1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Monday, June 23, 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 23, 2008 2 PAGE --- Commissioners' Comments 5 3 1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 4 amend variance given on proposed plat for Live Springs Ranch, Court Order #30856 - 5 1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for 6 cattle guard policy 9 7 1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to direct Road and Bridge Department to remove 8 cattle guards on Wilson Creek Road 18 9 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action concerning division of property on Calcote Road 20 10 1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for 11 final plat of Olson Acres 26 12 1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to reappoint Commissioner Williams to the Board of 13 Directors of the Alamo Area Housing Finance Corporation; allow County Judge to sign resolution 14 in support of same 26 15 1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for multiple plat issues associated with Privilege 16 Creek subdivision 27 17 1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to ratify ProDoc litigation software account 33 18 1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action 19 regarding fee officer accounts and depositing requirements (Re: AG Opinion No. GA-0636) 35 20 1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 21 requested resolution from Schleicher County supporting its position with respect to CPS 22 costs as a result of CPS activities 42 23 1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to request unclaimed Capital Credits received from 24 Electric Cooperative from Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts; authorize County Judge to prepare 25 letter of request 44 3 1 I N D E X (Continued) June 23, 2008 2 PAGE 1.12 Discuss State Senate Committee Hearings on 3 subdivision authority and the Hill Country Coalition of Counties 45 4 1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 5 approve amendment for City of Ingram/Kerr County Animal Control agreement; allow County Judge to 6 sign same 78 7 1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to file Secretary of State report and dissolve 8 "Hill Country Juvenile Facility Corporation" 80 9 1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to schedule budget workshops 81 10 1.16 Discussion regarding transition from a paper 11 version of Commissioners Court agenda/backup to an electronic version 85 12 1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 13 appoint committee to draft policies and procedures to comply with IRS Taxable Fringe Benefit 14 regulations 95 15 1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve 2007 Comprehensive Annual Financial 16 Report of period ending September 30, 2007 106 17 1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to allow Sheriff's Office to apply for a grant to 18 assist with radio conversion 128 19 1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve Tetra Tech contract for Phase IV of the 20 Kerrville South project, subject to approval of County Attorney; allow County Judge to sign same 132 21 4.1 Pay Bills 133 22 4.2 Budget Amendments 135 4.3 Late Bills --- 23 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 136 24 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee Assignments 137 25 5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads 139 --- Adjourned 143 4 1 On Monday, June 23, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., a special 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 meeting of the Kerr County 9 Commissioners Court regularly scheduled and posted for this 10 time and date, Monday, June 23, 2008, at 9 a.m. It is that 11 time now. This reminds me of a wedding where one side of the 12 family's not represented too well. (Laughter.) That's 13 better, John. Appreciate that. Commissioner Letz? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Please stand and join me in a 15 moment of prayer, followed by the pledge. 16 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's 18 any member of the public or the audience that wishes to be 19 heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, this is 20 the time for you to tell us what's on your mind. If you wish 21 to be heard on an agenda item, we'd ask that you fill out a 22 participation form. They're located at the back of the room, 23 I think. If not, if you haven't filled out one, if there's 24 not any more there, or when we get to that item, if you 25 suddenly decide you want to be heard on it, get my attention 6-23-08 5 1 in some way and I'll see that you have that opportunity. But 2 right now, if there's any member of the public that wishes to 3 be heard on any matter that is not listed on the agenda, come 4 forward and tell us what's on your mind. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one coming forward, we'll 7 move on. Commissioner Letz, what do you have for us this 8 morning? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really don't have anything. 10 I just had kind of a busy weekend and a busy week coming up, 11 and I'm just ready to get through today. That's it. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I notice that we got a -- a 13 notification in our box about an outdoor burning workshop 14 that's going to be at the Ag Barn on Thursday at 1 o'clock, 15 and I hope there will be some people that will attend that, 16 and maybe more understand about when they can burn and when 17 they should burn, when they shouldn't, even if the burn ban 18 is in effect or not. Anyway, that's about all I have. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baldwin? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The burn ban workshop, I 21 just want to bring you up to date of where I got involved in 22 this thing. The J.P. in Precinct 1 brought it to my 23 attention that if you lay the state law down and then you lay 24 the rules from the Forestry Service down, and the Parks and 25 Wildlife set of rules, and all three of them say something 6-23-08 6 1 different. So, being the alarmist that I am, that's how this 2 thing was born, is we need to get to the bottom of it and 3 everybody get on the right and the same page. And J.P. 1 is 4 willing to prosecute and -- and do things with this, so -- 5 but in order to get there, the guru's coming down. I got 6 some Tivy athletic information here. There's all kinds of 7 girls -- there's several girls from Kerrville that had won 8 some awards, but one from the courthouse family, 9 Miss Bollier, made the all-district team, all-region team, 10 all-state team, and my little avenue of information, I 11 understand there may be more to come, even bigger than 12 all-state. So, it's pretty exciting. And that's all I have, 13 Judge. Thank you. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Williams? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just another footnote on 16 this outdoor burning workshop. It was Commissioner Baldwin's 17 idea and we picked it up and took it to AACOG. And AACOG is 18 footing the bill for the speaker that's coming, and that's 19 Dr. John Ockles, and he's of the Texas Illegal Dumping 20 Resource Center. And he's going to be doing what 21 Commissioner Baldwin indicated, telling us how the law really 22 reads, despite information that comes from three or four 23 different sources. But one of the things I think is 24 interesting about this is, there's a lot of people that 25 believe it's okay to burn domestic waste in a barrel, which 6-23-08 7 1 it is, but -- but what they don't realize is that in today's 2 world, many times you're burning things that release toxic 3 fumes and all sorts of things in the air, even though you're 4 only messing with your domestic waste stream. So, I again 5 emphasize that, as Commissioner Baldwin did, anybody that 6 needs to have more information or consistent information 7 about outdoor burning should be at this workshop, a couple 8 hours as time well spent. 9 I spent about four days -- three and a half days in 10 Waco, Texas, my own hometown, getting my commissioners' 11 continuing education. Notwithstanding there are some who say 12 you can't educate a commissioner, but the State continues to 13 insist that we try, and so we'll do that. And I was 14 interested in the growth in that particular city, 'cause I 15 was telling Judge Tinley that I was in Waco in 1953 when the 16 tornado wiped out that town and killed 113 people, wiped out 17 the entire downtown area, all around city hall and the city 18 square and all of that stuff. And it's been, you know, 19 through the years, fits and starts as to how they should deal 20 with that tragedy and rebuild the city, and they've had some 21 things happen. Convention Center was built, a new hotel was 22 built, and one thing or another, but the reality was that a 23 whole lot of the downtown area never really took hold, and 24 was in the process of being rebuilt. It was kind of 25 gratifying to see that after all of those years, now, 6-23-08 8 1 suddenly, there is a real renaissance down there, and there's 2 construction going on everywhere, which is a revitalization 3 of the downtown of that town. So, just something to keep in 4 our mind as we worry about and work with the City and so 5 forth on revitalization of our own downtown. That's all I 6 have, Judge. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Judge, I have one more thing 8 I'd like to mention. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Today is the -- is the 11 beginning of cleanup being done with an abatement program 12 that's starting in west Kerr County. In fact, there've been 13 some areas cleaned up in other precincts as well, but the 14 Ellerbracht property at Mountain Home is going to be cleaned 15 up, and also an area in Bee Caves that had a bunch of junk 16 cars on it is being cleaned up as of -- today is the first 17 day, after all the notifications have gone out and all the 18 legal part of the law had been adhered to. And so those 19 areas are going to be very -- very well cleaned up. And it's 20 been an eyesore for a long time, and we have a really good 21 enforcement department now with Environmental Health and 22 working with Solid Waste, and they've worked real hard on 23 this with the County Attorney to see it happened, and I'm 24 really pleased that it is happening. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner. We've got 6-23-08 9 1 a fairly lengthy agenda. Not overly, but let's get to work 2 on it. The first item on the agenda is to consider, discuss, 3 and take appropriate action to amend the variance given on 4 proposed plat for Live Springs Ranch, Court Order Number 5 30856. Commissioner Oehler? 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'd like to pass on this till 7 the next meeting. We still don't have all the information 8 that we needed to push this forward. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Very well. Well, any member of the 10 Court have anything further to offer on that? We'll move to 11 Item 2; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for 12 cattle guard policy. Mr. Odom. 13 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, thank you. Before you, you 14 have the policy that we wrote up for y'all's review. It's 15 not anything formal, other than y'all's review and comments, 16 and also the form that we would send out. So, I'm open for 17 suggestions on whether this is acceptable or not. It is a 18 policy that we looked at. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Are we always going to have six 20 months lead time to be able to do these notifications, or 21 does that need to be a lesser period? Or is that something 22 required under state law? Where do we come with the six 23 months notification? 24 MR. EMERSON: We're safer with six months, Judge, 25 because what the statute says is that cattle guards are 6-23-08 10 1 considered part of a fence, and if you're going to remove or 2 change or alter in any way part of a fence or a common 3 boundary, you have to provide six months written notice. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 5 MR. EMERSON: So -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: That satisfies me. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- what time frame are you 9 looking at? Just guessing, that you would then, if we 10 implemented this, have all the cattle guards removed? 11 MR. ODOM: I would send out the notifications this 12 week to those people that are affected on those five cattle 13 guards. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, no, I'm talking about the 15 policy. When will the last cattle guard be gone? If we 16 adopt the policy today, how many years is it going to take to 17 get rid of all the cattle guards? Ten years? 'Cause 18 you're -- you have a 10-year maintenance program, so about 19 every 10 years? 20 MR. ODOM: Every 10 years, yeah. It would be 10 21 years going through. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I don't -- my 23 preference is really that if you're -- kind of this, but an 24 additional thing also, that if -- or ownership changes. And, 25 I mean, I'm thinking of -- this is probably really more out 6-23-08 11 1 of Bruce's area than mine, but there are some areas where a 2 cattle guard's going through a ranch, and the cost to the 3 property owner to put fences on both sides of the road is 4 pretty extreme, to me. And -- but if one side of the road 5 gets sold, all of a sudden, that changes the ownership, and 6 then I think that person needs to fence their property 7 anyway. I mean, I think there's an ownership component or a 8 land change or land use component that needs to be looked at, 9 rather than just saying we're going to take out all cattle 10 guards. And that is what the reason is, obviously, it's on 11 the agenda, because Wilson Creek Road -- and that is what 12 happened on Wilson Creek Road that caused the issue of taking 13 out those cattle guards. So, I think that -- you know, I'm 14 not -- I don't know why we need to get rid of all of the 15 cattle guards, especially on some of the more rural roads. 16 But as soon as they're -- you know, like I say, either fences 17 get erected for whatever reason, or ownership changes, and 18 when we do maintenance, I think we take them out at that 19 point. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm kind of as 21 curious as you are as to what is our plan? I've got some 22 roads, as Mr. Odom knows, where three, four, five cattle 23 guards -- Fall Creek Road comes to mind; there's several 24 there. And what are we talking about in terms of scheduled 25 maintenance? Are we talking about sealcoating? Talking 6-23-08 12 1 about rebuilding the roads? What are we talking about, 2 and -- and how do we go about this so we don't get another 3 Wilson Creek Road on our -- on our hands up here? 4 MR. ODOM: Well, essentially, when I move in to do 5 maintenance on that, probably for sealcoat in most cases, 6 most of the roads we have, with the exception of -- probably 7 less than ten miles of road are dirt now. All of them are 8 sealcoated. So when we go through our maintenance programs, 9 is what I'm looking at, we could have an answer, other than 10 when I wrote this up, I used the word "shall." I didn't want 11 a question about "may be," "should be," "shall be." "Shall 12 be" is very explicit as to policy for me, but I'm open -- it 13 makes sense, what you say. I don't know what I do. I guess 14 when I identify that -- that road and we're doing maintenance 15 on it, then I guess that we would go through the Appraisal 16 District and see which side -- do they own both sides of the 17 road? Fall Creek may not be that way. In some areas, it is. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the 20X Ranch is one 19 of them. 20 MR. ODOM: Well, 20X. Also, Mr. Holekamp's up 21 front -- 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's another one. 23 MR. ODOM: -- is another one, and so there are some 24 exceptions, and that may be the way we look at it. But I'm 25 trying to get a policy before I get out and send -- trying to 6-23-08 13 1 verify how -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about "may be"? "May 3 be" phased out as opposed to "will be" phased out. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't -- I'm with 5 Leonard. I mean, to me, the cattle guard issue is safety -- 6 a safety issue. And it's either a safety issue or it's not a 7 safety issue. In six months, you got to remove it -- we're 8 going to remove the thing. You can put your fences back and 9 whatever. I mean, that, to me, is -- I like what he's 10 saying. You do it and get it out of the way. 11 MR. ODOM: Out of the way. I -- you know. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I think you do it -- I 13 agree with Jonathan. Because of the practicality of it and 14 the cost -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bruce, don't agree with him 16 this early in the meeting. (Laughter.) 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I have to on this one. 18 I mean, it's just -- it makes sense. You don't force people 19 to lay both sides of the road when there's one cattle guard 20 and they own property on both sides. Or if they don't, one 21 side will probably be fenced and the other side not. But 22 cost of fencing now is -- on deer-proof, is about 25,000 a 23 mile. And low fence is somewhere around 12,000, 14,000 a 24 mile. It's very expensive to do that for removal of one 25 cattle guard. I think you do it whenever you wind up with 6-23-08 14 1 people fencing both sides and they become obsolete, and not 2 able -- there's no purpose for them once you have a fence 3 down both sides of the county road. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, even -- I mean, I'm not 5 sure if I heard exactly what you said, but, like, if you 6 sell -- I think the -- take the Holekamp property. If they 7 sell everything on one side of the road, to me, that means 8 they need to fence their side too at that point. I mean, and 9 then the other people, they need to fence, because I don't -- 10 we don't want to -- in my mind, we don't want to not have a 11 fence just so cows can graze the right-of-way. That's the 12 safety concern, and that's -- where Wilson Creek happened, 13 the only thing that there was for them to graze that wasn't 14 fenced was the right-of-way. And, you know, why -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's happening on 16 Fall Creek. They're right out there on the right-of-way. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, they're on it, but 18 there's no fences. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right, there are no fences. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm saying if you have a fence, 21 and then all the -- the only open range, so to speak, is the 22 right-of-way, and that was the case on Wilson Creek. That -- 23 you know, it doesn't make sense to me then. But it is -- 24 it's a very -- I think we have found, because of Wilson 25 Creek, it can be a very contentious issue to people, and I 6-23-08 15 1 don't want to put Road and Bridge into -- you know, that's 2 why I support us making the policy and making the decision 3 rather than Road and Bridge doing it, because, you know, 4 we're the ones that -- 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, in one way, if we force 6 people to fence their property, that's kind of an unfunded 7 mandate, too. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can look at it that 9 way. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: You think the criteria ought to turn 11 more on when property ceases to be owned by a single owner on 12 both sides of the road? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and then the next 14 maintenance after that. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that idea. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. And what you have -- 17 MR. ODOM: So we're looking at a 20-year span. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Could be. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could be. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Or more. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or when you do the next 22 maintenance. I mean, it just depends when you do it. I 23 mean, or -- you know, or at your discretion. I mean, it 24 doesn't have to be when the next maintenance is. Really, it 25 can be -- I'd probably say I'd be more inclined to trigger it 6-23-08 16 1 on the change of ownership on one side of the road. And, 2 Len, it will be at your discretion when you want to remove 3 the cattle guards. You don't have to wait on maintenance. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But you're basing this 5 decision -- this policy on people selling property and buying 6 property or having the ability to afford building fences and 7 all that. It's a safety issue. It doesn't have anything to 8 do with who owns what or how much money they have. It's a 9 safety issue. And it's either a safety issue or it's not. 10 If it's a safety issue, we need to pull the cattle guards 11 out. If it's not a safety issue, let's don't even order this 12 thing; let's get on down the road and quit fooling with 13 cattle guards. Besides that, those people are too expensive 14 anyway, sitting around guarding people's cattle. That was a 15 joke. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The guy that used to sit in 17 that seat. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, what you're going to 19 have -- what you're seeing all over the county and all over 20 the state is that people who have this open land, and in most 21 places, unless you get into to some real rural areas, is that 22 you have somebody come in and buy the thing. They're going 23 to fence their property to keep people from driving off the 24 county road and just driving onto their property anywhere 25 they choose, and that's going to be a natural course of 6-23-08 17 1 progression as the way we -- as when we grow. And it's 2 pretty evident everywhere you go, people want to -- they want 3 to kind of secure their own property and not have it 4 available for people just to go and do and, you know, have -- 5 have their own good fun time on somebody else's land. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the compromise here? 7 Let's do something with this thing. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think either way we go, it 9 looks like Leonard's going to have to do some more tweaking 10 and polishing on his policy, don't you think? 11 MR. ODOM: Why don't I come back with something? 12 And I have some ideas that you've got. I'll get with Truby 13 or Kelly and we'll try to put something together that makes 14 sense, what you say. And our position is, we want a policy. 15 "Shall be" is a policy. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What you may look at a little 17 bit, and I think it is -- from a safety standpoint, is the 18 traffic count on the roads. As the traffic counts go up, 19 livestock on the road becomes more of a safety issue. 20 MR. ODOM: More of a safety issue. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is the case on Fall 22 Creek, I can tell you. 23 MR. ODOM: And, you know, it's a unique situation 24 that we have on Wilson Creek Road, because that is the 25 bypass, and we've had that three times bypassed in there. 6-23-08 18 1 And I think someone has died on Wilson Road from the bypass, 2 ran off. So, you know, it's work. And how many times it's 3 been hit, the cattle guards, and we repair, but that is the 4 only way to get out of Comfort down 27, so it's -- it was a 5 unique situation. And had I to do it over, I probably would 6 have done it different, probably. So, I'll come back to the 7 Court with something else. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: We ready to move on? 9 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we've got a related issue, 11 Item 3; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to direct 12 the Road and Bridge Department to remove the cattle guards on 13 Wilson Creek Road. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now the truth is going to 15 come out. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Now -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There you go. The real 18 issue comes out. