we can 18 proceed. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. And if 20 any members of the Court have -- having checked it, you 21 know, red-line -- revisions against the red-line, you see 22 other things that need to be done, well, please let us know 23 and we'll do that. Kathy, if you'd be so good as to send 24 copies to the elected officials/department heads, we'll put 25 it back on for next time. No problem. 5-24-04 18 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that 2 agenda item? 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It looks good. It 4 incorporated, I think, all the -- all the improvements I 5 thought were needed, so I think we're pretty close, if not 6 there. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to move on to Item 8 12 and get some of the Sheriff's items out of the way, and 9 maybe move on down that way for a bit. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about 11? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's a demonstration, 12 and -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That is ready, too, and 15 doesn't -- wouldn't take all that long. It's just whatever 16 the pleasure of the Court is. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which item? 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 11. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go ahead and get 12 out 20 of the way. Consider, discuss, and approve application for 21 Tobacco Compliance Grant. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is one of those 23 yearly grants that comes up. I have not applied for one in 24 the past. We've been asked to by a number of agencies, 25 including the Comptroller's office that does set those up. 5-24-04 19 1 It's mainly just for, oh, teaching kids on the tobacco laws 2 and that, and getting advertising materials or informational 3 materials out to the licensed places and the places that 4 sell tobacco and alcohol and different things. It's not a 5 matching grant at all. It doesn't cost us anything, and the 6 grant amount just depends on how many places you have in 7 your county that sell tobacco and tobacco products, and how 8 many kids you have. So, it could be anywhere from $1,500 to 9 $25,000. I just don't know. We just have to wait and see. 10 But Sherry James, our D.A.R.E. officer, is the one that 11 would be in charge of educating the kids on it, and I don't 12 see any drawbacks to having this little bit of extra money 13 for help on education of kids. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somewhere in this 15 material, I read that it would fund sting operations. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It can fund sting 17 operations. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would mean what, 19 trying to find locations that sell tobacco to minors? 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we talking about 22 tobacco and alcohol? Or is this -- 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mainly, this is written 24 for tobacco, but it can be either one, and we work with 25 T.A.B.C. on these sting operations and undercover operations 5-24-04 20 1 that -- and help funds those -- those type deals. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know T.A.B.C., in 3 years past, has used this operation in Kerr County, and it's 4 been very successful. Very successful. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would the amount 7 of the grant be, Sheriff? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Anywhere from $1,500 to 9 $25,000, depending on where all the criteria falls in with 10 the state Comptroller's -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They make the 12 decision -- 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They make the decision. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- of the amount? 15 Not what your request is? 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. We just 17 apply for the grant, and with the materials, they make the 18 decision. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's another 20 example of the state legislature taking tax money and -- 21 away from taxpayers, moving it to Austin, laundering it, 22 then sending it back to us and telling us how to spend it. 23 I don't know if we've got a problem with children using 24 tobacco products or not. It's a catch-22. The money's 25 available. You almost have to take it when they want to 5-24-04 21 1 give it to you, but I -- I resent it and I wish they'd quit 2 doing that. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. It's our money. 4 It's our money, anyway. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: They're going to give it away 6 to somebody, though. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's put our hat out 9 there. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know, but it does -- 12 someone else is going to ask for it, so I move approval. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 15 approval of the agenda item. Any -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And authorize County 17 Judge to sign the same. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 19 approval of the agenda item, and authorize County Judge to 20 sign the grant application. Any further question or 21 discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right 22 hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 5-24-04 22 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Next Item 2 Number 13, consider and discuss reclassification of nurse 3 position to a nurse/E.M.T. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have talked about 5 this in the past. We have two nurse positions at the 6 Sheriff's Office. One is our head nurse; she's been there a 7 number of years. I don't anticipate losing her, you know, 8 at any time. I hope -- hope she doesn't even want to retire 9 for a long time. Second position is a little bit lower in 10 classification as to salary scale and that, and getting a 11 nurse in that position to stay, with the number of shortages 12 for nurses everywhere, it's hard to get one that stays to 13 deal with inmates. So, I really want to just adjust this 14 classification. And you'll see the job description that we 15 have attached; the only thing we changed in the job 16 description is under Page 2, the last paragraph, 17 Certificates, Licenses, and Registrations, we've added the 18 very last line, "State-registered or licensed vocational 19 nurse or E.M.T." And what it does is allow us to get an 20 E.M.T. into that position or an intermediate E.M.T. or a 21 paramedic. And the way we have suggested this be done is, 22 the salary scale we're paying right now, if you look 23 nationwide, it's in line with that. It's a little bit 24 higher than what Kerrville Fire Department pays for just 25 E.M.T.'s, but it is in line with where that salary scale 5-24-04 23 1 goes. And then, if he were an E.M.T. intermediate, we'd do 2 the same thing as we do for law enforcement, which would be 3 one step. And then, if they were a paramedic, do another 4 step at that point, so they could go up to two steps in the 5 step and grade. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you saying you're 7 not going to adjust the salary at this time? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm not going to adjust 9 the starting salary at all. It's just with the 10 certifications, since we have the educational in law 11 enforcement and jailers and dispatchers, I would want to be 12 able to have that same educational step with that person 13 being an E.M.T. intermediate or being a paramedic. And with 14 their job duties and their training, several hundred hours 15 of training to even get the E.M.T. -- I think most 16 everybody's familiar with that, and the paramedics, even 17 that much more -- I think it'll give us a lot in the jail as 18 far as emergency medical evaluations and need. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: That complies with Jail 20 Standards Commission requirements? 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you were to implement 23 this now, do you have funds in your budget? 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move for approval. 5-24-04 24 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 3 approval of the agenda item. Any further question or 4 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 5 your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Next item on the agenda, 10 consider and discuss and approve 36-month subscription 11 agreement with Thompson West to replace the inmate law 12 library with a CD-ROM library. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's not really a 14 CD-ROM. It's a total online deal through West Law, but it's 15 built for inmates in correctional facilities. Right now, 16 our law library, just the updates, subscriptions, and 17 add-ons, is -- and Judge Tinley would be able to attest 18 to this -- costs us about 46 -- between $4,300 and $4,600 a 19 year. Now, none of this comes out of Commissioners Court 20 funding or out of County funding. Everything through this 21 is paid through our proceeds from commissary account which 22 is available. If we go to strictly online, it's about 23 $1,800 a year. We can have one computer set up in a secure 24 location where you can take an inmate in there and he can 25 search his own laws and things that he has a right to be 5-24-04 25 1 able to do, without being able to do anything else. It's 2 strictly -- that's the only thing on the computer, and the 3 safeguards through West Law are made that way and designed 4 that way for inmates. It's just a -- a large savings tool 5 for the County. The computer itself will come out of those 6 proceeds to hook it up, and then the subscription, yearly, 7 will come out of the proceeds from commissary also. So, the 8 inmates are paying for their own law library. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Question. Does -- does this 10 kind of legal research facility comply with Jail Standards 11 Commission requirements and federal court requirements? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: State and federal? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Will this impact space? 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It will give us a lot 17 more space where our current law library is, to be able to 18 use that space for anything else. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: What about logistical 20 requirements of -- of usage of personnel when somebody's got 21 to be able to do their research? How -- 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It will save us a lot. 23 We have an area in the multi-purpose room where we will set 24 up the computer to be able to have an inmate do this. You 25 can put him in there, lock him into a certain area there to 5-24-04 26 1 where you can watch him. Currently, if an inmate wants a 2 law book, they have to tell you which one and the jailer has 3 to go down, get that law book, take it and an inmate to a 4 solitary cell and let that inmate do his research in a 5 solitary cell, which causes a lot more time and -- and that 6 on the jailers. So, this will free up jailers. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: So, it's going to save money, 8 it's going to save space, and it's going to -- 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Save time. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: -- increase the efficiency of 11 your personnel? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. I'll second 15 the motion, but I have one more question. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion made and 17 seconded for approval of the agenda item. Questions or 18 discussion? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty? 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you sure one 22 computer's going to do it? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't have a bunch 25 of folks out there that are researching law? 5-24-04 27 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, we always have 2 our -- you know, a number of them that want to, but this 3 type of deal is just as we can schedule them to go in there 4 and use it. It's -- it's not something where we have to 5 give all of them access at the same time. This -- it's just 6 scheduling, just like visitation or anything else. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what will you do 8 with the old books? 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's a good question. 10 I haven't really thought that far ahead, but we'll be able 11 to use that space. Whether I donate them up here, get a -- 12 I have to look at the legal requirements on how we can get 13 rid of them, since they were purchased through the proceeds 14 of commissary over the years, and then have -- how can we 15 dispose of them? Can we donate them to the County's law 16 library? Do we have to just destroy them or sell them or 17 what? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're pretty well 19 booked -- full. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. What you're seeing a 21 lot of, Commissioner, is, even in private law libraries, 22 because of the space demands that -- that the hard copy 23 creates, you're seeing a lot of these end up going to 24 landfills or shredded or recycled or whatever, because used 25 law books used to be worth some money. They're a liability 5-24-04 28 1 now. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it a possibility 3 that the library would be receptive to taking them? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm sure the Sheriff 5 would be happy, to avoid having to pay landfill costs, if 6 that ends up being his last option, to give them to anybody 7 else if he can legally do so. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you can legally do 10 so, would you check with Mr. Martinez over at the library 11 and see if he's receptive to -- 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Definitely. If we can 13 legally do so, then I'd go through the Auditor to get the -- 14 you know, disposing of County property order and that, and 15 if we can give them to the library or wherever, even one of 16 the colleges or whatever, we'd love to be able to do that. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they went to the -- 18 probably wouldn't be surplus, but if they went to the 19 library, we can probably -- we fund the library; we can just 20 shift them over there. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. Or Schreiner 22 has a library as well; maybe they'll use them. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 'Cause they are 24 up-to-date, you know. They just cost us a lot to maintain 25 every year. The -- Item Number 12 would take not more -- or 5-24-04 29 1 11, whichever one it was -- wouldn't take more than about 15 2 minutes, if y'all want to do that whenever. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I planned on swinging back to 4 that one as soon as we get through here. Any further 5 question or discussion on the motion that's pending on Item 6 14? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 7 right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. 12 (Discussion off the record.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go ahead and go to Item 14 11 now, the discussion and demonstration of digital camera 15 system for the adult detention center. This is a discussion 16 and -- and show-and-tell type item. We'll be outside -- 17 there's a mobile demonstration unit outside. We'll be out 18 there. I -- I don't think we're going to need the court 19 reporter for the purposes of that, so we'll -- we will 20 suspend her activities right now and go off the record for 21 that item, since no official action will be taken unless and 22 until we come back in. And, in fact -- 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I haven't posted it for 24 any kind of action to be taken. It's just more of a 25 discussion and demonstration, because in the budget process 5-24-04 30 1 this year, as y'all are aware of, our camera monitoring 2 system in the jail needs vast improvement. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: So, at this point, we will go 4 off the record and we'll be outside for demonstration. 5 (Court went outside at 9:33 a.m. for demonstration of digital camera system.) 6 - - - - - - - - - - 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, that's Item 11. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't have anything 9 other than what y'all saw on it. Thank y'all for taking the 10 time. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Sheriff. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate it. We will go 13 back on the record and go to Item 5, which was scheduled for 14 10 o'clock. It's a couple of minutes after that now. That 15 is a public hearing. So, I will recess the Commissioners 16 Court meeting at this time and open a public hearing for the 17 alternate plat of Lots 12 and -- excuse me, alternate plat 18 for Lots 14 and 15 of The Horizon, Section One, located in 19 Precinct 1. 20 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:03 a.m., and a public hearing 21 was held in open court, as follows:) 22 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the 24 public that wishes to be heard in this public hearing with 25 respect to the alternate plat process for Lots 14 and 15 of 5-24-04 31 1 The Horizon, Section One? 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one to come forward 4 or indicate they desire to be heard, I will close the public 5 hearing on the alternate plat process for Lots 14 and 15 of 6 The Horizon, Section One, and I will reconvene the 7 Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for this date. 8 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:04 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court 9 meeting was reopened.) 10 - - - - - - - - - - 11 JUDGE TINLEY: And looks like we're about as 12 close to 10:05 as we're going to get, so we'll go on to the 13 next item, which is a timed item for 10:05, that being Item 14 6, open bids and read aloud on the five-year lease of a 15 backhoe loader. The first -- first bid that we have is from 16 Anderson Machinery in San Antonio. The -- it's a five-year 17 lease, 60 months at $1,227 a month for a total of $73,620. 18 A guaranteed repair expense feature from delivery to five 19 years or 7,500 hours, whichever shall first occur, that not 20 to exceed $2,875. That is a total cost bid of $76,495. I 21 assume that the guaranteed repair expense is an alternate 22 that we can agree to accept or not accept as we choose. 23 Would that be correct Mr. Odom? 24 MR. ODOM: Well, I'd have to see it, exactly 25 what -- what it's got, but I would assume it -- what this -- 5-24-04 32 1 this bid was supposed to be cumulative of -- of maintenance 2 as well as the backhoe itself. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So -- 4 MR. ODOM: So it should be combined. What I 5 have to do is look at what it's going to cost me on 60 6 months and all added to it. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, the repair expense 8 would not exceed $2,875 in the first five years or 7,500 9 hours, whichever first occurred, and that added to the base 10 lease cost would be $76,495. The -- the next bid that we 11 have is from -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Holt. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: -- Holt Caterpillar, San 14 Antonio, Texas. The base bid for the five-year lease, 60 15 months, at $786 a month for a base cost of $47,160. The 16 guaranteed repair expense on this one from delivery to the 17 first five years or 7,500 hours, whichever first occurs, not 18 to exceed $275, for a total cost bid of $47,435. And the 19 last bid that we have is -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's two different 21 ones. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: There are two options in the 23 last bid from R.D.O. Equipment Company in San Antonio. The 24 first one is John Deere Model 410-G. It has a base cost, 25 five-year lease, 60 months, at $874.23 per month, for 5-24-04 33 1 $52,453.80. It's annotated that there's a purchase option 2 at the end of the lease for $24,187.05. The guaranteed 3 repair expense from delivery to five years or 7,500 hours, 4 whichever first occurs, not to exceed $8,500, for a total 5 cost of $60,953.80. The optional bid is for John Deere 6 310-SG, which has a base cost, five-year, 60 months, at 7 $804.46 per month, for a total of $48,267.60, annotated at 8 purchase option at the end of the lease is $21,342.32. The 9 guaranteed repair expense on this bid is, from delivery to 10 five years or 7,500 hours, whichever first occurs, not to 11 exceed $8,500, total being $56,767.67. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I move we accept 13 all bids and refer them to the Road and Bridge Department 14 for evaluation and recommendation. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 17 accept the bids as opened and refer them to Road and Bridge 18 for evaluation or recommendation. Any further questions or 19 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 20 your right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Why 25 don't we go to Item 15, consider and discuss the expenditure 5-24-04 34 1 authorization for right-of-way acquisition for the Hermann 2 Sons Bridge project. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, this is a budget 4 amendment. First, I'd like to express my appreciation to 5 David Motley. David spent a great deal of time last week 6 really trying to finalize some of these deals. He was in 7 San Antonio trying to track down Mr. Tijerina when he was 8 down there. Later in the week, he and I met with 9 Mr. Tijerina in Comfort, and then following that, he went 10 back down there and picked up the actual deeds from 11 Mr. Tijerina. So, he -- he did a lot of work; I want to 12 thank him for what he did. Bottom line of all that, unless 13 something changed in my absence the last part of the week, 14 we have a deal now with all five of the people. 