1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Monday, March 27, 2006 11 9:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X March 27, 2006 2 PAGE --- Visitors' Comments 5 3 --- Commissioners' Comments 6 4 1.1 Consider, discuss and proclaim April 2006 Child Abuse Prevention Month 15 5 1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 6 implementing the Burn Ban 16 7 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding updating telephone system and renewing contract for 8 5 years with Kerrville Telephone Business Systems 17 9 1.3 Consider/approve bylaws of Advisory Board of the Butt-Holdsworth Memorial Library, consider and take 10 action on recommendation by Board that 2005-2006 agreement between County and City be amended 36 11 1.5 Consider/discuss concept plan for subdivision of 12 property owned by Julie Mosty & Bo Leonard, off Elm Pass Road, Precinct 2 48 13 1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to extend 14 preliminary plat of property owned by Center Point Independent School District 59 15 1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 16 agreement between Texas Water Development Board and Kerr County for grant funding for preliminary 17 planning & engineering for Center Point Wastewater Collection System 61 18 1.8 Consider/discuss, authorize Commissioners Letz and 19 Williams to pursue grant availability for the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center 65 20 1.9 Consider/discuss appointment to fill county 21 representative vacancy on Airport Board 67 22 1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for preliminary revision of plat for Lot 7 & Privilege 23 Creek Road right-of-way, Privilege Creek Ranches, set public hearing for same 73 24 1.10 Open Annual Bids for road materials; consider, 25 discuss and take appropriate action to award same 85 3 1 I N D E X March 27, 2006 2 PAGE 3 1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to accept lease agreement for two Caterpillar backhoes, have 4 Judge sign same 87 5 1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations 90 6 1.14 Consider/discuss take appropriate action on Kerr 7 County Water Availability Requirements 132 8 1.15 Mid-Year review of Kerr County FY 05-06 Budget and review/consider elected official/department surveys 137 9 1.16 EMS Ad-Hoc Committee final report 171 10 1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 11 personnel matter (Executive Session) 220 12 1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on personnel matter at Kerr County Juvenile Detention 13 Facility (Executive Session) --- 14 4.1 Pay Bills 220 4.2 Budget Amendments 229 15 4.3 Late Bills --- 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 237 16 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee 17 Assignments 238 18 --- Adjourned 240 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 On Monday, March 27, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., a special 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the 3 Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, 4 Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order this meeting of 7 the Kerr County Commissioners Court regularly scheduled for 8 this date and time, Monday, March 27th, 2006, at 9 a.m. It's 9 that time now. Commissioner Nicholson? 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Will you please stand and 11 join me in prayer and the pledge to the flag. 12 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's 14 any member of the public or audience that wishes to be heard 15 on a matter that is not listed on the agenda, please feel free 16 to come forward at this time and tell us what's on your mind. 17 If you desire to be heard on an agenda item, we would ask that 18 you fill out a participation form. They should be located at 19 the back of the room. If you don't see them back there, why, 20 give us a high sign and we'll try and get some to you. It's 21 note essential that you do that. It helps me not miss you 22 when we get to that item. If you wish to be heard on an item 23 and you don't have a participation form that's filled out, get 24 my attention some way, shape, form, or fashion when that item 25 is called, and we'll see that you get your input. But right 3-27-06 5 1 now, if there's anyone that wishes to be heard on an item that 2 is not a listed agenda item, please feel free to come forward 3 and tell us what's on your mind. Yes, sir? If you'd give 4 your name and address to the reporter, please. 5 MR. PALMER: Yes. I'm Robert Palmer; I live at 410 6 Josephine in Kerrville, and I'm here as a private citizen 7 today, even though I have some other interests that involve 8 the -- the parks in the county. But I've lived here for 15 9 years, and -- and in the last three or four months, I've -- 10 I've discovered a park that was -- Flat Rock -- I call it Flat 11 Rock Park; everybody I know does, but I found out that it's 12 Flat Rock Lake Park. So, what I am here asking is that it be 13 put on the agenda and the Commissioners consider putting 14 actually a park sign designating that as Flat Rock Lake Park. 15 It's -- I think it's one of the most beautiful parks in 16 Kerrville and in Kerr County, and people have talked to me and 17 said, when they've discovered the park, that they didn't know 18 it was there or they didn't know that was Flat Rock Lake Park 19 or Flat Rock Park. So, that is what -- some of you already 20 know my interest in dogs, and we've been allowed -- or given 21 the privilege of walking our dogs there leash-free, and so we 22 are helping take care of that park and making sure that 23 everything goes all right with that. So, that is my request, 24 that the Commissioners put on the agenda that we actually put 25 up a nice park sign there signifying Flat Rock Lake Park. 3-27-06 6 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate you 3 being here. Is there any other member of the public or the 4 audience that wishes to be heard on any matter which is not a 5 listed agenda item? If so, please come forward. Seeing no 6 one else coming forward, Commissioner Nicholson, what do you 7 have for us this morning? 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm praying for rain, and 9 hope I can believe the forecast that we are going to get some. 10 We can -- so we can lift the burn ban. I started to say we've 11 been really lucky about not having any real serious fires. 12 And part of it probably is luck, but I think maybe it -- also 13 what's happening is that residents of the county are being 14 extraordinarily careful and using good judgment, and not -- 15 not doing any illegal burning or taking any -- any risks that 16 they shouldn't. So, that -- if that's what's happening, 17 that's good. That's working. Our deputy constable in 18 Precinct 4, T.D. Hall, is ill. He's getting some medical 19 attention, and some of it's being done here and some of it in 20 San Antonio, so we need to keep T.D. in our prayers. He's, as 21 you know, a fixture here in Kerr County. That's all I have. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner 23 Baldwin? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Just wanted to 25 carry on about the fire issue. A couple of you members of 3-27-06 7 1 this Court were out in Wichita Falls with me the other day; 2 that one of the County Judges up in the panhandle talked about 3 the big fire in the panhandle that literally burnt down his 4 county, and his descriptions of towns and people and animals 5 and how the fire jumped the road and trapped firefighters and 6 all those ugly, ugly things. It just makes me want to say 7 please don't burn anything. You know, just be absolutely 8 careful out there. If something like that was to happen in 9 this county, it would be -- there is no way you could catch 10 some of these with all the -- catch a fire like that in these 11 canyons, and it was just absolutely devastating out there. 12 I notice we have the light -- the light is amongst 13 us. For the audience's information, this lamp was taken out 14 of, I think, the 1927 Kerr County Courthouse, and a lady, the 15 wife of a former Commissioner of many years ago, had kept it 16 in her garage, and she gave it to us a couple of months ago, 17 and the Maintenance Department has restored it. And -- and I 18 don't know if we're going to leave that hole up there or not. 19 It wouldn't surprise me if we didn't. But I think it's -- I 20 think it's a very nice fixture, and she's having a small 21 plaque put on the wall, and that lamp is in memory of all 22 former elected officials in Kerr County. That's all I had to 23 say. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner 25 Williams? 3-27-06 8 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: First, I want to extend our 2 congratulations to my colleague, Commissioner Baldwin, on his 3 ascension to the throne of the West Texas Commissioners and 4 Judges Association. Buster holds a unique distinction of 5 being the only member of this Court that has ever been the 6 president of the South Texas Association and now the West 7 Texas Association, and with any kind of luck, we can move to 8 north and east Texas, and you can rise to the top of that heap 9 as well. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's go get them. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: After a year. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Secondly, I want to offer 14 congratulations to three individuals who I understand have 15 been appointed to the Upper Guadalupe River Authority. Carol 16 Schreiner, Lana Edwards, and Mr. Mike McKenzie. I understand 17 all three have been appointed to the U.G.R.A. Board of 18 Directors, and they -- a Board of Directors orientation 19 session will be underway sometime today. And, lastly, when 20 last we left it, we had the Sheriff riding in a 1922 T-model 21 paddy wagon in the parade. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: With all the commissioners in 23 black and white stripes. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With somebody in the back in 25 black and white suits, but not necessarily Commissioners. And 3-27-06 9 1 we have had others of us undetermined, because the Judge said 2 he knew some other different things he wanted to talk about, 3 and I hope he's going to talk about them this morning. We've 4 got to firm this up pretty quick. I'm passing it to you. 5 That's a nice segue for you, Judge. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me respond to that first. I 7 talked with an individual that -- that is involved with a 8 local antique and classic car organization, and he was to get 9 back with me the tail end of last week. He got back with me 10 briefly and left a message. I was unable to talk to him, but 11 he did leave a message that he had polled informally some of 12 the members of that group, and there were a number of them 13 that had graciously consented to allow the use of their -- of 14 their antique automobiles. Some of them were open roadsters, 15 some of them were touring cars, but my indication to him was 16 that if we're going to go in individual cars, that -- that we 17 were going to need at least five, and he said that he didn't 18 perceive that as being a problem, based on his informal poll. 19 Because of his wife's health, he was not able to spend a lot 20 of time on it, but that was his initial report to me. I 21 intend to follow up with him later on today, time permitting, 22 but I don't see that as a problem. And -- and the -- of 23 course, the drivers of those vehicles will be the owners, as 24 it should be, I think. And -- but that's kind of the 25 direction I was going, and that's where I am on it. With 3-27-06 10 1 regard to the hole in the ceiling, that just got hung there 2 Friday, I think, so I think it's in the cards to go ahead and 3 fill that hole. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, wow. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: And the plaque is in process, I am 6 told. And it was necessary to find some screws there to hold 7 that globe on because of the erosion that had occurred to that 8 brass piece at the top of -- just at the top of the globe, and 9 they finally found that and got it filled. I, too, would like 10 to extend any congratulations to Commissioner Baldwin on his 11 active status and presidency of the West Texas County Judge 12 and Commissioners Association, and I am -- I'm convinced that, 13 at least in part, that was responsible for us being able to 14 secure the convention here in Kerrville this next year. So, 15 we will have that whole association down here. The 16 individuals I talked to up in -- up at the convention in 17 Wichita Falls seemed to be thoroughly elated that they would 18 be coming to Kerrville. I think something had -- some of it 19 had to do with the weather that we encountered up there. It 20 was a little chilly and a little windy, and they thought 21 Kerrville would be much -- much warmer and more pleasant, and 22 I assured them that it probably would be. So, we look forward 23 to them coming down here. I -- I suggested to them to bring 24 their wives and bring their wallets. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, especially their 3-27-06 11 1 wallets. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. And they said if they brought 3 their wives, they'd bring their wallets, is what most of them 4 told me. I'd also like to point out, I'm sure you remember 5 the blood drive that we had here on the courthouse square in 6 order to provide assistance to one of our employees' spouses 7 out at Road and Bridge who was having some medical 8 difficulties and was going to be in need of -- of some blood. 9 And we -- according to the note, we had 31 units that were 10 banked for Ms. Guerrin, and I think that's a -- a job well 11 done to the employees here in Kerr County for stepping up to 12 do that. The folks with the blood bank told me that they 13 would consider it a success had they gotten 10 units, and 14 my -- my suggestion to them was that I thought we were capable 15 of much more than that, and sure enough, we more than tripled 16 that. So, we have a nice note from Ms. Guerrin, and I'll pass 17 that around, and we appreciate the opportunity to be helpful 18 to her. That's all I've got. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, can we go back to the 20 sesquicentennial for just a second? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Steele at the bank at 23 this point is of the understanding that Kerr County's going to 24 have two units in, and when we last left it with the Court as 25 a whole, we talked about having a unit that would have 3-27-06 12 1 everybody on it. Now, I'm not making a case for that, but 2 that's where the plan lays. And I've spoken with Glenn 3 Holekamp, and he and his staff were talking about renting a 4 trailer. It came to my attention Saturday, during the 5 Republican County Convention, that through Marvin Neunhoffer, 6 that there is also available a 1922 Ford truck, flatbed 7 truck -- old flatbed truck that he was pretty sure could be 8 made available if we were of a mind to want to use it and be 9 -- as a court, or many of us as a court being on it together. 10 So, the only point I'm making is, we've got to get it together 11 here pretty quick, because the parade people at this point 12 only know of two units. If we're talking about six or seven, 13 they need to know that. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The more I listen, the more 15 comments I have. I'll start off with congratulations to 16 Commissioner Baldwin for becoming president of the -- of our 17 association, and I hope I don't have to go to Wichita Falls 18 ever again. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it was a good convention. 21 The -- on the -- 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: First place is a week in 23 Wichita Falls, and second place is two weeks. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Buster won second prize. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Related to the -- the parade, 3-27-06 13 1 you know, I just think it would be nice if we were as a body 2 in the parade. I really don't care how we do that, but I -- I 3 just think that's the preference, in my opinion. That's just 4 my personal vote, to be -- I don't care if it's a flatbed 5 trailer or the back of an old truck or what, but I just think 6 it's -- we're a court as a whole, and I think it would be nice 7 for us to be as a unit. But that's just my personal view on 8 that. And I think we need to figure this out pretty quick. 9 In the -- I think most of y'all are aware that Comfort had a 10 huge loss about almost two weeks ago, the Ingenhuett Store, 11 which was founded by my great, great-grandfather, which it was 12 the longest operating single-family general store in the state 13 of Texas. It burned literally to the ground, very sad event. 14 I have not talked with the Kauter family, which operates the 15 store presently, recently, but I think they were going to try 16 to rebuild, and I hope they are able to accomplish that. 17 Burn ban. I will say that the -- the presentation 18 and in talking to some of the other judges and commissioners 19 at Wichita Falls gets your attention about the devastation of 20 fires. I think we need to be -- you know, need to be careful. 21 I have, however, lifted my burn ban indefinitely. I think 22 that the amount of green grass growing, even with the -- in 23 the eastern part of the county; I'm not sure -- we've had 24 pretty much close to 2 inches last week in most of the eastern 25 part of the county. I think that -- and my logic is that I 3-27-06 14 1 would rather that people will hopefully use a little common 2 sense and burn on days where there's not wind. I know last 3 Monday, immediately after we lifted it, everyone was going to 4 burn. I was afraid they were burning in 20-, 30 mile-an-hour 5 winds, which is also against state law. The fact that the 6 burn ban is -- is off in my precinct, anyway, it does not 7 alleviate people from following state law, and there are very 8 specific conditions where you have to burn, and if not, you 9 are liable for those fires. So, I -- you know, it is lifted 10 in my precinct, and will be indefinitely. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Precinct 2 as well. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it is -- people still need 13 to pay attention, look at the weather forecast and follow the 14 law. That's all I have. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, on the parade, that 17 -- a couple of my parishioners have offered me a ride and a 18 driver. One of them was a new convertible, and the other one 19 was a 1917 antique car, and I have accepted the offer of the 20 1917 car and driver for my use in the parade. So, we -- 21 that's my input. We can -- I can change that. We can work it 22 out, whatever best suits the Court. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I think Commissioner Williams and I 24 will get high and behind and get that solidified in the next 25 few days as to what we're going to do. 3-27-06 15 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need to do that. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that comment, if we're going 3 to individual cars, I'd like to know as soon as possible, 4 'cause I don't have an individual car and, you know, I'd like 5 to have some input into that process. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. But I get first 8 choice, 'cause I'm number one. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I still think the black and 10 white stripes would solve that. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, no, no. I will not ride 12 with the Sheriff. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the back. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Objection is noted. Let's get on 15 with the business at hand. The first item on the agenda is to 16 consider, discuss, and proclaim April 2006 Child Abuse 17 Prevention Month. Commissioner Baldwin? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. This is an annual 19 event. As you know, child abuse is one of the large, ugly 20 issues that is dealt with in our community, and this 21 particular group that heads this up at Child Welfare Board, 22 group of volunteers that put their effort and money into it, 23 and to keep it going and trying to make everybody aware of -- 24 of the program itself. So, you see on the second page, 25 there's a proclamation from the Commissioners Court declaring 3-27-06 16 1 that April 2006 is Child Prevention -- Abuse Prevention Month. 2 And I think, also, that -- although they didn't tell me, but I 3 think that they would like to put the yellow ribbons around 4 the trees out on the front lawn, so with your permission, I 5 will tell them that they can do that. But at this moment, I'd 6 like to move that we approve April 2006 as Child Abuse 7 Prevention Month in Kerr County. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 10 of the agenda item and the resolution. Any question or 11 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 12 your right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. The next item 17 on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and take appropriate 18 action on implementing the burn ban. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. As you know, every 20 90 days, in order for us to individually lift or put in place 21 the burn ban, the County as a whole needs to pass this order, 22 so I move that we do so. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 25 of the agenda item and implementation of the order restricting 3-27-06 17 1 outdoor burning as presented. Any question or discussion? 2 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 3 hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move 8 to Item 4, if we might. Consider, discuss, and take 9 appropriate action regarding updating the telephone system and 10 renewing contract for five years with Kerrville Telephone 11 Business Systems. Mr. Sheriff? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, it's time to renew our 13 contract. I think the old one expires next month, and the 14 problems that we're having, such as with the narcotics unit 15 coming in and that, we have no capability of adding more 16 phones to our system, plus we're at the point of having to 17 seriously look at expanding incoming phone lines. There's 18 nothing worse in the world than to call the Sheriff's Office 19 and get a busy signal, and unfortunately, we're at that. And 20 that same thing we went through when we upgraded this one; 21 we're at that point again where we'll have to be able to add. 22 And with the system we have, they cannot add to it without 23 changing out all the equipment there to let that expand. So, 24 with this new contract, it ups the monthly payments by, oh, 25 $20 or $30 a month, and it does -- it's the lease deal where 3-27-06 18 1 we replace any equipment that breaks and anything. You have a 2 contract in front of you. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, are we re-leasing, 4 just upgrading equipment, or replacing a set number of 5 commercial lines, or do you have a toll-free number? 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't have a toll-free 7 number. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you investigated the 9 cost of a toll-free number, as opposed to what you're paying 10 for commercial lines per-line? 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have not. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you think maybe that -- 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not the toll-free, because the 14 toll-free is one line, one line coming in. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it can be more than one 16 line. It can be one number with a lot of lines. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have 12 right now, and it's 18 all in a rotating system to where if you call 896-1133, it 19 will actually -- it may come in on 1216. It may come in on -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way toll-frees 21 run. You know, you've got marketing companies that run 22 hundreds and hundreds of lines off of one single number, so 23 toll-frees operate the same way. You have a number -- 24 establish a number and you establish how many lines you want 25 that to rotate -- rotary down to. I just wonder if you've 3-27-06 19 1 examined the cost between commercial lines, multiple, and 2 toll-free, multiple. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I have not. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a -- by reading through 5 this, this is for a five-year term? 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: With technology being what it is 8 with phones -- and maybe, you know, Kerr County's going to 9 stay in the -- way in the past compared to the rest of the 10 world, certainly the rest of the country. Everything I see 11 and read says that we are switching away from these hard lines 12 rapidly, and that this is going to -- this is potentially a 13 huge over-expenditure. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, this converts everything 15 and all the equipment to the -- to the updated digital 16 equipment, 'cause a lot of ours is not that right now. Now, 17 the -- the getting away from the hard lines, I know when 18 Trolinger had come in last year, I guess, and started doing 19 some of that, it did not work with our office at all, okay? 20 You couldn't get out. The quality of the calls were terrible. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's not -- that's not the 22 standard in the rest of the United States. So, it could be 23 that Kerr County's going to take a little bit longer than 24 everybody else to get up there, but within five years, I just 25 think that -- I hate to see us entering into a -- a contract 3-27-06 20 1 for five years at this time on any kind of phone service. I 2 think it's a mistake. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, there's a K.T.C. rep in 5 the room. You might be able to get some information. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Do you want to stand up and 7 explain some of this? 8 MR. THOMPSON: Sure. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On what it does? 10 MR. THOMPSON: Sure. What we're -- what we're 11 looking at doing is just getting the telephone system -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: We need to get your name and address 13 on the record, if you don't mind, please. 14 MR. THOMPSON: Okay, I'm sorry. I'm with Kerrville 15 Telephone Company, and I'm with the business systems. And 16 right now, like the Sheriff was saying, the lease is up, and 17 so is the maintenance agreement. So, having said that, that 18 after next month, you're not going to have any maintenance on 19 the telephone system, so that might be one item you want to 20 look at, is if something fails today, we go in and we just 21 replace it. And, so, we're looking at that, getting -- 22 getting the phone system to the latest, greatest software, and 23 adding trunk modules and station modules so you can add lines 24 and stations, because right now we're maxed out. So those are 25 the big issues that we're trying to overcome. Getting the 3-27-06 21 1 maintenance agreement on it as well. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the Sheriff's equipment 3 the same equipment we have in the courthouse? 4 MR. THOMPSON: It is the same manufacturer. It's 5 just -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Northern Telecom? 7 MR. THOMPSON: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's more than five years 9 old, is it not? 10 MR. THOMPSON: That is correct. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so with this new 12 maintenance agreement, you're going to be replacing more than 13 five-year-old equipment with more than five-year-old 14 equipment? 15 MR. THOMPSON: What we were -- will do is get it to 16 where you'll have the latest software that'll allow you to get 17 to the latest equipment, like phones. Right now, the phones 18 are manufacturer discontinued, so if -- if it will be very 19 soon that if we go in to replace these phones, we may not be 20 able to get them. Right now, we can get them refurbished, and 21 it's just on a case-per-case situation. If they -- if our 22 manufacturer has them in place, we will do that. But if -- in 23 the future, if we don't upgrade the software, we won't be able 24 to do that. So, right now, if we go with this plan that we've 25 talked about, we can put in brand-new telephones when they go 3-27-06 22 1 out. We can come in and replace them with phones that we can 2 get brand new all day long. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we were a brand new 4 customer and you were standing here before us today, what 5 would you be proposing? 6 MR. THOMPSON: This -- this is what I would be 7 proposing, is for -- for the dollar, I think this is your best 8 bet. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Are we talking about a new lease on 10 existing equipment, essentially? 11 MR. THOMPSON: Correct. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: So, this -- 13 MR. THOMPSON: And with the upgrade -- because what 14 we're doing is we're financing -- basically, what we're going 15 to do is finance the software and some hardware for adding 16 trunks, stations, and -- and at the same time, it makes us 17 replace the voicemail, 'cause the software that they have 18 right now will not support a new soft -- voicemail system. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And as one of our actual desk 20 phones go out now, under this lease, it will be replaced with 21 the new desk phones. 22 MR. THOMPSON: That -- in addition to that, also, 23 we're adding a five-year maintenance agreement on the system. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- we're talking about -- this 25 lease is for equipment only, is it not? 3-27-06 23 1 MR. THOMPSON: And maintenance, yes. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But it's not service? 3 MR. THOMPSON: Pardon me? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: It's not telephone service? 5 MR. THOMPSON: Correct. That is correct. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: So, when you mention trunk lines, 7 that falls under the service end of it, -- 8 MR. THOMPSON: That is correct. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: -- does it not? Okay. So, 10 essentially, if -- and correct me if this is not accurate. 11 We've had equipment that is presently in place under a lease, 12 that we've been leasing, and that lease is about to expire, 13 and what you're proposing is a new lease on that same 14 equipment, with upgrades as it becomes nonfunctional, each 15 piece, and maintenance during the term of the lease. Is 16 that -- 17 MR. THOMPSON: True. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that essentially what we're 19 looking at? 20 MR. THOMPSON: We are -- we are -- this lease is 21 going to cover new software, 'cause they have an old software. 22 Because of the new software, we're having to replace the 23 voicemail, okay? So, it's going to be a brand-new voicemail 24 with the latest software that will allow us to go in with the 25 newest phones, the newest technology on telephones. Right 3-27-06 24 1 now, like I was saying, the phones are old, and we're having a 2 hard time getting these phones replaced, and so that will 3 allow us to go forward with new phones and leave the ones -- 4 save a lot of money, leave all the sets that are in place that 5 are functioning properly alone. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was -- I think, following 7 on what the Judge was saying, it appears to me that we're 8 starting a new agreement with old equipment, when where we 9 should be if we're going to do this -- which I would be 10 opposed to probably doing the five-year term period, but if we 11 were, we should at least get new equipment under a -- I mean, 12 the stuff's all old. And if we're going -- entering into an 13 agreement, we ought to be getting the state of the art for 14 today, not leasing old equipment that we've already 15 essentially paid for. Is that kind of where you were going, 16 Judge? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's part of where I was 18 coming from. And I know we've -- we've kind of visited this 19 issue before, and what we heard was that the -- the lease cost 20 is as much towards the maintenance factor as it is towards 21 anything else. Right now, under the existing lease that we're 22 under now, does that have a purchase option with it? 23 MR. THOMPSON: It sure does. Yes, it does. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: So we can pay you one dollar and 25 we're the owners of everything that's in place right now? 3-27-06 25 1 MR. THOMPSON: Next month, that is correct. That's 2 correct. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Then, if we wanted to upgrade 4 that equipment to serve the needs of the Sheriff, as he's 5 communicated them, we could enter into a separate agreement 6 for the acquisition of that equipment, software, whatever, new 7 voicemail modules, and the only thing that we would not have 8 in place would be the maintenance factor that would be in 9 place under this lease agreement; is that correct? 10 MR. THOMPSON: We can do that, yes. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably have a new 13 equipment warranty went with it, too? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My only -- my only concern, and 15 what Curtis and I talked about and why we set it up this way, 16 if we go in right now and actually replace -- you know, this 17 is replacing most of the equipment that's in our telephone 18 room, where -- so you can expand and add more lines in, 'cause 19 I can't do that. So, all those -- call them kind of 20 mother-board deals are replaced to the newest, along with the 21 maintenance. Problem is, with these -- if we go in and do 22 another -- or a new lease, replacing all the equipment, okay? 23 I can't do it in any way, shape, or form for a $30-a-month 24 increase in our phone deal. You're talking $1,000 increase in 25 our -- in our monthly stuff because of the new equipment. 3-27-06 26 1 This will gradually replace that under this price, as that 2 equipment needs to be replaced. As a phone goes out, it 3 replaces it with the newest phone, without having to go in and 4 enter into a lease that replaces all that equipment right now 5 when it's working. That's -- that's my theory behind this. I 6 don't want to enter into a five-year lease or anything that's 7 going to up us by 1,000 a month or anything like that. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like to me that we 9 need to upgrade the whole system, and we do that through the 10 budget process. Therefore, we don't need a five-year 11 agreement; we need a one-year agreement on what we've got 12 right now, and then replace it through the budget process. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know if they would do a 14 one-year lease under this. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if they would 16 either, but you can ask him; he's standing right there. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what I'm looking at him 18 for. 19 MR. THOMPSON: We can, but just like the Sheriff was 20 saying, you know, we -- the standard is a five-year, but we 21 can -- we can work you up for a one-year lease if you would 22 like. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we're going to spend some 24 more money to buy new equipment, we can. 25 MR. THOMPSON: That's right. It's just the pricing 3-27-06 27 1 will significantly increase, because what we're trying to do 2 on this one, we were just looking at it as trying to save some 3 dollars by using the phones that are working very well there 4 right now, and then as they quit, we replace them if they give 5 us difficulty. Some of them may ride for a long time, but -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, didn't we do an 7 upgrade there a year or two years ago, added some lines? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We had to add four more lines. 9 It's been a couple -- three years ago. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you're up to 12 now? 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, I -- Curtis may know 12 exactly where we're up to, 12 or 15. 13 MR. THOMPSON: That's exactly right, 12 -- let's 14 see, 12, 13 -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we went from 8 to 12? 16 MR. THOMPSON: Actually, I think we have about 18 17 telephone lines there now. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Total. 19 MR. THOMPSON: Total. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And this upgrade of seven or 21 eight new lines lasted three years? 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's call ratio; I can't -- you 23 know, I mean, the last thing I want to do is -- and that's why 24 I came to y'all when I did last time. I don't like picking up 25 the phone or hearing somebody say they called the Sheriff's 3-27-06 28 1 Office and got a busy signal, and that's the point we're at. 2 That's starting to happen, and that does cause us serious 3 problems. And the only way that I could look at upgrading it 4 with the lease is upgrade it in a reasonable way where I can 5 still stay within the budget this year, my other budgets for 6 -- for the -- 7 MR. THOMPSON: In this proposal, I added a trunk 8 module with a trunk card. The trunk module will take three 9 trunk cards of four ports each. So, I've added a trunk 10 module, since we're maxed out right now, with a card in it, 11 and then we can add more cards in the future, but that will 12 allow us to go up to four more lines immediately. Then I 13 added a station module of 16 ports; that allows us to go 16 14 more digital sets. That will take care of the narcotics 15 division. Right now, we're maxed on that. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we're getting apples and 17 oranges here. We're talking about lines, and that's a service 18 issue, and now we're -- this is for equipment. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But the problem is, unless we 20 upgrade this, we can't add the new lines. You know, I just 21 can't do it. I mean, we're full. Can't have any more lines 22 coming in. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can by going to new 24 equipment and a new contract. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I wasn't ready to come to 3-27-06 29 1 y'all with something that says 1,000 -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't know what the cost 3 of that is, do we? 4 MR. THOMPSON: I can certainly run them on it. It's 5 just -- it's going to increase a bunch. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I'm going back to -- and 7 I know we tried the other phone system and it didn't work. 8 Why didn't it work? 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You do not -- could not 10 understand the phone calls. You were being cut off 11 constantly, and in and out. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where did that happen? Because 13 it doesn't happen when I call people all over the country. I 14 mean, is it the equipment we're using? Is it the computers 15 we're using? Is it the vendor we're -- I just -- I think 16 that's a really important issue, because the potential savings 17 to the County and the taxpayers is huge if we can get off of 18 this standard land line system. We may need to keep some as a 19 backup forever, but, you know, again, everything I'm reading 20 nationwide says that's a direction that many businesses, and 21 I'm sure governments, are going to as well. I want to know 22 why it didn't work for us. I mean, just because it didn't 23 work for us the first time doesn't mean it's never going to 24 work. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that may be, Jonathan. My 3-27-06 30 1 problem is, Sheriff's Office has to have it. I have to have 2 something we can rely on. I could not rely on that other one, 3 and I just said that's it, it's over. We can't do it. We had 4 one line out there -- in fact, it may still be out there -- 5 that Trolinger was trying, and -- but we had to go totally 6 away from it, 'cause it was totally undependable for what we 7 needed, what I have. 8 MR. THOMPSON: Now, that has nothing to do with the 9 equipment, and that is not our service. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 11 MR. THOMPSON: That is a voice over IP trunk. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what it was. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Did -- did you solicit proposals for 14 equipment from any other vendors concerning your equipment out 15 there at the Sheriff's Office? 