1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Monday, July 25, 2005 11 9:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge 22 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 23 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 24 ABSENT: H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 25 2 1 I N D E X July 25, 2005 2 PAGE --- Visitors' Input 5 3 --- Commissioners' Comments 7 4 1.1 Consider renewing contract between County and Kerrville Christmas Lighting Corp. 10 5 1.2 Proposal that "Hot Check" fund be integrated into 6 the County's financial management in total 12 7 1.3 Discuss Kerr County policy regarding roads that become impassable for emergency service vehicles 18 8 1.4 Consider/discuss ratifying Budget Amendment 9 Request No. 6 dated September 27, 2004 27, 33 10 1.5 Open and accept/reject bid(s) for long distance telephone service 29 11 1.6 Consider soliciting bid(s) for long distance 12 telephone service 31 13 1.8 Public Hearing for Revision of Plat of Southern Hills Phase Two, Lots 36, 37 & 38, Precinct 1 54 14 1.9 Final Revision of Plat for Southern Hills Phase 15 Two, Lots 36, 37 & 38, Precinct 1 55 16 1.7 Set Public Hearing for Revision of Plat of Whiskey Ridge Ranches, Lot 17 & 18, Vol 6, Page 169, Pct. 3 57 17 1.10 Consider Preliminary Plat of River Road Ranch 18 Subdivision, Precinct 4 58 19 1.11 Consider/discuss repairs and improvements to the Animal Control Facility 72 20 1.12 VOCA grant notification for Crime Victims' Rights 21 Program and approval of job description of Crime Victims' Rights Coordinator 76 22 1.13 Adopt amended budget for Crime Victims' Rights 23 Program for remainder of 2004-2005 budget year based on VOCA grant approval 79 24 25 3 1 I N D E X (Continued) July 25, 2005 2 PAGE 1.14 Update on HB 1751 related to crime victims' rights 3 adopted by the Texas Legislature in 2005 and request for approval of new fees for Crime Victims' Rights 4 program in Kerr County 84 5 1.15 Consider declaring 1989 Chevrolet DARE car as as surplus property and granting permission to 6 accept sealed bids to sell it 90 7 1.17 Consider and discuss update from 9-1-1 and funding for final 9-1-1- mailout 91 8 1.16 Consider/discuss authorizing renewal of Kerr 9 County Teen Curfew law which has expired 102 10 1.18 Discuss clarification of policy directing Environmental Health Department Manager and 11 Floodplain Administrator to deny permits when there is a violation of Subdivision Rules & Regs 107 12 1.19 Discuss the way TCDRS handled previous late 13 filing penalties 108 14 1.20 Consider waiving or lowering plat review fees for revision of plat 109 15 1.21 Consider reappointment of Dr. Sam M. Junkin to 16 Hill Country Community M.H.M.R. Center Board of Trustees for an additional two-year term 114 17 1.22 Consider/discuss designation of person authorized 18 by Kerr County to have access to IRS information or otherwise act on behalf of County 115 19 4.1 Pay Bills 125 20 4.2 Budget Amendments 126, 167 4.3 Late Bills --- 21 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 142 22 1.23 Consider EMS Contract with City of Kerrville 143, 172 23 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee Assignments 179 24 --- Adjourned 184 25 4 1 On Monday, July 25, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., a special meeting 2 of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the 3 Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, 4 Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order the 7 regularly scheduled meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners 8 Court scheduled for this date and time, Monday, July the 9 25th of 2005, at 9 a.m. Our clock on the wall indicates 10 that it's a couple minutes past that now. Present are 11 Commissioner, Precinct 2, Williams and Commissioner, 12 Precinct 4, Nicholson and myself. Commissioner 4? I think 13 this morning you have the honors. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to introduce 15 the Court to Reverend Sam Hunnicutt, my new friend, and the 16 new shepherd of the Hunt Methodist Church. He's replaced 17 our old friend, John Green, as pastor at Hunt Methodist, and 18 if you'll come up to the podium, pastor, and -- and you 19 might want to preach to this Court a little bit before you 20 pray; I don't know. (Laughter.) 21 MR. HUNNICUTT: I've never preached with a 22 congregation behind me. It's usually the choir. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That was a good 24 sermon two weeks ago on unity. 25 MR. HUNNICUTT: Before we moved to Hunt about 7-25-05 5 1 two months ago, I thought -- always assumed or had believed 2 that the Garden of Eden was, you know between two rivers and 3 in a faraway land, and it turns out it's between two rivers 4 in west Kerr County. And we're blessed to be here. And I 5 wonder if you would join me as we bow in prayer in our 6 meeting. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Rise, please. 8 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if 10 there is any member of the audience or the public that 11 wishes to be heard on a matter that is not a listed agenda 12 item, they're privileged to come forward at this time, and 13 we would be happy to hear from them. If -- if you want to 14 speak on an agenda item that's part of the official agenda, 15 we would ask that you fill out a participation form. The 16 forms are at the back of the room. That's primarily so that 17 I don't miss you when that agenda item comes up. It helps 18 me to be able to know that someone needs to be recognized. 19 So, if -- if it's on a listed agenda item, if you'd be kind 20 enough to fill out a participation form, but at this time, 21 any persons who want to be heard on matters not listed on 22 the agenda, feel free to come forward at this time. General 23 Schellhase, good to see you this morning. 24 MR. SCHELLHASE: Thank you, Judge, 25 Commissioners. I'm here for two purposes that are not on 7-25-05 6 1 the agenda. First, I would like to present to the 2 Commissioners Court the Historical Commission's 3 Distinguished Service Award for 2004 work by the Historical 4 Commission. That deals primarily with the -- with the oral 5 history work and the location establishment of cemeteries 6 and markers that are in the process of work. The markers 7 have been finished. We'll probably get credit for those for 8 2005, which we have to thank Rosa Lavender a great deal for 9 doing all of that work. The second item I'm here for is, 10 I'd like to introduce you to Tom Houck. Tom, come forward. 11 Tom is a disabled veterans service -- veterans award service 12 worker. As you know, our position at the V.A. Hospital has 13 been discontinued, and I wanted to introduce Tom to the 14 Court. He's handling the claims by veterans now that that 15 office has been abandoned, although we hope it will be 16 reestablished for part-time. I'll give Tom a minute to tell 17 you. 18 MR. HOUCK: Thank you, sir. Morning. The 19 reason I wanted to talk to you, I'd like to get on the 20 agenda something around August 22nd to bring in some real 21 facts for you. I -- I'm personally representing three 22 organizations right now. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, 23 Disabled American Veterans, and America Legion. We need a 24 county service officer. The V.A.'s funds have cut back so 25 much that they're not providing any. There's a good chance 7-25-05 7 1 that T.V.C. is going to pull out of the -- out of the 2 hospital. I've got a deal with all three of these 3 organizations right now to even provide some of the funding 4 for it, so it's just a program I'd like to put together for 5 you that we could address at a later date. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 7 MR. SCHELLHASE: Thank, you Commissioners. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Is there any 9 other member of the public that wishes to be heard with 10 respect to an item or items that are not on the agenda? 11 Seeing no one else to come forward, we'll move on with our 12 business. Commissioner 4? What do you have for us this 13 morning? 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We had some more 15 rain this weekend in west Kerr County. That's the third 16 week in a row. We've been pretty spotty earlier. A lot of 17 rain way out west on Highway 41, but not very much around 18 Hunt, Ingram. Now it's rained enough that I've lifted the 19 -- I've lifted the burn ban. And that's all I've got, 20 Judge. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 2? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I took an act of 23 faith and lifted it before the rains came. Thank heavens 24 they came. Nothing, Judge. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? Commissioner 7-25-05 8 1 3? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, eastern Kerr County 3 missed out on the rains, and parts of it still have not 4 received any rain. Luckily, most of the eastern area has 5 received some. I think right around the Comfort area itself 6 has received maybe a total of a third of an inch out of all 7 this so far, but most of the areas have received some decent 8 rains, close to an inch, and the burn ban is lifted as well. 9 Also, the -- we mentioned several meetings ago about the 10 coming draft of the new regional water plan, which I serve 11 as chair of Region J, the Plateau Regional Water Plan. 12 There's a copy in the clerk's office available for the 13 public, I believe, and there's also one at the library, 14 though I've heard they've -- the one at the library may be 15 misplaced; someone went to find it, and they couldn't find 16 it. Anyway, anyone that wants to read the new water plan, 17 here it is, in draft form anyway. It's a lot of charts and 18 tables and things of that nature, but it is pretty 19 interesting. This region took a much different view of 20 evaluating groundwater availability than any other area of 21 the state. The State's applauding us for the way we're 22 looking at it from the standpoint of we're tying 23 groundwater, especially in western Kerr County, to the flow 24 of the river. We feel that's critical, and they are 25 definitely interrelated. It's also, I think, a good 7-25-05 9 1 testament to governmental entities working together. 2 Frequently I see there's no coordination between the County 3 and others, and this is an effort in Kerr County of the 4 City, U.G.R.A., County, and Headwaters all working together. 5 They all attend all the meetings, and all contribute; 6 Councilman Smith in the audience is one of our board 7 members. And also, it's a regional approach. It's a 8 representatives from Real, Bandera, Edwards, and counties 9 right around us to the north and to the east. Gillespie 10 County is in a different region, as is Kendall County, but 11 there is a lot of collaboration regionally, which I think is 12 very good for evaluating our water supplies. So, anyway, 13 it's pretty interesting. It is a big document, but if y'all 14 are interested, it is available. And there will be a public 15 hearing August 18th, I believe is the date it's posted, I 16 think -- pretty sure it's the 18th -- at U.G.R.A. at 6 p.m., 17 when we will publicly go over it and accept comments at that 18 meeting. 19 MR. PEARSON: Was there any more 20 consideration for cedar eradication? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cedar eradication is one 22 of the strategies -- or brush -- it's actually brush. I 23 don't think cedar is mentioned specifically, 'cause part of 24 the region, mesquite's an equally bad problem. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all we got? 7-25-05 10 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I wanted to pass 3 on some kudos that I received. I had a call from a Mr. Carl 4 Johnson, who was calling on behalf of himself and a number 5 of his neighbors out in the Scenic Valley, Scenic Hills Road 6 area, expressing great happiness about the resurfacing 7 sealcoating job that our Road and Bridge Department was 8 doing out there. Mr. Odom, you've got a bunch of happy 9 folks out there now, and they're proud of the work that 10 you're doing, and I think that needs to be passed along to 11 you, and the public needs to be aware of that. So -- 12 MR. ODOM: I'll pass that on to the men. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: -- job well done. 14 MR. ODOM: Thank you. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. That's all I have. 16 Let's move on with the agenda items, if we might. First 17 item on the agenda, consider, discuss, and take appropriate 18 action to renew contract between Kerr County and Kerrville 19 Christmas Lighting Corporation. Commissioner Williams. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. At 21 the request of Mr. Jim Murphy of the Christmas Lighting 22 Corporation, we've put this agenda item on. I think in your 23 packet also is a copy of a proposed renewal license 24 agreement. And, Mr. Murphy, if you'd be so good as to come 25 talk to us just a second, tell us what, if any, changes 7-25-05 11 1 there are in this, and what, if any, new plans you have for 2 the Christmas lighting that is so delightful during the 3 season, and appreciate it. 4 MR. MURPHY: Well, for the record, I'm Jim 5 Murphy, president of the Kerrville Christmas Lighting 6 Corporation, and we thank you, the Commissioners Court, for 7 what you've done for us for the last 10 or so years. I 8 believe it's even more than that, but I don't have a record 9 written down. Anyhow, we thank you very much for what you 10 have done, and hopefully you're satisfied with what we've 11 accomplished, and we intend to keep going, if this contract 12 is renewed, and do more things and better things in the 13 future. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any changes in the 15 proposed license agreement? 16 MR. MURPHY: No, there's no changes, other 17 than the dates. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, it will be just 19 renewal of the existing licensing agreement? 20 MR. MURPHY: That's right, yes, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move approval 22 of the licensing agreement for the ensuing year. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 25 approval of the agreement with the Kerrville Christmas 7-25-05 12 1 Lighting Corporation. Any question or discussion? All in 2 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank 7 you very much. 8 MR. MURPHY: Thank you. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you for being here, 10 Mr. Murphy. The next agenda item is a proposal that the 11 County Attorney's Hot Check fund be integrated into the 12 County's financial management in total, and that related 13 expenses formerly paid from said fund be incorporated into 14 the County Attorney budget. Mr. Emerson? 15 MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. What I'd like to 16 propose to the County is based on what I think will be more 17 efficient for the County. The current system, as it's set 18 up, is that the County Attorney's office runs its standard 19 budget through the Commissioners Court. We also have a 20 budget based off the Hot Check fund. By statute, the Hot 21 Check fund falls under the County's -- County Attorney's 22 autonomy. What I would propose to the County is to take the 23 Hot Check fund itself, integrate it into the County budget, 24 whereby I will turn over full authority for the Hot Check 25 fund to the Commissioners Court. I think the end result of 7-25-05 13 1 that will be that, based on a three-year average, the fees 2 collected on behalf of the County have averaged about 3 $61,000 a year. The expenses that I'm asking the County to 4 assume that have historically been paid out of that budget 5 are salary adjustments to the employees for 20,844, that I 6 would propose just be integrated into their current pay 7 structure, adjust their pay levels or however the County 8 deems it appropriate. Most of the these employees have been 9 receiving this pay supplement for an extended period of 10 time, and I think it would be an injustice to just jerk it 11 away from them at this point. 12 There's community development that I would 13 like proposed of approximately 6,000, or 10 percent of the 14 fund per year. That would be the money that I would 15 continue to use for community education, working with the 16 schools, buying the law enforcement materials and performing 17 the functions that have historically been designated for 18 that Hot Check fund. There's postage on an average of 19 $1,151 that's been spent in excess of the budget, based on a 20 three-year average. There's office supplies on an average 21 of $739 a year that's been spent in excess of the budget, 22 and conference expenses for the employees to stay updated on 23 legal matters to the tune of $695 in excess of the budget. 24 The bottom line to this is -- is that I think what the 25 County will benefit from is a net profit, increased use of 7-25-05 14 1 funds for the County, of approximately $32,000 a year. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it looks great, 3 and the bottom three items are very easy to incorporate into 4 our budget process, so -- as is, really, the community 5 development. On the salary adjustments, I have two 6 questions. The -- is it easy to integrate the supplements 7 that have been paid into our current structure -- step and 8 grade structure without getting employees way out of -- I 9 guess -- 10 MR. EMERSON: Well, I think -- I think what 11 it would require, and this is just off the top of my head, 12 would be, say, taking an employee that's a 15-1, calculating 13 what this supplement's going to bring them into, and if it 14 goes to 15-3 or 15-4, just moving it over. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How would this work with 16 new -- say you had new employees. Would they come in -- 17 MR. EMERSON: They would come in at a 15-1. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, this salary 19 supplement really is kind of what the current employees have 20 been receiving, but it wouldn't really continue for new 21 employees? 22 MR. EMERSON: Correct. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And there would be 24 -- after this one-time adjustment -- well, I guess after 25 that, any future adjustments would be built into just the 7-25-05 15 1 salary increases, based on what we do each year based on the 2 step and grade that that employee's at? 3 MR. EMERSON: Correct. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. County Attorney, 5 what would be -- I have a couple questions. What would be 6 your response if the annual average -- three-year average 7 were to drop significantly? How -- how would that shape out 8 if the 61,443, suddenly became 50,000? 9 MR. EMERSON: Then the County would still net 10 benefit to the tune of $20,000. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, it falls 12 to the bottom line? That's your answer? 13 MR. EMERSON: Sure. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The other thing is, 15 do you propose this to be effective immediately or at the 16 beginning of the new fiscal year? 17 MR. EMERSON: New fiscal year. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a -- I mean, 20 I'm in favor of doing it. We need to visit with the 21 Treasurer on how we'd make those adjustments, if that's 22 possible on the salary supplements. And then let's present 23 it as part of the budget for next year. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One question. 25 Mr. Attorney, it's been -- the last three years, at least, 7-25-05 16 1 it's been averaging a $32,000 surplus. Is there a balance 2 in that account now? 3 MR. EMERSON: There is. The County -- well, 4 let me clarify that by saying that the accounts are in flux 5 because of catching up on the accounting and the computer 6 systems. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 8 MR. EMERSON: But there's somewhere between 9 $10,000 and $20,000 in the account. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's not a large 11 amount of money that would be transferred to the County? 12 MR. EMERSON: No, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 16 approval. Is it not true, Mr. Emerson, that you've already 17 transferred some of these funds over to the County? 18 MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And prior to that, of 20 course, the balance was larger? 21 MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or 23 discussion on the motion? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just have a question as 25 to why we need a motion and order. I mean, if it's 7-25-05 17 1 incorporated into the budget, it'll become part of next 2 year's budget. I mean, I think unless Mr. Emerson just 3 likes approval of the concept -- I mean, I think the -- I 4 don't see the reason at this point, 'cause we're not doing 5 anything right now. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we're accepting 7 the concept of abolishing that fund and rolling it into the 8 County budget. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That's what the 10 motion is? To accept the concept and roll it into the 11 budget for next fiscal year? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I assume -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way I see 15 it. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I assume that's what you're 17 asking? 18 MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's what I 20 seconded. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or 22 discussion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising 23 your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7-25-05 18 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank 3 you, Mr. Emerson. 4 MR. EMERSON: Thank you. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is 6 consider and discuss Kerr County policy regarding roads that 7 become impassable, or nearly so, for emergency service 8 vehicles. Commissioner Williams. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I put this on 'cause 10 I've had some calls recently, folks who live in -- in areas 11 that are platted, but the roads were never built to county 12 specifications, and therefore are not maintained. And that 13 is our current policy, I understand, and I'm not proposing 14 any change to that, but there are some situations where, 15 over time, the roads become nearly impassable. I believe we 16 had this discussion several years ago, and I, frankly, don't 17 recall what our response to it was. And so I -- that's the 18 reason I put it on there, so we can get a -- hopefully a 19 clear, concise statement of what we do and what we don't do. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My recollection is that 21 we've dealt with this several times. First time I remember 22 was out more in west Kerr County; there was an individual 23 who had a son who was -- had some, I think, physical 24 disability-type problem. And, anyway, on that one, the 25 Court said our hands are tied; we couldn't do anything. I 7-25-05 19 1 believe several years ago there was -- or maybe two years 2 ago, there was another instance, and I thought on that one 3 we directed Road and Bridge to do a certain amount of 4 limited work to make the road passable for EMS-type 5 services, and that was it. Is that your recollection? 6 MR. ODOM: Vaguely that I recall that, and 7 maybe the Sheriff remembers. But, basically, we've asked -- 8 the policy is the Sheriff's Department go out to take a 9 look, and if they couldn't get up it -- and normally this 10 was a condition of flooding and stuff like that; it wasn't 11 dry weather or anything like that. It's -- which is an 12 inconvenience. But where Rusty's people went out, looked at 13 it and said they couldn't get up there just in a car, then 14 we tried to isolate that one problem and fix that, rectify 15 the problem. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We may be talking 17 about the same road. I think it's Primrose Lane. 18 MR. ODOM: Primrose was one of them. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, it's one of 20 them. There's more than one. And that's just a few hundred 21 yards outside of Precinct 4 in Commissioner Baldwin's area. 22 But I've been up that road in my four-wheel-drive truck, and 23 it's not easy to get up and down it. But I thought I 24 understood that while we were barred from maintaining roads 25 that are not county roads and are private roads, that the 7-25-05 20 1 Sheriff can declare an emergency, and then that allows us to 2 go ahead and go in there and -- and maintain them. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would it be declaring 4 an emergency or just establishing that it has -- just 5 certifying that it is impassable for an emergency vehicle? 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Same thing, I think. 7 He goes out there and says the ambulance would have a hard 8 time getting up here, so I'm -- I say this road is an 9 emergency situation. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I guess what 11 I'm asking is, is that a standard policy of the Court? And 12 if it is, what is the trigger mechanism? It doesn't need to 13 come to the Court every time that happens, but there needs 14 to be a triggering mechanism and it just happens. If it's 15 going to be rectified, it needs to be rectified. That's 16 what I'm asking. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My understanding from 18 the past was the only time the Sheriff's Office did it, that 19 we got involved, was mainly right after a bad flood or a lot 20 of high water. We didn't do it during dry weather just on 21 rutted out roads and that, but if, because of a flood or 22 high water, there was -- it was declared impassable, a 23 deputy couldn't get past it or something, then we would 24 notify Road and Bridge, and just that particular little area 25 that could not be passed, they would come through with the 7-25-05 21 1 maintainer or whatever and just make it at least passable 2 for a vehicle. But as far as maintaining the road or trying 3 to do any major work anywhere else, they didn't. It was 4 just so we could get a patrol car and ambulance up that road 5 in an emergency situation. But it was only done after 6 floods and that. We'd go out -- it wasn't done, like, 7 during normal time of year. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess what I'm 9 trying to get to is kind of a routine -- if a resident or 10 residents on a road that is impassable makes a call to Road 11 and Bridge, would Road and Bridge then routinely dispatch 12 you or ask you or one of your deputies to go out there and 13 run the road and certify it was in bad shape and couldn't 14 handle an emergency vehicle? 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If it was during a flood 16 time, yes, that's exactly how it was done. Now, just -- you 17 take where we've had dry weather, and it's just powdered 18 ruts, and ruts have gotten into it and just from the 19 collector or whatever, it's just gotten bad, but not due to 20 an emergency situation. We do not deal with those, okay? 21 We only did it after there was a flood or something like 22 that, was the only stipulation. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, in addition, 24 it's not just that there was a flood. There was a reason we 25 needed to get back there. It was that people couldn't get 7-25-05 22 1 out briefly, and because I think it's -- it -- we don't want 2 -- I don't think we want to get us -- I don't want to get in 3 a situation where we start maintaining any road except in a 4 true emergency. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't think you could. 6 Now, like, Primrose -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't bring it up 8 for that purpose. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Like, Primrose, this 10 time of year where it hasn't been a flood or emergency 11 situation, it may be that we have to use our 12 four-wheel-drive vehicle or pickup to get back in there. We 13 just do that, you know, if that's the only way we can. But 14 we don't call Road and Bridge out in this type situation and 15 tell them to come improve that road. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It sounds like what 17 I'm hearing, Commissioner, is that Primrose and some others 18 that are chronically bad are not covered by the -- by the 19 Sheriff's emergency -- emergency aspect. It has to be for a 20 specific incident. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. 22 MR. ODOM: Yeah. And, you know, when we 23 looked at the roads and we've accumulated -- we have no idea 24 on how many are out there, but if you look at -- if you 25 start setting precedents, we could not get anything done, 7-25-05 23 1 because everybody would be calling in. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 3 MR. ODOM: An inconvenience. And there 4 really needs to be some mechanism which it would be an 5 emergency, like flooding and isolated -- but, you know, 6 there's Armadillo Estates, Peek Ranch, I mean, Primrose, 7 Tierra Grande, which is -- Val Verde South is always 8 calling. La Hacienda; those little old roads going up the 9 side of La Hacienda are private roads up there. Midway. We 10 had one, Commissioner, with a mile and a half, something 11 like that. It goes on. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not talking about 13 private roads at all. 14 MR. ODOM: Well, I'm just saying -- but 15 they would be calling. Sanders, Elm Pass I, all that would 16 be -- you have to consider that. The Court can set that, 17 but that has been the policy to help people. We thought 18 that was the most logical way. We're not supposed to go on 19 private property, but health, safety, and welfare of the 20 people, and the mechanism would be to Rusty -- and which a 21 false deal is something else, is totally different, but 22 it -- it makes it an emergency situation. Can they get in 23 and out? And it's normally been floods. That's -- 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And, normally, after the 25 floods and that, we'll have quite a few calls that the 7-25-05 24 1 officer gets out there and says, "No, I can get through 2 this. It may be a little rough, but I can get through it." 3 We don't call Road and Bridge to do it. It's only in those 4 severe cases. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Washout. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Like a washout. 7 MR. ODOM: If their cars can get up there and 8 back, then, by all means, it looks -- it implies that it's 9 passable. It may be an inconvenience, but that is part of 10 not having a county-maintained road. It -- there's probably 11 as many nonmaintained roads as we maintain, which is around 12 470 miles, is what we guessed at without any knowledge of 13 that, 'cause we don't have any data on it. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not one of these 15 roads, what I'm hearing, is County-maintained. The 16 residents of that road have to bring that road up to county 17 standards, and then we'll consider it? 18 MR. ODOM: Then we'll consider it. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a given, yeah. 20 That's a given. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What happens, I 22 think, in some of them is that developers go in and 23 establish a subdivision, build some roads, sell all the 24 lots, and they disappear, and then there's no homeowner's 25 association or some mechanism for collecting funds and 7-25-05 25 1 maintaining the roads. So -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A lot -- 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- 20 years later, 4 you got a road like this. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A lot of this 6 happened when subdivisions were platted and before Kerr 7 County had Subdivision Rules and standards, and they're 8 still out there, and they don't get any better. Okay, 9 that's fine. I understand. 10 MR. ODOM: And may I say that you would even 11 have -- look at Homestead and Creekwood. And they would -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah. 13 MR. ODOM: Have to be built to some 14 standards. If you open that, then you've gotten some of 15 these that are there just from drainage. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not looking to open 17 Pandora's Box. I just want to make sure we have a procedure 18 that people can access. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we need a court order 20 outlining that procedure? I mean, I don't know that we've 21 ever passed one. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of the 23 basis of my question. Did we ever pass a policy court order 24 that details it so that there's -- in place of Road and 25 Bridge and in place of the Sheriff's Department -- the 7-25-05 26 1 Sheriff's shaking his head no. I think you're right, 2 Sheriff. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I have never seen 4 anything in writing. It was just discussed and agreed to 5 that way several years ago. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think -- 7 MR. ODOM: Several years ago. I don't know. 8 We'll look and see if there's something there, but that was 9 something we brought to the Court and we did. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is not styled 11 today to act on; just consider and discuss. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In one of those agenda 13 items that came up right after a flood, that was discussed, 14 how we deal with these washed-out roads. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you can put it on the 17 next agenda to develop a policy. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we'll develop a 19 policy, get it in the record, and everybody knows what it 20 is. Thank you. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that 22 particular agenda item? Thank you. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I just want to say 24 I -- I'm sympathetic with people who live on these roads. I 25 wish the County would win the Lotto and have enough money to 7-25-05 27 1 cure what's wrong with all of them. Reality is, we can't -- 2 we can't take them over. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? We'll move 4 on to the next item, which is a timed item for 9:30. 5 Amazingly, we're on schedule. Item 4, consider and discuss 6 and ratify Budget Amendment Request Number 6 dated 7 September 27, 2004. Ms. Nemec. 8 MS. NEMEC: Good morning. I'm here asking 9 for authorization to ratify Budget Amendment Number 6 due to 10 a letter that was received from the County Attorney's 11 office, which you all have a copy of. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does anybody have a copy 13 of that budget amendment? I haven't seen -- 14 MS. NEMEC: I don't have a copy of the budget 15 amendment. I have the amount that -- that was requested in 16 that budget amendment, which is $1,477.08. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1477 -- 18 MS. NEMEC: .08, yes, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the date of 20 that originally? Do you remember? 21 MS. NEMEC: September 27th, 2004. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: '04. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we not come up with 24 that original budget amendment? Isn't it in the backup 25 somewhere? I just -- I don't mean to be really picky on 7-25-05 28 1 this. I don't have a real problem with doing this, but if 2 we're going to ratify the budget amendment, I don't remember 3 that far back, what we actually did. I'd like to look at 4 the actual budget amendment so we can say that's what we're 5 ratifying, as opposed to -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can you find it, 7 Ms. Nemec, or can the Auditor find it and we can incorporate 8 it in officially? 9 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. We'll come 11 back to it, then. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, we can come back 13 today. 14 MS. NEMEC: Okay, thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have a speaker on 16 this one? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I do. Mr. Prendergast, 18 you had filed a participation form with this particular 19 agenda item. 20 MR. PRENDERGAST: Yes, sir. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Would you like to speak now, 22 or would you like to defer until the matter is taken up 23 again by the Court? 24 MR. PRENDERGAST: I'd rather let the Court 25 discuss it first, because I think there's some other issues 7-25-05 29 1 here that stem from some of my Open Records requests. So, 2 go ahead and let's see where they want to do this, and we'll 3 talk about it. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we will come back to 5 that particular item. Next item on the agenda is Item 6 Number 5, to open and accept or reject bids for long 7 distance telephone service. Do we have any -- do we have 8 any bids that were submitted pursuant to the -- to the 9 request that was published, the solicitation? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One, Judge. It was 11 handed in -- the Clerk handed me a note that Frontera 12 Communications pulled their bid today. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We only have this one. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm looking at a -- a bid 16 that's been handed to me. The printed envelope shows to be 17 K.T.L.D., Kerrville Telephone Long Distance, 955 Water 18 Street. It is hand-addressed to Buster Baldwin. It is 19 time-stamped, "07-08-05, 12:38 Rcvd." To me, that indicates 20 that it was received July the 8th, 2005, at 12:38 p.m. 21 Would that be correct? 22 MS. PIEPER: That is correct. I believe that 23 is the auditor's stamp. That's not mine. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Is that the 25 auditor's stamp? Is Mr. Tomlinson here? Is that correct? 7-25-05 30 1 MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Was that bid received timely 3 pursuant to the solicitation that was published? 4 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the time 7 that it was supposed to be in, Judge? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: My recollection was the 27th 9 of June, but I don't have that in front of me. 10 MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that correct, Mr. Auditor? 12 June 27th? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I'll just make a 15 motion that -- just for the record, that we received no bids 16 timely for long distance telephone service, or that were 17 pulled -- the one that was mentioned previously from 18 Frontera Communication was voluntarily pulled by the 19 company. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What you're saying is 21 we would reject it because it was not filed in a timely 22 manner? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we didn't -- yes. 24 I rephrase my motion; make a notion that we reject all bids, 25 as there were no timely-received -- timely-received bids. 7-25-05 31 1 JUDGE TINLEY: And an explanation of that, 2 the note is that Frontera Communications, who had apparently 3 submitted a timely bid, pulled that bid this morning. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second the motion. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second the motion. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 7 reject all bids before the Court as the remaining bids are 8 not timely submitted, and one which was timely submitted was 9 previously pulled by the bidder. Any question or 10 discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by raising 11 your right hand. 12 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 14 (No response.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. The 16 next item on the agenda is to consider and discuss 17 soliciting bids for long distance telephone service. 18 Commissioner Letz? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not real sure why my 20 name's on that one, but that's fine. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'd call on Commissioner 22 Baldwin, except he's not here. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on the previous 24 motion, and based on our discussions at the last meeting, I 25 would make a motion that we go out for bids again for long 7-25-05 32 1 distance telephone service. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 4 approval of the agenda item. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if I may make an 6 amendment to that, in that all bids will have bids due 7 back -- when is our second meeting in August? 8 MS. PIEPER: I don't have a calendar. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kathy, do you know when 10 our second meeting in August is? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: 22nd. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 22nd. So, the 19th? 13 Bids due back by August 19th? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: How about 9 a.m. the 22nd? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bids due at 9 a.m. on the 16 22nd of August. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second that 18 amendment. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 20 advertise and solicit bids for long distance telephone 21 service, with bids to be received not later than 9 a.m. on 22 August 22nd, 2005. Any question or discussion on the 23 motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 24 right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7-25-05 33 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We now 4 have a copy of Budget Amendment Request Number 6 from the 5 Treasurer dated 9-24-04. Apparently it was submitted at the 6 meeting 9-27-04. So, we will return to Item Number 4, 7 consider and discuss and ratify Budget Amendment Request 8 Number 6 dated September 27th, 2004. Ms. Nemec? 9 MS. NEMEC: There's a copy of the budget 10 amendment. That budget -- that amount was an estimated 11 amount that I was going to need for that pay period. 12 However, the amount that was actually needed was 1,477.08. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 16 approval. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was that amount 18 again? I'm sorry, Barbara. 19 MS. NEMEC: $1,477.08. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: 1477.08? 21 MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the motion for that 24 amount or the old -- the amount originally? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want the 7-25-05 34 1 amount actually spent? 2 MS. NEMEC: I would say so. We don't need 3 that extra 200 in there. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, if we're ratifying 5 it, we've got to do the old one. 6 MS. NEMEC: That'll work, too. Which the 7 money is in the insurance -- the 1,600 is in the insurance 8 -- that amount is in the insurance line item. So -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just creates a 10 surplus item in that fund. 1650 all right with you, 11 Commissioner? 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. I think we're 13 just cleaning up old business. We're just trying to cure an 14 issue that happened in last budget period. The employee's 15 been paid. We're not going to go to him and say, "Give us 16 our money back," so it's -- it's approval of an accounting 17 transaction. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. 19 MS. NEMEC: And, like I said, this amount was 20 in my insurance line item, so it was in my budget. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have a second to that 22 motion? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I seconded. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I have a motion and a 25 second for approval-slash-ratification, I suppose, of Budget 7-25-05 35 1 Amendment Request Number 6 dated September 27th, 2004. Any 2 questions or discussion by any members of the Court? 3 Mr. Prendergast? If you'd give your name and address to the 4 reporter as you speak. 5 MR. PRENDERGAST: My name is George 6 Prendergast. I live at 120 Peterson Farm Road in Kerrville. 7 Again, this issue's not as simplistic as it's just been 8 presented to you, gentlemen, and we all know that. I'd like 9 to see a copy of the letter from the County Attorney, if I 10 could, please, sir. 11 MR. PEARSON: So would I. 12 (Copy of letter was given to both.) 13 MR. PEARSON: Who is Mr. Brooks, may I ask? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Brooks? 15 MR. EMERSON: David Brooks is the -- I guess 16 you could say the county law expert. He writes all the 17 journals for Westlaw and regularly consults with the 18 Legislature on -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Isn't he in the Attorney 20 General's office? 21 MR. EMERSON: Not any more. He's in private 22 practice. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In private practice? But 24 he previously was in the Attorney General's office, correct? 25 MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. 7-25-05 36 1 MR. PRENDERGAST: I have a question. When 2 you read this letter, there's really not an opinion actually 3 given in this letter. And I don't know what kind of fact 4 situation Mr. Brooks was given. Can you kind of enlighten 5 us as to the fact situation you gave him before he gave you 6 whatever it was he told you? 7 MR. EMERSON: Sure. What I told Mr. Brooks 8 was that the Commissioners Court was being addressed with an 9 issue whereby they were requested to ratify a budget 10 amendment from the previous budget year, transferring line 11 item -- transferring money between line items within the 12 same department, and it was my understanding from the audit 13 at the end of the year that the total budget for that 14 department did not exceed what was budgeted. 15 MR. PRENDERGAST: Okay. I'm not sure that 16 everybody in this room knows what's going on, but this was 17 money which was spent last year without this Court's 18 approval by the Treasurer, who is the banker for the County. 19 I think what you're attempting to do is breathe life into 20 something that's already dead. Only God can breathe life 21 back into something -- a contract that's gone. This 22 contract was gone. She broke the law when she illegally 23 spent the money. She came and asked you for permission to 24 spend the money. You did not grant it. You did not give 25 her forgiveness. That year has expired. That was in a 7-25-05 37 1 previous year. It was money that she spent on an employee 2 who it was questionable should have been there anyway. And 3 I think, by ratifying this, you, in effect, are trying to do 4 something that -- I don't know what Mr. Brooks, in fact, 5 said, but I know that this is not an opinion. This is 6 just -- is it an opinion? 7 MR. EMERSON: It's Mr. Brooks' opinion that 8 you could do it. 9 MR. PRENDERGAST: Well, I've got a -- I've 10 got an A.G.'s opinion that says the County Treasurer cannot 11 spend money without Commissioners Court approval. And I see 12 here that you say that you haven't been able to find any 13 written literature. I found numerous amounts of it; I'll be 14 glad to furnish it with you -- furnish it to you. But I've 15 got an A.G.'s opinion that says this is illegal. While 16 we're on the same subject, I have a letter from the Texas 17 Retirement System where an additional $2,000 was taken 18 out -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not -- that's not 20 this subject. 21 MR. PRENDERGAST: Well, I was going to give 22 it to you, so I'll give it to you again. When you do you 23 want to do it? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you can give it to 25 us, but it's not the agenda item. There's another agenda 7-25-05 38 1 item today, as a matter of fact. 2 MR. PRENDERGAST: Okay, very good. So I 3 would say to the Court, by ratifying this, you're telling 4 the Treasurer that she can run loose and do as she damn well 5 pleases. If the Commissioners Court does not grant her 6 approval in the prior fiscal year and now turns about and 7 ratifies it, what are you going to do when she does it 8 again? Because she did it in the previous year that nobody 9 ever brought to the Court's attention. 10 MS. NEMEC: That's not true. 11 MR. PRENDERGAST: And it's in the line item 12 budgets. Now, this is twice, and I'll be glad to prove it. 13 'Cause I'm going to continue to do a lot more digging, 14 'cause every time I dig in one area, I find that there's a 15 lot more rats in that pile. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just as a comment, I 17 don't see that this does anything other than clean up an 18 accounting issue. The money, as you said, you know, was 19 spent improperly. We did not approve it, and we're not 20 saying that it was or wasn't; we're just saying that from an 21 accounting standpoint, we're moving money into a line item. 22 I think the -- the minutes from that meeting indicate that 23 the employee and the -- which is the expenditure, would have 24 been made. We had a question on it; we wanted some 25 information on it. The information was provided, though not 7-25-05 39 1 in the proper way. I think it was the Treasurer's 2 responsibility to get it on the agenda. She didn't, you 3 know, but that happened. I don't think that this changes 4 anything, the way it was done. It's just saying that the -- 5 from a budget standpoint, the money is being put into the 6 line item where it was. And the employee, whether I or you 7 or anyone else thinks this employee should have been hired 8 or not hired, did the work and is entitled to the money. 9 So, you know -- 10 MR. PRENDERGAST: We don't know what work he 11 did, because she promised to tell us what work he had done. 12 Still, let's follow back up with what we say we're going to 13 do. What did, in fact, he do? This was in a prior fiscal 14 year. You've already been audited. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This Court -- 16 MR. PRENDERGAST: I would admonish the Court, 17 it's a -- you become a party to the illegal activity if you 18 ratify it. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think there's 20 an illegal activity unless this budget is -- is exceeded, 21 and the budget was not exceeded. 22 MR. PRENDERGAST: I'll bring you a copy of 23 the A.G.'s opinion. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Please, I wish you 25 would. 7-25-05 40 1 MR. PRENDERGAST: Be more than happy to. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to direct a 3 question to the County Auditor. Is this an appropriate 4 thing to do to correct an action -- a budget amendment that 5 was -- that didn't get done because it fell off -- it kind 6 of fell through the cracks? It was on the agenda, was 7 pulled and didn't get put back on. In your opinion, do we 8 need to do this to correct it? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I -- I recommended the 10 budget amendment. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon me? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: I recommended the budget 13 amendment. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Personally. And, as I 16 remember, the Court wanted an explanation, and I wasn't 17 prepared -- prepared to give that explanation. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I remember. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: So, I -- I don't have the 20 legal background, or any -- any kind of A.G. opinion that -- 21 in front of me that would allow me to answer that question. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I'm not asking 23 that. I'm just asking, from your perspective as an auditor, 24 it is an action that should be, in fact, cleaned up? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I -- I don't see that 7-25-05 41 1 there's a purpose. I mean, we didn't increase the budget. 2 MR. PEARSON: Makes no difference. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: And so, from that standpoint, 4 I don't see that it will accomplish anything. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I understand 6 you. You say you recommended the amendment. Are you 7 talking about back during last fiscal year when the issue 8 first arose? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: And that's what you 11 recommended to the Treasurer? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, that's correct. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: That if she wanted to expend 14 these funds, to amend the budget to be able to do that? 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do agree with the 18 Auditor; I don't think there's any purpose in doing it, but 19 I don't have any -- I don't think it -- it may clean up a 20 little bit in the -- you know, the paper trail, but I don't 21 think it changes anything. I mean, I think it's somewhat of 22 a -- 23 MR. PRENDERGAST: It was County funds that 24 were not line-item approved, and they were spent. And they 25 were spent before she ever came to you for forgiveness. She 7-25-05 42 1 had already written several checks to this young man out of 2 that line item. More importantly, in the last meeting, she 3 offered to pay the money back to the County, and if she's 4 willing to do that, let her pay the money back. It's in the 5 minutes. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think this -- this 7 agenda item deals exclusively with an accounting situation. 8 The -- we failed to approve a court order that could have 9 been approved in the last budget year, but it wasn't, and so 10 we're curing that now. The issue doesn't have anything to 11 do with the merits of who was hired, why he was hired, what 12 he did, any of that sort of thing. It's just -- it's just 13 dealing with an accounting situation. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I might add to that, 15 and if -- this is a very specific agenda item. If something 16 was done illegally, which, you know, I wouldn't -- I'm not 17 going to argue one way or the other, 'cause I haven't looked 18 at the facts and looked and the law; that's for the County 19 Attorney to say, but this isn't changing that. I mean, this 20 is just saying that the budget amendment, you know, was 21 after-the-fact being done. It's not saying -- there's no -- 22 the legality of it isn't an issue. 23 MR. PRENDERGAST: Is that what the budget 24 amendment says? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The budget amendment just 7-25-05 43 1 says budget amendment from back then. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a transfer of 3 money from part -- from insurance line item to part-time. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If money was expended 5 without this Court's approval prior to this budget 6 amendment, this doesn't fix that. That was still an illegal 7 act if that was done. So -- 8 MR. PRENDERGAST: I guess this was yours. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 10 MR. PRENDERGAST: I still think it's an 11 illegal activity, in my opinion. I'll be glad to bring the 12 A.G.'s opinion. Or, in the reverse, why don't we ask for an 13 A.G.'s opinion? 14 MR. PEARSON: That's the key. 15 MS. NEMEC: I'd like to remind the Court how 16 this all happened, and I'd also like to remind the Court 17 that there are several departments who are in the negative 18 in their part-time line item. They pay part-time funds, and 19 at the end of the budget, if they do not have those funds 20 and that line item is negative, they come to the Court and 21 request a budget amendment, after the payroll has been done 22 and the funds have been expended. That is exactly what I 23 did. When this budget amendment was not approved, the 24 Auditor came to me and told me to write a letter of 25 explanation, and that the Court was going to put it back on 7-25-05 44 1 the agenda for approval once they received my letter of 2 explanation, which I provided to each of you on October the 3 5th, with a copy to the County Auditor. At that time, I 4 thought I had followed through with whatever was asked of 5 me. And then the first time I hear about this is last 6 month, when Zeke from the San Antonio Express News calls me 7 and tells me that he's doing the dirty work for someone 8 else, and asked me about the budget amendment that was not 9 approved. That was the first time I heard that it had not 10 come back to the Court for approval. Now, why it waited 11 almost eight months to come out that it was not approved and 12 paperwork was faxed to Zeke, I'm not sure. But I followed 13 through with what this Court asked me to do on October 5th 14 to provide a letter of explanation, which is what I did. 15 And, as a result of getting a call from Zeke from the San 16 Antonio Express News, I put this on the agenda two weeks 17 ago. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I just 19 want to clarify one point. I don't really want to spend too 20 much time -- we've spent more time than we should have 21 already. It is, unfortunately, somewhat of a common 22 practice in this county for elected officials, department 23 heads, whatever, to occasionally obligate the County when 24 they don't have funds in their budget. That does happen, I 25 think, pretty much, I mean, if they need to order something 7-25-05 45 1 and there's not money in the budget, but it is not common 2 practice for the moneys to be spent or the check cut before 3 this Court approves it. That's where the difference comes. 4 That's where the budget amendments frequently come to the 5 Court. The money -- the County's obligated to spend it, in 6 my opinion; the work may have been done or the equipment may 7 have been purchased. But I don't know of instances, and I 8 hope there aren't any, of the checks being written without 9 money in that line item. And that's what the Auditor, I 10 think, you know, hopefully takes pretty good -- watches 11 that. And that's why we get, towards the end of the year, 12 frequently 10, 15, 20 budget amendments, because line items 13 start running out, and he won't cut the check unless there's 14 money moved into that line item. And so I agree that it is 15 -- or does happen occasionally that funds are obligated, but 16 I don't think the funds are paid. That's the only 17 difference I have. And I just -- 18 MS. NEMEC: In the case of part-time, it 19 happens a lot. There are even -- if you go back to the 20 end-of-the-year financial statements, you'll see where there 21 are a lot of part-time line items in different departments 22 that are in the hole, and they never come to court to even 23 ask for those funds to be moved, because bottom line, the 24 money is in their budget. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Nemec, do you believe that 7-25-05 46 1 a department head who's seeking a budget amendment has the 2 obligation to know whether that budget amendment was 3 approved by the Court or not? 4 MS. NEMEC: Well, I do. And I read the 5 minutes of that meeting, and on there it stated that 6 Mr. Williams was going to put it back on the agenda. And I 7 just figured that because it was in the minutes, that that 8 was going to be done. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: But you didn't follow up on 10 it? 11 MS. NEMEC: No, sir. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it was 14 withdrawn pending an explanation, and an explanation was 15 forthcoming. And I believe the Court took an action, and 16 then for some reason, which I don't recall, the action then 17 was rescinded. So, it did get -- it was on, it was 18 withdrawn, it was put back on, it was an action, and then it 19 became rescinded pending more -- further explanation, I 20 guess. And at that point, it dropped off the radar screen 21 and didn't get put back on. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: My concern is, when the matter 23 was directed to the County Attorney, the County Attorney 24 said he couldn't find anything on it. And it's in those 25 instances where there's no clear law that I think it is 7-25-05 47 1 appropriate that we ask for an Attorney General's opinion, 2 and I have recommended that to the County Attorney. I would 3 certainly rather have this Court take some action that it 4 knows is lawful at the time it takes it, rather than the 5 Court take action and discover after the fact that the 6 action that it previously took was, in fact, not in 7 accordance with the law. So, it would appear to me that an 8 Attorney General's opinion in this particular case is -- is 9 appropriate. I'm mindful of the fact that -- that as -- as 10 Commissioner Letz said, frequently we have department heads 11 who are in a bind; something breaks, they need to make a 12 purchase, and they -- they place something on order, then 13 come to the Court asking for a budget amendment if they 14 don't have the funds. And before that item is to be paid 15 for, they have the budget amendment approved and the funds 16 in the account. That's not what we had here. There was a 17 specific request for a budget amendment. The budget 18 amendment was not approved, and at that point, I think the 19 burden was on the department head to not do any further 20 obligation of -- of County funds. Mr. Prendergast mentioned 21 an Attorney General's opinion. I'm familiar with such an 22 opinion, and generally it says that -- that a public 23 official, county official -- and in that particular case, I 24 believe it was a County Treasurer -- cannot expend funds 25 that are not authorized by the Commissioners Court, and if 7-25-05 48 1 that individual does so, that individual is personally 2 liable unless the action is subsequently ratified by the 3 Commissioners Court. Now, as to whether or not you 4 characterize this as an accounting function or not, based 5 upon that opinion, it occurs to me that we're not talking 6 about an accounting function, so I think we need to get the 7 Attorney General's opinion. 8 MS. NEMEC: So, are you going to go back -- 9 are you going to go back to all the departments that have a 10 negative in their line item -- in their part-time line item 11 and do the same thing? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: If it's brought to my 13 attention, this very well may be a needed opinion for that 14 purpose also. The thing that concerns me is if, under the 15 law, a public official becomes personally liable for an 16 expenditure, that expenditure becomes one outside of the 17 law, and I'm not sure I want to get this Court into a 18 position of condoning or approving actions of that type. 19 I'm -- I'm a little bit fearful of the precedential value 20 that that might set. I -- I think we badly need an A.G. 21 opinion in this case, and I think that's what's appropriate. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, if 23 Mr. Prendergast has seen an Attorney General's opinion, and 24 apparently, from your comments, you have read, I assume, the 25 same Attorney General's opinion, wouldn't it be helpful if 7-25-05 49 1 we shared that information with other members of the Court 2 and the County Attorney so we're all playing on the same 3 page? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 5 MR. EMERSON: May I make one comment real 6 quick? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. 8 MR. EMERSON: The issue that I was asked to 9 research was about whether or not Commissioners Court could 10 go back and ratify. I was not asked to research the 11 legality of the action in the prior year. 12 MS. NEMEC: I think I can save the Court a 13 lot of time here. I wish, Judge, that when you had come 14 across this and saw that this budget amendment hadn't been 15 taken care of, instead of faxing all this information to 16 Zeke, I wish you had come to my office and spoken to me 17 about it so that we could have taken care of this in the 18 proper way. However, that is not what you did. Therefore, 19 this has become a personal political agenda, and I would 20 like the Court to know that today, I will put $1,477.08 into 21 the general fund to take care of this matter. There's no 22 sense in wasting any more taxpayers' money, your time, all 23 these people's time on political agendas. Therefore, I do 24 not request this budget amendment to be approved. Thank 25 you. 7-25-05 50 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's appropriate 2 action on your part, Mrs. Nemec. In response to the other 3 assertions, they're absolutely false. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two things -- I have two 5 comments. One is, it was also made an allegation about 6 other departments, and if that is, in fact, what is done -- 7 which, you know, I don't -- I probably tend to agree that 8 she's probably correct -- I think they need to all be 9 treated the same way, and if they're -- and need to be 10 looked into. And I don't know how far you want to go back. 11 I mean, I wouldn't go back more than one year, but if it was 12 done or she has specific information as to when it was done, 13 give it to the Court as a whole, or to myself or the 14 Auditor, someone, 'cause I don't think it is right to go 15 ahead and single out this one time if it's been done other 16 times. Further, I really -- you know, I still do not have a 17 problem with ratifying -- as I see it, ratifying it, because 18 I think the Court would have ratified it -- or would have 19 approved the budget amendment if it had been put on the next 20 agenda. That's clearly what the minutes said. I have no 21 problem with requesting the County Attorney to give us -- or 22 to request an Attorney General's opinion on this. 23 Evidently, it's a problem that we need to have a clear 24 answer to, 'cause -- if it's been done other times. And I 25 don't see any reason for Ms. Nemec to pay her funds -- out 7-25-05 51 1 of her own funds unless -- you know, until after the 2 Attorney General's opinion. 3 MS. NEMEC: Commissioner, I appreciate that. 4 But, really, I'd like to move on to other issues and put 5 this one to rest, and therefore, there is no need to keep 6 going further. Like I said, this is a political attack, and 7 it will keep going on. If you do ratify this budget 8 amendment, it will keep going on and on and on. And as far 9 as the other departments, that's up to y'all. I will not go 10 back and -- and start doing dirty work bringing up things 11 about them. That's between y'all and them or the Auditor. 12 But this will -- there's no need to do an order. I 13 appreciate it, though. Thank you. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think the only thing 15 you're going to find in this is that, as far as -- and, 16 Judge, you may correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't there 17 still -- for it to be illegal, wouldn't there still be an 18 intentional or knowingly? And if she felt it was approved 19 back then, or was going back on, I don't think you have 20 either of those clauses for her intentionally or knowingly 21 violating the law and spending County funds. And I don't -- 22 personally, I don't see that that should -- if it was just 23 by oversight or thinking it was, I don't think any 24 department official should have to pay that personally back 25 out of their pocket. There's going to be times, even in 7-25-05 52 1 your budget, that when we check -- in my budget, and I run 2 three different budgets, that in the budget printout we get, 3 it may give us a balance in that budget of one thing, but in 4 reality the budget runs just about a month behind, and you 5 may have had other bills go through; that your real balance 6 in that line item may be a little bit lower than what you 7 had printed out in front of you. So, I think to make her 8 personally have to pay it back, I would think they ought to 9 show that she intentionally and knowingly did it to be in 10 violation of the law. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's a good 12 point, Sheriff. I think that's the point Commissioner Letz 13 and others were trying to make. It wasn't an intentional 14 situation. For whatever the circumstances were, that budget 15 amendment was on, was withdrawn, was put back on, was 16 approved, and then was rescinded for more information and 17 didn't get back -- put back on. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't believe 20 there's anything intentional about the situation. So, I 21 think the point is valid, that if -- if this has brought to 22 our attention that other elected officials are -- are making 23 these type of transfers prior to court approval, then that 24 ought to stop. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree. I agree. 7-25-05 53 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This should be the 2 catalyst to make that happen, and I don't believe Ms. Nemec 3 should have to pay this back out of her personal account. I 4 just don't. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree with you 6 100 percent. I don't think any department head should have 7 the right, especially if you brought in an amendment and it 8 was just flat denied. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think that's an open 11 and shut -- if they spend it after that, it's intentional. 12 But it seems to me, from what I'm hearing -- and I haven't 13 read the minutes -- that there's a lot of back and forth in 14 this amendment where it was put on, taken off, put on, more 15 explanation. She wrote a letter. I don't know if you have 16 an intentional or knowingly deceiving this Court or this 17 County. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, there's a motion 19 before the Court. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: In response, Sheriff, the 21 mens rea or sciens requirement, I'm -- I'm not certain what 22 that is, the intent. Certainly, as to any criminal 23 liability, I would agree that it's probably required. 24 Civilly, I think that may be a whole 'nother issue, but I 25 can't give you an answer to that question. Maybe 7-25-05 54 1 Mr. Emerson could. Is there any further question or 2 discussion on the motion before the Court? All in favor of 3 the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We 8 will move on to a timed item at 10 o'clock. I will now 9 recess the Commissioners Court meeting and open a public 10 hearing for the revision of a plat of Southern Hills Phase 11 Two, Lots 26, 37, and 38. 12 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:05 a.m., and a public hearing 13 was held in open court, as follows:) 14 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 15 JUDGE TINLEY: This matter was scheduled for 16 public hearing at 10 a.m. this morning, and it is a few 17 minutes past that time now. I believe the actual agenda 18 item should be Lots 36, 37, and 38, should they not, 19 Mr. Odom? 20 MR. ODOM: 36, 37, and 38, yes, sir. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The print on -- on my 22 agenda here was -- 23 MR. ODOM: 26, okay. Typo. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the 25 public that wishes to be heard with respect to the revision 7-25-05 55 1 of a plat of Southern Hills Phase Two, Lots 36, 37, and 38? 2 Is there any member of the public that wishes to be heard 3 with respect to that particular plat revision? 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing none, I will close the 6 public hearing for the revision of plat of Southern Hills 7 Phase Two, Lots 36, 37, and 38, and I will reconvene the 8 Commissioners Court meeting. 9 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:06 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court 10 meeting was reopened.) 11 - - - - - - - - - - 12 JUDGE TINLEY: And I will now call Item 9, 13 relative to final revision of plat for Southern Hills Phase 14 Two, Lots 36, 37, and 38, located in Precinct 1. 15 MR. ODOM: Yes. Commissioner Baldwin is not 16 here today, but this has gone before him. This is a 17 revision, combining three lots into one. We encourage that. 18 And what I have before you is acceptable to Road and Bridge, 19 and recommend that you accept this revision of plat. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only problem I have, 21 there's no such thing as a "replatted." 22 MR. ODOM: I -- "revised" is. But, you know, 23 Commissioner, I knew you were going to say that, and I 24 missed it. And I have one that -- that does this. I looked 25 it up in our dictionary; there is a word in our vocabulary 7-25-05 56 1 that says replatted, and it says, "See revision." So, the 2 word is there, and it is accepted. And I know you prefer 3 that, and I missed that, but there is such a word as 4 replatted. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can redact the 6 other "t-e-d" out of there. So moved. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 9 approval of the replat or revision of plat of Southern Hills 10 Phase Two, Lots 36, 37, and 38, located in Precinct 1. Any 11 further question or discussion on the motion? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment would be 13 that either the Judge or Mr. Odom just draw through 14 "replatted" and write "revised," so we're consistent. I 15 don't think we need to go through the expense of having new 16 mylars done, but I think a notation can be put on the mylar. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: It appears that Mr. Odom is 18 doing something there at the moment. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got his black pen 20 out. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 22 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, 23 signify by raising your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7-25-05 57 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's 3 go back to Item 7, if we might. Set a public hearing for 4 revision of plat of Whiskey Ridge Ranches, Lots 17 and 18, 5 platted in Volume 6, Page 169, located in Precinct 3. 6 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. To be in compliance 7 with the 30-day requirement, the first available date for a 8 public hearing is September the 12th, 2005. Therefore, we 9 request the Court to set public hearing for the revision of 10 plat of Whiskey Ridge Ranches, Lots 17 and 18, Volume 6, 11 Page 169, Precinct 3, for September the 12th, 2005. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10 a.m.? 13 MR. ODOM: Sir? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: At 10 a.m.? 15 MR. ODOM: At 10 a.m. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 20 set public hearing on this matter for September the 12th, 21 2005, at 10 a.m. Any question or discussion on the motion? 22 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 23 hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7-25-05 58 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll 3 move to Item 10, consider preliminary plat of River Road 4 Ranch Subdivision located in Precinct 4. 5 MR. ODOM: Yes. What I have before you is a 6 preliminary plat. I -- and the circumstances are such that 7 it came to our attention that -- and the individual had 8 given some property to another individual, and it supposedly 9 was a relative. What we looked at -- and I can't remember 10 the circumstances, whether it was the individual or 11 whether it was O.S.S.F. or whether it was the builder that 12 came to us for a building permit. It was in the floodplain. 13 As we were investigating this, we found that this individual 14 was not in the third degree, as required by Subdivision 15 Rules; she was a -- a godchild, and that individual had 16 assumed that that was a relative. And this has already been 17 set out by metes and bounds. There was another tract of 18 land on this property off River Road that was given to a 19 relative in the third degree. So, we sat down with all the 20 parties, Commissioner Nicholson and myself and the people 21 involved, and told them that first we determine the 22 floodplain, and then second, to -- to plat this. And that's 23 what this is, is a platting of 18 acres. 24 And I assumed that I had everything, but I 25 had a call Friday from an individual -- from Mr. Voelkel, 7-25-05 59 1 and saying some questions on this plat. And so I -- I don't 2 know if he's here or not, but I did ask him to show up if he 3 had questions. If not, then I would address this. And I -- 4 the questions are legitimate, but I felt like most of them 5 were answerable. This is a unique situation where we had a 6 piece of land that was divided up, as you can see, into 7 1-acre tracts. Question was lot size. And there is a 8 community water system, so they were designed for 1 acre, 9 and they were down in the floodplain. The -- and, of 10 course, the lot size is 1 acre, and that's acceptable, 11 'cause there's community water there. One individual, the 12 Stillwell tract here, Lot 4, is 1 acre. There's already a 13 structure there. That was built when U.G.R.A. was doing 14 that, so there was a floodplain determined there. We also 15 determined a floodplain on the detached garage, which is an 16 accessory building, and did that work on that when I first 17 took this over as far as floodplain. So, that was already 18 established there and was built. 19 Lot 3 was one that was Ms. Denison, and that 20 -- she is the godchild to Mr. Chapman, is my understanding. 21 And so this was divided up, those two lots. What we had to 22 do was plat it. We put the road in. Part of the question 23 Mr. Voelkel had -- I said lots; we answered that. He wasn't 24 privy to the concept plan. The right-of-way was another 25 question. He is saying the right-of-way has to be deeded to 7-25-05 60 1 the County, not a roadway easement. And I told him that, 2 looking at this, this was not a public road; it is a private 3 road, and the note up there depicts that. And that the 4 rules under 7.02 says that -- well, I'll read it. "Any 5 dedication to the public should be accomplished either by 6 deed conveying a fee simple interest, by a dedication on the 7 plat conveying a perpetual right-of-way easement in the 8 property to the County for public use, or by right-of-way of 9 easement." And this was by right-of-way of easement, since 10 it was a private road. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we -- Mr. Odom, 12 are we talking about what's designated as Luke Lane? Is 13 that what you're talking about? 14 MR. ODOM: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. 16 MR. ODOM: And what we had originally was, 17 this plot of land, there was a party barn already put up 18 near Zone X. Then you had what we call Lot 4 here, the 19 Stillwell tract, was already -- was the 1.03.B; it was 20 exempt because the individual was a relative. So, what we 21 did was, since this tract, Lot 3, was -- was given to an 22 individual, it's not under that exemption; it had to be 23 platted. So we had a unique situation. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- Leonard? 25 MR. ODOM: Yes? Go ahead. 7-25-05 61 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The thing I'm confused 2 about is, there's lots of property that's -- that's just 3 kind of like in no man's land, looks like to me. I guess 4 there -- it's very hard for me to read this to look at the 5 drawing and see what's what. I see Lot 2. I see Lot 1, Lot 6 3 and 4, but I see lots of other things that appear to be 7 lots -- 8 MR. ODOM: You see some vacant land. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, vacant land, if 10 it's all going to be platted, needs to be in lots. 11 MR. ODOM: Well, that was a question that Lee 12 had. But I -- he says that here's this -- the gentleman -- 13 this is a unique situation. He doesn't wish to subdivide 14 anything else. And the way he laid this out was Lot 4 and 15 Lot 3, and he wanted access to the river, and so that would 16 be all the rest of the property. He had that barn up there, 17 which I don't know why they identified it, but they made a 18 lot out of it just to square off that 1 acre around that 19 barn. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, Len, let me 21 ask the question -- I'm confused also. Is Lot 2 all of this 22 property excluding 1, 3, and 4? 23 MR. ODOM: That's right. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Including going all 25 the way down to the river? 7-25-05 62 1 MR. ODOM: That's right. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is it part of the 3 so-called -- over on the left side of Luke Lane? 4 MR. ODOM: That is still Lot 2. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's still Lot 2. 6 MR. ODOM: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So everything's 8 platted? 9 MR. ODOM: Everything's platted. That was -- 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Lot 2 looks like a 11 doughnut with a hockey stick attached. (Laughter.) 12 MR. ODOM: That's right. And the way it was 13 laid out when it was presented to us was laid out like that. 14 It was laid like a hockey stick. And so the question was, 15 the man still wanted this property between Lot 4 and Lot 3 16 to get down to the river. He has a home on a different lot. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this the same 18 owner that -- 19 MR. ODOM: Same owner. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Everything? 21 MR. ODOM: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And he's trying to 23 deed a lot to -- 24 MR. ODOM: To a relative. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To a relative. 7-25-05 63 1 MR. ODOM: And Stillwell was a relative -- am 2 I correct? The other lady was a godchild, and he assumed 3 that that was a relative, but it's not in the third degree. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, which one of 5 the lots was the one he intended to give -- 6 MR. ODOM: Lot 3. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- to the godchild? 8 MR. ODOM: Pardon me? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The one he intended 10 to give to the godchild was which one? 11 MR. ODOM: Lot 3. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Lot 3, thank you. 13 MR. ODOM: So Lee brought up -- it was a good 14 question, but like I told him, under 6, when you read this, 15 it -- it says a number or letter to identify each lot or 16 site in each block. Well, that's been done against the 17 road. Lot lines should be contiguous with the right-of-way 18 lines for all roads/streets where applicable. So he did 19 exactly what's there. Yes, there are some vacant land, but 20 the point would be that, should he try to sell -- say he 21 changes his mind -- the land in between those two lots, 3 22 and 4, he still has to come to get a -- it would be a 23 revision of plat. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, I guess the 25 problem I have is a couple things. One, Lot 4 was done to a 7-25-05 64 1 relative? 2 MR. ODOM: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was -- that 4 exemption was nullified by the fact that they had to get to 5 that on Luke Lane, so there is no -- I mean, the law says to 6 a relative, as long as no street or other roads are 7 accessed. 8 MR. ODOM: I understand. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- 10 MR. ODOM: There's no exemption on any of 11 them. And our -- historically, we have not -- I mean, if 12 Mr. Stillwell or Mr. -- whoever wants to own the property, 13 he can still own all that property and make -- make the 14 tracts. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make the -- divide it up 16 into lots that make more sense. Because we don't 17 customarily allow lots to be divided by a road, which is 18 what he's doing. And I don't -- I mean, from his 19 standpoint, it would make it a whole lot cleaner to have 20 where you have Lot 2 as a lot -- 21 MR. ODOM: Sure. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the lot on the other 23 side of the road is a different lot, and then the lot in the 24 middle down to the bottom is another lot. And I don't -- it 25 cleans it up. Otherwise, we're going to have to do 7-25-05 65 1 variances and things of that nature. There's no cul-de-sac 2 on the road. 3 MR. ODOM: The cul-de-sac was a difficult -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 5 MR. ODOM: -- thing to look at. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're trying to -- 7 MR. ODOM: And that was -- go ahead. 8 MR. MOTHERAL: We could add a Lot 5 on either 9 side of the road. 10 MR. ODOM: Either side, we could make the 11 numbers. It's no big deal. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that would -- I mean, 13 I don't think it should change anything from an ownership 14 standpoint. It certainly will clean up the plat. 15 MR. MOTHERAL: That's no biggie. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The road, I presume, is 17 built already? 18 MR. ODOM: No. 19 MR. MOTHERAL: There's a driveway in there. 20 MR. ODOM: There's a driveway there. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it going to -- is it 22 going to be upgraded to -- 23 MR. ODOM: It's going to be upgraded to a 24 country lane. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To country lane? 7-25-05 66 1 MR. ODOM: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's not a way to put 3 in a cul-de-sac? 4 MR. ODOM: Well, the bad thing is, I don't 5 know -- the only cul-de-sac you could do is back over here 6 toward Lot 3, probably. You can't get it in between, and if 7 you did, you've got a circle -- this is not like laying out 8 the road and having a 60-foot easement off that radius. 9 This is trying to touch it up, and you'd only touch on those 10 tangents on that straight line. So, we looked at this, and 11 we're worried about -- we had to move this over to catch Lot 12 4, and then -- then swing it back over to catch Lot 3. So, 13 since this -- the master plan was not to do any more 14 division of property, we looked at it and said, well, you 15 know, we got a unique situation, trying to make sure we get 16 the Lot 4 -- that it can get in and out of the driveway. 17 And there could be maybe something like a half cul-de-sac or 18 something down there toward Lot 3, but you can't get it in, 19 and it doesn't -- wouldn't do any good in between. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That -- that piece of 21 property which is wedged in between Lots 3 and 4 -- 22 MR. ODOM: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- would you -- did I 24 understand you correctly to say that that is all part of Lot 25 2? 7-25-05 67 1 MR. ODOM: That is all lot -- at this point, 2 is Lot 2. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if I'm looking at 4 this -- am I seeing Luke Road? As I'm looking at it now, do 5 you see it turning sharply to the right? Is that what I'm 6 seeing? 7 MR. MOTHERAL: It goes down to serve both 3 8 and 4 as it's currently set up. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could a cul-de-sac be 10 put in where that -- in that space between Lots 3 and 4? 11 Would that work? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this where you're 13 talking about, Commissioner? Right here, even if it's a 14 sub -- a smaller than -- I'd rather give a variance on -- 15 MR. ODOM: The cul-de-sac. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the size rather than 17 have no cul-de-sac. That's just from an emergency 18 standpoint. 19 MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah, that's fine. We can do 20 that. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fit one somewhere in 22 there that touches all three of those lots. 23 MR. ODOM: The only thing, it might be better 24 to bring it up here. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Might be the world's 7-25-05 68 1 largest cul-de-sac, but that's... 2 MR. ODOM: Well, we -- 3 MR. MOTHERAL: We could do this. 4 MR. ODOM: I think it would be better down 5 here. 6 MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah. 7 MR. ODOM: Down at that lot. That would 8 bring it down. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Conceptually, no problem. 10 I mean, just figure out how to make it fit. 11 MR. ODOM: Well, and part of this was trying 12 to make a bad situation better, and we didn't have a good 13 situation. And so we can do that, and we'll change that up. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Keep the numbers. 15 MR. MOTHERAL: Probably ought to have another 16 one down here. 17 MR. ODOM: We just want to make sure we got 18 1 acre. Now, the other question was -- cul-de-sac, we got 19 that. On the easements, we took care of that. The B.F.E., 20 the only other thing is that I left -- I have that; the 21 notes are up here. I left it off to -- we'll note that. 22 But the finished floor's there, the B.F.E. is established. 23 It's marked. It's over in the comments, and the finished 24 floor is on Lot 3, and which they're building, and I can 25 pick that up. I did leave off that finished floor. I had 7-25-05 69 1 the notes over here. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What about the issue 3 of a road dividing a lot? Are you going to create a -- a 4 Lot 5? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cul-de-sac would cure 6 that, wouldn't it? 7 MR. ODOM: Cul-de-sac -- we're going to bring 8 that cul-de-sac down between these -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both sides. I think he's 10 going to add a lot -- add a lot or Lot 5 and 6. 11 MR. ODOM: Yeah, there may be six. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 5 and 6. 13 MR. ODOM: Probably 6. 14 MR. MOTHERAL: 'Cause the road cuts off 15 between 3 and 4; we'll have to to make it 5 and 6. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And then he can 17 still do what he wants down the road. If he wants to change 18 it and revise it, that can easily be done. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me make sure I 20 know where this is. Len, looking at the location map, 21 it's -- it shows River Road. Does River Road turn at the 22 right and come down this -- 23 MR. MOTHERAL: Yes. 24 MR. ODOM: Yes, comes across the river there. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 7-25-05 70 1 MR. ODOM: Makes a 90-degree turn by the 2 substation right there. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's an elevation 5 line -- there's two elevation lines on the bottom, 1740 and 6 1750. Are those -- do either of those relate in any way to 7 the base flood elevation? 8 MR. MOTHERAL: Yes, they're right straight 9 off of what -- actually, it was shot in the field. That's 10 the elevations, and if you'll go on clear up to the top, the 11 top corner has got just barely in at 1770, I believe. 