1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Regular Session 10 Monday, June 9, 2008 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 BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X June 9, 2008 2 PAGE --- Commissioners' Comments 6 3 1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 4 decide on approved emergency response to Privilege Creek Ranches/Boerne Falls Ranches 7 5 1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 6 approve interim chief deputy position to chief deputy in County Clerks Office 14 7 1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 8 award bid for one 6-ton air conditioning unit and four 8 1/2-ton air conditioning units 15 9 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 10 authorize civil enforcement of Texas Health and Safety Code statutes for O.S.S.F. violations 16 11 1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 12 approve UGRA requests for Kerr County to submit signed Payment Policy form and Payment Agreement 13 form for laboratory services for Environmental Health Department 19 14 1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 15 compile a list of Kerr County transportation projects for possible submission for funding 16 consideration under forthcoming Congressional Surface Transportation Bill 21 17 1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 18 address concerns from residents of Live Springs Ranch regarding the proposed replat & variance 19 request 27 20 1.6 Conduct preliminary pre-public hearing conference, discussion on possible variances and other issues 21 related to proposed replat of Live Springs Ranch 56 22 1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action concerning preliminary plat of Camp Verde 23 General Store 61 24 1.13 Presentation from Sue Glover with Purdue, Brandon, Fielder, Collins, and Mott regarding 25 collection of delinquent court fines and fees 73 3 1 I N D E X (Continued) June 9, 2008 2 PAGE 1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action 3 regarding collection of delinquent court fines & fees from County Court at Law, County Court, 4 and District Court and other related issues 86 5 1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding compensation and costs incurred by 6 contractors who were requested by Sheriff to assist in extinguishing of wildfires 118 7 1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 8 designate, by resolution, engineering and administrative service providers for 2008 9 Texas Community Development Block Grant Colonia Construction award for Phase IV of 10 Kerrville South Wastewater Project 132 11 1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to designate, by resolution, authorized signators 12 for 2008 Texas Community Development Block Grant Colonia Construction award for Phase IV of 13 Kerrville South Wastewater Project 134 14 1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on resolution from Hill Country Coalition of Counties 15 concerning county authority concerning regulation of subdivisions 135 16 1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 17 requested Kerr County funding commitment to Texas Association of Counties for participation 18 and/or support to develop county-controlled and owned software system for courts and beyond 137 19 1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 20 approval of management letter for 2006-07 audit 146 21 1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to rescind that portion of Court Order #30840 22 which declared the old Animal Control van surplus, and allow van to be used by Kerr 23 County Maintenance Department 147 24 1.19 Consider and review options of presentation on 2008 budget 148 25 4 1 I N D E X (Continued) June 9, 2008 2 PAGE 3 1.20 Consider/discuss, authorize use of Texas Procurement Card from Chase Bank for Sheriff's 4 Department 156 5 1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on joint City/County functions 162 6 1.22 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 7 authorize interlocal agreement between Kerr County and Kerrville/Kerr County Airport Board 8 for an employee benefits package for the Airport Manager & such other services as may be required 193 9 1.23 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 10 adopt and order, based on the burn ban status, prohibiting the sale or use of restricted fire- 11 works in any portion of the unincorporated area of Kerr County 202 12 4.1 Pay Bills 205 13 4.2 Budget Amendments 210 4.3 Late Bills --- 14 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 215 15 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee Assignments 215 16 5.2 Reports from Department Heads/Elected Officials 217 17 1.24 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 18 real estate matters (Executive Session) --- 19 3.1 Action as may be required on matters discussed in executive session 221 20 --- Adjourned 221 21 22 23 24 25 5 1 On Monday, June 9, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., a regular 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 8 Let me call to order this regularly scheduled County 9 Commissioners Court meeting scheduled and posted for this 10 time and date, Monday, June 9th, 2008, at 9 a.m. It is that 11 time now. Commissioner Williams? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will you please rise and 13 join me for a moment of prayer, followed by the pledge of 14 allegiance to our flag? 15 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's 17 any member of the public that wishes to be heard on any 18 matter that is not a listed agenda item, feel free to come 19 forward and tell us what's on your mind. If you wish to be 20 heard on an agenda item, we'd ask that you fill out a 21 participation form. There should be some located at the back 22 of the room. It's not essential; it just puts me on notice 23 that someone wants to be heard on that issue so that I can 24 not pass over that item without recognizing you. If you 25 haven't filled out a participation form and wish to be heard 6-9-08 6 1 on an agenda item, get my attention in some manner and I'll 2 see that you have that opportunity. But right now, if 3 there's any member of the audience or the public that wishes 4 to be heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, 5 come forward at this time and tell us what's on your mind. I 6 see no one coming forward, so we'll move on. Commissioner 7 Williams, what do you have for us this morning? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just wish the wind would 9 let up and the rain would come, Judge. Other than that, I 10 don't have anything. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. If we could get that 12 accomplished, we'd be a long way down the road, wouldn't we? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm putting it in your good 14 hands, Judge. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Letz? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just -- only comment I have is, 17 I must have been living under a rock. I'm not sure when it 18 happened, but the Governor's mansion fire was a tragedy. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Happened yesterday. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- the comment is that 21 it's really sad, and they think it's arson, what I heard this 22 morning on the radio. It's a sad day for the state of Texas 23 to have that severe damage to that great building. That's 24 all I have. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If there's any saving grace 6-9-08 7 1 to that, it would be that it was being remodeled and all that 2 stuff was taken out and put into storage, so that's a good 3 thing. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't have anything else. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: One? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. Thank you. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on. The first item we 9 have on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and take 10 appropriate action to decide on approved emergency response 11 to Privilege Creek Ranches/Boerne Falls Ranches. 12 Mr. Amerine, I believe you put this on the agenda? 13 MR. AMERINE: I did, at the request of someone who 14 is recusing himself on this subject. But let me just say 15 that 911 has no problem in facilitating a discussion about 16 what the appropriate response agency should be for this new 17 subdivision. Myself and -- I'll just take a moment to 18 digress here. Stand up, Mark. I don't know if everybody 19 knows Mark Del Toro. We hired him last May to replace Amanda 20 Hicks, who was our GIS address coordinator, and Mark showed 21 such promise that in January of this year, we promoted him to 22 Associate Director. He is my logical replacement at some 23 point in the future. So, I want everybody to welcome Mark. 24 He's a great guy. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Welcome, Mark. 6-9-08 8 1 MR. AMERINE: But in any case, we went out and 2 drove all the roads that access Boerne Falls, both from the 3 Kerr County side and the Kendall County side, for distances 4 and access times. And this fact sheet that I provided the 5 Court kind of goes into some detail about those distances and 6 the drive times. I really didn't make any recommendations 7 other than suggesting that if the Court felt it was in the 8 best interests of the citizens of this subdivision, or any 9 subdivision, for that matter, that borders another county, to 10 go to an interlocal for joint response, I kind of outlined 11 what we did with The Reserve in Falling Waters. 12 Now, to address specifics, if the -- you know, the 13 Court decided to do nothing with Boerne Falls, we already 14 have an agreement in place so that those citizens who buy 15 properties out there will have emergency response, and those 16 would be -- law enforcement would obviously come from the 17 Sheriff's Office, and if you had to drive a vehicle from his 18 office out to Boerne Falls, that would be on Highway 27 and 19 Lane Valley all the way up to the first property in Boerne 20 Falls through one locked gate, and that distance is about 21 23 miles, and it would be about a 30-minute drive, looking at 22 the conditions of Lane Valley. Lane Valley is relatively 23 narrow at some points and has -- you probably know better 24 than me, but there has to be at least a half a dozen 25 low-water crossings. 6-9-08 9 1 Fire would come from Comfort EMS -- I'm sorry, 2 Comfort Volunteer Fire Department. They already respond to 3 that area as part of their fire district. And EMS would come 4 from Station 3 on Loop 534. The Kerrville Fire Department 5 EMS would respond to any medical emergencies. That's if you 6 did nothing. I had not taken the tack -- or hadn't even gone 7 down the thought process that the Sheriff and I were 8 discussing before Commissioners Court. I would not recommend 9 that Kerr County consider any response with their resources, 10 whether it be law enforcement, whether it be the Comfort 11 Volunteer Fire Department or EMS, through Kendall County, 12 going down I-10 all the way to Boerne and coming back on 13 Ranger Ranch Road to Turkey Nob. That -- that's a long 14 drive, and it would probably double the response times. Lane 15 Valley would be adequate, except for the biggest vehicle. 16 And I have other response times in here if you -- 17 if the Court decided it would be in the best interests of 18 those citizens to try to go into an interlocal with Kendall 19 County to have shared response. The drive times are about 20 15, 16 minutes shorter from Comfort EMS -- from -- rather 21 than Station 3 with Kerrville EMS. And it's about the same 22 distance and time advantage if you were to come from Boerne, 23 drive all the way from Boerne EMS into the subdivision, and 24 it's about 15 minutes shorter on ranch -- Ranger Ranch Road 25 and on Turkey Nob. So, I open it to discussion, and I'll 6-9-08 10 1 answer any questions you have. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Amerine? 3 MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: The arrangement that we have in 5 place with Falling Waters for emergency medical response, how 6 is that arrangement working? Does that seem to be going 7 satisfactorily? 8 MR. AMERINE: I don't know. I have heard things 9 from the Address Coordinator that the -- Kendall County's not 10 happy with it, but I don't have any firsthand knowledge of 11 that not being a working arrangement, that that doesn't work 12 well. And I would think that if there were issues from the 13 citizens' perspective, I'd hear that, because I've had 14 contact with the folks in The Reserve at Falling Waters for 15 some time. They're the ones that initially asked how to get 16 this process started; they went through my office. And I 17 would think that if they were unhappy with that arrangement, 18 they would be talking to us, and I haven't heard anything. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the reason I asked you. I 20 figured if it -- if there were complaints or problems, you'd 21 know about them. 22 MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir. I don't think there's a 23 problem with that arrangement at all. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on that Falling Water 25 issue, there -- on that issue, there was a fire in Falling 6-9-08 11 1 Water, in the Kerr County portion, last week, and it might be 2 a good thing to see -- it was a real test of how at least the 3 phone part of it worked, if it all was handled properly, so 4 y'all might want to look at that. It was a pretty minor fire 5 in a house under construction, as I understand it, and 6 Comfort Volunteer Fire Department went out there. And I know 7 that Rusty sent some deputies out there to investigate, 8 'cause I guess it was a -- I don't know what the reason was, 9 but that would be a good case to make sure at least that the 10 -- the switching and all that stuff worked properly with that 11 911 call, 'cause I know it came out of the Kerr County 12 portion. 13 MR. AMERINE: What we did in that arrangement with 14 The Reserve in Falling Water is, all those calls still come 15 to our call center, and we just have an inter -- the 16 interlocal created a protocol for dispatch to say for those 17 residents of Falling Water and Reserve, law enforcement will 18 come from the Sheriff's Office here in Kerr County, and fire 19 and EMS will come from Kendall County. That's essentially 20 the way that interlocal is set up. We also have it coded in 21 the 911 record so that the dispatcher has the additional 22 piece of information to remind them. We did exactly the same 23 thing, if you remember, about a year and a half ago out in 24 Precinct 4 for the Y.O. Ranchland and Dominion, and it seems 25 to work -- I just spoke to one of the gentlemen out there 6-9-08 12 1 that set that up, Harry Budow, and they have nothing but 2 praise for the way that arrangement is working as well. So, 3 my -- my reason for being here was just to give the Court as 4 much information as possible so that they could make a 5 choice. If you want to just stay with the default 6 arrangement that we have access from Kerr County and Kerr 7 County resources, with the exception of Comfort, which you 8 already have a contract with for volunteer fire department 9 services, or whether you want to try to start negotiating an 10 interlocal with Kendall County for shared emergency access. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I appreciate your 12 information, Bill. It makes it crystal clear to me what I 13 would -- if I were an ambulance driver -- which I am not; 14 they won't let me drive those things. But I guess my 15 question is -- and I -- in all of your scenarios that you 16 drew up here, every one of them talks about this locked gate. 17 MR. AMERINE: There's two locked gates, and I'm 18 going to let the developer actually explain the specifics of 19 that. I think it -- those conditions are based on a 20 settlement of the lawsuit, and I don't want to get into areas 21 I really don't have firsthand knowledge on, but there is a 22 locked gate, and I believe it will stay that way. And I'll 23 let -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I want to ask Leonard 25 Odom first. 6-9-08 13 1 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: These locked gates, is one 3 of them across a Kerr County-owned road? 4 MR. ODOM: No. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None of it is? 6 MR. ODOM: No. One's up front in Kendall County, 7 and then the other one's at the end of Lane Valley right 8 there. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At the end of Lane Valley 10 before you go into these properties -- 11 MR. ODOM: That's right. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that they're talking 13 about? 14 MR. ODOM: Their easement is right there. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it would be pretty 16 simple for me. If there's a locked gate, that means they 17 don't want you in there. 18 MR. ODOM: It's a private road. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't care what it 20 is. If it's a locked gate, they don't want an emergency 21 service in there. 22 MR. AMERINE: I don't think that's the developer's 23 choice; I think that was something he was pressed into by the 24 lawsuit. But just to answer your question, all the emergency 25 services I've spoken to -- I haven't spoken to Rusty about 6-9-08 14 1 this, but whether it's volunteer fire department or EMS, if 2 they see a locked gate that's impeding their progress, 3 they're going to cut the lock and they're going to proceed. 4 They do that right within Kerr County on some of these ranch 5 gates that you see. They don't let a fence or a gate get in 6 the way of responding to that emergency. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand, and I'm glad 8 that that -- they're that way. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for Mr. Amerine? 10 MR. AMERINE: Did you have any questions of the 11 developer, his perspective on this? He's here today. No? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Apparently not. 13 MR. AMERINE: Okay, sir. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 15 MR. AMERINE: You're welcome. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate it. Any member of the 17 Court have anything further to offer on that agenda item? 18 We'll move on to Item 2; consider, discuss, take appropriate 19 action to approve the Interim Chief Deputy position to Chief 20 Deputy in County Clerk's office, effective immediately. 21 Ms. Pieper, I gather you want to make that position 22 permanent? 23 MS. PIEPER: That is correct. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are we talking about? 6-9-08 15 1 MS. PIEPER: The Interim Chief Deputy to become the 2 full-time Chief Deputy at a 19-6, which is what her salary 3 has been, so there won't be any impact on the budget. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 7 approval the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in 8 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll go 13 to Item 3; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action 14 to award bids for one 6-ton air conditioning unit and four 15 8 1/2-ton air conditioning units, in whole or in part, as 16 applicable. Mr. Bollier? 17 MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir. I would like to make the 18 recommendation that we give the bid to Hardin Heating and 19 Cooling. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 23 approval at cited by the Maintenance Supervisor. Question or 24 discussion? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that the low bid? 6-9-08 16 1 MR. BOLLIER: Sir? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Was it the lowest bid? 3 MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir, the lowest bid by quite a 4 bit. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: And it did comply with the specs 6 that you -- 7 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: -- advertised? 9 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, it does. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other questions or 11 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 12 your right hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move 17 to Item 4; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to 18 authorize civil enforcement of Texas Health and Safety Code 19 statutes for O.S.S.F. violations at 108 West Creek Road. 20 Mr. Emerson? 21 MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. And what I'd like to do is 22 yield to Ray first to give you the timeline scenario of 23 what's happened at the residence. 24 MR. GARCIA: On 108 West Creek, we had a complaint 25 of a halfway house going in, so we went out to investigate 6-9-08 17 1 the complaint to see if a system was modified or altered in 2 any way to see if a system had failed. And we came up with a 3 -- and the first inspection, there was no failure. However, 4 we did find out that the single-family dwelling out there 5 was, in fact, being turned into a halfway house. Following 6 that, we received another call, again, another complaint. 7 Went out, investigated, and saw that the drainfield was -- 8 had some surfacing on it. Came back, contacted the owner, 9 had a discussion with the owner about repairing or getting 10 the proper permits for the system at 108 West Creek, and then 11 following that, nothing was done. So, again, we issued 12 citations. We issued one citation every week up to this 13 point to try to get compliance, to have them fill out the 14 proper paperwork for the O.S.S.F. system, 'cause right now 15 they are operating an altered system, because it was designed 16 for a single-family dwelling, and now it's a commercial 17 dwelling. It's an unpermitted system at this time. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you're allowing that? 19 MR. GARCIA: No, we're -- we're writing citations. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see, okay. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the increased load 22 on that septic system, Mr. Garcia? 23 MR. GARCIA: It was designed for 2,500 square foot 24 single-family dwelling, and now the -- it's a -- it's 25 commercially for 4,000 square feet, is what they're saying. 6-9-08 18 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many inhabitants of 2 that house, to your knowledge? 3 MR. GARCIA: The beds, I believe -- I don't have 4 the number of the beds with me right now, but they had 5 somewhere in the vicinity of 20-something beds in there. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wow. Where's the owner? 7 MR. GARCIA: The owner lives in Arizona, but the 8 operator of the establishment is here and lives in Kerr 9 County. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Either you or the County 11 Attorney, has the owner responded to the citations in any 12 way? 13 MR. GARCIA: No. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 15 MR. GARCIA: And I have contacted the owner and we 16 have discussed -- one of the D.R.'s, Tricia Hulett, did 17 contact the owner of the establishment -- or of the property, 18 and made -- gave him all the information as to what they 19 needed to do. And, again, nothing was done. So, we have 20 expended and exhausted every avenue to contact and work with 21 the owner and the -- the lessee who's actually running the 22 halfway house. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: So, the -- the authorization you're 24 seeking today is to proceed with civil action? 25 MR. EMERSON: Correct. 6-9-08 19 1 JUDGE TINLEY: To enjoin the further operation and 2 use of that facility until it's brought into compliance? 3 MR. EMERSON: Correct. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 MR. EMERSON: And we would seek it against the 6 owner and the operator of the facility. And the 7 communication our office has had was with the lessee operator 8 of the facility, and "defiant" is probably the best adjective 9 to apply to those communications. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the agenda 11 item authorizing civil enforcement of the Texas Health and 12 Safety and Water Code Statutes for O.S.S.F. violations at 108 13 West Creek Road. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 16 approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion on the 17 motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 18 right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move 23 to Item 8; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to 24 approve U.G.R.A. request for Kerr County to submit signed 25 Payment Policy form and Payment Agreement form for laboratory 6-9-08 20 1 services for the Environmental Health Department. Mr. 2 Garcia? 3 MR. GARCIA: This is an agreement for the county, 4 for Kerr County Environmental Health Department, and through 5 U.G.R.A., and basically what they're doing is they're taking 6 measures to reduce their losses from other entities that have 7 delinquent payments. So, apparently, the board came up -- 8 U.G.R.A. Board came up with this payment collection 9 agreement. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: And they're requiring this of all 11 entities that utilize their services, their laboratory 12 services? 13 MR. GARCIA: Yes, sir. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Emerson, have you reviewed the 15 agreement? 16 MR. EMERSON: I have, Judge, and it appeared 17 proper. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of the payment 20 policy and payment agreement for laboratory services for 21 Environmental Health Department with U.G.R.A., and authorize 22 the County Judge to sign same. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 25 indicated. Question or discussion on the motion? All in 6-9-08 21 1 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move 6 to Item 9; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to 7 compile a list of Kerr County transportation projects for 8 possible submission through the Russ Reid Company for funding 9 consideration under the forthcoming Congressional Surface 10 Transportation Bill. Commissioner Williams. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I put 12 this on the agenda because this piece of correspondence came 13 across to your desk and mine, and I guess everybody's desk, 14 talking about the new transportation -- surface 15 transportation bill that will come out of the Congress, I 16 believe, in the next session. They talk about the thousands 17 of transportation projects that will be embodied in that 18 transportation bill. This firm is one that specializes in 19 helping entities, whether they're cities, counties, 20 universities, educational institutions or anybody, in 21 obtaining federal funds for various and sundry purposes. 22 This one happens to be for transportation. So, I got ahold 23 of these people just to see -- on the strength of this 24 letter, just to see what would be required, and they sent me 25 back a -- a checklist for federal funding. 6-9-08 22 1 Mr. Odom, come to the podium, please. Mr. Odom and 2 I talked about this, and we thought that perhaps -- while we 3 don't know any of the specifics beyond where we are today, 4 this would be a good opportunity for us to list those 5 projects in Kerr County that we believe are appropriate for 6 funding, and that we do not currently have the funding for; 7 i.e., the extension of Thompson Drive, the -- the route on 8 the south of 39 on the south side of the river, such other 9 things. Some things that we've talked about with TexDOT, for 10 example, an extension coming across from State Highway 173 to 11 Bandera Highway coming across in the vicinity of Brinks 12 Crossing and hooking up with Airport Loop Road, things of 13 this nature. Bridge replacement that the County right now 14 doesn't have the money for, TexDOT indicated they don't have 15 the money for, and if we want to pursue these things, we 16 would have to pursue them on the basis of our funding them 17 and what they call pass-through financing. 18 So, here's an opportunity for us to put together a 19 wish list. I asked Mr. Odom to prepare that wish list and 20 include some of those county roads that we'd like to see 21 improved, or some bridges that we'd like to have replaced 22 that are not currently on the replacement list, and then 23 prepare this list and ship it off and talk to these folks 24 about what their involvement is and what the cost for their 25 involvement is, and how we might benefit in the surface 6-9-08 23 1 transportation act. Mr. Odom? 2 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Well, before you, you have a 3 list that's not necessarily probably everything. I would 4 leave that to each Commissioner to discuss it with me, 5 because, you know, sometimes I don't hear from the 6 constituents. But when I look at the overall project and 7 look at something, I'm looking out 20, 30 years from now, 8 which will not be in my longevity, okay? However, we need to 9 look for the next generation. I, personally -- and 10 priority -- this has no priority, other than a listing of 11 what came to my mind and I put down. That would be the 12 Court's decision, what your priorities are. But I thought 13 Spur 98 to Bear Creek. We've discussed that before, to 14 extend that over to Bear Creek. Then go in and for widening 15 Bear Creek to Freedom Trails, and land acquisition maybe at 16 that point. If nothing else, the corridor in there to secure 17 that property is a thought. Fall Creek Crossing, I need a 18 hydraulic study for that, and design and construction of a 19 crossing, or modification of that crossing is what I'm 20 thinking. 21 Lane Valley Road and Hermann Sons, I would like a 22 study and design and land acquisition to widen the roads. 23 I've listened to one of the agenda items; we were talking 24 about EMS and all. There's an opportunity maybe of some 25 property up there that I think is an excellent location with 6-9-08 24 1 an interlocal agreement with Comfort and Kendall County, 2 where -- could be stationed up there with us. But I see that 3 area developing tremendously. When sewer and water go in, 4 that area will blossom. I think we need to look at a yard up 5 there. And I believe that we should at least widen Hermann 6 Sons down to the bridge that has been built. And that Lane 7 Valley, we need to be looking at land acquisition there to 8 widen that up for that area that's developing back behind. 9 The Hunt Road crossing, we have a study on that, but design 10 and construction of that new crossing. Already have in place 11 346,000, I think was the estimate. We have the funds at this 12 point, but we'll be discussing that in the budget. 13 The study for an outside corridor, this is 14 Mr. Odom's idea, but I'm -- I like the idea of trying to hook 15 up -- to connect Freedom Trails. There's always been 16 discussed Upper Turtle Creek coming across and eventually 17 coming out to I-10. I think that's a loop that needs to be 18 looked at. Other than something close to Comanche Trace, 19 that's not going to be 25 years down the road. I think if we 20 had that, you would take a lot of pressure and wouldn't be 21 coming in -- cost-wise, fuel and everything, time-wise, you 22 could release the west side all the way to I-10 and bypass 23 some of this, make it shorter. That's a thought. Going back 24 into Center Point area, somewhere back over in there, and 25 connecting up your area back over there. 6-9-08 25 1 Maybe contract for a GPS location and program to 2 inventory and evaluate all Kerr County crossings and drainage 3 structures. We do have some -- we have limited funds and we 4 have to piecemeal, but we're working with the State. Looking 5 at this, maybe we can fund some things and we can identify 6 the growth areas with this study; it would tell us what we 7 need to do on a 10-year basis. Also, a floodplain study. 8 I've brought that to the Court the last budget time. I think 9 that it's something there that we ought to be looking at 10 county-wide for all the floodplain area that's unstudied, the 11 A areas, have a study done there. Maybe they would fund 12 something like that. That would tell us where the growth 13 areas are going. The flood zones like the AE are studied; we 14 know. It's the best information we could get. And I'm open 15 to other things. There may be some things that you think 16 that -- there is Town Creek over there, but the City's fixing 17 to annex that, I think, within -- shortly within the next 18 year, so I think that might be something that we'll put on 19 hold to look at. But that might be something if they didn't 20 annex it. I'm open to, you know, any suggestions or thoughts 21 that you would have. And maybe contemplate this and ponder 22 it, and we can address to as -- when this gentleman from 23 Washington, D.C. contacts us, maybe we can have something 24 that's more definitive. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the action of the 6-9-08 26 1 Court today would probably be authorizing us to compile a 2 list, and communicating that -- that list with some estimated 3 costs, to the best that we could figure that out, 4 communicating it to this company and this group in 5 Washington, and see exactly what our involvement from that 6 point forward is all about. I can't tell you what it's all 7 about today, but it's an opportunity, and it's an opportunity 8 for some funding sources that may not have been be available 9 to us at any other time. So, that's where we are. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, do you think it -- 11 excuse me. I'm not sure what opportunity each of the 12 Commissioners have had to -- I know this thing hasn't been on 13 their plate too long; it came in within the last couple 14 weeks. To give each Commissioner the opportunity to -- 15 between now and, say, the next meeting, to rack their brain, 16 mentally go through their precincts and come up with projects 17 that they think may be appropriate for this, communicate them 18 to Mr. Odom, and then maybe come back at the next meeting 19 with the idea of putting together a composite list -- wish 20 list, as it were, as you call it -- to send forward on up, 21 and proceed in that manner. Do you think -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be fine. That 23 would be fine, Judge, I want everybody to think about it and 24 take more time to do so, and we'll come back and seek the 25 authorization in two weeks. 6-9-08 27 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I certainly don't see 2 anything wrong with it. You know, it's an opportunity -- 3 here we are begging the federal people to give us some of our 4 own money. That's fine. Let's do it. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If we don't ask, we probably 6 won't get it. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, we won't. 8 MR. ODOM: The worst they can say is no. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If everybody will funnel 10 their thoughts through Leonard, he and I will put it together 11 and we'll get it back on the agenda in two weeks. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that will be great. 13 Anything else to be offered by anyone on the Court on that 14 item? Let's go to our 9:30 timed item, Number 5; consider, 15 discuss, and take appropriate action to address concerns from 16 residents of Live Springs Ranch regarding the proposed replat 17 and variance requests, Items 1.13 and 1.14 on the May 27th, 18 2008 Commissioners Court meeting agenda. This matter -- 19 excuse me -- the matter was placed on the agenda at the 20 request of some private citizens. As a preliminary note, I 21 would indicate that before we can proceed forward with any 22 platting process out there, of necessity, there will have to 23 be a public hearing. This is kind of a pre -- pre-public 24 hearing, airing of concerns. I would hope that we try and 25 keep things limited so that we don't spend an inordinate 6-9-08 28 1 amount of time on this. We have a number of written 2 communications from interested citizens about this. We have 3 received those. I know at least the ones I've received prior 4 to today, I have reviewed and have digested. There were one 5 or two that came in today that I, frankly, haven't had time 6 to take a look at, since they just came in this morning. But 7 I want you to have the opportunity to be heard and express 8 your concerns, but of necessity, we will have to have a 9 public hearing, and that public hearing will be held. So, 10 let's try and keep the time spent on this item today to a 11 minimum, if we could, but still accomplish the purpose. 12 Mr. Whatley? 13 MR. WHATLEY: Thank you, Judge. Chet Whatley, 338 14 Rock Ridge, Kerrville. I'm here to address just briefly 15 today some of our concern for the landowners, and there will 16 be some others speak. But I purchased my property on April 17 the 7th of '08, and I find out on the 1st of June that the 18 ranch now is doubled in size. My wife and I just brought the 19 property so we could go build a home and find our little 20 peaceful spot in the world, knowing the restrictions they 21 had, and although aware that they were able to replat their 22 property, never dreaming that it would go to the extreme that 23 it has now. We had several concerns out there that came up. 24 You had traffic problems. They came in and asked you for a 25 variance on the replat, which I believe was granted -- I'm 6-9-08 29 1 not sure about the variance -- on the road, entrance road. 2 Then they said, well, we'll let the property owners -- the 3 property owners' association, if it ever gets to the traffic 4 problem we're going to have, that we'll let them pay for 5 that. Well, that was nice of them. Except the problem is, 6 they sent us letters saying, oh, you're the present property 7 owner; you'll be excluded. I don't know how you exclude me 8 out of the property owners' association, because I pay into 9 it every year. If we have to widen that road, which it looks 10 like we probably will, then the property owners will be 11 broke. 