1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Regular Session 10 Monday, September 8, 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 September 8, 2008 2 PAGE 3 --- Commissioners' Comments 6 4 1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding annual Courthouse Lighting Agreement 5 with Kerrville Christmas Lighting Corporation 16 6 1.2 Consider/discuss, accept "Certification of Unopposed Candidates" and issue an order for 7 unopposed candidates elected 21 8 1.3 Open bids for restoration/replacement of courthouse windows and award contract, if 9 appropriate 22 10 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to declare three vehicles surplus property to be 11 auctioned 22 12 1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action concerning revision of Tract 70 of Clear Springs 13 Ranch; set public hearing if needed, Pct. 1 24 14 1.5 Public hearing regarding proposed Kerr County 2008 Tax Rate 30 15 1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 16 grant a variance to Kerr County Flood Prevention Order for home in Westwood Oaks, Pct. 4 32 17 1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for 18 Cattle Guard Policy 36 19 1.11 Public Hearing for purpose of continuing records archival fee of $5 paid on each document filed in 20 County Clerk's office in accordance with Records Management and Archival written plan 54 21 1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for 22 concept plan for revision of plat for The Woods Section Two, Revision of Lots 79, 80, 81, 82 & 23 83; set Public Hearing, Pct. 2 54 24 1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve Kerr County Historical Commission's 25 application to Texas Historical Commission for Certified Local Government status 82 3 1 I N D E X (Continued) September 8, 2008 2 PAGE 1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 3 ratify and confirm bylaws of the Kerr County Historical Commission 86 4 1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for 5 concept plan for revision of plat for Lots 11 & 12 of Four Seasons Addition; set public hearing, 6 Pct. 1 87 7 1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve continuation of Records Archive Fee 8 of $5 on each document filed in County Clerk's office 90 9 1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate actions 10 approving County Clerk's Records Management and Archival written plan and for adoption of such 11 for budget year 2008/2009 91 12 1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve contract with Department of State Health 13 Services for issuance of vital statistic records via online; authorize County Judge to sign 92 14 1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 15 renew Lexis legal research contract 93 16 1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to establish an annual process of evaluation for 17 heads of departments that report directly to Commissioners Court 93 18 1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action 19 regarding fees paid for the use of HCYEC; address possible consequences to groups that 20 do not clean up after their events 102 21 1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to enter into interlocal agreement with Bexar 22 County Appellate Public Defender's Office for indigent defendant appeals of criminal cases 23 from Kerr County courts 109 24 1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on requested Joint Resolution of City of Kerrville, 25 City of Ingram, and Kerr County in approval and adoption of Economic Development Incentive Policy 111 4 1 I N D E X (Continued) September 8, 2008 2 PAGE 1.22 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 3 take appropriate action on requested memorandum of understanding between Kerr County and Supreme 4 Court of Texas for support of continuity of court operations in the event of an emergency 113 5 1.23 Consider/discuss, review county investment policy 6 and take appropriate action to make any necessary or desired changes to such investment policy 114 7 1.24 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 8 whether COLA granted to Kerr County elected officials in FY '08-'09 Budget should be applicable 9 to elected judicial officers whose salaries are established by state statutes 116 10 1.25 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 11 establish Kerr County Holiday Schedule for FY '08-'09 131 12 1.26 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 13 proposed pay increases for elected officials and department heads for FY '08-'09 138 14 1.27 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 15 renew Data Processing Services agreement with Indigent Healthcare Solutions; allow County Judge 16 to sign same 163 17 1.28 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding Indigent Health Care Service Agreement 18 with Sid Peterson Hospital 165 19 4.1 Pay Bills 179 4.2 Budget Amendments 182 20 4.3 Late Bills --- 4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 185 21 5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee 22 Assignments 186 5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads 195 23 3.1 Action as may be required on matters discussed 24 in Executive Session 199 25 --- Adjourned 201 5 1 On Monday, September 8, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., a regular 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 8 Let me call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the 9 Kerr County Commissioners Court posted and scheduled for this 10 date and time, Monday, September the 8th, 2008, at 9 a.m. It 11 is that time now. Commissioner Letz? 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would everyone please stand for 13 a moment of prayer, followed by the pledge. 14 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's 16 any member of the public that wishes to be heard on any 17 matter that is not a listed agenda item, this is your 18 opportunity to be heard. If you wish to be heard on an 19 agenda item, we would ask that you fill out a participation 20 form. They're located at the back of the room, and you can 21 get them up here so that I'll be sure and not miss you when 22 we get to that item. However, if you wish to be heard on an 23 agenda item and you haven't filled out a participation form, 24 just get my attention in some manner when we get to that item 25 and I'll see that you have the opportunity to be heard. But 9-8-08 6 1 right now, if there's any member of the audience that wishes 2 to be heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, 3 feel free to come forward at this time and tell us what you 4 want us to hear. Seeing no one coming forward, we will move 5 on. Commissioner Letz? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couple things, mainly dealing 7 with water. Last Friday, I think most of the members of the 8 Court were present; we had attended -- or I attended with 9 some others, about 100 of my closest friends, to listen to 10 GMA-9 recommendations. Quite astounding, in my mind. Every 11 speaker, and there was probably 30 or more, asked them to do 12 nothing that day. They ignored the public from multiple 13 counties, and went ahead and did exactly what they, you know, 14 had planned on doing. Astounding to me. I've never seen 15 public officials so oblivious to the wishes of the people -- 16 constituents, and then acting without any science to do it. 17 Three of the aquifers they voted on, they didn't have -- have 18 never done any science on it; don't know anything about them, 19 some desired future conditions. Those were, fortunately, in 20 Blanco County. They did set the desired future conditions 21 for the Edwards-Trinity, which is west Kerr County. They did 22 that using the wrong model, in my opinion. They used the 23 Trinity model as opposed to Edwards-Trinity. Never even ran 24 the other model, but that didn't seem to bother them either, 25 and they set it to some unknown variable that the 2008 water 9-8-08 7 1 levels out there, which I'm not sure that that's even really 2 ever been looked at. Just astounding to me. 3 But I guess -- but I will say our -- I was not -- 4 did not stay for the whole meeting, but I believe Headwaters 5 did; Mary Ellen Summerlin did vote against setting those, but 6 she was outvoted by her -- the other counties. Which I think 7 is an interesting case as well, how -- I guess back to the 8 one person/one vote issue. Kerr County's one of the largest 9 counties, along with Comal and Hays, in that GMA, yet they've 10 decided to vote equally among counties, so Blanco County has 11 as much of a vote as Kerr County and some of the other larger 12 counties, which I'm not sure that's actually proper, or 13 possibly legal. But, anyway, that was GMA-9. One of the 14 things that I'll probably bring to the Court at our next 15 meeting or the one after that is filing an appeal to that. 16 Commissioners Court has the ability to appeal those numbers, 17 and I would encourage anyone in the public to do the same, 18 and that starts the process through T.C.E.Q. and T.W.D.B. I 19 want to get a little bit of information as to if there's 20 going to be a cost and what's required if we file the appeal. 21 I think Region J will also file an appeal. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you investigated the 23 equal representation issue as to how we might proceed on 24 that? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. It seems odd to me, and I 9-8-08 8 1 don't -- I really have never looked into the GMA process, 2 other than fact that the Legislature created it. Haven't 3 been real fond of it from the beginning. Hopefully, 4 Representative Hilderbran and Senator Fraser will look at 5 what these GMA's are doing since they created them, and make 6 corrections to them, if they have the ability to do it, at 7 the next session starting in January. Especially 8 Representative Hilderbran, because I believe it will be 9 before his -- his subcommittee that he's on or chairs. 10 Depends on how things work out. Other than that, not a whole 11 lot going on. Just a little bit of water issues. Got a 12 little dove hunting in over the weekend; had a good time. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You didn't shoot anybody, did 14 you? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Didn't shoot anybody. That's 16 it. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler? 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I went to that water 19 meeting as well, and I was amazed at the number of people 20 that got up and thought that Kerr County ought to stop all 21 the drilling, stop all the permitting for wells so that they 22 could steal our water from us further downstream. That just 23 blew me away. I mean, you know, we still have the right of 24 capture in Texas, and I do believe we do have some rights to 25 produce water for people that move here, whether we really 9-8-08 9 1 want to grow that much or not, but growth is here and it's 2 going to continue. And I just don't -- I don't understand 3 people that are that selfish that they would -- would 4 advocate that sort of thing, but they did. Other thing is, 5 I've -- I have talked to quite a few people about some of 6 these public hearings that we're going to have, and there is 7 some interest in holding the one on the 22nd -- maybe we 8 could have one during the day that we already have scheduled, 9 and then have another one in the evening. I understand from 10 past experience there hasn't been a lot of interest in one of 11 those evening sessions, but we might want to give them the 12 opportunity to do that. That's just a suggestion that we 13 might consider later on, if we have time to post a meeting 14 for that time and date. Other than that, I hope it continues 15 to rain. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before we go back, one more 17 water issue, if I could real quick. Last -- I guess it was 18 Wednesday or Tuesday, Region J's representatives from Kerr 19 County met with our consultant, and we're looking at surface 20 water issues more and some ASR issues, and one of the things 21 that Region J is working on in Kerr County under the current 22 plan is identifying and valuing water rights in the river and 23 how we can move them up and down the river and what the 24 effect of doing that is, and getting an analysis of cost. I 25 think we've signed a memorandum of understanding with 9-8-08 10 1 U.G.R.A., the City of Kerrville about -- about that very 2 issue. But we're doing some work there, and it looks like 3 the ASR is going to become a more and more important part of 4 our long-term water needs, and we're looking at taking -- 5 during high-flow periods of the river, is there any way of 6 taking additional water out, or can the City and U.G.R.A. 7 primarily take additional water out and use it in the ASR. 8 It's interesting that rather than looking at the -- the, I 9 guess, upper end of the permits, those that have the most 10 senior rights, the emphasis is looking at those that are not 11 the most senior, because they're more available. Because 12 they're not as -- I mean, you can only get water during 13 certain times, but for ASR needs, that's adequate. So, 14 there's a lot of work being done on the surface water side of 15 the equation as well right now. That's it. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin? 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I have a couple 18 of things I want to talk about. I want to -- want us to go 19 back and talk again at some point about having a vehicle for 20 our employees to go to the bank, run errands, et cetera, 21 because of the -- these I.R.S. issues that are really 22 clouding the conversation up. I think that we need to have 23 our own vehicle for that, and as well as the liability that 24 Rex has talked about. There are two jeeps somewhere in our 25 system that are no longer in service, and then the Sheriff 9-8-08 11 1 has an item on 1.4 today of declaring some vehicles unusable 2 for his department. And, just thinking, it's -- at some 3 point, we need to take a peek at all of that and see if there 4 isn't at least one vehicle that we can park here at the 5 courthouse for people to -- to use. That's one issue. 6 Number two, got a resignation from Eddie North over the 7 weekend, and just -- we're losing a great, great employee and 8 a great friend of Kerr County, several-generation man here, 9 and has served Kerr County I don't know how many years. A 10 lot. And he's resigned, and going on to bigger and better 11 things, I guess, and I just wanted to bring that up. And at 12 some point, I'm going to bring him in so we can thank him for 13 his service. That's all. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I echo Commissioner 16 Baldwin's thoughts with regard to Eddie North. He's been a 17 -- a good and loyal employee all these years and served Kerr 18 County well, and we wish him well in retirement. On Friday, 19 members of the Court, Friday I participated in a meeting at 20 U.G.R.A. that involved River Authority, the City, Tetra Tech, 21 our engineer, Grantworks, our grant writers and procurers, 22 and, of course, U.G.R.A. Board members and administration, 23 and the purpose of which was to talk about the U.G.R.A. 24 exercising its option under its contract with the City to 25 turn -- to turn over Kerrville South Wastewater System to the 9-8-08 12 1 City. And there were several issues with respect to that, 2 and there are some things I want to bring to your attention, 3 so I'll take a minute or two to bring you up to speed on it. 4 I'm going to pass out a memorandum for the Court which has a 5 map and so forth, a couple memorandums behind it. 6 From the get-go, this is not an issue that we can 7 exercise any sort of veto power over. It is a contractual 8 issue between U.G.R.A. and the City. It's an option that was 9 put into their contract for treatment services and 10 administration of the Kerrville South Wastewater project way 11 back when, almost at the beginning or at the beginning, or 12 the completion of Phase 1 and 2 of this project. U.G.R.A., 13 for whatever reason, believes that the City is better 14 equipped to and prepared to administer and maintain and -- 15 and move forward on -- on the system, and so they're talking 16 about exercising that option, which would mean that the City 17 could purchase the system for what U.G.R.A. has into it. I 18 would remind the Court that Kerr County has to-date gotten 19 grants totaling $1,750,000 for the Kerrville South system as 20 we know it today. We have an extra -- an additional $500,000 21 which has been granted to us for Phase 4, and that has been 22 approved, and that -- that Phase 4 is already in engineering. 23 So, the bottom line is, we've got about -- including the 24 U.G.R.A. match of 170,000 and the proposed match of 25 for 25 the new phase, there's almost $2,450,000 worth of 9-8-08 13 1 infrastructure that we have originated or will complete by 2 the time this project is over that will be turned over under 3 this option to the City for probably $195,000. That's nice 4 work if you can get it. 5 So, the map's in front of you, and I just want to 6 familiarize you with this. The map in front of you that I've 7 given you indicates the large blue was the original service 8 area. The -- the lines in green are what has been completed. 9 The yellow is what is anticipated to be completed in this 10 next phase for which we have already accomplished funding, 11 and the red would be something we'd like to do in the future. 12 When it's all said and done, the City -- before I get to 13 that, the City raised the issue of whether or not the lift 14 station which is at the bottom of Quail Valley was sufficient 15 to handle the new portions in yellow, and the engineer for 16 Tetra Tech, who is currently designing the latest -- the 17 newest phase, assured them that it was, but they're going to 18 rerun the numbers. It appears that the City is predisposed 19 to taking this over, and the service area will probably get 20 reduced in the process. 21 What's important to us in this next phase is the -- 22 the yellow line paralleling Ranchero Road behind all of those 23 lots, those are, for the most part, the duplexes and quads 24 that are in that strip that are coming down Ranchero, many, 25 many of which have serious septic issues, and it's very 9-8-08 14 1 important to get those things taken care of. And this will 2 require the yellow line at the back of all those properties, 3 so we're going to have to be talking to those property owners 4 about easements to tie into the line there on whatever that 5 street is, that cross street there. The other thing which is 6 important to this Court is that the mobile home park down 7 just pass the Nimitz School, you may recall that that mobile 8 home park had serious septic issues here a few years ago, and 9 the owner of that park entered into an agreement with Kerr 10 County indicating that he would hook up that park as quickly 11 as we brought a service line to him and all of those trailers 12 to get off septic, and the other yellow piece is a part of 13 Quail Valley that would, by gravity flow -- if funds are 14 sufficient, would flow into that lift station. 15 What this does -- at the moment, it doesn't do 16 anything. If the City turns it over -- or the City takes it 17 over, fine, so long as the people continue to get their 18 service. Most of them are, as you know -- by extension of 19 the service beyond the city limits, they're charged one and a 20 half the current city rate, so I doubt seriously that 21 anything will happen significantly there in terms of the 22 rate. They're already paying one and a half times for that 23 service, so that's not likely to change. What this does do, 24 in my mind, however, is raise an issue for the future, which 25 we -- Commissioner Letz and I probably will be involved in 9-8-08 15 1 discussions with U.G.R.A. about the future, and the future as 2 to whether U.G.R.A. wants to be the agency in the middle as 3 we move forward with the Center Point/Eastern Kerr County 4 sewer system. If they do, great. If they don't, we need to 5 -- we need to examine that issue and determine as quickly as 6 possible whether or not they wish to continue to be a player 7 in the middle, as has been the case in the Kerrville South 8 project. Just wanted to familiarize you and let you know 9 where it is. And if you have any questions, I'll be happy to 10 talk to you about them after court and go from there. That's 11 all I have, Judge. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner. I have one 13 item. I'm sure most of you recall our recent experience, or 14 nonexperience, as the case may be, with Hurricane Gustav. We 15 have a longtime Kerr County employee, Christine McIntyre, 16 that is a legal assistant in the County Attorney's office who 17 has been on the leading edge of animal issues with regard to 18 emergency response. As far as I know, she -- she developed 19 the first policies and procedures. They've been submitted to 20 the state emergency management people, who have been quite 21 impressed with her work. Her team is called a CARRT team, 22 Companion Animal Response and Rescue team. I believe I got 23 that right. They -- during the -- during the emergency 24 management initiative that was put in place for Hurricane 25 Gustav, her team was down in Center, Texas, in east Texas, 9-8-08 16 1 and she was there to assist folks who had companion animals, 2 pets, so that we wouldn't have the same sort of a problem 3 that we had with Katrina and Rita, where we couldn't get 4 evacuations, particularly out of Katrina, because there were 5 no provisions made for pet animals, and as a consequence, a 6 number of people stayed in the city of New Orleans and it 7 created a tremendous problem. 8 And there's been tremendous strides made with 9 regard to efforts in emergency management with regard to 10 pets, because they have become an important component. And, 11 as a matter of fact, our state emergency response people have 12 -- have a separate component for that, and I believe it's 13 federally mandated now, if I'm not mistaken. But our legal 14 assistant, Christine McIntyre, from the County Attorney's 15 office is the go-to gal, I think, in the state of Texas when 16 it comes to matters of this nature, and I think we need to 17 recognize her for her work and commend her for all the time 18 and effort that she's put in, and I wanted you to be aware of 19 that. That's all I got. Let's move on with the agenda. The 20 first item is to consider, discuss, and take appropriate 21 action regarding the annual courthouse lighting agreement 22 between Kerrville Christmas Lighting Corporation and Kerr 23 County. Good morning, Mr. Bond. 24 MR. BOND: Good morning, everyone. It's that time 25 of year again. We get to, obviously, get your approval on 9-8-08 17 1 the annual agreement with the Christmas lighting group. We 2 don't have anything significantly new this year. We did make 3 that change last year; we added the archway and got your 4 approval on that. I do know that there is some electrical 5 work in process. Worked with Tim on the courthouse staff 6 here, the county staff, and they are going to begin work on 7 that, I believe, at any time. He told me last week that it 8 was going to be last week, but I don't believe it's started 9 yet, so sometime very soon. Other than that, I don't really 10 have anything new to -- to alert you guys about this year, so 11 just the usual. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Question. On the dates that are 13 mentioned, -- 14 MR. BOND: Mm-hmm? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: -- are those dates plugged into the 16 weekend commencement and the weekend termination dates so 17 that they fall on the weekend that you guys normally start 18 your work? 19 MR. BOND: Yes. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: And complete your work? 21 MR. BOND: This year, the first -- we usually work 22 the three Saturdays leading up to the lighting ceremony. The 23 first Saturday that we'll begin was -- actually falls on the 24 1st of November this year, since it's -- usually it's the 25 last weekend of October. However, this year there are three 9-8-08 18 1 weekends prior to the lighting, so we do start on the 1st of 2 November. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Does the date not need to be 5 changed on the -- on this agreement? It says January 17 of 6 this -- '08, it starts. 7 MR. BOND: '09. Supposed to be '09. That's 8 probably a typo. I'm sorry about that. Yeah, that does need 9 to be '09. I'll make that edit and get it to Jody if you'd 10 like. 11 MR. BOLLIER: Judge? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, go ahead. 13 MR. BOLLIER: This morning, Rex Emerson, our County 14 Attorney, informed me that on our agreement, that there's 15 nothing in our agreement that -- that says for them -- before 16 they can put anything up in our yard, that they have to go 17 either through Commissioners Court or through me, and I would 18 like to add that and maybe put that in our agreement. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it should go through 20 you. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too. Are you talking 22 about something new? 23 MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A new display of some sort? 25 MR. BOLLIER: A new display, or put in anything 9-8-08 19 1 new. Electrical work, anything -- lights, add-ons, anything. 2 MR. BOND: So, you want a clause in there that just 3 says -- 4 MR. BOLLIER: Needs to go through me first. 5 MR. BOND: It does state on there that we work with 6 you directly. There is a line on there, I believe, that does 7 say that we work directly with Tim on anything that we do. I 8 don't know if it specifically says anything new, but it does 9 state that we have to work with county staff on anything that 10 we do. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What it says is any 12 lighting displays to be affixed to the courthouse proper 13 shall be installed by persons designated by and under the 14 supervision of Kerr County Facilities Manager. 15 MR. BOND: Is that -- that's not adequate? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You might want to -- 17 MR. EMERSON: My concern is that everything be 18 installed pursuant to code. 19 MR. BOND: Okay. 20 MR. EMERSON: That's why I think it's important 21 that Tim be right in the middle of it. 22 MR. BOND: I have no problem with adding that line 23 if it makes it -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other, I think, question I 25 have is kind of a little bit related to that, is insurance. 9-8-08 20 1 Y'all have -- y'all carry insurance? 2 MR. BOND: Yes, we do. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a Kerr County 4 requirement. 5 MR. BOND: Yes, absolutely. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That meets the -- 7 MR. BOND: We began that, actually, last year, so 8 that is something that we do do. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably should be part of the 10 agreement, because that's a -- I know it's going be a whole 11 lot better than it was, because we're redoing a lot -- all 12 the electrical. 13 MR. BOND: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there were a lot of 15 extension cords running around in prior years that -- 16 MR. BOND: Yeah, and this -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think that it will be a 18 whole lot better because of our new electrical work that 19 we're doing. 20 MR. BOND: By the nature of what we do, there are 21 some -- some risks involved. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we add these two 23 sentences to cover the insurance and cover the prior approval 24 for anything new, that it has to match or meet city code -- 25 building codes, and bring it back in a couple weeks. 9-8-08 21 1 MR. BOND: I can do that. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With -- 3 MR. BOND: Sure. Can I work with you, Rex, on 4 making sure that -- 5 MR. EMERSON: Sure. 6 MR. BOND: -- it meets your requirements? Okay. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably work with Rex and Tim. 8 MR. BOND: I work with Tim all the time. 9 MR. BOLLIER: Okay. 10 MR. BOND: Thanks. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 2, if we might. 13 Consider, discuss, and accept certificate of unopposed 14 candidates and issue an order for the unopposed candidates 15 elected. 16 MS. ALFORD: Good morning. This is the 17 certification of unopposed candidates on the local level for 18 Constable 1, Constable 2, 3, 4, County Attorney, Tax 19 Assessor/Collector, Commissioner Precinct 1, Commissioner 20 Precinct 3, and County Sheriff, where they don't have to put 21 the little square to vote for them on the ballot. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 25 approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion on the 9-8-08 22 1 motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 2 right hand. 3 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 5 (No response.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. 7 MS. ALFORD: Thank you. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. Next item is Item 9 3, open bids for restoration or replacement of courthouse 10 windows and award contract if appropriate. 11 THE CLERK: I don't -- we have none. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: We have no bids? 13 MR. BOLLIER: No bids? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Solved that problem, didn't it? 15 MR. BOLLIER: Real quick. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If at first you don't 17 succeed, try, try again. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I know we had some folks that 19 were out here looking at what was going to be necessary, but 20 apparently -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought somebody was 22 interested. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Um -- I'll ask it later. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move to Item 4; consider, 25 discuss, take appropriate action to declare three vehicles as 9-8-08 23 1 surplus property to be auctioned. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: These are two old patrol cars 3 and one old pickup truck. Pickup truck was originally a 4 216th Judicial District task force truck that came to our 5 department along with the task force when it dissolved. It 6 does not have air conditioning. It is not a good vehicle at 7 all. Wouldn't even guarantee how well it even runs any more. 8 I know the electric windows and all that don't work either, 9 but it's -- 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: May be worth more for scrap 11 than it is for -- 12 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's a good possibility. 13 The two old patrol cars -- I know what Buster was saying 14 earlier. One, I know, has some serious motor problems, okay? 15 One of the -- it's a valve or ring that's out on it, and 16 Krauss has said it's not -- not worth it. The other one 17 probably runs all right, but these cars have over 18 200,000 miles on them. I wouldn't use them for much of 19 anything, other than taxi to Mexico or something. But I 20 would like to have those two vehicles declared as surplus so 21 that we can put them on that gov.deals auction site, see if 22 we can get rid of them. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two or three? 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's two patrol cars and the 25 truck. 9-8-08 24 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three total. Move that the 2 Court declare three vehicles, as detailed in the Sheriff's 3 memorandum as surplus and authorize the property to be 4 auctioned. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 7 indicated. Further question or discussion on that motion? 8 Any further -- all in favor of the motion, signify by raising 9 your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move 14 to Item 6; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action 15 concerning the revision of Tract 70 of Clear Springs Ranch as 16 set forth in Volume 3, Pages 116 and 117, Plat Records, and 17 set a public hearing if needed, property being located in 18 Precinct 1. 19 MR. ODOM: Yes, good morning. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Morning. 21 MR. ODOM: The landowner wishes to divide Tract 70 22 of 4.66 acres into two parcels. One parcel will be the 23 husband's; the other the wife's. The existing home will 24 remain on 2.66 acres. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any logic given there? 9-8-08 25 1 MR. ODOM: No comment. (Laughter.) The existing 2 home will remain on 2.66 acres. The new lot will be 2 acres, 3 and both lots will be served by Aqua Texas. Restrictions for 4 Clear Springs Ranch allows for the lots to be divided into 5 tracts as small as 1 acre. Clear Springs Ranch is a 6 253.13-acre subdivision, and this division would make 54 7 lots. Therefore, the average lot size for the subdivision 8 will be 4.59 acres. Per Kerr County Subdivision Rules, Table 9 5, these lots with community water outside a high density 10 area can be a minimum of 1 acre with a 3-acre average. Even 11 though they meet all the platting requirements, we ask if 12 they would not fall under Section 1.03.B, which says that 13 this could be done as an exception to our subdivision rules, 14 state statute. However, it says -- well, let me finish this, 15 then. "A subdivision shall not be subject to the platting 16 requirements of these rules and regulations if," under 17 1.03.B, "the tract is divided into four or fewer parts, and 18 each of the lots is to be sold, given, or otherwise 19 transferred to an individual who's related to the owner 20 within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity." If 21 the Court finds they do not meet the exception, then we ask 22 that we set a public hearing for October the 14th, 2008, at 23 10:15 a.m. And we put that date because, actually, the -- 24 Columbus Day is October the 13th, so we assumed that we would 25 go the next day. 9-8-08 26 1 Now, as I see it, it could be 1.03.B. However, the 2 problem will arise in the future that if this 2-acre lots is 3 sold, then we have a continuing problem of it needs to be 4 platted. So, either we do it -- either the Court would look 5 at it -- this is a concept, so they're looking at directions. 6 I feel like it probably should be platted, and that would 7 clear the problem up. Because if this individual -- let's 8 say the lady sells the 2 acres. You know, it's -- or it's 9 not in the third degree, unless there's a relative in the 10 third degree. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they're exempt if they 12 want to be. 13 MR. ODOM: If they want to be. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Except for one issue. It's 15 already in a platted subdivision. Is that -- do these 16 exceptions apply if you're already in a platted subdivision? 17 I mean, it just seems like an odd -- I mean, if one isn't in 18 a platted subdivision, it's not clear they can do it, and 19 they can obviously do it now. But if you -- once you're in a 20 platted subdivision, I think that changes things, to me. 21 MR. EMERSON: There's not an exception to the 22 exception in the statutes because it's in a platted 23 subdivision. 24 MR. ODOM: 1.03.B applies now. But I just tell 25 you, somewhere down the road it needs to be platted. 9-8-08 27 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that just temporary, then? 2 MR. ODOM: This is as long as she owns that, the -- 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know, but I mean the 4 relationship. 5 MR. ODOM: Relationship is -- 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's, I think -- 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: A relative issue. 8 MR. ODOM: I think the issue speaks for itself. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- you know, 10 it's up to them. I think we should encourage them to plat 11 it, but if they don't want to, they don't have to. 12 MR. ODOM: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leonard, on that drawing 14 that you submitted with -- with the agenda item, where it 15 splits the property, 2.66 for the existing residence? 16 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then the proposed 18 property line, which kind of does a thing like this, there 19 are a bunch of lines that look like a drain field, and -- for 20 a septic system, and they're in the 2.66 part. What is that? 21 Is that a drain field? 22 MR. ODOM: That is a drain field. You know -- 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For what? 24 MR. ODOM: For lot -- for the 2.66 acres. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wow. 9-8-08 28 1 MR. ODOM: This goes up the hill. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 3 MR. ODOM: It's flat in here. Here's where the 4 house is at, then all of a sudden, as you go to Upper Scott, 5 that really gets up in elevation up on top. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: These setback requirements are 8 met for that drain field? 9 MR. ODOM: I'm sorry, I don't know. We haven't 10 platted this. Only a concept, and I'm looking at the -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might tell them that 12 they're -- I mean, they need to make sure, however they draw 13 those lines, that they're in compliance with Environmental 14 Health rules. 15 MR. ODOM: How do you do that on 1. -- 1.03.B? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's Environmental Health, not 17 under our subdivision rules. They have to follow our 18 Environmental Health rules. Nothing to do with subdivision 19 rules. 20 MR. ODOM: It would appear that they've tried to 21 meet the setbacks, the way they've divided it. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks like they went around it. 23 They need to make sure they do. Otherwise, they're going to 24 have to end up having to do a new septic, which I don't think 25 will be a good thing for them to do. 9-8-08 29 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is the higher 2 elevation, Upper Scott Road? 3 MR. ODOM: Upper Scott Road. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The whole width on what would 5 be the south side would be 300 feet. If that drain field 6 were -- if the drawing is accurate, it's probably okay. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably is. 8 MR. ODOM: Well, you have community water, so -- 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 10 MR. ODOM: -- as far as a well's concerned, you're 11 all right there. And up on top, that elevation up there, I 12 don't see how it's not -- I would assume it wouldn't come 13 down that slope off that 2 acres. But they could do it under 14 1.03.B. I would -- I will encourage them to do platting to 15 resolve the issue. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They could also do it under 17 undivided interest, in my mind. It's community property 18 right now. They have two different exceptions they could 19 use. 20 MR. ODOM: All right. Well, you've given me a 21 direction. That's what's I need. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: No further action of the Court is 23 required at this time? At this time, I will recess the 24 Commissioners Court meeting, and I will convene a public 25 hearing with regard to the proposed Kerr County 2008-09 tax 9-8-08 30 1 rate. 2 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 9:35 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open 3 court, as follows:) 4 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public or 6 the audience that wishes to be heard with regard to the 7 proposed 2008 Kerr County tax rate? If so, feel free to step 8 forward. Yes, sir? If you'll come forward and give us your 9 name and address, and tell us -- tell us your thoughts on 10 this matter. 11 MR. BINGHAM: I don't know if this is an 12 appropriate spot in the agenda. I'm Wendell Bingham, 1895 13 Summit Top Drive. And if it's appropriate now, I'd like to 14 address the proposed salary increase. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir, that's not the issue at 16 hand. We're talking about a public hearing with regard to 17 the 2008 county tax rate. 18 MR. BINGHAM: Okay. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the issue before the Court at 20 this time. Is there any member of the public that wishes to 21 be heard with regard to the proposed Kerr County 2008 tax 22 rate? 23 MR. DUNN: Please. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Come forward. Give us your name. 25 MR. DUNN: My name is Neil Dunn. I live at 2287 9-8-08 31 1 Cypress Creek Road, Comfort, Texas, but it's in Kerr County, 2 Precinct 3. What I just wanted to bring up, 'cause I -- 3 until this year, my taxes have been appraised in Kendall 4 County primarily. I mean, the property's in Kerr, but I 5 haven't really paid much attention, so I'm basing my 6 information on this. It was in the paper last week, I think 7 even before that, the proposal of 15.61-something, something; 8 I'm using that. That is the amount of revenue increase 9 you're -- when you take it into the budget, what you're 10 trying to accomplish by the tax increase. So, I get that the 11 current tax rate, the .3896, going to .4293, is an increase 12 in the tax rate of 10 percent. There are three calculations 13 in here relative to houses; that if you had a house that was 14 $132,000 last year, taxed at the current rate, that you pay 15 $516.24. The same house, further down, at the higher tax 16 rate is now worth $162,828. With a tax rate of .4293, that's 17 valued at 699.02, which represents a tax increase of 18 35.4 percent, in my calculations. So -- and part of that is 19 because of the tax rate increase of 10 percent, and the 20 22 percent increase of the value of the home based on the 21 appraisal. 22 And somewhere in the article, it talks about the 23 proposal is to generate $2.2 million in revenue, but it also 24 makes a statement that -- that with -- there -- it's most 25 likely that there will be more money generated than the 9-8-08 32 1 2.2 million. So, I walked across the hall and got the 2 proposed budget for -- that's for this year of $24,576,367, 3 multiplied that by 15.65 percent, indicating an increase in 4 funds of 3.85 million. And using the appraiser's value of -- 5 of the value, properties have gone from 5.3 to 5.9 billion, 6 that the increase in tax rate generates 4.67 million, which 7 is an increase of 18.5 percent. My only question is, when 8 you couple that with the 10 percent increase last year, I 9 just wonder if there's some more -- some easier way on the 10 population than what we've got in front of us. That's all. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Is there any other 12 member of the public that wishes to be heard with regard to 13 the proposed Kerr County 2008 tax rate? Seeing no one else 14 coming forward or wishing to be recognized, I will close the 15 public hearing. 16 (The public hearing was concluded at 9:40 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was 17 reopened.) 18 - - - - - - - - - - 19 JUDGE TINLEY: And I'll reconvene the Commissioners 20 Court meeting, and we'll take up with Item 7; consider, 21 discuss, and take appropriate action to grant a variance to 22 Kerr County Flood Prevention Order for a home in Westwood 23 Oaks and located in Precinct 4. 24 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. It came to our attention 25 through O.S.S.F. there was a new home being constructed in 9-8-08 33 1 Zone A of FEMA-designated floodplain in Westwood Oaks, 2 Precinct 4. As you can see from the photos, the home is well 3 on the way to being finished. FEMA requires a finished floor 4 at or above BFE. Kerr County Flood Prevention Order requires 5 a finished floor of a structure to be 1 foot above the base 6 flood elevation. The elevation certificate done by 7 registered surveyor shows that their home is .57 feet above 8 the BFE. Therefore, they meet the FEMA regulations, but fall 9 short of our Kerr County rule by less than a half foot. 10 Since it would not be possible to raise the house, we ask the 11 Court to grant a variance to Kerr County's Flood Prevention 12 Order and allow us to issue a development permit. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is this? Is this up 14 behind Greenwood Park? 15 MR. ODOM: Behind Greenwood Forest. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you either grant a 17 variance or have those people tear down their new home? 18 MR. ODOM: No, sir. Well, they meet federal 19 guidelines. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. 21 MR. ODOM: And to answer your question, I would not 22 make them do that at all. I think that they meet FEMA 23 regulations. Had we been involved in and known about it, we 24 certainly would have been, at that point, telling them where 25 they had to -- to go with it. But now you have a situation, 9-8-08 34 1 the house is there. They meet -- they're at the BFE -- 2 they're above the BFE by almost 6 and 5/8ths inches, so 3 they've exceeded that. But our ordinance says a foot, and 4 that's a safety margin -- good safety margin. But I -- I 5 cannot recommend a person not to finish their home. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move approval. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 9 approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion on the 10 motion? Was there a contractor involved in this? 11 THE WITNESS: This was a young man that was doing 12 it on his own. Wasn't a contractor. They were just -- 13 they've been building this home a little bit at a time, they 14 said. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 16 MR. ODOM: So, they've even got it framed up, so 17 the worst that would have happened is that I would have not 18 issued a permit, would have said that they're in violation, 19 that they would have flood-proofed that area, and I wanted to 20 know what that area was. I figured around a foot is the -- 21 you know, somewhere like that. But thankful that they're at 22 or above, and at least their insurance will be -- if they 23 take flood insurance, or they sell it -- I would assume that 24 they're paying for it, the way it was implied to me, as they 25 go along. I relate to that. As a kid, we were poor, so you 9-8-08 35 1 did what you could. And -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there any jeopardy to 3 their ability to obtain flood insurance? 4 MR. ODOM: No, they could get it. It will be -- 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That would be the key. 6 MR. ODOM: That'll be the key. But the key is -- 7 is that they're at or above. They get issued the development 8 permit. They can sell it. And we're encouraging the young 9 couple to -- or this young man to get the flood insurance 10 now, before, so it'll be grandfathered, and that he will be 11 able to sell that. So it's -- not everybody's going to be 12 able to walk in with cash. And he'll still be able to sell 13 his home, and grandfather that flood insurance to be covered 14 at that point. So, I'm just asking for a variance to issue 15 that permit. I wanted to come to the Court. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Environmental Health is how it 17 got to you? 18 MR. ODOM: Yes. They said it was all right. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, how did you find out 20 that it was in the floodplain? 21 MR. ODOM: I had a complaint from O.S.S.F. came in. 22 Tish calls us sometimes when someone comes in for the way we 23 have our rules now, that we know ahead, and we went out and 24 looked at it. We had a neighbor complaint, and so we were 25 trying to figure out what the complaint was. And for -- the 9-8-08 36 1 complaint was a lady that was complaining, and the other one 2 was this house, and then we found -- we went through the 3 process trying to find out who -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was wondering if our system 5 is working. 6 MR. ODOM: Our system is working. Unfortunately, 7 it was already built. But they didn't know, like us, that -- 8 you know, I'm one person. There's no way to cover 1,100 9 square miles. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One of our check points. We 11 find a lot of things. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what the intent is. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes. 14 MR. ODOM: That's right. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's working. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion on 17 the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 18 your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll go to 23 Item 8; consider, discuss, take appropriate action for cattle 24 guard policy. 25 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Well, you have before you 9-8-08 37 1 what I wrote up. I hope that everybody got to review it. 2 I'm open for comments. And if this is acceptable, I would -- 3 that would be our policy. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's take all three of 5 these items here, and tell me what they mean. 6 MR. ODOM: All right. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When both sides of the road 8 are -- let's see. The cattle guards shall be removed during 9 scheduled maintenance of roads when the following 10 circumstances prevail: One, when both sides of the road are 11 no longer owned by one individual and/or both sides of the 12 road are fenced. 13 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. That means, basically, 14 instead of one cattle guard going through -- if a property 15 owner owns both sides of the road, the comment from the Court 16 was that was so expensive that you wouldn't make them -- to 17 take out the cattle guard would not be appropriate; it was 18 too expensive. I think 16,500 was -- was the comment per 19 mile. Basically, that's it. Or when we run into a situation 20 like Wilson Creek, and you have one side fenced by an owner, 21 and -- and it's fenced on the other side, then -- and we do 22 not have open range, that that would be a circumstance we'd 23 look at. And when we're in maintenance, just not to go out 24 there, but when it comes on schedule to be sealcoated and 25 we're working that area, then to identify those issues where 9-8-08 38 1 cattle guards are at. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I'm with you. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that one, I would like to 4 add the exception -- and I'm looking at Rex to try to figure 5 out how to say it -- the same as our subdivision rules, about 6 if you're within the third-degree of consanguinity. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Consanguinity. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That that is -- does not 9 qualify. Because there's a lot of situations where family 10 ranches are given to -- divided amongst family members, kids 11 or grandkids, and that shouldn't trigger this happening, in 12 my mind. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have that on Fall Creek 14 Road. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- but if it's going -- you 16 know, that's -- I think that would cover all those instances 17 if it's a degree -- if it's being divided among other people. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before the Commissioner 19 moves on to number two and three, I want to ask you a 20 question about number one here. On Fall Creek Road also, 21 probably one, maybe two cattle guards where, notwithstanding 22 the ownership, we have fencing on both sides. One of them 23 comes to mind because it is in the first section of Fall 24 Creek Road that you likely will rehabilitate in this upcoming 25 budget year. My question is, will that one be removed? 9-8-08 39 1 MR. ODOM: I would have to -- I don't know who owns 2 -- does one property owner own both sides? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know who's on one side; 4 I'm not sure who's on the other. 5 MR. ODOM: Okay. So, I'd say that it would fall in 6 there, but I would have to check to see who owns the property 7 or how they fail into 1.03.B. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But notification is six 9 months? 10 MR. ODOM: Notification will be six months. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, how does the six 12 months notification fall into place in this situation when 13 you are about to rehabilitate a road? 14 MR. ODOM: Well, I -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If, for example, you 16 determine you want to rehabilitate the first section of this 17 road, and in the upcoming budget year, and it is short of a 18 six-month period, what do you do? 19 MR. ODOM: I would come to the Court first, tell 20 you what my intentions are, and then from there, to see if 21 there's guidance at that point. I think that's reasonable. 22 And then, if -- if there's agreement in the Court, or a 23 quorum of the Court that says yes, then I would go with that 24 six months notification, but give you the circumstances 25 behind it, just not to be pulling something out. If I had 9-8-08 40 1 to, then I would probably -- that first cattle guard you're 2 talking about, probably pull out and put in a new one, if I 3 -- if I was rehabilitating it. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, as I see it, Bill, and 5 Leonard too, you know you're going to -- if you're thinking 6 of doing a rehab of Fall Creek next year, -- 7 MR. ODOM: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- then as soon as you know 9 that you're going to do that, or it's approved in our budget 10 to do it, you notify those people that those cattle guards 11 may be coming out. And if those people want to bring it to 12 the Court for us to look at a specific one, that's their 13 option, but without -- I mean, I think the burden should be 14 on the people, not you. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: After the notice goes out. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the notice goes out, 17 just everyone on that road; say we're taking -- you know, 18 the -- we're planning to do some renovation out here, and 19 here's our policy, and let it be at that. 20 MR. ODOM: If you have an objection, then come to 21 the Court? Or invite that? Or -- 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That gives them notice. 25 MR. ODOM: Gives them notice. 9-8-08 41 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Proper notice, based on the 2 law. And then they can -- they'll have time to complain 3 about it if they want to. They can come to us before you 4 start tearing the road up and redoing it. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Item two, when damage to 7 vehicles or injury to occupants occurs. 8 MR. ODOM: Right sir. Well, this has to do -- 9 let's take Bear Creek. It's been hit over three times, those 10 different areas. We came to the Court and asked permission 11 at that point to take it out. So, if there are accidents and 12 we get these accident reports, and we're finding that we have 13 maintenance on that, and -- and maybe there's an injury or 14 something, then we would -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From people hitting the 16 cattle guards? 17 MR. ODOM: Yes, from people driving into the cattle 18 guards. Some of them are very narrow. Some of them are 19 young people that make misjudgments. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe that's an issue for 21 taking one out, because you can hit one and it be in one of 22 those situations where it's going through the open -- 23 basically, you know, somebody's property. Take Fall Creek, 24 for instance. Just cause somebody hit one, I don't think 25 that's a reason to take it out. 9-8-08 42 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 2 MR. ODOM: I didn't say one. This was -- I would 3 probably look at something two or three times, and then it 4 says it has to be -- there's a -- there is a tendency to do 5 this. Just because it's one time, they might make a 6 misjudgment, or it might have been weather conditions. But 7 even Bear Creek there, for three to five times that we had 8 cattle guards -- 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 10 MR. ODOM: And so that's -- 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But those numbers are in 12 there to reflect that. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. On Bear Creek, you 14 had -- I remember seeing three different accident reports. 15 You know, there's a problem there somewhere. I don't -- I 16 don't know if those cars hit the cattle guards or what out in 17 that area. So, there -- to me, there's a problem that 18 needs -- something needs to be fixed. But I'm kind of with 19 Bruce, that when damage to vehicles or injuries to occupants 20 occur -- you know, I don't know if a meteorite hits the car 21 or if they actually hit the cattle guard or if they hit each 22 other dodging a goat, or those -- not goats, but cows out 23 there. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cows, yes. Not too many 25 goats. 9-8-08 43 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sheep out on the western 2 end. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Too many cows, not any goats. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So you may want to add some 5 verbiage in that thing to tell us exactly -- 6 MR. ODOM: All right. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell the public exactly what 8 you mean there. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there is a situation 10 that occurs, I've seen it happen, where cattle guards have 11 been hit glancing blows because of excess speed on a road 12 that was not engineered for that kind of speed. That 13 happens. 14 MR. ODOM: That happens. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You and I both know that. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But they move at night, 17 late. Cattle guards will move out in front of you on a 18 Saturday night. (Laughter.) 19 MR. ODOM: Hunting season also has an impact. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not a pretty thing at 21 all. 22 MR. ODOM: No. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I tell you, this cattle 24 guard issue has generated more interest in this community. I 25 guess it's bumping the septic tank deal back in the '70's and 9-8-08 44 1 '80's, though. I'm telling you, it is the most exciting 2 thing. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Number three is -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On two, Leonard, I would -- you 5 know, and again, I'd visit with Rex on the language, but I'd 6 base it on road safety based on accidents, something along -- 7 you know, rather than just saying, you know, damage to 8 vehicles. I think it's a safety issue, when there's a 9 specific safety issue that you feel is at a spot. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Like Bear Creek. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Like Bear Creek. And it's 12 based on accidents. You know, that's a justifiable reason, 13 to me. 14 MR. ODOM: So, if we could use Bear Creek as an 15 example, three or four accidents at this point? 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Or, I mean, I think -- I 17 don't know -- 18 MR. ODOM: Or the severity of the accidents? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know if you want to tie 20 it to one -- I'd just say if it's a road safety issue. Maybe 21 you want to bring them to us and, you know, let us take the 22 heat. You let us make that call. But that's one that -- 23 MR. ODOM: I think probably coming to y'all before 24 that would be a good way to -- to do that. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think that road safety 9-8-08 45 1 clearly needs to be on the list, and I think when the letters 2 then go out to those people, that's basically a -- a notice. 3 And it probably would be a good idea, when you send the 4 notice out to the people, you should probably copy at least 5 the commissioner of that precinct so we're aware that we're 6 about to get phone calls. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good idea. 8 MR. ODOM: That's the reason I say I would probably 9 come to the Court before I would make that decision, and let 10 you know right up front. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That would be a good idea. 12 Great idea. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And then three? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only question -- go ahead, 15 Buster. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When number of lots served 17 by a road meets that of a collector road. 18 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Well, that's Road and 19 Bridge's answer to basically that criteria on -- I can't 20 remember the previous one, but it has a list of local roads 21 or -- or country lane, local road, collector road. When we 22 hit that criteria of a collector road, we felt like that was 23 an upgrade of 61 lots to 120 lots in there, which signified 24 about an 80-foot right-of-way, and that we should be -- that 25 it's just not a rural road any more. It is a traffic count 9-8-08 46 1 of 800 to maybe 1,200 cars, something like that, so that's a 2 large amount of volume on a road. And there's different 3 criteria to look at to do that, but when we get to that 4 level, there doesn't need to be a cattle guard there. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. So that when you 6 reach that level, you automatically are going to take the 7 thing out, irregardless of the fencing on the sides and all 8 that? 9 MR. ODOM: Well, that'll be a criteria we would 10 look at, so I would say that if it was split, we probably 11 wouldn't. I'd probably widen the cattle guard to 20 foot. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That was my suggestion, make 13 the cattle guard 24. 14 MR. ODOM: It depends how it plays and the 15 circumstances, but we're saying if you took this, and that it 16 met this other criteria up here, when we start to get a 17 collector, then we really need to take a look at it to see 18 the number of accidents, how much the ADT, the average daily 19 traffic count, is, and incidents. Those are the things. And 20 then I would come to court and tell you, and then if I'm 21 wrong, then certainly the Court can give their opinion at 22 that point; we'll go. But if -- if I feel it's justified, we 23 need something to justify it, and that's the reason. We're 24 on a collector when we start hitting those type of incidents. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bruce, what -- how wide are 9-8-08 47 1 those out there on that state highway near your house? 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They're probably 24 feet. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 24? 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know, it's harder for a 5 24-foot cattle guard to move on a Saturday night than it is a 6 12-foot. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They don't move as bad, but 8 they can move, though. Those move, don't they? 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, some people have had 10 that problem. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On number three, though, I 12 can see where number three could come into conflict with 13 number one. You could have a situation where, at any 14 particular point on a -- on a county road -- I use Fall Creek 15 again as an example -- where a particular property owner 16 decides to subdivide his property, and the number of lots 17 increases dramatically, and all of a sudden, you've got this 18 -- you've satisfied the criteria of number three, but you 19 still have the situation where you have property owners who 20 own on both sides of the road that are not fenced -- one 21 side's not fenced. You could have that situation occur. 22 MR. ODOM: You might have that situation, but that 23 would be the circumstances that would prevail. We would look 24 at all that, and we would -- you know, just -- there's three, 25 not just one to look at. And the most pressing issue would 9-8-08 48 1 be, you know, what is fair and reasonable? Just not to take 2 out a cattle guard. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, as an example, that 4 Grenada Springs or Grenada -- whatever it is, where you have 5 wider cattle guards -- 6 MR. ODOM: Yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- that are basically as wide 8 as the roadbed. 9 MR. ODOM: You know, if the Court felt that way, 10 we'd probably come in there and have something made to try to 11 keep them where they're 22 or 24-something to meet the road. 12 But sometimes you only have 30 foot. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, you're 14 basing this off road maintenance -- you know, your road 15 maintenance plan at the beginning of a budget year. I think 16 if you just come to the Court early in the year and say, 17 "Here are the roads we're working on; here are the cattle 18 guards we're looking at here. Our policy says we're going to 19 take these out unless y'all say otherwise," and we do it on 20 an annual basis. That way you have plenty of time from the 21 time -- your six-month time period. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Whenever you're doing the 23 road maintenance. 24 MR. ODOM: They've got all the time in the world 25 to -- 9-8-08 49 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can examine all these 2 criteria at the same time. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do them all at one time. If 4 you need to take them out, have that as part of the policy. 5 I have no problem with any of your criteria as a red flag, 6 but I think we -- the Court needs to look at them annually 7 before you start doing them. 8 MR. ODOM: And it gives you an opportunity to go 9 out there and check your -- that area. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom, is the only thing that 12 triggers a collector status for a road the number of lots 13 that it serves? 14 MR. ODOM: No, sir. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 16 MR. ODOM: Has to do with several different 17 criteria, so one may not justify doing that. It may be like 18 he says; may be at the back end. Now, we're still going to 19 have a traffic flow, but it depends where it's at. If 20 traffic flow has to do with the ETJ of a certain community, 21 that will dictate normally how much traffic, but you can 22 figure on the average in a rural area is two cars per house, 23 two trips day for each car. So, you know, it depends what 24 that traffic count is. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if you you're going to use 9-8-08 50 1 collector status of a road as a benchmark, wouldn't it be 2 appropriate to delete the reference to a requirement when the 3 number of lots served indicates that, but rather just say 4 when a road reaches the status as a collector road? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see what you're saying. 6 'Cause lots is kind of -- 7 MR. ODOM: Yeah. Well, but there's -- I would say 8 at that point, when I do that, I would have to look at it. 9 I'd come to the Court and tell you why. But when I start 10 getting 800 cars a day on a 30-foot roadway, and the road may 11 be 16 feet wide, we have a problem. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: With a 12-foot cattle guard. 13 MR. ODOM: With a 12-foot cattle guard, or a 14 10-foot cattle guard. You know, do we widen that? That 15 doesn't widen the road, but it widens that -- that particular 16 point. And if I don't have that many accidents, maybe that's 17 the solution to it, is opening it up. But -- I should have 18 gone to law school, Rex. I don't know. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like the Judge's language 20 suggestion. When the road meets the status of a collector 21 road, and don't tie it to the number of lots. If you have 22 more than one criteria, that's a better way to phrase it. 23 MR. ODOM: I wouldn't look -- the ADT is what 24 really -- when I start getting to a collector, I start 25 looking at that traffic flow, and we will be running traffic 9-8-08 51 1 counts on that road as I start to sealcoat them anyway. So, 2 that's what we do to have a better idea what the development 3 is at the time that we're in there for maintenance. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think on the collector road, 5 I think it goes into, you know, the status of the road. You 6 talked about a collector road is 24 foot? 20 foot? 7 MR. ODOM: Arterial is 24. I believe it's 20 foot, 8 I believe. Or 22, maybe. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Of pavement. Well, if we have 10 a road that meets the traffic count of a collector road, but 11 the County isn't maintaining it as a collector yet, even 12 though we need to get there, I think we do need to start 13 looking at, you know, kind of how you -- Lane Valley is a 14 good example. All these roads we talked about are a good 15 example. Lane Valley, as you get out towards the end, is 16 14 feet, maybe? 17 MR. ODOM: Maybe. Sixteen, something. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: With a subdivision at the end 19 of it. So, you know, it gets it over -- it is probably an 20 arterial road in reality, yet we have a 24-foot right-of-way 21 in a lot of it. So, if we're working on that problem, I 22 don't think it makes sense to jerk out the cattle guard just 23 because, you know, we're not doing anything else on the road. 24 MR. ODOM: But if we do have long-term plans on 25 that, that would be something we would do in the future. And 9-8-08 52 1 I don't mean that I want to waste money. Cattle guards are 2 very, very expensive. Steel is very, very expensive, so it's 3 not something I would just want to do. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 5 MR. ODOM: I want to have a little bit each year in 6 there to take care of it, and so that is something -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good time to -- as you make a 8 maintenance schedule, good time to look at all the cattle 9 guards on these roads, and you may defer to the next 10 maintenance schedule. 11 MR. ODOM: That may -- or two years down the road. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Have you gotten the guidance you 14 desire? 15 MR. ODOM: I've got some notes here. I'm sure that 16 we -- we'll refine it a little bit more next time I bring it 17 here. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else for Mr. Odom on this 21 agenda item? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to say that it 23 could be a couple weeks before this comes back. This is a 24 big deal, and I'm just wondering if, Mr. Voelkel, you want to 25 get in part of this? Do you want to get in on this deal? 9-8-08 53 1 MR. VOELKEL: Don't need to at all. Thank you. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you sure? 3 MR. VOELKEL: My cattle guards don't move. 4 (Laughter.) 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll bet you they do. I'll 6 show you one more time. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have a delineation of which 8 cattle guards are more prone to move than others? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know where they're 10 coming from on this, Judge. You and I both know better than 11 this argument. It doesn't matter if they're 24-footers or 12 not. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Or oak trees. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oak trees? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: They move, sure do. Thank you, 16 Mr. Odom. 17 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a 10 o'clock timed item, so 19 we'll move to that item. I will recess the Commissioners 20 Court meeting at this time, and I will convene a public 21 hearing for the purpose of continuing the records archival 22 fee of $5 paid on each document filed in the County Clerk's 23 office in accordance with the Records Management and Archival 24 written plan. 25 \ 9-8-08 54 1 (The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed at 10:04 a.m., and a public hearing was held in 2 open court, as follows:) 3 P U B L I C H E A R I N G 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public 5 that wishes to be heard with respect to continuing the 6 records archival fee of $5 paid on each document filed in the 7 County Clerk's office in accordance with the Records 8 Management and Archival written plan? Seeing no one coming 9 forward or seeking to be recognized, I will close that public 10 hearing, and I will reconvene the Commissioners Court 11 meeting. 12 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:04 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was 13 reopened.) 14 - - - - - - - - - - 15 JUDGE TINLEY: And we will go to Item 9; consider, 16 discuss, and take appropriate action for concept plan for 17 revision of plat for The Woods, Section Two, revision of Lots 18 79, 80, 81, 82, and 83, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 369, 19 Plat Records, and set a public hearing, such property being 20 located in Precinct 2. 21 MR. ODOM: All right, sir. You have the agenda 22 item as I addressed it here; hopefully you had an opportunity 23 to read it. Since this morning, I had a call and talked to 24 the City, and they informed me that this area was in the ETJ 25 of the city -- Gordon Browning. So, I -- this was as of -- 9-8-08 55 1 let's see if I have my notes here. I think he said January 2 of '07. I told him if they went forward as of September of 3 '06, is when we first went to into the court, it was outside 4 their ETJ. Also, our map shows that it comes to the very 5 edge of the two lots. Gordon says that they changed it in 6 '07 and I haven't updated the maps, and I know that either 7 last week -- is Kelly's here? Was it last week or the week 8 before that we had 911 -- 9 MS. HOFER: Oh, yeah, it was probably about a week, 10 week and a half ago that they upgraded the ETJ on my 11 computer, so it's the most current version of the ETJ for our 12 ArcView program. 13 MR. ODOM: Yeah. We had them over here under that; 14 tried to upgrade anything that we had showing where their ETJ 15 is so we would be more in compliance. And, of course, I 16 would say at this point, I've asked Gordon -- it's up to 17 y'all. I told him I would leave it to the Court, but we've 18 tried to work out a solution to this, as you've read right 19 here. I don't know if that solution is the solution, but 20 this is something that we've met with both parties and tried 21 to resolve the issue. If you like, I can put this off, 22 postpone this until the next meeting. And I told Gordon that 23 we would have time to meet and to go over this, or either 24 this becomes a city issue in its entirety. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, is it or is it not 9-8-08 56 1 within the ETJ? 2 MR. ODOM: It is in the ETJ, what he said. He said 3 he would send us a new map, that it is in the ETJ of the city 4 now. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we handle it. 6 MR. ODOM: Then turn it over to them? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I think we do it right now. 8 These people have been working with us for two years on this. 9 MR. ODOM: I agree. That's what I told Gordon. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we've handled it. We 11 made the determination for the public, and it's on the -- any 12 way you look at it, it's on the very edge of the city's ETJ. 13 MR. ODOM: Right there. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's a complicated matter, 15 and I don't think we need to do that to the public. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. I 17 think -- 18 MR. ODOM: That's two people. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- we need to dispose of 20 this issue. 21 MR. ODOM: We tried to resolve the issue. I think 22 maybe it is resolved. Hopefully those parties are here, 23 Ms. Hinds and Ms. Kilgore. So, if you like, I will go 24 through this. The new owners of lot 81R and 83R are 25 requesting the cul-de-sac be further away from their home. 9-8-08 57 1 To accomplish this, there's several issues that need to be 2 considered. When Mrs. Kilgore and Mrs. Hardin were in court 3 last month, Commissioner Letz drew a sketch for them to 4 consider, and going on that sketch, we have come up with the 5 two scenarios enclosed in your backup. Both would require 6 variances. Scenario 1 is to build the cul-de-sac in this way 7 without infringing on the neighboring lots, -- anybody else's 8 lot is not involved in it -- we are requesting to build it 9 with the 39.67-foot radius and with a 30-foot radius 10 pavement, which is the size of all other cul-de-sacs in The 11 Woods subdivision. We request a variance to the 50-foot 12 setback on Lot 79R. There was a variance granted, I think, 13 at the time when this -- in '06. Asked them to go to their 14 homeowners' association, and they were given a variance. 15 And my viewpoint on this is that a 50-foot radius 16 or setback is designed for new con -- a new plat, something 17 that's new. And so everything was followed by the surveyor 18 and all, but it was not a -- to us, really applied. And 19 since she already went to the homeowners' association, that 20 variance was given to her to build her house on that acreage 21 that she had. The cul-de-sac would not touch Lot 81R, so the 22 road easement would have to continue, and the lot frontage 23 for that lot would only be one-half of the road right-of-way 24 at 25 feet. That's not unusual, because in this plat, for 25 this -- that phase right there of The Woods, it was 9-8-08 58 1 originally only 25 foot, because it was -- Mr. Voelkel did 2 that. And so this would not be unusual with this plat. 3 There would be a -- 25 foot would have to go up to 81R. 4 Or Scenario 2, use the same construction of the 5 cul-de-sac and setback for Lot 79R, remove the lot line and 6 easements between 83R and 81R, making one lot. This would 7 give each parcel adequate road frontage and would solve the 8 problem, instead of extending the road up to 81R. After 9 choosing one of these options, we would like to set a public 10 hearing for October the 14th, 2008, at 10:10 a.m. And then 11 the homeowners, Mrs. Kilgore and Ms. Hinds, should be with us 12 today if you have any questions. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, under Option 2, the little 14 rectangle that sticks down between -- 15 MR. ODOM: What you would do is just go to the 16 cul-de-sac, eliminate that line, and you would have 17 egress-ingress on 83R. I mean, the whole lot would be -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, basically, the cul-de-sac 19 would be -- 20 MR. ODOM: Be that -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- like a lollipop. 22 MR. ODOM: That's right. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 83 and 81 are owned by 24 different people? 25 MR. ODOM: By the Hinds. 9-8-08 59 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, they're owned by the 2 same person? 3 MR. ODOM: Same person. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 5 MR. ODOM: And that's the reason I say we could 6 either eliminate the middle, and should they wish to do 7 something or sell that one, they can always come back to the 8 Court and -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I really like -- if I 10 understand Option 2, I like it better, because it gets rid of 11 the easement. 12 MR. ODOM: Gets rid of the easement. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think since -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's clean. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- some of these neighbors are 16 a little bit difficult to get along with, or were at one 17 point, it seems like that's probably a good thing to do it 18 that way. 19 MR. ODOM: Well, that's what they wanted to do, was 20 see your direction. I will direct Mrs. Kilgore that that is 21 the way, to get with the Hinds, and we'll go from there. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex, do you see any problem 23 with doing it that way? 24 MR. EMERSON: My only question is, if I'm not 25 mistaken, wasn't the original cul-de-sac size based on 9-8-08 60 1 turnaround of emergency vehicles? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, that's what we've 3 always wanted to try to accommodate. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 5 MR. ODOM: Well, again, this area is so open -- we 6 discussed that, and we felt like this is so open that this 7 would not constrict vehicles, because there's enough 8 turnaround off to the sides and all for it. So, if I've got 9 30-foot pavement inside the whole subdivision, then the whole 10 subdivision has a problem, so we're matching what is 11 existing. There's enough open area that we feel like there's 12 no problems whatsoever on this. They are also going to be 13 talking -- if you want to call it a fire hydrant, I call it a 14 pop-off valve, to see if that could be extended up around 15 this cul-de-sac and where the fire trucks could be able to 16 facilitate that, and they were to talk to the private water 17 system there to see if that could be done. That would be 18 incurred by them, which would be suggested to do. And we 19 just -- I don't see that encumbrance of having emergency 20 vehicles in there. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is a 30-foot radius -- turn 22 radius not sufficient? 23 MR. ODOM: Well, that's paved. You're going to 24 have right at a 40-foot radius right there. That's a bit 25 tight, but it can be done. But it is so open right there on 9-8-08 61 1 Mrs. Kilgore and the Hinds', we don't see a problem. And 2 part of the problem will be eliminated, because it will imply 3 basically this is the end of the road. This cul-de-sac will 4 end part of this problem where people are coming all the way 5 up to the Hinds' house and turning around in their driveway. 6 So -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, because of the -- under 8 Option 2, that leg that sticks down to the -- below gives a 9 vehicle, a large vehicle, a turn -- ability to turn around. 10 Can't make a circular turn, but they can pull in and back up. 11 MR. ODOM: And back up. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's an area there which is 13 not our standard cul-de-sac shape. 14 MR. ODOM: We feel like it would be acceptable. 15 That's not probably the best way, but this is not a new 16 design. This is working within the framework of the 17 restriction of the right-of-way and all. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom, is Option 1 the existing 19 plat now? 20 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what exists on the ground? 22 MR. ODOM: No -- well, no. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I mean -- 24 MR. ODOM: Scenario 1 was -- was what you see right 25 here on this drawing. 9-8-08 62 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 2 MR. ODOM: We impose that right there, for -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: What's the existing plat show? 4 MR. ODOM: The existing plat shows it to come on up 5 to where this short road is at. And I don't know where she 6 -- did she put that -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: For that -- where that dotted line 8 is there for a cul-de-sac? 9 MR. ODOM: It would be -- to the property line on 10 81R, that would be center line. Then you would have a 11 50-foot radius from there. So, it encroached back up into 12 the Hinds' home right there, the new one that we set up 13 originally. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The original plat 15 that -- 16 MR. ODOM: The original plat had a cul-de-sac in 17 the corner of the house. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. It's -- the house is 19 part of the -- in the cul-de-sac. 20 MR. ODOM: We never did go in there to do that. We 21 just brought the road up within our right-of-way at this 22 point and stopped. But this one here -- the other one was 23 modified and brought back down. And now what we're saying 24 is, having this smaller radius down here, which brings 25 everything back closer to Mrs. Kilgore and them, and for a 9-8-08 63 1 turnaround, plus the mail can be delivered now. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Does the present plat show three 3 lots? 4 MR. ODOM: Yes. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And -- 6 MR. ODOM: 79R is Mrs. Kilgore. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And it shows three lots as 8 indicated on Number 1. 9 MR. ODOM: This is the original. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is our current plat. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was approved. 13 MR. ODOM: That was approved. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Part of this was necessitated 15 by houses being in -- in the area. 16 MR. ODOM: Fences and -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fences and houses are in the -- 18 MR. ODOM: -- houses. Trees. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- road. And this is not, I 20 would say, uncommon. I've got a -- the deed shows a county 21 road going right through the middle of the house. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Is there not an enforcement action 23 pending here? 24 MR. EMERSON: There was a notice that was sent out 25 because of a picket fence encroaching upon the currently 9-8-08 64 1 deeded cul-de-sac. 2 MR. ODOM: And then they came into the office and 3 we sat down and tried to discuss it and come up with a way to 4 design this. We said we could come to the Court at this date 5 and present it, and see if the Court would -- would consider 6 this, the new option. Personally, I think -- I won't say 7 personally. It's my opinion; doesn't make any difference. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Your opinion what? 9 MR. ODOM: I was just going to say that I think 10 this is a better solution, what we're presenting to you here. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the road -- but the road is 12 not built where it shows on the plat, correct? The 13 cul-de-sac doesn't look like that right now. There is not a 14 50-foot -- 15 MR. ODOM: There's not even a cul-de-sac. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No cul-de-sac there? 17 MR. ODOM: No cul-de-sac there now. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, the -- the plat's there, 19 but the road was -- 20 MR. ODOM: We've had an extension of that plat so 21 this could be built, but she had asked to build her house -- 22 to finish the house, and now she's at that completion, so now 23 we're looking at finishing the cul-de-sac. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: When were all these improvements on 25 Lots 81R and elsewhere placed on this property? 9-8-08 65 1 MR. ODOM: No, sir, that's existing structure. It 2 was always there. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that -- on 81R, 4 Ms. Kilgore, wasn't that your original home? 5 MS. KILGORE: Yes, sir. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And so all of this 7 was her property at one time that's been sold. All this land 8 was hers at one time. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, the improvements were 10 placed there prior to this plat being put in place -- 11 MR. ODOM: That's right. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: -- by the Court. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Apparently, when it was put in 15 place, we didn't have the improvements overlaid on the plat. 16 MR. ODOM: At the time, it was a private 17 subdivision. And when I originally came here, private 18 subdivisions had no rules; they sort of did what -- they 19 didn't follow subdivision rules. Even up to the time of when 20 I first came here, that was the case. Until we modified 21 the -- changed the rules, private subdivisions did their 22 thing. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Pretty obvious that -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to find out 25 from Ms. Kilgore if she's in tune with the Option 2 -- 9-8-08 66 1 Scenario 2. 2 MS. KILGORE: Well, I think that's their issue. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whomever. 4 MS. KILGORE: The Hinds own Lots 81 and 83. 5 MS. HINDS: Excuse me, sir. What was the question? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The question is, are you in 7 tune with the suggested Scenario 2? 8 MS. LEITH: With one exception. 9 MS. HINDS: Yes, sir, with one exception. 10 MS. LEITH: The bigger issue -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can you come up to the 12 podium, please? 13 MS. LEITH: Bigger issue on this happens to be the 14 50-foot radius. Because the 50-foot radius, at this point -- 15 if it were built as it's shown on the plat, the 50-foot 16 radius comes almost to the front corner of Mr. and 17 Mrs. Hinds' home. So, the radius of the -- one of the things 18 that Mr. Odom had requested was that the radius be -- some 19 variance granted on it for Lot 79R, which is Mrs. Kilgore's, 20 but it doesn't make mention of this 50-foot radius for Mr. 21 and Mrs. Hinds, which -- 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which one is the Hinds -- 23 MS. LEITH: They own both Lot 83R and 81R. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me make sure we've got the 25 record corrected. You refer to Mr. and Mrs. Hinds. You are 9-8-08 67 1 not Mrs. Hinds? 2 MS. LEITH: I'm not. I'm here at the pleasure of 3 Mr. and Mrs. Hinds. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Tell us who you are. 5 MS. LEITH: My name's René Leith, and I'm with 6 Stagecoach Realty, and I'm a personal friend of Mr. and 7 Mrs. Hinds. I represented them in their transaction of 8 purchasing this property. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. 10 MS. LEITH: So, the variance for their two lots 11 hasn't been addressed at all on the 50-foot radius by 12 Mr. Odom, only that of Mrs. Kilgore. She has the larger 13 issue with that 50-foot radius coming through her home, but 14 this comes right up to Mr. and Mrs. Hinds' home. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where is Mrs. Kilgore's home? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see which map 17 you're looking at. 18 MR. ODOM: She's looking at the original -- what 19 was proposed last time. She's not looking at -- 20 MS. LEITH: This is the original plat that's 21 recorded. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not what we're 23 talking about today. 24 MS. LEITH: Right. But this 50-foot radius is 25 indicated on -- on here. 9-8-08 68 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 2 MS. LEITH: And it's recorded as such. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 4 MS. LEITH: And so the 50-foot radius has only been 5 addressed on this portion, which is Lot 79R, which is 6 Mrs. Kilgore's. Mr. and Mrs. Hinds would also prefer that 7 this 50-foot radius have some variance, because it comes 8 right up to the corner of their home. So, if a variance is 9 granted on one portion, we're asking that it be granted on 10 their portion as well, so that it's a -- there's some 11 continuity in the radius, that it's entirely -- the variance 12 represents the entire radius, whether it's this scenario or 13 the other scenario that Mr. Odom proposed. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if it's the other 15 scenario that Mr. Odom is proposing, we're talking about a 16 39.67-foot radius. 17 MS. LEITH: That's the radius of the actual 18 roadway, but this is a setback, a 50-foot setback. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 20 MS. LEITH: So the pavement -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. 22 MS. LEITH: And then the setback -- or 23 right-of-way, and then the setback for the building. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But it doesn't come up to 25 the Hinds' home; it comes up to the property line. 9-8-08 69 1 MS. LEITH: It does, where they have constructed a 2 fence and where they have some mature trees that they would 3 like preserved. So, if the 50-foot radius were to stay 4 intact, even with the first and second scenario that Mr. Odom 5 has offered, it still would be awfully close, if not 6 encroaching on their fence line and trees. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I think I understand 8 your position a little better. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that fence line already 10 inside of that easement or that cul-de-sac? 11 MR. ODOM: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 13 MR. ODOM: But, again, she's talking about this 14 coming on up. The variance -- I would say whatever the 15 variance that Mrs. Kilgore has, that that would apply there. 16 It's probably around a 20-foot or 10, whatever they had as a 17 setback that their association agreed to. I don't -- it's 18 not going to come up like she's talking about up to that 19 existing house up there. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was the reason I asked 21 the question, 'cause it doesn't come anywhere near the house. 22 MR. ODOM: Doesn't come anywhere near that, and I 23 don't know exactly why it's -- 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But -- Ms. Kilgore, what was 25 the variance when you talked to the homeowners' association? 9-8-08 70 1 Was it 20 foot or 10? 2 MS. KILGORE: I don't recall. It's been a year and 3 a half since it was granted. 4 MR. ODOM: Yeah. So, you know, we're not here to 5 -- we want to keep that variance there, that I keep that 6 radius. If I have that 20 foot, I have a 60-foot radius 7 around there, and that's more than enough room for a vehicle 8 to turn around if I have the space. 9 MS. KILGORE: Doesn't the cul-de-sac issue in the 10 -- last month's version completely go away if we move the 11 cul-de-sac and the variance? 12 MR. ODOM: That's correct. 13 MS. KILGORE: Pertains to -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, to me, the -- yeah, if 15 you -- if the cul-de-sac is shifted up, basically you have 16 a -- potentially have a driveway that goes to the Hinds 17 property, and that may be a shared driveway if they sell one 18 of their lots at some point. 19 MR. ODOM: Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the cul-de-sac -- the 21 50-foot setback should go up to the center of the new 22 cul-de-sac. 23 MS. KILGORE: Right, so there's not a -- you know, 24 is your concern there the fence? 25 MS. LEITH: And trees. 9-8-08 71 1 MR. ODOM: Yeah. 2 MS. KILGORE: But that goes away. 3 MS. HINDS: Okay. 4 MR. ODOM: We're not trying to take those -- that's 5 the reason we moved it up. 6 MS. KILGORE: If they grant that, then there's no 7 violation with a fence, because that piece is gone. Is that 8 not correct? 9 MS. LEITH: That's not what this specifics. It 10 specifies -- it's very specific to Lot 79R. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We did a variance to the 12 50-foot setback on Lot 79R. 13 MR. ODOM: Well, I understand, but I -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, wait. Hold on. 15 MR. EMERSON: Can I ask a couple questions real 16 quick? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wish you would. 18 MR. EMERSON: This property was subdivided before 19 you sold it, correct? 20 MS. KILGORE: Correct. 21 MR. EMERSON: And that subdivision was properly 22 filed with the clerk's office, correct? 23 MS. KILGORE: Correct. 24 MR. EMERSON: The Hinds purchased that property 25 subject to that properly filed subdivision of this, correct? 9-8-08 72 1 MS. KILGORE: Correct. 2 MR. EMERSON: Okay. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm thinking where you're thinking. 4 MR. EMERSON: Thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all want to share with us 6 kind of where you're thinking? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- well, the change -- 8 I mean, the cul-de-sac can stay the way it is, the legal 9 right to it. It's just the way they want to modify it to 10 accommodate the location of the improvements, as I see it. I 11 mean, I think that the -- because the improvements, for the 12 most part -- I don't know about -- your house is on 79R? 13 MS. KILGORE: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question is, if you 15 pull it back like you want to on Scenario 2, why can't the 16 pavement be wider than 39 feet radius? 17 MR. ODOM: Because of that property line over there 18 at the corner. As you come into that cul-de-sac, I pulled it 19 off that corner. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see. 21 MR. ODOM: You're going into somebody else's 22 property, pulling someone else into it, and what I was doing 23 was staying within that radius off that point, and that was 24 39.76 feet -- or .67 feet. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Otherwise, you encroach on 77 9-8-08 73 1 or 78. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 77 or 78 or both. 3 MR. ODOM: Yes, 77 off that point there, and 78. 4 Without getting on any one of those properties, we stayed 5 within the two properties that were there. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got you. 7 MS. KILGORE: Can I give you just one other piece 8 of history that goes back to 1983? Mr. Voelkel might 9 remember this, but that was platted for Lot 78, 79, 80, 81, 10 82, and 83, so it was platted to serve six houses. It looked 11 like pie shapes. And my family bought that land before it 12 had been -- it was platted, but before it had been developed, 13 and we placed the house that's on your drawing in 14 juxtaposition to the trees, so as to have shade and to not 15 take out trees. When it became an eventuality to sell it, by 16 then, the County had paved the road that's sort of drawn 17 there. That wasn't the platted road; it was the driveway 18 that one family had used to egress and ingress over the 7 and 19 a half acres, and the County paved it when my neighbor on Lot 20 78, which you can barely see, convinced the County we had 21 enough homeowners there to deserve more than a dusty road. 22 So, it's had a strange history, because it wasn't -- it was 23 platted and drawn originally in the subdivision to serve six 24 families going in and out. And, as I mentioned last time, 25 it's really just a county lane or a glorified driveway. The 9-8-08 74 1 neighborhood doesn't have any 50-foot cul-de-sacs. Three 2 fire trucks could get in there if they had to -- heaven 3 forbid they ever did -- without hitting trees. You know, but 4 it's -- it's plenty sufficient pavement, in my aesthetic 5 opinion, to do what we need to do and to make both of the two 6 property owners who now own all the land -- and Lot 78, he'd 7 be very pleased to have a cul-de-sac there too. So, to me, 8 its a win-win deal. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: You're talking about Option 2? 10 MS. KILGORE: Well, it's not up to me to say Option 11 2, because I don't own the land; that's Lot 81 and 83. 12 Option 2 takes away that plat line, right? And makes it a 13 4-acre tract? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, just -- it takes just the 15 upper piece of it. It still is two lots; it's just that 16 little -- the boundary will change. 17 MS. KILGORE: I don't think that's for me to say. 18 But what I'm saying, the movement of the cul-de-sac from the 19 south side to the north side of that road I think makes 20 everybody happy. You know, frankly, I'm ready to get on with 21 it. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll bet you are. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Which plan do y'all -- will 24 you agree on, the two parties? 25 MS. KILGORE: I'll agree on either of them. 9-8-08 75 1 MS. HINDS: I will too. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Either one? 3 MS. HINDS: Either one or two. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. 5 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 6 MR. ODOM: Let me -- if we agree to this right 7 here, we will get her surveyor to work with us and see what 8 this setback will be. We originally had a 20-foot setback 9 years ago, and this 50-foot was new design with the new rules 10 and regulations. So, I don't see a -- I don't think I have a 11 major problem with this right here, but let me -- if we have 12 an agreement, we'll work forward and work through it. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds like we have an 14 agreement for either of the two scenarios. 15 MR. ODOM: Yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one is preferable 17 from your perspective? 18 MR. ODOM: My perspective is drop the line, make 19 one lot. Combine Lot 83R and 81R. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Scenario 2. 21 MS. HINDS: Yes. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: That takes away all the issue about 23 the improvements. 24 MR. ODOM: There's not another little road that 25 goes up there that I have to maintain at that point, and it 9-8-08 76 1 just clears the issue up. And if they wish to come back, 2 they can certainly do that. They would have to build a short 3 road right there if they sold something. But I -- my 4 indication is that they don't -- they want to keep it as one. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: And that also -- that also cures the 6 encroachment into the utility easements, the building setback 7 lines on the outer perimeter of the lots. 8 MR. ODOM: We will take a look at that point. 9 Whether it's 20 foot or 50 foot, may -- I don't know. I 10 haven't put the points on the ground, so I don't know. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question, 12 though. If we granted the variance to one property owner, 13 why -- what would be the drawback of granting for both? 14 MR. ODOM: I'm sorry? Ask me again. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Granting a variance 16 for one property owner -- 17 MR. ODOM: And not the other? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- and not the other. Why 19 couldn't you grant the -- I mean, what would be the drawback 20 of granting -- 21 MR. ODOM: There would be none to me, in my mind. 22 I'm thinking once I give a variance here, it takes care of 23 the 50 foot and we come up with what's necessary for all 24 parties. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This lady's worried about 9-8-08 77 1 her trees. 2 MR. ODOM: Well, I don't want to take trees out. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And her fence, and something 4 else; I can't remember what it was. 5 MS. LEITH: That's it. 6 MR. ODOM: I don't know where that would move. 7 That's the reason I say if the surveyor will work with us, 8 we'll lay some lines out; we can see what's appropriate and 9 go back to the original plat and see what was there. I 10 assure you, it was not a 50-foot setback. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- this is a 12 concept plan; we don't need to vote on it. I can live with 13 either one of those two, and I think that's kind of what I'm 14 hearing from the Court. So, two is preferable to me, but 15 either one will work. I think it's solving some problems. 16 'Cause if we don't do something with it and clean up both 17 these lots, and the Hinds sell 83R, we're right back in the 18 same thing, because the driveway's on the wrong lot. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I think we're doing the 22 best thing, cleaning up this whole -- 23 MR. ODOM: Whole thing. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- two-lot thing, and getting 25 it into the right -- you know. 9-8-08 78 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The way you have styled the 2 agenda item, you're talking about "take appropriate action on 3 the concept plan for revision of plat for The Woods, Section 4 Two, revision of Lots 79, 80, 81, 82, and 83." Does that -- 5 the way you've styled the agenda item, that envisions the 6 concept plan as being Scenario 2? 7 MR. ODOM: Scenario 2. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what that envisions, 9 correct? 10 MR. ODOM: Right. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I would move that 12 we -- the Court agree with the concept plan for revision of 13 plat for The Woods, Section Two, with the revision of Lots 14 79, 80, 81, 82, and 83, Volume 7, Page 369 of the public 15 records, and set a public hearing for October -- what's the 16 date? 17 MR. ODOM: 14th. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 14th. At? 19 MR. ODOM: 10:10 a.m. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At 10:10 a.m. Be prompt. 21 MS. KILGORE: That's Tuesday? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Attorney has his 23 hand up. 24 MR. EMERSON: Under the proposed plans, is Lot 78 25 affected at all? 9-8-08 79 1 MS. KILGORE: No. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't mention 78. 3 MR. ODOM: 78 is not affected at all. 4 MR. EMERSON: Okay. Nor is 77. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 79, 80, 81, 82, and 83. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 80 doesn't exist any more. 7 MR. ODOM: 80 doesn't exist. 8 MS. KILGORE: Really, all that exists now is 78, 9 which doesn't touch this; it's kind of back around the 10 corner, and then 79R, 81R, and 83R. That's what are now 11 platted. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 79R, 83R -- 81R and 83R. 13 MS. KILGORE: Right. 14 MR. ODOM: That's correct. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you -- those are the 16 ones that are listed. I think we just be silent on it. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I think you're right. 18 We'll go with what the agenda item is styled. 19 MS. KILGORE: Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If it's not germane to this 21 discussion, later it will go away. 22 MS. KILGORE: Good. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you saying you withdraw your 24 motion? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, but we can't talk 9-8-08 80 1 about -- really, we can't talk about 83R, 81R, and 79R. 2 We're talking about the old original ones, even though this 3 is the same thing. We don't need a motion on a concept plan, 4 so we don't need any action, necessarily. We can just move 5 forward with -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Withdraw the motion. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion is withdrawn. 8 MR. ODOM: Set a public hearing, then it'll be 9 alternate plat process; we'll bring it forward. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. Set the 11 public hearing. 12 MS. KILGORE: Can I start road work once I have a 13 survey? Or do I have to wait till after the public hearing? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't start anything until 15 you have final action. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do need a motion to set 17 the public hearing. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My motion would be to set a 21 public hearing for October 14th for the revision of plat for 22 The Woods, Section Two. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. That's 25 10/14/08 at 10:10 a.m., right? 9-8-08 81 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's exactly right. 2 Don't be late. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion on 4 the motion? 5 MR. ODOM: May I say something, too? However, I do 6 not know how y'all are going to resolve the issue of who does 7 what, who pays for what, so that's up to y'all. Between 8 dropping the line -- 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not a part of my motion. 