1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Regular Session 10 Monday, June 12, 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 June 12, 2006 2 PAGE --- Commissioners' Comments 5 3 1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 4 License Agreement with Kerrville Christmas Lighting Corporation 14 5 1.2 Receive and take appropriate action on report of the audit of Sheriff's Office payroll 15 6 1.23 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on adoption and implementation of county-wide grade 7 and step scale and reclassification of grades for any employee whose current salary does not fit 8 the adopted grade/step 29 1.7 Public Hearing concerning revision of plat of 9 Lots 19 & 20, Hidden Hills 46 1.8 Public Hearing concerning revision of plat of 10 Lot 25, Twin Springs 46 1.9 Public Hearing concerning revision of plat for 11 Lot 1-A, Creekwood V 49 1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for 12 revision of plat for Hidden Hills, Lots 19 & 20 51 1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for 13 revision of plat for part of Lot 25, Twin Springs Ranch II 52 14 1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for revision of plat for Creekwood V 53 15 1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve Lexis-Nexis contract to replace Westlaw 16 as online legal research provider for County Attorney's office 72 17 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to reclassify current employee from step/grade 18 position of 22-2 to a 17-5 73 1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action 19 regarding agreement between Cameron County Juvenile Probation and the KCJF to house 20 juveniles in the event of emergency situation 75 1.16 Consider/discuss being fired arbitrarily by 21 Rabies and Animal Control 78 1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for 22 variance to road specifications for proposed manufactured home rental community at 150 Lydick 79 23 1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for revision of plat for Lot 60, Wood Trails Ranch 88 24 1.21 Consider/discuss Butt-Holdsworth Memorial Library budget recommended by the Library Board 98 25 3 1 I N D E X June 12, 2006 2 PAGE 1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 3 accept TXDOT valuation on Spur 98 tract, authorize conveyance of tract to TXDOT in consideration of 4 cancellation of County's outstanding R.O.W. acquisition obligation to TXDOT, and authorize 5 County Judge to sign deed of conveyance to TXDOT 126 1.14 Set public hearing concerning revision of plat 6 of Tracts 9-B, 9-A, and 10-A of NF-RB Ranch 130 1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 7 authorize GrantWorks to advertise and conduct public hearing on July 11, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. 8 in Kerr County Commissioners' Courtroom on proposed grant application for Phase 4 of 9 Kerrville South Wastewater Project 131 1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 10 request Texas Comptroller to allocate a portion of unclaimed capital credits received from 11 electric cooperatives within cooperative service area, authorize County Judge to request for same 134 12 1.19 Consider/discuss organization development opportunities for Kerr County government 135 13 1.20 Consider/discuss opportunities for applying "user-pay" concept to certain services provided 14 by local government 161 1.22 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 15 approval of interlocal contract between County of Blanco and Kerr County to house prisoners at 16 Law Enforcement Center, authorize County Judge to sign same 169 17 1.24 Retirement of Tax Assessor-Collector effective August 31, 2006 (Executive Session) --- 18 1.25 Reports from the following departments: 19 Animal Control 172 Extension Office 176 20 Environmental Health --- 21 4.1 Pay Bills 181 4.2 Budget Amendments 182 22 4.3 Late Bills --- 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 196 23 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee 24 Assignments 197 25 --- Adjourned 201 4 1 On Monday, June 12, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., a regular 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the 3 Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, 4 Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 7 Let me call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the 8 Kerr County Commissioners Court posted for this date and time, 9 Monday, June the 12th, 2006, at 9 a.m. It is that time now. 10 Commissioner Nicholson? 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Will you all please stand 12 and join me in prayer and pledge to the flag? 13 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's 15 a member of the audience or the public that wishes to be heard 16 on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, feel free to 17 come forward at this time and tell us what's on your mind. If 18 you wish to be heard on a listed agenda item, we'd ask that 19 you wait until that item is called, and in that event, we'd 20 ask that you fill out a participation form. They can be found 21 at the back of the room. It's not absolutely essential that 22 you do that; it helps me, when we come to that item, not to 23 overlook you, however. But if you wish to be heard on any 24 agenda item, when that item is called, get my attention in 25 some way or manner, and -- and I'll see that you're recognized 6-12-06 5 1 so that you can be heard on that issue. But right now, if 2 there's any member of the public that wishes to be heard on 3 any matter that is not a listed agenda item, I'd ask that you 4 come forward now and be heard. I see no one coming forward or 5 otherwise indicating a desire to be heard, so we'll move on. 6 Commissioner Nicholson, what do you have for us this morning? 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge and Commissioners, 8 I've been out and about Precinct 4 quite a bit the last few 9 days, and -- and people are talking a lot about things 10 affecting their lives. One of them, of course, is the 11 drought. And I've -- I think the dry conditions may be worse 12 in west Kerr County than anywhere else I go. I went to San 13 Antonio on Saturday, and when I get on the other side of 14 Kerrville down toward Kendall County, it looks a lot greener 15 than it does out in west Kerr County. I think we've probably 16 been fortunate that we haven't had any bad fires recently, and 17 I did put the ban -- burn ban back on in Precinct 4 this 18 morning. So, I'm encouraged that people must be being very 19 careful, or we'd have more difficulty than we've had. Talking 20 about motorcycles -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have one? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who is? 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Motorcycles. And Saturday, 24 I attended a motorcycle rally sponsored by the West Kerr 25 County Chamber of Commerce. A lot of good people. Had some 6-12-06 6 1 good food, fried catfish, provided by Commissioner Oehler and 2 his brother. Had church services yesterday morning. All this 3 was -- and they camped out, spent the night there, had some 4 good music on the banks of the North Fork. So, at least that 5 bunch of motorcyclists were well-behaved. Might have been a 6 little noisy. L.C.R.A. transmission routing lines are getting 7 a lot of discussion. Not all over the -- not all over 8 Precinct 4, just among those whose back yards are on the 9 proposed route. And I think probably there may be citizens in 10 Precinct 1 that are more concerned about the routing than 11 those in Precinct 4, but -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "Concern" is a mild word. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. Yeah. That was not 14 unanticipated, Commissioner. You and I talked about that. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Another thing people are 17 talking about, of course, is appraisal and property value 18 appraisals. And some of us are beginning to understand that 19 even though we don't have a mortgage on our house, we're 20 really just renting it from the government. We pay an amount 21 that's equivalent to rent every year in property taxes, so 22 it's -- I'm mindful again that when we make spending 23 decisions, we have to know that that money's coming out of 24 somebody's pocket, and not everybody can afford it. That's 25 all I got. 6-12-06 7 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baldwin? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. We have -- most of 3 us have seen the TV commercial of the UPS truck that pulls 4 into Florida in the bright sunshine and all that snow on it, 5 and he stops and the snow falls off. That might not be as 6 true as it seems, that speed, because I've ordered a parrot 7 for your shoulder, and it didn't show up. And -- but it will 8 appear real soon, and I expect you to come to Commissioners 9 Court with that parrot on your shoulder. (Laughter.) Burn 10 ban is also on in Precinct 1, and it is extremely dry. I went 11 to a fire out in the Kerrville South area, and what started 12 the fire -- I mean, it burned, like, 8 or 10 acres real quick, 13 and what started it, a guy was -- had a motorized 14 ditch-digging machine, and I guess he hit a piece of flint, 15 maybe, but it started a huge fire and burnt right around the 16 two homes, and he finally got out, you know, and beat it out 17 with a tow sack and that kind of thing. But it got off in the 18 neighbors and burned down a lot of pasture and trees. But 19 just a spark from a rock can start a fire. It is really, 20 really dry out there. And I was walking through and you could 21 hear that grass crunching under your feet, and it's pretty 22 bad. That's all. I'm excited about today. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Was the parrot going to go 25 on his left shoulder so he wouldn't see it, or on his right 6-12-06 8 1 shoulder so he can see it? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. I don't know 3 what the legal way to do that is. Rex? 4 MR. EMERSON: I'll defer to the Sheriff. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ask the Sheriff? 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I ain't getting into that. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I, too, am going to 8 reestablish the burn ban in Precinct 2. I think it's getting 9 pretty dry out there. A lot of things happening. As a matter 10 of fact, while this is something this Court has not willingly 11 taken up in the past, I really think we probably ought to have 12 some discussion about a fireworks ban. If we're going to do 13 it, we need to have it before the 15th of June. I'm getting a 14 lot of calls from folks who are concerned about that, so I 15 just throw that little topic out there for what it's worth, 16 see where it takes us. I also note with interest, and it was 17 published in the paper, the economic good news that resulted 18 from the 2006 shotgun World Cup. The story in the paper was 19 good. It -- it depicted accurately the number of people who 20 visited our community and the amount of dollars that were 21 spent, and the rollover effect of that, or the multiplier, if 22 you will, economic multiplier, all of which is good. And, so, 23 credit needs to be given for those who put that show on and 24 who will put on future shows, and the benefit to Kerr County 25 is august -- robust. 6-12-06 9 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's it. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the fireworks issue, I 5 believe we have missed the deadline. I don't think that would 6 qualify as an emergency, and it's too late to post a meeting 7 prior to the 15th, so we're not banning fireworks in this 8 county. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know if we're too 10 late. This is the 12th. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's too late. It's not posted 12 anywhere. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 15th. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It could get posted this 15 afternoon. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does that make court -- anyway, 17 we may be able to do it; we have 72 hours. I don't think we 18 can do that, though. Anyway, Subdivision Rules and 19 Regulations, I met with -- after our last meeting, I met with 20 Wayne Wells, our consulting engineer, at length. We've gone 21 through them. He's done a very good job; I'm very happy with 22 the selection of using him. He's very detailed, read the 23 whole thing. He found typos and had a lot of very good 24 comments that I've incorporated, I think all of them, just 25 about, into the rules. Nothing major. They're little -- 6-12-06 10 1 little things, everything from there's a -- a hyphen in 2 subgrade to things about vertical K-values on the sag of a 3 road. So, his comments were very -- very good. Anyway, the 4 -- everything has been incorporated into a version. Truby has 5 a final version and Kathy has a final version. There is 6 some -- we need to go through it one more time on the page and 7 formatting issue, make sure that the pages line up in the 8 table of contents to pages in the document, because a lot of 9 changes were made. And my formatting skills are not the 10 greatest, so I'm quite pleased I was able to figure out how to 11 do a table. But, anyway, they're done. And Mr. Wells is also 12 actually doing a little bit of work already on one 13 subdivision. He's -- from the preliminary comments that Len 14 just told me, Len's very happy, and they're having a good 15 working relationship. Developers are going to have to 16 understand it's going to take longer to get subdivisions 17 through in this county. Anyway, and a final note on 18 Subdivision Rules; I will put this back on the agenda for the 19 final version to be reaffirmed by the Court. I know it's been 20 approved and I was given authority to do it, but I think from 21 a legal standpoint, the Court probably should actually approve 22 -- reapprove the final version so there's no issues there. 23 That's it. I will be putting the burn ban on in my precinct 24 as well. It is dry. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Following up a bit on 6-12-06 11 1 Commissioner Williams' comments, for those of you that didn't 2 happen to know, the economic impact of that World Cup shoot -- 3 that was a 10-day shoot that occurred, and using an indirect 4 economic multiplier of only three, not six or seven that most 5 economists would suggest that you use, the total economic 6 impact of that meet over 10 days was over $2 million to the 7 economy of this community. I think we need to -- I think we 8 need to encourage economic development of any type that 9 doesn't impact our infrastructure. That one didn't impact our 10 infrastructure at all. It -- it filled up our hotels, it gave 11 a lot of business to our retail businesses and restaurants, 12 things of that nature. It was just a truly win-win situation 13 for everybody involved. And I -- I hope the community will 14 take a look at the type of economic impact that Hill Country 15 Shooting Sports Center is generating for this community, and 16 any other type of economic impact -- any economic development 17 project that might impact our community in a similar way at 18 the least possible cost, such as this one. The -- the 19 schedule indicates that there are three or four more events 20 yet to be held this year. There are, I think, at least six 21 events -- five or six events to be held next year. They 22 increase the following year to seven or eight. These are 23 significant events that impact our community, and I hope that 24 we'd all become familiar with what they do. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge? 6-12-06 12 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wasn't going to make a 3 comment, but I have to. I agree with you; think I that 4 center's a good facility. It's certainly a big economic 5 impact, but not without a cost, and there is infrastructure 6 cost. Traffic on Cypress Creek Road has increased 7 substantially on that road. It's a state highway, but there 8 is some cost involved with that, you know, to the taxpayers of 9 this -- even TexDOT. And also, I think everyone's aware the 10 people that live in that area are not real happy with it, and 11 there's -- there's a cost to the residents near that facility. 12 And, you know, it's a private facility; they're able to do 13 what they want. But anything we do on economic development, 14 whether it's that, whether we -- the thing we looked at with 15 the Air Force meeting at the airport, using it as a training 16 facility, there is a -- a trade-off. And I think, generally, 17 the job for the County and the City is to look at that 18 trade-off. I think the benefit of this outweighs the 19 negatives, but it's not all roses. There are some negative 20 impacts to almost any economic development that we do in this 21 county, and it's -- from a quality of life standpoint, it 22 brings more people in here. That's a negative to many people. 23 So, I think that while it is a good facility, it is in my 24 precinct, and because it's in my precinct, I also hear the 25 negatives probably more than anybody else on the Court. 6-12-06 13 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, obviously, everything's got 2 naysayers. The -- the issue about the parrot, the good news 3 is, I look forward to receiving a parrot. The bad news is, I 4 have a temporary condition known as Bell's Palsy. The good 5 news is, the symptoms being similar to those that you get when 6 you have a stroke, I did not have a stroke. So, that's the 7 good news and the bad news. But how big is this parrot that 8 you've ordered for me? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretty good size. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Good. The bigger, the better. I 11 noted with some interest that there was a -- a rather large 12 macaw down in San Antonio that was someone's pet that was 13 taken from the pet store, and I hope -- you had indicated that 14 you were going to be trying to get me a parrot, and I was 15 hopeful that you hadn't been involved in that activity. But I 16 see where they've recovered that macaw; it's been returned to 17 its owner, so I'm glad to know that. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On what shoulder would be 19 appropriate, seems to me like Judge Tinley's kind of a 20 right-wing guy, and -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right wing? 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Right wing. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: If the parrot's big enough, I suspect 24 we're going to let the parrot go on whichever shoulder the 25 parrot wants to go. 6-12-06 14 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And do anything else the 2 parrot wants to do. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm going to see if I can't 4 institute some reasonable controls there. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is government at its 6 best. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Don't try this at home. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's get on with our agenda, if we 9 might. First item on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and 10 take appropriate action on a license agreement between Kerr 11 County and Kerrville Christmas Lighting Corporation. I placed 12 this on the agenda at the suggestion of those involved with 13 the lighting corporation, and I believe my review of it 14 indicates that, other than the dates being changed, it -- it 15 reads exactly like the prior -- prior occasion. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, can I make a 17 suggestion? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right after the whereas's, 20 the "All communication" sentence, at the end of that sentence, 21 wouldn't it be wise to add -- it says "Kerr County Facilities 22 Manager, currently Mr. Glenn Holekamp," to add the words, "or 23 his designee" like they did down below? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's probably the intent. 25 I see no harm in doing that. 6-12-06 15 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then in the last 2 sentence, second line from the bottom, County Facilities 3 Manager "of" his designee? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, should be "or." 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or. I move for approval. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: With those changes? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Motion made and seconded 10 for approval of the license agreement with the indicated 11 changes. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the 12 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to 17 Item 2, if we might. It's a timed item of 9:15, and it's that 18 time now. Receive and take appropriate action on a report of 19 the audit of the Sheriff's Office payroll. Commissioner 20 Nicholson, let me first interject that I had some 21 communication from the auditor that was designated by the 22 Court, Mr. Beltrone, relative to his engagement letter which 23 had been submitted to the County Attorney, and Mr. Beltrone 24 indicated that without the Court taking action and approving 25 and actually signing that engagement letter, he will be unable 6-12-06 16 1 to discuss this matter today. And the County Attorney has 2 reviewed it, and I think he had a problem or two with it, so 3 we do not have a signed engagement letter, and I wanted you to 4 be aware of that, but I'll leave it with you. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I think all I can 6 tell you is that Commissioner Williams and I met with 7 Mr. Beltrone and heard his report, and it's time for the full 8 court to hear that report. But since we can't proceed, I 9 think we ought to pass on the issue and reschedule it for next 10 meeting. 11 MR. BELTRONE: I am prepared to present the report. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry? 13 MR. BELTRONE: I am prepared to present the report, 14 sir. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. But you don't want to do 16 that without the engagement letter being formally approved by 17 the Court? 18 MR. BELTRONE: I can do it, and I'll explain that as 19 soon as I get a chance. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Beltrone? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, come forward, let us hear what 22 you have to say. Thank you, sir. 23 MR. BELTRONE: Okay. First of all, with respect to 24 the engagement letter, it's more of a formality. The 25 engagement itself was already agreed to, in essence, when the 6-12-06 17 1 Court approved me as the -- as the auditor, so I'd like to go 2 ahead and issue the report -- or provide the report to y'all. 3 I'm not sure y'all want to read it right away, but -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just give me all of them. 5 MR. BELTRONE: I did prepare some extra reports for 6 other individuals or offices that were named in the report. 7 Thank you. Now, this morning, I decided that I do not want to 8 read this report, and the reason why is because I feel like it 9 would be beneficial for the Court to have me speak freely and 10 answer any questions. The report itself is based on the 11 procedures applied. Those procedures were to review the 12 schedules, determine any deficiencies in the payroll or errors 13 in the payroll. By not reading the report in the record -- 14 obviously, it will go in the record here, but not at this 15 time -- it allows me to speak freely. So, basically, the 16 procedures applied were to initially determine the accuracy of 17 the schedules that were provided to us. The Sheriff presented 18 us some information. We obtained information from various 19 County personnel, and I did my own research on the internet by 20 researching minutes, court orders, et cetera. 21 What we did was, we compared those schedules that we 22 found to existing schedules and we recalculated -- first, we 23 recalculated schedules based on court orders and minutes and 24 other information that we received. So, irregardless of the 25 schedules that were used, we recalculated based on information 6-12-06 18 1 that we believed to be entirely representative of what was 2 ordered by the Court. Specifically for 2003-2004 budget, the 3 Court actually provided three orders, the first being a COLA 4 or cost-of-living allowance, the second and the third being 5 flat dollar-amount raises that were provided to deputies, 6 dispatchers, and jailers alone. The initial evaluation or 7 recalculation of schedules was done for deputies, dispatchers, 8 jailers, and nurses for 2003-2004. The result of our 9 recalculation, when compared to the budget that was provided 10 to us by the County Auditor, was that those schedules agreed 11 with each other. We did the same thing for deputies and 12 jailers. We recalculated the schedules for 2003 -- or 13 2004-2005, and we compared those schedules to the budget 14 provided by the Auditor. Those schedules also agreed. 15 Now, some background on these schedules and the way 16 they initially came about was found back in 1985, when the 17 Commissioners adopted a study -- schedules that were provided 18 in a study by Ray and Associates. Those schedules had a 19 2.5 percent increase from one step to another step. I'll 20 refer to those as the step and grade schedules. That 2 1/2 21 percent step was never -- at least from information provided 22 to me or found by us, was never spelled out. It was never 23 written that the steps had to be 2 1/2 percent. It was just 24 built into the schedules that were adopted for the 1985-1986 25 budget. Up until 2003-2004 budget, those schedules remained 6-12-06 19 1 in effect for the step increase from 2 1/2 percent from one 2 step to the next remained in effect, because COLAs were 3 applied each year. Regardless of the percentage of the COLA 4 that was applied each year, the step increase remained at 5 2 1/2 percent. So, that's where the history of this step 6 increase comes from. 7 Now, in 2003-2004, the Commissioners ordered a 8 $3,000 flat increase per employee in the dispatchers and 9 jailers department, and a $1,500 flat increase for the 10 deputies in addition to the COLA. Now, by applying the flat 11 dollar-amount increase to each base salary, to each step -- 12 and this was according to court orders, now -- the increase 13 from step to step changed percentage-wise. So, I'm prepared 14 to go over an example if we want to get into the detail at 15 this time. Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Give me those years again 17 that the Court did that? 18 MR. BELTRONE: In 2003-2004, the court orders were 19 adopted on September 2nd, 2003, for the 2003-2004 budget. For 20 '04-'05, I believe the flat increases that were applied then 21 were $1,500 for dispatchers and jailers and $1,000 for 22 deputies. Now, back to this 2 1/2 percent. At that point in 23 time, when those budgets were adopted, according to court 24 orders, the percentage from step to step changed. There is 25 nothing in writing that says we intend to change this step 6-12-06 20 1 percentage increase. There's nothing in writing that says we 2 can't do it. So, going forward after applying these raises, 3 some individuals at the lowest grades and the lowest steps got 4 raises probably in the neighborhood of around 16 percent, just 5 in '03-'04. The ultimate effect of that was when a step from 6 Grade 14, Step 1 to Grade 14, Step 2 occurred after the raises 7 had been implemented, it was a 2.194 percent increase from the 8 first step to the second step. So, ultimately, the raises 9 that went into effect and the schedules that went into effect 10 were correctly implemented. There were no payroll errors or 11 deficiencies based on those schedules. Now, at this point, 12 I'm prepared to address any questions. I'm not sure I really 13 left anything out of what I was going to present to y'all this 14 morning. My complete -- the complete procedures applied, my 15 reports, my findings, and some additional supplemental 16 schedules are provided to y'all in that report. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me just say that I -- I 18 understand this. We set about in those two years to improve 19 the competitiveness of compensation we paid to these four 20 classifications of employees, and we did that. An unintended 21 consequence of doing that was that we adversely impacted the 22 internal integrity of the step/grade -- the logic of it. We 23 didn't -- I don't think we expected to do that. We didn't 24 anticipate doing it, but we didn't think through the 25 arithmetic well enough. I believe that the Sheriff, later on 6-12-06 21 1 in Item 1.23 today, will propose a -- a method of correcting 2 that unintended consequence. So, in some way, I think 3 Mr. Beltrone's findings and observations are right spot-on. 4 And, again, it was an unintended consequence, I believe, and 5 we have an opportunity to decide whether or not we want to 6 remedy that unintended consequence. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As Commissioner Nicholson 8 noted, I was in that meeting with him in which Mr. Beltrone 9 presented his initial findings on this issue, as well as 10 present were the County Attorney, the County Treasurer, and 11 the County Auditor, I believe, and one of Mr. Beltrone's 12 colleagues. And I thought the -- the work that you did was 13 very good, and I applaud you for that. I applaud you for your 14 promptness in getting it back to us. And, as Commissioner 15 Nicholson said, it was the Court's intent to rectify a 16 situation that the Sheriff had brought to us with respect to 17 disparity of pay in these various categories, and after 18 applying the COLA that year to all employees across the board, 19 we then went back and we applied increases that we thought 20 were beneficial for these categories in the law enforcement 21 department. The unintended consequence of that was the 2 1/2 22 percent, which to my view has never been memorialized by the 23 Court formally, was skewed to some extent -- modestly, I might 24 add -- the 2.5 going down to 2.198 or something like that, and 25 there was some -- some result of that. But I think it's 6-12-06 22 1 important to point out that it was not an error, intentional 2 or otherwise. It was the -- or it was the fallout, if you 3 will, from what the Court did to rectify a situation brought 4 to us by the Sheriff. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have, 6 Mr. Beltrone, is that -- and I understand your report totally, 7 but to keep the integrity of the step and grade schedule that 8 was in place, the way to do a raise like that would be to -- 9 say it's $1,000; you add $1,000 to the 25-1 or whatever, and 10 then you add 2 1/2 percent all the way up, so that, basically, 11 if you're, like, a 25-10, you're going to get -- whatever the 12 math would be, increase? 13 MR. BELTRONE: Yeah. The -- now, initially, at 14 2 1/2 percent, if you had not applied the flat increases, the 15 actual dollar amount of raises up to this point would be less 16 than what had been implemented. Okay? In order to 17 reestablish the 2 1/2 percent based on existing schedules, you 18 would actually have to -- let's go back to '03-'04. Once the 19 COLA and the flat increase was applied, each individual was at 20 a step that, in order to apply an additional 2 1/2 percent 21 upon the next merit increase or longevity increase when they 22 went up a step, you would have had to create a brand-new 23 schedule for that one individual. So, each step and each 24 grade would have required a brand-new schedule at that point. 25 In order to reestablish it today, the Sheriff has come up with 6-12-06 23 1 a possible solution, and that would be to plug everybody into 2 an existing schedule that is currently set up on the 2 1/2 3 percent increase. 4 Now, my office ran some numbers just -- this was not 5 the audit. This was why I wanted to speak freely today, 6 because I did not -- I was not engaged to apply these 7 procedures, okay? I just ran the numbers, and I calculated a 8 couple of employees. Had they been done according to these 9 new schedules that would have been implemented at that point 10 in time, and after the initial raises were done, to keep them 11 at 2 1/2 percent through the 2003-2004 budget, and then moving 12 on, applying the COLA and flat increase to the '04-'05 budget, 13 and once again applying the 2 1/2 percent, the average that 14 was applied or that came up was somewhere in the neighborhood 15 of $12,000 of a deficiency. Okay? Now, based on the amount 16 of testing that I did, the error range was anywhere from 17 $6,000 shy to somewhere in the neighborhood of -- I want to 18 say $20,000. Okay? So, if you were to retroactively apply 19 that and to go back and recalculate everybody's schedules 20 correctly, I'm estimating that that difference would be 21 somewhere in the neighborhood of $6,000 to $20,000. 22 Now, that would be a very painstaking task, and you 23 definitely don't want to farm that out to anybody. So, the 24 proposal that the Sheriff has is probably the best way to 25 bring it back into line with the 2 1/2 percent step increase. 6-12-06 24 1 And if I make a mistake here, please correct me, okay? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He will. He will. 3 MR. BELTRONE: The -- the schedules that are in 4 place for all Kerr County employees and clerks -- I believe 5 it's one schedule; is that right? The Sheriff's proposal is 6 to put everybody onto that one schedule. By taking where they 7 exist today and plugging them into the next higher step on 8 that one schedule, that would make all County employees 9 subject to the step and grade schedules subject to that one 10 schedule. Now, in doing so, the ultimate result of that -- 11 you could either go down or up. I'd recommend going up, of 12 course. In doing that, you're ultimately giving raises to 13 those individuals who were on these schedules, the 14 dispatchers, jailers, and deputies for '03-'04 and '04-'05, 15 and '05-'06, for that matter. The ultimate -- Sheriff, did 16 you -- did your office come up with a dollar amount? 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. On -- depending on the 18 classification of the officer, if you were a sergeant, which 19 about 17 fall in that classification, it would mean about a 20 $40-a-year increase, okay? That's $40 per year. Now, on the 21 very beginning, the low entry-level officer, it means about 22 1,100. But that's entry level, and I don't have anybody at 23 entry level at this time, okay? Everybody's already moved up 24 past that, but that's your entry level. But it would put them 25 all in between there, the -- the remainder. 6-12-06 25 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we -- why don't we wait 2 till we get to your agenda item? Either that, or we can roll 3 it in with this one. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we roll it in? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the Court's pleasure? