1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Monday, October 25, 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 October 25, 2004 2 PAGE --- Commissioners' Comments 4 3 1.1 Set a Public Hearing for Revision of Tracts 4 No. 15 & 16 of Bluff Creek Ranch 10 1.2 Award bids for truck-mounted asphalt distributor 5 & water distributor, allow Judge to sign title 15 1.3 Consider, discuss and approval of proposed 6 2005 Budget for Kerr Emergency 9-1-1 Network 17 1.4 Accept or reject bids received for electrical, 7 HVAC, plumbing, & pest Control for 2004-2005 37 1.9 Renewal of Agreement with RBC Dain Rauscher, Inc. 8 to serve as County's financial advisor 40,42 1.10 Amend District Clerk's Records Preservation Fund 9 to appropriate $1,400 for a used reader-printer 41 1.11 Consider approval of amendment to Kerrville/ 10 Kerr County EMS Contract to permit Kimble County EMS to be primary EMS responder for residents of 11 Y.O. Ranchlands, authorize County Judge to sign 43 1.5 PUBLIC HEARING for Revision of Plat for 12 Tract 118 of Kerrville South II 71 1.7 Presentation on AACOG Weatherization Program, 13 Section 8 Housing, & other related programs 91 1.8 Presentation on "The Boardwalk on the Guadalupe" 14 project 102 1.6 Consider Revision of Plat for Tract 118 of 15 Kerrville South II 107 1.14 Consider and discuss extension of the Lease and 16 Operating Agreement for the Juvenile Detention Facility or other appropriate resolution of 17 existing issues with respect to such Facility 119,191 1.13 Discuss the County's intentions regarding the 18 Hill Country Juvenile Facility Obligations 186 1.12 Consider issuing invitation for bids for 19 evaluation of existing courthouse telephone system and proposals for expansion, upgrade, 20 reconfiguration, and/or other modification 224 21 4.1 Pay Bills 156 4.2 Budget Amendments 225 22 4.3 Late Bills --- 4.4 Read and Approve Minutes 227 23 4.5 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 227 24 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee Assignments --- 25 --- Adjourned 228 3 1 On Monday, October 25, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., a special 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the 3 Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, 4 Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and 7 gentlemen. Let me call to order the meeting of the 8 Commissioners Court of Kerr County scheduled for this date 9 and time, Monday, October the 25th, 2004, at 9 a.m. 10 Commissioner Baldwin? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Would y'all 12 stand and join me in a word of prayer, and then we'll do the 13 pledge of allegiance. 14 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, if there's any 18 member of the audience or the public that wishes to address 19 the Court on a matter that is not listed on the agenda, 20 you're free to come forward and do so at this time. If you 21 desire to be heard on a matter that's listed on the agenda, 22 we would ask that you wait until that agenda item is called, 23 and also, if you would, to fill out a participation form; 24 they're at the back of the room. It's not absolutely 25 essential, but it helps me to make sure that I don't go on 10-25-04 4 1 to the next item without giving you the opportunity that you 2 desire on that agenda item. But, at this time, if there's 3 any member of the public wishing to come forward and be 4 heard on an agenda item -- or an item that is not listed on 5 the agenda, please feel free to come forward at this time. 6 Seeing no one coming forward, we'll move on. Commissioner 7 Baldwin, do you have anything for us this morning? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. Thank you 9 for offering, though. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only that there's a 12 big 5K Walk/Run in Center Point this weekend to benefit the 13 Historical Preservation Association. If you can walk and 14 want to enter, you can do that. If you can run and want to 15 enter, you can do that. If you just want to come and eat 16 barbecue, you can do that. If you just want to give your 17 money, you can do that. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This weekend, the 20 30th. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- can I ask you a 22 question about that? I saw the advertisement; I'm strongly 23 considering going down and running. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there any prize? I 10-25-04 5 1 didn't see anything about a prize. I don't do it unless 2 there's something good for me. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there's a prize 4 for those who finish. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. (Laughter.) A 6 crown? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further, 8 Commissioner? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Letz? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just last week, I had the 12 opportunity to go to a meeting at Schreiner University 13 regarding some of their facility upgrades, and it was quite 14 interesting. They're continuing on their long-range plan to 15 upgrade, mainly their athletic facilities at this point. 16 It's a major project. I think it's a -- I want to say, 17 like, $11 million or $12 million plan they're announcing, 18 and I think it's going to help that university reach its 19 goals. And, also, part of the plan is to increase community 20 involvement at the university and have some of the 21 facilities open to beyond just Schreiner University. So, it 22 was interesting, and a good plan. That's it. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anything else? 24 Commissioner Nicholson? 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Two or three things. 10-25-04 6 1 I want to mention that -- that Texas Department of 2 Transportation is doing a really good job, in my opinion, of 3 seeking input from the community and local governments. And 4 I attended, as you have, two meetings with them lately, and 5 the last one was in Ingram last week on the -- their plans 6 for a potential expansion of Highway 39 in Ingram from 7 the -- from the Y at 27 to the Ingram Dam. It's a needed 8 project, and I'm hoping they'll go through with it. That's 9 a very, very heavy-traffic area, including the Ingram Tom 10 Moore High School. Of course, we met with them a couple 11 weeks ago to help prioritize future projects, and they have 12 a meeting scheduled for October 27th at the U.G.R.A. to talk 13 about flood warning systems. I'm hoping to attend that, and 14 that will be interesting. I attended a meeting sponsored by 15 our Environmental Health Department at U.G.R.A. with -- with 16 Professor -- Dr. Lesiker from Texas A & M University on 17 septic systems. I would not have imagined that I could 18 spend an hour or so talking about septic systems and find it 19 interesting, but it was very interesting. The -- the 20 engineering and the science of those systems is a lot more 21 complex than I envisioned, so it was very helpful. And the 22 three of us attended the grand opening of the dedication of 23 the Ingram Fire Department, and that is a first-class 24 facility. They've done very, very well, and -- and our 25 volunteer fire department capability all across the county 10-25-04 7 1 is in pretty good hands, and just gets better all the time. 2 That's all. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if I could go 5 back, you mentioned TexDOT, and I have to bring up something 6 to do with TexDOT, too. I think it was after our last 7 meeting that the bids were awarded on the Hermann Sons 8 Bridge -- or the contract was let. I've talked to the low 9 bidder, which was Dean Word Construction out of New 10 Braunfels, and so I think everyone knows the process now. 11 Well, first of all, the bids came in a little bit high. I 12 think TexDOT had 900-some-odd -- 910,000, I think, was their 13 estimate. The bid came in at 1,009,000, about 11 percent 14 high. According to Dean Word, that was primarily due to 15 concrete and steel costs increasing, probably, since TexDOT 16 did their original proposal. The process now is that that 17 contract goes before the Commission at TexDOT. Hopefully, 18 they will approve it and -- and will award the dollar 19 amount, and then they will refer it to, you know, the -- 20 probably San Antonio office, or the Kerrville office, to 21 finalize the actual contract with Dean Word Construction, 22 which that whole -- those two things should take, oh, about 23 six weeks, it's estimated. And no one really sees any 24 problems in that. And construction, according to Dean Word, 25 if those things go okay, will begin by the first of 10-25-04 8 1 December. They're ready to move in immediately. I think 2 they were already talking to property owners and trying to 3 line up where they're going to put their equipment and some 4 other things of that nature, so the project is moving 5 forward. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that it? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: As Commissioner Nicholson 9 said, that Ingram fire station is -- it's superb. Anyone 10 who wants to see what a fire district can do to give an 11 opportunity to a volunteer fire department need only go out 12 there and take a look. I'd also point out that a number of 13 the components of that facility were donated or, in some 14 cases, provided at reduced cost by the various 15 subcontractors that were involved in order to confer 16 additional benefits on that department, but it is a super, 17 super facility. 18 Last week, I had the opportunity to 19 participate in part with our annual jail inspection that's 20 done by the Texas Commission on Jail Standards, and, as 21 usual, our Sheriff issued a challenge to the inspectors to 22 find some deficiencies in his system. Also as usual, the 23 ability of the inspectors to find deficiencies came up 24 short. So, again, the inspector was very, very 25 complimentary of our facility and all of the various aspects 10-25-04 9 1 of the inspection, so I want to -- I want everybody to know 2 how good a job the Sheriff is doing out there on that 3 facility. And the jail inspectors indicated that they 4 oftentimes will refer to his facility as a poster child to 5 other departments that want to look at those. The Sheriff 6 also had a sheriff and a jail administrator, both incoming 7 January 1, from another county come up to go through that 8 inspection to give them a better idea of what's involved in 9 that, and -- and those individuals thought it was very, very 10 helpful to be able to participate in that. So, I appreciate 11 him doing that. 12 The -- Commissioner Letz talked about the -- 13 the unveiling by Schreiner University of some new proposed 14 recreational and athletic facilities. I, too, had the 15 opportunity to look at those last week. It was the same day 16 that I was privileged to participate in a youth leadership 17 forum that was sponsored by the University of Texas at 18 Permian Basin, John Ben Shepperd Institute, that's put on by 19 the Lower Colorado River Authority. It was a very 20 interesting forum. We had -- we had student representatives 21 from -- from Tivy High School, Ingram Tom Moore, Center 22 Point, and also from Leakey. And I -- I can assure you that 23 there's some good ideas out there among the youth that are 24 coming up in responsible leadership positions, and I think, 25 as we develop those youngsters, our county and our area will 10-25-04 10 1 be in good hands. That's all I have. Let's get on with the 2 business at hand. First item on the agenda is to set a 3 public hearing for revision of Tracts Number 15 and 16 of 4 Bluff Creek Ranch. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that in Precinct 6 2, Mr. Odom? 7 MR. ODOM: That is in Precinct 2, 8 Commissioner. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It doesn't say that. 10 MR. ODOM: Pardon me? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was just curious. 12 MR. ODOM: Well, we tried to contact you, but 13 this is not for -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh? I must have been 15 on another planet. 16 MR. ODOM: I don't know, sir. I had a call 17 in to you and left a message, but this is to set a -- a 18 hearing for a preliminary. We haven't gone through that. 19 So, they brought it in, and we'll be going over that, but 20 this is around Government Crossing. We ask that you set the 21 public hearing for the preliminary for revision of plats for 22 Tracts 15 and 16 of Bluff Creek Trail. And I don't -- was 23 there anything put in there? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. May I 10-25-04 11 1 see it? 2 MR. ODOM: I'm sorry. This is a subdivision 3 that was done in 1998, and they are revising that and moving 4 down to pick up a well. I think there's about -- they're 5 moving a line on this to take in a well, and I -- there's 6 6.5 acres involved in this. I have some questions of the 7 Court, some guidance on it, because in 1998, you'll see one 8 of the notes there, it's in Zone A, and that there was no 9 study done at all by the surveyor. And I -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Study as to what? 11 MR. ODOM: As to set the B.F.E., and a 12 monument is required, and there's nothing out there. So, 13 I'm -- my -- this is already an existing subdivision. 14 There's not any change of acreage. There's not any change 15 in the number of lots, so it falls within that 20 percent. 16 And -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just moving that one 18 line? 19 MR. ODOM: They're moving that one line. But 20 on this is -- also in that area is a Zone A, which is an 21 unstudied area. The question is, is do we make them, in 22 this preliminary when I bring it forward, to do that study? 23 Have the developer to do that study in there? Before, it 24 wasn't done. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's something you 10-25-04 12 1 want to be in -- you want that done before you come back for 2 final; is that correct? 3 MR. ODOM: That's correct. Give the guidance 4 to the developer whether they would do that study before the 5 preliminary would come back. I mean, it doesn't have to be 6 done till the final, anyway. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are these lots -- is 8 this proposed lot line change and replatting, is this being 9 done by -- proposed by the developer or by two different 10 property owners or what? 11 MR. ODOM: By the developer. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By the developer. 13 MR. ODOM: Mm-hmm. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Well, I don't 15 have any problem with having a base flood elevation 16 established. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'm not sure if 18 it was re -- 19 MR. ODOM: Required? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This would have been 21 under the old Subdivision Rules in '98. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What year was the -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: '98. 24 MR. ODOM: '98. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was before the 10-25-04 13 1 rules. 2 MR. ODOM: That was before the rules. But 3 the question is now; it's existing now. Do we do that, or 4 do we give a variance on that? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- I really 6 don't want to give a variance, but it also seems a little 7 bit unnecessary on lots that are over 50 acres in size. 8 MR. ODOM: That's 50-some-odd acres, mm-hmm. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- and I don't 10 have the rules in front of me. I don't -- I'd have to read 11 our rules exactly. I mean, I think, you know -- 12 MR. ODOM: It says if you're going to replat, 13 that you have to follow the existing rules at the time it's 14 replatted, so the rules are set now that the B.F.E. -- 15 that's an unstudied area, and they're supposed to set the 16 B.F.E. as well as set a monument in there that other people 17 can pick up off of. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the current 19 rule? 20 MR. ODOM: That's the current rule. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's follow the 22 current rule. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 24 MR. ODOM: All right, sir. All I need -- I 25 need a time set up for the 13th of December. They can bring 10-25-04 14 1 it in, and that study would be going on. That wouldn't make 2 any difference. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll set -- I'll set 5 my motion on the public hearing. My question is, what are 6 you going to do to notify the developer of this requirement? 7 MR. ODOM: Sir? I'm sorry? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you going to 9 notify the developer just by letter of this requirement? 10 MR. ODOM: Yes, I will put it in writing. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With the current 12 rules and regulations? 13 MR. ODOM: That's right, a copy of that. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that we 15 set a public hearing for the revision of plats for Tracts 15 16 and 16, Bluff Creek Ranch in Precinct 2, for December 13, 17 2004, at 10 a.m. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. I have a comment 19 also. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 21 setting a public hearing. Any question or comment? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, make sure the 23 developer's aware this is a minor revision, so he can -- it 24 can all be completed at the next meeting if he has that. 25 MR. ODOM: If he has the study? 10-25-04 15 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If that study is done. 2 MR. ODOM: And if he doesn't, then we 3 would -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, then he'll have to 5 come back again. But, I mean, it may be more cost-effective 6 to delay the public hearing so he just comes one time, 7 doesn't have to come back and forth to court. 8 MR. ODOM: I agree. I'll see if they can do 9 that -- if they have someone that can do that. They walked 10 in and gave it to us, and -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: December 13th is when you 12 set it? 13 MR. ODOM: December the 13th. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They should be able to, I 15 would think. That's almost two months. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions -- any 17 further questions or comment? All in favor of the motion, 18 signify by raising your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Next 23 item on the agenda is consider awarding bids for 24 truck-mounted asphalt distributor and water distributor, and 25 allow County Judge to sign the title for trade. 10-25-04 16 1 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. On October the 12th, we 2 received a bid from Cooper Equipment. I believe it's in the 3 best interests of Kerr County to accept both of the 4 following bids; for used truck with water distributor, with 5 trade-in of 1984 Ford water truck, and for a total of 6 $20,700, and a used truck with asphalt distributor for 49,5. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: These amounts were 8 budgeted? 9 MR. ODOM: These amounts were budgeted, yes, 10 sir. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 14 approval of the agenda item. Any further question or 15 comment? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about that last 17 sentence there, allow Judge to sign the title of the 18 trade -- or for the trade-in? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: That's part of the agenda 20 item. 21 MR. ODOM: That's part of the agenda item. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just didn't hear it 23 in the motion. That's fine, whatever you want to do. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's included. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 10-25-04 17 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 2 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 3 your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Next 8 item is consider and discuss approval of the proposed 2005 9 budget for the Kerr Emergency 9-1-1 Network. Mr. Amerine? 10 MR. AMERINE: Morning, Judge Tinley, 11 Commissioners. I'm Bill Amerine, Director of Kerr 9-1-1, 12 87 Coronado Drive, Kerrville, Texas. The Health and Safety 13 Code requires that the director provide a proposed budget to 14 its Board of Managers on an annual basis for its approval, 15 which was done on the 14th of October of this year, and then 16 to provide that budget for review and approval of the 17 jurisdictions of the counties that are serviced by the Kerr 18 district. I met with the Ingram City Council on Friday and 19 received their approval. I'm here today, obviously, to 20 present this budget for discussion and consideration. And 21 then tomorrow I'll be at the City Council of Kerrville, the 22 final jurisdiction, for their review and approval. 23 Just a quick review before I get into 24 specific details on our budget. Our source of revenue for 25 the 9-1-1 District comes from surcharges on phone bills for 10-25-04 18 1 a wire line and wireless handsets. Approximately 50 cents 2 per handset or 50 cents -- 41 cents, actually, for wire line 3 handsets for residential. That equates to about $365,000 4 that's projected in this projected year; that's what we have 5 to operate on. Within that budget, the Health and Safety 6 Code allows us to create and maintain PSAP's and other PSAP 7 equipment as decided by the Board of Managers. It also 8 allows us, through the Commission on Emergency 9 Communication, to use some of that surcharge money to 10 provision addressing within the county, which is what we've 11 been doing for the last 20 months. With that all being 12 said, I guess I have a question for the Commissioners and 13 the Judge, of how you'd like me to proceed through the 14 budget. Would you like to go line-by-line, or would you 15 like me to summarize each major category? It's your call. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that 17 either one's necessary. I mean, I've read it, and I -- 18 MR. AMERINE: I'll open it up to questions, 19 if that's appropriate. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a couple of 21 questions. 22 MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The salary thing, 24 you're doing something here with the salaries and vacations. 25 MR. AMERINE: Oh, certainly. 10-25-04 19 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And if you'd kind of 2 explain that? Because I think it's kind of neat. 3 MR. AMERINE: I need to step back to last 4 year and what we did last year with salaries, and then I'll 5 step forward to this year. Last year, we did not do a 6 cost-of-living or a merit raise. We did what -- what is 7 called an equity parity adjustment. We did that based upon 8 the survey provided by the Chamber of Commerce that showed 9 what particular skill sets were paid within Kerr County, and 10 we adjusted salaries using that as the guide. This year, 11 because I think we're where we need to be on salaries, I did 12 not propose any increases. I think my staff, though they've 13 worked their tails off, understand that we're a public 14 service agency, and now that we're at parity -- and, 15 actually, when I say "parity," we're not at the midpoint; 16 we're somewhere below that. We're not on the upper end of 17 that scale. They understand that we have different 18 priorities in 2005, and those priorities are putting money 19 aside to replace the PSAP equipment, which is now eight 20 years old, and to wrap up addressing. 21 Now, specific to your question, because they 22 have worked very hard, I have a staff of three people 23 besides myself. We had a couple part-time folks helping us 24 last year, getting through this addressing and handling 25 almost 6,000 or more phone calls in the last year to get 10-25-04 20 1 this addressing done. I checked with the -- talked with 2 both the City and Commissioners previously about a proposed 3 idea of compensating them by giving them an additional week 4 of vacation, vesting them an additional week. That 5 translates to about -- when you look at the actual salary 6 per-hour when you have an additional week off, a 1.92 7 percent increase in actual earnings. So, hopefully that 8 answers the question about why we did that and what it 9 really translates to. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the employees 11 enjoy the -- the extra week's vacation, as opposed to some 12 kind of salary increase? 13 MR. AMERINE: I'm sure they will, yes, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, did you hear 15 that whole thing there? 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Won't work in my 17 department, Buster. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Course not. And then 19 one other question. Over on 3 -- number 3, letter E, you're 20 talking about your current lease lapse, and when is that 21 lease up? 22 MR. AMERINE: The lease will expire at the 23 end of January, the 31st of January, and we're actually 24 talking to the City. They're interested in leasing the 25 entire building, and they're currently in negotiations on 10-25-04 21 1 that. If that happens early, then we'll leave early. If it 2 doesn't, then we'll vacate at the end of January. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For sure? 4 MR. AMERINE: For sure. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. 6 MR. AMERINE: That should save us, just 7 because the whole motivation behind moving out of a building 8 that is substantially larger than what four people need 9 should save us, on the average, of about $1,500 a month. 10 Which will -- again, that additional revenue can go towards 11 network improvements. Yes, sir? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bill, one question on 13 the excess vacation payout. 14 MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under Payroll 16 Expenses line, your proposal here does not allow for rolling 17 over vacation from one budget year to the other, does it? 18 MR. AMERINE: It does allow up to a maximum 19 amount. When -- it's unlikely -- and I know that when you 20 -- when you talk in these gray areas of "unlikely," that's 21 kind of a concern, but it's unlikely that my employees will 22 ever be allowed to not take vacation. Workload can be 23 managed such that we can make sure that they take their 24 vacation. It doesn't roll over year-to-year, but we do 25 allow them to roll offer a maximum of four weeks, 160 hours. 10-25-04 22 1 In that rare and extraordinary case -- and we put this into 2 our employee manual -- that the workload doesn't allow them 3 to do so, rather than them losing that vacation, we have 4 something in the budget now as a contingency of actually 5 paying out anything in excess of 160 hours. That's a very 6 unlikely scenario, but we went through this exercise with an 7 employee who was resigning. We had our attorney at the time 8 check with his labor lawyers in Austin. You kind of get 9 into a very sticky area where you start taking away people's 10 earned vacation because they can't take it, so we just put 11 this in as a provision to pay out excess vacation if they 12 were not allowed to take vacation because of workload. 13 But -- but that's just really unlikely. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, hypothetically, 15 an employee could roll 160 hours over continually until the 16 time he decided to leave the employ of 9-1-1, at which time 17 then you would buy the vacation? 18 MR. AMERINE: We'd have to buy that vacation 19 back, yes, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that it? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's all I have for 22 now. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, can you explain a 24 little bit as to what the plan is for upgrading the 25 equipment, as to what the timeline looks like, where the 10-25-04 23 1 funds required are going to be? 2 MR. AMERINE: Initially, earlier this year, I 3 put together an RFP, a request for proposal, for the entire 4 PSAP replacement. And around that same time, we were having 5 some modem problems at the PSAP, which we had a technician 6 come in and spend a week, and rather than just fix the 7 modems, we actually had him do a complete refurbishment of 8 all of our equipment up there; all the calltaker 9 workstations, all the switches, upgraded all of our cabling 10 from phone line cabling to Cat-5 cabling, took a look at 11 both the ANI/ALI servers and the -- and the uninterrupted 12 power supply units. Basically, just looked at the whole 13 system, for a couple reasons. One, we are having sporadic 14 but annoying issues with the modem lines that are essential 15 for being able to page out emergency services, but we also 16 wanted to have a baseline of what's the status of our 17 eight-year-old equipment. I mean, is it about ready to 18 completely fail and we're going to have catastrophic 19 failure, or is it in reasonably good shape? 20 When we went through that process of 21 refurbishing the equipment, we found that it was in better 22 condition than we thought. The cabling was bad; we had some 23 problems with the modem lines, but those have been fixed. 24 So, when I presented the board the request for proposal to 25 be submitted to replace all of our hardware, the thought 10-25-04 24 1 process at the board meeting was that, "Let's put this aside 2 for now." We've -- this technician said this equipment 3 easily could last another two years, and let's continue to 4 save revenue as we're doing so that we can pay cash for the 5 equipment when we get ready to upgrade it. Instead of doing 6 a complete equipment upgrade, what we're doing is an 7 enhancement. 8 We just released this last week to respective 9 vendors and to the NENA site a request for proposal for 10 something called a mapped ALI. That mapped ALI is a 11 separate application at the current calltaker workstation, 12 so that when a 9-1-1 call comes in, that you not only get 13 the textual data about information about the caller; name, 14 phone number, address information. You also get a separate 15 screen that shows a physical map, very much like the maps 16 that we produce on paper. That shows an icon of where the 17 call's coming from. That does a couple things. It gives 18 the dispatcher, regardless of their level of experience, a 19 visual cue of where the call's coming from. They can 20 actually route emergency services by looking at the roads, 21 the crossroads, and all those things. The actual cost of 22 providing a mapped ALI application would probably run about 23 $3,000 to $5,000 a workstation, or about $15,000 on the high 24 side. That's really cheap enhancement for the PSAP, and 25 based upon comments of other dispatch centers I've talked 10-25-04 25 1 to, it's one of the best visual tools you can give a 2 dispatcher. 3 But, back to the original question, some of 4 the initial quotes that we got -- these were not request for 5 proposal quotes, just casual quotes -- ran on the low side 6 of about $165,000, all the way up into the half million 7 dollar range to do, I guess, a Cadillac system for the PSAP. 8 Last year we attempted to upgrade this by going for a grant 9 through the Public Safety of America Foundation, and that 10 grant wasn't approved. So we've decided, rather than 11 continually filing grants, which we may go back to doing, 12 but instead of doing that, we would just go on a stringent 13 saving program, save the money over the next few years, pay 14 cash for the PSAP upgrade when we came to that. Does that 15 answer your question? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What kind of -- what does 17 the -- what fund balances do you have in that account? 18 MR. AMERINE: We have $129,000 in a C.D. 19 which was in Kerr County's bank account when I took over 20 last June, and we've increased the capital cash fund from 21 something in the order of $70,000-plus to about $125,000. 22 We've added just shy of $60,000 to that over the last two 23 years. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you've got roughly 25 $200,000? 10-25-04 26 1 MR. AMERINE: Approximately $250,000. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But some of that you 3 probably keep as reserve? 4 MR. AMERINE: Some of that we would keep as a 5 reserve. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another question, just to 7 make sure I understand how this works -- and I see the City 8 Manager has joined us. Welcome, Ron. 9-1-1 is responsible 9 for the equipment, and the City runs a dispatch -- runs the 10 equipment? 11 MR. AMERINE: Yeah. This has come up in 12 Commissioners Court before. The way we're set up here in 13 Kerr County is that we establish the PSAP. We maintain the 14 PSAP. That's our equipment, including the calltaker 15 workstation -- the 9-1-1 calltaker workstation. The other 16 workstations the dispatchers use, they have a police 17 workstation that gives them access to TLETS and their own 18 recordkeeping system. The radio system for transmitting 19 emergency calls out also belongs to the City; that's not 20 9-1-1 equipment. The only transmit-out equipment that we 21 own at PSAP is that pager system, and that's just software 22 that allows us to get pages over to the Advantage commercial 23 endeavor that actually does send the pages out from their 24 facility. That -- we just have a modem and software that 25 gets the pagers over to Advantage. 10-25-04 27 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's joint equipment, 2 basically, what you're telling me? 3 MR. AMERINE: Yeah, I guess you could say 4 that, right. 5 MR. PATTERSON: Just to make it clear, the 6 way that it's physically set up and the way that we operate 7 it, the 9-1-1 has a location within the dispatch; it's a 8 separate room where their equipment resides. They have the 9 key to it. So, what they do is -- is they bring all the 10 data in to that point, and then from there, the data's just 11 handed off to the dispatchers, so there is literally a 12 physical as well as a management barrier there. So, at the 13 point in time they hand off the data, all of that 14 information goes to our dispatchers into our equipment, and 15 from that point forward, any information that goes out from 16 dispatchers over our systems, which we fund. Does that 17 help? Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And my last 19 question -- back to addressing. You gave us a report 20 several weeks ago. 21 MR. AMERINE: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was very happy to see 23 that my precinct was at -- I think 213 phones that had not 24 -- did not have addresses, which I was very happy to see, 25 but I know that there are other areas of the county where 10-25-04 28 1 there are more. What is the plan to address that for this 2 year? 3 MR. AMERINE: I'd like to answer that, but in 4 my typical roundabout way, I'd like to give you a little 5 background. Forgive me in advance for doing that. I think 6 it's important that the Court and also the public understand 7 what we've gone through in this addressing effort. Last 8 year, the County, with us providing the data to you, sent 9 out almost 14 and a half thousand postcards to the citizens 10 that we believe needed to be addressed. Subsequent to that, 11 the Post Office put two different flyers or notices in 12 mailboxes. These were generic, what we call contingency 13 letters, just because we wanted to make sure we reached 14 everybody. They said, "If you have not received a postcard 15 from the County, please contact 9-1-1." 16 Subsequent to that, the Post Office, once 17 they had done their mail route conversion, sent out a 18 confirmation letter to many citizens saying, you know, "This 19 is now your physical and mailing address. Please start 20 using it." There has been -- I can't count the number of 21 radio and newspaper articles about the addressing effort to 22 get the word out. So, to answer your question in a 23 roundabout way, how are we going to address the 3,100 phone 24 lines -- and that's not citizens. Let me make it real 25 clear; the semantics are important here. These are phone 10-25-04 29 1 lines, which probably translates to something significantly 2 less when you look at residences or individuals, probably on 3 the order of 1,700 to 2,000 residences or citizens with 4 phone lines and no address. 5 That's way too many people to leave 6 unaddressed in the county. I mean, that's a disaster 7 waiting to happen. So, what are we doing? We are currently 8 in the process of addressing letters. Specifically, we got 9 the phone company, Hill Country Co-op, to provide us the 10 billing addresses. This is something we've never had access 11 to before for these phone numbers. We did another 12 disclosure statement, and we're sending out letters to these 13 individual users of these phone numbers saying -- and we're 14 showing them what is at dispatch, a phone number and name. 15 That's it. And we're telling them this is a public safety 16 issue that's important to them, and that we'd like them to 17 come forward so that we can give them a physical address so 18 that we can find them in an emergency. We're currently 19 compiling and mailing those as we speak. Now, 3,000 phone 20 lines or 3,000 letters will take some time to get wrapped 21 up. So, do I think it's going to take all of 2005? I 22 don't. I do think, though, when we get a 50 to 60, or even 23 -- keep my fingers crossed -- a 70 percent callback response 24 on those letters, that the public safety of the citizens of 25 Kerrville will be much better served. I'd like to see that 10-25-04 30 1 through to its end if we're able to do so. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 3 MR. AMERINE: At that point, I think 4 addressing -- I can honestly say to the Court without 5 feeling like I'm fibbing, addressing will truly have been 6 done. And anything that's left over, any isolated 7 incidences we find from individual calls made to dispatch 8 that don't have -- don't have addresses can be 9 catch-as-you-can. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, thank you 11 very much. I think you've done a great job out there with 12 the address project, and other areas as well. And I welcome 13 our representatives, Mr. Ron Vick, who's in the audience as 14 well. Thank you for attending. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson? 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have the 17 information I need to make an informed decision about the 18 budget specifically. I've requested information about 19 audits that I haven't received, so for that reason, I'm 20 proposing that we defer a decision on this budget until our 21 next meeting. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you explain that 23 more, please? 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've asked for 25 information about the last three audits -- audit reports, 10-25-04 31 1 copies of it from 9-1-1, and they -- I haven't received that 2 information, and I feel like I need that before I can have 3 an informed opinion about the validity of this budget. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move for 5 approval of the 2005 9-1-1 budget. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 8 approval of the 2005 9-1-1 budget -- '04-'05 budget. Any 9 questions or discussion? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess a comment. I 11 don't understand the need for the audits. And, I mean, I -- 12 and they are available to look at, so I don't -- 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They're available? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm sure -- yeah. I 15 mean, I'm sure -- they're available, correct? 16 MR. AMERINE: When the -- when the request 17 was made by the Commissioner -- actually, it was made by 18 Ms. Mitchell -- we sent back a clarification e-mail asking 19 who was requesting it; was it the Court requesting it or 20 Commissioner Nicholson? And said that we'd be glad to 21 provide it with an Open Records request. It's at our 22 office. We'd be glad to show it to anybody that wants to 23 see it, so I don't understand the issue. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You do a routine 25 audit, correct? 10-25-04 32 1 MR. AMERINE: We do audits every year. Last 2 year we deferred our audit until -- actually, we did a 3 two-year audit; we did 2003 and 2004 in one year. Those are 4 on file at our office. We do -- like I said, there's an 5 annual requirement to do that. And you can let it go for 6 two years and then do a two-year audit, which is what we did 7 last year. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By direction of your 9 Board? 10 MR. AMERINE: Well, it's actually by 11 direction of law. Health and Safety Code requires us to do 12 an annual audit. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, no, I meant 14 deferring for a two-year -- 15 MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By direction of your 17 Board of Managers? 18 MR. AMERINE: Yes. That was done to -- in 19 2003, we had some extraordinary professional fees costs due 20 to a resignation and some other personnel issues, and rather 21 than overrunning that budget, they decided to defer that 22 cost to 2004. So, we had the audit done early -- first 23 quarter of this year, and it was a two-year audit, 24 2003-2004. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's available for 10-25-04 33 1 anybody? 2 MR. AMERINE: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any member of the 4 public? 5 MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's -- 7 Mr. Amerine, what is your objection to providing me copies 8 of those? 9 MR. AMERINE: I have no objection, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Why wasn't it done? 11 MR. AMERINE: I asked for an Open Records 12 request. You provide it and I'll provide you copies of that 13 when you come in to see them, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, a County 15 Commissioner has to file an Open Records request to get that 16 information? 17 MR. AMERINE: No, sir. I -- in the original 18 e-mail, as I pointed out, I was confused about whether the 19 Court was requesting this or you personally were, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But you don't have 21 any confusion about whether or not it was requested? 22 MR. AMERINE: No, sir, not at all. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But there's no 24 reason you don't want me to see that? 25 MR. AMERINE: No, sir, not at all. If you 10-25-04 34 1 come over today and request that information, you can see 2 it. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I requested it on 4 the 5th of October. 5 MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have a policy in place, 7 Mr. Amerine, that for any request for information, albeit 8 from a citizen, a stranger off Interstate 10, elected 9 official in the city or the county, that requires that there 10 be an official Open Records request be filled out in order 11 and as a condition of your providing that information? 12 MR. AMERINE: If I was to come into the court 13 and ask for a transcript, sir, of a particular session, 14 would I not be required to open -- an Open Records request? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: If you requested -- asked me? 16 MR. AMERINE: If I asked -- if I asked 17 Ms. Mitchell. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I can tell you what my 19 instructions have already been to Ms. Mitchell. 20 MR. AMERINE: Okay. I'm just asking. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: And if we get an intelligible 22 request, we can understand what they are requesting -- 23 MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: -- verbal, in writing, coffee 25 shop napkin, and we clearly know that it's public 10-25-04 35 1 information -- 2 MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: -- give it to them. Right 4 then and there, if you can. Now, if it is a voluminous 5 amount of material, maybe we impose a very small basic 6 charge. If it's not a great deal of material, those people 7 are paying for the copies. They're citizens. They're 8 taxpayers. Make them those copies and hand it to them just 9 as quickly as possible. 10 MR. AMERINE: We don't have a policy to try 11 to do anything to restrict individuals from having access to 12 public information. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: The response to your question 14 which required an official Open Records request tells me 15 that you do, Mr. Amerine, and I don't think that's good 16 government. 17 MR. AMERINE: Well, I appreciate your -- your 18 opinion, sir. I really do. But am I violating the law by 19 asking anyone to simply write out an Open Records request 20 for a piece of paper when they want a piece of information? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Far as I'm concerned, you got 22 an Open Records request when it was an e-mail request from 23 someone acting in any capacity. If it's an intelligible 24 request, it need not cite Texas Open Records Act or the 25 statutory reference. If you can understand what they're 10-25-04 36 1 asking for, and it's clearly public information, I think 2 good government dictates that you give them that information 3 as -- as reasonably prompt as possible. 4 MR. AMERINE: I can't disagree with you, sir. 5 I can't. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask you, if I might, 7 sir. You mentioned that last year there were some parity 8 salary adjustments. 9 MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: What were those adjustments in 11 terms of percentage or amounts that would give me some basis 12 to compare it to? 13 MR. AMERINE: I can't think of the 14 percentages off of the top of my head, but I can give you 15 the salary changes, if you'd like me to run down those for 16 you. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 18 MR. AMERINE: For my junior GIS person, her 19 salary went from -- I believe it was 22,5 to 24,5. For my 20 senior GIS person, her salary went from -- I can't remember 21 the exact number, but something in the order of 26 and some 22 change, up to 28,5. My office manager went from 25 and some 23 change to 27,8. And the director's salary went from 42 to 24 51,000. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: What was the last one? 10-25-04 37 1 MR. AMERINE: 42 to 51. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Office manager, you said, went 3 from 28,5 to 27,8? 4 MR. AMERINE: No, sir. The office manager 5 went from something in the order of 25 and some change up to 6 27,8. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. 8 MR. AMERINE: Those lower-end figures, sir, I 9 cannot recall, but that's the general ballpark. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Those are the key personnel? 11 MR. AMERINE: I am very accurate on the upper 12 end, on the last year's salaries. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Any further 14 questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 15 signify by raising your right hand. 16 (Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz voted in favor of the motion.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 18 (Commissioner Nicholson voted against the 19 motion.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank 21 you, Mr. Amerine. Next item is consider and discuss 22 accepting or rejecting bids received for electrical, HVAC, 23 plumbing, and pest control service for the '05 -- or, excuse 24 me, '04-'05 budget year. 25 MR. HOLEKAMP: Good morning. 10-25-04 38 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, Mr. Holekamp. 2 MR. HOLEKAMP: Y'all have those bid 3 estimates -- or the bids in front of you, and my 4 recommendation on those is -- I'll do plumbing first. We 5 had one bid from Whelan Plumbing; hourly rate, $62.50, and 6 the helper rate at $31.25. And that's the primary one that 7 I dealt with, because approximately 90 percent of all the 8 use is during regular hours, regular rates. Unless it was 9 way out of line, I -- that's the one I'm primarily using. 10 Okay. On the electrical, there were three bids; D.W. 11 Electric, Guadalupe Electric, and Butterworth Electric, and 12 the best bid and low also was D.W. Electric of Kerrville, 13 Texas. And air conditioning -- and I had to do some 14 checking on this one, but there were four bids; Hardin Air, 15 Compton -- Compton's of Kerrville, Air Tech of Kerrville, 16 and State Aire of Kerrville. The best bid would be Hardin's 17 Air Conditioning of Kerrville. And then on pest control -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question on that. How is 19 Hardin cheapest on that? 20 MR. HOLEKAMP: Because they have no helper 21 charge. That's hourly rate. They usually only send one 22 man. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, whereas the others -- 24 MR. HOLEKAMP: Others always send a helper. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wondered about 10-25-04 39 1 that, too. Okay. 2 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah. Just put "not 3 applicable" on the helper charge, because they don't do 4 that. And then on the pest control, we had two bids, 5 Terminix and Starkey, and very close; the monthly charge of 6 475 versus 525. And Terminix had the low bid. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glenn? 8 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would you prefer the 10 motion be to accept all bids, or just the low bids? 11 MR. HOLEKAMP: I would like all of them if we 12 could, because there are certain areas that some of them 13 have much more knowledge on some of our equipment than 14 others do, and it would probably save dollars if we could do 15 that. I would appreciate it if we could. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion we 17 accept all bids, with the recommendation to use low bidder 18 whenever appropriate. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any 21 question or discussion? All in favor of that motion, 22 signify by raising your right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 10-25-04 40 1 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. 2 MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank y'all very much. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Let's come on 4 down to Item 9, consider and discuss renewal of agreement 5 with RBC Dain Rauscher to serve as the Kerr County financial 6 advisor. Mr. Henderson pointed out to me that -- he was 7 here just a moment ago. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ron? Would you tell 9 Mr. Henderson to step in, please? 10 MR. VICK: Sorry, what? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Henderson out in 12 the hallway, the fancy guy from Austin. Ask him to come in, 13 please. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Austin? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: San Antonio. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He lives in San 17 Antonio? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 19 (Discussion off the record.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: When we were having some 21 recent discussions concerning matters that Mr. Henderson was 22 involved in more recently, he discovered that his contract 23 with the County to be the County's financial advisor had 24 lapsed. And -- 25 MR. VICK: I don't see anybody out here that 10-25-04 41 1 looks fancy. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Try San Antonio. I'll 3 get him. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Kathy's going to find him. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, have you -- while 6 we're waiting for Mr. Henderson, have you -- or are you -- 7 is this the same form of agreement that we had with Dean 8 Rauscher last time? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding is that it 10 is, and the fees have gone up slightly, the first time in a 11 considerable period of time. But I'll let Mr. Henderson 12 explain that to you if we ever run him down. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But from the form 14 standpoint, we do not need to send this to the County 15 Attorney's office? The form is substantially the same? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Far as I know, that's not 17 necessary. Why don't -- why don't we defer that one for the 18 moment and go to Item 10. The District Clerk is asking us 19 to amend Fund 33-635-411, her District Clerk Records 20 Preservation Fund, to appropriate $1,400 for a pre-owned 21 Canon PC-80 reader-printer to replace the existing one that 22 has become irreparable. That would be in lieu of a cost of 23 $9,000. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does anybody know if 10-25-04 42 1 this is budgeted funds? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: These are out of the Record 3 Preservation. Those are dedicated funds, so they -- 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 6 approval of the agenda item. Any further question or 7 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 8 your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Back 13 to agenda item Number 9, the renewal of agreement with RBC 14 Dain Rauscher. Mr. Henderson? The question that has been 15 posed is, is this basically the same agreement that we've 16 had in years past? And my response was, it's my 17 understanding that it is, with the exception that the -- the 18 fee structure has gone up slightly, for the first time in a 19 number of years. 20 MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I'll leave it there in your 22 lap. 23 MR. HENDERSON: The contract that's just 24 expired was originally done back in 1994, and this -- the 25 terms and conditions of this contract are virtually 10-25-04 43 1 verbatim. The name of our company has changed, and some 2 verbiage has changed, but essentially it's the same contract 3 except for the fees. The fees have gone up about 4 11 percent. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move approval. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 8 approval of the financial advisory agreement with RBC Dain 9 Rauscher. Any further question or discussion? All in favor 10 of the motion, signify 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: That motion does carry. The 15 next item is consider, discuss, approval of amendment to the 16 City of Kerrville/Kerr County EMS contract to permit Kimble 17 County EMS to be the primary EMS responder for residents at 18 the Y.O. Ranchlands, and authorize County Judge to sign the 19 same. Commissioner Nicholson, I think this matter is a 20 matter involving your precinct, primarily. I would point 21 out that we received just this morning a -- a draft of an 22 agreement which would constitute the amendment. Mr. Motley 23 got it to me this morning, and indicated that he and 24 Ms. Bailey with the City Attorney's office had been working 25 on that last week, and this is the latest thing that they've 10-25-04 44 1 come up with. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think what's 3 different here -- the only substantial difference is that, 4 in addition to taking in the Y.O. Ranchlands subdivision to 5 be served by Kimble County, a few other residences of that 6 far northwest sector of the county would be included in this 7 service. I think the County Attorney and the City Attorney 8 have -- have created a map that would show what -- what 9 addresses would be included in this service. 10 MR. PATTERSON: Excuse me, I didn't want to 11 interject myself. Ron Patterson, City Manager, city of 12 Kerrville. How are y'all doing today, gentlemen? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine. How are you doing? 14 MR. PATTERSON: Commissioner Nicholson 15 referenced a map. I've got two of them here I thought I 16 would share with you very quickly. 17 MS. BAILEY: If you just take one of each, 18 and then hand me what's left. 19 MR. PATTERSON: The map that you have in 20 front of you, you'll notice there is an area that is 21 highlighted in purple, fuchsia, whatever color you want to 22 call it. That particular area is the Y.O. Ranchlands that 23 has been the subject of this proposed amendment. One of the 24 things in our analysis, and in looking at this, is that -- 25 again, I want to make it clear that I'm speaking to you 10-25-04 45 1 today -- and, obviously, this would have to go back to the 2 Council for final approval, but in our discussions thus far 3 with the staff, we have been working on this, and what we've 4 looked at is that if you look at the Ranchlands, they sit 5 right in the middle of this corner. And you'll notice the 6 red line on the map is the boundary line for the county. 7 And what you have there is, you've got -- north of what's 8 being proposed to come out of our service area in our 9 current EMS agreement, there is a pocket that would be 10 created up there between the Ranchlands and the county line. 11 What we would propose to you is that, if an 12 amendment is going to be done, that you consider -- consider 13 everything that's highlighted in the brown. The reason for 14 that is -- is that we would either have to go right past the 15 service area in the purple or go through it to be able to 16 get to that pocket that's up there in the northern area. 17 So, what we're asking you is, if you're going to consider 18 this, we'd like you to consider everything that's in that 19 brown area, simply because it's going to clarify it, and we 20 know exactly what -- what areas are going to be served and 21 which ones aren't. It'll also make it easier for dispatch 22 to be clear on which addresses get serviced through the 23 dispatch to Kerrville EMS versus through the dispatch to the 24 Kimble County dispatch. So, again, that -- I wanted to just 25 clarify that map. That is something that we worked on as of 10-25-04 46 1 late Friday. I wanted to make sure that we had that 2 information. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ron, can I ask you a 4 question? Right up here, it says Highway 83, Edwards 5 County. Where -- where does Kendall County come in -- I 6 mean Kimble County come in? 7 MR. PATTERSON: It actually -- it's going to 8 sit up in here and right around the corner here. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Up in here? 10 MR. PATTERSON: I can't tell you exactly 11 where that is, but it's right in that area somewhere. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It does touch, though? 13 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Goes in and out several 16 times, Buster, up through there on 83. You'll be in Kerr, 17 Edwards, Kimble, Kerr, Edwards, Kimble. It changes a lot 18 across the -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But the question is, 20 it goes into the -- the Y.O. Ranch, okay. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ron, I have a -- I guess 22 a slight -- well, kind of a philosophical question on this 23 as to the format we've been using, and I think I brought it 24 up at our last meeting a little bit. To me, I don't really 25 know why the Commissioners Court needs to be involved in 10-25-04 47 1 this whole process. To me, it is an issue of -- under -- I 2 mean, we contract with the City, and if the City is 3 comfortable with making the change, I don't see why we need 4 to be part of that. Do you agree with that? I mean, is 5 this -- I mean, could this be done without the County 6 Commissioners Court even being involved, and the City was 7 wanting to do it? 8 MR. PATTERSON: I would respectfully 9 disagree, sir, that, no, I do believe you have to be 10 involved. If you read the agreement, it identifies the 11 service area being the boundaries of the county. That 12 service agreement is entered into by and between the 13 Commissioners Court and the City of Kerrville. In order to 14 amend that, we do need to have a formal action. And, again, 15 you'll recall that -- and, again, just to make it clear, 16 this is at the request of the Commissioners Court to remove 17 this area. So, again, it's not something that we are, I 18 would say, endorsing or pushing. It's something that we're 19 willing to do and take a look at. Again, this is your 20 service area, and it's your citizens, so we're willing to do 21 that. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're doing it at the 23 request -- I mean, we're doing it because some citizens 24 requested -- asked it of us. You're doing it because we're 25 asking? 10-25-04 48 1 MR. PATTERSON: That's correct, sir. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My next question, this 3 is -- I don't really know who it's to. Probably to 4 Commissioner, Precinct 4, or maybe Mr. Budow. I mentioned 5 this to Mr. Nicholson before the meeting. I've been 6 thinking about this over the weekend, and I had a discussion 7 with a resident within the Y.O. Ranchlands of -- about their 8 not being in favor of -- of us doing this, of the change. 9 And that triggered a question in my mind as to -- I guess, 10 kind of, as to what authority does Mr. Budow, who's making 11 the request to us representing other citizens -- what 12 authority does he have to show us that he's really 13 representing the majority of the citizens? And originally, 14 I think, which was Y.O. Ranchlands; now it's expanded to an 15 even larger area. I'm very concerned -- really, I think it 16 needs to go to the County Attorney. We have an obligation 17 to provide the emergency services, and if -- you know, I 18 need a comfort level that someone who is not in favor of 19 this doesn't turn around and sue us because Kimble County 20 makes a mistake. You know, and we had an agreement, then 21 arbitrarily -- or it could be conceived somewhat arbitrarily 22 changed it and gave it to a volunteer service, where we had 23 a -- a non-volunteer service under the original agreement. 24 So, I've got a -- a big issue with that, and 25 it's something I think needs to be resolved, one, from this 10-25-04 49 1 standpoint, but also I'm curious from my own precinct, 2 because a similar thing is probably going to be coming 3 forward for at least part of my precinct, that we would 4 rather have coverage out of Kendall County, because it's 5 very difficult to get, like, Falling Water Subdivision. I 6 mean, so I think it's something that we may do some more of. 7 But I'm concerned of, one, what authority the residents are 8 coming to us requesting this, and two, would it be a County 9 Attorney question as to what authority or what do we need 10 from the citizens before we make a wholesale change? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with 12 Commissioner Letz on that; that, you know, if there -- 13 you'll get your turn, sir. If there are citizens out there 14 that are not in favor -- I mean, this issue is huge to me. 15 It's so, so important. It affects many different areas, and 16 one of those areas that -- that keeps coming to my mind is 17 the level of service. Now, they're dear friends of mine up 18 in Kimble County, and I'm sure that their heart's in the 19 right place and all that, but there is no way that they can 20 provide the level of care of that the City of Kerrville can, 21 and that disturbs me. You know, if there is -- if something 22 -- if something goes wrong in this whole thing due to the 23 level of care, I'd just -- I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but I 24 know one, and I just -- that just scares me to death. I 25 think we're going down the wrong -- wrong road on this 10-25-04 50 1 thing. I really and truly do. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask a 3 question -- I'm sorry. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It -- I really think 5 that -- you don't have to get mad. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm amused. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're amused? Well, 8 good. Glad you are. The -- the level of care is the most 9 important part of this thing. We're talking about people's 10 lives. You know, if there are citizens in this area that 11 don't have the same desire as you have, I'm going to have a 12 hard time voting for it; I can tell you that. It's going to 13 -- it's going to -- if it's just you, you go out and do 14 whatever you want to, but there's other people that -- 15 people's lives that we're dealing with here, and I think 16 there's some responsibility on this Commissioners Court. 17 And that's very, very serious, in my opinion. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Both Commissioner 19 Letz and Baldwin touched on a point of concern. Ron, on 20 this one that has the colored overlay, I just want to be 21 sure I understand. 22 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're saying that an 24 EMS unit out of Kerrville can't get though the pocket up in 25 the northwest corner without going through this purple area; 10-25-04 51 1 is that correct? 2 MR. PATTERSON: It either has to go through 3 it, or going to go right in front of it. You see where 4 Highway 83 is, sir, right there on the far left? They're 5 either going to run right up that road to get up into that 6 area, or they're going to have to go up into the Y.O. Ranch 7 Road. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which, if they 9 went way out to 83 and then up, creates more -- more delay 10 in getting there, because the distance is probably a little 11 bit longer. 12 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. And the bigger 13 concern, really, is not just the road miles, but also just 14 being sure that our dispatchers are clear on what areas get 15 dispatched to Kerrville EMS, and who gets Kimble County. If 16 we have a defined area that we know that -- you know, A, how 17 you get there, and B, making it very clear that this area is 18 one service provider, we know that's going to go direct to 19 Kimble, it'll -- it's much more efficient, and we also have 20 a higher confidence level that the right unit will get 21 dispatched. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tell us, if you 23 will -- I'm reading from the County Attorney's memo to us 24 which we just got. 25 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. 10-25-04 52 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And he says, "The 2 City is not comfortable with, one, EMS units traveling 3 through a nonservice area." Expound on that a little bit 4 for me, will you please? 5 MR. PATTERSON: Well, just exactly what I was 6 saying, is that in order to get to this northern pocket, 7 this brown area up above here, they're either going to have 8 to go right by it or go right through it to be able to get 9 there. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, what is your 11 level of discomfort for going through? That's my question. 12 MR. PATTERSON: Well, it really has to do 13 with, as I just said, two issues. One is making sure 14 dispatch is clear. We've got -- over here, we do serve; 15 over here we don't, and over here we do. I mean, I want to 16 be sure that the right unit gets dispatched. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 18 MR. PATTERSON: That is the biggest concern. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 20 MR. PATTERSON: When we talk about having to 21 go through it, it's really a matter of making sure the right 22 unit -- because it does not make sense. If these folks are 23 receiving service because they're closer to Kimble, these 24 folks are even closer. I mean, if that's the argument and 25 rationale, it seems to me that that would hold for that 10-25-04 53 1 whole area. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can see your point. 3 I appreciate that. 4 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. No problem. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 'Cause we have some 6 roads that start in the purple area and then go into the 7 brown area, and it probably could lead to some confusion. I 8 can understand that. I guess my next question is -- it's 9 got to be directed to somebody, Mr. Budow or Commissioner 4. 10 Mr. Budow, probably. How many people do we know are living 11 in the brown area, as opposed to in this purple area, and 12 what do we know about those people's willingness to 13 participate in this change of service provider? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll let Mr. Budow 15 address that. And also -- do you have a copy of the map? 16 MR. BUDOW: I do. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is this an accurate 18 representation? 19 MR. BUDOW: More or less. It's sort of old, 20 and I would disagree with Mr. Patterson's description that 21 you have to go through. In fact, the -- the best way that 22 the Kerrville -- City of Kerrville EMS determined to get to 23 any of these areas north of us was around us, not through 24 us, because our roads are not such that they would want to 25 pursue that. 10-25-04 54 1 MR. PATTERSON: I made it clear that either 2 they've got to go around it or through it. 3 MR. BUDOW: So that would be number one. But 4 I think, to answer your question, this is a map of that area 5 also, the red area, and it's owned basically by five people. 6 Three of those -- four of those five people are current Y.O. 7 Ranchlands owners. They also own in the area of the pink. 8 So, if -- if you're looking for what those people think, 9 I've spoken to the two largest landowners in that area who 10 own, cumulatively, about 3,000 acres of that little strip 11 there, and they're supportive of it. If Mr. Letz has had a 12 call from an individual, I'd love to hear about it, because 13 we've had general meetings, we've had board meetings, we've 14 had discussions about it, and not one individual person 15 spoke up -- chose to speak up as opposed to it. We've had 16 the Kimble folks out to answer questions. We've had the 17 Shannon people out to answer questions. We've had 18 Commissioner Baldwin question whether Kimble was capable 19 over the last seven months. We've had several newspaper 20 articles saying Kimble is capable. You voted once already 21 to -- to go forward with it. If the curveball at this point 22 is, "Let's deal with these folks up there," great. Let's 23 deal with them. They will, I believe, happily cooperate 24 with the plan, because it is in their interest to do that. 25 And the ones that I've spoken to have reiterated that. 10-25-04 55 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many property owners 2 are there in the brown area, about? 3 MR. BUDOW: I said six. There might be 4 eight. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean the brown and the 6 pink. 7 MR. BUDOW: Oh, including the brown and the 8 pink? The brown is about eight, because they're very large 9 chunks of land. In the pink, there are 112 landowners. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- you know, and 11 the question I really -- that I have probably is really a 12 County Attorney one. I understand you've had meetings out 13 there, and I think we all are aware that, even though health 14 care is a little bit more of a priority to most people, 15 people are somewhat apathetic about getting involved with 16 these; they don't like disagreeing with -- in public. I 17 really want to know, from the County Attorney standpoint, if 18 we're opened up to any liability of -- of making this change 19 if people don't want the change. And I -- you know, and 20 it's for you as well, really. Your association, I mean. 21 The subdivision clearly -- well, I shouldn't say clearly. I 22 would be very surprised if your sub -- if the subdivision 23 rules or -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Covenants. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- covenants address this 10-25-04 56 1 issue of -- of, you know, the Board making this decision. 2 Therefore, it's an individual kind of a group. And, you 3 know, I really would be a lot more comfortable if we had 4 some real way of recording that; you know, 51 percent, you 5 know, 100 percent. You know, what the percentage is of 6 people that really want this change. Because I think that 7 if we make a change, and it is, you know, 50 -- 50 or close 8 to that, if it's not a huge percentage, I would have a real 9 problem going along with it. And I think that everyone 10 needs an opportunity somehow to voice their opinion, because 11 it does affect their lives. 12 MR. BUDOW: If you will tell me what it is 13 you want -- if it's 70 percent, if it's 51 percent, if it's 14 everybody in the brown, if it's everybody in the pink and 15 everybody in the brown -- I will get it done. But let's 16 just be clear about what the -- what we got to do to get it 17 done. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: You just want to know the 19 rules of the game. 20 MR. BUDOW: Well, the converse of that is, 21 well, we might have one individual who says no. I'll put 60 22 or 70 in front of you next week, if you want, that say yes. 23 And so you're going to have to deal with the majority, I 24 believe, who say yes, and who are now going to ask the 25 question, what is Kerrville really doing for us in the 10-25-04 57 1 best-effort case? They haven't responded in a timely 2 fashion. I would take issue with Commissioner Baldwin's 3 point that Kimble is not as good as Kerrville. If we want 4 to have that trial or that hearing, let's have it. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would disagree with 6 your statement about -- that Kerrville hasn't provided 7 anything. 8 MR. BUDOW: Fair enough. So you would. But 9 I thought we'd already heard all that out. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, but I think 11 that this is an issue. I mean, whether ten residents of the 12 Ranchlands -- you know, I really don't feel comfortable 13 telling you who he is -- or who they are; it's a couple. 14 They clearly -- they felt like it was a train they couldn't 15 stop, but they disagreed with the train. They think it was 16 wrong. But I -- they think it's not a better service. But 17 my question, again, goes back to the County Attorney. What 18 do we need to have, as a Court, from the citizens to make 19 sure that we're protecting all the residents of the county, 20 and from a liability issue, the Court itself? 'Cause I 21 think -- I've never done this. We just have always went 22 with a county-wide arrangement. In the past -- and this is 23 before Mr. Patterson's time -- I know there was an internal 24 agreement between who the First Responder was in part of my 25 precinct, but it was never done, you know, in writing. It 10-25-04 58 1 was just a verbal agreement that Kendall County EMS 2 responded basically about a mile into Kerr County, but both 3 responded. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me pursue that, if I 5 might. Mr. Patterson, Kendall County EMS, operating out of 6 Comfort area, is that a voluntary -- a volunteer-type 7 organization? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: That's a professional, paid 10 organization? 11 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Are they not covered under the 13 existing Kerrville/Kerr County agreement where they have 14 primary responsibility down in the Comfort area, and a 15 portion of Kerr County? 16 MR. PATTERSON: I don't believe so, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 18 MR. PATTERSON: There is one point in time 19 where we had an agreement where there was actually a code -- 20 an area code that was being serviced. 21 MS. BAILEY: The contract references it, but 22 my understanding is that that's not actually being done; 23 that Kerrville responds in the whole Kerr County area. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm just going on what the 25 contract says. What I read says that 995 primary 10-25-04 59 1 responsibility is Kendall County EMS. 2 MS. BAILEY: It does say that. 3 MR. PATTERSON: You're correct. But what I'm 4 telling you is, in practicality, I don't believe that 5 service is still occurring. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is not. Now, there 7 was a temporary accommodation, when the Hermann Sons Bridge 8 was out, that Kendall County -- until the temporary bridge 9 was put up, Kendall County agreed to service the Hermann 10 Sons retirement community on a temporary basis. They 11 occasionally -- until, I'd say, about a year ago, even this 12 stopped. But for a while, Kendall County was dispatching a 13 unit to stabilize, but as long as I have been a 14 Commissioner, they have not transported anybody, and have 15 refused to transport. They will -- they, for a while, were 16 sending a unit to stabilize. Kerrville would send a unit, 17 and then Kerrville would do the transporting. Since -- I'd 18 say for the last year or so, they won't dispatch a unit, 19 period, out of Kendall County. 