12 So, I stand here today to ask you to consider, even 13 before the public hearing, to start looking at the road 14 requirements that you have, and say we need to escrow some 15 money here. Developer, you made a business decision. You 16 made a decision to make these lots this large. You've only 17 tried to sell them for less than 90 days, when they had the 18 grand opening. Economy's not the world's best right now, 19 like every other land developer. But they came in and asked 20 for a lot of -- a lot of things here that changed our lives 21 without any input, and all we're asking for is consideration 22 to look and hold to the requirements of the county and the 23 state. We can't say they can't replat it, but we'd like to 24 look at the minimum replat. I went back to them and said, 25 "You failed to disclose this to me." 6-9-08 30 1 It can't cost a lot to replat, because they told me 2 they replatted on April the 15th. That was one day. I don't 3 see a lot of consideration going into this replat. So, if 4 they replatted in one day, I know that they put an ad in the 5 Texas Monthly May the 5th and changed up the whole ranch. 6 And I thought at least if they're going to replat me, they 7 should have gave me at least disclosure and let me make a 8 decision based on that disclosure, and they did not. And 9 although I didn't ask, I think they're required to tell me. 10 And if they made that decision based on that in one day for 11 this much -- this much change, they've gone now over 60 -- 63 12 lots less than 20 acres. I was one of the smallest property 13 owners when I bought; I had 22.8 acres, and now I'm one of 14 the largest property owners. 15 And I'm asking consideration be taken that -- and 16 that the developer take something on himself here, and I 17 think an obligation to say, let's look in -- they hold us, 18 the property owner, to a 15-acre replat. If we wanted to 19 break our property up, we could only go to 15 acres, which 20 excludes me, and I don't want to break it up anyway. I'm not 21 here for that. They went to 8 acres, so they're not even -- 22 they're not even holding themselves to what they're holding 23 the property owner to. And they certainly should be held to 24 that standard, I would think, before they replat. I 25 personally think they ought to go to 20 acres and leave it 6-9-08 31 1 there, and they can more than sell those lots over time. At 2 least my experience in Kerr County has been to see that. 3 There's also -- they want to put in another road 4 that crosses some drainage, large amount of creek over there. 5 I don't know what they're doing about that, but as homeowners 6 going to be stuck with that, I don't know on that replat, but 7 they will certainly be in bottom land where we have a lot of 8 floodplain area, and that's going -- that's going to be a 9 problem. The other problem is Henderson Branch Road, which 10 is a county road. We went to 800 cars in a day, which would 11 be -- in a 10-hour day, would be one car less every minute. 12 Henderson Branch Road is not set to do that, that road. Then 13 Highway 27 on the entrance, you got a hill there; you got to 14 look, so you're increasing traffic there, and the state would 15 be involved. And then we have water problems, as we all 16 know. We had wells, and we're doubling the wells and all 17 that argument. 18 So, I'm asking you, before this consideration of 19 the variance on the road, that that be rescinded until they 20 come up with a way to pay for it. That would be my main 21 objection to what's happened so far. Because they have not 22 -- they just said homeowners will take care of it. It's not 23 the homeowners' property. We didn't replat. In fact, we're 24 against replatting this ranch. They need to escrow that 25 money, do a study, and tell us how much road we're going to 6-9-08 32 1 have to have there. Gated community. Can you imagine 2 doubling -- we have a gated community for safety, and now 3 we're going to double the ranch and double the traffic. And 4 say we have a gate; the gate will never be shut, so we got a 5 problem with that too. And my wife and I moving out there, 6 we had a secure area; we knew that, and so it's just one more 7 thing to add to it. So, you know, I'll just turn it over, 8 but I appreciate your time. Thank you very much, and we'll 9 be back for a public hearing. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Whatley. 11 MR. WHATLEY: Thank you, Judge. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Dave Barney? 13 MR. BARNEY: Good morning. My name's Dave Barney. 14 I'm actually a resident of Kerrville, but I own property out 15 in Live Springs Ranch that I purchased last year. To keep 16 this concise, I'm going to read from some prepared comments, 17 if you don't mind. I think Mr. Whatley has done a very good 18 job of bringing out some key points that all of us tract 19 owners are feeling. I'm here in person today to emphasize my 20 interests that I've already presented in letters that I sent 21 to each one of you. And let me just say up front, I am not 22 in favor of the proposed replat, because the marketing 23 concept that was presented to me in 2006 was for large tracts 24 of land and restricted, gated community with a rural ranch 25 feel. 6-9-08 33 1 But equally important to me, I'm not in favor of 2 the developer's proposal to be granted a variance to the 3 County Subdivision Rules and Regulations, and here's why. It 4 appears to me that the originally approved subdivision plat 5 of 60 tracts was not an arbitrary number of properties chosen 6 by the developer. As I look at the Kerr County subdivision 7 documents and the road construction standards, these 60 8 tracts line up specifically to road design criteria under the 9 local road definition. And if I may, this handout is a copy 10 from the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations that 11 are on your web site. You can see in the table that road 12 construction requirements for right-of-way width, roadway 13 width, road base depth, and steepness of road grade are quite 14 different for a local road versus a collector road, and you 15 can see that the local road design is a design standard for 16 serving 9 to 60 lots. 17 And, again, the original subdivision plat approved 18 by the County was for 60 lots. A much more expensive 19 collector road standard is required for a higher traffic 20 count subdivision having 61 to 120 lots, as shown in that 21 table. Now, I believe that if the developer had come to you 22 in 2006 with an original plat of 109 properties, as they're 23 proposing now, your road design standards would have required 24 that they construct the roads as higher capacity collector 25 roads up front for approval by the Commissioners for the 6-9-08 34 1 platting of the subdivision. Now, the developer is proposing 2 the to increase the number of lots through replatting, but to 3 delay any upgrade to the subdivision roads so they do not 4 have to pay now. That's the request for the variance. 5 What I did not see from your last meeting minutes 6 of May 27th, I believe, is exactly how or by whom the 7 collector road upgrade costs would be paid. What you're 8 probably not aware of is that the Live Springs Ranch deed 9 restrictions for the subdivision specifically put the 10 obligation for road maintenance and any amendments to the 11 deed restrictions on the backs of the homeowner association. 12 And you're probably not aware that the unilateral control 13 granted to the developer over the homeowners' association 14 will be turned over to a new homeowner association made up 15 entirely of individual lot owners once the developer sells 16 90 percent of their lots. So, think of it this way. If the 17 replat and the variance are granted as proposed by the 18 developer, the developer can sell his 109 tracts as he 19 proposed, turn HOA -- homeowners' association -- control over 20 to the property owners, and then remove himself from any 21 financial obligation to upgrade the subdivision roads. 22 Now, once these tracts are sold, homes will be 23 built, and that is when the average daily traffic count will 24 increase, as tied back to the tables, as tied back to the 25 road design standards, as tied back to road maintenance. So, 6-9-08 35 1 the burden for the collector road upgrade will be on us, the 2 property owners, not on the developer. Now, I'm sure you're 3 also not aware, the current deed restrictions also say that 4 the developer will not be contributing annual dues to the 5 homeowners' association while they continue to own their lots 6 and are attempting to sell them. So, any reserve fund for 7 road maintenance, and the collector road upgrade will be 8 terribly underfunded. Now, I believe this financial burden 9 could bankrupt the homeowners' association, and equally 10 important to me, negatively impact every lot owners's 11 property value out there. 12 Gentlemen, in my opinion, an HOA, a homeowners' 13 association, exists to look out for every member. Now, I 14 believe the developer who is in control of the homeowners' 15 association has a fiduciary responsibility to represent the 16 interests of all tract owners. The developer called for a 17 vote by ballot with a May 31st deadline of this year to vote 18 on their proposals for the replat and the variance, but then 19 they proceeded with their marketing of their replat in early 20 May, as I stated in my letters, before hearing from every 21 property owner by way of their vote. The developer first 22 proposed amending the subdividing section that's in the deed 23 restrictions. This is Section 3.24 of the deed restrictions. 24 They proposed amending it from a 15-acre minimum size down to 25 an 8-acre minimum size for any tract in that subdivision. 6-9-08 36 1 But then in the developer's most recent letter to the 2 property owners that's dated May 30th, they now say that the 3 8-acre minimum will only apply to their lots as part of the 4 proposed replat. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 6 MR. BARNEY: And that May 30th letter is the 7 handout -- the secondhand out. So, I am struggling to see 8 how the developer's actions are fulfilling a fiduciary 9 responsibility that I believe is part of the homeowners' 10 association to represent every tract owners's interest. 11 Commissioners, I'm here today to respectfully ask that you do 12 not approve the replatting of Live Springs Ranch Subdivision, 13 and that you rescind your previous action taken on the 14 developer's request for a variance to the road upgrade 15 requirement. Thank you for your time this morning. I 16 appreciate your attendance. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Barney. Any member 18 of the Court have anything to offer with regard to this 19 particular agenda item? I would note that we have a 20 following agenda item that is kind of a follow-on to this 21 that might be as appropriate, or equally appropriate, to 22 offer any of those comments. Let's move on, then, to item -- 23 excuse me? 24 MR. BACHMAN: Excuse me. Will the -- my name is 25 Chris Bachman, and I'm with the -- I'm a partner with the 6-9-08 37 1 development company that works for Live Springs Ranch, the 2 owner. Will we have an opportunity to comment to the Court 3 on any of these points that were brought up? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly. You may comment now, if 5 you wish. I'm sorry. 6 MR. BACHMAN: Great. Appreciate that. Yeah. My 7 name is Chris Bachman, again. I work for the development 8 company on behalf of the owner, and I just want to start out 9 by saying that I do appreciate the Court. Thank y'all for 10 scheduling this to help, you know, get the truth out on the 11 table. And -- and we appreciate the owners being here and 12 the input they're providing, because communication is 13 important on -- on early phase of developments like this. 14 There have been a number of points brought up that certainly 15 warrant comment. And just -- one of the last things that was 16 brought up about the, perhaps, seemingly inconsistency in 17 that last letter that was presented, that change was actually 18 made in an effort to -- to help the -- the current property 19 owners with their perception that, you know, the -- you know, 20 that they don't want to get the development more dense. In 21 other words, if they want to keep the -- the resubdivision 22 minimum to 8 acres, we're more than happy to do that. 23 I'm just going to start rambling. There's quite a 24 few points here I need to talk about. One of them is, it's 25 our understanding that we are certainly within our rights to 6-9-08 38 1 resubdivide Live Springs Ranch per the Subdivision 2 Regulations and our -- and our covenants, and there certainly 3 was no misrepresentation on our part in -- in marketing the 4 property. And we do believe that it -- the resubdivision 5 will actually increase the property values. And there are a 6 lot of ancillary things that come up, and -- and we're 7 willing to discuss these things if the Court wishes to; i.e., 8 aquifer draw-downs, septic drainfield, fences that may hurt 9 it, or bird hunting impact. Our understanding is, because we 10 have the right to -- to do this -- and, again, no 11 misrepresentation of anything, or that we're primarily 12 talking about roads, the road situation and the variance. 13 And, again, we're -- if you want to talk about any of these 14 other impacts, we're willing to do it. 15 You know, the Court approved -- you all approved 16 the variance request less than two weeks ago, you know, 17 regarding the developer's need not to immediately upgrade the 18 road from a local to a collector road. And -- and we just 19 believe that when you did that, that you -- you know, you 20 were thoughtful in doing it. You used common sense from the 21 standpoint -- let me back up for a second. You agreed to the 22 variance with certain qualifications that we agreed to, you 23 know. One is that we -- we account for the right-of-way to 24 be widened from 60 feet to 80 feet, a local to a collector, 25 which we are doing with our -- with our replatting. And, 6-9-08 39 1 again, the -- and it's a -- everybody seems to be in 2 agreement from a common sense standpoint that if the average 3 daily traffic count ever exceeds 800, that the road, from the 4 entrance up to the Gillespie County line, the main road will 5 need to be upgraded, and -- and we agree with that. A couple 6 of the owners are correct; if -- if, at the time that that 7 occurs -- which we don't think it will ever occur, but if it 8 does, and 90 percent of the lots are already sold, then the 9 developer technically will be out of it, based on our 10 covenants, and those are very typical covenants. That's not 11 anything -- any magic. 12 It's generally when lots are 90 percent sold, the 13 decisions on things reverts to the property owners' 14 association. But -- so if that sellout comes after the 15 90 percent mark, then yes, the property owners' association 16 would be responsible for it. But, you know, the -- we 17 believe it's our understanding that when you all granted the 18 variance request, that you looked at some common sense 19 things. One, it's a -- you know, it's a private road. 20 70 percent of the lots are in Gillespie County. It's one way 21 in, one way out. We -- the typical profile of the -- of the 22 buyers and the people that call us are not your, you know, 23 30-, 40-something-year-old, you know, soccer family that are 24 running in and out of town a lot. They're generally -- you 25 know, they're buying it for retirement or second -- a second 6-9-08 40 1 home. They're not going to be out there a lot. 2 And -- and, you know, when you look at the 3 subdivision regulation table that you were all given a copy 4 of, and, of course, are familiar with, granted, you know, the 5 number of lots served maxing out at 60 on the local road, 6 which is what we currently have, is one of the -- one of the 7 criterion. Now, further down, the -- the traffic count 8 volume is also a criterion. Our understanding is that 9 there's some flexibility in looking at those two things. 10 And, so, we don't see the average daily traffic count as ever 11 exceeding that, but if it does, again, we've got something in 12 place in the covenants that will trigger that -- that road 13 construction. We've got -- you know, there's -- I believe 14 the number -- the number was thrown out of 59 lots -- or, 15 excuse me, 63 lots under 20, I think it's at, lots under 16 20 acres now. We do have a few lots at -- at 8 acres that 17 people seem to be focusing on. Most of the, actually, new -- 18 there's only three lots that are under 10 acres on the 19 resubdivision, two 8-point-something and a 9 and a half. The 20 rest of them are generally, for the most part, in the 12- to 21 18-acre range. 22 But, again, I think we're -- maybe we're getting 23 into ancillary type of things that are outside of -- of what 24 the Court maybe would typically be involved in. But just, 25 you know, for this -- the overall perspective, you know, 6-9-08 41 1 right now we've -- we've got an average tract of about 2 37 acres. And we're -- and based on the proposed replat, 3 we'll be going to just over 20 acres, so it's still pretty 4 good-sized tracts there. So, you've got 2,300 acres with -- 5 instead of having 60 tracts, we're going to have 109, if the 6 proposed replat goes through. And if we keep the current 7 subdivision minimum at 15 acres, again, we'll -- we'll take 8 it down to 8, if that's what -- if the current owners want it 9 to go down to 8, then we'll -- we'll do that. But keeping it 10 at 15, when you look at lot -- current lot sizes and the road 11 frontage requirements of the county, there's only 9 potential 12 tracts that we count that could be added to that 109. So, 13 the max number of lots that could ever be in there, by 14 keeping it at 15, now would be about 118 -- would be 118. 15 Let's see. Give me one second here. There were a 16 couple other items I wanted to mention. You know, with 17 regard to the new -- the Henderson Branch Creek -- the new 18 road that was referenced that will be going in, we're -- you 19 know, the developer's paying for that. There's no floodplain 20 issues that are going to come into play. We've got 21 professionals looking at that. With regard to the -- if the 22 average daily traffic count ever did exceed 800 -- which we 23 don't think it will, but if it did, and -- well, let me 24 backtrack from there, please. If the increased homes -- 25 there's a concern for maintenance issues on that, on the 6-9-08 42 1 roads as a result of these. Well, number one, you're going 2 to have more property owners' association dues that are 3 contributing to that. And, you know, the roads that we built 4 out there are -- I mean, they're quality roads. We've got -- 5 you know, they're built on -- on Enrock limestone. We have 6 very little clay. You know, our base material, our 6 inches 7 of base, you know, you hit a home run if you get Grade 2 8 base. Well, we've got Grade 1 base out there. And I don't 9 know if Wayne Wells is here or not, but -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's there. 11 MR. BACHMAN: Is he here? 12 MR. VOELKEL: He's here. 13 MR. BACHMAN: You know, Wayne, I don't know if 14 you're willing to share just your opinion, or Gillespie 15 County's opinion as it relates to, I guess, traffic. And 16 perhaps I can just give my -- my quick understanding, and if 17 you're willing to come up and say whether it's accurate or 18 not, and elaborate on it. But the way these chip seal roads 19 work, if you don't get a certain amount of traffic on them, 20 they become brittle or dead, in road contractor lingo, and 21 they're much more subject to breakoff and cracking. And the 22 -- the road that we've built out there, it's a high 23 quality -- it's a good road. And if you don't get a certain 24 amount of traffic -- in other words, any additional traffic 25 that we may get wouldn't make -- it will probably be good for 6-9-08 43 1 that road. Maybe I'll defer to Wayne, and you can say if 2 that's correct or not in your -- in your experience. But -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Bachman, let me ask you, if I 4 might. This road that might someday become a collector road 5 because of increased traffic, does that roadway otherwise 6 comply with all the spec requirements under our Subdivision 7 Rules; i.e., depth of base, width of base, width of pavement, 8 maximum grade, -- 9 MR. BACHMAN: Yes, sir. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: -- curve radius and all that sort of 11 stuff? It otherwise complies with all the requirements of a 12 collector road? 13 MR. BACHMAN: Oh, no. I'm sorry, no. Of the local 14 road it does, not of the collector road. Yeah, it -- of the 15 local road. And, again, my understanding -- and, 16 Commissioners, you all can tell me if this is incorrect, but 17 my understanding was that the reason that you all felt we 18 were reasonable in our request to grant the variance and not 19 cause us to go up to the collector -- from the local to the 20 collector was because of the items stated earlier; i.e., you 21 know, we've got -- it's a private road, one way in, one way 22 out, most of the lots are in Gillespie, the profile of the 23 buyer, the type of subdivision it is. It's just -- it's not 24 going to have the traffic that a typical subdivision would 25 have, like -- 6-9-08 44 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think there's a point to 2 it, however. And I don't believe I slept through the last 3 presentation, so when the request for variance came about, I 4 don't recall any representation being made that anyone other 5 than the developer would be required to bear the cost of that 6 improvement. Now, today we're hearing that the homeowners' 7 association is going to have to bear the cost of that 8 improvement. The variance, as I recall it, was advanced by 9 the developer, and in this mind, there was an assumption that 10 the developer would bear the cost. Now, today we're hearing 11 something different. 12 MR. BACHMAN: Okay. The current -- the seven 13 current owners will not have to bear the cost of any road 14 improvement that occurs. And I believe it was Mr. Whatley 15 that made a statement about it maybe being muddy as to, you 16 know, how they're -- how those funds would be distinguished 17 and them not participate in that. You know, we're more than 18 willing to -- to reword, if you will, our proposed covenant 19 amendment that addresses this issue. And I don't think y'all 20 -- I don't know if y'all have a copy of that yet, but we're 21 trying to make it very clear that if -- if the average daily 22 traffic count did ever exceed 800, which would kick into our 23 need to improve this road, that the current -- seven current 24 owners would not have to pay for it. Again, we're going to 25 have -- and we're going to have 50 -- 59 other contributors 6-9-08 45 1 to this, and -- and I'm confident that -- that, you know, we 2 can come up with language that would exempt them from any 3 cost associated with this -- with these road improvements. 4 And -- yeah? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment. I want to make 6 it real clear that, in my mind, anyway, the reason for the 7 variance was these are brand-new roads, and I don't think 8 there was ever any intent by the developer to do what you're 9 doing originally. I mean -- 10 MR. BACHMAN: No, there was not. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the idea was that the -- I 12 mean, the fact that these are private roads is irrelevant. 13 The fact that the roads are going to be in Gillespie County, 14 a lot of it, that's irrelevant to me. If you would come in 15 now, you would have a collector road. That's just a black 16 and white issue. Since these roads were built, staying 17 somewhat consistent with our Subdivision Rules, we went to a 18 traffic count. The rules are not generally interpreted that 19 way, or -- and are not interpreted that way. It's "or." If 20 you read the rules, it's either over 60 lots or a traffic 21 count. So, if you're -- I mean, you're never in a situation 22 really that we're going to approve more than 60 lots and a 23 local road. And you can have less than 60 lots, and we may 24 take it up to a collector road because of what we think the 25 average daily traffic count's going to be. So -- but it's 6-9-08 46 1 not a -- it's a more, I guess, stringent requirement, not an 2 either/or. A minimum requirement. 3 MR. BACHMAN: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, the -- I'm a little 5 bit like Commissioner Williams; I don't really recall who was 6 paying for it. In my mind, the developer was going to pay 7 for the upgrade, but I don't know that it was ever discussed 8 in detail. I just want to clarify one point, that the only 9 reason for the variance was the fact that the roads were just 10 built, and they're high quality local roads. One question I 11 do have of either of you, is the gradient on any of the roads 12 that we're talking about that would have to be upgraded to 13 collector greater than 12 percent now? 14 MR. BACHMAN: Well, there -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, greater than 10 percent. 16 Ten percent -- in other words, if they're -- if you have a 17 road as you go up the hill that's 12 percent right now, it's 18 going to be real hard to make that a 10 percent road in the 19 future. 20 MR. BACHMAN: Oh, yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, when you go up the hill -- 22 MR. BACHMAN: Yeah. I think that -- I can't recall 23 if -- is Les here? 24 MR. HARVEY: Yes, sir. 25 MR. BACHMAN: There you go. Do we have that entry 6-9-08 47 1 road there going in? 2 MR. HARVEY: There are at least two locations where 3 the existing entrance road is at a 12 percent grade. 4 MR. BACHMAN: You know -- 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Makes it kind of hard to do 6 that later, sounds to me like. 7 MR. BACHMAN: Well, it does, and it won't get -- it 8 won't get done. I mean, you know, we're trying to -- you 9 know, from the get-go, we've -- we've built, you know, what 10 we think is a quality project, and we want to keep it that 11 way. And we're -- we think it's an asset to the community. 12 And, you know, we're not going to -- you know, money's not 13 going to be spent to go to a collector road now. Now, we can 14 -- we can leave it where it is, and sales can -- can linger. 15 And, you know, we've sold seven tracts. Now, there was 16 another statement made about 90 days from grand opening or 17 something. Now, this project has been -- we've been selling 18 for two years, and we have seven lots sold. We -- you know, 19 we can linger and -- you know, and the financial partners 20 decide to sell this and, you know, it -- who knows what would 21 happen, you know, with it? That's not a threat or anything; 22 its just -- you know, we feel like we're -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretty close to one. 24 (Laughter.) 25 MR. BACHMAN: Well, you know, you -- you go -- and 6-9-08 48 1 we don't live in a perfect world. And there was no 2 misrepresentation of -- you know, in this, and we do believe 3 that this is actually going to increase the property values 4 for the current owners. There was never any intent for the 5 property owners to participate in the cost of any upgrade 6 that would -- upgrade a road that would need to occur because 7 of the traffic count situation. So -- and we're confident 8 that we can handle that in the covenants with language that 9 has teeth in it. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you recall when the original Live 11 Springs plat was -- was approved? Do you recall the date 12 that that occurred? 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sometime in '06, from what I 14 understand. 15 MR. HARVEY: July or August of '06. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. Mr. Emerson, did 17 you have -- 18 MR. EMERSON: One quick question, Judge. Were the 19 additional 49 lots marketed in the May edition of Texas 20 Monthly? 21 MR. BACHMAN: When you say they were marketed, 22 we -- I can't remember the exact language, and I think it's 23 "proposed" -- you know, I think "Proposed 8 acres to 24 50 acres." 25 MR. EMERSON: Were they presented for sale in the 6-9-08 49 1 Texas Monthly? 2 MR. BACHMAN: Well, when you say presented for 3 sale, we didn't -- we didn't represent, nor did we ever -- 4 that we could -- that we could close on the sale of a 5 property prior to final plat approval. I mean, it's -- it's 6 very customary to be able to -- to advertise a development 7 and pre -- pre-sell from the standpoint of taking 8 reservations on lots, all subject to final plat approval. I 9 mean, that's typically the way these developments work, is 10 you -- you know, you advertise, and if -- and there are 11 people that want to come out in the early stages, and if they 12 like a lot, even though there's not final plat approval, they 13 can sign a reservation letter. And -- and then, if the final 14 plat occurs, then you convert that to a -- to a purchase 15 contract. So, you know, any calls that we would get from 16 that Texas Monthly ad or anything else, that's the way that 17 we -- you know, what we let the people know. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "Get Kinky"? 19 MR. BACHMAN: This is a proposed replat. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It says, "Get Kinky." Is 21 that what we're looking at here? 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The darker square, Buster. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just for property owners -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This thing's really gotten 6-9-08 50 1 weird. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aside from the road issue, I 3 think you have every right, other than possibly some civil 4 issues, if you -- that may be worked out with some of these 5 people. From the county standpoint, I mean, there's no 6 question. The only issue is the road issue and the variance 7 issue. Other than that, I mean, you certainly, from a 8 developer standpoint, have the right to do this, in my 9 opinion, with our Subdivision Rules. Just -- but it's 10 just -- it is the road issue. And -- and my comment, kind of 11 to move on, is, you know, seems to me it might be a good idea 12 to try to meet with some of these property owners and see if 13 y'all can come to an agreement on something, you know, in 14 between, and come back. Because it's going to be -- you 15 know, I didn't ask the question at the last meeting if you 16 talked to the property owners, but, obviously, they're pretty 17 united that they don't want this, and -- and I think that's a 18 consideration. 19 MR. BACHMAN: Well, yeah. And two of the seven 20 property owners, you know, have responded with affirmative 21 on -- on our voting ballot that we sent out. That was -- 22 that we sent out in an effort to allow people to provide 23 feedback, and to -- excuse me -- and to make sure that there 24 wasn't some obvious issue that we needed to consider. So -- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Bachman, the -- the action taken 6-9-08 51 1 by the Court a little less than two weeks ago on the variance 2 was, according to my recollection -- understanding, was 3 something that would operate at some point prospective in the 4 future. 5 MR. BACHMAN: Mm-hmm. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: But there was nothing for anybody to 7 act upon then or right now, or maybe not for a good while, or 8 maybe forever. Am I correct in that? 9 MR. BACHMAN: To -- to act upon in terms of -- I'm 10 sorry, I don't follow you, Judge. In terms of the -- 11 JUDGE TINLEY: The variance which was granted. 12 MR. BACHMAN: Yes. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Less than two weeks ago. Was 14 nothing that -- that required, or -- or forgave any immediate 15 action. The only thing it addressed is something that might 16 occur in the future at some point in time, correct? 17 MR. BACHMAN: That's correct. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 19 MR. BACHMAN: Yeah. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: My point is, if -- if there were to 21 be some reconsideration by the Court with respect to that 22 variance, since nothing was required to be done immediately 23 or not be done affirmatively or negatively, no one would be 24 prejudiced by the Court's action in -- in revisiting that 25 variance, would it? 6-9-08 52 1 MR. BACHMAN: I think I follow you. I apologize. 2 If you need to get this straight for the record, then I'm 3 going to have to ask to you restate that. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. If the Court would revisit 5 the issue of the variance, -- 6 MR. BACHMAN: Yes. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: -- because the variance itself 8 didn't require anybody -- any landowner, any developer or 9 anyone else -- 10 MR. BACHMAN: Right. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: -- to take any immediate action, or 12 to defer taking any action at that time, it's something all 13 prospective, out in the future, no one would be prejudiced by 14 the Court revisiting that issue now, would they? 15 MR. BACHMAN: Right. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, you know, the issue 18 here, I believe, is pretty constant between the present 19 owners. They bought under one pretense of not dividing down 20 less than 15 acres, and then, you know, it needs to be 21 changed. And I'm not sure that the owner of the subdivision, 22 the majority of the -- doesn't have that right, as long as he 23 gets approval from the Court based on what the law is. But I 24 understand why they're frustrated, is because the rules have 25 changed, or are trying to be changed, and after they've 6-9-08 53 1 purchased property. And it probably is a civil matter; I 2 don't know. Mr. Emerson, do we have any authority to -- to 3 say we're not going to grant this unless you make a lot sizes 4 amendment of 15 acres? Do we have that authority to do that 5 on a developer? 6 MR. EMERSON: My initial response would be, this 7 isn't an action item today anyway. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Would be what? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again? 10 MR. EMERSON: This is not an action item as listed 11 on the agenda, so you can't do anything anyway if you wanted 12 to. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: That's a lawyerly way of saying, 15 "I'm going to look at this a whole lot closer before I give 16 an answer," right? (Laughter.) 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or us either. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. So, I think we need 20 to -- need to, for sure, do our homework on this. And it 21 seems to me that the developer needs to revisit all the 22 property owners and come up with something that will be more 23 palatable to everybody, so that there won't be a conflict 24 when it comes to final platting. 25 MR. BACHMAN: I appreciate your -- Commissioner 6-9-08 54 1 Oehler, your comments there, but, you know, what you all are 2 telling me by saying that is that -- sorry -- is that -- is 3 that we -- you know, is that you do have the right to tell us 4 that we can't subdivide the land down to -- to do the 5 resubdivision. Which, you know, I just need to know where 6 we're coming from on this. And I guess if the variance 7 request was not -- was not thought through -- I mean, you 8 know, we've got -- we've got marketing, you know, and survey 9 and engineering and expenses that we've, you know, incurred 10 since the variance request. And, you know, that, you know, 11 we'd like to pass through to the County, you know, if that's 12 going to be the position taken. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Good luck. 14 MR. BACHMAN: Yeah, I know that's not going to 15 happen. I'm just saying, you know, we -- we will -- we will 16 visit with the -- with the current owners, and -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: You got some neighbors you need to 18 talk to. 19 MR. WHATLEY: We're not looking for an adversarial 20 relationship. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. You're neighbors. 22 That's what I'm talking about. 23 MR. WHATLEY: And we would just -- as Mr. Letz 24 said, we have not been approached. If they will sit down at 25 a conference room at a table with us, I'm sure we can all 6-9-08 55 1 come to an agreement. I didn't buy out there because it's 2 ugly; I bought out there because it's beautiful. They did a 3 great job doing it. There are some things that they didn't 4 approach when they approached the landowners. We got one 5 letter, then we get another. We're not looking for that 6 relationship out there at all. I'm looking to live in peace 7 and to have everybody happy. And I'm not above growth. I am 8 not one of these -- as you guys know, some of you, I've been 9 in business in this town for a long time, and I know it's 10 going to happen, so it's just against the tide. But on the 11 other hand, let's do something reasonable and make us all 12 happy, where we can all fit into the same ballpark and get 13 along. And we haven't heard that up to now, but I heard that 14 offer, and we're certainly willing to sit down and do that. 15 I think I speak for all the landowners. I'm just talking for 16 me, but we would love to do that with you. 17 MR. BACHMAN: Good. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a great idea. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's excellent. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do that. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good start. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Our authority is pretty 23 limited in a lot of ways, what we can and can't do. We have 24 to follow state law. 25 MR. HAWKINS: May I say something? 6-9-08 56 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Come forward and give us your name 2 and address, please. 3 MR. HAWKINS: Rocky Hawkins. I take care of a 4 ranch right next to their subdivision. We're still having 5 drainage problems and fences washed out and stuff like that 6 since it started. And Mr. Chaney has never been brought 7 forth on getting his fences fixed or anything. But since 8 this is all going on, we would -- you know, we'd like for him 9 to take care of that matter too. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's not something we have 11 any jurisdiction over, Mr. Hawkins. I'm sure you understand 12 that. 13 MR. HAWKINS: Okay. You're right. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: You need to communicate that concern 15 to the owner of the adjacent property, I would say. 16 MR. HAWKINS: Okay. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 18 MR. BACHMAN: We just found out about that a week 19 ago. I've got on it my to-do list. 20 MR. HAWKINS: I mentioned it to you right after the 21 deal two years ago. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any member of the Court have 23 anything else to do on that one? Let's go to 6, which is a 24 related item. Conduct preliminary pre-public hearing 25 conference and discussion on possible variances and other 6-9-08 57 1 issues related to proposed replat of Live Springs Ranch. 2 Mr. Oehler, to the extent we haven't already thrashed that 3 out, is there anything else you want to offer? 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't believe so, Judge. 5 Thank you. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We've covered that, 7 then. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're not going to consider 9 rescinding the variance order? 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, we could consider that. 11 I just -- I don't know if this is the time to do that or not. 12 MR. EMERSON: It's not an action item. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure we have the agenda item 14 styled -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Correctly. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: -- accurately enough in order to do 17 that at this point in time. That would be something we maybe 18 need to re-agenda and come back. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge? Mr. Wells raised his 20 hand, the county engineer -- or consulting engineer. 21 MR. WELLS: I'm not the County Engineer. My name 22 is Wayne Wells. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Engineer hired by the County on 24 occasion. 25 MR. WELLS: Engineer hired by the County, that's 6-9-08 58 1 right. Y'all don't pay me enough to be a county engineer. 2 (Laughter.) I work very cheap. I am also Gillespie County 3 Subdivision Inspector, is my official title over there. With 4 you gentlemen, I'm your consultant for your engineering 5 drawings and for your flood studies. I must commend y'all on 6 your ordinances -- or your regulations, rather, that y'all 7 have had the foresight to require additional right-of-way for 8 future planning. Unfortunately, my other residents of 9 Gillespie County haven't done that, and hopefully we're going 10 to do that with a revision to our ordinances. And I know 11 that neither you nor people in Gillespie County want to hear 12 what some other county is doing, but in our case, we have 13 decided that the roads in Live Springs that are in Gillespie 14 County are currently 20 feet, which is the secondary road 15 width, and we're going to stay with that. 16 Commissioner Oehler and I met with the developer 17 last week and informed him of such at that time. We do have 18 a secondary road -- or primary road requirement of 24-foot 19 width, but in Gillespie County it will not be increased to 20 that. We also looked at the adjacent property that has 21 access to this road, that's to the west from this property, 22 and thought about what future development may go in there. 23 And in that case, whoever buys the property and wants to have 24 access through Live Springs would have to get approval of the 25 homeowners' association, and probably foot the bill for any 6-9-08 59 1 increase in road construction. At this time, we are probably 2 not going to widen those roads to 24 feet, due to the fact 3 that if you've seen people travel on county roads, they're 4 unstriped; everybody drives down the middle of the road. 5 Consequently, there's no traffic on the edges, and they start 6 to deteriorate and oxidize, ravel, and eventually the County 7 has to go in and -- and do a chip seal over some of these 8 roads. And we've looked at the expense of -- you know, if 9 you're doing 20-foot versus 24-foot, you're looking at 4 foot 10 additional width, not only on all of your asphalt oil, but 11 also your rock, neither one of which are getting cheaper. 12 And so we made the decision that most of the roads in 13 Gillespie County, unless it's going to be just serving one 14 subdivision, will be secondary roadway. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Wells, what's the width 16 when you start striping a road? Not -- just in general. 17 MR. WELLS: You can stripe them at any width. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, what's customary? 19 Let me ask Len. What's -- 20 MR. ODOM: Minimum is 18 by the M.U.T.C.D. So -- 21 and it has to do with traffic count. And that's not set, but 22 the State has made low-volume roads -- they're starting to 23 use a standard that they construe it on their farm-markets 24 that it's up to the courts to determine what that ADT would 25 be, but basically 18. When you start getting less than that, 6-9-08 60 1 when you get below 18, it's too narrow. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right, thanks. 3 MR. WELLS: And then, also, we have granted 4 variances like y'all have for private roads, and most of them 5 have to do with the geometry of the roadway. And, 6 consequently, I don't know about you Commissioners, but a lot 7 of Commissioners in Gillespie County, or a majority of 8 Commissioners aren't interested in maintaining any more 9 public roadways. So, anybody that does a private road and 10 winds up with a variance, any homeowners' association that's 11 coming in is going to be told just basically what's already 12 on the books with everybody else. You bring it up to county 13 standards and we'll accept it. And, as Commissioner Letz 14 brought up in this case, the entry road at Live Springs is a 15 12 percent grade. Unless they bring it up to a 10 percent 16 for a collector road, if that's ever required, it won't ever 17 be needed. And I'm with Judge Tinsel (sic). I don't -- not 18 sure that this will ever be an issue, since -- if you look at 19 -- you know, ever went to 120 lots, you're looking at about 20 seven trips a day per lot on this road. And with fuel costs, 21 et cetera, people are not going to be making eight trips in 22 and out of there, I don't think. Or seven trips, even. 23 You're going to see less and less traffic. And that's just 24 my input for you, gentlemen. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions for Mr. Wells? Thank 6-9-08 61 1 you, sir. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 7; consider, 4 discuss, take appropriate action concerning preliminary plat 5 of Camp Verde General Store located in Precinct 2. 6 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. You have before you the plat. 7 We could have done this on an alternate plat process, but -- 8 excuse me. If you don't mind, I'll wait. 9 (Several people left the courtroom.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Proceed, Mr. Odom. 11 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. What you have is a 12 preliminary plat before you, and everything is all right. We 13 started back in February of -- of this year, I believe it 14 was, trying to get this resolved. We had some O.S.S.F. 15 problems. We resolved that, and the plat before you is 16 acceptable. However, for final, I don't have the authority, 17 but I want to present to the Court, I am concerned that since 18 this is commercial, 5.09 on water availability doesn't apply 19 to this. This is not residential. But what I'm worried 20 about is that in the future, unless there's a general note to 21 Lot 2 and say that it's a non-buildable lot, that this 22 individual could sell Lot 2 and someone put a residence on 23 there. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's pretty much all in 25 the floodplain, is it not? 6-9-08 62 1 MR. ODOM: It is totally in the floodplain. Now, 2 can you build in a floodplain and resolve this? Yes, you 3 can. However, it is 1.4 -- 1.34 acres, so it's going to be 4 less than the 5.09. I believe that to have a final on this, 5 that we should have a note that says Lot 2 is non-buildable, 6 because somewhere in the future -- not that this individual 7 probably wants to do this, but let's just say ten years from 8 now they want to sell and they want to go wherever, and 9 someone buys Lot 2. There's no restrictions on it. 10 Headwaters would have to give them a water well. There's no 11 water system out there. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. Len and I talked 13 briefly about this. I think we need a note. I'm not sure 14 that it's -- "non-buildable" is appropriate, because as a 15 commercial, they may want to build on it. But I think it 16 should be no -- I think we put no well permit can ever be 17 issued. No wells can be drilled on that lot. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about no residential -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No residential structures. 20 MR. ODOM: No residential. How's that? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, same thing. There's 23 always the possibility that, as a commercial operation, there 24 may, at some time in the future, be some desire on their part 25 to do something on that side of the road, 'cause it's kind of 6-9-08 63 1 park-like, and people come in there and it's -- whatever. 2 There was an urgent note from Mr. Luther this morning with 3 respect to this particular issue which I pulled down off my 4 e-mail, and I don't know what Mr. Luther was expecting, but 5 this is solely related to correcting long-term existing 6 septic problems. Is that correct, Mr. Odom? 7 MR. ODOM: My understanding, but I'm not O.S.S.F. 8 There was a problem, and it had to do with extending a line 9 on the back -- there was a right-of-way. The cemetery 10 belonged to another individual. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that property's been 12 sold to these people. 13 MR. ODOM: That's right. That is Lot 1. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Incorporated into Lot 1, 15 or -- 16 MR. ODOM: That's correct. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so I don't think that 18 there's anything about what we're doing today that has any 19 effect on the structure with respect to historical 20 consideration. 21 MR. ODOM: No. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it doesn't, and I think 23 it's -- you know, and it's just -- I think that's what Mr. -- 24 the response to the e-mail. This was -- it was an illegal 25 subdivision created by mistake by the previous owners. 6-9-08 64 1 MR. ODOM: That's right. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: O.S.S.F. problems. We were 3 notified of that. The current owners of the store have done 4 everything possible to correct the situation, and what 5 they're doing protects the integrity of the historic value of 6 the property. They are adding -- they went and, at a huge 7 expense, bought additional acreage to put next to their 8 property. 9 MR. ODOM: That's correct. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is part of the original 11 plat. So, I mean, you know, there -- it's a -- if anything, 12 it's a good historic modification, as opposed to bad. One is 13 insuring the -- you know, it has a septic system that can be 14 used. And they've also, in that process, acquired the 15 adjoining acreage, which was part of the store. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom, what are we going to call 17 this here subdivision? 18 MR. ODOM: Camp Verde Store, I guess. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Camp Verde Store -- General 20 Store. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: This recites it as Camelot Hills. 22 It's stated on here. 23 MR. ODOM: Sir? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the owner. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: No. "This plat, Camelot Hills 6-9-08 65 1 Estates, has been submitted to and considered by the 2 Commissioners Court." 3 MR. ODOM: I believe that that is the overall ranch 4 back behind that owns that. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we probably need to be 6 consistent in whatever we call this thing, wouldn't you 7 think? 8 MR. ODOM: I believe you're right, Judge. I'll 9 look at that and I'll get with the surveyor. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the preliminary says 11 Camp Verde General Store, and that's what the agenda item is. 12 MR. ODOM: That's what the agenda item is on. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, why don't you make 14 everything consistent so that we know what we've got there. 15 I move approval of the agenda item, to take appropriate 16 action approving -- 17 MR. LUTHER: Discussion? Point of order? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Just a moment. 19 MR. LUTHER: Please. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that motion. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- preliminary plat of Camp 22 Verde General Store located in Precinct 2. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry, don't get mad at me. 24 I thought you were through. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's okay. 6-9-08 66 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Besides that, I'm sitting 2 right beside you. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does that motion include the -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: The note? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the note? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, including the note. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No residential development on 8 Lot 2? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The note that would not -- 10 that would preclude a residential dwelling on Lot 2. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You have a second there, 12 Commissioner Baldwin? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. Unless -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- Commissioner Letz is just 16 foaming at the mouth over this, I'll second that. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We have -- we have a 18 motion and second, as indicated. Question or discussion by 19 any member of the Court? Mr. Luther? 20 MR. LUTHER: Thank you, Judge. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: You wish to be heard on this? 22 MR. LUTHER: Yes, please. The word "fiduciary 23 responsibility" was certainly bandied around a lot this 24 morning, but I do have a statutory responsibility, as a 25 representative of your county Historic Commission. Any time 6-9-08 67 1 that a historic property has some action that could 2 potentially affect it, we need to be in the loop somehow. 3 The only notice I had of this is when I received the -- the 4 agenda. And I regret -- and Commissioner Letz and I 5 discussed this a little bit, about my lack of information. I 6 don't even have a copy of the map of what's being proposed, 7 or a description, other than what appeared on the agenda as 8 being a -- a subdivision plat. Well, you can imagine, I've 9 spent the last five days in Purgatory, maybe even hell, as a 10 delegate to the state Democratic Convention. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Condolences. 12 MR. LUTHER: I haven't had an opportunity to get 13 any e-mail to anybody, or really respond to this on short 14 notice. But I did send you, as Commissioner Williams said, 15 my intent to nominate this area for national historic 16 landmark status, and we have briefly talked about this 17 before. So, in my mind, when you say preliminary plat 18 dealing with the Camp Verde Store, you can imagine there's a 19 need to say, "Well, what's going on here?" I would like to 20 point out that the state Historic Commission in Austin has 21 been in contact with the people who run the store about their 22 plans to expand this to the north, with a restaurant being 23 built off the existing building, and they are in a holding 24 pattern, much like we are on the windows here, waiting for 25 advice from the State. Not to be an impediment to this 6-9-08 68 1 process, I just needed to connect with you this morning to 2 make sure that we weren't doing something that would somehow 3 affect the potential of bringing this in as a national 4 historic landmark, which is in keeping with the heritage. 5 In looking at this map, I'm -- I'm sort of confused 6 on a couple of things. There is obviously excess 7 right-of-way there, because the old road on the east side of 8 the river is still in the state right-of-way, and there's a 9 big area there that I would zero in on, on putting the 10 national historic landmark right there, because there's 11 enough room. That's between the farm-to-market road and the 12 river on the east side. There's enough room there to put in 13 such a landmark. And that, of course, is on the old trail as 14 well. I'm confused, in looking at this map, on the excess 15 right-of-way on State Highway 173, how the parking lot and 16 the courtyard for the store seems to be in state right-of-way 17 property. I'm also confused, because when I look on the plat 18 map -- not the plat map, but the property ownership map, the 19 tax map, the assessor's map, all along old farm-to-market 20 road 480, known as the Camp Verde Road, a great deal of this 21 area, I thought, since it doesn't appear on the tax rolls, 22 still was state right-of-way. And this is Lot 2, 1.34 acres, 23 and that -- that is included in the material that I sent to 24 you, and after I leave here this morning, I'm going to go 25 right across the hall and find out for sure. 6-9-08 69 1 So, in summary, what I'd like to say is that if 2 there is an actionable item before you to approve a 3 subdivision that would involve land development that would 4 affect the historical integrity of this area, since this 5 is -- since the building itself is a state registered 6 historic landmark, we need to be notified. Secondly, I would 7 like to ask the Court that somehow you build into the process 8 that anytime a plat comes forward that is affecting a 9 historic property, that you notify me or our commission so 10 that we can review it and take action. I have to tell you 11 that this property, and the area that you're looking at, even 12 where the septic area is, is probably one of the most 13 historic sites in the entire nation. When I put together the 14 material to do a nomination for landmark status, I came to 15 the conclusion, by comparison to others, that this is as 16 important or as significant as any -- many of the civil war 17 sites and many of the revolutionary war sites. This is built 18 -- this old farm-to-market road 480 is an old Comanche trace, 19 so Trevor was right; it is the Comanche Trace. In talking to 20 the archaeologists in this area, there have been a couple 21 cursory analyses done. Certainly, nothing done on this 22 property right here in terms of screening it for 23 archeological evidence, and then there is historical 24 archeology which deals with the actions that occurred here 25 with the Second Calvary -- 6-9-08 70 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Joe? 2 MR. LUTHER: -- prior to the Civil War, and with 3 the Rangers -- yes, sir? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's get to your question. 5 Do you have a suggestion on how we are going to know that 6 there's some kind of historical significance -- 7 MR. LUTHER: Well, the list of -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me finish. Let me 9 finish my question. That -- how will we know that there are 10 some -- some historical significance to a plat that we get? 11 I mean, we're sitting here looking at a plat that you're 12 looking at right there, and I don't think we go out there and 13 check and see if there's any historical significance so we 14 can call you. Do you -- do you think that -- 15 MR. LUTHER: Normally -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have a -- 17 MR. LUTHER: In my past experience, when somebody 18 submits a preliminary plat, let's say, there's a routine of 19 circulating that proposal among various agencies. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 21 MR. LUTHER: The engineers, what-have-you. If we 22 could add the Historical Commission to that list, I'll screen 23 it. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Going to Commissioner 25 Baldwin's point, Mr. Luther, we don't routinely get that 6-9-08 71 1 information. Let me draw you a conclusion. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex is concerned. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll get there. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With respect to county 5 property, there was an issue five years ago where we allowed 6 an organization to take over the utilization of county 7 property for the purposes of a nonprofit organization, and 8 develop that property. No one on this Court was aware there 9 were Indian mounds out there. It came subsequently to be 10 known. Getting back, then, to Commissioner Baldwin's 11 question, do you have a -- a course of action that you would 12 suggest to us so that we would know that and it would be a 13 part of the plat review process? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the next meeting, 15 he needs to put that on the agenda, I think, 'cause the issue 16 we're talking about is Camp Verde preliminary plat. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think he needs to come back. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, exactly. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I have a comment on this 21 particular one. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're kidding. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Was that your comment, Rex? 24 MR. EMERSON: My comment is we're way outside the 25 agenda item. 6-9-08 72 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mine's still on that little 3 bit. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mine might be on that as well, 6 even though -- just a different angle. 7 MR. LUTHER: Am I out of order here? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Almost. Very close. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Figure out -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: You can stay in the room. 11 (Laughter.) 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You may want to put it on the 13 agenda if you want to discuss the process. I have no idea 14 what that process should be. I think we probably -- 15 MR. LUTHER: Okay, that's fair enough. That's 16 fine. I just wanted to say we needed more information. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But Camp Verde Store -- hang 18 around through the break, please. 19 MR. LUTHER: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is really related to the 21 National Register and how that works a little bit. 22 MR. LUTHER: Thank you. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion before us? 24 THE CLERK: You have a motion and second. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: And it has a second. Any further 6-9-08 73 1 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, 2 signify by raising your right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. We're going to 7 take about a 15-minute mid-morning break. 8 (Recess taken from 10:38 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.) 9 - - - - - - - - - - 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if 11 we might. We were in recess for a bit. We'll go to a 10:30 12 timed item, Item 13, presentation from Sue -- should be 13 Glover -- with Purdue, Brandon, Fielder, Collins, and Mott 14 regarding collection of delinquent court fines and fees. 15 You're up, girl. 16 MS. GLOVER: All-righty, Judge. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Come on up here. 18 MS. GLOVER: Let me give y'all a copy of this. 19 I'll give you one, Buster. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let me kind of open a little 22 bit by -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, excuse me. Go ahead. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think I placed this on the 25 agenda. 6-9-08 74 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure did. I apologize, 2 Commissioner. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And the reason for it being 4 that our Collections Department -- it's not that they're 5 doing a bad job or anything like that. This is another way, 6 in my opinion, to collect some -- from delinquents on some of 7 the fines and fees that are generated through the -- through 8 our court system. And, in my mind, this is another way to 9 apply additional pressure to those people that are behind and 10 don't want to pay, and it would be no cost to Kerr County. 11 It would be an additional cost on the person that owed the 12 fines and the fees, and I think that just gives us a little 13 bit more leverage. And that's the reason for putting it on 14 there. And, so, I believe Sue is here to give us the 15 presentation, and she's passed out some -- a booklet to us. 16 MS. GLOVER: Good morning. Thank you. Also with 17 me is Stephen Lee. He's a partner with our law firm, and 18 works with me on the fine and fee accounts, and so all the 19 legal questions can go to him. But he's sitting right there 20 by Rex, so they can talk to each other. I was telling 21 Buster, I said, you know, the last time I came out here and 22 did a presentation for y'all was when I was still working at 23 TAC, and I came out here to talk about stormwater regulations 24 and what the County was going to have to be required to do, 25 and that was kind of a dismal day. But this -- this is a 6-9-08 75 1 better presentation, a much better presentation, 'cause, as 2 Bruce said, it is no cost to the County. Y'all are one of 3 the few counties, although it is a growing trend, to have a 4 collections department. A lot of the counties are going 5 toward that because they see it as an advantage to get those 6 persons, whether they're in J.P. court, whether they're in 7 county court, or whether they're in district court, to get 8 them as soon as they walk out the door on a payment plan, 9 whatever type of agreement that they can come up with to 10 increase your collections. 11 Where our services come in is, the statute that 12 authorizes an outside agency to do your collections is found 13 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, but it states that we 14 cannot have those accounts turned over to us until they're 15 60 days delinquent, so that gives the County time to work 16 through their processes to get those individuals, you know, 17 the people that are going to pay, get them on a payment 18 agreement, if the Court does that. So, we kind of get them 19 after all of the other efforts have been exhausted, and so 20 those are turned over to us on a regular basis. We usually 21 -- with a County y'all's size, we'd probably do it monthly. 22 It sounds as if most of the stuff goes through the 23 Collections Department with Terry. And I wasn't real sure 24 about that coming in, whether your J.P.'s turn over stuff to 25 her or not, because when I was talking to Linda, we were 6-9-08 76 1 specifically talking about county and district court. But it 2 would be favorable to have everyone that we can involved in 3 the process of turning over those accounts, and so we will 4 just work with your collections staff, as well as with the 5 clerks and the judges on how they would like us to proceed 6 with this. 7 As Bruce said, it is no cost to the County. What 8 we do is, once they've gone through the process -- the 9 offender's gone through the process, the County's tried to 10 make the collections on it, it's then turned over to us, and 11 then there's a 30 percent fee added on to the offender, and 12 they pay for that, and so it is no cost to the County. The 13 only time there would be a cost to the County, and it is in 14 our contract provisions -- and I've provided y'all with a 15 sample contract, which is under Exhibit B of the proposal. 16 And let me explain this the best -- 'cause it's an A.G. type 17 thing that came out. The A.G. came out several years ago and 18 said you can't put a fee onto someone that has never gone 19 through the court process. You can't put on that additional 20 fee. 21 And so what that means is, say someone gets a 22 speeding ticket; they sign that, yes, they're going to show 23 up, that they're going to call the J.P. They never call 24 them; they just totally ignore the ticket. Well, if it's 25 prior to June of 2003, the A.G. says you can't add that fee 6-9-08 77 1 on top of it. After June, the Legislature changed the 2 language where it can be added on. So, they call it 3 nonadjudicated persons, and it's people that have never gone 4 through the process. District court, you're not going to 5 have any of those, because district court, you don't accrue a 6 fine and a fee until you've gone through your day in court. 7 County court, there's not going to be very many of them. 8 Theft by check is one that just comes to my mind where you're 9 going to have people that don't show up, don't make a plea. 10 There are not going to be that many. In J.P. court, you're 11 going to see a lot more on your older stuff, that no one ever 12 showed up. And so on those small percentage, we do a 13 collection fee of 20 percent that would be out of the 14 County's portion, and it's only on those that are prior to 15 June 2003 that are nonadjudicated. Otherwise, it will go 16 directly to the offender, and they will pay the cost of the 17 collection program. Judge? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: June 2003 is the date on cases for 19 which we would lose some of our recovery, if there is 20 recovery? 21 MS. GLOVER: Prior to June. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I'm talking about. 23 MS. GLOVER: Prior to June, and only on those that 24 are nonadjudicated. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. 6-9-08 78 1 MS. GLOVER: Mm-hmm. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: But you're talking about five years 3 ago. 4 MS. GLOVER: Right. Right. And, so -- and in 5 case -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Those are pretty hopeless cases, or 7 should be anyway, aren't they? 8 MS. GLOVER: To some degree, if they're that old, 9 yes, sir, they would be. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 MS. GLOVER: But a case that's maybe -- we've had 12 pretty good success, '97, '98, of collecting on those, and so 13 there would be a portion that would come out of the County's. 14 Because especially with y'all having the interstate here, and 15 specifically in J.P. court, or even in county court, somebody 16 comes through, they ignore their citation or they write a hot 17 check, never come back through, never follow up with it, all 18 of a sudden they get a letter from us and say, "Uh-oh, they 19 found me." So, you know, those are those collection -- 20 collection types where we will find them, and so some of 21 those will be -- 22 JUDGE BROWN: Question. What are you going to do 23 to them if they don't pay you? 24 MS. GLOVER: Well, there's nothing that we can do 25 to them if they don't pay us, except we have a process -- we 6-9-08 79 1 don't have warrant authority. Only the courts have warrant 2 authority, but it's amazing to me that most people don't 3 know -- unlike delinquent taxes, where we can go out and get 4 a judgment and take your property, we can't do that for these 5 offenses. But it's amazing, when they get a letter from an 6 attorney at law -- because they don't know that we don't have 7 any other type of authority -- you know, that warrant, you 8 would think, would scare the death out of them when they 9 receive that from the Judge. But when they get a letter from 10 us, attorney at law, it's amazing what that little verbiage 11 on there provides as an incentive for them to pay. So -- but 12 as far as going out, you know, serving a warrant on them, we 13 can't do that. 14 But we also have a process where, when the accounts 15 are turned over to us, we send out our first demand letter. 16 This will be at the approval of the Court. For each of the 17 courts we're working with, they'll get to look at the demand 18 letter. We send the demand letter back out. If we get it 19 back, we do an address correction; we send it back out. If 20 it's continually ignored, then we have a phone bank system 21 where we start calling them. We're very professional. We're 22 not going to call you at 6 o'clock in the evening and badger 23 you right as you're about to have dinner, but we are 24 assertive and very professional in making our calls. But it 25 does follow a process. So, if we can't get them with the 6-9-08 80 1 demand letter, it doesn't just stop there. We have other 2 processes that we will try to obtain y'all's money at those 3 different levels. 4 MS. LYLE: Could I ask a question? Can it be 5 reported to the Credit Bureau? 6 MS. GLOVER: We don't report to the Credit Bureau, 7 because -- but y'all probably could report it to the Credit 8 Bureau. The other thing, on County Court stuff, we can 9 collect on the hot check fine, the fee itself. We can't 10 collect for the actual vendor. So, if it was, like, the 11 Family Dollar store who -- you know, who the check was 12 written to, we can't get the restitution for them, but we can 13 get it -- because we don't have a contract with them. We 14 would have the contract with the County. So, other 15 questions? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question of our 17 Court Collection people in the back. What's the percentage 18 of our delinquent accounts that are 60 days or more 19 delinquent? 20 MS. LYLE: I don't have that figure with me. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Glover, most of these are going 23 to be ones in which you can add the collection amount that's 24 due to you folks for your efforts. 25 MS. GLOVER: Yes, sir. 6-9-08 81 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's assume for the moment that you 2 make a partial recovery. 3 MS. GLOVER: Mm-hmm. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: How is that partial recovery 5 allocated as between your firm and Kerr County? 6 MS. GLOVER: If it's a partial payment, Judge, we 7 wait until the whole payment is made until we get our 8 collection part of it. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: So your portion comes on the back 10 end? 11 MS. GLOVER: Mm-hmm. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're liking that. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah. That was the reason 14 for my question, Buster. 15 MS. GLOVER: Yeah. If it's a partial pay and, you 16 know, they make one payment of $30 or $40, you know, we wait 17 until that full amount is paid before we take out our 30 18 percent on it. But you could pro-rate it out. I mean, you 19 could do that if the -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I like the first method. 21 MS. GLOVER: Yeah. And that makes the most sense, 22 because -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I think Buster does, too. 24 MS. GLOVER: -- as far as posting it would go, that 25 would make the most sense, because then it would show as a 6-9-08 82 1 fully paid item. We would know, then, that we were entitled 2 to that once we had got a report from the County. All the 3 money will go to the County. Doesn't come to us. We are not 4 bonded. We don't have the authority -- from my point of 5 view, we don't have the authority to accept that. The money 6 comes to the County. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your fee for service is 8 30 percent; is that correct? 9 MS. GLOVER: Yes, sir. And, like I said, the money 10 comes to the County. The County enters it, and then once a 11 report is generated, again, it will show the amount due to 12 us, and the County will pay off of that. Because what we'll 13 do is, working with Terry in the Odyssey software, there 14 should be a way that, when those accounts are turned over to 15 us -- and Odyssey's pretty new out in the market as a 16 software program. What we will do is we will work up some 17 type of module update, whatever, that will be our cost, where 18 that when that information is turned over to us, it will show 19 on the County's record, as well as ours, that that 30 percent 20 has been added, as well as if it's been turned over to Omni, 21 which is the state warrant database system, so that if a 22 payment comes in, that total will show. It won't show what 23 the original amount was. Then the -- it will show the total; 24 it will break it out. So, whatever we have to do to work 25 with your software vendor to come up with that program, we 6-9-08 83 1 will do that. Other questions? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Other questions for Ms. Glover? 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How can you find any fault 4 with it? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. 6 MS. GLOVER: Thank y'all. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Did you have any more comments you 8 wish to make, Judge? 9 JUDGE BROWN: No. I -- you know, you know how the 10 system works. If they don't make a payment in my court, they 11 go to jail, so that 60 days doesn't become an issue. If it's 12 60 days, they're in the Kerr County Jail over here. 13 MS. GLOVER: Right. Yeah, there's a big difference 14 between county, district, and J.P. You're dealing with 15 different offenders. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Judge Ragsdale? 17 JUDGE BROWN: Might work for J.P. courts. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Did you have any comments you wish 19 to make? 20 JUDGE RAGSDALE: I don't know what advantage this 21 is to us. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you're currently using Omni 23 system, I believe, aren't you? 24 JUDGE RAGSDALE: Right, and the county collection 25 system. 