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have not. This is a contract 19 we've had and been in, and I asked them what it would take to 20 get us back to where we don't have busy signals. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to see you come back 22 with a one-year proposal and relook at this whole process. 23 Because, potentially, county-wide, as to why the other -- 24 whatever that -- IP over -- whatever you just said, didn't 25 work, because it works elsewhere. And there's -- you know, I 3-27-06 31 1 don't -- I need to find out why things are working across the 2 nation and don't work in Kerr County. And hopefully we can 3 find that out in the next year, but I -- you know, like I say, 4 for a year, I agree, Rusty, you need phone service. I just 5 think the taxpayers need to look at -- or from a taxpayer 6 standpoint, we need to look at the most economical way to get 7 that phone service to you. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The lease for what we have 10 in the courthouse and other locations, when does that expire? 11 Do you know? 12 MR. THOMPSON: At the other locations, I will have 13 to pull them up individually. They came in at different 14 times. I would just have to pull them. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're really under two 16 contracts, a contract for service we have here in the 17 courthouse and separately for the Sheriff's Department. And 18 do you also entertain month-to-month extensions? 'Cause we're 19 halfway through budget year, as Commissioner Baldwin noted. 20 You know, we can take a look at this at budget time. Do you 21 do month-to-month extensions? 22 MR. THOMPSON: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If so, what would the rate 24 of that be? 25 MR. THOMPSON: It will stay the same. What we can 3-27-06 32 1 do is, if a decision is not made, we can go month-to-month 2 until a decision is made. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be my preference. 4 MR. THOMPSON: We can leave everything just like it 5 is right now. You will stay under a maintenance agreement; if 6 something happens, we'll cover it. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take a look at all the other 8 options, then. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: We've also got separate contracts for 10 the Road and Bridge and for Extension Service, and if you will 11 recall, last year or year before last, we extended those 12 contracts, but only for a three-year term, is my recollection. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've never understood the 15 logic of why we have all separate agreements when we are one 16 county. Kerr County has telephone service -- 17 THE WITNESS: They went in at different times. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can consolidate them. 19 MR. THOMPSON: If you would like, we can. It's just 20 that -- it's just a timing -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are you going to come 22 back with, Curtis? 23 MR. THOMPSON: I -- if you would like me to, sounds 24 like what you guys would like me to do is give you a price on 25 a brand-new telephone system, and then give you -- find 3-27-06 33 1 different financial options, like a purchase. We have a 2 five-year lease like what is the standard, or we can go with a 3 three-year lease, one-year lease. It's just the terms will be 4 higher. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- just a little bit -- just 6 so you don't get the wrong -- go out in the wrong direction, I 7 don't think we need to do a whole new system right now. I 8 think we need to do a month-to-month or a one-year right now, 9 and I think during the budget process, we can look at this 10 whole phone system. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we probably will ask you 13 during the budget process to give us a consolidation, 14 county-wide program, and look at, you know, probably a larger 15 scale than you looked at right now. So, I don't think you 16 need to look at this, you know, all new. 17 MR. THOMPSON: I think the main thing is him being 18 able to add stuff to the current telephone system. That 19 changes things, if we add anything to it. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't have a problem with the 21 month-to-month, Jonathan. The only thing that does bother me 22 and does scare me is if we don't do something quickly, it is 23 not out of the realm for somebody to be calling and getting 24 busy signals, and I think that's totally wrong. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Not everybody dials 3-27-06 34 1 9-1-1 in an emergency situation. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot of people don't. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You get a lot of calls -- he 4 gets a lot of calls that are emergency issues. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Actually, they're issues with 6 the 9-1-1, with all the new equipment they're trying to do 7 right now anyhow. But I don't like busy signals coming into 8 the Sheriff's Office. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that. Can we not 10 just add another line out there without changing the system? 11 Can't add a line? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 13 MR. THOMPSON: Equipment won't allow it right now 14 without adding -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A trunk card? 16 MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. Then we run into the next -- 17 the next hurdle we have is adding the narcotics division. We 18 looked at getting refurbished phones, the kind that they have 19 right now, and they're getting very scarce. So, we're looking 20 at adding a trunk module and add new digital phones with a new 21 software on the phone system that will allow us to go with new 22 telephones and allow us to use all functions of the new 23 telephones. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: See, it's those comments 25 that kind of scare me, Curtis. 3-27-06 35 1 MR. THOMPSON: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That the refurbished ones 3 are running scarce, hard to find and so forth. We're talking 4 about a five-year extension of old equipment. I'd rather take 5 another -- I'd rather look at another option, even including 6 figuring out a way to add another trunk card to your existing 7 core equipment out there as a temporary measure to give the 8 Sheriff some expansion room if necessary. 9 MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. It just -- the phones that we 10 have in place right now, that the Sheriff has, we can send 11 them off, get them refurbished and brought back. Problem is, 12 is when we add a group of, you know, say five, ten of those, 13 there's times that the manufacturer does not have those, so 14 that's -- that's what we're running into. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And my only thought, 16 Commissioner, on the -- on the equipment -- on the obsolete 17 and extending this is, if something does go wrong with the 18 equipment, it is replaced with a new one in this lease. 19 MR. THOMPSON: Correct. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: With the new equipment. It's 21 not that we're doing obsolete stuff, because once this goes 22 wrong, the new lease pays for the new equipment. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's extending the 24 maintenance agreement on a month-to-month basis. Still 25 replaceable, right? 3-27-06 36 1 MR. THOMPSON: Yes. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know. 3 MR. THOMPSON: Yes. But there's going to come a 4 time to where we're going to need to get to your latest 5 software to support it. It's just -- it's an old software. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got six months left in 7 the budget year. It's going to take you a while to figure 8 this out, so I think we can make it come together. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're back in here April the 10 10th. 11 MR. THOMPSON: Okay. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Bring us as many options as you might 13 conceive any one of the five of us may dream up. 14 MR. THOMPSON: Okay, thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Squirrel cage. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Tin cans and wax string. Let's move 19 to Item 3. That was the timed Item for 9:30. It's past that 20 time now. Consider and approve the bylaws of the Advisory 21 Board of the Butt-Holdsworth Memorial Library, and consider 22 and take action on a recommendation by the Board that the 23 '05-'06 agreement between Kerr County and Kerrville be 24 amended. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me see if I can help 3-27-06 37 1 with this. Subsequent to your last meeting that I didn't 2 attend, a couple things have happened. I've read the minutes 3 of the meeting, and I understand and appreciate the concerns 4 about the -- the bylaws of the -- of the Library Advisory 5 Board and the proposed changes in the interlocal agreement 6 with the City of Kerrville. The other thing that's occurred 7 is that following your meeting, on the following day, that 8 Tuesday, the City Council met and they followed your -- they 9 dealt with your concerns about the redundant language in the 10 bylaws and removed that redundant language. They also 11 approved a change, which essentially would mean approving 12 offering a change in the contract between the City and the 13 County on the operation of the library that would deal with 14 the issue of capital expenses. 15 Let me see if I can frame that issue. If we can 16 first agree that we're all seeing these in same way, well, 17 then I think we can determine what our position is on it. 18 When we wrote the contract, the new contract with the City, we 19 learned that under the accounting standards that are -- that 20 cover libraries, that books and other associated materials are 21 considered capital. That's kind of contrary to, you know, 22 what you intuitively think when you think about businesses. 23 And certain -- we agreed that, certainly, we did not want 24 to -- to exclude the purchase of books -- library books for 25 our library from the agreement, the cost-share agreement 3-27-06 38 1 between the City and the County. That's the essence of a 2 library, is books and associated materials. And we wrote a 3 contract that -- that excluded capital -- quote, capital 4 improvement costs, which we understood to mean everything 5 except books and associated materials, including capital. 6 Apparently, that -- that's not quite clear enough 7 language, so that's one facet of the issue. The other facet 8 is that the Library Board, apparently City of Kerrville also, 9 is asking you to amend the agreement so that their 10 administrative process of not -- of including in the operating 11 budget capital items that are less than $5,000 is followed. 12 What this means to you is that you would be agreeing that the 13 capital items of less than $5,000 would be in the budget for 14 your consideration on a cost-sharing basis. So, the whole 15 issue in my mind is, for administrative convenience, do you 16 want to receive a budget -- proposed budget from the Library 17 Board that includes capital items of less than $5,000? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what you recommend? 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, I don't. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's what the Library 22 Board recommends. And I recommended bringing the issue to you 23 and to see -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me -- and I think I agree 25 with you. And the reason is -- let's see if this is a correct 3-27-06 39 1 assumption -- the type of thing that goes in that category 2 would be, like, computers, and individual computers cost 3 $2,000, say. But if you -- if you replace ten of them, all of 4 a sudden, you're at 20,000, but that would be -- just goes 5 through the process, because each individual one was less than 6 five, yet the aggregate may be well in excess of what was 7 contemplated originally. Am I looking at that correctly? 8 You're nodding. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's an example. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I think I voiced my thinking, I 13 think, reasonably clearly when we considered that issue 14 before. From an accounting standpoint, capital and expense, 15 or operational, as they call it in the contract, are fairly 16 well-defined. Any -- any of the bean counters and people in 17 the accounting business, there's certain rules that they 18 follow. And I understand the anomaly in books and other 19 educational materials. Normally, those are purchased on an 20 ongoing basis, just as you would office supplies, for example, 21 in an office environment. So, I can understand why we may 22 want to exclude those from being capital items or otherwise 23 include them as operational or expense items, notwithstanding 24 the other accounting standards. But when it comes to 25 including an operational expense, including other capital 3-27-06 40 1 items, I think you meet yourself coming back. I don't care 2 what the amount is, whether it's 1,000, whether it's 5,000. 3 Otherwise, if we're going to solve this problem with the books 4 and educational materials, my preference would be to say we 5 don't share in capital items, but for purposes of this 6 agreement, books and other educational materials, 7 notwithstanding other accounting standards, are included as 8 operational or expense items, and that solves the problem. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I think your point's 10 valid, and I think we've had two circumstances over the past 11 several years that validate what you're talking about. We 12 were called upon to fund 50 percent of replacement of 13 air-conditioners, and those are big air-conditioners and those 14 are big expenses. We were called upon to fund 50 percent of 15 the replacement of an elevator. Major expense. So, my 16 question would be, where do these items fall under this new 17 language? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In the current contract, 19 you would not be presented a budget that would cover those 20 items. The only capital item that would be in the budget that 21 you're presented for your consideration on cost-sharing would 22 be books and associated materials, in the current contract. 23 Now, the City is proposing to change that, and that's what you 24 see there in the package. Could we -- could we hear -- 25 Antonio Martinez, the Library Director, and John David 3-27-06 41 1 Lipscomb, the Chair of the Library Advisory Board, are here. 2 Do you -- do y'all have anything you want to say to add to 3 this discussion? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, before they do, I 5 want to go back to the air-conditioners and elevators, because 6 I think that's a real important thing. I don't think the 7 County was ever obligated to pay those expenses, say, under 8 the new agreement. We did because we thought -- you know, we 9 just thought it -- yes, we agreed to participate in it. It 10 was a volunteer thing at the time, but that was never 11 contemplated under any agreement I've ever seen that the 12 County was obligated to pay for those, and I think it needs to 13 be real clear. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think that's right. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we chose to, but there 16 was certainly no obligation to. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Martinez? 18 MR. MARTINEZ: Judge, Commissioners. Commissioner 19 Letz, you're absolutely correct. You had no obligation on 20 that air conditioning and elevator. It was individual issues 21 brought to the Commissioners Court, and you decided to 22 participate on that. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 24 MR. MARTINEZ: And that's still the case under the 25 current contract. Just a little bit of history on this whole 3-27-06 42 1 process. The Board is the group that proposed these changes 2 and voted them unanimously. You know, all I can say is, the 3 intent is to be as clear as possible. That was their only 4 intent, for both sides of the issue, for both organizations. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My -- I'm trying to figure out 6 what we're looking at. In our backup, we have the bylaws of 7 the Advisory Board with some handwritten notes on it. Is that 8 what we're trying to -- what the recommendation is that we 9 amend today? 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. 11 MR. MARTINEZ: We have submitted a marked-up copy of 12 the bylaws, excluding the language that you wanted excluded at 13 your last meeting. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Look at the fax from the 16 City, the letter from Paul Hofmann to Judge Tinley, and then 17 the next page is a fax page. 18 MR. MARTINEZ: Is that the follow-up? 'Cause I 19 believe the first fax submitted is an incorrect copy. What we 20 gave to Commissioner Nicholson at the board meeting is the 21 correct copy. That's the only one I can really vouch for. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm looking at one that's 23 marked up. Looks like the Judge's writing. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: It is my writing. That was what we 25 had last time. 3-27-06 43 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's back further. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Go back a little further. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Back towards the end of the -- 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're going to find a page 5 entitled First Amendment to the Library Agreement. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Okay, I got it. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And this is what the 8 Kerrville City Council approved to offer to us as a first 9 amendment to the library agreement. Now, I think it's not 10 necessary to point out that the contract is not open. The 11 contract runs until the end of September. We can -- if we 12 want to make changes to it, if -- that are recommended by the 13 City of Kerrville, we can choose to open it, but it's not open 14 for negotiation unless both parties agree to do that. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, what we -- what you're 17 being asked to act on today is this proposal from the City of 18 Kerrville to modify the agreement that would effectively 19 result in capital costs of less than $5,000 being included in 20 the budget that you're going to be presented. 21 MR. MARTINEZ: Well, may I say one thing about that? 22 You mention computers, and I just want to clarify that I have 23 created a scheduled replacement program to where we're not 24 buying more than three computers a year. That would -- you 25 know, it would have to be a catastrophic event, you know, fire 3-27-06 44 1 or whatever, that would put us in a situation of replacing 20 2 computers. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question is, why -- 4 why -- what's the reason for the request? I mean, there are 5 very few capital items less than 5,000. A capital item, as 6 the Judge said, is a capital item, I think, from the County's 7 standpoint. I mean, it's -- I wouldn't think there'd be very 8 many items that would go under this category that are not 9 actually -- 10 MR. MARTINEZ: It's going to be equipment that will 11 be over your $1,000 threshold. That'll be the only items that 12 would ever fall into that category that I can think of. 13 Computers, servers, fax machines, that type of equipment. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My preference would be to leave 15 the contract as-is right now, and if this is a -- as we go 16 through the first budget, if this is an obvious area, that's 17 something we can certainly look at when we go for renewal of 18 the contract. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What did the City Council 20 adopt at its last meeting, Antonio? 21 MR. MARTINEZ: What you have before you, First 22 Amendment to the Library Agreement, the one bearing signatures 23 from the mayor and the City Attorney. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which says, "Shared 25 operational expenses exclude any capital expense in excess of 3-27-06 45 1 5,000," -- 2 MR. MARTINEZ: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- "with the exception of 4 expenses for the purchase of library materials..." 5 MR. MARTINEZ: Correct. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: If we're going to take option on what 7 the City has proposed to us in this first amendment, my 8 preference would be to modify that language just quoted by 9 Commissioner Williams, and have it read, "Shared operational 10 expenses include..." and then delete all the way down to 11 "expenses" in the next sentence, so that it reads, "Shared 12 operational expenses include expenses for the purchase of 13 library materials and any other projects City and County may 14 individually negotiate." Of course, that's a given. You 15 can -- the parties to an agreement can modify, add, do 16 whatever they want to, but that would -- that would exclude 17 the capital under the 5,000 or under aspect. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the Judge is on the 19 right track. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. I do too. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Don't you do the same thing 22 by doing nothing? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Isn't that what we say right 24 now? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Almost. 3-27-06 46 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm not sure if the existing 2 agreement clearly includes -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Books? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: -- library materials, books and other 5 educational materials, or whatever that language was. 6 Because -- 7 MR. MARTINEZ: It does not. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: -- it currently states that, "Neither 9 capital improvement expenses for the library nor operating or 10 capital improvement expenses for the History Center or any 11 other ancillary facilities shall be included in the budget," 12 and it's referring to the budget that's submitted to us. So, 13 looking at it from their accounting standpoint, if the books 14 are required to be carried as capital items, they can't put it 15 in the budget to send it forward to us. So if we need any 16 clarification that deals with the books and -- and similar 17 type materials, and what I mentioned, if -- if it is our 18 intention to have that included as a part of the budget that 19 we're going to share in the funding of, then this would -- the 20 language I suggested would solve that, I think. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to try to make that 23 into -- into a motion, see if that'll fly. I move that we 24 propose to the City to alter their first amendment, to where 25 the last sentence reads, "Shared operational expenses include 3-27-06 47 1 expenses for the purchase of library materials and any other 2 projects City and County may individually negotiate." I said 3 the last sentence; it's the next to last sentence. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second that. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Third. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated 7 on the record with the modified language. Is there any 8 question or discussion concerning the motion? All in favor of 9 the 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: Thank you, Mr. Martinez. We 14 appreciate you being here today. Thank you, Mr. Lipscomb. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We also, sometime, need to 16 act on the bylaws -- proposed bylaws. I have one copy of the 17 -- the response to your concerns about the redundant language, 18 and it's taking that language out of it. Frankly, I thought 19 the City had faxed over a copy of this change, but they had 20 not. Do you want to act on it now? Take a look at the 21 changes? Or do you want to defer this until later, and I'll 22 get you some copies that you can -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's defer it till our next 24 meeting. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Till next meeting? Okay, 3-27-06 48 1 thank you. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that particular 4 agenda Item? Okay. Let's move to Item 5, if we might. 5 Consider/discuss concept plan for subdivision of property 6 owned by Julie Mosty and Bo Leonard off Elm Pass Road located 7 in Precinct 2. Commissioner Williams. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I'll 9 defer to Mr. Odom and Mr. Voelkel. And the Leonards are here 10 for any questions, and they're going to tell the Court what it 11 is that they were proposing. We have reviewed this. There 12 are some questions, and Mr. Odom will reveal those questions. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, before we start, kind of 14 a procedural question for today. Do we want to act on 15 Subdivision Rules before we act on all these plats and concept 16 plans, so that everyone knows which rules we're under? 'Cause 17 we're -- if we act now, we're currently under our existing 18 rules, where if we switch them around, then we act under our 19 new rules. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Will it make a difference in this 21 particular case? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so, but I haven't 23 looked at it that -- you know. 24 MR. ODOM: Well, I -- let me present what I 25 remember. I believe that I met sometime in late January with 3-27-06 49 1 the concept plan with Mr. Williams, or the first of February, 2 and with Lee and Bo and his wife. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 4 MR. ODOM: What they have is a piece of property 5 that goes through a private easement, and they wanted to 6 divide this up into, I believe, four or five lots. Am I 7 correct, Lee? 8 MR. VOELKEL: Four 5-acre tracts. 9 MR. ODOM: And I apologize because I don't have the 10 supporting -- Commissioner Williams put this on, and Lee, so 11 this is from recollection. And, basically, the question 12 was -- is where we go. As far as a platting procedure, would 13 they use a private, country lane -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Everything that we had 15 discussed is there. 16 MR. ODOM: All right. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you'll hand it back to 18 me. 19 MR. ODOM: Thank you. Okay. And had to go through 20 -- this was a division of property, I believe, under 1.03, was 21 family members. And this portion that is in the back side of 22 this from this aerial photograph is showing that basically 23 they were wanting to build a road, but the question was, do 24 they have to continue to build the road all the way out to Elm 25 Pass? Which was around approximately 3,000 feet, something 3-27-06 50 1 like that. 2 MR. VOELKEL: Correct. 3 MR. ODOM: And my answer was -- was yes. And that 4 one is the master plan, even on top of that, of this other 5 property that's in front of it. So, at this point, I'll turn 6 it over to Lee and let him give his thoughts. 7 MR. VOELKEL: I think Len has explained it pretty 8 well. Let me just show you this drawing, which I think you 9 have. I've colored here what the Leonards, who are here, own, 10 a 40-acre tract here that I've outlined in orange. And they 11 want to divide half of that, and that's kind of where I've 12 drawn a line here with these four tracts, which will be 13 5 acres plus. And this will be establishing a new road in 14 that section of their property, which they understand is a 15 60-foot right-of-way and built to county standards. That's 16 not really an issue that we came across. The concept plan was 17 from Elm Pass Road, which is down here in the lower section, 18 which is a public road. There is a private easement 40 feet 19 wide, and that's represented here in pink, that accesses this 20 property across adjoining properties. The question was, can 21 they develop this and put in their road here without doing any 22 development to this existing road? Again, there's a 23 40-foot-wide existing easement. There's an existing road in 24 that easement. To my knowledge, there are no restrictions on 25 that easement as far as when this was -- family partition was 3-27-06 51 1 established. I do understand that there's -- that the 2 easement is shared by some communication company that has a 3 tower on the adjoining property, so they use the easement for 4 accessing their tower. The easement is also used to access 5 the Leonards' property. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the width of this easement? 7 MR. VOELKEL: 40 feet wide. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 MR. ODOM: The other situation is, if you apply the 10 new rules, that it would be less than 10 acres; therefore, it 11 would not be a country lane, it would be a local road. Built 12 to a higher standard, therefore. And then, if you look at the 13 adjacent property, what would happen? The probability is it 14 would be subdivided in some way. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you can't look at it. I 16 understand what you're saying. 17 MR. ODOM: I understand. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can't -- if it goes any 19 further, then the road would have to be raised to a higher 20 level by the person doing that development. I think that the 21 -- this is a problem with the state law, the way it's worded, 22 and I think the -- and the intent is for family members' use. 23 I think what happens here is a situation where, clearly, this 24 road needs to be upgraded. Because of the right-of-way width, 25 you know, I don't know -- I think it's very difficult. You 3-27-06 52 1 know, you can't make the adjoining property owner add to that 2 right-of-way very easily, so I'd be more inclined to give a 3 variance on possibly the width of the right-of-way. I'd like 4 to see them try to get it up to 60 feet, but I'd be inclined 5 to give a variance there. But I think the road needs to be 6 brought to our minimum standards. 7 MR. ODOM: Which rule would we use? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you got back to his 9 original question. 10 MR. ODOM: That's right. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The existing rules, or the 12 ones that are going to be... 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think this is a concept plan; 14 I think it's going to have to come under our new rules. 15 MR. ODOM: I think so too. 16 MR. VOELKEL: We've kind of been going along those 17 premises, yes. 18 MR. ODOM: On that premise. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, because I think it's a -- 20 you know, and Rex -- I'm kind of looking to him for guidance. 21 I mean, the clear intent in my mind of the exemption for that 22 partition which created that road in the manner it is, it was 23 to be used by family members only, and it was to try to, you 24 know, not add expense to a family partition. But as soon as 25 other people start using it, I think that that road has to be 3-27-06 53 1 upgraded. 2 MR. VOELKEL: And the question would be, to what 3 degree or what type of road improvement? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's going to be -- 5 MR. VOELKEL: Country lane or local road? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under our revised -- our 7 proposed rules, it's local road, 'cause it's more than four 8 lots. If it's four lots or -- 9 MR. ODOM: Three. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- or less -- or less than four. 11 If it's three lots or less, it's a local road. 12 MR. VOELKEL: I was going through the new rules this 13 morning. This is, again, from what y'all are going to adopt 14 this afternoon, I think -- and I had not noticed this until 15 this morning, but under the country lane definition for a 16 road, it talks about the one that -- it says no more than 17 eight tracts, and all lots must be a minimum of 10-acre, which 18 doesn't qualify us, but it continues on and says, "This type 19 of road shall be approved by the Commissioners Court in those 20 cases where a right-of-way exists and minimal access is 21 desired." I'm a little confused on what that means, but I'm 22 wondering if this may fall under that section. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It could. 24 MR. VOELKEL: And, again, that's under the country 25 lane specifications. 3-27-06 54 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should have read that sooner and 2 brought it to our attention. 3 MR. VOELKEL: I know. I didn't realize -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's confusing in the sense it 5 doesn't add anything to that definition. Personally, I think 6 we should delete it. Does that answer that question for you? 7 MR. VOELKEL: Probably a good idea. Probably a good 8 idea. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What you're saying, though, 10 is a variance would be required for a 40-foot easement to the 11 other -- to the adjoining properties, but the upgrade of the 12 road would have to be more than the county lane; it would have 13 to be to local road standards. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 15 MR. ODOM: Yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On 40-foot right-of-way. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I think we 18 have done -- I mean, I would like to see the right-of-way 19 brought up, but I think that you get into an issue of having 20 to work with what you have. I mean, I think we could -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Instead of saying you have to 23 figure out how to get that 60 foot. But I think on past 24 precedent, we have varied width in situations of this nature. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see us -- I don't 3-27-06 55 1 see any ability to get the right-of-way increased until or 2 unless the other owners come in and ask for a partition of 3 their property. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I think at that 5 time, we would require it. At that point, I think I'd request 6 their right-of-way get widened, but, you know, it's a real 7 difficult situation. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just as we did for J.J. 9 Lane. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Similar. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Similar thing. 13 MR. ODOM: But the question would be -- what was the 14 total acreage on this? 20-acre? 15 MR. VOELKEL: Yes -- 21. 16 MR. ODOM: 21, and we're still going with individual 17 wells, so it would be a 5-acre average. But this would 18 still -- on a country lane, it would not work, because it's 19 less than 10 acres per lot, so local road would be it. It 20 could -- we don't have anything -- could it still be a private 21 road? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, it's private or 23 county. 24 MR. ODOM: Would it be paved or unpaved? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It'd be local road. 3-27-06 56 1 MR. VOELKEL: Local road has to be paved. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Local roads have to be 3 paved, right? 4 MR. ODOM: (Nodded.) Okay. 5 MR. VOELKEL: So, in summary, we get a variance, or 6 could possibly get that for the 40-foot right-of-way. As far 7 as the specifications, the road all the way from Elm Pass up 8 to the subdivision and into the new will be to local road 9 standards. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With 60-foot right-of-way. 12 MR. VOELKEL: On the new part, yes. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Inside the subdivided 14 property. 15 MR. ODOM: Local road would still be at the paving, 16 20-foot pavement. Okay. 17 MR. VOELKEL: Bo, would you like to speak or have 18 any questions? 19 MR. LEONARD: Yeah. I -- just a couple of 20 questions. If -- if we didn't subdivide, we were just going 21 to build a house up there, these rules are not applicable? Is 22 that -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's correct. 24 MR. LEONARD: What if, at some future date, we had 25 relatives -- children, grandchildren or such -- that wanted to 3-27-06 57 1 build homes up on this deal? Did that become Subdivision 2 Rules? What I'm getting into -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably not. 4 MR. ODOM: Probably not. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it depends on how you do it. 6 MR. VOELKEL: Because of a family partition? Is 7 that -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because of family -- because of 9 the state law exemption that exists currently. 10 MR. LEONARD: And the family, I guess, is -- 11 MR. ODOM: Third-degree. 12 MR. LEONARD: Does that go down to -- 13 MR. ODOM: We have a chart. It will show -- it will 14 show the family circle within the third-degree. And 15 grandchildren should be there, but some people take in 16 godchildren or being a godfather or something, and construe 17 that to third-degree. 18 MRS. LEONARD: I'm Julie Leonard. What if these -- 19 what if the kids sell -- build their house there and then they 20 sell? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Has to get platted. 22 MRS. LEONARD: So they can't do anything -- 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At that point, it has to be 24 platted, yeah. 25 MR. LEONARD: Huh? 3-27-06 58 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At that point, it would have 2 to be platted. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would anyone -- the first person 4 that sells it to outside a family member, that will trigger 5 platting, which the road will have to be brought up to 6 specification at that time. 7 MR. LEONARD: Would that -- in other words, when 8 you -- if -- let's say we build a house up there and then we 9 decide we want to sell the 40 acres. Now, then, the 10 purchaser's going to have to build a road from Elm Pass back 11 to this home? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a 40-acre tract? 13 MR. LEONARD: Right, that begins about a mile from 14 Elm Pass. So, let's say we -- let's say we don't improve the 15 road; we go back there and we build a 3,000 square foot house 16 out there, and 10 years from now we decide we want to sell the 17 whole 40 acres, including the house. Does the buyer then have 18 to go back to Elm Pass and build a 60-foot-wide paved road 19 back there? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. County Attorney? 21 MR. EMERSON: You're not subdividing. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 23 MR. EMERSON: That's the key. 24 MR. ODOM: I think there's an exemption, as long as 25 it's not subdivided, 'cause we had something similar down 3-27-06 59 1 towards Comfort, other side of Center Point over here a year 2 ago, and I think that you can probably not. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you sold the whole tract 4 with a house on it. 5 MR. ODOM: If you sold the whole tract. 6 MR. LEONARD: Right. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As soon as you divide it, then 8 it would have to be -- 9 MR. ODOM: If you divide it in two or more parts, 10 then you violate 1.02. 11 MR. LEONARD: Okay. Any questions? Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me have my sheets back, 15 Len. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on this particular 17 agenda item? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only getting Leonard's 19 attention to get my material back. 20 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I wouldn't want to keep it. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 22 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Thank you. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move to Item 6, if we 24 might. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to 25 extend preliminary plat of property owned by Center Point 3-27-06 60 1 Independent School District. Commissioner Williams? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I put this on because I 3 noticed in the last Road and Bridge report where they -- the 4 preliminary plat which Court approved for Center Point 5 Independent School District was -- had it expired or was it 6 about to expire? 7 MR. ODOM: I think it was right at the point to be 8 expired, sir. I can't remember. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And our extensions are 10 typically for six months or a year? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Year. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A year. 13 MR. ODOM: Year. Out to another year. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd move an extension to 15 Center Point Independent School District of one year for the 16 preliminary plat that they filed for that portion of their 17 property upon which they're building individual homes. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 20 of the extension of the preliminary plat of the Center Point 21 Independent School District property. Any question or 22 discussion? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to make a 24 comment, that I don't know that I would vote for a second 25 extension, though. They need to get -- get going on this 3-27-06 61 1 thing. 2 MR. ODOM: Or come back, redo everything. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? Comments? All 4 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, can we get the 10 Maintenance folks to turn the air conditioning on, so -- just 11 fans or something? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fans will circulate some air. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Getting a little stuffy. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fits our personality, stuffy. 15 (Discussion off the record.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 7, if we might. 17 Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on agreement 18 between the Texas Water Development Board and Kerr County for 19 grant funding to be used for the preliminary planning and 20 engineering for the Center Point wastewater collection system. 21 Commissioner Williams? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have on the agenda the 23 draft agreement which was forwarded to us by the Texas Water 24 Development Board. I've asked the County Attorney to review 25 it. He has done so, and his letter at the front is 3-27-06 62 1 incorporated in the backup material. What is not in the 2 backup material, which needs to be part of the contract, is 3 the task of work that comes out of the actual application for 4 the funding. I have that; I just didn't put it in front of 5 you, but I have it, and it would be incorporated as one of the 6 exhibits in the -- in the contract. T.W.D.B. has made a 7 couple suggestions, modest changes to the scope of work which 8 is part of the application, which becomes part of the 9 contract. I've also been in touch with U.G.R.A. with respect 10 to its participation as the grant match provider, and just 11 received this morning a draft of what can be a -- an 12 interlocal agreement between us and U.G.R.A. which will 13 memorialize that understanding as well. And when that's in 14 place -- I'm hopeful I'll have that on the Court's agenda next 15 time. When that's in place, then this whole thing will be 16 ready to send as a package up to T.W.D.B. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are they -- are they 18 participating on a 50 percent -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, equal amount. 20 $60,800, I believe, is the amount of -- and T.W.D.B.'s amount 21 is the same. And the total amount of the -- of the project 22 will be 121,000 and change. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're really getting good at 24 this. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm trying. 3-27-06 63 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, you know, there may be 2 life after county government after all for you. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're kidding. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can be a grant writer. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He can be a grant writer for 6 septic tanks. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you serious? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, do we need to act on this, 9 or do we need to wait until we get all the other pieces 10 together and act on it all at once? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think they're each 12 independent, Commissioner. I'd like for the Court -- I'll 13 make a motion for approval of the agreement with Texas Water 14 Development Board, and then I'll also bring back separately 15 the U.G.R.A. -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the scope of work, or the -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is already -- the 18 application we'd already accepted, and that's what they 19 accepted. We approved it to send, so we're already on record 20 as having approved that, and it's just an exhibit in this 21 agreement. Am I correct, Mr. County Attorney? 22 MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second the motion. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to approve 25 the agreement between the Texas Water Development Board and 3-27-06 64 1 Kerr County for grant funding to be used for preliminary 2 planning and engineering for the Center Point wastewater 3 correction system. Any question or discussion on the motion? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge's signature? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the County Judge's 6 signature, yes, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just one comment, Judge, 8 following up on Commissioner Baldwin's comment. It -- 9 Commissioner Williams is good at this, and he's provided a 10 really valuable service to us -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- and his constituents, 13 and the county in general by moving these wastewater projects 14 along. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, sir. Appreciate 17 it. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You hook up with former Judge 19 Edwards and you ought to start a company. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now, there's a suggestion. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who's the C.E.O.? That's the 22 part I want to watch. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments on 24 the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 25 your right hand. 3-27-06 65 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next Item, 5 consider, discuss, and authorize Commissioners Letz and 6 Williams to pursue grant availability for the Hill Country 7 Youth Exhibit Center. Here come those grants funds again. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here we go again. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. 10 (Laughter.) I'm serious. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 13 of the agenda Item. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could you tell me a little 15 more about this? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- I put this on there, and 17 I think there actually may be a court order that kind of says 18 the same thing. I'm just -- I think we need to start looking 19 at this again. I'm kind of getting my energy back after the 20 bond issue failed three years ago, and I think the first step 21 is to kind of do a little bit of homework to see exactly 22 what's out there or what grants. I know Parks and Wildlife 23 has grants. Soil Conservation through the U.S.D.A. has 24 grants. I see Mr. Pená in the audience. L.C.R.A., I know, 25 has a couple million for us. (Laughter.) So, you know, 3-27-06 66 1 there's things that -- we need to kind of make a list of that, 2 maybe make some preliminary contact with some of our local 3 foundations, and kind of just see what's out there. Because I 4 think that anything done out there is going to have to have a 5 -- a large grant component to it, and I just think we need to 6 start looking at what is available and exactly what the 7 criteria are, and I think that may help mold a little bit as 8 to what we do. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good work. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I'd surely thought that Mr. Pená's 12 presence here today and the timing of it was for the purpose 13 of making a major announcement. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He came in with his 15 briefcase, and one arm was longer than the other. Maybe he's 16 got money there. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Wrong guess, huh? 18 MR. PENÁ: No major announcement, but -- although, 19 if the Court doesn't know, the Board of Directors did approve 20 a resolution in honor of your sesquicentennial celebration 21 last week, and so that will be in the works to present to the 22 community next week -- or during sesquicentennial celebration 23 weekend. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate your efforts, Mr. Pená. 25 Thank you for riding herd on that for us. 3-27-06 67 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We want cash. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 10,000 for each year of 3 existence would be nice. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Ungrateful. Just ungrateful. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cash. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or discussion on 7 the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 8 your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you guys will kind of 14 keep us updated? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll come back with kind of 16 what's out there. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Next Item is to consider/discuss 19 appointment to fill the county representative vacancy on the 20 Airport Board. Who's going to run with that one? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll start with that. I think I 22 announced last meeting that Granger MacDonald resigned from 23 that. And since I put this on the agenda, we have looked, and 24 Bill and I have looked more closely at the actual language of 25 what needs to be done. I think we can act, clearly, today. 3-27-06 68 1 The way the process works, the Commissioners Court nominates 2 somebody, and the City Council can either give a thumbs-up or 3 a thumbs-down. Actually, they don't -- one doesn't 4 nominate -- both are eligible to nominate. The other can give 5 a thumbs-up or thumbs-down to the candidate. So, we're here 6 to nominate -- recommend nominations. So, anyway, Bill and I 7 have talked with several individuals, and we have settled on 8 nominating Steve King, who I think everyone -- he's in the 9 audience. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Steve who? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Steve, that guy. Steve's been 12 involved with the airport for quite a while. He's been very 13 involved with Commissioners Court, being kind of one of the 14 people we have always relied on for information on things 15 related to the airport. And, you know, Commissioner Williams 16 and I wholeheartedly recommend Steve, and I think he will be a 17 great addition to the board, and hope the City Council 18 likewise gives a thumbs-up to that nomination. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question; 20 then I got a comment about him. The -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be nice. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He is in the room, isn't he? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We recommend, and then the 25 City says thumbs-up, and that means a done deal? 3-27-06 69 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It doesn't go before the 3 Airport Board or any other board at all? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The action really is between 5 the -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The governing -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- constituent agencies, 8 which is the County and the City. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it should be. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's language in the 11 governance agreement that covers how this happens. And I 12 think -- and that's a good question, and that's the way it's 13 supposed to be. Commissioner Letz and I will take that 14 nomination -- once the Court approves the nomination, we'll 15 take it and we'll discuss it with Mayor Smith and Councilman 16 Chuck Coleman, who are the City's two reps, and see if there's 17 concurrence, and then the City Council signs off, just like on 18 the City -- on the Commissioners Court. But I think it's 19 important to note, too, that when we wrote this language in 20 this governance agreement, we tried to keep in mind that, for 21 the most part, the representatives that come off of 22 Commissioners Court and the representatives that come off of 23 City Council are more than likely not going to have a lot of 24 aviation experience. They're going to be just average folks, 25 just like the rest of us. And it's said that it is deemed 3-27-06 70 1 desirable that three -- that the three at-large positions be 2 filled by persons who possess and contribute a balance of 3 expertise in business, financial or management training and 4 experience. Nominees with experience and/or expertise in the 5 aviation industry, including aircraft owners, may be given 6 preference over nominees with no such experience. Point being 7 that we do need persons with aviation experience on that 8 board. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Steve King possesses that. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Exactly my comment. I don't 12 know anybody in this community that fits this board better 13 than Steve does. Aircraft owner, knows small airports as well 14 as anybody in this country. I mean, he goes in and out of the 15 smaller airports in his business more than anybody I know, and 16 he's a perfect fit and friend of the community, and he's been 17 at this thing for a long time, longer than we have been 18 dealing with this airport. And I just think he's a perfect 19 fit. All for him. He's a little goofy. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second the nomination. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: So, we have a motion and second for 22 approval of the nomination of Steve King to the Kerrville/Kerr 23 County Joint Airport Board. For submission to the City 24 Council? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To the two representatives, 3-27-06 71 1 which will be the mayor and Mr. -- Councilman Coleman. They, 2 in turn, will take it to City Council for the same type of 3 ratification, as would be the case if it were coming back the 4 other way. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The -- the nomination of 6 Mr. King is for one of the at-large positions? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it is -- it is at this 8 time -- it's an at-large, Judge, but it is at this time for 9 the unexpired term of Granger MacDonald. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question. 12 Now, I'm a little bit unclear about this. Is the City Council 13 out doing the same thing, looking for someone to -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They can. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They could, but I don't 16 think they are. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And when we set the original 18 at-large members, it was kind of -- you know, it was 19 unofficial; it was not really in our rules. Wasn't meant to 20 set a precedent, but Granger was kind of the existing board 21 member that the County recommended, and Roger Bobertz was the 22 existing representative that the City recommended. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then Dr. Davis, who was 25 chair at the time, thought it would be very good from a 3-27-06 72 1 consistency standpoint to have him continue as chair, so it 2 kind of was worked out, you know, between four 3 representatives, two from the City, two from the County. So, 4 I mean, I don't -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hopefully, there's no -- and one 7 of the reasons we're doing it quickly is so that they also 8 know who we're supporting. I suspect, hopefully, they'll 9 support the same. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Somehow, I was under the impression 11 that for the at-large members of the board, the City and 12 County reps on the board itself collectively made a nomination 13 for an at-large position, and then that nomination was taken 14 to the two governing bodies of the owners. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I thought that too, and 16 I think that basically that's what they're doing. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It could. It could. If 18 they wanted to put a name in the hopper, they could put a name 19 in the hopper. But, by the same token, the four of us can sit 20 down and say, "This is the name coming off the County side 21 that we wish to put forward and have the City Council's 22 concurrence there." But if that happens twice and there's 23 rejection, then we have the right to appoint. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a -- it's not the most 3-27-06 73 1 clearly worded provision, in my mind, but we may look at that 2 at some point in the future. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I said understanding. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it could stand a 5 little dressing up. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other question or comment 7 on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 8 your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Break? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we take about a 15-minute 15 recess. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Works for me. 17 (Recess taken from 10:31 a.m. to 10:48 a.m.) 18 - - - - - - - - - - 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we 20 might. Let's move to Item 11; consider, discuss, and take 21 appropriate action for preliminary revision of plat for Lot 7 22 and Privilege Creek Road right-of-way, Privilege Creek 23 Ranches. And -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Precinct 3. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Located in Precinct 3. And set a 3-27-06 74 1 public hearing for same. We don't have the volume; we have 2 the pages. I don't suppose it makes that much difference. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I'll make a preliminary 4 comment on this. I don't want to say too much, but I just 5 want it to be on the record. I will not be voting on this and 6 some other subdivision plats and concept plans that probably 7 will be coming in in the next couple of months, maybe 8 six-month period. This property adjoins my ranch, and I 9 visited with the County Attorney about it. In fact, he's been 10 at some of the meetings with me at my request. And, you know, 11 I just want to make it real clear that I'm -- because some of 12 this down the road -- this particular one has really no impact 13 whatsoever on me one way or the other, but development in this 14 area could have some impact and, obviously, affect the value 15 of my property, and I don't want any concern from my 16 standpoint. And with that being said, I have a question for 17 Rex. Should I -- well, I tend -- I tend to get relied on on 18 subdivision rules interpretations. Should I be quiet on that, 19 or should I make any comments, or should I try to -- because 20 some of these, I think it's easier for me to explain some of 21 these things. 22 MR. EMERSON: If you think you're going to have a 23 conflict of interest, I'd steer clear of all of it. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He still has to advise us. 3-27-06 75 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I would go more -- this one 2 really is not an issue on this, 'cause this has nothing to do 3 with anything. I don't even know why -- 4 MR. ODOM: If he recused himself, he could still 5 give an open opinion on something without voting. Am I right 6 on that? 7 MR. EMERSON: You can give an open opinion without 8 voting. But the flip side of the coin, looking at that, is 9 that your open opinion, depending on how it's worded, can 10 influence the voting. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: If a member of the Court has a 12 question for Mr. Letz, would not that be appropriate? 13 MR. EMERSON: Sure. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'll just put everyone -- I 15 mean, just let everyone know, I'll have to weigh it. I mean, 16 I think if it's a factual-type question related to 17 interpretation of our rules, I'll probably be more than happy 18 to help. If it's related to a specific subdivision and 19 things -- I will not in this case, because, like I say, this 20 particular one does not have -- is not really an issue, but 21 down the road there are some others that are in the works. I 22 will -- 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Where is this located on 24 this location map? 25 MR. ODOM: This is -- do you know where the ball 3-27-06 76 1 fields are at in Boerne? 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. 3 MR. ODOM: Going to San Antonio? 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's not marked on here 5 where it's located. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The ball fields that you see 7 from I-10? 8 MR. ODOM: That's right, sir. That is Ranger Road. 9 Prior to that is Ranger Road. You turn there and go 10 11.3 miles before you get to this piece of property. It's a 11 privately maintained subdivision that was done several years 12 ago before I came aboard. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a -- where it is, there's a 14 large development years ago called Champee Springs. It was 15 a -- developers bought about 11,000 acres in Kendall County, 16 and it was subdivided. And this -- it goes into far eastern 17 Kerr County, and that's where this is. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there any access to this 19 site off Highway 27? 20 MR. ODOM: No. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, good. I didn't see 27 22 mentioned anywhere. 23 MR. ODOM: This is probably, from my office, around 24 44 miles to get to that. So, there's only one way right now. 25 This shows right here, this is Ranger Creek. And I was trying 3-27-06 77 1 to give you a point of reference. Those ball fields, you've 2 gone a little bit too far. Johns Road's past that, but Ranger 3 Creek is -- is down -- you go 11 miles approximately, and you 4 hit the county line, and Turkey Knob runs into this. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, for you -- for you to 6 get to this, you would have to go -- 7 MR. ODOM: Approximately 50 miles. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- all the way into -- 9 almost to Boerne and pick up Ranger Creek Road and then come 10 back west? 11 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that correct? There is 13 no direct Kerr County access? 14 MR. ODOM: At this -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or -- 16 MR. ODOM: At this point, there is not. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a privately maintained 19 road? 20 MR. ODOM: This is privately maintained. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Then it's not the one that -- 22 that was funded by a developer at large expense that we heard 23 about down in Kendall County? 24 MR. ODOM: I'm sorry? I didn't hear. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, Ranger Creek Road was -- 3-27-06 78 1 was developed at that time when Champee Springs was developed, 2 and the developer was asked by the Court or told by the Court 3 to help upgrade Ranger Creek Road to Kendall County, but that 4 was in Champee Springs development. Yeah, it's -- that's how 5 you get there. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: And that was an approximate cost of a 7 million dollars to the developer? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Yeah, that's the one I was 10 thinking about. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What are you asking us 12 to -- 13 MR. ODOM: Well, what they're wanting to do is to 14 change -- when you look at Lot 7, if you look at the second 15 page, the left-hand corner, upper left-hand corner, you would 16 see that Lot 7 -- you see this neck comes down to a 17 cul-de-sac. What they're wanting to do is to revise Lot 7. 18 As you look to the right there, you can see that they've 19 eliminated the cul-de-sac and extended the right-of-way 20 approximately 900 feet up to the property line, and cut off 21 Lot 7 adjacent to that. In other words, they did not -- they 22 want to stop Lot 7 right there at that right-of-way. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And no cul-de-sac, then, is 24 required? 25 MR. ODOM: Well, that would be -- this is a master 3-27-06 79 1 plan. Yeah, you know, that could be. It's over 100 feet 2 wide. This right-of-way, when you see this neck -- 3 originally, my understanding is that this was going to be a 4 landing strip and never was built into one. And this neck 5 comes down to 100 foot wide, and they were carrying that neck 6 down to 100 foot. So, if you look at the radius of the 7 50-foot radius, you actually have 100 foot in there already. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 9 MR. ODOM: So, to build a cul-de-sac, just -- you 10 know, you have the room right there. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I still think you need to build 12 it. 13 MR. ODOM: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, the rules require a 15 cul-de-sac, so a cul-de-sac needs to be built. 16 MR. ODOM: Cul-de-sac in the end, within that 17 100-foot radius. 18 MR. KOLACNY: Right. 19 MR. ODOM: And doing away with the existing 20 cul-de-sac, and we'll bring it down to the end. You can pull 21 it into the Lot 7 neck right there. 22 MR. KOLACNY: Correct. 23 (Discussion off the record.) 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Cul-de-sac specs is a 25 50-foot radius? 3-27-06 80 1 MR. ODOM: Yes, it's a 100-foot diameter. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You got a 100-foot road. 3 How are you going to know it's a cul-de-sac? 4 MR. ODOM: Well, you won't. That's the reason I 5 hadn't -- I didn't push the issue. I had 100 foot. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Lot 7 is depicted on this 7 piece of paper as this long strip; is that correct? 8 MR. ODOM: Correct. Lot 7 is right here. This was 9 supposedly to be an airstrip -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So -- 11 MR. ODOM: -- attached to this at one time, and that 12 lot came all the way down to a cul-de-sac, which is right 13 here. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you. Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a baby flag lot. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Supposed to be an airstrip, 17 but is not -- but is no longer -- 18 MR. ODOM: It was never used as an airstrip. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And is not intended to be? 20 MR. ODOM: That is correct. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. My question is -- 22 let's see. I see Lot 7, 151 acres, and it looks like the rest 23 of them are kind of the same size. 24 MR. ODOM: Hasn't changed a bit from what was 25 originally platted. 3-27-06 81 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't remember what 2 was originally platted. That's what I'm saying. 3 MR. ODOM: Well, let's see. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But they're all really large. 5 MR. ODOM: They're all large lots. Eleven lots, I 6 believe. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 8 MR. ODOM: And, really, Lot 7 has come down a few 9 acres, because they took that neck off of it. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me ask again about the 11 cul-de-sac. Privilege Lane East is proposed to be a 12 100-foot-wide pavement? 13 MR. ODOM: No, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 15 MR. ODOM: It would still be a country lane. That's 16 what the Court had given them before, was a country lane. 17 So -- 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: At 40 feet? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 60. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 60. 21 MR. ODOM: 60-foot right-of-way. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: What size road? 23 MR. ODOM: Sir? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the width of the roadway? 25 MR. ODOM: 18 feet, with the new subdivision rules. 3-27-06 82 1 The existing up in front is 16. It's still privately 2 maintained; we're not going to maintain it. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: With the cul-de-sac, what's the paved 4 area? 5 MR. ODOM: Paved area is 40. 80 foot. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: So, 80-foot paved area? 7 MR. ODOM: That's right. 50 foot -- 50 foot for the 8 layout of it. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 10 MR. ODOM: Which is 100 feet. And then the pavement 11 would have to be at 80 foot for the pavement. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: 40-foot radius on the pavement? 13 MR. ODOM: That's right. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, are we going to have a 15 40-foot radius at the end of this? 16 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, they'll have to pave it. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When's the -- when is the 18 public hearing? 19 MR. ODOM: The public hearing is set for May the 20 8th, 2006, at 10 a.m. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 24 of the -- I guess just for the setting of a public hearing on 25 May 8th. 3-27-06 83 1 MR. ODOM: May 8th public hearing. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That's all at this point. 3 MR. ODOM: Yes. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or 5 discussion? Let me ask you, if I might, is it your 6 understanding that the developer's intention is to carry that 7 Privilege Lane East road on further to the -- 8 MR. ODOM: North. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: -- northwest? 10 MR. ODOM: I have the engineer right here. It is my 11 understanding that it is. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: And subsequent development? 13 MR. KOLACNY: Good morning. Ken Kolacny from 14 Matkin-Hoover Engineering. Like I say, I'm the engineer 15 representing the developer. Their immediate intentions are 16 just to extend that right-of-way to where you see it there. 17 And -- but they -- they do have -- or they are looking at 18 property to the other side to possibly extend it and connect 19 it to Lane Valley Road. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: They don't currently own the property 21 immediately northwest of Privilege Lane East? 22 MR. KOLACNY: Correct. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further questions or 24 comments? 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I just think between now 3-27-06 84 1 and May 8th, Mr. Baldwin ought to get to be an expert on -- on 2 subdivision rules. 3 MR. ODOM: And I would say any further -- anything 4 on a master plan will have an effect on this subdivision and 5 that road and the size of it. So, when I have a better idea, 6 we'll address that. At this point, this is acceptable to us, 7 and if they put the cul-de-sac down at the end, it should 8 work. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make one comment. My 10 understanding of -- I think Len's understanding as well, is 11 that the developer plans to put -- bring a concept plan to the 12 Court in the reasonably near future to lay out the entire 13 plan. And Len's not trying to be evasive; the engineer's not 14 trying to be evasive. It's just that there's some real estate 15 deals, I think, that are pending. 16 MR. ODOM: Yes. I don't have any secrets, other 17 than just... 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or comment? All 20 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 21 (Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Nicholson voted in favor of the motion.) 22 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Note that Commissioner Letz 3-27-06 85 1 abstained. Let's move on to Item 12; consider, discuss, and 2 take appropriate action -- oops. Let's back up to Item 10, 3 open the annual bids for road base, cold mix, aggregate, 4 emulsion oil, corrugated metal pipe, and equipment 5 by-the-hour, and consider and discuss, take appropriate action 6 on the award of those bids. That was a matter set for 7 11 o'clock; it's shortly past that now, so we'll proceed with 8 the opening of those bids. My able assistant. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I can prevent from cutting 10 myself. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: First bid is from Schwarz 12 Construction Company, and it is for equipment by-the-hour with 13 operator. Second bid is from Lucky 3 Materials, and that bid 14 is submitted for base material. Next bid is from Rocky 15 Hawkins Construction for equipment by-the-hour with operator. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: New roping arena. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Next one is from Leo R. Jenschke, 18 equipment by-the-hour with operator. Next bid is from Walters 19 Building and Supply for corrugated metal pipe. Next bid is 20 from Edmund Jenschke, Incorporated, for equipment by-the-hour 21 with operator. Next one is from Ergon Asphalt and Emulsions, 22 Incorporated, for emulsion oils. The next one is from Vulcan 23 Construction Materials, and it is on paving aggregates and hot 24 mix, cold laid asphalt, concrete pavement spec. Next one is 25 from -- I presume this is S.E.M. Materials for emulsion -- 3-27-06 86 1 nope, scratch that little bit on emulsion. I'm trying to 2 figure out what they're bidding on. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought it was the emulsion 4 page. Oh, no bid. No bid. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't find that they bid on 6 anything. 7 MR. ODOM: Who is it again? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: S.E.M. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: S.E.M. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Get a nice letter from them 11 or anything? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, on emulsion oils, it merely 13 says "no bid," and where it says blank dollars per gallon. 14 And then on the other -- other types of materials, they've 15 just drawn a diagonal line through the entire bidding form for 16 paving aggregates, corrugated metal pipe, base material, and 17 hot mix, cold laid asphalt and concrete pavement spec. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a sayonara line, huh? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, only thing I can figure is they 20 don't want to be dropped off the bid list. 21 MR. ODOM: Off the bid list. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: We did get their attention, though, 23 apparently. Next bid is from Wilson Culverts, Incorporated, 24 with respect to corrugated metal pipe. Next one is from 25 Martin Marietta Materials as to paving aggregates and hot mix, 3-27-06 87 1 cold mix asphalt and concrete pavement specs. Next one is 2 from Contech Construction Products, Incorporated, for 3 corrugated metal pipe. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last one. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: And the last one is from M.P.B., 6 Incorporated, for equipment by-the-hour with operator. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I move we accept all bids 8 and refer them to Road and Bridge for recommendation. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to accept 11 bids and refer them to Road and Bridge for evaluation and 12 recommendation. Any question or discussion? All in favor of 13 the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. 18 MR. ODOM: Thank you. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's now move to Item 12, consider, 20 discuss, and take appropriate action to accept lease agreement 21 for two Caterpillar backhoes approved by Court Order Number 22 29524, and have the Judge sign the same. 23 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I'm asking the Court to 24 authorize the Judge to sign it. These are the two lease 25 backhoes that we ordered probably back the first of the year, 3-27-06 88 1 and we're finally getting those two machines back, and we 2 think they'll work for us. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are they here? 4 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, I've got them, and they're 5 sitting. We won't use them until we have the Judge sign and I 6 get insurance on them. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Did you second? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. Yes, sir. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion and second to approve the -- 12 and accept the lease agreement for two Caterpillar backhoes as 13 approved by Court Order Number 29524 and authorize the Judge 14 to sign the same. Any question or discussion? 15 MR. ODOM: I believe that Mindy has the original, so 16 I'll go to her after -- after this to present those papers to 17 you. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is there a purchase option in 19 these lease agreements? 20 MR. ODOM: I believe that -- I believe that this is. 21 I believe it is. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of them do, right? 23 MR. ODOM: Well, not every -- not all the time do 24 they put it that way. But this -- they -- we bid this as a 25 lease, and they gave us an option, if we wish to do it, to 3-27-06 89 1 pick that up residual amount should we want to in five years. 2 I believe that's the way it was worded. We have five years to 3 look at it and to see. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It's not one of those $1 5 deals, unfortunately. 6 MR. ODOM: No, sir, it's residual value. I think 7 it's around 25,000, 27,000 at the end of five years, probably 8 an $80,000 machine. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: They have a pretty good way of 10 evaluating that residual, if I recall it. 11 MR. ODOM: Cat Financial has a -- yes, sir, they 12 have a value that they determine out three, five, whatever 13 we're doing. And we're fortunate, we have five years. They 14 normally go three, and it's been a real good -- good thing for 15 us. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or 17 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify 18 by raising your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you, 23 Mr. Odom. 24 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 13; consider, 3-27-06 90 1 discuss, and take appropriate action on Kerr County 2 Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Commissioner Letz? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many changes since the 4 last time? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have marked versions this 6 time. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have marked versions. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's got a new computer and 9 he's learned how to use it. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I can just find my... 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: His marked version. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My marked version. Want a copy, 13 Mr. County Attorney? 14 MR. EMERSON: Sure. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Press? 16 MR. ODOM: How about Road and Bridge? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Road and Bridge. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gordon Morgan? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Gordon Morgan. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hey, look at that. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. All right. Probably 22 the easiest thing to do is to go through page-by-page. I can 23 hopefully be able to remember what all the changes were. 24 There was not a whole lot, and most of them, for the most 25 part, are not real significant. 3-27-06 91 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 10. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 10 is the first one? Page 3 10. There was a bunch of other language under the definition 4 related to the number of lots and all this other stuff, and 5 I -- it's really addressed later in the agreement -- in the -- 6 arterial road, collector road and local roads. I did not 7 check that same language, so I just deleted it out of the 8 definition. And then under road, I modified that definition 9 slightly and added -- it was talking about right-of-way 10 easement. I added language about being a fee simple title as 11 well. Next change -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you agree with that, 13 Judge? Adding the verbiage, simple -- "fee simple title"? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it says or a right-of-way or 15 easement. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: So, it -- you can do it either way. 18 There -- there are a lot of folks that -- that traditional 19 thinking from a land title standpoint is, a right-of-way is 20 generally considered to be a deed to the property for a 21 specific purpose, but it actually conveys title of the 22 property. That's a common -- common belief among -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason I made the change 24 is -- I think it was covered before, but a lot of times under 25 our -- especially if it's going to be a county road, we want 3-27-06 92 1 it deeded to the county, and I added that just to make it 2 clear. I think you can still call it right-of-way, but I just 3 tried to make it a little bit clearer by adding that. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just for my education, is 5 that different from an easement? That the County has an 6 easement; we also expect a title? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, some of it -- some of our 8 county roads, we have right-of-ways, and some of them we 9 don't. I mean, it varies. Some of them are prescriptive 10 easements. We do not own that property, but we have -- we 11 have an easement to it and there's something that we -- where 12 we have an actual written easement to the property. 13 MR. ODOM: But we do own it through adverse 14 possession. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We own -- we -- 16 MR. ODOM: Prescriptive easement. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We own the road. We do not own 18 the property. 19 MR. ODOM: If we have 10 years maintenance in it, 20 adverse possession; belongs to the County. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They own the property. We have 22 an easement to the -- 23 MR. ODOM: But we have the -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, we don't own it. They 25 pay taxes on it. 3-27-06 93 1 MR. ODOM: They pay taxes at a reduced -- they 2 actually don't, but -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't get into it. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: A lot of your roads in some of these 5 rural subdivisions -- Kerrville South, notably -- you will 6 have the -- the plat will be filed, and it'll show the 7 property line going to the middle of the road, but burdened -- 8 on either side of that middle by 20 feet or whatever it may 9 be, 30 feet, it's burdened by an easement. 10 MR. ODOM: That's right. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: But the property owner owns to the 12 middle of the road. 13 MR. ODOM: That's correct. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: It's just reserved for the purpose of 15 that roadway. 16 MR. ODOM: Of vehicular traffic. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We have an easement, the 18 County does, along Lake Ingram, the banks of it, to be used 19 for purposes of maintenance. We don't own that, right? And 20 the tax -- the owner does pay taxes on it, right? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Presumably. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably. 23 MR. ODOM: Probably. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know about Lake Ingram. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 3-27-06 94 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have a lot of situations 2 like the Judge depicts off of Elm Pass Road, way back in there 3 along -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd say the majority of the 5 county roads are by prescriptive easement. 6 MR. ODOM: Yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, that was -- it's to 9 clarify that, the fee simple title. Next is on Page 16 at the 10 bottom. There was a conflict that said one-half and 11 one-quarter previously, and I went to one-quarter for -- this 12 is a minimum lot size. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Served by public water and 15 community system. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: While we're there, are we 17 going to address the issue that Mr. Voelkel brought up? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which was? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't remember. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Country lane. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't remember. It was 23 somewhere in here. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was on country lane. I made 25 a note of that. Then on the next page, I just highlighted it 3-27-06 95 1 'cause we've changed C. On 5.01.E, we changed -- we deleted 2 the two ETJ areas, so it's now handled by agreement with the 3 various -- with the cities. And then we changed the center of 4 the circle for Center Point to Farm-to-Market 480 and 5 Farm-to-Market 1350, which is China Street, and we extended 6 the radius of the circle at Center Point to one and a half 7 miles to pick up some areas that are likely to be included in 8 a sewage or water -- potable water project. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then, in the Comfort area, I 11 left that radius at 1 mile, but I moved the intersection to 12 State Highway 27 and Hermann Sons Road. Before, we had it 13 listed at a -- at a road the other side of the bridge that was 14 in Kendall County. It was a little bit confusing why we were 15 using a Kendall County point of reference, so I just moved it 16 into Kerr County. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I've been 18 involved in all discussions about this except the last 19 meeting. I didn't read those minutes, and I'm still not sure 20 I understand the one-quarter acre for lots. What -- what's 21 our rationale for reducing lot sizes? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you're under a central water 23 system and a central sewer system, I think a quarter acre is 24 kind of a traditional town lot size. And that, also, there's 25 other language that can be, you know, looked at on a 3-27-06 96 1 case-by-case situation, if somebody wants to do a townhome or 2 something like that. But, really, what we're talking about 3 here, where you're going to have that is next to a city, 4 whether it be somewhere around Kerrville, which is, you know, 5 probably handled by the ETJ agreement, or around Comfort or 6 Center Point, possibly, right around there somewhere. But I 7 don't know that there's any plan for a central sewer system in 8 the Hunt area. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we're relaxing the 10 minimum acreage and minimum lot size requirements in these 11 specific high-density areas. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're actually -- in our 13 previous rules, we had no minimum here, and we've gone back to 14 a quarter. We used to have no minimum in this situation. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This, however, can encourage 16 a developer to do both centralized water and centralized sewer 17 if he wants to maximize his development of a particular piece 18 of land. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Would you expect that it 20 would, sometime in the future, 10 or 20 years, have the result 21 of a higher population in Kerr County, as compared to if we 22 did nothing? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- I think you 24 would -- it'll change the way the growth comes. I think this 25 allows for some little bit higher density development in areas 3-27-06 97 1 where -- my personal opinion is that we probably will need it 2 on the eastern part of the county. As an example, inside -- 3 right around Comfort. Comfort's not incorporated, so, you 4 know, it's not -- they go under county rules, but they are 5 served by a water district that provides wastewater and 6 drinking water. They had a subdivision recently denied by 7 Kendall County because they didn't have a 4-acre average. 8 Well, you can't -- they're -- basically, what Kendall County 9 has done on the Kendall County side of Comfort is say, "You 10 will no longer develop here," because you can't develop at the 11 cost per-acre on a 4-acre average. So I think that, you know, 12 what we're doing, we're allowing -- I looked at that 13 situation, and that doesn't make sense to me. I think we need 14 to allow for communities to develop, and this is a way to 15 encourage them to do that, and also encourages central 16 wastewater and central water systems, which I think in areas 17 are good. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm sure -- in fact, I know 19 there are those who would say this relaxing of the acreage 20 requirements is going to put more pressure on the aquifers. 21 What do we say to that? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that, long-term, I can 23 also -- I won't disagree. It may. I can't look in that 24 crystal ball. But I think it also provides a -- a way where 25 surface water options and central wastewater systems become 3-27-06 98 1 more economic. And I think that central water systems and 2 water and wastewater, certainly, right along the river 3 corridor are a big plus. So, I think it encourages -- you 4 know, by having a higher density, it encourages -- it's a way 5 to get other projects off high center. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're right, though. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it does. Okay. Next 9 change is on Page 20. On 5.05, concrete monuments, I 10 highlighted this, 'cause Leonard had a comment to me on a fax, 11 and I couldn't understand his comment, so I highlighted this. 12 So, maybe you can look through there and get back, you know, 13 before we're done as to what his comment was. Under drainage, 14 a couple of general changes that I made that just -- what I 15 was trying to do here, one, I added some language in the last 16 sentence. It says -- under that first paragraph, it says, 17 "and should be prepared to use professional standards of the 18 engineering practice and industry." That was a note I had 19 from Rex, that looking at our drainage -- he had some people 20 look at what we were doing with our new approach to drainage, 21 and felt that was probably a needed improvement. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. Is that a -- 23 let me read -- that didn't look like a real sentence to me. 24 "And should prepared"? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh. 3-27-06 99 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Be prepared. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be prepared. There was bad 3 lighting in Wichita Falls in my room; I couldn't read. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you never know if that's 5 a real sentence or not. Sometimes we leave "be" out and 6 sometimes we don't. 7 MR. ODOM: Wasn't that question from Rex in 8 reference -- is that the standard that we're using? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it's that we can't -- it's 10 that on any engineering, they need to use a standard -- I 11 mean, engineering standard. I think -- and I looked at a lot 12 of other rules, too. I think we get into real shaky ground if 13 we tell engineers that are certified by the state what their 14 engineering standard will be in Kerr County. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think they can tell us to 16 go hang it. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, exactly. I think they're 18 the paid professional; they're licensed by the state, not by 19 Kerr County. And I think that's what the attempt here is 20 saying, that -- and it goes further on on the next page. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I see this as a 22 sentence -- I mean as a suggestion. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, it is a suggestion. But 24 it goes on to -- let me jump to 5.06.C. I added, "Criteria 25 set forth under this section are intended to provide 3-27-06 100 1 guidelines for drainage calculations." I think that the 2 previous way I had this worded was that -- and I've also 3 changed all -- or many of the "shalls" in the document to 4 "should," and Rex said maybe we should even go to "may." The 5 idea is that I think it's -- we -- there is some arbitrary 6 nature of the figures we use. I got them from talking with an 7 engineer, but, I mean, I don't think there was a -- he didn't 8 open up an engineering manual and we came up with these magic 9 numbers. I think what we're trying to say is that under -- 10 our intent is that we think that it is acceptable engineering 11 practice for Kerr County subdivisions to have tolerances on 12 drainage issues, and these tolerances that we're listing are, 13 you know, kind of rule-of-thumbs that we think are 14 appropriate. However, if an engineer says otherwise, if they 15 want to use a little bit different standards, I don't think we 16 have the ability to say otherwise unless we want to challenge 17 them with another engineer. And also, I think engineers are 18 obligated to use the state law, so I think we're trying to 19 say, hey, we're trying to take a little bit different approach 20 in Kerr County, but we're not telling you how to do your job, 21 because I don't think we have that authority, directly. And 22 I -- there's an instance -- and I think Buster will be my 23 witness on this. I went through this whole discussion -- I 24 can't think of what his first name is. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jim. 3-27-06 101 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: With Jim Allison in Wichita 2 Falls, and asked if we were going in the right direction. He 3 said yes, this is exactly the direction that he feels counties 4 should be going. So, once again, Buster's leading our 5 association to the -- to the cutting edge, or leading the 6 county. But Jim -- yeah, I think Jim understood what I asked 7 him. Buster said he wasn't positive, but -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think he did. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway, that's kind of what 10 I was doing with that. That's why those changes are listed 11 there. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could we go back to 5.05? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Concrete monuments. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: An old subdivision, would 17 they be required to establish one of the concrete monuments, 18 or are those for new -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they revise that subdivision, 20 they might. It would depend, I think, how they do it. But 21 this is what the new subdivisions -- 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the purpose of a 23 monument? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that -- for floodplain 25 purposes, so there is a point where we know what the 3-27-06 102 1 floodplain elevation is. It's a one-time certified, so it's 2 basically done for all lots one time, rather than every lot 3 having to figure out what the floodplain is. It's kind of -- 4 once you get the monument, you know the point. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So you can go in there with 6 your instrument and you can -- 7 MR. ODOM: Sit on that. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sit on that monument, and you 9 know every lot. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. So, it does have a 11 practical reason. 12 MR. ODOM: Has a practical reason. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Back on Page 20, under 5.06.A 14 again, second paragraph. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 20? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 20, that last paragraph. 17 It starts with, "A registered professional engineer..." 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I modified this. We previously 20 said that the engineer had to certify that the drainage work 21 was done according to the design. Several engineers contacted 22 me and said that they think the developer needs to do it, 23 because they really don't have the ability, in practice, to 24 know that, because a developer does the construction, and 25 sometimes the engineer's involved, sometimes different 3-27-06 103 1 engineers. They thought it was a good idea to have the 2 developer responsible. They said that they just -- for the 3 most part, they couldn't physically do that. They -- 'cause 4 they don't know all the time for that certification. So, 5 anyway, I think it's important to have the developer -- 6 someone needs to certify it was done, and that's why I said 7 the engineer or the developer can certify it. Under the top 8 of Page 21, subdivisions with minimum lot size of 20 acres or 9 total number of lots of less than five shall be exempt from 10 this section. I believe that used to say -- 11 MR. ODOM: 15. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was a different number. 13 MR. ODOM: 15. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was 15 -- what -- 15 MR. ODOM: The old one said 15. If it was 15 or 16 more, then you didn't need a drainage study. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, anyway, I can't remember 18 what it -- 15. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that still part of 5.06.A? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. I thought it changed -- 21 I'm hesitant right here. I thought I changed it to something 22 different. I'm wondering if -- you know, some counties I 23 looked at use a lot smaller standard than that, or larger. I 24 think 20 acres and five -- or less than five lots is pretty 25 small. I think we clearly wanted to exempt out these real 3-27-06 104 1 small subdivisions. I don't think they need to go to the 2 expense of -- 3 MR. ODOM: Drainage studies. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- drainage studies. I'm 5 probably comfortable with 20 acres. As I said, I think some 6 of the counties around us are using 10 or 15 acres. So, 7 anyway, that's just kind of -- I don't have a real strong 8 opinion on it. I think we need to exempt the -- you know, 9 make a point where if there's larger tracts or a small number 10 of lots, they should be exempt, but we can leave it at that. 11 That's fine. Evidently, they -- this is what I thought when I 12 wrote that paragraph. I went through on the rest of Page 21 13 and changed those "shalls" to "should." Is there an opinion, 14 should we go to "may"? Should I leave it "should"? Does 15 "should" have a legal meaning? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Frankly, "may" is better. 17 If it's -- if it's not required, it's permissible, I think 18 "may" would be a better choice of words. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: If you want to strongly encourage it, 20 however, I think "should" is a better term. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather strongly encourage 22 it, but not say that they have to. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fine, if that's your intent. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's my intent, anyway. 25 That's it on that. 3-27-06 105 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As distinguished from 2 "shall." 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Right. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Page 23 -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Or "must." 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the first one, it used to say 7 "retention." Needs to say "detention." Then another 8 should/shall change, or "shall" to "should." 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 22? Page 22? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 23 on mine. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 24, under Concept Plan -- I 13 don't know. You'll have to bear with me a minute. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Figure out which draft you're looking 15 for? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm trying to figure out what 17 the change was that I made. 18 MR. ODOM: The change you said before, I think it 19 was 10 or less; if it was 10 or less, we didn't have to have a 20 concept. And this one here doesn't have that. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought I brought that copy 22 with me. Too many stacks of paper. I've got a feeling the 23 one I'm looking for is on my desk. I cannot remember what the 24 change was. I think the last sentence was what I deleted. I 25 can't remember what it says. I thought I brought it, but I 3-27-06 106 1 didn't. 2 MR. ODOM: Do you want to -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what it was -- I think 4 Leonard's right; I think I eliminated the requirement, if you 5 were a small lot, that you didn't have to bring -- do the 6 concept plan. I think it's just at the discretion of the -- 7 gave the discretion totally to Road and Bridge or the 8 Commissioner. 9 MR. ODOM: Or the Commissioner. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It used to be a certain 11 criteria; only a certain number of lots had to have a concept 12 plan, but we were getting a lot of concept plans like the one 13 this morning, which didn't meet the minimum requirements, so I 14 just eliminated that minimum requirement and said it's at the 15 discretion of the Road and Bridge Administrator or the 16 Commissioner. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: That's not a particularly burdensome 18 requirement. You're just talking about a rough sketch. It's 19 an idea that's being floated. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. It's just -- and it's 21 really just if it's a little bit of an unusual development. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And in many cases, it's for 23 the owners, to give the owner some idea as to what direction 24 they may have to go. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Page 26, 6.02.D.4. 3-27-06 107 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 26? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is just changing it that we 3 had -- at one point, we had the drainage plan had to be at 4 preliminary plat. This is the preliminary drainage plan has 5 to be at the preliminary plat. 6 MR. ODOM: Before, it was with the final. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 8 MR. ODOM: And now it's with the preliminary. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You got to have something at the 10 preliminary, but the final drainage plans come in with the 11 final. You just have to have a preliminary drainage plan at 12 the time of preliminary plat, if one is required. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you speaking only to preliminary 14 in 6.02.D.4? Only preliminary? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. It's addressed later under 16 final as well. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The language there is a little 18 stilted. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If drainage plan is required, 20 the preliminary drainage plan shall be submitted with 21 accompanying data with -- or should be "for" the preliminary 22 plat. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you could say preliminary 24 drainage plans, if a drainage plan is required, shall be 25 submitted. Your -- your additional referencing makes it 3-27-06 108 1 difficult -- 2 MR. ODOM: Reference goes back to that change that 3 he had of 20 acres or more, would be the only exception out of 4 5.06. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can change that to 6 preliminary drainage plan. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: And then, where you refer to the 8 preliminary drainage plan in the second sentence, just draw a 9 line through -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got "preliminary" in 11 there twice. You do not need it. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take the first one out. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, just leave it as-is, 15 but just delete -- put the period after "accompanying data"? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: No. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. Take out the first -- 18 the "preliminary." If it's required by Section 5.06, a 19 drainage plan shall be submitted with accompanying data. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: You can do it that way. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just take out the first 22 "preliminary." 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. But the preliminary -- we 24 don't want the drainage plan at the preliminary; we want the 25 preliminary drainage plan at the preliminary. 3-27-06 109 1 JUDGE TINLEY: You can either say "preliminary" as 2 the first word in that sentence, "drainage plans, if 3 required," and then go straight to "shall be submitted." Or 4 you can start with, "If a drainage plan is required, the 5 preliminary drainage plan shall be submitted with accompanying 6 data." Either way. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Which way do you want to do it? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The second. So -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Start with "I-f." Start the 11 sentence with "If." 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: "Preliminary drainage plans. If 14 a drainage plan is required by Section 5.06, preliminary 15 drainage plan shall be submitted with accompanying data." 16 JUDGE TINLEY: With the preliminary plat. Go ahead 17 and -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Put it back in? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right, I think I got it. 21 All right. Under -- on Page 27, 6.03.C, I just added the word 22 "final." Form and Content of Final Plat -- not there. Page 23 28 -- I believe we had a typo in there. I changed 6.03.C.3.c, 24 Certification by County Subdivision Administrator. I think 25 there was a word in there. And then under the next one, 3-27-06 110 1 6.03.C -- 6.03.C.3.g, that's where we had talked about at our 2 last meeting the statement that goes on the final plat as to 3 the total number of lots permitted in a subdivision, which is 4 based on total acreage divided by five, so that we can go 5 through replats; we don't all of a sudden start creeping up 6 and getting more than we're supposed to. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's wise. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Put that in as an example, 9 total acreage divided by five. Use it that way. "Example," 10 colon. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 12 MR. ODOM: But this will be on the boilerplate for 13 final. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. This is the standard 15 plat note. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: You're using gross subdivision 17 acreage as opposed to net? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So, if it's a 600-acre 19 tract, it's 600 divided by 5; 30, so you have -- 20 MR. ODOM: 120. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So, 30's the number -- 30 22 is not right. Math isn't right. Whatever it is. 100 -- 100 23 acres, you get 20 lots. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the number that 100 acres 3-27-06 111 1 can get with individuals wells. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why the example is 3 helpful. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. On the next page, 5 6.03.D.10 -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go back. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I think -- I think that one's 9 going to be battered around a time or two on figuring the 10 average, and I think you need to clearly state that you're 11 dealing with the gross total acreage within the subdivision. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I added that on my note here in 13 the example, to make it gross total acreage divided by... 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the next page, 6.03.D.10, 16 previously we had a note about certifying topography that 17 Mr. Voelkel brought to our attention, so I just deleted that 18 part off the certification of the land surveyor. It's still 19 applicable. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Which is what they do anyway. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is what they do. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Next -- I don't have any 24 changes until Page 37, so I just want to make sure we're all 25 in agreement. 3-27-06 112 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 37? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 37 under 7.06.8. Under 3 Country Lane, and for that matter, Local Road, we say Type A 4 is crushed base, correct? 5 MR. ODOM: That's correct. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what we're saying you 7 have to use. Type C -- 8 MR. ODOM: Is select fill; gravel, pit run. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is pit run. 10 MR. ODOM: It's pit run, but it's screened. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what we're saying here is 12 that we are no longer to allow on-site material to be used for 13 road base. 14 MR. ODOM: For Grade 3 caliche, correct. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if they get -- I mean, is 16 there any -- and I still have a little problem with this; we 17 go round and round on this, Leonard. 18 MR. ODOM: Sure. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- 20 MR. ODOM: If -- if a testing lab found that the 21 material was as good and could certify that that material was 22 as good as Type C, I would accept it. If I have a letter from 23 a testing lab to go out there and say I got this right here 24 and it basically meets these specs, it's better material than 25 a Type C. I personally, you know, before -- I would like it 3-27-06 113 1 all to be limestone, with the exception of the unpaved roads. 2 Anything paved ought to have crushed limestone; that's my 3 personal belief. Now, a private road over there could be -- 4 you could have it paved, or could you have it unpaved, and it 5 could be Type C. It might even be Grade 3. The catch-all 6 would be that if they came back to the County to take it, we 7 would say you've got to upgrade that into a base material, or 8 cement-stabilized or something to get something better so that 9 we don't have the Grade 3 caliche there. I don't have a 10 problem with country lane if we're not maintaining it. But if 11 we have a country lane and we maintain it, I believe that it 12 should at least -- well, it should be Type A. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're in agreement. Clearly, we 14 want roads that stand up. And I just -- you know, I just -- I 15 don't want to overly burden the developers having to keep our 16 gravel pits along the river in business when there is material 17 that will work on-site. That's my concern. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's my question. Are 19 we -- are we making a change that's going to drive up costs 20 and require us to -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Definitely costs more. 22 MR. ODOM: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do the benefits justify 24 the -- the costs? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have to ask him that 3-27-06 114 1 question. He's the -- 2 MR. ODOM: I have to maintain it. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- the road builder. 4 MR. ODOM: If they come and they do everything 5 that's there and it's acceptable, we would have to accept it. 6 And if it's not the higher quality, I just think the taxpayers 7 would be getting cheated some. What is the ultimate cost is 8 us to maintain it. If the citizens kept it, the ones that own 9 it, who cares? 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, let me use a 11 practical example. 12 MR. ODOM: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If the owners out there on 14 Cherry Springs Road decide they want to bring that road up to 15 standards so that the County can take over maintenance of it, 16 does that mean they're not going to be able to use that 17 abundant caliche that they have out there? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably not. 19 MR. ODOM: That abundant caliche may not meet Grade 20 3 specs, so therefore, I would say no. But if they had it 21 tested and they had enough material there and it tested out to 22 be a Grade 3, if that's what the rules say, then of course 23 they could. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I think -- and one 25 thing I want to make, you know, everyone aware of, I think -- 3-27-06 115 1 I have a slight modification to this that I'd recommend, but 2 they can use the on-site fill for fill. 3 MR. ODOM: Sure. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They just have to bring in 5 8 inches of -- 6 MR. ODOM: Well, 6 inches. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 6 inches of base material for 8 the actual roadway. So, I mean, it's not an exorbitant amount 9 of material. They can still use a lot of base material 10 on-site and they don't have to haul in everything. 11 MR. ODOM: And let's say that they do have caliche, 12 and I've seen some that has -- and the test results are such 13 that it would meet or exceed select fill. And if it does, 14 then to me, then it would be acceptable. If that testing lab 15 signs off and says it meets the specs and it even exceeds 16 that, then I would say you could do that. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, absolutely. Of course. 18 That's not -- I mean, that that's not even a question. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we -- what we should add, 20 though, maybe on, say, Type C, "Grade 2 or equivalent as 21 approved by testing lab." 22 MR. ODOM: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But what about -- you know, 24 what were y'all saying about reference to Number 4's question 25 about on-site mill run -- what if the lab comes along and does 3-27-06 116 1 not say that it matches or exceeds? That it's a sub-par 2 caliche? 3 MR. ODOM: Then they would have to go to the Type C 4 or limestone. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You got to haul it from 6 Kerrville. 7 MR. ODOM: Or you may -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which is a 25-mile one-way 9 trip. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, that's -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gets really expensive. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's for the 6 inches in 13 the road itself. 14 MR. ODOM: In the road itself. They can still use 15 all the on-site material for fill and -- and make subgrade. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All the subgrade is just the 17 actual -- you know, it's just tougher than we currently have. 18 MR. ODOM: Right. And if you looked at the 19 different quarries that we have, you have Walter Masters on 20 479, and I-10, you have a lot of areas there. You've got the 21 Red Rose off 1341. You have Comfort that's got a pit. The 22 Lucky 3 is right outside Center Point, so there's a lot of 23 availability. Mr. Keller's got one on Harper Road, just the 24 other side of the county line, so there's material there. And 25 trucking is always a cost. It's a cost to me to use it. 3-27-06 117 1 But -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the best reason to 3 do this -- and I'm not a real big fan, but the best reason to 4 do it, if the road's going to come into the county system, 5 it's done right to start with. Otherwise, we have a real 6 issue of having to go back and having it redone. 7 MR. ODOM: Redone. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know that there's 9 any other issue. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That really is the issue. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So, anyway, I just wanted 13 to -- I'll add that, if it's okay, that "or equivalent" 14 language, but that's why. Okay. Now, if we go -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Leonard was talking about Type 3? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. 17 MR. ODOM: Grade 3. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Grade 3? 19 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I don't see Grade 3 anywhere 21 here. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's not. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 24 MR. ODOM: We've eliminated -- we used to have a 25 Type C or a Grade 3 caliche, and he eliminated that wording 3-27-06 118 1 for the caliche. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 3 MR. ODOM: We went to a little bit better select 4 fill material to build the road with. And now he's saying "or 5 equivalent" to that Type C specification. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, make sure that we look 7 at the -- you look at the newest TexDOT guide that we referred 8 to to make sure that this is what -- our numbers are all 9 right. Some -- one of the local engineers gave me a page, 10 what they said was TexDOT manual; they had different numbers. 11 I think -- you know, I think theirs was old. 12 MR. ODOM: I think metric, I think. And the '04 -- 13 I looked at an '04 manual, but Truby and I talked about it. I 14 had an '04 manual, which goes back to the standards TexDOT did 15 metric, and then they did away with it, 'cause even their own 16 people couldn't get it right. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I think what we need 18 to do on this, like, if you tell me what manual you're looking 19 at so we can reference that exact manual in here. 20 MR. ODOM: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So there's no question. 22 MR. ODOM: I'll see if there's a new one updated. I 23 looked at it the other day, '04. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Next page, 40, the 25 first change on Page 40 is a cul-de-sac. We had this, and it 3-27-06 119 1 still is listed elsewhere, but we didn't have them in the road 2 section for some reason, so I just added it here as well. And 3 then you will note on the next couple of pages, everything's 4 highlighted. What I asked Truby to do -- I'm going to hand it 5 out now. You have to go to the -- go to the second page in 6 this attachment. Here's some others for y'all so y'all can be 7 able to follow. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second page in this? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a big chart -- big table. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, sure enough. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm critical of Kendall County 12 frequently, so I got to give them an attaboy here. They had 13 this same information in a chart format. I really thought it 14 was easy to follow, a lot easier than pages of writing, so I 15 asked Truby to take our information and put it in a table. 16 And I have not gone through it; there may be a couple of 17 modifications to make sure that, you know we're all -- 18 everything is accurate on it. I personally would rather use 19 this table and delete all the highlighted gray area from Page 20 40 to 43. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's an improvement. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a lot cleaner. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is replaced, then, from 24 Page 40 through 43? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. Same information, but it's 3-27-06 120 1 just on one chart format, which I think is a little bit 2 cleaner. And also, going back to the lot size format, or we 3 go to -- where we've had so much confusion over the years over 4 minimum lot size and averaging and all that, I would like to 5 have the authority to try to put that in a table format as 6 well. I think it would be cleaner also. That's also 7 something Kendall County does, and if I can do that, I was 8 going to bring it -- have the authority to make that switch as 9 well. The information doesn't change, but it's a little bit 10 cleaner way to present it. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I can see that. 12 MR. ODOM: You did receive that, right? Truby sent 13 that? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I got it. I couldn't -- 15 it's in a format I couldn't unlock, but I got it, so I printed 16 it. If I can figure out how -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the road chart is 18 going in now. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, road chart will go in, and 20 the lot size chart as well, if I can make it, you know, clear. 21 Actually, I believe that's the last change. 22 MR. ODOM: What about the performance bond that -- 23 checking that? Was that in the appendix? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the appendix. 25 MR. ODOM: Okay. 3-27-06 121 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was the last change in the 2 rules. The appendices, Truby sent me a copy of them, but 3 they're in a format that I really -- I couldn't get it back 4 into Word. But it really doesn't change anything, all the 5 appendices referred to. Leonard and I went through and made a 6 few changes. That being said, if we look at the first page I 7 just handed out, which is a fee schedule, this is a big 8 change. Leonard, do you have a copy of it? 9 MR. ODOM: No, I don't. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did y'all get one? Our current 11 rules have a flat charge of $150 plus $10 a lot. I think it's 12 $10. And we've received a lot of complaints, and I think 13 justifiably so, from people that were doing a revision or, you 14 know, doing a two-lot subdivision and -- you know, and I think 15 there was one of Buster's constituents came in here quite a 16 while ago; it was costing him -- just to try to do something 17 that we wanted him to do, it was going to cost him, like, $300 18 or $400. So, I tried to go back more to a -- I think a more 19 user-friendly, but also help the County on some of the larger 20 subdivisions. So, we have a preliminary plat fee, if it's 21 less than four lots, of $20; four to ten lots, $50; and more 22 than ten, 100. That's for preliminary. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Jon, on both of those, you're going 24 to have to do something with four and ten. You're going less 25 than four, more than four, so that leaves four out. 3-27-06 122 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Same thing with ten. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Four or more. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Four or more, less than four. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Less than ten. So, it's 6 less than four, four or more. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Four -- subdivisions with four and 8 less than ten. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: And then subdivisions with -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: More than ten. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: With ten or more. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ten or more. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ten or more. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The same changes you have 16 down below on the final. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then under the final plat fee, 19 there's a -- make sure we have a record fee, certified copy 20 fee, and a courthouse security fee. Those came from the 21 Clerk's office; I think those are still correct. And then we 22 did a final plat fee of -- 23 MR. ODOM: $10 or $5? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: For what? 25 MR. ODOM: The wording there says $10, yet you have 3-27-06 123 1 "five" printed there. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: $10 where? 3 MR. ODOM: Right up underneath your final plat fee. 4 In addition to the base final fee, there is an additional $10, 5 which you've got five. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, I changed it. I thought 7 $10; I think I went to $5. 8 MR. ODOM: Should be $5? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. I shouldn't work early in 10 the morning on these. Then there's -- right here. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Before you take off, Jon, I 13 want -- where's -- where does the courthouse security fee go 14 in the budget? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: It's a dedicated fee, and that's what 16 we use to pay Chuck Brecher with. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's an actual line in 18 there? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And the fee structure 22 that's -- there's two sentences or two other provisions in 23 addition to the base final plat fee. There is an additional 24 $5 per-lot subdivision review fee, and then the next -- in 25 addition to the base final plat fee, there's an additional $10 3-27-06 124 1 per-lot engineering review fee to review engineering -- 2 drainage engineering and road engineering. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, you're going 4 to have to make the same changes on the -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- ten or more or four or 7 more on the second -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- category. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- that was all -- I just 11 copied it, so I copied it once wrong, so it's twice wrong. 12 And this engineering review fee is something that, looking 13 through some rules, talking with the County Attorney, looking 14 at engineering, state licensing, we have a problem having 15 Leonard review engineering drawings. We require an engineer 16 to do road drawings or engineering plans. We have got to have 17 an engineer do that review. I think that we're in 18 violation -- opening ourselves up and in violation. So -- but 19 we can pass that cost on to the developer. So, that second 20 bit of language here, the intent of that is to provide revenue 21 that we then go out -- and this will be on our next agenda, to 22 go out for a consulting engineer that will do this review for 23 us. That's why I put an engineering review fee. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that obligation is rightfully 25 an obligation of the developer, and I think that should be 3-27-06 125 1 passed on. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As a separate cost. I'm not 4 sure if that's -- you know, I have no idea what that's going 5 to cost. We do have an engineer in the audience. He probably 6 is not going to want to give me an idea of what they're going 7 to charge for that. That may not be enough; that may need to 8 be $25. 9 MR. ODOM: It may be higher than that, from the -- 10 what I've heard. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe $25. But whatever it is, 12 the Subdivision Rules or Chapter 232 clearly gives us the 13 authority to pass that on. And I think it's just the way -- I 14 mean, we -- under our current system, we don't have a county 15 engineer. I don't see that we're going to have one anytime 16 real soon. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How do you find out -- how do 18 you find out how much they charge? I mean, would this young 19 man charge more than Joe Blow off the street? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's going to be on our next 21 agenda to go out for -- for bid for a consulting engineer that 22 will -- so Leonard has someone he -- we can work with. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And, so -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And multiple, probably. 25 Hopefully we'll get a few -- a few come in so that if we -- 3-27-06 126 1 one of them's, you know, like if Les Harvey submits a bid and 2 he's doing the engineering, well, then we have a -- you know, 3 another one to go to. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if necessary, we'll 5 amend these fees. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Amend the fees, what it will 7 take. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you can -- so you can 9 accept all of them. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Accept them all, and then 11 Leonard picks the one that we need, and we go the with low bid 12 unless there's a conflict. 13 MR. ODOM: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then, under the Environmental 15 Health Department, the current fee structure is $150 and $10 a 16 lot. It's just a flat -- I think we need to kind of do what 17 we did in the other one; break it down. Subdivision review 18 fee of $50. That's in addition to the base O.S.S.F. 19 Subdivision review fee there is an additional $5 a lot. And 20 then the next one, if the lot -- minimum lot size is less than 21 5 acres, there's an additional $10 fee, and the reason for 22 that is, if they're going with on-site septic and you start 23 getting small lot sizes, my understanding is that Miguel and 24 his folks have to go out and spend more time on-site to 25 actually look at every lot to see if they can put an O.S.S.F. 3-27-06 127 1 system in. If there's -- it's 20-acre tracts, I don't think 2 it's any -- I mean, that's a minimal review. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In your first paragraph 4 here, you've got both figures; you've got $10 and $5. Which 5 did you intend it to be? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Five. Computers are great, but 7 once you make a mistake, you just perpetuate it. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then it becomes $10 if 9 there's more work involved? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this may be a little bit of 13 a reduction -- probably will be a reduction in revenue to that 14 department, because we have been charging 150, period. But I 15 think we were a little bit heavy-handed on those charges. I 16 have not talked with Miguel about those changes. They were 17 made this morning, so I'd like to visit with him a little bit 18 before -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going down from 150 20 for a subdivision review down to 50? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No matter the size of the 23 subdivision review? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but the larger ones, 25 you're going to start having -- you have a per-lot fee, and 3-27-06 128 1 then if it's a -- somewhat a high density, you're going to 2 have an additional per-lot fee. So -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a little bit different way 5 of looking at it. I just think that we were really onerous 6 for real small subdivisions previously. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I test-drove this to see if 8 I -- if I was a developer, would I know what to do, and I -- 9 it's really good if I, you know, pay attention. One thing I 10 didn't find is the requirement for public hearing. Does that 11 not belong in here? Or -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should be under Revision of 13 Plat. 14 MR. ODOM: Mm-hmm. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Revision of Plat, Page 30. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 30. It's under 6 -- 17 6.04.B. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I don't know how I 20 missed that. Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're far enough along 22 to adopt these today. We certainly have gone through them 23 enough times. I would appreciate the flexibility to correct a 24 few of the typos and make the changes we talked about today. 25 I don't -- I mean, we haven't changed substance in three or 3-27-06 129 1 four meetings now, really. We're going more over, you know, 2 some minor things, so I think they're far enough along we can 3 approve these, get them in place. And if, for some reason, 4 something does come up, you know, we can do an amendment to 5 the rules. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With thanks to Commissioner 8 Letz for his hard work. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Don't start that; get 10 him a big head. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second to 12 adopt the Subdivision Rules as presented, with language 13 corrections and other corrections as noted here today, but 14 without material change in substance or content. Any question 15 or discussion on the motion? 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just a comment, Judge. 17 I -- from the first time I reviewed this until now, I've 18 really struggled with the quarter-acre lot size change, and 19 I'm still not sure it's the right thing to do. But I'm -- all 20 in all, I'm going to trust that it is and go ahead and support 21 it. It's got some rationale to it. I'm just -- I'm uneasy 22 about it. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't like -- I'll 24 just say it; I don't like growth either, and -- in my home 25 county. I've watched this place turn into a -- a 3-27-06 130 1 maniac-ville, and with some people -- I promised myself I 2 wouldn't get into this, but this smoking ordinance thing, 3 that's the most insane thing I have ever seen in my entire 4 life, telling property owners what to do with their own 5 property, and people can't make decisions about themselves and 6 those kind of things. That just makes me want to throw up. 7 So, I don't -- I don't like it either. You know, I've watched 8 my hometown turn into that. But, you know, if you look -- 9 look at this quarter-acre thing, when you're talking about 10 central water and central sewer, I mean, I don't see any way 11 around it, to be honest with you. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And to comfort you some, if it 13 is, I'll be surprised in the next five years if we have one 14 development that does it. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: The cost of sewer collection systems 16 is -- is such that it's going to take -- it's going to take a 17 tremendous size development in order to generate something 18 like that, Commissioner. And, like Commissioner Letz said, if 19 we see a development coming in that size, we're exploding, 20 kind of like they're doing down the road in Kendall County 21 now. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it gives us a plan 23 to manage growth. None of us like it. We don't like it when 24 it's just kind of like topsy-turvy, but it does give us a good 25 plan to manage it. 3-27-06 131 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I was ready to close the 2 gate behind me. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: As were a lot of other folks. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Listen, I've been -- I've 5 been petitioning the State for years to put one-way signs all 6 pointing out. If you leave, you can't come back in. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Shut the door after you 8 leave. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, shut the lights out on 10 your way out. But I never have gotten to first base with 11 that. Maybe a resolution from the Court will do it. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All 13 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does this include lunch? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll get to that after this one. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Looks like 21 we're a bit past the noon hour. We're due to be back here at 22 1:30. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can get through the next one 24 real fast. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Can we get through that one? Let's 3-27-06 132 1 go ahead and do Item 14; consider, discuss, and take 2 appropriate action on Kerr County Water Availability 3 Requirements. I'm taking you at your word, Commissioner. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You wouldn't want to 5 disappoint Dr. Morgan, who's sitting back there waiting on 6 that. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I figure he'll be back anyway. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For a hamburger, I'll 9 disappoint him all day. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I figured he was going to be back 11 here anyway. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The main comments we received on 13 water availability came from Mr. Wiedenfeld at the last 14 meeting. I read through his lengthy comments, and actually 15 adopted quite a few of them. Page 1, we just added the word 16 "final" instead of just "plat." Page 2, the first change, I 17 just changed the word -- I forgot -- I think it said "do not 18 reflect" previously, and he thought we ought to use a 19 different word, so I said, "do not include other 20 requirements." Third one -- or second change on that page, 21 surface water or other sources other than groundwater. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: We need to insert an "other" there. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Surface water or other sources 24 of water than groundwater. I think that's okay. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or -- well, or sources of 3-27-06 133 1 water other than groundwater. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move the "other" over. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Other sources of water. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Other than groundwater, okay. 7 And I think what he was talking about was reuse or rainwater 8 collection and -- you know, so next -- under Monitor Well 9 Requirements, I increased it. We had -- I think it was 20 10 acres for -- where a monitor well -- a developer would be 11 required to have a monitor well. I changed that to 75 acres, 12 and then we added some language that I'm sure Mr. Morgan and 13 Headwaters will be happy about. The well location will be 14 adjacent to the right-of-way, as opposed to putting it in the 15 middle of the road, as Mr. Wiedenfeld pointed out before. 16 Then I said that the -- the location shall be deeded in fee 17 ownership to Headwaters. Headwaters shall drill the monitor 18 well within two years of date of final plat approval, and 19 shall be responsible for the maintenance of such monitor well 20 location lot. And then Headwaters may waive this requirement 21 by letter to the developer. So, it's a -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I tried to make it more clear as 24 to how this would work, and also, I raised the requirement to 25 75-acre subdivisions. 3-27-06 134 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This -- this says Headwaters 2 "shall" drill. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's they shall drill it, but 4 they may waive it. In the last sentence, it says they can 5 waive that requirement. If they choose -- if they want that 6 well location, they shall drill that well. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they don't want that 9 location, they waive it. It's to keep them from banking -- 10 getting a whole lot of locations and not doing anything with 11 them. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about a "however"? How 13 about a little transitional verb there, a little "however, 14 Headwaters may waive..." 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, fine. However. Put a 16 semicolon and then "however." Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to hear from 18 Dr. Morgan on that one. Is that language consistent with what 19 Headwaters would like to see in here? 20 MR. MORGAN: Almost lunchtime. In -- in one sense, 21 it's kind of -- excuse me, I guess I better come up there. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, god. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In one sense it's what? 24 MR. MORGAN: In one sense, there's a question as to 25 the benefit of having the monitor well there. If -- if it is 3-27-06 135 1 concluded that this is of benefit to have that, it should be 2 such that the well will be drilled, Headwaters will take care 3 of it, and if they're not willing to do that, then that land 4 should go back to the developer. So, I don't have a problem 5 with agreeing to the way it's handled. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: What about the 75 acres, as opposed 8 to the 20 acres? Does that give you a problem? 9 MR. MORGAN: No. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Must be all right, then. 12 MR. ODOM: Grammatically, there's a correction on 13 that "adjacent to the..." That "a" should be marked out. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, right. Thank you. On 15 Page 3, the two highlighted changes are just making clear that 16 it's when groundwater is the source of potable water. It 17 wasn't clear before. Both of those are changes that 18 Mr. Wiedenfeld noted. And then one that is not noted and 19 still has not been made under Item 3, it says "one-half" and 20 then it has 1/4 acre. It needs to be one-quarter acre. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Item 3? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: B.3. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, B.3. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says "one-half." 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. 3-27-06 136 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should say "one-quarter" there. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go back one -- the language 3 correction, back to Page 2. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Where it says Headwaters "shall be 6 deeded in fee simple ownership," we need to take the "in" out. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Okay. Top of Page 4, 8 that change is just to make it consistent with our rules we 9 changed earlier about the high density area. And then the 10 bottom of Page 4 is just the number of -- total number of lots 11 need to be added, and we'll add the same language here as to 12 an example to clarify exactly how that's calculated. 13 MR. ODOM: I have a question. B.3, did you change 14 that one-half to one-quarter? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second to -- 18 for adoption of the Kerr County Water Availability 19 Requirements as presented, but amended by the discussion here 20 today. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the 21 motion signify by raising your right hand. 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll be in 3-27-06 137 1 recess until 1:30. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank y'all. 3 (Recess taken from 12:12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 4 - - - - - - - - - - 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order. We 6 were in recess for the lunch period until 1:30. It's a bit 7 past that now. We have a timed Item at 1:30, Item 15, 8 mid-year review of the Kerr County Fiscal '05-'06 budget, and 9 review and consider elected official/department surveys as 10 appropriate. I think everyone has received copies of the 11 surveys that have been provided to us. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are the two that we got this 13 morning -- those are not in here, are they? The two we were 14 handed this morning? 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where'd you leave yours? 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think you got four more 18 today. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you leave yours out here 20 someplace? I got to get mine, too. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's on my desk. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: After lunch I got one from 23 I.T. and Treasurer. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you get one from the 25 Treasurer? 3-27-06 138 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, moments ago -- or I say moments 2 ago. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Was it in your box or on the 4 computer? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I think it was handed to me. 6 (Discussion off the record.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: With respect to the budget, we've 8 just received -- I say "just" -- earlier today, I believe, 9 some printouts from the Auditor's office stated to be as of 10 March 31st, 2006. I guess there was some -- 11 MS. WILLIAMS: It's actually up through today. It 12 has both accounts payable periods in them. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 14 MS. WILLIAMS: And payroll up through the 15th. The 15 new system just throws it to the end of the month. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I -- I was looking at the run 17 -- the print as of 1 March. We generally get that on the 1st 18 of every month, and you go back, and the way I've interpolated 19 that is to -- if you received it at five months, it's actually 20 for four months, because it gives you a 30-day lag in there 21 for bills that have not yet been presented and charged up 22 against it. But there are a few areas of concern that I'd 23 like to -- to mention. In the Nondepartmental budget, our 24 contingency is -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we -- since you're going off 3-27-06 139 1 a different form than I'm going off of, give me a little bit 2 of time to find where we are. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're on Nondepartmental? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Nondepartmental, which is 10-409. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 10-409. How'd you find 8 that, Jonathan? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was lucky; I opened it to the 10 page, and it was there. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a departmental 12 number on this one that you prepared, Mindy? 13 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. It's actually Page 7. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 7? 15 MS. WILLIAMS: Up at the top. It says General Fund, 16 and then it will say Nondepartmental. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: The Contingency appears to be at 19 about 30 percent, which is below that which is -- it's out 20 around for the -- which would be for the first four months, 21 actually, allowing a 30-day lag. 22 MS. WILLIAMS: Right. Well, there was a budget 23 amendment done out of the Nondepartmental Contingency money 24 where we moved $7,000 to another line item. I believe that 25 was done -- might have been first part of -- first meeting in 3-27-06 140 1 March. And it may be that is why that printout as of 2 February 28th is giving you a different reading, because the 3 current budget right now for Nondepartmental Contingency is 4 $3,000, or right at $3,000. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, 29. That's what I'm looking at 6 here. 7 MS. HARRIS: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could we stop a minute and 9 get an understanding of what we've got here? I was expecting 10 to look at something that, for each feature, it would tell me 11 how we're spending compared to what we budgeted. Does this do 12 it? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Where is it? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The last column. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Percent remaining. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, I know what that 18 means, but the percentage of the amount that was under the 19 line -- second budget column, saying current budget, that 20 still remains to be spent; is that correct, Mindy? 21 MS. WILLIAMS: No, the current budget is the -- the 22 budget that was approved with budget amendments that have been 23 made in line items. I think, Commissioner Nicholson, the 24 column that you would want to be looking at is the fourth 25 column over that says year-to-date, encumbrance plus expenses. 3-27-06 141 1 That will give you everything since October 1st up through and 2 to today, especially the accounts payables portion. Now, the 3 payroll -- 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Help me out again. 5 MS. WILLIAMS: Pardon? 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It says we have a budget of 7 408,000, and through March we've spent 212,000. How are we 8 doing? 9 MS. WILLIAMS: We're about halfway. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have 47 -- we have 47 or 11 48 percent remaining, so we've spent 52 percent in six months? 12 MS. WILLIAMS: Right. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're okay. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So if you assume that 15 spending is even throughout the year, then this -- this 16 account's okay. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. The closer we are to 18 50 percent, the better; the more accurate we are. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If it were back-end loaded, 20 there's some big expenses coming up in the last half, then you 21 might not be okay. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, Judge, not to get out of 23 order, but on the first page, there's a department by 24 department. To me, it shows you by department, right in this 25 column -- 3-27-06 142 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mm-hmm. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the percent remaining, so it 3 says that the County Judge's -- he's got almost 58 percent 4 remaining, so he's a little under budget right now, assuming 5 we're going through six months of the year. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mm-hmm. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And so -- and if you're -- and 8 the one that -- 216th District Court has 31 percent remaining, 9 which means we're in trouble. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 216th is going to be a problem. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, what you're generally 13 looking at is the deviation from 50 percent? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm, at this point. 15 MS. WILLIAMS: Now, these figures are actually not a 16 true full six months, because we're always, like, 30 days 17 behind what the accounts payable -- the non-payroll line 18 items, I should say. So, what we're looking at really is 19 October through February. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, every -- so every column 21 that we have -- if we're at 50 percent, we're already 22 approaching a danger area. 23 MS. WILLIAMS: Right. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And these numbers include 25 salaries, FICA, insurance, and everything? 3-27-06 143 1 MS. WILLIAMS: The salary figures are actually for 2 five and a half months, because we haven't had the last 3 payroll for March. March will be our sixth month. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. 5 MS. WILLIAMS: So, salaries represent actually five 6 and a half months. The accounts payable, you can say five -- 7 I would say four and a half to five months, because we are 8 still getting some February items in to be paid, and they 9 won't be paid now until April. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If -- for example, Mindy, 12 looking at the County Clerk's line, and on the following -- on 13 the last column, showing 56.90 percent un -- unencumbered 14 still remaining, given what you just said, that would put her 15 pretty close to the 50 percent mark; is that correct? 16 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, right. I would say that 17 any of the departments that have 50 percent on up remaining 18 are probably okay. It's the ones that are going to be below 19 that that we're going to have problems with. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Not a true five-twelfths; you're 21 talking about 58 and a third percent. 22 MS. WILLIAMS: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, both District Courts, 24 the budgets are problematic. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. And in looking at the one 3-27-06 144 1 that I looked at initially on the district court, the big Item 2 seems to be Court-Appointed Attorneys in 216th. 3 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: And then in 198th, Court-Appointed 5 Services. Court-Appointed Attorneys in the 198th is -- is 6 lower than it should be for this time of the year, but 7 services is really down. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mindy? 9 MS. WILLIAMS: Sir? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're making great progress with 11 this report. We -- could I ask one more thing? Can we get an 12 index? Is it hard to put an index, automatic -- I mean, to 13 print one automatically? Based on the changes here, is there 14 a feature that we can do this? 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On this new system, I don't 16 know. I really haven't played with it that much. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If there -- 18 MS. WILLIAMS: We're still learning it. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If there's a way to do it, that 20 it would be just helpful. 21 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When we're going back and forth 23 and discussing different ones. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where do we find the -- the 25 entirety for the detention center? 3-27-06 145 1 MS. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, sir? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The detention center. Where 3 do we find that? 4 MS. WILLIAMS: It will be closer to the back of the 5 book. That will be -- let me find the page. Actually, it's 6 really towards the back of the book. It's Fund 76. Actually, 7 last two pages, maybe last three pages. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. The areas that I've 9 identified in that budget, telephone is a little bit below. 10 Utilities is a little bit below where it should be. Resident 11 medical is way below where it should be, even though that is a 12 reimbursed -- that's a reimbursable expense when they're 13 expended. The constituent counties are -- are billed for 14 that. And then, of course, the food. And there's something 15 in the works about that, it's my understanding. Is that 16 correct, Ms. Williams? 17 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, mm-hmm. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: The other item that jumps out is the 19 part-time staff, which is down. And that may possibly be 20 because of the early utilization of those people in connection 21 with the T.Y.C. individuals; is that correct Ms. Harris? 22 MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's why that one got hit so 24 hard up front. 25 MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. 3-27-06 146 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you explain on the 3 janitorial/custodial, is that carried under another budget? 4 MR. HOLEKAMP: It's 515. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's under your -- 6 MS. WILLIAMS: In the general fund. 7 MR. HOLEKAMP: In General Fund, 515. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the prior year column is 9 kept here because that's what it was when it was -- 10 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- part of that budget? 12 MR. HOLEKAMP: Prior to October. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, total on the juvenile 14 facility, we're a little bit further than we should be, but 15 we're not in a crisis stage, and we're about 8 -- we said 16 6 percent more than we should have to be where we should be, 17 but it's not -- could be worse. Okay. What's the prognosis 18 look like for the 216th and the 198th? Do we have any idea as 19 to where those two budgets are going, those both being pretty 20 large budgets? 21 MS. WILLIAMS: I would say probably that we are 22 going to have to be looking at doing budget amendments before 23 too long for those. We've already done a couple of budget 24 amendments for the Court-Appointed Attorney line items, and I 25 foresee that we will continue to do that. There's really no 3-27-06 147 1 way of projecting what we're going to have sent down from 2 upstairs to pay. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, does -- I know we have a 4 trial -- rather large trial starting. Is that 216th? 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 198th. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 198th. Well, it's local? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'm sure -- 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In the 216th, I know we'll 10 probably still have a -- at least one murder trial come up 11 during this budget year. And then the other trend, the way 12 things are going, it's -- like the 198th, this last Grand Jury 13 had about 60 indictments. The 216th Grand Jury are running an 14 average of about that many every court, so it's just -- it's 15 really going up right now the remainder of the year. So, I'd 16 say, hey, y'all are going to face some serious situations in 17 those budget reports. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: You say they're running about 60 19 indictments a month? 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Per quarter, a month. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So far, we've gone through 22 $170,000 in Court-appointed attorneys between those two 23 courts, and we're down to a few pennies right now in both 24 combined, so we're looking at probably close to another 25 $200,000 shortfall. 3-27-06 148 1 MS. WILLIAMS: At least. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: At least. 3 MS. WILLIAMS: At least. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that doesn't even account 5 for some of the ancillary things that you toss into that mix 6 usually. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What accounts for that? 8 That we -- was the budgeting system off? Or -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you may recall we 10 tightened up the budget on both courts down to the bone, 11 which -- so any excess of activity that they've had over and 12 above what minimal we anticipated is going to give us a 13 problem. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But where we tightened was 15 Special Trials primarily, I recall. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, yeah. On the Court-Appointed 17 Attorneys, we went from a little over 60 to 90, and in the 18 216th and in the 198th -- well, that was actually 19 expenditures, 25 to 80. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, to answer your question, 21 it's just -- it's driven so much by the legal process. I 22 mean, it depends on how fast cases move through. I guess the 23 good thing is that the cases -- we're moving through a lot of 24 cases, possibly -- hopefully. But, you know, some of these 25 trials, these large trials that really cost us a great deal, 3-27-06 149 1 it depends a lot on when they go to trial and when we get the 2 bills. If we get a murder trial thrown in the mix, that's 3 even worse. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: These are costs that are 5 difficult to forecast. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Difficult to forecast, and we 7 have no control over down here, certainly. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mindy, I have a question 9 with respect to election services. 10 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the expenditure side, we 12 budgeted 336. Apparently, year-to-date we've spent 297 -- 13 that's in the thousands -- leaving residual of about 11 and a 14 half percent. And unless my calendar is really off, we still 15 have a major election to go through in November. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: The big number was HAVA, all that 17 equipment. 18 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. That new election equipment, 19 that was a large -- largest line item in that budget. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that mean we still have 21 enough left to conduct the election in November that she 22 needs, by your estimate? 23 MS. WILLIAMS: Hard to say right now. I -- looking 24 at the judges and clerks, I would say no. No, because the 25 November election will have early voting. We have election 3-27-06 150 1 day. During early voting, those people are here from 8:00 to 2 5:00 for roughly 10 days; it's two weeks. And then you have 3 the precincts on election day; they're there from 7:00 to 4 7:00. So, I'm looking at the unencumbered balance right now 5 of $3,700, and I can tell you I don't think that's going to 6 cover it. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 38,000? 8 MS. WILLIAMS: Actually, I'm looking at the Judges 9 and Clerks line item. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I got you. 11 MS. WILLIAMS: So, no, that line item will have to 12 be amended. I don't really know if the ballot expense is 13 going to be enough. I'm -- well, actually, let me take that 14 back. The general election is November. That's next year's 15 budget. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. We still 17 have some expenses coming up for a runoff, right? 18 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's going to be minimal. 20 MS. WILLIAMS: We have a week of early voting, I 21 believe, and then election day. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: General elections is next 23 year. 24 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. 3,700 may cover it. I'm not 25 real sure; it's hard to say. 3-27-06 151 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to go back to the 2 District Courts right quick. There's something I'm -- I don't 3 know that I'm seeing correctly here. These salaries, the 4 court coordinator and reporter -- 5 MS. WILLIAMS: Right. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- are those salaries spread 7 throughout the district, and this is just our share? 