20 MR. PATTERSON: That's correct, sir. They do 21 not come into the county. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me that possibly 23 the contract needs to be amended so that that provision is 24 no longer effective, then. At least in -- 25 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir, we can do that as 10-25-04 60 1 well. The issue there is that you had a service provider 2 who just stopped providing service. At that point in time, 3 it was either we were going to step up and provide it, or 4 they weren't going to get service, period. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, for information, 6 myself and the Commissioner from that area, Commissioner 7 Busby, are trying to get something going again, because it's 8 something that both of -- Commissioner Busby and myself feel 9 Kendall County is better able to serve a -- a small part of 10 Kerr County over there, Falling Water Subdivision being the 11 most notable, because we have to go into Kendall County for 12 possibly 10 miles, then come back into Kerr County in order 13 to get to this subdivision. 14 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. It may make sense 15 to do the same kind of thing we're doing here. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question to 17 Mr. Budow -- I'm not trying to pick on him; I just want to 18 know what we need to do from the County Attorney standpoint. 19 MR. BUDOW: I understand. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To be able to make these 21 changes just arbitrarily -- 22 MR. PATTERSON: I want to, just for the 23 record, say too, and for the citizens out there as well, 24 we're not opposing this. We're not proposing it, but we're 25 not opposing it. I just have a couple of other items that I 10-25-04 61 1 do want -- I would like the Court to look at when you do 2 look at this change. One of the issues that we need to make 3 sure that we examine closely, in terms of a practical 4 standpoint, is that if you decide to go forward with this, 5 obviously, when the call comes in, as we were discussing a 6 little bit earlier, when that hits the 9-1-1 and then gets 7 transferred into the dispatch, what will happen is -- is 8 that we will pick that call up and forward that on to Kimble 9 County. That's not really a big issue. We can make that 10 happen. One of the things that I do want to make sure of, 11 though, is that, as we look at doing this, that we also 12 consider how we handle the First Responders in that area. 13 Currently, right now, when that call comes in out in these 14 areas, we will take care of dispatch or actually paging out 15 or handling those -- toning out those dispatches -- not 16 dispatches. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: First Responders. 18 MR. PATTERSON: First Responders, sorry. And 19 what I want to be clear on is -- is that, right now, those 20 First Responders are trained in the Kerrville EMS protocols. 21 But what's going to happen is -- is that those First 22 Responders are going to be the first ones on the scene -- 23 and, again, this is just a comment to you. I would 24 encourage you to make sure that those First Responders are 25 aware of and work with Kimble County to make sure that they 10-25-04 62 1 get all their protocols straight so they're working off the 2 same sheet of music. The second thing is -- is that the 3 Court needs to make a decision. Do you want those First 4 Responders to still be dispatched when that hits us, out 5 through our dispatch? Or does Kimble County -- you may want 6 to ask them this question. Whenever that hits our dispatch 7 and we forward it on to Kimble County dispatch, do they want 8 to take care of forwarding out the First Responders? 9 Because, again, if it's going to be their EMS on the scene, 10 they may be the ones who want to make that decision. Just 11 something to think about. Again, we don't need to be making 12 those decisions. We don't need to be making those. So, 13 you -- I'm just giving you -- this is things you need to 14 look at and talk with them about. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ron, would you be 16 comfortable if I were to talk -- if I were to talk to the 17 First Responders that are under your guidelines -- under the 18 City of Kerrville guidelines, and they had the desire to 19 service that? Would -- would you be comfortable? 20 MR. PATTERSON: Oh, sure. We don't recommend 21 any change. We think they should still service this area; 22 the First Responders should stay in place. None of that 23 should change. We just want to be sure that the First 24 Responders who are going to respond in this area are 25 familiar with the Kimble County protocols, which -- you 10-25-04 63 1 know, this shouldn't be that hard, but just to be sure. And 2 the second thing is, who do you want to dispatch or page 3 those particular First Responders? Do you want Kimble 4 County making that decision, or do you want, whenever it 5 hits our call -- our call center, that we forward it out? 6 We just need to know. 7 MR. BUDOW: The Kimble Sheriff's Office, 8 who's the dispatcher for Kimble, has already agreed to 9 dispatch the First Responders, as they currently do with our 10 fire protocols. So, this would just add EMS to the fire and 11 First Responder protocol, so no -- no change there. And the 12 first -- only First Responder I know in our direct area was 13 actually trained by Kimble County people, so they -- they're 14 aware of both county protocols. 15 MR. PATTERSON: Okay. Well, we do know for a 16 fact that we have First Responders who are going -- who 17 would be responding to this area, and some who are in here 18 who would be responding down into this area, and that's 19 fine. We just want to be sure that all -- everything's 20 squared away. That's it. Just want to make sure when they 21 do get there, they can provide appropriate services. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I've got 23 three -- three items here that I think are what we're saying 24 is required to bring this to some conclusion. The first one 25 is an opinion from the County Attorney on whether or not we 10-25-04 64 1 would have any liability by taking this action, and I think 2 the Assistant County Attorney's here, is she not? Would 3 you -- would you take that on? 4 MS. FISHER: Yes, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. It would be 6 good if we could get that in the next few days. The second 7 thing is an indication of support from the people who would 8 be affected by this. The people that we've talked about in 9 the red and in the brown. Mr. Budow, can you help us with 10 that? 11 MR. BUDOW: What would you like? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, you know, just 13 some kind of a -- a list of the residents, and whether 14 they've -- you know, yes, no, or didn't contact. 15 MR. BUDOW: So, you want a -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't -- you know, 17 or something similar. I mean, I'm -- and I'm trying to -- 18 MR. BUDOW: Well, if I held a vote of the 19 association and -- and came back with a 70 percent response, 20 is that what you want? Or do you want me to call everybody 21 on the list? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- you 23 know, a percentage is fine, but I need to know how many were 24 present. 25 MR. BUDOW: Sure. 10-25-04 65 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean -- 2 MR. BUDOW: Not 5 out of 500. No, I 3 understand. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I kind of want to know -- 5 might be 80 percent support at the meeting, but if there was 6 only 10 people there -- 7 MR. BUDOW: With a legitimate quorum, a 8 majority is what you're looking for. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I also want to 10 know about the people outside the pink area, too. 11 MR. BUDOW: I'll go all the way to the north 12 end of the county; I'll call everybody in that -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said it's only six or 14 eight outside of it? 15 MR. BUDOW: It's not hard. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- yes, I'd 17 like to know what the quorum is, and then a percentage. 18 And, like -- but if you have, say, 40 people or 50 people 19 show up, or -- I don't know what your quorum -- 160 people 20 show up -- 21 MR. BUDOW: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's 100 percent, 23 well, that means that there's 60 out of 115 that we know are 24 in favor of it. That means there's a bunch of undecided. 25 Then I think that information, along with the information 10-25-04 66 1 from the County Attorney -- 2 MR. BUDOW: More likely than not, I'll just 3 call everybody on the list and just say, "Are you or aren't 4 you?" And I'll be able to answer whatever questions they 5 have, and -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then as to something that 7 we have that you can give us that says this is -- you know, 8 all these people want this. 9 MR. BUDOW: That's fine. I just want to make 10 sure I understand. That one "nay," if that's going to 11 derail us, then I guess I'd like to understand that. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't -- I 13 don't think so. In my opinion, no. But I really want to -- 14 that's where the County Attorney question comes in, 'cause 15 that's a new thing I've thought about. Every time it's on 16 the agenda, I think of new questions. So -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the third 18 thing? 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: County Attorney 20 opinion on liability is going to be taken care of. Get some 21 indication of support from the red and the brown. The third 22 thing is capability. We have heard before that Kimble says 23 they can handle it. They're closer; they can get there in 24 less than half the time that Kerrville can. They got a much 25 lower ratio of population served to ambulances, like 10-25-04 67 1 one-tenth or one-fifth of the ratio that Kerrville has. 2 What else can we do to -- to satisfy ourselves that Kimble 3 County has the capability to provide good service to this 4 area? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My opinion on that one -- 6 I mean, I agree with -- Commissioner Baldwin raised the 7 concern, but I think that's something that needs to be made 8 clear to the residents. I mean, that's something that -- I 9 mean, you know, if they want to opt to a -- a type of 10 service that they think -- you know, that's their call, in 11 my opinion. I think it's -- you know, I just hope that they 12 fully understand what they're doing. And I can't -- you 13 know, you've got to trust they do. As long as we get -- as 14 long as Mr. Budow -- 15 MR. BUDOW: So, it's a subset of number two. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Really, just make sure 17 that they clearly understand they're going to -- and it may 18 not be so easy to go back the other direction again. I'm 19 not sure, you know. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And back to your legal 21 question, too, if Kimble County comes in and someone dies of 22 a heart attack under their care, even though the agreement's 23 in place, does Kerr still -- is there any liability with 24 Kerr County at all? Who do I need to look at? 25 MR. PATTERSON: I think I need to sit down, 10-25-04 68 1 is what I need to do. (Laughter.) 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I kept looking at Ron; 3 Ron's going to sit down. I know there's a County Attorney 4 in this room. There she is. 5 MS. FISHER: I'm the Assistant County 6 Attorney. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, ma'am. 8 MS. FISHER: I don't have an opinion to offer 9 at this point. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know you don't, 11 but at some point. 12 MS. FISHER: But if you want somebody to look 13 at to get one, I'm the one to look at. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have one other 16 question. Maybe it's part of the fact finding here. How 17 many units does Kimble County have available to respond to 18 calls, versus how many units does Kerrville EMS have 19 available to respond to calls? And if all the units are 20 tied up, is there a backup? 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Kimble has three and 22 Kerrville has five. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three versus five. 24 MR. PATTERSON: Plus reserve units. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. If the three 10-25-04 69 1 are busy -- I'm not looking for trouble, but let's just 2 examine it. If the three are busy answering calls elsewhere 3 in Kimble County, which puts them further away from Y.O. 4 Ranchlands area, what happens? 5 MS. BAILEY: We do have an existing 6 interlocal mutual aid agreement between Kimble County and 7 Kerrville, such that we could respond -- Kerrville could 8 respond. But, in that event, it would be not as Kerrville 9 under this agreement, but it would be as Kerrville working 10 through Kimble County by mutual aid agreement. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 12 MR. PATTERSON: Kimble County would have to 13 call us. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It works both ways, 16 Commissioner. If our five boxes were tied up because of 17 some horrible disaster here in the county, which is probably 18 statistically more likely than their three being tied up, 19 then we have mutual aid agreements for them to come in and 20 help us. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That answers my 22 question, thank you. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're pretty well 24 covered, I think, with all counties in a disaster-type 25 situation through the mutual aid agreement. The problem 10-25-04 70 1 comes on just the normal calls. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Fourth issue was a 3 question of whether or not First Responders would be 4 dispatched by Kerrville or Kimble County. I think that was 5 answered; they'd be dispatched by Kimble County. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kimble County. 7 MR. PATTERSON: We would just like to make 8 that clear here, sir. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, there's only two 10 questions. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else to be offered in 14 connection with that item? Anyone have a motion to offer at 15 this time? Hearing none, we'll move on to another item. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only -- Judge, if I 17 could make a comment, next time it comes back, I hope -- I 18 hope it's a final agreement that we can act on. 19 MR. BUDOW: From your mouth to God's ears. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're running a little 21 behind on a timed item. I will recess the Commissioners 22 Court meeting at this time, and at this time I will open a 23 public hearing for the revision of a plat for Tract 118 of 24 Kerville South II. 25 / 10-25-04 71 1 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:25 a.m., and a public hearing 2 was held in open court, as follows:) 3 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I do have a speaker that -- 5 AUDIENCE: Who do I need to turn this in to? 6 (Participation form handed to Commissioners.) 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're not up yet. 8 MS. TIEMANN: I'm not up yet? About how much 9 longer? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably going to be after our 11 break, Sue. 12 MS. TIEMANN: Which is? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably as soon as we get 14 through with this item, so we can give the reporter a break. 15 If there's any member of the public that wishes to be heard 16 concerning the proposed revision of a plat for Tract 118 of 17 Kerville South II, they're privileged to come forward at 18 this time. Ms. Ferris? 19 MS. FERRIS: Yes, sir. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll give your name and 21 address to the reporter? 22 MS. FERRIS: My name is Linda Ferris. I'm at 23 137 Indian Head Trail, Kerrville, Texas, 78028. I would 24 just like to state the fact that Mr. Tuck has really been -- 25 I was going to say outgoing with this, as far as giving me 10-25-04 72 1 information on everything that he has done, and I appreciate 2 his honesty and everything about this. I picked up the 3 wrong packet as I walked out of the house today, so I don't 4 have the information right in front of me, but I pretty much 5 remember it from memory. He has gone through with the 6 survey again and looked at my main concerns. 'Cause I don't 7 know if you realize; I am the one that owns Tract 117, which 8 is the property directly below the property that he is 9 trying to subdivide. Why, thank you, sir. 10 I will probably be one of the most affected 11 by his proposals and what he's trying to do. One of my main 12 interests is -- is the fact that my house is spring-fed. I 13 don't know if y'all remember all this; of course, you've got 14 so much on your mind. I am one of those that I am very 15 concerned of the fact that, if I don't consider the property 16 across the street, I'll have four new septic tanks above me. 17 That really concerns my water. When you think about it, he 18 puts -- the contamination -- and I do know my spring is not 19 perfect. I do have it tested. I know he has had it tested. 20 But I've also talked to them about the fact that they will 21 be able to show me where my activity levels that would rise 22 or fall with the fact of contamination due to septic 23 systems. With the new septic systems, we've realized -- I 24 talked to Mr. Tuck -- that aerobic systems will not work, 25 because I think 80 percent is spread above the ground. 10-25-04 73 1 He has sent me information that they did a 2 survey that 2-point-something percent of acreage drain off 3 into my property. That's half of his acreage, drain down to 4 my property. We realize aerobic septic systems won't work, 5 because where is all the contamination going to go? 6 Downhill. They also were accepting the fact that they were 7 going to dig into the land to do the septics. At the last 8 -- I don't remember the gentleman's name; I apologize. The 9 County guy that does the septics, that approves them, he had 10 admitted to us that Lot 4 and Lot 1, he would not accept, 11 because they were at too much of an angle. They presented 12 over a 20 percent -- degree downward slope, and at the 13 bottom of Tract 4, it was a 40 percent slope. He said that 14 they would not be able to do topsoil, which on the others 15 that they would. He said that they would have to dig down. 16 Of course, that's my concern, even though we 17 do not know where the spring collects its water from. And I 18 know that you said at one point that you couldn't consider 19 that, because the fact that you had to take it from the 20 point of receiving it. So, we have no idea what cracks and 21 crevices or where the water drains down from. But my 22 concern is also when you start digging into the land, which 23 I hope they do not blast, because of all the crevices to 24 change the formations, but digging into the properties, 25 whether or not that will change anything underground. I 10-25-04 74 1 understand, with the top three, that they will be able to, 2 like I said, haul in water, so hopefully -- I mean haul in 3 dirt, so that won't affect me as much. The septic systems 4 that are out there that I've talked to one other gentleman, 5 20 percent is what would go into the ground, if I understand 6 that correctly. That most of it would be absorbed and be 7 correct, but 20 percent still filters through. That's 8 80 percent contamination coming down into the water system 9 down there. 10 And I know at one point that you said that 11 what's the difference between having five homes up there 12 versus two? Well, it's 100 percent contamination versus 13 maybe 2. If I had a chance of getting 2-in-5 cancer, I'd 14 rather have 2-in-5 than 100 percent. I do know he's made 15 this elevation -- as far as the way the water does come 16 down, it is a cavern. It comes down, it goes into the 17 valley. And I understand that, like you said, over half his 18 acreage is going to drain off into mine, which, of course, 19 represents -- affects everybody else down the valley. You 20 can ask Mr. Clemens, who has got all our fill dirt down into 21 his, you know, pasture, where all the -- everything goes. I 22 do know that Mr. Tuck has said that there's an existing 23 culvert up there where the water flows, that he said maybe 24 that is what's going into my spring and down my cavern. But 25 there's no septic tanks above that. That's all dry land -- 10-25-04 75 1 or undeveloped land. So that, at least, makes me very happy 2 to know that. I appreciate him going through all that. The 3 other thing is that they're going to use rock saws, which I 4 believe -- is it true that you don't blast any more for 5 septics? Is that correct? Does anybody know? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you -- 7 MS. FERRIS: I'm just worried about the 8 formation, and whether or not, once he develops -- if he's 9 allowed to develop this, and if my spring dries up and I 10 have no water, what are my options after that? Who's 11 responsible for over 30 or 40 years of this being a water 12 source, that it's gone? And those are some of my definite 13 questions and definite concerns for that. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Ferris, does your 15 property front Madrona Drive? 16 MS. FERRIS: Yes, it does. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there not a water 18 source on Madrona provided by one of the independent water 19 companies? 20 MS. FERRIS: Yes. Yes, sir, there is. And 21 it's at the top, just like you said. My property -- my 22 home -- my home -- my residence is at the bottom. And I 23 have not considered the consideration of the money source -- 24 of the cost of getting a rock saw and drilling to do a line 25 properly. I would not do PVC above the ground. So, to cut 10-25-04 76 1 from the top down to the bottom, I do not know what the 2 initial cost of that would be. It would be an option. But, 3 in a sense, I know it's my problem, but I didn't cause the 4 problem. Why should it have to be my result to fix? Those 5 are my main concerns. Of course, besides every time they've 6 been out to survey, I can hear them. Of course, trash 7 coming down the hill, anything -- if they decide to burn, if 8 they decide to do anything, I am just going to be one of the 9 ones most affected. 10 I thought when we purchased this property -- 11 because it said in the original plat nobody could subdivide 12 less than 2 and a half acre lots, because I did not want a 13 mobile home park above me. I bought an amount of acreage so 14 I wouldn't have that. I understand he's gone through the 15 proper channels. I cannot deny that he has done all the 16 proper steps. I cannot fight that, and I understand that. 17 It's just upon the mercy of the Court to realize that I 18 don't want something that's been going on for 30 or 40 years 19 to affect how I have to change my point of living to do 20 other routes. The water tastes great; the plants love it. 21 The water people even said that it's probably one of the 22 best water systems around. So, those are my major concerns. 23 Thank you very much for your time. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Ferris. Audrey 25 Rooney? 10-25-04 77 1 MS. ROONEY: I'm Audrey Rooney, 110 Sun Haven 2 Drive, Kerrville, Texas. The lady before me had a whole lot 3 more concerns than I have. I just want to say that I object 4 to the subdivision of this 5 acres into 1-acre lots. It -- 5 especially considering that he's going to be allowed to put 6 used trailers, and that would make five used trailers, as 7 opposed to, if you leave it at 2 and a half -- dividing it 8 into 2 and a half acre lots, that will only create two. We 9 have enough trailers in our neighborhood now. We don't need 10 any more. That's all I have to say, but I do agree with 11 this lady, and I understand her predicament, and I wish you 12 would consider what she's asking you to do. Thank you. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Rooney. Is 14 there any other member of the public that wishes to be heard 15 with respect to this subdivision? Yes, sir? If you'll give 16 your name and address to the reporter. 17 MR. SCHEINEMAN: Michael Scheineman, at 118 18 Codrington. I'm a few lots down from this, but I was 19 notified of this by letter. I've lived there since 1992. 20 My former wife lived there since 1976. And the main reasons 21 that we moved out there were so that we did not have to take 22 and deal with the city or its traffic or all it brings with 23 that. We don't want any more subdivisions there. As -- and 24 I don't know how many -- I think there's several of us that 25 are here that I just notice -- recognize as neighbors. It's 10-25-04 78 1 getting hard enough just to take a walk at night without 2 having to dodge traffic. And we like it out there. We paid 3 for that out there on that basis. We don't desire to have 4 it subdivided any further. And we're depending upon the 5 deed restrictions that we have right now to hold this at 6 this point. And I don't know about the other lady; I can -- 7 Mrs. Ferris, but I respect her wishes also. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. I appreciate 9 you being here. Mr. Steve Benson? If you'll give your 10 address to the court reporter. 11 MR. BENSON: Steve Benson, ma'am. 103 12 Holland Lane. I'm going to speak very briefly, gentlemen. 13 My father and I, we built some -- bought some land out there 14 in Kerrville South some -- oh, goodness, 30 years, 35 years 15 ago. I'm one of the persons that has environmental 16 standards as far as trees, as far as water, wildlife. I've 17 seen a lot of them streams out there dry up. I dug a lot of 18 holes out there, seen a lot of wells drilled. You 19 acknowledging the fact now that that gentleman, whoever he 20 may be, have gotten his approval to subdivide and make this 21 mobile park available for people that he wish. A lot of 22 decisions have been made. Can we support a lot of this -- 23 these decisions? A lot of these subdivisions that pops up 24 basically the same -- overnight, one a day, a week, you 25 know, they decide, "Let's vote about it. Let's talk about 10-25-04 79 1 it." He may have already got his approval. 2 We've already been talking about here earlier 3 today, if I do recall right, do we have enough emergency -- 4 emergency network to service an area? All these decisions 5 that is being made here, we've got to be able to make our 6 decisions wisely for this general area. As far as the water 7 is concerned, I've seen a lot -- a lot of wells go dry in 8 the month of June, July. And once they get dry and the 9 weather -- water goes down a little low and the pressure 10 drops a little bit, you got this seepage come in, you got 11 the contamination. Whether you want to accept it or not, 12 you got the contamination. All the -- all of the chances 13 that you take, all of the regulations and rules that you 14 bring in, progress is going to continue one way or the 15 other. It's going to continue. Our decisions as far as 16 water supply, subdivision, septic tank, it's going to have 17 to be looked at real closely. 18 I may not be heard right now, gentlemen, but 19 I can assure you to tell you, I do a lot of walking in that 20 area. I've done a lot from 1972, when I was a young lad. I 21 did a lot of walking out there before that little old road 22 going down Vine Street, just one little old bitty road, and 23 many other areas up in there before the back road that 24 connected Kerrville South together. I seen the flood in 25 1978, how it washed away a lot of stuff, and a lot of 10-25-04 80 1 streams, creeks, and everything went dry. I ask you 2 gentlemen, if you decide to pass this as he's got it, take a 3 good, long look at it, and all these subdivisions. I'm 4 going to tell you, I have no plans of going off and doing no 5 such thing myself as putting in a subdivision. I bought a 6 lot of land out there, and I have my problems, and I'm going 7 to do the best I can to divide, do whatever I got to do. 8 But as far as developing, I'm looking at the wildlife, I'm 9 looking at the water. I'm looking at decisions you're going 10 to make for the future of this area and the areas that's 11 around. 12 Whether you want to accept it or not, this 13 July coming up, this following year, all of you here, you go 14 down toward the Guadalupe River. We had a little rain here, 15 oh, sure, last year. This year's been good, plentiful. 16 Farmer's Almanac want to say it's been good. You go down 17 across the big bridge down here across the Guadalupe River 18 around July, August, and you take a good look at that water 19 drop. You take a good look at it. And then you get on out 20 there toward Hunt and you go out, get on out toward 21 Kerrville South. I know, gentlemen. I'm standing up here 22 partial to no one, and no one is probably listening. I'm 23 going to tell you, you may not hear what I say now, but in 24 the years to come, and what I have seen, this day will be 25 remembered. My name is Steve Benson. Thank you very much. 10-25-04 81 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Benson. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I have here a letter which was 4 addressed to Kerr County Clerk, Mrs. Jannett Pieper, from an 5 Alan L. Lin, giving an address of 11610 Whisper Valley, San 6 Antonio, Texas. The letter to Ms. Pieper reads, "I own a 7 lot at Madrona Drive. I oppose the plat revision of 8 Kerrville South Number II, Tract 118, Volume 4, Page 64, by 9 Mr. Mike Tuck. I plan to build a house there. The plat 10 revision may block the view of my planned house. Thank 11 you." And it's signed by Mr. Lin. Is there anyone else 12 that wishes to be heard with respect to the matter that's 13 before the Court at this time? Yes, ma'am? If you'll come 14 forward and give your name and address. 15 MS. GRAHAM: I'm Laurie Graham, and I own the 16 property -- I'm at 3101 Legion Drive at this time, but I 17 also will have an address of 155 Kerrville South Drive, 18 which has finally been approved by the Post Office. I own 19 the property directly across the street from this proposed 20 plat 1 -- 21 AUDIENCE: 18. 22 MS. GRAHAM: 118. And it's not going to 23 affect me much, except for, one, the view, but mostly it's 24 going to affect me as I want to build a house that's going 25 to cost over $100,000. According to my husband, it's going 10-25-04 82 1 to cost me $400,000. I can't do that house, but hopefully 2 we can come to a middle-of-the-road agreement and get my 3 house built. But my concern is putting all the -- and I 4 just heard the "used mobile home" part up there, that I can 5 not build my house. It will be a white elephant. So, I'm 6 very concerned on what the property values will go to, as 7 I've seen what -- anyone can go get a note now and buy. It 8 doesn't mean they're going to pay for it. Like I said, I 9 live on Legion Drive. I have the low-income housing behind 10 me. I have mobile homes across the street, six lots, 11 50-by-150. I can tell you, there's a lot of trash. They're 12 getting worse and worse. Anyone can get a loan; doesn't 13 mean they're going to pay for it. And when you put five 14 mobile homes up on 1 acre, anyone can buy it. Doesn't mean 15 they'll nurture it and take care of it. 16 So my concern is, since anyone can buy a 17 mobile home and get in a 1-acre lot, my house -- my values, 18 everyone's property values up there -- even though they are 19 supposedly going to pay more for this, and they're going to 20 be double-wides, double-wides don't mean a thing. I live in 21 a mobile home now; I want out of there desperately, but I 22 take care of it. But that does not mean the property will 23 be going up in value, with 1-acre lots around me. And that 24 is my concern. The property -- it's not going to have trees 25 on it any more. Right now, it's just solid rock and cedar. 10-25-04 83 1 I don't believe there's an oak on the property. There might 2 be one or two, but there is not an oak on the property. 3 Across the street, there is a madrona tree on the one narrow 4 lot I believe he subdivided, Lot Number 1. And there's very 5 rare madronas up there. When the County pushed that road, 6 Codrington, over to make -- to connect with Kerrville South, 7 they took out two or three madronas -- yes, madrona. 8 Putting the mobile homes on there is going to 9 take out a lot of trees, which -- cedar, I'm all for it, but 10 when it's all rock and cedar, there's just not going to be 11 anything there but five mobile homes in a row. And I'm 12 truthfully against it, 'cause I see it out my window every 13 day, six mobile homes in a row. And, actually, it's more 14 like seven now. So, I know I live in one, but I really 15 don't like them, and I wish we didn't have to have them. 16 But we do. They just have their place, and it's not on what 17 we bought this acreage for. And people up there are trying 18 to make it better, cleaner. It does look a lot better since 19 we bought it. And I've been up in that part of the country 20 a long time, visiting friends. Hazel Calcote's a good 21 friend of mine, and I used to go up to her house every day 22 when I was seven years old. So, this is my concern. It's 23 just not something that we need as a community trying to get 24 better. Low-income housing has its place, and I have it 25 behind me and I'm trying to get away from it, and that's my 10-25-04 84 1 concern. Thank you. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Graham. Is 3 there any other member of the public that wishes to be heard 4 on this issue? Yes, ma'am? Please come forward. Give your 5 name and address to the court reporter. 6 MS. ESCOBEDO: Good morning. My name is 7 Elizabeth Escobedo, and I'm the property owner of Lot 136 on 8 the map that was sent to me. The "6" is missing, but it is 9 down below the 135. This is property that I bought a few 10 years back. I've only been a property owner there for a few 11 years, and it's undeveloped at this time, but my plans in 12 the future would be to develop it. It's a little over 13 5 acres, and I find it -- coming from the city of San 14 Antonio, I find it a reprieve to go out and just be in 15 nature, in the trees, to see the deer, to see the other 16 little animals around, to be able to walk on the quiet 17 streets. And I -- one reason that we buy away from the big 18 cities is to get away from the congestion, the light 19 pollution at night, the cars going by, and I would just not 20 want, right across from where I have purchased property to 21 build in the future, to see these 1-acre lots. 22 And in my mind, I'm telling myself, well, 23 if -- if Mr. Tuck can divide his property into 1-acre lots, 24 maybe I should think the same way and divide my property 25 into 1-acre lots and sell off, and -- and maybe go buy 10-25-04 85 1 somewhere else where I won't have the congestion to deal 2 with. Coming from a city and living in a neighborhood where 3 you have neighbors all around you, I'm looking forward to 4 the time when I can have 5 acres and not have to have a 5 next-door neighbor be able to look into my yard or into my 6 kitchen window to see me prepare supper. I'd rather look 7 out and see the deer and the trees and the beauty that God 8 has given us. The nature that God has created for us gives 9 us a type of reprieve that we can't get from any other 10 source, in my opinion. And I think that Kerrville has so 11 many beautiful natural areas, and that's one reason why I 12 bought the property here, is to get into the hill country 13 and enjoy what God has given us, I believe as a gift, and I 14 think we ought to take care of it. Thank you. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Escobedo. Is 16 there any other member of the public that wishes to be 17 heard? Please come forward. Give your name and address to 18 the reporter. 19 MS. NOWLIN: My name is Portia Nowlin. I'm 20 at 115 Codrington. I'm Lot 135, and I am opposed to any of 21 these changes for all the reasons that my neighbors have 22 stated. That's it. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else 24 wish to be heard? Yes, sir? Come forward and give your 25 name and address. 10-25-04 86 1 MR. HOWARD: Brett Howard, 200 Marshall. I 2 had a certain expectation for the restrictions to be kept 3 the same whenever I signed my name on the deed. That's my 4 number one point. Number two, besides the environmental 5 concerns, even if you -- which you realize that you're going 6 down a slippery slope towards -- where does it stop? Every 7 year for the next five years, is Mr. Tuck going to develop 8 five more acres there? We're going to have 50 lots there, 9 1-acre lots? And I'm afraid of where we're going more than 10 anything else. 'Cause if it stops there, fine, but it's not 11 going to. Thanks. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir? 13 Please give your name and address for the reporter, if you 14 would, please. 15 MR. CLEMENS: Name's Al Clemens, and our 16 address is 230 Kerrville South Drive, and we happen to be 17 just about at the bottom of the runoff that Ms. Ferris was 18 discussing. And there's one other place where it rolls 19 across the road and into their pond, and based upon the 20 topography of this dirt -- and, by the way, I'm not 21 anti-growth at all. You know, 1-acre parcels are fine. I 22 was -- have a little real estate background and so on and so 23 forth. But, because of the topography of that ground up 24 there, the underlying -- what appears to be a major rock 25 shelf and stuff, I am really concerned about the hydraulics 10-25-04 87 1 and what the engineering and -- and installing that many 2 septic systems is going to do to the quality of the 3 groundwater flow that we get going. Because every year, 4 with the torrential rains that seem to wash down more and 5 more topsoil from above coming down on our property, and I 6 have no idea what the engineers can come up with as far as 7 deterring that effluent so it doesn't -- and the old saying 8 of what rolls downhill. 