15 Mr. Tijerina, who was the holdout, we have a deal with him 16 that I would recommend -- it is a higher amount than the 17 appraised amount, but I think it is going to be very 18 reasonable. The appraised amount was a total of $12,040, 19 what the amount was. 20 In meeting with him, we came to an agreement 21 of $16,000 total payment. And how I came -- and that was 22 the max that I offered at one point, and that was the 23 maximum I thought the County should pay. And that number, 24 in my mind, was fair, because it basically -- it added 25 10 percent to the value. There was some appreciation, 5-24-04 35 1 probably, or likely since the original appraisal took place, 2 and so -- and we knew it was going to cost us about $3,000 3 to go through the commissioner condemnation process, not to 4 mention the time it was going to take us. So we probably, 5 in fact, saved a little bit of money. Also, it's part of 6 the overall project because of the deal we worked out with 7 the Grand Lodge of the Hermann Sons. Actually, it's a 8 minimal amount. There's about $3,700 excess that they did 9 not -- that we did not need for this right-of-way 10 acquisition to -- actually, about $200 from the total 11 budgeted amount, which I think is a pretty good deal. 12 David, that's -- everything I said is correct? 13 MR. MOTLEY: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nothing changed? 15 MR. MOTLEY: No. No, I think there would be 16 appreciation in that property from the time the appraisal 17 was made and until the time of the hearing, and 10 percent 18 may -- that's a good ballpark guess it would go up. And 19 we'd have to do that if we went to condemnation. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So, the amount of 21 additional funds that we need to authorize is $3,978. That 22 would come out of Flood Control, and we will handle a budget 23 amendment for that amount. I guess we can handle it all 24 right now. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much? 5-24-04 36 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $3,978. And there is a 2 budget amendment form in our package, so we need to approve 3 that amount to come from Flood Control Reserves, and we need 4 a hand check to Fidelity Abstract and Title for that amount. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: And you so move? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I so move. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to do 9 a budget amendment to the Flood Control budget from Reserves 10 for $3,978 to complete the Hermann Sons Bridge project 11 right-of-way, and authorize a hand check in that same amount 12 to Fidelity Abstract and Title Company to close that matter 13 out. And I assume, if there's any further documentation 14 that I need to sign, that authorization is in there also? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That is correct. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This wraps it all up, 18 then? All your pieces are together? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're all together. 20 I'm not sure -- there's one that I'm not positive that we 21 have the paperwork. The deal's made; it's just a matter of 22 getting the people to come in and sign it. I think the 23 other four have been -- you know, everything's been taken 24 care of. Deeds are in our hands. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll meet the 5-24-04 37 1 deadline for TexDOT? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And just an update on 5 that part of it. I talked to Mike Coward; it has moved 6 forward to Austin, and the letting process is underway, and 7 the bids are due back September 1st on the bridge. The 8 bridge should be under construction before the end of the 9 year. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, right. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 13 discussion? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just, that's a good 15 piece of work. It's amazing that once in a while, we get 16 something done quickly and efficiently. Congratulations, 17 Commissioner Letz and David. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon's aged about seven 19 years through this, though. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure it was all the 21 Hermann Sons. I think this last week took a pretty good 22 toll on him. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He hasn't seen 24 anything yet. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? All in 5-24-04 38 1 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. The 4 motion does carry. We'll now go to a timed item which was 5 scheduled for 10:15, that being public hearing on Item -- on 6 the alternate plat process. So, I will recess the 7 Commissioners Court meeting at this time, and I will open a 8 public hearing on the alternate plat process for Lots 32 and 9 33 of The Horizon, Section One, located in Precinct 1. 10 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:15 a.m., and a public hearing 11 was held in open court, as follows:) 12 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the 14 public that wishes to be heard with respect to the alternate 15 plat process for Lots 32 and 33 of The Horizon, Section One, 16 located in Precinct 1 of Kerr County? Anybody wishing to be 17 heard on the public hearing? 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Being no one coming forward 20 and no one indicating a desire to come forward, I'll close 21 the public hearing on the alternate plat process for Lots 32 22 and 33 of The Horizon, Section One, in Precinct 1, and I 23 will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting at this time. 24 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:16 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court 25 meeting was reopened.) - - - - - - - - - - 5-24-04 39 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to the end of the 2 agenda and go to Item 16, consider and discuss a report on 3 the status of the administrative services agreement with 4 Employee Benefit Administrators. Pursuant to the motion and 5 the instruction from the Court at the last meeting, I made 6 modifications to the administrative services agreement with 7 Employee Benefit Administrators, and forwarded that to 8 E.B.A. Last week, I got a call from one of the principals 9 at E.B.A. indicating that they had received it; they had 10 reviewed it. All of the changes that were made were 11 acceptable to them, with one exception. They are of the 12 belief and the opinion that the consultant recommended a 13 three-year deal, and the interpretation of the E.B.A. rep 14 was that the Court's action was to, quote, accept the 15 consultant's recommendation. And, therefore, their position 16 is that they have a three-year deal. I assume it's tendered 17 in their agreement, rather than a one-year deal with two 18 one-year options at our option to renew that agreement 19 for -- for two successive one-year periods. 20 I didn't have further discussion. I told the 21 principal I would bring it before the Court. My personal 22 feeling is, as the agreement is tendered, we can't lawfully 23 accept that, because it's a straight-out three-year 24 agreement, which would bind a future court to make an 25 expenditure of funds. 5-24-04 40 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Judge, my memory 2 says that -- I mean, I -- I didn't -- I don't recall voting 3 on a three-year -- three-year anything. I voted as -- the 4 recommendation was to go with a certain company, and that 5 was my vote. It didn't have anything to do with a time 6 frame. I don't recall a three-year conversation. I'm sure 7 it happened. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My recollection is 9 exactly the same as Commissioner Baldwin's. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was just curious as 11 to whether or not the minutes reflect their position. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: There was a three-year -- a 13 three-year reference in those minutes, and the reference was 14 that the administrative cost that -- there was a, quote, 15 guarantee to freeze those administrative costs for a period 16 of three years. The actual agreement itself was bid as a 17 12/12, or in some cases, there was a reference, I think, to 18 one bidder bidding a 12/15, which would be -- with a 19 one-year agreement, but being able to -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Spread it -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- being able to pick up the 22 following three months. The following quarter, in other 23 words. But that was mainly as to the -- the stop loss 24 insurance contract. But there was a reference to a 25 three-year, and it was in the expert's spreadsheet. It 5-24-04 41 1 related to the freezing of the third-party administrator 2 administrative costs. And if -- there was another one, for 3 example, that -- that gave us a fixed cost for the second 4 year. It wasn't the same, but they fixed the cost for the 5 second year as a quote guarantee. But I just saw it as a -- 6 as a fixed cost in the event we renewed it into a second 7 and/or a third year, but not a three-year agreement. The 8 bottom line being that the agreement as tendered, I don't 9 think we can lawfully sign a three-year, straight-out -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: -- commitment -- agreement. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree, but I think also 13 you go back to the request for bid was for a one-year deal; 14 it wasn't for three. I mean, you know, either way, it's a 15 one -- any way you look at it, it's a one-year deal. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, a one-year 17 contract with two -- with two option years at the same rate 18 yields the same thing for both parties. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The way I see it. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I think I've got the consensus 22 of the Court. I will proceed in that direction. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, will that queer 24 the deal with them? Or what's the -- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know. I -- I 5-24-04 42 1 indicated to the principal of E.B.A., when I had that 2 discussion that I've relayed to you, that I would bring it 3 to the Court, get the Court's feeling about it, and report 4 back. So, I will report back accordingly. That's where we 5 are. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on that, do you 8 plan to send them a letter to that effect? I mean, I think 9 that if it's -- it would be probably better from a 10 documentation standpoint if we sent a letter, say, as 11 opposed to just a phone call. That way, it's -- there's no 12 misunderstanding. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I'll be happy to do that. 14 I'll -- and I agree with -- with that approach, I think, in 15 order that there be no recollection problems. Anything 16 further on that item? Okey-doke. Let me see where we are. 17 I tell you what let's do, then. Why don't we take our 18 mid-morning break a little bit early, and -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good idea. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: -- and we'll come back at a 21 little bit after 10:30, and we'll -- we'll be on schedule 22 with our timed items, or at least the first one, reasonably 23 close. So, we'll stand in recess until 10:30 or shortly 24 thereafter. 25 (Recess taken from 10:22 a.m. to 10:33 a.m.) - - - - - - - - - - 5-24-04 43 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to 2 order. We were in recess for a bit. We're now back in 3 session. Next item on the agenda is Item 8, consider and 4 discuss steps necessary for previously subdivided 5 Bettac/Rickert property and road to be in compliance with 6 the Kerr County Subdivision Rules. This was a timed matter 7 for 10:30. We're pretty much on target; it's a few minutes 8 after 10:30. The engineer, I believe, is on this item, and 9 Mr. Hart, you're on it also. And who's going to lead it 10 off? 11 MR. JOHNSTON: I think Commissioner 1 put it 12 on the agenda. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I did, because I'm a 14 nice guy. 15 MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we need to take a vote on 17 that? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Afraid we can't get a 20 majority? 21 MR. JOHNSTON: It's precinct -- actually in 22 Precinct 2. It's as a result of an opinion by David Motley 23 of the property that you just talked about, whether or not 24 it's in compliance with the Subdivision Rules. I think the 25 conclusion of David's memo was that it -- there's no reason 5-24-04 44 1 why it shouldn't be subdivided; should have been subdivided 2 instead of partitioned by nonjudicial means. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: The controlling factor being 4 because it actually, quote, laid out a road, unquote? 5 MR. JOHNSTON: Laid out a road, yes, sir. We 6 actually sent the owner a letter back over a year ago. I 7 think we told him at that time that our opinion was it 8 needed to be platted. He argued, saying it didn't need to 9 be, so that's why we're here a year later. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You might refresh 11 the Court's memory, too, Franklin, that you and I visited 12 that -- 13 MR. JOHNSTON: Several times, yes. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Drove that property 15 and that road in question, and I believe our conclusion was 16 it did not meet county standards for country lane. Is that 17 correct? 18 MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct, did not meet 19 the standards. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're here to find 21 out what -- basically, to affirm that it needs to be 22 platted? 23 MR. JOHNSTON: I guess -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or direct you to contact 25 the owner of the property to plat it? Is that what we're 5-24-04 45 1 here for? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think sort 3 of. I think what we're -- we're seeking -- come on up. 4 MR. JOHNSTON: I think that question is 5 already -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe he'll tell us 7 what we're seeking. 8 MR. JOHNSTON: -- under a dispute in another 9 agenda. 10 MR. HART: Your Honors, as you've discussed, 11 County Attorney Motley's opinion is that the road is not in 12 compliance, and that the property was not platted in 13 compliance that it needs to be. I think your rules clearly 14 show that the minimum requirement would be a country lane, 15 which, in the definition of a country lane, above the 16 definition of road in the Definitions section of the rules, 17 it says, "This type of road shall be mandated by the 18 Commissioners Court in those cases where right-of-way exists 19 and minimum access is desired." What -- what we're asking 20 is -- County Attorney Motley's opinion was March 30th. One 21 clarification, that it does need to have -- be improved with 22 a country lane, it does need to be platted, and that the 23 present access road does not meet the requirements. So, 24 those are the points, really. 25 And I think Mr. Franklin and Commissioner 5-24-04 46 1 Williams -- both stated that it does not meet the 2 requirements of a country lane. So, you know, I think we're 3 there. My client, Mr. Colvin, and his son, Jay Colvin, IV, 4 who, for some reason, thinks he wants to be a lawyer, are 5 here today, and we're just asking that the Court rule 6 that -- follow up on the opinion and rule that it must meet 7 the requirements for a country lane; that it needs to be 8 platted, and the fact issue of it's not in compliance at 9 this time with that country lane requirement is what we're 10 asking. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, bottom line is, 12 if -- if the instruction is that it must be platted, what 13 automatically follows is, at a minimum, it must be a country 14 lane; meet that requirement under the platting requirements. 15 MR. HART: I believe so. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Just the imposition of the 17 platting requirement would cause these other things to 18 follow. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a better 20 approach, because I'm not sure -- I mean, y'all have said 21 country lane. It depends on the use of the property and how 22 many lots he puts on there, whether it qualifies. If it's 23 more than -- five? 24 MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. At the 25 present time, it's just two lots on it. 5-24-04 47 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If it remains as it 2 is, a country lane would suffice, but if somebody else broke 3 it up into -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: More. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- multiple lots -- 6 MR. JOHNSTON: It would be different. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is possible. 8 That standard -- that standard would have to be raised. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I would say that 11 I would offer as a motion that the Court affirm the County 12 Attorney's memorandum of March 30, 2004, in this matter, and 13 which will require a platting of that particular piece of 14 property, and as such, that triggers all sorts of other 15 things. Is that correct? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 18 require the platting of the property in accordance with the 19 County Attorney's opinion. Any further question or 20 discussion? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a discussion. I 22 think the next step would be for the County Engineer to 23 inform, with a copy of this order attached. And if he 24 refuses, refer it to the County Attorney for enforcement. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And send it to both 5-24-04 48 1 parties. 2 MR. JOHNSTON: Right. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or 4 discussion with respect to the motion? All in favor of the 5 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank 10 you, Mr. Hart, Jonathan. 11 MR. HART: Thank you, gentlemen. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Next item on the agenda is a 13 timed item for 10:45. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we can go with 15 that. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: But it appears that Judge 17 Edwards is here, so we'll go to Item 9, presentation on the 18 AquaSource rate increase. That was put on by Precinct 1 19 Commissioner Baldwin, and he's going to have Judge Edwards 20 give us the low-down here. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am. Judge Edwards, 22 thank you very much for coming. This issue has popped up -- 23 of course, most of us sitting at this table have met with 24 AquaSource and clearly understand what's coming about. I 25 have had numerous phone calls from the community or my 5-24-04 49 1 precinct with concerns; particularly this morning, my phone 2 has not stopped ringing. And, Danny, something interesting; 3 we're talking about a -- I think we're talking about a 4 40 percent increase, is what AquaSource -- and some of my 5 bright, retired folks have done some mathematics. One of 6 them came up with a 56 percent, and one has come up with a 7 77 percent increase. So -- 8 MR. EDWARDS: I think the problem with 9 that -- and I'll cover that and explain that. Let me take 10 you back pre-AquaSource, pre-2001, just give you a brief 11 overview of the inequities of the system as it was then. 12 The inequities exist on several levels. First of all, at 13 the application level, there's absolutely no incentive for 14 them not to file an application, and there is no -- and 15 there is no incentive -- I mean, there's incentive for them 16 to file the application. There's no incentive for them to 17 ever settle, but to take it to the utmost extreme. The 18 reason for that is that the law provides that AquaSource, or 19 Aqua Texas, as provided, will recover all of their legal 20 expenses from the ratepayers, spread over a period of time. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Win, lose, or draw. 22 MR. EDWARDS: Beg pardon? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Win, lose, or draw. 24 MR. EDWARDS: Win, lose, or draw. So they 25 have no -- nothing to lose by filing a rate application any 5-24-04 50 1 time they have the opportunity. At the end, there's no 2 incentive to try to come to the table and deal with the 3 local authorities in any way, because the longer they 4 stretch it out, the more legal fees the attorneys receive. 5 Secondly, an inequity exists at the environ level. Those 6 are the people who do not live within the city limits of an 7 incorporated city that's affected by this, and that's the 8 name that they've given to them. The environs have no way 9 to be protected. They must organize individually or as 10 groups, et cetera, et cetera, and the utility can resist 11 them and get their legal fees, but the environs can not 12 recover their legal fees. So, the inequities that existed 13 in the system even before AquaSource and the 2001 case we 14 tried was tremendous, in my opinion. 15 I think those in -- those inequities were 16 recognized by the Legislature, because when AquaSource came 17 forward and filed this statewide application, which was to 18 put all of their ratepayers, some 200 separate units in some 19 50 counties in some 15 or 20 different cities, all in at the 20 same rate, and the Legislature recognized the inequity of 21 that and passed a law prohibiting that. And it went through 22 the Legislature; both houses passed it, went through several 23 amendments, and stood up. Harvey Hilderbran sponsored it. 24 We followed it, and it was passed, except that when it all 25 was printed out, it contained one sentence which exempted 5-24-04 51 1 AquaSource from the law, and we've tried every way in the 2 world to find out how that happened. There was never an 3 official amendment to it or anything else, and I promise 4 you, the only explanation I have ever been given by a 5 legislator who really knows the process is, it was done by 6 the "magic typewriter" in Austin. And that's a very common 7 term in Austin, the "magic typewriter." 