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I've got a question -- 7 or I've got some comments, actually. I'm going to put a new 8 wrinkle in your thinking. 9 MR. BELTRONE: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In '03-'04, you -- you read 11 the court orders. 12 MR. BELTRONE: Yes, sir. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it was definitely decided 14 that the flat increase goes in of $1,000, or whatever the 15 number was, and then the COLA on top of that? 16 MR. BELTRONE: No, sir, it's the opposite. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The other way around? 18 MR. BELTRONE: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The COLA and then the flat 20 increase. What about the next budget year, where there was 21 another -- almost the exact issue? Same thing? 22 MR. BELTRONE: The same thing applies. Different 23 dollar amounts, different COLA increase percentage-wise. That 24 information was obtained from the minutes, both provided by 25 the Sheriff and those that I found on the internet transcripts 6-12-06 26 1 of the meetings. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, I believe -- I believe 3 that this flat increase of 1,000 or 1,500, whatever it might 4 be, was a one-time gift to the employees. It wasn't any -- it 5 should not affect the step and grade program from that point 6 forward. It was just -- it was like -- it was a gift, for 7 being good people and working hard and -- and representing the 8 County well. That's what I believe that I voted for. 9 MR. BELTRONE: Okay. A study was done -- I believe 10 it was called the Nash study -- back in '02 or '03, and that's 11 where this whole thing came about. I think it was an equality 12 thing, trying to get everybody back up to a comparable scale 13 to some other counties. And that is the way that I interpret 14 it as well. The consequence, of course, is one of, in order 15 to apply both concepts, to go back to the original -- or to 16 start a new schedule at 2 1/2, to keep it at 2 1/2 percent, 17 that's where you would have to create a brand-new schedule for 18 each step. So, you know -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just trying to get us to 20 a point where Rusty owes us money. 21 MR. BELTRONE: Well, I will say this, okay? Based 22 on the way -- based on what was implemented, court orders, 23 minutes, et cetera, I would say that there is no obligation by 24 the County to provide any additional compensation. Okay? 25 Now, I can't go as far as saying they owe you money, unless 6-12-06 27 1 they want to give up those flat increases and go back to the 2 2 1/2 step schedule. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I -- from talking with 4 Rusty, what you've said, that is correct. I mean, there's no 5 definite obligation to give them an increase. But if we don't 6 do something to fix the schedule, we're going to get further 7 and further off the step and grade concept. 8 MR. BELTRONE: That is correct. Now -- I'm sorry. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just -- I mean as we go 10 forward. 11 MR. BELTRONE: Sure. Now, I will say that as they 12 go up on the grade and step schedule, the percentage variance 13 from one step to the next actually goes up, so those 14 individuals, as they're -- as they were going up the ladder, 15 did get closer to the 2 1/2 percent. They're still not quite 16 there. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we're all viewing 18 this the same way. I just see it a little bit differently. 19 In 2002-2003, the -- is that right? What was the first year 20 we gave the -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: '03-'04. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: '03-'04. We could see that 23 there was an inequity between what we were paying law 24 enforcement officers and what other law enforcement agencies 25 were paying. And one of the ones that you look at the closest 6-12-06 28 1 is -- is the police department, but you also look at other 2 counties and other opportunities they have. So, we -- in my 3 view, we set about to cure that inequity, and I -- I think we 4 did not fully understand the consequences of it, that we were 5 upsetting that 2 1/2 percent balance. So, I agree with you. 6 We don't have any obligation to correct that -- to revise that 7 step/grade chart to reestablish the 2 1/2 percent. Certainly, 8 our officers and jailers and nurses and dispatchers are not 9 overpaid compared to their -- the local labor market 10 conditions, so we might want to choose to spend some more 11 money to reestablish that 2 1/2 percent. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the other comment I have 13 on it is that I kind of look at it as a -- a long-term 14 situation. We -- we're going to, I think, continue to look 15 and adjust salaries in this county of different employees, 16 and, you know, we've already discussed that. We've eliminated 17 some of the low-end grades earlier in probably the past couple 18 years, and I think we need to continue to look at that and 19 make other adjustments. And if we don't get it on a level 20 playing field, we're going to end up with basically every 21 position and every employee being on a different pay scale, 22 and that's the reason I think we need to go back and -- and 23 put it -- you know, use the step and grade system and make it 24 work. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 6-12-06 29 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we have a -- a way to go into 2 the future. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the issue here is, do we want 4 to pull that into the discussion now, along with this 5 particular discussion? Or do we want to wait until it's 6 posted, till we call it later on? Whatever the Court's 7 pleasure. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather deal with it now. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would too. I think it's 10 appropriate. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go ahead and call Item -- 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 23. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Item 23. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can't keep him quiet any more. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Consider, discuss, and take 16 appropriate action on adoption and implementation of 17 county-wide grade and step scale and reclassification of 18 grades for any employees whose current salary does not fit the 19 adopted grade or step. This will at least keep us on the -- 20 on the right path for purposes of the agenda and -- and 21 discussion purposes. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I've got a quick 23 comment. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If I don't get it in, I'll 6-12-06 30 1 never get it in now that Rusty's up at the microphone. I 2 wanted to clarify that I -- I wasn't -- I didn't mean that the 3 money was a -- a gift or a bonus of any sort. It was simply, 4 you know, as a competitive adjustment, trying to get the 5 salaries up to -- in a competitive way. I didn't mean that it 6 was just a gift. Which I did say that, but it's not what I 7 meant, so I wanted to clarify that. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Sheriff, we -- we've got your 9 Item 23 before us. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The proposal that's kind of 11 already been talked about is exactly what Mr. Beltrone said; 12 put everybody in the entire county, all county employees, back 13 under the same step and grade as it had been before, and it 14 keeps it to a 2 1/2 percent. I don't have a bunch of copies 15 of this. I gave y'all one that expands it all the way out to 16 25 steps and 35 positions. I think that the end time is 17 whatever y'all should decide on how far an employee can go, 18 and that's the 12, and then I have a proposal of 15. And what 19 we're talking about, the 12, 15, and 25 is steps itself. 20 Steps are how -- I only had three that are printed. I have it 21 on disk. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: You just carried this to Step 12? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The 25 one you have, just look 24 at it as the 12, and you'll have it. The reason I'm saying -- 25 and I think Barbara may be able to verify this, where it was 6-12-06 31 1 12 -- was originally set up as 12, 12 steps through a person's 2 career. With the longevity and educational they have in it, 3 you get one step after one year of employment. This is 4 anybody with the County. This is longevity. And then you get 5 one step every three years after that. So, if you go through 6 19 years of employment, that's a total of seven step increases 7 you could move, okay? If you -- if all you got was longevity. 8 Deputies, jailers, and dispatchers, because of educational, 9 can move a total of another four additional steps, which would 10 put them at 11. You know, and that's why I think 12 would 11 cover any 20-year period. 12 I don't give merit increases in the department; I 13 believe officers are all paid to do their same job. But to be 14 fair to all the courthouse employees, okay, where you have 15 clerks and administrative people that don't get education, 16 then I think the County should come up with a way of giving 17 those people merit increases, depending on what that 18 department head wants to do, and there's kind of one of those 19 in there. It would allow them to give them five merit 20 increases over a 19- or 20-year period, which would put 21 everybody back at the end of their service being able to end 22 up at the same step in those step and grades, which would make 23 it fair to every employee, is what the deal is. And all 24 you're doing now is doing away with the three bad schedules, I 25 might call it -- you know, inadvertent bad schedules that the 6-12-06 32 1 Sheriff's Office has been using since these raises, and 2 putting everybody under the one. 3 Now, in those line items, like I said a while ago, 4 under the sergeants and people like that, it's about a 5 $40-a-year increase, moving them to a step where they would 6 fit. Deputies, it's a -- street deputies, it's about 1,100, 7 but I don't have any Step 1's any more. I might have one. 8 And dispatchers fall and jail fall under their respective 9 ones. Where you would be going is, if you look at that or the 10 current step and grade, and this would have to be what's on 11 the current step and grade, patrol is on the -- on the 12 Sheriff's Office, an appropriate step and grade, patrols are 13 19's. Under that proposed step and grade, it would move them 14 to a 22, because it moves it back the other way. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To be clear about that, 16 they're currently a 19 on the -- a salary structure that's 17 higher than the other 19? 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, to fit them into a 20 salary structure, one-size-fits-all, you find the salary grade 21 that's got the next highest number on it, and in this case, 22 that turns out to be a 22. It's not the same as a four-grade 23 promotion. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. Sergeants were a 23; 25 they'd go on that one to a 25. Lieutenants were a 25; I 6-12-06 33 1 believe they'd go on that one to a 27 -- yes. (Sheriff's cell 2 phone rang.) Excuse me. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm trying. Everybody hollered 5 at me about keeping it on page, because I never got my phone 6 calls; I didn't hear it, so I apologize to the Court for that. 7 It hasn't been on page the last week. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: $25 fine. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $25 fine? Okay. Corrections 10 officers, on the old one, were 14. 11 (Another cell phone rang.) 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't think that was mine. 13 I've never heard that noise before. 14 (Discussion off the record.) 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They would be a 19. Sergeants 16 are a 17. This is jail sergeants. And they would move to -- 17 to a 21. That's the next place to fit. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff? 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Did you happen to prepare a schedule 21 of old versus new and dollar difference? 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Between those here on paper? 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I did. It's sitting at my -- 25 on my desk. I did not do it as part of this presentation. 6-12-06 34 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't have that? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: No. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can give you that, okay? And 5 what I'm showing you is -- or I can give you the salaries, and 6 you can write them down from the old to the new right now. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff, how much would it 8 cost per month or per year, whichever you choose? 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, for the remaining -- what 10 I'm looking at, because of the shortage, because there is -- 11 and I don't want to rehash what Mr. Beltrone said. If y'all 12 will remember, the longevity and educational was all based on 13 steps. It does not give percentage. And the steps all the 14 way back to 1985 were 2 1/2 percent. So, when you've never 15 changed what was adopted in '85, I think it does say it should 16 all be those steps, and that's where it comes from. If we 17 were to adopt this -- adopt this schedule effective now, okay, 18 for the next four months of the court to be able to repay -- 19 or next four months of this budget to be able to make up some 20 of that -- and, like I said, sergeants don't move up much in 21 it. It would take several years on down to make up all the 22 differences, but I think it's an equitable deal. The solution 23 would end up, with FICA and everything, at $32,570. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For what period of time? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The next four months, starting 6-12-06 35 1 June 1st, actually going back to June 1st, is what it would 2 cost. That's FICA and retirement and all included. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, you're saying we can -- 4 if we choose to, we can reestablish the 2 1/2 percent 5 differentials that we may not have intended to reduce. We 6 could reestablish that, and that'll cost us 34,000? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 32,570. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Something more than $32,000 9 for the next four months? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And where that would come from, 12 okay -- and I even have some budget amendments, if the Court 13 decided to. That 32,570 is also coming straight out of my 14 budget. We have funds called SCAAP funds where we get kind of 15 rewards, revenue, whatever, from the federal government on 16 housing different classes of people. A lot of it comes out of 17 that. That is a revenue line item. And operating equipment; 18 there's about four different lines where I can make budget 19 amendments and supply that for the -- 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What we have to be mindful 21 of is that that pushes the Sheriff's Department's payroll 22 costs up to a higher level that will be built on in the 23 future. So, it's not -- it's not a one-time $32,500 cost. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Just under 100,000. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right at 100,000 annually. 6-12-06 36 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have any trouble 2 supporting it, 'cause that's what I think I intended to do 3 three years ago. But it will -- it will be an additional 4 payroll cost that we have to deal with. We already have 5 pretty high payroll costs throughout the county. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, explain to me -- and 7 there could possibly be someone in the audience that is kind 8 of where I'm at. '03-'04, we gave your employees a 2 1/2 9 percent salary increase plus an adjustment. The next year, we 10 gave 2 1/2, or whatever the number was, plus an adjustment, 11 and now we're behind $32,000 today? Tell me how that 12 happened. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What you did, the court 14 order -- the motion that was made in '03-'04, just as to the 15 deputies -- this is the actual minutes where the order was 16 passed, and it states that they're giving them $1,500 each. 17 Judge Tinley says, "Motion's been made and seconded for the 18 increase of deputies 1,500. Any further discussion?" And 19 then it talks about -- Buster Baldwin said, "And there is no 20 language in this order about doing it -- doing another half 21 that next year." You didn't want to tie yourself down to 22 having to do it the next year. Commissioner Nicholson says, 23 "Is this in addition to the 2 1/2 percent COLA?" Commissioner 24 Williams says, "Yes." Judge Tinley says, "Yes, it would be." 25 So, what you did was just give raises, and it wouldn't have 6-12-06 37 1 messed up the 2 1/2. But, inadvertently -- okay? Not -- and 2 the jail's the same way. And then 2004-5 is the exact same 3 type deal. It's all in addition. The way they figured it 4 then is correct. The step and grade's a separate issue, okay? 5 If you ever figured it, they figure it by the way the Court 6 said it, but when they kept the step and grade, it skewed it 7 all out. And, as Mr. Beltrone said, the only way you can keep 8 that step and grade which went back to 1985 being adopted by 9 the Court was to do individual step and grades for every 10 employee. And without doing that, the actual steps vary 11 anywhere from 1.9 to the 2.19 to -- but they never remade that 12 2.5 any more. And that's where it got messed up for three 13 years. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, you're probably not going 15 to like what I'm getting ready to say, but that's -- you know, 16 that happens frequently. I understand what we did, and I 17 don't like what we did and the consequences of it on step and 18 grade. I think we need to fix that. But I also think what we 19 did is exactly what we intended to do. Because I remember, in 20 my mind, anyway -- I have not read the minutes, but my memory 21 tells me that we discussed this, and it was a -- and, you 22 know, we were going to give a flat raise and we knew it was 23 going to mess up the schedules, and which -- and we knew that, 24 because it created a new schedule for deputies and all your 25 other employees. 6-12-06 38 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me finish. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I am. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think, you know, I have a 5 problem mid-budget making this correction. However, I also 6 think that this needs to be corrected in next budget year. 7 And I also think that we need to look at the employees as a 8 whole, that step and grade schedule as a whole and how it 9 affects other employees this year, as well during the budget 10 process. And my preference is to hold off and make this 11 correction during the budget for next year, and look at not 12 just your department, but all departments, and look at how we 13 -- I mean, we've looked at various departments, and I'm not 14 going to -- as an example, a lot of the clerical-type staff, 15 you know, is one that we have discussed that needs to be 16 probably looked at. I think that does need to be looked at. 17 And I think that by going in -- I think we do need to assure 18 you and your employees that we're going to fix the problem. 19 I'd just rather wait and do it during the budget process. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay, let me read you one 21 excerpt from that court meeting. Commissioner Baldwin says, 22 "Are the things that he's talking about, these 1,500's and 23 1,000's and all that, in this program?" Ms. Nemec says, "I 24 think the way we could do it is we could just add the 1,000 to 25 the beginning salary, and it would adjust it all the way 6-12-06 39 1 across so we would stay within the same step and grade." 2 That's what was done, okay? That's what was said to be done. 3 That's not what was done. What was done was the other. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reality, however, of 5 giving a bulk increase, 1,000 or 1,500 or 3,000, as the case 6 may be, at the -- at the base step, that automatically changes 7 the percentage going forward, and it reduces it because you 8 bumped up the base salary. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What Commissioner Letz 10 observed about this process is also my thinking. I don't -- I 11 think I don't want to try to act to solve the problem today. 12 I think we need some time to study it and look at the 13 consequences across our organization. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I want to hear from -- 15 Rex? 16 MR. EMERSON: Sir? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to hear from -- you 18 almost got out. I want to hear from the County Attorney at 19 some point about this, you know, the legal ins and outs of it, 20 and I want to hear from the County Auditor as well to make 21 sure. It just -- I just feel like that we're rushing into 22 something here that we don't need to be rushing into. We need 23 to be real careful. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to ask a question 25 also of this -- this new matrix that you gave the Court this 6-12-06 40 1 morning, which is a 12-step matrix. Is it your -- is it your 2 opinion that this new matrix replaces any and all other 3 matrixes? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That new matrix, the 12-step, 5 is exactly what the courthouse is on right now. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We would then, in the 7 future, be on one matrix and not multiple matrixes? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. Okay? Now, 9 the only last thing I'll say about -- and why I'm doing some 10 of this, is -- let me explain. Some people were given 11 raises -- other ones, okay, and two steps and three steps, and 12 they did that. And it was unfortunate, and the Court couldn't 13 see it, I couldn't see it, Barbara couldn't see it, nobody 14 could, that -- what the flat raises did. But you talk about 15 some in here, and this one was minutes of that same day when 16 everything was adopted, and involving a different person, and 17 it says, "Is that 3 percent plus 2,000?" Commissioner 18 Williams says, "Right." And it goes on; Ms. Nemec says, 19 "Okay, 28,009 would be the 19-4." So, what they're doing is, 20 in that step and grade, to give that person their -- that 21 2,000, instead of giving it flat, they moved them up steps, 22 which kept everything in sequence and kept it compounding up. 23 What they -- and it's the same percentage of raise, except now 24 that person, when they've got a year's employment or four 25 years employment, their next step is 2 1/2 percent. And 6-12-06 41 1 that's what this Court did with numerous employees back during 2 that time. Unfortunately, what happened with the flat with 3 the deputies and jailers and dispatchers, instead of doing the 4 2 1/2, or moving them up steps, they gave them flat, and so 5 now that employee, regardless of how long they work here, when 6 they go up, it cuts it to a 2, to a 1.98, 2.1. They no longer 7 got the longevity that all the rest of the employees did, and 8 that's where we fell behind. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we all understand 10 the issues. I think we understand the arithmetic that we -- 11 the actions that we took, whether we intended to do that or 12 unintentionally, we impacted the 2 1/2 percent grade 13 structure, and now we just have to decide if we want to make a 14 decision to restore that. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think 2 1/2 percent was 16 adopted -- and Rex can verify this, yes or no -- from the time 17 of the Ray and Associates, when it was first presented to the 18 Court, and then it was adopted by them, and every court 19 meeting, every agenda after that, they refer to it as 2 1/2 20 percent that was adopted. When the Nash study came in, they 21 referred to the steps as the Ray and Associates steps. When 22 we got to talking about the budget processes, all the court 23 minutes, and I have hundreds of them, show -- and it was even 24 asked by some Commissioners and Judges at the time, is a step 25 2 1/2 percent? And they say yes. So, I think it was well 6-12-06 42 1 documented that it was. Now, what happened was the Court 2 never ordered at all that 2 1/2 to be changed. They ordered 3 this to be implemented, and the only way that it could have 4 been implemented without changing that was what Beltrone said, 5 one step and grade for each employee. But the Court never, 6 over 25 years, ordered it to be changed. 7 So, my problem with adopting it now, Jonathan, is 8 that today, okay, by what the documentation in the court is, 9 today we're still not following and not paying the officers, 10 okay, what they were supposed to have been paid through the 11 longevity and the step and grade. And why the last three 12 years was so important is, when the Court adopted the 13 educational along with this longevity, deputies at that 14 time -- before then, education didn't mean that much, so at 15 that time, a lot of them went on their own time at night, 16 everywhere else, getting their schooling, 'cause a lot of them 17 had the years, 'cause it does take years to get to that next 18 step. So, most of the steps that have been given throughout 19 the department that kept people here and kept us in equity 20 with other departments were during the last three years, which 21 is what caused the deficit so bad with the department with 22 those employees. And that's why I'm suggesting if I come up 23 with it, let's make it even now instead of keep going wrong 24 for the next four months. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The problem isn't fixing this 6-12-06 43 1 year. The problem is next budget year where we have a 2 $100,000 hit, which is a large amount for us to figure out how 3 to pay for, and will probably impact other employees. And 4 that's my -- you know, I understand and I applaud you for 5 coming up with the funds in your current budget, or through 6 some of the other funds that you have access to. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: When it was adopted, you made 8 the exact same comments in the Commissioners Court about the 9 long-term that was adopted that way. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I just think -- I mean, I 11 agree with Commissioner Baldwin; I'd like for Rex to take a 12 look at from it a legal standpoint. And a determination if -- 13 you know, from what I'm hearing from you and Mr. Beltrone, is 14 that we -- the raise was done according to what the Court 15 ordered. And if that is true, I don't think the Court is 16 obligated for an adjustment. I think we need to do an 17 adjustment, because I think we're going to get things so far 18 out of kilter, we'll never know what anyone's getting paid. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The base salary was done as to 20 what the Court ordered. That's why I keep trying to stress 21 this is two separate issues, okay? The base salary is what 22 the Court ordered then, and whether you put the COLA on top or 23 the -- or the raise and then the COLA. But the court orders 24 that had not been followed, okay, and were not then, is the 25 longevity and educational that was approved, even going back 6-12-06 44 1 to educational, not longevity, back to 1985, and adopted in 2 policy. And I can even give you quotes in the minutes, okay, 3 where you state that we adopted this policy, talking about it, 4 okay? At that point, you have one-half of the court order 5 that was followed. You have another half of the court order 6 that was not followed. The only way they could have followed 7 that second half was to do individual step and grades for 8 every officer. So, it's not that it was followed, okay? Part 9 of it was, but part of it, just as binding, was not. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that. And -- but I 11 also -- I'm not -- my final comment on this, I'm going to 12 defer it to Rex. I don't want to really vote on it today, but 13 I think we have to rely on court orders. During the -- the 14 way this Court has worked since I've been on it as a 15 Commissioner is that we discuss a lot, and I frequently change 16 my mind 180 degrees during the minutes discussion phase. So, 17 the fact that I said one thing during the discussion doesn't 18 mean that I didn't change my mind by the time the vote came, 19 and I think you have to look at the actual court orders as to 20 what the Court decided to do, because we do freely and openly 21 discuss things in this body. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If you remember back when Judge 23 Tinley took office and all the budget stuff, the budget is 24 adopted after all the discussions and everything. You will 25 not find court orders on any of those things there that are 6-12-06 45 1 discussed in it, so what you're looking for as a direct 2 written court order, okay, is an overall issue of adopting the 3 budget, and not an individual piece after that 2003-4, 4 '02-'03. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, I think everybody on the 6 Court understands the two different facets of this. And it 7 appears to me the consensus is that we want to take a look at 8 this, study it, look at the legalities, get some input from 9 the Auditor, possibly. Does any member of the Court have any 10 -- anything further, motion or otherwise, to offer on Item 11 Number 27 -- or Item Number 23 on the agenda? 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I don't have a 13 motion. I -- you asked the Sheriff if he'd done any 14 calculations about the impact, officer by officer, on this. 15 I'd suggest that that would be something very valuable for the 16 Court to see. So, if he could show us what would be the 17 impact by each officer if we restored the 2 1/2 percent 18 effective the last day of September? 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further from anybody 21 on the Court? Let's move on, if we might. We have some timed 22 items, and at this time I will recess the Commissioners Court 23 meeting, and I will convene a public hearing concerning the 24 revision of plat of Lots 19 and 20 of Hidden Hills, as set 25 forth in Volume 6, Page 362 of the Plat Records, and located 6-12-06 46 1 in Precinct 2. 2 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:09 a.m., and a public hearing was 3 held in open court, as follows:) 4 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public 6 that wishes to be heard with regard to the revision of plat of 7 Lots 19 and 20 of Hidden Hills, that plat being set forth in 8 Volume 6, Page 362? Hearing or seeing no one coming forward, 9 or -- or asking to be recognized, the Court will close the 10 public hearing concerning the revision of a plat of Lots 19 11 and 20 of Hidden Hills, as set forth in Volume 6, Page 362 of 12 the Plat Records. 13 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:09 a.m., and another public hearing was held in open court, 14 as follows:) 15 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 16 JUDGE TINLEY: And the Court will now convene a 17 public hearing concerning the revision of plat of Lot 25, Twin 18 Springs, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 167 of the Kerr County 19 Plat Records. Is there any member of the public that wishes 20 to be heard concerning the revision of plat of Lot 25, Twin 21 Springs, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 167 of the Plat 22 Records? Yes, sir? Please come forward. Give your name and 23 address, please. 24 MR. KING: Judge, Commissioners, my name is Steven 25 King. I currently reside at 311 Ridge Road, Kerrville, Texas. 6-12-06 47 1 I own property in Creekwood, am currently building a home in 2 Creekwood. I come before the Court on this -- on this matter, 3 the division of the lots in -- in Twin Springs, Number 25. I 4 have no objection to the -- I don't have a dog -- I don't own 5 any property in Twin Springs, so I don't have -- actually have 6 an issue with the division of the property in Twin Springs 7 into four separate lots. And in the plat, I believe that's 8 how it's done. My problem will be -- is more concerned with 9 what is -- what's going to be done with the 25 acres that's 10 not left in Twin Springs. There's four lots that are divided 11 out of a 128-acre tract. Three of them are dedicated for -- 12 for Twin Springs, to be left in Twin Springs. The other lot 13 is -- will be handled in a matter in a hearing after that. 14 So, I -- my objection is to the remaining acreage. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll just remain close by, we're 16 going to be calling that other one shortly. Is there any 17 other member of the public that wishes to be heard concerning 18 the revision of plat of Lot 25, Twin Springs, as set forth in 19 Volume 7, Page 167, Plat Records? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's another gentleman 21 back there that raised his hand. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I saw a gentleman raise his 23 hand, but then he exited. 24 MR. NELSON: I'm -- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Please come forward and give us your 6-12-06 48 1 name and address, please, sir. 2 MR. NELSON: My name is Mark Nelson. I live in 3 Creekwood also, live at 890 Twin Springs Road. And my concern 4 also is concerning the additional land that may be platted 5 into Creekwood from Twin Springs. You know, I'll follow Steve 6 on that. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Very well. I'll call that one 8 shortly. Any other member of the public that wishes to be 9 heard concerning the revision of plat of Lot 25, Twin Springs, 10 as set forth in Volume 7, Page 167, Plat Records? Seeing no 11 one else coming forward or -- yes, sir? 12 MR. RENO: Yeah, I want to say something. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm like an auctioneer here, "Going 14 once, going twice, going three times." 15 MR. RENO: My name is Jimmy Reno. I'm an agent with 16 Sherron Properties in Kerrville. It's my understanding, and I 17 think Lee will verify that later on, that the 25 acres that 18 the two gentlemen are in question, that property is already in 19 Creekwood. It was double-platted. It was in Twin Springs and 20 Creekwood; there was a mistake made. And, so, what we're 21 trying to do is take that tract out, not out of -- we're not 22 trying to add it into Creekwood. I just want to make that 23 clear. It was already in there, and we're just trying to put 24 it in one or the other, and so that's -- that's what that's 25 about. 