9 And, heck, I wouldn't mind cutting up my dirt 10 into some smaller things and selling it off, but there 11 again, we just had to have an additional septic system put 12 in, and it was a big one, to handle -- and I know we've got 13 more dirt than they've got up on top of that ridge, because 14 that rock comes up real quick. So, anyway -- so that's got 15 to be a major consideration. I'd hate to have to go back to 16 this guy after he puts its all in and say, "Well, you need 17 to come and clean up my property." And also, where it comes 18 down through, by the way, it's quite a nice little channel, 19 and it's a lot closer to our well than where we had to make 20 sure a new system was put in. Quite a ways away from that. 21 So, there would be a possibility of even temporary or 22 possible contamination there, too, so that's just 23 considerations that we're concerned about. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Is there 25 anyone else that wishes to be heard this issue? Yes, sir? 10-25-04 88 1 MR. KASS: Bob Kass, 120 and 130 Indian Head. 2 I'm at the bottom of the hill, middle of 118. I'm opposed. 3 And I agree with everybody, and I just hope that you will 4 maintain the 2 and a half acres, which would make me very 5 happy. And I'm still not convinced that I'm not going to 6 get washed away when this all takes place. Thank you. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Anyone else 8 that wishes to be heard? Anyone else that wishes to be 9 heard with respect to the revision of the plat for Tract 10 118, Kerrville South II? Seeing no one else seeking 11 recognition -- you want to be heard in the public hearing, 12 Mr. Tuck? 13 MR. TUCK: Yes, sir. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 15 MR. TUCK: According to Ms. Ferris, there's a 16 problem with -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Give your name and address. 18 MR. TUCK: I'm sorry. Mike Tuck, P.O. Box 19 823, Ingram, Texas, 78025. We're not building roads, so 20 we're not changing any of the drainage right now. Our 21 engineer has told us that once the homes are put in, that 22 the drainage may change slightly due to the driveways, but 23 that the -- if people put in yards, assuming they will, that 24 that will mediate that problem. I don't see any problem 25 with the drainage, and we have followed the Subdivision 10-25-04 89 1 Regulations. Many of the people up here talking have not 2 followed the Subdivision Regulations, but we have. And many 3 of the people up here have not followed the Subdivision 4 Regulations of the County, but irregardless of that, we 5 have, and we hope you'll approve it. Thank you very much. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Any other 7 member of the public wishing to be heard on the issue of the 8 revision of plat for Tract 118 of Kerrville South, Section 9 II? Yes, ma'am? 10 MS. CLEMENS: Hi, I'm Julie Clemens. My 11 husband's already addressed you, but we actually have two 12 residences at the bottom of the hill. And a couple years 13 ago, when -- I'm sorry, the address is 230 Kerrville South 14 Drive, and also 109 Indian Head Trail South. A couple years 15 ago, when we had that really bad flood and a lot of rain, we 16 had a torrential river running right through our field. 17 Tremendous amount of topsoil came down off of the hillsides. 18 The way they -- as Al was mentioning, the way the topography 19 is, it sort of surrounds our property, which lays in the 20 valley. And, at that time, the Kass' had a lot of problems 21 with their house too from the water coming off the hillside. 22 And it's kind of a double-edged sword, because if it rains, 23 we get a lot of water. If it's a dry summer -- we ended up 24 dropping the pipe in our well another 40 feet a couple years 25 ago, and we have about a 500-foot-deep well at this time. 10-25-04 90 1 So, I think it really is a serious consideration that there 2 could be damage to properties laying below this proposed 3 subdivision. But I think, truly, the thing that concerns me 4 the most is that we moved here from Seattle a few years ago, 5 and we love this country. We love the beautiful scenery. 6 And the people that live in the area that we live in, we all 7 have acreage parcels. We have livestock. We have a 8 lifestyle that is unlike what you would find, even in 9 Kerrville, and I think it's going to affect everyone in the 10 area, whether they have water problems or not, because this 11 is a country lifestyle that we have chosen. And it could 12 easily -- I can see where if -- if one subdivision is 13 allowed a short platting, there will be more, and other 14 restrictions in our covenants will also probably be 15 challenged over time, and I just hate to see that happen. 16 Thank you. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Any other member 18 of the public wishing to be heard on this issue? Seeing no 19 one else coming forward, I will close the public hearing on 20 the revision of plat for Tract 118 of Kerrville South II. 21 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:57 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court 22 meeting was reopened.) 23 - - - - - - - - - - 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I will reconvene the 25 Commissioners Court meeting. We need to give our reporter a 10-25-04 91 1 rest, and we're going to take about a 15-minute recess. 2 (Recess taken from 10:58 a.m. to 11:15 a.m.) 3 - - - - - - - - - - 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to 5 order. Item 7 is a timed item we're running late for, 6 presentation by Ms. Jackson, details of the AACOG 7 Weatherization Program, Section 8 housing in Kerr County. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, it's a 9 pleasure to introduce to the Court Rose Jackson. Rose is 10 the Housing Manager for AACOG, and there have been some 11 articles in the newspaper recently about weatherization. 12 But I had asked Rose a month ago to come down and talk to 13 the Court briefly and tell us what the Weatherization 14 Program is all about and how our citizens can avail 15 themselves of it. And with Rose today is Anna Kehde, who is 16 the Section 8 Housing Specialist. And we do have Section 8 17 housing in Kerr County, and I think the public needs, 18 perhaps, to know a little bit more about that. So, without 19 further ado, Rose Jackson. 20 MS. JACKSON: Thank you, Commissioner 21 Williams. I appreciate your invitation to us from AACOG. 22 Anna, if would you stand up? 'Cause she's going to be -- as 23 Commissioner Williams has said, she's going to be doing the 24 Section 8 program introduction. I distributed a Power Point 25 presentation, copies of the Weatherization Assistance 10-25-04 92 1 Program, and also distributed what is our bargain basement 2 type of flyers at this point. We're going to try to spruce 3 it up a little bit, but we're still going to stay within 4 economic bounds. And good morning, gentlemen. I'm sorry, 5 I'm still having a little allergy, so I'm still a little bit 6 fuzzy, but good morning. Alamo Area Council of Governments 7 operates a Weatherization Assistance Program in 12 counties. 8 If you open the little blue brochure, the 12 counties are 9 listed on your right, and, as you can see, there's Kerr 10 County. It is a free program. It is funded by the 11 Department of Energy and the Texas Department of Housing and 12 Community Affairs, and we provide insulation. 13 You can see the different types of services; 14 weatherstripping, caulking, repair broken windows, storm 15 windows, new gas water heaters, space heaters, window 16 air-conditioning units, and housing -- excuse me, heating 17 and air conditioning central systems. It is a free program. 18 It is primarily targeting the elderly, low-income, disabled 19 people in the community. And in this regard in Kerr County, 20 the only thing that people have to do is they just merely 21 have to call the Alamo Area Council of Governments, or maybe 22 one of you all, and we'll be more than happy to have them 23 file an application. And, as they file the application, the 24 only important thing that we have to find out is that the 25 client may be eligible, but the house may not be. And by 10-25-04 93 1 that, I mean if the house has poor electrical wiring, if the 2 house has poor foundation problems or roof leaks or plumbing 3 problems, then we cannot provide the weatherization work. 4 It is a free service, but the way that the Department of 5 Energy stipulates is that we cannot be investing some of 6 their funds into a house if the house has a lot of need for 7 other types of repair, and we're not a home repair service 8 agency. 9 We also have -- one thing that I wanted to 10 mention, and one of the reasons Commissioner Williams had 11 asked me to come down here to Kerr County to talk a little 12 bit about weatherization, is that we are looking for a lot 13 of people from Kerr County. We have lots of people. We -- 14 by the way, we do about 300 homes a year, and I would say 15 that last year we did -- about 65 or 70 percent were homes 16 in Bexar County. The other 11 counties went ahead and 17 consolidated in terms of making up the residual of 18 40 percent. This year, we have 60 percent rural counties, 19 and among those is Kerr County. We'd like to continue that 20 effort in trying to get more services out to Kerr County 21 residents. I did want to mention that it does not have to 22 be just a single family unit. It could be, say, a duplex or 23 a house that is rented. If the house is rented, we do 24 approach the landlord and make sure that it is appropriate 25 for the landlord to want to participate in this program. 10-25-04 94 1 And we do ask them, as well, if they would like to make a 2 contribution, but it is a voluntary contribution, and this 3 is only for multi-family units, apartment complexes. But, 4 typically, there is -- there is no charge for the people 5 that are living in the homes whatsoever. 6 How did weatherization start? Well, back in 7 the '70's, we had what was called an energy crisis, and then 8 the Department of Energy was created. And then we had the 9 Department of Energy believe that what we needed to do was 10 to actually try to go into the homes and try to help people 11 reduce the costs of their energy bills. So, weatherization 12 through -- whether it be insulation, air infiltration 13 measures, air-conditioning repairs, brand-new air 14 conditioners, whatever, the whole idea behind it is to try 15 to reduce the energy bill for the client. And for every 16 dollar that's invested, in terms of any type of measure that 17 we install in a house, there is at least $1.30 returned on 18 that particular measure. 19 That, in a nutshell, is what the 20 Weatherization Assistance Program is. I've really kind of 21 been abbreviating quite a bit, because I know y'all have 22 quite a bit of an agenda for today. And, with that, I am 23 available, as well as I do have more flyers and 24 applications. I did want to mention, though, that in terms 25 of professionalism, we have a professional staff. We have 10-25-04 95 1 two inspectors. If you contact us, you're eligible and the 2 house is eligible, the inspector will go out and do a bona 3 fide assessment of the house, and it takes about two to 4 three hours. He has equipment where he checks the attic, he 5 checks the stoves, the water heaters for any carbon monoxide 6 gas leakages. He also checks the refrigerators and other 7 appliances that you may have. But the whole idea behind the 8 weatherization thing that I would like to stress is that, 9 even though it's a free program and it's a government 10 program, I did want to stress that it is a professionally 11 operated program in terms of our inspectors that we have and 12 the services we provide. I'd like to have Anna, at this 13 time -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rose, before you get 15 away on this, before we change topics -- 16 MS. JACKSON: Yes, sir? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a couple quick 18 questions, just to help us understand a little bit more. 19 There is an eligibility baseline; is that correct? 20 MS. JACKSON: Yes, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And as I read this -- 22 your brochure, eligibility is the household income, and 23 cannot exceed 125 percent of the low-income guidelines. 24 Translate that for me, if you will, into dollars. 25 MS. JACKSON: Okay. It -- there is a 10-25-04 96 1 breakdown on the application, and basically what it says is, 2 say you have a family of four. If it's $13,000 or less, 3 there will be a total breakdown; then they would be 4 eligible. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 6 MS. JACKSON: Of course, if your social -- 7 the only income you have is Social Security or S.S.I., 8 you're automatically eligible for the program. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 10 MS. JACKSON: People that live in the house, 11 18 and older, if they do have full-time jobs, that is 12 counted. But, here again, as you start growing the size of 13 the house, that's taken into account, and so the -- the 14 median income actually starts to rise. So, actually, I said 15 family of four, but I meant family of one for $13,000. So, 16 it's -- it's pretty much in line with what the federal 17 standards are. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a maximum 19 number of dollars that can be spent on any particular one 20 individual house that you're working with? 21 MS. JACKSON: Yes, sir. We have -- we are 22 limited to spend up to $3,000 per unit. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 24 MS. JACKSON: That's in a good year. And, by 25 that, I mean -- for instance, this year we have such a large 10-25-04 97 1 outcry for people that need help that the inspectors just 2 don't take the $3,000, automatically say, "I'm going to have 3 you have $3,000 worth of measures in here into your house." 4 They try to look at it intelligently and wisely, how we can 5 spend -- allocate the money. So, we're averaging right now 6 at about $2,000 per home. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And does your staff 8 contract for the work from local -- or do you leave it to 9 the homeowner to do that? How does that work? 10 MS. JACKSON: No, sir. What we do is, we 11 have a contractual arrangement. It was a request for bid, 12 and we have two contractors. They work for us. We send 13 them out into the -- to the different houses and have them 14 do the work. They have -- if you pardon me, this is the 15 feminine touch -- we give them a recipe. It's really a 16 statement of work, and on the statement of work we tell them 17 exactly what are the measures they have to do. Repair the 18 windows, caulking, weatherstripping, how much insulation, 19 R-12, R-19, and they have their recipe; they know what they 20 have to do. So, every client has no worry about the type of 21 reputation of the contractors. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, lastly, how does 23 a Kerr County citizen who might be eligible avail themselves 24 of this service? 25 MS. JACKSON: Simply just give -- they can 10-25-04 98 1 give you a call, or the best thing to do is to give us a 2 call down at the Alamo Area Council of Governments, and 3 there is a toll-free number. It's 1-800 -- it's on the 4 little brochure -- 749-2110. And they'll just -- an actual, 5 live person will answer the phone and will actually ask -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Real, live person. 7 MS. JACKSON: A real, live person, unless 8 she's on the other line. But there will be a real, live 9 person that answers the phone, and there'll just be a series 10 of preliminary questions asked to see if the -- if the 11 person on the other side actually qualifies for the program. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Great. If you would 13 give those extras to our administrative assistant over there 14 against the wall, she'll hand them to anybody that calls and 15 asks for them. 16 MS. JACKSON: And, with that -- and thank 17 you, Commissioner Williams. You asked me all the good 18 questions. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there may be 20 some other -- the others may have some. 21 MS. JACKSON: Okay. And, Anna, if you'd come 22 up? She'll do -- we also have a Section 8 program as part 23 of the Alamo Area Council of Governments, and it's funded by 24 the U.S. Department of H.U.D., and she's going to talk a 25 little bit about that. We do not exclusively work in Kerr 10-25-04 99 1 County, but it just seems like we're in Kerr County a lot. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 3 MS. KEHDE: Some flyers here for you, too. 4 Let me explain just a little briefly about the Section 8 5 program, which is now called the Housing Choice Voucher 6 program. H.U.D. likes to change things around quite a bit. 7 Here's another flyer. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 9 MS. KEHDE: The Section 8 program is a 10 federal -- federal rental assistance to families with low 11 income, and rental assistance is based on a family's income. 12 What's nice about the Section 8 program is that it's 13 different than public housing. Public housing is associated 14 with an apartment complex, and families move there and they 15 get rental assistance. With Section 8, you can move -- you 16 typically go into a -- with a private landlord. For 17 instance, here in Kerrville we have -- we have 10 landlords 18 that we work with, and we're always trying to expand that. 19 We have -- we work with five different large apartment 20 complexes here; Heritage Oaks, Kerrville Housing, Kerrville 21 Plaza, The Meadows, and Oakdale, and two of those are 22 actually senior citizen apartments. And there are Section 8 23 program works in 11 counties. We don't work in Bexar 24 County. The other counties are Gillespie, Kendall, Comal, 25 Guadalupe, Wilson, Karnes, Atascosa, Frio, Medina, and 10-25-04 100 1 Bandera. However, Kerr County is our biggest -- we have 2 most of our tenants there. 3 We have 98 vouchers in our program, and at 4 this time we have 62 tenants -- 62 of our tenants live here 5 in Kerr County, and actually here just in Kerrville. And so 6 the majority -- over half of our funds go to Kerrville to 7 provide rental assistance. And so, right now, we have -- 8 it's a -- the program is in demand constantly. I have 9 people calling me all the time. Right now, we have a 10 waiting list; it's about 160 people are waiting for the 11 program, and we only have 98 vouchers to give out. And so 12 that's about -- I'm estimating about a one-and-a-half to 13 two-year wait, and so we have closed our waiting list, so we 14 are not accepting any new tenants at this time, 15 unfortunately. So, people can call me for information, but 16 I would not be able to help them immediately. And -- but on 17 the -- on this flyer, there are phone numbers, as Rose had 18 said. And I guess that's it. So, if you have any 19 questions? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does your office get 21 involved with developers who wish to build Section 8 22 housing? 23 MS. KEHDE: No, we do not. We -- we have -- 24 not with this Section 8 program, no. We just strictly 25 provide the vouchers, and that's it. 10-25-04 101 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're just 2 responsible for putting people in the units? 3 MS. KEHDE: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 5 MS. JACKSON: Commissioner Williams, if I 6 may, I'd like to say thank you so much again for the 7 invitation. Just two quick things on the Section 8 program. 8 It is strictly just a rental assistance program. And I 9 don't want to just say "just" a rental assistance program, 10 because we do help quite a few people in the community -- in 11 the different counties with rental assistance that they 12 really desperately need in order to -- to use some of the 13 moneys that they're saving to adapt and get on with their 14 lives. I also wanted to just mention one more time about 15 the Weatherization Assistance Program. We also do mobile 16 homes. So, it does not have to be just a single family 17 unit, a dwelling. It can also be an apartment, but it can 18 also be a mobile home. And just recently, we met with the 19 people from one of the Kerr gas and electric companies, and 20 we were hoping to work with them, and they are working with 21 us and trying to have some of their customers referred to us 22 that they feel they need some of the weatherization help. 23 So, again, thank you so much. We appreciate your time. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for coming 25 down. 10-25-04 102 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you for being here. At 2 this time, we have another timed presentation, which we're 3 running just about an hour behind consistently. The item 4 that was timed for 10:30 is a presentation by Ms. Sue 5 Tiemann on The Boardwalk on the Guadalupe. I apologize for 6 the delay, Ms. Tiemann. We're glad to have you here. 7 MS. TIEMANN: Well, thank you for having me. 8 And I think I passed out a while ago a brochure to all of 9 you regarding the boardwalk. I am Treasurer for a group of 10 citizens that is called the Central Development Kerrville 11 Group, and we got together almost two years ago to start on 12 some of the things that were decided in the comprehensive 13 plan for Kerrville in 2000, and one of the things was a 14 boardwalk that would turn -- or utilize the river in a more 15 positive manner for the whole city. And we have -- as you 16 can see from the brochure, it has a layout there that shows 17 where the boardwalk will be. It's on the back side here, 18 and it's that little orange area. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My apologies, Sue. I 20 forgot to pass them out. 21 MS. TIEMANN: Forgot to pass them out, okay. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now they're no longer 23 in the dark. 24 MS. TIEMANN: Everybody's in the dark? The 25 boardwalk will go from Schreiner One Center all the way down 10-25-04 103 1 past Sidney Baker onto the next lot, which is owned by Kevin 2 Sutherlin, at the corner of 16 and Water Street. It will, 3 in most areas, be cantilevered out over the top of the 4 embankment, so it will be street level. And part of the 5 concept is that the businesses down there -- the retail 6 stores will open up their back doors so pedestrians and -- 7 will walk through instead of just by. The boardwalk is 8 designed to be about 12 feet wide at most locations. Some, 9 it might be a little bit wider. The idea is to have it 10 where it can be used for different venues. It will also 11 have various locations with little pop-out viewing areas 12 that are quite large. We do have one large area that's 13 called a pavilion which is on the front here. This will be 14 at the end of Earl Garrett where the star is, but it will go 15 down. The Bank of America already has a boardwalk there, 16 and we're just going to attach to that and build this 17 pavilion, which will be 40 feet square, so it's going to be 18 pretty good size. We'll also have a ramp that will go down 19 at that particular location to the river level for the 20 walking trails, so it will be handicap-accessible. And 21 other locations, we will just have stairways going down. 22 Some are already in existence. Others we'll need to build. 23 The cost for this project going to be around 24 a million dollars, and this is basically a first phase. We 25 hope, once this is done, we can enhance it and move further 10-25-04 104 1 in both directions. We would like to have another big 2 pavilion located at the old mill site on the other side of 3 Schreiner One at some point; that's what we're hoping. The 4 structure itself is going to be out of steel and concrete, 5 so it will not wash away. It's -- you know, it will be 6 sturdy in every way. We are working with the City. We're 7 working with Parks and Rec's, and we will be turning the 8 project over to the City for maintenance, or the Parks and 9 Rec's once it is completed, and they will maintain it. As 10 we speak, all the owners have turned over -- or maybe it's 11 already that way. The -- from the top of the riverbank down 12 to the river walkway is already in the Parks and Rec's or 13 the City's ownership, except maybe where Pampell's is, and I 14 think that's in the works, if it has not been done already. 15 We are going to be starting our fundraisers. We figure most 16 of the money will come from private grants or foundations, 17 and we hope to get some public funds. We were looking to 18 E.I.C., and if there's any way that y'all can feel free to 19 give us some money, we'd be more than willing to take it. 20 Y'all have any questions? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think E.I.C. is 22 planning on picking up our part of it. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: More than likely, 24 yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- Sue, do you have 10-25-04 105 1 any idea of what your goal for commencing this is? 2 Obviously, when you get money. 3 MS. TIEMANN: Obviously, as soon as we get 4 the money, or -- if we start getting in funds, then we can 5 go ahead and get some of the drawings started. What you see 6 here has all been donated by private citizens, or goodwill 7 more than anything else, from a couple of architects in 8 town. Gary Corman and David Martin have done all the design 9 work. Schreiner University has been very gracious in doing 10 these brochures -- David Smith, who is head of their Graphic 11 Design Department. So, we have a bunch of really interested 12 entities in town, as you can see on the back of this. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My other question, by 14 the picture -- 15 MS. TIEMANN: Uh-huh. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know that's an artist's 17 rendition, but -- 18 MS. TIEMANN: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- as I recall, that bank 20 is pretty steep along most of that area. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Like a cliff. Anyway, is 24 the plan to -- really to landscape it to anywhere close to 25 that, to really clean up that whole bank up to the bottom so 10-25-04 106 1 you can really see out? 2 MS. TIEMANN: If you notice, recently the 3 Parks and Rec's have gone out there and cleaned up the side 4 from Water Street down through -- I don't know how far down. 5 I don't think they've gone out to, say, down G Street, but, 6 you know, a lot of area they have cleaned up. And, yes, I 7 think they will do a better maintenance job than they have 8 in the past, because I think it will be used, and then 9 they'll want it to look nicer. So, yes, I think it will be. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's just that it 11 seems like it's a part of this. To make this work and be a 12 -- a real boardwalk people want to use, that view has to be 13 enhanced. And I -- it just seems a very hard task to fix 14 that cliff, or leave it as a cliff and just bottom area. 15 But I think it's a good project. Looks like a good idea, 16 something that would be worthwhile. And if you ask for 17 funds, I don't -- we're always short of funds here, but we 18 do have some trustees occasionally that can do some work 19 through the jail, and they can maybe can do some clearing 20 and community service occasionally maybe over there. 21 MS. TIEMANN: Well, that would be through 22 Parks and Rec's; they're the ones that's taking care of 23 that. Now, the materials we're using are -- is a composite 24 material that doesn't warp, doesn't rust, doesn't break, you 25 know. It's very, very low-maintenance, so once it's built, 10-25-04 107 1 it's going to be there for a long time without any problems. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have any 4 questions for Ms. Tiemann? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Beautiful. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: We thank you for being here 7 today. 8 MS. TIEMANN: Well, I thank you very much for 9 asking me. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it. If we can, 11 let's go back to Item 6 and finish this item up quickly. 12 That agenda item is to consider revision of plat for Tract 13 118 of Kerville South II. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard? 15 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was a little bit 17 surprised by a statement that was made in here this morning 18 about Lot 4 and Lot 1 not being approved by Environmental 19 Health. Do you know anything about that? 20 MR. ODOM: I don't. To my knowledge, what we 21 were told is that this was all -- went through. The -- I 22 think that's previous. I wasn't here for the preliminary, 23 and I'm just getting caught up on it, but my understanding 24 is that -- and Mr. Tuck is here. I don't -- he can probably 25 relate to that. But my understanding is that this low-dose 10-25-04 108 1 system was what was proposed, and that 4, as I showed you 2 before, there was a change there in reference from 3 Environmental Health to do this on Lot 4. And Lot 1, I 4 heard nothing about not doing that with -- except I had two 5 exceptions to this, which was -- one was this lot size on 6 Lot 1, which, when you go back to 118, you can see that it 7 was already cut anyway, and that it was deeded to the center 8 of the roadway. And, of course, now with the replat, 9 they're deeding that to us, and it makes that lot 10 nine-tenths. I don't count that as a substantial change. 11 It was already there. It's something that we have in our 12 Subdivision Rules. So -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 14 MR. ODOM: -- to my knowledge, that would 15 work. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. The -- I 17 think we had gotten through all of the lot size and property 18 line and middle of the road and all; we'd already gotten 19 past all that, and our question last time was, can we get a 20 little more clear picture of drainage? I think that's where 21 we left it, you know. I think it would have been approved 22 last time except for that one issue. 23 MR. ODOM: And I believe with this replat, it 24 was showing the drainage there and the runoff. It hasn't 25 changed. All he's doing is setting the line. So, the 10-25-04 109 1 drainage is there. I've listened to some of the people here 2 talking about it, but this is from an engineer, and looking 3 at the runoff, that 2 acres is basically -- that's the 4 normal runoff that's going there. I mean, I don't see any 5 increase, and I have a letter from the engineer stating that 6 fact. That -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, this is -- 8 that's another issue I want to bring up, is this letter. 9 And this may be a standard letter. You know, I'm -- I -- 10 I'm a County employee, so I probably qualify for some of 11 those programs AACOG just brought in here, but this letter 12 says -- and I want to read the first sentence. It says, "In 13 reviewing the above-referenced replat and the topographic 14 information you have provided, we observe that there is to 15 be no construction at this time." 16 MR. ODOM: That's correct. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, what the hell 18 does that have to do with drainage? I mean, I -- I 19 didn't -- I'm not following that. 20 MR. ODOM: Well, what you've got -- 21 basically, what you have is what you see out there. There 22 is no construction, no change. There's no roads. There's 23 no drainage ditches. And, normally, there would be a 24 drainage study, but -- but there's no change in it; there's 25 no roads in there. The roads are already fronting on County 10-25-04 110 1 property. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 3 MR. ODOM: You have no drainage structures 4 whatsoever. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One final question 6 from me. Is Lot 4 -- you and I were out there a few days 7 ago. 8 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I -- and I just 10 failed to ask this question. How does this Lot 4, the 11 little finger that comes up to Madrona Drive -- 12 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you with me? 14 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that anywhere near 16 consider -- could be considered a flag in any way? Flag 17 lot? 18 MR. ODOM: Well, this is -- would -- the 19 answer to the question, if we had a flag subdivision, I 20 would say that would fall under it. But this -- because of 21 the design of the land, or the proximity and everything, I 22 don't see anything in the Subdivision Rules that precludes 23 someone to make a flat lot. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 25 MR. ODOM: Flag subdivision, there's rules -- 10-25-04 111 1 state rules against that. I mean, Vernon state statutes 2 says you can't do that, and -- because you've met the 3 acreage. 1.03 in the Subdivision Rules says they can make a 4 lot if it's 1 acre on centralized water. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to clear 6 that up. Do you see -- do you see that this subdivision and 7 this makeup of lots comply with Kerr County's rules and 8 regulations -- Subdivision Rules and Regulations? 9 MR. ODOM: I have two exceptions. We 10 discussed one, the size of that lot. Lot 1 is below 1 acre. 11 We discussed the variables that affected that. The other is 12 the frontage on Lot 4 and Lot 5. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 14 MR. ODOM: They are -- do not meet 15 subdivision standards. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because of site 17 distance? 18 MR. ODOM: Because of size of the entrance to 19 the lot. One is 40 foot and the other one is 140.51 feet, 20 but they do front County-maintained road. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. See, I don't -- 22 personally don't have any problems with either one of those. 23 Outside of that, do they comply with all state laws and 24 County rules and regulations? 25 MR. ODOM: Yes. 10-25-04 112 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And the only 2 other point I wanted to make to, you know, the citizens -- 3 several of them were talking about their reason for 4 opposition was that the -- more traffic, and they moved here 5 from San Antonio to enjoy -- well, I've lived here for 56 6 years. Can you imagine what I feel like this place has 7 gotten to? And these good people that are concerned about 8 new people coming in, well, they got in. So, you know, the 9 way I look at this thing is, as long as this subdivision is 10 complying with the county rules and regulations and state 11 laws, it's a done deal, in my opinion. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have a couple 13 questions. 14 MR. ODOM: All right, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner Baldwin 16 dealt with one aspect of it. How does Lot 4 -- one more 17 time, tell me how Lot 4 comports with our Subdivision Rules, 18 which I believe prohibit flag lots? 19 MR. ODOM: I don't recall reading anything on 20 flag lot. Flag subdivision, yes. But -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a -- our 23 Subdivision Rules do not prohibit flag lots. It was done by 24 state law. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 10-25-04 113 1 MR. ODOM: And, you know, the catch on this 2 is 1 acre, and there's still -- however, that -- to meet 3 those rules and regulations, they've got four lots on one 4 site here, but they still have over 1 acre. Somehow, you're 5 going to have a difference in -- in approach to the ingress 6 to it. And I believe that we're talking about -- in the 7 future, we'll be looking at that in the Subdivision Rules, 8 and there wouldn't be an exception on that. But that's to 9 be finalized when we -- we have not met yet, but I believe 10 that that would be resolved. That wouldn't be an exception, 11 probably. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a couple other 13 questions I want to deal with here. I, too, have some 14 concerns about the letter that was sent from the engineer 15 with respect to runoff -- talking about there should be no 16 change in runoff. He's observed that there's no 17 construction plan currently or presently; therefore, no 18 change in runoff will be anticipated until construction is 19 proposed within the tract, at which time you may want to 20 review any possible changes to runoff. I guess it's a 21 reasonable assumption that if we put in impervious surfaces 22 on all of those lots and driveways, et cetera, there will be 23 some changes -- 24 MR. ODOM: There will be some changes. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- that affect the 10-25-04 114 1 runoff, correct? 2 MR. ODOM: There will be some. It would also 3 be offset by vegetation. It depends how much they clear. I 4 can't say what they might clear to put that in there. But I 5 don't see -- we have a similar situation in 4, that 6 something -- you know, we're not having construction; we're 7 not even building roads into something. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I may, I saw -- I read 9 through that, and I had that same question, and I started 10 thinking about it. Our Subdivision Rules never address what 11 the runoff's going to be after construction, 'cause we don't 12 know what the construction's going to be. Our Subdivision 13 Rules address runoff at the time the subdivision is put in. 14 And we can't -- you know -- you know, it would be -- we 15 would never -- no engineer would ever sign off on a drainage 16 plan, because that's something -- they can put in a solid 17 asphalt sidewalk or they can put a little outhouse up there. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I understand 19 that. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a big what-if. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The point of it is 22 that any construction does change the runoff. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But that's not 24 part of our Subdivision Rules, is my point. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I guess what -- 10-25-04 115 1 what's in front of us today, we really don't discuss either 2 in terms of restrictions, because the deed restrictions here 3 talks about 2 and a half acres. So, I assume that -- that 4 that deed restriction has been removed? Would that be a 5 safe assumption? 