8 So, we're not certain, though, that 9 AquaSource was exempted from it, but that -- that position 10 has never been litigated. You know, you have to look at 11 what it was before and after, before they filed a rate case 12 with this system over here and a rate case for the system 13 over here and a rate case for the system over here, et 14 cetera. And, so, to resist this rate increase, all the 15 people in that -- under that system had to do was to gather 16 the necessary financial and engineering data to resist it, 17 and it may not have over 100 or 150 or 200 connections, and 18 the data required was not that extensive. When you go to a 19 statewide system, the data required and the expertise 20 required explodes exponentially. AquaSource spent $1.4 21 million litigating that first case that we fought. Although 22 we had about 15 cities involved that were affected by it, 23 only four cities contested it. I put the coalition together 24 for small cities to fight it, and we had to gamble that the 25 T.N.R.C.C. then, T.C.E.Q. now, would allow us to spread our 5-24-04 52 1 expenses over the entire body of the ratepayers, 39,000 2 customers, and not just over the body of the ratepayers in 3 the city, which would have been maybe a few thousand, 4,000 4 or 5,000. 5 And, so, you can see it makes a big 6 difference as to whether our rate expenses are going to be 7 spread over 3,000 customers, or whether it's going to be 8 spread over 39,000 customers. We had to gamble to a certain 9 point, take the chance that we were going to get our -- our 10 expenses covered over the entire spectrum of the rate case. 11 The administrative law judges refused to rule upon that, and 12 as a result, that decision was never made, but we did put 13 that into our settlement. So, when you -- when you figure 14 that you have to get, you know, information covering 15 200-some-odd systems to present this data to try to resist 16 this, you can see the amount of expertise that's required. 17 And out of that -- the cities, incidentally, spent $400,000 18 fighting this case. It was well worth it to the cities, but 19 the sad part about it is, the environs who we represented as 20 best as we could up to the very last minute, when -- when 21 T.N.R.C.C. took over their negotiation, and 15 minutes 22 before the case was disposed of, gave the environs another 23 dollar rate increase, just like that, with four lawyers 24 sitting there screaming at them not to do anything because 25 we felt like we had a winning situation. So, the environs 5-24-04 53 1 have little or no protection in this -- in this rate case 2 application process. 3 Now, the rate case that we're facing doesn't 4 cover 39,000 customers, it covers 100,000 customers, so the 5 data to be required to put it together is now three times as 6 much as it was last time when we spent $400,000. And so you 7 can see that this just exponentially gets more and more 8 difficult for all ratepayers to contest it, and almost 9 impossible for ratepayers that are not in the jurisdiction 10 of a city. It's almost impossible for them to do anything 11 effective. In fact, I don't know that there's anything they 12 can do effectively. It's a very inequitable law. The magic 13 typewriter erased that. They did pass some law allowing 14 them to go into regions, and since that law, I think 15 AquaSource at that time saw that probably being contested, 16 but maybe not. They went ahead and agreed to put all the 17 rates into four regions, except for the four little cities 18 that contested this thing. 19 And, to show you the effect of it, if we do 20 nothing in Ingram, our rate at the end of four years -- if 21 we don't protest this rate increase, our rate at the end of 22 four years will be less than the rate of the people around 23 the city of Ingram is today. That's how inequitable it is. 24 We can go four more years and still be no worse off than 25 everybody else is in this county today. It makes absolutely 5-24-04 54 1 no sense, engineering-wise, financially, ethically, morally, 2 legally, to me, that 200-some-odd systems should have all 3 the same rate. You can have a system that's brand-new, 4 no -- no future requirements made for maintenance, et 5 cetera, et cetera, good rate. You got one over here that's 6 dilapidated, going to require thousands of dollars to be 7 spent on it, and these people over here are subsidizing what 8 these people over here have to do. It's just that simple. 9 It's the first time in history it's ever been accomplished 10 on water rates. 11 As I say, the magnitude of the data to be 12 gathered this time is just -- it's unbelievable the way it 13 has to be. These last -- just the application last time -- 14 the application, not the data supporting it -- took up two 15 file boxes -- two letter-size file boxes. That's just the 16 application itself. We are in four regions now, and then 17 the four cities have their separate rate. They're now 18 trying to reduce two of those regions into one region, which 19 will put them down to just three regions. And, again, 20 they're now taking the water rates in 11 counties and 15 21 counties in another region, and consolidating them into one 22 region of 26 counties. And my guess is, next time around, 23 they'll probably consolidate those. They're consolidating 24 northeast and northwest; my guess is that they'll try to 25 consolidate southeast and southwest and get it down to two 5-24-04 55 1 regions. So, this becomes a more difficult thing as it -- 2 as it progresses. And it's unfortunate that the counties 3 could not have participated in the first one, and all of the 4 cities didn't participate in the first one, because even 5 though they didn't participate, weren't represented, they're 6 paying for the legal expenses of $1.8 million, and will be 7 for three more years on their water bills, at a rate of 85 8 cents a month. 9 The company this time is proposing to, as I 10 say, reduce it to three regions, and they are proposing to 11 extend the 85-cent surcharge to cover the legal expenses, 12 suggesting that they're only going to spend about $400,000 13 this time because they're going to try to handle it 14 in-house. And, of course, it's going to be almost 15 impossible for those probably 60,000 to 70,000 ratepayers 16 who are not in the city to organize to do anything about it. 17 And if they don't organize and get the signatures as 18 required for hearing, it's a done deal. There's no protest, 19 there's no hearing, there's no nothing for the environs. 20 Now, the cities, we will all have hearings; we'll all 21 protest it -- well, I say that. I don't know whether the 22 other cities will or not. Twelve of them didn't last time, 23 and their environs are paying for it now. Ingram, I'm happy 24 to say, wound up with the lowest rate in the entire 25 AquaSource system, and the other three cities came out 5-24-04 56 1 considerably better than they would have had they not 2 contested it. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Danny, what were the 4 other three cities? 5 MR. EDWARDS: Sorry? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What were the other three 7 cities? 8 MR. EDWARDS: The other cities were 9 Woodcreek, Wimberley -- 10 MR. DAMON: Houston. 11 MR. EDWARDS: One of them dropped out because 12 they didn't have anything except sewer, so it was just 13 Wimberley, Woodcreek, and Ingram that wound up in the final 14 analysis on water. We started out with four, because one of 15 them had sewer. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: On the so-called proposed 18 40 percent rate increase to be brought in over four years, 19 does the application allow for 10 percent the first year, 20 and then the second year, 10 percent on the rate as 21 established the first year? And -- in other words, is it 22 compounded? 23 MR. EDWARDS: No, it's -- basically, they've 24 tried to kind of spread it out over 10 percent per year. 25 And the reason you're getting different rates, Commissioner, 5-24-04 57 1 is because it's not just the -- the fundamental, or what 2 they call the basic rate that they're increasing. That's -- 3 that's whether you use any water or not. What they're doing 4 is also increasing the per-gallon charge, and it varies from 5 system to system. And that also has to be thrown into the 6 calculation of what your total rate increase is, because if 7 you're paying $1.30 per 1,000 and it goes up to $3 per 8 1,000, that has to be calculated into your base rate in 9 addition to the 40 percent increase on your base rate, 10 whether you ever use any water or not. So, you're going to 11 get different numbers depending upon how you calculate that 12 and how much water you use. 13 I don't know what Ingram's going to do. We 14 are having a meeting next Tuesday. I would hope that they 15 would encourage -- or would allow me to try to put together 16 a coalition and to try to resist this matter on a 17 large-scale basis, because, certainly, Ingram could never 18 have authority to stand alone, and had we not convinced the 19 other cities to take the gamble that we could go up to a 20 certain point and bear the cost -- but then we hoped that we 21 could finally get a ruling that our cost would be spread 22 over 39,000 customers. This time, our cost would be spread 23 over 100,000 customers, so they're saying that they're 24 willing to leave the surcharge at 85 cents and just extend 25 it till the litigation expenses from this one is covered. 5-24-04 58 1 So, the procedure almost preempts the environs from doing 2 anything, quite candidly. And that's it in a real nutshell. 3 I do have a couple of comments I'd like to 4 make for counties. I -- I think that there's some things 5 that the counties can do to be effective and to help the 6 environs. There's, I think, 50 counties involved in this 7 this time. I know there's 45 or 46. I don't know -- 8 Article 13.182, I think it is, prescribes that these rates 9 must be determined -- if these are done on a region basis, 10 they must be done on a region-to-region basis. Now, that's 11 not what Aqua Tex -- Aqua -- pardon me, Aqua Texas now wants 12 to do. They want a flat rate, consolidating two, and just 13 fight the rest of them on a unified basis. It would appear 14 to me that, since these rates have to be determined on a 15 case -- on a case-by-case basis, region-by-region -- as I 16 say, there's -- I think there's 15 counties -- 15 counties 17 in the southwest region, which is where we are. There are 18 two things that I think could be done. I think, first of 19 all, if each county just kicked in $4,000 or $5,000, and all 20 15 counties participated, you would have enough to hire an 21 attorney to represent all the environs that are not in 22 cities. 