6-9-08 84 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 2 JUDGE RAGSDALE: I don't know what -- I don't know 3 why -- I'm just ignorant; I don't understand why we need 4 anybody else. If anything, maybe more help in the 5 Collections Department to get it done inside our own system. 6 I don't know why we need someone else. But that may be -- 7 someone else may have a venue to -- that is way beyond what I 8 do. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge Ragsdale, do you have any 10 idea as to how delinquent we are percentage-wise in the 11 J.P.'s overall? I mean -- 12 JUDGE RAGSDALE: What -- I don't know what the 13 other judges do, but I do know that in my office, what I'm 14 pushing for -- and it's just -- it's a matter of time and 15 help. I have one clerk; she has to do -- I help all I can, 16 and she does what she does. But, anyway, we're shooting for 17 within two weeks of them not appearing in court, the case is 18 automatically sent to Omni. I say automatically. We do it 19 as quickly as we can, within two weeks. They issue a letter 20 to the people that's a demand for payment, notifying them 21 that -- that their ability to renew their driver's license 22 has been suspended until they take care of their business, 23 and which I don't have to do that, then. That's my $4 or $5 24 letter that I don't send. And we have an amazing recovery, 25 much -- much better recovery than when we were in the warrant 6-9-08 85 1 databank business with D.P.S. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Linda, what's the district 3 courts look like -- what do their delinquents look like? 4 MS. UECKER: We're -- our collections is probably 5 at about, total, between 30 and 40 percent. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does the Collection Department 7 get involved? I mean, you know, with district courts? 8 MS. UECKER: Yeah. And, you know, I'm not going to 9 attempt to speak for the other courts, how that's going, but 10 where I see this is a big benefit is on those felony cases, 11 and as a good tool for the Collections Department, 'cause 12 Collections does their job for 60 days, and then the -- you 13 know, they throw up their hands and, you know, "I can't find 14 this person." At that point, it's turned over to Purdue, 15 and, you know, because they have so many more tools to find 16 these people, you know, than what we do. I mean, we have 17 tools to find them, but not the way they do. So I see this 18 as a big benefit, specifically on felony cases. 19 MS. GLOVER: Can I just answer Judge Ragsdale's 20 concerns as well? We work kind of in combination with Omni. 21 We're definitely -- in fact, we have a great relationship 22 with Omni. The problem sometimes with Omni is that you can't 23 enter it in there because they don't have a Texas driver's 24 license, or it's not a moving violation, which sometimes J.P. 25 courts don't get in that. You get into more of a city 6-9-08 86 1 ordinance, that type of thing, on non-moving violations. And 2 the other thing with Omni is that, because our driver's 3 licenses do go to six years now, it could take six years for 4 that payment to come in. Because if that person gets the 5 letter and just ignores it until they go renew their driver's 6 license, or get pulled over and find out that their license 7 has been suspended, where we try to get the County's money 8 back to them within that fiscal year. And so -- and, like 9 Linda said, it's another tool for the Collections Department, 10 because we have five or six databases that we use; they're 11 worldwide that have address research in them. We've got a 12 call center, so that the Collections Department can kind of 13 stay on top of what's -- what's coming in today. And some of 14 that older delinquent stuff, we can take that burden and do 15 -- do our process. So -- so, I'm hoping it's advantageous to 16 everyone. Yes, Judge? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Glover, we've kind of expanded 18 our discussion, and to facilitate that, let me also call Item 19 14 of the agenda, to consider, discuss, and take appropriate 20 action regarding collection of delinquent court fines and 21 fees from County Court at Law, County Court, and District 22 Court and other related issues. I think that will legitimize 23 our discussion going just nearly anywhere it needs to go in 24 this entire arena. We already kind of started that way. Did 25 you have any other preliminary comments you wish to make, 6-9-08 87 1 Commissioner Oehler? 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, sir. 3 MR. EMERSON: Judge, I have a number of comments if 4 you're going to to expand into the other agenda item. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. That's why I called it. 6 MR. EMERSON: Okay, thank you. You can leave your 7 stuff there. Take one of each and pass it down. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One of each and pass it down. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Lots of stuff. 10 MR. EMERSON: After your Commissioners Court 11 meeting last week, Ilse spent a lot of time working with 12 Terry to compile these statistics and put them on the 13 spreadsheet that you see. And to sum it up, basically, 216th 14 District Court cases, assessed fees over January 2007 through 15 May 31st, 2008, assessed fees were $14,335. The computer 16 report is obviously messed up, because they collected 17 $71,300, but this is using the statistics as supplied by 18 Odyssey, okay? Fines assessed were $98,714. Collected were 19 $54,037. If you look at the 198th, I'm just going to go to 20 the -- the fines. They assessed $245,675 in fines. They 21 collected $79,000. If you look at County Court at Law, 22 assessed, $773,686. Collected, $312,465. If you flip to the 23 actual spreadsheet that's attached, you can see the problem 24 with the statistics. If you look in the very first column 25 under January 2007, and the 216th and the 198th both are 6-9-08 88 1 showing starting out with significant negative balances, so 2 I'm not sure what to attribute that to, but that's the 3 numbers as they were generated within the report. The 4 numbers are also off on the 216th in January 2008, where it 5 shows negative 53,000, and April 2008 for the 198th, which 6 shows negative 117,000, approximately. The overall stats are 7 there for the collections, and they're accurate, to the best 8 of our ability. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are all three courts -- are 10 the numbers skewed in all three courts? 11 MR. EMERSON: Oh, no, just those oddball specific 12 instances that I pointed out. And they spent quite a bit of 13 time trying to resolve that, and never could figure out why 14 it was kicking out the negative numbers to start with. But 15 actual collection numbers that I quoted to you are accurate, 16 to the best of our ability, compiling all the reports on an 17 individual month-by-month basis. They tried to run a total 18 time span report, and the software system would not allow 19 them to do that, so they printed each and every month 20 individually and then went in with a calculator and compiled 21 them. So, the two-page attachment to it that says, 22 "Collections Report, County Court at Law" was generated back 23 in '98 and '99. The top number that you see from 24 January 1st, 1997, to May 31st, '98, was pre Collections 25 Department, when the County was using outside sourcing for 6-9-08 89 1 collections. And, as you can see, what that shows is that 2 the County essentially retained $109,000 in fines and fees. 3 If you drop down after the very first year of having our own 4 collection department, that increased to 169,000. There's a 5 summary of that information on the following two pages where 6 it's broken down by specifics. The reports within our 7 system -- and John would have to help us figure this out, I 8 guess, but just to give you an example of the problems we're 9 having compiling reports for the O.C.S., April of 2008 for -- 10 for County Court at Law, it shows that we handled 400 11 cases -- and I'm not sure y'all have this particular 12 document, but it shows that we handled 400 cases. Dollars 13 assessed were 27,291. Dollars collected, 17,628. You run 14 the exact same report a second time, and instead of 400 15 cases, it now shows 478 cases for the exact same month, and 16 instead of 27,000 collected, it shows 36,000 collected. And 17 there's multiple months in here where I can show you -- I 18 have no explanation on why it does that. So -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: This is on the O.C.A. format? 20 MR. EMERSON: Correct. What I can tell you from 21 manually running each individual month and then adding them 22 up are the total numbers that I gave you originally up front, 23 which, at least for purposes of our office and County Court 24 at Law, like I said, show that we did collect $312,465 in 25 that time period. So, I think y'all need that information in 6-9-08 90 1 order to make a good decision. I would also point out to the 2 Court that under Transportation Code, Section 502.185, 3 Subsection (a), county assessor-collector or the department 4 may refuse to register a motor vehicle if the 5 assessor-collector or the department receives information 6 that the owner of the vehicle owes the County money for a 7 fine, fee, or tax, and -- and is past due. The "department" 8 is TexDOT. County can generate its own reports, or under 9 Subsection (b), the County may contract with TexDOT, which, 10 according to Russ Duncan, costs $23 a run and 12 cents a 11 name, and that will automatically generate a block across the 12 state of Texas. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's worth -- that's 14 valuable information there. 15 MR. EMERSON: There are other enforcement options 16 that will come in a more timely basis, since theoretically we 17 all register our cars once a year. 18 JUDGE RAGSDALE: Judge, you know, if Rex is 19 momentarily finished, anyway, I'm not sure that we're going 20 to see convicted felons, pot smokers and driving while 21 intoxicated clients as a big cash cow. I think that maybe 22 what the County can explore probably is a more comprehensive 23 program where we're not just thinking about dunning people 24 and -- and chasing them down till they finally give up and 25 write that $5,000 check that I'm sure they don't have. But 6-9-08 91 1 the possibility of working through the probation departments, 2 as well as the collection department, on working with people 3 to get them to pay their fines might work out in the long run 4 as being more conclusive than just threatening them with bad 5 letters. We -- we threaten people all the time, and we do 6 have a few teeth left in collection of these things. But we 7 send them letters that we've issued warrants for their 8 arrest. They disregard it. Omni sends them letters saying 9 that they can't renew their driver's license, and they 10 disregard it until it comes up to a critical time when 11 they're arrested or whenever they can not renew their 12 driver's license or whatever. If this thing doesn't cost any 13 money to the County, it's a fine thing, but don't think -- I 14 don't think that you could safely believe that someone that 15 was convicted of burglary or manufactured delivery of 16 methamphetamine is a big cash cow for you. I just don't 17 think that's going to happen. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: You're suggesting that we ought to 19 utilize the probation aspect to effect collection of these -- 20 JUDGE RAGSDALE: Sure. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- these fines and fees? 22 JUDGE RAGSDALE: It's -- you know, I don't know 23 that I -- the probation office, I'm sure, is well worked, but 24 maybe adding something or someone to their program where they 25 can see those people that are at risk of revocation because 6-9-08 92 1 they're not paying, strictly because they're not paying, then 2 maybe work with those people a little bit more closely and 3 see if they can help them find ways of paying those fines and 4 fees. The alternative is to revoke their probation, and we 5 support them for the next few years, and I'm not sure that 6 that's cost-effective. But maybe not just one program, but a 7 combination of things. 8 MR. EMERSON: If I could address that, Judge, what 9 we do in County Court at Law is that, working with Judge 10 Brown, we have had a whole series of show cause hearings 11 where we have called those individuals in before they were 12 revoked and talked to them about their fees, and that's 13 worked very well. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Plus with a show cause, there's a 15 potential for contempt, in which case they don't get credit 16 against their fine or costs if they're incarcerated as a 17 result of contempt findings. 18 MR. EMERSON: Correct. Correct. And I know -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: So the obligation continues. 20 They're not, quote, laying it out. 21 MR. EMERSON: Right. And I know there was some 22 reference made to that in the last meeting, and our judgments 23 that we use do specifically state that -- what they say is 24 that all remaining fines and costs shall be paid in 25 installments to the Kerr County Clerk as per agreement made 6-9-08 93 1 with the Kerr County Court Compliance. Defendant may serve 2 time in the county jail or pay off the fine and court costs 3 only at a rate of $50 per day. And the reason that's in 4 there is because the Judge has found it to be a very 5 effective tool for capias warrants. When people don't pay, 6 the show causes don't work, and we say, "Here it is right 7 here in your agreement that you signed in court, that you're 8 just going to go to jail." And it's amazing how much money 9 is produced at that point in a very short period of time. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: You don't think that has any effect 11 of possibly being construed as an invitation to lay out the 12 fine and costs? 13 MR. EMERSON: Very rarely. Most -- most of the 14 fines and costs that we assess that way are either, A, 15 concurrently with convicted felons that are in jail for a 16 long period of time, and we give them credit for what they 17 already have, or they're going to state jail and they're 18 going to be incorporated with some future period. That's 19 probably 80 percent of what we write off in that manner. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Or if they're strictly misdemeanor 21 cases, it's time that's already been served; you got to give 22 them credit anyway. 23 MR. EMERSON: Correct. Correct. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It sounds -- I mean, we're 25 talking an awful lot; I'm not sure where we're going. But it 6-9-08 94 1 sounds like there's not a problem, at least in J.P. 4. I 2 mean, you know, I'm not hearing much of a problem in County 3 Court at Law. I mean, there -- other than they kind of -- so 4 the problem is the district courts collection. Is that -- 5 does that boil it down where we are? I mean, I'm asking. 6 That's -- since this is kind of what I'm hearing from all 7 this stuff. 8 MS. UECKER: Well, and going back to the negative 9 reports, you know, I don't know where they ran that, but I 10 gave the Court last week a copy of the 198th and the 216th 11 actual collection report that we ran off of Odyssey that we 12 actually verified. So, you know, I don't know where this is 13 coming from or where they got the negative whatever. You 14 know, I don't care. But the report that I gave you last week 15 are the accurate collections and credits and balances due. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, is there -- I mean 17 -- I guess, do we need to hire another collection company? 18 Do we need do it in-house? I mean, what -- I mean, is there 19 a problem that we're not getting? I guess -- I'm not sure 20 I'm getting the answer. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me make a comment or 22 two. I've kind of looked at this thing a little bit, and 23 there's all kinds of issues. There's all kinds of issues. 24 Once you start in this thing, it just really gets kind of 25 big. And what I want to do is round up all the players that 6-9-08 95 1 are involved in this thing, everybody that's involved in it, 2 and get, like, Judge Brown and the County Attorney to teach 3 us all -- tell us all about this thing of time served so we 4 can understand what that means and how it applies to 5 collections. And it does, and in a big way. Rusty has 6 people that are inside trustees that he deals with time 7 served -- you wait till I finish. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I will. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- he has inside 10 trustees that he deals with in a certain way with numbers, 11 time served kind of thing, and then he has outside trustees 12 that are -- it's a whole separate game. Sit down and talk 13 about all those things so we can all understand how that 14 applies to the collections. And it does in a big way. The 15 Probation Department does -- does basically exactly what 16 J.P. 4 was talking about. They are kind enough to use the 17 probation thing as -- as a hammer, and most of the time it 18 holds these guys accountable to pay their deals. I think one 19 of the problems is -- is Trolinger's computer program. 20 We've -- for some reason, we cannot run a real live report on 21 this thing, but we've -- it's got to be done. We got to get 22 -- get that done. And then in the middle of all of these 23 things that we're talking about, I want us all to define the 24 word "delinquent." I'm not sure what that word means. I 25 know it -- I know it's two months to the law firm from 6-9-08 96 1 Austin, but it may be three months to us. Because you -- you 2 could have a guy that's two months late on his payments and 3 is still on probation; we still have our hands on him. We 4 can still get -- see? So I don't know if two months or three 5 months or what it is, but we need to define what the word 6 "delinquent" means for us, for Kerr County and Collections, 7 before we do anything. That's my opinion. Rusty, did you 8 want to talk, by any chance? 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I wanted to mention a little 10 bit about the jail credit, how that works on fines. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to have this 12 meeting. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. The sooner, the 14 better. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we need to hear from the Sheriff 16 now, then? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not really, but... 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Too bad. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know how it is. 20 Somebody get him a stool so he can see. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You gave me an excuse. 22 District courts and county courts, that's the whole major 23 difference in how fines are collected. County courts can 24 sentence people to a county jail. District courts cannot, 25 unless they do the new state jail stuff and sentence them as 6-9-08 97 1 a felon to a state jail, which is a whole 'nother issue we'll 2 have a meeting over sometime. But -- so the big difference 3 on that is, if it's a felony case, you know, the 198th or the 4 216th, it -- the defendant's either going to the 5 penitentiary, and then when he gets out, supposedly your 6 parole board is supposed to try and collect those fines for 7 us. And I don't know of one dime the state parole board has 8 ever tried to collect for a county, other than taking more 9 money away from the county. I've never seen them give any 10 back to the county, but that's what is supposed to happen. 11 If they are put on probation, okay, out of the district 12 court, then it's your probation office that collects it. If 13 they violate that probation for not paying it, then they go 14 to the county Jail just long enough to either get reinstated 15 on probation or sent to the penitentiary. So, the county 16 jail still never ever collects or has any credit, very seldom 17 for felony cases. And as Rex -- one report Rex did in the 18 same time period he was giving, the one -- the 216th court 19 had collected a total of -- let's see, jail credit was about 20 $580, and these are for both of those. Courts costs and 21 fines, and 198th was a total of about $163, wherein jail 22 credit given for county court for fines was $372,312.87, and 23 for costs was $285,583.02. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Over what time frame? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The same, January '07 to now. 6-9-08 98 1 Okay? So, there's where a lot of your credit comes with your 2 fines going away in county courts. What adds on top of that 3 is the way we do do good time and that inside the county 4 jail. An inmate is entitled -- one, he's entitled to this 5 credit on fines. He's entitled to it at either $50 a day or 6 $100 a day. Now, your city municipal court gives them $100 a 7 day jail credit for any fines and costs, so when they're 8 sitting in there on a city fine, it's $100 a day credit. 9 Most of your County Court at Law stuff and your J.P.'s here 10 normally give them 50. So, they're getting that much, plus 11 then, as long as they're, you know, behaving themselves and 12 doing all that, not causing problems in the jail, they're 13 allowed to get up to another third of that off on top of 14 whatever they're in the -- as far as their fine, okay. So, 15 you can add another third on top of that for time served 16 credit. 17 Then what you -- you also have that really costs 18 there is -- I think Ragsdale said it very accurate. There's 19 no cash cow, because if you put a person in jail on fines, 20 all you're doing is about doubling the cost. It's going to 21 cost -- it costs -- right now, in just figuring up over the 22 last year's jail budget, it costs us real close to $32 a day 23 to house an inmate. Then you're going to give him $50 a day, 24 plus another third, so you may give him up to $75 a day 25 credit, so you're going to give that inmate a hundred and 6-9-08 99 1 something dollars a day credit for his fines, is what it 2 amounts to. Unless you're with the city; then you're going 3 to give about $150. You know, a lot of these inmates won't 4 ever make that kind of money a day. They'd much rather sit 5 it out in jail and getting three meals a day, getting all 6 their medical stuff taken care of, getting $100 a day credit 7 on their fines and $50 a day credit on their fines too. That 8 jail's become a resort for laying out fines. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Too nice on them. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Don't have much choice, by 11 law. That's where we are. The big difference is County 12 Court at Law ones do sit it out. Felony ones never get the 13 chance to. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- 15 MS. UECKER: Let me add to that -- I'm sorry, 16 Buster -- is the experiences that I have had with the 17 probation departments on felonies, and the D.A.'s, they will 18 not revoke a person's probation merely because they owe 19 money. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Financials alone. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's an administrative deal. 22 Yeah, they won't do it. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you -- you're putting 24 them back in jail. I mean, hell, we don't want them in jail; 25 we want them out here working and paying it. 6-9-08 100 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On the administrative, they'll 2 give them 60, 90 days in jail, but that's not to collect that 3 fine. That's just in addition, then get back out. Then they 4 still have the same fine. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would somebody talk again -- 6 you touched on it, but I think it's important for us to 7 understand that, like, Judge Brown can issue a warrant and 8 arrest them if they don't pay their fine. What kind of teeth 9 does the district courts have like that? 10 MS. UECKER: Remember the years and years and years 11 of trying to get Commissioners Court involved in me going to 12 Austin to file a bill? Harvey tried to help me some to put 13 some teeth into the Legislature on that. That is exactly 14 what I was trying to do. That's exactly what I was trying to 15 do. Other than this Commissioners Court doing a resolution, 16 they didn't want to get involved, so it was just district 17 clerks against the world out there. And I went to Austin I 18 don't know how many times to testify on a bill that -- 19 because certain counties said, "Well, our people can't even 20 eat, much less pay their fine. They shouldn't have to be 21 made to pay their fine." So, you know, I was beating my head 22 up against the wall. That's what I was trying to do for 23 years, and it never happened. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand, and I'm not 25 knocking that. I appreciate -- I remember you doing that, 6-9-08 101 1 and I appreciate it very much. And it's suddenly very, very 2 clear what you were thinking and knowing. However, the fact 3 is, district courts don't have any teeth at all. They can't 4 say, "Go out and arrest this guy and put him in jail." Go 5 get him, lock him up or anything. 6 MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- 8 MS. UECKER: And that is why I see maybe a service 9 like this would be a bigger benefit to us than maybe County 10 Court at Law or -- 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, and I agree. And I agree. I 12 think if we can -- if we can define the word "delinquent" -- 13 and this is just me thinking. If we can define the word 14 "delinquent," and people are out there truly delinquent, I'd 15 say go after them. 16 MS. UECKER: Well -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. 18 MS. UECKER: And your reference to the two months 19 is not because that's what we decide is delinquent. That's 20 what's the statute says. The statute doesn't say -- you 21 know, it -- it says 60 days after the delinquency is when the 22 collect -- the collections department can take it. If we 23 determine that three months is delinquent, then past that, 60 24 days later, they can get a hold of it. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe that's the way to do 6-9-08 102 1 it for the district -- for the district level. I don't -- I 2 don't think -- I don't think I would vote to approve 3 something like that for our county level, because we -- we 4 still have teeth and we still have our hands on a lot of them 5 and still have control of them, and can still get to them and 6 get them and all that. 7 MS. UECKER: But there may be a few cases where 8 this is helpful. 9 MS. GLOVER: That's right. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It may be, but you're going 11 to have to define "delinquent" for me before I'll vote to do 12 that. But on the -- on the district level, I can see it, how 13 that works. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me that the contracts 15 could be structured that we would have the discretion as to 16 what cases we will put into that system. And if we chose, 17 for example, on misdemeanor cases, to maintain control of 18 those cases because the defendant was continuing on probation 19 and we didn't want to file to revoke his probation because he 20 ends up in our slammer and costs us more money that way, that 21 -- that we could have the discretion to retain control of 22 those cases. Those that -- where they were already off 23 probation because the prosecutors made a -- a prosecution 24 decision not to proceed to revoke solely on the basis of -- 25 of financial issues, then we could throw those cases into 6-9-08 103 1 their system, and at that point, chase them. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge? Rather -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: We can do that, it would occur to 4 me. Couldn't we? 5 MS. GLOVER: Yes. Can I address that for a second? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I ask a question before you 7 -- rather than try and define like that, couldn't we just say 8 that the County will proactively say, "These are delinquent, 9 and those are the ones you get," for whatever reason? I 10 mean, can't we just -- I mean, can't you do it that way? 11 Seems like a lot simpler than trying to figure out, "Well, in 12 this case we're going to let you get these at this point, and 13 these at this point." Just say, "Well, whenever we give them 14 to you, they're delinquent." 15 MS. UECKER: Exactly. 16 MS. GLOVER: And y'all can decide on delinquency. 17 But to kind of follow up with what Commissioner Baldwin was 18 saying, is that -- and I think Rex had a good point, too, in 19 that when we talked about the letter and how they signed it, 20 and he said that's just another tool that we use on our 21 collections, and that's what we try to be. We don't try to 22 be the cash cow for the county. Sometimes that happens. 23 We've had great success, and that happens, because you get 24 people out there that haven't paid. But we're just another 25 tool to help you achieve collections, and closing out 6-9-08 104 1 accounts that are sitting open. Now, I can tell you that in 2 our experience, a speeding ticket is much more easily 3 collectible than a $10,000 fine in district court. You're -- 4 you're dealing with -- for one thing, you're dealing with two 5 types of people. One is the average Joe, that's you and I, 6 that speeds and gets a ticket. You know, we don't ignore it 7 and evade it, but they do. They don't think they're going to 8 get caught. The second is -- just like the Judge said, it's 9 your hard core, your dope dealers, your felonies. You know, 10 those folks, it's going to be harder to collect from. But 11 it's just another tool to try to accomplish that. 12 And, you know, in county government -- and I know 13 this from all my years. You know, counties are so limited in 14 what they can do that it seems advantageous to use all the 15 tools that are available to assist y'all. And so we would 16 work with your collections department on those specific 17 things that you're talking about, Commissioner Baldwin, where 18 you said this person is on a time payment plan; they're 19 paying it out. Well, that's not delinquent. Or they're on 20 probation and they're keeping up with their probation fees 21 and they're -- that's not delinquent. But the person that 22 ignores the continued request, or the person that they can't 23 find any more because they've changed addresses so many 24 times. That's the other problem, sometimes, with Omni, is 25 that Omni is -- because D.P.S. contracts with them, they send 6-9-08 105 1 it to whatever your driver's license address is. Well, if 2 you've moved, you're not going to get it. So, it's just 3 another tool, another layer to assist the County in their 4 collection work. And so I hope that's how we can identify it 5 and work with your collections staff on what they do consider 6 delinquent. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just don't see any reason 8 why we wouldn't try to collect delinquent fines and fees. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well -- 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Why would we not -- why would 11 we just leave that out there and kind of let them fall off 12 the face of the earth because we can't find somebody? But we 13 know somebody else might be able to, and it's not going to 14 cost us anything to do it. I mean, why wouldn't we try to 15 collect the money? That's my question. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Good point. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You had a question? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Seems like it's well suited 19 for district court. I'm not convinced it's well suited for 20 County Court at Law. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, on County Court at Law, as 22 Mr. Glover said, you've got some instances where the 23 prosecutor, for whatever reason, didn't file to revoke. 24 Maybe it was only financial issues, and maybe these folks 25 just took a bow and just disappeared, and -- and they didn't 6-9-08 106 1 choose to pursue it for whatever reason. There's some 2 circumstances in county court that would be as appropriate as 3 in district court. Now, the collection process in county 4 court seems to run much more current. It's a lot more 5 tightly controlled, because we do it right here in-house and 6 have the tools to do it in-house, whereas you get outside -- 7 unless and until the courts -- the district courts get the 8 kind of legislation that Ms. Uecker was talking about, that 9 we have the ability to really effectively get the attention 10 of those folks, seems like these -- these folks got a better 11 shot at it than we do. Sheriff? 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's -- the one difference I 13 would have, I think it can be very effective in county court, 14 because if county court isn't giving them the ability to 15 serve it out in jail -- 'cause they may give them six months 16 jail time, okay? And they're not indigent. Then they can 17 give them that six month jail time and the fines afterwards. 18 They just serve -- serving their jail time, and so that way 19 it can work the same as district court, where you actually go 20 out and try and collect the money from them, instead of just 21 giving them -- and we give them $50 plus another $32 credit 22 sitting in jail, okay? So, I think it can be very 23 advantageous for county court to use it for the fine 24 purposes. Then if they don't pay it, then fine, stick them 25 back in jail, if that's what they have to do. Let them try 6-9-08 107 1 it. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not necessarily 3 delinquent. I mean, that's changing how County Court at Law 4 does their sentencing. What you're talking about has nothing 5 to do with the delinquents. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 7 MS. UECKER: I just -- I'm sorry. 8 MR. RUARK: I would just ask one question. If the 9 -- the County gave you $100,000 to collect, how much money 10 would you think you would be able to collect? 11 MS. GLOVER: That's an excellent question, and it 12 would depend. It would depend on how old it is, where it 13 came from, what court level. Because you're going to have 14 varying levels, you know. If you gave us $100,000, and it's 15 district courts, we're not going to be as successful as if 16 you give us $100,000 that is in J.P. court. Just, again, 17 because we're dealing with different offenders, different 18 people that pay. But where, in district court or in J.P. 19 court or in county court, if you've got a bad address out 20 there on that person, maybe that's the only reason they've 21 never paid it. So, in district court, where our percentages 22 may be lower, even if our percentages to get one or two 23 people to pay those higher amounts, it's worth it, where in 24 J.P. court, you get more and more people to pay the little 25 amounts. So, I know I'm not answering your question 6-9-08 108 1 directly, 'cause it's very -- you'd have to look at the age 2 of the accounts plus where you're coming from, but that can 3 kind of tell you the different layers of how it works. 4 MR. EMERSON: The follow-up question to that would 5 be, what's your historical collection percentage? 6 MS. GLOVER: Our historical collection percentage 7 in J.P. courts can range from -- anywhere from 50 to 98 8 percent. 9 MR. EMERSON: What about county court? 10 MS. GLOVER: In county court, I'm not sure. I 11 don't have those statistics. We have several clients in the 12 panhandle area that we do county court stuff. But we 13 represent -- on the fine and fee collection program, we 14 represent more J.P.'s and that level of court than any other. 15 We do have county court and we do have district court, but 16 they're just not -- you know, and for one reason, because 17 y'all do have a collections department that can sit there, 18 and the minute that person gets adjudicated, you can say, 19 "Come over here, buddy. Sign up. Let's get you on a payment 20 plan." They've had a DWI; they're scared. They're going to 21 do it. Where the guy that just ignores his $120, $130 22 ticket, you're going to find a heck of a lot more of those 23 than you are the offender in district and county court. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another question that I -- I 25 thought I was finished. Why would the county -- any county 6-9-08 109 1 not hire y'all for all courts? If they're going to hire you 2 for anything, why would they hire you for J.P. and not 3 district? It doesn't make -- 4 MS. GLOVER: They do. Y'all know the independence 5 of courts and officials. And, so, even where y'all could 6 hire us today for everybody, that doesn't mean that the 7 J.P.'s would turn over their -- 'cause they're an 8 independently elected office. So, that's kind of -- that's 9 happened, where we've contracted in counties and wanted to do 10 all three levels, and for various reasons, we're negated on 11 that. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Uecker? 14 MS. UECKER: Just to kind of clarify, on the parole 15 cases, I mean, a defendant may be assessed a $10,000 fine, 16 and he may go to T.D.C. for 10 years, and after some portion 17 of that, he gets released on parole. For some reason, he's 18 got it in his mind -- he's done almost 10 years; "I don't 19 have to pay that fine." He's wrong. And parole will not 20 follow through on those cases. The statute very clearly says 21 that you -- that the parole department is supposed to notify 22 the -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Sentencing. 24 MS. UECKER: -- the sentencing county, which they 25 do. But they -- and require them to come to us and either 6-9-08 110 1 pay the money or set up a payment plan. They don't do that. 2 Once they're out on parole, unless they get back in trouble, 3 they could care less. So, that's where this service would 4 come in handy, to find those people that have been released 5 on parole, to get their $10,000 or put them on a payment 6 plan. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure, I agree. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we currently -- when we 9 get -- say we get notice by parole. Do we do anything to try 10 to collect that money? 11 MS. UECKER: No. No. 'Cause, see, we've already 12 done our job. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But couldn't -- 14 MS. UECKER: They've been adjudicated. And we can 15 -- you know, like, if we tell -- we can tell collections, 16 "This person is now on parole." We do notify collections 17 that this person has been released on parole, and from here, 18 you know, it's up to us to try to collect it. We can't find 19 them. We don't know where to begin to find them. It's been 20 10 years. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a hand in the back, 22 Judge. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have a lady in the back. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Terry? 25 MS. LYLE: Is there any way we could work closer 6-9-08 111 1 with the parole department? And with the probation 2 department? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Terry, I understand you're fairly 4 new in that position, and I'll excuse you for that reason, 5 but probably not. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Probation, there would be, but 7 parole, no. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you are notifying 9 collections of -- I mean, but they -- okay. 'Cause there's 10 got to be a mechanism to get the delinquents -- if it's going 11 to work, I mean, I think it still needs to come preferably 12 through one source, collections department. 13 MS. UECKER: Right. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Gentlemen, are we in a position to 15 take any affirmative action today? Or are we going to 16 continue to gather some information, with an eye toward maybe 17 taking some action in the -- sometime before we finalize our 18 budget for next year? Any thoughts on that? 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't believe we really 20 have any budgetary impact on this. This contract would 21 not -- would not affect our budget in any way. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm just trying to get a fuse on it, 23 though. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, I understand. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm ready to vote that we 6-9-08 112 1 approve a contract with them on the district level, and then 2 possibly come a little later, once Terry gets her feet on the 3 ground and gets a handle on the thing, and everybody 4 understands what -- how the county level thing -- issues work 5 together. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Come back and amend at a later date, 7 possibly? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, mm-hmm. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why couldn't we just approve 10 the contract for all of them, and just -- we would give them 11 to them when they're delinquent, in which case -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Go right ahead. I'm going 13 to vote no, but I just told you why. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if County Court at Law 15 doesn't do any -- if they don't deem them delinquent by us, 16 then they're not going to -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can go and talk to 18 collections, though, and they -- there is no such thing as, 19 basically, delinquent. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I said -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They get -- keep getting 22 them way down the road. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, if it's not an issue, 24 what difference does it make to contract with them or not? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Go right ahead. I'm telling 6-9-08 113 1 you -- 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I mean, it doesn't make sense 3 to me. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's a right way to do 5 this thing. I see your way as the wrong way to do it, simple 6 as that. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Your way might be the wrong 8 way. I just don't understand, if there's money laying out 9 there, and we have not collected it, and it's way beyond 60 10 days, -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there some out there? 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- why should we not be -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there some out there? 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't know, but if there 15 is, let's go for it. They'll find it. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that there is. 17 MR. EMERSON: If y'all pass an order, will you 18 please clarify whether or not you -- the County "may" turn 19 over all delinquent accounts, or the County "shall" turn over 20 all delinquent accounts? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Have you reviewed -- 22 MR. EMERSON: So I know what to do with the 23 contract? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Have you approved the contract 25 format? 6-9-08 114 1 MR. EMERSON: No. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bring it back. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: So, we would want it subject to -- 5 if there's action taken today, obviously, and your suggestion 6 is, number one, subject to your approval; number two, "may" 7 as opposed to "shall." Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In addition to the point 9 the County Attorney made, "may" versus "shall," at what point 10 in this process do we define "delinquent"? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's not important. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is in my mind. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that Ms. Uecker 14 defined it pretty well a while ago. It's 60 days -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For the district level. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: For the district level. 17 MS. UECKER: Well, no. The statute says that you 18 can't turn over those -- 19 MS. GLOVER: Accounts. 20 MS. UECKER: -- to this -- to the contract person 21 for 60 days after it becomes delinquent. So, if we decide 22 delinquent is three months, then it would be five months 23 before they would be turned over. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so the County Court at 25 Law could be different than what you've just described, and 6-9-08 115 1 the J.P. court could be different from what the County Court 2 at Law is. 3 MS. GLOVER: That's right. 4 MS. UECKER: Yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, at what point in this 6 process do we define "delinquent"? 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I guess we do that before we 8 take a vote on this thing and contract with anybody to do 9 anything. 10 MS. UECKER: I would think -- 11 MS. GLOVER: I think it would be up to the judgment 12 of each of those courts, -- 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. 14 MS. GLOVER: -- Commissioner. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon me? 16 MS. GLOVER: I think it would be the judgment of 17 each of those courts as to when it's delinquent. Because if 18 county court expends all their efforts and it's 120 days old, 19 and they say, "You know what? We've got a bad address on 20 this; we can't find this person. We're turning it over to 21 Purdue." Then that would be their decision. In J.P. court, 22 if they ever decide to turn any over to us, they could do it 23 based on the 60-day statute. You know, Linda's going to want 24 to turn it over probably as soon as she gets it, because 25 there is no other type of enforcement authority. So, I think 6-9-08 116 1 it's really going to depend on each of the courts. And the 2 contract is based where we can do it that way, especially 3 as -- like Rex said, put the "may" in there. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, is it true you would 5 turn it over as soon as you get it, Linda? 6 MS. UECKER: As soon as it becomes delinquent. 7 And -- 8 MS. GLOVER: And hers would already have probably 9 run. 10 MS. UECKER: They're already delinquent. 11 MS. GLOVER: They're already delinquent. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When you get them, they're 13 already delinquent; is that correct? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we get a contract 15 back that Rex has looked at that defines "delinquent," and 16 then we can -- 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're going to get a 18 different -- get a variation from every elected official. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that -- 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. They'll either turn 21 them over or not -- or choose to or not, because they are 22 elected officials in those departments. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The contract needs to say that, 24 and Rex needs to approve the language. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's what the contract 6-9-08 117 1 will say, that each particular court will determine what the 2 delinquency is. 3 MS. GLOVER: That's right. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: And then, subsequent to that, the 5 contract would specify that the -- the court "may" authorize 6 them to be turned over for collection under this contract, as 7 opposed to "shall," something along that line. But -- 8 MS. GLOVER: That's right. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: -- you're suggesting that let's try 10 and get us a contract in a form that's acceptable to us and 11 bring it back, and then take a shot at it then? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't even have a contract 13 in our agenda to look at. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It says "take appropriate 15 action." 16 MS. GLOVER: And the contract is under Appendix B 17 in your proposal, and it is -- it's a 30-day contract. So, 18 there's an in and out clause, 30 days. And we can change 19 things from "shall" to "may." But if you make it specific to 20 a particular court, then you exclude anyone else from -- and 21 we would have to amend the contract if -- if Collections, you 22 know, has worked their process and looks at it and says, you 23 know, some of these from county court can be turned over, 24 'cause we're just at a dead end with them. Or in J.P. court, 25 we're just at a dead end with them. 6-9-08 118 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that generic contract 2 needs to go through the County Attorney and then modified and 3 come back, and we can have a contract. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have a motion they want to 6 offer? Let's move on, gentlemen. We've had some folks 7 sitting here a while. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, a long time. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 15; consider, 10 discuss, take appropriate action regarding compensation and 11 costs incurred by contractors who were requested by the 12 Sheriff to assist in the extinguishing of wildfires. 13 Commissioner Oehler? 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I put this on the agenda 15 because we had -- we've had some fires, of course, as 16 everybody knows, in the last few months, and we've had some 17 contractors get involved with helping extinguish those fires, 18 and they've incurred expenses. And what I was told in the 19 beginning was that they could take their -- their bills to 20 the Sheriff, and the Sheriff would see if he could figure out 21 a way to get them reimbursed. That's what I was told by the 22 Sheriff, and I instructed him to do so. But nothing has 23 happened, and I don't believe that Rusty has -- has the money 24 to pay them in his budget. And I don't believe the money is 25 available through FEMA. I have called and talked to a man -- 6-9-08 119 1 Hannemann? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Paul Hannemann. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Paul Hannemann. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Forest Service. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Forest Service. And he tells 6 me that they have no way to fund any part of that process. 7 If we do call people out, it's not really up to them; they 8 don't have money to pay that with. And if they -- they have 9 a couple of people they call on, say, like Allen Keller or 10 somebody like that, that have a contract with the Forest 11 Service when they're called out to be reimbursed, but that's 12 the only -- the only way they can be paid. And I think 13 it's -- number one, if we call them out, we ought to expect 14 to pay them. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And I don't know whether the 17 Sheriff has the authority to call out people to help and not 18 compensate them or not, or whether he has a right to call 19 them out and expect for them to be compensated. So, I think 20 that's why I put this on the agenda. I wanted to let some of 21 the contractors that did assist with that, you know, give us 22 some information of, you know, what their expenses were and 23 time they spent, and I think we need to figure out some way 24 to either -- number one, some way to pay for this, and number 25 two, come up with a policy in the future of how this is going 6-9-08 120 1 to work. If we're going to call people out, we need to 2 figure out a way to compensate them for it. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bruce, let me ask a 4 question. Judge, I've always thought that when the County 5 Judge declared a disaster in the county, and then you -- by 6 doing that, that's when you go after federal funding, which 7 is our money. That doesn't come through Forestry Service. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's through FEMA, 9 probably. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's FEMA money. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it goes through the 12 Forestry Service to FEMA. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does it really? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: And we had this situation 15 previously, Commissioner, and what we did, we consolidated -- 16 this was for volunteer fire departments, and I think what 17 Bruce is talking about, I think that methodology is still in 18 place. They've got a schedule where they allow so much for 19 this piece of equipment, so much for this type of service. 20 And I think, when it comes to private contractors, there's a 21 requirement that they have some sort of -- of pre-established 22 relationship, and are designated and given a contractor 23 number, and if we call those guys out, then they can feed 24 through. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. 6-9-08 121 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that your understanding? 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's my understanding. 3 That's exactly what they told me. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: And we -- we got those -- whoever 5 was on board the last time -- I don't recall that there were 6 any private contractors, but the governmental entities are 7 automatically included, and we consolidated those reports 8 through my office. They went forward; we got paid. The 9 money came down, and we distributed it back out. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To contractors? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: No, this was to the various 12 volunteer fire departments. There weren't any private 13 contractors, to my knowledge, in that one. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you going back to the 15 Kerrville South fire, Judge? Is that what you're talking 16 about? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sheppard Rees. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Sheppard Rees, probably, yeah. But 19 if these guys have been called out to assist us, seems to me 20 that we've -- we've hired them on. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me, too. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that. My only 23 additional point to that, then I'll find out how much we owe, 24 but -- but I think we need to look at these fires 25 individually. I'm looking at Rex here. If they were started 6-9-08 122 1 on a day when the winds were projected to be high, and there 2 was anything to do with a landowner, I think we need to then 3 go after the landowner to recover that money. And, you know, 4 obviously, the one that was started with the guy doing the 5 hamburgers on the side of the interstate, we're probably not 6 going to have much success on that one, but I think we have 7 to look at each one, and if they're -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sue Glover can find him. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hand it over to Purdue, 10 Brandon. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If there's a -- if they broke 12 the law, I think they ought to be liable for it. I don't 13 know if we can do that, if that's -- if we can do that or 14 not, but I think they should be. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I think we also have to 16 -- I agree with the premise, okay, Commissioner? I think we 17 have to have safeguards in there in terms of when we call out 18 this equipment. Any volunteer fire department can't just, on 19 a whim, call out equipment and run up a big tab for the 20 County, and then tell the Sheriff, "Oh, I did this," later. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There would be a couple of 22 issues I'd have. Number one, I know -- and the two that we 23 mainly call out the most is Reichenau's and Rocky Hawkins. 24 You know, we have called them out on many fires, and I would 25 definitely recommend we continue to be able to do that, due 6-9-08 123 1 to the fact that if we're waiting on bulldozers somewhere, 2 which is the main -- one of the best tools to fight fires -- 3 even though I'm not a fireman, but it is one of the best 4 tools to shut it off in this country, with the cedar the way 5 it is, we've got to get it out there quickly. When you look 6 at fires like we've had the last number of years, I can't 7 wait for 18-wheelers to load up bulldozers and come out of 8 Uvalde. It's going to be way too long, and that fire's going 9 to be gone. But I agree that these gentlemen do need to be 10 reimbursed, okay? I'd hate to see us get to the point that 11 we're not going to call out local resources just 'cause we're 12 afraid of reimbursement -- or afraid of costs. I also call, 13 you know, my entire department out, and Road and Bridge and 14 everybody else, just part of it to protect property and save 15 lives. I think we have to. 16 The -- but the issue I have is, like, we got a call 17 from somebody, okay? -- I won't mention the name -- that said 18 he wanted to be reimbursed for $75 in fuel for a tractor he 19 used. I have no idea who this person is, was, or anything 20 else. I do know there was one that was supposedly out around 21 that Byas Springs area that had a tractor on a private ranch 22 he was already working on, and I don't know if he's trying to 23 bill us for his own work he was already doing on that ranch 24 or not, but you do have issues like that. And that's the 25 same thing the Forestry Service -- I think it's going to have 6-9-08 124 1 to be set up to where we will have to give them a number or 2 -- or whatever you want to say, you know, that -- that gives 3 the authorization that we have called them out, and we have 4 to deem it an emergency for us to call them out. It may be 5 that the County's going to have to set a fee by the hour for 6 bulldozing, or by the hour for whatever other type of piece 7 of equipment it is, kind of like the Forestry Service does. 8 Otherwise, you're going to end up with all these different 9 hourly wages and overtime rates, and -- and we've -- this 10 county's called people out ever since I've been in law 11 enforcement when it comes to fires. And I hate -- and I 12 think every one of these gentlemen that do come out would 13 come out either way. Normally, they call us first and ask 14 us, "Do you need help?" And they weren't expecting to get 15 reimbursed. Yes, they should be reimbursed, and nowadays it 16 gets very expensive not to be reimbursed. But there's going 17 to be some issues that we need to cover. But I wouldn't want 18 to get to the point that we we're scared to do it, 'cause -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we agree to 20 develop a policy and come back with it that covers all these 21 issues? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need a policy. 23 Also, I think we need -- I'd like to see us do a blanket 24 contract with any -- any of our contractors locally so we can 25 call them out, and then funnel it back through the Forest 6-9-08 125 1 Service for FEMA reimbursement. We could also have a 2 contract with these people, whether we ever use it or not. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't think that they will 4 do it funneled back through that way. Will they, Bruce? Was 5 that your understanding? I think it has to be -- 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't think so. There was 7 some stipulations that were given, some guidelines. He said 8 that in order to be able to be on the list and get one of 9 those numbers, you had to, number one, be trained to fight 10 fires, and have that certification to be able to bring 11 equipment into a fire. 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That was a liability. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Another issue -- 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This list goes on and on. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I even have one from where the 17 Forestry Service got 35 gallons of gas from us. I haven't 18 seen any reimbursement by them, either. I don't think we 19 ever will. It's part of us protecting our county and our 20 residents for something that goes wild. I agree totally with 21 Jonathan; if we can prove that the fault of the fire is 22 blamed on a certain landowner for violation of burn ban or 23 whatever, then we ought to go after that landowner. Now, one 24 -- one thing, we have some of them, such as the Byas Springs 25 fire, to this date, there may not be a cause to prove that 6-9-08 126 1 fire, other than there's even been -- we even have the 2 Forestry Service investigators up here helping us with that. 3 It could have been lightning from a week before that hit a 4 tree up there, and then when the low humidity and that hit, 5 it burned, and so I don't know. Some of those, we're not 6 going to be able to show a cause to. But put a dollar amount 7 maybe in the future budget or something, but -- that we can 8 authorize. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Have -- have these contractors that 10 provided these services at your request, have they given you 11 billings or information -- 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It went through my chief 13 deputy and went on up to the Forestry Service. I know Rocky 14 has one. I don't know if -- if y'all wrote one up and gave 15 it, 'cause it did come in. I know we can get those, okay? I 16 don't know what y'all's was totally. 17 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I know I saw his. Now, these 19 are y'all's coming in, both the interstate fires and this 20 last one? 21 AUDIENCE: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We may have to use the 23 collection agency to set up a payment plan. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. (Laughter.) 25 MS. GLOVER: For the County. 6-9-08 127 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For the County. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They might have to set one up 3 with us. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the County. And the 5 verdict is? 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The verdict is, give me 7 $11,000, gentlemen. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't we have an emergency -- 9 or a -- 10 MS. HARGIS: We spent it already. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What? 12 MS. HARGIS: We spent it already. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We spent it? Not contingency. 14 I thought there was a special fund -- I think that's for 15 floods. That's flood damage or flood -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, flood. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Flood control. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, flood control. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have a fire control. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We could change that next 21 year to flood and fire. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 11,000 for all three? 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, combined. Not counting 24 what Road and Bridge wants back, too. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: We need to -- 6-9-08 128 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Your costs, are these just your 2 standard hourly rate, or did y'all use an hourly rate? 3 MS. HAWKINS: These rates on ours are from back in 4 January. We've gone up since then, but it's not reflected on 5 this. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is your customer rates on 7 here. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And they had to pay overtime, 9 I know, to some of their employees. 10 MS. HAWKINS: Our employees keep time cards. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Then I have a small one for 12 the one I said I'd never heard of. That, I won't even give 13 you. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think we should probably 15 take it out of the jail -- jailers' salaries. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jail salaries? 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that's a good place 18 to get it. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can probably get -- 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You do have a little money 21 left in there, don't you, Rusty? 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. Y'all already gave all 23 that to the defense attorneys. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, that was last year. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why -- Judge, why don't we give 6-9-08 129 1 these to the Auditor to find the money somewhere, do a budget 2 amendment and authorize payment? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I think that's a good 4 approach. 5 MS. HARGIS: Great. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, why don't you -- 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On these three, I would 8 recommend, you know, that -- I do know these three were 9 legitimately used. They -- they had to drive -- I know 10 Reichenau's drove all the way out to the Midway fire, and 11 then turned around and went back out to the Upper Turtle 12 Creek fire, and hauling that type of equipment around is -- 13 yes, I would recommend that these three gentlemen be paid for 14 it. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, would it be out of order to 16 suggest that, for the future, that you maybe put together a 17 draft of a -- of a policy for a procedure to call these folks 18 out, and -- and how their rate of compensation is going to be 19 set? So that we can take a look at it for future instances 20 where we won't -- we'll know exactly what's going to happen 21 next time this happens? 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, I think that would be -- 23 would be wise for us to be able to do. And I think getting 24 with them and getting with Forestry Service to see what their 25 actual rate is in their contract, and then going through Rex, 6-9-08 130 1 we could probably come up with a feasible means -- 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know -- 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- to continue to help us. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're going to continue to 5 have the problem as we go -- go farther along, and we never 6 -- you know, and equipment costs were not very much, and fuel 7 costs wasn't much and, you know, people didn't mind. But you 8 can't expect somebody to come in here and just donate. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And just donate. You know, 10 ever since I've been around, we have got to be able to count 11 on our locals to help us. 'Cause they -- 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sure. 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- they do so much for us in 14 these fires and emergency situations; nobody else can deny. 15 Now, there's other issues, such as I know Fredericksburg had 16 one where a gentleman was helping and had the dozer catch 17 fire. It got too close and burned up, so then you're talking 18 about a reimbursement issue on that. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's why we talked -- 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We need to add all that. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- about a hold harmless 22 clause or insurance of some kind to take care of it. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know if insurance 24 companies would pay -- if we're not using them for their 25 work, and we're using them for our work, is there maybe 6-9-08 131 1 something else that be has to be done? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Sheriff, if you'll -- if 3 you'll work on a draft of that policy going forward, I think 4 that will -- that will be helpful. And it may be, if we have 5 a standby contract that we enter into, maybe we can get the 6 Forest Service to approve in advance that contract, and maybe 7 figure out a way to fund it through it. I don't know what 8 all the possibilities are, but we need to -- we need to try 9 and figure it out. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I heard on this one, 11 especially since the way the State's been ever since the 12 winter fires and this continual deal, Forest Service said 13 that they -- even though they've had a contract, that they 14 ran out of money a long time ago, supposedly, and aren't even 15 reimbursing those that they used to reimburse. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Forest Service tells me that 17 they're completely broke. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, that's what I've heard. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else further on that 20 item? Let's quickly handle a couple items before we break. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Want to make a motion or 22 whatever to instruct -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Give them the bills; then 24 they'll come back with a budget amendment. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Or as approved bills, one or the 6-9-08 132 1 other. It will be in a stack of bills, with -- with or 2 without a budget amendment. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's quickly go to Item 17; 5 consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to designate 6 by resolution engineering and administrative service 7 providers for 2008 Texas Community Development Block Grant 8 Colonia Construction award for Phase IV of the Kerrville 9 South Wastewater Project. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bye, y'all. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. By 12 letter Judge Tinley received on May 23, official notice from 13 O.R.C.A. that we have been awarded a Colonia Construction 14 Fund Grant in the amount of a half million dollars -- we 15 already took the picture of that, so we knew it was coming. 16 Commissioner Letz and I, last Friday, scored the proposals 17 that were received for administrative services and for 18 engineering services. There was one proposal submitted for 19 administrative services; that's Grantworks. However, this 20 does not require us to score in the event that we only had 21 one proposal, so our resolution would contain Grantworks for 22 administrative. I believe we had seven -- is that right, 23 Commissioner? Seven? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I think so. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six or seven engineering 6-9-08 133 1 proposals from various size firms throughout the state of 2 Texas, and we scored those and arrived at the conclusion that 3 Tetra Tech should be the one awarded the -- they scored 4 highest, and should be the one awarded the Phase IV. Tetra 5 Tech has been our engineer on this project for Phases I, II, 6 and III, and there probably isn't any particular compelling 7 reason to change engineers. They've done good work for us 8 and so forth. So, I would move approval of the agenda item, 9 which identifies Grantworks as the administrative firm to -- 10 for this particular Colonias Construction Fund grant of a 11 half million dollars, and continue with Tetra Tech for the 12 engineering services required as well. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 15 approval of the resolution, which contains the award of 16 administrative services to Grantworks, and Tetra Tech for 17 professional engineering services. Question or discussion on 18 the motion? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment on the scoring I 20 want to make. There's a form we are required to use, and on 21 that form there were several, you know, rating -- 22 Commissioner Williams and I both did it individually, then it 23 did -- talked about them. Tetra Tech came out number one, 24 and the primary reason was, there's a -- there's an area for 25 work in the locality, and because they're the only ones that 6-9-08 134 1 have worked in the area, that they got higher there, which 2 put them over the top. The other firms -- there's, I guess, 3 three -- two other firms that were scored close to being as 4 high, but neither one of those firms had done any work in 5 this area. And that was the -- the difference on the -- in 6 the scoring, but it was -- the scoring used was what's 7 required to be used by the State. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Other questions or comments? All in 10 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 11 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 13 (No response.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Betty, thank you for 16 coming. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go to Item 18; consider, 18 discuss, take appropriate action to designate by resolution 19 authorized signators for 2008 Texas Community Development 20 Block Grant Colonia Construction award for Phase IV, 21 Kerrville South Wastewater Project. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is a companion 25 resolution which identifies signators to the grant, being the 6-9-08 135 1 County Judge, Auditor, County Clerk -- who else is on that, 2 Judge? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Those are the three. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Those are the three 5 signators for the grant. I move approval of the resolution. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 8 approval of the resolution on the agenda item. Question or 9 comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 10 right hand. 11 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 13 (No response.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll be in 15 recess until 1:45. 16 (Recess taken from 12:15 p.m. to 1:50 p.m.) 17 - - - - - - - - - - 18 (Commissioners Letz and Oehler not present.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order, if we 20 might. Let's go to Item 10; consider, discuss, and take 21 appropriate action on resolution from the Hill Country 22 Coalition of Counties concerning county authority concerning 23 regulation of subdivisions. This item was put on the agenda 24 by Commissioner Letz. He's been involved in that Hill 25 Country County Coalition dealing with some of these issues. 6-9-08 136 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you ring the bell for 2 him, Jody? Did you ring the bell for the Commissioners? 3 MS. GRINSTEAD: Cheryl did, yeah. 4 (Discussion off the record.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. If nobody's interested in 6 that one, we'll go to something else. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here comes one. 8 (Commissioner Oehler entered the courtroom.) 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll be happy to make a 10 motion to approve it, and I do so. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and seconded for 14 approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion on the 15 motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 16 right hand. 17 (Commissioners Baldwin and Williams voted in favor of the motion.) 18 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I abstained 'cause I wasn't 22 here for the motion. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, you was too. I saw that 24 foot come around the corner. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You were here for the 6-9-08 137 1 motion, just not the discussion. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What was the motion? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion was to approve the 4 resolution in support of Hill Country County Coalition. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll vote yes. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All right, motion does carry. We'll 7 move to Item 11 -- we can't move to Item 11 now. We'll move 8 to item 12; consider, discuss, take appropriate action on 9 request of Kerr County funding commitment to Texas 10 Association of Counties for participation and/or support to 11 develop a county-controlled and owned software system for 12 courts and beyond. That "courts and beyond" is language at 13 TAC that they sent to us. Sometime back, I got a letter from 14 TAC that they wanted to explore developing a county-owned and 15 controlled software system that could be used by county 16 governments that would be compatible, and it was pretty 17 general in nature. 