6 MR. ODOM: You're asking -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know to whom 8 I'm addressing the question, but -- 9 MR. ODOM: Well, I'll tell you what I know. 10 I've asked that question, and legal -- David is here. I 11 called him about that specifically, and he returned the 12 call. And, basically, that is a civil matter. I don't know 13 of any -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I realize that. 15 MR. ODOM: How I can -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It may be a civil 17 matter, but if there's a deed restriction and plat approval 18 is asked by the Court, wouldn't -- wouldn't it be logical 19 that we need to know that the deed restriction's been 20 removed? 21 MR. ODOM: There is a letter. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in there, Judge. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Last document. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Last document. 10-25-04 116 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe I didn't read 2 far enough. 3 MR. ODOM: It says in -- Number 10 is the 4 exception you're talking about. It says if it has 5 permission of the developer. I believe Mr. Tuck has that. 6 I received a letter on that; I believe so. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 8 MR. ODOM: He has met that -- that criteria. 9 But then, again, that is outside Subdivision Rules, when I 10 start thinking what consideration the Court would use. But 11 I'm looking at the platting procedure, and it meets platting 12 procedure with those two exceptions. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I just have a 14 general comment. This is really more to the people that 15 came and voiced concern, and we have to act based on the law 16 that we're looking at. If there's some civil way that y'all 17 can prevent this from happening, I have no idea. I know 18 that from what, you know, the developer did early on, he did 19 give this lot permission to be subdivided further. So -- 20 but that's really nothing to do with this Court. I mean, 21 bottom line is that our rules allow this subdivision, and 22 there's nothing we can do to prevent it. We can make sure 23 septics go in properly, and that's -- but that's not through 24 the subdivision process. That's really through the 25 Environmental Health Department's -- you know, their 10-25-04 117 1 process. They will sign off on this before it's approved, 2 so that's how that is addressed. Now, I think I have a 3 little bit of a concern about going to five lots. I think, 4 you know, it is better suited for a four-lot development. 5 But because of some of -- the fact that the road and the 6 Madrona Road issue, that first -- I can see how we get to 7 five, too. I mean, either four or five, clearly, he has the 8 right to do by law, and we don't have any way to stop it. 9 That's just -- that's how I look at it. If we were to 10 prevent this from happening, I'm sure pretty much that we 11 would be sued, and we would lose. That's all the comments I 12 have. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree with what I 14 just heard here. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is your recommendation 16 for approval? 17 MR. ODOM: My recommendation is approval. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Upon the 19 recommendation of the Road and Bridge administration, I move 20 that we approve the revision of plat of Tract 118 of 21 Kerville South II. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 24 approval of the revision of plat of Tract 118 of Kerville 25 South II. Any further question or discussion? 10-25-04 118 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have a question. 2 The plat that I have has not been circulated. Is there a -- 3 MR. ODOM: I have it. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a version that has 5 been signed by everybody? 6 MR. ODOM: Yes, I'm sorry. I'll let you -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe you. I just 8 wanted to make sure. 9 MR. ODOM: I have the mylars here. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 11 discussion on the motion? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. You have the 13 mylar? 14 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Has it been signed off 16 by Environmental Health? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Lower left. 18 MR. ODOM: Lower left. Miguel signed it 19 10-10-04. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 22 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 23 your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 10-25-04 119 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. At 3 this time, we're going to go to Item 14, and that is an 4 executive session item, so we will go out of open session at 5 11:50 a.m. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, just so I 7 understand, why is this an executive session item? Under 8 what -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I want to 10 know. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Acquisition of real property. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would rather see it 13 in open session. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's stretching 15 it, personally. I think it should be an open session item. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do too. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I just -- I think 18 it's -- since we're talking about the operation of the 19 facility -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we're also going to be 21 consulting with attorneys with respect to this, also. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Main thing I wanted to get 24 into first was the consultation with the lawyers. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think -- 10-25-04 120 1 what -- for what -- I think anything the lawyers have to say 2 related to the operation of the facility is open court. If 3 we get into a situation where we're, you know, doing the 4 lease negotiations, I can see that, and I can see litigation 5 with the attorneys, going into executive, but I just don't 6 see how we're getting into either of those items today. I 7 see this as operation of the facility, and I'm saying that, 8 based on the proposal that I have from the Sheriff, which 9 has nothing to do with, you know, leasing really; it's about 10 whether we're going to expand the jail by a bunch of beds, 11 buy a new facility, and the other part of it is the 12 operation of the juvenile detention facility. And I -- and 13 those discussions, I think, need to be in open court. Now, 14 if we get into the other two items, litigation or 15 negotiation of a lease, I don't have a problem with those 16 two. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the last one you 18 mentioned is one that we're possibly going to be interested 19 in initially, and I want to handle that first, because 20 Mr. Spurgeon, one of our attorneys, has a commitment later 21 this afternoon that he's got to clear out of here pretty 22 quick on. So, it's for that reason that I think it's 23 appropriate for us to go -- it deals with the strategic 24 interaction relative to the other lawyers that are involved 25 in -- in this matter. Mr. Motley, do you have any thoughts 10-25-04 121 1 about that? 2 MR. MOTLEY: You're referring specifically to 3 the -- and this is just on 14? We're not talking about 13 4 now, right? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: No, we're not talking about 13 6 at this point in time. 7 MR. MOTLEY: Hold on just a moment, Judge. 8 Well, I -- you know, I'm going to say that it's a little 9 bit -- I'm not sure that anybody would necessarily be able 10 to hazard a guess as to what is going to happen 11 litigation-wise in conjunction with this operating 12 agreement. You know, right now -- you know, there's no 13 immediate threatened action, but I think it depends a lot on 14 what actions are taken by the Court as to, you know, whether 15 or not some sort of litigation is going to ensue. You know, 16 and I don't even know who -- who would be all the parties 17 and who would be in a position of plaintiff to institute the 18 suit. So, I -- I think that you're looking at a likelihood 19 of some sort of court intervention, again, depending upon 20 what actions are taken. So, I don't know if I've answered 21 your question or not. I'm not sure precisely what your 22 question was. But, you know, I think the idea is, should we 23 be discussing this matter, 14, in executive session because 24 of the possibility of litigation? I see it as certainly 25 being a possibility. And in conjunction -- 10-25-04 122 1 JUDGE TINLEY: What about with respect to 2 strategy concerning the discussions with lawyers on the 3 other side of this issue? 4 MR. MOTLEY: Well, strategically, I mean, it 5 would be every reason in the world to have an executive 6 session, in my estimation. Because if we have any 7 strategies that we are seeking to pursue, you know, it would 8 be -- it would be foolish, it seems, at this point to reveal 9 those to people who are potentially on the opposition. If 10 we have something -- some course of conduct that we're going 11 to seek in order to protect ourselves or to get a 12 distinctive advantage for the County or for the Juvenile 13 Board, it seems to me that those things -- strategically, 14 there's every reason to keep that in executive session. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do not see the word 16 "possible litigation" here at all. This is a pretty clear 17 agenda item here for me. And I know that it could come to 18 litigation, but I don't know that. And even if it does 19 qualify for closed session, I don't think we should do it. 20 I think there -- that's probably the problem with the 21 juvenile detention facility today, is closed session, 22 behind-the-door nonsense. These things -- this stuff needs 23 to be done right out in front of God and everybody, I'm 24 going to tell you that. You're going to have a hard time 25 with me doing anything until this thing gets out in front of 10-25-04 123 1 everybody. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I mean, I don't 3 see -- that potential litigation issue clearly doesn't get 4 us there. One, it's not listed on the agenda that way. 5 Two, based on litigation, it could happen -- every item we 6 discuss could end up in litigation on every vote. I mean, 7 we could be sued on the one we just did. So, that doesn't 8 work. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: You're telling me that you 10 want to discuss the -- the strategy with our attorneys 11 insofar as negotiations with the attorneys representing the 12 other parties in this matter? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm telling you I'm not 14 going to discuss strategy till I get the options on the 15 table. And until I know what the Sheriff wants to do, what 16 Ms. Harris wants to do, what the Juvenile Board wants to do, 17 and tell me that in open session, I'm not willing to discuss 18 anything to do with that lease and extending it or not 19 extending it or anything else. And if that means 20 Mr. Spurgeon has to change his schedule, he has to change 21 his schedule, I'm sorry. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not only in terms of 23 that, but the cost to do these options that need to be 24 talked about today, I think this all needs to be out in the 25 public. I agree with my two colleagues. And if we 10-25-04 124 1 determine that the lease is going to be extended, they think 2 it's feasible to do that, then that's the time we go into 3 closed session to talk about the strategies to make that 4 happen. That's the way I see it. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I've got no problem talking 6 about the -- the particulars of the transaction. My concern 7 is with Mr. Spurgeon's schedule and him needing to get on 8 down the road. I wanted to get the particular portion of it 9 that we needed to discuss with him done firstly. I think 10 that will take just a matter of a few minutes. Hopefully, 11 we can break for lunch immediately after that, come back and 12 then come into open session, but that's merely a strategic 13 matter. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there some possible 15 litigation? I mean, I'm -- 16 JUDGE TINLEY: There's always possible 17 litigation, Mr. Baldwin. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I understand 19 that, Judge. And that's -- no, we can't do that. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think litigation is 21 necessary when you're consulting with an attorney, as a 22 matter of fact. But, be that as it may -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is it that we 24 have to discuss with him that we can't discuss in front of 25 the people that pay for this? What is the point that we 10-25-04 125 1 need to discuss with him in private? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: The strategy on how it's 3 approached. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On how what's 5 approached, Judge? Whether or not to lease it, or the 6 conditions of the lease? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: There's a combination of -- of 8 both of those factors. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Last time we agreed 10 to -- that we would leave it open through December 31. Oh, 11 yes, we did. We agreed through December 31, and we would 12 not pay the attorney fees. And they -- and they have come 13 back and said, no, we want you -- that will be cool, but we 14 want you to pay the attorney fees. Are we talking about 15 other than that? Something other than all that? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My recollection was 17 that the Court did not agree to the December 31 extension. 18 We got hung up on conditions that might be attendant to 19 that, not the least of which was legal fees. That was my 20 recollection. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We keep going there. 22 We -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think that's an 24 executive session discussion. I think it's open session. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Apparently, it's the consensus 10-25-04 126 1 of the Court that -- is that your desire, to do whatever we 2 have to do in open session, Commissioner Letz? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. I mean, 4 I'm not -- I can't progress from where we are until I know 5 what we're talking about doing, and that -- and that is 6 clearly not in executive session, to me. I mean, I 7 understand Mr. Spurgeon may have to go to San Antonio. We 8 may have to come back tomorrow; we may have to recess. 9 Well, so be it. I can't continue a discussion on this 10 facility until I talk to the Sheriff in open session, 11 Ms. Harris in open session, and my colleagues on the Court 12 in open session as to what direction is the best for this 13 County to take on that facility. And until we decide that 14 direction, the rest of it's meaningless to me. You know, I 15 think we're all very familiar. We need to make a decision 16 real quick, or we need to get that facility closed down and 17 emptied out by the end of the month. So, I know that's one 18 option. The other option is for us to decide to do 19 something with it, and that whole discussion is not in 20 executive session, in my mind. So, I mean, I think -- I 21 know the two options. And one option is shut it down and be 22 out of there by -- in the next 10 days. Okay, I don't need 23 the attorney to tell me that; I've already been told that. 24 And the other one is a philosophical issue as to whether or 25 not it makes economic sense to the taxpayers of this county 10-25-04 127 1 for the County to take over that operation of that facility. 2 And that discussion is open session, in my mind. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It seems to me, 4 Judge, that the two documents we have in front of us today, 5 one of them is from the Sheriff, which we just received this 6 morning and haven't had a chance to study it, and the second 7 is a document that is a projection of -- of operation -- 8 budget operations expenses from Ms. Harris, amended today 9 because there was an omission or an error in there. Those 10 are two things that both go to the question of whether or 11 not this Court's going to approve a continuation of the 12 lease, in my mind. If we determine that we're going to do 13 that, based on what's in either or both of these documents, 14 and believe it is in the best interests of the taxpayers, 15 then I think we should shut the door and talk to lawyers 16 about how we make that happen, and what conditions we'd like 17 to negotiate or have negotiated to make it happen, or in the 18 alternative, be a deal-breaker. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: That's fine, if you wish to 20 proceed. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to err on 22 the side of openness. I think I'm more or less agreeing 23 with Commissioner Williams. We might get to a point where 24 we're heading into a strategic discussion where we don't 25 want others to know what our strategy is, and at that time, 10-25-04 128 1 we need to go into executive session. But it sounds like we 2 need to start down a path before we know it. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the consensus. I will 4 call in open session, then, Item 14, consider and discuss 5 extension of lease and operating agreement for the Juvenile 6 Detention Facility or other appropriate resolution of 7 existing issues with respect to said facility. As the 8 members of the Court know, there's a -- there are some 9 alternatives available to us with respect to the resolution 10 of this issue. I think Commissioner Letz has already posed 11 two of them, one of which is for us to stand fast as we do 12 now, in which case, by its own terms, the current extension 13 that we're operating under will expire as of midnight 14 October 31st. Other possibilities are acquisition by the 15 County and/or others. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And/or others? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's interesting. 19 Are there others? I mean, is there real -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: There have been private 21 organizations that have looked at the facility, yes. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- you know, I 23 don't see a whole lot of talking up here -- just to make 24 sure I understand what's kind of on the table, and I -- I 25 mean, from what I understand, the option is to convert the 10-25-04 129 1 newly constructed area -- basically, transfer it to the -- 2 to the Sheriff as an addition to the jail. And he has the 3 scenario primarily for female detainees, though it could be 4 used for other purposes with no renovation required. And he 5 is prepared to budget as to how to do that from his 6 standpoint. Of course, he wants more money in that budget, 7 but, anyway, that's okay, Sheriff. And -- 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me see if I 9 understand it. We have two options; let the lease expire 10 and shut it down by the end of this month, or take some 11 action to use it in some way that the Sheriff's proposed. 12 Are those the two options, or is there a third option? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there's probably 14 thirds and fourths and fifths, but I think those two 15 options -- the shut-it-down option, we all know that one. 16 This is an option that, I guess, the Sheriff and Ms. Harris 17 kind of worked out amongst themselves about one operating 18 the juvenile facility, one -- I don't know who operates -- 19 or who put that all together or who made the division, but I 20 think this is a proposal. I mean, the whole thing could go 21 to the Sheriff's Department, I guess. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that mean that 23 the County purchases -- is that what we're saying? If the 24 County would purchase it before we go with the half-Sheriff, 25 half-Harris program? 10-25-04 130 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be my 2 understanding. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what we're 4 saying? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's essentially 6 what it boils down to. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the County would 8 buy it? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Henderson, how do we 10 -- you know, assuming the County is to buy it, how do we buy 11 it? What does that -- what do we have to do from a tax 12 standpoint? 13 MR. HENDERSON: The -- the County has the 14 authority, under the Certificate of Obligation Act of 1979, 15 to issue certificates of obligation to acquire the facility, 16 and it would be an acquisition of real estate, so there 17 would be some, you know, title transfer policy and other 18 issues involved. But we would issue certificates of 19 obligation to do that. The tax rate impact, because of the 20 debt reduction the County's already anticipating in its 21 existing debt, would be -- there would be no tax rate 22 increase as a result of -- of issuance of C.O.'s to acquire 23 the facility. However, what it means is that your tax rate 24 would not fall as far as it would otherwise fall. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much would it not 10-25-04 131 1 fall? 2 MR. HENDERSON: About 1.6 cents. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would it still fall, or 4 it not would not fall 1.6? 5 MR. HENDERSON: It would fall one-tenth of a 6 penny if do you the deal. If you don't do the certificate 7 of obligation transaction, it would fall about 1.7 cents. 8 So -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, essentially, the -- 10 the tax anticipation note that's coming out -- in other 11 words, pay it off next year, we're going to keep that tax 12 going? 13 MR. HENDERSON: Exactly, yes, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To pay for this. And how 15 long will that certificate of obligation be? 16 MR. HENDERSON: It would run out, I believe, 17 to 2023. Let me doublecheck that. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be a debt 19 restructuring; is that correct, Mr. Henderson? 20 MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. We would take out 21 the lease revenue bonds that are outstanding and replace 22 them with certificates of obligation, with a final maturity 23 of 2023. My calculations, I would estimate that the amount 24 of -- of debt service for that transaction would actually be 25 about half a million dollars less, based on the County's 10-25-04 132 1 bond ratings and -- and ability of the County to acquire 2 municipal bond insurance; that their interest over the life 3 of the transaction and debt service over the life of the 4 transaction would be about half a million dollars less than 5 is currently outstanding on the lease revenue bonds 6 transaction. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: During that -- up to 8 2023, is the debt being -- how, I guess -- we have two 9 C.O.'s, essentially, right now. Obviously, one of them's 10 not -- one's -- 11 MR. HENDERSON: From previous debt 12 transactions, yes, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Then we have the 14 jail. 15 MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this going to keep our 17 debt level basically uniform all the way to 2023, or when 18 those others get paid off, will there be a reduction at that 19 time? 20 MR. HENDERSON: Well, if you'll look at Page 21 4 of what I just handed out, you'll see a Column B, total 22 outstanding debt service. That's the debt of the County 23 currently outstanding. You see that would fall from fiscal 24 year ending '05 of $1,130,000 down to $682,000 in '06. 25 Column D represents an estimate of the debt service on 10-25-04 133 1 issuance of certificates of obligation to take out the lease 2 financing. Column J would be the resultant total combined 3 debt service. It would still fall from 1,130,000, but 4 instead of falling down to 682,000, it would fall down to 5 1,090,000. In either scenario, you see another significant 6 drop in debt service in the fiscal year ending '09. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When would the new 8 debt pick up? 9 MR. HENDERSON: The first payment on the new 10 debt would be the fiscal year ending '06, so it would be no 11 tax rate or budget impact this year with respect to any debt 12 issued, should the County elect to acquire the facility. 13 There would be an operational budget impact, but no budget 14 impact with respect to debt. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, as I read this, 16 basically, when the jail gets paid off -- the current jail 17 gets paid off in 2012, that following year, 2013, there 18 would be almost a 3-cent reduction in tax rate to reflect 19 that? 20 MR. HENDERSON: Well, it'll fall from 3.8 to 21 1.67, or about a 2.2-cent decrease in -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2.2? 23 MR. HENDERSON: Right. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was going up to that -- 25 yeah? 10-25-04 134 1 MR. HENDERSON: You can see -- now, we would 2 look for it to fall from 4.5 down to 4.4, and then to 3.7, 3 and then eventually down to 1.6. If you're looking at 4 Column L -- I've got to get bifocals. Column L -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have them up here, if 6 you need to borrow them. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: '012 is when the jail 8 is paid off; is that correct? 9 MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do these figures take 11 into consideration the current outstanding for the 12 communications systems? 13 MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. Those -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's built into 15 the numbers through -- 16 MR. HENDERSON: Under Column B. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: '05 through -- '05 18 through how far? 19 MR. HENDERSON: I think through '08. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: '08? Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So, the total, 22 excluding the debt service, is 7,331,000? 'Cause of the 23 cost of the -- the bonds that cover the old and the -- and 24 the new detention facility? 25 MR. HENDERSON: I'm sorry? 10-25-04 135 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 7.3 million is the -- is 2 the cost of the -- 3 MR. HENDERSON: That's -- that's principal 4 and interest together. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's principal and 6 interest? 7 MR. HENDERSON: If -- if I might, 8 Commissioner, maybe I can just kind of walk you through 9 everything I have in the package, and maybe I'll address 10 some of your questions. On Page 1 is a recap of the debt 11 service on the existing lease revenue bonds. This is a 12 schedule based on the original maturity, and does not 13 reflect the fact that the first two year's worth of payments 14 have been -- have been made. But there is the debt service 15 that's outstanding that the -- that the existing bondholders 16 are at risk for. The second page is a sources and uses 17 statement, where we -- we look at what the cost of taking 18 out those lease revenue bonds are. And we'll start at the 19 uses. You see that the debt on the outstanding facility is 20 4 million, 975. I've just estimated the cost to transfer 21 the real estate title policies, whatever other title work 22 needs to be done, at 25,000. Municipal bond insurance, cost 23 of issuance, and accrued interest through December 31st of 24 '04, which will tie back to a timetable of events I've got 25 at the back of the schedule. So, the total required funding 10-25-04 136 1 would be $5,212,000. Under sources, you see how we estimate 2 we would get the funds; a par value of certificates at 3 4 million 780, slight premium on the certificates, cash in 4 the reserve fund of $411,000, accrued interest gets us to 5 $5,212,000. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. 7 MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under -- on Page 2 -- 9 MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The bottom line, 11 total uses is 5.2125. 12 MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 5,212,057. 14 MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that is greater 16 than where we are today. 17 MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir, it is, because 18 there are -- number one, the biggest figure is -- that 19 includes the accrued interest. There's interest outstanding 20 on the lease revenue bonds from August 15th through the 21 closing date on the acquisition. That -- that would need to 22 be paid. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are the call 24 provisions going to be waived in this scenario? 25 MR. HENDERSON: We have not been successful 10-25-04 137 1 in confirming with the trustee that they have formed a 2 bondholder's committee and are prepared to discuss such 3 things as waiving the call provisions. I have been in 4 contact with a number of bondholders, and, in fact, there 5 are some bondholders in the courtroom present today. It is 6 my suspicion that, under the circumstances, we ought to be 7 able to negotiate a waiver for the call feature, but that 8 work would need to be handled through the trustee. We've 9 not confirmed that from the trustee. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you look correctly 11 at what you've presented us today versus what you opined in 12 your letter of October 8th -- 13 MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- we're $600,000 15 further in the -- in the hole today, by reason of 5.212, as 16 opposed to a potential 4.670 restructure. 17 MR. HENDERSON: Well, no, sir. The -- the 4 18 million, 670 that you see in the letter of October 8th, that 19 would compare to the 4 million, 780 that's on the top of the 20 sources, and in that letter, I referenced the par value of 21 certificates. The number in my letter of October 8th also 22 considered utilization of $411,000 in reserve funds, and 23 other costs involved. It also considered a premium on the 24 bonds. And what I've simply done is convert some of that 25 premium to par value of certificates, but this is within 10-25-04 138 1 $10,000 or $12,000 of what I was estimating October the 8th. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I'm sorry I 3 interrupted. 4 MR. HENDERSON: No, it's quite all right, 5 Commissioner. But, as I said, discussions with the trustee 6 and their counsel has been interesting, to say the least, 7 and we have not yet achieved the status of being able to 8 discuss such things as -- as waiver of the call features. 9 But, again, between the bondholders that are represented in 10 the room today and other bondholders that I've spoken to 11 who've contacted us proactively, I certainly would not 12 anticipate that waiving the call features would be an issue, 13 but we do have to go through the trustee to deal with that, 14 or through some sort of tender offer. Yes, sir? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Your earlier statement 16 was the trustee -- you're unaware of whether the trustee has 17 talked to the bondholders or not? 18 MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, how does -- how 20 -- how can we proceed if the trustee isn't talking to the 21 bondholders? That's something the trustee needs to be 22 involved with, and I don't know that we have any leverage 23 over the trustee. I don't know if they do either. What -- 24 could you explain that? 25 MR. HENDERSON: That might be better answered 10-25-04 139 1 by our counsel. I will simply answer the first part of your 2 question, which is that I have been contacted by a number of 3 bondholders who have indicated to me that they have not been 4 contacted by the trustee. It would certainly make sense to 5 me that the trustee should have contacted them and created a 6 bondholder committee by now, but we have no evidence that 7 that's occurred. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 MR. HENDERSON: Would you like to add 10 anything? 11 MR. SPURGEON: No. Actually, there's nothing 12 more to add. The part -- or I guess I will say one thing. 13 These bonds are held by what's called book entry only, which 14 means that the trustee themselves may not actually have the 15 name of the bondholders; that the bonds are actually held in 16 what's called a depository trust company. But they've made 17 a request to the D.T.C. for the name of the bondholders, but 18 Bob's also given them some names of bondholders, and to my 19 knowledge, I think the gentlemen that are here in the room 20 today will confirm to you that the trustee hasn't talked to 21 them. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does the fact that 23 the trustee has not acted suggest anything to you about 24 their -- their motivation or willingness to come to some 25 resolution of this? 10-25-04 140 1 MR. SPURGEON: Are you talking to me? 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Anybody. 3 MR. SPURGEON: Commissioner, I was hoping Bob 4 was going to answer that. No -- 5 MR. HENDERSON: I'm smarter than that. 6 MR. SPURGEON: In my view, the trustee has 7 been very concerned from the beginning -- and this is not a 8 surprise to anybody. They've been very concerned from the 9 beginning about potential liability to them in taking 10 possession of a -- an operating juvenile facility. That's 11 why the extension agreement was entered into the end of 12 September, so that -- and from their standpoint, you have to 13 understand, they don't have a license to operate the 14 facility. You can understand all of that. I mean, it makes 15 perfectly good sense. So, a lot of what they have appeared 16 to have done has been to be sure that they aren't put in the 17 position to have an operating facility placed on their lap. 18 It just seems a little surprising we haven't seen a little 19 more proactive work in trying to deal with bondholders, to 20 be honest with you. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. 22 MR. SPURGEON: I think there's kind of -- 23 there should be two paths going down the road. 24 MR. HENDERSON: So, going back to the 25 presentation on Page 3, then, it's just an estimate of the 10-25-04 141 1 debt service, on the $4,780,000 in certificates of 2 obligation. And then we're back to Page 4, where we talk 3 about the tax rate impact of that. The subsequent pages are 4 breakdowns of the costs. I know how important transparency 5 is to the Commissioners Court. And Pages 5 and 6 give 6 various detailed estimates of what will be involved, and 7 then the last page is a timetable of events with respect to 8 what it would take, what milestone would have to be 9 accomplished in order to issue certificates of obligation. 10 I will tell you that -- that I think my presentation really 11 may be slightly out of order with respect to, you know, the 12 consideration of the Commissioners Court needs to go 13 through. This is designed to show you what the costs would 14 be and what the structure would likely be should the 15 Commissioners Court elect to acquire the facility. I think, 16 as has been addressed earlier in the Commissioners' 17 deliberations, you know, what's important is -- is how do 18 you get to a decision about making -- about deciding whether 19 or not you're going to acquire the facility? 20 I think there are three things that need to 21 be dealt with. One is the -- the operational effects from 22 the County's general fund, which Ms. Harris' budget and the 23 Sheriff's budget addresses in part, because what their 24 budgets really address is what it would cost to the County 25 in terms of operating expenses should the facility be 10-25-04 142 1 acquired and continue to operate as a joint juvenile 2 facility and a women's adult facility. What their numbers 3 don't really address is what happens to your general fund 4 budget if you decide not to acquire it? There's going to be 5 a number of costs that I think the Sheriff is prepared to 6 discuss with respect to transportation -- transporting 7 juveniles to other locations, and dealing with problems of 8 adult prisoner capacity and moving those to other 9 facilities. So, I think it might be appropriate to have the 10 Sheriff or Becky address those issues, and then get to what 11 -- what's in the best interests of the County in terms of 12 acquiring the facility or -- or not acquiring the facility. 13 Now, one thing that I would like to also 14 address with respect to the -- the options that were laid 15 out, the Judge mentioned, and Buster Baldwin picked up on 16 the possibility of -- of the facility being sold to a 17 third-party. There has been a third-party -- been three 18 separate third parties that have expressed interest in the 19 facility. One, I think, was here when we met in August on 20 the subject. He has since declined their interest. We -- 21 we do have one term sheet that was faxed to us late last 22 week, but what I think is important to understand -- and, 23 again, I defer to the attorney -- is that this Commissioners 24 Court doesn't own that facility, and you can't engage in 25 conversations about selling the facility to a third-party. 10-25-04 143 1 That's really not for the Commissioners Court to decide. 2 You're either going to acquire the facility or you're not, 3 and if you don't acquire the facility, then, as Tom pointed 4 out, we'd need to empty the facility under the threat of the 5 temporary restraining order that -- that the trustee's 6 attorney was prepared to file last Friday, but was talked 7 out of doing that. They would acquire an empty facility on 8 December the 31st at midnight, or midnight a.m. on November 9 the 1st, and then it would be up to the trustee to decide 10 what offers from third parties they may wish to entertain. 11 I'll be happy to answer -- 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think you said 13 December 31st. 14 MR. HENDERSON: I'm sorry. I meant 15 October 31st, November 1st. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question with regard 17 to rate, Mr. Henderson. 18 MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In your letter, you 20 talked about the debt could be lowered from its existing 21 5.21 to less than 4.5, but what I'm looking at in your 22 spreadsheet here is, in fact, 4.75. 