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- or in the backup, 20 there is a plat that kind of shows Wilson Creek Road and the 21 property ownership. Originally, all of that land was one 22 ownership owned by the Roane family, and it was bought, and 23 then it's been since subdivided. And this is a case where it 24 is now -- it was one landowner. There's now -- one, two, 25 three, four -- six, and a subdivision. Including a 6-23-08 19 1 subdivision. All of this property has -- well, I shouldn't 2 say all. The lower part towards Highway 27 is not currently 3 fenced. Everything above that, there are fences on both 4 sides of the road. All the landowners -- we've talked to 5 them all. All of the landowners, with the exception of 6 Mr. Bohnert, who owns the southern part, don't have a problem 7 with us removing cattle guards. And their, actually, cattle 8 guards were put back in, because Mr. Bohnert leases the 9 property under the statute. Leasing, you have to give notice 10 through the lessee. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: On the southern stretch of property 12 there adjacent to the road, is that fenced? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. That's the only part that 14 is not fenced. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I see the rub. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And in my mind, the -- the 17 three that we had previously removed should be removed. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which three were those? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This one. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The northern -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The northern two that are 22 crossing it, and the next one down. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The bottom two towards Highway 25 27, one is at Highway 27. And, you know, it's a little bit 6-23-08 20 1 of a safety concern letting livestock get onto Highway 27, in 2 my mind. And the next one is up at the upper -- you know, is 3 the boundary of Mr. Bohnert's property. And, to me, that -- 4 and I'll make a motion to authorize Road and Bridge 5 Department to give notice that the upper three cattle guards 6 be removed. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 9 indicated. Question or discussion on the motion? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. This notice, now, 11 is there a time frame on the notice? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We send notice, and then 13 there's -- six months after they receive the notice, we'll 14 remove them. And that's statute. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's the same six months 16 that we discussed earlier? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Any other questions or 18 discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 19 your right hand. 20 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 22 (No response.) 23 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move 24 to Item 4; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action 25 concerning the division of property on Calcote Road and 6-23-08 21 1 located in Precinct 1. Mr. Odom? 2 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. There were some Environmental 3 Health issues on a piece of property, and one of the issues 4 was whether it met the grandfather date the Court set on 5 determining if the owner had to go back and plat a property. 6 This 5-acre tract was divided into two parcels of 2 and a 7 half acres on January the 11th, 2001. The grandfather date 8 was December 11th, 2000. The 2 and a half acre tract in 9 question was transferred five times before the current owner 10 purchased it in 2007. The current owner of the property, Mr. 11 Arnold Garcia, is here today asking the Court for a variance 12 of the grandfather date, because it was done only 30 days 13 after December the 11th, 2000, and the subdivision rules in 14 effect at the time would have allowed 1-acre tracts with a 15 water system, and we have no way of knowing if the person 16 dividing the lot fell under the family exception to platting 17 originally. There's a nice manufactured home on the lot, and 18 the owners are unable to get a permit to construct a septic 19 system until this matter has been addressed. Both Mr. Garcia 20 and Ray Garcia -- but I see Tish back there -- are here to 21 answer any questions you might have. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: The grandfather provision, that's 23 the subdivision rules that came into place in December 2000 24 that said you can't divide an already subdivided lot without 25 either showing yourself under an exemption or replatting. 6-23-08 22 1 MR. ODOM: That's correct. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: So, anything done before that time, 3 it's king's X. Anything afterwards, essentially -- 4 MR. ODOM: Right. And here's the gentleman that's 5 the fifth owner of the piece of property. It was done 6 approximately 30 days after originally. You're working under 7 the old subdivision rules, which allowed 1-acre tracts. 8 Here's a 2 and a half acre tract, and so, you know, we're 9 punishing an individual that's really innocent in it. And 10 I'm not saying give a variance for the action thereof. Give 11 a variance to the date. We're only 30 days; that's close 12 enough for a hand grenade. (Laughter.) 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any problem with 14 that. I mean, I think it's -- you know -- 15 MR. ODOM: It solves a problem. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are they going to -- are they 17 going to plat it? I think they need to plat it, just so we 18 can clean it up as we're going. But -- 19 MR. ODOM: Mr. Garcia? We have discussed that in 20 our office. 21 MR. GARCIA: Yes. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Please give us your name and 23 address. 24 MR. GARCIA: Arnold Garcia. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And where do you live, Mr. 6-23-08 23 1 Garcia? 2 MR. GARCIA: I live on 132 Montebello Court. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Go ahead, sir. 4 MR. GARCIA: We planned to -- to get this land 5 fixed up real nice and neat. It's just we're having problems 6 with, like, getting the septic put in. And as far as a plat, 7 I don't quite understand what the plat -- I mean, when you 8 ask the question, are we going to plat it -- 9 MR. ODOM: What we were talking about, going ahead 10 and either make a -- combine it, or either make a one-lot 11 subdivision. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A plat, it's legal terminology 13 for having to file -- it's a formal plat with the County. 14 The cost, which I'm sure is really your biggest concern, not 15 counting the survey cost, is probably in the neighborhood of 16 $100 or something like that. Isn't that about right, 17 Leonard? 18 MR. ODOM: Probably. 19 MR. GARCIA: Whatever we need to do, that's what we 20 -- you know, we want to do. But -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 22 MR. GARCIA: -- we want to do everything right. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have -- I presume, since you 24 bought it, there's a legal description that you have that a 25 plat can be put together. 6-23-08 24 1 MR. ODOM: I believe that, looking at it, he could 2 put it together. Either he might be able to combine, or -- 3 or I have to go back and look again, but we had discussed 4 that, with the possibility. But, basically, he was really 5 messed up with the fact that it was after that date. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I think we should do a 7 plat so that if -- when you sell it again, we don't have this 8 same problem. Then it's a -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So that there will be a 10 permanent record here, that we'll know what you have from 11 this point on. 12 MR. GARCIA: Right. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- 14 MR. ODOM: Yeah. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- this guy, if we don't 16 grant this variance and allow him these few days on this 17 issue, then, I mean, he's never going to be able to do 18 anything with his property. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree totally. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, and he didn't know 21 all this when he bought it, so it's not his fault, and we 22 shouldn't -- so I move that we grant that variance from the 23 time frame issue. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The grandfather date? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 6-23-08 25 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 3 indicated. Question or discussion on the motion? All in 4 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you, 9 gentlemen. 10 MR. GARCIA: Thank you, sir. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leonard, will you step 12 Mr. Garcia through the platting process so he clearly 13 understands? 14 (Discussion off the record.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: There's some professionally prepared 16 field notes that are attached here. 17 MR. ODOM: Right there. It's not much left to do. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: There can be an engineered plat 19 drawn from that, I would think. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Might want to make sure and 21 check that he doesn't have any cattle guards out there, 22 though. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, find out about that. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Have to remove them. 25 MR. ODOM: I have 20 years to take it out. 6-23-08 26 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Let's go to Item 5, if 2 we might; consider, discuss, take appropriate action for 3 final plat of Olson Acres located in Precinct 4. Mr. Odom? 4 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. If the Court remembers, there 5 was a gentleman in here trying to do this at the end of Goat 6 Creek Road. Olson Acres is a one-lot subdivision consisting 7 of 5.2 acres. This tract of 5.2 acres may not be subdivided 8 into smaller tracts, and today we're requesting a final plat 9 approval of Olson Acres. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Are you waiting on me to make 12 a motion? Well, I did. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Move to approve. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: He thought you did. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I make the motion to 17 approve the plat. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 19 approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in 20 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We're about 25 a minute out of 9:30. We'll go to 7; consider, discuss, and 6-23-08 27 1 take appropriate action to reappoint Commissioner Williams to 2 the Board of Directors of the Alamo Area Housing Finance 3 Corporation and allow County Judge to sign resolution in 4 support of same. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 8 approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion on the 9 motion? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you on the board now? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it's a reappointment? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or discussion? 15 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 16 hand. 17 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 19 (No response.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. It is now 21 9:30, so well consider Item 6; consider, discuss, take 22 appropriate action for multiple plat issues associated with 23 Privilege Creek subdivision. It says the County Attorney, 24 but I believe Mr. Jackson probably wants to be heard to 25 update us. Is that correct, sir? 6-23-08 28 1 MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. I am -- I'm 2 going to hand these out. These are folded up copies. 3 Everybody else received a copy, and then I left these a 4 little easier to open up. So -- 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll look over his 6 shoulder. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's fine. 8 MR. JACKSON: Everybody look on those. You've seen 9 this master plat a couple of three times, and there have been 10 ongoing discussions, which is all part of the Kendall County 11 settlement of the lawsuit. There were some additional 12 changes that have been requested by Kendall County. 13 Essentially, they are to take off any reference to the 14 Kendall County property. It's a Kerr County matter; 15 obviously, that's what you have jurisdiction over, and that's 16 what the settlement's about. That's what the lawsuit is 17 about, was Kerr County property. They wanted us to show the 18 location of a gate, which is right on the edge of the green 19 area. We've done that. The EMS site is located where we 20 talked at the last meeting. And then we showed the road just 21 west of the green area to be public, and they would prefer 22 that it be named Lane Valley, as opposed to Turkey Nob, which 23 we're fine with. Those are the only three changes from the 24 last, and then hopefully final master plat, which will become 25 a part of the settlement, and probably entered very shortly, 6-23-08 29 1 so that we'll go on with this development. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where does Lane Valley stop 3 and Turkey Nob begin? 4 MR. JACKSON: At the green. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At the green, okay. But 6 it's one -- 7 MR. JACKSON: One continuous road, that's right. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And why do we do that? 9 MR. JACKSON: They asked that it be done, and the 10 developer was fine with that request. It's not something 11 that had to be done. It wasn't a legal requirement. It's 12 just a matter of preference of -- 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you're driving down the 14 road, and before you know it, the name's changed? 15 MR. JACKSON: That's right. And there will be a 16 gate there. It'll -- that will help a little. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But now you're proposing 18 that it all be Lane Valley all the way to Kendall County 19 line, I guess? 20 MR. JACKSON: No. No, it will be Turkey Nob 21 through the green area. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, we're dealing with 23 these Comfort people. Just nod your head. (Laughter.) 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I guess maybe I'm kind of 25 behind the curve, but what does Kendall County have to do 6-23-08 30 1 with Kerr County, period, when it doesn't affect them? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It doesn't, but they sued, 3 so they got involved. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Shouldn't have gotten on 5 first base. 6 MR. JACKSON: Let me make clear, and I said this 7 the last time, is that whatever you say goes, and they 8 understand that. So, these are all requests, not demands, 9 and we come to you with that specific thought in mind. It 10 isn't something that they are requiring as much as they're 11 asking for, but they understand, and the District Judge who's 12 overseeing this resolution settlement and lawsuit understands 13 that Kerr County will control Kerr County property. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's important. 15 MR. JACKSON: It is. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard? Do you have any 17 specific thoughts regarding these -- what, three issues? 18 MR. ODOM: The issue I have as to the original was 19 this 1-foot strip at this gate back here. This road was 20 built at the request of Kendall County, and also the back 21 road is the reason that road comes off Lane Valley to the -- 22 to the subdivision. They -- that was forced upon them. But 23 there is something -- and originally, when we talked about 24 it, that 1-foot strip is something there, and I'm not -- I'm 25 not that knowledgeable of whether we have tort liability or 6-23-08 31 1 not, but they have a gate, but this is part of an agreement 2 that Kendall County wanted, so I guess you could enter into 3 this back side. I -- I don't know if it's going to be 4 finished or not. I would assume that it's going to be 5 finished. But the question would always arise, this 1-foot 6 strip. Our rules say you cannot do that. I think the state 7 law says that you cannot do that to cut people off from the 8 property. However, I'm -- I'm not versed in law. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're not practicing law? 10 MR. ODOM: I'm not practicing law. 11 MR. JACKSON: The 1-foot matter is a private 12 restriction easement issue. It is the subject of a separate 13 lawsuit. It is not something that I think has anything to do 14 with, nor can it control or dictate what happens on an actual 15 plat or a master plat or a concept plan. It's just out 16 there. Our position is the same as Leonard's, that it has no 17 effect. It will not be enforced. But for the purposes of 18 this settlement and this master plat, it's not an issue. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: So, the developer in this case that 20 you represent, making the request for these changes, which 21 have been essentially requests by Kendall County, has not 22 acquiesced in the validity of that 1-foot -- 23 MR. JACKSON: No. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: And that matter will continue to be 25 litigated? 6-23-08 32 1 MR. JACKSON: It will. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 3 MR. JACKSON: And as Leonard's pointed out, the 4 District Judge mandated that we cross the 1-foot for entry 5 during the pendency of the litigation. So, those are all, as 6 we know, legal issues of interest, but not for the platting 7 or the concept master platting. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To be sure I understand, 9 there are two circles over what we know as Lane Valley Road, 10 and then there's this green section. The request is that the 11 name of Lane Valley Road continue through those two circles 12 up to the green; is that correct? 13 MR. JACKSON: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I move approval. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 17 approval of the matters as requested by Attorney Jackson. 18 Any further question or discussion on the motion? All in 19 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 20 (Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Oehler voted in favor of the motion.) 21 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Let the record 25 reflect that Commissioner Letz neither participated in the 6-23-08 33 1 discussion nor voted on the matter. 2 MR. JACKSON: Thank you very much. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, David. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 8, if we might; 5 consider, discuss, take appropriate action to ratify ProDoc 6 litigation software account. Mr. Emerson? 7 MR. EMERSON: Thank you. As the Court's well 8 aware, we're becoming involved in more and more civil 9 litigation representing the County. The ProDoc litigation 10 software will allow us to do discovery and basically create 11 various litigation documents that we need in a small amount 12 of time, as compared to the system that we currently have. 13 Unfortunately, the County doesn't have any library of 14 documents. We inquired; none of the other counties are 15 either willing to have -- or share their documents in this 16 manner, and despite repeated requests, T.C.E.Q. hasn't 17 produced any documents. So -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why does that not surprise 19 me? 20 MR. EMERSON: -- we're proceeding on our own. The 21 ProDoc litigation software would be a license for four 22 simultaneous users. I think that's anticipatory a little 23 bit. At this point, I can't see more than two to three 24 people at the same time using the system, but that will give 25 us room to expand. 6-23-08 34 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're asking for this 2 service that provides all of these various types of documents 3 that are shown on this matrix with dots; is that correct? 4 MR. EMERSON: Correct. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what will the -- what 6 will be the monthly fee for the use of all this? 7 MR. EMERSON: $135. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For all of that? 9 MR. EMERSON: Correct. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: And that would be payable out of the 11 library funds, I presume, wouldn't it? Law Library? 12 MR. EMERSON: I don't know if it qualifies or not. 13 But if not out of the library funds, we can cover it out of 14 our existing budget. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Would this not qualify, Ms. Uecker, 16 out of the Law Library? 17 (Ms. Uecker nodded.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: We've got -- those are dedicated 19 funds; we can't use them for anything else. It occurs to me 20 that's where we ought to fund it from. No shortage of money 21 there, is there? 22 MS. UECKER: I don't think so. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 6-23-08 35 1 approval. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Out of Law Library fund. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excellent. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor, signify by raising 6 your right hand. 7 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. 11 MR. EMERSON: Thank you. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Emerson. Let's move 13 to Item 9. 14 MS. WILLIAMS: Morning. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Consider, discuss, take appropriate 16 action regarding fee officer accounts and depositing 17 requirements, reference A.G. Opinion Number GA-0636. 18 Ms. Williams. 19 MS. WILLIAMS: Morning. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Morning. 22 MS. WILLIAMS: It was suggested that I put this on 23 the court agenda. The County Attorney was nice enough to get 24 me a copy of the A.G.'s opinion, and then I printed it out so 25 that each of you would have a copy of that. We knew this was 6-23-08 36 1 coming down the pike -- not necessarily this thing, but we 2 knew that we were going to have to address the daily 3 depositing of the fee officers with the County Treasurer. It 4 looks like we're going to have to go ahead. There are 5 certain accounts that I think the District Clerk, the County 6 Clerk, and the Tax Assessor probably will still have to keep 7 open, but the others -- the J.P.'s, some of the other 8 accounts -- are going to have to be closed. 9 I have been in touch with -- I've talked with the 10 County Auditor in Navarro County, and she sent me a 11 spreadsheet program that they have been using for 20-some-odd 12 years. They have a separate bank account where their fee 13 officers deposit daily into this separate bank account. Once 14 the monthly reports are balanced, then the money is 15 transferred from there over to the Treasurer's account. The 16 money that's in the re -- they call it a revolving and 17 clearing account. It is tied to a sweep account so the money 18 can be swept into a higher interest bearing account. 19 Basically, I just wanted to make the Court aware that this 20 Attorney General's opinion is out there and we're going to 21 have to look at taking care of this within probably the next 22 30, 60 days, something like that. And if the County Attorney 23 and County Auditor have any input, I welcome them to please, 24 you know -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question. 6-23-08 37 1 MS. WILLIAMS: Sure. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Williams, if we adopt 3 this policy change as per your recommendation today, where 4 does that put us with respect to these issues when the County 5 hits 50,000? 6 MS. WILLIAMS: We would already be in compliance. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Total compliance? 8 MS. WILLIAMS: I would think so, yes, sir. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or partial? 10 MS. WILLIAMS: I would think total compliance. 11 Because, basically, the fee officers would not have their 12 bank -- their individual bank accounts. They would be 13 required to deposit daily into the revolving and clearing 14 account. It would be a separate bank account at the county 15 depository bank, and at that point we would be in compliance 16 with the 50,000 population. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: The revolving or clearing account 18 that the various fee officers would deposit into, that is an 19 account over which only you would have disbursement 20 authority? 21 MS. WILLIAMS: I believe that myself and the County 22 Auditor. There would be two. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Be jointly, but it's basically your 24 account? 25 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 6-23-08 38 1 JUDGE TINLEY: The various fee officers, contrary 2 to how they may handle it now into their separate accounts 3 that they transfer to you once a month or once a week or 4 whatever, -- 5 MS. WILLIAMS: Right. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: -- they would have no disbursement 7 authority out of these accounts? 8 MS. WILLIAMS: The way I understand it, no. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's the -- that's the 10 critical part of the A.G. opinion, as I understand it, is 11 that once the funds are placed on deposit, only the Treasurer 12 should have disbursement authority, as opposed to any of the 13 other fee officers. 14 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, that's what I understand. 15 And I know there's things that we're going to have to work 16 out with the elected officials and the fee officers and stuff 17 and get kind of everything, you know, worked out. But I 18 think that we can do this. And, like I said, I just got the 19 spreadsheet this morning from the Navarro County Auditor, and 20 I want to look over it. It's -- it looks like it will be 21 something that we can use. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you asking the Court to take any 23 specific action today, or are you just updating us and you 24 want to work on this thing and come back for a definitive 25 policy change? 6-23-08 39 1 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. I just want to inform the 2 Court, let you know that it's out there; it's coming down the 3 pike. And I will come back with it. The County Attorney, 4 maybe County Auditor, we can get together and -- and the 5 elected officials too, the fee officers. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, they're going to necessarily 7 have some input. 8 MS. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Uecker, you had a comment? 10 MS. UECKER: Yeah, a couple of them. Of course, 11 everybody knows what I think about A.G. opinions. They're 12 just that; they're opinions. And although the wording in 13 this opinion, you know, says the fee officer shall not have 14 a, you know, separate bank account -- and, first of all, I'm 15 not opposed to, you know, looking into this. But, you know, 16 it also does not prohibit the fee officer from having 17 individual bank accounts. And I think it conflicts -- 18 there's conflicting statutes, first of all, with the one 19 that, you know, says the under 50,000 deposits monthly, over 20 50,000 deposits daily. I think that's a conflict of statute 21 to start with. There's also some conflicting statutes -- and 22 I didn't have time to pull them this morning, but I know one 23 of them is Chapter 117, and the other one is Chapter 42, I 24 think, of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, regarding 25 certain accounts. So, I mean, those are just things that I 6-23-08 40 1 think probably we need to look at. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The only two sections of 3 law that were referenced, Ms. Uecker, in the Attorney 4 General's opinion were LGC 113 -- 5 MS. UECKER: Right. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- and 133. 7 MS. UECKER: And I think 133 is County Clerk funds, 8 isn't it? Isn't that strictly County Clerk? 9 MS. PIEPER: 118. 10 MS. UECKER: Yeah, and that's why I brought up 11 Chapter 117 and 42, because they were not mentioned in this 12 opinion. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was a little bit -- I was 15 a little confused about the over 50,000/under 50,000. Since 16 it says, "except as required by statute," that means that 17 that doesn't apply to Kerr County at this time, the way I 18 read the summary. Am I misreading that? I mean, I don't see 19 that this is a -- the Auditor says I'm misreading it. To me, 20 I don't see this changes, the way I read it, any -- 21 MS. UECKER: Well, and the other thing is -- is the 22 requirement that the fee officer deposits funds into the 23 Treasurer directly also doesn't state in what form. Is it 24 cash, or is it a check out of an individual bank account? 25 See, there's nothing that prohibits Jannett or I to have an 6-23-08 41 1 individual bank account. And to deposit into the funds that 2 this is saying is required, doesn't say in what form. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or an electronic transfer. 4 MS. UECKER: Exactly. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sounds to me like we need 6 more information on this before -- sounds like you're heading 7 down the right path, though. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, we're going to get 9 there eventually, probably in the next census or next couple 10 years, and it's good to get it going. We've already talked 11 about that. From a control standpoint, we need to get the 12 money deposited and accounted for as quickly as possible. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Your intention at this point is to 14 work with the elected officials and the fee officers, the 15 County Attorney, and put something together? 16 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: And then come back to us? 18 MS. WILLIAMS: Research it further and try to get 19 something that will be workable for everybody. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Good. 21 MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have any 23 additional questions on that? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to Item 10, if we 6-23-08 42 1 might; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on 2 requested resolution from Schleicher County supporting its 3 position with respect to C.P.S. costs as a result of C.P.S. 4 activities there in Schleicher County. I put this on the 5 agenda at the request of Schleicher County officials. They 6 merely want us to support their resolution dealing with what 7 got dropped around their ears as a result of all that C.P.S. 8 activity in the F.L.D.S. facility there in Schleicher County. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only comment I would have, 10 Judge, I don't disagree with the intent, because I think they 11 have been whacked badly and are now looking at the potential 12 of bankruptcy. I think the "Resolved" in the resolution 13 proposed for Kerr County needs a little strengthening, and 14 also there's an error in one of the whereas's, and I would 15 propose that the resolved be -- we add to the resolved, "The 16 Commissioners Court of Kerr County adopt the attached 17 resolution in support of Schleicher County, which petitions" 18 -- tells what we're going to do -- "which petitions the State 19 Legislature to appropriate funds to eliminate the financial 20 burden on the taxpayers of Schleicher County." To me, that 21 tells the story. The way it is right now, it leaves it kind 22 of hanging. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Shouldn't you also put as it 24 relates to this particular incident? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As it relates to the C.P.S. 6-23-08 43 1 issues, or something like that. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As it relates -- I think it 3 needs to be -- they need to be responsible for everything 4 except this one instance, in my mind. Which is a pretty big 5 incident. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Big incident. Was that a 7 motion Commissioner? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, it is. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Will it incorporate my 10 language? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, it will. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 14 indicated. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll work on it, yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to point out the 17 names on the signatures on the Commissioners Court here, the 18 Judge is Johnny Griffin, and Kirk Griffin is the Precinct 3 19 Commissioner. Same name, and if you look at the F's in their 20 signature, they're exactly the same. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What are you suggesting? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mama taught them how to 23 write. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know those two guys. 25 They're a hoot. 6-23-08 44 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Johnny is retiring. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: He's been there 20-some-odd years, I 4 think. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Long time. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: It's interesting to note that, 7 according to what he told me, that when -- when the original 8 search warrant was brought to him for issuance, he sent them 9 back out the door. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Really? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: He said he didn't want any part of 12 it. Any other question or discussion on the motion? All in 13 favor of the motion, indicate by raising your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jody, I'll get with you on 19 the break and we'll change it. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to Item 11, if we 21 might; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to request 22 unclaimed capital credits received from Electric Cooperative 23 pursuant to Section 74.602 of the Texas Property Code from 24 the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, and authorize 25 County Judge to prepare letter of request. This is an annual 6-23-08 45 1 thing. I think this is probably the third year now that 2 we've requested these capital credits, or the specific kind 3 of request to be done by a specific deadline to get the 4 money, and we're just asking the Court to let me do it again, 5 to get us some money. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. 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: The motion does carry. We'll move 15 to Item 12; discuss State Senate Committee hearings on 16 subdivision authority and Hill Country Coalition of Counties. 17 Commissioner Letz? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. I put this on the agenda 19 primarily because of a couple letters to the editor and other 20 information, and also as an informative item related to the 21 Hill Country Coalition. I think the Court was aware that I 22 was going to possibly testify at those hearings, and the 23 hearings were held in Austin last Wednesday. The Senate 24 committee on International Trade Relations, Senator Lucio is 25 the chairman of that, and he had an interim charge from the 6-23-08 46 1 Lieutenant Governor to look at subdivision rules, and he kind 2 of expanded it statewide, or that's how he looked at his 3 charge. And there was testimony given by, I think, 24 4 entities, of which I think five or six of them, or six or 5 seven of them were judges or commissioners or county 6 attorneys from the Hill Country County Coalition. 7 The gist of the, I guess, concerns that were raised 8 to me -- and I had lunch with Granger McDonald, along with 9 Bill Williams, right after they received their letters -- was 10 that there was a behind-the-scenes large pot of money that 11 was contrary to -- that we did or didn't know about possibly, 12 but that was contrary to, I guess, our intent, being Kerr 13 County Commissioners, an intent of pretty limited additional 14 authority that we were looking at requesting from the 15 Legislature. And I told them at the meeting that if that was 16 the case, you know, I'd be, you know, interested to find out 17 about it, and certainly don't support it. And I told the 18 Senate committee that -- I said that the Hill Country 19 Coalition of Counties -- County Coalition is not a formal 20 group. It is kind of a round-table group that counties from 21 15 -- or 15 counties from the Hill Country, we've met several 22 times since the first of the year, and where we have common 23 interest, we felt that it is better to speak with one voice, 24 as opposed to each have their own different approaches in 25 dealing with the Legislature. You tend to get more 6-23-08 47 1 accomplished if you're speaking with one voice up there. 2 What was interesting during the, I guess, five or 3 six meetings that we had, the interests of all the counties 4 was very different, as one would expect. The further you got 5 to the east, the more authority some of those counties 6 wanted, or representatives from those counties wanted. And 7 it kind of settled on -- they all agreed with Kerr County, as 8 opposed to Kerr County agreeing with them as to what we could 9 all agree with. That's just not -- it wasn't just Kerr 10 County; Gillespie and Bandera and Kerr were probably -- and 11 Real and Edwards were pretty much all in the same boat. Then 12 you had some of the concerned counties that didn't want more 13 authority. My testimony -- and I meant to bring a copy to 14 hand out to the Court; I put it in everyone's box -- was 15 basically -- and this is what the Hill Country Coalition 16 agreed was three items that we think that counties should 17 have additional authority in. 18 First, we felt that there should be a requirement 19 for a buffer area around noncompatible commercial land use 20 next to an existing residential subdivision. In our terms 21 for this county, that means that if you have an existing 22 subdivision, and a rock quarry, which is incompatible with 23 residential use, goes in next to it, then there has to be a 24 buffer between those two. That was that issue. The other 25 issue was that counties should have authority to look at and 6-23-08 48 1 regulate lot sizes and density, besides only relying on water 2 availability. Water availability has forced counties that 3 use groundwater into setting up a scenario where we are 4 almost prohibiting development around some of the areas, 5 'cause you can't get lots small enough in areas where we have 6 communities, such as Center Point. 7 Under our current rules -- and we've tried to make 8 some allowances, but still, you still have -- basically have 9 to have a 3-acre average if you're going to put in a 10 subdivision, and in Center Point, that pretty much prohibits 11 anything, from any kind of a subdivision going into that 12 community. And same around Comfort, same out in Hunt, same 13 around Mountain Home. If we were able to look at something 14 other than water availability, or not having that the only 15 thing, that would enable us to have some other basis, 'cause 16 right now we just don't have that authority. It would also 17 allow to us look in areas that are -- you know, where you 18 have a very steep terrain, to take drainage into -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question. 20 What would be -- what would be an option to water 21 availability? What would be something that you could use as 22 a tool to -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think drainage is one that 24 enters into it as an issue. That is -- you know, like, if 25 you go in some parts of the county, I think drainage and 6-23-08 49 1 water quality become an issue. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we have some authority 3 in that arena, but not strong enough to -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have authority -- we 5 don't have authority to set lot sizes without using water 6 availability, period, and that's the bottom line. You can't 7 use size. You can look at drainage and you get into some 8 state law on drainage that you can't -- you know, but it's 9 real hard to -- you can't get to density and lot size. But 10 the -- on water availability, the current problem now is that 11 the law says that you do a water availability study. We've 12 done kind of a very regional approach, but it's questionable, 13 really, how, you know, that would stand up in court too. We 14 can't look at an area, we can't sit down and say, okay, 15 terrain in this area is logically going to come in with a 16 higher density; therefore, we can go into right around Center 17 Point and go in with a greater density, so we go -- you know, 18 you can kind of average out across parts of the county. And 19 we don't -- just don't have the ability to look at anything 20 other than straight water availability that you have a 3-acre 21 average right now. No legislation has been written. The 22 difficult part is in the details. And your question is very 23 good as to how you get there. What is the other authority? 24 Maybe it's just to be able to set lot size limits, you know. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Water availability may be 6-23-08 50 1 the only thing there. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And maybe you have to go in and 3 change water availability to look at it -- rather than a 4 subdivision only, as it is now, to look at it regionally to 5 have a little bit broader impact. And then the third item 6 that was discussed was the dreaded impact fees. I said 7 "dreaded" because it draws a lot of attention from the state 8 lobbyists. But the -- it was a very narrow request or idea, 9 and it was at -- and the example that I used was the most 10 recent one we had, Live Springs out in the western part of 11 the county. We have 100 homes going in off the end of 12 Henderson Branch Road, and the county -- and the taxpayers of 13 the county as a whole are going to be -- at some point, when 14 that development takes off, be required to do upgrades on 15 Henderson Branch Road, which is a very difficult road to 16 upgrade, just because it goes through the camp -- through 17 the -- I mean, it's kind of -- it's a difficult -- 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It stays out of camp. It's 19 before you get to the camp. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but it's a -- it's 21 still -- it's a difficult issue to burden the taxpayers. 22 Impact fees, as I learned at the hearings, generally are 23 assessed on the -- by cities, anyway, at the time building 24 permits are issued. We don't do building permits. We don't 25 want to do building permits, but we do do septic permits. 6-23-08 51 1 You can do something along that line. May not be a direct 2 charge to a developer, but it may be something -- some way 3 to, again, get funds to upgrade specific roads that access -- 4 or infrastructure that access certain subdivisions. And 5 those are the three things that we talked about. 6 I think it is interesting, and I think this -- just 7 so the public is aware, the letters -- first letters to the 8 editor, and I think the meaning of the letters that I 9 received personally -- and who I also had lunch with with 10 Bill was Granger McDonald and Justin McDonald. Justin's 11 president of the local homebuilders' association, and 12 Granger -- which I didn't know, but he informed me that he's 13 first vice president of the state association, and will be 14 the president of that association during the next legislative 15 session. And I think that kind of is an answer to me as to 16 why they were so upset about the resolution that didn't 17 really say anything, in my mind, but it is because that state 18 association traditionally has been very opposed to any kind 19 of additional authority to counties. And -- you know, and I 20 think that's kind of where that is. That's kind of an 21 update. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I voted to go along with the 23 resolution for those three issues, and I've been dealing with 24 this issue for a long, long time. That -- all three of those 25 issues are important, and I think there are actually others. 6-23-08 52 1 But if we can get somebody to sit down at the table and work 2 on those three issues, it would be, I think, a super change 3 for county government in the great state of Texas. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's kind of the 5 key issue, Commissioner, is getting a place at the table to 6 talk about it. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I voted for, is 8 to get a place at the table, to have the conversation. I 9 don't know anything about big money. I don't know anything 10 about lobbyists. I have no idea about any of that stuff. 11 That did not come into the -- when I voted to join in the 12 resolution, it had nothing to do with it, so my vote to go 13 along with the resolution is simply to have better 14 government, more aware of what's going on in our communities, 15 and the growth. The growth is an issue that, if we don't get 16 a handle on it, it's going to run right over the top of 17 everybody. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's interesting that 19 the -- and Senator Lucio primarily asked a lot of questions 20 of people that testified. One of the questions he asked -- I 21 think it was Judge Sumter from Hays County, and she, I think, 22 wants more authority than I think people in Kerr County want, 23 which is fine. They have a lot of different problems that we 24 don't have. But Senator Lucio asked her, does -- would she 25 like to have the ability to issue building permits and have 6-23-08 53 1 building codes? And her response -- she hesitated a minute 2 and said, "That is not what we're asking for." And then he 3 responded, "I understand that's not what you're asking for 4 right now. Would you like it?" And she said -- thought a 5 minute longer; she says, "I may want that in the future," or, 6 "We may want that in the future." And I take that to be what 7 Hays County wants, certainly not what the Hill Country 8 Coalition -- 'cause each member of the -- each entity or each 9 member that goes to the Hill Country County Coalition are 10 independent. It's not one voice speaking. We're individual 11 counties, and there's no organization there. Buster 12 mentioned the big money lobbyist thing. I think I probably 13 didn't mention that. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wasn't supposed to bring 15 that up? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You are. I'm glad you did. 17 Mr. McDonald's concern was that there was people behind the 18 scenes manipulating, or potentially going to manipulate the 19 Hill Country County Coalition that were more of the liberal 20 environmental bent, with the -- what the implication was -- I 21 did a little bit of work after I met with him, and I found 22 out what the problem was. Well, I shouldn't say that. What 23 I think the problem was is that the group that facilitated 24 the Hill Country County Coalition is the Hill Country 25 Alliance, and the Hill Country Alliance is perceived -- and I 6-23-08 54 1 don't know if they are or aren't -- as an environmental 2 no-growth group. It's based in Travis County. After I found 3 that out, 'cause I didn't know that much about Hill Country 4 Alliance, I called their executive director, Christy Muse. I 5 asked her -- or told her, I said, "You're a problem." 6 You're -- I said, "I don't want to be painted as an 7 environmental group. The fact that you're facilitating 8 doesn't make any difference to me, but if you have some 9 agenda," I said, "our working together is about to end." I 10 said, "That's not what we're here for." She assured me that 11 she is just facilitating this. She likes the fact that we're 12 getting together and working as a county, but they have no 13 ulterior motive in the Hill Country Alliance. 