6-12-06 49 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. Thank you. Any 2 other member of the public that wishes to be heard concerning 3 the revision of plat of Lot 25, Twin Springs, as set forth in 4 Volume 7, Page 167, Plat Records? Seeing no one else asking 5 to be recognized, I will close the public hearing on the 6 revision of plat of Lot 25 in Twin Springs as set forth in 7 Volume 7, Page 167, Plat Records. 8 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:13 a.m., and another public hearing was held in open court, 9 as follows:) 10 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I will now convene a public hearing 12 which was scheduled for 10:10 a.m.; it's past that time now, 13 concerning the revision of plat for Lot 1-A, Creekwood Section 14 V, Roman numeral 5, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 160 of the 15 Plat Records. Is there any member of the public that wishes 16 to be heard concerning the revision of plat for Lot 1-A, 17 Creekwood Section V, Roman numeral 5, as set forth in Volume 18 7, Page 160, Plat Records? Mr. King? 19 MR. KING: Yes. Judge, if Lee would clarify this 20 for us, maybe we can stop a lot of yapping here. I mean, can 21 he just -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That'd be helpful. 23 MR. KING: Can we ask him to do that? If not, we're 24 going to -- we're going to bring forth the subject. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me clarify, if I might, Mr. King. 6-12-06 50 1 At a public hearing, we can take comment, -- 2 MR. KING: Right. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: -- but insofar as being able to 4 debate the issue -- 5 MR. KING: I understand. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: -- back and forth, we're not able to 7 do that. That, obviously, would come up under Items 11 and 8 12, it appears. 9 MR. KING: Sure. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: If you'd like to tell us your 11 position with regard to -- conditionally or otherwise with 12 regard to whether or not it falls one way or the other, that's 13 what we need to listen to now. 14 MR. KING: Will we have an opportunity -- will the 15 public have an opportunity in the discussion stage of -- of 16 Item -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 18 MR. KING: -- 12? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 20 MR. KING: We will? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir, absolutely. 22 MR. KING: Okay. Then it'd probably be better if we 23 waited and let's let Lee voice his opinion, and we'll -- we 24 can make the same presentation. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6-12-06 51 1 MR. KING: Thank you. Save some time. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: We hold the public hearings; we've 3 advertised them. We're obliged by law to do that. And -- 4 MR. KING: Sure. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: -- I know you understand that. 6 MR. KING: I understand that. Thank you. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public -- 8 any other member of the public who would like to be heard 9 concerning the revision of plat for Lot 1-A in Creekwood 10 Section V, Roman numeral 5, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 160 11 of the Plat Records? Seeing no one else seeking to be 12 recognized, I will close the public hearing for the revision 13 of plat for Lot 1-A, Creekwood Section V in Volume 7, Page 14 160. Let's reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting, if we 15 might, please. 16 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:15 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was 17 reopened.) 18 - - - - - - - - - - 19 JUDGE TINLEY: And we will go first to Item 10; 20 consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for revision of 21 plat for Hidden Hills, Lots 19 and 20, as set forth in Volume 22 6, Page 362 and 363 of the Plat Records, and located in 23 Precinct 2. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, do you think now would 25 be a good time to tell Steve about the one-minute limit? 6-12-06 52 1 (Laughter.) Probably not a good time. So, his time's kind of 2 up, huh? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom? 4 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This plat was done in the 5 alternate plat process. It's combining two lots, Lots 20 and 6 19, into one that will be 80 acres, which is 19-A, as you see 7 in the revision. At this time, I ask that you approve the 8 revision of plat of Lots 19 and 20 of Hidden Hills. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Making larger lots? 10 MR. ODOM: Taking two and making into one larger 11 lot. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second -- third. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 16 of the -- approval of the agenda item. Any question or 17 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 18 your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move to 23 Item 11; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for 24 revision of plat for part of Lot 25, Twin Springs Ranch, 25 Section II, Roman numeral 2, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 6-12-06 53 1 167, and located in Precinct 2. Mr. Odom? 2 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is a revision of Lot 25, 3 which is one big lot, Twin Springs. It's dealing with a 4 portion of three lots being carved out of this one lot, and 5 one lot abandoned back to 25 -- back into Creekwood V, which 6 is another agenda item. Each lot is over 29 acres and meets 7 all Kerr County regulations. Therefore, I ask you to approve 8 the plat as presented, and I'll turn the time over to Lee, if 9 -- also, may I also say that the City needs to sign this. And 10 so -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: ETJ. 12 MR. ODOM: And he will be taking that to the City 13 for their approval to sign this, and then present it back to 14 the Court. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom, let me ask you, if I might. 16 Would it be appropriate, do you think, for me to call the next 17 agenda item so that -- these seem to have some pretty good 18 overlap. 19 MR. ODOM: They have some overlap. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me go ahead and call 21 Agenda Item Number 12, then, to consider along with 11; 22 consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for revision of 23 plat for Creekwood, Section V, Roman numeral 5, as set forth 24 in Volume 7, Page 160 of the Plat Records. This will keep us 25 clean for discussion purposes. 6-12-06 54 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one question 2 before Mr. Odom or Mr. Voelkel launch into the explanation 3 here. A question was raised as to whether or not adjacent 4 property owners were properly noticed. Is it correct that the 5 only notifications that needed to go forward were for those 6 who own property in Twin Springs? 7 MR. ODOM: That's correct. And Creekwood V -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not necessary to notice 9 anybody in Creekwood V, because there's only one owner, and 10 that is the owner who is petitioning the Court; is that 11 correct? 12 MR. ODOM: For this -- that's correct. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Okay. 14 MR. ODOM: This agenda item deals with the 25-acre 15 portion of Lot 25 in Twin Springs Ranch as being added to Lot 16 1-A of Creekwood V, making a 380.19-acre lot. Also, this also 17 would be contingent on the City. This has to go before the 18 City Council to sign off on it, and I would recommend approval 19 for that, and turn the time over for discussion to Lee. 20 MR. VOELKEL: Thank you, sir. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Voelkel, let me ask you a 22 question, if I might. 23 MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: The 25 acres that is going to go from 25 Twin Springs to Creekwood V -- 6-12-06 55 1 MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: -- is that 25 acres already in 3 Creekwood V? Has it been overlap-platted? 4 MR. VOELKEL: No, sir. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 MR. VOELKEL: Now, let me back up a little bit 7 there, 'cause I think there's some confusion. There was -- 8 the original Creekwood V there is -- when Creekwood V was 9 platted as two lots, this 25 acres was a part of one of those 10 original lots of Creekwood V. The owner of the property, who 11 owned Creekwood V and some lots in Twin Springs, replatted 12 both subdivisions and put this 25 acres out of Creekwood V 13 into Twin Spring Ranches, Section II, which was the replat 14 that he did. At that time, again, we replatted the lots in 15 Twin Springs and recorded that plat. We replatted Creekwood V 16 at that time and recorded that plat. The desire now is for 17 the owner of both properties -- again, Creekwood V and the 18 Twin Springs Ranch II properties -- to replat the one lot in 19 Twin Springs Ranch II, which is the large one, cutting it into 20 four pieces, leaving three of those lots in Twin Springs Ranch 21 II and taking that 25-acre tract that was originally in 22 Creekwood V and now putting it back into Creekwood V. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: As a separate lot, or incorporating 24 it with another lot? 25 MR. VOELKEL: Incorporating into a larger lot, so 6-12-06 56 1 that there's still only one lot, and it's a large lot. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In Creekwood V? 3 MR. VOELKEL: In Creekwood V, that's correct. Yes, 4 sir. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One owner? 6 MR. VOELKEL: One owner. And I will also add to 7 just what Mr. Odom said, 'cause there's some confusion over 8 the ETJ, probably, still. The reason that we're going also to 9 the City for review and approval, the ETJ traverses the 10 property. If it would have been completely in the ETJ, my 11 understanding is the City would have handled that, but because 12 there are parts in and out, we're going to both governments 13 for approval. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. King, I think the answer to my 15 question was yes and no. 16 MR. KING: Yeah. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: It wasn't already there, but it's 18 coming there as part of an existing lot, just to make it 19 larger. 20 MR. KING: Right. Okay. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that your understanding? 22 MR. KING: That's our understanding. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 24 MR. KING: Our opposition to this, Judge, is 25 severalfold. There's -- there's one -- in Creekwood, there's 6-12-06 57 1 Subdivision I, II, III, IV and V. There's two homeowners' 2 associations in Creekwood, I and II, and there's a line of 3 demarcation that goes through the middle of this lot, through 4 the middle of this property. Not -- actually, it goes through 5 the lot below, the 350 acres, Lot 1-A of Creekwood V. We -- 6 we have two separate ownership -- two separate homeowner 7 groups, and we have one road entering Creekwood, which is 8 maintained by Creekwood I. Our opposition is to adding any 9 more acreage into Creekwood. I mean, Creekwood -- it may have 10 been moved out of Creekwood, but we really don't want it back. 11 We'd just as soon leave it in Twin Springs. If I bought that 12 lot yesterday from Mr. Burgess -- if I would have bought that 13 lot yesterday, my access would have been through Twin Springs. 14 It would have been an 8-mile -- almost an 8-mile trek down 15 Spur 100 all the way back around through Twin Springs, all the 16 way back through to get to this lot -- to get to access to 17 this lot. 18 If you take action on this today and approve it to 19 move it into Creekwood, access to that lot will be about a 20 mile and three-quarters through Creekwood, through our road -- 21 through the road that Creekwood I maintains. This lot here 22 will not have any ownership, any maintain -- they will not 23 maintain that road in any way. It will be maintained by 24 Creekwood I. We pay all the bills on that road. They drive 25 on it. It's through an easement, an easement that was given a 6-12-06 58 1 long time ago. It's a screwed up matter, but we are trying to 2 work through it. And we really just don't need any more 3 acreage back there, to be honest with you. If it is one lot, 4 I will agree with you, it would be a 380-acre lot. Today it 5 would be a 380-acre lot. It has been surveyed by Lee; it has 6 been surveyed for division into eight lots. There is a -- 7 there's a certain -- there's a map out on it. In fact, 8 property has been shown, and -- and prices have been quoted on 9 the property as individual lots, not as one piece. It hasn't 10 been quoted as one piece, but it has been quoted in individual 11 properties. So, it is my anticipation that this -- this 12 property will be back before the Court in -- in the near 13 future as a subdivision, and that is the reason it is -- it 14 was -- it was platted as Subdivision V. 15 So -- so, our opposition is -- is mainly the access, 16 is access back through our road, this property. You're 17 allowing -- we have a 25-acre restriction in our -- in 18 Creekwood. These are two separate subdivisions completely, 19 and there's two separate values of property, I feel. I looked 20 in Twin Springs to buy before I bought my land, and the 8-mile 21 drive didn't really appeal to my wife. The access through 22 Peterson Farm Road, or Creekwood Drive now, is much simpler 23 and much easier. Upon subdivision of this property, the 24 access will be through that road again, and we will already -- 25 then we'll be adding eight more families to that road. 6-12-06 59 1 Approximately 140 acres of that land will still be in 2 Creekwood II, as will this property here. The rest of it is 3 in Creekwood I already currently. So, it's -- there's a 4 little bit more to it than just moving property back and 5 forth. 6 We were not notified, as we were not required to be 7 notified, Commissioner Williams said, because Gene owns 8 100 percent of Creekwood V. But there are two separate 9 subdivisions, two separate homeowners' associations there, and 10 I think in the future, courtesy would -- would prove prudent 11 to notify -- notify us so we can have representation, and so I 12 don't find out about these things at 3 o'clock on Friday 13 afternoon. I know he's not required to do that, and I guess 14 that legally he doesn't have to, but we already have a lot of 15 hard feelings back in that subdivision already because we have 16 a I and a II, and I think one of the few things we've been 17 able to agree on this thing is the fact that we don't want 18 this 25 acres brought back into our subdivision. Questions? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, but I have a comment, 20 Steve. It sounds like, you know, it's a civil issue between 21 the neighbors out there and how many homeowners' associations 22 you have and all that. Doesn't have anything to do with this 23 Court, in my opinion. And we -- we can't -- we've talked 24 about this many times. This Court can't make decisions on 25 what might happen or what could happen or maybe going to 6-12-06 60 1 happen. 2 MR. KING: Sure. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That kind of thing. We make 4 decisions on the information that's before us. 5 MR. KING: I understand. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, and I -- 7 MR. KING: I will say that -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- I don't see what's wrong 9 here. 10 MR. KING: You're adding -- you're changing the -- 11 you're changing the ownership in our subdivision, is what 12 you're doing. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand your argument 14 and your concern. But I'm wondering, however, if those 15 concerns are not better expressed if, as, and when the owner 16 comes back in here for a plat revision of Creekwood V. 17 MR. KING: According to our bylaws, he can divide it 18 into 25-acre tracts; we'll have no standing in that. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But he still has to come 20 back to the Court. 21 MR. KING: He still has to come back to the Court, 22 but he'll meet the -- he'll meet all the rules of the county, 23 and he'll also meet the rules of our subdivision -- of our 24 subdivision, so we'll have no standing there. I think -- I 25 think the access issue is a question, to me. You guys, by 6-12-06 61 1 approving this, you're -- you're changing the ownership and 2 the percentage of voting rights of our subdivision. He will 3 own a different percentage in Creekwood II over what he owns 4 now. And it's not saying that's a bad thing, but you are 5 now -- you're saying you have no impact, Buster. You do have 6 an impact on the subdivision. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How? How does this affect 8 Creekwood II? 9 MR. KING: You're adding acreage into Creekwood II. 10 You've added 25 -- you're adding 25 acres into the Creekwood 11 II homeowners' association. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, association. 13 MR. KING: You're -- the subdivision was all one 14 chunk, and it was metes and bounds on the whole -- on the 15 whole subdivision. They divided into two different 16 homeowners' associations. You are changing the ownership in 17 that subdivision -- in that particular part of the 18 subdivision, by adding it to it. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I -- I 20 understand your concern. And my question, really, is probably 21 to Rex. I don't see that the County has any -- I mean, a dog 22 in the fight, really. I mean, it's an issue between 23 homeowners' associations and how they were done. 24 MR. KING: Sure. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I understand that we 6-12-06 62 1 have -- that we do impact homeowners' associations, but I 2 don't know if that -- we just don't really get involved with 3 homeowners' associations. Access, we clearly do have an issue 4 with. And as long as Creekwood V has access to the road, you 5 know, I think they're -- you know, we almost have to approve 6 it. 7 MR. KING: Sure, and I understand. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, now, that being said, you 9 know, there may be an issue on the access. I don't know. You 10 know, I don't know that we would get involved with that 11 homeowners' association. There may be a civil action to 12 prevent them from dividing it and adding more people to it, 13 but I don't know that it's a Court decision. 14 MR. KING: So, you have no -- so, if I understand 15 it, the Court has no control over additions to subdivisions? 16 In other words, if I bought 1,000 acres adjoining this 17 subdivision and I came to you to plat that 1,000 into 18 Saddlewood -- plat that 1,000 acres into Saddlewood and make 19 it a part of Saddlewood, that's not an issue with the Court? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we do have the ability 21 to on the size of the subdivision acreage being added to the 22 subdivision. But the basis of it being a homeowners' 23 association, I don't think that -- that is not the reason, I 24 think. 25 MR. KING: I understand. Well, if you take the 6-12-06 63 1 homeowners' association out of the -- out of the argument, you 2 are adding -- you are adding acreage from Twin Springs into 3 Creekwood -- into Creekwood. And there -- you're influencing 4 the value of that land. That 25 acres of land is worth more 5 when you -- today, voting to put it into Creekwood, than it is 6 voting to leave it in Twin Springs. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: The current owner of Creekwood V -- 8 MR. KING: Yes. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: -- Section V, is there one owner? 10 MR. KING: There's one owner. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Of all that property? 12 MR. KING: Yes. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: And that's the same owner that owns 14 this 25? 15 MR. KING: He does own the 25, yes. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: So, we're not dealing with someone 17 putting acreage into -- 18 MR. KING: No. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: -- somebody else's subdivision. 20 MR. KING: No. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- and this may have 23 a -- you know, I'd really probably refer this to Rex. Once 24 this revision is done, it's under our new rules. If they come 25 back to do another revision, it's going to be under our new 6-12-06 64 1 rules. I don't know the nature of how Creekwood -- how the 2 road that accesses any of these lots was made, but our rules 3 have changed substantially. There is a very high likelihood 4 we're going to require a major upgrade of that road. I don't 5 know how -- I mean, I don't know Creekwood V. I don't know -- 6 MR. KING: There's no road. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there will be a requirement, 8 if this lot is divided on the access side, to prove that this 9 road is -- I'm suspecting either a local road or collector 10 road. 11 MR. KING: There's actually no road currently into 12 Creekwood V. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, any road that's done, they're 14 going to have to provide access to this. 15 MR. KING: Sure. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: At some point, they're going to 17 have to go back all the way to the beginning, probably, and 18 upgrade for that. I don't know how it was built, so there's a 19 road issue. I mean, from a quality standpoint, I think the 20 County does have -- 21 MR. KING: Mm-hmm. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- an issue, you know, how 23 far -- what's done at Creekwood V does, because you're adding 24 lots. 25 MR. KING: Sure. 6-12-06 65 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And our new rules, which have 2 been approved, clearly say that that's a direct issue. 3 MR. KING: As I understand it, on that point, 4 Jonathan, I believe that this association has been before -- 5 and I'm not representing the association in any way. This 6 association has been before the Court on that road, I know, 7 Bill, at least two times. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At least two times. 9 MR. KING: I believe the -- one of the 10 conversations, the Court did say that if there was increased 11 density -- increased density in the subdivision, that that 12 would call for a reevaluation of the road coming into 13 Creekwood. In other words, if you added another five families 14 out there, would that change the issue at all? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that does, but they're not 16 doing that here. 17 MR. KING: No, they're not doing it here. No, I 18 agree. I agree, Jonathan. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not yet. 20 MR. KING: Thank you very much. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next time. 22 MR. KING: See you later, guys. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone else have anything to offer 24 with regard to Agenda Item Number 12 -- 11 or 12, revision of 25 the Twin Springs or Creekwood V? Yes, sir? Please come 6-12-06 66 1 forward; tell us what's on your mind. 2 MR. NELSON: My name is Mark Nelson, 890 Twin 3 Springs. Steve said it. I'm here representing Creekwood II 4 along with some other people, and I think he represented our 5 case as well as his. I'm just very concerned, as a homeowner 6 in Creekwood II, that this is setting a precedent about 7 allowing other homeowners or other property owners to bring 8 more property in, and therefore, increasing the load on our 9 roads. You know, we have spent tens of thousands, if not more 10 than 100,000 on improvement of these roads, because they are 11 private roads, and we don't really want any more traffic on 12 them. Now, whether that's something that you decide or -- or 13 what, I really am not -- I'm not really aware, or, you know, I 14 don't really know. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we'd have more 16 opportunity to discuss it in detail if, as, and when the owner 17 comes back for a plat revision of Creekwood V. And that, 18 then, tells us what the road's going to be, where it's going 19 to be, and how it's going to tie in. We don't know that 20 today. 21 MR. NELSON: Right, but there's no -- again, the way 22 I understood it, there's no way he -- he doesn't have to 23 notify us. We just have to kind of watch the minutes -- or 24 watch the agendas. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He has to notify us, though. 6-12-06 67 1 MR. NELSON: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And he has to publish it in 3 the paper. 4 MR. NELSON: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it was published in the 6 newspaper also, so -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I see where you're 8 coming from. 9 MR. NELSON: Sure. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: You're under not the Creekwood I 11 homeowners, but Creekwood II? 12 MR. NELSON: I'm the Treasurer of Creekwood II, yes, 13 sir. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: So, unlike Mr. King in Creekwood I 15 homeowners that stands the expense of improving the road, am I 16 correct in my understanding that Creekwood II does not have an 17 ongoing obligation to maintain those roads -- homeowners' II? 18 MR. KING: No, they have an easement. 19 MR. NELSON: Is that question directed to me? Oh, 20 it's directed to me. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 22 MR. NELSON: We don't have an obligation. We have a 23 moral obligation, and we're reviewing that. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 MR. NELSON: But we don't have a legal obligation. 6-12-06 68 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Notwithstanding the fact that you 2 don't have a legal obligation for the financial responsibility 3 for maintenance of those roads, it might serve you -- your 4 concern is future density. 5 MR. NELSON: Right. I mean, among other things, 6 yes, sir. Yeah, among other things. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And increased traffic volume 9 on the road. 10 MR. KING: Right. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me see -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All the density brings. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- see if I'm understanding 14 the issue. Is the motivation of the owner of this lot to have 15 it moved into Creekwood a shorter route of access to this lot? 16 MR. KING: It will be -- 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that the whole issue? 18 MR. KING: Well, I don't know his motivation. I was 19 not privy to that. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can't look into his -- in 21 terms of motivation, but he's got hundreds of acres of 22 property out there he's been trying to sell for some time, and 23 so this is an opportunity to -- to perhaps move some of that 24 property. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Currently, he's got a long 6-12-06 69 1 access route, and this will provide a shorter access route. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The long access route is to 3 Twin Springs right now, which is out Spur 100 and into Twin 4 Springs. And if you're splitting off this piece of property 5 from Twin Springs, you're adding it to Creekwood, the 6 contention is that, ultimately -- not necessarily today, 7 because the owner hasn't -- isn't before the Court with a plat 8 revision for Creekwood V in detail, but the contention is that 9 ultimately, that enables a shorter access to Creekwood V. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- you know, listening 11 to Commissioner Nicholson made me think of something, and I'm 12 -- again, I probably have to look to Rex on this, is the 13 precedent that this does a little bit. And it -- to pick on 14 another subdivision, let's take Stablewood. Relatively small 15 lots. Let's assume there's 1,000 acres that one of those lots 16 adjoins, and that guy wants to develop it. He doesn't want to 17 spend any money on roads, so he buys a lot bordering it and in 18 Stablewood, and then goes in and does a -- comes to us and 19 says, "We want to do a revision of plat and include that whole 20 1,000 acres into Stablewood." That's the same thing that 21 we're doing here, really. And, you know, if it's just one lot 22 still, I see it's not an issue, but as soon as that lot gets 23 divided, it has a huge impact on -- on the whole Stablewood 24 and those private roads. So, I -- I stand by -- I think I 25 have no problem with it; I don't think we have any reason to 6-12-06 70 1 do it, but as soon as this lot gets divided, I think it's a 2 big issue for this Court. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To be taken up when he comes 4 back for a revision of plat. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, at that point. So, 6 anyway -- 7 MR. KING: I agree. That's the issue we were trying 8 to get forward, was that -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we on 11, Judge, or 12? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: We're actually on both. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move approval of the 12 revision of plat for part of Lot 25, Twin Springs Ranch II, 13 Volume 7, Page 167, in Precinct 2. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second for 16 approval of Agenda Item Number 11. Any question or 17 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 18 your right hand. 19 (Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz voted in favor of the motion.) 20 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I didn't vote. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. With regard to agenda Item 25 Number 12, does any member of the Court have anything they 6-12-06 71 1 wish to offer? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move approval of a 3 revision of plat for Creekwood V, Volume 7, Page 160, in 4 Precinct 2, as presented to the Court. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 7 of Agenda Item Number 12. Any question or discussion? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have one comment. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I think what 11 Commissioner Letz said is quite appropriate, and that those 12 who are working with the ownership of Creekwood V should be 13 aware that when an ultimate plat revision comes before this 14 Court, the issue of density and the road and where that road 15 ties in will become fair game for discussion next time. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or comment? All 17 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 18 (Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz voted in favor of the motion.) 19 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson abstains 23 again. Why don't we take about a 15-minute recess here? 24 (Recess taken from 10:39 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.) 25 - - - - - - - - - - 6-12-06 72 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to order, if 2 we might and we'll get back to our agenda. Item 3; consider, 3 discuss, and take appropriate action to approve Lexis-Nexis 4 contract to replace Westlaw as the provider for online legal 5 research in the County Attorney's office. Mr. Emerson? 6 MR. EMERSON: Thank you, Judge. As presented in the 7 backup material, what we're requesting the Court to do is, 8 Westlaw has served us with an amendment for notice of price 9 increase, and I believe based on that amendment, that we have 10 a right to terminate their service with 30 days notice, and I 11 would like to do that with the County Attorney's office. 12 Westlaw has been averaging us $561 a month. With Lexis, I can 13 reduce the cost to $225 a month with an expanded database and 14 no additional charges, and subsequently save the County about 15 $4,000 a year. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 19 of the agenda item any question or discussion on the motion? 20 Ms. Uecker, who's the provider upstairs in our Law Library? 21 MS. UECKER: West. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We may want to take a look 23 at -- 24 MS. UECKER: We're locked in right now, so they 25 can't do anything right now. It'll take five years. 6-12-06 73 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yours is a different situation than 2 the County Attorney's office is? 3 MS. UECKER: Yeah. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does that motion need an 6 authorization for someone to sign? 7 MR. EMERSON: The Judge, please. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve and 9 authorize County Judge to sign. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or discussion? 11 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 12 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. Let's move to 17 Item 4; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to 18 reclassify a current employee from step/grade position of 22-2 19 to a 17, Step 5. Yes, sir, Mr. Stanton? 20 MR. STANTON: As in the backup documentation that 21 was provided to the Commissioners Court, this was part of the 22 original program or the original design when we set up the 23 program to change over the facility. We had a person that was 24 a case manager out there who agreed to reduce her salary to 25 stay on in the facility and work as a shift supervisor. The 6-12-06 74 1 current shift supervisors that were hired out there -- that 2 are currently out there that had been out there were hired in 3 at a step -- or, from what I understand, in July of '04, at a 4 Step 17-5. And what I would like to do is reduce the person 5 that was the case manager down to the same pay scale as the 6 other shift supervisors. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This person's filling a slot 8 that we had agreed -- agreed upon? 9 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. It's not a new hire; it's a 10 person that's been there, and they've agreed to take the 11 reduction in pay so they can stay on out there as a shift 12 supervisor. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: But they're moving into a different 14 slot with a different job description and different job 15 responsibilities, and what you're asking pay-wise, the step 16 and grade that they'll be moved into is a step and grade for 17 that new job slot, new job description, new job 18 responsibilities? 19 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 24 of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor 25 of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 6-12-06 75 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to 5 Item 5, if we might. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate 6 action regarding an agreement between Cameron County Juvenile 7 Probation Department and the Kerr County Juvenile Detention 8 Facility to house juveniles in the event of an emergency 9 situation when and if Cameron County is ordered to evacuate. 10 Mr. Stanton? 11 MR. STANTON: I received a letter from David 12 Tumlinson, who's the facility administrator for the Cameron 13 County -- or I guess the Hester Juvenile Detention Facility. 