23 Something that I think would be even better, 24 or maybe a part thereto, is I'm not convinced, and I don't 25 think any of the lawyers are that want to stand up and fight 5-24-04 59 1 this thing are convinced that this region system is -- is 2 even legal. It just doesn't make sense to me that 25 3 separate water systems within -- more than that; 100 water 4 systems within a region all have the same percentage of 5 operating expenses and maintenance expenses, et cetera, et 6 cetera, et cetera. There's no way. I think the ironical 7 part about this thing is -- is that when they filed for 8 their 2001 rate increase, the one we fought, the reason they 9 gave us was that there were a number of compliance orders 10 outstanding that required these various systems to be 11 updated by T.N.R.C.C., and they needed this money to make 12 these updates. That's the way they -- that's the way they 13 filed their application. "We need this money to comply with 14 these updates." 15 This application opens up with the statement 16 that they need this money to meet the compliance mandates 17 issued while AquaSource -- AquaSource owned it and didn't 18 do, and now they're going to have to do them. That's an 19 insult to me, to an intelligent businessman, because if I 20 was buying a company and I knew I had these compliance 21 updates I had to require, you can bet I'd be knocking it off 22 the purchase price, and I guarantee you, Aqua Texas knocked 23 it off the purchase price. So, AquaSource got it to do it, 24 didn't do it. They probably got it off the purchase price, 25 and now they want a rate increase to go ahead and do what 5-24-04 60 1 they -- what the other didn't do. This is triple-dipping, 2 to me, literally. And -- if that makes sense to y'all. It 3 makes sense to me. And that's -- that's the way I see this, 4 is, literally, we're getting hit three times -- three times, 5 anyway, for what T.N.R.C.C. says they need to do to these 6 systems. 7 So, I would like to see -- I'd just love it 8 if we could make Aqua Tex fight on as many fronts as 9 possible. All the cities get together, fight them 10 individually; all the counties in each region get together 11 and fund $2,000 or $3,000 for a war chest and fight each 12 region, and attack the validity of consolidation in each 13 region. Say, "Wait a minute, you shouldn't have put me in 14 there with this one. Go back and undo the regions." Which 15 have never really been validly approved by any court system. 16 I'm not sure that they're even valid to begin with. So, 17 maybe I'm a dreamer and believe in justice, but I know one 18 thing; that until the people or the counties or the cities 19 stand up and fight this system, it will only get worse, 20 because there is absolutely no protection for the environs 21 in the law as we stand here today. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Danny, what's the time 23 framework we're working under with the hearings and the rate 24 increase? 25 MR. EDWARDS: The effective rate -- the rate 5-24-04 61 1 goes into effect July the 13th, I believe. However, if 2 people file within 91 days from the day the rate increase is 3 supposed to go into effect -- if 10 percent or 1,000, 4 whichever is less, files complaints with the T.C.E.Q., then 5 a hearing becomes mandated. If 10 percent of the people in 6 each city file with just their city, then a hearing becomes 7 mandated, although the city can have a hearing with or 8 without the 10 percent. And that's what's Ingram did last 9 time, although I think we probably had our 10 percent. Jim 10 Damon got Greenwood Forest together, and he's doing it now, 11 and I think we had enough complaints to mandate a hearing in 12 the City of Ingram, but we would have had the hearing 13 anyway. We can do -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 10 percent of -- of 15 the region? 10 percent of the environs in the county? 16 10 percent of what? 17 MR. EDWARDS: Yes. (Laughter.) The law's 18 not clear, but the way I read it, Mr. Commissioner, it's 19 1,000 -- 10 percent of the total ratepayers affected or 20 1,000, whichever is less. So, I say 1,000 would be what -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which would be 22 region-wide? 23 MR. EDWARDS: Region-wide, yes. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question, Danny. So, 25 July is the -- is the -- 5-24-04 62 1 MR. EDWARDS: I believe it's July the 13th. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- operative time 3 when the new rates are -- are thought to go into effect, and 4 that would mean that anything that cities and/or counties 5 have to do, that initiative has to be mounted between now 6 and then; is that correct? 7 MR. EDWARDS: We have 91 days. The cities 8 have 91 days from the date that it's supposed to go in 9 effect to -- to do several things that I won't bore you 10 with, but we can put a temporary rate in, escrow rate in, 11 permanent rate in. We can suspend the rate for 90 days, 12 keep it from going into effect. There's several things that 13 the city can do. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- I 15 understand, and cities have opportunities to do things 16 that -- that the folks in the counties don't have, unless 17 there's some kind of a defense initiative. 18 MR. EDWARDS: Well, it's 91 days from the day 19 the rate goes into effect that the environs have to file 20 their complaints with the -- with T.C.E.Q. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I guess I have a 22 couple more questions. In each of these situations -- I 23 think Professor van Bavel told me that it was something like 24 40 different systems owned by these folks in Kerr County; is 25 that correct? Does that resonate? 5-24-04 63 1 MR. EDWARDS: There are 3,000 Aqua Tex 2 customers in Kerr County. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, would it make 4 sense that, in each of those situations where there are 5 groups of folk served by a small Aqua Texas system -- is 6 that what it is? -- that they would, within the framework of 7 that system, mount their initiative for petitions or 8 whatever is necessary to present to the rate folks in 9 Austin, and at the same time, another initiative take place 10 on the county level? Which leads me to ask another question 11 -- two more questions. 12 MR. EDWARDS: Let me answer the first one. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Answer the first one. 14 MR. EDWARDS: What happened the last time, 15 and I'm assuming that will probably -- the last time we 16 fought this, we appeared before the Commission, and the 17 Commission had just decided a similar question on what we 18 submitted to them seven months earlier. We simply pleaded 19 their own decision to them; said, "You can't do this." And 20 the chairman of the Commission said, "That was another case. 21 We're not interested in it. This is this case." They 22 literally overturned a previous decision they had made seven 23 months before. Because it's just three -- three engineers 24 sitting up there. With all due respect to engineers, they 25 don't know the law, and a couple of lawyers don't know the 5-24-04 64 1 law either. That was strange, but they just arbitrarily 2 said we're going to overturn the law -- our decision. 3 What happened, though, as a result of us 4 doing this, we had such a large turnout -- I don't know how 5 many turned out in Austin for the first hearing, but there 6 was probably 250, 300 people there, and it got to be a real 7 mess. And so, what the administrative law judge did was to 8 organize groups by geographic areas, if for no other 9 reason -- and Kerr County was one of these geographic areas. 10 And they did permit spokesmen for property owners -- 11 official property owners' associations to speak for the 12 entire property owners' group. That's, I think, leading up 13 to your question. So, they could literally go in and say, 14 "I represent 40 ratepayers." And so, what they did was 15 throw that subdivision in with other subdivisions around it, 16 and then appoint -- allow those subdivisions to appoint a 17 spokesman, a spokesman for all of those subdivisions, so 18 that everybody didn't have to keep coming back. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, that -- that 20 leads -- kind of leads into where I'm going. There has to 21 be some coordinating effort to -- to get representation from 22 each of the systems here in Kerr County to effectively raise 23 our voice -- 24 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, sir. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- collectively. 5-24-04 65 1 Which someone asked me, and I want to ask you; you're 2 suggesting that perhaps our county, which is one of 15 in 3 the southwest region, get together with others to retain 4 counsel to do this. I'm wondering if -- while that's not a 5 bad suggestion, and it's something probably we ought to take 6 a look at, I guess I'm wondering whether or not Texas 7 Association of Counties is in a position, through its legal 8 staff, to be of assistance to us. 9 MR. EDWARDS: I can't answer that. Because 10 they wouldn't -- they weren't the last time, because we 11 requested it. We asked that it be looked into, and we got 12 no response from them. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I guess that 14 would be up to us, then, as counties, to badger them and 15 let's see if we can get some response. Which leads me to my 16 last question. Aside from a court resolution in opposition, 17 what authority -- or what can counties do? 18 MR. EDWARDS: By law, nothing. From a 19 practical standpoint, I don't know why the counties could 20 not assist in organizing themselves -- among themselves by 21 region, and that's something you may want to ask your County 22 Attorney. I haven't found anything that prohibits it, doing 23 what I suggested. Just say, "We're going to protect our 24 taxpayers; we're going to kick in $4,000 or $3,000, and 25 we're going to hire an attorney to represent the southwest 5-24-04 66 1 region people," or whatever. That's just a suggestion on my 2 part. Whether or not it's legal, I don't see any -- any 3 prohibition against it, quite honestly. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, to follow that 5 up a little bit, is there any mechanism for the environs in 6 Kerr County to, I guess, request the County to act on their 7 behalf? Is there a way that this can be done? 8 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, they can. They did it 9 last time. It was done last time, and got no response. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, but is there, I 11 guess, a -- to give us a legal -- you know, if 10 percent of 12 the environs of Kerr County came to us, I mean, would the -- 13 then the T.C.E.Q. listen to the attorney and give the County 14 at least a -- a spot at the hearings? 15 MR. EDWARDS: Be a good makeup. It would be 16 a good facade. It's nothing legal about it. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. It's just -- 18 MR. EDWARDS: You can do it now or you can do 19 it when you get 10 percent, or you can do it when you get 20 1 percent, 100 percent. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It doesn't -- 22 MR. EDWARDS: Nothing in the law that says 23 you can or can't. So -- 24 MR. DAMON: The last rate increase, I came to 25 our Councilmember, Commissioner, and he said there was no 5-24-04 67 1 way that they could help us with any financial help. We 2 took collections up in Greenwood Forest, and we came up with 3 over $5,000, so -- just to help this thing and fight it. 4 But that's probably what's got to be done, is get not only 5 Commissioners Court to help, but also the environs kick in 6 some money. 