14 I take her word for that, but it's up to the group 15 as a whole whether they want her or her -- or that 16 organization to facilitate some of the discussions. Without 17 them doing -- none of the counties have a budget for this 18 type of thing, and someone has to kind of coordinate, and 19 that's what she was doing. But that is, I think, what draws 20 -- and I got a lot of the negative interest about Hill 21 Country County Alliance. I did not do anything with the 22 resolution we passed, 'cause this all surfaced right after 23 that. I think it's on my desk somewhere; maybe Jody still 24 has it -- Jody has it. I read it again. It really doesn't 25 say anything. I think it was -- you know, other than we 6-23-08 55 1 support counties getting together and meeting. But, anyway, 2 so it's -- nothing's been done with it. I really don't see 3 that we're going to do anything with it, 'cause it doesn't 4 say anything. There is a meeting this Friday, I believe, in 5 Hays County -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In San Marcos. San Marcos. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, San Marcos. In San 8 Marcos, which is another Hill Country County Coalition 9 meeting. Anyway, that's kind of it. I thought I'd put it on 10 the agenda, update it maybe on the next agenda. I know 11 Granger McDonald wanted to be on the January -- the July 14th 12 agenda, but I decided because of some other calls and talking 13 with Commissioner Oehler to go ahead and put it on the 14 agenda. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's another factor, 16 too, that I think should be -- the public should be aware of. 17 In our efforts to qualify for grant funding from Texas Water 18 Development Board for the project in Center Point, we adopted 19 the Model Subdivision Rules, which came from and originated 20 from Texas Water Development Board, the purpose of which is 21 to clean up some of the subdivision problems that existed on 22 the border and now is applicable to any county in the state 23 of Texas. And we adopted those model subdivision rules, the 24 purpose of which was to create and insure our -- our 25 eligibility for T.W.D.B. funding on the EDAP program, and 6-23-08 56 1 that's what we have done. And so, you know, there may be 2 some criticism of what we've done, because there are some -- 3 there are some issues within the model subdivision rules that 4 -- that we acknowledged when we did it that we didn't totally 5 agree with. But the overriding consideration is, it will 6 make possible our eligibility to continue with that project, 7 and hopefully attract that funding. 8 But Commissioner Letz also focuses on another 9 issue. We're going to have to -- excuse me. At some point 10 in time, if that sewer project becomes a reality, we're going 11 to have to deal with land use over there and what can be put 12 on that land for what we term -- term to call "workforce" 13 type housing, if no other better definition. Because that's 14 where available housing can be -- can and should be probably 15 placed in this county. And if we have to rely on water 16 availability to establish the lot size, we're never going to 17 get anything done over there, 'cause you're going to be down 18 to nothing but either 5-acre or 3-acre averaging, and it's 19 not going to happen. So, we're going to have to take a look 20 at that at the right time to be able to make what our 21 ultimate goal is in terms of appropriate land use east of -- 22 east of here. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One of the things I believe 24 is going to make the land use change is wherever you have 25 wastewater available. 6-23-08 57 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know, once you do that, 3 you can have a lot smaller lots and you can have things that 4 you cannot have before that happens. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I think we need to 7 look. I don't mind water availability being used as a 8 criteria for lot sizes, but I think you have to look beyond 9 subdivisions; you have to look at it regionally, because, you 10 know, the County has -- you know, we work with Headwaters on 11 this. I mean, their charge is groundwater. We know how many 12 acre feet of permit ability they have, and that can be a 13 little more concentrated in certain areas, and should be more 14 concentrated in certain areas. Certainly, the City of 15 Kerrville has a lot higher density than we're allowed to have 16 in the county. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: True. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's -- that has to be 19 addressed. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But when you make wastewater 21 available, that takes care of a lot of problems. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Also creates other problems. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And in the case of east -- 25 or Center Point, eastern Kerr County, if the River Authority 6-23-08 58 1 advances a water availability plan to use surface water in 2 conjunction with groundwater, that again enforces our ability 3 to -- or need to do something in that regard. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's an issue that Burnet 5 County has, when you said that, is that they use surface 6 water primarily, and because of that, they have no ability to 7 set lot sizes or regulations at all other than septic, and 8 they're putting in some of these septic systems. So they're 9 on, basically, city lots spotted around the -- or 10 quarter-acre lots, much like we had along Camp Meeting Creek, 11 and they're having a real hard time figuring out how to 12 regulate those lot sizes. So, there's, you know, problems 13 coming down the road with some of these. 14 In addition to those three items -- this is a 15 little bit of an aside, but what we also talked about, I 16 think, was in the handout that I gave the Senate committee, 17 there are also some problems with the current Chapter 232. 18 The titles of the subchapters don't make sense any more, 19 after the last legislative session. I mean, they're talking 20 about, you know, rural counties and counties close to the 21 border and different things, and some of them just need some 22 cleaning up, so they need to look at that and clean up the 23 terminology that was brought up. They need to really look at 24 the exemptions that they grant. Exemptions are a real 25 problem, you know, because what happens is, much like we 6-23-08 59 1 dealt with one this morning, or may have dealt with it this 2 morning, someone is exempt if they're going to give it to a 3 relative, and then as soon as that relative sells, that 4 triggers platting. But no one knows that that happens, so 5 you end up with -- exemptions create a lot of problems. That 6 was also brought up. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I tell you what, if you was 8 to get into the building permit issue, though, where we're 9 out there inspecting electrical work and plumbing work and 10 all those things, can you imagine? I mean, Rusty Hierholzer 11 would have to take second stage to that -- to that little 12 program. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To that nightmare. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To that nightmare. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what it is, a 16 nightmare. And I, for one, would never want us to go there. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me either. But there's got 18 to be -- but we have to be at some place to where the public, 19 people that come in here and buying a home and a piece of 20 property, are protected. And I'm not -- I know that when you 21 buy a home out in the county, that there is -- you know, your 22 lending institutions -- some lending institutions require 23 these inspections, but I'm -- I don't know how good they are. 24 Mine wasn't very good, I know that. But I think -- 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think, too, as long as 6-23-08 60 1 this -- whatever gets taken to the Legislature and ultimately 2 passed, if it's a local option, it's one thing, and that -- 3 that being the thing where you can pick and choose what you 4 need for your county, and not be subject to a mandatory 5 enforcement of whatever they come down the pike with. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that was discussed. 7 Everyone -- I mean, when asked a question, everyone said it 8 should be a local option, because some counties don't want 9 this other additional authority. It makes no sense for them. 10 You go out into far west Texas or far north Texas, possibly, 11 I mean, they just don't need more regulations, and they don't 12 want those. But some counties that do have a lot of growth 13 do need some additional authority. So -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Roesch? You have filed a 15 participation form indicating you wanted to be heard on this 16 issue? 17 MR. ROESCH: Yes, thank you. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Give us your name and address for 19 the record, please. 20 MR. ROESCH: I'm Heinz Roesch; I'm the executive 21 officer of Hill Country Homebuilders' Association. Judge 22 Tinley, Commissioners, I just want to touch on a few points 23 that you discussed also, you know, in your discussions just 24 now. I want to briefly describe the Hill Country Alliance 25 Coalition, talk about model subdivision rules, fire 6-23-08 61 1 suppression systems, building codes, and then the overall 2 economic environment. Let me start just by saying I was 3 together with Commissioner Letz at this Senate hearing last 4 week and testified on the other side of the issue. The 5 Senate committee hearing was very interesting, inasmuch as 6 Senator Lucio, who's been an advocate for the last three 7 legislative sessions for increasing county powers, and has 8 not been able to do so, has invited a list of, I think, 25 9 commissioners and judges throughout the state, from north of 10 Dallas down to the valley, from El Paso all the way to east 11 Texas, all giving testimony on the side of increasing the 12 powers of counties for various reasons and for various 13 motives. So, it took about four hours of laborious testimony 14 before the first person speaking on the other side of the 15 issue was able to testify. By that time, the senators who 16 are on the committee, you know, were already tired, and maybe 17 not listening as much as -- as they should have been. 18 But, nonetheless, be that as it is, the way we 19 understand it, the Hill Country Alliance is a group of 20 environmentalists who advocate no growth throughout the 21 state. And, yes, as Commissioner Letz also said, they are 22 involved with the Hill Country Coalition, inasmuch as that 23 they provide infrastructure for those meetings to happen. 24 But I think it's not as altruistic as Commissioner Letz said, 25 that they just do it in order to help the coalition. I think 6-23-08 62 1 they have their agenda, and through the provision of these 2 services, you know, try to advocate no growth. We, the Hill 3 Country Homebuilders' Association, the Texas Association of 4 Builders, you know, advocate reasonable growth and 5 justifiable or sustainable growth. We are not for no growth, 6 but I think we are for reasonable growth. 7 Now we come to subdivision rules. As you also said 8 already, since the last legislative session, you are -- all 9 counties in the state of Texas are able to adopt the model 10 subdivision rules, and those model subdivision rules give you 11 very specific powers. They give you the power to require 12 that an engineer certifies that water/sewer facilities are in 13 compliance with those model subdivision rules. You can 14 require certification that there is proper stormwater 15 drainage available in a proposed subdivision, and you can 16 also ask for certification that water, sewer, electrical, and 17 gas meet all state standards. And last, but not least, you 18 can also ask for certification by a surveyor or an engineer 19 that the regulations prescribing the floodplains are abided 20 by. So, these model subdivision rules give you sweeping 21 powers. They also mandate that there's adequate drinking 22 water and sewer facilities in accordance with Health and 23 Safety Codes, and they also mandate or give you the power to 24 mandate certain setbacks within subdivisions, so you have a 25 whole bunch of instruments at your disposal already that you 6-23-08 63 1 can use to regulate your -- your growth. 2 Also, last, but not least, the model subdivision 3 rules specifically prohibit that more than one single-family 4 home be on any lot that a subdivision would propose. And 5 also, for any developments that have 5 acres or less lot 6 sizes without water -- adequate water and sewer services, you 7 can prevent that. You have the instruments in your hands. 8 Use those instruments to regulate what you need to regulate. 9 And also, you have, with regard to platting approval process, 10 very, very similar or equal powers as a city also has for 11 their subdivision rules, so you have very good rules and 12 instruments in your hands already. Also, the -- since last 13 legislative session, you can mandate in proposed subdivisions 14 that there is adequate fire suppression systems in place for 15 subdivisions with 50 lots or greater. You can mandate that a 16 facility of up to 5,000 gallons of water is available to be 17 available for fire departments to use in case of fire. 18 Also, since 2001, the State has mandated a 19 statewide building code, statewide not only in cities, but 20 also in unincorporated areas of the city. It is the I.R.C. 21 building code that is required to be used since 2001. And 22 also, in 2003, the T.R.C.C., the Texas Residential 23 Construction Commission, mandated that all homes be built to 24 those standards. As you may be aware, starting from 25 September 1, 2008, this year, the law also will require that 6-23-08 64 1 all new homes be being constructed after that date have to 2 have a minimum of three code inspections; a pre-pour, a 3 pre-close, and a final inspection. Without those 4 inspections, it is very likely that the title transfer cannot 5 occur, or it's also very likely that banks will not do any 6 financing for properties that do not abide by these rules. 7 So, your two building codes are in place, and they are going 8 to be enforced come this September. And also, if you look at 9 what the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association last said, 10 they have found -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The who? 12 MR. ROESCH: Texas Windstorm Insurance Association. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who in the hell's that? 14 MR. ROESCH: It's one of your agencies here in the 15 state -- or in the -- in the U.S. And they have said that -- 16 or they have found during the last hurricane, for example, 17 Rita, they have done some calculations or some comparisons, 18 and they found that those homes in the U.S. that were being 19 built according to code had much less claims than those who 20 were not built to codes. All I'm trying to say is -- and I'm 21 trying to be brief -- is the codes work. Homes that are 22 being built to code are better than if they're not being 23 built to code. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question. Just 25 who's going to do these building inspections? 6-23-08 65 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Bingo. 2 MR. ROESCH: The building inspections are being 3 mandated. You can go on the Texas Residential Construction 4 Commission web site. They -- the inspections have to be done 5 either by a licensed engineer, licensed architect, or by 6 state-certified code inspectors that, you know, are listed on 7 the web site. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under the authority of 9 whom, and who pays for it? 10 MR. ROESCH: Under the authority of the Texas 11 Residential Construction Commission, and the builder has to 12 pay for those inspections. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. That's not a 14 county issue. 15 MR. ROESCH: No, sir. But -- 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Don't want it to be, either. 17 MR. ROESCH: -- all I'm saying, you probably don't 18 that want that to be a county issue. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Already said that. 20 MR. ROESCH: There is building codes in place for 21 the state, and they seem to work. Commissioner Letz also 22 touched on the buffer zones, you know, between residential 23 and commercial areas. That's something we very much would 24 also be in support of, and would like to work with you in 25 defining how exactly one would, you know, go about regulating 6-23-08 66 1 that. But buffer zones, we believe, are a good way of 2 separating different types of uses in the counties. Impact 3 fees. The last subject that I'm going to touch on is a -- a 4 very touchy issue. And I think, you know, it is -- depending 5 on when you levy impact fees during the process of 6 development, you know, can be a very costly proposition for 7 developers. Our feeling is that if you develop, you improve 8 the land, and the property tax base that you create through 9 the improvement over time should be well positioned to 10 finance the necessary infrastructure improvements, be it 11 roads or whatever, other services you need to provide for 12 developments. So, having said all that, current economic 13 environment, you know, we all know is not as good, you know, 14 as we all would like it to be. Yes, Texas is a lot better 15 than the national average, and probably the Hill Country 16 within Texas is better than Texas. But we, too, don't need 17 any more regulation. We, too, don't need any more fees. I 18 think we are advocating responsible growth, and we want to 19 work with you in a cooperative manner to find ways and means 20 of doing that. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: As a result of the more recent 22 economic problems, have you found that membership in your 23 association has increased or decreased? 24 MR. ROESCH: Well, since 2003 to today -- when I 25 started as C.E.O. in 2003, we had just around 100 members in 6-23-08 67 1 the association. We're now going on 400 members in the 2 association five years later. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Last year, what -- 4 MR. ROESCH: In the recent year, membership has not 5 grown any more, even though the beginning of this year, in 6 January, we added 203 new members over the course of a 7 two-day period. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many counties do you 9 represent? 10 MR. ROESCH: We represent 13 counties. But it's, 11 in the north, San Saba and to McCulloch County, and south, 12 it's Val Verde. But the main -- 85, 90 percent of the 13 membership is domiciled in Kerr County or in Gillespie 14 county. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I probably misunderstood you 16 in your -- early in your talk, but I thought I heard you say 17 that the Hill Country Coalition is a group of 18 environmentalists. 19 MR. ROESCH: The Hill Country Alliance is a group 20 of environmentalists, and you can go on their web site; it's 21 hillcountryalliance.org. All very public. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is an environmentalist 23 to you? 24 MR. ROESCH: Well, they are advocating no growth. 25 They -- 6-23-08 68 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's my second point. 2 You said something about that they are a no-growth -- no 3 growth. 4 MR. ROESCH: No growth. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Zero growth. 6 MR. ROESCH: Yes. That's at least our 7 understanding, that that is what their main agenda is. And 8 it's -- you know, they -- we feel there has to be growth. If 9 we stop growing, then we're dying. And we -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well -- 11 MR. ROESCH: We don't want any rampant growth. We 12 are advocating reasonable. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's always going be to 14 be growth. 15 MR. ROESCH: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, if this 17 Commissioners Court made a firm decision and said, "Okay, 18 there's not going to be any more growth in this county," 19 that's impossible. 20 MR. ROESCH: That's not going to happen. It's not 21 good for us. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's beside the 23 point. The -- I mean, we can't change the law. The law 24 allows people to do certain things with their property. 25 MR. ROESCH: Yeah. 6-23-08 69 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- 2 MR. ROESCH: Property rights are, I think, a very 3 important part here in the great state of Texas. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that is a big part, 5 but to say these folks that we have aligned ourselves with 6 are no-growth and a bunch of environmentalists, I think your 7 language is a little bit out of line. 8 MR. ROESCH: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my opinion. And 10 you're kind of -- and we're kind of, in a way, aligned with 11 these people by sitting down at the table with them. Don't 12 agree with those folks over in the corridor -- the San 13 Antonio-Austin corridor. There's some strange cats over 14 there. But, nevertheless, we're -- we're neighbors, and 15 we're having good conversations with them. 16 MR. ROESCH: Right. But if you also look at the 17 Hill Country Coalition, it's a coalition of -- that names 15 18 counties in that resolution. Three of those counties, 19 Burnet, Blanco, and Llano, have already decided not to sign 20 that resolution. Burnet, just a couple weeks ago, had it on 21 their agenda and declined. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So you're in opposition to 23 us signing the resolution? Is that your whole deal? 24 MR. ROESCH: Well, we do not support that way of 25 advocation -- advocating -- yes, we would like to sit 6-23-08 70 1 together with you, and in a cooperative way, and come up with 2 ways and means and rules how to regulate responsible growth 3 in unincorporated areas. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you interested in 5 regulating, or you just want to open the gates and let 6 everybody do what they want to do? 7 MR. ROESCH: I think there has to be regulation in 8 order for responsible growth to happen, but we don't want to 9 add additional rules and regulations to what you already 10 have. The powers that you have we feel are already adequate 11 in you doing a responsible job. It's a matter of using those 12 powers in an appropriate way that you already have, rather 13 than adding -- 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just a second. Do you know 16 what ticks me off more than anything? What angers me is the 17 fact that y'all start writing these letters and start 18 contacting all these people out here and start using this 19 language without coming and talking to us like good neighbors 20 should. That makes me mad. You guys need to come in here 21 and do exactly what you're talking about doing. 22 MR. ROESCH: That's what I'm doing right now. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you 24 110 percent, we need to sit down and have these visits. But 25 we need to sit down and have these visits; let's don't go out 6-23-08 71 1 here and start throwing rocks and throwing mud at some 2 environmentalist, because some of that dirt gets on us, and I 3 don't personally -- number one, I don't like that. 4 MR. ROESCH: Well, I apologize if we ticked you 5 off. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Your apology's accepted, 7 sir. Thank you. 8 MR. ROESCH: That was not the intent. Our intent 9 is to sit -- to start the process of cooperating and working 10 together. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We should have a dialogue; 12 there's no question about it. Some of your concerns may be 13 concerns that we need to address, or vice-versa. And I would 14 ask you, of the three things that Commissioner Letz listed 15 that are important to us, which were the requirement for a 16 buffer zone for noncompatible land use -- and I'll give you 17 the most recent illustration of Wheatcraft in Center Point, 18 where it comes in and does its thing on 125 acres, which is 19 totally incompatible with the subdivision that was there to 20 begin with across the road, and homes that were already there 21 and schools that were already there. What about a buffer 22 would you oppose? Secondly, lot sizes and density, 23 determining lot sizes by reason -- and density for -- by 24 reasons other than water availability. What about that would 25 you object to? And talk to me a little bit about impact 6-23-08 72 1 fees. What do you think is improper about impact fees? And 2 I'll give you the most recent illustration, which is Live 3 Springs Ranch in Commissioner Oehler's jurisdiction, where 4 the developer -- within his rights -- was proposing to 5 increase the number of lots available on the property he'd 6 subdivided from 60-some-odd to over 100. Which he can do. 7 But tell me about the impact on a county road, and why he 8 should not participate in the improvement of that county 9 road. Talk to us about those three issues. 