14 And what they are requesting is a continuation of a program I 15 guess that they've had with Kerr County for an extended period 16 of time; that if, for some reason, the Cameron County Juvenile 17 Detention Facility has to be evacuated due to hurricanes or 18 other emergencies, that we provide bed space for their kids 19 here in Kerr County. From my understanding talking to 20 Mr. Tumlinson, this agreement has been in place for a few 21 years, and I think they've used it one time, and I'm not sure 22 if it was last year or year before last, and they brought kids 23 down here and they stayed a day or two, and Kerr County did 24 not charge them for that stay. And he's wanting to continue 25 that agreement. 6-12-06 76 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Didn't we do something like 2 this with some county that brought their own employees? 3 MR. STANTON: Well, probably Cameron County and 4 Nueces County. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nueces, we did. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Was it Nueces? 7 MR. STANTON: And Cameron County is saying they'll 8 bring -- they're going to bus them. If they have to bring 9 kids up here, they would bus them up here and bring employees 10 to supervise their juveniles while they're here in the 11 facility. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the only cost to us 13 would be food? 14 MR. STANTON: Food, electricity, those types of 15 things. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I don't see any 17 language, "at no cost to Kerr County" in here, and I don't 18 think that's in here. 19 MR. STANTON: No, sir, it's not. From talking to 20 Mr. Tumlinson, he just said that last time they did it, they 21 were here for a few days, and they didn't receive a bill. We 22 do not currently have a contract with Cameron County to house 23 their juveniles. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need a -- I'm looking 25 to Rex, as I frequently have today. We need a contract so -- 6-12-06 77 1 I mean, there's issues that come up while they're here as to 2 how legally we handle it, and I think it needs to be clear 3 that Kerr County taxpayers don't pay. I'm glad to help our 4 neighbors to the south. I understand we have other issues 5 like this, but it needs to be paid for by the taxpayers of 6 Cameron County. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That ought to take care of 8 the liability issue, whatever they may -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whatever we have in our standard 10 agreement, they need to sign that and agree to -- you know, 11 kind of the same thing we did with Nueces -- I think it was 12 Nueces we did recently. That seems like a -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we have a sample of a 14 contract for Nueces? Is there one? 15 MR. STANTON: We have a standard contract, a normal 16 contract with Nueces County, housing their kids for $83 a day. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So it's a little 18 different, then, in terms of this. This is an emergency 19 situation where they're asking us to take them in. 20 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They weren't planning to pay 22 the per diem, or they were? 23 MR. STANTON: Doesn't sound like, to me, they were, 24 from the phone conversation. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe it wasn't Nueces County, 6-12-06 78 1 but I agree with Commissioner Baldwin. 2 MR. STANTON: We had -- Nueces County brought in 3 their boot camp kids. From what I understand, they were 4 housed in the gym area for a few days. And I'm not sure if 5 Nueces County was billed for those services or not. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, Kevin, why don't you get 7 with Rex and come up with an emergency-type contract that 8 takes care of this. If we can get a standard form that goes 9 with all counties, I'm glad to help all of them if we have the 10 space available, but I just want to make sure it's not at our 11 taxpayers' expense. And we need -- and any of them, I think 12 we probably need our standard contract with as well. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cover the bases. 14 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have anything further to 16 offer on that particular agenda item? Let's move forward, if 17 we might, to Item 6; consider, discuss, and -- I thought I saw 18 11:00. There's an 11 o'clock item. I apologize, we missed 19 that 11 o'clock item. It was a timed item. Let me go to 20 that, if we might, to Item 16, a timed item for 11 o'clock. 21 The agenda item is being fired arbitrarily by Kerr County 22 Rabies and Animal Control. The request to go on the agenda 23 was made by Kim Evans and Rhonda Sanchez. Are either of those 24 individuals here present today? 25 (No response.) 6-12-06 79 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Apparently, they've elected not to 2 pursue that at this time, so we'll pass that item and take no 3 action on it. Let's go back, then, to Item 6; consider, 4 discuss, and take appropriate action for variance to road 5 specifications for proposed manufactured home rental community 6 at 150 Lydick located in Precinct 1. 7 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, thank you. Thursday we had a 8 meeting -- Commissioner Baldwin, myself, and Steve Howard -- 9 about a lot that he had off Ranchero. The road is Lydick that 10 we maintain. It's about 2 acres of land. And discussing 11 about asking for variances, one of the variances was the fact 12 that the road is very narrow; the location -- a drainage plan 13 and a location of septic systems and all. We had -- Tish was 14 there from O.S.S.F. to talk about this, and I really, at this 15 point, would like the -- Commissioner Baldwin had some 16 questions that he wanted, and I went out and took a look at 17 some things, but I -- if Buster wants to ask me some 18 questions, I guess I could -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do the rules say about 20 the right-of-way width? 21 MR. ODOM: 30 foot. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's 30 foot. And that would 23 be fairly impossible for this guy to do. 24 MR. ODOM: That is correct. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so what -- what would you 6-12-06 80 1 recommend would be a footage? 2 MR. ODOM: What I measured was this -- let me get 3 this. As you can see by the drawing, this detail, there is a 4 house up front and a fence. I would say 20 foot, Buster. I 5 measured that 17 foot to the fence up front, and 19 feet to 6 the back. I see no reason why he cannot remove that section 7 of fence back to get us 20 foot. The other thing is -- is 8 that he has -- as he discussed with us, he has that telephone 9 pole at the end. It is the acre. He's got a down wire, and 10 that is the acre leading down Lydick to Ranchero. I believe 11 that he can put a pole as a dead-man and put that -- the guy 12 down on that dead-man pole right there and get up above, 13 because of the angle -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 15 MR. ODOM: -- right there. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My whole deal in this thing 17 is that the road part of this whole issue is not a big deal. 18 It's on private property, and we're talking about granting a 19 variance of a few feet for this guy. Now, he -- he clearly 20 understands -- he's already hired an engineer to do the 21 drainage study and those other things that he has to do for a 22 manufactured home deal. But the road thing, I thought, is not 23 that big of a deal. It's just private land. It's not going 24 to be service trucks in and out for us to require big -- 25 MR. ODOM: Cul-de-sacs. 6-12-06 81 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- big paved highway or a 2 cul-de-sac, that's right. And so I wanted to grant him a 3 variance on the road, and the road only. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the acreage? What are we 5 talking -- 6 MR. ODOM: Acreage is around 2 acres. It is in the 7 ETJ of the City of Kerrville. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is? 9 MR. ODOM: It is. And it -- but they do not have 10 any manufactured home rules. So, for him to subdivide it, he 11 could not subdivide it if it was less than 5 acres. And if 12 they have a centralized water -- I mean a sewer system, then 13 they have no rules whatsoever. So, here's a situation where 14 an individual has a home which is made his office; I mean, 15 that's clearly the headquarters for his water company. He has 16 one mobile home here, and he has another back up against the 17 K.I.S.D. school grounds. Right now, the road is not any -- 18 there's no way to get ditches. Our Subdivision Rules say that 19 if you go over 99 feet, you're to have a cul-de-sac, so that 20 would have to have a variance. The other says it's 30 foot; 21 we're talking about 20 foot being realistic to get down it. I 22 have some roads that are 20 foot. This is only one mobile 23 home back here. And that is not paved; it's a pea gravel 24 road, and the other variance would be from the paving aspect. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you pave it, that has to be 6-12-06 82 1 brought to standards, doesn't it? 2 MR. ODOM: Well, then you're going to have profiles 3 as far as, you know -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not for this size. 5 MR. ODOM: Huh? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not for this -- if it's -- this 7 would be a country lane. 8 MR. ODOM: Be a country lane, but even at that, the 9 pavement would be 18 foot. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but we don't have plan 11 and profiles for country lane. I know you haven't looked at 12 the final version. 13 MR. ODOM: Okay. I don't need them -- you know, I 14 think some type of drainage coming down off of it. What I 15 would be concerned about is, look at the mobile home park down 16 from it going back towards Ranchero. K.I.S.D. has got open 17 land, a playground back there. I don't see just a great deal 18 of runoff, but there'll be road runoff, the fact that you have 19 a trailer up there. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's it -- 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This -- this owner of this 22 2 acres or so currently resides on the 2 acres? 23 MR. ODOM: That is his office right there. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And he wants to put one 25 mobile home on it? 6-12-06 83 1 MR. ODOM: Well, who's to say that this is home of 2 record. This is his office for the water supply company. He 3 already has an existing mobile home on it that was present 4 when he bought it. Now he's wanting to put a third one, which 5 would -- which strikes the manufactured home rules. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. Go ahead. 7 MR. ODOM: And, Jonathan, I don't know if you want 8 it paved or not. I think you're better off, as far as 9 drainage is, not to have impervious cover on that right there, 10 the way that -- the way that is. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just saying under the rules, 12 it's up to him. It's a country lane, you know. 13 MR. ODOM: Otherwise, he can't do it. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The City has no say on -- 15 MR. ODOM: The City, if he was trying to subdivide 16 this, do an alternate plat on this right here, and he would 17 have the high-density rule. He could do that, if the Court so 18 chose, 'cause it's centralized water. He has a water system. 19 They say that they don't have mobile home rules, but if he was 20 to subdivide it, he couldn't do it if it was less than 21 5 acres. Could be only one mobile home on it. You'd have to 22 have a centralized sewer system before they would allow you to 23 do what he's planning to do right here. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many septic fields does it 25 have right now? 6-12-06 84 1 MR. ODOM: Oh, it has to be two. There's a house 2 there, and then another one for that mobile home. 3 MS. HARDIN: He has two existing, and he's asked for 4 a third one. 5 MR. ODOM: He's asked for a third one. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He can get three legally? 7 MR. ODOM: To my understanding, Tish -- we had 8 O.S.S. there, and they said yes. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the fact that the City 10 may not have a separate set of manufactured home rules is one 11 thing, but are they not obligated to follow ours under the 12 interlocal agreement, Commissioner? We have them. 13 MS. HARDIN: I think the City just says platting a 14 subdivision. 15 MR. ODOM: Platting a subdivision, not manufactured 16 homes. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because the -- the statute that 18 makes us get together on this only addresses subdivisions, and 19 it didn't address O.S.S.F.; didn't address, evidently, 20 manufactured homes, didn't address a lot of things, which is 21 why people still have to go to both entities to do -- 22 basically, to do a subdivision. In other words, the law was 23 rather faulty. I'm not real inclined to go along with it. I 24 mean, I'm not real sure -- seems like we're granting a lot of 25 variances; I'm not sure what they are. I certainly would want 6-12-06 85 1 them written -- listed, be very specific to as what we're 2 granting variances to. Road width, road type. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Cul-de-sac. 4 MR. ODOM: Cul-de-sac. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Width, paving, and 6 cul-de-sac. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Width, paving. And I know that 8 the City's -- well, the reason -- one of the major reasons for 9 the manufactured home rules is fire, and cul-de-sacs and 10 having access to them. That was the -- 11 MR. ODOM: This is 276 feet, is what I got this 12 morning. That's over 99 feet, so part of that would go into 13 the septic system, is the way it looks like. The cul-de-sac 14 would hit into the drainfield. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leonard, this is Kerrville 16 South Water Company that's -- that provides the water? Or 17 this is for Kerrville South Water Company? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They own it. 19 MR. ODOM: They own it. He told me that he owned 20 the water system. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 22 MR. ODOM: O.S.S.F. is -- there's four things to 23 look at. One is roads, one is drainage, one is O.S.S.F., and 24 the other one was -- I just had it in the back of my mind. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Drainage. 6-12-06 86 1 MR. ODOM: Drainage. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Lots of variances. 3 MR. ODOM: A lot of variances. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, he's not going to -- 5 he's not going to get a variance on anything but the road. 6 Everything else, I want -- I wouldn't even do this unless he 7 totally agreed with me that he's going to do everything. He's 8 already hired an engineer and is moving forward with it. 9 MR. ODOM: Moving forward to do it for the drainage 10 and all. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, I'm going to make a 12 motion that we grant a variance on the road issue for -- at 13 150 Lydick Road, the road specifications for a manufactured 14 home rental community at 150 Lydick Road in Precinct 1. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The variance would be for 16 the road only from our Subdivision Rules, and that variance 17 would allow him to do what? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To get in and out of his 19 property. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But not have to build a 21 country lane under our specs? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not have to build a 24 cul-de-sac. 25 MR. ODOM: 20 foot wide instead of 30, non-paved, 6-12-06 87 1 private road. They maintain it. No cul-de-sac. That's the 2 variances. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What does that do for us in 4 the future, Leonard? 5 MR. ODOM: Setting precedents. And I would say that 6 we'd have to have an agreement that we'd have no more mobile 7 homes put in there. That would change the drainage and 8 everything. You've got a bad situation up there with two 9 places on two acres. If it wasn't to be rented out, it could 10 be storage or something like that; wouldn't be that big of a 11 deal. His intent is to rent it out, so now you have two or 12 more rental units on the property. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion. Do I have a second? 14 (No response.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Hearing no second, the motion dies 16 for lack of a second. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. Thank you. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further -- any further discussion 19 or matters to be considered in connection with that, with Item 20 Number 6? Let's move on, if we might, gentlemen. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, if I could comment 22 on the agenda in general, I see that we have a number of 23 citizens here who I believe have an interest in Item 1.21. If 24 we could fit that in before lunch, that's the library budget 25 issue. 6-12-06 88 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On an empty stomach? 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we could, it would be a 3 convenience to them, but go ahead. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we've had some gentlemen here 5 since the beginning this morning also on Item 13, so I think 6 in fairness to them, why, it's proper that we go forward 7 there. Let's take up Item 13; consider, discuss, and take 8 appropriate action for revision of plat for Lot 60, Wood 9 Trails Ranch, as set forth in Volume 4, Page 98, Plat Records 10 of Kerr County. Mr. Odom? 11 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, thank you. This was -- we had 12 a public hearing on this revision on May the 27th of 2006. 13 Before us now is a preliminary for dividing this one 5-acre 14 lot into three lots. There's a community water system that 15 serves the subdivision. With division, Wood Trails -- with 16 this division, Wood Trails will have an average of 3.98 acres 17 average. Our rules call for -- if it's centralized water and 18 O.S.S.F., you have an average of 3 acres, so it's -- like 19 before, we're -- we're above that average. There's 125 lots. 20 They're going to add two to it, so it's 127 lots. Late on 21 Friday, Commissioner Letz requested that we place this on the 22 agenda, so I -- I think it would be more appropriate if 23 Mr. Voelkel or Mr. Letz or Mr. Siff would address this issue 24 as far as water is concerned and legal opinions. Rex was gone 25 last week, so I wasn't able to discuss it with him, but I 6-12-06 89 1 understand that he had talked to Jonathan, as well as Lee, and 2 had an opinion that we should go ahead and approve the 3 preliminary plat, is my understanding. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me make a brief comment 5 about why I got involved with this late Friday. Mr. Siff has 6 been before us on this matter several times, and at the last 7 meeting, I think we pretty much said we'll bring it back after 8 talking to Rex, and it kind of was a -- it was last-minute to 9 get it through Road and Bridge on the agenda, so I did ask 10 they put it on there, 'cause I think if we told them we're 11 going to deal with it, we need to deal with it. I've talked 12 to Rex at length. I've talked to members of Headwaters' 13 board. I talked -- I think I've talked to Gene. Maybe I've 14 talked to Gene about the water issue on this, and it gets down 15 to a -- as to who can enforce what, is the bottom line. We -- 16 we can require a plat note -- Rex, please correct me if I'm 17 wrong; I'll try to summarize this. We can require a plat note 18 that says no individual well, but we can't enforce that plat 19 note. We are -- the law doesn't give us the ability to say, 20 you know, you can't drill wells. It just doesn't say on that 21 issue. When it comes to water availability, it doesn't give 22 us any additional enforcement ability. Headwaters has to look 23 at their own rules as to whether they can enforce, they feel, 24 a county rule or county law, and that's something that 25 Headwaters has to answer internally. 6-12-06 90 1 Since this came up, we've looked at the rules a 2 little bit, and the final revision over the weekend and last 3 week, and I've tightened up the language a little bit so that 4 I think it makes it a little bit clearer. But I don't really 5 think it's fair for Mr. Siff to -- you know, I think we need 6 to do kind of whatever was before him at the time when he 7 presented this. And the rules are -- there isn't a 8 substantial change, but we added language, no individual 9 wells, as well as there will be a note on the plat that was 10 not a requirement prior to the newest revision over the 11 weekend. It's kind of a loophole that we had in the rules. I 12 tightened it up some after talking with Rex. I don't know 13 that it solves the problem, that if someone has a water 14 system, and somehow they get cut off of that water system, 15 they may be able to drill individual wells. And I don't know 16 how you get around that. I mean, I don't know. We can -- the 17 alternative for the County is to not allow a smaller acreage 18 for water systems, and I think that's counterproductive to the 19 County. So, I think you just have to have a little bit of 20 good faith with people. Headwaters has their rules; they try 21 and enforce them. I think they -- I think they have a pretty 22 good shot at enforcing a rule that we have on the plat, but 23 that's something that Headwaters has to answer themselves. Is 24 that kind of a fair summary, Rex? 25 MR. EMERSON: That's pretty close. The one 6-12-06 91 1 additional thing the Court can do is require the seller to 2 place a note in his sales contract stating where the water's 3 going to come from for these additional lots. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's under Chapter 232. 5 MR. EMERSON: Right. And that creates, obviously, 6 an enforceable action by the purchasers of those lots. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if you don't have a 9 buyer and a seller, you have a daddy and kids? 10 MR. EMERSON: However they're going to deed -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is the issue here. 12 MR. EMERSON: However they're going to deed those 13 lots, you can require that water note to be in there. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the deed? 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Help me get up to speed on 16 this. At one time, there was a possibility that these three 17 lots were going to be able to be included on the -- a public 18 water system. Is that -- 19 MR. ODOM: A community -- 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Has that possibility been 21 exhausted by the owner? Somebody is nodding back there. 22 MR. SIFF: Well, that was the first thing you asked 23 me to do, and the day you asked me to do it, I wrote the check 24 and had it sent over. And the man that received it at 25 Headwaters wouldn't take it, literally. I did exactly what 6-12-06 92 1 you asked me to do. I'm sorry, I apologize. If I'm 2 understanding you, Commissioner Nicholson, correctly, the 3 first time we made -- please correct me if I make a mistake 4 here. I was asked to go back to Headwaters and apply for a 5 nonexempt well, which costs an additional $1,200. I had to 6 pay $300 and they needed $1,500. I wrote the check and 7 applied for that, and I thought we were going straight 8 forward. And the man who received the check, whose name I 9 can't remember right now -- 10 MR. VOELKEL: Headwaters? 11 MR. SIFF: Headwaters. But the man at Headwaters 12 who received it called me -- I was back in Houston -- and 13 said, "I've got this check, but you don't really need this 14 nonexempt well. You can do what you want to do with an exempt 15 well that you already have an application for, so I'll just 16 put your check in my drawer." 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, your plan as of today 18 is to have one well, private well that serves these three 19 properties? 20 MR. SIFF: I think it's -- is that correct? 21 MR. VOELKEL: The plan for today, and we've got the 22 -- Dave, just to bring you up to where we are, there's a new 23 note on the plan that now says that this subdivision is 24 serviced by a community water system. It's the Wood Trails 25 property owner's water system. In talking with Headwaters and 6-12-06 93 1 the people that -- that deal with that, the obligation of that 2 water company, if he requests for taps, is to provide the 3 taps. Now, the cost of that may be something that Mr. Siff 4 will have to deal with, but that's the understanding that 5 we're getting now on water systems, and that's the reason we 6 have gone back to putting a note, I think, that this is 7 serviced by a community water system, to eliminate the shared 8 well concept. In other words, the best thing for Mr. Siff to 9 do if and when this plat is approved is to go back to the 10 water company and ask for those taps. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- before we were talking 12 about a shared well, neighbor well, whatever. But in Wood 13 Trails Ranch, there is a -- a regulated water system that has 14 a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity. 15 MR. VOELKEL: Correct. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: And serves that system, so they're 17 obligated to provide water to everybody within that 18 subdivision on demand. Is that not correct? 19 MR. VOELKEL: That's my understanding. 20 MR. SIFF: My understanding as well. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: And that being the case, there would 22 never be any need for anybody to make application for any 23 water well, exempt or otherwise, would there? 24 MR. SIFF: Well, unless they -- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: You got water. 6-12-06 94 1 MR. SIFF: Well, yeah, that's correct. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: So we've taken out the issue of their 3 ability -- if they have water otherwise available to them, 4 about the need for a well. I think that was the concern 5 Headwaters voiced previously. That if -- when it was a 6 neighbor-to-neighbor thing, across lot lines, if there was 7 some sort of a family feud or some difficulty, the water got 8 shut off, and one of those owners went before Headwaters and 9 says, "I don't have any water from any other source; 10 therefore, I want a well." Headwaters says, "We think we have 11 to give him the ability to drill a well to get water." We 12 don't have that now. 13 MR. SIFF: Right. 14 MR. VOELKEL: Correct. 15 MR. SIFF: Community system, yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What we have here, if I 17 were the owner of this, I'd be looking at this as a pretty 18 convoluted bureaucratic process that's disallowing me the 19 opportunity to use my property in a profitable way. So, from 20 my point of view, it doesn't make any difference to me whether 21 he drills a well or he compels the system supplier to provide 22 him water. If he can't compel the system supplier to provide 23 him water, then he has to drill a well to use his property. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, he has -- I think he has a 25 civil action against the provider. 6-12-06 95 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What possible reason would 3 the provider have to not provide the hookups and water? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they're at capacity. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're at capacity. They'd 7 have to drill another well. I'm not sure if -- that would be 8 a reason. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we know that to be the 10 fact? 11 MR. SIFF: We know that's what they say. And we -- 12 I'm sorry. They have been telling me for the entire time I've 13 owned the property that they're at capacity. And they've also 14 simultaneously been telling me that they've applied for an 15 increase of capacity, and anticipate at any moment to receive 16 approval to increase that capacity. That's been going on for 17 about a year and a month. So, my position is, I'd like the -- 18 well, I continue to ask them for taps, but when I'm ready to 19 build on these other two lots, I'd like to be able to drill a 20 well if I have not been successful with them. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To your knowledge, are all 22 of these other lots in Wood Trails Ranch -- are they all sold? 23 MR. SIFF: They are not sold. And there are many 24 that don't have taps, and there are many that are for sale 25 where the realtor says, "Let me tell you before we go any 6-12-06 96 1 further, there isn't water availability; you'll have to drill 2 your own well." 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so the water purveyor is 4 not putting water out to all these lots at the moment. 5 MR. SIFF: Not since July 1st of last year. I'm -- 6 that's the extent of my knowledge. It may go way back before 7 that. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, all of that really is -- 9 I mean, with the -- I think there's some civil action against 10 the water company, but that doesn't make any difference to us. 11 The current -- I mean, our -- our rules that Mr. Siff was 12 going by when we said that did not have a requirement that the 13 plat have a note that no individual wells be put on there. 14 State law gives us the ability to put that -- the deed 15 restriction type note on there, so I think we can do that. I 16 would prefer Mr. Siff agree and we look at the situation here 17 that these three lots may only have one well, and that the 18 other two lots, you know, are not -- you know, to kind of 19 force a -- a community system within a community system. 20 MR. SIFF: That was my assumption when I walked 21 through the door today. That's what I thought would -- I 22 mean, that's my -- 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can you turn that into a 24 motion? 25 MR. VOELKEL: Before you do, sir, would that be 6-12-06 97 1 something you'd like added to the -- as a plat note? Just to 2 make people aware of that? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, and I think also the 4 language that Rex referred to; it's in Chapter 232, about it 5 being a deed restriction as well. Is it -- is that what you 6 would determine a deed restriction? 7 MR. SIFF: Where any transactions require the seller 8 to add that? 9 MR. EMERSON: Correct. 10 MR. SIFF: I have no problem with any of that. I'm 11 -- you know -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we 13 approve the revision of plat, with the condition that an 14 additional plat note be added that Lot 60-A, 60-B, and 60-C 15 shall be served by a shared -- a single shared well, and 16 whichever lot that well is located on, the other two lots have 17 deed restrictions preventing future wells to be drilled. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 20 indicated. 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: The motion carries. 6-12-06 98 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, did we take care of 2 Number 10 after the public hearing? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I forgot to mark it off. 7 MR. SIFF: Thank you very much. I appreciate your 8 help. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 21, if we might. 10 Consider and discuss the Butt-Holdsworth Memorial Library 11 budget recommended by the Library Board. Commissioner 12 Nicholson? 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What you have in your 14 package is some documentation that's required by the City 15 budgeting process. That's the last part of it, a number of 16 pages. It's their -- what they call a base budget. And I 17 think a good definition of a base budget would be, how much 18 would it cost to continue operations for next year as you have 19 this year? The -- the one thing that it does not -- well, it 20 may not include several things. It certainly doesn't include 21 any pay increases for the employees, so what you have is 22 documents that were submitted to the City Manager and to the 23 County Judge that describes the cost of the library exclusive 24 of pay increases. This -- this document was reviewed in some 25 detail by the Library Board, and it was a unanimous vote to 6-12-06 99 1 report this out to the City Council and the Commissioners 2 Court as what it would take for -- to provide the same 3 services for next year as we've provided for this year, 4 exclusive of pay increases. They don't total the divisions. 5 I add them up to $942,239, and I think you see that note on -- 6 on one of the worksheet pages. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much is that, 8 Commissioner, over this year's total? 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Over what? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The 942, how much greater is 11 that than this year's total? 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This year's total is 13 822,913, so it's approximately -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I calculated 14.5 percent. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: $120,000 more. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You'll see where my -- my 18 thoughts and my interests lie here pretty quick, but -- and 19 this is part of it. In the Library Board meeting, was there 20 any discussion or any questions about it going up 14 percent? 21 Or -- or just, "This looks good," and get on down the road? 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. No, that's a pretty -- 23 pretty diligent board. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They went over most 6-12-06 100 1 everything item-by-item. How much does coffee cost? How much 2 do we spend for books? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Every item. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Didn't find any easy 7 opportunity -- easy-to-achieve opportunities to hold down or 8 cut costs. And you'll remember a discussion we had earlier 9 where we saw that 80 percent of the costs of the library are 10 payroll and payroll-related costs, and then another 12 percent 11 are materials that are needed to -- to continue a functioning 12 library, and then that leaves only 8 percent of electricity, 13 repairs, coffee and -- and that sort of thing. So, the big -- 14 the big opportunities are not in the details. The big 15 opportunities are in the staffing levels. Let me go on. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Some time ago, probably 18 about ten months ago, this Court asked me to present to the 19 Library Board -- I think it was five questions, and they did 20 answer those questions, except -- except the last one, which 21 was what changes -- what changes in the library operations and 22 staffing would be indicated in order to meet a next year's 23 budget of $620,000? Which is approximately something over 24 $13.50 per capita. That question wasn't answered at the time, 25 but, you know, if we move forward to the next document that's 6-12-06 101 1 headed "Memorandum," dated May 16, '06, is an answer to that 2 question. And that answer essentially says we'd have to cut 3 library hours of operation back to something on the order of 4 43 or 44 hours a week from the current 10 or 12 hours a week 5 more than that; I'm not exactly sure what the hours are. And 6 by doing that, you could -- you could reduce the number of -- 7 you could reduce the number of librarians by two, and reduce a 8 full-time clerk and two part-time employees. It goes on to 9 say that also required to meet that reduction level would be a 10 reduction in spending for books and other materials, 11 subscriptions and annuals, lease book program, supplies, 12 training, et cetera. 13 Okay. With all that in mind, Commissioner, I think 14 I see three opportunities that the Court has -- three options, 15 not opportunities. Three options the Court has to consider. 16 Let me say, I'm not going to ask or propose that we make any 17 decisions on these options today. This is trying to get ahead 18 a little bit of the budget creation process curve, give us 19 time to debate and consider and think about these options 20 before we get down toward the end of the budget period. I 21 think the three options would be to accept the proposed -- the 22 business-as-usual proposal, and to pay 50 percent of the costs 23 of the library as proposed for next year. Second alternative 24 would be to pursue some user-pay scheme that would say people 25 who use the library who do not live in the city limits of 6-12-06 102 1 Kerrville have to pay a fee that would be significant, a fee 2 that would be sufficient to fund the cost of the library by 3 the non-city users. And the third option would be to 4 recommend all or part of this proposal that would reduce the 5 cost of the library to the $13.50 per capita level. 6 And -- and I'll say one more thing, and then I'll 7 quit and listen to you. I'm -- I'm not persuaded that 8 reducing the amount spent on books and other materials and 9 subscriptions and annuals and lease book program is a good 10 idea. That's kind of a going-out-of-business case, in my 11 mind. If you're going to have a public library, you need to 12 equip it with the most up-to-date and correct number of 13 publications and books and other materials. I'll go ahead and 14 say that it's my opinion that reducing the library hours to 43 15 or 44 per week is not much of a sacrifice. I think if you 16 have an interest and a need to use the library, that you -- 17 that that large a window each week should bring you -- provide 18 you with an opportunity to use it. That's my thinking. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a -- a general question, 20 since I don't understand. If -- how does a base-line budget 21 build in a 14 percent increase? And that's before you get 22 salary increases, which is going to be the larger part of it. 23 I just don't understand how you -- how you get there and have 24 it base-line. I mean, I'll add one more statement; I see 25 Commissioner Nicholson's thinking on that one. I would think 6-12-06 103 1 -- I mean, say the -- I mean, the cost-of-living index, 2 whatever it is, is going to be, say 3, 4 percent, somewhere in 3 there. We should take the current budget and add 3, 4, 4 5 percent. That should be the base-line budget, and that 5 should already include salary increases. That should be built 6 up into the whole system. I mean -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think there's a real 8 distinction here. You -- we're talking about base-line versus 9 zero-based. If you're talking zero-based, you would be right 10 on target of what you're talking about. It would be last year 11 plus whatever the agreed upon increase for personnel costs 12 would be, and some finite items, as opposed to base-line. I 13 think there's two different models. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can someone explain to me 15 base-line versus zero-base? 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think Commissioner 17 Williams just did. Zero-based means that your budget next 18 year will be exactly the same as it was this year. That -- 19 well, no, that's not what it means. I'm way off base. 20 Zero-based means you start with nothing; start with a blank 21 sheet of paper, and you build up what kind of a budget you 22 want. Base-line, by the City's definition, is what will it 23 cost you, excluding pay, for instance, to provide the same 24 services next year as it does this year? And the details of 25 how it got larger, I can't explain. It's cost of electricity 6-12-06 104 1 and fuel and repairs and -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the City says that the cost 3 -- not counting salaries, it costs 14 percent more to stay 4 where we currently are. And if you add salaries on top of 5 that, assuming the City gives a 3 percent increase or 6 something like that, the impact that will have on the budget 7 is almost a 20 percent increase -- between a 15 or 17 and 8 20 percent increase, just keeping things equal, and I don't -- 9 just don't see how that makes sense to me. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's just to turn key in 11 the lock next year, having -- turning key in the lock this 12 time. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The chairman of the Library 14 Board, Mr. Lipscomb, is here. Can you provide any better 15 answers to this than I can? I hope. 16 MR. LIPSCOMB: I can certainly try. For the record, 17 my name's John David Lipscomb. I reside at 909 Lake Drive 18 here at Kerrville. I have before me the definition of base 19 budget; that might be a good place to start. Let me just 20 read, if I might. Base budget is the amount in the upcoming 21 budget year necessary to conduct the same programs and to 22 deliver the same level of service as in the current year. 23 Normally -- excuse me. Normally, the only differences between 24 the current year budget and the new base budget are costs that 25 cannot be avoided or that are non-reoccurring. Base 6-12-06 105 1 adjustments or changes made to the level of funding in the 2 current year in order to bring the same level of programs and 3 services in the new budget year. That's the end of the 4 definition. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I -- okay, I accept the 6 definition. Did the City -- or has it been easy to determine 7 from the City's budget where the major changes are -- the 8 increases are? 9 MR. LIPSCOMB: I think it's related to personnel 10 services. And I'm not certainly an expert on the City's 11 budget and their -- and their associated problems, but I 12 believe they've had a large increase in insurance-related 13 costs, and so that's a factor that kicks up, as well as some, 14 probably, merit raises. I'm not sure. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Probably, this -- the 16 reason to have this discussion today instead of in August or 17 so, we need to be more -- need more help with the definition. 18 I'm now wondering if the last -- this year's current budget 19 was artificially low because of the issue of bringing money -- 20 spending money out of the surplus, or whatever that was 21 called. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could be. That's a good point. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That may be a big part of 24 the answer. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you know what would be 6-12-06 106 1 kind of an interesting thing, I think, is to apply a base-line 2 budget to some of our people, like the Sheriff's Office, Road 3 and Bridge. Maintenance, maybe. And see -- and apply the 4 same theories as we did with the City on this issue, and see 5 if they're still -- see, I'm with you, you know. How -- how 6 did it rise to the 13 percent? Probably 20 percent, once you 7 put -- install the salaries. How does that -- how does that 8 happen when you're really dealing with a base-line? So, to 9 apply the same thinking to the Sheriff's Office, to see, are 10 they going to rise to 20 percent? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we've done that. I 12 mean, I can't remember every year, but there have been years, 13 I know -- I believe -- well, Judge Tinley's been here, I 14 believe when Judge Henneke was here as well, where the 15 direction was no budget -- zero budget increases, the bottom 16 line, except for salaries and capital items that we approved 17 item-by-item. I think we've done that several times. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right, we have. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And would you -- by looking 20 at that, would you think that one of our departments would 21 grow 20 percent? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't think so, not in a 23 year. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I could pretty much 25 guarantee you it won't. 6-12-06 107 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- you know, and I think 2 I would be very interested if either Commissioner Nicholson or 3 Mr. Lipscomb could come up -- if the reason for the increase 4 is spending down the reserve sum, that is the only explanation 5 that makes sense to me that I've heard so far, and not saying 6 that there aren't others possible. I'd be interested to find 7 out. Has the -- I don't know if I want to even ask this 8 question. I agree with you on the books and publications and 9 that stuff. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to -- to get clear 11 information on the rationale for this. I suggest that, soon, 12 that I meet with the City Manager and/or City financial guy, 13 and Mr. Lipscomb and I probably participate in that and get a 14 good answer to your question of why is this base budget so 15 much larger than what -- 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Williams, is the 17 lady we met the other day at the Airport Board, was she new to 18 the City? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have a new budget -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: New finance director. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Finance director who is very, 23 very good at answering these types of questions, from my 24 experience. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think she's taken over for 6-12-06 108 1 Brian Brooks. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think that's -- I was very, 3 very pleased with her analysis of the airport budget at our 4 meeting last week. The other questions I'd have, and I'd like 5 to refer them -- I don't know if the Airport Board has looked 6 at or addressed these or -- one, what is the feeling of the 7 Board about charging non-city residents a fee? Have they made 8 a -- a statement on that? And, two, have they made a 9 statement on any kind of reduction in hours? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's an interesting 11 question. And I don't mean to preempt Commissioner 4 from 12 responding, but I took the -- a look at the Division 13 Performance Measures matrix in here, which gives you the -- 14 essentially gives you the breakdown of who uses the library. 15 A couple things pop into my head about that issue. And some 16 of the responses, I'll get to those responses in a minute. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What page are you on? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's in this 19 section -- it's in the section entitled Library Patron 20 Services, on the right-hand side. You'll see a little title 21 over there, Library Patron Services. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it's several pages deep 24 into that. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, here it is. 6-12-06 109 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Division Performance 2 Measures. I guess I'm wondering how that concept would work 3 if we're seeking to suggest fees for people other than -- or 4 people who live in the county, given that, by my calculation, 5 80 percent of the utilization of the facility are from 6 residences -- residents in two or three categories who reside 7 in the city, leaving the 20 percent factor for whose those who 8 live outside the city limits; 38,449 total versus 9,600 or 9 9,700 in the county. So, there's a big disparity there; you 10 know, 80/20. And if you're going to impose a structure of 11 fees, you're not going to gain a heck of a lot off of the 12 20 percent to help absorb some of the increases that are 13 enjoyed by the 80 percent. One observation. I guess I get a 14 little -- I get a little disturbed at the memorandum and what 15 it purports to tell us, and how we came about getting it. You 16 and I just had a minute's discussion about that. 17 We -- the Court posed the questions, and you 18 delivered the questions and framed the questions, which I 19 thought were very good, and the Library Director responded to 20 the questions, and he did so in a memorandum to Mr. Hofmann 21 and to the City staff. And then I get a phone call from the 22 newspaper, and I think you probably got one too, wanting us to 23 comment on the answers that we had never seen. So, that gives 24 me some pause for concern as to why, if we ask the questions, 25 they don't take you into consideration and deliver the answers 6-12-06 110 1 to you at the same time they give them to the news media. 2 That gives me a little concern. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think he gave -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Also, some of the answers 5 that were given seem to show to me an unwillingness to examine 6 alternatives, that we can't do it. It just -- it's just a 7 negative approach in terms of trying to find solutions and -- 8 and try to provide the same level of services while keeping a 9 capital expenditure. So, I'm a little bit disturbed by all 10 that. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, to answer -- 12 to comment on what you just said, and going back to your 13 question about responses, the responses were prepared by a 14 subcommittee of the Library Board, and Mr. Lipscomb was part 15 of that, I believe. And they answered -- in this document 16 that you have here, they answered four of the five 17 questions -- or five of the six, including what would be the 18 impact of establishing a fee-based user -- a user fee for 19 those who are not residents. And they brought up some good 20 points, and points that, on the surface, are not really 21 visible, like it's going to cost money to implement that 22 program, have a collection process and all that. Supposedly 23 should be considered. I think there was a reluctance on the 24 part of the Library Director to -- to answer the last 25 question, what does the 13.50 library look like? I think he 6-12-06 111 1 was finally persuaded that the question needed to be answered, 2 and that was the result of the -- that resulted in that 3 memorandum. 4 MR. LIPSCOMB: And if I might make a comment 5 relative to the press getting that, too, I was also contacted. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry? 7 MR. LIPSCOMB: On the press release on that memo, I 8 was also contacted, and tried to discourage them from printing 9 anything because we were very premature in this, and pointed 10 out that at that point in time, the Commissioners Court had 11 not received our answer yet. It wasn't until the 30th that I 12 was able to hand the Judge the material, and I'm very sorry 13 all that happened. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I appreciate your comments, 15 David, because that was the second part of what disturbed me, 16 was that having not received the answers back, then we're 17 confronted with an editorial chastising us for whatever we 18 hadn't yet done, or heard about. 19 MR. LIPSCOMB: Yeah, it was unfair, in my opinion. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't solve anything. 21 MR. BENHAM: The news media -- may I address that 22 specific point? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to -- soon. I'm going to 24 see if we're through with Mr. Lipscomb here. I'm going to 25 come back to you, Mr. Benham. 6-12-06 112 1 MR. BENHAM: All right. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for Mr. Lipscomb 3 on the current -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I'll just make a little 5 bit of a general comment. I mean, I believe that the advisory 6 board is doing a very good job. I think y'all are, really. I 7 mean, we're getting more feedback and more information than 8 we've ever had before, it appears to me. I'm still a little 9 bit frustrated trying to get numbers from the City. I don't 10 know if you all share that frustration, or really trying to 11 understand it or not, but I've -- you know, I still have a 12 hard time understanding where some of these numbers come from. 13 But I do appreciate the work y'all have done, and certainly 14 the persistence y'all have had in working with the City and 15 trying to help. I would encourage you to continue working 16 with their Finance Department and trying to help me, anyway, 17 understand where the funding is going and why the increases 18 are needed. And my questions are not that I don't want to 19 fund the library. Certainly, I do. I just think it needs to 20 be funded at about the same growth level as other county 21 departments, and that's why -- the reason I really wanted that 22 first question. And I also believe that you all, as an 23 advisory board, are truly looking at ways to do things better 24 with the library, which I appreciate. I'm not so sure I get 25 that same feeling from the Library Manager. 6-12-06 113 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. You summed up my 2 thoughts beautifully. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for Mr. Lipscomb? 4 Mr. Benham has filed a participation form, and he wants to be 5 heard on this issue. And -- no, don't run off, Mr. Lipscomb. 6 We may have some more for you. I'm sure you're not going to, 7 anyway. 8 MR. LIPSCOMB: No, I'm here. 9 MR. BENHAM: Thank you, Your Honor. For the record, 10 I'm Joseph Benham. I am a Harris -- a Kerr County taxpayer, 11 live at 522 Rolling Green. I want to say some things that I 12 hope would help answer some of the other questions, and I'll 13 try to be brief, 'cause I know it's getting late, but I want 14 to address the specific question of the news media. I want to 15 take the Library Board off the hook. The reason the news 16 media, or at least the Daily Times, got the information is, 17 they commented on -- and I'm not about to get caught in the 18 crossfire as to whether the wording of their editorial was 19 appropriate. That's their problem. The reason they got it 20 was 'cause I gave it to them. I was asking what -- where do 21 we stand on this budget thing? Where -- you know, what can 22 the Friends of the Library do? 23 I'm sorry. For the record, I'm immediate past 24 president of the Friends of the Library, and I'm their 25 representative to government entities, including this one. I 6-12-06 114 1 wanted to know where we stood on this, and I didn't want to 2 have to file a Freedom of Information Act to request for it. 3 I like to have good relations with people. So, I asked them 4 where we stand on this, and the response I got was, "Well, the 5 County has asked that an analysis be prepared of the impact of 6 reducing the library budget to $620,000 a year." Which I 7 think, by any standard, you'll agree would be a very 8 significant cut. All right. I happened to be going to the 9 Daily Times office on -- to deliver some copy on something 10 totally different, and I said, "By the way, I suggest you keep 11 an eye on what's happening on the library, because there is 12 some -- there's some numbers being prepared, or I think have 13 been prepared that would -- would give the City and County the 14 option, or would tell them what the impact would be of cutting 15 that budget to $620,000." 16 Now, I don't -- I have to say, gentlemen, I don't 17 think I did anything wrong. I think it was a legitimate 18 exercise of my role as a newspaperman, which I've been doing 19 for just over 56 years now. I think I know a little bit about 20 it. If my doing that puts you gentlemen in an awkward 21 position, I will be the first to apologize. That was not my 22 intention. I wanted to give them a heads-up on what I thought 23 would be a story that, certainly, the library users and the 24 taxpayers in general would be interested in. That was my only 25 intention. I sure don't want to get caught in the crossfire 6-12-06 115 1 between -- between the County and the City. I have been shot 2 at on occasions, and it wasn't much fun, and I could run 3 faster then than I can now. So, believe me, I don't want to 4 get caught in that. But I don't want you to be unhappy with 5 the people at the Advisory Board, because they didn't do this. 6 I did it. I mean, I'm the one that planted the seed, at any 7 rate. And if it has -- if it has resulted in something that 8 you feel was inappropriate, well, I'll be the first one to 9 apologize, but I want to tell you, it's not anybody's fault 10 but mine. 11 Now, I'd like -- and I know it's late, I'll be as 12 fast as I can, but I'd be very remiss if I didn't take one 13 sentence to acknowledge the help of County employees on our 14 Memorial Day ceremonies. Judge Tinley and the Road and Bridge 15 folks cleaned up the areas nicely around both the national 16 cemetery and the war memorial outside this building. The 17 Judge even helped carry the podium down to the parking lot for 18 me to use in making the speech, and we are very grateful for 19 the assistance we got on the Memorial Day things. Any of the 20 rest of you who were involved in that that I'm not aware of, I 21 thank you as well. Now, on some of the specific questions, I 22 can -- I can address a couple of them. I'm nether an 23 accountant nor a financial planner, and I have managed to 24 avoid the bankruptcy court, but I don't claim any expertise 25 much beyond that. 6-12-06 116 1 On the question of the costs of the library, the two 2 areas that I think have to be understood, one of them is that 3 the costs of printed materials go up and up and up. When I 4 started doing book reviews for the Associated Press, the 5 typical hardback book was in the 6.95 to 8.95 category, and 6 very occasionally what they called a blockbuster would go for 7 9.95. Even if you go to Amazon.com or one of the other 8 discounters, you're not going to find a good hardback book 9 these days for under $20. One of the most heavily used 10 sections in our library -- and I'm down there at least four 11 days a week to see this firsthand. One of the most heavily 12 used sections in our library is the medical section. It 13 reflects the demographics of your constituents; as we get 14 older, we're more concerned about health. The Harvard 15 Business -- Harvard Medical School tome and the Mayo Clinic 16 book of illnesses and medications and so forth that's intended 17 to make those things clear to -- to laypeople, those are 39.95 18 and up. I checked earlier this week to reconfirm that. 19 Books have become extremely -- even a paperback; 20 when I started doing this, paperbacks typically cost a 21 quarter, and the old Pocket book and Bantam books cost a 22 quarter. Some of you may remember that. You don't even find 23 a paperback worthy of the name today for under $10 or $12, and 24 a lot of the paperback versions of -- of reference books and 25 so forth are up around 20. So, even a paperback has gotten to 6-12-06 117 1 be expensive. And the -- the large-print books cost more than 2 the standard version, but large-print books, folks, are what 3 your constituents need and use. Again, it reflects 4 demographics. An awful lot of people in this county can't see 5 the standard print well enough to read it any more, and they 6 want those large-print books. I'm proud to say we, the 7 Friends of the Library, contribute several thousand dollars a 8 year towards the cost of those large-print books and the books 9 on tape, which, again, provide a service that a standard book 10 does not. But we can't pay it all. We do what we can, but we 11 can't underwrite the entire cost of the books on tape and the 12 large-print books. 13 One other thing. Now, I'm grateful for your 14 patience. On the question of salaries and personnel costs, 15 the reference was already made to insurance costs going up. 16 I'm self-employed, my wife's self-employed, and we can sure -- 17 we can sure attest to the fact that insurance rates are going 18 up, as I'm sure you can. Another area, though, that I don't 19 know has been explained adequately to you, is the fact the 20 that our librarians, in order to keep their certification and 21 in order for this library to keep its certification, have to 22 go back periodically for what's known as continued education. 23 Those of you who are attorneys or accountants are very 24 familiar with that process. You have to get -- have to 25 satisfy the accreditation bodies that you are keeping your 6-12-06 118 1 expertise up to date. 2 Those continuing education programs cost money. 3 Many of them, you have to go at least as far as San Antonio to 4 get the benefit of that, 'cause they don't -- we don't have 5 enough librarians in Kerr County to justify their bringing in 6 people to conduct those -- those schools. When you -- first 7 of all, you have to pay to get that certification -- continued 8 certification. And secondly, understandably enough, when 9 people get it, they expect to be paid a little more, because 10 they're -- in theory, at least -- better qualified. It's like 11 your doctor; if he or she is a surgeon and has put in 12 residency and kept that residency up to date, they expect to 13 get paid more than the -- you just go in and they tell you to 14 take two aspirin and call me tomorrow. So, there are 15 personnel costs there that are unavoidable. 16 Now, one last thing. The hours. A lot of the 17 people who use our library cannot use them -- use it during 18 what are normally considered working hours. They, themselves, 19 work for a living. If you cut the hours of the library 20 significantly, particularly Saturdays, Sundays, and evenings, 21 you're going to put that library out of reach, not only for a 22 lot of the adults in this community, but for their kids. If I 23 get off at 5 o'clock in the afternoon and go home -- I'll back 24 up. If I were a working person with kids in the nest, which I 25 haven't been for a long time, but I know people who are. If I 6-12-06 119 1 were a working person with kids still in the nest, I get off 2 at 5 o'clock, I go home and I discover that my child needs to 3 go to the library, I can't get that kid back down to the 4 library and have them do everything they need to do in the 5 reference section, where you can't check things out, and be 6 out of there at five minutes of 6:00, when they start shooing 7 people towards the front door. 8 Those evening and weekend hours are vital. If you 9 drive by the library at 9:45 on a Saturday morning, or at 10 12:45 on Sunday afternoon, you will see people lined up, 11 waiting to get into the library. Those people -- and you'll 12 find them there in the evenings until five minutes of 8:00, 13 when they start shooing them towards the door. The library is 14 heavily used at nights and on weekends, and I would plead with 15 you to find a way to avoid any significant cuts in the hours, 16 because you'll be putting that library off-limits to some of 17 the very people who need it the most. I know I've kept you 18 here past 12:00. I didn't intend to do that, but if I can 19 answer any questions, I'd be happy to try to do so. 20 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Two things, Mr. Benham. 21 MR. BENHAM: Sure. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're off the hook on the 23 -- the disclosing the interest in what it would take to create 24 a $13.50 per capita library. In an April Commissioners Court 25 meeting, on the record, I was instructed to ask that question 6-12-06 120 1 of the Library Board, so -- 2 MR. BENHAM: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- it was out there a long 4 time before you knew about it. 5 MR. BENHAM: I just didn't want anybody to be 6 misled. Yes, sir? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a general comment -- and I 8 think you understand it, but sometimes I wonder a little 9 bit -- is that a lot of our questions are so we get 10 information as to when we start making overall budget 11 decisions. At the time of these requests, there were very 12 real proposals before the governor -- or before the 13 Legislature to put caps on county spending. To do our jobs, 14 we have got to look all possibilities. The fact that we look 15 at -- I asked Rusty a question as to how he's going to handle 16 his personnel costs. That doesn't mean I want to cut 17 deputies. It means I need to have an idea of these overall 18 things. What bothers me is, every time we look at the library 19 and other things, of cutting it, it's, "The County's going to 20 cut this." We're trying to find out information. When we 21 start really looking at the budget, I get quite offended, 22 'cause people caution us to cut the budget somewhere else. 23 I think we are not doing our jobs if we blindly go 24 in and don't ask questions from our own department heads and 25 our other entities as to, if we have a budget shortfall, what 6-12-06 121 1 do we do? Because if we don't ask these questions ahead of 2 time, our answer is, we do not have a plan. And I think we 3 know, based on the hurricanes, what happens if you don't have 4 a plan. We have to have a plan on how we're going to react to 5 things we don't have total control over. The point is, you 6 know, I'm sure we're going to continue to fund the library at 7 a high level, but I'm sure you also hear -- or I hope you hear 8 what I hear from all our constituents about the tax rates and 9 taxes in this county. Be mindful of that when we start 10 looking at these things. And we may have to go to the library 11 and other departments and other entities and say, "We have got 12 to do something. We cannot afford it." And if we don't 13 handle it locally, I think we'll be handled by the 14 Legislature, and then we will have them patronize us. 15 MR. BENHAM: If I could just respond in one sentence 16 to that, first of all, I commend you for getting a head start 17 on this and doing your research ahead of time. I was 18 delighted to hear that you were proceeding on this and not 19 waiting until the last minute and say, "Oh, my god, we got to 20 pass something." We have enough of that done in Austin; we 21 don't need it at the local level. The other thing is, 22 regarding the governor, I got a long, very angry phone call 23 chewing me out recently from the governor's executive 24 assistant, because I had been critical of the mishandling, as 25 I see it, of our state finances by Governor Perry. I would be 6-12-06 122 1 the last one in the world to support the governor and the 2 Legislature trying to run the county from the state capitol. 3 So, for whatever it's worth, you certainly have my support in 4 trying to keep local control of the county government. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Be sure and tell 6 Representative Hilderbran that, and Senator Fraser when it 7 comes back up in the regular session. 8 MR. BENHAM: I told Harvey that, and he's mad at me 9 too. 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll arrange to have Kinky 11 Friedman's chief of staff, Willie Nelson, give you a call. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know my colleague to my 13 right is hungry; his stomach is growling, 'cause I can hear 14 it. I do have one additional question of Mr. Lipscomb. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a comment to make, 16 too. Go ahead. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. On your documents 18 that you proposed answering the questions -- 19 MR. LIPSCOMB: Yes? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This -- I was going to ask 21 this a minute ago, and it slipped my mind. I got it now. The 22 question in the back as to how many library cards are 23 currently in use and what would be the benefits of reissuing 24 all library cards and reregistering all library users, the 25 answer is, by category, active patrons are 16,339. Expired 6-12-06 123 1 patrons -- I don't know if that means that they're dead or if 2 they're just gone away, but whatever it is, they're not using 3 the library, apparently, and they are 29,620. And you take 4 the total of the 29 and the 16 and you get 45, almost 46,000 5 patrons. Now, if the larger block of them are not using it or 6 gone away or have died, why do we add those, and then why do 7 we come back and say there is no benefit to the library to 8 perform any reissuing of cards and knowing exactly who and 9 what our patron -- or our user patron structure is? 10 MR. LIPSCOMB: I -- I'd hesitate to give an answer. 11 I'm not sure how accurate my answer is. I believe, on the 12 expired patrons, if you don't use your library card over some 13 interval of time, then you fall into that category. So, if 14 it's a relatively short period of time, three months, you 15 know, it may be someone out in the county that doesn't come in 16 very often, get a book. If it's a year, you know, then yeah, 17 maybe they've moved away. I really -- I'm sorry, I can't 18 really answer that. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My recollection is it's a 20 year. And, to my surprise, there's a bar code on your card, 21 and so there's a way of keeping track of those things. I 22 can't swear it's a year, but that rings a bell with me. 23 MR. LIPSCOMB: Okay. Could be. And the act 24 reissuing of cards would be an expense, because I believe the 25 director told me that -- 6-12-06 124 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Excuse me. (Swatted at a 2 bug on the desk.) It won't die. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't say that again. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's still kicking. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: My pet cricket. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here's your parrot, Judge. 7 MR. LIPSCOMB: Got a little critter there? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's really nothing there. 9 (Laughter.) 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's just black; he couldn't 11 see it. 12 MR. LIPSCOMB: I believe the director told us that 13 they can't identify the residency just from the card; that 14 they -- in order to distinguish between, for instance, a 15 Kerrville resident and someone who doesn't live in Kerrville 16 would require additional work. That's my recollection. And, 17 so, it would be an expense to go back and reissue cards to get 18 that kind of information, where it could be easily obtained. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. But I 20 think the only point I want to make about it is, if we're 21 talking about the number of patrons, it's a skewed number if 22 you got 29,000 who are expired or not active. 