23 MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. These are 24 estimates. I will tell you that the current existing market 25 is still less than 4 and a half percent, but in the 10-25-04 144 1 interests of conservatism, I did run the numbers at 2 4.75 percent. Current market would be less than 4 and a 3 half percent. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To what extent does 5 the Standard and Poor's spanking that we received have on 6 the rate that we would get? 7 MR. HENDERSON: Well, that's an excellent 8 question. The answer is that if we move -- if the County 9 moves to acquire this facility, Standard and Poor's will 10 reverse their rating action and take the County back from 11 B/double A-minus up to the single A that it had before, 12 which would make us eligible for municipal bond insurance. 13 So, if you -- if you move to acquire the facility, we can 14 reverse Standard and Poor's action, and you'll see no impact 15 of that. If you decide not to acquire the facility and the 16 facility does go into receivership with the trustee, I think 17 it's very clear that your bond rating will continue to be a 18 triple B-minus for the -- at least the intermediate future, 19 if not the foreseeable future, and the negative impact of 20 that would be felt if and when the County attempts to borrow 21 money again in the future for some other project. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 23 MR. HENDERSON: But we would anticipate, with 24 an affirmative decision by the Commissioners Court to 25 acquire the facility, that Standard and Poor's would reverse 10-25-04 145 1 their recent downgrading of the rating. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bob, what -- do you have 3 an estimate of what the cost would be to the County to not 4 acquire it, and to basically default on the bonds? You've 5 mentioned, I think, at our last meeting that we are 6 obligated for a certain number of attorney's fees and other 7 things along the line, but do you have any idea of what that 8 total cost might be? 9 MR. HENDERSON: Well, actually, I don't -- 10 I'm not the best person to address the issue. I don't -- I 11 don't personally -- I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe 12 that you are obligated for attorney's fees to the trustees 13 under the existing documents, but I'll let Mr. Spurgeon 14 address that issue. I think the costs to the County of not 15 acquiring this facility are going to be quantified in two 16 ways. The first and immediate impact is going to be what's 17 going to happen to the Sheriff's budget as a result of the 18 closing of the -- of this facility, and the requirement then 19 to transfer juveniles to other locales and bring them back 20 for hearings and -- and all of that. And, again, I think 21 the Sheriff has worked up some figures to discuss with the 22 Court. They're not part of this existing presentation. And 23 then, also, the cost of beginning to move adult prisoners to 24 other locations because of the capacity issues at the 25 County's current jail facilities. So, that's one set of 10-25-04 146 1 costs, and that's going to be an immediate negative impact 2 on the County's general fund. The other set of costs are 3 going to be the costs affiliated with increased borrowing 4 costs and restricted access to capital markets as a result 5 of Standard and Poor's downgrading of your bonds. And we're 6 not going to be able to quantify that cost, you know, until 7 the County comes up with a project that they need to finance 8 and we need to, you know, access the capital markets. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I'll make a 10 comment. I would recommend we go to lunch. It's 12:30. I 11 think it's appropriate to go to lunch. We can reconvene, 12 Judge -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to make an 14 observation here; that this is the County Judge's agenda 15 item, and we haven't given him a chance to say one word. 16 Sorry, Judge. 17 MR. HENDERSON: I might -- before the Judge 18 steps in, I might also ask Mr. Spurgeon to address your 19 question more directly, 'cause he does have a conflict this 20 afternoon. 21 MR. SPURGEON: I do, 'cause I will probably 22 need to be leaving pretty quick. I have a meeting in San 23 Antonio I just can't get out of this afternoon, so I 24 apologize. But, in answer to your question, no, 25 Commissioner, I don't think the County has any obligation to 10-25-04 147 1 be paying any sort of costs in connection with the close of 2 the facility and those things. I mean, the documents are -- 3 are very clear that -- that once it goes over -- I mean, 4 you've not appropriated. You don't have any obligation to 5 make any further payments for any matter. What will happen 6 is that, once the facility is sold, the trustee will 7 essentially take off the top the costs of -- of what it took 8 to essentially administer the estate, if you will. But in 9 terms of coming back here, I don't believe the County has 10 any obligation. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, they should 13 be -- I don't know if any of these suits in here are part of 14 the New York crowd, but they should be absolutely ashamed of 15 themselves for even asking the taxpayers of this county to 16 pay their damn lawyer fees. That's nuts. 17 MR. DONELSON: Not me. 18 MR. SPURGEON: These are all bondholders that 19 are here. They're not part of Bank of New York. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't know 21 that, but I'd like to have the opportunity to go out behind 22 the shed for a couple hours and have a visit with them about 23 it, 'cause that -- to ask our taxpayers to do that is just 24 absolutely -- I mean, I'm sorry; I can't get my mind around 25 it. Doesn't make any sense at all. 10-25-04 148 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I can certainly give you a 2 telephone number of the -- of the lawyer that I'm sure you 3 want to have that discussion with, if you'd like to, 4 Commissioner. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That'd be fine. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Spurgeon, is there 7 anything else that you can see that the Court may need to 8 have from you because of your needing to be absent this 9 afternoon? 10 MR. SPURGEON: Only thing that -- I mean, 11 from my standpoint, I guess, goes back to the agreement that 12 they've proposed. If you decide to do something in terms 13 of -- of acquiring the facility, you're going to need to 14 enter into the agreement that the bank has been forwarded, 15 essentially to keep the facility operating for the next 16 couple months. And the proposal that we talked about 17 before, and the first draft of the -- of the agreement 18 provided sort of open-ended on attorney's fees, which that 19 is clearly something that you're going to want to -- well, 20 you'll want to discuss as to whether -- or how you handle 21 that. I'm not going tell you what to do, to any of the 22 Commissioners. But I will tell you that the agreement that 23 was originally proposed still has the open-ended nature of 24 the attorney's fees, and so any -- if you want to alter that 25 in any manner, you'll need to deal with that. If you choose 10-25-04 149 1 not to -- to purchase the facility, they will, I think, most 2 likely proceed for a T.R.O. tomorrow to essentially 3 formalize the process of being sure that the facility's not 4 turned over to them. They -- they fully understand that the 5 County also understands that they should not and probably 6 cannot turn over an operating facility to them. There's 7 just legal complications of that; they don't have a license 8 to operate, as we've talked about. But it would not 9 surprise me if they would actually go ahead and take this 10 action just so that they -- essentially protecting 11 themselves, that they don't have an operating facility that 12 they receive on November 1st. Judge I -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that what that 14 T.R.O. would be? Temporary restraining order to prevent us 15 from turning over to them an operating facility? 16 MR. SPURGEON: Yes, that's correct. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there anything at 18 all that says we can't turn over to them a non-operating 19 facility? 20 MR. SPURGEON: No. I -- no, there's not. I 21 think they -- they expect, under the documents, that -- that 22 they would receive possession and control of the facility at 23 the end of the lease term, which in this case is 24 October 31st. But their -- their concern is not having any 25 juveniles in that facility, so that the liability issues 10-25-04 150 1 that may go with it would be eliminated. So, Commissioner, 2 no, there's -- if the Juvenile Board essentially were able 3 to get all the juveniles out by -- by Sunday, that -- that 4 would not be a problem. But I'm just telling you, I 5 wouldn't be at all surprised to see them file a T.R.O. in 6 the appropriate jurisdiction. I assume it's here in Kerr 7 County. Not exactly sure where they would file it, but they 8 would file a T.R.O. just to protect themselves; that would 9 prevent you from turning over an operating facility. I 10 don't think that's anybody's intent, but -- but I would 11 expect that to happen. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tom, so assuming they 13 filed the T.R.O. tomorrow, and we can't get the juveniles 14 out by Friday, so we would have until we can get them out. 15 But -- and we would have to pay the costs. What happens if 16 we don't have them out by Friday -- or by Sunday, whatever? 17 What if we don't have them out by Sunday? 18 MR. SPURGEON: I'm not sure if I can answer 19 that question for you, to be honest with you. I don't know 20 what the nature of the T.R.O. would actually read; I mean, 21 what kind of extensions that they might impose. I -- to be 22 honest, I probably could not begin to speculate. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 24 MR. SPURGEON: Again, a lot of that, of 25 course, goes back to the Juvenile Board. Doesn't go to the 10-25-04 151 1 Commissioners, but -- well, actually, it does go to the 2 Commissioners, because the documents are -- you being the 3 lessee on the documents, they're wanting to prevent you from 4 turning over the facility as an operating facility. They -- 5 they are fully prepared to take physical possession of the 6 property. No question about that. And then go through the 7 procedure to eventually find an owner of the facility at -- 8 at some purchase price. And, Judge, other than that, I 9 can't think of anything else that I would -- I mean, there's 10 -- I would like to be here if I could for it, but I really 11 cannot for the rest of the discussion. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One -- one further 13 question. I was in a coma there for a couple of minutes, so 14 forgive me. If we decided that we need to purchase that 15 property, will we go through this whole process that you 16 just described? And then we have the opportunity to 17 purchase? 18 MR. SPURGEON: If -- if you choose to 19 purchase -- if you decide today to purchase the facility, I 20 think you'd be making a decision to purchase it at -- at a 21 price that would allow for purchase price where the 22 bondholders would be paid off at 100 cents on the dollar. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. 24 MR. SPURGEON: I think we've -- there was a 25 question asked earlier in the month about, could the County 10-25-04 152 1 purchase that at some purchase price less than that? And 2 my -- I can't tell you exactly what would happen, but I 3 think you would probably have some difficulty doing that, 4 because you are -- they would -- the bondholders may take a 5 look at that and say, hold on, that's not -- that's not 6 playing on an even playing field. You're getting this 7 facility for so many cents on the dollar at our expense. 8 And we either pay at -- at the outstanding indebtedness, if 9 you will, but to come in at a lesser price, I think, could 10 subject you -- now, whether or not they would win the suit, 11 I can't tell you that, but I think they would have some 12 difficulties. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if we decided 14 that we're just going -- we're going to empty it out and 15 turn it over to them Sunday? What is it, Sunday? And then 16 they -- they take control of it, and then they start looking 17 for a buyer. We come in at that time? 18 MR. SPURGEON: Commissioner, I -- again, I 19 don't know how they -- that they would eventually react to 20 that. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I really don't get 22 this thing at all. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have another 24 question, Tom. I'm -- I'm hard-pressed to -- to make a 25 decision, not knowing from the bond trustee what the 10-25-04 153 1 ultimate answer is with respect to waiving the call 2 provisions, 'cause that's money -- that's taxpayers' money 3 we're talking about. It's all taxpayers' money, but that's 4 even more taxpayers' money, and I want to know -- I want to 5 know how we can expedite that in our decision-making 6 process. 7 MR. SPURGEON: There's -- there's two ways 8 that that will happen, Commissioner. The -- the call 9 provisions can be waived directly by the bondholders through 10 some sort of a tender process if we don't even go through 11 the procedure where the trustee -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me interrupt you, if I 13 might. 14 MR. SPURGEON: Yes. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Are we not getting into -- 16 have we not been getting into some strategic issues here? 17 MR. SPURGEON: There are -- yes. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 19 MR. SPURGEON: But, Commissioner, you might 20 want to ask the question of some of the bondholders. Bob 21 and I have always, frankly, speculated over the last month 22 that the bondholders, under the circumstances, would 23 probably be very willing to give up the call provision for 24 being able to be made whole. You may want to ask the 25 question of the bondholders that are here. Now, that 10-25-04 154 1 obviously is not a -- not even 50 percent of the bondholders 2 are here, I feel pretty confident. I don't know how much of 3 these bonds are held by the people that are in this room, 4 but you may want to get a reaction from them. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, but is it not the 6 trustee that has to make the decision, not the bondholders? 7 MR. SPURGEON: No, not really. That's the 8 bondholders' -- the trustee will not make that without the 9 bondholders' consent. 10 MR. HENDERSON: I have personally been in 11 contact with bondholders representing slightly more than 12 50 percent of this debt, and the bondholders I've been in 13 contact with are prepared to waive the call feature. My 14 reference to the trustee is really a matter of procedure and 15 technicalities. Of course, we can always make our offer to 16 the trustee contingent upon, you know, a waiving of the call 17 feature by all or a majority of, or whatever the documents 18 require in terms of bondholder consent. Mr. Spurgeon and I 19 and the Judge have also talked about another strategy to 20 deal with those bonds, which is a tender offer which we 21 could get directly to the bondholders, and effectively 22 circumvent the trustee, and ask the bondholders to respond 23 back directly to an offer for their bonds at whatever terms 24 is -- meets with approval of the Commissioners Court. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Spurgeon, are you 10-25-04 155 1 going to be back at your office late this afternoon, or are 2 you busy the rest of this afternoon? 3 MR. SPURGEON: I will be back in my office 4 probably by about 4 o'clock. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 4 o'clock. What I'm 6 thinking is that -- I mean, if some questions come up, I 7 mean, after we -- if we figure out what we want to do, then 8 we have some more questions, we can reach you by telephone. 9 MR. SPURGEON: I'm pretty much out-of-pocket 10 from about 2:30 until about 4 o'clock, and then after 11 4 o'clock, I should be available. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we can set up a 13 conference call in the morning or something. 14 MR. SPURGEON: That would be fine. That 15 would be fine, no problem. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm ready to go eat. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Tom. 18 MR. SPURGEON: Thanks, Commissioners. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Spurgeon. If 20 we need you, we'll try and get ahold of you. 21 MR. SPURGEON: Okay. Thanks, Judge. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we stand in recess 23 until a quarter till 2:00? 24 (Recess taken from 12:40 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.) 25 - - - - - - - - - - 10-25-04 156 1 (Commissioner Letz not present.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order and 3 reconvene. For the Auditor's convenience, he wants to be 4 able to -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pay the bills. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: -- get on with paying the 7 bills. He asked that I go ahead and take this issue up. 8 So, that brings us down to that particular -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the 10 bills, Judge. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 13 payment of the bills. Any questions? Comments? Page 7. 14 Sheriff, I note that Moore Medical Corporation -- is that 15 pharmaceuticals? 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: There's been a switch, then? 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. No, that's not -- 19 that is not prescriptions. Moore Medical is where we buy 20 some of our equipment and other over-the-counter type stuff 21 from that we get at a cheaper rate. We order it. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, thank you. Page 25 10, Environmental Health, last entry. Sunset Entertainment. 10-25-04 157 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I had that one 2 marked, too. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: $1,900, full-day shoot? 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I guess that's 5 coming out of our -- I'm guessing that's coming out of our 6 budget for public education, publicity. That's what it 7 sounds like. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: That's exactly what it is. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are we doing, 10 making a film -- 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- on how to build a 13 septic tank, or what? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know. I 15 know that they're cooperating with the U.G.R.A., who's 16 paying part of the expenses; that they are moving forward. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: I remember this was part of a 18 discussion in the budget process. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Everything you want 20 to know about building a septic tank, but were afraid to 21 ask, right? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: I won't go there. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can have your own 24 video at home? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 10-25-04 158 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doesn't get any better 2 than this. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Produced and directed by 4 Sunset Entertainment. Page 19, the bottom line, looks like 5 it's a pretty good jump. Are we pulling the jail ones over 6 there now to do that under this service? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: We're not there yet. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It's just a jump, huh? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Just a jump. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's all the 11 questions I've got. Any other questions or comments? All 12 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. 17 (Commissioner Letz entered the courtroom.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Now we can get back to -- 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I had your proxy. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I apologize. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- where we were on Item 22 Number 14, and we are probably to the issue of discussing 23 the alternatives. Sheriff, what do you have for us? 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I can go over the 25 proposed that I had given you. One thing I would like to 10-25-04 159 1 add to that, this is a jail census. I only have one copy, 2 'cause it is a number of pages, that I just ran a few 3 minutes ago, showing that right this moment, we have 27 4 females in custody and 130 males, being a population of 157. 5 That's as of 20 minutes ago. The jail is built to house 32 6 females. We have 32 female beds. We've been running 27, 7 28, right in there, for as long as I can remember now. 8 We're able to pass our jail inspection, 'cause we're still 9 able to classify these females in with the groups they are. 10 We're just running out of beds. I did also, during the 11 lunch break, had called over and talked to Sheriff Milton 12 Jung at Gillespie County to see what his housing conditions 13 are and -- and where he's housing now, and if he would 14 anticipate that if the County were to take this over and we 15 open up more beds, would he house here? He is housing about 16 20 to 25 out-of-county at this time. He's housing them in 17 Comanche County at a daily rate of 35 a day. We charge 37. 18 He said it's a lot shorter trip, but he just wouldn't know 19 what his Commissioners would want to do. 20 In talking with James MacMillan also at 21 lunch, Sheriff of Bandera County, Bandera County, as we all 22 know, has been talking back and forth for years about 23 building a jail, maybe doing a bond deal. James told me the 24 last thing they talked about last budget year was that once 25 they got their Road and Bridge bond stuff taken care of, 10-25-04 160 1 then they were going to go out for a bond issue on building 2 a jail for them. They have never even started getting their 3 Road and Bridge stuff taken care of, so he's saying that it 4 is not going to happen any time in the future. We currently 5 have about 10 or 12 of his inmates in our jail. He said 6 that he is housing about another 35 in Guadalupe County 7 right now that he would much rather house up here. So, if 8 we were to take it -- open up 30 beds for males, and 9 possibly, you know, 15 beds for females once we made the -- 10 the few modifications that would have to be done out there, 11 I think we could very easily house out-of-county for the 12 unknown future. I just don't know how long it's going to 13 last. 35 to 40 inmates at $37 a day. I don't believe we 14 should change it to accommodate with Gillespie County or 15 anything. Kendall County, we have been housing a number of 16 theirs off and on lately. They -- I didn't talk to the 17 Sheriff-elect about this. Now, they do have on their 18 election this time a $7 million bond proposal to build them 19 a 102-bed jail. I don't know where that's going with their 20 election, the early voting. Nobody has any idea. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I interrupt you a 22 second, Rusty? Probably more for Tommy, the question. On 23 our out-of-county rate for the inmates is what, $37 a day? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And our debt service is 10-25-04 161 1 included in that? Have you -- 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the -- not -- I 3 wouldn't say, per se, the debt service, but the amortization 4 of the property itself is included -- is included in the 5 cost. So, I -- we amortize or depreciate the building 6 over -- I think it's a 30-year period. And, I mean, that's 7 pretty standard in the -- in the accounting terms. So, it's 8 a -- it's a fully constant amount, the $37 is. So -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Have you looked at 10 -- at $37 per inmate, what is this additional -- if we were 11 to buy the new -- new portion and put that kind of as under 12 the Sheriff -- under the jail, what does it look like at $37 13 a day? I mean, are we going to -- is it fully amortizing? 14 Are we getting -- accounting for the full amount that we're 15 paying for that property? Basically, I don't want to 16 subsidize -- you know, if we turn it into a jail, I want to 17 make sure it's paying for -- on its own, not looking to what 18 we're charging -- what the old jail costs. Does that make 19 sense? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, I know what you're 21 talking about. I don't -- I haven't -- I have not done 22 that. I would be surprised that it made any material change 23 in -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be about the same? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: -- in the daily amount. 10-25-04 162 1 We -- we did this study for -- actually, for federal 2 prisoners, and what we did, we used the federal prisoners 3 guideline as far as, you know, what we included in the daily 4 rates. I just don't -- I just don't see that it makes any 5 significant amount. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't make any 7 significant difference? Do you know what -- out of the $37, 8 what portion of that $37 is the amortized amount? What I'm 9 trying -- what I want to get at, I don't want to us buy this 10 facility thinking we're helping the jail out, and have the 11 taxpayers -- I mean, if we can come out making some of the 12 money back from housing out-of-county prisoners, fine, but 13 we can't rely on that. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In the current facility, 15 what I can tell you is it costs us -- because the staffing 16 ratios don't change once we hit that 144 inmates, okay, 17 which we've always been at since I've been Sheriff, I don't 18 have to add more staff until after you get to the 192. So, 19 the staffing ratio hasn't changed. So, even though we have 20 the same staff, the cost to us on housing, as far as food 21 goes -- now, medical is reimbursed by whatever county we're 22 housing for. We pay for it up front. They -- we bill them, 23 and they pay us back for the medical, so that's kind of a 24 wash. The cost to us of housing an inmate per day is right 25 at $4 a day in the meals, because we do fix so many, and 10-25-04 163 1 it's all at wholesale rates, and we fix our own, so it costs 2 us about $4 a day to feed an inmate. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To feed an inmate? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: To feed an inmate. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But that's not your 6 total cost to house an inmate. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, my cost for 8 staffing and electricity doesn't change, 'cause it would be 9 the same whether I had 144 inmates or 192 inmates. And we 10 always -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It will change if you 12 add the juvenile facility, 'cause you're adding more staff. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. That's what I'm 14 talking about. If we add -- and we -- you have to look at 15 both. If we added the juvenile facility, it would free up 16 technically 32 beds in our current facility, okay? Which 17 would allow me to house probably 30 more out-of-county 18 inmates there. Taking 27 females out of our current 19 facility, putting them in the new facility, which at that 20 point, after the initial start-up costs that I've -- I've 21 explained in here, I could house up to 48 females in there. 22 To take 30 there, I'm housing them -- I'm running 27, 28 23 females on average right now. You could probably take 24 another 10 on top of that, so you could get to where you 25 could house 30 out-of-county inmates in the two combined 10-25-04 164 1 facilities, on top of the 10 we're housing right now. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, Sheriff -- 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Total out-of-county 4 would be about 50. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- let me have a 6 shot at it. I'm talking only operating costs now, not 7 amortization. On Page 4 of your report, it says that to 8 operate the 48-bed adult female detention facility would 9 cost about 560,000 a year. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And on Page 3 -- 2, 12 it says it would bring in about 405,000. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That 405,000 is 14 averaging 30 a day. If we could house 40 or -- a day right 15 off the bat, you're talking 600-something thousand. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Forgetting the 17 capital costs, this 405 versus 558, we've got something like 18 $150,000 annual deficit. Are you telling -- telling us that 19 we're going to make that up by being able to rent out spaces 20 in our current jail? 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What I'm -- what I'm 22 saying is, I figured that 405,000 at housing an additional 23 30 out-of-county inmates, okay? 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In your current 25 jail. 10-25-04 165 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In our current jail. 2 And I did not even add in the possibility of housing another 3 10 in the new facility. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We'd have a net 5 operating loss on the order of $150,000 a year. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If we could house 40, 10 7 in the new one, we would have a -- it's never -- I wouldn't 8 -- I hate to say it's going to be a profit, 'cause I don't 9 know how long that's going to last. But if you had 40, 10 okay, at $37 a day, I believe -- if somebody's got a 11 calculator -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: 540. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: How much? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: 540. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 540, and it is going to 16 cost me 558 to run it, at my best estimate right now. So, 17 you're talking about a $15 -- I mean $15,000 deficit. Now, 18 you -- you need to take a lot of things into consideration 19 with that in -- in laying everything out on the table, is 20 that T.D.C. is already notifying areas that they're fixing 21 to hit maximum capacity and shut the doors. If this Court 22 remembers what happened back in '93 when they hit that, we 23 were -- we ended up housing inmates from Bell County at 24 almost $50 a day, I believe it was, Buster, if I recall 25 right. So -- because it does stack up county jails greatly. 10-25-04 166 1 The one benefit this time to counties, if you can ever 2 consider it a benefit, is that back then when they did it, 3 T.D.C. never paid for us housing what we all considered 4 their inmate. He was finished here; he's supposed to be in 5 T.D.C. Now, after housing a state paper-ready inmate for 45 6 days, under the legislative laws, T.D.C. has to start paying 7 that county for housing that inmate. And I don't know what 8 that exact rate is; it's between 40 and 50 a day, okay? So, 9 it's even more than what we charge out-of-county. So, you 10 could get some -- 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: By creating the 12 48-prisoner facility for women, we might come close to 13 break-even, or we might lose $150,000 a year in operating 14 costs. And we'd be adding something over $400,000 a year in 15 capital expense, so we're looking at a half a million dollar 16 additional cost to taxpayers. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's another 18 offset, though; he just hasn't gotten there yet. And that 19 other offset is the added costs to his department for 20 transporting juveniles out of state -- out of the district. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I need to explain that, 22 because where that is, by Section 52.026(c) out of the 23 Family Code, it states that, "On adoption of an order by the 24 Juvenile Board and approval of the Juvenile Board's order by 25 record vote of the Commissioners Court, it shall be the duty 10-25-04 167 1 of the Sheriff of the county in which a child is taken into 2 custody to transport the child to and from all scheduled 3 juvenile court proceedings, appearances, and other 4 activities as ordered by the juvenile court." What that 5 means is, right now the closest facility, from my 6 understanding, is Hondo, and I think it's, like, a nine-bed 7 facility. And you have to remember, Bandera, Gillespie, and 8 those counties, Mason and them, also house their juveniles 9 out here when they have some. They don't have as many. 10 That facility would fill up in nothing flat; we wouldn't be 11 able to house kids there. The next closest place, my 12 understanding, is in San Angelo right now, and I don't know 13 how long that one would last. 14 It would -- and this would be if the City of 15 Kerrville -- if a Kerrville police officer picks up a child 16 for burglary or whatever at 2 o'clock in the morning, he 17 brings that child to my office, not the adult facility, 18 'cause he can't come in the doors; he's a juvenile. He 19 brings him to my office. We have to immediately, at that 20 time, transport that child to a facility. If that's the 21 first time he's picked up, within 48 hours we have to bring 22 him back for his first court hearing. If he has to go to a 23 doctor, and if he has to get sent for a psychological, which 24 I think the post ones all have to have psychologicals, we 25 have to trans -- go get that child, wherever he is, and 10-25-04 168 1 transport him. The burden on our department would make -- 2 would force me, 24 hours a day, 'cause you just don't know 3 when this is going to happen, to hire at least two more 4 transport officers. 5 My transport division right now, just on 6 adults, is averaging 60,000 miles a month. Two more 7 transport officers for the Sheriff's office would be 8 deputies, 'cause I need them to be armed, transporting these 9 kids. That's a starting salary of $30,000 each -- 29,995, 10 if they're just right out of the academy, and then with no 11 tenure or anything. And to fill two positions 24 hours a 12 day, seven days a week, is 10 officers. So, you're going to 13 hire 10 officers at $30,000 a year in order to run the new 14 facility. Now, I'm talking about adult. Becky's going to 15 have to talk to the juvenile part. But for us to run that 16 new facility is 12 employees plus one clerk, which would be 17 13 employees, but 12 at 26,000 a year for adult jailers to 18 be over there to house adult females. Now, it would -- you 19 know, so either way, I'm looking at a big hit in this year's 20 budget or next year's budget on either additional staff to 21 transport kids all over the United States -- or all over 22 Texas, anyhow, all the time, at any moment's notice. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what you're saying, 24 Sheriff, is that if you -- if we shut down that entire 25 operation out there and there's no more -- no juvenile 10-25-04 169 1 facility in Kerr County, you're estimating it could cost 2 your department about 300,000 a year? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, at least. That's 4 only on salary, and not on vehicles. 5 MR. HENDERSON: Or benefits, which is another 6 30 percent. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Vehicles would be bad. 8 You go through two vehicles a year, pretty close to it, 9 every other year. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'd go to 400,000 by the 11 time you add everything up. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, there's one 13 sentence in your introduction there I don't understand. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you can help me 16 with it. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Paragraph 2, you talk 19 about the number of juveniles in Kerr County, which -- whose 20 population has increased. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is also increasing. 23 Then you go on to say that juvenile crime will increase at a 24 much faster rate if there is no place in Kerr County to lock 25 up offenders. 10-25-04 170 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Explain that for me, 3 please. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Number one, your 5 Juvenile Probation Office, and Kevin can address that, is 6 the one that finally gives the final okay; yes, lock that 7 kid up. If you don't have a facility -- and I'm speaking a 8 little bit out of turn, but what I seen in the past when we 9 just had the little one up here, and when it closed for a 10 while, is Juvenile Probation says, "No, turn them back loose 11 to their parents," so that you don't have to transport quite 12 as many, except for the more serious ones. When you do 13 that, 35 seconds later, that kid's right back on the street; 14 you're having to deal with him again. Because the problem 15 is, to begin with, the parents aren't going to watch him. 16 They're running the streets all hours. 17 The other issue is that a lot of your adult 18 offenders -- they're seeing this more and more in the drug 19 trade. The adult offenders will have juveniles do their -- 20 what we call muling, running the drugs from one location to 21 another, because that juvenile's not going to get in trouble 22 for it as much. And when they can say, "Hey, there's not 23 even a juvenile facility for them to put you in," you're 24 going to have juveniles that'll take that -- if they're, you 25 know, transporting a pound of weed in a backpack for an 10-25-04 171 1 adult offender, which is not unusual at all, okay, then 2 they'll take that $100 from that adult offender to take that 3 pound of weed from one block to another block and drop it 4 off, and you're going to have more and more kids doing that 5 type activity 'cause they can see very quick, easy money for 6 kids to make, and you're going to see the crime go up with 7 juveniles. There's no doubt in my mind. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge? Can you -- if 9 Harris County sent a youth up here to our facility -- your 10 facility, their facility, whoever owns it this week, can you 11 not perform those hearings? The 48-hour hearing or -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: In the manner you've asked the 13 question, no. And I'm not sure, even with an interlocal 14 agreement, if you could do that. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think you'd have to go 16 under a change of venue for the entire criminal case that 17 he's being -- 18 JUDGE TINLEY: You'd have to acquire 19 jurisdiction of the case. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kevin? 21 MR. STANTON: I think Mr. Baldwin's -- 22 Commissioner Baldwin's kind of confused on what we're 23 talking about with the -- with -- on the -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm never confused. 25 Politicians are never confused. 10-25-04 172 1 MR. STANTON: Sorry. The -- the kids that 2 Mr. -- that the Sheriff is talking about holding the 3 hearings on and being detained 48 hours, those are Kerr 4 County kids. Those are our kids. The kids that are in the 5 facility from Harris County and other jurisdictions that are 6 in long-term placement, those kids are court-ordered by the 7 Court to be there for an extended period of time, so there 8 -- there's no need for additional hearings on those kids. 9 It's just the short-term kids that we're talking about 10 that -- that Rusty or myself or whoever would end up having 11 to transport for the initial hearing within 48 hours. Then, 12 if they're detained for an extended period -- extended 13 period after that, every 10 working days that child would 14 then have to come back before the Court until that child's 15 released. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. No, I wasn't 17 confused at all. I understand that clearly. 18 MR. STANTON: Sorry. Well, you said Harris 19 County kids. We don't have hearings on Harris County kids. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, let me do it 21 this way. Let's pretend that we take one of our own kids to 22 Hondo. 23 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can't -- instead of us 25 hauling him back and forth, can't a judge in Hondo hear the 10-25-04 173 1 -- do the little hearing thing? 2 MR. STANTON: No, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. You answered my 4 question. 5 MR. STANTON: The only way that could 6 happen -- and there is a way around that, but the only way 7 that could happen is if the child and his attorney agree to 8 waive the hearing. They can't waive the initial hearing, 9 but they can waive any future hearings. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, one other thing 12 that I'd like to -- or a couple other things I'd like to 13 mention. What -- and the Judge was present, 'cause I 14 specifically asked the state inspector -- I believe the 15 Judge even posed it to him -- what is the cost today -- 16 average cost or estimated cost to build one adult bed? You 17 know, single facility. And right now, it's between $40,000 18 and $50,000, is what we were told. So, if we want to add on 19 to our current facility out back, you're talking between 20 $40,000 and $50,000 per bed. That facility, we can do some 21 minor alterations on it, get it up to 48 beds without adding 22 all that type of cost. 48 beds at $50,000 would be, what, a 23 little over $2 million cost just to add onto our current 24 one. The other problem that we have is that the current 25 jail was not built with adequate administrative space, 10-25-04 174 1 office space, things like that. There are four offices out 2 there that could also be utilized, which would also take a 3 burden off our administrative space in our current jail 4 without having to try and figure a way to add onto it, which 5 would be extremely difficult to do with the way that one was 6 designed. You can't go out either side. One side you got 7 the sallyport on; the other side, you got the J.P. office, 8 and then the City's required little lake -- draining tank 9 every time it rains. Out back, you're going into the jail. 10 You know, you'd have to add on out front to add space onto 11 the administrative part. 12 Some of the other deals -- and this is 13 something that -- why we're going to run out of space. If 14 you look at the bottom of Page 3, on the last paragraph, 15 what was quoted in the long-range planning committee -- or 16 by them that we did in 2002, is that in May of 2002, when 17 the study -- long-range planning study studied the then 18 current situation in the Sheriff's Office and adult 19 detention, they factored in the population growth and 20 different things, and came up with the rate of increase that 21 we're going at. If you will also recall, in 2001, our 22 current jail, a 192-bed facility, hit populations up to 208 23 during part of that year, and we ended up shipping back all 24 of our out-of-county housing and had to do away with housing 25 any out-of-county for a number of months before we could get 10-25-04 175 1 our own population back. I don't see that we're going to 2 have anything occur in the foreseeable future, except our 3 population rates continue to rise, and we're about at max. 4 We're above the 80 percent recommended, whether it's males 5 or females. This county would have to do something in the 6 very near future to add onto that. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, what would 8 the start-up costs be? You got a page that talks about 9 start-up expenses, one-time, for 89, 90. Does that include 10 any structural changes that you would have to make to that 11 facility dictated by the Commission on Jail Standards? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. Item Number 6 on 13 the start-up costs says "upgrade to meet jail standards." I 14 estimated that about $75,000. What that entails is -- and I 15 would really feel a lot more comfortable getting one of 16 their people that does their design and that than just an 17 inspector, but the inspector and I both concluded that what 18 he saw would probably be exactly what's going to entail. We 19 -- it's just for final cost. What that entails is the dorms 20 that they have out there, there's three dormitories; they're 21 eight-person dormitories at this time. Each dormitory has 22 eight single beds in it, single little enclosed areas, and a 23 common kind of dayroom area. What you would have to do 24 there is, for eight people, they can do it with one shower. 25 We would need two showers in each one of those dorms. There 10-25-04 176 1 is space next to the one shower that's in them now to where 2 a second shower, or just a remodeling of that first shower 3 could be done, and I think could be done fairly inexpensive 4 to make that a double shower, a two-person shower area. 5 With that, that would take care of the major part. The 6 other part is, you have to have a safety vestibule for this 7 to be a maximum security facility, going into the dorms. 8 State standards require one of those doors has to be 9 electronically controlled. The one that is there now is 10 electronically controlled, so we would come from outside of 11 it more into the main common area and put another safety 12 vestibule there. We could build it out of even a heavy 13 chain link. It's just got to have a separation to where you 14 offer safety for -- for your employees and them getting in 15 and out and dealing with inmates, and open one door without 16 opening the whole facility. Or you can even now, because a 17 lot of older jails didn't have safety vestibules, and they 18 were required, is now they manufacture prefab safety 19 vestibules that you just set in front of those doors, and it 20 creates that. So, I think that could be accomplished at a 21 minor expense. The only other expense I would have is their 22 visitation area in that facility does have two separate 23 doors. I don't have a problem separating how you enter it, 24 but we would have to put a wall up, and either a chain 25 link-type deal so that you separate visitors from inmates on 10-25-04 177 1 the visitation, and that's in the one room. And that can be 2 done with chain link or with plexiglass or with the, you 3 know, cinder-block and what. Those are the only main 4 renovations that would have to be done. So, when I had -- I 5 had 24 hours to come up with y'all a budget, pretty well, so 6 a lot of these prices I feel are high, or high compared to 7 what the actual cost would be, but I did not want to give 8 you the impression that we could do it cheaper, and then 9 later on come back and say no, it didn't work. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, as I kind of go 11 through this -- let me see if can summarize. If you take 12 over the new facility, convert it to a jail -- I'm not 13 worried about start-up costs. Just on annual operations, 14 best case, if we get completely full almost, it'll break 15 even on operating costs? 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: As long as we can house 17 the 30 in the current jail and 10 over there, yes. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a best case. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Best case, it would come 20 real close to break-even. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Won't do anything to 22 service the debt. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quick question for 25 Mr. Henderson, if he can recall this. When they did the 10-25-04 178 1 addition, what was the cost of that addition? 2 MR. HENDERSON: Approximately 2.6 million. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2.6 million? 4 MR. HENDERSON: That included architect fees 5 and a lot -- it did not include land costs, because the 6 facility already owned the land -- corporation already owned 7 the land. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we can build a new 9 facility cheaper than we can buy this one. 10 MR. HENDERSON: Well -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If $50 a bed is the high 12 side of a new jail cost. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what they're 14 estimating with us. 15 MR. HENDERSON: I think that's an addition, 16 though. I think it's $50,000 to add to his existing jail -- 17 correct me if I'm wrong, Sheriff -- because the jails that 18 I'm building for other clients are not at $50,000 where you 19 have to build new meeting rooms, new lawyers rooms, new 20 cafeterias, new laundries. So I think, you know, it's going 21 to be more than that if you were to build a new 22 stand-alone -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: From my standpoint, my 24 option is to buy a facility and make it a jail, or add onto 25 the current jail, and we're cheaper by adding onto the 10-25-04 179 1 current jail than to buy this. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You are until you start 3 looking at the administrative side too, and your office 4 space and having to reconfigure your administration part of 5 the current jail. That's going to be the side that's hard 6 to add onto. And, as you see in here -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hard to add onto if you 8 add onto the current jail? 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. As you see in 10 here, we have already turned workroom areas and closet areas 11 and everything else into office space, okay? The new 12 facility will give me more -- it will give me an empty 13 office space in the current jail, and it will give me a 14 minimum of two empty offices in the current administrative 15 area. 'Cause you're having to take care of two problems 16 there, or you would be taking care of -- 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think the answer 18 is, it would be cheaper. How much cheaper, we don't know. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be pretty close. 20 It's not a significant change. 21 MR. HENDERSON: Commissioner Letz, I was 22 pulling 2.6 from memory. I think that's pretty close, but I 23 could be off a little bit. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's basically -- I 25 mean, it's not like we're making -- it's a great deal for us 10-25-04 180 1 to convert the new juvenile facility into a jail. That's 2 not a -- we're just as well-off adding onto the jail, bottom 3 line. I mean, operations and everything else is going to be 4 within a couple hundred thousand. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's another 6 factor to consider, though, which I think might be an offset 7 to that. We're talking about today in terms of acquisition 8 costs. We're talking about tomorrow with respect to 9 construction costs. And tomorrow's construction costs are 10 going to be different than they are right today. They're 11 going to be higher. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's true. But we 13 don't need it today. 14 MR. HENDERSON: Particularly steel costs 15 being the way it is since they built that thing two years 16 ago. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we don't need the 18 addition now. We're going to need the addition to the jail 19 in several years. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's -- you know, 21 we talked about the jail overcrowding and the jail running 22 above 80 percent in 2001-2002. My concern now also is, yes, 23 we're going up. Milton told me a while ago, when I talked 24 to him -- Sheriff of Gillespie County -- his female 25 population is constantly going up now, more than his male. 10-25-04 181 1 And James MacMillan told me the same thing a while ago, in 2 Bandera County. The other problem is -- is if what T.D.C. 3 is warning us all about now comes true in the next few 4 months, then we're all going to be in trouble; we're all 5 going to have a hard time housing and having enough space, 6 'cause that is going to stack up in county jails. And the 7 way I saw it last time they went through this, is Harris 8 County, you know, Dallas County, Bexar County, all those 9 that have a lot of T.D.C. inmates, they always get 10 first-come, first-served type priority in getting them into 11 T.D.C., 'cause T.D.C. doesn't want to pay them, and Harris 12 County is liking their federal monitor and things like that. 13 So, what happens is your county jails -- I can remember at 14 one time here, we were stacked up to 30 or 40 inmates 15 waiting to go to T.D.C., and we started housing them in Bell 16 County, because it just got too many. You know, we're not 17 designed for that. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to consider it 19 from another point of view. I want to pick up where 20 Commissioner 4 left off. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're talking about 23 basically $560,000, give or take a couple, to operate it, 24 and you're projecting some yearly income of 405,000. So, 25 you're -- you know, we're looking at 150,000, plus or minus, 10-25-04 182 1 in terms of red ink. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. On operations 4 alone. To purchase a facility, we purchase the facility for 5 whatever the cost is going to be, and it's one debt service 6 amount that services not only your projected future needs or 7 the female quotient, if you will, but the juvenile quotient, 8 all right? So that's one debt to take care of two things. 9 Now, the other side of the equation is, what's the juvenile 10 going to do to it? How much more red ink is there? I know 11 you can't answer that. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can't answer that; 13 don't intend to. I can tell you, during the inspection, it 14 was the opinion of the inspector and myself that the current 15 -- the older building out there, the juvenile facility out 16 there, the original building, there is no way I could ever 17 use it or convert it into an adult facility without just 18 a -- renovations costing more than it would to start off. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, now we've got to 20 examine what to do with the juvenile side. You do not want 21 that part; you want the new part, I understand. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're correct, I don't 23 want that part. But I cannot emphasize enough that, with 24 this county the way it is -- and you started on it on my 25 introduction in here -- is no matter what happens, if they 10-25-04 183 1 end up having to go somewhere else and build a juvenile 2 facility or whatever in this county, in my opinion, this 3 county has to have a juvenile facility. We need a place to 4 put kids. We have too many things going on in this county 5 and too many kids that we deal with in this county, that we 6 need a place to put these kids. We were -- we had a meeting 7 a couple weeks ago with the school districts, a 8 representative from each one, that they even want to 9 purchase classroom area, which would be in the old facility. 10 And they've got some portable classrooms for these kids that 11 are expelled from school because of criminal violations once 12 they expelled them, and it was a big concern of Dr. Troxel. 13 If they expel them, they just run the streets, and then we 14 all end up dealing with them. As a condition of release 15 from the facility -- or as a condition of confinement, is 16 they want to take the money that they're allocated by the 17 State and give a large portion of that to the juvenile 18 facility to have those kids attend class -- school class at 19 that facility. And that's about 35,000 a year or so to do 20 that, and they're providing the teachers and their portion 21 of the State funding to contract with having kids in there. 22 To me, there's a lot of value in that, because now you're 23 keeping kids at least in the school. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, you're 25 saying if we don't have the juvenile facility, it's going to 10-25-04 184 1 cost an extra $300,000 for your operating expenses for the 2 transportation of juveniles hither and yon. So, now that 3 were hemorrhaging red ink, let's find out what the whole 4 picture is. I'd like to know the other side. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Before the Sheriff gets 6 through here, your current jail budget is just under 7 $2 million a year at this time? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. And 9 80 percent of that is salary. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: How self-sustaining is that 11 operation? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Running a jail is never 13 a profit-making business. It's never going to be. My 14 opinion, it's never been designed to make money. I don't 15 think you can expect that to make money. That's part of 16 keeping -- and I'll get on my soapbox for just a minute, but 17 that's part of keeping our community safe and keeping crooks 18 locked up where they ought to be locked up and out of 19 society to keep hurting our citizens more. And that's just 20 part of what our taxes, mine included, are set to pay for 21 and to take care of. And, as we can, yes -- as, you know, 22 good government leaders or whatever, if we can house other 23 counties locally -- I will never, ever house federal inmates 24 out there, but if we can do things to offset that cost, then 25 I think it's our job to offset it. But I think the bottom 10-25-04 185 1 line is, it's our responsibility to keep these people off 2 the street. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff, I 4 appreciate you putting this together. It's a good report in 5 a short period of time. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Give my secretary a big 7 applause, because it did take a lot for her to have to sort 8 through -- 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I especially 10 appreciate not having to file an Open Records Act request to 11 get that information. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you. 13 MR. HENDERSON: Judge? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: The Sheriff was very, very 15 clear at the inception, when I commented about him using a 16 lot of staff out there; he said it was he and Nancy, and the 17 two of them just buckled down and went after it. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good job. 19 MR. HENDERSON: Judge, excuse me for 20 interrupting. The gentlemen from the First National Bank of 21 Stafford (sic) were on the agenda to speak to this item, and 22 they've got to catch a 4 o'clock flight, so they were 23 wondering, before Ms. Harris stood up, if they could address 24 the Court before they left for the airport. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I've -- let me go ahead and 10-25-04 186 1 call that item, if I might, so that they can have their 2 opportunity. We will defer for the moment Item 14, and call 3 Item 13, discuss the County's intentions regarding the Hill 4 Country Juvenile Facility. You're Mr. Futrell? 5 MR. FUTRELL: Yes, sir, I am. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: And you're from Stafford, 7 Texas? 8 MR. FUTRELL: I'm from Dumas, and the 9 chairman here is from Stratford, and we have offices in 10 Dalhart as well. So -- 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 12 MR. FUTRELL: -- we're -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me preface my -- my -- 14 before you get started, the agenda erroneously shows 15 executive session. When -- when we received a request to be 16 on the agenda from the bank there in Stafford -- or 17 Stratford, excuse me, I -- I attempted to emphasize through 18 our coordinator that we are dealing with the trustee, and 19 under the documents, as we perceive them and interpret them, 20 I think we have an obligation to deal with the trustee 21 because of how the transaction was structured, and -- and 22 under the present situation that we're in. Notwithstanding 23 that, certainly, we're happy to listen to anything that you 24 might have to say. I -- I personally would feel very 25 reluctant to engage you in a back-and-forth because of what 10-25-04 187 1 I feel our obligation is to deal with the trustee, and I 2 hope you'll understand that. 3 MR. FUTRELL: Yes, sir, I do. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: These other Commissioners can 5 make their own choice on that, but I'd be happy to listen to 6 anything you have to say. 7 MR. FUTRELL: First of all, I'd like to say 8 that we're here to let you know we're really on your side. 9 There are a lot of bonds out there outstanding that 10 community banks have acquired to finance this project. 11 We're not here to jump up and down and cause a disturbance 12 and upset anybody. I think it's important to know, because 13 I sat in the side chair for four years as a commissioner for 14 the City of Dumas, and I sat in the center chair for four 15 years, and so I know how it feels sitting in those chairs. 16 It's always different when you get in those chairs, and it's 17 always different when you move from one chair to the other. 18 So, it's not an easy issue. I know you have lots of -- lots 19 of intervening and resultant ramifications that have come 20 out of any decision you make. Some of them have already 21 come up, and as S and P came up with a downgrade on the 22 County's credit, things that can last for a long time and be 23 either detrimental or beneficial. It's -- it's in your 24 hands and it's your choice. 25 We also know that when this facility was 10-25-04 188 1 instituted and this project began a few years ago -- two 2 years ago, there was a need there at that time, clearly. 3 And I feel sure there is a need at this time for this 4 facility and other facilities that the Sheriff has 5 discussed. And I know the way life is in America and the 6 world; those facilities and the need for those facilities is 7 not going to go away. The fact that someone came and 8 changed some rules on how people are reimbursed and censuses 9 were affected by different factors, things that happened 10 after your decision was made, extremely unfortunate, and -- 11 and impactful on all of us, and it's regrettable that that 12 happened. And that's where we find ourselves today. We 13 believe that you men are faced with a lot of pressures from 14 all sides as to which way to go on this. And it's easy to 15 get caught up in the immediate questions of how to tweak, 16 how to run, how to build, how to twist this thing to make it 17 operate well today. It's important that we ask you to also 18 step back and consider 10 years from now, when we still have 19 a need for a juvenile facility, when we still have a need 20 for increased adult facilities, will we have taken an 21 approach today that -- that was more fortuitous in 22 appearance today than, in the long run, was detrimental? 23 So, we just want you to know we encourage 24 you -- you men; we know it's difficult. And we -- we have 25 worked with the same trustee also as bondholders, and the 10-25-04 189 1 other gentlemen that are here, and have contacted different 2 people. We also know that this is something that, anytime 3 it goes to the courthouse -- and I understand there are 4 barristers in our presence, but anytime it goes to the 5 courthouse, you know who usually wins there, and it's 6 generally -- I wouldn't suspect it would be the County, and 7 I wouldn't suspect it would be the bondholders. It's liable 8 to be the attorneys in the middle. And I would encourage -- 9 encourage you all to pursue an avenue that can keep this 10 facility open, and build a program that can -- that can keep 11 it open, moving down the road. There have been issues of 12 call provision. I can't imagine someone out there holding 13 these bonds, faced with these circumstances, saying, "No, we 14 don't want our bond called right now." There have been 15 questions about certificates of obligation being issued down 16 the road also. There are a lot of options open to you. 17 And, once again, I'd say if you had one of 18 these bonds and someone said, "Would you accept one of the 19 County's C.O.'s in lieu of that?" That seems like a fairly 20 cut-and-dried decision at this point. So, looking at a 21 bigger picture -- and I understand I have my -- my 22 institution's self-interest at heart, but I always try to 23 look at things from a long-range, bigger picture 24 perspective, and when you look at it from that viewpoint, it 25 really seems like, gentlemen, that -- that the -- the long 10-25-04 190 1 run best decision for your area in this part of the state is 2 to -- is to find a way to keep this facility open and moving 3 down the road. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate your taking the 5 time and the effort and the expense of being here with us 6 today. I apologize for the delay of getting you in the 7 chute here, but -- 8 MR. FUTRELL: Judge, you can only -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: -- all's well that ends well. 10 MR. FUTRELL: That's right. Well, we 11 appreciate your time very much. 12 MR. DONELSON: I'm also representing that 13 bank, and I -- can I make a statement? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Surely. 15 MR. DONELSON: I'm B.A. Donelson, Chairman of 16 the Board. Brent is more eloquent than I. And we, too, see 17 problems that you're facing. I guess my concern -- and you 18 addressed the $28,000 bill that the attorneys for Bank of 19 New York have already touched, and it was mentioned there 20 that maybe we all ought to let the facility go back and buy 21 it back. Well, I promise you, if they've spent $28,000 and 22 haven't talked to a single bondholder, they'll eat up that 23 facility before we ever get a dime, and I'm sure you know 24 that they get theirs first, and they don't care how fast or 25 how far that meter runs. I think you would all agree with 10-25-04 191 1 that. And my point to that is, if you want the New York 2 lawyers to have it, they can take it. I mean, they have the 3 ability to get it, and, quite frankly, that's what will get 4 most of it. And I don't think it would look too good if you 5 came back and, you know, two years later you bought that 6 back for a million dollars, and that firm had got a million 7 and we got nothing. So, our hopes are -- and you do have a 8 difficult decision to make. I don't -- don't envy you at 9 all. And, you know, it's just like Brent said, if -- if it 10 goes too far and it needs answered soon, I hope that some 11 thought will be given -- and I understand your position as 12 the Court; you only made a lease. It is kind of surprising 13 to see, in two years, that it's changed as far as from the 14 prospectus we bought, and that's hard to understand and deal 15 with. But, God bless you for your decision that you've got 16 to make, 'cause it's a tough one. Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all have a good 20 trip. Nice seeing you. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's get back to Item 14, and 22 I guess we're through with the Sheriff. And now, 23 Ms. Harris, you're on. 24 MS. HARRIS: I'm on. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, as she's making 10-25-04 192 1 her way up here, is there any way that we're going to see a 2 bottom-line figure of all of this? Is it going to be 3 200,000? Is it going to be 9 million? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to defer to the 5 Auditor on that, Commissioner. If anybody ought to be able 6 to have those numbers kind of scared up and herded together, 7 I think it would be him. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would, too. 9 MS. HARRIS: It's going to be okay. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, Ms. Harris. 11 MS. HARRIS: Okay. I put together the budget 12 and distributed the budget on Wednesday of last week. 13 Unfortunately, Tommy looked at it for the first time this 14 morning, and so I will give you the big pill to swallow 15 first. Tommy already found a mistake in my figures. 16 Because I don't have anybody to blame, 'cause I did this all 17 by myself, so I can't point any fingers at anybody but me. 18 And since I'm not a C.P.A. and I'm not an auditor, I think 19 of salaries, and I inadvertently left out the withholdings, 20 and Tommy pointed that out this morning. That -- and that 21 totally changes the bottom line on the one building -- well, 22 of course, it would change the bottom line on both 23 buildings, but it changes the bottom line on the one 24 building. And, so, instead of it being good news, it's 25 horrible news. The big pill is, you'd have about a -- 10-25-04 193 1 314,000? About a $314,000-a-year deficit when you include 2 the withholdings. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Benefits and payroll costs, 4 we're talking about? And what is that -- that number, then, 5 is going to be about -- 6 MR. TOMLINSON: It's -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: -- 244? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: -- 30 percent. 9 MS. HARRIS: 30 percent of the salaries 10 that's on the first page. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Help me. Is this on 13 the so-called "old" facility? 14 MS. HARRIS: Yes, it is. Yes, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if we operate 16 that -- 17 MS. HARRIS: Yep. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- as a -- it would 19 cost us 300,000 a year in operating it? 20 MS. HARRIS: That's right, providing that I 21 keep all the figures exactly the same as I put it on here. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What if we -- 23 MS. HARRIS: That's salaries. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- go to the bigger bad 25 pill? 10-25-04 194 1 MS. HARRIS: To the bigger bad pill? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On two buildings. 3 MS. HARRIS: On two buildings? Yes, your 4 deficit would be approximately -- you know, add the 314,000, 5 which would be even more, 'cause you've got more personnel; 6 you've got more staff for the second building. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It almost doubles? 8 MS. HARRIS: Judge Tinley has got the 9 calculator. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Calculator is not wanting to 11 work as good as I'd like it to. I need my other one. 12 MS. HARRIS: When you add the additional 13 salaries onto the salaries of the first building -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be more than probably 15 close to 400,000 -- 16 MS. HARRIS: Right, exactly. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- additional, so it'd be 18 almost $700,000. 19 MS. HARRIS: Probably so. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $700,000 deficit. 21 MS. HARRIS: Right. That's right. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Round, big numbers. 23 MS. HARRIS: Round, big numbers. Okay. Now, 24 what can be done -- that erroneous 400,000 just pops up in 25 anything you want to figure. It's there. What can be done 10-25-04 195 1 differently in the first building is, as you can see, you've 2 got 42 beds that -- total beds. You've got to reserve a 3 certain amount of beds for short-term, preadjudicated kids. 4 You've got to have a male dorm; you've got to have a female 5 dorm, so right there, you're going to cut out 18 beds. So, 6 that limits you to 24 long-term, post-adjudication beds, 7 maxed out. We can never take any more than 24 long-term 8 kids. We have 20 kids -- long-term kids today, so we're 9 almost already there. My recommendation would be that we do 10 not do the substance abuse treatment program in that case, 11 then, 'cause we can fill up 24 beds with just regular 12 behavioral kids and correctional kids, offer the general 13 programming that we offer today, and then that way you don't 14 have that Q.C.C. treatment person at that $36,000. You 15 would no longer have that in the salary. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that, if you went to 17 one facility, other than under the employees, you have, 18 obviously, Facility Administrator, yourself, and then 19 Assistant Facility Administrator. 20 MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there any way that you 22 can combine the Assistant Facility Administrator with the 23 Q.C.C. treatment, have that be one person? 24 MS. HARRIS: No, Q.C.C. treatment has to be a 25 specially licensed person that -- unless you hired that 10-25-04 196 1 person, that specially-licensed person, then, yes. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could you have a -- could 3 you combine those two? 4 MS. HARRIS: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And make a -- 6 MS. HARRIS: Yes, you could. Yes, you could. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you operate only 8 the so-called "old" building -- 9 MS. HARRIS: Yes? 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- and you don't do 11 the substance abuse -- 12 MS. HARRIS: Yes? 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- will that be 14 enough beds so that Kerr County would not have to take its 15 children out of county? 16 MS. HARRIS: Yes, I believe it would. Kevin, 17 don't you think so? 18 MR. STANTON: I'm sorry, I wasn't -- 19 MS. HARRIS: That's okay. The one building, 20 if we had 18 pre beds, would that be enough for you? 21 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, that would be plenty. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, basically, we're no 23 different. 24 MS. HARRIS: Exactly. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Between -- if we close, 10-25-04 197 1 we spend 300,000 transporting prisoners. If we keep it, we 2 lose 300,000. So, on the juvenile side, we lose 300,000 3 from now on. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's pretty close. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what it looks 6 like, doesn't it? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: That's operating. That has 8 no -- no relation to debt service. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, of course -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: That's operating only. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you do the whole 12 scenario, you're talking about the County buying it, and so 13 that takes that out of the equation, 'cause you're going to 14 pledge tax dollars. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we still pay for 17 it; the taxpayers still pay for it. But, actually, Rusty's 18 number was 400,000 for transporting, 'cause you have to add 19 in vehicles and all the other stuff. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Pretty close. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Really, it's 400,000. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Easy. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Of course, that could 24 also go up or down a little bit, Jonathan, depending on how 25 far we have to transport them and how many times, but yeah. 10-25-04 198 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Harris, a 2 question on your staffing. 3 MS. HARRIS: Yes? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on 42 5 residents -- that's the original building, correct? 6 MS. HARRIS: That's correct. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that level of 8 administration -- is that what you have in the place today? 9 MS. HARRIS: Yes, that's what's there today, 10 except for that Q.C.C. That person's not there. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And -- and in your 12 mind, that level of administrative staffing has to -- has to 13 carry over to a reduced operation? 14 MS. HARRIS: No. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do we effect some 16 changes there? 17 MS. HARRIS: Well, there are some positions 18 that probably can be combined that I have listed here. You 19 could probably combine some of those positions. And you 20 don't need two administrators. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I appreciate 22 your candor. 23 MS. HARRIS: You don't. You don't need two 24 administrators. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure does make it a -- make it 10-25-04 199 1 a pretty tightly tethered operation for the administrator, 2 though, doesn't it? 3 MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm. It can be done. I did 4 it -- and I'm not saying that I would be the remaining 5 administrator; that's not what I'm saying, but I 6 administered a 48-bed unit by myself. Now, I had a 7 treatment director. I had to because of the substance abuse 8 treatment license. But if we don't go that route, I don't 9 have to have that person. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the advantage of 11 getting the substance abuse treatment? I mean -- 12 MS. HARRIS: You're going to -- think about 13 this, as well. Females -- girls are difficult to handle. 14 They are more expensive. They -- they bring with them a 15 larger liability. If you went strictly all boys, then if 16 you had the substance abuse treatment license, you will 17 bring in more boys requiring substance abuse treatment, 18 because there's more boys that are diagnosed with a 19 substance abuse problem than girls. So, if you've got a 20 substance abuse treatment program, if you didn't take 21 females any more, that opens up another 12 beds for boys, so 22 you're still at 24. You're still going to be at 24 kids; 23 you just have all boys, but your liability's going to go 24 down and your medical expenses are going to go down 25 considerably. Girls are expensive. And -- and your suicide 10-25-04 200 1 assessments are going to decrease by 80 percent, 'cause 2 girls scream, "I want to kill myself," and you've got to 3 have a suicide assessment done every time, at $85 a pop. 4 And we absorb that cost; that's part of our service. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: That's not part of medical 6 costs that you can pass on? 7 MS. HARRIS: No, that is not part of our 8 medical costs that we pass on, no. No. So, you can 9 consider that as well. We can change the population to 10 strictly male, do the substance abuse, and bring in more 11 boys. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- financially, 13 is it -- is our reimbursement level higher with substance 14 abuse? 15 MS. HARRIS: No. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or does it make any 17 difference on that side? 18 MS. HARRIS: No. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's our female 20 population from Kerr County, basically? How does -- 21 MS. HARRIS: From Kerr County? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, Kerr County. 23 MS. HARRIS: We don't have any Kerr County 24 females in long-term. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 10-25-04 201 1 MS. HARRIS: All of ours are out -- 2 out-of-county girls. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Substance abuse. I 4 understand a couple of years ago the program was here. We 5 had the program here. 6 MS. HARRIS: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it was bringing 8 into the facility in the neighborhood of 100,000 -- or would 9 have brought in 100 -- in the neighborhood of 100,000 a 10 year. 11 MS. HARRIS: That's my understanding. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretty good income 13 there. And then, in the dark of the night, the program 14 disappeared. 15 MS. HARRIS: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Along with -- and I 17 don't know why, and, obviously, the Juvenile Board's never 18 going to come and explain to the taxpayers why that 19 happened, but I would certainly question five men that would 20 jump right back and try it again. 21 MS. HARRIS: Number one, I'm not applying for 22 a grant. The substance abuse treatment license that was 23 here previously was -- had to be in place in order for a 24 grant to be in place. I'm not getting a grant. I don't 25 want a grant as far as substance abuse treatment is 10-25-04 202 1 concerned. I strictly want the license to allow our 2 facility to provide the treatment, so there would be no 3 grant money associated with that. But I understand what 4 you're saying as well. So -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you see any prospect, with 6 the demands on juvenile justice space, and presumably it's 7 narrowing now, and the demand for substance abuse programs, 8 of being able to put a premium on substance abuse residents, 9 cost-wise? Charge more? 10 MS. HARRIS: Charge more? No, I don't. You 11 would think that we would be able to charge more, and we 12 would be justified if we did. If -- if a county's going to 13 jump on board and pay us that extra cost? In my estimation, 14 that would be no, and that's because of the marketing factor 15 that's out there in the counties. Counties are strapped for 16 money; they're going to look for the best deal in town. And 17 there are literally -- there are more beds -- juvenile beds 18 than there are juveniles at this point in time, and that's 19 because in the 90's you had a lot of private corporations 20 that jumped on board and thought it was going to be a 21 money-making deal, and they built private facilities. If it 22 had been restricted to the facilities that were -- that were 23 built by that legislative bond money, we probably wouldn't 24 even be standing here and having this discussion today. 25 But, you know, the need for substance abuse treatment is 10-25-04 203 1 definitely out there, more so for boys than for girls. And 2 there's always going to be a need for substance abuse 3 treatment. So -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ms. Harris, how many Kerr 5 County residents do we have out there, on average? 6 MS. HARRIS: On average? Long-term? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Long-term and 8 preadjudicated. 9 MS. HARRIS: Last year, I believe that there 10 were two. We've got one right now. 11 MR. HENDERSON: That's long-term. That's not 12 precertified and pre -- 13 MS. HARRIS: And pre? 14 MR. HENDERSON: Seven or eight, right? 15 MS. HARRIS: Okay. In the year -- let me 16 tell you this way, 'cause I've got -- I ran some historical 17 data that the facility had. In the year 2002, the facility 18 averaged 19 pre's, but you're asking for Kerr? Just a 19 minute; I've got that. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kevin, do you know? 21 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. We've averaged about 22 seven -- six to seven kids a day out at the detention center 23 for the last year, year and a half. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the pre? 25 MR. STANTON: In the pre. And we've averaged 10-25-04 204 1 about one, one and a half in long-term. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- Ms. Harris, what 3 would the staffing requirement be to only use the Juvenile 4 Detention Facility for preadjudicated? If we cut -- just 5 shut the doors on it, put mothballs in it and said all we 6 want to have is preadjudicated? 7 MS. HARRIS: Still 1-to-8 during the waking 8 hours and 1-to-12 at night. So, depending on how many pre's 9 you have. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: So -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, if we can average six 12 to seven -- 13 MS. HARRIS: Okay. Depends on if you got 14 males and females. You're going to have to have two dorms, 15 one for males and one for females, so that's two staff per 16 shift. So, that's six staff, and then you've got to take 17 consideration those staff's days off, so you're going to 18 have to have nine. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Versus what? 20 MS. HARRIS: Or six -- I mean nine. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nine? 22 MS. HARRIS: Nine. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Versus when you have your 24 fully -- if you fill up, you know, the whole facility, how 25 many do you have? How much staff, then, do you have? 10-25-04 205 1 MS. HARRIS: If you had the 42? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 3 MS. HARRIS: I believe I put down here 18 4 full-time staff. 5 MR. STANTON: Commissioner Letz, one of the 6 things that you might want to consider also is, if you 7 turned it into just a short-term facility, you would still 8 have the contracts out with the surrounding counties to 9 house short-term kids; it just wouldn't be our kids. You 10 would still -- based on the averages that she'd have, you'd 11 still have about 19 kids a day out there, because not only 12 are Kerr County kids out there short-term, but the 13 surrounding counties also place kids out there. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Which I would 15 personally -- I'd recommend doing. That's the same thing as 16 we're dealing with in the adult jail. Continue to house the 17 pre's for Bandera, Gillespie, Burnet, 'cause they don't have 18 juvenile facilities anyhow, and at that point, you are 19 making the revenues off those kids at whatever rates she 20 charges per day on the pre; I don't know what it is on 21 those. 22 MS. HARRIS: The same as the post; it's $83. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $83. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me see if either you 25 or one of the three of you there can answer my question. 10-25-04 206 1 What I'm trying to get at is, do we lose less money if we 2 only use it for preadjudication, or do we lose less money if 3 we try to fill it up all the way? 4 MS. HARRIS: You lose less money, I would 5 think, if you have just pre's, 'cause you don't have -- you 6 don't have near the staff. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're better off just 8 using it as a small preadjudication facility, as opposed to 9 trying to fill it up. And -- 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If you want my personal 11 opinion into that, that's -- Becky doesn't like hearing 12 this, because that is exactly what my recommendation would 13 be. I'm not in favor of housing Dallas', Houston's, all 14 their kids in our facility with our kids. I think it ought 15 to stay local with our surrounding counties, pre or post, as 16 long as they're local with our surrounding counties. 17 MS. HARRIS: But, remember, you don't make 18 your money off of pre's; you make your money off of 19 long-term kids. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm saying. 21 I need to -- I don't know. 22 MS. HARRIS: You make money off the long-term 23 kids. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know how you 25 calculate the cost of using it as a preadjudication facility 10-25-04 207 1 only versus trying to fill the whole thing up like you have 2 in your proposal number one here. 3 MS. HARRIS: Those 24 long-term kids are 4 paying the majority of your bills, because they're -- 5 they're there for a minimum of six months. You know you're 6 going to get $83 a day for 180 days. For preadjudicated 7 kids, you don't know how many you're going to have. You 8 don't know how many you're going to be able to keep. It's 9 -- exactly, it's just like this. You can't count on your 10 revenue. You cannot count on a specific amount of revenue 11 from just preadjudicated kids. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you get on a -- 13 how is the per diem calculated on preadjudicated? 14 MS. HARRIS: It's $83 a day across the board. 15 We charge $83 either way; we charge $83 a day. Doesn't 16 matter if it's pre or post. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At what point does 18 the State's reimbursement affect us by reduced -- reducing 19 per diem? Is that in this equation? 20 MS. HARRIS: No. And the reason for that is 21 the facility does not receive any reimbursement, okay? 22 Where that difference is, and what I believe that you're 23 talking about, Commissioner Williams, is what the State 24 reimburses the placing county in regards to the 25 classification of that child. 10-25-04 208 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 2 MS. HARRIS: Because it's on a level system. 3 We take -- like, the old level system, Level 6, those are 4 T.Y.C. kids. The facility takes Level 5's and 4's, and 5 there's -- there is a reimbursement to the placing county in 6 regards to what that classification is. Right now, the 7 level -- what used to be Level 4 is $80, and what used to be 8 Level 5 is $106. Isn't that right? Oh, he's gone. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, if our county were 10 to sentence our own kids post-adjudication out there, 11 long-term, then the County would get reimbursed even more 12 from the State for those placements? 13 MS. HARRIS: Right. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Instead of sending them 15 to T.Y.C., have it as a local prison, which I think would be 16 a great idea for our kids. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have a reason -- 18 obviously, the judges who do the sentencing don't sentence 19 them out there. We only -- only average 1.5 persons here. 20 I'm looking at the Judge; he's one of them. The other one 21 sentences as well, but -- I mean, and they -- I understand 22 they have to wear their other hat and do what they think is 23 best for the child, but that's, you know, part of the 24 problem too. I mean, you know, if they're sending them 25 somewhere else, we got to spend the money wherever they go. 10-25-04 209 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I 2 think we know that if we keep that so-called old building as 3 the juvenile facility, it would cost about 300,000 a year in 4 operating costs. Have we learned anything about whether or 5 not, if we turned it into a preadjudication facility only, 6 whether it would be a significant decline in that number, or 7 just pocket change? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's probably -- 9 well, what I'm hearing is we lose -- we cut our expenses, 10 but we cut our revenue, so I'm not sure you'd end up a whole 11 lot better off. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm looking at three 13 big buckets of money. 14 MS. HARRIS: That 300-some-odd thousand 15 dollars will diminish if you leave it just a 16 preadjudication, because you're not going to have near the 17 staff, and that $314,000 has to do with the withholdings. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Again, we're looking 19 at real big numbers if you -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we lose our revenue 21 too, though. 22 MS. HARRIS: That's true. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, you're saying 24 you're going to -- 25 MR. HENDERSON: That seem to be my problem, 10-25-04 210 1 when you said we could make -- we'd lose less money if we 2 only did preadjudicated, but then -- then you follow it on 3 by saying we make all of our money from the post-adjudicated 4 long-term. 5 MS. HARRIS: That's right. 6 MR. HENDERSON: So, those two sentences seem 7 to conflict. Which one is -- 8 MS. HARRIS: Okay. I've got six pre kids out 9 there today in a 42-bed facility. If there wasn't anybody 10 else out there, I've got six pre kids, and I don't know how 11 long I'm going to be -- how long I'm going to be able to 12 keep these six pre's, whereas I've got 20 kids I know I'm 13 keeping 180 days. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's the difference, 15 is the predictability on how long you're going to keep those 16 kids. 17 MS. HARRIS: Exactly. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Depends on what the 19 judges do. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What she's saying, I 21 think, is we're not better off going solely preadjudicated. 22 MR. HENDERSON: That's what I'm gathering. 23 MS. HARRIS: Right. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't sound that 25 way. 10-25-04 211 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What I'm saying is, 2 with your plan, we're -- it's going to cost us 300,000 if we 3 wake up Monday morning and -- and this is our facility. And 4 with your other part, it's going to be some capital there to 5 fix it up, but it's going to cost us maybe 150,000 a year, 6 maybe not. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, at the very most. 8 It could only be -- if we -- as long as our population stays 9 like it is and we get that facility open, it could only be 10 20,000, because then you're housing 40 more out-of-county 11 instead of 30. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Our principal and 13 interest is going to run something over 400,000 -- 410. So, 14 we're looking at $860,000 a year additional costs to Kerr 15 County, maybe a little less, depending upon what the Sheriff 16 and the juvie facility do. That's what we're looking at. 17 If we -- if we're looking at keeping it, we're looking at 18 850 -- 800,000 to 850,000 a year additional. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if we don't keep it, 20 we're looking at -- 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 300. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, 400 for the 23 Sheriff, plus -- 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- you know. 10-25-04 212 1 MR. HENDERSON: If I might, could I hand this 2 out? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. 4 MR. HENDERSON: Commissioner Baldwin asked a 5 few moments ago for the bottom line, and -- and I apologize 6 for the lack of nice Power Point numbers here, but -- but 7 this gets right at exactly what Commissioner Nicholson is 8 talking about. You need one? I'm sorry. What we've heard 9 from the director of the juvie facility is, operating with 10 42 inmates would cost us about $315,000 a year in operating 11 deficits out of the juvie center. Operating deficits out of 12 the jail is 20,000. And that compares, Commissioner 13 Nicholson, to the 140,000 you just talked about. It depends 14 on that extra 10 inmates. And then the debt service would 15 be about $410,000, so you're looking at about $745,000 a 16 year, what it would cost you if you kept the facility -- if 17 you bought it and kept it open. On the other hand if you 18 close it, the Sheriff has got salaries at $300,000. We need 19 to add 30 percent in there for the benefits. He estimates 20 cars and equipment at 50,000; gas, oil, and maintenance at 21 about another $35,000. And he also addresses in his written 22 report to you the capacity needs of the jail, and estimates 23 that he would lose income on about 10 beds out of his jail, 24 which, at $37 a day for a year, is 135,000. So, the 25 negative impact on the Sheriff's budget if you close it is 10-25-04 213 1 $610,000. 2 The difference between those two figures is 3 about $135,000, which, on your general fund, amounts to 4 about 50 -- not 50 cents, but .56 pennies, slightly over 5 half a penny. Your -- your rollback rate is about 2.6. So, 6 I think what you're faced with -- with deciding is, you 7 know, for more or less half a penny on your -- on your tax 8 rate, you know, do you want to own the facility versus 9 closing the facility? And I think you have to look at the 10 ancillary benefits and negatives to each -- you know, to 11 each. If you close it, yeah, you could save half a penny in 12 your tax rate, but you're dealing with a long-term municipal 13 bond rating that's much lower. You're dealing with having 14 to have more people on your Sheriff's Department, and the 15 headaches and the transportation of juveniles to other 16 facilities. I'll let the -- the Sheriff's already made 17 comments about what he thinks will happen with juvenile 18 crime. On the other hand, you know, if you close the thing 19 and you're sending your prisoners out of state, there may be 20 -- I mean out of county, there may be some, you know, 21 liability benefits. I've heard a couple Commissioners 22 mention that. So -- 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think your 24 assessment -- what you've given us and what you said is 25 about as close as we're going to get to having our arms 10-25-04 214 1 around the issue. So, we can beat this for another couple 2 days, and it wouldn't likely be much different than this. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, this is 4 welcome, to put it together this way as a spreadsheet. 5 MS. HARRIS: I've got one more thing to say, 6 and then I'm going to sit down. 7 (Discussion off the record.) 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, ma'am? 9 MS. HARRIS: I've signed on to ride for this 10 brand, and I'm riding for this brand, and I will continue to 11 ride for this brand. Put all the money aside, put all the 12 figures aside, put all of this mess aside. You've got a 13 bunch of other people that are riding for the brand, too; 14 that are sitting out at that facility, that have hung onto 15 that saddle horn just as hard and fast as they can, the ones 16 that were here before I ever got here, and they had a rough 17 ride, and they have stuck it out. Then I came along and I 18 signed on, and six other people did too, and they're hanging 19 on, and they intend to hang on as well. You've got a 20 humanistic side to this, gentlemen. We didn't sign on just 21 to ride fence; we signed on to do everything. We signed on 22 for the duration. Now, I understand that you've got a 23 decision to make, and I understand that it's based on money. 24 Everything is, and I'm realistic enough to know that. What 25 I'm asking you is, we need to know. My people have been 10-25-04 215 1 very, very patient, but they're scared, and I have lost some 2 -- some people. I've had three men quit. The women are 3 still there, but the three men quit. But they need to know. 4 Thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I hate that part of 6 it worse than anything else. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, let me come back to an 8 issue that I raised with the Sheriff about his budget of 9 almost $2 million, what he is generating to offset it, which 10 is not a whole lot of money. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: For the past eight, nine 13 years, that juvenile facility has been paying its own way. 14 It hasn't been a blip on the radar screen to this Court to 15 speak of, 'cause there was no need for it. Paying its 16 expenses of operation, paying its debt service, creating a 17 reserve, positive. A little over a year ago, the rules of 18 the game changed. Expenses went up, revenue went down, and 19 during the course of this year, that reserve has dissipated 20 because of the deficit. I'm just wondering if -- if we 21 haven't, in our minds, created an expectation or a 22 requirement that a juvenile detention facility be 23 self-sustaining or self-supporting. Have we kind of come to 24 expect that? Require it? We had a great deal for a number 25 of years, but I think the good ride's over. We didn't cause 10-25-04 216 1 it to happen; we just happened to be -- happened to be 2 around when it happened. 3 I don't see any reason why the juvenile 4 justice system should be treated any differently from the 5 adult criminal justice system. I can see a reason why you 6 may want to invest more in your juvenile justice system than 7 you do in your adult criminal justice system. When these 8 young people are in this phase of their life, before they 9 become legally adults for criminal responsibility purposes, 10 we have a greater ability to rehabilitate them, to turn 11 them, as it were, than you do with adults once they start on 12 their life of crime. I think it's very much like the Fram 13 commercial; you pay me now or you pay me later. If you look 14 at a -- just a typical adult criminal justice situation, 15 Class A or B misdemeanor offense, an adult, the individual's 16 arrested, incarcerated. You figure the administrative 17 costs, law enforcement costs to do the arrest, the 18 investigation, bonding costs, the legal cost for both the 19 prosecution and the defense -- and, yeah, we pay most of 20 that, 'cause most of them are indigent -- the clerical and 21 the administrative expense of the courts, post-adjudication 22 supervision. You start running up these numbers, you can 23 make a pretty good case about spending some money up front 24 to keep kids from getting into that adult criminal justice 25 system. 10-25-04 217 1 You want to stack some more numbers on top of 2 it? The adult that was arrested, he loses his job because 3 he was arrested; he was in jail for a few days, maybe. He's 4 got dependents; a wife, children. What sort of demands do 5 they put on social services? Start running some of those 6 numbers and see what you come up with. Where are you going 7 to spend your money? Are you going to try and solve the 8 problem up front? I see these kids, and I know there are 9 some of them that can be turned. But if they're not turned, 10 they're going to end up in the adult criminal justice 11 system. It's merely a call to where you spend the money and 12 what benefits you derive. It's a tough decision, but I 13 don't think we should have the expectation that any law 14 enforcement, criminal justice system, juvenile, adult, 15 mental health issues there or not there, ought to be 16 self-sufficient. If we could make every operation of 17 government self-sufficient, we wouldn't have to levy taxes. 18 It's a tough call, gentlemen. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is that. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: It's time to fish or cut bait. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, a 22 comment on that. And I don't disagree with anything you 23 said, Judge. But part of the problem is that the facility's 24 a lot more than we need for the juvenile facility. And 25 we're not talking -- I mean, long-term, we need it as -- for 10-25-04 218 1 the jail. But from a short-term decision today, we don't 2 need that jail part, so we're having to make a decision to 3 buy a lot more than we need, you know, which makes it a lot 4 harder from my standpoint. My next question, has the 5 Juvenile Board -- I presume they have met and discussed 6 these same basic numbers and issues. Do they have a 7 recommendation? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: The Juvenile Board's approach 9 at this point in time is, the Juvenile Board has no ability 10 to generate any revenue, so it doesn't make any difference 11 where they'd like to go. They don't have the funding to go 12 anywhere independently. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, is that a no, they 14 don't have a recommendation? Or -- I mean -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: We -- the Juvenile Board has 16 not adopted any official position. They haven't been asked 17 to. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, this is one of 19 the greatest phenomenons in history, in my opinion. I 20 remember sitting at this table, and when -- (cell phone 21 rang) That's a $200 fine -- $400. The -- the Juvenile 22 Board comes in and wants to form this corporation many years 23 ago, and we were told that that is the reason you're going 24 to form this corporation, is to remove it from the 25 Commissioners Court and the taxpayers, and that thing get 10-25-04 219 1 out there and run on its own and be its own self out there. 2 The Commissioners Court has nothing to do with it. The 3 taxpayers are totally removed from the picture. And -- and 4 in a short period of time, suddenly here we are completely 5 and 100 percent responsible for this entire deal, and can't 6 even get a recommendation from the Juvenile Board to what -- 7 what we should do. That's a sad commentary, in my opinion. 8 And that was a few short years. Zero, nothing to do with 9 the taxpayers. 100 percent. It's just absolutely a 10 phenomenon, in my mind. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- what -- 12 you know, I guess a second -- I won't say a second issue. 13 If I was to decide to bail it out and buy it, if the County 14 recommended it, a condition, from my standpoint, is the 15 Juvenile Board will no longer operate anything out there, 16 because they haven't showed an accountability to operate it 17 this time, in my mind. And I understand some of the 18 situation. And the Juvenile Board still exists; I 19 understand that's by law. They're out there; they can do 20 the things that they do in other counties, but I don't see 21 why they need to manage the facility. Doesn't make sense to 22 me. I think it should be either run under a corporation 23 formed by this Court, with people that we appoint to run it, 24 or run by this Court. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We may be getting 10-25-04 220 1 pretty close to getting into strategic issues. You've got a 2 -- you've got a good question, but I'm wondering, where do 3 we -- does the information-gathering or tactical part quit 4 and the strategy part begin? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's time for 6 that. I think we need to have some searching discussions 7 here, and I think a lot of that has to do with strategy, and 8 I would recommend we go in executive session. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we get an order to 10 that extent? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You need to take a 12 restroom break? If you like, I'll move we go in executive 13 session. Do I hear a second? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I assume that's the consensus. 16 Is that your consensus, -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: -- Commissioner Baldwin? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. We're 20 moving forward here. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe you can do some further 22 bashing of the Juvenile Board even in a more fist-pounding 23 manner. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll do it in 25 private. 10-25-04 221 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we'll close the open 2 session at 3:15. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In my mind, there's -- 4 well, I would say that several in the audience may want to 5 stay nearby in case we have any specific questions. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think -- 7 MR. HENDERSON: Want me in or out? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we'll need you, 9 need the Sheriff, need Ms. Harris probably. 10 (The open session was closed at 3:15 p.m., and an Executive Session was held, the 11 transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) 12 - - - - - - - - - - 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back into open 14 session. It is 4:47, it looks like. Does any member of the 15 Court have anything to offer on the matters that were 16 discussed in executive session? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, can you 18 improve your handwriting a little bit? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably not. That's probably 20 better than what it is generally. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that 22 Kerr County Commissioners Court make an offer to the trustee 23 to continue the lease and the operating agreement for a 24 period up to 12-31-04, with the option to extend for 25 successive 30-day periods; that we will not be responsible 10-25-04 222 1 for attorney fees that may have been incurred by the 2 trustee, and the County will -- what's that? -- oh, will 3 cover operational cost deficiencies; and that the County 4 intends to acquire the facility contingent upon, one, 5 existing bondholders waiving the call feature, or accept a 6 tender offer on an acceptable basis to Kerr County and the 7 bondholders; secondly, being able to legally issue 8 certificate of obligations in an amount necessary for the 9 acquisition costs to acquire the existing -- to pay off the 10 existing bonds, based on an acceptable tender offer; and 11 third, receiving appropriate assurances from the Texas 12 Commission on Jail Standards that the new portion of the 13 existing Juvenile Detention Facility can be modified at a 14 reasonable amount -- reasonable sum to house 48 adult 15 maximum-security prisoners. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could you restate that 17 motion, please? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. (Laughter.) 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Contingent upon all of 20 those things? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If any one of those 23 things don't rise to this level; i.e., the 48 adult beds, 24 then the whole thing's off? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: We would have the option, yes, 10-25-04 223 1 the way the motion is stated. Our acquisition of the 2 property will -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Back to square one 4 and talk some more. 5 (Cell phone rang.) 6 MR. HENDERSON: $600, this man's up to. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, 600 bucks. 8 MR. HENDERSON: $800. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Going to pay those 10 attorney fees, Buster? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pay the Commissioner. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion before the 13 Court. Do I hear a second? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any 16 further question or discussion? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, should there not 18 be additional language -- any other requirements that our 19 legal counsel may deem appropriate to add to that offer? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would accept that. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Subject to reasonable approval 22 of County legal counsel. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: That's pretty normal. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 10-25-04 224 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or 2 discussion? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And who's going to get 4 this to counsel? 5 MR. HENDERSON: We will have a conference 6 call in the morning. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. 8 MR. HENDERSON: The Judge and I and the 9 attorney will discuss this in the morning. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, good. 11 MR. HENDERSON: Or this afternoon. I see the 12 Judge looking at his watch. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: We may do it sooner rather 14 than later. Any further question or discussion? All in 15 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We 20 have one more item on the agenda that we've not acted upon, 21 being Item 12. I sent out a memo to a number of elected 22 officials and department heads. I've not gotten as good a 23 return as I expected to have on those by this time. I don't 24 see it as something that it's barn-burning; I'd just as soon 25 pass it for now. So -- 10-25-04 225 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was kind of excited 2 about it. I thought we were to the point where we really 3 needed to move on something. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You and I are going 5 to have a party line. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, we're not. That's 7 exactly my point here. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's exactly your 9 point. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: You don't have one now, do 11 you? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, we don't. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you're okay, then. 14 You're good for a while. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not going there. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: So, we'll go ahead and pass on 17 that item. The Auditor's not here. We have, I think, one 18 budget amendment, do we not? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wasn't that taken 20 care of in the agenda item? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir. We only paid the 22 bills. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We did that, didn't we? 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We paid the bills. 10-25-04 226 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we paid the bills. 2 Didn't do the budget amendment. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was in the 4 agenda item. We approved it earlier. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wasn't that Law Library 6 thing an agenda item? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The District Clerk's? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, that was a 10 different -- 11 MS. PIEPER: That was, like, a records 12 management for a microfiche reader. This is something 13 different. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Different fund? 15 Okay. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Budget amendment is from the 17 County Law Librarian to increase County Law Library budget 18 by $1,919.86, funds to come from Fund 18, surplus. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 22 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any further 23 question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify 24 by raising your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10-25-04 227 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That notion does carry. I 4 have before me a transcript of the Commissioners Court 5 meeting Tuesday, October 12th, 2004. Do I hear a motion 6 that this transcript be approved as submitted? 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Moved. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 10 approval of the transcript as submitted. Any further 11 question or discussion? All in favor of the motion signify 12 by raising your right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I also have before me monthly 17 reports presented by Justice of the Peace Precinct 1, 18 Justice of the Peace Precinct 2, Justice of the Peace 19 Precinct 3, and Justice of the Peace Precinct 4, as amended, 20 and the Kerr County Environmental Health Department. Do I 21 hear motion that these reports be approved -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: -- as presented? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 10-25-04 228 1 approval of the listed reports as presented? Any question 2 or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by 3 raising your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Have 8 we got any reports from any of the Commissioners on matters 9 that are peculiar to their respective liaison assignments? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not here, Judge. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Any elected official have a 12 report they want to render to the Court at this point? Any 13 department head have a report they want to render to the 14 Court? Any further business? We stand adjourned. 15 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 4:55 p.m.) 16 - - - - - - - - - - 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10-25-04 229 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 2nd day of November, 8 2004. 9 10 11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 12 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10-25-04