10 MR. ROESCH: Well, the first issue, buffer zones, 11 Commissioner Williams, is specifically one of the issues 12 where I said we would propose instituting some kind of rules 13 and regulations to define buffer zones between noncompatible 14 land uses. So, I think there -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, there's a basis 16 to sit down and talk. 17 MR. ROESCH: Yes, sir. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 19 MR. ROESCH: As far as lot sizes is concerned, the 20 model subdivision rules allow you to limit minimum lot sizes 21 based on water, sewage, drainage, the rules -- the 22 definitions. And I think, you know, there -- you know, those 23 are instruments that can be used and should be used to define 24 responsible subdivision guidelines. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So you say we don't have an 6-23-08 73 1 issue there? Is that what you're saying? 2 MR. ROESCH: Well, I think you already have 3 instruments in your hands that you can use to -- to achieve 4 what you want to achieve. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure that we do. 6 Go ahead. 7 MR. ROESCH: Not have -- but here, too, you know, 8 the devil lies in the detail and requires, I think, careful 9 consideration, and requires discussion and a dialogue. And 10 we're open and making ourselves available to be open for 11 those discussions. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 13 MR. ROESCH: And as far as taxes are concerned, I 14 mean, that's a Pandora's box. I think today's forum is 15 probably not, you know, the proper meet -- you know, time to 16 discuss all of that. But the impact fees in general -- and 17 generalizations are always difficult -- put the burden on the 18 incremental user, on the -- you know, the last one that 19 brings -- you know, that does something, you know, wants to 20 develop something, and he has to pay that impact fee. It 21 puts the burden on that last incremental user, whereas the 22 improved infrastructure is benefited from everybody along 23 that county road that serves at the end a new subdivision. 24 And we just feel that there's other ways of financing 25 necessary and required infrastructure to allow for reasonable 6-23-08 74 1 growth. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A couple comments, Heinz. The 3 -- I'll start off on impact fees. I don't think the 4 intent -- I think you said you have to look at the details. 5 One of the problems -- I don't disagree that, long-term, if a 6 development is successful, that increased tax base will 7 likely help fund road improvements. The problem you get, 8 there is a -- I guess a little spike of road damage when that 9 development's being built. If -- you know, on any 10 development, all of a sudden you start having a huge increase 11 in big truck traffic. One truck is about the same as 100 12 cars, or even 1,000 cars, whatever the ratio is, but you end 13 up with a lot of damage during the construction phase. And 14 that's the part -- you know, I don't think it's anyone's, 15 really, intent to get 100 percent of a road upgrade funded 16 through impact fees. But there's a -- you know, there's an 17 extreme of nothing to paying for a whole road upgrade, and in 18 that middle ground, there should be something that the 19 developer or the lot owners help fund part of that cost to 20 the County that is a direct result of subdivision. That's 21 where I -- kind of where I am on the impact fees, and you 22 have to look at it. 23 MR. ROESCH: I don't think, you know, Jonathan, 24 that you will find our side being on either end of the 25 spectrum. We need to find the point where it makes sense, 6-23-08 75 1 economic sense also, that developments can continue to 2 happen. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 4 MR. ROESCH: And in an attractive way. And, you 5 know, if you look at the long-term basis that the -- what is 6 it? -- the planning for the -- for the state of Texas, which 7 the State Comptroller currently bases, I think, their 8 long-term projections on growth over the next 10 to 15 years 9 of the Texas population by, I think, 60 -- around 50 to 10 60 percent, somewhere in that area. If you accept that 11 premise, and I think we'll see that, then it doesn't take 12 rocket science to assume that the Hill Country will see a 13 disproportionately large share of that growth. And in order 14 to preserve what we all love, the Hill Country, let's come up 15 with rules and regulations that preserve that -- that what 16 makes the Hill Country special. That's why I moved here in 17 2001. I'm a newbie on the block. You know, I love the Hill 18 Country, and I want my investment in the ranch that I bought 19 being preserved. But, at the same time, I want to be able to 20 do with my ranch -- not what I damn well please, but -- but 21 what I believe is within my rights, and that's why I bought 22 the ranch in the first place. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that, I mean -- 24 MR. ROESCH: So, I'm on your side. I just want to 25 make sure -- 6-23-08 76 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 2 MR. ROESCH: -- that we talk. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other issue is, on 4 the -- the lot sizes, I mean, the model subdivision rules, 5 you know, do give counties a lot of authority that they 6 didn't have in the past. The problem is, you still -- when 7 you get to the lot size, you still have to base it on water 8 availability, and that, in this county, gets us to a lot size 9 that does not encourage development in some areas. 10 MR. ROESCH: But if you look at sewer -- if you 11 look at sewer requirements, then you can also -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if you're on groundwater, 13 you still have that minimum lot size that is prohibitive for 14 development in some of these communities, and we just don't 15 have the flexibility. That's really -- you know, I think 16 that, you know, you and some of the others in the 17 association, looking at this, think we're trying to make it 18 more restrictive. We're actually trying to go the other 19 direction; we're trying to be able to have a little bit of 20 ability to allow for a little bit greater density in areas 21 and look at much more of a big picture than the microcosm of 22 a subdivision. But certainly welcome the dialogue, and it's 23 always fun. We had a fun day listening to all the testimony, 24 didn't we? 25 MR. ROESCH: Yeah, sure did. Well, thank you very 6-23-08 77 1 much, again, for listening. And I'll once again reiterate 2 our apology. Our intent was not to offend, but to open a 3 dialogue. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let me say one more thing. 5 And I do agree with Commissioner Baldwin. It's much 6 easier -- you know, there's not a man at this table that's 7 not willing to sit down and discuss issues at any time. My 8 phone, I have three numbers on my deal; I can be called 9 almost any time and be available for these kind of 10 discussions. But for several people to assume that we're 11 trying to take more control and thinking we're throwing in 12 with somebody that we're only talking to is not fair. 13 MR. ROESCH: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It would be great if we could 15 have that dialogue ahead of time and not be beat up in the 16 paper over something that's absolutely false. 17 MR. ROESCH: Well, we were just as surprised by 18 what happened in the paper as you were -- to what was 19 reported in the paper as you were. Thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Roesch. Anything 22 else from any member of the Court with regard to this 23 particular item? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you kidding? Surely 25 you're joking. 6-23-08 78 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I thought maybe there was somebody 2 else you were mad at that you wanted to -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not mad at anybody but 4 Jody. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we take about a 15-minute 6 recess. 7 (Recess taken from to 10:36 a.m. to 10:54 a.m.) 8 - - - - - - - - - - - 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order. We 10 were in recess. We'll take up Item 13; consider, discuss, 11 take appropriate action to approve amendment to the City of 12 Ingram/Kerr County Animal Control agreement and allow County 13 Judge to sign the same. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move for the agenda item. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 17 approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Discussion or comment would 19 be that the Animal Control Manager and I met with the City of 20 Ingram, with the mayor, and they decided that it's way more 21 trouble than it's worth for them to try to have a different 22 licensing program than what we have, and they weren't very 23 successful at it. And they decided that it was more trouble 24 than it was worth, and we could do it and keep the revenue 25 from it if we would just make it standard county-wide. And 6-23-08 79 1 they offered up this amendment, and that's where we are. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: County Attorney had an opportunity 3 to review it? 4 MR. EMERSON: I have, Judge. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any further question or 8 discussion? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a question. In our -- 10 have we had any conversations with the City of Ingram related 11 to the change in policy related to the City of Kerrville, you 12 know, that we've proposed? For the budget change? 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We have not. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have not? 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We need to discuss that so we 16 can offer something up to them. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: As a group. Maybe we should 19 put that on the next agenda to make whatever -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be consistent. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right, be consistent. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion? 23 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 24 hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6-23-08 80 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move 4 to Item 14; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to 5 file Secretary of State report and dissolve Hill Country 6 Juvenile Facility Corporation. I put this on the agenda. As 7 the Court will recall, we had a Kerr County Juvenile 8 Facilities Corporation that we thought was the only 9 facilities corporation that we had, and when the resolution 10 of the juvenile facility occurred, we dissolved that 11 corporation, and we recently discovered that we've got 12 another facilities corporation. There's no need to have it. 13 County Attorney's recommendation is that we resolve it. We 14 need to file the report and then file Articles of 15 Dissolution, and that's his -- that's his recommendation. 16 It's been vetted with the District Judges also. They've said 17 they have no objection to that, and, in fact, think it's the 18 proper thing to do. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 22 approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When did -- why was -- did we 24 miss it the first time? Or is there -- why was there two? 25 Or do I care? 6-23-08 81 1 JUDGE TINLEY: The answer is, I don't know, I don't 2 know, and you probably shouldn't care. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 4 MR. EMERSON: And it was dissolved the first time. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What? 6 MR. EMERSON: The other one was dissolved. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other one was, but we don't 8 know why we had two? 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. We'll go to 15 Item 15; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to 16 schedule budget workshops. Okay, when do we want to hold 17 them, gentlemen? 18 MR. EMERSON: Linda Uecker wanted me to tell y'all 19 that she'll be on vacation from June 30th to July 14th, so 20 please don't schedule her during that time period. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So let's do her -- when was the 22 vacation? 23 MR. EMERSON: June 30th to July 14th. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll be out-of-pocket 25 August 12th to 20th. That's neither here nor there. 6-23-08 82 1 MR. BARTON: The Sheriff will be back in town on 2 July 7th. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: We definitely want to get his done 4 before July the 7th. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. July the 4th, we'll 6 just do them all. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather do -- we've gone 8 through two formats; back-to-back days, half days or full 9 days, whatever's required, or once a week for a while. I 10 personally like the once a week. Are Wednesdays good days 11 for you, Judge? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Wednesday is a good day for me. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Fine with me. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather do every Wednesday, 15 just let you schedule them based on availability of people. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we do every 17 Wednesday in July? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine. Start them at 9 o'clock 19 in the morning? 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that early enough? It's 21 just about here, isn't it? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Starting after -- the week 24 after July 4th, which is a Friday, so it would be July -- 25 what, 9th? 6-23-08 83 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good idea. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: July 9th, and go on till we're 3 done. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 9 o'clock start? 5 MS. HARGIS: When? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: July. 7 MS. HARGIS: July what? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9th, Wednesday. 9 o'clock in 9 the morning will be the first one. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: July what? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9th. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 7-9, 7-16 -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I got a calendar on here. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- 7-23 and 7-30, right? 16 9, 16, 23, 30? Get the calendar out. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm committed on -- on the 9th. Why 18 don't we start them the week after that? 16th, 23rd, 30th. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 16. 20 MS. HARGIS: Is that enough time, Judge? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Begin the 16th. 22 MS. HARGIS: Is that enough time? Three? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 24 MS. HARGIS: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the 16th, 23rd, and 30th? 6-23-08 84 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then the first 3 Wednesday in August, which is the 6th. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, if we need four. 5 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay? 7 MR. BARTON: Are y'all going to schedule which 8 department when, or do we need to call and make an 9 appointment? 10 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll, we've got a rough already 11 that -- that was plugged in. If you're looking at Sheriff's 12 Office, he's going to be at the tail end. 13 MR. BARTON: Okay. So, the 30th? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: That one may be the 6th. 15 MR. BARTON: Of August? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Of August. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Preferably the 30th, though. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We may have to massage who's 19 going to be at each one. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we have one scheduled kind 21 of for the 6th as well, if we need it? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay, now, what was that 24 about the 6th? I missed the 6th. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One on the 6th also, a budget 6-23-08 85 1 hearing set up for the 6th. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Of July? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: August. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: August 6th, okay. 5 MS. HARGIS: Can I make a comment here, please, 6 while y'all mark your calendars? I just want to say thank 7 you to every elected and appointed official. They all got 8 their budgets done and they were very cooperative, and within 9 the two-week time frame, and we really appreciate that. They 10 had -- it's been a fun, exciting time, and everybody has -- 11 has done a great job, and I want to say thank you to each and 12 every one of them for that. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very nice. Thank you. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, got that one resolved. Let's 15 go to Item 16; discussion regarding transition from a paper 16 version of the Commissioners Court agenda and backup to an 17 electronic version of the agenda and backup. Commissioner 18 Baldwin, as the -- as the emerging technological guru on this 19 Court, what do you -- what do you propose we do on this? 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Transitioning over to a totally 22 electronic game here? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think that we should 24 all -- during the next break period, we all need to go take 25 tours of the men's room to start with. Other than that, I 6-23-08 86 1 think John should -- why did you call on me? (Laughter.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I said you're the emerging 3 technological guru of the Court. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's because I never 5 say anything, see, and you just -- you just see me as an 6 emerging -- which I am. That's fine. And so -- well, I 7 appreciate the hand-off there, Judge, and I'm going to hand 8 it off to John, and -- and Jon. I said Jon. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Okay, I got some 10 questions. I think we need to do it as soon as we can, but I 11 need to be able to access it from home. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, me too. I need to be 13 able to work at home. 14 MR. TROLINGER: I expected that was the next thing 15 you'd desire. Is that a requirement right away? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. Well, I mean, I can't -- 17 I mean, yeah, because if I can't access it from home, it 18 doesn't help. I go through my agendas over the weekend. 19 MR. TROLINGER: We have a way to -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not here in the office on 21 the weekends. 22 MR. TROLINGER: -- to send a copy over to the 23 laptop from the shared drive, the agenda. Is that all you 24 need to do, is have -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That will work, yeah. 6-23-08 87 1 MR. TROLINGER: -- have the agenda? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Long as I can look at it, I 3 don't have to -- as long as I can get the agenda on this and 4 I can take it home with me, that's what's I need. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This says it's read-only 6 anyhow. What we're seeing says it's read-only anyhow. 7 Right? 8 MR. TROLINGER: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Correct? 10 MR. TROLINGER: Yes. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, what's -- is 12 there a problem? 13 MR. TROLINGER: Well, accessing from the -- there's 14 two different philosophies here. Do we just copy the files 15 to your computer while it's plugged in here, or do we go 16 through the process of setting you up with access to the 17 county network from your house? 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if we wanted to also 19 access our e-mail -- you and I have had this discussion 20 before -- and work -- and be able to do our agenda, is that a 21 possibility? 22 MR. TROLINGER: You can do both of those things 23 without being connected to the county network. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why would I -- I get the 6-23-08 88 1 feeling you don't want me to be connected to the county 2 network at home. Why don't you want me to be connected to 3 the county network from home, I guess? I don't know that I 4 want to be; I just want to know why you don't want me to. 5 MR. TROLINGER: I just want to make sure we're 6 clear on what the requirement is. If we need to connect you 7 to the county network, then I need to make sure the computers 8 are -- are very secure, so that if someone else ended up with 9 the computer, they couldn't log into our network. That's my 10 number one concern. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- 12 MR. TROLINGER: If someone picked up your computer 13 and took it. If it was stolen, the issue of security. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But, I mean, what -- 15 what could I access with that anyway? I mean, I tried to 16 get, by mistake, into the County Attorney's, and it said I 17 couldn't go there a minute ago, so I already can't go outside 18 of Commissioners. And everything that I can access here is 19 public information. 20 MR. TROLINGER: Being -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know I can't access the 22 budget remotely, 'cause I've got to be on this little deal 23 for that, right? 24 MR. TROLINGER: What I'd like to -- yes, that's 25 correct. But I just want to make sure we set -- you know, we 6-23-08 89 1 have a set of requirements, and then I can decide if I need 2 to get y'all logged in remotely to the network. And the two 3 -- the two things I'm hearing right now is, we don't. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, wait a minute. 5 MR. TROLINGER: My preference is -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't jump to conclusions 7 here. Why can't we have the ability to access the budget? 8 We're coming up on budget workshops. What if we want to do 9 some work at home, access the budget and see what's going on 10 and do whatever suggestions we can do within the framework of 11 the software. Why can't we have -- can we not do that? 12 MR. TROLINGER: You can. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can, okay. Right now? 14 MR. TROLINGER: No. No, I'd have to visit with 15 each of you and probably end up coming to your homes to make 16 sure it's set up correctly. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But if we use this laptop, we 18 can take this home and you can make that information 19 available? 20 MR. TROLINGER: I can make the agenda and the 21 e-mail available if you take it home and plug in the 22 internet. To access the financial software, you'd have to 23 connect to the county network, and we'd have to go through 24 the whole process of setting up that security. Just more 25 time is all. 6-23-08 90 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Related question. I'm probably 2 looking at the County Attorney because of all these Open 3 Records requests we've been inundated with recently. Can I 4 delete things off my laptop, my e-mails? 5 MR. EMERSON: No. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't they get kept somewhere? 7 I have to keep -- doesn't John always keep them somewhere 8 hidden? 9 MR. EMERSON: My understanding is they're safe, but 10 e-mails are government documents, and if you'll recall, 11 that's the same thing that the Harris County D.A. got 12 indicted for about three months ago, was deleting e-mails. 13 MR. TROLINGER: It does not get saved, and my 14 policy is -- to each department head, and in writing, is that 15 you have retention requirements, and you must follow those 16 locally. I can't -- I can't keep up with every retention 17 requirement throughout all the offices. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you create -- well, we're 19 getting into a different area. I think we need to create a 20 way to do it and not open these -- it starts getting real 21 cumbersome. But, anyway, I'll put that on the agenda. He's 22 got me trained over there. 23 MR. TROLINGER: Depending on you all's level of 24 access -- internet access at the home, it'll take two or 25 three weeks probably to get y'all set up for access to the 6-23-08 91 1 county network. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That's for the county network, if 3 you want access, for example, to the budget and the Incode, 4 MR. TROLINGER: Exactly. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But as to the other, you can 6 do that fairly easily and quickly? 7 MR. TROLINGER: Yes. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: For the e-mail, and read-only with 9 regard to the agenda and the backup? 10 MR. TROLINGER: Yes. We can do that here in place 11 today. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're gaining on it. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, at a minimum, I 14 want to be able to take my agenda home, however you make it. 15 I mean, that's -- you know, and I would like to have budget 16 access, because, as you know, I'm probably at my home office 17 more than the courthouse office. 18 MR. TROLINGER: It's good. I'm all for the remote 19 access capability. I just wanted to let you know, once we 20 set the -- you know, once we outline what you need, then 21 we'll make it happen. Just takes longer to do the second 22 thing. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, I understand that. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One step at a time. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 6-23-08 92 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have any other 2 questions, Commissioner Letz? 3 MR. TROLINGER: And I think Commissioner Baldwin is 4 the -- is the go-to guy, because he will come immediately to 5 my office with any -- any need. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. 7 MR. TROLINGER: He knows where it's at. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, is that a nice way of 9 saying to get the answer directly, we just go to you? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's what he's 11 saying. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so too. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: John, on the -- if we're going 14 on the -- we're talking about going paperless, so I presume 15 that that means it'll be set up so that the press, the City, 16 everyone -- I mean, I don't see -- if we're going to go 17 paperless, we need to go paperless. It doesn't make any 18 sense to have to do some paper, some non-paper. That's where 19 we're going? 20 MR. TROLINGER: Right now, we're paperless as far 21 as the agenda itself, but not the backup material. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the public needs to be 23 able to have access to that full packet, just like I have it 24 on here. I mean, I -- you know. 25 MR. TROLINGER: So, currently, the backup material 6-23-08 93 1 is not available to the public? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I -- I think it should 3 be, which would solve -- I mean, I can't -- well, I'm looking 4 at the rest of the Court. I don't know why we wouldn't want 5 it to be. 6 MS. BOLIN: What about with executive session? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. No, you don't want that. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, executive session 9 wouldn't be, but we usually don't have backup in our books on 10 executive session. I mean, that's pretty rare. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, even now, with the 12 paperless system, Commissioner, we don't provide copies of 13 the agenda with the backup back there for the public. The 14 public can come in and get a copy of the agenda and know what 15 items we're talking about. We do provide it, I believe -- am 16 I right, Ms. Grinstead? -- for the press and so forth. But 17 if anybody asks for it, it's available. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't know why you 19 wouldn't put the full packet on -- basically, on the internet 20 when we're posting the agenda. 21 MR. TROLINGER: Once it's scanned, it's just 22 another file. It's no extra effort on my part. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it would -- I mean, if 24 we're going to go paperless, we need to go paperless. 25 Otherwise, it defeats the whole purpose. 6-23-08 94 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds good to me. 3 MR. TROLINGER: I agree. So, we should publish the 4 backup along with the agenda for each court? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Online. 6 MR. TROLINGER: Will do. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And are these set up so we can 8 print somewhere? 9 MR. TROLINGER: Yes. Currently, it prints to 10 the -- 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Goes to Jody's office. 12 MR. TROLINGER: Yes. And plans are to connect the 13 copier in the back to the network for printing. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that suggesting that, 15 since I have a printer in my office, I can't print out of my 16 office? 17 MR. TROLINGER: From where you're at here, no, you 18 cannot. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If I bring this back to my 20 office, I can print out of my office? 21 MR. TROLINGER: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With the docking station? 23 MR. TROLINGER: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wonderful. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Buster, are you sure you're 6-23-08 95 1 the guru, or is Bill the guru? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My docking station is in my 3 office. I print in my office. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that your chair where you 5 dock? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. (Laughter.) Yeah. 7 Keep her in the wind, mate. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to continue to work 9 through our emerging technological guru. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I appreciate that, 11 Judge. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think you ought to keep an 13 eye on him. I think he's hiding out in Trolinger's office. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's cooler down there. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else we need to do 16 there? Let's go to Item 17; consider, discuss, take 17 appropriate action to appoint a committee to draft policies 18 and procedures to comply with I.R.S. taxable fringe benefit 19 regulations. I.R.S. is currently auditing all counties in 20 Texas for compliance with these regulations. Four main areas 21 that were discussed recently at the auditor's conference in 22 May, those being uniform policies, cell phone policies, day 23 trip reimbursed meals, and the use of county vehicles for 24 commuting to and from work. 25 MS. HARGIS: Okay. First of all, don't kill the 6-23-08 96 1 messenger. I -- I was not able to be there on Friday when 2 all of this came down at the -- all of it came down at the 3 auditor's conference. When I was in there on Thursday, there 4 was a lot of discussion in the medium-size county group about 5 the audits that were taking place and what was happening with 6 those audits. Since I've gotten back, I got a visit from the 7 TAC representative -- the human resource, actually, TAC 8 representative, who -- who was actually there when the I.R.S. 9 agent was visiting the auditor's conference. She had pointed 10 out the four areas that they're looking at, and she used a 11 small county, and I had never heard of Wheeler County, so I 12 looked it up. Wheeler County is approximately 5,000 people. 13 Wheeler County was fined $57,000 by I.R.S., plus they were 14 required to go back and do W-2's from 2004 through 2007. 15 They did forgive the penalty, but not the interest, and most 16 of us may or may not be aware that the interest is actually 17 higher than the penalty, because the penalty is once per 18 year, but the interest keeps going. 19 The -- what the I.R.S. is saying is that, first of 20 all, we can do anything we want to for our employees. That's 21 not the problem. What they're saying is there's certain 22 things that we do for employees that they consider a fringe 23 benefit, that being part of a salary benefit to that 24 employee. So, for instance, if we provide a uniform, it has 25 to be a uniform like -- the Sheriff's Department is exempt 6-23-08 97 1 from most of these rules. It has to be a khaki type, you 2 know, uniform, more like a military type of a uniform that 3 they can't wear anywhere else. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Like maintenance. 5 MS. HARGIS: Like maintenance has? No, maintenance 6 wears blue jeans, and blue jeans are -- she specifically said 7 no blue jeans. The other thing she specifically said, and I 8 did find out we don't pay for this, but no cowboy hats. In 9 this part of the country, D.P.S. wears cowboy hats; our 10 Sheriff's deputies wear cowboy hats, but they buy their own, 11 so we don't have that as a problem. The uniform has to 12 actually be some kind of khaki pants that matches the top, 13 that you wouldn't wear anywhere else. It has to be -- you 14 can't wear blue jeans and put it on the pocket or put it on 15 the band. It's still blue jeans. She said you can still 16 take a shirt and wear it. The polo shirts, she said -- 17 because, you know, a lot of times you got golf shirts with 18 people's names; people wear polo shirts everywhere, so they 19 said no polo shirts. They don't care where it's at, 20 Sheriff's Department, anywhere. No polo shirts. Then she -- 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How ridiculous. 22 MS. HARGIS: Well, it's -- boots are another 23 problem. I mean, no boots. And -- and the City gives two 24 pairs of boots a year, and I'm sure we give boots. What it 25 is saying, basically, what we need to do is we need to find 6-23-08 98 1 out -- and I called around, and to find out exactly what each 2 of our departments is doing that provides some type of -- of 3 a uniform. And I have kind of a general idea that we have 4 probably broken most of the rules that they've got. We do 5 have blue jeans, we do have polo shirts, we do do boots. So, 6 what we need to do is find out what we do in this type of an 7 arena, and -- and how much they're worth. All we have to do 8 is include that in their W-2 wages. 9 Now, it does two things. First of all, it is going 10 to elevate the employee's salary, but they will benefit from 11 more retirement going into their retirement account. Also -- 12 and, Janie, please, if I may use her example, because I know 13 what they just did. They provide five shirts a day, because 14 they're -- they -- you know, because of what they do, and 15 it's kind of hard to launder and so forth, which I think is 16 very reasonable. It's very reasonable. They've got the 17 shirts at a very nominal cost, but five shirts is around $80. 18 And I figured $80, $90, I figured what they would pay 19 retirement, tax, and so forth, could be $15 to $20. So, 20 they're still benefiting from that additional $60 worth of 21 money they really didn't have to put out of their pockets. 22 So, yes, it has a consequence to them, but I think it's still 23 small compared to what the consequences would be to us. And 24 if you were in a private organization, you would already have 25 been doing this. 6-23-08 99 1 Over the course of my 30-year career as being a 2 C.P.A., I've run into this in government throughout my 3 career. Whenever I.R.S. is looking for something, their 4 income is down, they begin searching for someplace to make 5 money, and they always hit government last, because they know 6 even themselves, they don't follow these rules. But this is 7 the first rule. The second rule is the cell policy -- cell 8 phone policy. And there was a lot of discussion at the 9 medium-sized counties that because of this rule, a lot of 10 them are just giving an allowance. The reason they gave the 11 allowance was it's directly placed into their account. If we 12 monitor -- which we try very diligently to do. We send out a 13 copy of every cell phone bill to each department. We ask 14 each department head or elected official to identify any 15 personal phone calls. Those are then billed back to the 16 employee, and the employee pays for those. As long as we can 17 consistently do that, we're fine. That cell phone thing is 18 really not an issue. We're pretty good about that. 19 The next one is a problem, day trip reimbursed 20 meals. The Sheriff's Department, as well as Juvenile 21 Probation, Adult Probation, to save money, they'll send their 22 people to Austin to drop off a prisoner, and they come back. 23 Well, they're out of town, basically, and they've got -- most 24 of the people at least have lunch, so they're given a lunch 25 expense. And I've read through this I.R.S. reg and tried to 6-23-08 100 1 figure out a way around that, but it says that, basically, 2 even if that person is given -- let's say you give them $20, 3 and they have to bring you a receipt and give you the change. 4 Even if they do that, you still have to include that as a 5 benefit, because they didn't stay overnight. The way the reg 6 reads is, if -- if it's not connected to an overnight stay, 7 or associated with an overnight stay, then it doesn't -- so 8 we have quite a bit of that going on, simply because it's the 9 cheapest way to do these day travels. And Rusty does a lot 10 of it. Juvenile Probation does a lot of it. The Detention 11 Center does it. It saves us a lot of money, so I don't think 12 we want to stop it. We're just going to have to keep 13 receipts and add that back to their payroll. 14 The next one, I know that since I've been here, you 15 guys have talked a lot about this, about using county 16 vehicles commuting to and from work. Again, it exempts the 17 Sheriff's Department, but it does not exempt Road and Bridge 18 or anyone else that would take a vehicle home. Even Leonard 19 is not exempt. So, you might want to come up with an 20 allowance for him, or he has to come up with a commuting 21 miles. There's got to be a way of, you know, computing that 22 as well. It's -- it's such a large project, and I don't know 23 what everybody does, so what I would like to do is have a 24 meeting with all of the departments that are involved in 25 these type of things, which mostly is about five, I think, 6-23-08 101 1 have them come in, and let's sit down and figure out the best 2 possible way. The reason I'm suggesting this is that the 3 I.R.S. agent said that those counties who try to come into 4 compliance as soon as possible after the seminar will not be 5 taken as harshly -- or looked at as harshly, or fined as 6 harshly as those who do not. 7 Now, I can't guarantee that; I'm not going to do 8 that, 'cause I've worked with I.R.S. a long time. I.R.S. has 9 real strange rules when they want them. These have been on 10 the books from the beginning. It's just like we talked about 11 arbitrage. I.R.S. came up with the arbitrage rules in 1982. 12 They didn't enact them in the governmental arena till 1989. 13 They didn't start doing the penalty until 1992. The other 14 one was -- again, you know, I came from a water board 15 background. We gave per diems -- like you get a salary, they 16 got a per diem for coming to the meetings, and they got, 17 like, $25 a meeting. Well, as time went on and they became 18 in existence longer, they went to the Legislature and they 19 got their per diems raised. Well, when they got them raised, 20 they were going over $600, and I.R.S. knew it, and they 21 weren't reporting it. Well, in 2000, they came in and said, 22 this has been on the books for a long time; this is salary. 23 Well, they're just part-time, you know, come once a month, 24 and it made a liability. It created all kinds of problems. 25 I.R.S. agent stood up and said, "It's been on the books, so 6-23-08 102 1 there's really not much we can do." 2 I understand that the Treasurer's association, that 3 they did appear as well, and there was so much controversy 4 that the I.R.S. agent walked off the stage. The I.R.S. agent 5 did that as well when we did the directors' per diem. There 6 were probably, oh, I would say 2,000 people in the audience, 7 and they were kind of yelling at the agent, and they walked 8 off. So, they're not going to change it. We just need to 9 conform and do the best that we can, and just be proactive. 10 I would say we probably try to put these in place as of 11 October 1. If they come in and they audit us, we'll just 12 have to do what we can do. We just have to do -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: What specific action do you want the 14 Court to take today, other than to -- 15 MS. HARGIS: Authorize me to work with these 16 people, and authorize them to work with me. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think you've got that 18 authority, and they have it. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't I make a motion that 20 you get with the County Judge and come up with a committee, 21 and let the County Judge appoint the committee? 22 MS. HARGIS: That's fine. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, to me, that way I 24 think -- two reasons. One, I think the Judge probably knows 25 -- I mean, make sure that everyone's being caught that does 6-23-08 103 1 it. Because this -- I don't mean "caught" in a bad way; I 2 just mean included. (Laughter.) Change the word to 3 "included." And then it can go out through a -- you know, as 4 the Judge does frequently, with e-mails to those people. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe the committee ought 6 to be all the departments that are affected by this. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's five? 9 MS. HARGIS: I'm not sure. I know there's at least 10 five. I mean, we've got -- there could be more. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the cell phone thing, 12 that's -- I think we fixed that. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think we've got that nailed 14 down. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's nailed down now. But, 16 you know, in the past -- we don't have to go retroactive to 17 the past and figure out, do we? 18 MS. HARGIS: Well, remember what I said? Wheeler 19 County went back -- they had to go back to 2004. I don't 20 know till they show up on our doorstep. So, all we can do is 21 go forward right now. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's Animal Control, 23 Maintenance, Road and Bridge, Environmental Health, Sheriff, 24 and then there's the other general -- they're the specific 25 ones. Then, generally, on some of the per diem stuff could 6-23-08 104 1 be -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Be anybody. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Constables. Constables 4 wear shirts with their badges on them. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, constables. They kind 6 of, I presume, are the same as law enforcement. 7 MS. HARGIS: Yeah. Law enforcement has -- you 8 know, again, if it's a shirt that's -- that's like a -- like, 9 Bill, like you have on, a white, long-sleeve shirt, or kind 10 of a uniform type shirt with a logo, then it's okay. It's 11 just a polo shirt that they object to. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about pink? Can we get 13 the Sheriff's Department to wear pink? 14 MS. HARGIS: They did in another county. We can 15 try. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pink polo. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I thought that was inmates. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the difference? 19 MS. ROMAN: You can wear the jeans as long as the 20 County does not provide them? I mean -- 21 MS. HARGIS: You can wear and have anything you 22 want. It's just that if we provide the blue jeans, we have 23 to put that amount of money that we pay to purchase the blue 24 jeans into their salary. So, we can do anything we want to, 25 and I don't think we want to change our policy. We just want 6-23-08 105 1 to get into compliance with the regulations. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the Judge -- I still go 3 back to what I said. I think it's -- it's a county 4 responsibility, not an auditor responsibility, that we get 5 this policy done, so I think it needs to come from the Judge 6 to set up this committee to do it. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there -- I'm ready to 8 appoint a committee. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, we'll do it. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's do it. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what she's asking 12 for. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I realize that, Bill. 14 The -- my question is, I mean, I can see the Judge and the 15 Auditor on it. Is there a reason that the personnel people 16 need to be there at all? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Payroll. That's going to be part of 18 a payroll function. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: H.R. needs to be involved in 21 it. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, there's three. That 23 committee is big enough right there. And to meet, and 24 then -- and then these department heads of these five or more 25 would be part of it as well. 6-23-08 106 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Part of the committee, or who the 2 committee would meet with? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would rather them not be 4 part of the committee, but could. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's okay. So, 6 Auditor, H.R., and Judge. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 10 indicated. Question or discussion? 11 MS. PIEPER: We already had a motion on the table. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: There was no second. The first 13 motion died for lack of a second. 14 MS. PIEPER: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Come on, Jannett. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify 17 by raising your right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Okay, we'll go 22 to -- it's now 11:30; we'll go to our 11:30 timed item, 23 Number 18. Consider, discuss, take appropriate action to 24 approve the 2007 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the 25 period ending September 30, 2007. A 2007 audit will be 6-23-08 107 1 presented by Keith Neffendorf of Neffendorf, Knopp, Horry, 2 and Doss. 3 MS. HARGIS: Yes. I'd like to introduce Keith to 4 the Commissioners Court. I think you all have a copy. I 5 prefer you use the copy that was bound, 'cause there were 6 some changes made. If you don't have that, Keith has some 7 extra ones. 8 MR. NEFFENDORF: Anybody need one? 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have my bound copy here. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got the whole thing in 11 our backup here; is that right? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. But there was -- apparently, 13 between the backup and the final, there were some changes. 14 MR. NEFFENDORF: Yeah, I did some wording -- I made 15 some wording changes. Anybody else? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: There you go. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got one, thank you. 18 MS. HARGIS: You got one? Judge? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I think this is my 20 third or fourth one. 21 MR. NEFFENDORF: No, there shouldn't be that many. 22 Should just be two. 23 MS. PIEPER: May I have one, please? 24 MR. NEFFENDORF: Sure. 25 MS. PIEPER: Thank you. 6-23-08 108 1 MR. NEFFENDORF: Okay. Like he said, I'm Keith 2 Neffendorf, with Neffendorf, Knopp, Horry, and Doss out of 3 Fredericksburg. We did the audit for the County for the year 4 ending September 30th, 2007. As a brief overview of the 5 audit report, as you recall, GASB-34 came along and changed 6 the way counties and governments did their financial 7 reporting. As you can see by your report, you now have two 8 sets of financial statements. The first set is on a full 9 accrual basis of accounting. It includes all your fixed 10 assets, depreciation, long-term debt. And the second set is 11 the -- basically, what I call the old way, the governmental 12 basis, where you just account for moneys by funds, and that's 13 where you also do your comparison to the budget to actual. 