8 MS. WILLIAMS: This -- this is just our portion -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 10 MS. WILLIAMS: -- of the court reporter, the 11 administrator, District Court Administrator upstairs. The 12 other counties kick in their portion. These moneys that are 13 budgeted here are actually transferred over to Fund 81, and 14 that is where all the other counties' moneys come in also, and 15 they are actually paid out of that budget. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. So, that's the reason 17 it's zeroed out, is 'cause it's all been transferred over to 18 another fund? 19 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we could go back quickly to 22 the detention maintenance, Glenn? 23 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The expenditures to-date, was 25 that 34,800, is that fixing some of the problems? 3-27-06 152 1 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That were -- 3 MR. HOLEKAMP: Big-ticket items that were right at 4 October 1st. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Condensation and the handicapped 6 access and all that? 7 MR. HOLEKAMP: No, no, no. We had an 8 air-conditioner that was right at 6,000, 7,000 that we waited 9 to pay for until the 1st of October; came out of there. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there was a freezer repair 11 recently or something? 12 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. We've had -- and I'm glad you 13 asked, because it gives me an opportunity -- I don't know what 14 we're going to do as far as money's concerned in this -- in 15 this area. We -- we had no history to speak of on what we 16 were up against. It's been very expensive. And I'm not 17 blaming management; I want you to -- I don't think there's 18 blame here. I think there's a -- a lot of things that have 19 taken place over the last three, four, five, maybe ten years; 20 I don't know, but a lot of the equipment is not compatible 21 with one another, and it's been piecemealed. A lot of it 22 is -- is we have not had a consistency of repair personnel. 23 If you have the same service people all the time, they start 24 knowing the equipment and they're able to fix it a lot 25 quicker. When you -- you start using different vendors or -- 3-27-06 153 1 or service personnel, they want to use their own equipment 2 when something goes out. A lot of times it's not compatible, 3 and we need to get somewhere -- somewhere as to, "This is what 4 we're going to do." And I -- there were a lot of unknowns, 5 and as Commissioner Letz said, we had some expenses, some 6 large ones, just coming into compliance with smoke, water, I 7 mean, all of those life safety issues. I imagine we've spent 8 almost $10,000 on bringing it up to a standard that the fire 9 department -- their criteria. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it -- we're talking about, I 11 mean, since we're not using the new building much -- 12 MR. HOLEKAMP: Much, okay. But it's still -- as 13 long as you have a facility, it has to be certified. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I guess my question 15 is -- let me rephrase it. Are we spending this money on the 16 new or the old primarily, or is it a combination? 17 MR. HOLEKAMP: Primarily, I'd say the old. But 18 we've run into a lot of issues there that things wore out. 19 They wore out, and -- is that -- is that accurate? 20 MS. HARRIS: Yes, very. 21 MR. HOLEKAMP: And we've had a few issues with the 22 new one, but nothing that we can't normally handle. But, 23 like, that certification of the fire and stuff, that -- that 24 just baffled me, knowing how much we had to do to bring it to 25 -- they call it green-tag certified system. 3-27-06 154 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm confused a little bit on 2 that. 3 MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. Well -- go ahead. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How were we able -- or why did 5 we operate a building, the detention facility, that wasn't 6 fire-compliant? I mean, it's not like this is a new building, 7 so we were acting under -- or operating under noncompliance 8 for a while? 9 MR. HOLEKAMP: I'm not going to answer that. We had 10 some issues with some of the -- some of the alarm devices, 11 that sort of thing. We were -- go ahead. 12 MR. WILBANKS: One of the things that we had was, 13 when they came out to do the annual inspection -- we've not 14 been out of compliance. We were out of compliance when they 15 came to do the annual inspection because the -- like, 16 the audio alarm would go off; the visuals would not. That 17 ended up being a complete new control panel in the system 18 itself. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because we've been inspecting 20 every year? 21 MR. WILBANKS: Yes, sir. 22 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah. But we were having trouble, 23 and it got to be very expensive to get a tech -- see, one of 24 -- one of the things that -- when they built the facility -- 25 the new facility, they had one particular person that put in 3-27-06 155 1 the alarm system, whether it be sprinkler, smoke, or whatever. 2 But they're -- they're no longer doing that sort of thing, so 3 we have to contract with somebody else to do it, and that 4 costs you money, because they have to bring in their 5 equipment. So, it's a combination of a lot of things that had 6 created these problems. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you see us -- we've gone 8 through 30 -- almost 35,000 this year, I think. What do you 9 see it for the rest of the year? And maybe you don't know. 10 MR. HOLEKAMP: I don't know if I can -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, more of the same? Or 12 are -- have we fixed everything? 13 MS. HARRIS: The plumbing is always -- 14 MR. HOLEKAMP: That's a tough question to answer. I 15 don't know. I know we've got a big air-conditioner situation 16 right now that we're faced with; that's about $3,500. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the old building? 18 MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, it's in the old building. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we need to plan on probably 20 more expenditures in that line item? 21 MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, yes, sir. I'm sorry, I didn't -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 23 MR. HOLEKAMP: That wasn't a simplified answer. 24 Yes, sir, be considerably more, but how much I don't know. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 3-27-06 156 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question as to utilities, 2 also. Somebody -- Glenn? 3 MR. HOLEKAMP: No, utilities is... (Pointed to Ms. 4 Harris.) 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You got 33 percent of your 6 funds left for utilities, and we're at the 50 percent mark. 7 What's driving that up? 8 MS. HARRIS: I would -- my first guess is going to 9 be the inefficiency of the air-conditioners that have gone 10 out, probably have got a lot to do with it. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Second one might be the -- that jump 12 in the energy costs that occurred during the course of the 13 year, that -- 14 MS. HARRIS: True. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: -- fuel surcharge that they added. 16 MS. HARRIS: I think it's a combination of those. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glenn or Rusty, the jail 18 maintenance is also running a little bit ahead. Is that 19 expected to continue, do you think? You or Rusty, whoever. 20 MR. HOLEKAMP: No, I think we should be okay, 21 Commissioner. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I only have one concern that 23 could force it ahead, and that is one of the walk-in coolers 24 has had to be worked on twice in the last two weeks. Now, 25 hopefully they've got it fixed, but -- 3-27-06 157 1 MR. HOLEKAMP: We're going to be faced with a 2 compressor for in here pretty quick. But, I mean, in the 3 scope of this budget, according to my papers, Commissioner, 4 I'm at 60 percent on jail repairs. What do you have? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I show percent remaining is 52. 6 MR. HOLEKAMP: 52? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not -- I mean, it's just -- 8 MR. HOLEKAMP: I think I'll be okay. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bad news is, I see very few line 10 items where we have an excess of funds, where there's any 11 substantial amount of money, so it looks like we're going to 12 have to be going into reserves for most of these issues this 13 year. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the key was any items with an 15 excess that have any appreciable amount of balance. That's 16 the -- you got a lot of small ones, but hopefully there are 17 enough small ones that will add up. Let's see what else I've 18 got marked here. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mindy? 20 MS. WILLIAMS: Sir? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sorry. I like the new report. 22 A while back, we used to get these monthly or quarterly. I 23 think the Court told the Auditor's office we didn't want 24 them. 25 MS. WILLIAMS: Monthly. 3-27-06 158 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to go back and get a 2 copy monthly, please. 3 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay, we can do that. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of like what the 5 Judge has now? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what we used to get. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a new one. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: New format. On -- on Juvenile 10 Probation, on the alternate housing, Kevin, that's not a true 11 reflection of funds that we have available for alternate 12 housing, is it? 13 MR. STANTON: Just in Fund 10, sir. We have quite a 14 few different funds we use. We have money in Fund 10. We 15 also have money in Fund 23 that'll be used for housing. We 16 also have funding in 27 that we use for alternate housing, and 17 then we also have funding in Fund 35. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: And that's nonsecure in 35? 19 MR. STANTON: Yes, 35 is nonsecure. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 21 MR. STANTON: And then we also have the ability 22 to -- for certain kids, to get money reimbursed from the State 23 for Level 5 and Small County Diversionary funds. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: My question to you is, when you lump 25 all of those together for all alternate housing, are we at 3-27-06 159 1 least where we should be, if not better? 2 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. And so far this year, 3 we've been able to access a lot more Level 5 funding than we 4 have in the previous years, so we're actually ahead of 5 schedule. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: So, even though this particular one 7 in Fund 10 shows to be down below 50 percent, because of the 8 other funds that are available to us, we're -- we're in 9 reasonably good shape for our alternate housing expense 10 overall. 11 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did he we talk about 216th 14 District Attorney? Budgeted 89,000, and have already spent 15 that much. 16 MS. WILLIAMS: Is that in the general fund, 17 Commissioner? Is it 10-440? 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm looking at Page 1, 19 the -- 20 MS. WILLIAMS: Oh, okay. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- expenditures by 22 department or function. 23 MS. WILLIAMS: That money was transferred over to 24 Fund 83, which is the 216th D.A.'s budget. That -- this 25 amount in the general fund is just Kerr County's portion of 3-27-06 160 1 his total budget. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 3 MS. WILLIAMS: It's kind of like the -- the 216th 4 and 198th District court reporters' salaries and stuff. They 5 go to a different budget to be paid from. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Kerr County pays a 7 percentage, and Bandera and et cetera -- 8 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- and so forth? 10 MS. WILLIAMS: Gillespie, Kendall. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We pay the lion's share, 12 because we're a larger county? 13 MS. WILLIAMS: Right. It's by population. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you look -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, for this report, you 16 just zero it out? 17 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. We transfer the funds over 18 there so that they can pay the bills out of that. Actually, 19 we pay the bills. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Looking at the overall 21 situation on costs, I think you could say that we're in 22 trouble on the two District Courts, and everything else is 23 pretty much in line. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask about Road and Bridge, if 25 I might. Signs and traffic control is down. Equipment rental 3-27-06 161 1 is down, and paving aggregate is down considerably. And we 2 haven't hit the summer -- the spring and summer sealcoating. 3 Is Leonard here? I don't see him. 4 MS. WILLIAMS: No, I don't think he's here today. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All of those -- a lot of those Road 6 and Bridge items, at least on materials, any of them that -- 7 well, paving aggregate is not -- petroleum base. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I -- I don't know, 9 but I just know the way Leonard operates. We're getting ready 10 to get into a period where he's probably already bought a lot 11 of that material. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably stockpiled it under the old 13 contracts. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not under the old contracts, but 15 -- well, under the old contracts, but, like, the aggregate, he 16 tends to stockpile that around the county, and whatever 17 projects he's going to be doing the sealcoats, and I suspect 18 that's already been stockpiled. I've seen some piles in my 19 precinct. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And he's had more warm 21 weather than a normal year, so he's been able to -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The oil and emulsions, I don't 23 think he orders that ahead of time, to speak of. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: No, he's in good shape on that. He's 25 up 90 percent on what I'm looking at here, so he's in good 3-27-06 162 1 shape there. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The aggregate, I think he tends 3 to get that in place so that when he gets the weather, he can 4 go ahead and get going. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're struggling to find 6 Road and Bridge on this end of the dais. Somebody want to 7 tell us where it is? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Towards -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the red book. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in the red book. 11 MS. WILLIAMS: It's a little more than halfway 12 through the book. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Halfway through the book? 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Little more than halfway. 15 MS. WILLIAMS: I apologize, I didn't have time to 16 get indexes in here. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's right after fire 18 protection. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: It's Page 2 -- well -- 20 MS. WILLIAMS: That doesn't help. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm on Page 2. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: No, it's Page 2 in the second half of 23 the book, it looks like. I'm looking at it here. That's how 24 far it is. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the fund number? 3-27-06 163 1 MS. WILLIAMS: 15. Fund 15. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: 15-611. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 15-611, okay. Well, we'll 4 get there. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm still operating out of the other 6 one here, so I'm playing both books here. Okay, let me see. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I still haven't found the 8 damn thing. There we go, we got it. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Indigent Health Care. 10 MS. WILLIAMS: Oh, boy. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: You were wondering when I was going 12 to raise that flag. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's all go there together. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me see if I can find it in 15 the red book. 16 MS. WILLIAMS: Fund 50. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fund 50, bingo. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hey. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Look at us. We're working 20 together here. This is so cool. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Eligible expense, 41 and a half 22 percent. Administration, a little over 11 percent remaining. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Third-party administrator. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Does this one include what is on our 25 bills to be approved this time? 'Cause that's about -- 3-27-06 164 1 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: -- $125,000. 3 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. These figures include the 4 bills that are to be paid today. We've had some rather large 5 expenditures. The current person that is at the hospital now 6 is doing a really good job. We're very well pleased with her. 7 Her predecessor kind of left us in the lurch. She'd gotten 8 some applications in that she did not process, and because 9 they were so far out of date range, a lot of those people were 10 automatically approved. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ouch. 12 MS. WILLIAMS: And a couple of them had some large 13 expenses. The thing is, there's a $30,000 cap per year, per 14 individual, so once they hit 30,000, that's it. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it still -- I remember a 16 long time ago, you could -- if we ran out of money, we could 17 -- ran out of our budgeted money for indigent health care, we 18 can apply to the State to tap into -- I mean, of course, 19 there's none ever there by the time we get through, but -- 20 MS. WILLIAMS: I believe the way the system works 21 is, we've never had to go to the State for assistance, but I 22 think once we hit 6 percent -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Eight. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Eight. 25 MS. WILLIAMS: Well, at 6 percent, I think we have 3-27-06 165 1 to notify the State. When we hit 8 percent, they come down 2 and do an actual audit and go through everything that we've 3 paid for the budget year. And it's 8 percent of the general 4 revenue tax levy, which is not really high. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are persons who are not 6 U.S. citizens eligible for coverage under this? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did you say? 8 MS. WILLIAMS: They have to be county residents in 9 order to be eligible. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But that's different than 11 whether or not they're U.S. citizens. 12 MS. WILLIAMS: I guess if they can prove residency, 13 they're eligible for it. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just -- for everyone in the 15 audience to know what number we're talking about, we've spent 16 $433,000 this year already on indigent health. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mindy, what happened to our 18 idea to bring the administration in-house? 19 MS. WILLIAMS: We're still looking at that. The 20 problem we ran into is the contract we have with our 21 third-party administrator was for two years, and I don't 22 believe it runs out until August 31st of this year. So, we're 23 -- we're still looking at that, possibly next budget year, 24 bringing it in-house where we don't have to send everything to 25 our third-party person in Houston. Give us a little bit 3-27-06 166 1 better turn-around and give us a little more control. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What does that contract -- what 3 does that -- that individual receive, or that company receive? 4 MS. WILLIAMS: Four and a half percent of all 5 eligible expenses. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, four and a half percent of 7 about 800,000. 8 MS. WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they manage the 10 eligibility benchmarks; is that correct? They manage whether 11 or not you're eligible, or whether a -- a person is eligible 12 to receive -- 13 MS. WILLIAMS: Whether a person is eligible to be on 14 indigent health care? No, sir, that is what our coordinator 15 over at the hospital does. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I'm asking. 17 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, she does that. But our 18 third-party person basically gets the bills from the lady at 19 the hospital, she processes them according to what the State 20 allows for procedures, prescriptions, et cetera, then returns 21 that stuff to the hospital. They go over it -- or Beth goes 22 over it and then brings it to us for payment. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to go back to 25 Commissioner Nicholson's question about American citizenship. 3-27-06 167 1 To tap in -- to tap into public money, don't you need to be -- 2 don't you have to be a citizen of the United States? 3 MS. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure what the State's 4 requirements are on indigent health care. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so. The schools, 6 I know you don't. That's public money. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I'll bet you the people in California 8 would love to buy that argument, Buster. I bet quite a few of 9 those folks out there. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, we all know the 11 answer to that question. We just -- you know that needs to 12 get out on the table and we all need to say it out loud. It's 13 not right. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's another discussion. But 15 that would solve a whole lot of our immigration issue if we 16 could -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- stop providing services for 19 those that aren't citizens. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the hot topic of 21 discussion in Washington right now. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it needs to be in Kerr 23 County. But I'm not going to do it. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: You won't bring that up, will you? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm not going to bring 3-27-06 168 1 that up at all. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you can solve that, 4 Commissioner, we got a job for you. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: A handsome retirement immediately 7 after you solve that problem. I think that's most of them 8 that I have marked here, that -- like I say, I'm working out 9 of the last month's book. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to take this 11 opportunity, Judge, to thank Mindy for preparing this. She 12 and I have had this discussion on a couple of occasions as to 13 how best to attack this monster, and I want to thank you for 14 doing it this way. 15 MS. WILLIAMS: I apologize, I didn't get them to you 16 until this morning, but we had a couple of issues that we had 17 to have Incode handle before I could print these, so it put me 18 a little bit behind. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: So, now we can move that forward on a 20 regular basis? 21 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I appreciate it. I think we're 23 going to have a very long and possibly difficult budget 24 process this year, and I think -- I'm -- I appreciate 25 Commissioner Williams putting this on the agenda and getting 3-27-06 169 1 this -- this gets me in a budget frame of mind now, and it 2 points out areas that we're having problems this year, which 3 we may have problems again next year. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It certainly does. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have anything 6 additional that they want to offer on this agenda item? We 7 haven't -- we haven't addressed any of the development 8 surveys. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that, I'll make just kind of 10 a brief comment. Unfortunately, I, like most of the Court, 11 was gone all last week, and the only one that I received prior 12 to today was the one from Ms. Uecker; I got it by e-mail. And 13 I know everyone spent a lot of time on this, and I really 14 appreciate it. I haven't -- like I say, I have not looked at 15 all of them except hers. Hers is very informative. I think 16 it's going to be helpful. I really think we probably need to 17 come back at another workshop, maybe put this again on the 18 next agenda. But I know there's been some consternation about 19 why -- one of the reasons I wanted this. Commissioner 20 Nicholson and I were kind of the driving force behind it. My 21 main reason is, I just wanted to put it on the table. I think 22 we're up for an extremely difficult budget year, and I think 23 that we're going to take a real hard look at personnel, how 24 we're organized and that whole area. And I think that this is 25 a -- I was hoping, and I think we've received input from all 3-27-06 170 1 the department heads and elected officials as to how their 2 departments are running, what the personnel are doing, and 3 we'll need to -- the next phase of really looking at personnel 4 issues, I think we need to have that all worked out before we 5 get into mid-budget. Personnel costs are such a huge part of 6 our budget that we really need to be aware of it. So, I just 7 want to thank everyone that has completed the surveys. I know 8 they were time-consuming, but I do appreciate it. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone else have any comments? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not today. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate everyone's taking the 12 time and putting forth the effort for these, and I've reviewed 13 some of them in a cursory basis, but I want to take more time 14 to review them. Like Commissioner Letz, we will probably need 15 to maybe look at some specific areas of -- of -- to look at 16 very, very closely in the area of personnel or -- or 17 efficiencies or equipment or training or things of that 18 nature, and that's going to be something for a future -- 19 future agenda, I would think. Okay. Okay, let's -- it's not 20 quite 2:30. I tell you, why don't we go ahead and take about 21 a 10-minute recess. We'll give Kathy a little break here, and 22 then we can get on with our 2:30 Item. 23 (Recess taken from 2:20 p.m. to 2:35 p.m.) 24 - - - - - - - - - - 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we 3-27-06 171 1 might. We'll go to Item Number 16, a timed Item for 2:30. 2 It's a bit past that now. The final report from the EMS 3 Ad-Hoc Committee, commonly known as the "Old Geezers." 4 Buster? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is the geezer group. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Geezer Number 1 is -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: The Chief Geezer. 9 MR. SCHELLHASE: I'm Number 5. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Chief Geezer is here, and I'd 11 like to just turn it over to General Schellhase and let him 12 launch right into it. 13 MR. SCHELLHASE: Walter Schellhase, 529 Water 14 Street. Well, we brought you up to date as to where we were 15 about a month ago to give you the background of what we were 16 doing, what we were proceeding with, and how we planned on 17 getting there. Today, we'll close out this report with 18 following the outline as provided to us by Commissioner 19 Baldwin initially, which is Appendix A in your portfolio. The 20 -- we've done exactly as we were requested to do. We went 21 down that list item for item, covered the items. We told you 22 how we got there. Now we'll tell you what we found out. You 23 asked us to review these with regards to the operation of EMS 24 with the city, the billing, the collections, and funding for 25 them. 3-27-06 172 1 The billing, we found to be handled in a very 2 professional and complete manner. We did not find anything 3 that gave us any concern whatsoever. The fact is, we've got a 4 lot of noncollectables that are being billed because of the 5 procedure with which Medicare pays, so it's not a simple 6 process. The City has a system set up of how they go about 7 this task. The billing sheet that comes from the drivers 8 after a call is made, that input is put into the system, and 9 the billing goes out to Medicare, in the case of the elderly, 10 and to the carriers in the event it's private care. Those 11 that are not collected, which they call -- carry this as a bad 12 debt, are in two categories. Noncollectables, as I look at it 13 as a business person, is a bad debt as well. It's an item 14 that's billed; it's the 20 percent that's above what Medicare 15 approves, but does not pay. And if the individual does not 16 have a secondary insurance, then that's another 20 percent 17 that is not paid. To me, that's a bad debt. 18 On Page 6, you'll notice -- by the way, this 19 report's much better than your financial report. We do have 20 it numbered, so we'll go page by page. By the way, on a 21 lighter note, Ray wants to know when he gets his check for 22 doing this. So -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As soon as we get through 24 here today. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tell him the check's in the 3-27-06 173 1 mail. (Laughter.) 2 MR. SCHELLHASE: The private pay is somewhat 3 governed also by the maximums that Medicare pays. In many 4 cases, they don't pay any more than what Medicare pays, even 5 though it may be private care. And they have an override, 6 which would be greater than Medicare. However, the secondary 7 part of private care is the same way as with Medicare. 8 Somebody's got to pay that additional 20 percent. Those 9 people that don't pay that, that again becomes a bad debt. 10 The other item we found in the billing process was that the -- 11 there are many calls that are not billed at all. If an 12 individual goes to a -- or an EMS goes to an individual's home 13 and that individual refuses service, that's a nonbillable 14 call. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whether it's a 1-mile run or 16 10-mile run. 17 MR. SCHELLHASE: Correct. Now, the City did 18 implement this year a fixed fee that they charge for going. 19 We did not determine exactly how much of that's collected, but 20 it's -- technically, it's just a fee they put on, and 21 hopefully they'll collect. They bill for it. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: General, how much is that fee? 23 I mean, is it a nominal amount or a real amount as to what it 24 costs them? 25 MR. SCHELLHASE: $100, I believe, wasn't it? $100? 3-27-06 174 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably not properly billable to an 2 insurance company if no service is rendered. 3 MR. SCHELLHASE: No, correct. It's strictly, you 4 know, if they can collect. Collectables -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go back on that. I mean, as 6 a -- do you want us to hold questions or kind of interrupt as 7 we go? 8 MR. SCHELLHASE: You're going to have a lot of 9 questions before we finish, so go with it. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's not very important, 11 what he just said, this 100 bucks. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You say, General -- or the Judge 13 said that, you know, no one would go after to collect it, yet 14 I see more and more in San Antonio and other areas, that when 15 an individual does something that causes law enforcement or 16 fire to do something, that they can get billed for that. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Like rescue efforts. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Recuse, the runaway bride thing, 19 that girl that's been lost; you know, thinking of filing some 20 civil actions there. I mean, I don't know that I go along 21 with we can't recover that. To me, if someone calls for an 22 ambulance -- 23 MR. SCHELLHASE: That's collectables. We'll get to 24 that next. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 3-27-06 175 1 MR. SCHELLHASE: In collectables. The current 2 status for the -- as given in your report on Page 7, is what 3 we would consider a little bit better than the average for the 4 medical profession as a whole, not necessarily EMS, and 5 probably better than what the surrounding counties are doing. 6 We went one step further in the process of this whole review, 7 which y'all did not ask for, but in your appendix, on page -- 8 or Appendix G, we went to the surrounding counties also to 9 determine what EMS was doing in these surrounding counties, 10 and we give you some collection rates there. What you have to 11 be concerned about with the numbers that are thrown out by the 12 City is that they indicate a 77.7 percent collection rate, 13 which is extremely high compared to the 45 to 50 average. The 14 reason that is, is because they consider the noncollectables 15 as collectable. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do that again? 17 MR. SCHELLHASE: They consider noncollectables as 18 part of their collected amount of money, because that's a 19 nonallowable by EMS -- I mean by Medicare. So, when you see 20 their figures for revenues collected -- and we also gave you 21 an attachment to show that revenues collected, that figure 22 that they say they collected includes the noncollectables. We 23 questioned that and said that's kind of a misleading figure, 24 and it should not be indicated as revenues collected. And 25 it's interesting because we spent some time on this trying to 3-27-06 176 1 make the numbers work, and we couldn't make them work. And I 2 was on the phone with Gordon one day, and he said, "Well, 3 heck, they're including the noncollectables." And, sure 4 enough, when we run the figures back using noncollectables, 5 that's in there. But, anyway, so you have to beware of those 6 figures, the way they calculate what they collect. So, when 7 you see the revenues collected, that the City says they 8 collect, you have to look at what in there was 9 noncollectables. In the previous years, that's about a 10 $500,000 item, so it's pretty good size. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much? 12 MR. SCHELLHASE: About 500,000. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 500,000. I mean, the -- the 14 noncollectables was not 500,000? 15 MR. SCHELLHASE: Yeah. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, right here, 511,000 17 disallowed. 18 MR. SCHELLHASE: Yeah, they call it disallowed. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: You cannot legally collect those. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that. I 21 understand, but I'm just trying to still wrap my brain around 22 their nomenclature in the City. 23 MR. SCHELLHASE: The third item you asked us to look 24 at was funding for them, what we could do to -- recommend to 25 the City or to the County as to what would be an accurate 3-27-06 177 1 method of going about funding. Of course, the current budget 2 year is based on a fifty-fifty split of what we consider at 3 this time deficit and shortfall. There's two items that they 4 look at. The City considers the shortfall as the part that 5 you are splitting with the City. The deficit is the amount of 6 money that's left over after you do the split. There's still 7 a shortfall. All the deficit, in essence. So, if you were to 8 look at the total amount this year, you're splitting with the 9 City $189,000 in the current formula, and they are -- you're 10 putting out another $10,000 for First Responders, which you've 11 always paid for. So, you have a $201,000 bill that you're 12 splitting this year with the City. That's not a formula. In 13 the process of looking at this, we found out it's never been a 14 fifty-fifty split, as such. This came about this year kind of 15 as a result of what was done at the library, as we were told. 16 In previous years, if you look on Page 8, you will see the 17 split, if you want to call it a split, for '03-'04, and 18 '04-'05, and then the current year we're in. So, in '03-'04, 19 the County's participation was $29,000. In '04-'05, it was 20 $25,000. And, of course, this year it's $200,000. The actual 21 amounts paid by the County are somewhat different from that. 22 I'm not for sure, but those are the figures that we received 23 from the Treasurer's office as to what was actually paid. The 24 City's participation, if you'll look on Page 9, in the same 25 period is considerably more. 3-27-06 178 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 9? 2 MR. SCHELLHASE: Page 8. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Halfway through the page. 4 MR. SCHELLHASE: When you look at that graph and you 5 go down and look at who's paying for what, you can see that 6 the City's paying the lion's share of the costs of EMS. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Until this year. 8 MR. SCHELLHASE: Until this year. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This year it's more equitable. 10 MR. SCHELLHASE: Last item we were asked to look for 11 on the list was recommendations. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before you go back to that, the 13 last set of numbers you have showed the annual deficit for the 14 same period was -- is that deficit in addition to the subsidy? 15 MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes, that's a deficit in addition 16 to what the budget was called for, and whoever participated in 17 whatever amount. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, if you add -- like, for 19 2003-2004, if you add the 60,000 from the City and the 29,000 20 from the County, the 147,000 was in -- 21 MR. SCHELLHASE: In addition to that. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- in addition to that. 23 MR. SCHELLHASE: Now, there's been a question with 24 regards to how the City does that, and there's always been 25 that concern by the County as to, you know, is the City using 3-27-06 179 1 some of this to offset other costs or something? We found out 2 it's not the case. That in 2003 and '4, the $147,000 deficit 3 goes right back up to the top of their budget process, and so 4 they started out the year 2004 and '5 with that $147,000 5 deficit. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Was that after the 5 percent 7 setback that they typically do? 8 MR. SCHELLHASE: That was not included in the 9 '03-'04, '04-'05 budget. That came about in the '05-'06 10 budget. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 5 percent return for them? 12 MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes. Yes -- no, the 5 percent -- 13 I'll get to that in a minute. In the year '04-'05, as you can 14 see, they ended with a deficit of 146,000, which means, in 15 essence, that with the participation that was done by the 16 County and the City, they actually operated at about a $1,000 17 profit, because they carried back $147,000; they ended up with 18 $146,000. That $146,000 went into this year's budget up at 19 the top, starting out with a negative, and then they went down 20 and ran their budget down the line to come up with the 21 participation that they have. And they're expecting a 22 $130,000 deficit. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, there's -- 24 MR. SCHELLHASE: Obviously, with the large amount 25 that the County's putting in this year, you should expect it 3-27-06 180 1 to -- the deficit to go down. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they're slowly paying down 3 on the deficit, or it's like a fund balance. 4 MR. SCHELLHASE: You're paying that. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're paying it down. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We helped pay it down. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: To the tune of 16,000, or at least 8 that's what is projected. 9 MR. SCHELLHASE: Projected, correct. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where's the 5 percent 11 reserve on their part come in? 12 MR. SCHELLHASE: The 5 percent reserve -- I think I 13 gave you a budget page. Let's see if I can find it. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Walter, are you going to talk 15 about that later on? Or -- 16 MR. SCHELLHASE: Yeah. The attachments, I -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just continue on with what 18 you're doing. He can wait until you get to it. 19 MR. SCHELLHASE: If you look at Attachment I, from 20 this year, you can see the fund balance replacement -- the 21 $87,000 is tacked on there at the bottom. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 23 MR. SCHELLHASE: And is included in that $130,000 24 deficit. Now, we question that. You know, does this go back 25 into the budget where it is? You know, what do we do with it? 3-27-06 181 1 Because as we met with the Fire Chief, you know, his -- his 2 statement was that this is used for the intent of, you know, 3 an emergency-buy piece of equipment or something like the 4 equipment that was burned during the fires, when we had them 5 here and they had to replace something right away. So, that 6 was the intent for it. However, in this budget, you must look 7 at the items on I, about mid-page, you'll see -- you'll see 8 where the County is participating to the tune of $37,500, as 9 is the City, which is -- is a total of $75,000 that was in the 10 budget the first time this year for equipment replacement. 11 So, there is equipment replacement in the budget this year in 12 addition to the 5 percent retainage. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then I would argue that the 14 5 percent retainage of 87,000 inflates the deficit balance on 15 the bottom line, on the bottom -- 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure it does. 17 MR. SCHELLHASE: It does. But keep in mind, that's 18 going to come back up to the top next year. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And create a negative start. 20 MR. SCHELLHASE: Hopefully, it will create -- you 21 know, maybe a plus somewhere down the line. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hope springs eternal. 23 MR. SCHELLHASE: Okay. Recommendations. In the 24 billing department, we could not find anything that you could 25 make any recommendation on significantly other than what 3-27-06 182 1 they're doing right now. The -- everyone seems to be doing an 2 exceptionally good job. They seem to be following through. 3 They seem to have a good process which they're going by. 4 Collections. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the billing, did you get a 6 feel for how much per -- how many personnel were involved, or 7 how much man hours it was taking to do the billing for EMS? 8 MR. SCHELLHASE: Well, they have one person. Cindy 9 Zachary does all the billing, so it wouldn't be any more than 10 her time, plus she does some other administrative things, so 11 it's less than one person full-time. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Less than one person? 13 MR. SCHELLHASE: We also talked with them about the 14 possibility of having everything that's done in the county 15 sent to the County; just let the County do that billing. If 16 there's some concern about billing, then let the County do it. 17 Well, we looked at that and said, "Well, let's see. Who at 18 the County here would do that? What department would that 19 fall in?" And then that would mean another employee to do it; 20 probably not one, but probably two, and then we looked at the 21 cost involved in that. It didn't -- it just didn't pan out. 22 That wasn't a reasonable thing to do, but we did look at that. 23 We did discuss it with both the financial person at the City 24 and with the EMS. If you wanted to do that, just tell us; 25 we'll send them over tomorrow. So, it is doable. 3-27-06 183 1 On the collections standpoint, the -- we have no 2 recommendation for increasing collections whatsoever. The 3 City has made a recent change in the way they collect the bad 4 debts, the 20 percent on private care, where that person is, 5 in fact, obligated to pay that money. And it is a bad debt, a 6 debt against that individual. They recently went to a new 7 collection agency that's charging a lesser fee than they were, 8 and based on the first four or five months that they've had 9 them, is doing a better job than the previous one had, so it 10 would appear that there may be better collections along the 11 way. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask you, if I might. In 13 looking at your discussion about billing, I'm not sure if the 14 City -- if there's not a secondary carrier that makes an 15 effort to collect on its own that 20 percent, and the same 16 would be true of the private pay. 17 MR. SCHELLHASE: Where are you reading? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: It just says -- Page 6. 19 MR. SCHELLHASE: Yeah. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: If the patient does not carry 21 secondary insurance and does not pay the 20 percent, it 22 becomes a bad debt. And then further down in the private pay, 23 if it is not paid, it becomes a bad debt, if there's not 24 secondary insurance. Does the City make an effort on its own 25 to collect those 20 percent amounts of the excess over 3-27-06 184 1 Medicaid/Medicare allowables and private pay? 2 MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes, they bill the individual 3 direct. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 MR. SCHELLHASE: And they hold that -- 90? 6 MR. MORGAN: 90 to 120 days. 7 MR. SCHELLHASE: 90 to 120 days before they turn it 8 over to the collection agency. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: So, they do make the effort to 10 collect the 20? 11 MR. SCHELLHASE: Oh, yes. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What really throws this out 13 of whack, though, Walter, is it not, is that -- is that they 14 include the bad debt number of 26.4 in noncollectables, what 15 is categorized as noncollectable. 16 MR. SCHELLHASE: No. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that boosts it up to 18 24.3 percent, but bad debts is only 8.4? 19 MR. SCHELLHASE: No. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Isn't that what I'm reading? 21 MR. SCHELLHASE: No. Bad debts is -- I mean, 22 noncollectables is not included in bad debts. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not what I'm reading 24 in your B.2.b. Net collection rate of 56.2; 26.4 of that is 25 noncollectables, and 24.3 percent is bad debt. 3-27-06 185 1 MR. SCHELLHASE: Noncollectables are 26 percent, and 2 the non -- and the bad debt is 24 percent. Now, what is your 3 question again? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess my question was that 5 they're throwing in noncollectables, which inflates the bad 6 debt rate; is that correct? Must be something along that 7 line, because take a look at Kendall County in your own 8 chart -- your own graph. 9 MR. MORGAN: That is correct. Look at your D -- 10 look at your example of D in the back. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: D as in dog? 12 MR. MORGAN: Yes, sir. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. That's what -- 14 MR. MORGAN: That's what Walter was talking about. 15 Look at your percentages. Now, I went to a color system. It 16 got so confused, I only could do it with color. But if you -- 17 if you relate -- for instance, if you relate the different 18 items, 77.7 percent, the bottom line item is related to total 19 cash revenue and net service charges. Those two numbers give 20 you 77 percent. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 22 MR. MORGAN: 57.2 percent is made up of the total 23 cash revenue and the gross service charges. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 25 MR. MORGAN: And then, if you look at the 3-27-06 186 1 26.4 percent back up towards the top, that is in relation, of 2 course, just to the 511,115. That is 24 percent, which are 3 the charges that are disallowed by Medicare. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which they have no hope to 5 collect, or think they have no hope to collect. 6 MR. MORGAN: Yes, that's correct. 7 MR. SCHELLHASE: You cannot collect them by law; 8 it's not any hope involved. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which prompts me to ask, 10 then -- 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. The next one is 12 24.3 percent. That is related between the relationship of -- 13 of the net service charge, which is 1,428,410, and then the 14 347,728. The 347,728 is 24.3 percent of the 1,428,410. And 15 the revenue from collections, the 8.4 percent, is based upon 16 the -- of course, what they get back, which is 29,090, but it 17 is also of only 347,728, so the 8 percent might be off. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: That's where I was going a while ago. 19 On the -- on the 20 percent, or roughly 20 percent that you're 20 going to have as the deductible, a noncovered expense, it 21 appears to me that the City, before it is sent to outside 22 collection, is collecting very, very, very little of that. 23 MR. SCHELLHASE: Well, $29,000 -- which, keep in 24 mind, they just went to this system this year. This is with 25 their old collection agency. That's 29 percent of the 3-27-06 187 1 374,000. And you're right, that's -- you know, it's 8 percent 2 of what they gave them, and that's one of the reasons they 3 changed to the current collection agency. They thought it was 4 running about 30 percent; they really didn't have a picture -- 5 you know, a good handle on what it was going to run. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: My concern is not after it's sent to 7 collection -- to an outside collection. My concern is based 8 upon that percentage, that 24.3 percent that's going to 9 collection, it appears that very little of that bad debt that 10 exists in-house is being collected in-house. And I guess my 11 question relates to what effort is being made by the City to 12 pursue that collection before it's sent out to bad debts? 13 Instead of billing and sitting on it for 120 days. 14 MR. SCHELLHASE: I think nothing but invoicing. 15 They do not have an individual that goes out and knocks on 16 doors. But after that 120 days, they give it to the 17 collection agency. And, like I say, they think it's going to 18 be around 30 percent, or the first two or three months they 19 had it, it kind of reflected that. This year -- well, you 20 know, when we get this sheet for 2005-'6, we'll have some idea 21 what that's going to be. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I think the Judge and 23 I are on the same page in terms of this, and thank you, 24 Dr. Morgan, for what you said. Which prompts me to ask, 25 Walter, what other distinctions or the differences between 3-27-06 188 1 Kerr County and Kendall County that allows them to collect -- 2 or reduce their bad debts down to 12 percent, and ours remain 3 so high? 4 MR. SCHELLHASE: Well, it's interesting. Some of 5 them don't consider them bad debts at all. It's a courtesy. 6 If they don't pay the bill, they just drop it, forget about 7 it. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I have no comments; 9 just asking a question. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We kind of had the same 11 reaction, but they felt like that the amount that they're 12 going after is -- does not justify the time it takes, the 13 people it takes to try to go after it, and the community 14 disruption that it causes with citizens. They just drop it 15 and forget about it, and write it off. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me, in the current 18 environment with insurance, where -- where bills are sent out 19 shortly after service is rendered, anyone with insurance of 20 any kind knows that it hasn't been processed through 21 insurance, and if they don't send out that first billing -- it 22 occurs to me, most folks don't get their explanation of 23 benefits until 45 days into the -- after the service is 24 rendered. If they don't get a billing 60, 90 days out 25 indicating there's a balance due, a lot of folks -- 3-27-06 189 1 MR. SCHELLHASE: Forget it. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I mean it's -- they don't 3 realize they owe it. And I don't know -- I don't know the 4 timetable on which they're operating. 5 MR. SCHELLHASE: Keep in mind, probably -- we don't 6 have an exact figure, but probably 95 percent of all the 7 billings goes to an insurance company. Not to an individual; 8 goes to an insurance company. And that insurance company pays 9 the primary and then sends a secondary bill for it. City's 10 job is to follow up on those and see which ones are paid in 11 full, which ones are not, and which of the 20 percent is left 12 to be paid by someone else. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you -- in your communication 14 with the City and the other surrounding counties, was there a 15 reason that the City of Kerrville chose to do the billing 16 in-house for everybody, where everybody else chose to farm it 17 out or contract it out? 18 MR. SCHELLHASE: We didn't ask that question. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. 20 MR. SCHELLHASE: They do have billing companies -- 21 Bandera uses a billing company in San Antonio. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So's Kendall, and so -- 23 MR. SCHELLHASE: I believe Kendall uses a billing 24 company -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They use -- 3-27-06 190 1 MR. MORGAN: Kendall uses one out of Houston, and 2 it's a flat fee. They just charge them, I think -- I'm not 3 looking at the chart. It's there, but a flat fee, and they do 4 everything. You know, they do the billing and the collections 5 and everything. They just get the report at the end of the 6 day, and it all goes into the computer, and the next morning 7 it's looked over by one person that criticizes it, so to 8 speak, in a positive manner, and if it's okay, then they just 9 let it go and it's into the system. So, within a day or two, 10 it's into the system, processing out of Houston. 11 MR. SCHELLHASE: See, Bandera pays a flat fee of 12 17.73 per invoice that they send them, so every invoice they 13 send them, they pay the billing agent 17.73, and they're 14 through with it. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Earlier in your report, you 16 said that if an ambulance is dispatched to answer a particular 17 call, and they get there and whoever would have been the 18 patient refuses service and they return empty, there's no 19 bill? 20 MR. SCHELLHASE: Correct. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 22 MR. SCHELLHASE: Except for the flat fee. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is partially a 24 public-funded service. My question is, if that were a private 25 ambulance, would that still be the case, or would there be a 3-27-06 191 1 bill? 2 MR. SCHELLHASE: I have no idea. No idea. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good question. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I bet you there's a bill. 5 MR. SCHELLHASE: Biggest cases of that are probably 6 on the highway. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Years ago, it would not be a 8 bill. I had some dealings with the private one when Kerr 9 County had a private one. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, like the General just 11 said, the problem comes in at a wreck on the highway when it's 12 not -- no one -- no participant in the wreck usually even 13 calls 9-1-1; usually it's some other passer-by. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Highway patrolman or someone 15 else will call the EMS out, and now you've got an EMS and you 16 have a fire truck that go to the site because of -- because of 17 gasoline, so you have two pieces of equipment out there. And 18 no one's hurt bad enough to go to the hospital, and refuse 19 service. They sign a form, and that's it; they're on their 20 way. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that the only time that 22 this circumstance arises? What if it's a call by the Sheriff 23 or D.P.S. trooper or something like that? 24 MR. SCHELLHASE: Next-door neighbor. Anybody could 25 call. 3-27-06 192 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my point. 2 MR. SCHELLHASE: Your next-door neighbor could call, 3 and when they get there, the patient says I -- you know, I'm 4 okay. No charge. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It can be your neighbor calling. 6 They see you walking out in your yard; you fall down, they 7 call 9-1-1, and you just saw something you wanted to look at 8 on the ground. 9 MR. SCHELLHASE: Although -- except for the flat 10 fee, that $100 fee. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably call La Hacienda. 12 MR. SCHELLHASE: Anyway, you can see from that chart 13 that the fifty-fifty split we talk about is not history. 14 That's something that was new this year as far as EMS is 15 concerned. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: You did discover that in previous 17 years, there was a contractual agreement that had us paying 18 for certain items at fixed rates? 19 MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes, correct. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 21 MR. SCHELLHASE: But it -- but it's all part of the 22 deficit, whether you pay the -- whether you pay half of the 23 EMS Director's salary or you pay half of this or half of this, 24 whatever it is, it's still part of the overall package, and 25 when you get to the bottom, you have a deficit. 3-27-06 193 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, let's talk about -- 2 MR. SCHELLHASE: In addition to the amount that 3 you're paying in. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's talk about that deficit. 5 Looking at Appendix I, we start off with $146,000 deficit, and 6 we end up with a $42,000 dollar deficit. This, of course, is 7 projected. 8 MR. SCHELLHASE: Right. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Which means you made $104,000 worth 10 of progress on that. 11 MR. SCHELLHASE: Right. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Then you roll back in the 5 percent 13 fund balance, and that runs it back up to 130. 14 MR. SCHELLHASE: Right. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: So the actual cost is going to be 16 $100,000 less. 17 MR. SCHELLHASE: Less. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 19 MR. SCHELLHASE: But keep in mind, it's not because 20 the City's doing any better job. It's because you're putting 21 in more money. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: That's my point. 23 MR. SCHELLHASE: Yeah. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, an interesting point -- I 25 don't really want to get real crosswise with the City again on 3-27-06 194 1 this, but it's interesting that we, under a contract, were 2 asked to pay a certain amount. The City continued to run a 3 deficit, and then when we renegotiated, they brought all that 4 money forward and said, okay, we're starting out $130,000 in 5 the hole, when we were living up to a contract that they 6 signed. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, they started out at 146 in 8 the hole. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 146 in the hole. But, anyway, 10 you know, it's just -- we tend to -- 11 MR. SCHELLHASE: Well, the -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We -- basically, we've ignored 13 the prior contract, which is what the City wanted us to do two 14 years ago. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to talk about 16 user-pay. 17 MR. SCHELLHASE: I don't think you're participating 18 any more this year than your contract calls for. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we're exactly under our 20 contract this year, but -- yeah. It's -- that's nothing to do 21 with the committee, really. Just the way -- 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I want to talk about 23 user-pay for a minute. By the way, this is really an 24 excellent study and a good report. 25 MR. SCHELLHASE: Thank you. 3-27-06 195 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree with all your 2 conclusions, and I'm -- I'm happy that we've got a quality EMS 3 service here in Kerr County. It occurs to me that some 4 services provided by governments are conducive to a user-pay 5 concept. At least two of the elements I can think of that 6 would go into that kind of assessment would be, can you 7 identify the users? And, certainly, in this case, the 8 answer's yes; you know who uses the service. And then second 9 question is, do a majority of the population use the services? 10 And the answer in this case is no, it's a small percentage of 11 the population. So, based on those two assessments, EMS 12 services, ambulance services are a good candidate for a 13 user-pay concept. And I think that must have been recognized 14 when the City and the County went into the EMS business, 15 because I believe it's true that in year one, usage rates were 16 established and tended to pay the cost of the services. And 17 they have been adjusted upwards a little bit over the years, 18 but not very often and not very much, to where those fees have 19 fallen far behind; specifically, about $400,000 a year, two 20 and two total cost. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's not rocket science to 23 determine what kind of fees you have to charge to have a 24 self-sustaining service. You start with knowing what the 25 costs are, and you know about what percent of the runs are 3-27-06 196 1 going to be Medicare-capped and you got a good idea of what 2 percent of that balance is going to be uncollectable. And 3 then you back into it and you set the rates at an amount that 4 would generate sufficient revenue to pay the costs of the 5 service. I think the costs now are pretty nominal. Looks 6 like there's $300 for a basic run, basic life support, on up 7 to 600-some dollars. 8 MR. SCHELLHASE: Problem is, though, Commissioner, 9 you can set the rates at whatever you want to -- 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 11 MR. SCHELLHASE: -- but you can't collect any more 12 than Medicare approves. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You can from somebody 14 that's not on Medicare. 15 MR. SCHELLHASE: Well, but most times, that approval 16 rate for private care is also guidelined by Medicare, and 17 that's where the hurt comes. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I'm -- 19 MR. SCHELLHASE: Big difference is, you can collect 20 that 20 percent for the self -- 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: General, other Medicare 22 providers or other medical service providers are under the 23 same rule as we are, and I guarantee you, my G.P. is not 24 losing money. He's charging a high enough fee from me and 25 from others that he more than offsets the Medicare 3-27-06 197 1 disallowables. I'm saying you can set these rates at a high 2 enough rate that it -- we'll collect enough money to make it 3 cost-neutral. It might be $1,000 instead of $331. I don't 4 know what it would be, but it wouldn't take me very long to 5 figure out. 6 MR. SCHELLHASE: Keep in mind that the number of 7 Medicare compared to private insurance is very small. And we 8 did look at, you know, how much you would have to increase the 9 rates to make up a deficit, and it would be so far out of 10 range that, you know, nobody would pay them anyway. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know. When I'm -- 12 when I was laying out there on the Shoemaker Crossing bridge 13 bleeding, I didn't call 9-1-1 and say, "How much does an 14 ambulance cost?" And when my -- my private insurance carrier 15 didn't pay all of it and I got a bill from the City, I paid 16 it. 17 MR. SCHELLHASE: That's right, on private pay. But 18 the -- the differential of Medicare and private insurance -- 19 did we get an exact figure, what that percentage was? 20 MR. MORGAN: No. 21 MR. SCHELLHASE: But it's small. And it's because 22 of Kerrville, you know -- 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can we agree that it could 24 be done? 25 MR. SCHELLHASE: Yeah. 3-27-06 198 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's just a matter of 2 whether or not -- 3 MR. SCHELLHASE: It's practical. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- the government wants to 5 do it. Okay. Well, I understand that. 6 MR. SCHELLHASE: And we looked at that and said, 7 "How much would it have to be?" So, from the collections 8 standpoint, we feel right now that the City is doing an 9 adequate job. We -- we only noticed one thing in surveying 10 the other counties, is that in some counties, they have one 11 individual that tracks all of the billing all the way through 12 to doublecheck, recheck, and make sure everything has been 13 coded right. That's the biggest problem in the whole system 14 and the billing process and the collection process, is the 15 code that they put on it. If Cindy puts a single code in 16 wrong, then they don't get paid for it. And in our case, in 17 Kerrville, Cindy does all of the billing and does all of the 18 input from the information provided by the EMS driver, but 19 other than that, everything is -- seems to be extremely 20 well-handled. 21 From the standpoint of the equitable funding 22 formula, we're making some recommendations. One -- and it's 23 currently supported by the City -- is that the County, City, 24 and Ingram form a committee -- a three-person committee to do 25 the budget. It's important that the -- there is a budget 3-27-06 199 1 prepared for EMS that everybody signs off on and agrees with 2 all the items, period. We don't think that's being done right 3 now; however, the City agrees that it's acceptable to have 4 someone from the County sit down with them at budget time and 5 work up an EMS budget so that everybody agrees with the 6 numbers that are on it. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Your communication was with 8 staff, I presume, not counsel? 9 MR. SCHELLHASE: No, not with counsel. With staff, 10 yes. Our second recommendation is that the City -- the County 11 should give consideration to paying all of the debts and 12 shortfall for the EMS. The same county taxes are collected 13 across the city that's collected in the county. The total 14 deficit and total operating costs from -- on the negative side 15 this year, including the deficit, is $508,000. That's what 16 EMS is costing above and beyond what's being collected through 17 the normal channels, as estimated for this year. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is that? 20 MR. SCHELLHASE: It's on Page 10, third paragraph 21 down. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have Page 10. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't either. 24 MR. SCHELLHASE: This committee is not recommending 25 that the County pick up the $508,000 -- 3-27-06 200 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have one? 2 MR. SCHELLHASE: -- this year. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: General, would you -- time 4 out. Technical foul. Some of us don't have Page 10's. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I had a Page 10 because I went back 6 to another report and got one. And what -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got my original report. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's an old political 9 trick. I don't know if you pulled it or our secretary did. 10 MR. SCHELLHASE: While he's running a copy, I'll -- 11 we're not recommending that the County jump off tomorrow and 12 pay the total EMS deficit shortfall, but we are suggesting, 13 and have discussed this with City staff, that the City sit 14 down with the County and start figuring out a way to do this, 15 how they can back into it, how they can come up with a formula 16 to negate the difficulty of one big chunk at one time. The 17 City staff, and especially the City Manager, agreed that the 18 charge of the $200,000 this year, as opposed to the $29,000 19 last year, was not the proper way to handle it -- that 20 process, and he's sorry for the fact that they didn't sit down 21 and come up with some equitable arrangement before budget 22 time. Unfortunately, he was not here, and he has said that it 23 will be corrected this year. So, y'all -- I think the City -- 24 the County can expect a little bit better working relationship 25 budget-wise, based on information we were provided by the 3-27-06 201 1 City. We also looked at the possibility of a funding 2 agreement with regard to runs, how many runs we're making. 3 Well, when you really look at it, it's not even relevant. It 4 doesn't pay a significant part. The runs are pretty close to 5 fifty-fifty in the county and the city -- or in the city and 6 outside of the city limits. Mileage is about the same. So, 7 that -- you know, it's something that could be used if it was 8 decided that there ought to be a fifty-fifty or some sort of a 9 split in the mileage. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: General, is this -- is the runs 11 the same as patient count? 12 MR. SCHELLHASE: What are you looking at? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: E. Attachment E. 14 MR. SCHELLHASE: No, those are -- E is -- E is runs. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, it looks like the County 16 has -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Less than 30 percent. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 30 percent, and the City 19 65 percent. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you got to add Ingram's 21 6 percent in. We're picking up Ingram's tab as of right now, 22 right? 23 MR. SCHELLHASE: Well, the City thinks they're 24 picking it up, but -- you know. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: They can do that. 3-27-06 202 1 MR. SCHELLHASE: It's a combination of the City -- 2 combination of the City and County picking it up, because 3 y'all are the only two putting into the pot now, so to speak. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Ingram is not 5 putting -- 6 MR. SCHELLHASE: Putting anything in. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- putting anything in. 8 MR. SCHELLHASE: And that's one of the reasons -- 9 and I recommend our recommendation that we said three-person 10 committee. Ingram needs to step up to the plate somewhere 11 along the line so the County is not taking the total blunt of 12 the burden. We also looked at population. We said, well, 13 let's look at the population inside the city and the county as 14 a whole to see what the results would be there. And, as you 15 can see, the -- there could be a percentage worked out, so 16 that's another possibility. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Back -- let me look at 18 Attachment F real quick. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Mileage. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mileage, okay. All right, it's 21 here. 22 MR. SCHELLHASE: We'd like to point out that the 23 quality of service has never been questioned by anyone from 24 the County that we know of, anyone from the City that we know 25 of, nor from any citizens. We could not turn up any questions 3-27-06 203 1 with regard to quality of service. So, I think we have that 2 on our side from the standpoint of a system that is working 3 and working good. And, of course, as I told you, we looked at 4 the adjacent counties. Under the EMS and ESD, we do feel like 5 that the -- a county-wide ESD is the answer. We don't think 6 it's possible right now. There are too many hoops to jump 7 through and too many hurdles to cross in any short period of 8 time. The City is not inclined to consider an ESD at all at 9 this time, and the main reason, Mr. Hofmann says, is because 10 he's new and hasn't had a chance to look at it. You know, 11 he's not saying no, but it's something he just doesn't want to 12 look at at this time. But it's certainly on the table. We 13 talked about the possibility of forming a group to do a study, 14 to get into it a little bit deeper and get the participation 15 of those people and some agreement by all the other ESD's in 16 the county, Ingram as well as the City, and he's amenable to 17 that. So, I think to say that a county-wide ESD including the 18 City of Kerrville is out totally, I don't think you could say 19 no to that. 20 As an ESD county-wide, without the City, you could 21 jump on that baby tomorrow and start work. There's nothing to 22 keep you from doing it right now. We did give you a 23 breakdown, though, to give you some idea of how much money you 24 have to look at, to see what would be involved, and that's 25 Appendix B. And what we did is we broke out the county 3-27-06 204 1 taxable value, the city, Ingram, ESD-1, ESD-2, and made a 2 comparison as to what it would take to come up with the 3 500-plus thousand dollars that you need to offset an ESD, just 4 to operate it based on the way the City's operating now. As 5 you can see, you're talking about a 1 and a half to 2 percent 6 tax, or one and a half to two cents tax on $100 across the 7 board, so it gives you an idea of what you would have to do. 8 The small number at the bottom is to indicate you're now 9 putting in $200,000. To come up with that $200,000, it's 10 .00675 cents of valuation in the county. So, that's just a 11 little bit of extra information we're providing so you can 12 look and see what would really have to be done ESD-wise, and 13 whether or not you include all these other entities and where 14 you would come up with the money to buy vehicles and build 15 stations and all those things that would require to run a 16 county-wide ESD. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: General, I still think, 18 though, that if you had a county-wide ESD, and that board of 19 directors is set up and they collect the fees, I mean, the 20 funds would come in; they'd simply turn around and contract 21 with the City of Kerrville for the service. 22 MR. SCHELLHASE: That's correct. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I don't -- 24 MR. SCHELLHASE: You could do that. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see where -- they 3-27-06 205 1 lose nothing. And, I mean, nobody's hurting. 2 MR. SCHELLHASE: All you would have to do would be 3 to adjust the tax revenue, offset whatever that contract would 4 be on an annual basis. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And drop out all this funding 6 out of each of our budgets. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds so simple, doesn't 8 it? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it's -- it's not 10 simple, but it's not as painful as -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree, -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- some things we do. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- that's the way to go. 14 MR. SCHELLHASE: You would have to work around the 15 issue of the existing ESD's. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. I don't know about 17 that. 18 MR. SCHELLHASE: You'd have to figure out how to 19 address those. Either dissolve them, or you could incorporate 20 them into it or, you know, participate with them, or just tax 21 around them. When you get to Ingram, Ingram has got a huge 22 taxing district in their ESD, and when you look at those 23 dollars that are involved in Ingram and the ESD there, you can 24 see that it's -- it sucks away a lot of the dollars right 25 away. So -- 3-27-06 206 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, Ingram's ESD, even though it 2 could help fund EMS, it only funds fire? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Correct. 4 MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Now, they could -- they could, in 6 turn, contract with the City to provide within their ESD 7 emergency medical services, and set the tax rate accordingly, 8 so you accomplish the same results. You just -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 10 MR. SCHELLHASE: And same thing with ESD-2; you'd 11 just be doing it in three different pieces that way. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: As opposed to dissolving the first 14 two and then forming one. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The other thing you could 16 do if you had a -- either a county-wide ESD or a Kerr County 17 ESD, excluding Kerrville, either one, the ESD could contract 18 with volunteer fire departments, whether First Responders or 19 -- they've got fairly wide latitude in who they contract with 20 to provide any kind of emergency services. That's not to say 21 that I'm supporting an ESD, for reasons we've talked about 22 before. I don't see government entities ever lowering taxes, 23 so we get ESD taxes and Kerrville, and Kerr County would not 24 lower their taxes. 25 MR. SCHELLHASE: There's not a question in our mind 3-27-06 207 1 as a committee that the County is getting the benefit of the 2 City's ability to work jointly with the fire department in the 3 personnel arena. And looking at that, which has always been a 4 question and comes up repeatedly, is to the question of 5 personnel. We looked at all the personnel in both ESDs and 6 the fire department, and Chief Holloway's ability to swap 7 firemen that are qualified paramedics and EMS with EMS 8 paramedics that are working for EMS at times of emergency or 9 leave or vacation, things of that nature, to move these people 10 back and forth in what he says is an equitable basis, and we 11 would have to take his word for it. I don't think there's any 12 advantage taken there. The only subject that keeps bringing 13 everybody's attention to the $72,000 this time, which is 14 called a transfer out in the budget, and I suggested they 15 change the name of the transfer out. And if you'll look at 16 that on -- on the budget sheet, -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I. 18 MR. SCHELLHASE: -- on I, the $72,436 marked 19 Transfer Out is to pay for two -- two dispatchers that work 20 for the police department or Sheriff's Department; I'm not for 21 sure where the dispatchers are. But EMS does not have a 22 dispatcher on payroll, so that that $72,000 is transferred 23 into the police department to pay for those dispatchers that 24 handle EMS. Whether or not that's right or wrong, whether or 25 not it's adequate, whether or not it's too much, should be one 3-27-06 208 1 person, we can't answer that. We think the County should 2 have -- or we draw the conclusion the County should have 3 someone in this building or some other building that's 4 responsible for obtaining, receiving the EMS reports that are 5 done on a monthly basis of where they stand and what they're 6 doing. Someone that can review these, audit them against the 7 budget, and come to some conclusions, whether or not right or 8 wrong, whether they end up being done right, and be able to 9 report back to the Court so that before an issue becomes an 10 issue, it can be resolved. Our recommendation is that be the 11 auditing department. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've spoken with the Auditor, 13 and she's agreed to peek under the hood at it for us and kind 14 of get us going. 15 MR. SCHELLHASE: The other conclusion we drew is 16 that there should be more liaison between County staff and 17 City staff. The fact that the mayor and the City staff that 18 does the billing for EMS and does not know where the invoice 19 goes, when it gets here, who handles it, how it's done, have 20 no knowledge of it; we think it would be good if those people 21 talked a little bit between each other and kept track of 22 what's going on from time to time. With that said, we think 23 you have several options that you can look at, and Gordon is 24 going to cover the options. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before we get to the options, I 3-27-06 209 1 have a general question. 2 MR. SCHELLHASE: A General question? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A general question. A general 4 question to the General. Did you all -- or were you able to 5 look at -- go into their budget and figure out how -- on the 6 administrative side, how much they bill for administrative 7 services into the EMS contract? For example, Cindy, and -- 8 MR. SCHELLHASE: None. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They don't bill any? 10 MR. SCHELLHASE: None. There's no City 11 administrative cost in the EMS budget. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's just whatever -- 13 MR. SCHELLHASE: It's the employees. There are -- 14 19? 15 MR. MORGAN: I think 19. 16 MR. SCHELLHASE: 19 employees in EMS. And those are 17 the employees that are charged to it, and nothing else. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 19 MR. SCHELLHASE: So, there's no assistant manager 20 portion, there's no financial person charged whatsoever. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Dispatchers line? 22 MR. MORGAN: You participate in the line item that 23 has -- for administrator or whatever it is. It's a line item 24 that y'all participate in the salary. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: On Medical Director. 3-27-06 210 1 MR. SCHELLHASE: Medical Director. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Interesting. 4 MR. SCHELLHASE: Gordon? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. 6 MR. MORGAN: I'm Gordon Morgan, Scenic valley. I 7 don't know why Walter had me to do it; maybe he thought I'd 8 have to provide CPR or something for the Court after what he 9 told you. But, basically, the options is sort of the thing 10 brought down to a nutshell. If you look at the options, you 11 can establish the county-wide situation. You -- with ESD. 12 You can do the partial. These are, of course, the options 13 that he's gone over. You can agree to joint -- or a joint 14 funding of the city services on a cost percentage basis. Let 15 me refer to you K; we didn't talk about K. But look in your 16 -- some of these printouts in the back have a lot of 17 information in them. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We didn't get a K. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: No K? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No K. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got a K. 22 MR. MORGAN: You got a K? Well, I guess it's -- 23 this is being discriminatory. Y'all don't have a K, 24 seriously? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have a K, seriously. 3-27-06 211 1 MR. SCHELLHASE: Tell Kathy to get in here. 2 MR. MORGAN: Give me your K. What you will see on 3 K -- 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You left out Page 9 and 10. 5 MR. MORGAN: Well, it's not -- no, it's not my fault 6 at all. It's Walter's, and he immediately left town when he 7 gave me these. 8 MR. SCHELLHASE: Kathy ran the reports for us. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Buster is sitting here, "How 10 did I get all this stuff that everybody else has?" It's the 11 one he gave me originally. 12 MR. MORGAN: Oh, gosh. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 14 MR. MORGAN: Anyway, what you will find on K is a 15 rundown on some of the questions that Walter was -- was 16 addressing earlier. The transport percentage on the payee 17 type -- I'm going to give Walter's back; he may be wrong on 18 something else. K has a breakdown on the transport 19 percentage. There's Medicare at 60 percent, Medicaid at 7, 20 V.A. at 9, total of 77. There you have your other insurance 21 at 10.5 percent and private pay at 12.3 percent, so those are 22 the percentages on those. Here's an analysis -- the one below 23 that is an analysis on the physical year's location of where 24 they made their runs to, where their pickups were, and you'll 25 see that the city had 2,560 patients, or 4.8 percent of the 3-27-06 212 1 calls that they made were in the city, and they produced -- 2 you see the revenue there, and it comes out to being 3 63 percent of the revenue and 60 percent of the calls, so that 4 might be something to work with on percentages if you were 5 going to look towards percentages to fund with the City the 6 services. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just a curiosity. Gordon, 8 something like half of our population is in Kerrville, but 9 they're using 65 percent of the services? On average, people 10 in Kerrville have a need for ambulance service more than 11 people outside of Kerrville? 12 MR. MORGAN: Could well be. You know, I don't know 13 if it's an age -- if you look at the average age, for 14 instance -- I don't have any idea what it is. If you look at 15 the average age of the citizens within Kerrville city limits 16 compared to those in the county -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: May have something to do with 18 the -- on fires, they send ambulances. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot of it's going to do with 20 your nursing homes. Most of those are inside the city of 21 Kerrville, and that's where a big majority of their calls go. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That would make a 23 difference. 24 MR. MORGAN: And it's just -- it's more readily 25 available, too. I mean, and if you charge by mileage or you 3-27-06 213 1 do anything like that, of course, you're not going to -- oddly 2 enough, you won't get the revenue for it, other than the main 3 call. But, anyway, those are percentages that I think are 4 important for y'all to look at. And the other thing was to 5 establish a separate fund for the revenue and expenditures to 6 finance the total EMS subsidy and deficit of operation. 7 That's if you were going to pick up that responsibility 8 yourselves. And even if you don't, that might be well to 9 break it apart, and if it's necessary to put a tax on it, it 10 would be stand-alone, and -- you know, for the funding, so 11 that it wouldn't -- that people could realize what you were 12 doing relative to providing the EMS service for the people. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could we go back over that 14 one more time? 15 MR. MORGAN: I talked to her about it, and she 16 thought that was a good idea too. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: About what? 18 MR. MORGAN: Setting up a fund. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. In Walter's 20 presentation part of it, one of the recommendations was to -- 21 is your D.4, to finance the total EMS subsidy and deficit. 22 Let's talk about that one more time, what the recommendation 23 is. 24 MR. MORGAN: Well, that -- that is one of the 25 recommendations that you could do. The remark that was in 3-27-06 214 1 the -- the handout, you know, is the one that you all are 2 really familiar with, and that is that everybody pays the same 3 taxes whether they're in the city or the county. But the 4 point is that that's the only real substance or strata in 5 which you could, across the board, do your taxing or your 6 raising of your revenues, because it affects everybody with 7 the same revenue, and not be picking on any group outside the 8 city or inside the -- or leaving them out inside the city, if 9 they don't want to be a participant. So, basically, it's the 10 one tax that's spread across. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Following up on that a 12 little bit, Gordon, if you follow that -- 13 MR. MORGAN: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- that thinking, that 15 because everybody in the county uses the service, then it 16 might be right for the county government to pay for the cost 17 of service, wouldn't that be the same thinking that you'd use 18 in connection with funding the library? Or Animal Control or 19 some other things? 20 MR. MORGAN: Well, I think it's -- it is a funding 21 mechanism, and I think all mechanisms, regardless of how you 22 go, has certainly things that one would have to be very 23 cautious about, whether you want to get down to the point of 24 -- of identifying the individuals that are using it and trying 25 to put it back on the basis of those that use it, or whether 3-27-06 215 1 it's going to be a county-wide thing. And it certainly -- I 2 don't know how it works with the numbers that you use at the 3 library, for instance. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I -- 5 MR. MORGAN: But -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what you're saying, I 7 hear. But the other side of that, in my opinion, is the City 8 would not even consider turning this over to the County, from 9 my communication with them. And part of the issue that I have 10 with -- you know, with that is, the City provides a great 11 service, but the service to the city of Kerrville residents is 12 a whole lot better than my -- most of my constituents in the 13 eastern part of the county, because they're 10 minutes away 14 versus 30 minutes away, and the City makes -- has no plans or 15 desire to improve the time, which would be opening substations 16 in Center Point or Hunt, someplace like that. 17 MR. MORGAN: Absolutely. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think, yes, it's a fairer 19 tax, but it's going to decrease, possibly, some of the -- the 20 service and more equalize it county-wide, which I think it 21 should be if it was run by the County. And the City doesn't 22 want to. 23 MR. MORGAN: There's a drawback also when you agree 24 to provide the revenue to subsidize a deficit. When you do 25 that, it puts greater responsibility on someone to oversee how 3-27-06 216 1 it's being run to see how that deficit is occurring, number 2 one, and number two, if anyone who runs a deficit is 3 automatically going to get reimbursed, there's nothing there 4 as an incentive to decrease the deficit. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: That's where I'm coming from. It 6 doesn't -- it doesn't strike as good, efficient management 7 practice to me to have the County funding an entire deficit 8 when the -- all of the control of costs of operation, 9 efficiency of operation, the degree to which collections are 10 going to be pursued, anything to bring those costs and 11 deficits down, in -- in the operator, and a nonoperator who 12 has no control over those being responsible for any of the 13 shortfall. I mean -- 14 MR. MORGAN: You have -- true. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: -- there's no incentive on the 16 operator in that event. 17 MR. MORGAN: And this is why that you have to look 18 at the whole package. Y'all have to be involved in -- in the 19 budget to start with. You have to look at the numbers and see 20 where those deficits are occurring. You know, that's just 21 part. If you're going to be funding, you have to have 22 knowledge of what you're funding. But -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if -- to follow up on 24 that a little bit, in Commissioner Nicholson's far west areas 25 and some of my precinct, we've had to go to alternative 3-27-06 217 1 sources to help get EMS service, because the quality may be 2 good, but the time it takes to get there isn't good. And the 3 residents of have opted, basically, out of the system for the 4 -- you know. 5 MR. MORGAN: Which the problem -- you know, we 6 started looking at areas. We drew circles around the 7 different stations to see how far that would take you, which, 8 you know, 10 minutes is usually -- used to be 8 to 10 minutes. 9 I guess it is still, unless they've got some new devices that 10 makes it longer, but 8 to 10 minutes is really your time frame 11 that you have to make a call, a real emergency call. After 12 that, it's not going to do a lot of good. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think one of the things I 14 look to -- or hope to explore with the ESD is because I think 15 it gives more -- gives a board more emphasis, because I think 16 we're going to have more and more issues in the far eastern 17 part of the county, and the quality of the Kerrville EMS being 18 able to serve that under their current framework is going to 19 get less and less and less, because they can't get there. 20 MR. MORGAN: The ESD will give you that opportunity 21 to have maybe some -- a station in Hunt and a station down at 22 Center Point, something like that, so that's an advantage. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Thank y'all very much. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate your effort, gentlemen. 3-27-06 218 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's outstanding. Good 2 -- good work. Good report. We couldn't afford to hire a 3 consultant to do that. Thank you. 4 MR. SCHELLHASE: That's why Ray wants his check. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Murphy? 6 MR. MURPHY: Yes, I'd like to say a couple of words. 7 First, let me say that -- Jim Murphy, 3117 Mulligan Way. 8 First, Walter -- the General and the doctor did the greater 9 portion of this. Ray and I were there, but I -- you'll have 10 to admit, you've heard the two outstanding performers here 11 today. There's a couple of things I'd like to say. First, 12 ESD. To me, that's the actual way to go. It takes the thing 13 out of you having to budget for it every year, the City having 14 to budget for it every year. You have a contract with the 15 City. The things can be worked out as far as Raymond and his 16 fire department and his -- that can be worked out. Just like 17 Gordon mentioned, you could base ambulances at Hunt and/or 18 Center Point or some area out there in the county where they'd 19 get quicker service. And one of the main points is, I live in 20 the city; a couple of others that live in the city. The city 21 taxpayers are paying twice for the present system that we 22 have, and I think the only fair way to go is the ESD, where 23 they only get taxed one time. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. Thank you. 25 MR. MURPHY: Any questions? 3-27-06 219 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. Thank you. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Murphy. We appreciate 3 your being here and your work on the committee. 4 MR. SCHELLHASE: I'd like to close out by telling 5 you that we think the County is getting an extremely good deal 6 at this time. What kind of a deal you cut after that might be 7 different, might be even better, but they're doing an 8 extremely good job right now county-wide, and y'all are 9 getting a good deal with what's being done right now. Thank 10 you. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank y'all very, very much. 14 Appreciate you. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Check's in the mail, Ray. 16 Check's in the mail. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Gordon. You're 18 right, you couldn't hire somebody to do that. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Wouldn't have been that 20 good and would cost you $100,000. Don't forget Option D.5. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: D.5? 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: User-pay. It's easy to 23 design and implement, and it solves the problem. That's all. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay, we'll go to Item 17; 25 consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on personnel 3-27-06 220 1 matter. This was placed on the agenda at the request of the 2 County Treasurer. It's denoted as being an executive session 3 Item, so at this time, 3:43, the Court will go out of open 4 session. 5 (Discussion off the record.) 6 (The open session was closed at 3:43 p.m., and an executive session was held, the transcript of which 7 is contained in a separate document.) 8 - - - - - - - - - - 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll come back into open 10 session at 4:33. And first off, let me ask if there's any 11 member of the Court that wishes to offer any action with 12 respect to the items which were taken up in closed or 13 executive session? Hearing none, we'll move on, and we will 14 go to the approval agenda. Payment of the bills. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to pay the bills. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the 18 bills. Any question or discussion? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a couple. I'll make 20 them quick. Page 29, Mindy, I'm curious as to what supplies 21 under Courthouse and Related would come from Adco Advertising. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Magnetic signs. 23 MS. WILLIAMS: I believe those are probably -- 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Campaign signs? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: No, I didn't buy mine there. 3-27-06 221 1 MS. WILLIAMS: I think they were signs that go on a 2 vehicle. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Maintenance? 5 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 MS. WILLIAMS: I'd have to actually pull the invoice 8 to look at it, but, I mean, we went -- we had so many bills 9 this time. As you gentlemen noticed, we had almost three full 10 boxes, and -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I noticed. 12 MS. WILLIAMS: -- there were a lot of them there. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just in general, under the 14 Sheriff's and under County Jail, there are a lot of medical 15 bills, prisoner medical. 16 MS. WILLIAMS: Right. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know we had talked at one 18 time about some of these qualifying under Indigent Health 19 Care, as opposed to being line items in the Sheriff's budget. 20 MS. WILLIAMS: Right. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that routinely looked at? 22 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, I think that the Sheriff's 23 Department keeps a really good watch on that. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 25 MS. WILLIAMS: Anytime an inmate comes in, they 3-27-06 222 1 don't automatically have them apply to Indigent Health Care 2 until the need comes up, and then Beth usually works those 3 through really quick. If they're eligible for indigent health 4 care, then the bills are paid out of that instead of out of 5 the Sheriff's budget. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Done? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Indigent Health Care, Page 64. 10 That's a killer. 11 MS. WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Any particular reason that we've got 13 almost $110,000 to the hospital in this one billing period 14 alone? 15 MS. WILLIAMS: There were a bunch of claims. As I 16 -- you know, I'd said earlier, the previous person before Beth 17 had kind of left us in the lurch by sitting on some 18 applications and not approving them or disapproving them 19 timely, which kind of automatically makes those people 20 eligible. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Those were some of those 22 left-laying-around claims, maybe? 23 MS. WILLIAMS: I believe they were. Beth did tell 24 me when she brought these batches over that it looks like it's 25 slowing down a little bit, so I'm hoping. 3-27-06 223 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Beth is an employee of Sid 2 Peterson? 3 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What department would she 5 work in? 6 MS. WILLIAMS: Social Services. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I share your concern, 8 Judge. Indigent health care is killing us taxpayers. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: What would be the down side to, like 10 we customarily do in the legal field, of just deny everything, 11 and then start sorting it out from there? I mean, you 12 wouldn't miss a time deadline, would you? 13 MS. WILLIAMS: I don't really know if I understand 14 your question. You mean if an applicant comes in? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Rather than sit around and study on 16 one or go on vacation or something, when a claim comes in, 17 initially deny it, and then look at it. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sounds like my insurance 19 company. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly what they do. That's 21 why they got money and we don't. 22 MS. WILLIAMS: Well, normally what she does, an 23 individual comes in; they have to fill out an application, 24 they have to be interviewed by her. If there are any criteria 25 that would exclude them from the program, she will deny them 3-27-06 224 1 eligibility. If they qualify, by state guidelines, we cannot 2 deny them. We cannot disqualify them. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: So, it's not a matter of denying the 4 billing for the service. It's the individual. 5 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: And once you -- once you cannot deny 7 the individual for service, whatever they go rack up -- 8 MS. WILLIAMS: For six months. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: -- we're liable for. 10 MS. WILLIAMS: For six months. They -- they're only 11 eligible for six months. At the end of that time, they would 12 have to come back in and reapply and be requalified. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wonderful system. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I think CHIPS is tougher to get into 15 than that, sounds to me like. 16 MS. WILLIAMS: It's not a good -- to me, it's not a 17 really good system. It's not perfect. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Reminds me of the guys that get in 19 jail; they suddenly have all these dental problems that 20 they've had for 15 years, and they now want it all corrected. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here's a good one on Page 66, 22 under Indigent Health Care, third from the bottom. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 24 MS. WILLIAMS: Gillespie Emergency Medical 25 Associates? 3-27-06 225 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. I'm sure there's a 2 reasonable explanation, but I -- it's a good question. 3 MS. WILLIAMS: A very good question. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Answer it. 5 MS. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure that I can. It's very 6 possible that this individual is a Kerr County resident, but 7 that a particular service may not be available here, may be 8 available in a neighboring county. If so, if a physician 9 refers them, they still fall under that umbrella. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same thing on Page 65; there's a 11 bill to Fredericksburg clinic. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: May be closer that Fredericksburg 13 wanted to get rid of that one, so the doctor referred -- after 14 seeing that it's a Kerr County resident, "We're going to send 15 them to Kerrville, and since they're on their last breath, 16 they got to go by ambulance, so we're going to do that too." 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a distinct 18 possibility. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This total of $130,000, 20 that's what Kerr County paid for indigent health care. Are 21 payments made by anybody else other than Kerr County for this? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: No. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're footing the bill for 24 indigent health care. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. But you have 3-27-06 226 1 to remember, Peterson Hospital, even though this is large, 2 they give us discount numbers. They really do; they discount 3 it way down. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: This is probably 35, 40 percent of 5 what -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: -- full billing was, somewhere in 8 that range. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Then, again, you see 10 Dr. Allen up there for $22.60. I have had a lot of dealings 11 with him recently. It costs more than that to speak to him on 12 the street. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Can't read one of his magazines in 14 his office for that. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely not. You know, 16 this whole thing's kind of goofy. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other questions about the 18 bills? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it's probably a function 22 of the new system, where we're getting definitions that we've 23 not seen before. And, Sheriff, you'd asked me earlier if I 24 had some questions. The ones I asked Mindy earlier had to do 25 with medical expenses and whether or not they'd been explored 3-27-06 227 1 through Indigent Health Care, which has gone through the roof, 2 and the answer was yes. I do have one here that has to do 3 with -- 4 (Buzzing noise sounded in the courtroom.) 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hello. That really is my 6 phone. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- what is identified as a 8 donation -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hold on. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- expense. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry, guys. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is identified as a 13 donation expense? I don't understand that. 14 (Commissioner Baldwin left the courtroom.) 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have a general account 16 that's donations; people just want to donate to the 17 department, and that's what that is. It's no tax money. 18 That's just donations, and they keep track of it. That way it 19 could be totally audited. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: When you pay something out of that 21 for whatever that account's for, that's a donation expense? 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And while I have you and 24 Kevin both here and Mindy at the same time, Kevin had a -- 25 washing a vehicle and for a particular price. And my question 3-27-06 228 1 has to do -- do we have a contract to wash all of our 2 vehicles? How do you handle yours? 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Inmates. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Inmates. Good answer. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: You have an opening for in the 6 morning? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sorry, no personal vehicles, 8 only County-owned vehicles. And my outside trustee program is 9 shut down now for at least about eight weeks. Officer's had a 10 total shoulder replacement, rotator cuff. I don't have the 11 ability, so we don't have any more outside... 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't believe people give you 13 money. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Some people like me, Jonathan, 15 unlike you. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I can't figure out. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We had one of these gangs 18 here a couple years ago that wanted to make a contribution to 19 him. It's true. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions about the bills? 21 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 22 hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 3-27-06 229 1 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 2 Amendment Request Number 1. 3 MS. WILLIAMS: This is for a -- it's a bill for the 4 198th District Court. Actually, it's not a bill. I need to 5 explain what happened. At the beginning of the budget year, 6 we were unaware that there was a line item for -- well, we 7 knew the line item for Court-Appointed Services was there, but 8 what happened is, there were a number of invoices that we 9 processed through as Court-appointed attorneys. One happened 10 to be an investigator. One happened to be -- there was one 11 other one. I need to do a journal entry and move those 12 expenses into the Court-Appointed Services line item, but at 13 this point in time, there are no funds available. Those 14 invoices that I need to reclassify come to a total of 15 $1,233.14. So, what I would like to do is move the money out 16 of Court-Appointed Attorneys up to Court-Appointed Services so 17 that I can do the journal entry adjustment and get them in the 18 right place for the budget year. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved -- second. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: They've already been paid? 22 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 3-27-06 230 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 2 of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any questions or 3 comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 4 right hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Budget Amendment 9 Request Number 2. 10 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. This one is for the Juvenile 11 Detention Facility, and we have two bills present right now. 12 Sysco Foods, and Oak Farms for February food services. Total 13 for the two bills is $4,766.17. We have no moneys left in the 14 Food line item. I spoke with Becky Harris, and she said we 15 could go ahead and take the money out of Marketing and move it 16 up to Food to pay these bills. I also need authorization to 17 get hand checks issued so we can get these paid on a timely 18 basis. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 22 of Budget Amendment Request Number 2, and issuance of hand 23 checks in the amounts and to the payees as indicated on the 24 request. Any question or discussion? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One question. This 3-27-06 231 1 obviously -- we're going to have to come back again and again 2 and again and again. 3 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What contingencies do we 5 have to cover this? We're going to need those. 6 MS. WILLIAMS: Becky and I went over that, I think, 7 a couple -- last week one day. I can't remember exactly when 8 it was. She gave me a couple of line items that we could move 9 moneys out of. I have that information back in the office. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Marketing being one of them? 11 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, Marketing being one. There are 12 a couple of other line items. Right off the top of my head, I 13 can't remember what they are, but I have basically a sheet 14 worked up like this. I just did not bring it to Court today. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 16 MS. WILLIAMS: But it would be a good idea, 17 probably, for us to look at that, and since she's agreeable to 18 the amounts and the line items we discussed, what it would do 19 is put money in the Food budget line item; it will put money 20 in the Medical line item. There's one other, I believe. The 21 Lease Copier line item. We've got a couple of bills that are 22 coming up that need to be paid, and there's not enough money 23 there to cover those. If the Court, when we get through with 24 this -- if you don't have a problem with it, I'll go back and 25 get it and I will gladly bring it in so we can discuss it and 3-27-06 232 1 consider it. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we just do it at our 3 next meeting? Just prepare one and get enough money in Food 4 for at least a couple of months. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's fine. Next -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: You'll have an opportunity to -- to 7 converse with her about it some more. But you're working on 8 the problem, is the important thing. 9 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes -- yeah. We touched base, and I 10 -- I told her, I said, "We need to look at these line items, 11 'cause we have to have money here to pay medical." We've got, 12 like, $1,900 in medical bills outstanding that are probably a 13 month, maybe two months old. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All I wanted to know is we 15 have a contingency plan in the making. 16 MS. WILLIAMS: We're trying. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All 19 in favor of the 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. Budget 24 Amendment Request Number 3. 25 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. This one is for County Court 3-27-06 233 1 at Law. We are needing to move some money into the Master 2 Court Appointments line Item. We have basically depleted the 3 $25,000 that was budgeted there. We have a current expense of 4 $490 which we need to pay, and only have $129 left. I spoke 5 with Kathy Gaulden and with Judge Brown, and they agreed that 6 we could move $8,000 out of their Court-Appointed Attorneys 7 line item up to the Master Court Appointments to take care of 8 not only the current expense we have, but any others that are 9 coming up. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 13 of Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any question or 14 discussion? Its occurs to me, in looking at the Civil 15 Attorneys line items in both the 198th and 216th, that those 16 items were placed there primarily to handle these C.P.S. type 17 cases like we're dealing with here. 18 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: And you may want to try and effect 20 some sort of resolution by looking at those also. On the 21 other hand, it looks like we're going to need that C.P.S. 22 civil attorney money to cover the criminal -- 23 MS. WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: -- attorneys. So, I -- 25 MS. WILLIAMS: It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul. 3-27-06 234 1 Then you're going to have rob somebody else to pay Peter back. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Gee, you sound like the Auditor. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Auditing 101. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Any other questions or 5 comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 6 right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 11 Amendment Request Number 4. 12 (Commissioner Baldwin returned to the courtroom.) 13 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. This involves the -- actually, 14 the Juvenile Detention Maintenance budget. We have bills for 15 custodial supplies, and also detention repairs that are 16 pending payment. We're holding them in the office, because 17 basically we don't have enough money in those line items. I 18 spoke with Mr. Holekamp about looking at his departments. 19 There is not any moneys available in any of his other 20 departments in order to fund the -- what we need here, so I've 21 left it open-ended for the Court's discretion as to whether we 22 want to look -- and I have looked in the other departments' 23 budgets. I don't see much surplus anywhere else that we could 24 take from. I am of the opinion right now that we're probably 25 going to have to declare it an emergency and take it out of 3-27-06 235 1 Surplus. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we take it out of 3 Marketing out there? I know it will reduce that, but it'll 4 buy us a couple weeks to look at your overall fix for out 5 there. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather -- my personal 8 feeling is that -- hold off. 9 MS. WILLIAMS: Take it out of Fund 76 and transfer 10 it -- I mean, basically, it will be a transfer from one fund 11 to another. We don't have to worry about the cash accounts 12 and checking accounts any more. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 14 MS. WILLIAMS: Since we're all in a group. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fund transfer. 16 MS. WILLIAMS: Right. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I would -- you know, it's 18 going to be a last resort to -- to go into emergency for the 19 juvenile facility, to me. 20 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I make a motion to approve 22 Budget Amendment 4, with the funds to come from the Marketing 23 line item at the Juvenile Detention Facility. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as indicated 3-27-06 236 1 to approve Budget Amendment Request Number 4. Any question or 2 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 3 your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 8 Amendment Request Number 5. 9 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. This is actually -- this is 10 some moneys that we received for the V.I.N.E. program. We 11 received the money from the State. We did not budget any 12 proceeds. We did not budget any expenditures. Basically, 13 it's a wash. We get the money in, we pay the bill, it zeros 14 out. But we need to recognize the funds that we've received 15 from the State. We also need to be able to have the funds 16 available on the expenditure side so that we can pay the bill. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 20 of Budget Amendment Request Number 5. Any 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.) 3-27-06 237 1 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we have 2 any further budget amendments? 3 MS. WILLIAMS: No, sir. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any late bills? 5 MS. WILLIAMS: No, sir. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I've been furnished monthly reports 7 from the District Clerk, County Clerk, both General and Trust 8 Funds, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, Crime Victims Rights 9 Coordinator, and the Kerr County Emergency Services District 10 Number 1. Do I hear a motion that these reports be approved 11 as presented? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 15 of the reports designated as presented. Any question or 16 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 17 your right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Any member of 22 the Court have any reports in connection with their committee 23 or liaison assignments? 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to be very brief. 25 First, I'll just sort of put this in your in-box. Didn't know 3-27-06 238 1 it was going to be 5 o'clock and we'd still be here. This is 2 a letter from D & D K-9 Concepts bragging about the progress 3 we made on Animal Control, and I just wanted to leave it for 4 your review. We'll make a -- a more complete report on that 5 before or during the budget process. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: About the good work that's 8 being done out there. Going on to the library, I'm just -- I 9 didn't put this in your in-basket because I needed to say a 10 little bit about what it is. We -- "we" being the Library 11 Advisory Board -- asked Antonio Martinez to give us a laundry 12 list of his wish list on capital items. If he could get 13 things repaired and improved out there, what would they be? 14 And we said, "Put your rough estimate of the cost of it," and 15 I want to emphasize, these are rough estimates. They're just 16 guessed at what it would cost. And what you see here is, 17 without expanding or doing anything different out there, he's 18 saying that he needs somewhere around $300,000 or $400,000 19 worth of capital. I'll leave that with you for your 20 information. You may hear more about something like that 21 someday. 22 And then the next one I'm going to pass out is 23 something I got from the Library Advisory Board, and it's a 24 document from the City of Kerrville, and it's a calendar of 25 their '06-'07 budget process, and I've highlighted there in 3-27-06 239 1 yellow three or four items that are of particular interest to 2 us. For example, you'll see down there that August 14th, 3 they're planning a joint budget workshop between the City 4 Council and Kerr County Commissioners. Also, we were a little 5 bit surprised on the Library Board to learn that the so-called 6 base budgets were going to be submitted April 3rd. That's 7 next week. And, of course, we take very seriously our new 8 duty to develop and propose library budgets to y'all, so when 9 we learned of this, we scheduled a meeting on the next day, 10 April 4th, to review what they submitted to the City Council. 11 I'm just telling you about this to let you know that we are 12 trying to stay on top of the library budgeting process. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Appreciate it. And, so, I take 14 it that the City will propose the airport budget on that same 15 date? Which the Airport Board has no knowledge of. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They will receive a base 17 budget for the airport. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we've had no discussions 19 as to what will be in that base. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all I've got, I 21 think. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a lot. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, a lot to digest at 24 5 o'clock in the evening. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good luck. 3-27-06 240 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports from any of the 2 Commissioners in connection with their assignments or 3 otherwise? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports to be rendered by 6 any other individuals? Department heads? Elected officials? 7 Citizens? Hearing nothing further, we will stand adjourned. 8 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 4:58 p.m.) 9 - - - - - - - - - - 10 11 STATE OF TEXAS | 12 COUNTY OF KERR | 13 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 14 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my 15 capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court 16 of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place 17 heretofore set forth. 18 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 3rd day of 19 April, 2006. 20 21 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 22 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 23 Certified Shorthand Reporter 24 25 3-27-06