12 MR. ODOM: It's very flat. It just gradually 13 falls to the river right there. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 15 MR. ODOM: So you don't have close contour 16 lines; you have very wide ones, so it just falls -- 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is there any action 18 needed here today? We've got on the agenda, "consider 19 preliminary plat." Do we need to set a -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just need to approve it 21 subject to the -- 22 MR. ODOM: Subject to these corrections right 23 here. I don't see any problem. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would move to 25 approve subject to the -- 7-25-05 71 1 MR. ODOM: Revisions on these. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- revisions we've 3 discussed. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 6 approve the preliminary plat subject to the discussed 7 revisions. Any further question or comments? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A quick comment. I 9 presume Mr. Motheral is doing this. If -- could you use a 10 -- around the lots, a thicker line? Because there's so much 11 -- this is such a cluttered plat, it would make it a lot 12 easier to identify exactly where the lots are. 13 MR. ODOM: And also, he wants -- I think he's 14 got a good point, too. This is -- that size was required by 15 Pat Dye a long time ago. When we do our upgrades, I would 16 like to do the whole sheet that you could put it on; it 17 won't be as crowded. But he put it -- we put a lot of 18 information in here to make it work, and we had some 19 questions, and you've clarified that now. I know which way 20 to go with the other. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 23 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 24 your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7-25-05 72 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's 4 see if we can quickly get Item 11 out of the way. Consider 5 and discuss repairs and improvements to the Animal Control 6 facility. Commissioner Nicholson. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can quickly get 8 it out of the way. We had very high winds, suspected maybe 9 tornado warnings out there. It turned over the -- one of 10 the trailers and blew it, I think, 150 feet or something 11 like that, tore up the outdoor runs, the pens. Some damage 12 to the buildings, but not enough to put us out of business, 13 and as of now, we're not coming to court seeking any funds. 14 We'll handle that in the normal budgeting process. They put 15 it back together with bedding wire and overtime and hard 16 work, and help from some friends. So, that's all I've got 17 on that subject for now. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have anything you wish 19 to add, Ms. Roman? 20 MS. ROMAN: I brought some pictures of the 21 damage, if y'all would like to see those. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I didn't see you 23 there, Janie. 24 MS. ROMAN: It didn't do a whole lot of 25 damage to the building. It basically tore some of the 7-25-05 73 1 underpinning off, and the insulation. What I'm more 2 concerned about at this point are -- are all of my outdoor 3 kennels. I was under the impression that the insurance 4 adjuster was going to be there Friday. He didn't make it 5 Friday. He did call me, and I'm going to meet with him at 6 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, so at that point we'll know 7 whether any of that damage is going to be covered or not. 8 My kennels, they're seven years old now; it's about time to 9 get new ones anyway. They were still able -- I mean, we 10 were still able to use them and all. They were rusted 11 somewhat at the bottom. However, when the high winds came, 12 it just -- it totally destroyed them, so I had to get my 13 husband and some of the employees out there and wire 14 everything together and try to, you know, make them work 15 until I know something from the -- from the adjusters. So, 16 we'll just wait until I know what the adjusters are -- you 17 know, what's going to be covered, and then we'll go from 18 there. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Janie -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Were any animals 21 injured or escape as a result of the damage? 22 MS. ROMAN: No, sir, we bring all of the 23 animals in at night. We check the weather, and if -- if, 24 you know, there's any rain or anything, we bring them in 25 every night. So there was -- and the trailer -- the trailer 7-25-05 74 1 was about 250 yards down the road flipped over, so I had to 2 get a wrecker to come out and flip the trailer back over. 3 There wasn't any damage to the trailer, so it -- it wasn't 4 as bad as it could have been. We had, you know, a couple of 5 trees below over and stuff. But right now my main concern 6 is -- is the kennels, because it's very hard to function 7 without -- without the kennels. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: All that means that 9 we're probably going to be asking for some money for 10 kennels. 11 MS. ROMAN: Which I had put that -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: In your budget request? 13 MS. ROMAN: Correct. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- my comment 15 was that the -- I know you can buy kennels, but my 16 experience has been that you can probably -- we can probably 17 make them a lot better. And I'm sure Rusty has some people 18 that we could use out of his department. 19 MS. ROMAN: Yeah, we had talked about that. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Definitely. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And as a -- it may be a 22 good idea. I've seen some used recently in some other 23 facilities, pour a concrete curb to get the metal off of the 24 ground level so it will dry. I think it will probably last 25 a little bit longer. 7-25-05 75 1 MS. ROMAN: Right. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that with some 3 talents of people in the jail, hopefully we can maybe build 4 quite a few pens for a lot better than you can buy, and -- 5 MS. ROMAN: That's something we can certainly 6 discuss. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- and possibly start 8 before the next budget year. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That last big 10 roundup, did you get any welders? 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, we always get 12 welders. No problem. We keep a supply. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably some masonry 14 people, too. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sure. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, Ms. Roman? 17 MS. ROMAN: No, sir. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we appreciate your 19 efforts. 20 MS. ROMAN: If I can have those pictures 21 back, I need them for the adjuster. 22 MS. UECKER: I think you got more cooks than 23 anything, don't you, Rusty? 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I got quite a few. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on this 7-25-05 76 1 agenda item, gentlemen? Why don't we take about a 15-minute 2 recess? 3 (Recess taken from 10:30 a.m. to 10:47 a.m.) 4 - - - - - - - - - - 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call back to order the 6 Commissioners Court meeting, and we'll move to Item Number 7 12, VOCA Grant notification for Crime Victims' Rights 8 Program and approval of job description, Victims' Rights 9 Coordinator. Ms. Lavender. 10 MS. LAVENDER: Good morning. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning. 12 MS. LAVENDER: Since we're into pass-outs, 13 I'll give you my latest pass-out. This is the little 14 brochure we had printed up. Do what you want to with them. 15 Just a little refresher course. Last summer, former County 16 Attorney David Motley came to you with the idea of the 17 victims program being instituted, and with the support of 18 the Sheriff and other law enforcement and the D.A.'s and 19 everybody else, you approved the program on a 19-hour-a-week 20 basis until June 30th, with the agreement that we would 21 apply for a Violence Against Women -- no, Victims of Crime 22 Act grant. Two grants. VOCA Grant, contingent on the 23 successful application of that. And Mr. Motley advertised 24 the job and I was hired, and in December and January I wrote 25 the grant. We did get the grant, where you received 7-25-05 77 1 notification last Monday that it was approved. And so what 2 I needed to do was notify you the grant was approved, and 3 ask you if you would please adopt the job description on a 4 full-time basis beginning July 1st. I gave you a draft copy 5 of it, I think, a couple weeks ago. I did the -- the job 6 description based on the Nash study format. And, really, 7 about that's about all there is to that. So, I would ask 8 that you approve the job description first. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Barbara, have 10 you looked -- 11 MS. NEMEC: Yes, I have. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It fits our format? 13 MS. NEMEC: Yes. She got a copy of one of 14 our old job descriptions and went by that. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the levels and such 16 are appropriate? 17 MS. NEMEC: Yes. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval of the job 19 description as submitted. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 22 approval of the job description as submitted. Any further 23 question or discussion? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one 25 question. 7-25-05 78 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May not be applicable 3 here, but County Attorney raised an issue of accountability. 4 Is that something we deal with here? And this -- or is that 5 a topic we deal with later? Reporting to? Supervision? 6 MR. EMERSON: I think that's probably later. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 8 MS. NEMEC: Are you talking about who she 9 reports to and all that? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. 11 MS. NEMEC: On the job description, it does 12 have Commissioners Court. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or 15 comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 16 your right hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. I 21 don't think further action is required in connection with 22 anything else on that agenda item. Is there? 23 MS. LAVENDER: No, sir. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: We made application for the 25 grant. We received the grant. 7-25-05 79 1 MS. LAVENDER: We got the grant. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: As applied for. Therefore, 3 we've accepted the terms of the grant, since it's as we 4 applied for. 5 MS. LAVENDER: Correct. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One question. Was 8 there a gap in your employment? 9 MS. LAVENDER: I was kind of a volunteer for 10 a little while, but that's okay. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The answer is yes. 12 MS. LAVENDER: We had groceries at my house, 13 so it was okay. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, I think the actual 15 beginning time of the grant is July 1. 16 MS. LAVENDER: July 1. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: So we close that up. 18 MS. LAVENDER: Right. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: The funding begins July 1 20 under this grant. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh, okay. That's 22 good. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: So we're all right. Anything 24 else with respect to Item 12? Let's move to Item 13, adopt 25 amended budget for Crime Victim's Rights Program for the 7-25-05 80 1 remainder of '04-'05 budget year based upon the VOCA grant 2 approval. 3 MS. LAVENDER: And I might note on this, and 4 I -- I probably should have put it on here, the only part of 5 the VOCA grant funding that the County is responsible for is 6 the group health insurance. That made the 20 percent match 7 for the grant that was required. And -- no, actually, 8 there's $100 in travel, but because the health insurance 9 benefits are -- I mean, the health insurance premiums are 10 likely to go up at least that much, then probably that $100 11 local travel money will be a moot thing, because I probably 12 won't need it, number one, and number two, it will raise the 13 grant match up to the formula that we need in order to 14 satisfy the governor's office and the federal grant 15 restrictions. 16 At the bottom of that page, if you'll notice 17 on the -- on the pass-out, there was about -- a little over 18 $1,800 unused in the original money that you set aside last 19 year in the budget for this that I'm returning to you in 20 unpaid salary that I didn't collect, so you get $1,800 free 21 today. Actually, it's your money that you're getting back. 22 There is a balance, though, in the money that was set aside 23 in the travel, supplies, so forth. I put in the little memo 24 to you about 1,800; actually, it's about $2,200 that remains 25 in that fund. I need to have a fax line run into the 7-25-05 81 1 basement to my office and get a fax machine that's 2 appropriate for the needs that I have to fax stuff to the 3 Attorney General's office in Austin. Rex and his office 4 have allowed me to use their fax machine and their fax line 5 over there, but a lot of times I get in, use it for 50 pages 6 or 35 pages or whatever when I send an offense report, and 7 it ties up their fax line. And I get quite a bit of stuff 8 in from medical providers and stuff like that, that go with 9 these claim forms, and so I would like to use some of that 10 remaining money, since it's actually in the budget till 11 October 1st, to -- to get a fax line and a proper fax 12 machine. And, other than that, there's really probably not 13 anything large that I need to do on it. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two things. On the -- 15 you have a -- a budget under phone, fax, internet, and then 16 you have a separate line item for cell phone. Tommy, have 17 we not combined those through most of those departments so 18 they don't have so many different line items? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: We set it up that way because 20 I thought that was stipulated under the grant. 21 MS. LAVENDER: It is. It's a separate item. 22 This is exactly a mirror of the money that we set aside in 23 the grant -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 25 MS. LAVENDER: -- for it, except for the 7-25-05 82 1 group insurance. And, like I said, we didn't -- we put that 2 in the grant thinking it was going to be the rate at which 3 it is this year, but I understand that there's a probability 4 that the group insurance rates will go up a little bit. The 5 remaining $1,800 in there could -- could be used to pay the 6 insurance from now until the 1st of October also, which we 7 didn't put in the budget. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 MS. LAVENDER: Technically. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going to face 11 this again, though, I take it, because the grant period is 12 July 1 through 6-30 of '06. 13 MS. LAVENDER: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, at the end of 15 June -- 16 MS. LAVENDER: Yeah, however many -- however 17 many years we do it. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- we're going to 19 have a shortfall. 20 MS. LAVENDER: Yes. And the budget -- when I 21 called the governor's office when we didn't get the 22 notification before July 1st, one of the governor's people 23 in the Criminal Justice Division said, "Oh, well, you should 24 have budgeted a couple of months of contingency." And I 25 said, "Well, nobody told us that last year when we started 7-25-05 83 1 this project." So, what I will do in next year's budget is 2 go ahead and budget those three months on a contingency 3 basis, with the understanding that if we don't get the 4 grant, then June 30th I'll be out of a job. And that way, 5 we won't have this happen again. We will have corrected it. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- are -- is this a 7 dedicated fund? Tommy, isn't the money that the County puts 8 in come from court fees or some -- isn't there something 9 that comes -- I thought there was some. 10 MS. LAVENDER: Not yet. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Not yet. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Our next agenda item. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hopefully it will. Under 14 your fax machine, I have no problem with you doing that, but 15 you probably need a budget amendment to get the money from 16 the line item where the money is now into -- 17 MS. LAVENDER: Right. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- whatever line item it 19 needs to be. 20 MS. LAVENDER: Right. And the telephone 21 line, too. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, whatever you need 23 there. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval -- 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 7-25-05 84 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- of the amended 2 budget. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 4 approval of the amended budget as presented. Any further 5 question or comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by 6 raising your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's 11 move to Item 14, update on House Bill 1751 related to crime 12 victims' rights adopted by the Texas Legislature in 2005, 13 and request for approval of new fees for Crime Victims' 14 Rights program here in Kerr County. Ms. Lavender again. 15 MS. LAVENDER: In looking over the 16 legislative update, I came across something that I thought 17 was kind of interesting. And, "As you take money, you shall 18 return money," is my policy. So, there's a way that we can 19 generate some money to offset the matching part of the 20 grant, and I called the governor's office to be sure this 21 was legitimate to do this before I proposed it. There are 22 some new fees that will go into effect, or can go into 23 effect the 1st of September. There's House Bill 1751 that 24 was passed by the Legislature this last session, the regular 25 session that went home in May, and it goes into effect 7-25-05 85 1 September 1st. In the cases that you adjudicate, you can 2 add court fees of $12, six of which go to the Texas Crime 3 Victims Compensation Fund, and six of which the County can 4 keep. Which, if we adjudicate the cases where there are 5 victims, then that $6 can go into a fund to offset this 6 grant. There's another option in there that we've kind of 7 been doing on several of these cases, and that is that we 8 can now order restitution. And the way the law reads, the 9 Judge does not have to take into account the financial 10 ability of the defendant at the time they order the 11 restitution. Now, in reality, you're going to have to make 12 some judgment calls there. But we're seeing right now some 13 cases where we've got several thousand, and some of them are 14 up into the 20's and 30's of thousands of restitution. The 15 Crime Victims' Compensation Fund is going to pay some of 16 those, but it's really kind of unfair for someone to -- 17 let's use an assault case as an example. Assault someone, 18 the person is air-lifted to San Antonio, has extensive 19 reconstructive surgery on their face or whatever, and the 20 guy that does it walks away with court costs and no 21 restitution. And so what we're trying to do is see to it 22 that as these people go to court and are adjudicated, that 23 restitution, if applicable, can be added to their judgment, 24 and they can be made responsible for some of the damage 25 they're doing when they assault someone. Does that make 7-25-05 86 1 sense? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 3 MS. LAVENDER: And because of my efforts of 4 being able to get together all of these bills in a timely 5 fashion, we're getting them together, getting them to the 6 D.A.'s, getting them to Rex in time so that we can do it 7 before we send them to -- you know, to prison or put them on 8 probation. Most of the restitutions, obviously, are going 9 to be people that are put on probation. And -- 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does this require 11 action by the Commissioners Court? Or can the Judge just 12 begin -- 13 MS. LAVENDER: No, we're going to have to, as 14 a county, do it. Not today, but, you know, in -- we need to 15 do it before September 1st, obviously. But I just wanted to 16 make you aware that we have the option to do that. In cases 17 where we don't have restitution, you also have the option, 18 in misdemeanor cases where there are victims and we don't 19 order restitution, to put in a $50 fee and $100 on a felony. 20 All of that money goes to the Texas Crime Victims' 21 Compensation Fund and would go through the Auditor's office. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that stay here 23 or partially go back to the state? 24 MS. LAVENDER: None of that would stay here; 25 it would all go to Austin. But the thing about that is, the 7-25-05 87 1 fund itself is paying out -- last year it paid out 2 $72.8 million in benefits. And it's money that people have 3 made restitution for, and money that the State has set aside 4 as the -- it was like a pot to begin with when they 5 established this system. In years to come, again, that's 6 one of those deals of, are we going to make the defendants 7 or the accused people pay into the fund, or are we going to 8 allow our tax dollars to continue to go into that fund at 9 the state level? And I think that's the reason this 10 legislation was passed, was to try to inspire the courts to 11 -- if you don't have to make restitution, then you can pay 12 $100, you can pay $50, if it's a crime where you've got a 13 victim. And I was just going to update you on that and 14 recommend that at some future Commissioners Court, that we 15 pass a resolution. And I think you've got to talk to the 16 judges and be sure the judges are -- are clear with it, and 17 the attorneys are clear with it too. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can -- but we could go 19 ahead and today handle the fee, could we not? The $12 fee, 20 which half stays locally and half goes -- I take it back. 21 It just says "update," so -- no, it says, "and request 22 approval." 23 MS. LAVENDER: "And request approval," yeah. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we could adopt all of 25 it, as far as that goes. 7-25-05 88 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Based on the agenda item, is 3 what I'm talking about. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, I don't 5 see any reason why we don't deal with the fee. I think it's 6 -- you know, we should approve the fee. And on the other 7 part of it, I don't see that we need a resolution from the 8 Court to go after -- on the restitution side, but if we do 9 need one, we can certainly do that at a future date. I 10 think we can get that resolution before us. But I'll make a 11 motion to -- 12 MS. LAVENDER: Do you want to say something? 13 MS. UECKER: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You want to say something 15 first? 16 MS. UECKER: I just have some observation 17 comments about this bill. First of all, the trial court is 18 the one that would make that decision. This Court does not 19 have to approve anything under this bill. And it -- the fee 20 only applies to, the way I understand it, an offense where a 21 defendant is put on probation after September the 1st. 22 MS. LAVENDER: Yes. It does not -- 23 MS. UECKER: However, of course, the first 24 thing we need to do is educate the trial courts; go to them 25 and ask them. But here's the key. Back in the last 7-25-05 89 1 session, Senate Bill 325, as I recall, amended Government 2 Code 51.607 that, in these words, say any -- any new fee or 3 fee increase, if that bill that instills that fee becomes 4 effective before August the 1st, then the fee is effective 5 September the 1st. If it doesn't, then that fee, because of 6 the State's fiscal year, does not go into effect until 7 January the 1st. In this case, that fee would not go into 8 effect until January the 1st. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're saying the Court 10 doesn't have to set this fee to do that? 11 MS. UECKER: No, it's in here. I mean, 12 Commissioners Court has nothing to do with it. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 14 MS. UECKER: So -- but it doesn't -- so we 15 don't plan on getting that money until January 1. 16 MS. LAVENDER: Right. 17 MS. UECKER: And I have sent this to my 18 judges, but you might want to make some visits to them. 19 MS. LAVENDER: I will do that. I just made 20 -- wanted to make you all aware of it. And we can -- if we 21 don't have to approve it, then I'm through. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Nothing further on 24 that? Mr. Pearson? I believe -- no, wait a minute. 25 MR. PEARSON: No, 1.16. 7-25-05 90 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Got you lined up on the 2 wrong one here, but I'm square now. Thank you. We'll move 3 on to Item 15, consider and discuss declaring a 1989 4 Chevrolet D.A.R.E. car as surplus property and grant 5 permission to accept sealed bids to sell it. Sheriff? 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's pretty well -- 7 that was the old red Camaro that we had for years. Former 8 Sheriff purchased it, I believe, back in 1997. It's an '89 9 car. You have the attachments there, should have a copy of 10 the title. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we declare the 12 1989 Chevrolet D.A.R.E. car as surplus and authorize the 13 Sheriff to accept sealed bids to sell it. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Would you want to put a 15 date that those bids have to be in to me by? Or just me 16 pick one and send it -- advertise that it way? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You pick one. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just follow the law. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second the motion. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 22 approval of the agenda item. Any further question or 23 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 24 your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7-25-05 91 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That will be offset in 5 your next year's budget, I presume? 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, unfortunately, I 7 got to looking -- if you'll look back at that court order 8 where it was purchased, it came out of Capital Outlay, so I 9 guess I have to give it back. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to item -- let's 12 go to a timed item here. I apologize for missing that. 13 Item 17 was a timed item for 11 o'clock. I apologize, 14 Mr. Amerine. 15 MR. AMERINE: No problem. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Consider and discuss update 17 for 9-1-1 funding for final 9-1-1 mailout. Mr. Bill 18 Amerine. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before you get started, 20 Bill, -- 21 MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- just a brief 23 introduction. Commissioner Baldwin and myself, working as 24 liaisons to 9-1-1, met with Mr. Amerine last week. We 25 thought it would be a good time to give an update to the 7-25-05 92 1 Court and decide if the Court wants to go through with -- or 2 ask -- work with Mr. Amerine on one final mailout, try to 3 get all that addressing behind us. 4 MR. AMERINE: Thank you, Commissioner Letz. 5 As y'all know from my previous appearances in the court, 6 we've been working on this addressing issue since September 7 of 2003, where the Commissioners Court authorized and mailed 8 out the 3-by-5 blue cards, 14 and a half thousand of them, 9 if I recall. In May or June of 2004, we declared the formal 10 addressing project, as such, completed, because all of our 11 records were provided to the U.S. Post Office, and we had at 12 that point in time received all the call-ins that we thought 13 we were going to from that initial mailout by the County. 14 Since that time, there have been three subsequent mailouts 15 by the U.S. Post Office to try to get residences using the 16 new addresses and to -- to cease using the HCR addresses and 17 the rural route addresses. 18 My office did a subsequent mailout in January 19 of this year to the remaining 3,000 phone lines that we 20 still didn't have addresses assigned to, and after -- very 21 shortly before that process was complete, I met with 22 Commissioner Baldwin and Commissioner Letz and told them 23 that we were going to "call it a day," to use my exact 24 phrase; that we felt that we had done due diligence in 25 trying to reach the citizens of Kerr County for their new 7-25-05 93 1 addresses, and that the remaining number, whatever that 2 number was, which I didn't know at the time, phone lines 3 that were not addressed, that we would pick up by exception. 4 I think the request that Commissioner Baldwin and Letz asked 5 of 9-1-1 was reasonable, and the request was -- and the 6 reason why I'm here today is, let's do one final, last-ditch 7 letter. Let's put it on the Court's letterhead, and maybe 8 that will rattle the bushes and get a few more folks out and 9 get these addresses taken care of. I guess what I'm here to 10 ask is whether the Court would be willing to provide us with 11 the materials to do that. We'll be glad to put the text 12 together for the letter. We'd like the envelopes prepaid, 13 if that's possible. But we'll, of course, be answering the 14 phone, responding to the -- the citizen responses to those 15 letters. 