23 MR. LIPSCOMB: Yeah. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They should not be lumped up 25 with the active patrons, because that's a skewed number. 6-12-06 125 1 MR. LIPSCOMB: Okay. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin, you had a third 3 second comment you wanted to make? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, I do. Thank you. 5 As an elected official, sometimes the -- one of the criteria I 6 use to make a decision is the -- the input I get from my 7 constituents, the taxpayers of this county, whether they call 8 me on the phone, they appear in here, letters to the editor or 9 whatever it might be. The only people that we have heard from 10 on this issue are these folks here, are the only ones. And 11 now they want to -- don't -- I don't know if I want to say 12 increase the library budget, but certainly are not bending 13 over backwards to look for ways to cut it in any way. So, you 14 know, as an elected official, do we have -- do we have any 15 other choice other than business as usual? You know, we don't 16 hear from folks that say, "Let's figure out a way to use our 17 money a little more wisely. I don't use the library, so cut 18 me out of the picture." Somehow, I like that -- you know, if 19 I take my elected official's hat off, as a taxpayer, I really 20 like user-pay issues. I just think that that is -- I just 21 can't believe that we can't get our arms around that theory 22 and apply it in more ways than one. I'm going to eat. Bye. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One last thing. I was in 24 San Antonio; I went to the bookstore, and I was -- Mr. Benham, 25 I was delighted to find Ann Coulter's new book was already 6-12-06 126 1 there. It's paperback. It's $38. I don't own it. 2 MR. BENHAM: Thank you for your confirmation. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have anything 4 further to offer in connection with Agenda Item 21? We'll be 5 in recess till 1:30. 6 (Recess taken from 12:15 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 7 - - - - - - - - - - 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order. We 9 were in recess until 1:30; it's a bit past that now. The next 10 item on the agenda is Item 14, to set a public hearing -- 11 where's our Road and Bridge guy? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Out building roads. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll come back to that. We'll 14 go to Item 15. Next item is 15, consider, discuss, and take 15 appropriate action to accept TexDOT valuation on Spur 98 tract 16 and authorize conveyance of such tract to TexDOT, and in 17 consideration of cancellation of Kerr County's outstanding 18 right-of-way acquisition obligation to TexDOT, authorize 19 County Judge to sign deed of conveyance to TexDOT. I put this 20 on the agenda in consultation with the County Attorney. 21 Essentially, what we're dealing with is the Spur 98 property, 22 where they extended that roadway up to the -- the bridge on 23 the south side of the river. As I'm sure most of the Court 24 members recall, the arrangement there is that we share in the 25 right-of-way costs; I believe it's 90/10, and there are a 6-12-06 127 1 couple of issues here. One is, in order to make this trade, 2 we've specifically got to -- to accept their in-house 3 evaluation rather than go outside and get a full-blown 4 appraisal that they normally require under their rules. They 5 have appraised this property at $38,000 to $40,000. Our -- of 6 course, it's where their roadway lays. Our portion of that 7 value, contribution-wise, would be 10 percent, which is 8 approximately $4,000. They say there's a residual 9 right-of-way acquisition cost that has accrued over the years 10 for that project; I believe $17,000, $18,000, as I -- as I 11 recall. And what they want to do is, number one, get us to 12 accept their in-house appraisal at $38,000 to $40,000 that 13 their roadway -- dirt that their roadway is built on, and 14 number two, just wipe the slate clean by us conveying that to 15 them. They'll cancel our obligation that's accumulated for 16 right-of-way acquisition costs. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got one question, Judge. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In this letter -- I guess 20 this is a letter. Yeah. In the letter, at the very top, when 21 it's describing the location, it's from James Road, which is 22 correct, to Goat Creek Road. I don't know that we're involved 23 in anything other than up to the bridge. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would the bridge not be 25 called an extension of Goat Creek? 6-12-06 128 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it's to Farm-to-Market 2 1338, which -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's the project limits. 4 That's not what they're conveying. What they're conveying is 5 in -- I've got a whole bunch of material here that I did not 6 include. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you see how I would think 8 that? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure, yeah. Yeah, it indicates it 10 goes to -- it indicates -- I'll show you here. Here, of 11 course, is the river and the bridge, and it's this tract, and 12 then it extends from this match line on further to -- here's 13 James Road right here, so that's where it begins, and it does, 14 in fact, just go to the bridge. And, in fact, 'cause you can 15 see here it doesn't include -- there's another piece here that 16 is actually on the approach, but it apparently doesn't include 17 that. But -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Goes up to the approach. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Not on Goat Creek, no. It -- the 20 project is defined as going to Goat Creek, but this particular 21 conveyance does not. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not only that, I was thinking -- 24 I thought we acquired that right-of-way -- I guess we acquired 25 the right-of-way; we just didn't settle on a value back, like, 6-12-06 129 1 10 years ago? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, it started a lot 5 longer than that ago. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Way back. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Long time. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: They weren't real tight on what they 9 said was the outstanding obligation from Kerr County that they 10 apparently advanced for right-of-way acquisition, which 11 included some of our 10 percent. They said, I believe, 17 12 to -- 17 to 18 thousand as part of our 10 percent right-of-way 13 acquisition cost, so that thing went back so far that their 14 numbers weren't real tight. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval of the agenda 16 item. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 19 of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This includes an authorization 21 for the County Judge to sign. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion? 23 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 24 hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6-12-06 130 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, also, on Item 14, I'm not 5 sure that Road and Bridge needs to be present for that. We're 6 just setting a public hearing for that item. I mean, I'm not 7 sure -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- if they plan on coming back 10 for that. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I shouldn't wait on them, is what 12 you're saying. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go ahead and take up 15 Item 14, then. Set a public hearing concerning revision of 16 plat of Tracts 9-B, 9-A, and 10-A of the NF-RB Ranch, Section 17 IV, as set forth in Volume 6, Page 148, Plat Records. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we set the public hearing 19 for our second meeting in July, which is -- where's my 20 calendar at? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: 24th. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: July 24th at 10 a.m. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that emotion. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Any 25 question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify 6-12-06 131 1 by raising your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move 6 quickly to Item 17; consider, discuss, and take appropriate 7 action to authorize Grantworks to advertise and conduct a 8 public hearing on July 11, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. in the Kerr 9 County Commissioners Courtroom on the proposed grant 10 application for Phase 4 of the Kerrville South Wastewater 11 Project in accordance with the guidelines of the Texas 12 Community Development Program. Commissioner Williams? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. This 14 would be our opportunity to go back to T.C.D.P. for part of a 15 million-dollar grant for Phase 4, which was always part of the 16 plan. And the Court will remember that in order to accomplish 17 Phases 2 and 3, because of escalating costs, we had to move 18 the dollars allocated out of Phase 4 for construction of 19 Phases 2 and 3. The window of opportunity to do this is 20 August 31st, and that would get us -- get our application in 21 line for consideration for the next funding cycle. This is 22 all predicated on the contractor being wrapped up at that 23 time, because we have to certify that all the funds that they 24 have heretofore given us have been obligated and used. So, we 25 met with him the other day, and we're putting a rocket under 6-12-06 132 1 his bulldozer to get him to move on forward and get this done. 2 So, Grantworks, as it has done in the past, advertises and 3 conducts the public hearing, and that would be for anybody 4 interested in the general public who wants to come out and 5 speak for, against, or indifferently about the continuation of 6 that project. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does Phase 4 include the 8 mobile home park on the west side of Ranchero? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, Phase 4 should include 10 that. The engineer's going to have to take another look at 11 extending the line down far enough to get to that mobile home 12 park, but that would be part of this, yes, Phase 4. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the Lydick Lane or Lydick -- 14 whatever it is. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is 5:30 the best time for the 19 public hearing, or would it be better to do it more in 20 conjunction with a Commissioners Court meeting? And the 21 reason is, this is something -- I mean, Commissioners Court 22 meetings are generally fairly well attended. At 5:30, I'm 23 wondering if anyone will show up. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. That's kind 25 of the time that Grantworks folks typically set them. 6-12-06 133 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't make any difference. 2 I'm just trying to figure out -- 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It'll be advertised, as it 4 has been in the past. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like the idea of doing it 6 at 5:30 so people, when they get off of work -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They can get here and have 8 time -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's really the whole 10 point. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, okay. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you anticipate 13 controversy about this? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you anticipate 16 controversy about this? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not really. They've done 18 all these in the past, and -- and very seldom do many folks 19 turn out for them. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Made a motion yet? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move approval of the 22 agenda item as styled. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 25 the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor of 6-12-06 134 1 the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's go 6 quickly to Item 18; consider, discuss, and take appropriate 7 action to request the Texas Comptroller to allocate a portion 8 of unclaimed capital credits received from electric 9 cooperatives within Kerr County cooperative service area, 10 authorize County Judge to request for same. I put this on the 11 agenda. There was recent legislation about which we were 12 notified from the Comptroller's office saying that for these 13 capital credits that accrue for co-ops -- in this case, 14 electrical co-ops; they also accrue for telephone co-ops, but 15 this is electric -- that we at least have an opportunity, if 16 we will ask for it, and agree to use it for the purposes that 17 the statute authorizes you to use it for, we got a shot at 18 getting a piece of that money, and that's just one more little 19 bit that we can chase. And I'm willing to prepare the 20 necessary paperwork and request it if the Court authorizes me. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the funds have to be used 22 for economic development, as I understand? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That, plus it says that the 24 Court could support Children's Advocacy Center with those 25 dollars as well, providing services to abused children. 6-12-06 135 1 That's on the last page of the backup material. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But, essentially, it's for 4 economic development. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of the agenda 6 item and authorize the County General to -- County Judge; I 7 called you County General -- County Judge to contact the 8 Comptroller's office and request for our portion of electric 9 co-ops considered capital credits. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Appreciate 12 the promotion to general officer; I never got above company 13 grade, you know. Any question or discussion? All in favor of 14 the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move 19 to Item 19; consider and discuss organization development 20 opportunities for Kerr County government. Commissioner 21 Nicholson? 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. This is the second 23 time we've looked at the alignment -- or organization of Kerr 24 County. You asked me to bring it back again. And I view this 25 as -- again, as part of the budgeting process. It's letting 6-12-06 136 1 us get an early start at the strategic level so we can get 2 some definition about what direction we want to go on these 3 issues, and we won't be behind the curve when we start making 4 decisions in the budget process. I'd like to focus it a 5 little more in this conversation today than we did in the last 6 conversation. And I'll start off by saying I view this as 7 what they sometimes refer to in organization design as a 8 "straw model," one that is not a proposal. It's something 9 that begins to take shape, and it's easily knocked down if it 10 doesn't work. So, I'm not going to give you a proposal, and I 11 think it would be premature to have one, but I think we can 12 move it down the road quite a bit with some discussion. 13 A couple of preliminary comments. One of the 14 difficult things to do when you're thinking about making 15 organization changes, particularly if you're combining 16 functions, a difficult thing to overcome is -- is putting 17 names in the boxes prematurely, thinking about -- you might 18 say, "Yeah, combining those two things would be a good idea, 19 but what are we going to do about so-and-so?" There's a 20 tendency to put the cart before the horse. Be better to begin 21 by saying, "What's the best and most efficient organization?" 22 and then agree on that, and then say, "Okay, how do we staff 23 this organization?" I think I'd like to start with the two 24 organizations shown there on the left-hand side under 25 Commissioners Court, Code Enforcement and Infrastructure. 6-12-06 137 1 Isn't infrastructure spelled wrong? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Make an A out of that 3 U. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What you see here is a 5 grouping of some sub-functions that have some commonality 6 under Code Enforcement. There's probably a better name for it 7 than that. It's -- it's five different functions that are 8 involved in enforcement and administration of court orders. 9 Solid Waste, Floodplain, Septic, Subdivision, and Animal 10 Control. Those -- those functions are currently managed by 11 two supervisors. They could be managed by one, and there will 12 probably be some opportunities for synergy or efficiencies 13 that we can't realize under our current -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Isn't it three? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three. Animal Control, 17 Floodplain, and Subdivision and Septic and Solid Waste, three 18 different groupings right now. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's -- they're currently 20 under three different departments. I don't know that 21 Floodplain has a specific individual that that's the entire 22 duty. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. Right, it does not. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He's -- it's a piece of Len 25 Odom's job, right? 6-12-06 138 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, it's 2.3 something. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2.3 something. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Then, if you move over to 5 the right, Infrastructure with an A, these activities seem to 6 have some commonality, and that is maintaining, keeping up 7 with, repairing infrastructure; buildings, roads, bridges, 8 parks. I think that currently has two supervisors, and it 9 could be easily supervised by one, in my opinion. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- and I'm asking -- 11 probably leaning towards Commissioner Baldwin or the County 12 Attorney on this, just 'cause of their years of -- or 13 Commissioner Baldwin's years of service. Isn't there some 14 requirements on funding, because the Road and Bridge is funded 15 by a separate tax, that that function has to be used for that 16 purpose? I mean, there's some -- isn't there -- I mean, is 17 there a problem with combining Road and Bridge functions too 18 much with other departments? I was led to believe that 19 somewhere along the line. Whether it's accurate or not, I'm 20 not sure. And because it's -- because of where the tax is 21 coming from to do that. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Other than the funds, I don't 23 -- I don't see that it is. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you can -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can see how you keep it 6-12-06 139 1 separated out. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just have to -- the funds have 3 to be separated, but the personnel doesn't need to be? Okay. 4 Well, I guess the management of it doesn't need to be. 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The third leg of that -- 6 those things that are supervised by the Commissioners Court, 7 and they're not headed by elected officials; they're kind of a 8 general bucket that I've titled Administration. And, in my 9 view, there isn't any advantage to be gained by trying to pull 10 that together under one supervisor. I could be wrong about 11 that, but there seems to be such a diverse group of activities 12 that that option's not completely available. I would like to 13 move toward doing quite a bit of that work differently. 14 Before get into that, let me say, I think, for purposes of 15 clarity, you need to add three more functions there. I don't 16 know if I left them out because I forgot them or because I 17 assumed that they were -- they were clear. One of them's 18 payroll, and I'm leaning toward contracting that, but that's 19 still an open issue. Another one's safety; I just forgot that 20 one. And the third one is a -- is a function that's needed 21 here, and it's reception. Some -- traffic cop, somebody 22 directing traffic around the courthouse. All of us, as we're 23 walking up and down the halls, wind up doing that, and if we 24 had somebody out there doing reception, it would be a benefit 25 to the -- to the users of the courthouse, but it wouldn't -- 6-12-06 140 1 it wouldn't be somebody sitting there filing their nails 2 waiting for the next customer to come up. I would propose -- 3 and I've talked a little bit about this to Commissioner 4 Baldwin, that we add the -- some significant duties besides 5 reception to it. So, what I'm getting at here is a 6 suggestion -- not a proposal, a suggestion -- that we add an 7 additional employee that reports to Commissioners Court. In 8 addition to the current duties of the Commissioners Court 9 Coordinator, that we add to these functions personnel 10 management, which includes personnel files, reservations, 11 passports, benefits administration, dealing with contractors 12 and answering questions, benefits enrollment. Payroll, being 13 the contact for the -- if we decide to outsource payroll, 14 being the liaison or contact with that organization. Safety 15 and reception. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's RSVS? 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Reservations. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Reservations? 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, reservations. That's 20 scheduling the Ag Barn and the -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- other facilities. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Other facilities. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Other county facilities. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not offering a travel 6-12-06 141 1 service. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wondered. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, the next time we have 4 an opportunity, whether it's in a Commissioners Court meeting 5 or a budget meeting, I'd like to move that one along after you 6 all have had some time to think about what fits and what 7 doesn't fit, with an eye toward making that move. I would see 8 it as not a -- an additional cost to Kerr County. I think 9 that an addition of one person in this group would be offset 10 by the reduction of the jobs in other places. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In light of the memorandum 12 that we got, a lot of this makes sense, and you and I have 13 talked about it in the past, particularly in terms of 14 personnel management, the benefits administration, to see if 15 we could figure out a way to roll that in here and restructure 16 the Court Coordinator's job description to accommodate these 17 things. And as I see that happening, we take away the 18 clerical stuff from her, and that becomes the person out here 19 directing traffic with clerical, answering the telephones, 20 directing the telephone messages all over the courthouse, 21 things of that nature. That's a clerical function, and it 22 frees up this position to do higher and better tasks. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've got the advantage in 24 our studies here of having a lame duck Commissioners Court 25 Coordinator. She's going to be in a different job come 6-12-06 142 1 January 1, so she can be completely objective about what will 2 work and what won't work. And I've asked her the question, if 3 we -- if we took these answering the phone and handling the 4 burn ban, directing traffic, all that off of you, how much 5 would that free her up, and she said 50 percent. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've asked the same 7 question, and asked her to think about how a new structure 8 would be in terms of -- 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: She can be a lot of help to 10 us. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She really could. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Without having any biases 13 or prejudices. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other thing that I don't 15 know that is included here, but I think we would get it from 16 Kathy, but there's -- the way we've been structured, there's a 17 judicial function for the County Judge. That needs to be 18 addressed as well, and I think it almost needs to be a 19 separate thing so we don't forget it on here. I mean, 'cause 20 that's got to be taken care of, and that's really a -- it's a 21 very different type function, almost more on the legal side, 22 as opposed to a lot of this other stuff, I would think. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that something greater 24 than just keeping the docket for the Judge? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- I don't know. I'm not 6-12-06 143 1 aware of what -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I've got a lot of support function 3 that's handled by the deputies in the County Clerk's office. 4 I've got -- for example, Cheryl does the -- the T.A.B.C. 5 applications; she handles that. What I do judicially is, I've 6 got another gal there that handles the mental health. We've 7 got another one that handles the probate, another one that 8 handles the juvenile. So, other than -- other than what I do 9 in the way of things that I draft that have to be committed to 10 the proper format in writing, and coordination of -- working 11 with these deputies in the County Clerk's office, there's -- I 12 don't see there being that much judicial function that she's 13 performing. Now, there is some, granted, but it's not 14 something that -- I don't think it overwhelms her. You know, 15 she's -- she's a whole lot busier doing all this 16 administrative stuff that I get involved with that's outside 17 of the judicial area. That's a lot more. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The items that you mentioned 19 just now that are handled by the County Clerk, is that the way 20 this county is set up, or is that the way it has to be by law, 21 by Constitution, court statute? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, I -- I don't think there's any 23 legal department that would be that -- I mean, I could have -- 24 I could have one court administrator that handles all of those 25 dockets, but it would still necessarily have to involve these 6-12-06 144 1 people in the County Clerk's office, because they maintain the 2 records that they deal with on a daily basis, and work with 3 the County Attorney's office on scheduling those cases. I -- 4 I think the way we're working it now seems to work okay. And 5 over and above that which is required to maintain the records 6 and keep the dockets moving, there's a minimal amount of 7 effort that has to go into it. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: It seems to work okay. There are a 10 number of counties where -- where the County Judge will have 11 a -- a court administrator that that's all he or she does, is 12 handle the court administration functions. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the payroll matter, I've 15 been provided with the names and telephone numbers of two or 16 three firms that do that, and it's -- now that we've got the 17 Sheriff's issues reasonably behind us, it's probably time to 18 examine those. We do have them reasonably behind us, don't 19 we, Sheriff? 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Same ones as before. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Since we have the Sheriff's 24 items reasonably behind us, I'll now pursue that. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the -- and in that area, 6-12-06 145 1 which I think this is related to this, the -- I would 2 encourage, in your contacts, to bring both small and large 3 firms. Because I hear, from talking with my wife, there's a 4 very big difference as to how you get treated, and more the 5 customer service side of that, which I think is -- you know, 6 may be a real big issue. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could very well be. And 8 some of the information I've got provides me with cell phone 9 numbers of larger ones like ADP, and some locally who could do 10 it. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I think -- local, I 12 would think, has a lot of pluses. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I would -- you know, and 15 local may even be San Antonio, I mean. Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. Moving along, the 17 next category there is Elected Officials. And, of course, we 18 have a lot less flexibility trying to find efficiencies in 19 those organizations than we have in the others. Basically, 20 our flexibility there is to -- to encourage productivity 21 improvements through budgeting. If we think we're spending 22 too much, then we need to tighten the screws on the budgets. 23 I am reminded that -- that we have looked at data that says 24 we're a relatively expensive county, and the reason that we're 25 expensive is 'cause we have more people, more employees than 6-12-06 146 1 other counties our size. And I have to believe that some of 2 these elected officials' departments, that that issue hasn't 3 been properly dealt with, hasn't been taken seriously, and 4 that constitutes a large number of our employees. The only 5 other one that's got a significant number is Road and Bridge. 6 Judicial, same issues as we've -- most of our involvement 7 there is funding it. I think we need to resurrect the issue 8 of why we have a Juvenile Probation Supervisor and a Juvenile 9 Facility Supervisor, when 50 other counties do that with one. 10 That's such an obvious opportunity for improvement, we need to 11 not just let it go. On joint ventures, I think the next -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait, wait, let's stay with 13 judicial. I want to ask a question. Because we're looking at 14 it from a budget standpoint, would you not put the County 15 Judge under there because of his other functions? 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It wouldn't be -- it's 18 outside of Commissioners Court. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, that's a good point. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: It's there under County Court. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Court. 22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh, yeah. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I missed it. I'm sorry. 24 I saw County Court at Law. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't see it at first either. 6-12-06 147 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think, but I don't know, 3 that there's some opportunities for improvement between the 4 District Clerk and the two district courts. I think there's 5 redundancy in court coordination that's being done in three 6 different places, and I would encourage the District Clerk and 7 either of the two clerk -- District Court Coordinators or the 8 Judges, if they have any interest, take a look at that and see 9 if there's not something we can do. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a good point 11 there, 'cause I really -- I got a jury summons, and both 12 courts happened to have dockets that day, and I called 13 Linda -- there was two on there, and I kind of got lost; I 14 told one I wasn't going to be there, and I ended up -- or 15 found out that the District -- or Becky's group keeps track of 16 the same thing that Linda keeps track of. They both have the 17 jury rolls; they keep lists and check everybody off. I was 18 checked off of Becky's list as an excused absence, but I got 19 an e-mail from Linda saying there was an arrest warrant out 20 for me. (Laughter.) 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Darn, I didn't see that one. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Darn. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wow. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, you know, Linda was just, 25 maybe -- I mean, you know, she was obviously joking, but 6-12-06 148 1 making the point that both of them were keeping track of the 2 same information right now, which -- and I think she has some 3 frustration in that as well. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's some redundancy for 5 sure. I don't know if it's significant, if there's any 6 savings involved, but it needs to be looked at. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly the kind of 8 area I see the new computer system being able to help, being 9 -- you know, the network and all that. I just -- that's where 10 I see the computer programs helping us with your deal. 11 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Joint Ventures are these 12 three areas where we fund jointly with the City of Kerrville, 13 and probably the opportunities for improvement here may be 14 more obvious under our discussions about user-pay theory. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would recommend that Joint 16 Ventures be added as a leg under the Commissioners Court, 17 because I think -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under where? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under the Commissioners Court. 20 I think it's a separate item, but they're all three things 21 that we deal with directly. They're not stand-alone. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Well, the same with 23 Ancillary; got the same point. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's probably -- it's -- yeah, 25 it's kind of a dotted line to those, too. Joint Ventures, we 6-12-06 149 1 clearly spend a lot of time. Probably, we spend as much time 2 on those joint ventures as a lot of other areas. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm sure I missed 4 something. Some things under Ancillary, I just -- I wanted to 5 list all the things that we either contribute to or that we 6 receive services from that are not part of local government, 7 to speak of. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, social services is 9 pretty broad -- 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- words. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's useful to look at. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's go back to having a 15 traffic controller out in the hall. I can see that person 16 answering the county telephone, like Kathy does and probably 17 other folks, and I can see that person directing traffic. And 18 I am the hall monitor here, and I'm fixing to lose my job; I 19 can see that. But you wouldn't -- you don't foresee that 20 person sitting there with a phone, two or three lines ringing, 21 and 12 people coming into the courthouse, and that person 22 trying to take care of passports at the same time, do you? 23 That kind of -- I can't picture that in my mind. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think I don't know enough 25 about it to have an opinion. I don't know -- I needed a new 6-12-06 150 1 passport because mine was expired, and I went up to the -- had 2 my old one there in my hand, and all I got was an envelope 3 that says, "Here's everything you need to know about this," 4 and you send it off to Pennsylvania. So, if it's more than 5 that, it would be difficult. I think it would be done in 6 there, but if it's no more than that, it could be done. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's both. I think the 8 function that you talk about could be done down here, but if 9 you want to do the full work locally, it needs to go to 10 someone, I think, who's bonded and some other things. And -- 11 but I think -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's part of it, 'cause 13 there's money that changes hands in that regard. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think there's -- there's 15 a -- you know, definitely a need to direct people. There are 16 a lot of lost people, people who come in this courthouse and 17 just don't know where to go. You can walk out there almost 18 any time, and there's someone with a lost look on their face, 19 having no clue what department they should go to. And -- and 20 they probably go to Tommy's office or ours, because we're the 21 first ones as they come in that door. But I think it would be 22 a big help just to be able to direct people a little bit. I 23 mean, it's not real easy to find some of these offices. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One thing I have seen at 25 several courthouses, just -- is not a reception, but it's one 6-12-06 151 1 of your courthouse security people that actually have a booth 2 downstairs to direct people and stay in one position. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, there he is. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They don't field telephone 5 calls, and this job -- this job needs to handle the telephone 6 traffic, needs to direct people, and as I see it, do some 7 clerical as well. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, like put the agenda 9 package together, something that takes a lot of time. But you 10 can -- you know, that type of thing. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The telephone traffic alone 12 eats Kathy up. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Answer employees' questions 14 about benefits enrollment, routine pattern kinds of things 15 that can be -- could be done there instead of being done here. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think probably it would save 17 time. I suspect that the Clerk's office, probably more than 18 any other office, people go in 'cause they don't know where 19 else to go; they couldn't find an open door, someone open, and 20 they go in there. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's where I send 22 everybody. You know, you get a lot of people that have 23 traffic tickets that are trying to find the right courtroom. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you can't figure it out, 6-12-06 152 1 because law enforcement -- you know, all that scribbling and 2 all that stuff. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: But you've always been very 4 accommodating in taking their money and say, "I'll take care 5 of that for you." 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. I do everything 7 I can to help, being the servant. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It is on the record, right, 9 Rex? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A big help. You know, you see 11 stuff affecting the productivity in a lot of the other offices 12 as well. 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One other possibility has 14 to do with Adult Probation. At one of our previous meetings, 15 somebody threw out a number of how much the rent was costing 16 over there. Was it $25,000 or $30,000 or something like that? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Adult Probation? Yeah, that 18 number was -- 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that -- Tommy could 20 probably tell us. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: 28. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 28,000 a year. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that for our county, or 24 is that shared by other counties? 25 MR. TOMLINSON: Ours. 6-12-06 153 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about for the 198th? 2 They rent out there too, right? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: They're paying their own. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: They're paying their own. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The Treasurer's asked us to 7 remove any duties that are not constitutional from her, and it 8 sounds like that that -- when that's done, that that will cut 9 that back to a one-person office and we won't need all that 10 space down there, so there's a possibility we can get one of 11 those Adult Probation offices in there and save a lot of 12 money. That needs more thought, too. It's still, I think, a 13 possibility that we can utilize the excess space in the 14 Juvenile Detention Facility for something and save some -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a bunch of storage down 16 there that can go; you can make that into office space 17 downstairs, and put the storage out somewhere else. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, that's all I've got on 19 it. Do you want to -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A lot of food for thought. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you want to just think 22 about it now, and we'll get back into the details later? Or 23 do you want to give anybody an assignment? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we have a good 25 opportunity, as you mentioned earlier, to do a lot of the 6-12-06 154 1 administrative reshuffling, rethinking, because we are going 2 to have a vacancy and we can plan on it, which is a rare 3 luxury you have in our organization -- business. So, I think 4 it's time that -- I think, probably, we -- I would like to 5 definitely proceed on looking at that reorganization, if 6 nothing else. Some of the others on the Code Enforcement 7 column, the Infrastructure column, I have a hard time 8 envisioning how some of that reshuffling would work and save 9 personnel, just because of the -- but not to say that you 10 can't do it, I mean, 'cause they're very different functions. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Another option -- and I'm not 12 proposing this, but it is another option -- is to hire the 13 County Judge a personal secretary, and that cuts probably more 14 than 50 percent from the Commissioners Court secretary. Just 15 a thought. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To answer telephone? When 17 you say -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The work that he does outside 19 the Commissioners Court. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, I don't -- I mean, I don't 21 know how much paper or typing-type functions you all give 22 Kathy. I give virtually none, because I do it all myself. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I do all mine. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think the four of us are 25 pretty much like that, so I think it is far better use of 6-12-06 155 1 personnel to have a more administrative -- true administrative 2 assistant, as opposed to a clerical person. Any time we do 3 that, we'd probably go to a receptionist. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why I see -- I see a 5 natural synergy with integrating personnel and benefits 6 administration into this role out here. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Tommy, do you have a -- 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, while you're kicking these 9 ideas around, one thing I'd like for you to add, and we've 10 talked about it many times, and I think -- I think if you have 11 a -- if you have a separate Personnel Department, might be the 12 time to think about this, and I think this county needs a 13 purchasing agent. And -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's on here. 15 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: I would like to -- I mean, this is 17 kind of a personal issue, but -- but I would like to see the 18 County hire an accounting -- another accounting-type person to 19 deal with -- to deal with purchasing and -- and payroll 20 issues, because it integrates those two functions with the 21 accounting system. And, from a personal standpoint, I'm not 22 going to be here forever, and I -- 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You told us that last time. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Come on, Tommy, we've 25 heard that. 6-12-06 156 1 MR. TOMLINSON: I would like to be able to have 2 somebody that I could mentor to go into my position sometime, 3 and so I -- I really think that -- that if those two functions 4 fit into the overall accounting picture, I would -- I think 5 there's a lot of value in having someone, especially to do 6 purchasing. And we have the ability right now to do online 7 purchase orders. It will have to be somebody that knows 8 accounting to do it. So, I mean, I -- I think we ought to 9 take advantage of -- of the software that we already have. 10 And I just -- I just think that if we have a purchasing agent, 11 we would have a lot more control over budgets, have a lot more 12 control over physical assets, and so I just -- I just think 13 that's something you need to think about. 14 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I also think you're onto 15 something there, Tommy. Let me ask you this, for clarity. 16 You specify a purchasing agent. You don't intend that they be 17 buying gravel and tar and stuff for Road and Bridge? 18 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I think they could do -- I 19 think they could do the deed, because they're -- you know, the 20 laws for purchasing for counties are very specific and 21 detailed. And -- and I think if you have someone that -- that 22 knows those laws backwards and forwards, then you have a 23 lot -- you don't have -- you're not -- you don't have the 24 liability that you might already have. I mean, that takes the 25 responsibility away from -- from Road and Bridge. I mean, it 6-12-06 157 1 takes a lot of time to -- to write specs and send out bids. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Who does that now? 3 MR. TOMLINSON: All of us individually do. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For Road and Bridge? 5 MR. TOMLINSON: They do it themselves. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Truby does. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But when you -- when you 8 create a real, live purchasing agent, isn't there a lot of 9 hoops you jump through? I mean, isn't there some specific 10 things you have to do? I'm just kind of working off memory 11 here. We've talked about this numerous times. 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I think there's probably two 13 ways to have one, and I don't know the specifics about it. 14 But there -- there's one way that they can be appointed, just 15 like I am, and then there is another -- there's another way to 16 do it. I can't -- right now, I can't tell you how. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can get a real -- we 18 could get a real expert on that topic to come talk to us, and 19 that's a lady out of Ector County. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Narita Holmes. She's 22 probably the State's leading expert on purchasing departments, 23 formation of them and the function of them. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think an interesting part of 25 that number -- I agree with -- support having her come down; I 6-12-06 158 1 think it would be very interesting. But, also, trying -- I've 2 never really fully understood the purchasing versus audit 3 versus treasurer, trying to figure out who has to do what. 4 And my recollection is that if you get purchasing, it affects 5 the Auditor's office some, I think, as I recall. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, yes. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it affects it -- as far 8 as statutorily-wise, I think it changes things around a little 9 bit. Seems like I heard that somewhere. But -- anyway, but 10 it would be interesting to see how we -- 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, actually, it's become a part 12 of the Auditor's office, because they -- they have to have 13 access to the -- to the county records on a daily basis. And 14 if they approve a purchase, then we have to approve it before 15 it's -- before it's -- a purchase order is actually issued. 16 So, we -- it's a partnership, really, in that process. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Tommy, do you have -- let's assume 18 for the moment that we want purchasing to be handled out of 19 your office. Do you have an estimate as to what portion of an 20 individual's time, acting as a purchasing agent for the 21 County, would be required? Half-time? Three-fourths? 22 Two-thirds? One-third, whatever? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: I wouldn't think it would be over 24 half-time. Fifty percent, I'd say. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: At most? 6-12-06 159 1 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So we could look at a blended 3 employee in your office, then, which essentially, they're 4 going to be dealing with your records and the county financial 5 records anyway. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Right. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: In performing that function. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you also have this voter 9 registrar that raises its ugly head every two, three years. 10 Everybody on that end of the courthouse always wants -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Election administration. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean election 13 administrator, I'm sorry. That's another -- I still think the 14 purchasing could be done in a consolidated type effort with 15 Peterson Hospital, K.I.S.D. and those agencies. I don't know 16 why we can't piggy-back with them somehow, somewhere. When 17 you're talking about dollars and cents, it seems like to me 18 that -- and if you have one employee handling two or three 19 different agencies, it just makes sense to me. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the hardest thing on 21 going with purchasing, whether you go that route or some other 22 route, the hardest thing is going to be to get -- I guess you 23 just have to do it, but to get the purchasing truly turned 24 over to purchasing. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 6-12-06 160 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's going to be the hardest 2 part of it. And it's much like, you know -- oh, well, I'll 3 just leave it at that. That's where the hard part comes, 4 because I think almost every department right now -- just look 5 at timesheets. Every department keeps track of their own 6 timesheets and sends them in to the payroll office, and they 7 do timesheets too, so double; we're taking two complete 8 functions to do the same thing. And I can see us doing 9 purchasing and having it become the same way, unless we very 10 carefully figure out how to implement it to make it not 11 optional. It has to be mandatory. And the same thing with 12 the payroll officer; we've got to change how we're doing it. 13 I mean, it does not make sense for Rusty to have Nancy keeping 14 track of payroll records and someone in another office doing 15 it. Makes no sense to do that. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One advantage also on 17 purchasing that the County's doing in a small way, but it's 18 showing a big benefit, is in y'all's office, Tommy, that 19 orders paper now on the statewide bid. Paper. Their office 20 orders it for the entire county. And when I need more paper 21 for copy machines and that, or the jail or dispatch, we send 22 the deal over, "We need this many more cases," and they send 23 it out to us, and then they bill us in our budget, I mean, for 24 it. But the overall cost that that paper's costing the County 25 is so much cheaper, because it's not like we used to do with 6-12-06 161 1 individual departments -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- buying their own out of 4 their budgets. That's just one example of how that purchasing 5 agent -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like a natural 7 purchasing agent to me. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I didn't mean to drop you in 9 the grease, Tommy. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But doesn't the new software 11 module on purchasing -- does it -- there's a direct 12 correlation in your office, and particularly accounts payable, 13 but doesn't the new module also give the purchasing person the 14 ability to know that those moneys are in that particular line 15 item and that they are not overencumbered or whatever, that 16 there's still funds left to do what they want to do? 17 MR. TOMLINSON: That's exactly right. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought so. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: And when the purchase is made, even 20 though it's not yet paid for, it encumbers that account. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's go to the next item. 23 I'm excited about this. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have anything further to offer 25 on Item 19? Let's go to Item 20, consider and discuss 6-12-06 162 1 opportunities for applying user-pay concept to certain 2 services provided by local government. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is an effort to just 4 try to get on one piece of paper how you -- how we might go 5 about sorting out services that we provide that are candidates 6 for a different kind of funding, user funding. I just tried 7 to think about some of the criteria to be amenable to a 8 user-pay concept. And while I was doing that, I saw this 9 article in the San Antonio newspaper that's about Amtrack. 10 And there's some -- some people are outraged that President 11 Bush is -- is suggesting that taxpayers fund that -- these 12 passenger trains that are used by very, very few people, and 13 he -- we cut that funding to $900 million a year from the 14 current 1.3 billion that we're -- all taxpayers are paying for 15 a few passengers who couldn't and wouldn't pay the full cost 16 to buy a ticket that pays the full cost of that service. And 17 it's been -- the need for it's been -- was eliminated about 18 150 years ago by the Eisenhower interstate highway system and 19 reasonable-cost air flight. 20 So, with that sermon in mind, I think we ought to 21 look at services that are paid for by county taxpayers that 22 are used by a small part of the population. I also think 23 about the many trips that the EMS service has made out into 24 west Kerr County over the last few weeks to pick up victims of 25 motorcycle accidents. It's not just one or two; it's probably 6-12-06 163 1 a dozen or more. I don't know how many of those there've 2 been. And we haul -- they all haul them -- haul them to the 3 hospital, or their corpse to the hospital, one of the two, and 4 ask them to pay about half of what it costs to do that. Most 5 of them -- not only are there just a few, a very small 6 percentage of the population of Kerr County that use that 7 service, but there's a very large percentage of people who are 8 not from Kerr County that use the service. And, again, we're 9 asking them or their insurance company to only pay half the 10 cost of it. So, that's what led me to think about whether or 11 not user-pay has a good application with EMS and some other 12 services, and I came up with a criteria that says, first, you 13 got to be able to identify who uses it, and then second, the 14 number of users is significantly less than the total taxpayer 15 population. And some users are not local taxpayers; that's 16 three. You got to be able to measure costs of the service, 17 'cause if you can't do that, you don't know what to bill them. 18 And that it is possible -- feasible to collect for the 19 service. 20 The candidates that I can see that are eligible for 21 an application of that user-pay cri -- concept and criteria is 22 the Ag Barn, EMS. Animal Control is -- identifying the users 23 is -- it doesn't meet that criteria. It would be difficult to 24 implement this, but that we probably should increase our fees 25 to a level that offsets more of the cost than it is now. 6-12-06 164 1 O.S.S.F. is very clear who uses that. In my view, the -- the 2 users should be charged an amount that is equivalent to our 3 total costs for operating the program. We've already talked 4 about library quite a bit. I'm not sure that it is feasible 5 to charge fees to those who are not residents of Kerrville and 6 collect those fees at a rate that would provide the funds to 7 fund the library. Subdivision administration, I think, is 8 another example. Those people who want to subdivide and 9 create subdivisions, I think we should charge them a fee that 10 covers the full cost of providing that service. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's pretty much done now. In 12 fact, the new rules -- and this is -- or the engineers added 13 the language that the developers pay 100 percent of his actual 14 costs for developing -- I mean, all his review. He keeps 15 track per subdivision of all of his engineering review time, 16 and that full amount is billed back to that subdivision. They 17 don't get the final plat approved until they pay it. And it 18 also adds an incentive, built in, that if they use good 19 engineering people that do good work and do it correct, his 20 review time is a lot less. If they use sloppy work or people 21 that are a little bit questionable, and it takes a lot more of 22 his time, they pay a whole lot more. So, I think we're 23 getting real close on subdivisions to having it user-pay, but 24 it's also one of the easier ones to do that with, 'cause 25 they've got money and they're making a bunch of money by doing 6-12-06 165 1 what they're doing. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Next one I've got listed is 3 the airport, and I know just barely enough about that to know 4 that it's a pretty complex issue. The airport does have value 5 to Kerr County and Kerrville, and does create some revenue. 6 And we do -- I don't know whether we want to take any action 7 to slow down that value -- the creation of more value, but it 8 also occurred to me that very few residents use that facility. 9 I don't have any use for it. And that taxpayers in general 10 are asked to underwrite the costs of it, and the costs are 11 substantial. So, we've got a couple of experts here on 12 airport. Would you know whether or not it's feasible to 13 charge those users and make it a user-pay facility? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, most local residents 15 or citizens or residents of Kerr County who have aircraft 16 house them there. They house them -- hangar them, I should 17 say. They hangar them in either a County- and City-owned 18 facility, or they hangar them with the F.B.O. operator who 19 leases the land from the County and the City. So, there is 20 some -- there is some payback in terms of that. One of the 21 largest users of the airport in terms of take-offs and 22 landings and so forth is Mooney Aircraft. And, certainly, you 23 know, there's great economic value in the 400 jobs that are 24 currently there at Mooney Aircraft. The only other thing I 25 see in terms of user-pay -- I'll say it before Jon gets out 6-12-06 166 1 the door -- the take-off and landing fees, I'm not sure that a 2 facility our size, with the number that we have each year, 3 warrants going in that direction. 4 (Commissioner Letz left the courtroom.) 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not sure there's -- 6 it's feasible at all, Commissioner. I know there's an 7 attitude amongst some of my constituents that, "You're paying 8 a lot of money for that airport out of our taxes," and they'll 9 say, "I know two or three old rich guys that use it." That -- 10 it may be a matter of educating the general public about the 11 value and how things are paid for. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, every building out 13 there is under a land lease, Mr. Brinkman's land lease. His 14 big hand has been there a long time. All the rest of them are 15 under land leases, so that comes back to us. We collect -- we 16 collect -- when I say "we," I mean the airport. The City and 17 the County collect -- we collect a fee for every gallon of 18 aviation fuel that's purchased out there, and a lot of that is 19 purchased by local users, and a lot of it's purchased by 20 fly-ins, people who fly in there. So, that's one of the 21 things to examine, because I think our goal comes -- 22 Commissioner Letz and I have said it over and over again. Our 23 goal is to get that airport up to a point where there is no 24 more subsidy from the two owners. That's the goal. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a good goal. 6-12-06 167 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's exactly where we 2 want to take it. A lot of the money that we provide now, over 3 and above operational subsidies, goes for the 10 percent match 4 for capital improvements, and that's -- that's really a great 5 investment. We put up 10 cents, and TexDOT Aviation puts up a 6 dollar. So, for every one-tenth we put in, we get back -- 7 we're going to get $6 million worth of runway improvements out 8 there in terms of new taxiways, and it's going to cost the 9 City and the County $300,000 apiece to get $6 million worth of 10 improvements. So, that's the kind of thing that we need to 11 keep moving. 12 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Items 8, 9, 10, and 11, I 13 just at that point in time ran out of the ability to think. I 14 put some things down, and probably don't have any -- there's 15 no application at all, but it helps us think about is there 16 anything else we -- under this criteria, anything else we can 17 and should be charging a user for instead of the general 18 taxpaying population? That's all I've got. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a good exercise. Thank 20 you for doing it. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone else have anything additional 23 to offer on that particular item? Mr. Lipscomb, you had filed 24 a participation form, and if you have any input on this issue, 25 we'd be tickled to death to listen to what you have to say. 6-12-06 168 1 MR. LIPSCOMB: Okay. Again, for the record, my name 2 is John David Lipscomb. I reside at 909 Lake Drive here in 3 Kerrville, and the only thing I wanted to point out was, 4 currently at the library, of course, non-Kerr County residents 5 pay a $25 fee to get a library card. The rest of the services 6 are available to them for free. And so, in a similar manner, 7 I want to throw out, on a user-pay system -- and please do the 8 research and check on this, but I believe if the County pays 9 zero towards the library operation, then and only then can the 10 library assess a fee towards Kerr County residents who are not 11 within Kerrville city limits. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have -- do you have some data 13 or authority to demonstrate that? I'd be real interested in 14 seeing it. 15 MR. LIPSCOMB: No, I don't have anything. What I'm 16 basing it on is talking to the director. He indicated that 17 there's a Texas statute that governs how libraries operate, 18 and alluded to -- that was the basis for it. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Would you be kind enough to follow up 20 on that and get that -- 21 MR. LIPSCOMB: I could. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: -- get that information, or at least 23 a cite to a statute from him? I'd be real interested in 24 seeing it, because I think, looking at the numbers, especially 25 those that you mentioned about percentage-wise in-city, 6-12-06 169 1 out-of-city, but within the county, that utilize that 2 operation -- and I think Commissioner Nicholson makes a good 3 point; the amount of revenue to be generated by -- by, for 4 example, the $25 individual fee may not be adequate to get you 5 there. So, you'd be looking at maybe two methods of 6 contribution, one of which would be a user-pay fee, one of 7 which would be a supplement, maybe. But I'd be real 8 interested in seeing that, if you'd be kind enough to get 9 that. 10 MR. LIPSCOMB: I'd be glad to research and let you 11 know. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anything else, sir? 13 MR. LIPSCOMB: No, sir, that's it. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anybody else on the Court 15 have anything further on Item 20? Let's move to Item 22; 16 consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on approval of 17 interlocal contract between the County of Blanco and Kerr 18 County to house prisoners at the Law Enforcement Center, and 19 authorize County Judge to sign same. This was put on the 20 agenda at the request of the Sheriff. I'm given to understand 21 that this is the same agreement that we have with other 22 counties where we house out-of-county prisoners. I think we 23 got Bandera County, for example. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, we do have contracts with 25 all the surrounding counties. We have not been housing any 6-12-06 170 1 surrounding counties' inmates, just due to our in-house 2 population, but about three weeks ago, Blanco County did call 3 me. They are experiencing some severe overcrowding, and they 4 weren't needing beds except for about two to three inmates 5 normally, and their only choice besides trying to contract 6 with us was to take them all the way up to Comanche. And, so, 7 right now our population has been at the level where I could 8 take his two to three, so we did agree to take those. The 9 contract itself is $37 a day, plus all reimbursement of any 10 and all medical expenses. And plus, in the contract, under 11 Item D, which would be, I guess, Page 2 in there, it does give 12 me the -- the ability to refuse any inmate that we deem 13 necessary to refuse due to too violent, too hard to handle, I 14 just don't want to -- 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Any reason. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- to handle that inmate or 17 something like that. So, it gives us that. 18 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we approve an 19 interlocal contract between the County of Blanco and Kerr 20 County to house prisoners at the Law Enforcement Center and 21 authorize County Judge to sign same. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 24 of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, one question. 6-12-06 171 1 Sheriff, in Paragraph 14, you're quoting a per diem rate of 2 $37 a day, and I know that's consistent with where we've been. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My question is, is that 5 going to hold in the new budget year? 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. What I will probably do, 7 since all our contracts are exactly the same with every county 8 that we have, and I've intentionally kept them that way, 9 including this one, but I very well may come back during the 10 new budget year, and if those counties still want to redo 11 their contract, I think at that time we need to look at going 12 up to at least about $40 a day. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which prompts me to ask, is 14 there a reopener clause in here, or can we -- if a rate 15 increase goes on -- goes in, if this is for a year from 16 whenever the Judge signs it, and the Court determines that the 17 per diem rate goes up in the new budget year, do we have an 18 opener in here? 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There is -- under Paragraph 16, 20 this agreement may be terminated at any time by either party 21 given 30 days. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Works for me. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who is -- my question is, 24 who's the County Judge over there? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Billy Guthrie. 6-12-06 172 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Billy Guthrie. See, there's 2 hope, Commissioner. He used to be the Commissioner in that 3 chair. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I could get promoted. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You could go to Blanco and be 6 the County Judge. 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No thanks. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Billy told me to be on the lookout 9 for somebody that would be willing to -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ready to move over there. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: -- be hornswoggled into that. Any 12 further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, 13 signify by raising your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Brings to us 18 Item 24. The Tax Assessor was unable to be with us today, and 19 asked me to pass that item. It will be a matter for 20 consideration on a later agenda. Is there any member of the 21 Court that has anything to take up in closed or executive 22 session? If not, we'll -- well, let's go to 25 now, reports. 23 Animal Control. I think there was a written report rendered, 24 if I'm not mistaken. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to speak for 6-12-06 173 1 Janie. She couldn't be with us; I'll tell you why. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is a report going back 4 to 2003 on activity. First page is 2003. You can hardly see 5 it up here. I'll give it to you for your review and 6 understanding. In a nutshell, adoptions are up, 7 euthanizations are down, and reclaimed animals are up. So, 8 we're steadily making progress to -- to improve animal control 9 in Kerr County. We get some credit for it -- Janie does, but 10 a lot of the credit goes to -- in my opinion, goes to the fact 11 that pet owners are being a little more responsible all the 12 time. Got a long ways to go, a lot more education is needed, 13 but I think we're finally getting the community to understand 14 that if you raise a couple of crops of kittens every year and 15 bring them to us, we're not going to be able to adopt them. 16 Euthanizations will be up, and costs to that facility. Janie 17 couldn't be here because she went to two rodeos in the last 18 few days, and in one of them was a bull that was running loose 19 and jumped two police cars and damaged one of her -- pulled 20 her over a fence, beat her up pretty bad. Then she went 21 out -- had to go out at night to try to lasso a llama, and the 22 llama got -- jerked her shoulder completely out of its socket. 