7 MR. EDWARDS: Actually, we had -- I forget 8 the exact number. We had six or seven subdivisions in Kerr 9 County that raised -- Pecan Valley was one of them. Yeah, 10 Pecan Valley was one of them that raised money, because when 11 we went into this battle, we had no assurance, as I said 12 earlier, that the cities would be reimbursed for the 13 expenses, so we were taking a big gamble that Ingram could 14 not afford, all the little cities could not afford. We did 15 have several thousands of dollars donated by the 16 subdivisions, about six or seven of them. Greenwood Forest 17 donated $4,000 or $5,000; we had a few hundred from other 18 subdivisions. And what we did, we utilized that to fight 19 the battle up to a point where we could get some assurance 20 whether we was going to get our attorney's fees reimbursed 21 or not. So, we had a little bit of a safety factor in 22 taking the gamble, but it wasn't much of one, because before 23 we knew -- before we knew whether or not we were going to 24 get reimbursed, we'd already spent something like $50,000. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know if most of 5-24-04 68 1 the affected subdivisions are organizing in any way at this 2 time? 3 MR. EDWARDS: I -- 4 MR. DAMON: Not yet. 5 MR. EDWARDS: My recollection is that 6 probably a majority of them have property owners' 7 associations; Saddlewood, you know, some of these, Greenwood 8 Forest. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my next question 10 would be probably to the County Attorney. Is it appropriate 11 to spend County funds, via the Commissioners Court 12 administrator, to notify -- contact some of these 13 associations and, you know, let them -- kind of act as an 14 organizing tool? 15 MR. DAMON: I've already tried, and I've got 16 a couple small ones right now -- High Point. I did talk to 17 Windmill Ridge, but I don't think they want to participate 18 at this time, and two others. I can't remember, but they're 19 -- they're all interested in, like, the coalition of 20 environs. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the question, David, 22 is can the County spend funds, period, on this? 23 MR. MOTLEY: I'm not sure about for the 24 aspects -- or for the type of expenditure you're referring 25 to. But I was thinking, Danny, that there was a provision, 5-24-04 69 1 and maybe it's in a whole different area, that said counties 2 could spend funds or provide expertise, engineering, 3 whatever, and was entitled to recoup that later out of the 4 costs of litigation. Is that no longer the law? I thought 5 we had run over something like that back -- 6 MR. EDWARDS: Yeah. 7 MR. MOTLEY: -- two or three years ago. 8 MR. EDWARDS: I think we came -- I came to 9 the conclusion, David, at that time that there wasn't any 10 prohibition against y'all protecting the property owners of 11 the county. 12 MR. MOTLEY: No. And they're certainly 13 citizens of the county. And, you know, I was just thinking 14 there was something that specifically allowed the County to 15 contribute funds or expertise in-kind. 16 MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, I agree, I think there 17 was. There wasn't anything -- we couldn't find anything to 18 prohibit it. 19 MR. MOTLEY: You know, I'd have to go back 20 and look at some -- some of this, but -- 'cause my 21 recollection is that there was actually a statute allowing 22 it, and I believe, as Danny is saying, there's nothing to 23 prohibit it. And we're only allowed to do what the 24 Constitution -- the laws, you know, tell us we can do 25 affirmatively. But, you know, I don't see anything that 5-24-04 70 1 certainly prohibits this. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my -- my concern 3 is, this is a pretty large group, but if you take it down 4 to -- if we do it here, I can also then see the County can 5 expend funds to help another small group do something, and 6 that's -- and that's a little bit more iffy, if that's 7 something that county governments should be doing. I just 8 want to make sure that we're on firm legal ground. If we 9 start expending County funds on this endeavor, and if we are 10 on legal ground, I think, you know, I would support it, but 11 I want to make sure that we legally can do it. And, you 12 know, I hear you saying that there's nothing to prevent us 13 from doing it. Well, that's questionable, I mean, what we 14 can spend money on, if it's not a County function. 15 MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Commissioner, may I -- 16 again, as a businessman, practical, if the County would do 17 nothing more than help organize the other counties, 18 Greenwood Forest would give you the $5,000 that you could 19 contribute to the fund. I'm not sure you'd even have to 20 raise the money. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll take it. 22 MR. EDWARDS: You can just take -- get the 23 other counties awake and organized and doing something. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Clearly, I think we can 25 do that. 5-24-04 71 1 MR. EDWARDS: As attorneys, we can't go out 2 and solicit clients. I've got a law firm that we worked 3 with last time, that we were able to get two little cities 4 to hire a law firm in Austin, and I have to say that I got a 5 lot of credit for winning that, and I like to think that I 6 did, but we got an Austin law firm that was carrying a big 7 ball on this, and that's what needs to be done this time. I 8 don't want to fight this again. I want -- I want one big 9 law firm to take it now and to try this thing. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate your bringing 11 this matter to our attention. It seems as though the 12 organization effort is already taking place among the 13 property owners' associations, subdivisions, et cetera. I 14 think probably the effort we need to make at this point is 15 to contact the other counties in the southwest region. If 16 you could provide -- 17 MR. EDWARDS: Be happy to. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: -- the Court with an 19 itemization of those counties -- 20 MR. EDWARDS: We did that last time. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- we can at least do some 22 communication. 23 MR. EDWARDS: We've always contacted the 24 other attorneys -- or the other counties. Not to solicit 25 business, but we just simply sent them a notice that they 5-24-04 72 1 were involved, et cetera, et cetera, you know. Nothing ever 2 came of it. We had no -- no counties respond to anything. 3 And, as I say, 12 of the cities didn't respond. In fact, I 4 had difficulty keeping Houston in, because they only had 5 1,200 customers. They didn't want to get involved in a big 6 litigation for 1,200 customers. But when we were in the 7 early stages, spreading that over another 1,200 customers -- 8 we didn't know how it was going to be spread -- was a 9 substantial reduction in costs to all of us if they stayed 10 in. So, the City Attorney there agreed to stay in, and they 11 ultimately drove a bargain and made AquaSource buy their 12 system from them at the end of it. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I'd like to 14 take that a little step further, if the Court doesn't 15 object. I think, if we have multiple systems in Kerr 16 County, up to 40, I think we need to know who they are and 17 how many of them have homeowners' associations and a contact 18 person. Somehow or other, that has to be coordinated so 19 that we know that everybody in Kerr County, for example, 20 other than through the newspapers, has been advised 21 accordingly. And then, of course, we need to know about the 22 counties -- the other counties, and whether or not -- and we 23 need to investigate that and Texas Association of Counties, 24 see if they'll be of assistance to us. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the mailout from 5-24-04 73 1 Aqua Texas listed the subdivisions in Kerr County, did it 2 not? 3 MR. DAMON: About eight of them. Was that 4 all of Kerr County? 5 MR. EDWARDS: No, I don't think so. 6 MR. DAMON: Our particular one, we had, like, 7 eight different subdivisions involved. I think because we 8 came under the Ingram water system is what -- 9 MR. EDWARDS: We were fortunate. I mean, the 10 environs in our area were extremely fortunate because, you 11 know, one of the things we strove for and were successful in 12 doing is having all the environs -- the environs that are on 13 the Ingram system get the same rate that the Ingram system 14 had. They were trying to give them different rates, and 15 that absolutely doesn't make any sense, that somebody out 16 here outside the city has to pay a different rate than we do 17 in the city on the same identical water system, but that's 18 actually what they were trying to do. And that -- we were 19 able to defeat that quite rapidly, but the other cities 20 didn't, 'cause they didn't protest it. So, there are other 21 cities out there where the environs are actually paying a 22 different water rate than the city is, and they're on the 23 same system. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Professor van Bavel, 25 what did you receive in Pecan Valley? 5-24-04 74 1 MR. VAN BAVEL: We -- every customer in Texas 2 received the notice that describes what was going on and why 3 they needed more money and just how the rates would change. 4 And from -- you know, their list of the subdivisions in Kerr 5 County is not complete, as the gentleman over here implies. 6 We were not on there, unless we were on a name that I didn't 7 recognize. But, anyway, that's -- their list gives us four 8 subdivisions in Kerr County, but I think there must be more. 9 I would also say, in connection with what Commissioner 10 Williams has proposed or suggested, that I think, legally, 11 there may be some questions for which there is no answer, 12 but there's also a moral way, a publicity matter in these 13 issues. And if the County could work with the other 14 counties to publicly, first of all, denounce this outrageous 15 rate increase, that would be, in my opinion, very helpful, 16 and the T.C.E.Q. will take this into account, particularly 17 if representatives of the counties were present at a 18 possible hearing, because they will take place, more than 19 signatures in support. 