14 Anyway, the report formats didn't change much. We'll go over 15 this and hit the high points. If you have any questions, you 16 stop and ask me, or later if you have some, I'll be glad to 17 answer them. 18 After the table of contents, on Page 1, the 19 Independent Auditor's Report just says we have made an audit 20 of the financial statement of Kerr County, Texas, as of 21 the -- for the year ending September 30th, 2007. The third 22 paragraph there, we state our opinion. The financial 23 statements referred to above present fairly the financial 24 position of the County as of September 30th, 2007, and 25 respective changes in financial position for the year then 6-23-08 109 1 ended. This is the standard auditor's clean opinion letter. 2 The next section, Pages 2 through 7, is called 3 Management Discussion and Analysis. This gives highlighted 4 financial information in a narrative summary. In accordance 5 with accounting/auditing standards, we're not required to 6 give an opinion on it, and therefore, I'm not going to go 7 over it. A lot of times the readers like this information. 8 It gives a good summary of the overall financial aspect. 9 First statement that we give an opinion on is 10 Exhibit A-1 on Page 8, the Statement of Net Assets. This is 11 the equivalent of a balance sheet for the County, and as you 12 recall, it includes all the assets/liabilities of the County 13 as a whole. Under the assets, you can see you have your 14 normal cash and equivalents of almost $6 million, and you 15 have your receivables and capital assets. Of course, the 16 capital assets makes up the bulk of your assets. Total 17 assets for the County is 54,889,000. The liabilities, 18 including your normal accounts payable and accruals, and then 19 you have your long-term debt that's split out between due 20 within one year and due over a year, so your total 21 liabilities are 6,902,000. That leaves your net assets -- 22 and this is equivalent to a stockholder equity, retained 23 earnings of a private business. Total net assets of a 24 $47,987,000. And end of year, of course, in the budget, 25 $41 million is invested in capital assets. 6-23-08 110 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Neffendorf? 2 MR. NEFFENDORF: Yes, sir? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: The information for -- under assets 4 of court fines and fees receivable, -- 5 MR. NEFFENDORF: Uh-huh. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: -- what was your source of 7 information there? 8 MR. NEFFENDORF: As in the past, the Auditor's 9 office has done a spreadsheet, and gone to each office and 10 come up with the balances that were due as of September 30th, 11 and made an estimated with an allowance for uncollectible 12 accounts. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. 14 MR. NEFFENDORF: Mm-hmm. On Pages 9 and 10 is the 15 Statement of Activities. This is the equivalent of the 16 income statement. GASB-34 requires it to be in this format. 17 And you can see, we start out with your expenses, and they're 18 shown there by those primary functions. Total expenses for 19 the County -- and, remember, this includes the 20 depreciation -- are 20,371,000. Then you have to subtract 21 off certain items that are listed there under Program 22 Revenues. Your charges for services, these are all your 23 fines/fees collected by the various offices. Then you have 24 your operating grants, your capital grants. You come up with 25 a net expense to the County of 16,526,000. Then the bottom 6-23-08 111 1 part shows how that was financed through general revenues. 2 Your taxes levied for general and then debt service amounted 3 to about 11,600,000. Sales and other taxes, 2,900,000. Then 4 you have your other items listing investment earnings, so 5 your total general revenue's 16,587,000. So, your net change 6 for the year was 60,925. That increased your net assets, 7 including the prior period adjustment to record all your 8 roads and bridges and right-of-ways, 35 million, so your net 9 assets at the end of the year were 47,987,000. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How did you come up with 11 the figure for roads and bridges and assets? How did you 12 determine that number? 13 MR. NEFFENDORF: Once again, the Auditor's office 14 went in and got the values and figured the various amount of 15 miles of roads, and came up with an estimate. And it took 16 the corresponding depreciation that had been accumulated over 17 those years. 18 MS. HARGIS: He worked with TexDOT on that. The 19 state agencies helped. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a formula for 21 determining that? 22 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 23 MR. NEFFENDORF: Right, mm-hmm. Yeah, and it also 24 takes in the condition of the roads and stuff. The -- back 25 when this first started, we went to several seminars put on 6-23-08 112 1 by TAC, and -- and they gave a real good source of 2 information from TexDOT. And then that number -- those 3 numbers were basically used to come up with the numbers 4 derived here. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 6 MR. NEFFENDORF: So, after the Statement of 7 Activities, starting on Page 11 is the balance sheet for the 8 governmental funds. This is the way we used to always see 9 all the governmental audits before GASB-34. This just 10 basically shows your assets, liabilities and fund equities by 11 fund. And you can see the General Fund had assets of 12 3,835,000, liabilities of 1,491,000, so it shows a fund 13 balance of 2,343,000. Road and Bridge had assets of 870,000, 14 liabilities of 313,000, so it had a net fund balance of 15 556,000. Then your other funds -- these include your special 16 revenue funds, debt service, capital projects -- had assets 17 of 1,991,000, liabilities of 333,000, so a net fund balance 18 of 1,657,000. So, your total assets as a whole on a 19 governmental basis were 6,697,000. Liabilities, 2,139,000. 20 So, a net fund balance for the governmental funds, 4,558,000. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hargis? 22 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: How closely do these actual fund 24 balances come to the projected fund balance that -- that's 25 prepared at the beginning, or going into a new budget year, 6-23-08 113 1 where we project and actually use that as a benchmark for our 2 budget planning? 3 MR. NEFFENDORF: Can I answer that? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 5 MR. NEFFENDORF: There's a statement in the back 6 where we show the comparison of budget to actual. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 8 MR. NEFFENDORF: For both the original and ending 9 budgets. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 MR. NEFFENDORF: And I can tell you they both came 12 out better. 13 MS. HARGIS: Yeah. 14 MR. NEFFENDORF: They -- both funds, General and 15 Road and Bridge, came out a little bit -- 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Better than what we projected? 17 MR. NEFFENDORF: Right, mm-hmm. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's generally the case. 19 MR. NEFFENDORF: Right. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: The revenues, we -- 21 MS. HARGIS: We usually under-project the revenue. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: -- try to be conservative, and 23 expenses, we try and be -- have a little cushion there. 24 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 25 MR. NEFFENDORF: That's good policy. Being a 6-23-08 114 1 German, I like that. I like conservatism. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I was going to thank you for putting 3 the reports in English for us, as well as the German that you 4 may be used to. 5 MR. NEFFENDORF: Yeah. But, anyway, if you take 6 that net fund balance figure there, 4,558,156, at the top of 7 the next page, Exhibit C-2, called the Reconciliation, this 8 is how we reconcile from governmental to GASB-34. After the 9 fund balance of 4,558,000, of course, you have your prior 10 period of adjustments. We recorded the roads and bridges, 11 and then the next item is your capital assets. If you take 12 your beginning fixed asset cost minus your accumulated 13 depreciation minus any long-term debt, that gives you that 14 figure of 6,725,000. You add back your current year capital 15 outlay, long-term debt principal payments, 1,113,000. 16 Subtract off your 2007 depreciation expense, 1,521,000. You 17 add back your other accruals adjustments where you're 18 converting from modified accrual on governmental to full 19 accrual for GASB-34. That's mainly for taxes, fines, and 20 fees and receivable, 1,926,000. That's how you get to your 21 net assets on your GASB-34 of 47,987,000. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question. 23 Give me an example of what a capital asset is. Is that the 24 County Jail? 25 MR. NEFFENDORF: Yes. Anything over -- I think 6-23-08 115 1 it's a $5,000 limit for -- 2 MS. HARGIS: $1,000. 3 MR. NEFFENDORF: -- depreciation. 4 MS. HARGIS: A thousand. 5 MR. NEFFENDORF: Okay. Okay, that would be all 6 your vehicles, buildings -- 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 8 MR. NEFFENDORF: -- equipment, machines. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It says here, "Capital 10 assets used in governmental activities are not a financial 11 resource." Is that -- to me, that language says to me -- 12 MR. NEFFENDORF: That's what -- that verbiage came 13 from converting from governmental to GASB-34. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 15 MR. NEFFENDORF: And governmental, it is a 16 financial -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I thought. So 18 it's not supposed to make sense? 19 MR. NEFFENDORF: No. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 21 MR. NEFFENDORF: Well, it does in the fact that you 22 got to realize when you're dealing with two sets of financial 23 statements, one is prepared on one basis and another set is 24 prepared on another basis. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. 6-23-08 116 1 MR. NEFFENDORF: You bet. And, likewise, on Page 2 13, this is the Statement of Revenues and Expenditures, 3 Changes to Fund Balance there. So, governmental basis. The 4 first column there is your General Fund. That revenue is 5 12,992,000, expenditures of 13,382,000, so a deficit of 6 390,000 for the year. You add back your proceeds from 7 capital leases, 105,000, so the net change, your deficit for 8 the year was 285,000. Road and Bridge had revenues of 9 2,403,000, expenditures of 2,709,000. You had a deficit of 10 305,000. You add back your proceeds from capital leases, you 11 had a net change or deficit for the year of 41,000. All your 12 other funds -- special revenue funds, debt service, capital 13 projects -- had revenues of 5,079,000, expenditures of 14 5,173,000, deficit of 93,000. After your other financing 15 sources, net deficits were 66,000. The total as a whole for 16 the governmental basis: Revenues, 20,475,000; expenditures, 17 21,265,000; with deficits of 790,000. After you add back 18 your lease-purchase proceeds, 396,900, you come up with a net 19 change of -- deficit of 392,000. 20 The next page, you start out with a deficit of 21 392,000. This is, again, how we reconcile from governmental 22 to GASB. You add back your current year capital outlays and 23 long-term debt principal payments of 1,113,000, subtract off 24 your depreciation of 1,521,000, you add back your adjustments 25 for adjusting from modified accrual to accrual with your 6-23-08 117 1 taxes and fines receivable, 862,000. So, your net change in 2 GASB-34 was a positive 60,925. So, you can see under one -- 3 on the governmental, you actually had a deficit, but when you 4 convert that to GASB, you had a positive number. Page 15 is 5 Fiduciary Net Assets. In Agency Fund, that just shows the 6 cash at the end of the year, 990,000, and amount due to other 7 governmental units, 990,000. That balance is derived from 8 all the official fees account from the Tax Assessor/ 9 Collector, J.P.'s, County and District Clerks. 10 Page 16 starts the notes to the financial 11 statements. The first part of the notes just goes over the 12 part I already discussed about the presentation of the 13 financial statements being on the GASB-34 and governmental 14 basis, so I won't go over those. The first one I'd like to 15 go over starts on Page 21. That shows the budgetary 16 information, and it gives an explanation there. And later we 17 will see that the County was in compliance with the budget 18 and actually met the -- was better than the budgeted 19 expectations. Page 22 starts the notes on the deposits and 20 investments. The County is required to comply with the 21 Public Funds Investment Act. As you can see, at the end of 22 the year, the deposits at the bank were 5,812,000, and these 23 were entirely covered by FDIC coverage or pledged collateral. 24 And at the bottom of that page, we show the deposits and 25 temporary investments, give a summary there of the accounts 6-23-08 118 1 of Security State, -- and you added a little bit -- Bank of 2 America Securities, Morgan Stanley money market, that show a 3 total of those investments, 5,916,000. And you can see on 4 the next page that the County is compliant with the Public 5 Funds Investment Act, as all these funds are secured by FDIC 6 coverage or pledged securities. And all your investments are 7 in accordance with the Public Funds Investment Act. 8 Page 23, the receivables, that just gives a summary 9 of the breakdown of those funds receivable for property 10 taxes, gross receivables, and the allowance for 11 uncollectibles. Page 24, 3.D., the Capital Assets. That 12 gives a summary of your initial balances in all your capital 13 assets, your increases/decreases, and, of course, big prior 14 period adjustments to record the infrastructure, roads and 15 bridges, and your ending balances. And, likewise, that gives 16 you a summary of those accounts for the depreciation, and 17 comes up with your net fixed assets, or capital assets. Top 18 of Page 25 shows the depreciation expense for the year, 19 1.5 million, and was charged to those programs and/or 20 functions. 3.F. starts the long-term liabilities. It shows 21 the beginning balance in bonds and notes payable and capital 22 lease obligations of 6,526,000. You issued 369,000 in lease 23 purchases, you retired 1,743,000, so your ending balance in 24 long-term debt was 5,151,000. 25 Then on Page 26, we give a breakdown showing a 6-23-08 119 1 summary of each one of the individual certificates of 2 obligation and notes payable. And then the middle of the 3 page, we show the five-year annual requirement showing the 4 principal/interest requirements over the next five years for 5 those certificate of obligation and notes payable. Bottom of 6 the page starts the capital lease obligations showing for 7 each one of the payees that you have through the Security 8 State Bank, Caterpillar, and Ford Motor Credit Corporation. 9 And then on Page -- continuing on Page 27, that gives your 10 total capital lease obligations, 595,000. And then, once 11 again, we show a summary of years, what your payments are 12 under those lease agreements. Note 3.G. on Page 28 is the 13 retirement plan through the County as a member of the Texas 14 County and District Retirement System. This disclosure is 15 provided to us by them, and it gives a brief summary of the 16 plan description and funding policy. 17 And on Page 29, you can see that the County's total 18 pension costs for the year -- this is the County's portion -- 19 was 800,621. Then it gives a summary of the actuarial 20 valuation information. This is provided, again, by them to 21 us. And on the top of the next page, 30, it gives a summary 22 showing your particular county's account with them. You can 23 see, as of December 31st, '06, the latest actuarial valuation 24 date, we'll call this, 18,402,000 in assets, liability of 25 20,440,000, so we had an unfunded 2,036,000, and your funded 6-23-08 120 1 ratio is now at 90 percent. So you can see, each year funded 2 ratio has gone up, and that's good. In fact, y'all are a 3 little bit higher in your funded ratio, and most of them are 4 85 to 90. Y'all have crossed over 90. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're doing better than 6 Gillespie? 7 MR. NEFFENDORF: I don't know right offhand, but I 8 think probably so. 'Cause I don't think theirs is quite that 9 high. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. 11 MR. NEFFENDORF: Y'all -- I think there's only two 12 counties that I do work for that are over 90 percent funded. 13 So -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: What about our contingent liability 15 with regard to health care benefits for retirees? 16 MS. HARGIS: It's not on this audit. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Not on this one? 18 MR. NEFFENDORF: No, thank God. It's coming, 19 though, real quick, 2009. We've got to book the liability 20 for it. GASB-45 gave us till 2009 fiscal year to book the 21 liability. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to wait until the last 23 moment to get the pain? 24 MR. NEFFENDORF: Well, I mean, that's up to y'all's 25 discretion. Most -- most counties are going to wait till 6-23-08 121 1 2009 to book the liability, and very few of them are going to 2 fund them. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: We have no contractual obligation to 4 provide that. 5 MR. NEFFENDORF: Yeah. 6 MS. HARGIS: On an annual basis. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 8 MS. HARGIS: On an annual basis only. We're going 9 to take that at that point. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 MR. NEFFENDORF: Note 3.L., Risk Management, says 12 the County is exposed to risks, and most of those are covered 13 by your interlocal agreement with the risk pools created by 14 the Texas Association of Counties. Then you also have, at 15 the bottom of the page, Self-Insured Group Medical Insurance 16 showing the limits per year and aggregate amount. The note 17 on Page 31, 3.J., there is a restriction on the net assets, 18 of course, on the debt service. Your debt service funds are 19 restricted to use for payment of principal/interest on your 20 bonds, 172,000. Note 3.K. is your Prior Period Adjustment. 21 In accordance with GASB-34, counties had a deferral period to 22 book their infrastructure assets, and that adjustment was 23 made. That shows the net adjustment for the booking of the 24 infrastructure assets of 35,186,000. Prior years, Note 3.L., 25 Change in Accounting, that's the -- the tax collection rates. 6-23-08 122 1 The estimate for the allowance of uncollectible taxes was 2 very high, and we -- with the concurrence of the County 3 Auditor, we changed those percentages of uncollectible taxes 4 to be more reasonable. 5 Page 32, the supplementary information. That is 6 what I was talking about before, on the General Fund budget 7 to actual statement. You have two columns there, the 8 original and final amended budgets, then your actual 9 comparison. On the revenue side, you can see your final 10 amended budget's 13,063,000. Actually had revenues of 11 12,992,000, so you're short by 71,000. But on the 12 expenditure side, you budgeted 13,980,000. You actually 13 spent only 13,382,000, so a favorable variance of 597,000. 14 So, the excess -- you had planned on a deficit of 916,000; it 15 was only 390,000, so you're overall favorable of 526,000 for 16 general fund. Likewise, on Page 33, the revenues were 17 budgeted -- final amended for the Road and Bridge, 2,335,000. 18 Actually collected 2,403,000 so we have $68,000 positive. 19 Expenditures, you budgeted 2,488,000; actually spent 20 2,709,000, so you're unfavorable by 220,000. Once you add 21 back the proceeds from capital leases of 264,000, you can see 22 the net change there. Your planned deficit was 152,000; it 23 actually only turned out to be 41,000, so you have a 24 favorable variance of 111,000. Thank you. That's it for the 25 regular reports. Then you have the supplemental letters. 6-23-08 123 1 Did you get your -- you've got a copy in yours? Yeah. There 2 should be two of them. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think I'm missing mine. 4 MR. NEFFENDORF: Okay. Everybody else got them? 5 The supplemental? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I've got them both 7 here. 8 MR. NEFFENDORF: Okay. The first one is the report 9 on compliance and internal control over financial reporting. 10 In addition to our regular audit, the financial statements, 11 we had to also test for compliance with laws, contracts, 12 regulations, and grants. The second paragraph there says the 13 results of our test is no -- showed no instances of 14 noncompliance. Internal control over financial reporting, in 15 addition to our audit test internal control system used for 16 financial reporting, and the last sentence of the second 17 paragraph, you know, that no matters involving internal 18 control considered to be a material weakness. The second 19 letter is our communication to you in accordance with 20 generally accepted auditing standards. We are required to 21 list these items as shown there, what our responsibility is 22 under U.S. generally accepted auditing standards, significant 23 audit findings. Difficulties encountered in performing the 24 audit, there were no non-corrected -- uncorrected 25 misstatements. The journal entries were made, so there are 6-23-08 124 1 no uncorrected misstatements. There were no disagreements 2 with management. And then, finally, the other audit findings 3 and issues that, in addition to those items as disclosed 4 before, we have to show our nonmaterial weaknesses. 5 These are our recommendations. On the -- during 6 the audit of the various offices and departments of the 7 county, there have been very few internal audits done in the 8 past, and most of them we did find had adequate internal 9 controls to the extent possible. Some of them, the size of 10 the staff limited what you do with internal control. We 11 recommend that the County Auditor perform internal audits on 12 a periodic basis of each office and department, and I think 13 she's already said that she's already begun those internal 14 audits in the '08 fiscal year, which we're glad to see. The 15 other items there, during our audit of those various offices 16 and departments, there were some official fee accounts, when 17 they had their listing for the bank accounts and what the 18 balances were supposed to be in there through the year, some 19 of them had accumulated a little different balance, or there 20 might be have been a difference, and we just recommend that 21 you talk to each one of the offices about going back and 22 seeing what they can do to come up with what those 23 differences were, and resolve them. Like I say, sometimes 24 there might be nothing we can do other than write them off. 25 And the same way on outstanding checks. On the 6-23-08 125 1 reconciliations, some of those offices, they had checks that 2 were over a year old. We recommend at least annually, once a 3 year, that they look at those outstanding checks, and then 4 review and make adjustments accordingly. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions for Mr. Neffendorf? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question. Is 7 the -- up front, the management discussion and analysis, is 8 that what you've been working on, Commissioner? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not as much this year, I think 10 because of the timing, and they need to get it out. I did 11 kind of a format based on last year's, and they actually did 12 the final work on it. 13 MR. NEFFENDORF: Yeah, there -- I mean, the 14 management discussion and analysis generally is -- there's 15 required elements in there, and those are disclosed here, and 16 then it gives the opportunity, if you want to make, you know, 17 other comments and stuff, those are -- that's strictly 18 y'all's, so you can do that. All we want to make sure is we 19 have the required elements. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, you know, probably 21 depends on the year what the Court wants to do. Next year we 22 may go back a little bit more to the -- more like what we did 23 previously, where we have a little bit more discussion. But 24 this year, it's important we get this done. That's primarily 25 because we started late. That's why we have a little more of 6-23-08 126 1 a time issue this year. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Any more questions for 3 Mr. Neffendorf? Thank you, sir. 4 MR. NEFFENDORF: You bet. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you being here, and -- 6 MR. NEFFENDORF: All right. Well, I appreciate it. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: -- going over this with us. 8 MR. NEFFENDORF: You bet. We appreciate the 9 cooperation of Jeannie, the Auditor, and all the offices we 10 went to see, 'cause we went to see them all. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: You want the Court to take action to 12 accept and approve -- 13 MS. HARGIS: But I also want Keith to tell you that 14 there is a new requirement for next year. I need y'all to -- 15 to approve the audit, and then let him talk to you about this 16 new requirement for next year. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion we approve the 18 2007 Comprehensive Annual Financial Audit. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Question 21 or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, 22 signify by raising your right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 6-23-08 127 1 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. 2 MS. HARGIS: The committee. 3 MR. NEFFENDORF: Yes. Well, what's coming down 4 now, on the statements of auditing standards, we have to 5 actually meet -- we'll have to actually meet with you guys, 6 if we're going to do the audit, or whoever you get to do the 7 audit, along about October or November, 'cause we have to do 8 a planning meeting with what's considered the "board of 9 governance." 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 11 MR. NEFFENDORF: Which, in y'all's case, is the 12 Judge and Commissioners. Now, there's two items to consider 13 -- that you might want to consider, and I'll give you a 14 letter later. We're in the process of drafting a letter that 15 you might want to consider. What some people do is just have 16 an audit committee, where you might have a Judge and a 17 Commissioner just meet with -- but that's up to y'all. We're 18 going to leave that to your discretion. And all I'm saying 19 is that we -- you know, when the time comes, whoever your 20 auditor will be will have to meet with you all to get a 21 planning thing -- and it's a good thing. I think it -- in my 22 opinion, it's a step in the right direction. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. 24 MR. NEFFENDORF: You bet. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that agenda item? 6-23-08 128 1 We'll move to Item 19; consider, discuss, and take 2 appropriate action to allow the Sheriff's Office to apply for 3 grant to assist with the radio conversion. Was the Sheriff 4 going to come for this one? It has his name here. 5 MR. BARTON: It did have his name here, but I think 6 on the -- something -- on the back, he scratched his name out 7 and put my name. So, good morning. As y'all well know, 8 we're going to -- we're looking into having to upgrade our 9 radio equipment from analog to -- converted to a digital. 10 I've checked with -- right now, we're looking at just 11 upgrading mobile units and hand-held units that we have. 12 I've checked with AACOG. There is no grant money available 13 at this time to assist us with that. They may have some 14 money later available to help with infrastructure upgrades, 15 which will be a big help for us, but nothing to help us with 16 mobile units and hand-held units. The Sheriff wanted me 17 to -- to talk to y'all to see if y'all would approve us 18 seeking a Peterson grant -- Peterson Foundation grant to 19 assist with a portion of this funding. I have spoken with 20 Mr. Oehler at the Peterson Foundation, and he did tell me 21 that -- that -- of course, all taxing entities are on the 22 bottom of their -- their list, but he did give me -- he will 23 recognize -- accept the request if we -- if y'all ask me to 24 do so. He did advise that I should not put in for more than 25 $60,000 at a cap, as a max. 6-23-08 129 1 JUDGE TINLEY: On the request? 2 MR. BARTON: On the request. That will about put 3 us a third of what our goal is going to need to be from what 4 the Sheriff asked for in the budget. So, that's kind of 5 where we are. It's -- like I said, they're -- taxing 6 entities are kind of on the bottom of their list right now of 7 who they're giving grants to, but if you want me to try to 8 seek that out, I'll be glad to do so. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I certainly hope so, Clay, 10 that you -- that you go after that money. And, you know, I 11 mean, we're talking about a -- really and truly, a safety 12 issue to all the citizens of our county. 13 MR. BARTON: Correct. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The way I see it. When we 15 first started talking about this radio issue, my first 16 thought was, well, we're trying to stay up with the Joneses, 17 but it's much more than that, and I think Peterson and 18 everybody else should be -- should participate in this thing. 19 MR. BARTON: Well, and it's also -- ultimately, 20 what we're trying to do is going to be mandated. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 22 MR. BARTON: We have a -- we're ahead of the 23 timeline on the mandate, but it's going to have to be 24 ultimately done. But just to -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What you're saying is the 6-23-08 130 1 City once again has beat us to the punch. 2 MR. BARTON: The City was able to plan ahead, and 3 they also got that grant. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got a grant, yeah. 5 MR. BARTON: Through, I believe -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: AACOG. Homeland Defense, 7 right? 8 MR. BARTON: I think -- if I remember right, they 9 got 200,000, if I understood the article right. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Fifty-two. 11 MR. BARTON: Through Senator Smith. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: No, Congressman Smith's office. 13 MR. BARTON: Congressman Smith's office. So, they 14 had that -- so that also gives them an extra edge on 15 purchasing this equipment that they need to have. They did 16 have the foresight and started a year or two ago purchasing 17 digital compatible equipment. And, of course, the equipment 18 that we'll be purchasing will both be digital compatible and 19 analog compatible, and so we can go either way with it. But 20 ultimately, there's going to be a timeline in which we're -- 21 all law enforcement agencies are going to have to be digital 22 compliant. That's just -- 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 2015? Is that correct? 24 MR. BARTON: I believe that's -- that's currently 25 what was done. 6-23-08 131 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I would hope that City 2 of Kerrville would hold off on getting theirs completed until 3 we have something in place to be able to do that so we can 4 communicate with one another. 5 MR. BARTON: Well, it's not going to completely -- 6 completely kill communications, and they're not set in stone 7 at this point at making a January 1st swap-over. I mean, 8 they're being -- they're working with us. But what it'll end 9 up doing is that we will not be able to -- if they do make 10 the swap-over, just like D.P.S. made, with our analog 11 equipment, we can't hear their digital traffic. Now, they'll 12 be able to hear our traffic, because a digital will also pick 13 up the analog channels, so they'll be able to hear both sides 14 and basically come to our rescue, but we're not going to be 15 able to hear what they have going on on their channel to 16 assist them. And just like right now, we can't hear D.P.S. 17 when they check out over the interstate unless they check out 18 through our office, which they're doing, because they like 19 for us to know that they maybe can help. But that's where 20 the radio situation's at. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that everybody wants 22 to communicate with each other and assist. 23 MR. BARTON: Would y'all like for me to do that? 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we ask the 25 Sheriff's Office to apply for a grant with the Peterson 6-23-08 132 1 Foundation in regards to the radio conversion. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 4 indicated. Question or discussion on that motion? All in 5 favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move 10 to Item 20; consider, discuss, take appropriate action to 11 approve the Tetra Tech contract for Phase IV of the Kerrville 12 South project, subject to approval of the County Attorney, 13 and allow the County Judge to sign same. Commissioner 14 Williams? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That pretty well states the 16 case, Judge, and I want the County Attorney to review it. 17 I'd like to have the Court's authority to move forward on it. 18 And I have one question with respect to the project 19 description, which I'll -- I'll research out and discuss with 20 Tetra Tech. I would move approval. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 23 approval of the agreement. Subject to the County Attorney's 24 approval of the contract? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 6-23-08 133 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Question or discussion on the 2 motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 3 right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. There's no 8 executive session matters noted on the agenda. I assume 9 there are none? We'll move on to item -- Section 4 of the 10 agenda, payment of the bills. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we pay the bills. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for payment 14 of the bills. Question or discussion on the motion? Page 3. 15 We've got shipping charges to Federal Express to ship stuff 16 to our inner city. I assume they're machines? 17 MS. PIEPER: That is correct. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Why are we paying the shipping 19 charges? What's the problem? 20 MS. PIEPER: Because some of them were needing 21 repairs, and we had to send them in for repairs. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we not have a warranty on these? 23 MS. PIEPER: Yes, we do. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're talking about a pretty 25 good chunk of dough here, about 1,140 bucks. And there were, 6-23-08 134 1 what, three different invoices, as I recall looking at them. 2 Page 29. I'd be interested to know what the -- what kind of 3 dental services these individuals had before they hit our 4 jail. I'd be willing to make a wager they hadn't seen the 5 dentist or couldn't spell it for ten years prior. Then they 6 hit our jail, and suddenly they have to have all sorts of 7 dental work. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Boy, that's -- 9 MR. BARTON: All I can tell you about that, Judge, 10 is that we only send them to the dentist if the doctor tells 11 us to, at that point. So, if the doctor looks at them and 12 says they need to go to the dentist, then we make a dentist 13 appointment. We don't do it just because they want a dentist 14 appointment. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me that if they make a 16 complaint to the doctor, the doctor's concerned about his 17 liability of not sending them to the dentist, so he's going 18 to say pack them over there. 19 MR. BARTON: Judge, I don't know how you want me to 20 answer that. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I got a pair of pliers I'll 22 loan you when they start complaining, before you carry them 23 to the dentist. 24 MR. BARTON: I'm afraid liability would be a little 25 bit more if I started yanking teeth. 6-23-08 135 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That wouldn't include pain 2 and suffering, would it? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, that's all I got to squawk 4 about. Anybody else? All in favor of the motion, signify by 5 raising your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget amendments. 10 You'll note in your materials that you've got a budget 11 amendment all dealing with the Juvenile Detention Facility. 12 That appears to be the only one. 13 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Looks like Kevin's getting himself 15 positioned to using a lot of part-time people, as opposed to 16 full-time, and -- 17 MS. HARGIS: We just had to move his line items 18 around, because there were so many changes that we suggested 19 we do this one on its own, because the payroll is hitting 20 this next time, and to keep him from going over, this is a 21 true amendment. And Kevin worked this up on a spreadsheet. 22 He feels like this will take him to the end of the year. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 6-23-08 136 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 2 approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the 3 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 4 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6 (No response.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Do we have 8 any late bills? 9 MS. HARGIS: No, sir. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Monthly reports? I've been 11 presented with the following reports: Monthly investment 12 report as of May 31st, 2008, from Patterson and Associates 13 through the Treasurer's office, and monthly reports from 14 District Clerk, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4, 15 Environmental Health, and then an amended report from the 16 District Clerk. Do I hear a motion that these reports be 17 approved as presented? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that the 21 designated reports be approved as presented. Question or 22 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, 23 signify by raising your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 6-23-08 137 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move 3 to information. Reports from Commissioners? Liaison/ 4 committee assignments? Commissioner Baldwin? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sir, I don't have anything 6 to add to this wonderful moment. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner 8 Williams? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nor do I. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Three? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll be in San Antonio for part 12 of the South Texas meeting, other than the latter part of 13 this week, and then on Friday, probably will be in San Marcos 14 for the Hill Country County Coalition meeting. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But not the Hill Country 16 Alliance meeting? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not the Hill Country Alliance 18 meeting. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: If you see a sign on the door that 20 says "Hill Country Alliance," you're not going? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll go the other way. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Commissioner 4? 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not a thing, Judge. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: One item that I'd like to throw out 25 for consideration, I had a call from the Parks and Wildlife 6-23-08 138 1 individual, the one that is currently headquartered out at 2 the management area; also gets involved with outreach 3 programs, prescribed burns, stuff like that. He's here in 4 town. He inquired if maybe we had some office space here in 5 the courthouse that -- that we might be able to provide to 6 him. I inquired about room across the river there at their 7 headquarters, and he said, well, they didn't have any room. 8 I told him I would drop it in your guy's lap and -- and see 9 where we go from there. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do they want us to provide a 11 vehicle and insurance and telephones and stuff like that, 12 too? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, he said he wanted an aide. I 14 told him I thought you'd be available; you had about half a 15 day left. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I got a good half a 17 day left; I'll be happy to help any way I can. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: How -- 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know we got some used 20 furniture, Judge, if we can just find a place to put it. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the area where the old 22 parole officers are is currently in use. I think that's 23 probably the only space we got available, is that one. 24 But -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd have to give it some 6-23-08 139 1 thought. You sprung on it me there. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We got room at the Ag Barn. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, he also made inquiry at the 5 Extension Service, and they said they didn't have any. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, we'll have an extra 7 office out there at the Ag Barn that's really not being used 8 for much. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Upstairs? 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Downstairs. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Downstairs. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, let's chew on that, and 13 maybe -- we're not there yet. 14 MS. HYDE: Okay. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: And maybe we'll gnaw on an item to 16 discuss again at our next meeting. Okay. 17 MS. HARGIS: Okay. I've been here; then I'm going 18 to let her up. You -- we have the Commissioners Court report 19 ready. It is on your laptops now. The gentleman created 20 that report on Friday, so you're the only people that can 21 open it. So, you got your e-mail to use the budget program 22 right now for the Commissioners Court and the Judge, so you 23 can see that report as well. If you pull under Budget 24 Reports and you go down and look under Commissioners Court, 25 you pull -- just hit on that report, and it'll show you all 6-23-08 140 1 the prior years, plus the new -- the budget that they've 2 requested, and then your area, which will be basically the 3 same as theirs at this point. Also, we are just now 4 finishing the projection, so if you pull that report up, it 5 shows projected amount. We're just now tweaking that. We 6 didn't get that finished. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the budget summary report 8 that I commonly refer to? 9 MS. HARGIS: Yeah, and it has the projected ending 10 balances. And we have not finished all of those yet, so 11 don't depend on those quite yet. They should be finished by 12 tomorrow. The expenses should be finished now, but I've got 13 to do the revenue this afternoon. But other than that, we're 14 okay. I have finished the little analysis summary, you know, 15 that we worked off of last year. I have everything done 16 there except the General Fund, because I -- you know, I mean, 17 since this is my first year, I don't want to put out an 18 amount there that I'm not real comfortable with yet -- and 19 I'm not -- as a beginning balance or an ending balance yet. 20 Pretty much predicted the revenue, and -- and we need to look 21 at the expenses, and then we'll plug those in. So -- but 22 it's ready. All you got to do is plug it in. So, if there's 23 any questions, I just wanted to tell y'all, Thursday and 24 Friday and Monday and Tuesday, I will not be here. Ken will 25 be here if you need to make an appointment with him, or if 6-23-08 141 1 you need me by phone, I will be baby-sitting at home. So -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you hopeful that by Wednesday, 3 you'll have these things in place that we can refer to? 4 MS. HARGIS: The projected? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 6 MS. HARGIS: That -- I was told by my office just a 7 few moments ago that the expenses would be ready by noon, so 8 the revenue side is -- will be in by the end of today. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 10 MS. HARGIS: So you should be able to use that 11 tomorrow. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Wednesday you're going to have 13 something that you're comfortable with insofar as 14 benchmarking for it? 15 (Ms. Hargis nodded.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. Do you have 17 anything? 18 MR. EMERSON: Well, I think Eva was next. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: But you're an elected official. 20 MS. HYDE: I'm last; it's okay. 21 MR. EMERSON: Okay. Just two quick things. We 22 filed suit last week on the West Creek environmental health 23 issue. The petition went in, I believe, Wednesday. Letters 24 went out to the defendants Thursday, and interestingly 25 enough, I had a phone call this morning from an attorney 6-23-08 142 1 wanting to know what we can do to resolve it. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. 3 MR. EMERSON: So that's positive. On a different 4 note, Ilse and I, last Friday, met with the attorneys for the 5 Castlecomb Subdivision out at -- on that septic issue with 6 the cluster system on Peterson Farm Road. Spent about an 7 hour and a half with Environmental Health and the attorney 8 walking around the site talking about options, and I think 9 that's going to move toward resolution. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: See, Buster? When you get lawyers 11 involved, oftentimes there are good and meaningful results. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's two for Precinct 2. 13 Thank you. 14 MR. EMERSON: You're welcome. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I bet that's true. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Ms. Eva? 17 MS. HYDE: I know that it's lunchtime, so this is 18 quick. These are for y'all's review. I will put them on the 19 next agenda. There's two sections; one is the annual 20 retirement plan assessment, and the second part is telling 21 you how much -- no, no, no. You're not separating them, are 22 you? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're getting two? I thought 25 we were just getting one. 6-23-08 143 1 MS. HYDE: Then this one's for here. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're supposed to have 3 two? 4 MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 6 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 7 MS. HYDE: I'll put it on the agenda for next time; 8 then I'm going to ask the Auditor to work with me to get us 9 some preliminary numbers. I think he's already got some. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're supposed to read 11 these at our -- 12 MS. HYDE: At your leisure. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bedtime reading. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: That's all you have? 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Don't mess with it. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not encouraging you; I'm just 17 wanting to be sure. Are you through? That's a yes-or-no 18 question. 19 MS. HYDE: That was it. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Is there anybody else? 21 Mindy? Clay? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Buzzie's, Buzzie's. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's Monday. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: We stand adjourned. 25 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:19 p.m.) - - - - - - - - - - 6-23-08 144 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 27th day of June, 2008. 8 9 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 10 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 11 Certified Shorthand Reporter 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6-23-08