23 She had to go to the emergency room, and -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She deserves combat pay. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- get that fixed, then go 6-12-06 174 1 out there and find that llama. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you making this up? 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, sir. That's a hard 4 job, kind of underappreciated. A lot of people yell at them. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We get a lot of complaints, 7 and some of them are warranted and some of them aren't, but I 8 appreciate Janie's work that she does. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all you've got for us? 10 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all I got on 11 reports. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any questions? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Could I ask you a 14 question, Commissioner? How's she doing now that she reduced 15 staff? 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: She's -- she's limping -- 17 her and her four -- three employees are limping along. It's 18 been a pretty good exercise in teamwork. It's kind of like 19 we're going to start working together and everybody doing 20 whatever they can to get the job done. We lost two employees. 21 She has replaced one of them, and they're still limping along, 22 and I expect that her budget will say she has to have a 23 replacement for the other employee. And I -- you know how 24 tough I am on staffing; I tend to believe she probably does 25 need somebody. 6-12-06 175 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The building is about 3 through. We need to do the finish up painting and stuff like 4 that. It'll be ready; I'm hoping to get a quote on the 5 sidewalk. Did you happen to get one, Judge? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I was told that it was -- I was due 7 to get it. 8 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: And as soon as we get through here 10 today, I'll follow up on it, because it was in the process of 11 being worked up to be submitted. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I saw one to be submitted 13 today. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You've seen it before I did, 15 then. 16 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Today I did ask Janie if 17 she had anybody in mind to pay for that sidewalk, and the 18 answer is maybe. So, we're still not sure whether or not 19 Kerr -- Kerr County taxpayers are going to pay for it. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the benefactor has been 21 pretty steady about being available -- there have been some 22 additional costs incurred, some additional sidewalks right 23 around that facility that they decided to add and some other 24 things, and I think he's stepped up and covered those extras 25 so far. So far, so good. 6-12-06 176 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I have a very brief 2 report about supervisor retraining. Is this the time for 3 that, or do you want to go through the liaison 4 responsibilities first? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we wait till we get to 6 that. Let me go ahead and finish these reports up right 7 quick. Extension. Have you got a quick report for us? You 8 liked that word "quick," didn't you? 9 MR. WALSTON: Yeah, quick. I'll make it quick. I 10 appreciate hearing Janie can rope a llama; she's a better 11 roper than I am if she can. I'll tell you what, a llama's got 12 to be the hardest thing in the world. Appreciate y'all taking 13 the time to listen to me. I've got a report here. It's 14 actually -- when I went to print it off, I only got the front 15 page, so I'm going to have to send you the entire copy when I 16 get back to the office. As far as ag natural resources, in 17 May, since our last meeting with y'all, we held a multi-county 18 hair sheep field day, and in cooperation with Gillespie, 19 Bandera, and Kendall Counties, and had about 100 participants 20 at that in Fredericksburg. Had an excellent turnout, and the 21 speakers discussed everything from the various breeds of -- of 22 hair sheep and fitting it in small -- small-acreage landowner 23 situations, as well as marketing and comparison of hair sheep 24 and wool breeds as to how effective the marketing aspect of it 25 is. Really a good program. 6-12-06 177 1 And on May 30th and 31st, we had our Hill Country 2 Living 101 series, and we had 30 small-acreage landowners from 3 not only Kerr, but as well as Bandera and Comfort -- and 4 Kendall County. They -- they were able to -- it was about a 5 14-hour program for the two days. They had an opportunity to 6 listen to speakers from the Extension -- Texas Cooperative 7 Extension, the Texas Forest Service, Natural Resource 8 Conservation Service, as well as the Texas Wildlife Service. 9 We also, that evening, on Wednesday evening, we took them out 10 and we did some plant identification. They always enjoy 11 getting out and learning new plants, and we took advantage of 12 that and had a lot of good, positive comments from those 13 participants for that two-day program. 14 Our Hill Country masters -- excuse me, Hill Country 15 Master Gardeners are busily planning for their state meeting, 16 as I mentioned earlier, coming up April 12th through the 14th 17 of 2007. In May, they made 343 contacts relative to 18 horticulture via telephone calls into the Extension Office, or 19 educational programs through various groups, civic groups in 20 the community. And they're also busily putting together 21 their -- establishing a demonstration garden where we -- we 22 will be displaying nine different turf varieties, as well as 23 some different bedding plants that are native and suitable to 24 the Hill Country. We're trying to get that established, and 25 trying to put in the irrigation to where we can have that 6-12-06 178 1 well-taken care of. 2 As far as our 4-H and youth area goes, we recently, 3 the first part of May, had our Ag Awareness Day. We had 303 4 Kerr County fourth graders that came in and participated in 5 the Ag Awareness Day that's sponsored by the -- along with 6 Farm Bureau and Kerr County 4-H Council. These kids go 7 through a series of -- of about seven different stops that 8 they are able to learn about all the different ag commodities 9 that are grown here in Kerr County and how it affects them and 10 their personal lives, and maybe in ways that they don't 11 realize otherwise. It also gives us an opportunity to use our 12 4-H council members, and which we had 27 council members that 13 led these groups, as well as some of our volunteer leaders. 14 We had 46 volunteers that assisted with the program and the 15 educational stops. 16 As far as our district 4-H Roundup, which is where 17 we have our -- our judging teams and, you know, our 18 educational presentations, we had our district contest the 19 first part of May in Fredericksburg. This year, we qualified 20 a total of five judging teams, and two method demonstrations 21 for state roundup. Now, we didn't actually end up taking that 22 many, but that's how many we could have taken if we had our -- 23 if we could have filled all the slots. Those teams that we 24 qualified them in, we actually had 40 4-H members 25 participating at the District 10 contest. The teams that 6-12-06 179 1 qualified on our seniors included the livestock judging team, 2 a wool team -- wool judging, mohair judging, soils judging, 3 and range judging team, as well as a pasture and grass 4 identification, and two educational method demonstrations. 5 This past week, we participated at Texas State 4-H 6 Roundup at College Station. We went down on Tuesday and came 7 back on Friday. It was really -- it's always an eye-opening 8 experience for these kids to go down to College Station and -- 9 and go onto Texas A & M university campus and get to see all 10 the sights of the campus. We had 14 4-H county senior 4-H 11 members that participated at Roundup. These were in wool 12 judging contest, the mohair judging, range and pasture grass 13 identification and our two method demonstrations. This year, 14 the mohair judging team won third place, with Katie Muehlstein 15 winning fourth-high individual. The grass range and pasture 16 grass identification team won first place, with Lance Bauer 17 being high-point individual. And our two method 18 demonstrations with Caitlyn Talarico and Chase Lantz 19 presenting won in sheep and goat; they won first place. And 20 also, in the area of farm and ranch ag economics, we had Lance 21 Bauer and Brian Weaver that won second place. And Laurinda 22 has told me it's been at least 15 years since we've had method 23 demonstrations that have placed in state roundup, so we're 24 pleased to hear that. 25 Along with that, Kerr County 4-H, we had two 4-H'ers 6-12-06 180 1 that received a total of $13,000 in scholarships through our 2 4-H Foundation. They'll be able to use that towards their 3 college education. Dub Walston and Craig Leonard were 4 recipients of those. Our livestock projects are busy in the 5 process of getting started again for this next year. Our beef 6 cattle numbers, as far as steers and heifers, are up this 7 year. We've got 36 steers that we'll be validating on the 8 26th of June, and our heifer numbers are continuing to grow. 9 So, we're also in the time frame right now of purchasing -- 10 helping 4-H'ers purchase lambs and goats for their projects, 11 so we're busy. And as of tomorrow, we'll be going to Sonora 12 for the -- through Thursday of this week for our wool and 13 mohair judging teams that will be competing at the Sonora Open 14 Invitational contest, which is also the national contest. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions for Mr. Walston? One 16 question. All those kiddoes that you took down to A & M, are 17 you going to take those same kids over to Austin so that they 18 can have a -- a good tour of the U.T. campus? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're imbalanced. 20 MR. WALSTON: Some of them may end up there. Some 21 of them may end up there. If A & M doesn't quit charging us 22 so much to use their facilities, I'm not opposed to moving it 23 somewhere else. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Like Angelo State. 6-12-06 181 1 MR. WALSTON: Like anywhere. Thank you. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Roy. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Environmental Health. Miguel Arreola 5 is on vacation. He has submitted a written report. Every 6 Commissioner should have received it. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: That should take care of that. That 9 brings us down to Section 4. Let's talk about the economics, 10 folks. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have one question. In 12 the -- Juvenile Detention, we're paying cell phones. How many 13 cell phones do we have out there? Did we decrease that number 14 recently in our change? I don't guess it matters. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: I can't answer that without some 16 research. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll ask him. I thought he 18 was going to be here. The reason I was planning on asking 19 him. That's the only question I have. So, I move we pay the 20 bills. 21 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the 23 bills. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the 24 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6-12-06 182 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. let's go to 4 our budget amendment requests. Budget Amendment Request 5 Number 1. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is -- is for Indigent 7 Health Care. We need to transfer $1,053.75 from Eligible 8 Expenses to Administration line item. I have associated with 9 this a late bill, which I need a hand check for, to VeriClaims 10 for $281.91. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 14 of Budget Amendment Request Number 1, approval of late bill 15 and hand check to VeriClaims for $281.91. Any question or 16 discussion? 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I assume that since we're 18 out of money for that line item in June, that we'll be seeing 19 it again. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, we sure will. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All 22 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 6-12-06 183 1 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 2 Amendment Request Number 2. 3 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is from the County 4 Attorney's office, a request from the County Attorney to move 5 $2,000 from Computer Software to Books, Publications, and 6 Dues. With that, I have a late bill. I'm requesting a hand 7 check payable to West Payment Center, which is -- is for 8 Westlaw service, $534.09. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: What was the cents? 10 MR. TOMLINSON: Nine. I mean -- yes, 9 cents. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: .09? 12 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the last payment 15 we'll have to Westlaw, I guess? 16 MR. TOMLINSON: For his -- for his, it probably will 17 be. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: After today, yeah. What is 19 this 2,000 for? I mean, this word "dues" always scares me a 20 little bit. 21 MR. TOMLINSON: There's a bill with -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not membership to the 23 country club or anything like that? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: No. No. 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. 6-12-06 184 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 3 of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any question or 4 discussion? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Should be Number 2. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me, Request Number 2. Any 7 question or discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your 8 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. Budget 13 Amendment Request 3. 14 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is for Court-Appointed 15 Attorneys. This is a request approved by Judge Brown to 16 transfer $2,915.50 from Court-Appointed Attorneys to Master 17 Court Appointment line item. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 21 of Budget Amendment Request Number 3. Any question or 22 discussion? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is Master Court 24 Appointment? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Those are those C.P.S. cases that we 6-12-06 185 1 created separate civil appointed attorney line items for, and 2 by way of information, Judge Brown has requested that I 3 consider creating a separate budget for that master -- for the 4 master that hears those cases. He said it's wrecking his 5 budget. You can see why he's saying that. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Another state unfunded 7 mandate. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, so, who -- is that like 10 a visiting judge? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's a -- there's an 12 associate judge that serves this area for Uvalde, and she 13 hears these C.P.S. cases. And since the changes -- 14 legislative changes, any time there is even a request for a 15 temporary removal of -- of the child from the home, there's an 16 appointment of an attorney for the -- any -- any of the 17 parents that are there, and -- and even those that aren't 18 there, as far as that goes, if they still have legal rights. 19 And that -- that's where all this money's going, to pay all 20 these lawyers. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it's not necessarily a 22 judge that comes in and hears it. Okay. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: No, that's -- these are for the 24 lawyers that are appointed by the associate judge -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Surprise, surprise. 6-12-06 186 1 JUDGE TINLEY: -- that hears these cases. That's 2 what that's for. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 5 MR. EMERSON: Let me give you a very realistic 6 situation, just so you get a feel for it. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 8 MR. EMERSON: A mother's children get taken way, and 9 in the process of the interviewing her, they ask her who the 10 dad is. And it's not uncommon in one of these cases to have 11 the lady spit out four or five names, okay? Because she's not 12 sure. So, that means you have -- your judge has to appoint 13 four or five different attorneys to all these guys until they 14 can do -- the phlebotomist can do blood tests to determine who 15 the real father is. So, you have a tremendous amount of court 16 costs associated with representing individuals that really 17 don't have much interest in the case. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Or it may be that there's a removal 19 of four children from a home; they all have different fathers. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 21 MR. EMERSON: Yeah. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: And it's not unusual for there to be 23 three or four, five lawyers in the same case up there. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not pretty, is it? 25 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Notice the Commissioners 6-12-06 187 1 are shaking their heads in unison. Is this a great country or 2 what? Let's go. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Do I have a motion? 4 THE CLERK: We have a motion and a second. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any further question or 6 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 7 your right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 12 Amendment Request Number 4. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 4 is for the 216th District 14 Court, transferring $5,872.50 from the Civil Court-Appointed 15 Attorney line item, $300 to Special Court Reporter, $5,572.50 16 to Court-Appointed Attorneys. 17 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 20 of Budget Amendment Request Number 4. Any question or 21 discussion? This is another one of those we're going to see 22 every month. All in favor, signify by raising your right 23 hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6-12-06 188 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 3 Amendment Request Number 5. 4 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 5 is for the 198th District 5 Court. We're transferring $3,391.50 from Civil 6 Court-Appointed Attorney line item to Court-Appointed Attorney 7 line item. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 9 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 11 of Budget Amendment Request Number 5. Any question or 12 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 13 your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 18 Amendment Request Number 6. 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 6 is for the Justice of the 20 Peace, Precinct 2, signed by Judge Wright, to transfer $171 21 from Group Insurance to Bonds. It's for a new employee. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This was a case of the young 24 lady who had the job got a new bond -- new bond and then left, 25 so we have a new person coming in who has to be bonded, and 6-12-06 189 1 the funds had already been expended. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Where did the -- the 3 employee that's leaving go, do you know? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? 5 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The employee that's 6 leaving, do you know where she's going? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: San Antonio. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Uh-huh. Somebody move -- 9 did you move it? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I tried to. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: You tried and did. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I did. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any question or discussion on 15 the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 16 your right hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 21 Amendment Request Number 7. 22 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 7 is for -- between 23 Detention -- Juvenile Detention and Maintenance. The request 24 from Kevin Stanton is to transfer $217.71 from Detention 25 Officers Salary line item to -- to Maintenance and Custodial 6-12-06 190 1 of the same amount. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 5 of Budget Amendment Request 7. Any question or discussion? 6 All in favor -- 7 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's just difficult, Judge, 8 to comprehend that we've got a scaled-down facility, and we 9 still don't have enough money budgeted for maintenance and 10 custodial, but we'll sort all that out in next budget period. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, we will. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or comments? 13 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 14 hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 19 Amendment Request Number 8. 20 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 8 is for Environmental 21 Health. It's from Miguel. His request is to transfer $157 22 from Public Education to On-Site Council Fees. 23 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know what happened 24 here. Apparently we didn't budget enough, and maybe it was 25 because of an unexpected increase in fees. I think we ought 6-12-06 191 1 to find out before next budget. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And this is -- this is 3 a perfect place where a user fee should pay for itself. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 7 of Budget Amendment Request Number 8. Any question or 8 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 9 your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 14 Amendment Request Number 9. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 9 is for -- also for 16 Juvenile Detention. This is signed by -- approved by Kevin 17 Stanton to transfer $700 from Detention Officers line item to 18 Residential Medical. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would these be for services 20 that we can expect reimbursement of these for Kerr County 21 kids? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I'll bet you they're Kerr. 23 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the names are on here. I 24 can't -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably Kerr County kids. 6-12-06 192 1 That's okay. 2 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Same comment, Judge. We 3 have a scaled-down facility; I would expect that medical would 4 be reduced, and so we need to do a better job of budgeting out 5 of that. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, what kind of medical 7 stuff is that? 8 MR. TOMLINSON: Could be prescriptions. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Doctor visits. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: E.R. visit or something like 11 that. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 13 MR. TOMLINSON: These are actually -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 15 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it's for -- it's for mental 16 health and dependency assessments. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We got to have evaluations on 18 all the kids, too. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, on all of them? Or a new 21 one? 22 MR. TOMLINSON: I think every one of them. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it's -- $700 covers the 24 whole thing. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: I have two more. 6-12-06 193 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, just a minute. Let me get this 2 one out of the way. You can go ahead and hand those out. I 3 have a motion. That's all I got at this point. 4 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Got a motion and a second. Any 6 question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify 7 by raising your right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We have two 12 more? 13 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's 10; 11's on its way. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Budget Amendment Request 15 Number 10. 16 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 10 is for a federal grant 17 called a SCAAP grant that the Sheriff referred to this 18 morning. We -- we did receive those funds, and this is to 19 increase the budget by the amount of that -- those funds, and 20 offset it with an increase in the expenditure line item by 21 $11,376. That -- this allows the Sheriff to use those funds. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is one of those that you 24 were willing to come up with some money out of to pay the 25 deputies' salaries. I move for approval. 6-12-06 194 1 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval 3 of Budget Amendment Request Number 10. Any question or 4 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 5 your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 10 Amendment Request Number 11. 11 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 11 is for Road and 12 Bridge, and it's to increase the budget for un -- for 13 unbudgeted revenues, $895 for culvert pipe that they sold, 14 $772.20 of asphalt, and $187.17 in signs. And we've offset 15 that with -- with an increase in their budget for each one of 16 those line items. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If I were going to ask a 18 question -- which I'm not going to, but if I were, it would be 19 street sign proceeds? 20 MR. TOMLINSON: They apparently sold some signs -- 21 sign stock or something. I don't know what. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To who? 23 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That may be those 9-1-1 house 25 signs they were making. Remember, you could purchase them. 6-12-06 195 1 JUDGE TINLEY: You may have made those signs. 2 Didn't you take some training on sign making out there? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why he just made the 4 motion. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we pay the bill. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: How about approve the budget 7 amendment? You going to move that, too? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The budget amendment. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, I've got a motion. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: And a second. Any question or 12 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 13 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. That's the 18 end of the budget amendments? 19 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Got any late bills? 21 MR. TOMLINSON: No. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Somebody just snuck in some reports 23 on me. I've been presented with monthly reports from the 24 District Clerk for April 2006, Justice of the Peace Precinct 25 2, Justice of the Peace Precinct 3, County Clerk General Fund, 6-12-06 196 1 and the Sheriff's Department. Do I hear a motion that these 2 reports be approved as submitted? 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that, but I got a 5 question. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any 7 question or comment? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Didn't we receive a report 9 from J.P. 1 just a couple of days ago? No? I did. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Privileged information, I 12 guess. As presented, though. I love those words; those are 13 good words. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Magic words. Words of art -- terms 15 of art. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I move for 17 approval. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Motion made and seconded 20 for approval of the motion. Any question or discussion? All 21 in favor, 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: The motion does carry. Reports from 6-12-06 197 1 Commissioners. Commissioner Nicholson has been itching to 2 tell us about this. 3 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to be really 4 brief, 'cause I want to talk about it later on, maybe during 5 the budget process. I'll give you a brochure from -- from 6 Blinn College Leadership Institute. I'll start out by saying 7 I've got two observations about what organizations do when 8 they appoint a new supervisor. I'd probably make the same 9 observation if I was talking about General Electric or a big 10 company like them, or a small organization like Kerr County 11 government, and that is, we don't equip them with the skills 12 they need to perform their new jobs. It's not natural -- it's 13 not necessarily a natural ability. There are some skills and 14 abilities that can be learned that are helpful to a 15 supervisor. The other -- the second observation is that 16 there's a huge difference in supervisory development programs. 17 Some of them sound really good, and you can send a supervisor 18 to it and he or she comes back and they don't have any more 19 ability or skill than they did when they left. The wrong 20 things are taught, or taught the wrong way. Others can be 21 very effective; you can really see and measure a difference, 22 the results they get. 23 So, I'm going to ask that, in the budget process, we 24 spend a little time thinking about whether or not we want to 25 hire Blinn College to perform some leadership development 6-12-06 198 1 training. I have learned that they have two rates, an 2 expensive rate for industry and a pretty reasonable rate for 3 not-for-profits, and we're included in there. The other thing 4 that impresses me is that they have experience in dealing with 5 counties and cities and developing their people. And I can't 6 remember the names of the counties and cities that they've 7 dealt with, but they're small like us, and I would guess that 8 they have the same development needs that we might. Just one 9 other observation; it might be something that we want to 10 partner with, say, the City of Kerrville if we decide it would 11 be money well spent. And then I'll let you know that the -- 12 that the director of the facility, Dr. Larry Pitcaithly, is 13 somebody I've known for 25 years or so, and I can certainly 14 vouch for his effectiveness in training supervisors to improve 15 organization and conquer -- try and make more money for us in 16 Kerr County. I think it would be -- it would be providing a 17 better service, and probably controlling the costs. So, I'll 18 give you these, and I'll be talking about it some more. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like it. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate that. Any other 21 Commissioners have any reports from their committee or liaison 22 duties? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not necessarily liaison duty, 24 but I wanted to report that our planning meeting is -- I'll 25 speak to the planning session here. Planning meetings for the 6-12-06 199 1 West Texas County Judges and Commissioners Association is 2 underway. We had our first meeting last week, and we will 3 have three more through the year, and then in March of '07 -- 4 our association is 118 counties, so your -- it's possible to 5 have at least 118 commissioners courts in this community at 6 one time. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That ought to be illegal. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is illegal. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- plus I've had several 11 counties down south of here, Fredericksburg, Bandera, and 12 another one down south -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Atascosa. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Atascosa comment that they 15 were interested in coming here for our conference. So, this 16 town will be full of people, and be some great education 17 and -- and some catfish eating. That's about it. But it's 18 going well. 19 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: With that many people, it'd 20 be a good opportunity to march on Austin and try to overthrow 21 the government. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It will -- well, we kind of 23 do that at these meetings. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good work, Commissioner. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two quickies, Judge. First 6-12-06 200 1 of all, I'm going to put in a request for a special meeting of 2 the court on Thursday; I guess we'll say 4 p.m., for the 3 purpose of the Court discussing a ban on aerial fireworks. 4 Did you provide me with information I needed on that, 5 Mr. County Attorney? I think you've done it once. 6 MR. EMERSON: A while back, but I can get you 7 another copy. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could you resurrect it for 9 me for backup material? 10 MR. EMERSON: Sure will. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Secondly, I had a walk over 12 the Kerrville South project with the engineer, the contractor, 13 Grantworks, U.G.R.A., Road and Bridge, and yours truly, trying 14 to figure out a way the contractor could get the dust under 15 control down there and get the job finished. For the most 16 part, all the pipes are in the ground. The lift station is 17 constructed and in the electrical phase hookup right now. The 18 forced main is in place going back to the trunk, and the 19 lateral hookups should begin, if not this week -- if not this 20 week, next week. So, the project's coming along. The goal is 21 to have it completed by August 31st. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? Any elected officials 23 have any reports? Thank you. We'll move on. 24 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do we schedule a meeting 25 for 4 o'clock Thursday? 6-12-06 201 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we can get it posted 2 on time for 4 o'clock on Thursday. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports? We stand 4 adjourned. 5 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 3:19 p.m.) 6 - - - - - - - - - - 7 8 9 STATE OF TEXAS | 10 COUNTY OF KERR | 11 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 12 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my 13 capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court 14 of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place 15 heretofore set forth. 16 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 20th day of 17 June, 2006. 18 19 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 20 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 21 Certified Shorthand Reporter 22 23 24 25 6-12-06