20 Now, as far as the money goes, it would be 21 wonderful if the County would legally, or perhaps -- 22 hopefully, say, put $5,000 or so to -- in the effort to do 23 that part of the organization, account for the 15 or 14 24 counties involved. As far as -- I can only speak, of 25 course, for our subdivision. We have started to become 5-24-04 75 1 active and make a more accurate and informative list of the 2 subdivisions, particularly ones that have homeowners' 3 associations. If they don't have a homeowners' association, 4 it's going to be very difficult, of course. But, when it 5 comes to the money part, let me give you a calculation that 6 I made, and that is, in Pecan Valley -- and it's no 7 different for the other subdivisions -- the average increase 8 per year for each customer would be a minimum of $400 a 9 year, and it's probably going to be more like $500 a year. 10 That's an extra expense of each customer. Okay. We have 25 11 or a few more people that are connected, so there's $10,000 12 a year that is going to have to be paid by the people who 13 live in Pecan Valley. We are -- we have no problem with 14 considering contributing to the funds that the County might 15 want to allocate. We'll give you $500, $1,000, $1,500. 16 That's no problem. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Keep going. 18 MR. VAN BAVEL: Per customer. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Professor, if you'd 20 give us -- would you provide me a copy of what you've got so 21 we can see what it is and -- 22 MR. VAN BAVEL: Well, you mean -- 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whatever it is you 24 got from AquaSource. 25 MR. VAN BAVEL: Well, this is something that 5-24-04 76 1 AquaSource mailed out to every single customer. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you bringing 4 that matter to us, Judge Edwards. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got another 6 question, Judge Edwards. 7 MR. EDWARDS: May we be excused? 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, I got one more 9 question. If this so-called magic typewriter phenomenon 10 were resolved in favor of the language that was supposed to 11 be in that bill, what kind of impact would that have on our 12 ability to fight the rate increase? 13 MR. EDWARDS: Commissioner, I wanted -- I was 14 in and out of my environment in being in this environment. 15 I'm not an administrative lawyer. That's the first water 16 rate case I've ever been in in my life. I'm an old trial 17 lawyer. That's all I know, is trial work, and I wanted to 18 take that case straight to the courthouse and attack the 19 constitutionality of it. Even after it was -- when it was 20 settled, I settled for the City of Ingram, it was such a 21 favorable situation that it was no longer economically 22 feasible for me -- for me just to try to go to the 23 courthouse on this thing. But I don't -- I think the entire 24 system is still questionable, and if it were attacked on a 25 region-by-region basis, I don't even think they could make 5-24-04 77 1 their rates stand up on a region-by-region basis and have 2 100 and 150 units in one region all having the same rate. 3 It's just economically impossible that that would be the way 4 it should be. So, I think the system can be undone. But, 5 again, maybe I'm an optimist. One way or the other, I would 6 take that approach. I would take the position that we're 7 going to fight southwest -- southwest district only, and if 8 you don't like what we get, we're going to the courthouse 9 and undo this thing. One final question -- or answer, 10 Judge. This is -- this always, or 90 percent of time, will 11 wind up like all litigation; if you push it hard enough, you 12 got enough power, they'll settle. This case will probably 13 be settled. How well you settle depends upon how powerful 14 you are in your representation. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, that brings us 18 to the area of the agenda for closed or executive session, 19 so I will recess the open Commissioners Court meeting, and 20 we will go into executive or closed session. 21 (The open session was closed at 11:22 a.m., and an Executive Session was held, the 22 transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) 23 - - - - - - - - - - 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It is 11:28, and we 25 will reconvene in open session now. It appears to me we're 5-24-04 78 1 down to paying the bills. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move we pay the 3 bills. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second -- third. 6 Whatever. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 8 we pay the bills. I have a couple of questions. Page 2, 9 Nondepartmental. Why I haven't spotted this before, I don't 10 know. Internet service, almost $250? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: That's our line charge, our 12 monthly charge for DSL. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we need that many? 14 MR. TOMLINSON: It's one charge for 15 everybody. Everybody in the system has access for one fee. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's as good a deal 17 as we can get? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, sir. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you think? Okay. Page 8. 20 We got $16,000 worth of training costs for the Sheriff's 21 Department for software? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: We -- the Court approved that 23 purchase -- the purchase of that software. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: This shows training. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, part of it -- part of 5-24-04 79 1 the -- part of the invoice was training. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What you're telling me, 3 this $16,000 is for the software and the training? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: And so we -- we just 7 allocated the whole bill to wherever it should go. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, it included the 9 purchase of the new software? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, that's all I have. Any 12 further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 13 signify by raising your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 18 Amendment Request Number 1. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is -- is for the 20 216th District Court. The request is to transfer $100 from 21 Miscellaneous and $5 from Office Supplies to Books, 22 Publications, and Dues to pay the -- the Supreme Court $235 23 for the state bar dues for Judge Ables. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 5-24-04 80 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 2 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. All in 3 favor, signify by raising your right hand. 4 MS. PIEPER: Judge, I believe there also was 5 a request for a hand check. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, that's correct. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Sorry, did I miss that 8 somewhere in the motion? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Need a hand check for that 10 also. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. To State Bar of Texas? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It included a hand check. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Motion made and 16 seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1 17 and issuance of a hand check to State Bar of Texas for $235. 18 Any question or discussion? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bar dues? Is that 20 what you said, bar dues? 21 (Mr. Tomlinson nodded.) 22 MR. MOTLEY: Doesn't that go to Supreme Court 23 instead of the State Bar? Bar dues? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: It would be the Supreme Court 25 of Texas. I stand corrected. 5-24-04 81 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 3 discussion? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, absolutely not. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, 6 signify by raising your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 11 Amendment Request Number 2. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 2 is for the 13 County Treasurer. The Treasurer's requested a $20 transfer 14 from Office Supplies to Books, Publications, and Dues. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Need a hand check? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 21 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any question 22 or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by 23 raising your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 5-24-04 82 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget 3 Amendment Request Number 3 -- we've already handled this 4 particular item in a court action concerning the Hermann 5 Sons Bridge matter. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And a hand check was 7 authorized. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: And a hand check was 9 authorized. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: That's all I have. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. No late 12 bills, huh? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. I have before me 15 monthly reports from Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3; 16 Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4; County Clerk; Justice of 17 the Peace, Precinct 1; District Clerk, as amended; and 18 Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2. Do I hear a motion to 19 approve these reports as presented? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 23 approve the reports as presented. Any question or 24 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 25 your right hand. 5-24-04 83 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Do we 5 have any reports from committee/liaison assignments from any 6 of the Commissioners? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing, Your Honor. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just an update on the 10 airport. We're progressing, little step at a time. But I 11 think we should, sometime during the month of June -- I 12 thought hopefully by the end of May, but I think it'll be 13 during June, we'll have a final report to the Court. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Our last meeting was 15 canceled. Has it been rescheduled? 16 MS. MITCHELL: Not as of yet. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Four? 18 (Commissioner Nicholson shook his head.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Any reports from elected 20 officials or department heads? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Lunchtime? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Getting close to 25 lunchtime. 5-24-04 84 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any other reports 2 that need to be brought before the Court's attention? Any 3 other business to come before the Court falling under this 4 agenda? If not, I declare the meeting adjourned. 5 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:35 a.m.) 6 - - - - - - - - - - 7 8 9 STATE OF TEXAS | 10 COUNTY OF KERR | 11 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 12 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 13 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 14 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 15 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 27th day of May, 2004. 16 17 18 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 19 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 20 Certified Shorthand Reporter 21 22 23 24 25 5-24-04