16 Now, to give you some numbers to work with -- 17 I think these are good numbers. Of course, I'm -- I'm not 18 100 percent objective on where we're at today. There's 19 23,224 access lines in the Valor system. Currently, today, 20 there's less than 20 that are address exceptions, so we're 21 99.99 percent complete for the Valor phone systems, KTC. 22 Hill Country Co-op is not quite so good. There's 9,270 23 access lines, and after our final mailout that started in 24 January, we still have 1,241 phone lines -- not citizens, 25 phone lines -- that don't have addresses. Many of these are 7-25-05 94 1 -- are individuals that have multiple phone lines, and the 2 number's probably something less than 1,000. That overall 3 puts this county at 96.12 percent compliant on addresses to 4 phone lines. That's comparable with the counties that 5 surround Kerr County and the other independent communication 6 districts in south Texas. 7 But back to the original request by 8 Commissioner Baldwin and Letz, they felt one last final 9 mailout using the Commissioners Court letterhead might 10 rattle those bushes and get a few more responses. 11 Personally, I think that's too big a number, and I think 12 they agree. We were wanting, at that point in time, though, 13 to refocus our priorities onto new equipment for the PSAP 14 and making sure that we were Phase 2 compliant, but I think 15 we have enough energy and time left in 2005 to do that 16 mailout. So, I guess that's my request to the Court, if you 17 would be willing to allow us to use your letterhead, your 18 sealed envelopes and postage to do this final mailout for 19 those 1,241 phone lines. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And just a little bit of 21 -- kind of going into what we discussed when Commissioner 22 Baldwin and myself and Mr. Amerine discussed this. It was 23 felt that the insert -- 'cause this will be on white paper. 24 The key is to get people to open up the envelope, and 25 there's probably a higher likelihood of getting -- opening a 7-25-05 95 1 letter if it's coming under the Commissioners Court regular 2 letterhead. Just as a -- you know, a little bit -- it 3 doesn't look like junk mail, is the bottom line. And 4 hopefully get them to open it, hopefully get a little bit 5 done. The cost, I'm not sure what that -- what our 6 envelopes cost, but we're looking at about 1,200 plus the 7 postage for 1,200, basically, little bit over that. So -- 8 and the postage would probably run -- you know, recommend we 9 run it through one of our departments. 37 cents, 1,200, so 10 probably around $600, $700, I'm guessing, of material costs 11 to get this done. We had some money in the budget at one 12 point for this; I'm not sure if it's -- we added it back in 13 this year or not, or if we expended all that money on 14 earlier mailouts. If not, I think we can probably find the 15 funds in Nondepartmental or Commissioners Court Contingency. 16 I think there will be probably a little excess in our 17 Commissioners Court Conference line item, because 18 Commissioner Baldwin's -- his conferences are picked up by 19 the state association, primarily. So, I think it's 20 worthwhile to do this one more time, distribution of these. 21 The majority of them are out in west Kerr County, the Hunt, 22 Ingram area, though the numbers are way down from where they 23 were previously. There's a few in eastern Kerr County and a 24 few in the Center Point area, a few right around, you know, 25 Kerrville South. But I think it's worthwhile. I think 7-25-05 96 1 we've been very successful so far, and I think we should do 2 this. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, what this 4 communication would say to them is, if you call 9-1-1, your 5 address doesn't pop up on our screen, and you need to fix 6 that? 7 MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Hasn't got anything 9 to do with what is your address -- well, it has something -- 10 this is not a street naming and addressing project. 11 MR. AMERINE: No, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's getting it into 13 the system. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just saying when you call 15 9-1-1 currently, your -- no address is coming up on the -- 16 on the monitor, and that's a public safety issue. 17 MR. AMERINE: I think we're going to use 18 something a little more powerful than that. This will be 19 the last proactive -- this is our final attempt on our part 20 to reach you, and that if you don't respond, this is the -- 21 you know, this is what information will be available to the 22 dispatcher, which is a name and a phone number only. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it possible, Bill, 24 that all the -- excuse me -- that some of these -- the 1,261 25 are second lines in the residences for which you already 7-25-05 97 1 have an address? 2 MR. AMERINE: Yes, it is. One of the 3 problems I have, and since my previous experience is with a 4 large phone company -- and I don't want to be critical of 5 any one of the phone companies that service Kerr County, but 6 I can't really get Hill Country Co-op to provide a level of 7 information as far as what services are provided that would 8 allow us not to go after these that are not really 9-1-1 9 capable. You know, we've had a couple meetings on that. 10 It's just not -- it doesn't look like it's going to happen, 11 and I brought that up to Commissioner Letz and Baldwin when 12 I met with them last. Also, one of the proactive things we 13 thought about doing was giving each of the Commissioners a 14 list of names of those people who hadn't responded, so if 15 they -- if they wished to contact these folks -- but, 16 unfortunately, there's a -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not a good 18 idea. (Laughter.) 19 MR. AMERINE: There's a protection of 20 information issue going on with the phone companies, where 21 they're willing to give us access to that data, but not any 22 further than that. So -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you heard that. They 24 weren't -- he was not allowed -- the phone companies won't 25 allow that by law. 7-25-05 98 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, that's good. 2 MR. AMERINE: So -- and, anyway, I think this 3 is -- I -- you know, when it was brought up, I thought at 4 the time this is a fair thing to do. Just give one last 5 chance to round up these remaining 1,241 phone lines. I 6 think we will find, Commissioner Williams, that some of 7 these are secondary phone lines, but I'd like to, just as a 8 matter of public record, caution folks. When they think 9 that a secondary phone line is not an issue for 9-1-1, it 10 is. Many of these are dial tone, dial-out capable lines. 11 Many of these faxes and computers have a phone actually 12 attached to them, and if they dial 9-1-1 if they're having a 13 medical crisis while they're on the internet, for whatever 14 reason, we're not going to have an address for them. It's 15 only the security gates, the security monitoring systems, 16 and the non-dial tone -- when they use the phone number 17 strictly for billing; they're not 9-1-1 dial-out capable, 18 that we don't care about. And I do think there is some of 19 those out there. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- we put 21 this on the agenda, one, to deal with this issue. If the 22 Court is willing to pay the costs of approximately $700, I 23 think I'll put it on the next agenda as a budget amendment 24 to get where those funds are specifically going to come 25 from. 7-25-05 99 1 MR. AMERINE: If you need a specific figure, 2 I can provide that for you. One last thing I'd like to ask 3 so that when I come back, we can have this. Would the Court 4 like to review the text that we're going to put in that 5 letter? It's going to be under your envelope, and certainly 6 I think you might want to see that. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. The answer to that 8 is yes. 9 MR. PEARSON: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that you'll 11 need to come back. I think we can handle the budget 12 amendment and the text. And -- and the timing, I've talked 13 with you previously. Probably September is when this would 14 go out? 15 MR. AMERINE: We'd like to actually get the 16 mailout sometime in August, actually have the schedule 17 worked out. So -- 18 MS. MITCHELL: It will not happen, because -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not mailing them 20 out. 21 MS. MITCHELL: -- we have to order the 22 letterhead and the envelopes, and that takes anywhere from 23 three weeks to a month to get it. 24 MR. AMERINE: We will adjust our -- we would 25 like to wrap this up in 2005, though. We have a huge 7-25-05 100 1 emphasis on new equipment in Phase 2 at the end of this 2 year. One last thing. Since it doesn't look like there'll 3 be a motion or any action on this today, I want to let the 4 Court know what I've been working with the County Attorney 5 on. We've had discussions about the fact that 9-1-1 has, as 6 just a matter of handshake, been doing rural addressing on 7 behalf of Kerr County. There's not a problem with that, but 8 there are -- is a Senate and House Bill that occurred back 9 in 1989 that gave counties, commissioners courts 10 specifically, through an extension of the Road and Bridge 11 Act, the actual authority to do road names and house 12 numbers, and I've provided those records to Mr. Emerson 13 here. What I've done is I've put together an interlocal 14 agreement that states the County's responsibilities and 15 9-1-1's responsibilities for continuing this process into 16 2006. We're not asking for any compensation in this, 'cause 17 I don't think the level of effort and addressing going 18 forward is going to be significant enough for to us worry 19 about a budget item, but I do think kind of tightening this 20 up so that the actual authority derived from the county 21 comes down to us through that kind of document would reduce 22 some exposure that both of us have by not having that 23 document. Comments or questions on that? 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd just ask, when 25 the County Attorney looks at it -- my understanding is that 7-25-05 101 1 we have the authority to name roads, but we don't have the 2 responsibility or authority to assign house numbers, 3 addresses. 4 MR. EMERSON: I don't know the answer to that 5 off the top of my head. 6 MR. AMERINE: I have just a quick summary 7 from the State Legislature Record that has the -- just a 8 summary of the text from those two bills. It was Senate 9 Bill 1091, Legislative Session 71R, that says that, relating 10 to the authority of Commissioners Court of a county to 11 establish standards for rural addressing, to assign street 12 names and numbers. And the accompanying bill for that is 13 Senate Bill -- I'm sorry, I had it here. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: House Bill. 15 MR. AMERINE: It's a House Bill. I can't 16 find it. I thought I had both of them; I guess I printed 17 the same page twice. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either way, doesn't make 19 any difference. If we need an interlocal agreement, we need 20 an interlocal agreement. 21 MR. AMERINE: It's really -- I'll leave this 22 to the attorney to look at it, but I really think it's a 23 no-brainer as far as the detail, what we'll continue to do 24 and what the County's responsible to do. It gives just, as 25 we've always had, the Commissioners Court -- it gives you 7-25-05 102 1 guys the complete oversight of what we do with any of your 2 citizens as it pertains to roads or house numbers. That 3 doesn't change under this interlocal. But let's look at 4 that in a future agenda item when you've had a chance, and 5 the County Attorney's had a chance to review that document 6 and see if it's adequate for its purpose. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On this item, I'll go 8 ahead -- I will make a motion that we request 9-1-1 to 9 assist the County with a final mailout of the non-addressed 10 phone numbers or -- yeah, non-addressed phone numbers, and 11 will come back at a future date with a budget amendment for 12 the funding. 13 MR. AMERINE: And prior to that, I'll make 14 sure you have the text of what will be in the letter under 15 your letterhead. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 18 stated. Any further question or discussion? All in favor 19 of that motion, signify by raising your right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 MR. AMERINE: Thank you. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank 25 you, Mr. Amerine. Let's move back to Item 16, consider and 7-25-05 103 1 discuss authorizing a renewal of Kerr County Teen Curfew 2 Law, which expired due to Section 4 of the Sunset Provision 3 of that teen curfew bill. Sheriff? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: First, I have to thank 5 the County Clerk for bringing this to my attention, 'cause I 6 didn't realize it had expired. And she did bring it to my 7 attention, and I want to thank her for doing that so we can 8 get it back on. As the Court remembers, originally back in 9 2000, the County did adopt a curfew law for anybody under 10 the age of 17 from 12:01 a.m. to 6 a.m., seven days a week. 11 There were plenty of exceptions and defenses in there. If 12 it was a school, church, civic-related or anything like that 13 project, on an errand from the parents, with the parents, a 14 lot of different reasons in there. My opinion of this 15 ordinance that the County adopted -- now, the City of 16 Kerrville doesn't have one. Didn't have a chance to check 17 with Ingram; I think they do still have theirs. But this 18 ordinance would -- is not something that is used a lot, does 19 not bring in revenues from the county in fines and citations 20 being the issue. It's not done that way. I can probably 21 still count on one hand the number of citations that we have 22 actually issued under this ordinance over the last several 23 years, but it is a good ordinance that allows our law 24 enforcement officers to actually check with kids who you see 25 that look like maybe 10, 12, 13 years old at 2 o'clock in 7-25-05 104 1 the morning wandering the streets. It does give us the 2 right to approach these kids, identify them. We find in 3 some cases that they had snuck out of the house, parents 4 didn't know they were out, single parents or parents are at 5 work. Other times we find parents didn't care. But we do 6 write these -- these kids warning citations and send that 7 back home, and we mail a copy to the parents, so it gives 8 parents notification. It's just been an excellent tool to 9 be able to do law enforcement when you're having more and 10 more kids wandering around on the streets. I don't think it 11 -- it's ever been abused. I think it's been a good tool 12 that we've been able to use, and I would recommend that it 13 does get renewed, that we continue to be able to have that. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- the form of 15 it still meets all the requirements of the law and 16 everything? 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Far as I know. It was 18 all researched back then. I don't believe the law has 19 changed any in what was done, how it was adopted. I wasn't 20 even looking at changing anything in the ordinance at all. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's a two-year 22 period? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's really a one-year 24 period. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One year? 7-25-05 105 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Originally, it was 2 one year. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. And it was -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was renewed once, 5 was it not? 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only time I could 7 find -- I attached it to there -- that it was renewed was 8 the beginning being effective April 1st, 2001. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move renewal for a 10 period of one year -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- of the ordinance. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 14 renewal of the teen curfew law for a period of one year. 15 Any question or discussion? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment. I'm sure 17 Rusty's in shock, because I voted -- voted against this 18 previously two times, and I still don't like the fact that 19 it's kind of arbitrary and it's not -- seems to be not 20 enforced universally by the City of Kerrville, which causes 21 another whole set of problems. But if the Sheriff feels 22 it's a useful tool -- 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I feel it's a very 24 useful tool. Now, if I felt that it was being used to 25 harass kids, I'd be the first one to stand in here saying 7-25-05 106 1 don't do it again. That is not the intention of the law. 2 It's not the intent of this -- it's an enforcement. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to vote 4 for it also, but I've got the same concerns you've got. 5 Plus it's more government, more -- more regulation, and 6 generally I think we ought to err on the side of less. But 7 if Rusty says it's a good tool, I'll vote for it. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Pearson, you indicated you 9 wanted to speak on this item? 10 MR. PEARSON: I support the Sheriff's 11 request. And in the '50's, when we lived in San Antonio, I 12 worked with Captain Matheny, who was in charge of the 13 Juvenile Department, City of San Antonio, and on various 14 occasions I would sign out children that had been picked up 15 at night for various reasons. Most of the time, they were 16 from a family -- single parent; it was usually a female head 17 of the house, no males in the house. So, I -- I took these 18 children and I put them on strict curfew, and most of the 19 time I'd give them a paper route to make sure that they had 20 some working knowledge of how to handle money, how to work 21 with -- how to get along with people and so forth, and it 22 worked out real well. And the curfew is a very important 23 tool that the Sheriff needs. I was very fortunate in one 24 young man that I worked with, we were able to, with a local 25 legislator, to get him an appointment to West Point. So, I 7-25-05 107 1 highly recommend that you give the Sheriff an extension of 2 this law. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Anyone else 4 who wishes to be heard on this item? Any further discussion 5 by members of the Court? All in favor of the motion, 6 signify by raising your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We 11 will move to Item 18, consider and discuss clarification of 12 policy directing Environmental Health Manager and Floodplain 13 Administrator to deny permits when there's a violation of 14 Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Commissioner 15 Letz? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda 17 based on, I guess, a little bit of confusion in the 18 departments and trying to figure out how to implement what 19 we directed previously. And I think -- in visiting with 20 Road and Bridge Department and Miguel's office a little bit, 21 I think it would be wise to put a cutoff date; that we don't 22 go back before December 11th, 2000, which is the date of our 23 basic format of our current rules that are in place, so that 24 we're not trying to go back and correct illegal subdivisions 25 20 years ago or 15 years ago, so we have a date specific as 7-25-05 108 1 to what rules we're trying to follow. I think it would make 2 their lives a lot easier. And the other part of it is, we 3 discussed briefly, but the intent of this is to find illegal 4 subdivisions, not stop O.S.S.F. systems from being 5 installed. And I added some -- or suggested some language 6 that, you know, as soon as a determination is made that the 7 permit requested is in an illegal subdivision, and after the 8 parties receive written notice of the violation and the 9 parties acknowledge the situation in writing and advise as 10 to how they plan to correct the situation, that the permit 11 be provided if all other requirements are met. I make a 12 motion that the effective date for this go back to 13 December 11th, 2000, and then that other language be 14 included as the policy for this order. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 17 approval of the amendment -- or clarification to the policy. 18 Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the 19 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll 24 go now to Item 19, consider and discuss the way Texas County 25 and District Retirement System handled previous late filing 7-25-05 109 1 penalties. Commissioner Letz. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda 3 based on our last meeting, and it's my understanding that 4 it'll be at our next meeting when we have a representative 5 from TCDRS, so we can pass on this item and ask Ms. Mitchell 6 to put it back on the agenda for our next meeting. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: She's been in contact 9 with the office and is trying to get someone down here. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Mr. Pearson, you had 11 filed a participation form? 12 MR. PEARSON: Pass at this time, Judge. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone else wishing to be 14 heard at this time? With no further action by the Court, 15 we'll move on to Item 20, consider and discuss waiving or 16 lowering plat review fees for a revision of plat. 17 Commissioner Letz. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda, 19 and the -- the fee that I'm really looking at is an O.S.S.F. 20 fee that we adopted in their fee schedule when I believe the 21 County assumed the Environmental Health Department again 22 from U.G.R.A. And there's no -- well, the fee is $150, plus 23 $10 a lot, and I know there have been a number of people 24 that have, you know, objected to that high a fee, and I 25 think we've waived it on occasion. And I just thought we 7-25-05 110 1 really ought to look at that. I don't have a problem, on a 2 new subdivision, with that fee structure, but on a revision 3 of plat, which is almost always, you know, taking one or two 4 lots and usually combining -- dissolving some lots, making a 5 bigger lot -- occasionally it goes the other way, but 6 usually it's making a larger lot. Clearly, if we're taking 7 multiple lots and combining them into a larger lot, clearly, 8 if we -- if there was the ability to put an O.S.S.F. system 9 previously, there clearly is under the new system. And, to 10 me, there should be virtually no -- or a minimal fee even 11 charged for that. By law, Environmental Health has to sign 12 off on the revision of plat, but if we can certainly modify 13 that fee -- and I would put it as a $25 fee on a revision of 14 plat where multiple lots are being combined into fewer lots. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How would that apply 16 to the action we took earlier today where we let -- approved 17 consolidation of two or three lots into a larger lot? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that gentleman 20 be under the old fee structure, or would he eligible for 21 what we're doing right now? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would have no problem 23 making him eligible for the $25 that I'm proposing. I just 24 think it's -- it's a lot more -- when people are doing 25 something that we want -- 7-25-05 111 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- we shouldn't penalize 3 them financially. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Since we're adjusting the fee 5 downward, there's no necessity for any public hearing? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll ask the County 7 Attorney that question. I'm not sure. I would -- I would 8 think not. But, I mean, there may be -- I mean, there may 9 be a requirement, and I don't know. And we may want to 10 address it, you know, looking at our other fees as well. 11 This is limited to the revision of plat, but I'm not so sure 12 that some of our other fees are high enough on the -- more 13 on the clerk side, the recording and some of those fees. 14 But if there is a requirement that we do a public hearing, I 15 think we -- probably need to look at them all at the same 16 time. 17 MR. EMERSON: The answer to that -- the 18 answer to that, as to the specific reduction, I don't know. 19 In general, it does require a public hearing to establish 20 fees. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I wouldn't mind 22 looking at all of them. It's time, and I wouldn't mind 23 looking at them with an eye toward user-pay. The total fees 24 collected should be more or less equivalent to what O.S.S.F. 25 costs us. And I also agree with -- when people are willing 7-25-05 112 1 to do what we want them to do, to lower the threshold for 2 their costs on that. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: What you're suggesting is just 4 something to handle the basic administrative costs, but 5 otherwise give them some incentive to want to do -- reduce 6 the number of lots? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lots, correct. County 8 Attorney -- or, Rex, do you -- off the top of your head, do 9 you know the time period for a public hearing on fees? Is 10 it 30 days? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 30 days, isn't it? 12 MR. EMERSON: I think, but I wouldn't swear 13 to it. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we -- I would 15 recommend that we take no action on this item today, and 16 then we'll put together a fee structure, put it back on the 17 agenda next time, and look at all the fees. We'll set a 18 public hearing at that time for the fee structure. I don't 19 know -- I think we probably, on a temporary basis, probably 20 could change the revision fee at O.S.S.F. until that public 21 hearing. Or do you think we cannot do that? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably can do a waiver. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that 24 we pass a temporary waiver of -- reduce the fees for 25 O.S.S.F. review to $25 in situations where multiple lots are 7-25-05 113 1 being combined in to fewer lots. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And make it 4 retroactive to the issue we -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Effective this day. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- offered earlier 7 today? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Motion made and 9 seconded as indicated. Any question or discussion? 10 Mr. Arreola? 11 MR. ARREOLA: Just a question. Is there 12 going to be a charge per lot, like we do on the other ones? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a flat $25. 14 MR. ARREOLA: Flat $25 no matter what number 15 of lots they're going into? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, for right now. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll relook at that, 19 Miguel. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 21 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 22 your right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 7-25-05 114 1 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's 2 move to Item 21, consider and discuss the reappointment of 3 Dr. Samuel Junkin to the Hill Country Community Mental 4 Health and Mental Retardation Center Board of Trustees for 5 an additional two-year term. I placed this on the agenda as 6 a result of Dr. Junkin's term expiring at, I believe, the 7 end of August of this year. Dr. Junkin has graciously 8 consented, if the Court desires to appoint him for another 9 two-year term, to accept that appointment and serve. He's 10 -- Dr. Junkin has been a very faithful servant on that 11 board, has devoted a lot of time, and I'd say if there's 12 anybody on that board that's ramped up, that knows what the 13 issues are and what's going on and the economics of it, it 14 would certainly be him. And he's been a valuable asset to 15 the board and to the executive director and her staff. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I'd move the 17 reappointment of Dr. Sam M. Junkin to the Hill Country 18 Community Mental Health and Mental Retardation Center Board 19 of Trustees for a period of two years from -- moving forward 20 for two years, with our thanks and appreciation for his 21 years of service. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 24 approval of the agenda item, and with thanks to Dr. Junkin 25 for his many years of service to the board. Any question or 7-25-05 115 1 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 2 your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll 7 move to Item Number 22, consider and discuss designation of 8 personnel authorized by Kerr County to have access to Kerr 9 County I.R.S. information or otherwise act on behalf of Kerr 10 County in connection with I.R.S. matters. I put this on the 11 agenda as a result of a recent occurrence that an interested 12 official of the county was not able to obtain information 13 from I.R.S. in a matter that affected his office. I 14 discussed it with the Auditor, and the Auditor had indicated 15 that persons who might have such a need would include the 16 County Treasurer, the County Auditor, and members of the 17 Commissioners Court. And I asked the Auditor how this might 18 be accomplished. He said there's a form that can be filed 19 with the I.R.S. designating those persons to have access or 20 otherwise act on behalf of the -- of the County. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, the -- is the 22 declaration or the change -- can it be worded such that the 23 Court as a whole has the ability to access it, but not 24 individual members? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: I think it has the 7-25-05 116 1 individuals' names on the document. 'Cause when you call, 2 you have to tell them who you are and who you represent and 3 your authority. So, I would think that you could have 4 individual names. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only reason is that, 6 just by law, individually, none of us have authority to do 7 anything, as I understand it, other than the Judge in his 8 judicial responsibilities. So, the way I -- I would be real 9 leery of members -- even members of the Court having 10 authority to -- or a list to be able to go in and change 11 official documents without the Court passing a court order 12 to do so. You know, I can't imagine -- I mean, I -- I think 13 the Auditor should be added. I think it makes sense to have 14 more than one person in the county, and I don't have a 15 strong -- I just -- I think that we would -- it is wise to 16 limit the access, 'cause some things -- if -- once they have 17 the authority to make some changes, there's some pretty big 18 things that can be changed. And if people aren't -- you 19 know, if something's changed and everyone isn't properly 20 notified, it could cause a bunch of problems. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's probably two -- 22 two issues. One is access, and number two, being able to 23 take any action. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: So you might be able to -- 7-25-05 117 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, even -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: -- do it that way. But -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think action -- 4 I would almost say -- well, I don't mind. I mean, I think 5 the Court probably should have the ability to do something, 6 but I just don't want -- individually, I don't know that we 7 would want to be able to make changes individually. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Even the issue of 9 access, Judge, given the nature of I.R.S., anybody who has 10 access by designation can take a problem and end up talking 11 to 16 different people before you even get to the heart of 12 the matter, you know. So, what is that -- what kind of 13 problem does that create? In terms of the Court, I don't 14 have any problem with it being the County Judge acting on 15 behalf of the Commissioners Court, with a court order 16 authorizing that or so stating it, however that could 17 happen. Frankly, I don't want to have any personal dealings 18 with them. (Laughter.) 19 MR. PEARSON: Been there, done that. 20 MS. NEMEC: Judge, may I address the Court, 21 please? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, ma'am. 23 MS. NEMEC: Now, I'm not sure why there would 24 be anyone else that would need access to the I.R.S. other 25 than myself or my chief deputy. We're the ones that perform 7-25-05 118 1 those duties. Those are duties of my office. If we're 2 going to put the Auditor or members of this Court to have 3 dealings and have access to I.R.S. information, are we also 4 going to do that with other departments that have -- that 5 only the elected official and their chief deputy are able to 6 have access to certain information? That is a -- a concern 7 of mine. After this agenda item came out on Thursday, my 8 office was flooded with phone calls from elected officials 9 and employees who are very concerned, because not only will 10 you have access to tax information as far as the county, but 11 you will also have access to all the information of their 12 County employees I.R.S. deals with, as far as W-2's and 13 withholdings on their paychecks. And there were some 14 employees that were so upset, they were wanting to start a 15 petition, to petition the Court to only have my department, 16 since I'm the one that issues -- deals with these sensitive 17 issues on their paychecks and personnel issues. I asked 18 them to hold back; that I would present this to the Court, 19 and then we could go from there. So, if -- I understand why 20 you would want to put someone else on there, and -- you 21 know, you just never know what can happen. But, again, I 22 urge you to put my chief deputy on there. If, at any time, 23 anyone on this Court or the Auditor needs to speak to the 24 I.R.S. or has questions about them, they're welcome to come 25 into to my office, and we'll get on the phone and discuss 7-25-05 119 1 whatever matters need to be discussed, as was the case when 2 the Sheriff received the letter from I.R.S. We had a 3 three-way conversation. They asked me if they could release 4 information to Clay Barton, I believe is his name. I agreed 5 right away. I don't have a problem when there is a problem 6 that needs to be resolved, but just to put someone on there 7 that can just call I.R.S. at any time and have access to 8 sensitive information regarding our employees, I urge you to 9 think about that. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are there any 11 circumstances that you can think of where the Auditor would 12 likewise have a need to be among those who could make an 13 official query or address a specific issue with I.R.S.? 14 MS. NEMEC: Not without going through me 15 first. It's a function of my office. He's welcome to come 16 into my office, and we can call I.R.S. together if that be 17 the case. There's a lot of sensitive information that can 18 be gotten -- that can be received from an individual that 19 has access to that. And I don't want -- if that information 20 is let out on our employees, I don't -- I really don't want 21 to be a part of that person that has access, and them not 22 knowing who gave out this information. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Give me an example. 24 What kind -- what kind of information could you learn about 25 me if you had access to that? 7-25-05 120 1 MS. NEMEC: Well, what your taxes are. Have 2 you paid your taxes? Just all the personal information 3 dealings that you have with I.R.S. 4 MR. PEARSON: I don't think so. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: No. 6 MR. PEARSON: Huh-uh. Only county -- only 7 county information would be available. 8 MS. NEMEC: That's not true. I can call and 9 find out anything on our employees when it -- relating to 10 their paychecks. They'll ask you if you're the employer. 11 MR. PEARSON: That's all. Just what -- as it 12 relates to the county, not anything else. If they're giving 13 out anything else, they've got a problem. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So you could find 15 out -- on me, you could find out what my rate of withholding 16 is. Could you find out if -- whether or not I'm being 17 audited? 18 MS. NEMEC: Sure. Well, we have -- I submit 19 those records. I submit W-2's for all our employees, so 20 therefore I can call and ask anything I want on those 21 employees that I've submitted the W-2's for. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the issue is -- I 23 don't -- I would be surprised if you could find out if I'm 24 being personally audited, whether you could find that out. 25 MS. NEMEC: I don't know about being 7-25-05 121 1 personally audited, but, you know, the first thing they do 2 is ask for the employer identification number. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 4 MR. PEARSON: Okay. 5 MS. NEMEC: And then, you know, you need to 6 give the employee's name, and then they ask who you are, and 7 I'm the only one that can have access to that information at 8 this point. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't -- I 10 basically agree that I don't -- I mean, I don't see why -- I 11 don't want access to it, 'cause I can see -- I can see 12 nothing but bad coming out of a lot of people having access 13 to this information, and I think a lawsuit possibly to the 14 County. You know, if the Auditor does -- you know, needs 15 access, I have no problem with granting theirs. If the 16 chief deputy needs it, I have no problem there. If there 17 is -- I would suspect if a situation arose where the Court 18 needed to get involved, at that point, we could pass a court 19 order giving us or the County Attorney or somebody else 20 ability to look at the -- you know, to make the same change 21 we're doing right now. We can always allow somebody else 22 access at a future time if there's a need to do that. But, 23 I mean, that's -- I wouldn't know why you want to do a 24 blanket one. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not even sure I'd 7-25-05 122 1 go quite as far as you indicated, Commissioner. I think 2 if -- if we're talking about a query or an issue that has to 3 be dealt with with Internal Revenue Service that involves 4 Kerr County, in my mind, there are only two people. It 5 would be the Treasurer, whose constitutional 6 responsibilities embody that, and secondly, it could -- I 7 can foresee an issue when the County Auditor might. I don't 8 see any time or place or need for deputy -- chief deputies 9 or other designees. I think if you limited it to those two, 10 that should suffice. 11 MR. PEARSON: That's your system of checks 12 and balances. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way I see 14 it. And I'm willing to go with two, but not multiples of 15 two. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only question -- and 17 it goes back to the -- how the Treasurer's office works. I 18 mean, if -- if the Treasurer was on vacation, sick, 19 whatever, for a two-week period, and a new employee is hired 20 during that period and that information needs to go to the 21 I.R.S., I would think the -- you know, someone has to be 22 authorized to do that. And -- I mean, and I don't know if 23 the Auditor -- to me, I can see the chief deputy, because I 24 think you need to have probably multiple people in an 25 office. Otherwise, I wouldn't foresee a problem. 7-25-05 123 1 MS. NEMEC: Those are the duties of my 2 office. And I just -- I don't understand why we would even 3 need the Auditor on there. If the Auditor had any problems 4 or questions, he can come to my office and we can work on it 5 together. Those are the duties of my office. Now, if the 6 Auditor wants to do all the faxing reports, all the reports 7 for I.R.S., then he can have access and take me off of it; I 8 wouldn't need to have access on it. But those are the 9 functions of my office. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not seeing him 11 shaking his head that he wants that added responsibility. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm just trying to think of 13 other reasons that there might be a need to talk to I.R.S., 14 other than payment. From a county -- as a governmental 15 entity, I don't know that it would. In a business, you 16 have -- you have income tax issues. There's all kinds of 17 business to talk to I.R.S. by the -- you know, by a manager. 18 So -- so we don't have any federal tax obligation other 19 than -- other than payroll that I can think of. We pay 20 sales tax, so that's a state issue. Occasionally, we've 21 applied for -- for new tax ID numbers for specific 22 functions, but that's just merely a -- a request, and 23 they're -- they're always granted. So, I can't think of 24 anything that -- that's not payroll-related. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, am I 7-25-05 124 1 understanding correctly, Mr. Auditor, then, you really 2 concur with what the Treasurer just said? That if there was 3 some issue -- 4 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have any -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- some issue that 6 came to your attention, that you and she together could work 7 it out? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have any problem with 9 that. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that on it that 12 issue? Next item on the agenda, it's -- that's going to 13 take a while, isn't it? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm? 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just thinking, when 17 Commissioner Baldwin is gone, we get through before noon, 18 maybe. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Almost. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Maybe not. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- I mean, I 22 think that -- next item is the EMS contract with the City. 23 I think my preference would be to do it after lunch. We can 24 deal with a few things -- I believe there is an executive 25 session regarding litigation that the County Attorney 7-25-05 125 1 advised me about, so we can do that after lunch as well. We 2 can handle the bills and all that so that the Auditor can be 3 done. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before you pass over, 5 let me just give out to the Court my -- some of my thoughts 6 that I put together on this. Then you'll have them in time 7 for us to -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- mull them around 10 when we get back. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: So, I guess the sense of the 12 Court is we want to go on down to the approval agenda, and 13 then we'll just have the EMS and executive session when we 14 come back? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, Mr. Auditor. 17 (Discussion off the record.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: First item is payment of the 19 bills. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move we pay the 21 bills. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 24 payment of the bills. Any question or comment? All in 25 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 7-25-05 126 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Let's go 5 to budget amendments. Budget Amendment Request Number 1. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 1 was submitted 7 by Commissioner Baldwin. He's requesting a transfer of $219 8 from Conferences to Operating Expenses. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 12 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any question 13 or discussion? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let it be noted that this 15 is coming out of his portion of the conferences. (Laughter.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have subaccounts there? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have subaccounts, 18 right. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 20 comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 21 your right hand. 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. 7-25-05 127 1 Budget Amendment Request Number 2. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is a request from 3 the County Clerk to transfer $195.30 from Software 4 Maintenance to Books, Publications, and Dues. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 8 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any question 9 or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by 10 raising your right hand. 11 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 13 (No response.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 15 Amendment Request Number 3. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is -- is between the 17 County Court at Law and the 216th District Court. County 18 Court at Law has depleted their funds for court-appointed 19 attorneys. We've anticipated an additional $10,000 for the 20 remainder of the year. I visited with -- with the District 21 Court, and they have agreed to let us transfer the 22 $10,165.13 from Special Trials. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 7-25-05 128 1 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any question 2 or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by 3 raising your right hand. I'm sorry, did you have a 4 question? 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Running out of money 8 two and a half months early on court-appointed attorneys. 9 Has this been a unique year? Or -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Happens every year. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Happens every year? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But not usually down 13 there. It's a little bit unusual for -- I think the County 14 Attorney can probably answer more about it, but it seems 15 that there are more court-appointed attorneys in County 16 Court at Law than there used to be. There seems to be more 17 activity in County Court at Law than there used to be, but 18 it seems that there's a -- I don't recall that line item 19 being as large in previous years, and it seems to be getting 20 larger every year. So, I think it's -- the fact is, we 21 don't have a whole lot of control here. They're running a 22 whole lot more cases through County Court at Law, which is 23 causing that -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Volume of cases. You get the 25 same percentage of indigent defenses. 7-25-05 129 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I 2 thought. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's what's driving 4 it up. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Indigent defense. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 7 comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 8 your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 MR. TOMLINSON: I would like -- I would like 11 to make a comment on the total amount of court-appointed 12 attorneys for the fiscal year. We -- to-date through June, 13 we -- if you annualize where we are through June, we're 14 still going to be less than the total amount expended in 15 2001. We had -- in 2001 was when the Legislature gave us 16 funds for -- for indigent defense, and at that point in time 17 we had -- we had to establish what's called -- what they 18 call a base year, and the amount for all the courts for the 19 base year was approximately 280,000. So, the way -- if you 20 annualize where we are today through September the 30th, we 21 may not reach the base year. So -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: And what significance does 23 that have? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: The significance is that we 25 won't be able to retrieve any funds from that Indigent 7-25-05 130 1 Defense Fund. And the -- unless, during the year, you 2 realize that you will exceed the base year, then you can 3 apply for one-time funding. But I just -- I just received a 4 document from the Office of Court Administration asking if 5 we had expended funds beyond base year, and my reply had to 6 be no, we had not. So, the -- I just -- you know, just for 7 your information, that even though we see some budget 8 problems, the total expenditures still have not exceeded the 9 base year. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: And the fact that they have 11 not may jeopardize our future ability to obtain state funds 12 to participate in what we pay for indigent defense. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Any opposed to the motion? 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget 17 Amendment Request Number 4. 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 4 is a request from -- 19 from the County Jail to transfer $677.39 from Jailer 20 Salaries, $475 to Employee Medical Exams, $103.76 to Office 21 Supplies, and $98.63 to Prisoner Supplies. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 25 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 4. Any question 7-25-05 131 1 or comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 2 your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 7 Amendment Request Number 5. 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 5 is -- is for the 9 198th District Court. The request is to transfer $730 from 10 Special Trials, transferring $100 to Books, Publications, 11 and Dues and $630 for the Special Court Reporter line item. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 15 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 5. Any question 16 or comment? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Going back to 18 the court reporter -- Commissioner Baldwin isn't here today, 19 so I thought I'd bring this up. Okay, we're -- we pay 20 them -- when they have to do appeals, they have to do a 21 transcript, generally we have to pay them additional above 22 and beyond their normal county salary -- I lost my train of 23 thought. (Laughter.) 24 MR. TOMLINSON: I know what you -- I can 25 anticipate your question. I can anticipate your question. 7-25-05 132 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's my -- give me an 2 answer to my anticipated question, please. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Some -- on occasion, when the 4 -- since we have a -- two judges that are in seven other 5 counties, sometimes they appoint a substitute judge to hear 6 a case when they're out of town, and in those cases, there's 7 not a court reporter available for -- for that trial, so 8 they have -- they have to appoint a court reporter for that 9 court. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. That's a good 11 answer. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: That's exactly what this is 13 for. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Do I have a motion and second? 15 MS. PIEPER: Yes. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or 17 comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 18 your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 23 Amendment Request Number 6. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 6 is a request from 25 Constable, Precinct 1, to move $3.80 from Capital Outlay to 7-25-05 133 1 Office Supplies. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 5 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 6. Any question 6 or comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 7 your right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget 12 Amendment Request 7. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 7 is a request from 14 the District Clerk to transfer $112.10 from Part-Time 15 Salaries to Miscellaneous. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. What's 17 miscellaneous? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Actually, it's -- this bill 19 is for the remaining balance of -- of a public notice that 20 was in the -- that was a publication in the newspaper that 21 she does not have a line item for. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we have a second? 23 MS. PIEPER: No. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 7-25-05 134 1 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 7. Any question 2 or comment? 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: The motion does carry. Budget 8 Amendment Request Number 8. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 8 is a -- is for the 10 County Treasurer -- between the County Treasurer's office 11 and Nondepartmental for the replacement of a monitor -- no, 12 I'm sorry, a typewriter for that office. And the request is 13 to transfer $314.99 from the Computer/Telephone line item in 14 Nondepartmental to Operating Equipment in the Treasurer's 15 office. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 19 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 8. Any question 20 or comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 21 your right hand. 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 7-25-05 135 1 Amendment Request 9. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: 9 is -- is for the County 3 Auditor's office. I'm requesting a transfer of $38.99 from 4 Operating Equipment and $100 from Telephone into Office 5 Supplies. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 9 approval of Budget Amendment Request 9. Any question or 10 comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 11 your right hand. 12 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 14 (No response.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 16 Amendment Request 10. 17 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 10 is for Road and 18 Bridge. The request is to transfer $1,572.29 from their 19 Contingency line item to their Workers' Comp line item. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What created that 21 problem? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we -- in general, we -- 23 when we budget for worker's comp, we budget based on our 24 anticipated payroll. During the following year -- during 25 the fiscal year, we get -- we actually get an audit from the 7-25-05 136 1 worker's comp -- from TAC, a worker's comp audit, and 2 depending on how well we anticipated the prior year's 3 premiums, then they -- it depends; that determines either if 4 we get money back or we owe more. So, this year, the way 5 I'm recalling it is that as a result of our audit, we added 6 some premium, and also we -- we had a sizable increase in -- 7 in salaries for -- for '04-'05 over '03-'04. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Of course, a lot of that 10 increase was in the high-risk employees, and the high-risk 11 employees are jailers, Sheriff's Office personnel, and Road 12 and Bridge. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 16 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 10. Have we 17 reviewed the job classification of the employees? Do we use 18 that to make sure that they're in the proper classification 19 so that we get the best rate available on each one? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, we do. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: On each employee? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: We do. And, as a matter of 23 fact, we -- we have found errors that TAC has made before on 24 that issue. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That can make a significant 7-25-05 137 1 difference if they're not properly classified, can't it? 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, yes. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is also -- this is 4 part of the -- private business will do the same thing with 5 their payroll every year, and it's part of the zero risk for 6 insurance companies law. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Retro audit, is what it is. 8 Any further question or comment? All in favor of the 9 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 14 Amendment Request Number 11. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. 11 is the same issue. 16 It's for the general fund, and we need to transfer the 17 $26,405.34 from Special Trials to Worker's Comp. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is the other 19 part -- this is the other shoe that's dropping. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The heavy one. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: The big shoe. 23 MR. PEARSON: Yeah, right. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Just be glad we had funds in 7-25-05 138 1 Special Trials. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I need a second, right? 3 MS. PIEPER: There's no motion. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I made a motion. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 7 approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 11. Any 8 question or comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by 9 raising your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 14 Amendment Request Number 12. The Sheriff brings money, but 15 then he's going to expend it too. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it's temporary. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, always remember 18 that. Temporary. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: I'm going to have to pull 20 this amendment. We got a phone call from TAC this morning, 21 that the amount of the check that they gave us was wrong, 22 and so we're going to have to send the check back. 23 MR. PEARSON: Uh-oh. 24 MR. TOMLINSON: And they announced they will 25 do whatever they need to do and send us another one. In the 7-25-05 139 1 meantime, I'll ask the Sheriff if he -- he has funds in his 2 seizure account to go ahead and make the payoff on this 3 vehicle. This vehicle is -- is one that was involved in an 4 accident with an insured party that only had $15,000 5 liability coverage. So, there's some -- there's some issues 6 between our carrier and the insured, and there's also some 7 issues about whether or not we wanted to keep the -- the 8 equipment out of the vehicle. So I think we're all on the 9 same page, other than the fact that they gave us the wrong 10 amount. So -- 11 JUDGE TINLEY: You anticipate the amount that 12 we're going to get being higher or lower? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Less. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot less. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: A lot less. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What this is, Judge -- 17 and we've been dealing with TAC all last week. This is a 18 car that got hit head-on by an underinsured motorist, and 19 there -- his insurance company was going to pay us what his 20 limit was, which was -- wouldn't even cover anything here. 21 The car was totaled. So, TAC decided that they would take 22 it on; they'd pay it, and let them go after the underinsured 23 motorist, however they want to do it. The County does not 24 have uninsured motorist coverage or anything -- or no 25 coverage, so we're looking at it. But TAC sent us a check, 7-25-05 140 1 and then we noticed that it was a little bit higher than 2 what we anticipated. Not much, but when we called them to 3 try and get an explanation, "Is this because y'all want to 4 keep the equipment that's in the car, or do we get it back?" 5 They could not tell us where they got their figure from. A 6 virus hit their computer and ate it all, so we had to start 7 all over. Well, this last deal they gave us Friday was 8 that, as a matter of fact, we're going to deduct all the 9 equipment off the amount that they're giving us back, 10 because we can still reuse that equipment. And then the 11 other thing they said is if we deducted another $800 off of 12 it, they would give us the car. The car is a 2003 Ford LTD 13 that, in reality, you can even still start the motor on it. 14 It -- it is totaled because of some frame damage or whatever 15 on it, but it's only got 31,000 miles. It's still got good 16 doors, good fenders, you know, except for the front end part 17 of it, good motor and good transmission, and I think we can 18 make that $800 up real quick on being able to use those 19 parts and salvage out those parts and motor for our other 20 cars. So, for an $800 cost on that, I told them to send 21 that back; that we want to keep the car, and we'll keep it 22 and just use it for parts and everything. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this one of your 24 vehicles that's maybe only a year old? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 2003, okay? It's one of 7-25-05 141 1 the two that we totaled this last year. But the problem is, 2 the payoff on this car is right at 10,000. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: It's eight -- the payoff is 4 8,890.65. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that has to be paid 6 by the 28th of this month or it goes up because of the way 7 Ford Motor Credit does. And since we're going to have to 8 mail back the check we just got, we're not going to have 9 that there, so I told Tommy we could go ahead and pay that 10 8,000 out of our seizure account, as long as when the check 11 did come and we got it back, it will have that amount, and 12 we get it back in our seizure account. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Trust us, Rusty. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. That's why I'm 15 making a statement right here and it's on the court record, 16 'cause I want that 8,000 back. But I think it will, in the 17 long run, benefit the County and save us on parts and other 18 things. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: That's not to say that you've 20 instructed your officers to create a situation where they 21 can use these pieces, is it? 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, unfortunately, 23 Judge, this weekend they did hit one, and it's not going to 24 meet the deductible. And it took out a fender and that 25 during the run in to an alarm call, and, unfortunately, a 7-25-05 142 1 very large dog stepped out and took out the deer guard and 2 front lights and everything else of the car, so some of 3 these parts may have to be used already. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, do we need a budget 5 amendment of any kind? 6 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just going to pass on it 8 until we can get everything worked out. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do you have any other 10 budget amendments, Mr. Auditor? 11 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any late bills? 13 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: No late bills. With regard to 15 reports, I have before me monthly reports submitted by 16 Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3, District Clerk and County 17 Attorney. Do I hear a motion that these reports be approved 18 as submitted? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved -- second. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 22 approval of the designated reports as submitted. Any 23 question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify 24 by raising your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7-25-05 143 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we 4 want to defer on Section 5 of the agenda until after the -- 5 or do we want to go ahead and cover it? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know what Section 7 5 is, but I want to defer. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: That's reports. Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The information. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we will stand in recess 11 until 1:30. 12 (Recess taken from 12:13 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 13 - - - - - - - - - - 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to 15 order for the Commissioners Court meeting that was scheduled 16 for this date. We recessed shortly after the noon hour to 17 resume at 1:30. It's a bit past that now. Item 23 on the 18 agenda, consider and discuss EMS contract with City of 19 Kerrville. Commissioner Letz, I think you placed this 20 matter on the agenda. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, sir. Based on our 22 workshop with the representatives of the City a week or so 23 ago, I think we left that workshop with the County being 24 asked to prepare a counterproposal to the City, and I 25 thought we'd just put on it the agenda, see if we could 7-25-05 144 1 develop that today. And my thought would be -- you know, I 2 know that I handed out a few thoughts that I had. I 3 received similar comments from Commissioner Williams and 4 also Commissioner Nicholson. By my reading of these three, 5 we're not real far apart, really, on how we're thinking. 6 Which shouldn't be a surprise, because at the workshop we 7 were all pretty much in agreement there that we needed -- 8 that we disagreed with some of the approach the City was 9 taking on trying to base the contract on run time. And, you 10 know, I'll pretty much leave it up to both of my colleagues 11 to discuss both of their proposals. 12 My proposal basically is that, I mean, if 13 there is a budget shortfall, I think it should be based 14 primarily on usage. Which, based on the number we received 15 from the City of Kerrville in the May 3rd letter, 16 26.11 percent of the calls are -- are to the county, and the 17 balance being to the city or to Ingram, and I think that 18 should be the basic, I guess, network for funding of any 19 shortfall. Commissioner Williams, I know, has another 20 number that's lower than that that he received in a 21 different communication from the City. It's slightly less 22 than 25 percent, so I kind of rounded up to -- 25 percent 23 seems to be a good starting point number. And then I think 24 that there is some sort of an allowance that needs to be 25 made for the length of -- distance of calls that go into the 7-25-05 145 1 county, and I put that as -- somewhat as a surcharge. Maybe 2 the first year, a flat fee, but then base that on actual 3 calls in the future. As I understand it, the City did not 4 have their records broken down in that way, so they couldn't 5 really tell us how many calls -- or where the calls went in 6 the county. They just gave us a gross number of calls to 7 the county. So, that's kind of my ideas. 8 I also want to hand out -- I received this 9 from a member of the public; he asked me to hand this out, 10 so I will. It's entitled "Points to Ponder Concerning EMS 11 Contract." Just some different ideas. I read through them. 12 They're -- I agree with some, don't agree with some, but 13 they're on the table as well, I guess. But I just open it 14 up to the other -- my colleagues and see what their views 15 are. I know Commissioner Nicholson's idea of user-pay, I 16 really like incorporating that into a counterproposal. And 17 I think Commissioner Williams had some ideas as well. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll go ahead and 19 describe this for the benefit of -- not necessarily the 20 Court -- others that are listening. I started with the 21 assumption that when EMS was moved from private service to 22 the city providing that service, that there was an intent 23 that user fees would cover the costs of service. I think 24 subsequent to preparing this, I've learned that was not 25 exactly correct; that even that first year, there was a 7-25-05 146 1 projected shortfall, and the County and the City did pay a 2 shortfall. And, so, first year and thereafter, the fees 3 have not covered the costs of services, but the -- the gap 4 has widened every year for a variety of reasons. One of 5 them is Medicare not paying -- as our costs go up, Medicare 6 payments don't go up at the same rate, and uncollectibles 7 and bad debt has gone up. So, we went from a small 8 shortfall in '94 to one that they say could be $400,000 this 9 year. 10 I think this kind of service is one that's 11 very amenable to a user-pay concept. And it's different 12 than some other services in that, one, insurance pays. Some 13 kind of insurance pays for these kind of calls, and it could 14 easily attribute the call to a specific user. You couldn't, 15 for example, establish a user-pay concept for police or fire 16 protection or something like that, because -- because of 17 those two factors. So, just to see what it would look like, 18 I've made some -- used some round numbers and made some 19 assumptions. And the assumptions were that operating 20 capital costs would be $2 million, and that billings would 21 be $2 million. And then bad debt write-off would be 22 20 percent of billings; that's what it was last year. And 23 disalloweds are 25 percent of billings. And then if you 24 went to a user-pay concept, disalloweds would increase from 25 25 percent to 35 percent of fees, and I pulled that number 7-25-05 147 1 out of the air. I -- I'm sure that the disalloweds as a 2 percent of total would go up if fees went up. So, the 3 break-even point if you have $2 million in costs would be to 4 charge $3.1 million in revenue. That would take about a 5 55 percent, I think it is, increase in fees. 6 And to give you a feel for what that would 7 do, the basic life support fee would increase from $331 to 8 $513, and advanced life support would increase from $448 to 9 $695, and local transport fee would increase from $80 to 10 $125. The -- I don't see -- if we increased them to these 11 new amounts, I don't see that there's any way anybody would 12 think that was exorbitant. Local transport fee, I view it 13 as a -- a taxi service or limo service with qualified EMS on 14 board. It's a way -- and members of my family have used it. 15 It's a way to get from Sid Peterson Hospital to the -- to 16 the Parsons House. It's transport. And, so, paying $125 17 for that necessary service instead of $80 would not be a 18 significant burden, I don't think. What this would do, 19 increasing the fees by that 55 percent or so, would save the 20 city and county taxpayers $400,000. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I came at it a little 22 differently, but some of my conclusions are the same as 23 Commissioner Nicholson's. The Judge asked me a question 24 this morning, and I had to go back to my pile of stuff here 25 to ferret out the answer, because there is a disparity in 7-25-05 148 1 terms of utilization. Before I get into that, let me just 2 make a comment. I don't know where this "Points to Ponder" 3 came from, but there are some very good ones here, and some 4 of them that I think we're going to be talking about today, 5 and some that we should be talking about if we haven't in 6 the past. But I had to go back to a couple documents here, 7 just to kind of see if we can get ourselves on the right 8 page. And that first document we got from the City was 9 dated May 3, and it came from then City Manager Ron 10 Patterson, and he made -- made the case for what revenues 11 were and what expenditures were and what the County -- what 12 he believed the County's utilization was and what he 13 believed the County's financial commitment should be. And 14 from that, then, we -- we went and we looked at that, and I 15 think that basically was the document we spoke from when we 16 had the joint workshop meeting here with the County. 17 And then Commissioner Baldwin and I were 18 gumming this issue one day as to what information we would 19 need in addition to help us work our way through this issue, 20 and together we put together a list -- compiled a list of 21 things we wanted from the City, and over a memorandum over 22 Commissioner Baldwin's signature dated June 2, we listed 23 several things that we'd like to have provided to us that 24 weren't provided in the City Manager's material he submitted 25 to us. Balance sheet, financial statements of October 3, 7-25-05 149 1 2003 to-date, accounts receivable history, cash accounts, 2 schedule of rates and fees, fixed payroll costs, overtime 3 runs relating to the county, if any, and the number of calls 4 actually -- actual count for both the City and the County. 5 And that one's interesting, because the 6 number we came back with from -- and this information was 7 provided back to us based on that list by Mr. Brooks, who's 8 the financial director or in the financial department at the 9 City of Kerrville, and one of his documents that he 10 submitted doesn't comport to the utilization statistics that 11 were provided to us by the then City Manager in his -- in 12 his document of May 3, and it's a month later. And 13 whereas -- whereas the City Manager had indicated that 14 utilization showed 69.18 percent attributable to calls 15 within the city and 26.11 percent attributable to calls in 16 the county or outside the city limits, however you want to 17 define that, the second document we got showed inside city 18 limits calls to be 76 percent -- 76.11 percent, and outside 19 the city limits, not including Ingram, 20.17. So, there's a 20 disparity for openers right there. There's a disparity on 21 the city utilization of almost 7 points, and a reduction on 22 the City -- on the County utilization of something like 6 23 percentage points. Okay. 24 So, you know, we said, "Okay, where's that 25 going? Where's that leading us?" So I took a look at, over 7-25-05 150 1 the weekend, some more stuff; again, some of the information 2 that was put together by Mr. Brooks, but this time was in 3 response to Judge Tinley's letter, and -- and, again, it 4 just didn't kind of add up. The way I see it, if you -- if 5 you sort through the revenue and expenses, I find that there 6 is $1,700,508 in revenue that is available to cover expenses 7 without the city subsidy, and that's just where we're hung 8 up here. The City has put in a subsidy and claims a subsidy 9 of $129,000 and change. By my calculation, there was 10 $1,700,508 available to pay bills, expenses of the system, 11 and by my same calculations, I find that there is $1,761,469 12 in -- in expenses, not the 1.9 million that was given to us 13 in the printout. So, that only leaves a shortfall of -- of 14 only $61,000. And, you know, if you take out the City's 15 subsidy, there's 1,700,000. If you take their subsidy out. 16 So, if there's only a shortfall of $61,000, and if we go a 17 little bit further and if we remove the City's 5 percent 18 fund balance, which is their requirement, of $84,000, and if 19 we remove from this calculation transfers out -- transfers 20 out of this budget back to the City's general operating fund 21 of another $70,000, there is an excess of revenue over 22 expenses of $94,000. That's the way I calculate it. 23 Now, they have a policy that says they have 24 to try to retain 5 percent fund balance, and that's okay. I 25 think that's a good policy for them, and they operate that 7-25-05 151 1 way, and that means they're sequestering their own tax 2 dollars out of their own budget departments or compartments, 3 and they're holding it over. That's fine and dandy. But if 4 you apply that same theory to us, they're saying to us, 5 "That policy applies to you," so that means the County's 6 putting up part of the money that goes into their own 7 reserves, and I don't like that idea, even though it might 8 be a very small amount of money. So, I think -- I think we 9 have some hecking out to do here. The way I see it, I see 10 that there's enough money -- if you take out those two 11 items, there's sufficient dollars to cover the expenses of 12 the system as we know it today without any subsidy. And if 13 we were to take away a couple other things, for example, the 14 removal of the -- the removal of capital replacement, those 15 dollars, build those into the rate structure, spread out 16 over -- over all of the calls that are made, based on the -- 17 based on the useful life of an ambulance and the -- and the 18 related equipment, so we know exactly how much it costs to 19 replace an ambulance and all that equipment, and spread that 20 over the user base over -- over the useful life of -- of 21 that piece of equipment, you're going to recover those 22 dollars and those dollars are going to be available to buy a 23 new ambulance. 24 By the same token, if you get into the 25 disallowables and you spread the disallowables across the 7-25-05 152 1 user base, there certainly is no need for a subsidy by 2 either party, the City or the County. And I don't want to 3 see the City have to subsidize it and I don't want to see 4 the County have to subsidize it, so I think, you know, some 5 tweaking in terms of the system. And if we really get 6 serious about what the user should or should not pay, I'm on 7 the same page as Commissioner Nicholson on this, and 8 apparently on the same page as Commissioner Letz. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, there's two 10 issues. There's, one, what portion -- if there's a 11 shortfall, what portion should the County pay? And then the 12 other issue is, what can we recommend the City do to improve 13 their system? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And their -- and their -- 16 you know, the second one has a direct impact on the first 17 one. You know, I think that, you know, in our proposal back 18 to the City, we should recommend they adjust their fee 19 structure upwards to incorporate most of the loss that 20 they're experiencing, if not all of it. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, you -- you bring 22 up a good point, and I asked the question during our 23 workshop about whether they were limited at recovering only 24 the Medicare allowable charge or whether they could pursue 25 110 or a hundred -- I think it's 115 percent of the Medicare 7-25-05 153 1 allowable charge. The information we got was that they were 2 only pursuing up to the amount of Medicare allowable. I had 3 not received an answer to that. They, frankly, didn't know 4 during the course of the workshop. But if we're talking 5 another 15 percent of the allowable Medicare charges that 6 they're not even attempting to collect, if they have the 7 ability to attempt to collect that, we can be talking about 8 a significant sum of money. Because their tale of woe is 9 that the disallowables from Medicare are -- are what's 10 killing them, and it's driving this deficit, so an 11 additional 15 percent on -- on the Medicare allowables could 12 be a pretty sizable chunk of money thrown into the equation. 13 With an increase in rate structure and -- and some other 14 efficiencies, it could make a significant difference. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, added onto that -- 16 and I'm assuming that these -- the handout we were given is 17 somewhat correct, and it implies that Medicare/Medicaid 18 reimburses on loaded mileage, which means that the runs into 19 the county where there is someone picked up, that Medicare 20 pays more on those than runs into the city, which also goes 21 back to that. And it doesn't appear, from what the City 22 told us at the meeting, that they're doing that. It kind of 23 -- but I think it still goes back to the issue that I think 24 there's two -- I mean, one, we need to figure out a -- a 25 proposal to give the City if there is a budget shortfall. I 7-25-05 154 1 mean, I think we need to address that, and that may or may 2 not be. And if there's a surplus, I think this fund would 3 come back out the same way. I mean, if we're going to enter 4 into an agreement with them and there's a budget surplus, it 5 should be shared, I think, proportionately as well, based on 6 the contract -- interlocal agreement we have with the City. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is the author of 8 "Points to Ponder" here today, whoever wrote this? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know who did it, but I 10 too am -- I think it's a good document, and I appreciate 11 having that information. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to go 13 back to -- 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To follow on to what 15 the Judge said -- and I may be being redundant, maybe. We 16 said this in our meeting workshop with the City, but we're 17 providing -- these two governments are providing a medical 18 service, and they provide the medical service just like my 19 doctor does, and he deals with Medicare and he deals with 20 deadbeats that won't pay. And he does get compensated. And 21 what he does is charge me and others who pay the full -- 22 full ride an amount that's sufficient to cover his operating 23 costs and provide himself a compensation. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hospital does the 25 same thing. 7-25-05 155 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Hospital does the 2 same thing, and that seems like a pretty simple formula. It 3 seems like it's -- the hospital and the local M.D. are in 4 the same business as we are. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got to go back to 6 what the Judge was saying a little bit about disallowables. 7 If you look at this revenue analysis that was provided to us 8 for the fiscal year '04-'05, total revenues -- which 9 included the disallowables of $566,000 -- total revenues 10 were 1.830, or rounded off. So, if you take away the City's 11 subsidy of 129, the -- without that, there was $1,700,508 12 available to pay the expenses, which were 1,761,000. So, 13 you know, the allowables are clearly in there, and they -- 14 they shouldn't be -- they shouldn't be the issue that 15 separates us. I want to -- I want the record to clearly 16 reflect that I want us to be able to work out a situation. 17 I really do. I don't want the County to get into the EMS 18 service if we can at all avoid doing it. And if we can find 19 an equitable solution to this, I want us to do that. But I 20 think some things can be done to do the things that the 21 Commissioner's talking about -- the Judge and Commissioner 22 Letz are talking about, and I think we have to suggest that 23 those things happen. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I still think we need to 25 address the issue, if there is a shortfall, of what we pay. 7-25-05 156 1 And I think that is primarily based on usage with some sort 2 of surcharge for mileage if -- you know, for longer runs. I 3 think it also needs to be noted that the County's taken 4 action in western Kerr County to eliminate those long runs. 5 They're now being served by Kimble County, and trying to 6 work out a deal, and verbally have one, with Kendall County 7 to take some of the load off the far eastern part of the 8 county. So, the longest runs that they said was costing 9 them the most money are no longer going to be part of this 10 -- of the system. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think in order to 12 do that -- I agree with you, Commissioner. I think we need 13 to -- there needs to be a new, detailed map of Kerr County, 14 what the service area is. That would eliminate the far west 15 Kerr part that we -- we willed over to Kimble County, and 16 whatever that piece of eastern Kerr is that you believe that 17 -- that can be served equitably and rapidly out of Comfort, 18 Kendall County, and that then becomes a map. I think we 19 also need to define what's a local call. Is it just within 20 the city limits? Is it within the city limits or the ETJ? 21 What's the average time and mileage it takes to make a local 22 call? And whatever that time and mileage is, particularly 23 the mileage, anything above that, I believe the County has a 24 responsibility. And if the average call is a 7-mile call or 25 an 8-mile call or 12 miles round trip, whatever it is, 7-25-05 157 1 anything above that, I think we have responsibility for 2 reimbursing excess mileage and so forth. I believe that's 3 equitable. I think we -- the County should continue to 4 subsidize the Medical Director and the First Responders as 5 we have done. What we need to do -- and I think the rate 6 structure needs to be recalculated so that neither the City 7 nor the County has a subsidy. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, 9 without wanting to make the formula too complex, I would not 10 mind if we went to a user-pay -- I would not mind if the 11 people out in the county paid more than the people in the 12 city. And I don't want to refine it where Ingram pays more 13 than Mountain Home and others, but I wouldn't mind people in 14 the -- outside the city limits paying more, acknowledging 15 that it costs a little more to get out there. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You could have zones. 17 You could have city limits, Zone 1, which would basically be 18 the ETJ or close to it. Then you could have a -- you 19 know -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any number of ways to 21 do it, yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, I would -- I 23 mean, it seems like we're probably close enough to be able 24 to come up with a -- a motion to go back to the City on, 25 which is intended for today. But I also think this is a 7-25-05 158 1 very important issue, and I want -- I hate to leave it open 2 to a very -- a vague motion, and I recommend that we take a 3 brief recess and let Commissioner Williams, who's the best 4 author amongst us, try to put together a -- you know, an 5 outline of what we are proposing, and then come back in, 6 like, 15 minutes and see if we can have something that we 7 can actually vote on. And then send that over to the City, 8 or authorize -- then give it to the Judge to send it out 9 with a cover letter. Because I think this is too important 10 to have vague -- a vague proposal to go to the City. We can 11 go down through the list, if, you know, Commissioner 12 Williams wants more direction, or does he think he has 13 enough? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm seeing six eyes 15 looking at me here. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: For those of you in the 17 audience that are not aware, our resident wordsmith is 18 seated to my immediate right, and any time there's 19 wordsmithing to be done, and I -- I fess up to being the 20 most guilty of all -- I try and task Commissioner Williams. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I get ready to -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: He comes by this legitimately. 23 MR. MOORE: Yeah, but is he any good at it? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I've found him to be quite 25 good at it, sir. 7-25-05 159 1 MR. MOORE: Or you wouldn't be using him. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Excellent. Yes, I've found 3 him to be quite good at it. That's why we call him our 4 resident wordsmith. 5 MR. MOORE: God love him. He volunteers 6 willingly, I can tell. Are you gentlemen open to any 7 questions about this discussion at all? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll take all the input we 9 can get. Please come forward and let us know what's on your 10 mind. And, of course, Mr. Evans wanted to be heard on this 11 also. 12 MR. EVANS: Go ahead, I'll follow you. 13 MR. MOORE: I'm Edward Moore. I live in 14 Upper Turtle Creek on Molina, and I'm one of the volunteers 15 at Turtle Creek out there. And because of this, I carry a 16 radio all the time. Being nice, I turn it off when I'm in 17 places like this; you don't give me dirty looks. Do any of 18 you have any idea how many ambulances this city supplies? 19 Actual ambulances? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, on a -- 21 MR. MOORE: Two? Three? Four? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On calls? Or total in 23 their inventory? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I always thought 25 there were three; is that correct? 7-25-05 160 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought it was two 2 actually on call; then they had the other one they were 3 doing transports with. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: They then got a transport -- 5 MR. MOORE: You got it right. That's what I 6 wanted to find out. Because there's a morning check that 7 the City does, a morning check with the stations and their 8 on-call ambulances and all personnel, and there's -- I'm of 9 the opinion that there's four ambulances available at any 10 time. You said it. I'm of the opinion that two of those 11 are transports. They do V.A. transports, they do 12 hospital-to-hospital transport. So, God, I would only hope 13 that they're close to paying for themselves, because that's, 14 until about three days ago, what their only duty appears to 15 be. So, we're talking -- my decision is we're talking about 16 two vehicles that can come out to the county to assist me 17 and my family or neighbors. So, whenever I hear this thing, 18 and I hear reports that there's been an accident, unknown 19 injuries, "Do you think we should send EMS?" The reply 20 always is, "You really should." No, we don't know what's 21 going on out there, but that EMS usually goes, I'm telling 22 you straight out. And I think it's a good thing. But also, 23 we get refusals from out in the county. "I wrecked my car; 24 I'm pretty bunged up, but I'm not going with you." So, 25 there's a dispatch to the county, which is farther, takes 7-25-05 161 1 more time, burns more hours, things of that nature. 2 So, my concern is that the -- if we're going 3 to go into a use time on it, keep in mind that the little 4 old gal three blocks from the hospital called and got her 5 little grandchild taken to EMS over here because it had a 6 fever. Who paid for that? Probably nobody, because 7 that's -- they got that done. So some of these figures 8 you're looking at on these dispatches and things, I think 9 you're right, you need to look into them a little better 10 than what they're representing. I want the service. I want 11 the county to have it. I don't want a private service. But 12 I think we should pay for it fairly and justly. And when I 13 saw those moneys that they just wanted you to arbitrarily 14 pay -- that's what I assumed from what I read; that's it, 15 stonewall, 200 grand, and you're not getting... Gentlemen, 16 work on it. I think you can do it for us. I think you can. 17 And you -- your numbers are pretty good, if they're right. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just -- 19 MR. MOORE: Thank you, gentlemen. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I picked them out of 21 their numbers. 22 MR. MOORE: That's what I said; they're 23 pretty good if they're right. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Vaughn Evans. 25 MR. EVANS: My name is Vaughn Evans. I live 7-25-05 162 1 up north of the interstate on Vaughn Trail. I'm a proponent 2 of the EMS. I think that it's certainly essential. I've 3 never called them; hopefully I never will have to, but I 4 read the article in the paper where there was a 500,000-plus 5 shortfall of payment for services rendered. Is that 6 correct? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What they call 8 disallowables. 9 MR. EVANS: Well, that's on the Medicare 10 disallowables. And then -- and then you've got the -- the 11 expense of those services not covered, that people just 12 didn't pay. Well, you know, if you call 9-1-1 and it's just 13 on a lark, that's a criminal act. You know, it's a 14 violation of the law. And, certainly, to not pay for 15 services rendered by the EMS when they come and save your 16 life, whatever, if you don't pay, that ought to be a 17 criminal act, absolutely. I mean, it's like writing a hot 18 check, right? So I think that -- that, you know, there's 19 such things as credit cards. If they don't have the cash in 20 the bank, they don't have the money in pocket, by george, 21 put it on their credit card, but pay it. Because we need 22 the EMS desperately, okay? 23 Now, I'd like to say this about the Medicare. 24 I -- you mentioned your doctor. My son's a doctor. 25 25 percent of all the work that he does is free, gratis, 7-25-05 163 1 because when somebody shows up at the emergency room, he has 2 to render service, plus all subsequent service for that call 3 to the emergency room, even if they don't pay. Okay. Now, 4 Medicare -- some of the Medicare fees that are paid to him 5 for services rendered don't even cover his own expenses as a 6 doctor, so you're right, a lot of the doctors will go ahead 7 and jack up their prices because you cannot mark that off as 8 a bad debt. Say, if you were in the hardware business and 9 somebody gave you a check that didn't go through four or 10 five times, and you finally say, "Hey, I'll just mark it off 11 my income tax as a bad debt." Doctor can't do that. 12 He's -- he's a horse of a different color, okay? 13 So, one of the things that I think people 14 should consider, one, people on Medicare have a deductible. 15 If they haven't met that deductible, by gosh, they ought to 16 be paying EMS for it, okay? When Medicare says, "Well, 17 we're going to pay $100 for this," they're only going to pay 18 80. They pay 80 percent of -- of the fees charged that are 19 allowable. The patient is responsible for the other 20 20 percent. And, just as your doctor, my son doesn't get 21 paid that 20 percent. Now, if he doesn't take 22 consignment -- in other words, if he doesn't say, "Well, 23 I'll take what Medicare sends me," they send a check to the 24 patient and he never sees a dime of it, so it's better to go 25 ahead and say I'll take consignment and get the 80 percent 7-25-05 164 1 in-hand, because you're not going to get the other 2 20 percent from a lot of people. It seems to me that if you 3 make failure to pay for services rendered a criminal act, 4 that they can be fined and they can have a lien placed 5 against property with high interest rates, whatever it takes 6 to maintain the EMS for the good of everyone, and just -- 7 you know what I'm talking about. Okay, thank you. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Evans. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if I may make one 10 other comment, I want to make it real clear, 'cause I do see 11 several members of the press here. You know, I think -- and 12 I think the Court has said it numerous times, and everyone 13 in the public I've talked to, they're -- they're very happy 14 with the quality of service coming from the City of 15 Kerrville. They do a great job, their techs and paramedics 16 and all the EMS, all that. I mean, there's not an issue 17 with service. It's just a matter of the -- the amount of 18 any subsidy that's required and the fee structure. One 19 thing that we didn't mention -- Mr. Evans alluded to it 20 briefly -- is collections. The County has a very aggressive 21 Collections Department when it comes to our court cases, and 22 I think it was Commissioner Williams' handout that 23 recommended that as soon as they go delinquent, all the 24 county accounts get turned over to our Collections 25 Department. And if the City wants us to handle their 7-25-05 165 1 collections too, we can probably handle them. I mean -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- our Collections 4 Department does a very good job of collecting funds from 5 people that frequently say they don't have any, so I think 6 that collections is another area we can make up a little bit 7 of shortfall. And I think it's -- we need to use -- or 8 recommend the City go with -- you know, you work on the 9 Medicare -- on the collection. If it's 115 percent, well, 10 we go there. If we can get a little bit more on the 11 collections, we can go on that side, raise fees. I think we 12 need to get the system as much a pay-as-you-go system as 13 possible. And if there is a shortfall, I think the County 14 should pay its fair share. I think that should be based on 15 usage. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that -- 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just one comment in 18 regards to just what Mr. Letz was saying about service. You 19 know, I agree, I don't like paying a 400-something-dollar 20 ambulance bill for them to run out to the jail, but the 21 County does, even though we subsidize it. But one thing 22 they do do that I don't think anybody takes into account, 23 'cause it is -- fire and EMS does, like, this weekend we 24 used their dive team. We don't get a bill for any of that 25 kind of stuff. I know a number of times we'll use the fire 7-25-05 166 1 trucks themselves to wash down a gas spill when a volunteer 2 truck isn't available, or their absorption -- sand and that 3 to absorb, you know, hazardous chemicals, and we never get 4 billed for that kind of stuff. So, these are things more on 5 the fire department side than the EMS side, although 6 normally when they -- like, the dive team, they'll have an 7 ambulance standing by there with them too, just in case. I 8 think they do do a lot of good services. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there is -- there's 10 another whole set of -- a fire subsidy as well. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We pay -- 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 125,000. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 125,000. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But such as the dive 16 team, they send an ambulance out there. They'll sit there 17 unless somebody gets injured during that. You're normally 18 not going to need them. If they're not needed, they come 19 back in, but they still provide it. You know, hazardous 20 search warrants we have, they'll always send one out for 21 standby on those situations. We don't get billed if nothing 22 happens. So, they do get a lot of other services. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: My sense of it is that we're 24 at kind of a -- kind of a break point here; that we need to 25 try and get some sort of a definitive checklist of bullet 7-25-05 167 1 points, whatever, put together, and I think we need to give 2 Commissioner Williams, since he's the one who seems to have 3 been selected unanimously to cover this, the time and 4 opportunity to do that. So, why don't we stand in recess 5 for, oh, 15, 20 minutes and let him do his magic. We'll be 6 in recess. 7 (Recess taken from 2:06 p.m. to 2:28 p.m.) 8 - - - - - - - - - - 9 (Commissioners Court reconvened without Commissioner Williams being present.) 10 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. In the interests of 12 time -- let's come back to order, and in the interests of 13 time, I understand the -- the Auditor has an item that he 14 failed to present earlier when we were doing budget 15 amendments, and then we're also going to try and take care 16 of some other business while Commissioner Williams and the 17 admin work on the proposal that's being worked up. Do you 18 want to come on forward, Mr. Auditor? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: I had this turned upside down 20 in my folder earlier, and I just totally skipped it. But 21 part of -- this is really a report -- an analysis of the 22 cash flow for the Juvenile Detention Facility through 23 9-30-05. It shows the June 30 cash balance, and in an 24 average month of revenues, that's -- that average is since 25 the last three or four months, and then the average monthly 7-25-05 168 1 expenditures, which is 148,000, with average monthly 2 revenues of 83. So, I -- I projected, then, with the -- 3 with the cash balance, with -- with revenues and 4 expenditures, an ending cash balance of approximately 5 $30,000. The problem is that when -- when we budgeted in 6 January, we budgeted only the -- only an amount for the 7 following nine months. We didn't budget any revenues for -- 8 for the first quarter. So, I -- I'm -- what we need to do 9 is increase the expenditure budget by the amount of the cash 10 balance for June 30th. Right now, we have -- we have 11 approximately 228 -- 230,000 excess revenues over what we've 12 budgeted in revenues. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're increasing 14 revenues? Were not increasing -- 15 MR. TOMLINSON: No, we're increasing both, 16 actually, so I need -- we need to budget both sides of the 17 equation. I need to budget additional revenues as well as 18 additional expenditures. And I'm -- I can't guarantee that 19 this will see us through the end of the year. It's only as 20 good as my estimate, so I could be back. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, you're saying we 22 need to increase the revenues for the balance of this year 23 by 249,000 and increase expend -- 24 MR. TOMLINSON: No, I only want to budget 25 220,000, the amount of the -- of the fund balance. 7-25-05 169 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: June 30. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much do we envision 4 on the expenditure side? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: Same amount. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same amount? 7 (Commissioner Williams entered the courtroom.) 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no net change? 9 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are we talking 11 about? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Juvenile Detention 13 Facility. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: I did -- I did -- you know, I 15 wanted to call your attention to the fact that what -- how 16 material the difference is in -- in the average revenues and 17 average expenditures on a monthly basis. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, what we need to do, 19 we need to increase both the revenue side and the 20 expenditure side to get us hopefully through the end of this 21 year. I mean, it's -- it's not a net -- well, it's equal. 22 I'll make a motion that we increase the revenues $220,022 23 and expenditures $220,022 for the Kerr County Juvenile 24 Detention facility. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 7-25-05 170 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to 2 increase both revenues and expenditures for the Kerr County 3 Juvenile Detention Facility in the amount of $220,022. Any 4 question or discussion? 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. Confirm once 6 again, this does not include any money for debt service? 7 MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is no debt 9 service this year, right? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: No, there's no debt service 11 till February of '06, I believe. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or 13 discussion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising 14 your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank 19 you very much. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, when we deal with 21 the juvenile facility during the budget, just block out that 22 whole day for us to try to explain all this stuff. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I could tell you in 24 advance that there's a -- a deficit budget in that. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've seen all those 7-25-05 171 1 scenarios. We're going to talk. 2 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Well, I just -- you 3 know, I just wanted you to be aware of where we are. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know we're not into 5 budget yet, but when we get in that August 3 meeting, I'm 6 going to suggest that that one be the first order of 7 business and we devote whatever time we have necessary to 8 that. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's it for the 10 Auditor. The -- are we ready yet on the other? Doesn't 11 appear to be -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've given it to 13 Ms. Mitchell, and all of my notes, and she's going through 14 those hieroglyphics and she's going to give us a document. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Well, why don't we 16 go ahead and try and take care of the -- the executive 17 session item. It's my understanding that the Court wants to 18 go into executive session for one of the purposes specified 19 on the agenda; is that correct? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's under litigation, I 21 believe. 22 MR. EMERSON: Correct. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: So, at this time, the Court 24 will go out of open or public session and we will go into 25 executive session. Other than the members of the Court, we 7-25-05 172 1 need the reporter and the -- 2 MR. EMERSON: At least for the initial issue, 3 we would request that the County Clerk remain as an 4 essential part. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And me? 6 MR. EMERSON: And the Sheriff. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Also the Sheriff and the 10 County Clerk to remain. 11 MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. 12 (The open session was closed at 2:37 p.m., and an Executive Session was held, the 13 transcript of which is contained in a separate document.) 14 - - - - - - - - - - 15 (Recess taken from 2:54 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.) 16 - - - - - - - - - - 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order 18 into public or open session, and we are now still 19 considering Item 23, EMS contract with the City of 20 Kerrville. Commissioner Williams, do you want to go over 21 this? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, we'll go over 23 this, and then anything we want to make changes to, we can 24 come up with probably the one that gets conveyed to the 25 City. And we'll start with the headline up at the top, 7-25-05 173 1 Points to be considered in -- in the County -- in Kerr 2 County counterproposal re: EMS. That finishes that 3 statement. We would propose a revised user rate fee 4 structure, and it would include: A) Capital replacement 5 costs, B) Administrative overhead, C) Medicare/Medicaid 6 disallowables, D) Bad debts, E) Operational expenses, and F) 7 Any other expenses that are not categorical. 8 2. Tied into the rate structure, dispatch, we 9 believe, is a fixed cost and should not be included in the 10 calculations. Likewise, the 5 percent fund balance that the 11 City requires of its departments should not be -- should be 12 eliminated from the cost calculations as it would apply to 13 the County. 14 3. We need to agree -- we propose to agree on 15 a new county service area map which will identify primary 16 and secondary call responses. 17 4. We would propose developing a formula for 18 mileage into the county in excess of the average distances 19 for round-trip city calls, and we would go further to 20 propose the establishment of -- of zones, if that proves 21 helpful. If it doesn't complicate it -- if it becomes 22 helpful, we could go that route, too. 23 5. Kerr County to continue funding the 24 Medical Director, First Responder program, and EMS office 25 space lease. 7-25-05 174 1 6. Kerr County will be responsible for 2 collections of delinquent accounts for service provided to 3 county after 90 days. Kerr County will also entertain doing 4 collections of joint delinquent accounts attributed to the 5 city service deliveries if the City would like for us to do 6 that; and 7 7. Kerr County will pay up to 25 percent of 8 any projected systems shortfall based on new revision of 9 users fees and so forth and so on, and the County would 10 also -- would also pay excess mileage fees as per -- however 11 we calculate the mileage. 12 So, we need to revise that last one, Kathy. 13 Will pay excess -- "County will pay excess mileage in ETJ or 14 the zones as calculated." 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under the Item Number 1, 16 Commissioner -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- possibly, "Institute a 19 revised user rate fee structure to reflect a user-pay 20 system." 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Structure to 22 reflect -- 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This looks good. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- a user-pay system. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Under Number 6, do 7-25-05 175 1 we have a feel for whether or not our Collection Department 2 can do that without adding any collection -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think there's 4 some questions, Commissioner. Not so much about whether 5 they can do it or not, but I guess -- I think the County 6 Attorney raised with me some questions which needs to be 7 addressed as to what is the enforcement that they would have 8 in this matter? Because it differs -- if I'm wrong, Rex, 9 correct me, please -- because this differs from what they do 10 normally. They have court orders. That's what backs up 11 their authority to collect as it is now, and this would not 12 have that same backup. Am I correct, Rex -- 13 MR. EMERSON: That's correct. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- in identifying 15 those? So we'd have to take a look at what might be 16 necessary to give them the enforcement authority they needed 17 to go after -- 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: By "court orders," 19 you don't mean this court; you mean one of those courts? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I mean one of 21 those courts gives them the authority to do their 22 collections. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would definitely say 24 Kerr County will review ability of Kerr County collections 25 of delinquent accounts. 7-25-05 176 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "Will review 2 ability..." 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Of Kerr County 4 Collections Department to collect delinquent accounts. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Read the whole 6 sentence again. "Kerr County will..." 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Will review ability of 8 Kerr County Collections Department for collection of 9 delinquent accounts for service. Rather than say we'll be 10 responsible. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I made notes, 12 Kathy. 13 MS. MITCHELL: Good. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then I think under 7A, 16 did you have some additional language there? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's talk about 6 again. 18 What about the second sentence in 6? 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Probably strike it. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "If requested" should 21 be added. If requested. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On 7A, Kerr County will 24 pay 25 percent of any projected system shortfall. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: On proper accounting? 7-25-05 177 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on new fee 2 structure. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on a revised 4 fee structure. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It actually should 6 probably be based on incorporation of the above items. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Based on above 8 to the fee structure. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also put on 2, 5 -- I 10 mean, most of those points -- most of the bullets go into 11 the system shortfall. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 7A, I think it needs to 14 be based on the whole outlined program. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. We'll pay 16 25 percent provided you do everything above. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's what I'm 18 saying. Kerr County would pay up to 25 percent of any 19 projected system shortfall based on incorporation of the 20 above. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the fee structure. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's 7B going to 25 read now? 7-25-05 178 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County will -- County 2 will -- Kerr County will pay excess mileage as calculated in 3 the ETJ and/or zones as established. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion we 5 approve the counterproposal to the City of Kerrville for EMS 6 service as modified, and authorize the County Judge to 7 provide proposal -- or provide a cover letter for the 8 proposal and fax it to the City this afternoon. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 11 indicated. Any question or discussion? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment, was that 13 my intent of getting it there this afternoon is so that they 14 don't read about it in the paper tomorrow morning without 15 having received it. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I got a better solution than 17 that. We can just snag -- snag these folks and hide them 18 out for a day or two. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You've heard that 20 sermon on unity I was talking about. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or 22 discussion? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fax it on down this 24 afternoon? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Any further question or 7-25-05 179 1 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 2 your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Back to the drawing 7 board. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Anything 9 else to come before the Court? We have some information 10 items under Section 5 of the agenda. Any reports from any 11 of the Commissioners? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have nothing 13 further, Judge. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll briefly -- very 15 briefly say, on Animal Control and library, we haven't yet 16 heard from the City on our proposals on those contracts. On 17 library, a couple of things that I wanted you to know about 18 have occurred. One, I met with the chair of the Library 19 Board. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Randy Johnson. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Randy Johnson, yeah. 22 We had a very productive meeting, and he and I are pretty 23 much in agreement about the changes in governance that could 24 be made to improve the effectiveness of the library 25 management. And then the Library Board had its regular 7-25-05 180 1 meeting, and that was a good meeting. When I arrived, I 2 wasn't the most popular person there because they all read 3 the newspaper and believed some of the things they read in 4 the newspaper. Without belaboring it, we got into a very 5 good discussion, with everybody participating, about the 6 future of libraries considering the impact of the internet 7 and other information age changes, and it's exactly the kind 8 of discussion that needs to occur with involved people here. 9 And, you know, in 30 minutes you can't do a lot, but we left 10 there, I think, with everybody having a little better 11 understanding that it's not business as usual. No one of us 12 is probably right about what the future holds, but we need 13 to look at the future and -- and determine what the 14 applications of those things are on the library, and start 15 cranking that into our -- our planning for the library and 16 our budgets. So I feel pretty good that, in spite of the 17 obstacles, we've probably started a much needed 18 discussion -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- about the future 21 of the library. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even though the press may 23 have, for whatever reason, got this stirred up, maybe it's 24 good that they did, 'cause they certainly got everyone 25 concerned. 7-25-05 181 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree with you. 2 We need -- the discussion needs to occur. So, that's all. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The only thing I 4 would throw out was a -- is a call that I made to AACOG 5 regarding the VOCA grant, and subsequent calls from AACOG to 6 the governor's office resulted in the grant coming down a 7 little more expeditiously, perhaps, and enabling the actions 8 we took today. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I have is 11 that Commissioner Williams and I met with the -- through the 12 Airport Board, with City staff a little bit on the budget, 13 and they're back to the drawing board in the City. They're 14 kind of relooking at some of the numbers they've presented. 15 And I'm still committed; I think that process -- the system 16 it created is going to work, even though there are a few 17 bumps in the road still. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is something 19 that you and I have talked about in that regard that perhaps 20 we need to place on a future agenda, and that would have to 21 do with the County being in a position to bid on some of the 22 work that's done for the airport. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And on that area, I'll 24 let the whole Court be aware; I think everyone else probably 25 is already, or many in the city are. I asked Len Odom to go 7-25-05 182 1 over to the airport and drive around and really look at the 2 infrastructure over there, roads, mowing, things of that 3 nature. He hadn't been on the property more than 30 minutes 4 and I got a call from the City as to why he was there. And 5 I just basically told them -- I said, "We're looking. If we 6 can do some of these services more economically than the 7 City, it should be done by the County." And that was based 8 on the budget that they presented to the Airport Board. So, 9 I think they're relooking at some of their numbers, and 10 we're trying -- and also to provide, I think, backup as to 11 exactly what went into some of these numbers and what they 12 were incorporating. There's some huge disparities between 13 what Leonard thinks it should cost and what's in the budget, 14 and I don't know if it's a true disparity or not. I hope 15 that it's more that something is included that I'm not aware 16 of or he's not aware of. But, anyway, we are looking at it, 17 and I think that hopefully we'll be able to cut that budget 18 a little bit from what was proposed. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got your letter 20 written, Judge? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Pretty much. Do we have any 22 other reports that we need to have rendered here? Elected 23 officials? Department heads? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have one other 25 real quick one. Hermann Sons Bridge is basically complete, 7-25-05 183 1 and the road tie-in is being done. At some point in the 2 future -- I don't think it will be before our next 3 meeting -- it might be a really good opportunity to do -- 4 have somewhat of a public ribbon-cutting, opening of that 5 bridge. It's a very nice structure, a lot bigger than I had 6 envisioned when they first started. When they first 7 started, in talking to them, they were talking about a 8 mid-level bridge. Well, it isn't a mid-level; it's a 9 high-water bridge, and it's pretty interesting. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When will the rail 11 cars be released? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As soon as the bridge is 13 open, which I would suspect will be in a couple of weeks. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I had a 15 minute's discussion with Leonard this morning, and as you 16 and I both know, he's done some -- he's done some site work 17 on the banks of Town Creek -- not Town Creek, Third Creek, 18 in anticipation of -- of building bridge abutments for the 19 rail cars. And so he's now searching for somebody who can 20 do the concrete work for him. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: For the piers and the 23 abutments. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We got anything else, 7-25-05 184 1 gentlemen? Hearing nothing further, we will stand 2 adjourned. 3 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 3:15 p.m.) 4 - - - - - - - - - - 5 6 7 8 9 10 STATE OF TEXAS | 11 COUNTY OF KERR | 12 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 13 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 14 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 15 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 16 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 30th day of July, 2005. 17 18 19 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 20 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 21 Certified Shorthand Reporter 22 23 24 25 7-25-05