18 (Commissioner Letz entered the courtroom.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I inquired of them what -- what the 20 particulars were going to be. They finally got back, and in 21 dealing with costs involved, they said that the estimated 22 total is about $800 (sic). Those that -- that wanted to get 23 in, they wanted a commitment of one-tenth of one percent of 24 general fund revenue from the '08-'09 budget -- the '09 25 budget, effectively. And the Auditor calculated that amount 6-9-08 138 1 at 17,000 and change. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have some 3 questions. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On the front part of the 6 memo from TAC, aquí -- that's my Spanish -- and see this 7 little bullet right here? The very last one there, tell me 8 what that -- tell me what these words mean. It says, "Allow 9 any new legislative mandates affecting the system to be 10 implemented for all counties using the system uniformly." 11 JUDGE TINLEY: What that says is that a software 12 system developed would, on an ongoing basis, be added to the 13 system. Those counties that commit would be counties which 14 could participate in the utilization of that system. The 15 counties that don't commit, I guess, would have to buy their 16 way in later, maybe. I'm not sure. Or maybe couldn't at 17 all. They merely want a commitment at this point in time. 18 In that amount, $17,018? 19 MS. HARGIS: I thought it was less than that, 20 Judge. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, maybe you calculate it 22 different than I do. You're showing $170.18? 23 MS. HARGIS: And I -- I did it twice. But you're 24 saying 17,000? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Move over three decimal 6-9-08 139 1 places. Two decimal places would be one percent. Three 2 would be one-tenth of one percent. Seventeen million general 3 revenue? 4 MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Lop off the last three 6 places, and you get 17,000. 7 MS. HARGIS: That's more than I thought it would 8 be. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. I just thought the decimal 10 place went in there automatically. You're showing me this 11 year's at $17,018,313. Just lop off the 313, and -- and put 12 your decimal place there, and you get 17,000. 13 MS. HARGIS: That's pretty expensive. That's just 14 -- that's forever, right? Once we sign up? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: No, that's for the development of 16 the system. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, on the next page, in the 18 middle of the page, I'm pointing -- you have to look when I'm 19 pointing, Judge. My gosh. See here? Okay. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, I'm with you. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It says, "Developing a 22 framework on scope of work for a CIJMS solution will include 23 a comprehensive business process analysis, as well as a 24 detailed system design. Preliminary cost estimates are 25 between $600,000 and $800,000, and the process will take nine 6-9-08 140 1 to 12 months. Once this framework is complete, various 2 options become available, including the development of a 3 CIJMS-hosted software solution. Preliminary estimates for 4 developing software are $10,000 to $12,000 over an 18-month 5 period; however" -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Million. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "However, these are clearly 8 good faith estimates, and the cost could be substantially 9 higher contingent upon final framework and scope of work." 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much higher than 12 11 million can it get? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you want me to throw them 13 out of the room, or do you want to? Isn't that a little bit 14 wild, those numbers? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- the numbers are wild, but 17 my -- my biggest question is, do they have any track record 18 of being able to do this kind of stuff? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, this is the pilot. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, software companies, as 21 we know -- technology -- what's the name of the outfit we 22 hired? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tyler. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tyler Technologies, that are -- 25 that's their business and they've been doing it for years, 6-9-08 141 1 can't get it right, much less going to some people that -- 2 you know, in the government sector, or sort of government 3 sector, you know, getting it right. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd have a hard time voting 5 for something like this. Just doesn't make sense to me. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really don't see -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the need, for most of us. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you see as being 10 the value of it? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the value of it -- and 12 probably in the not too distant future, our Odyssey, just 13 like the one before it, is going to be phased out, for a 14 number of reasons, if for no other reason than -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't work. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: -- Tyler Technologies needs to get 17 reloaded. Technology has a way of doing those things. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, about every six, 19 seven years. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the track record. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But this -- I mean, this is -- 22 their concept is to replace Odyssey-type software? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And not -- it's just for 25 counties. 6-9-08 142 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: In this particular instance. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, not just for counties 4 generally, but for Texas counties. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, and you look at -- if 6 it were to cost 10 or 12 million dollars, if we spread that 7 amongst every county in the state, you're talking about a lot 8 less money than what we've got in our -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: We put a million bucks in Odyssey 10 this last go-round. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure, yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that's the other side of 13 the way to look at it, I believe. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But, I mean, I think 15 you have to look -- I mean, I don't see this a whole lot 16 different than me deciding I'm going to go out and write 17 software and going out and say, "Give me the money." I mean, 18 I would be much more comfortable if this was a -- a private 19 sector person saying, "We will build this for the counties 20 and do it," but to have them doing it internally, I just 21 don't see that they have the expertise of ever doing anything 22 like this. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there's another 24 issue, too. Say it takes 10 to 12 million dollars to develop 25 the software, and then TAC is going to give it to 6-9-08 143 1 participating counties? Or they're going to lease it to us 2 for another fee? I suggest to you, it would be the latter. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, unless you got around 4 on the development phase of it, which might not count for 5 anything, other than just paying to develop it. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: The whole concept is that those that 7 -- those that have paid for it, that have been on board, when 8 the end product comes out at the tail end, will be -- have 9 the ability to participate in whatever that project is. You 10 know, the theory being that they'd already paid for it. Now, 11 if you're asking me if I have a contractual agreement that 12 says that, no, I don't. Now, we can certainly make 13 additional inquiries and find out -- I doubt if they have any 14 contractual type situation at this point. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Seems to me that if they want 16 to do this, they ought to come before us and give us a little 17 more detailed plan of what they're -- they're wanting to do 18 for that kind of money, and what we're going to get out of 19 it. Rather than just help develop -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- pay for the development of 22 the product. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I agree with that. I 24 mean, it's just -- I think if Odyssey has taught us one 25 thing, it is extremely complicated to try to make a software 6-9-08 144 1 package that covers all county needs. 'Cause our needs are 2 so diverse, and it's really, really hard. And, you know -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And look who the letters's 4 from. Woody Gossom is retired military; he's never had to 5 spend a penny of his own money. (Laughter.) So -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's a nice guy. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's not going to -- well, 8 he's not going to walk in here and tell you what he can do 9 for you. "Send me a check." 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, what I would say to 11 that is that if he doesn't walk in here and explain to us 12 what he wants to do, -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, he did walk in the 14 Judge's office, I understand. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- show us how he's going to 16 go about it and the cost, and what the benefits are, then why 17 would we vote for it? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's been in the courthouse 19 just recently. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: He was here to take a look at our 21 Odyssey system for -- Wichita County was looking at what they 22 were going to do. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was something else. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: So, he came here -- yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's been down here nosing 6-9-08 145 1 around. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How many counties does he 3 have signed up? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have a clue. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's another question. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we invite whoever's 7 ramrodding this program to come over here and -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That'd be Woody Gossom. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think he ought to come over 10 if he wants us to give him any money to develop anything. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: This says to contact Gail Latham, 12 CIRA Director. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Woody writes the 14 letter, says, "Okay, if you guys have any problems, call this 15 chick." 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Call Gail. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm gathering that's the -- the 18 Court's instructions to me at this point? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds good to me. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to invite him 22 down to make a presentation? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, super. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to set them up at about 6-9-08 146 1 1:00 -- I mean 11:30. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So that will get them out 3 by noon? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, no, so that they can take you 5 to Buzzie's, Buster. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, man. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: See? Let's go to Item 11; consider, 9 discuss, and take appropriate action on approval of 10 management letter for 2006-2007 audit. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, we can pass on that. We 12 don't have it finalized yet. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was quick. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was -- I've done my first 16 part. Now I'm waiting on the Auditor. She was waiting on 17 me; now I'm waiting for the Auditor. 18 MS. HARGIS: And I'm waiting on the external 19 auditor, so we're all waiting. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Everybody's waiting on 21 somebody. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: And I'm waiting on a bus. 23 MS. HARGIS: Okay. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Trying to get it done as quick 6-9-08 147 1 as we can. It'll be back. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Well that's an '06-'07 audit. 3 There's probably not a huge rush on it. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, there's a big rush. 5 There's some people that aren't happy. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 16; consider, 7 discuss, take appropriate action to rescind that portion of 8 Court Order Number 30840 which declared the old animal 9 control van surplus, allow the van to be used by Kerr County 10 Maintenance Department. Commissioner Oehler? 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, it seems that this was 12 offered to -- to Mr. Bollier before we declared it surplus, 13 and since that time, he has determined that he really does 14 need it to help him with kind of replacing an old truck that 15 he's using, I believe, for hauling gasoline or diesel or 16 something. And so he is -- he's caught a real hard time over 17 this because of all the grief he caused in this process. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Saying that he did not want 20 it. Yeah, he did want it. And finally now, he is back and 21 says he definitely does want it, and not going to change his 22 mind, so I figured if we're going to let him use it, we need 23 to get it off of the surplus list and put it back in the 24 county inventory. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 6-9-08 148 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And I move that we rescind 2 the court order. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 5 approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in 6 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Item 19; 11 consider, and review options of presentation on '08 budget. 12 MS. HARGIS: Judge, I'm going to defer to Ken. 13 That's another one of those things we need y'all's decision 14 on. 15 MR. RUARK: Okay. We went back and played with a 16 little bit of the Incode budget process, and then we had our 17 little training class up here, and we feel that the best way 18 to handle that for the Commissioners Court is to create a 19 second -- another budget code just for the five of you to 20 use, okay? So, what we'll do is that I will -- and I'll use 21 the term "freeze" the departmental requested budget, which 22 everybody's doing now, next Monday. And that will be 23 constant; that budget code will never be changed by anybody, 24 okay? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That's D.R.? 6-9-08 149 1 MR. RUARK: Yeah. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 3 MR. RUARK: So, that's the -- that's the record of 4 what everybody entered. Okay, the second, then we'll move it 5 to -- and we can call it whatever you want, but I just said 6 Commissioners Court, C.C., or whatever anybody would like. 7 And that'll be the Commissioners Court to do with as you 8 want, okay? It will work the same way -- the same thing as 9 the training manuals have had. You can go in there and put 10 your notes; you can do whatever you want to. The only caveat 11 with all this -- and it's a Windows exception -- is that if 12 you're both in -- or any of you or all four of you are at the 13 same account at the same time trying to update, no Windows 14 program -- database will let you do that. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, we found that out the 16 other day. 17 MR. RUARK: Okay. So, that's just not going to 18 happen. But you can all look at it; you can all look at the 19 same thing, but if you go to type something, you press enter, 20 and all four of you at the same time -- at the same place, at 21 the same time, that won't happen. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 23 MR. RUARK: But the odds of that -- I can't 24 imagine, with the length of budget, that you're all going to 25 be at the same place at the same time probably, but if that 6-9-08 150 1 happens, that's what it would be. Then, when you're done 2 with your preliminary working thing, then we can move that to 3 where you're in this courtroom and you're going through the 4 budget process, we can have that. And then we can have 5 Approved/Recommended budget, which becomes the final budget, 6 and then when you're sitting here and talking, then that just 7 gets to be updated, and then you can go from there. And 8 that's the simplest process. We can do more, but it depends 9 on how much -- you know, I'll defer to you gentlemen, how 10 much you really want to -- how many notes you want to put in. 11 If you each want your own set, we can do that, but I don't 12 know that -- you know, I'm just -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there will be a separate 14 column for me of -- A.R.? 15 MR. RUARK: Yes. 16 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 17 MR. RUARK: Yeah. The report will be separated, 18 and we have two budgets, okay? You can -- I can do the D.R. 19 budget on a report, show the previous years, and I can do the 20 A.R. budget on that same report. The Commissioners Court, if 21 you wanted to show that as another column, then I'd have to 22 have some custom code, then, through Tyler Technologies, 23 which isn't a big deal. 24 MS. HARGIS: We can get it done. 25 MR. RUARK: We can get it done. But if you just 6-9-08 151 1 use the working budget, you know, Commissioners Court, we'll 2 be fine with all your notes and whatever else. And, again, 3 you can change the numbers. If you wanted to get in there 4 and you actually wanted to change the numbers instead of just 5 making notes, you can do that too. 6 MS. HARGIS: And we might suggest, you know, 7 that -- remember, there were three blocks of notes; one, two, 8 three, and so I would suggest maybe that you take the 9 permanent note block number one, Buster. You take the second 10 one, and you take the third one, and then you hit 11 Departmental and take the block number one of that. So, each 12 one of you has a different place for your notes. 13 MR. RUARK: Yeah, we can show you that too. I'll 14 sit down and work with you on that. 15 MS. HARGIS: 'Cause otherwise, they're all going to 16 be in the same square. You have to identify your name. And 17 if you each had your own block, then you -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you saying, though -- 19 back to the columns. 20 MR. RUARK: Mm-hmm. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The other day, when we left 22 it, if I wanted to look at last year's or a previous budget, 23 I needed to shift from my page to another page. 24 MR. RUARK: Yeah. There is a report -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it still that? Or -- 6-9-08 152 1 MR. RUARK: If you were looking at just the report, 2 and you had -- and you wanted to compare the last three years 3 budgets with whatever budget codes you're looking at now, and 4 then you wanted to go look at the departmental notes in 5 detail someplace else, that wasn't on that report, yes, you 6 would have to -- you'd have two windows open; you'd have to 7 click, and one would be open. You know, you would minimize 8 and maximize; that's all you'd have to do. You could switch 9 back and forth. 10 MS. HARGIS: The detail one is high level, so if 11 you wanted the detail behind it, then you'd open the little 12 screen. The report would be the higher level; it just gives 13 you the one amount. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why can't I have a column 15 that's last year's number, and the column right next to it 16 this year's number? 17 MS. HARGIS: You will have that. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't want to split from 19 screen to screen. 20 MS. HARGIS: You will have that on the report. 21 What I'm saying is, if you want any other detail on that 22 report, or anything else that you needed to go back that 23 wasn't on that report, then you'd have to minimize. You'd 24 have that ability. 25 MR. RUARK: You'd have that ability. You'd have to 6-9-08 153 1 minimize it. 2 MS. HARGIS: But you don't have -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: But the numbers -- initially, what 4 we'll be looking at, that will have the departments 5 requested? 6 MR. RUARK: Right. 7 MS. HARGIS: Then C.C. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Then the -- 9 MR. RUARK: That would be a custom if we do that, 10 though. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: And the A.R. and the C.C., that's 12 going to have -- 13 MS. HARGIS: No, we do the C.C. in between. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 15 MR. RUARK: If we do go that route, I have to -- we 16 can do that. That would have to be a customized report, and 17 we can do that. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But -- but that one is going 19 to show the activity for the prior year? 20 MS. HARGIS: For the prior four years. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, for the prior four years. 22 MR. RUARK: Yeah. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Including from the -- from the 24 current year? 25 MS. HARGIS: Well, you'll have four -- four years, 6-9-08 154 1 including -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Original budget, year-to-date, 3 expenditures, encumbered? 4 MS. HARGIS: And then 2003-2004, 2005-2006, 5 2006-2007, and then your current year. You'll have plenty of 6 data. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah, have lots of historical 8 detail. 9 MR. RUARK: You can even drill down if you want to. 10 You can go back a little bit. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Plus the notes that are -- 12 MS. HARGIS: Plus all the notes. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: -- that that particular department 14 has put into their request will be there also. 15 MR. RUARK: Right. Correct. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Sounds like it's going to be pretty 17 much what we need. 18 MR. RUARK: I think what you'll find, okay, once 19 you go through the process -- and, again, I'll offer this. 20 If you want to do a practice run and just see how it will 21 work, we'd be willing to do whatever you want to do. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about two practice 23 runs? 24 MR. RUARK: We can do two or three, however you 25 want. We'll be willing to do that, and then we can work out 6-9-08 155 1 any of the -- you know, the issues that you have before you 2 get here for the final approval. And then you can, you know, 3 just work -- call them work sessions or whatever, but that's 4 what, in effect, they are. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 6 MR. RUARK: I think what you'll find, okay, in my 7 experience, is that once you -- once you get through this and 8 you realize that that paper isn't shuffling that you were 9 mentioning, I'll bet you cut hours off your budget process 10 sitting in this courtroom, because you will just be looking 11 at this, and it's going to be a whole lot faster. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be a plus. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be -- that'll be 14 astounding, too, this year. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have one question about it 16 all. Why can't we put in the salary stuff? 17 MS. HARGIS: You get -- 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 'Cause that, to me, is the 19 whole picture of looking at our budgets. Salary's the major 20 part of -- 21 MS. HARGIS: You got your position control schedule 22 today. 23 MR. RUARK: Okay, let me add to that, all right? 24 Next year, okay, that the -- the H.R. module that they've 25 just put in, okay? Next year, when all that is functioning 6-9-08 156 1 properly, that will be downloaded from the H.R. module into 2 the budget process. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That didn't tell me nothing. 4 MR. RUARK: Okay. Well, let's see. 5 MR. EMERSON: Let me interject here. Y'all can 6 talk about this outside the agenda, since that's not on here. 7 MS. HARGIS: Good. Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the agenda? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're tough today. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Wait. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Rusty, I don't think it makes any 13 difference what your interpretation is. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's a presentation; it's how 15 I'm going to present it to y'all with no salaries. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 20, if we might; 17 consider, discuss, and authorize use of Texas Procurement 18 Card from Chase Bank for the Sheriff's Department. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hmm. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now I'm mad at her, so I ain't 21 saying nothing. 22 MS. HARGIS: Rusty and I have been looking for some 23 type of -- of a card that we could monitor that he could use 24 for his officers, especially his officers that are having to 25 go and pick up prisoners. And this particular program is the 6-9-08 157 1 State of Texas Procurement Card. It's through Chase Bank. 2 Chase only monitors it, but it is the Texas -- it's what the 3 Texas Rangers use; it's what D.P.S. uses. It's what the 4 State of Texas uses. I'm not advocating that we do it 5 throughout the county. I'm only advocating that we do it for 6 his office as an experiment. Now, how this works is that 7 Rusty becomes the administrator of this card. He will give 8 that person a daily amount of money, or -- or however much he 9 wants to give for that travel. He can actually monitor that 10 live during the process, and so if he sees that that person 11 is trying to spend more money, they can't, because the card 12 will lop off. And -- and we can also put in there the 13 specific things. 14 The only problem with travel -- and he and I both 15 have gone through more than one of these presentations -- is 16 that -- was when they eat, was the only part that we have -- 17 you know, you can't -- if they wanted to have a drink, then 18 we're just going to have to monitor the ticket. But that's 19 why we want to do it, just for these guys that are 20 transporting, because he has to -- he's using -- currently 21 using his own personal credit card, which we don't get the 22 discount for state taxes on, for one thing. Also, we've had 23 so many people travel lately, you know, it's kind of putting 24 a burden on his own card. And we need to -- he needs to be 25 able to send these officers out on the spur of the moment if 6-9-08 158 1 they need to get another plane ticket because they need to 2 fly back, which they had -- this last month's been pretty 3 hectic. So, there's no charge for the card, and it has a big 4 star on it, and it will have the name of the county. It will 5 have their name. But -- but we're only -- he doesn't want to 6 issue it to very many right now. Maybe five, I think, is all 7 we're thinking about. Five cards. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If he had a -- if he had a 9 deputy out in Los Angeles picking up a prisoner, and what I 10 understood you to say was that you -- you authorize $500 for 11 that trip, and he's got to lay over. They -- L.A.'s not 12 going to release this guy, so he has to lay over an extra day 13 and he has to get another hotel room, et cetera, so it takes 14 a little bit more money than what you had originally 15 authorized. How do you -- 16 MS. HARGIS: He simply calls Rusty, and Rusty goes 17 on the computer and authorizes more. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. You like that power, 19 Rusty? 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can just mash a button? 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not for that purpose. I'd 23 like it for a lot of other purposes, but not for that one. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thanks. 25 MS. HARGIS: But the other card companies that we 6-9-08 159 1 looked at wanted to have a charge on it, and we didn't want 2 to even get into that. So, it's a pilot program. I'm not 3 suggesting we do it for the entire county, but just for this 4 purpose right now. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What fees does Chase -- 6 MS. HARGIS: None. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- levy? 8 MS. HARGIS: None. There is no cost to us at all. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I think there's a rebate. 10 MS. HARGIS: Yeah, there's a rebate to us if we go 11 over a certain amount. But there's no way we would do that 12 just using it for this purpose. If we would want to get into 13 a rebate situation, what I would suggest is that it would be 14 for utility bills or something of that nature, so we could 15 get a rebate. I'm not really interested -- reading a few of 16 the e-mails that I got on my List Serve on Friday, which I 17 haven't had a chance to share with Rusty, I don't think that 18 we're ready to do it county-wide, but I think that we can use 19 it for a pilot program. Since there is no cost, the only 20 thing we have to sign is we have to sign the state of Texas 21 contract, which Rex has not reviewed. So, I would prefer 22 that he review that before we did that. But we wanted to 23 bring it to y'all to see what your thoughts were on it. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's terrific. I'd 25 vote for it today if I needed to. 6-9-08 160 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think there's a couple 2 little deals that -- one, they don't recommend that I just 3 put it in the department name, because so many places that 4 you charge require a name on the card and not just your 5 department. And that's why this is the same thing D.P.S. and 6 everybody else uses when they're charging gas or charging 7 things, and that way the State gets a full detail deal of it, 8 and if they've gone over their allotment, you know, the State 9 has recourse to get it back from them. The other benefit I 10 think that could be -- you know, that I guess we're a part 11 of, or have been for a while, part of H.G.A.C., which is 12 where we get the state bid on patrol cars, and the County's 13 part of Buy Board. And one of the other major ones that 14 works just like that is the Texas Procurement site, the 15 contracts. We'll be part of that, so as far as getting 16 things that are -- bid-wise, we'll have three different 17 avenues to get it from. After this type of contract, anyhow, 18 because of H.G.A.C., Buy Board, and now this one that doesn't 19 cost you, but you still get into the state bidding prices. 20 You know, I don't like giving out cash every time I have 21 somebody traveling. I think it can be hazardous, and in more 22 than one way. I got -- and this is just one of those things 23 that happened. This last month alone, we've had to fly two 24 officers to Florida to pick up inmates, two to Reno, Nevada 25 to pick up inmates, and next week or week after, I'll be 6-9-08 161 1 flying two to Alaska. And that gets pretty expensive and 2 gets to be a lot of cash, and it's not something that I like 3 to keep around the office. So, if we can use this card, that 4 will work for that; it will be a lot better off. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like it. I think it's a -- 6 MS. HARGIS: And keeping that much cash, too, is an 7 internal control problem that we have to deal with. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Buster said earlier, "I'd vote 9 if I could." We can vote today, couldn't we? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's styled appropriately. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. I just -- I 12 thought you said you were going to get Rex to review this 13 contract. 14 MS. HARGIS: It can be subject -- Rex, do you have 15 a problem with that? 16 (Mr. Emerson shook his head negatively.) 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion we approve 19 the use of the Texas Procurement Card from Chase Bank for the 20 Sheriff's Department, subject to County Attorney's review of 21 the contract. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second. 23 Question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the 24 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6-9-08 162 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Okay. We 4 are to Item 21; consider, discuss, take appropriate action on 5 joint City and County functions. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Functions. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Functions. I put this on the 8 agenda, and I think last time we -- I think we had talked 9 about an error. It said airport and other functions, and the 10 County Attorney was being picky that day and said that we 11 couldn't talk about some of these other functions. So, we 12 just have functions that we're talking about today, and this 13 is partially kind of as an overview. My goal would be that, 14 by the end of this, we're all in agreement as to what's -- I 15 guess Commissioner Williams and I have kind of talked about 16 with the City that we can hash out a little bit and then send 17 them in writing where we are, because this has been a long, 18 drawn-out process. And it's also a little bit of a follow-up 19 to a conversation the Judge and I had about how all this -- 20 how the dollars balance. I'll just state my recollection as 21 to what -- where we are on these joint projects. The animal 22 control, the County -- and we're talking about the next 23 budget year, being the 2008-2009. Animal control, in 24 relation with the City of Kerrville, anyway, the County will 25 pick up 100 percent of the cost of that. 6-9-08 163 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's about 100 and -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: 125. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 125. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 125. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much was that number? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 120,000, 125,000, somewhere in 8 there. We have never discussed what to do with Ingram; keep 9 the same relationship with Ingram we currently have, or if 10 we'll do something different. I mean, it's just never been 11 part of the discussion, so I don't know. It's something we 12 need to probably discuss at some point, but that's a separate 13 issue. We're talking about City of Kerrville here. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, I figure we're going 15 to -- nevermind. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The library, at one point we 17 were reducing funding at the library, then we were just going 18 back and forth and around. The -- and Bill's and my 19 recollection are a little bit different on this, I think. I 20 recall that we were going to keep funding the same. I think 21 Bill recalls that we were going to go to $400,000 this year, 22 and that very well may be right. I just -- we had so many 23 meetings with our -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Am I correct, Bruce? 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're correct. 6-9-08 164 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So -- 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's my recollection. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The library goes to $400,000, 4 from 460 this year, plus or minus. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 447. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 443. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 443. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- fire, I believe there was 9 a $5,000 increase the City were proposing. We really never 10 discussed that a whole lot. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: That would be 180, up 5,000? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. EMS, no change. Same 13 agreement we currently have. And then airport, it's the new, 14 quote, Airport Authority, with the major issue there -- or 15 change there being that the Airport Manager will report to 16 the board, and that is being worked on, that agreement, by 17 the City Attorney and County Attorney. Over the next five 18 years, the M & O portion of that budget will become 100 19 percent responsibility of the County. However, for this 20 current budget we're working on, it'll be still be split 21 50/50, M & O, and as well as capital -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And CIP. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, CIP as well, and capital 24 items. Future budgets past that, it will go to 60/40 with 25 the County for M & O, but the capital items will remain 6-9-08 165 1 50/50, as they own half of the airport and they should pay 2 those portions. The idea is, and this has been made very 3 clear to the City in all our meetings, that without giving 4 the exact amount, the library funding is being reduced in the 5 future. We've agreed -- "we" being Bill and I, primarily, 6 with Councilman Gross -- that rather than get into a big 7 discussion on long-term funding, their request was that they 8 keep things a little bit quiet right now while they're 9 working with the -- primarily the Butt Foundation on a 10 long-term direction for the library. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There was no -- no 12 commitment on the library now in terms of an expanded, 13 improved version, but -- except that you go ahead and develop 14 your plans and then come talk to us. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Would it not make sense to -- 16 if we're going to reduce the amount paid to the library each 17 year, if we're going to increase the amount the County pays 18 for the airport joint operations, wouldn't you want to try 19 and adjust those in the same amount? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there's another 21 factor in terms of -- of the airport M & O budget. If the 22 Airport Board continues to develop the property, then -- then 23 the underwriting or subsidy, if you will, should gradually 24 shrink, which could be the offset to our -- to our adding the 25 10 percent, or could be even greater than that. Nobody knows 6-9-08 166 1 for sure, but the goal is to completely develop the property. 2 And when that happens, the airport revenue stream increases. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Should be a wash eventually. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Or should even make -- turn a 6 profit. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the -- ultimately, 9 that's the goal. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The goal. I don't think it's 11 really a good idea to tie one -- anything to another item. I 12 think these are all somewhat independent. I think we kind of 13 look at the overall picture, and whether we balance to the 14 dollar isn't critical, but clearly -- I clearly wouldn't want 15 us to get out of balance $100,000 either. You know, I don't 16 think it's -- many of our taxpayers are the same. It doesn't 17 make -- you know, I'm not adamant that we get totally in 18 balance with -- on whatever we take off. I think it's more 19 of a directional thing and a philosophy thing as to how we do 20 things, and what department -- or what -- I mean what entity 21 is responsible for some of these operations, and who is 22 better suited to do some of them. To me, the airport has 23 always been a -- it fits the County better than the City. 24 It's served by a lot of county people. Usually library's the 25 opposite; I think it's more of a City function. So -- but 6-9-08 167 1 that's kind of where we are. And I think, you know, kind of 2 where we are, I think the County will probably be in the, 3 quote, red next budget year, and then pick that up the 4 following year. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: The animal control change, was there 6 any specific consideration for that entire funding 7 requirement falling on the County? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there any what? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Specific consideration. Offset. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any quid pro quo. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not for that, particularly, 13 because that one, I guess, has been on the table as one that 14 we had agreed to do for a long time. That's one of the first 15 things we said, "Yeah, okay, we'll take that over." So, I 16 don't think there was any particular quid pro quo for that, 17 Judge. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Except that the city ordinance 19 would be looked at, and -- 'cause we'll be enforcing the 20 county rules, not the city ordinance, if they're any 21 different. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was only referring to a 23 dollar quid pro quo. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What did you say about fire 6-9-08 168 1 and EMS? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: EMS was no change, and fire, I 3 think, was -- they propose a $5,000 increase. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That puts it at 180? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 180. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's what it is. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, 175 now. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, to 180. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In that fire deal, is there 10 any consideration to their currently dispatching all the 11 volunteer fire departments? Is that into any of the -- any 12 of the fire contracts? And right now, they do, although they 13 informed me last week that they want -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There wasn't anything that 15 came out of our discussion, Sheriff. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I just didn't know how that -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was my understanding 18 that -- that they would do that. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, they informed me as of 20 last Thursday that as soon as I can get the equipment moved, 21 they no longer want to dispatch for volunteer fire 22 departments or Comfort or any of the other ones. And I don't 23 even know if I have the capability to incorporate that 24 equipment into my dispatch equipment. But that's what I 25 was -- 6-9-08 169 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reality is, Sheriff, in 2 the discussions that Commissioner Letz and I had with the two 3 City Councilmen, it's very likely those two City Councilmen 4 didn't even know about this. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd say the answer is no, we 6 can't do that right now. I mean, I just think -- I mean, 7 it's another example of -- like they did with the 8 communications system. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They told me -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll let them know and discuss 11 that with Councilmen Hamilton and Gross, anyway, that that is 12 just not acceptable; that the City has to be aware of what 13 the County's -- you know, what the County's doing. They 14 can't just dump things in our lap. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the radio situation 16 hasn't changed, and the only thing that's changed now is, 17 I've also been told last Thursday that we will dispatch for 18 all the volunteer departments. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did they give you a cutoff 20 date? 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I was told when I first heard 22 about it -- they sent -- their dispatch supervisor advised my 23 captain that they wanted it done as soon as possible, but 24 that they were not going to actually put a cutoff date. The 25 next -- I asked for a meeting with that dispatch supervisor, 6-9-08 170 1 and so that next morning when I went over there, one of their 2 captains met with us too, and at that point the tune kind of 3 changed a little bit. Well, I know you're going to have to 4 get Advantage or get somebody to say how much it's going to 5 cost to -- to install antennas on my building, on the 6 Sheriff's Office building for it, and to move the radio 7 equipment they have, the cards and that, actually have them 8 moved and installed into our consoles, which I don't know if 9 they can be. And I said, "Well, I'm going to have to get 10 with Advantage and find out what kind of cost you're talking 11 about." And then they said, well, as long as we -- it's just 12 gotten too much for them to do, and as long as -- maybe we 13 can get it done at the end of the fiscal year. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, let me think out loud a 15 little bit, if I might. Those fire departments are activated 16 eventually based upon 911 calls, are they not? 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: And the City has a contract with 19 Kerr Emergency 911 Network to do their dispatching of the 911 20 obligations, does it not? 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: To a point. You know, I guess 22 you could say that, because they do send out Kerrville Fire 23 Department and Kerrville EMS, okay, based on 911 calls. Now, 24 if the call's out in the county, they transfer it to us for 25 that type of law enforcement information. 6-9-08 171 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, because -- because you're the 2 responding agency. 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Agency. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, but they do dispatch 6 everybody else. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They dispatch the firemen -- 8 firefighters. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They do dispatch the 10 volunteers. That's what they're wanting to not do any more. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand them not -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wanting to. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: -- wanting to, but we got a 911 14 function that's in the middle of this thing that -- I think 15 you got to respect that pathway. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I blew a gasket, you 17 might say, over it, and kind of said some other things. And 18 then Friday evening, I did get a call from that captain 19 wanting to meet with me, actually this morning, and talk 20 about how -- quote, how this was going to work again. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we, in our letter 22 back to -- whatever it comes out with, say that that 180,000 23 includes dispatch of the fire -- volunteer fire departments; 24 put in our letter that that's our proposal. If they want to 25 go back and change something, you know -- I mean, I don't -- 6-9-08 172 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just say it includes 2 continuing the practice of -- 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dispatching. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- dispatching volunteer -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm kind of like the Judge; I 6 don't -- I mean, it shouldn't have to be talked about, 7 because there's no difference between -- if they want to do 8 the dispatching function, which they do and have done for a 9 long time, it's no different than dispatching your office 10 versus a volunteer fire department. You're the end user; 11 they're the end user. That's where I think the Judge is 12 going. I agree with that. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do, too. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I also didn't know if there 15 was a contract or agreement under this a long time ago, you 16 know, when the County did all the volunteer fire department 17 dispatching, and then during my predecessor's administration, 18 it went over to the City doing it. I don't remember if that 19 was an interlocal agreement, written agreement. I was going 20 to have to research that too. I had no idea how they ended 21 up with it exactly. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can't imagine that it's 23 that much work, either. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Personally, I think it's more 25 because none of the volunteer fire departments are digital. 6-9-08 173 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Are what? 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Are digital. And that could 3 probably cause some issues. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Therein lies another problem. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Therein lies a big problem. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Big problem. And I have let 7 -- I have let several of the Councilmen be aware of that 8 situation, which they knew nothing about. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's what 10 Commissioner Letz and I were talking about with them, you 11 know, that conversion to digital on such a short time frame, 12 and what it means to us. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They didn't really know what 14 was going to happen until the Sheriff came to us and made us 15 aware of the fact that they was going to do this, and pretty 16 much mandate what we were going to do, you know, if we wanted 17 to communicate with them any more. That, to me, is just not 18 quite right. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what I'm reading here is 20 that the County's going to take 100 percent of the animals, 21 still pay 400,000 for the library, up 5,000 for the fire 22 department -- fire service, no change in EMS, and eventually 23 100 percent of the airport. Where is the benefit for the 24 County? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a savings -- there's a 6-9-08 174 1 $43,000 -- 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's a savings? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, there's a $43,000 reduction 4 in the library this year. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The savings comes -- well, two 7 things. One, I think the library -- the airport will start 8 functioning as a much better entity long-term, and the 9 library funding is going to be reduced in the future. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, eventually -- like, what 11 if -- what if you -- what if we reversed all of this, though? 12 Like, City, you're going to take 100 percent of the animals, 13 and pay us for the library and fire, and -- and you're going 14 to pay us and pay us and pay us. They're going to say, 15 "Well, where's the benefit for us in this thing?" Is there 16 mathematically a benefit to the County? I mean, I don't see 17 that. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This first year, it's going to 19 cost us 87,000, approximately, more. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. Which is on the -- 21 that's on the animal control difference. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the animal 23 control/library switch. There's no change in the airport 24 this year. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 6-9-08 175 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't see how you get that 2 number. You may have to do a little better math for me. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, 125,000 we're picking up 4 in animal control. We're knocking 43,000 off the library. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're adding five, but that's 7 really a little bit of a different thing. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're also -- this first 9 year, but then next year, the airport's going to be down 10 10 percent. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next year, the library will be 12 down -- library will take off 100. I mean -- 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, they're very clear. 15 We -- they very much know that our view -- or my view, and 16 think Bill's view at the library is that we're going down 17 substantially to a fixed amount close to 100,000. So, 18 there's a $300,000 change there. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's never been any 20 change -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is more than the airport. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- by us in our stance with 23 respect to a lesser commitment. Okay. And I think the quid 24 pro quo on the airport is that it will continue to grow, and 25 that 10 percent will be -- 6-9-08 176 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, long-term, the benefit -- I 2 mean dollars, looking at dollars only, the County's long-term 3 getting a better deal if the airport continues to grow from 4 where we're going. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: The M & O budget for the airport, 6 what's that figure, roughly? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: About 125 apiece this year, 8 wasn't it? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: 250? Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm asking Jeannie. I 11 think -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 180; it's 360. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 14 MS. HARGIS: Yeah, but that included the capital. 15 In the actual budget itself, when I was there, the airport 16 revenue was pretty much taking care of the normal things at 17 the airport. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: M & O. 19 MS. HARGIS: The M & O, except for the salary of 20 the Airport Manager. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, about a hundred -- 22 MS. HARGIS: That's a part-time person, so I don't 23 know what that is. But the other part that they did was use 24 their Street Department out there, which we didn't pay for. 25 So, is Leonard going to go out and do the M & O side? 6-9-08 177 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can put street stuff out 2 there. 3 MS. HARGIS: I don't think so. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's one of the problems. 5 MS. HARGIS: You got -- well, you did -- you got a 6 pro -- they came through with a pro rata share, so -- but 7 black and white, the M & O side is pretty much covered by the 8 fees that are coming in for the planes and the fuel and so 9 forth. It's only -- it's only the salary portion that 10 wasn't -- wasn't taken care of. And -- and then you would 11 have to then, at that point -- 'cause that's the real black 12 and white. You'd have to add back -- either Leonard has to 13 start doing the ramp -- you know, fixing the stuff out there 14 and mowing, and -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all in the contract -- 16 management contract. 17 MS. HARGIS: That's in your contract, remember, but 18 not -- I'm saying in the -- if you just look at the budget 19 the real way it was done, okay, take out your pro rata share. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As a result of -- once this 21 interlocal agreement between the City and the County is 22 ratified by both, and the Airport Manager and whatever his 23 resources become employees of the board, the board will have 24 to establish what that rate of -- what that compensation is 25 all about. That is all part of the airport budget. But on 6-9-08 178 1 the other side of the equation, those charges that are in the 2 city contract with the airport board today for City Manager 3 oversight -- somebody else's oversight -- somebody else's 4 oversight, and all of the things that go into that particular 5 contract are going to have to be looked at, and they are 6 going to have to go down. 7 MS. HARGIS: They should go away. Why should you 8 pay for any -- any of the City's oversight at that point? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 10 MS. HARGIS: Because -- you know, unless the board 11 put themselves on a per diem and did something else. I 12 wouldn't think they would do that. But I would think -- I 13 haven't looked at it in a while. Let me look at it, but I 14 would think it might still be 180, our share, for the first 15 year till they get everything in place, and whoever they use. 16 Now, if they decided to put a bid out again like they did 17 last time, between -- for the -- you know, the mowing of the 18 grass and all of that, then it might cost us, so at that 19 point, then I would want to see whether we -- then we would 20 have the option of using our own. If we use our own labor, 21 then we can keep the actual cost down. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Should be a lot of 23 revisions in terms of charges coming out for services. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But bottom line, I think, Bruce 25 and Buster, is this next year it'll cost money. It should go 6-9-08 179 1 the other direction in the coming years, and we should -- and 2 I'd say in five years to ten years, somewhere in that range, 3 we'll be spending less money on all these services than we 4 currently are. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got another issue to 6 bring up. We -- in our budget, we have $10,400 for First 7 Responder supplies. Supplies. And a little bird tells me 8 that we -- we fund it from our side $10,400, and then on the 9 city side, in the -- in our -- 10 JUDGE TINLEY: EMS. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- EMS contract, that they 12 -- our contract that -- however much we pay in for the EMS 13 contract, that 10,400 is lined in that budget as well. So, 14 we're paying double -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Twice. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- for that item. And I 17 kind of think that's true. I had a City employee say, yes, 18 it appears that way, and we've made a mistake and we -- we're 19 getting that corrected. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we're not going to refund 21 you. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, they didn't say that. 23 And that's my point. I think that we should somehow 24 officially authorize the County Auditor to go and get that 25 10,400 from last year. 6-9-08 180 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Seek reimbursement. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. But do we have to use 3 the City for First Responder -- is there a reason we have to 4 use them? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, First Responder is out in the 6 county. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know, but we use them for the 8 coordinator of it. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: And for training. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Training. You got to 11 have -- 12 MS. HARGIS: Use them for training. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can't we use somebody in 14 Rusty's office? 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They train EMS. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They meet monthly. They 18 really do, and it's a serious thing to everybody. 19 MS. HARGIS: Yeah. You don't want to pay for the 20 training of the person to be able to do training. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they're trained by EMS, 22 right, Buster? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, mm-hmm. Do you agree 24 with the statements I just made? 25 MS. HARGIS: Yes, I do. 6-9-08 181 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are you doing sitting 2 here? Why aren't you over there getting our 10,000 back? 3 MS. HARGIS: I've already billed them up to this 4 point. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm only curious, and I 6 wouldn't -- I don't want to take on the training, but I'm 7 wondering what level they train First Responders at. Because 8 I have two certified first -- I just don't know what level 9 they train them. I have two certified first aid and CPR -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a level above the EMT. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. Then that's above, 12 yeah. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, they do kind of some 14 serious stuff. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They keep people alive until 17 the ambulance gets there. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or supposed to. But that's 20 what they're training. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But they're training them at 22 above an EMT level? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I think so. Yes, sir, 24 pretty sure. They've got some pretty heavy duty stuff. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's good. I have no 6-9-08 182 1 problem. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But 10,400, we should -- I 4 mean, at least one year. Maybe more, huh? 5 MS. HARGIS: No. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just one? 7 MS. HARGIS: Well, just that one year that I'm 8 aware of. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: A couple of -- a couple of 11 questions. Based upon your discussions -- and I realize 12 you're only talking to, what, two of the Council reps -- they 13 clearly understand that, as part of this whole -- I'm going 14 to call it "package" for lack of a better term, 'cause I 15 think that's essentially the way it's being presented, that 16 library funding is -- it would not be a shock or surprise if 17 they see that down $100,000 next year? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not in my opinion. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that was clearly 21 conveyed to them, and it was in agreement, and basically was 22 a plea by Councilman Gross that if we could just hold off a 23 year before doing a serious reduction to let them try to work 24 on -- so it's not in the press a whole lot about, you know, 25 some problem with the library while they're trying to obtain 6-9-08 183 1 additional funding through the Butt Foundation. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my understanding 3 too, Judge. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, 'cause it was the -- 6 you know, all of the background that went -- that passed 7 around between Bill and I and Mack and Scott had it all 8 listed together, and it was all tallied up, and there was 9 some -- library, I think, was kind of cut in half, I think it 10 was. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: 180 is the figure I saw. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, yeah, they're very much 13 aware of it, and that was never taken off the table; it was 14 just deferred a year. And also need to make a note, though, 15 that it's -- very much aware that the reason it's not on the 16 agenda now is that Commissioner Williams and I -- like I 17 said, if the Court thinks that, you know, we need to make 18 some changes to these numbers, that's certainly the Court's 19 prerogative right now to make some changes. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's what we're talking 21 about. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the reason why it's 23 on the agenda. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: And let me ask you about the fire 25 issue. Do you recall here a year or so ago, we were at 125, 6-9-08 184 1 and we were presented a -- a request for almost triple that, 2 up to 368 -- 369, as I recall. And we came in at 175. The 3 rather minimal increase of 5,000, in your discussions with 4 those folks at the -- that you were speaking of from the 5 Council, do they clearly understand that those increases 6 would be -- would continue to be minimal; i.e., increments of 7 approximately $5,000? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's their proposal. And 9 their -- to be honest, I mean, they came up with that $5,000 10 increase, with the idea of going up 5,000 every year into the 11 future as kind of an inflationary number. And then also, 12 first I've heard from the City, anyway, they recognize that 13 if we didn't fund that at all, it would make no difference in 14 the size of that Kerrville Fire Department. And this is -- 15 this is above -- this is a bonus to them which provides 16 service in the county. It really does not cost the City 17 anything. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've made that point 19 repeatedly. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they acknowledge it, that's 21 true. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Their fixed operational costs 23 are -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: -- what they are, even if they get 6-9-08 185 1 zero from us. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. They can 3 respond to 100 calls or no calls; their cost is not changed. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What would happen if, in the 5 future, we met our fire needs with another volunteer fire 6 department? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again, Bruce? 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If we met our need for fire 9 protection with another volunteer fire department, say in 10 Kerrville South, and we might not need their services any 11 more. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Contracts are one year at a 13 time. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would go -- you know, be 15 reduced to zero. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we didn't need it, or if 18 they were covering only a portion of the area. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, see, that's the whole 20 point we made. You know, if we stopped doing business with 21 you for fire services, you know, your operational costs 22 remain fixed. They're not going to change. You're not going 23 to get rid of a fire company or shut down a firehouse. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Unless you close it down and 25 get rid of -- reduce your staff. 6-9-08 186 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and they don't -- 2 they're not going to do that. So -- 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is their requirement just on 4 structures? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To help us? I believe so. I 6 don't think it covers grass fires. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the question? 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is that just on structures. 9 'Cause the Byas Springs fire, the last big one that we had 10 fire departments from all over, Kerrville was not one of 11 those. 12 MS. HARGIS: I think it's only structures. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That agreement is structures, 14 but I would think they're under -- from a mutual aid 15 standpoint, they would be required by state law to assist if 16 there's a -- a need. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think that they have 18 a lot in the line of brush trucks any more like they used to. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't -- I don't know. 20 MS. HARGIS: No, the mutual aid is city to city. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Our contract is pumpers, 22 1,500 gallons a minute and three guys and all that stuff. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Structures. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 25 MS. HARGIS: Okay. Well, you know, when I was in 6-9-08 187 1 Conroe, there was a big dispute between the volunteers and 2 the city, and the city actually cut off mutual aid from the 3 volunteer fire departments, and then they didn't want any aid 4 from the volunteer fire departments. So, cities can cut 5 themselves off and not provide mutual aid. And that's going 6 -- they're going that way because they don't want to pay for 7 going outside of their city limits. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They did work on one of the 9 fires, didn't they? Isn't that one -- 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We had -- they came out to the 11 interstate fire, I do believe. Okay. Because we had so many 12 large ones. But the Byas Springs fire, the main one out 13 there, they did not. 14 MS. HARGIS: Can I suggest something? On the 15 animal control, you know, we're charging the City of Ingram 16 for one person, basically. Couldn't we charge at least the 17 City for one person? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You just mean today or what? 19 MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's going for the throat 21 here. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I didn't hear what you said. 23 You said you wanted -- 24 MS. HARGIS: The City of Ingram -- the City of 25 Ingram, we charge for one person. 6-9-08 188 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. 2 MS. HARGIS: Why can't we charge the City of 3 Kerrville for one person? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would -- I mean, I would, 5 rather than -- I would rather use a blank number. But to 6 accomplish that, we could -- just an idea -- propose phasing 7 it in over two years, since we're in the red so much. And 8 we'll kind of cut our -- you know, half this year and half 9 the next. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that's going to be a 11 good idea, because I tell you, I think we're going to be 12 faced with some funding issues. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Faced with what? 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Some funding issues. 15 MS. HARGIS: We've got some. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Income. 17 MS. HARGIS: Our fuel costs are really going to go 18 up, and even -- you know, and that's one of our departments 19 that's out on the road. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. But I think it's a good 21 option, I mean, to phase this in over two years, only going 22 half this year. City will continue to pay -- you know -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: 62,5, whatever. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 60,000. Just make it a flat 25 62,5, whatever. A flat amount this year, and then it'd go to 6-9-08 189 1 zero the following year, and then we can make the -- and also 2 use that little bit of leverage against the library, make 3 sure that it does go down. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that gives it more balance, 6 don't you? 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Makes it more 8 palatable, I think. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, makes it -- I like that 10 better. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say that last part again? 12 And what does it do for the library? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's just -- there's a -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leverage. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a number out there that we 16 can play with next year when we go to them and say we're 17 going to reduce our funding 100,000, and we can say, "But 18 we're going to pick up 60,000 more at animal control." But 19 next year, the numbers -- the 40,000 deficit will be switched 20 where the City would have it, and this year we're going to 21 have it. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay with me. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I like that. I think it's 24 better. I don't think we ought to try to do too much in this 25 very first year. 6-9-08 190 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think it's a -- I mean, 2 and I don't -- you know, this is why I wanted to put it in 3 writing to them, because when we agreed on the animal 4 control, the library was still on the table originally. So, 5 I think this is going back and getting it for the whole 6 Court, and it's still -- it gets us to where we're, I mean, 7 long-term trying to get with all of those functions. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 'Cause we're not asking them 9 to take -- take basics on anything for this first year. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hmm-mm. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Going to cost us more. 12 They're going to get -- kind of get away without having to -- 13 at least they're not going to have to go through the phase-in 14 or phase-down or whatever. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, either way we go, 17 whether we decide animal control in -- in two years, which is 18 fine with me, it goes to 60-some-odd thousand dollar savings 19 for them this year. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which, if they look at it, 22 becomes somewhat an offset to our reduction in the library. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That would be my preference. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me that you want to -- 25 we can only budget from year to year -- express our 6-9-08 191 1 longer-term thinking about where these numbers are going in 2 terms of the discussions that we're having. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I agree. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: So that we don't get this claim of 5 surprise potentially later. And -- and, you know, it's 6 turning the cards face up on the table, and I think that's 7 the best way to play the game. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's why I think it's 9 important, 'cause -- we haven't discussed it so much, but I 10 think it's important for us to send this in writing to them. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: "Here, this is where we are, 13 and this is where we think we're going next year based on the 14 discussions," and make sure that they agree. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But your reality is no 16 different than what they've done to us in the past. They've 17 set out these various scenarios and projected long-term 18 increases and all of that, this same -- same thing. You get 19 to write the letter, Judge. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you need a court -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Kept me from having to ask that 22 question, didn't it? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you need a court order 24 from us to pursue that budgeted money? Or just -- 25 MS. HARGIS: No. Let me just try to -- 6-9-08 192 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we need a court 2 order authorizing us to communicate with the City our 3 position on these matters. So moved. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought you already had 5 that. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Need to authorize the Judge 9 to write the letter. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And ask the County Judge to 11 sign same. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now that it's about over? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Question or discussion on the 14 motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 15 right hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: The Auditor did not need to raise 18 her hand, too. 19 MS. HARGIS: I'm excited. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion carries. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I'll be glad to work 22 with you on this letter if you need any assistance. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm sure you don't. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I -- I assure you, I'm going 6-9-08 193 1 to staff it before I put it in final form and let it fly. 2 Let's go to Item 22; consider, discuss, take appropriate 3 action to authorize an interlocal agreement between Kerr 4 County and Kerrville/Kerr County Airport Board for an 5 employee benefits package for the Airport Manager and such 6 other services as may be required. It's the "such other 7 services as may be required" that's got my curiosity. 8 Commissioner, go ahead. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I just kind of -- 10 just kind of broad-brushed that, just in the event there was 11 something that came up. But what this does is put us in a 12 position of offering to the Airport Board what we have long 13 said was the potential of all of this, with respect to the 14 Airport Manager becoming -- and any other persons that he has 15 as a resource, becoming independent employees of the Airport 16 Board. We understand that the City cannot offer an extension 17 of their benefit package to the Airport Manager or his 18 resource person, but we know we can through interlocal 19 agreement. Am I correct, Ms. Hyde? 20 MS. HYDE: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so, therefore, what 22 we're saying is we're authorizing that agreement, so when the 23 Airport Board gets ready to do that, they know where they can 24 turn for that benefits package. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Part of the reason for this 6-9-08 194 1 being on the agenda is that the -- this has been an issue 2 with some of the Airport Board members as to how the -- how 3 do they do -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How to do it. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've said the -- well, the 6 County can do it, but we thought it would really be helpful 7 if we can just give them basically a court order and say, "We 8 can do it; here's the package. If you choose to come to us, 9 this is what the deal is." Not committing anything from our 10 side, just saying if they want to use the County package, 11 this is what it is. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds like an olive branch 13 to me. 14 MS. HYDE: I wasn't sure how you wanted to look at 15 it, so there's a short version and a short-long version. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I asked -- I sent Eva an 17 e-mail -- I don't know, a week or so -- week ago -- probably 18 last Thursday or Friday night; gave her about a day. So -- 19 but the -- and said we need to, one, make sure we can do 20 this, check again. And two, put together a summary sheet of 21 our package, our benefit package, so that we can send this to 22 the Airport Board. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This life and health care, 24 20,000? Or 2 million? 25 MS. HYDE: Excuse me? 6-9-08 195 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At -- 2 MS. HYDE: That's how much it pays off. That's the 3 insurance that we pay for. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm looking at -- okay. 5 Okay, that's the insurance. It's not a statement of the 6 maximum health care. 7 MS. HYDE: No, sir, that's on this one. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon me. Excuse me. 9 MS. HYDE: No problem. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only thing I would say we 11 have that we could add on this, on the -- is the retirement 12 savings portion, to put the year, and this year we're at 13 210 percent, just so they know. 14 MS. HYDE: I was hoping we were going to change it, 15 so I didn't want to put it on there. Hopefully, we'll be at 16 $2.50, and that way it will be there; it's maxed out. I 17 don't have to change it any more. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you put the current 19 year, and 210 percent would be a good idea. 20 MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question, either to 22 Ms. Hyde or Ms. Hargis, one or the other. Taking -- assuming 23 that the Airport Manager, who is currently an employee of the 24 City of Kerrville and under their benefit package -- I assume 25 that the pension is T.M.L.; is that correct? 6-9-08 196 1 MS. HARGIS: T.M.R.S. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can that be bridged? Can 3 his -- can his credits and so forth -- 4 MS. HARGIS: His credits can, but not the money. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Credits, but his pile of 6 money is his pile of money. But his credits can be bridged 7 over to T C.D.R S.? 8 MS. HYDE: This "years" -- this "years" is length 9 of service. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: His vesting? 11 MS. HARGIS: Right. That's all -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, he becomes vested day one. 13 MS. HARGIS: Yes, if he's -- 14 MS. HYDE: If he's met the eight-year rule. 15 MS. HARGIS: 'Cause theirs is five. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That should be noted on 17 here also, that T.M.L. -- vesting of T.M.R. -- 18 MS. HARGIS: T.M.R.S. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- service units or 20 whatever can be bridged into T.C.D.R.S. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Service time credits, but not funds, 22 can be transferred to T.C.D.R.S. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. That's a 24 better expression of the intent. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we might attach both of 6-9-08 197 1 these, actually. I think -- I mean, I think the second sheet 2 of the actual summary of benefits gives the benefits, and 3 this gives a good summary, just like you have it. But those 4 two additions to the summary page, and then just a copy of 5 the court order that the County offers this to the Airport 6 Board should they choose to use it. And I think it'll help 7 them make their decision and, you know, be certain that this 8 can be done without them having to create their whole system. 9 MS. HYDE: Do you want the cost -- the current cost 10 for, like, our insurance for families? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, might as well. I think 12 that should be included. The other issue -- and I guess it 13 was Eva; you talked with me about it. Maybe it was Jeannie. 14 Someone talked to me about what happens if there's that loss 15 from the -- the maximum loss for the employee, up to the 16 40,000, how that gets handled if there's a major claim. Does 17 the County eat it, or does it get billed back, half to the 18 City as part owner of the airport, but if we're going to be 19 responsible for the M & O budget long-term. And my answer -- 20 or question to her was, can we insure against that $40,000 21 max? And if we could, that would be a good option so that 22 they're -- you know, that's just covered by insurance, and 23 pass on -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be another cost 25 to the Airport Board to pick up. 6-9-08 198 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does that makes sense? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: If we pick -- if they contract to 3 put that employee under our plan, the stop loss is going to 4 apply to that employee, same as it would any Kerr County 5 employee, it would seem to me. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's coming out of the 7 County budget, not the Airport Board budget, that first 8 $40,000. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unless we collect for it. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you wouldn't collect for it 11 unless you needed it. For a small entity like that board, it 12 would be very hard to come up with a $40,000 hit in one year 13 if there is a big claim. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: What you're suggesting is that the 15 contract provide that the board would stand in the place of 16 the County as to that employee? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And we -- 18 JUDGE TINLEY: In terms of funding any claims? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and could possibly 20 insure that. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 'Cause it would be a direct 22 cost to the County. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As legitimately chargeable 6-9-08 199 1 back to the Airport Board. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, right. 3 MS. HYDE: That's why I say that we couldn't really 4 do anything until we talked to that man right there, and it 5 was great he walked in. So, I know he's being blindsided, 6 'cause I haven't talked to him. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What we're talking about, Rex, 8 is the ability of the County to provide a benefits package to 9 -- through interlocal agreement, to the Airport Manager. And 10 the answer is that we can do it, and Eva's printed up our 11 package. Where we're at now is that, if -- on our health 12 insurance policy, if there is a claim, a major claim, the 13 County pays the first $40,000 right now out of our general 14 fund. 15 MR. EMERSON: So we need an MOU. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: It's 50. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 50,000 -- well, first 50,000. 18 But if -- since this is not going to be a County employee, 19 how do we get that first $50,000 the responsibility of the 20 Airport Board, and can they buy their own insurance against 21 that $50,000 maximum? 22 MR. EMERSON: The first question is yes, we can put 23 it in an MOU, and the second question is, I don't have a 24 clue. They need to talk to an insurance agent. 25 MS. HYDE: Already sent out an e-mail. 6-9-08 200 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for your candor. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I knew that answer. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, I think that's -- 4 Eva's sent out -- I think to Gary Looney, sent him a request 5 if that can be handled through a policy, but that would be a 6 logical way to handle that risk, depending on the cost. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Get that premium on the 8 policy. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Shouldn't be that much. I 10 mean, maximum loss is 40,000, and that's -- 11 MS. HYDE: Fifty. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fifty. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Make sure the Airport Manager 14 stays healthy. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 16 MS. HYDE: Kathy's typing, so I just wanted to make 17 sure. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, we're just going to put 19 it in a court order that we can offer that package, and send 20 it to Airport Board for their decision. That's a motion. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: But are you proposing as part of 22 that motion that the financial aspect of it be that the 23 Airport Board stand in the place of the County as to the 24 self-funded portion -- well, no, it would be any portion of 25 it, because we pay stop loss insurance premiums for anything 6-9-08 201 1 over and above -- above the 50, excuse me, for -- up to the 2 stop loss limit. That they stand in the place of the County 3 as to the funding obligations for -- for those claims? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think, yes. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. The answer is yes. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And -- and in response to 8 your first question as to what other services might be 9 required -- may be required, I'll just give you a for 10 instance. The Airport Board, under the new interlocal 11 agreement, would have the opportunity and the obligation to 12 perhaps set up its own finance package, financial employee 13 package. If they chose not to do that and wanted to, by 14 interlocal agreement, do less, that would be one of those 15 other type of services for which we could charge 16 reimbursement for the cost of it. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or they may choose to do it 18 with the City. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or they could continue what 20 they're doing, yes. Such other services. Illustration only. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, again, this is just 22 basically letting the Airport Board know that we're willing 23 to work with them on whatever they want. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion as to the health 25 benefits portion of the package. Do we have a second? 6-9-08 202 1 THE CLERK: No, sir. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a second. Any question or 4 discussion on the motion? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And just a request that the -- 6 well, all we need is a court order. Don't need a letter from 7 the Judge. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify 9 by raising your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Okay. Do 14 we -- are there other services as may be required? Are there 15 any motions to be offered in connection with those at this 16 time? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir. If they come up, 18 we'll talk about them at the time. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to Item 23; 20 consider, discuss, take appropriate action to adopt an order, 21 based on the burn ban status, prohibiting the sale or use of 22 restricted fireworks, those being skyrockets with sticks and 23 missiles with fins, in any portion of the unincorporated area 24 of Kerr County. I assume you're talking -- are you talking 25 about just 4th of July, or are you talking about forever? 6-9-08 203 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Talking about 4th of July. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was my question. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: July 4. Last opportunity. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Are you talking about just 6 that day, or for -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, for the holiday. The 8 period leading up to the holiday. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Whatever portion of time fireworks 10 sales are lawfully authorized for that particular holiday. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Generally starts, what, a 12 week ahead of time? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: More than that. More than 14 that, I'll bet you. When do they start selling? 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what I'm not sure of. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What? 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I may go to church with you, 18 Buster, but -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We found something Rusty 20 didn't know. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And admitted it. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And admitted it. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Problem is, you can still, a 24 lot of times, buy those things at all times of the year. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a period of time 6-9-08 204 1 by law that they would -- retailers are authorized to sell? 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 3 MR. EMERSON: Yes. I don't know exactly what it 4 is, but I know it's approximately -- I think it's 10 days 5 before until either the day of or the day after. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, we'll go by the 7 County Attorney's definition of time frame. 8 MR. EMERSON: If you -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: It's in the statute, I think. 10 MR. EMERSON: If you just say the July 4th 11 fireworks sale period, you'll cover it. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the sense of the 13 motion I offer. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're going to ban those? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The missiles on sticks and 17 that kind of stuff. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Skyrockets on sticks and missiles 19 with fins. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last opportunity for this 21 year. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a second? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a second. Any question or 25 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, 6-9-08 205 1 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. Why don't 6 we go to the bills right now, Section 4 of the agenda, 7 payment of the bills. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the bills. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the 11 bills. Question or discussion? 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes. 13 MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Page 18, County Auditor's 15 budget, desk for $2,300.70. And I didn't notice there being 16 any capital outlay money in the original capital outlay 17 budget, but there was a budget amendment that went to capital 18 outlay on March the 11th. And this is a new desk. Was the 19 desk broken? Is it put on one that was there originally? 20 What happened to it? 21 MS. HARGIS: My desk is not functioning for my 22 back, okay? With -- 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The desk doesn't function for 24 your back? 25 MS. HARGIS: The desk was not meant for a computer, 6-9-08 206 1 and therefore, I'm -- they've done everything they can to 2 give me a keyboard. The desk also is falling apart. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. 4 MS. HARGIS: If you want to come in and look at it, 5 it's been there since 1984. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. I just wanted an 7 explanation, because we don't normally -- we don't normally 8 do -- and this is partially my fault, or maybe a few others' 9 fault, for doing a budget amendment in the middle of the year 10 for a capital outlay line item that was not part of the 11 original budget. 12 MS. HARGIS: I also was not here to prepare my own 13 budget for this year. I was here, but I did not prepare this 14 budget. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I just think we need to 16 be real careful about those kind of things happening. And -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other items? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bruce, say that again about 19 a budget amendment. What did we do? 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We authorized a budget 21 amendment back in March to transfer money into her capital 22 outlay line item. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To make this purchase? 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: To make this possible. But 25 there was no explanation that I was able to find anywhere of 6-9-08 207 1 what that money was to be spent for. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: No, there were -- there were -- 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The new forms; I've got it in 4 the office. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, but there's previously been 6 two desks -- or two desk units, I'm going to call it, for 7 lack of a better term, for that office earlier this year that 8 were -- that were ordered and installed in there. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But there was no money in the 10 capital outlay line item for that from the original budget 11 when it was approved. 12 MS. HARGIS: That is correct, because the prior 13 Auditor prepared that budget, and so in order for me to 14 purchase the things that I needed for my office as a new 15 Auditor, I had to move that money from that line item, from 16 capital -- 17 JUDGE TINLEY: So, the initial money went to 18 purchase those first two that went in there? 19 (Ms. Hargis nodded.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: We didn't leave enough money for 21 yours? 22 MS. HARGIS: No, I put enough for all of them. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh. 24 MS. HARGIS: The problem was that mine was ordered 25 at the same time, but it didn't come for four and a half 6-9-08 208 1 months. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, I guess what I'm saying 4 is, I think that we need to be more careful about some of 5 these things, and I would like a little bit of explanation of 6 what the moneys are going to be spent for, especially in 7 capital outlay, if a budget amendment is offered during the 8 course of a budget year. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I hear you. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Does that not make sense? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, it does, and I hear you 12 loud and clear. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Otherwise, we just see money 14 move from one line item to another. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you'll tell me, I'll be 16 happy to ask the question. I mean, I don't know how else to 17 get the answer. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that's what I'm doing 19 right now. But, anyway, I just -- I was a little bit shocked 20 when I found out that that money was being spent for 21 furniture. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was thinking this 23 morning -- I was talking to the County Auditor. Do you 24 remember what it was like a few years ago? I mean, people 25 were just spending -- remember that, Bruce? I mean, people 6-9-08 209 1 were just spending money, and we would come along and 2 replenish it. You know, budget amendments, one right after 3 another. It didn't matter how much was in the line item or 4 anything; they just spent it. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They were all -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Went and bought things. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was the craziest thing. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They were all red when they 10 came -- all the accounts were red when we finally saw them. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Crazy. So, we've come a 12 long way, man. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, I know we have. I know 14 we're doing better. This lumping all the budget amendments 15 together is -- we'll talk about that in a minute when we get 16 on budget amendments. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any other questions or 18 comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 19 your right hand. 20 (Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz voted in favor of the motion.) 21 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I oppose it. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Say again? 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I oppose. 6-9-08 210 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That motion does carry. 2 Let's go to budget amendments. The Auditor presented us with 3 a summary sheet for -- looks like nine different budget 4 amendments. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Here's my example. We don't 6 -- you know, we get this long -- we get the -- you know, 7 rather than go through one at a time like we used to do, then 8 we get this combined deal. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that's all fine and good 11 for most things. Most of it's pretty much self-explanatory. 12 But the one previous to this that I brought up was not 13 explained. We didn't know if it was going for computer 14 equipment; we didn't know if it was going for whatever, but 15 it was a capital outlay line item. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Your point is, on capital outlay 17 items, because of the nature of them, you think there should 18 be some additional information presented with those? 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, I do. I think so. 20 That's just my way of thinking. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to follow up on your 22 point and ask, with respect to Item Number 7 -- I can 23 understand the second 5,000 for vehicle gas, oil, and 24 maintenance. I clearly understand that. But I don't 25 understand the first one with respect to a transfer of $5,000 6-9-08 211 1 into operating expense. That goes to the budget -- really to 2 the budget. And what are we suggesting here? That we 3 under -- underestimated the basic parameters of operating 4 expense? 5 MS. HARGIS: I think the cost of operation has gone 6 up, because we have more animals now today than we did, so 7 therefore this is mostly dog food. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mostly what? 9 MS. HARGIS: Dog food, and kitty litter and things 10 of that nature. The things that the animals require. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Well -- 12 MS. HARGIS: The food has gone up, and so we needed 13 to raise that so that she would make it through the year. 14 She also had -- in the past, a lot of this food had been 15 donated, and it wasn't this year, and so that's another 16 reason. They kind of went on the trend of donated food, and 17 they haven't gotten that much of donations this year for that 18 type of -- of a situation. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, that's fine. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just had to get -- that is a 21 big expense, and one of the things is that Walmart used to 22 let us go pick up all their broken bags and stuff. They've 23 stopped that; can't do it any more. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All of the donated food items in the 25 -- in the food pantries around the country are way down 6-9-08 212 1 because of the economy in general. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. 3 MS. HARGIS: And then the second one on that one is 4 the donated money that she got, she's budgeting to spend what 5 she received for operating expenses. A lot of people wanted 6 it to go back to pay for the dogs, so -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That one I understand, but 8 the first one I didn't understand. Thank you. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bruce's comment -- I mean, I 10 think -- 11 MS. HARGIS: Do you want an explanation under -- 12 with each one? We can do that. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. I mean, this form is no 14 different than those individual sheets used to be. If we 15 have a question -- and I'm sure on the other -- on the one 16 that you're talking about, it was on here, capital outlay, 17 and that's for us to ask the questions. I mean -- 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know. I took blame for 19 part of that, because I didn't ask the question. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll -- this is, to me, a lot 21 more efficient. I'd rather -- but this is the same 22 information that's on the sheets, I think. 23 MS. HARGIS: Yeah. The sheets are attached to mine 24 if you'd like to see them. They're actually exactly the same 25 as what you get. 6-9-08 213 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much -- how much is in 2 each one of our conference lines? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 900 bucks. 4 MS. HARGIS: I think it's a combination for all of 5 you. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: 1,500. 7 MS. HARGIS: 1,500 each. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1,500 each. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I thought we got 900. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought it was 900. What 12 is it, Judge? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1,500. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it's 1,500, 1,600. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move up to a five star 16 hotel. Motel 6. 17 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 18 MS. HARGIS: I have to look up the detail on that. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We equalized it between all 20 elected officials; I think have the same amount. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, and then -- 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not all. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here's one for 2,400, and 25 then we're adding 500 more -- or 400 more. 6-9-08 214 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: For who? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Environmental Health. I 3 guess they have several -- 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, they got a new guy that 5 needs to go to training. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One that they hadn't 7 budgeted for, right? 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. We didn't know we was 9 going to have him. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way I read that. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Move some money around to 12 make that happen. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All that being said, do I hear a 14 motion that the budget amendments as shown on the summary 15 sheet be approved as presented? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to approve 19 all the budget amendments as shown on the summary sheet. 20 Question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the 21 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 22 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 24 (No response.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we have 6-9-08 215 1 any late bills? No late bills? 2 MS. HARGIS: No, sir. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I've been presented with monthly 4 reports from Constable, Precinct 1; Constable, Precinct 2; 5 Constable, Precinct 4; J.P., Precinct 1; J.P., Precinct 2; 6 J.P., Precinct 3; County Clerk, both general and trust funds; 7 and Road and Bridge Department. Do I hear a motion that 8 those reports be approved -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: -- as presented? 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that 13 reports be approved as presented. Question or discussion? 14 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 15 hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we have 20 any additional reports from any members of the Court in 21 connection with their liaison or committee assignments? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner Baldwin and I 23 have been working on a burn ban seminar, which AACOG will 24 fund for the speaker. And our only commitment would be to 25 advertise same, provide the names of the folks we'd like to 6-9-08 216 1 have invited, and the facility at which to conduct this 2 seminar. We reserved the exhibit hall for the 26th; is that 3 correct, Jody? 4 MS. GRINSTEAD: Yes, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 26th. And the invitations 6 will go out sometime after this coming Wednesday, when I give 7 the invitee list to AACOG and they'll send them out. Be no 8 cost to us for the speaker; AACOG's bearing the cost of the 9 speaker and so forth. Anything else I left out, 10 Commissioner? 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. It's just going to be a 12 -- it's going to be a big deal, we hope. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's all I got, Judge. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other member of the Court have 15 any reports to make? 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, only report I'll make 17 on Ag Barn is the slab has been poured for the new 18 maintenance area and the Fair Association, and another area 19 there that could be designated for some other purpose in the 20 future. And I'm going to get with Tim, and we're going to 21 get a materials list together and get some prices on 22 materials to close that shop there, put a roll-up door and 23 walkway, and I think we'll get some prices on some line and 24 things. We'll have to get that done -- probably put it on 25 the next agenda to authorize for bids. Except that, you 6-9-08 217 1 know, it could be a -- it's a combined thing; it will be over 2 25,000 probably, you know, in the whole scope of things, and 3 so it might be a good idea to bid them, although the 4 materials will be very inexpensive. We're talking about 5 probably somewhere under $5,000. So, anyway, that's about 6 all I got about that. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports from 8 Commissioners? Department heads? Elected officials? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Uh-oh. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Scratch that last communication. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sorry, you already stated it. 12 Too late. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Huh? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One quick thing. I think it's 15 time that we seriously start putting some committees or 16 groups together to start talking about the radio tower 17 system, the radio system, because that is over a million 18 dollar project. And we have averaged inmates over 200 for 19 the last month on certain days. And the jail -- I should not 20 be over 153. And, you know, it will go down again some 21 during the winter; it does this during the summer. But I 22 think it's time we do some very serious talking about what 23 we're going to do, either a bond issue, either getting with 24 the courts, doing something. I don't know what to do, but 25 the overcrowding issue, that's going to hit us real hard, 6-9-08 218 1 real quick, for a lot of millions. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a way where we can -- 3 this is actually a report section. Put it on the agenda 4 sometime. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I will. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else? 7 MS. HYDE: I have three. I wanted to let y'all 8 know that Russ Duncan will be here tomorrow. I'd already 9 talked to Commissioner Baldwin about it. And what he's going 10 to do is, he's going to bring in best practices, and we're 11 going to do them with Commissioner Baldwin, and then we'll 12 review them with y'all once we get to a point so that you can 13 approve or disapprove what you believe the collections office 14 should be doing. So, he'll be here tomorrow, and then he'll 15 be here again next week, and he'll come by again next week 16 for two days. There's one. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's three days of Russ 18 Duncan. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: More than one human could 20 stand, right? 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You just had a long time off; 22 it's okay. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess so. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just think, he could have 25 been here all this time. You are the liaison for that, I 6-9-08 219 1 take it. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's that? 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Meeting with Russ Duncan. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. 5 MS. HYDE: (Held up a check.) We like money. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dear Ms. Hyde. 7 MS. HYDE: You don't have to worry about that. 8 It's $28,117.46 that -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For what? 10 MS. HYDE: -- that is coming back to us. If you 11 think back about 18 months ago, Mindy and I were on lots of 12 little projects to try to help find ways to get money back 13 and auditing things. So, when y'all told me that I needed to 14 do the unemployment, I had them do an audit for the last five 15 years of our unemployment, what we've paid in, and seems like 16 we've overpaid by about $28,000. So, you get $28,000 back. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Good job, Mindy and -- 19 MS. HYDE: Mindy. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- Mindy and Ms. Hyde. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good, ladies. Thank 22 y'all very much. We need to do that about once a month. 23 Could you do that once a month? 24 MS. HYDE: No problem. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Not for this same thing. 6-9-08 220 1 MS. WILLIAMS: Oh. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Find something new. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just do it a couple of times 4 a week and satisfy old Rusty. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Call Tim; he'll build you 6 one. 7 MS. HYDE: And then, last, on -- back during 8 budget, we had asked for about $50,000. We weren't sure how 9 much it was going to be for the H.R. software and the 10 computers and the interface. It looks like there's going to 11 be about $20,000 left. It goes back into -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: That capital fund? 13 MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. 'Cause I was going to say the 14 "B" word. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's two things that we 17 put back that we don't have to take from the Sheriff's 18 jailer's salary line later. 19 MS. HYDE: So he ought to be nicer to me, right? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 21 MS. HYDE: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner 22 Baldwin. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You think I've ever listened 24 to Buster? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that it? Okay, let's go 6-9-08 221 1 out of public or open session. It is 3:25. We'll go into 2 executive session to consider the item on the agenda. 3 (The open session was closed at 3:25 p.m., and an executive session was held, the transcript of which 4 is contained in a separate document.) 5 - - - - - - - - - - 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're now back in public or 7 open session. It is 3:43. Any member of the Court have 8 anything to offer in connection with matters considered in 9 executive session? Hearing none, anything further, 10 gentlemen? We'll be adjourned. 11 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 3:43 p.m.) 12 - - - - - - - - - - 13 14 STATE OF TEXAS | 15 COUNTY OF KERR | 16 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 17 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 18 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 19 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 20 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 13th day of June, 2008. 21 22 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 23 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 24 Certified Shorthand Reporter 25 6-9-08