10 MR. ODOM: Resolve that issue. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'm curious about 12 something Leonard said. When the City calls and says, "Oh, 13 no you're not," what are you going to do? 14 MR. ODOM: I'm going to tell them, just like I told 15 them before, this was an '06 we started before this, and that 16 the Court would make that decision. And the comment to me 17 was -- was, "Let the Court make the decision." I will 18 contact them and say we made the decision; we're moving 19 forward. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. Thank you very 21 much. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion on 23 the motion? 24 MS. KILGORE: I just think the ETJ may not include 25 Woodland Road. 9-8-08 82 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't care if it does or 2 doesn't. 3 MS. KILGORE: I think it stops by an inch. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion on 5 the motion? All in favor of the motion, 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: That motion does carry. Let's take 11 about a 15-minute recess. 12 (Recess taken from 10:37 a.m. to 10:54 a.m.) 13 - - - - - - - - - - 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if 15 we might. We have a 10:30 timed item that we'll take up at 16 this time, that being Item 15; consider, discuss, and take 17 appropriate action to approve Kerr County Historical 18 Commission's application to the Texas Historical Commission 19 for Certified Local Government status. I believe Mr. Joe 20 Luther is with us here today. I saw him earlier. Maybe he's 21 not. There he is, okay. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're up. 23 MR. LUTHER: I'm sorry, I'd fallen asleep. I saw 24 Leonard up there; I thought I had a ways to go. Good 25 morning, Judge Tinley, members of the Commission. This item 9-8-08 83 1 is to approve an application for status as a Certified Local 2 Government through the Texas Historical Commission. It 3 requires that we change absolutely nothing that we're doing. 4 They rewrote their web site this year, and I have been 5 reluctant to do this in the past because I thought we had to 6 set up some new regulations or something, but we don't. For 7 county commissions, as opposed to the city, our Kerr County 8 Historical Commission satisfies the requirement. Our bylaws 9 satisfy the requirement. Our membership and the actions that 10 we're taking satisfy the requirement. So, I believe, in 11 talking with the people in Austin, that all we need to do is 12 send in the form that had been approved by this body, and 13 then we'll be eligible for pass-through immediate funding to 14 help us do some of the items that you've seen on our budget 15 proposal. So, it's one way of getting access to a larger 16 pool of money. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which would come to the 18 state historic commission? 19 MR. LUTHER: Yes. And through them, from the -- 20 from the National Park Service and other federal 21 organizations. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are -- is the historical 23 commission, as we know it, the historic preservation review 24 commission? 25 MR. LUTHER: Yes. 9-8-08 84 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Stated in here? 2 MR. LUTHER: Yes, for the county, it is. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should we say that somewhere? 4 MR. LUTHER: We do in our bylaws, which we have a 5 committee that I chair that is responsible for endangered 6 properties, so that if they're -- and as you well know from 7 past experience, if there's any threat to a historical 8 property, I'm usually popping up out here to talk about 9 getting a review of this before we take any action. Now, I 10 will say that in our exploring the room downstairs, in the 11 archives, we discovered that there has not been a review or 12 an inventory of historic properties in Kerr County since 13 1976, and we would want to undertake this in the next fiscal 14 year, and this would be one means of providing the funds for 15 doing that. The other thing that we could use these funds 16 for would be to send more of our members to the state 17 convention, which it's held in Austin this year, to get them 18 trained. I'm a great believer in succession planning, 'cause 19 I'm not going to do this forever, and we need to get other 20 people in line here to undertake this -- this job. So, it 21 doesn't require any additional allocation of money, doesn't 22 require the County Attorney to write any regulations or 23 anything. It just simply says yes, we're qualified; here's 24 our -- here's our material. The people in Austin tell me 25 it's just a walk-over. 9-8-08 85 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we 2 authorize the Kerr County Historical Commission to apply for 3 -- to submit an application to the Texas Historical 4 Commission for Certified Local Government status. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 7 indicated. Further question or discussion on that motion? 8 All in favor of the motion -- excuse me. 9 MR. EMERSON: Can I ask a question? What effect, 10 if any, does this have on the County? Does it obligate the 11 County to anything? 12 MR. LUTHER: No, not beyond what we're doing 13 currently. Everything that we're doing satisfies that 14 requirement. 15 MR. EMERSON: Okay. 16 MR. LUTHER: So there's no additional requirement 17 whatsoever. Except we will do -- and something we're 18 required to do now is do an inventory of existing historical 19 properties. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: But insofar as the -- the county 21 government operation, separate and apart from your 22 organization, there's no fiscal or other -- 23 MR. LUTHER: No. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: -- obligations placed on Kerr 25 County? 9-8-08 86 1 MR. LUTHER: None. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion on 3 the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 4 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 sir. We need to go back and pick up some items. 10 MR. LUTHER: I had a related item. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. 12 MR. LUTHER: Just on the bylaws which have to go in 13 with this application. They were one and two here on your 14 agenda. It was just to approve the bylaws. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. Item 16, consider, 16 discuss, take appropriate action to ratify and confirm the 17 bylaws of the Kerr County Historical Commission. 18 MR. LUTHER: These are the bylaws that we discussed 19 before. They went before the County Attorney for review and 20 comment, and he made several suggestions to bring it in 21 conformance with the enabling legislation. We did that in 22 May. It was approved by the Historical Commission, and just 23 kind of got lost in a dark pigeonhole. But we're bringing it 24 back to you since we have to send in a copy of these approved 25 bylaws with this application. 9-8-08 87 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move that we ratify 2 and confirm the bylaws of the Kerr County Historical 3 Commission. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 6 indicated. Further question or discussion on the motion? 7 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 8 hand. 9 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 11 (No response.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you, 13 Mr. Luther. 14 MR. LUTHER: Thank you, gentlemen. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go back to Item 10; consider, 16 discuss, take appropriate action for concept plan for 17 revision of plat for Lots 11 and 12 of Four Seasons Addition, 18 as set forth in Volume 5, Page 12, Plat Records, and set a 19 public hearing, property being located in Precinct 1. 20 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is a situation where a 21 home was placed across a lot line, and the revision of this 22 plat would correct the situation. The owners have come to an 23 agreement; therefore, we ask the Court to accept the concept 24 and set a public hearing for October the 14th, 2008, at 25 10 o'clock, I guess. 9-8-08 88 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What were the others? 2 MR. ODOM: 10:10, 10:15, or 10:05. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move that we set the public 4 hearing on October 14th, 2008, at 10 o'clock. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. Go ahead. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is some new construction 7 that was placed over a lot line? 8 MR. ODOM: No. This was a -- a gentleman bought 9 the house. Somebody had moved it in prior, and I think that 10 individual is having a vacation at Huntsville. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh. 12 MR. ODOM: And -- and so this new -- this young man 13 came in, and they were supposed -- they didn't plat anything; 14 they just set it up. And then this young man bought it, and 15 then found out that the house was over the lot line. And he 16 had neighbors that agreed that -- they even thought that the 17 house was in the right place. But there was no survey done 18 at the time on this plat. So -- 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. 20 MR. ODOM: -- this corrects this problem. The 21 O.S.S.F. has gone through. There's an agreement with them 22 where the line's at. So, we ask to correct the problem and 23 let -- let this young man go on. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, do they have -- this 25 is a community water system? 9-8-08 89 1 MR. ODOM: It is a community water system. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about sewer? 3 MR. ODOM: The sewer, O.S.S.F. has already looked 4 at it and approved that. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we can get a lot on that 6 .959 -- I mean the sewer? 7 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I'm sorry, I should have -- 8 we looked at that, and yes, they can. And I believe that 9 this house already has a septic system, and it's down below 10 and away from that -- down and -- it -- looking at it, down 11 and to the left, I believe is the way it was described to me. 12 And that you already had an existing system in. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was looking at Lot 11A. 14 MR. ODOM: 11A is already an existing home and is 15 already there, so that septic system and all is there. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 17 MR. ODOM: Taking a look, letting O.S.S.F. look at 18 it to verify it, but this is a concept, so my understanding 19 is it's agreeable to them. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 21 MR. ODOM: That it would work. O.S.S.F. would have 22 the last say, but I feel quite confident. That was -- was an 23 issue, but -- and I believe Tish -- we asked Tish to be 24 there, or to discuss this at that time. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I assume there's a lot line 9-8-08 90 1 that separates 11 from 11A; is that correct? 2 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, that dotted line. And this 3 property goes up on a hill; it goes up very, very steeply, so 4 as you look at this mobile home, it was set at an elevation 5 that was in here, and then all the rest of it is not usable 6 up above. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion on 8 the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 9 your right hand. 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 12 (No response.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll now 14 move to Item 12, to consider, discuss, and take appropriate 15 action to approve the continuation of the records archival 16 fee of $5 on each document filed in the County Clerk's 17 office. Ms. Pieper? 18 MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, this is just a continuation 19 of the records archival fee that we have been doing for the 20 last five years, and this is something that has to be done 21 yearly. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much does it generate a 23 year? 24 MS. PIEPER: Right off, I couldn't tell you. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, come on. We're friends. 9-8-08 91 1 MS. PIEPER: We have -- we average 1,000, 1,500 2 documents a month, and it's $5 on each one of those. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that money can only be 4 used for -- 5 MS. PIEPER: For records archival. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Records archival. I move 7 for approval. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 10 approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in 11 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 12 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 14 (No response.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move 16 to Item 13; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action 17 approving the County Clerk's Records Management and Archival 18 Written Plan for the adoption of such for the budget year 19 2008-09. 20 MS. PIEPER: The records management has been in 21 existence for years. The records archival has been in 22 existence for five years, and I'm combining the two because 23 they work hand-in-hand. And the records archival law states 24 that I have to do a written plan, so I have done that, and 25 I'm asking you to approve that. 9-8-08 92 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 4 approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the 5 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 go to 10 Item 14; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to 11 approve contract between the Department of State Health 12 Services and Kerr County for the issuance of vital statistic 13 records via online, and authorize County Judge to sign same. 14 MS. PIEPER: This is just a continuation of the 15 year-to-year that we have to sign the contract with the 16 Department of State Health so that we can continue to issue 17 the vital records from our computer that we are linked with. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 21 approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in 22 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 9-8-08 93 1 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move 2 to Item 17; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to 3 renew the Lexis legal research contract. Mr. Emerson? 4 MR. EMERSON: Lexis legal research -- or Lexis is 5 our legal research engine that we use online. It's the one 6 that we replaced Westlaw with a couple years ago, cut our 7 price in half. Unfortunately, our contract has run, and we 8 have the renewal contract that's been placed before you. The 9 increase in fees from two years ago until now is $20 a month, 10 which is pretty nominal for the service, and we would ask for 11 you to approve it. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Has the County Attorney 13 reviewed this? (Laughter.) Shall we get a second opinion? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I don't think so. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 18 approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion on the 19 motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 20 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'll move 25 to Item 18; to consider, discuss, take appropriate action to 9-8-08 94 1 establish an annual process of evaluation for heads of 2 departments reporting directly to Commissioners Court. 3 Commissioner Williams? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's come to mind that we 5 don't do this. We have done it on some isolated cases, but 6 we do not routinely review the performance of department 7 heads on an annualized basis, and this would be a -- a means 8 and a process for doing that. The backup item on the agenda 9 sort of suggests how it could be done. Court may have some 10 different thoughts on the matter, but it would propose that 11 we analyze the -- during the budget review process, that we 12 also review the department head, but separately, 'cause when 13 they come in front of us for budget purposes, it usually has 14 to do with the dollars and some things that they particularly 15 want. But what this proposes is that you analyze the entire 16 department, the workload, special projects, personnel, 17 equipment, services needed, and more importantly, detail the 18 personal and departmental accomplishments of each department 19 head in a given year, in a budget year, and also have the 20 department head indicate to the Court in a report what they 21 would like to accomplish in the ensuing year with respect to 22 the department, changes that they envision, streamlining for 23 efficient and effective methods for doing business and so 24 forth. Review the current salaries of employees, including 25 step and grade, recommendations for upgrades, some of which 9-8-08 95 1 occur during the budget process, and anything else that they 2 believe is important. It suggests that it be a written 3 report, and be submitted to the Court from every department 4 head each year, in advance -- and we can set the time, but in 5 advance essentially of the budget process getting underway. 6 So, I put it on the agenda for the Court's thoughts and 7 consideration, and see where it goes. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like almost everything it 9 said there. The only thing that -- that might be a 10 contention would be exactly how -- how do we go about doing 11 this thing? And do we want to do it in an executive session, 12 the full Court do it? Or do we want to appoint a couple of 13 members of this body to do the interviews, et cetera? My 14 choice would be that the whole Court do it in an executive 15 session. This Commissioners Court has done that before, and 16 I don't recall that it was -- there was anything wrong with 17 it at all. You know, it accomplished what -- I just like the 18 idea of all five of us being in the room, everybody hearing 19 the same thing, and et cetera, et cetera. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with that. 21 And this -- you could go either way you want. My preference 22 would be for the entire Court to do it, and if we need to 23 state that as a matter of policy, we can do so. But this 24 envisions the entire Court doing it, and envisions the 25 department heads submitting a written report prior to the 9-8-08 96 1 review process so everybody has a chance to review the 2 report, ask questions, get their questions lined up, and 3 comments. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that, agree with 5 doing it as a full Court. I think it's going to be helpful, 6 though, if we have somewhat of a standard form that we're 7 working off of, as opposed to everyone looking at this and 8 being more subjective. And I think if we can get H.R. to put 9 together a standard format -- which it appears that H.R. has 10 already done that. 11 MS. HYDE: For your review. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe H.R. would like to 13 review that with us. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly sprang to her feet in a -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She did. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: -- quick manner. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She did. 18 MS. HYDE: That's just for your review and 19 consideration. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: As usual, stapled on the right 21 instead of the left. 22 MS. HYDE: Absolutely. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I never have quite figured 24 that out. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: She's left-handed. 9-8-08 97 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That explains it. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you -- you found this 3 somewhere, I take it? 4 MS. HYDE: I'm sorry? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did you find this and copy it, 6 or -- 7 MS. HYDE: No, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You made it? 9 MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You made this little bugger 11 up all by yourself? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Sounds as though there's some 13 doubting Thomases up here, doesn't it? 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I was not among those. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks very good. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want to tell us 17 about it? 18 MS. HYDE: This is a career development -- we don't 19 have a whole lot of career development that goes on with the 20 appointed officials, so this can be used for not only the 21 department heads, but also for their individuals. It can be 22 used throughout the offices. And it's basically -- most of 23 the time when you do evaluations, those are very subjective. 24 Sometimes you like people more than others. Sometimes 25 there's some bias that integrates itself. It just happens. 9-8-08 98 1 With this, you've got 50 percent that you can be biased on, 2 and you got 50 percent that's straight numbers. I went ahead 3 and kind of updated some of the performance and job 4 responsibilities and requirements, 'cause we were doing 5 Collections, so I used some of Terry's stuff. But you set 6 the plan, you set the goals. You meet your goals or you 7 don't. So, it makes it -- it makes it quite simple. When 8 you get to the subjective part, that is more, you know, do 9 you -- do you need improvement? Do you meet expectations? 10 Do you exceed expectations? And it's 1 through 6. Then it 11 figures it up for you. It automatically figures it up on the 12 computer; this is all computerized. I don't like the paper 13 stuff. And then on the last page, what you were talking 14 about, here's your goals and here's your plans for the next 15 year. Are you going to meet them? It does -- it does have a 16 six-month evaluation -- a reevaluation, just to make sure 17 that you're still on track to meet or exceed the goals and 18 expectations. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like it. Thank you for 20 doing it. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other information would 22 just be an attachment to this? 23 MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, this could become the 9-8-08 99 1 model that we use with the policy. It meets everything that 2 I had envisioned. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, let's do something 4 here. What do y'all want to do? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that we 6 establish an annual process for the evaluation of heads of 7 departments that report directly to Commissioners Court, and 8 use as our model for review the Career Development Employee 9 Appraisal form as provided to the Court by Human Resources 10 Department, Ms. Hyde. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And incorporate your -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And incorporate -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, incorporate your backup 14 on the agenda item for the other information? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 18 indicated. Question or discussion on the motion? 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My question is, when are we 20 going to do it? 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That was my question. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, you can do it. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You already asked it, so all 24 right. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. 9-8-08 100 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would say it be done in 2 June, before the -- before the budget process starts. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's kind of what I 4 envision, Commissioner, that it's part of the process. It 5 certainly could come just immediately before we really get 6 into the nuts and bolts of the budget. And you're certainly 7 not going to spring it on people and expect them to do it 8 this year, but they now have a warning that we're going to do 9 it, so effective June of '09 is fine with me. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is -- June's all right. I was 11 going to say June is the when the budget gets going; a lot of 12 people are pretty busy already. I'd move it up to May. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May is fine. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: May, I think, is probably -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May would be good. That's 16 fine. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It needs to be done after 18 the Christmas gifts -- not gifts. (Laughter.) The Christmas 19 lists have been -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Freudian slip? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever. You know, after 22 they've made their requests of what they want in the 23 following-year budget. And the evaluation would be a part of 24 that, in my opinion. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're thinking it ought to 9-8-08 101 1 be about this time of year? 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. No, earlier than this. 3 Earlier than this, like the May thing. The May thing will 4 work. Don't you have your requests -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: We generally start in May, but we 6 generally start getting the bulk of most of those in starting 7 in June. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we say that they 9 be submitted to the Court by each department head no later 10 than May 30th of each year? That way it's -- whenever they 11 get it is fine in May, but no later than May 30th. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, they should have their 13 wish list by then. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Hyde? 16 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Should I go back to the 18 Christmas gifts? 19 MS. HYDE: Maybe we could suggest that, because 20 this is the first time, that we have a mock drawn up so that 21 you guys can see what people are doing. Is that how you want 22 it? Is that how you want it presented? So that all the 23 department heads are kind of on the same page. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't you and I work 25 together to perfect the plan? That work for you? Work for 9-8-08 102 1 the Court? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion on 4 the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 5 your right hand. 6 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Thank you for 10 your work, Ms. Hyde. 11 MS. HYDE: You're welcome, sir. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go to Item 19, to consider, 13 discuss, and take appropriate action regarding the fees paid 14 for the use of the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center, and 15 address possible consequences to groups that do not clean up 16 after their events. Commissioner Oehler. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Some of what happens at the 18 Ag Barn during the course of the year, as we -- and this one 19 particular instance I'm going to bring up, I think we need to 20 -- the reason we need to talk about it is because we don't 21 need to, in my opinion, let nonprofits who ride in on events 22 that are County-sponsored basically get in without paying 23 their fair share of what nonprofits would pay based on our 24 fee schedule. And the one I mention is the upcoming -- in 25 October, is the 4-H and Sunrise Lion's Club wild game dinner. 9-8-08 103 1 In years past, the Sunrise Lions have not paid a dime for the 2 use of that facility, and I don't believe that they should be 3 treated any differently than any of the other nonprofits that 4 book that facility for various events. That's why I bring it 5 to the Court. The 4-H is not required to pay. And so it's 6 my feeling that they have had -- and I have visited a little 7 bit with some other folks that tell me others that would like 8 to ride in on those events because they don't have to pay. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to ask that 10 question. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And so that's why I put on it 12 the agenda. I think we need to pass some kind of a rule 13 about those kind of things, or else just state that this is 14 going to -- the way it's going to be. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do they do with the 16 proceeds? Sunrise -- 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They're split 50/50. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they're making a profit out 19 of it, I agree with you. If 100 percent of the proceeds were 20 going to 4-H -- 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's not the case. They 22 are splitting the profits 50/50, and -- 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we have established in 24 our fee structure there a cleanup fee which is a deposit in 25 advance? 9-8-08 104 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We do, and that -- that fee 2 is not being collected whenever you have 4-H or stock show or 3 those kind of things that are booked on various dates. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because it has "4-H" in the 5 title, -- 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- for example? 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But from what Mr. Bollier 9 tells me about last year's event, the wild game dinner, that 10 it was -- a huge mess was left there, and it was not cleaned 11 up. And so I think we need to put basically everybody on 12 notice, even the 4-H and stock show and everybody that uses 13 that facility, that, you know, they got to start putting up a 14 deposit if they don't intend to clean up what they brought 15 in. Because, you know, we don't -- the County, I believe, is 16 responsible for a lot of things, but, you know, they could at 17 least put the trash into containers. They could strip the 18 tables. And we don't expect them to sweep and mop, 'cause 19 community service does most of that. But, you know, it 20 should not be left in a -- in a bad condition like it has 21 been. And I think that that's something that the Court needs 22 to emphasize with those organizations, that, you know, all 23 the citizens pay for this, and it's not up to all the 24 citizens to clean up everybody's mess when the event's over. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, it seems like you've 9-8-08 105 1 got two main focuses here, the first one being that any time 2 there's an organization, nonprofit or otherwise, that 3 partners up with -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: County-sponsored organization. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: -- a county-sponsored or -- let's 6 say it's a commercial and partners up with a nonprofit. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: And in doing so, is going to derive 9 some benefit from the proceeds, that we're suggesting that 10 whatever rate is applicable, say, in the case of a free user 11 such as 4-H, and the partnering organization is a nonprofit, 12 the nonprofit rate would apply. And if there's a nonprofit 13 that's partnered up with a commercial outfit, the commercial 14 rate ought to apply. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: If either one of those derives 17 benefit from it. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree. That's why this is 19 here, because it's -- I know for a fact they haven't paid 20 anything. And -- and I asked Roy Walston earlier about how 21 much 4-H made out of that event last year, and they each made 22 about 10,000 bucks a piece. And so they can -- the other 23 nonprofit can sure enough pay the nonprofit rate, and also 24 put up a deposit, in my opinion. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with where 9-8-08 106 1 you're going. I think that's good. A question comes to 2 mind. For example, if a -- like, meat goat producers or 3 whatever link up with the stock show to have a sale out 4 there, same principle? 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Same principle. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If it's anything that's 8 deriving profit from an event held out there, and it's not a 9 County-sponsored, it -- they need to pay whatever the rate is 10 and whatever it says on the schedule, 'cause we approved that 11 schedule for nonprofits as well as the ones that are 12 commercial. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to get down to detail of 14 whatever the split arrangement is as between the two 15 organizations? For example, 4-H/Lions, and they're going to 16 split it 50/50, so Lions should pay one-half of what the 17 nonprofit rate should be. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: If that's the split. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly. That's the way I 21 see it. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I think we probably 24 should bring back our policy and incorporate these changes so 25 we only have one document, as opposed to multiple documents. 9-8-08 107 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that, and also 3 agree that on the nonprofits or anyone who's not putting a 4 deposit up, including the stock show, that, I guess, as soon 5 as one time they don't clean up, from then on, deposits are 6 required. Or we could require a deposit from day one, either 7 way. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I had a good experience last 9 year with the Stock Show Association. We had -- remember, 10 they had their annual show and sale, and the very following 11 -- no, it was the fundraiser. The following Monday after 12 Saturday night, we had Hill Country Telephone coming in, who 13 had themselves a meeting with about 1,000 people. And I met 14 with -- I talked to the stock show group last year and said, 15 "Look, we don't have the staff to turn this thing around in 16 one day without you cleaning up a lot of the things that -- 17 you know, strip the tables, put the chairs on the tables, and 18 we'll come in and clean the rest." And they did it. Did a 19 real nice job of it. I think the same thing needs to apply 20 to 4-H events and any other County-sponsored that go on out 21 there. It's not that hard. That's a good -- that's a good 22 teaching tool for the kids to help with the clean-up as well 23 as, you know, they derive money out of that to -- to help 24 them pay for a lot of things throughout the year, and it's a 25 -- I think it just needs to be done as part of the use of 9-8-08 108 1 that facility. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, like Commissioner Letz says, I 3 think we need to -- we need to expand the policy to include 4 those particular concerns so that we've got it there as a 5 matter of public record. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, should we just -- 7 should we make a motion to amend or add this to the policy, 8 the general policy for the use of that building? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. What I -- what would probably 11 be more appropriate is that the policy itself be reworked to 12 include those items, and then bring back the policy as 13 amended for -- 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: -- approval by the Court, I would 16 think, because then you've got specific language and 17 instances that you're -- that you're looking at. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We need to get it on there 19 before the 22nd, because that -- or on the next meeting. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Because that event is going 22 to be October the 4th, I believe. And I kind of wanted to do 23 this, put them on notice up front that that was going to be a 24 change. I think this has gone on for seven years, and it's a 25 great event, but, you know, all the taxpayers have a vested 9-8-08 109 1 interest in this, and I don't believe we ought to be 2 subsidizing a non-County-sponsored event. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Equity is equity. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you think it would help, us 6 doing a court order today, we could do one authorizing the 7 changes, and then stating that the actual language will be 8 brought back at our next meeting. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That would be fine. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 13 indicated for the amendments to the Exhibit Center use 14 policy. Further question or discussion on the motion? All 15 in favor, indicate by raising your right hand. 16 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 18 (No response.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move 20 to Item 20; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to 21 enter into interlocal agreement with Bexar County Appellate 22 Public Defender's Office to authorize appointment of that 23 office for indigent defendant appeals of criminal cases from 24 Kerr County courts. I put this on the agenda not because I 25 believe it will be the primary handler of appellate cases, 9-8-08 110 1 since they've changed their -- their method of operation down 2 there. And I understand that our trial judges have indicated 3 that they, for the most part, intend to use specific 4 appointments here within Kerr County for appellate work on 5 criminal cases. The reason I put it on the agenda was so 6 that we had another option. By approving the contract, we 7 incur no obligation, but if an occasion should arise that 8 there's not available attorneys to handle the appellate 9 cases, or there are conflicts that -- that prevent that from 10 occurring, we do have another option so that those cases can 11 be timely appealed. So, that was my reasoning in putting it 12 on the agenda. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No obligation? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct, no obligation. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who makes the decision? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: The trial judge. The trial judge in 17 each instance would make the decision as to whether or not to 18 designate this public defender's office to handle that. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 22 approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the 23 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9-8-08 111 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. We'll move 3 to Item 21; consider, discuss, take appropriate action on 4 requested joint resolution of City of Kerrville, City of 5 Ingram, and Kerr County in approval and adoption of the 6 Economic Development Incentive Policy. This was placed on 7 the agenda -- I'll carry you back to June of '06. I'm sure 8 the Court recalls when we signed a joint resolution with the 9 City of Kerrville for the development of an economic 10 development strategic plan. After about a year and a half, 11 that plan was -- was prepared and formulated and brought back 12 to the Court, I believe, in January of this year, and 13 approved and adopted by the Court. The -- that resolution, 14 in January of this year, designated the -- the formation and 15 operation of an incentives policy committee, which began 16 meeting in February of this year. The work on that committee 17 was concluded and is now being presented. The incentive 18 policy is what's being presented to you for approval. The 19 Ingram City Council approved the policy last Tuesday, I 20 believe it was. It is scheduled to be presented to the 21 Kerrville City Council tomorrow evening, all on the same 22 joint resolution to approve the incentive policy. A draft of 23 the incentive policy was submitted to you -- I'm going to say 24 approximately 60 days ago, and then approximately 30 days ago 25 now, the actual proposed economic development incentive 9-8-08 112 1 policy was furnished. I note that we have some of the people 2 that have an interest in that process. Mr. Bondy's here. I 3 don't see anyone else that was on the committee. If you have 4 any questions about it, we'd be happy to answer you. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The committee that looks at 6 this, there's three -- three at-large members? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we rolling over the ones 9 that were on that committee? I can't remember. Or are we 10 going to appoint new members to that committee? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: The resolution which is in place 12 does not provide for the rollover of those members. The -- 13 the resolution which is in place provides that the other six 14 members of the committee actually designate and appoint the 15 three community members of the committee. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: And the current community members 18 are Dr. Dan Troxel, Warren Ferguson, and Diane Green. And 19 then, of course, the other six are designated in the existing 20 resolution that call for the formation of the committee. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So the six will choose the 22 three? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what you did to 25 begin with? 9-8-08 113 1 JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if you have a vacancy, 3 the six will pick the vacancy? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the joint 6 resolution of the City of Kerrville, City of Ingram, and Kerr 7 County, and adopt the economic incentive policy as developed 8 and proposed. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And authorize County Judge to 10 sign? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And authorize County Judge 12 to sign same. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second for 15 approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion on the 16 motion? All in favor of the motion, indicate by raising your 17 right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's go to 22 Item 22; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on 23 requested memorandum of understanding between Kerr County and 24 the Supreme Court of Texas for support of continuity of court 25 operations in the event of an emergency. This matter was 9-8-08 114 1 submitted to me by one of our District Judges, and I would 2 note that the communication that you see, I made a note on 3 there that it was mailed on August the 14th from Austin, 4 dated July the 22nd. They've got a -- they've got a little 5 problem over there getting their mail out. Either that, or 6 they got some pretty poor pickup by the Post Office 7 Department. This basically says that we will do what we can 8 to make our facilities available for the continuation of -- 9 of court operations and services as may be needed to continue 10 the judicial process in the event of any sort of natural 11 disaster or emergency. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yippee. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the end of it. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that emotion. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 17 approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the 18 motion, signify by raising your right hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. The next 23 Item, 23, consider, discuss, and review county investment 24 policy and take appropriate action to make any necessary or 25 desired changes to the investment policy. Ms. Hargis? 9-8-08 115 1 MS. HARGIS: There should be none this year, 2 because the Legislature won't meet until next year. We 3 should expect some next year. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is just an annual 5 requirement? 6 MS. HARGIS: It's an annual requirement that you 7 just review it. There's no changes. I recommend you don't 8 make them unless they're statutorily required, unless there's 9 some that you want to do. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that we make no 11 changes to the County investment policy at this time. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we need an action on it. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 15 indicated. Further question or discussion on that motion? 16 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 17 hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we just took action on 23 nothing. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On doing nothing. But I think 25 we're supposed to do it annually. 9-8-08 116 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Renewal of the old, right? 2 I assume. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I love it. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to Item 24; 6 consider, discuss, take appropriate action on whether COLA 7 granted to Kerr County elected officials in FY '08-'09 budget 8 should be applicable to judicial officers whose salaries are 9 established by state statute. I put this on the agenda 10 because there have been some recent changes to the state 11 statutes dealing with the compensation of judicial officers 12 that are, in part or in whole, compensated by -- by state 13 funds. In furtherance of that particular -- the most recent 14 particular statute, in the budget which I filed with the 15 County Clerk, I increased the total compensation to the 16 County Court at Law Judge, including state supplements, to -- 17 from $124,000 to $139,000. That was the minimum required 18 under the recent amendments to state statutes. The 19 requirement is that the compensation be not less than $1,000 20 less than -- than that paid to the District Judges of this 21 county, including any supplements which -- which they 22 receive. Their state compensation presently is $125,000, 23 plus they get a $15,000 supplement, which brings them up to a 24 total of $140,000; hence, I put the County Court at Law Judge 25 in at 139. Now, with regard to the District Judges, as far 9-8-08 117 1 as I know, they're still county elected officials, and we 2 have that situation also where their compensation is 3 determined by state statutes, and anything we do here, since 4 the caps have been taken off of their salaries, would then 5 therefore become applicable to all of those judicial 6 officers, both statutory county courts and district courts 7 here in Kerr County. That's my take on it. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Are you saying that the COLA 9 that was approved or proposed would -- would apply to them as 10 well? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, because of the change in state 12 statutes, because the caps were removed by legislative 13 enactment. They were previously capped, but now they're not 14 capped. We can -- we can continue to supplement their 15 salaries above a cap, and it's done in a number of counties. 16 I think probably the -- by information, I'm told that El Paso 17 County was one. They were thinking Harris County. Aren't 18 there some others, Judge Brown? 19 JUDGE BROWN: I don't know. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: But there are a number of them that 21 have increased their supplements because of -- because of 22 what their -- their workload is, I assume. I don't know. 23 But it was done by the county. Did you wish to be heard on 24 this, Judge Brown? 25 JUDGE BROWN: Well, I don't know. What am I 9-8-08 118 1 supposed to say? I'm a county employee. I've been a county 2 employee for 26 years, so -- or twenty -- you know, 24, I 3 think. So, y'all passed -- I didn't have anything to do with 4 the passing of the original statute -- I mean the 10 percent 5 raise and the cost-of-living increase. Well, all I know is 6 I'm a county employee. Says so on the wall; I got a plaque. 7 (Laughter.) They handed me one last year, 20 years or 8 something. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, the way the agenda 10 item is styled, it says "take appropriate action on whether a 11 COLA granted to Kerr County elected officials..." blah, blah, 12 blah. Are we just talking about a cost-of-living adjustment, 13 or are we talking about those occasions when a salary 14 adjustment may be also given to county elected officials? 15 What exactly are we talking about? Either or both? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the agenda item is for a COLA. 17 If you'll recall, there was a -- there was a COLA that was 18 approved at the last meeting of this Court -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: -- for elected officials. And the 21 way that action was finalized, in my opinion, would include 22 the elected officials of Kerr County who were previously 23 capped, and that would include the County Court at Law Judge, 24 the District Judges, and I believe -- 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: District Attorney? 9-8-08 119 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, conceivably. But 2 District Attorney is totally State-paid. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But he would get that -- he 4 would get that 10 percent -- 10.381 that was approved at the 5 last meeting? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, aren't District 7 Judges also totally State-paid? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: No. No, we presently pay a 9 supplement to District Judges. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does the -- go to the District 12 Attorney, which is all State-paid. Obviously, we can't 13 mandate that the State's going to increase their salary. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: No. No. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we just start paying a 16 portion of their salary? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: We would pay a supplement. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Which would be the COLA in 19 this instance. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: If they're not capped by statute. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But what if they -- I mean, 22 don't they get -- when their salaries are reviewed by the 23 state, aren't COLA's figured in? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm not sure what's figured 25 in. But when the state statute changes, as it did here very 9-8-08 120 1 recently, for example, Judge Brown was capped at $1,000 below 2 what the District Judges made. It couldn't go above that, 3 $1,000 below. Now the change says it shall not be less than 4 $1,000 below, but there's no cap. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Can be more than, but not 6 less than. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly right. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But how -- I guess my question 9 is, how often does the state adjust all those salaries? 10 Every two years? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: They have that opportunity. I don't 12 know how often they've done it. I've not looked at the 13 historical activities. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't think it's 15 right to give a COLA on top of a COLA if the State has been 16 giving adjustments to that salary primarily based on a COLA. 17 'Cause their workload may have shifted, but the job 18 description hasn't changed. I mean, haven't done anything 19 different. If they're getting COLA's every two years, I 20 don't think we should add a COLA on top of that. But if 21 there -- it's been stagnated for 10 years or 5 years, 22 whatever, I think it is appropriate. But I think you need to 23 know what the State is doing. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, previously -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or has done. 9-8-08 121 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Previously, like I say, till this 2 past year, they were capped and they weren't -- they weren't 3 considered, because their salaries were capped. They could 4 not receive more. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: But the most recent legislative 7 action changed that, and now that cap no longer exists. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand there's a cap, but 9 my question is, did it increase two years ago, and is it -- I 10 mean, every two years, has the Legislature increased those 11 salaries? Have they been doing that in the past? If they 12 have, I would presume they're going to in the future, because 13 they tend to look after doing that. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, as I indicated, the budget 15 which I filed increased, in Judge Brown's case, the 16 compensation from a total of 124 to 139. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on -- 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Based on state statute. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What are you saying, Rex? 20 MR. EMERSON: If I'm not mistaken, the District 21 Judges got a raise for the first time in six years in that 22 last legislative session. 'Cause it seems like it was three 23 sessions before anything changed. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are they -- do you have any 25 idea what the increase was, since a lot of these salaries are 9-8-08 122 1 tied to -- 2 MR. EMERSON: I'm sorry, I don't know. But you're 3 talking about the District Attorneys and the District Judges, 4 I think the other part -- two parts of that question. The 5 other part is -- is that we only pay a percentage of that 6 supplement. Like, on the 198th, we're one of five counties, 7 so -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 9 MR. EMERSON: -- y'all need to decide 10 percentage-wise how you're going to apply that. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably certainly we're only 12 going to do it for the part -- if we do it at all, on the 13 part for Kerr County, for the D.A.'s and the -- for both 14 D.A.'s and both judges. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Up to the other counties to 16 give them anything if they want them to have it. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's an interesting 19 point. If we were to grant the COLA adjustment predicated on 20 what we've talked about and indicated and done in the past 21 for Kerr County employees, and one of the other counties in 22 the judicial district chose to do something different, that 23 is a possibility, isn't it? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A likelihood. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a likelihood, more 9-8-08 123 1 than likely. Doesn't apply to Judge Brown, but applies to 2 upstairs. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that part, to me, is 4 easy. I mean, any cost-of-living or salary adjustment to any 5 elected official, only the portion that Kerr County pays is 6 subject to that increase. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Judge, did you include all 9 this in your estimate, you and Ms. Hargis, after the last 10 Commissioners Court meeting? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: No. What I -- 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This would be in addition to. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: What I -- what I filed with the 14 budget in Judge Brown's instance was the base minimum of 139. 15 He increased from 124 to 139. Now, that -- that's county 16 portion and state supplement combined, so that we're in 17 compliance with the state statute. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No COLA. No COLA? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: No, that was not in the budget. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a pretty hefty 21 increase right there without the COLA. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, your -- 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Judge Brown, don't you hit 24 me. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Your recommendation here is 9-8-08 124 1 that we not pay the County Court at Law, District Judges, and 2 D.A.'s the COLA? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: My purpose in bringing it was 4 because there's a rational distinction between county 5 employees, county elected officials, as we've come to know 6 county elected officials, that we have total control over the 7 salary, and those who are -- whose salary and compensation is 8 primarily set by state statute. Now, I -- I limited my 9 agenda item to the judicial officers. I'm not sure of the 10 applicability of -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: D.A.'s. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: -- of prosecutors. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I'm going to take 14 that as a yes. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I see that there's a reason 16 for the distinction, and the Legislature made a significant 17 change from what we had done previously. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have we ever applied the COLA 19 to those? I mean, to any of the of these other offices? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: No, we did not, because they were 21 capped. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They were capped. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: They were capped. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All the -- I mean, I know that 25 County Court at Law was capped. Were the others capped? 9-8-08 125 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes. District Judges were 2 capped? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: County Attorney, I think, was 4 capped. But there was a change in his instance that allowed 5 a small portion -- $1,600 and change? Does that sound about 6 right, Rex? 7 MR. EMERSON: More or less. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. About 1,600 bucks, I think. 9 There was that much room with him, based upon the new 10 legislation. You recall having seen the schedule of elected 11 officials. Customarily, in years past, that schedule has not 12 included the District Judges or County Court at Law Judge. 13 The reason was because they were capped, and they're only 14 placed on the schedule if there was to be some sort of an 15 increase, and so they were not put on the schedule. They 16 just weren't on the radar screen, for the most part. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, so now they -- now the 18 Legislature, in all of its wisdom, -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Has put them -- 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- has put the monkey on us. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: But they've put them on the radar 22 screen. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Once again. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, now their salaries are 25 published like everybody else's; is that correct? 9-8-08 126 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If there's an increase. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: If there's an increase, yeah. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: And even -- even irrespective of the 6 COLA, they'll have -- Judge Brown, for example, will have to 7 be on there because of that legislation from the state 8 Legislature. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, my -- I guess my view 10 is, the COLA shouldn't apply because we don't set their 11 salaries. And if -- I just hate to see -- I mean, their 12 adjustments are made at the state level whenever they choose 13 to make it in the Legislature. They're making those 14 adjustments primarily for COLA reasons, I would think, 15 cost-of-living. I mean, the work is the work. And I think 16 that if -- you know, if the Legislature wants to give us the 17 authority to set their salaries, then we'll set the COLA's. 18 But if the State's going to set the salary levels, we'll let 19 them handle it. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Judge Brown? 21 JUDGE BROWN: I'll just point out that the State 22 did set our salaries -- my salary, and now they don't set my 23 salary, because I'm -- you know, you can give me any amount. 24 It can't be -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They set your minimum salary. 9-8-08 127 1 JUDGE BROWN: Yeah, can't be less than. But, I 2 mean, I just -- so they really don't set it. It's just 3 whatever y'all decide. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, but they -- 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Went from 125 to 139. 6 JUDGE BROWN: I got no problem with that. 7 (Laughter.) 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I wouldn't think you'd have a 9 problem with it. But do we need to add another $13,900 more 10 on top of that? 11 JUDGE BROWN: I'll give five of it back to my 12 secretary. She gets five off the top. I give her five of my 13 salary supplement. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Judge Brown does defer from his 15 state supplement 5,000 of that supplement to benefit his 16 court coordinator. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that it gets into a -- 18 a real different situation if we start setting salaries and 19 they start setting salaries. I think they're sitting -- they 20 took it over to set the salaries. Let them set the salaries. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And the COLA's. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand it's a minimum in 23 your case, but they're -- those minimums get ratcheted up 24 when they see fit to ratchet them up. Like they did, I 25 guess, this year. 9-8-08 128 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. Designate who -- 3 who we're dealing with here, now. Is the D.A.'s included in 4 this thing or not? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I don't think the agenda item 6 will allow that. I think we can only work with judicial 7 officers. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: By the agenda item. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why did you do it that way? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, probably because of oversight. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good reason. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: But we can do this again. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm with Jonathan on this 17 deal. Let them set them. I don't think the COLA should 18 apply. In my opinion, it's outrageous what we've done, 19 anyway. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Did I have a motion over here? 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I make the motion -- 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 9-8-08 129 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- we do not include the 2 District Judges -- the judicial in our COLA increases. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the motion to approve 4 the agenda item? 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: No, to not include elected judicial 7 officers whose salaries are established by state statute in 8 our COLA granted to Kerr County. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that include -- 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That is correct. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the District Judges 12 and the County Court at Law Judge? 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, sir. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And who else? 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I realize that I'm taking my 16 life into my own hands. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Which you've done before. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Which I have been known to do 19 before. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. 21 Question or comment? 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's make it clear, if we 23 can, the reasoning behind our actions. And I think 24 Commissioner Letz is probably closer than anybody, in my 25 opinion. And that -- do you want to restate who sets the 9-8-08 130 1 salaries? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the State has chosen -- 3 the Legislature has chosen to set at least the minimum 4 salaries, you know, of District Judges and County Court at 5 Law Judges. And if they're going to set those salaries, I 6 presume when they set those, that they're looking at COLA's 7 as part of their factor. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whereas, the opposite side 9 of that would be if -- if we set -- set the total salary for 10 them, then we were in control and we can put a COLA if we 11 want to. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or we'll know if there's a 14 COLA or not. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know if they've been 16 getting COLA's figured in or not, but you have to presume for 17 some reason they give them increases. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Got over 10 percent this 19 year, what they set -- what was readjusted. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's a good 21 reason. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Further question or discussion? All 23 in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9-8-08 131 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We all hang together. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move to Item 25; consider, 5 discuss, and take appropriate action to establish Kerr County 6 holiday schedule for fiscal year '08-'09. I think H.R. has 7 placed a proposed one here before you, but there's some 8 alternates for selection. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many did we have this 10 year? 11 MS. HYDE: I'm sorry? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many approved holidays 13 this year? Current budget year. 14 MS. HYDE: There's 14 listed here, and if you 15 decide to do both on Christmas and New Year's, that will take 16 it to 16. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems like I talked to someone 18 about doing both on Christmas -- Christmas is on what, a 19 Wednesday -- a Thursday? 20 MS. HYDE: Thursday. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Didn't we talk about 22 eliminating Columbus Day and doing something different around 23 Christmas? Didn't I talk to someone? I didn't talk to you 24 about that? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I think they were messing with Texas 9-8-08 132 1 Independence Day, but we've already swapped that one for the 2 January holiday, as I recall. Isn't that right, Commissioner 3 Baldwin? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, on Christmas, which day 6 will be the holiday? And same with New Year's. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thursday and Friday. 8 MS. HYDE: They're both on Thursday. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thursday and Friday? 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that's a good idea to 11 do the Friday after the day. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not all that sanguine 13 about Columbus Day. I don't remember Columbus sailing up the 14 Guadalupe to discover Kerr County. (Laughter.) 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Didn't know him personally, 16 huh? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. But I've seen some 18 people who've met him -- talked to some who met him. They're 19 the same people who tell you about cattle guards -- cattle 20 guards moving. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- so Christmas will be -- 22 Christmas Eve will be a work day? And then Christmas Day and 23 day after is a holiday. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that's a good plan. 25 Don't you? 9-8-08 133 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I have no problem with 2 that. And then New Year's Day and the day after? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I prefer the day after. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have to have New Year's Day, 5 though. We don't historically give two days at New Year's, 6 do we? 7 MS. HYDE: It has been for the last five years. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've done New Year's Eve? 9 Okay. Then come to work on January 2. 10 MS. HYDE: Yes, but I think the question had been 11 in the past because some people were -- I spoke out of turn. 12 Nevermind. 13 MR. EMERSON: Recovering from moving cattle guards. 14 MS. HYDE: Thank you. (Laughter.) 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Old Rex speaks our language, 16 doesn't he? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, he's right there. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pretty sharp County 19 Attorney. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would say New Year's Day 21 and the day after. I wouldn't say New Year's Eve. And then 22 that's -- if you're going to do that, you're going to -- you 23 won't have anybody show up anyway. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And how many do we have this 25 year? How many holidays? 9-8-08 134 1 MS. HYDE: On this sheet, there were 14. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're adding one. If we go to 3 this schedule, we're going to 15. We need -- 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This includes Columbus Day. 5 MS. HYDE: I thought you were taking out Columbus 6 Day. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Get rid of Columbus Day and 8 do this. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: No, I count 14, including Columbus 10 Day. 11 MS. HYDE: Yes, there were 14 including Columbus 12 Day, but there was a different change. We were supposed to 13 discuss it, so you guys just said to not have Columbus Day, 14 which takes you down to 13. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Only problem is, Columbus Day 16 is a banking holiday, and that's not a good thing to have 17 offices closed whenever we're open. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: We've also got public hearings set 19 for the day after Columbus Day, by court order earlier today. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go to the other easier one. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Why don't we just leave it 22 alone? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Independence Day, are we 24 going to have Friday or Monday as a holiday? 25 MS. HYDE: July 4th is Saturday. 9-8-08 135 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon? 2 MS. HYDE: July 4th is on Saturday. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When's the federal holiday? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Monday. 5 MS. HYDE: Monday. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's do Monday, then. Should 7 be the 6th. Okay. Caleb, you might note we give holidays 8 both for Memorial Day and Labor Day, unlike K.I.S.D. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Those days are not important. 10 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we -- so Columbus day is 12 in, and this matches our same number as this year, correct, 13 Ms. Hyde? 14 MS. HYDE: It will -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can't hear you. 16 MS. HYDE: It will make it 14 if you leave Columbus 17 Day in. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have 13 this year? 19 MS. HYDE: Yes. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, Columbus Day comes out. I 21 make a motion we adopt the holiday schedule, with eliminating 22 Columbus Day. Christmas will be the 25th and 26th; New 23 Year's will be the 1st and the 2nd, and Independence Day will 24 be the 6th. Otherwise, it will be as presented. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 9-8-08 136 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 2 indicated. Further question or discussion on that motion? 3 All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right 4 hand. 5 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 6 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 7 (No response.) 8 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Gentlemen, 9 do we want to go back and reschedule some public hearings? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably better. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: On Item 9, we've set a public 12 hearing for 10/14/08 at 10:10 a.m. Would it be appropriate 13 to change the date to 10/13 but otherwise leave the time the 14 same? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, sir. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a motion. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to change 20 the public hearing on that Item 9 to 10/13/08 at 10:10 a.m. 21 Question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify 22 by raising your right hand. 23 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 25 (No response.) 9-8-08 137 1 JUDGE TINLEY: On Item 10, I'll recall that item 2 dealing with the concept plan for revision of plat for Lots 3 11 and 12 of Four Seasons. That public hearing is set for 4 10/14/08 at 10 a.m. Would it be appropriate to change it to 5 10/13? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 9 approval to change public hearing date from 10/13 instead of 10 10/14, and leave the time the same. Question or discussion? 11 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 12 hand. 13 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 14 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 15 (No response.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any more? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need to make certain 18 that the participants are notified of the changes. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Road and Bridge. Let Road and 20 Bridge know, Jody. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Did we not set a public hearing -- 22 or we had a public hearing under Item 11, okay. Okay. Do we 23 break for lunch and come back after lunch? Or do we charge 24 forward? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Break for lunch. 9-8-08 138 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Break for lunch. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Break for lunch. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't need to vote. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll be in recess to reconvene at 5 1:30. 6 (Recess taken from 12:05 p.m. to 1:35 p.m.) 7 - - - - - - - - - - 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to order, if 9 we might. We were in recess for lunch. Okay. The next item 10 on the Court's agenda is Number 26; consider, discuss, and 11 take appropriate action on proposed pay increases for elected 12 officials and department heads for FY '08-'09. Commissioner 13 Oehler asked that this item be placed on the agenda. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I did. I've done a lot of 15 thinking about what's -- what's been done with all the 16 approved increases or proposed increases for elected 17 officials and department heads. I have no quarrel at all 18 with what we approved for the hourly employees, 'cause in the 19 beginning, when the department heads and elected officials 20 came to us first part of the budget, they were willing to 21 give up everything they could in their budgets to fund pay 22 increases that would equal 10 percent for all the hourly 23 employees, which I fully support. And that grew from that 24 into a 10.381 percent for all, including elected officials 25 and department heads, and an additional 2 and a half for our 9-8-08 139 1 hourly people. In my opinion, we have -- we have some that's 2 not warranted. It's too much in one year. All the elected 3 officials and department heads got 7 percent last year, which 4 I voted against for them -- or for the elected officials, for 5 sure. 6 So, I feel like that -- that we need to talk about 7 it again, and I think we have other discrepancies in these 8 departments other than just a few. For instance, Animal 9 Control and Maintenance and Environmental Health are -- are 10 vital points and parts of this county operation, and those 11 three department heads are making less than $40,000 a year. 12 I think they need to be brought up. Even with the 13 10 percent, they're going to be -- they're going to still be 14 under that. I think there are individual departments that we 15 need to address to get some parity with some other 16 departments, and those three being the -- I guess my target 17 ones. I do not want a 10 percent increase in my salary -- 18 10.381. And you can call it COLA, you can call it whatever 19 the heck you want to call it, but it's still an increase in 20 salary. 21 I proposed at the last -- the last Commissioners 22 Court meeting that elected officials get 5 percent and 23 department heads 5 percent, and leave the other employees 24 like we had it. That was -- that never did come to a vote. 25 That would be my proposal today, is that we would do 9-8-08 140 1 5 percent for each one of those, and we commit to do that -- 2 do some increases as needed each year, rather than trying to 3 do all this at one time. All this and other tight budget 4 increases amount to well over a 15 percent increase in taxes 5 this year, based on the effective tax rate, as opposed to the 6 tax rate the way it was figured to go above what our last 7 year's rate was. I think it's too much, and I think we need 8 to make some adjustments in it. It's just -- the people that 9 are going to bear this additional cost are going to be the 10 people that are under 65 and have -- don't have their taxes 11 frozen, which is about probably close to 60 percent of the 12 people are going to pay 100 percent of the increase. I don't 13 think it's fair to do that much at one time when we can do 14 less and we can commit to doing a little bit each year, 15 rather than hitting this kind of a percentage in one year. 16 If -- if this stands and gets approved and into the budget 17 and into the tax rate, it's huge for one year. 18 I think the Sheriff also ought to make more money. 19 I think that he's -- he is too close to what his -- his chief 20 deputy makes, and I think there needs to be a fairly good 21 gap. He has the largest department in Kerr County. He is 22 responsible for over 100 employees and runs the county jail, 23 and I think his -- even with the 10 percent that he would 24 get, I still think he's not where he should be. I think he 25 ought to be a little bit higher, and I think these other 9-8-08 141 1 three departments I mentioned should be higher. And then we 2 all agree to take less this year, and maybe next year and a 3 little bit each year, we can do something. But when we have 4 a $776,000 loss in revenue from frozen tax values in one 5 year, that's almost 3 cents on the tax rate, and that makes a 6 big difference. And next year, I would imagine that that 7 loss is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of a 8 million, until this thing levels off at some point. 9 So, I think we ought to take care of the 10 discrepancies and get some of our department heads up where 11 they should be paid for the jobs they're doing, and then the 12 elected officials and department heads -- the rest of the 13 department heads should take less increase this year, and 14 look toward next year and the year after that. But 10.381, 15 in my opinion, for all elected officials and all department 16 heads, plus two and a half for department heads, is too much 17 in one year. And that's really about all I got to say about 18 it. And I doubt that there will be a motion to that effect, 19 unless I make one. And I make one that we do just exactly 20 what I said, and that would be the 5 percent elected, 21 5 percent department heads, and -- and then to raise Animal 22 Control, Maintenance, and Environmental Health Department 23 heads up to $45,000 a year each, and raise the Sheriff to 24 $85,000. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion. Do I hear a 9-8-08 142 1 second? 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Hearing no second, that motion will 4 die for lack of a second. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will discuss it a little 6 more, if I may. I don't disagree with a lot of what Bruce 7 says. I think that the -- the department heads, and I've 8 said this several times before, have gotten adjusted fairly 9 frequently, in the past five years anyway, based on primarily 10 turnover. We've made changes in staff and promoted from 11 within, made adjustments here and there, and I don't disagree 12 with that part of the motion. Those three that you mentioned 13 probably should be paid more, based on the responsibilities 14 that they have. And I don't -- I really don't have a strong 15 disagreement with what you said about the Sheriff. I think 16 that the -- as you know, I voted with you before on the -- I 17 don't think the department heads should get the step 18 increase. That was the reason I voted against the previous 19 budget discussions on salaries and all that. But I think 20 that it isn't right to, when the cost-of-living is a certain 21 amount, to not compensate for the cost-of-living. And the 22 other thing I -- I'm not sure where you're going on the tax 23 rate. The reason we are where we are is because we haven't 24 done this tax increase. And I think the Judge brought this 25 up, you know, hopefully before, and even if I was to go along 9-8-08 143 1 with your proposal, which I'm not too far off of you on that, 2 I still want the tax rate to stay where it is, because we've 3 got to get -- we've got to get the reserves built up, and the 4 dollars we're talking about in our total budget are not that 5 large. I think that it's critical, because of the tax 6 freeze, that we do -- like the Judge said, we should have 7 done it two years ago or three years ago. We didn't do it, 8 and we're paying that price now. And the citizens are paying 9 that price too, but we also didn't increase their taxes 10 probably when we should have. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, would you go along with 12 taking away the two and a half percent additional for 13 department heads? 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me make a comment or 16 two. What you said deserves some comments. I appreciate 17 your position, and I too would be willing to revisit the step 18 for department heads. It was included in the motion last 19 time, but I am certainly willing to revisit it. I just have 20 a hard time with selective increases for certain department 21 heads. And I appreciate that there may be some that for 22 years were neglected, didn't get what they, today, perhaps 23 deserve, and certainly those that you mention are among them. 24 But that also is -- even though it's a COLA, what the Court 25 has proposed to do helps those folks catch up a pretty good 9-8-08 144 1 bit, and if we need to do more next year, we can do more next 2 year. But in closing, I would reiterate I'd be willing to 3 revisit the step -- step and grade, whether we include 4 department heads in that. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The reason I say about the -- 6 those three departments is because they are so far behind 7 some other departments, you know. And I guess Juvenile 8 Probation is one of those departments, and not taking away 9 from what he does. Or, you know, Juvenile Detention would be 10 another one, and Road and Bridge Department, another one. 11 Those department heads are paid so much more. And, yes, they 12 do have responsibilities, but I'm just saying some of these 13 others have also taken on board responsibilities. Animal 14 Control now does county-wide animal control, rabies, 15 everything else. It was the city of Kerrville and basically 16 the county outside of Ingram, but that -- and another 17 additional duty went on there without having any compensation 18 for it. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's always been us 20 doing the animal control in the city; we just had a contract. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But not with -- but not with 22 Ingram. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not -- no, but not with 24 Ingram. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That came on later. And, you 9-8-08 145 1 know, there are a lot of things. Environmental Health now is 2 doing a lot more than what they did with enforcing the solid 3 waste issue. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they're doing it well. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And they're doing it well. 6 And they're also -- they're a trigger for some of our 7 subdivision rules and regs that catch things that normally 8 wouldn't be caught. And, oh, I just feel like that we need 9 to make adjustments whenever adjustments are justified for 10 what people and their responsibilities are with their jobs. 11 And by doing percentage increases, it just widens the gap. 12 The ones at the top get a lot more total dollars than the 13 ones at the bottom, and that's why I want -- I'm in favor of 14 the lowest paid people getting that extra two and a half 15 percent. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't object to, you know, 17 revisiting the three department heads you're talking about in 18 this year's budget, or wait till next year, either way. The 19 Sheriff, I think, is in the situation of his chief deputy -- 20 that we've always been aware of that and we've always kept 21 him, you know, above it. We've had various -- or try to keep 22 him above that one position. The current court order, I 23 think, is still in place of 5,000 -- 5,000 above it. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, you know, I think we need 9-8-08 146 1 to try to -- 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe the gap should be 3 wider than what it is. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I, frankly, think the 5 Sheriff ought to be earning the same thing as the city's 6 Chief of Police. How do you get there? 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, you either bite the 8 bullet and do it, like what you're proposing to do with 9 everybody, or you take and you address those specific need 10 areas that you feel like are not paid adequately, and address 11 them that way, rather than do it with a percentage all the 12 way across. At least get them up to where they should be, 13 and not -- not just doing it across the board with a 14 percentage. And then with the percentage increases along 15 after that, then it seems to me to be more fair. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you were to propose 17 selective increases for the department heads that you 18 mentioned, what would they be? 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Elected -- what? I didn't 20 understand the question. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you were to propose 22 selective increases for the department heads that you 23 mention. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would they be? 9-8-08 147 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think I said -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: He said 45,000. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- $45,000 for each of the 4 three that I mentioned, and 85 for the Sheriff. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What does that equate to in 6 an increase? 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, it's -- I would say a 8 total increase would be -- Eva? 9 MS. HARGIS: It's about 3,000 -- 10 MS. HYDE: It would be about $12,000. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somebody's got the numbers 12 out there. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: She said 12,000. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 15 MS. HYDE: I said about 12,000. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm-mm. 17 MS. HYDE: That doesn't include the Sheriff. You 18 just asked me on the three, right? 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, on the Sheriff also. 20 MS. HYDE: I'm sorry. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Including the Sheriff. 22 MS. HYDE: About 17, 18. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that total? 17,000, 24 18,000 total? To bring those four -- 25 MS. HYDE: I'm pulling numbers now, so -- 9-8-08 148 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know, but -- so that's in 2 the realm of reality. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Seventeen additional on the Sheriff, 4 right? 5 MS. HYDE: No. The Sheriff is -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: 68,5? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 65. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, he's proposed at 75. 9 MS. HARGIS: So that would be 10 for him, and I 10 think -- 11 MS. HYDE: And about three each -- 12 MS. HARGIS: For the others. 13 MS. HYDE: -- for the others. That's why I said 14 about 12. They're 17 -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff is currently at 68, 16 and with the 10 percent goes to 75. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: You're talking about in addition to 18 what's proposed already? 19 MS. HARGIS: Be about 19. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: In addition to what is proposed, not 21 what they're currently at? 22 MS. HARGIS: Right. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But in order to fund that, 25 you'd reduce sizeably the amount you had done with the 9-8-08 149 1 5 percent instead of the 10 for department heads and elected 2 officials. That's the only way you reduce it significantly, 3 the total dollars. Cut those raises in half, basically, for 4 all the elected and all the department heads. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: And then turn around and add back -- 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: On those few -- select few 7 department heads, and get them up to where I feel like they 8 should be. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you need to find 10 another way to pay for it. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I think if we're going to look at 12 each individual department, we probably need to look at those 13 more in-depth, as opposed to just pulling figures out. My -- 14 my calculations, and they -- I tried to make them based upon 15 information pulled from the approved budgets, the -- the 16 Animal Control department head increased, from last year to 17 this current year, 18.8 percent. I realize there was 18 a reorganization in the Environmental Health, but if the 19 figure I pulled for the last year's salary is correct, and I 20 know the one I pulled for this year is correct, that was over 21 50 percent. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: For Environmental Health? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: As opposed to what Miguel was 25 making when he left? 9-8-08 150 1 JUDGE TINLEY: No. There was a reorganization 2 there, so a lot of that does pertain to that, I understand. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not back to where Miguel was 4 when he left, anywhere close. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: And, you know, in Maintenance, I 6 think Tim only had the -- there was some restructuring done 7 before the beginning of the budget year, with significant 8 adjustment of step and grade, but when it came to the budget 9 itself, I think Tim received a longevity step, plus the 3.5 10 COLA to put him where he is now. The way those budgets are 11 flexed there, it's kind of hard to tell. But contrary to 12 your statement that each department head got 7 percent, I 13 don't believe that to be true. In fact, Tim, for example, 14 didn't get that. Like I say, he got -- he got a COLA plus 15 his longevity step going into the budget. I don't think 16 Juvenile Probation received it. I don't think the Auditor 17 received it. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Auditor got other 19 compensation. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Well -- 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: To the tune of about 22 11 percent. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I think it makes my point, that if 24 we're going to -- if we're going to try and focus in with any 25 degree of -- of comfort on what -- where these things are, 9-8-08 151 1 maybe what we're talking about is an entire new salary survey 2 here, rather than come up here at the eleventh hour, when 3 we're trying to adopt a budget, there's already an order in 4 place, and then there's a last-minute effort here to -- to 5 rework that order, as it were, on a piecemeal basis. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I realize it's the eleventh 7 hour. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- going back -- I 9 mean, I still support the department head issue. I think we 10 ought to do two and a half percent, and I -- I'm inclined to 11 agree with the Judge on taking a little time to look at the 12 department heads' salaries. And I think we've -- you know, 13 we -- I want to say this properly. We've had a tendency of 14 promoting from within, which is good, but when we do that, we 15 also look at what they're making and then figure out what the 16 increase is, which isn't good. They should -- the job is 17 worth a certain amount. And we've been able to hold those 18 salaries down because we promoted from within. And that's 19 just not right. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a real good point, 21 Commissioner. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that's kind of my point. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's basically the three 24 departments you're talking about. All three of those, this 25 happened to. And I think that -- but I think we need to -- 9-8-08 152 1 instead of just throwing out a number, we -- we've had -- in 2 my opinion, we've had a lot of problems when we start 3 equating groups of departments or elected officials in the 4 same salary, and things change. And, you know, I don't -- I 5 think you should look at each department individually and how 6 it fits into the system. And, you know, some departments, I 7 mean, because of the educational requirements, they -- 8 they're going to get paid more. Just the way it is. But I 9 think we do need to look at them, and I think that we 10 probably haven't been fair to those three departments that 11 need brought up. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We just -- we just approved 13 or adopted a policy for review of department heads. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Certainly, this is an 16 appropriate subject during that review. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with you. I agree that 18 we should take -- was it 2.5? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 2.5. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 2.5 out of the department 21 heads. I said that the very first day this issue came up, 22 and y'all looked at me like I was an alien of some sort. 23 But -- 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not all of us. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's when you started 9-8-08 153 1 growing your beard, too. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't mean illegal alien. 3 And -- and, you know, it just makes sense to me that we'd 4 take the 2.5 out. It doesn't belong there. But my only 5 other issue is, the 10 percent is a COLA. Yes, it is an 6 addition to the salary, but it's a cost-of-living adjustment 7 to where it comes in one pocket and goes right back out to 8 H.E.B., so it's not -- it's not like, at the end of the 9 month, we will have more money in our pocket or our 10 checkbook; checking account will have any more money in it. 11 It's just that we are staying up with the cost-of-living. 12 And so I'm not real convinced that 10-point whatever it is, 13 is an accurate number, though. Now -- 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't believe it is. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you know, if -- you 16 know, if it's -- if it's less than that, we really need to 17 have the proper number, in my opinion, to vote on, if it's -- 18 if we're talking about a COLA. And we need to look at the 19 index and find the real number. It may be more than 10, 20 whatever. I don't have any idea. But whatever it is, is 21 what we should approve. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, if it was -- what if it 23 was 8.2 or 8.5? Would you agree to go with that rather than 24 the 10.381? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. Oh, yeah, no 9-8-08 154 1 question. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Something close to that, that 3 would stay in the step and grade? 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because we're talking about 5 a COLA here. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Stay -- but to adjust that to 7 something that would stay within the 2.5 percent for each 8 step. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If it was 8 -- if it came out 11 to be actually, say, 8 percent, is what the feds say it is, 12 would you go for 7.5, whatever it would be? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever the index says it 14 is. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Rather than -- 10.381 was 16 kind of a number we've pulled out of the air right now, in my 17 opinion. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I don't think so. I 19 think we had information from the Human Resources that -- 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Wasn't pulled out of the air, 21 but it was a little bit high estimation, I think. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Figuring it on an 23 annualized basis for '08 is going to be close to -- Ms. Hyde? 24 12 percent? 25 MS. HYDE: COLA. 9-8-08 155 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 11-point something? 2 MS. HYDE: If it goes the way it's -- continues to 3 go the way it was through July -- August won't be out until 4 the 15th of September. Typically, your August numbers are 5 going to be flat, because everyone's gone back to school; 6 it's the end of summer. So, the actual number as of July was 7 6.913. If you extrapolate that out, it was 1.6 numbers out 8 there, which is almost 2, every single month. If you go to 9 the end of the year, August, September, October, November, 10 December, it's five months, and that brought it up. And 11 that's -- you guys had that in your books. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know about this 13 extrapolation nonsense. You know, we need -- you know, I'm 14 kind of heading off in Bruce's corner here all of a sudden, 15 because we have to have firm numbers, not what we extrapolate 16 things out to. I mean, I -- I may have to get mad here in a 17 minute. But we -- we need a real number. We're dealing with 18 taxpayers' money here. If it's 10.35 percent, that's what -- 19 that's what we're going to give our employees, because it's a 20 cost-of-living adjustment. It's not a salary increase. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Even if it was 12 percent, 22 would you do the same thing? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. It's a 24 cost-of-living adjustment. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. 9-8-08 156 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is the reason why. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: The difficulty we have is that we're 3 trying to determine a number that doesn't yet exist, because 4 we're having to light on a number that's going to be finally 5 determined at a later date, so we really don't have much 6 choice except to extrapolate based upon the trend that is 7 presently in place. Otherwise, you're looking at a number 8 for a half or two-thirds of the year, which, of course, is 9 not a year's worth of -- of cost-of-living adjustments. So, 10 you're pretty well forced to do an extrapolation in order 11 to -- in fairness to your employees, to come up with a full 12 year's worth, as opposed to a half a year or two-thirds of a 13 year. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not pretty much forced 16 to do anything. The last firm number I heard was 6.91. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- I think you need to 18 -- I'm kind of in between the two. You need to extrapolate; 19 you have to look beyond that, but you -- I think that when we 20 made our decision, oil prices were -- since then have dropped 21 about 30 percent, and that's one of the biggest components of 22 our -- the whole reason for our cost-of-living this year. 23 It's all been driven by that, or a large portion. So, I 24 think that, you know, unfortunately, we don't have the luxury 25 to wait until we find out -- next week they could go back to 9-8-08 157 1 $150 a barrel, too. We just don't know. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's on its way up the last 4 two days. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Another hurricane coming. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, a big one. But, you 7 know, our job is to pick the best -- you know, figure out 8 what, in our estimation, the cost of living is going to be, 9 and I think we need to make an adjustment at that amount. I 10 think Bruce is right; I think we -- my recollection is we 11 bumped the amount up slightly to fit our step and grade, as 12 opposed to bumping it down. 13 MS. HYDE: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly. That's why it's 15 381. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, 381 instead of -- and, 17 you know, I would be fine with bumping it -- instead of 18 bumping up, bumping down, which lowers it 2 and a half 19 percent, 8.81. 20 MS. HYDE: 9.81. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9.81. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: 9.81 was the extrapolated figure, 23 wasn't it? 24 MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 9-8-08 158 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, if you adopt -- knock it 2 down to the nearest one, it comes to 7-point something. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Seven and a half plus -- 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or you round it off at 10. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, you don't want -- I 6 think we get in trouble when we round off and don't stay with 7 our step and grade, the 2 and a half percent, whatever else 8 goes with that. I think that's where you cause lots of 9 problems with your bookkeeping. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Right. I think that's why -- 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Problems for H.R. department, 12 and that messes up our whole step and grade schedule. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's why the 9.81 got 15 rounded, to stay within step and grade to the modified 10, or 16 adjusted 10, which is the 381. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. So, it could be bumped 18 back down just the same way it got bumped up, to whatever 19 that step basically would be. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I also disagree with you 21 on selecting certain department heads and raising their 22 salary at this time. I could -- your very first sentence was 23 these people -- these particular people -- I can't remember 24 exactly what you said, but they produce -- and for the 25 County. You know, I could throw in the Collections 9-8-08 159 1 department. She actually brings in cash money. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: She's also brand-new. This 3 is the very first -- 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's been a county employee 5 a long time. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is the first time she's 7 been in that position. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We should double her salary. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Because it's her first year? 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: First two months? I just 12 think we need to get some parity in some of these things 13 where their duties by office and their department heads -- 14 mainly, the department heads in charge of those departments 15 need to be compensated fairly. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you. But I 17 think we need to do it in a more careful, deliberate manner, 18 than just like -- 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is the eleventh hour. 20 It's not 12:01; this is the eleventh hour. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, eleventh hour. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's never too late until 23 the -- you know, until -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's almost too late. Too 25 late. 9-8-08 160 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- the buzzer goes off, till 2 we file an adopted tax rate and adopted budget. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, make a motion. See 4 what happens. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I already did. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Didn't work. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we do 10 not include the department heads with the additional step 11 increase. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second that. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second -- third. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And third. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: -- to not include the additional 17 step increase that's in place under the current order for the 18 department heads. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Sorry? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, that's it. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question. Is 24 it time for questions? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 9-8-08 161 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If -- by taking that out, 2 how much money did we save? Or if we were going to leave it 3 in, how much did that cost -- would that cost? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: $11,300. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $11,300. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a big one. 7 MS. HARGIS: 11,619. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: What? 9 MS. HARGIS: $11,619 for 11 people. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have the right number? 11 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 12 MR. STANTON: I wanted to ask a question. Or 13 state -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll get to you in just a minute. 15 MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it 11,300 or 11,600? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I calculate 11,289, actually. Which 18 is the difference between the two summaries. Okay, I'll 19 defer to the Auditor, 11,6. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 11,6. That's a considerable 21 amount of money. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: You had a question, Mr. Stanton? 23 MR. STANTON: I just -- aren't -- by taking that -- 24 and I'm not saying this for me, but by taking this two and a 25 half percent out, aren't you actually hurting the people that 9-8-08 162 1 you're trying to raise up? 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, this has nothing to do 3 with the hourly people. This is only the department heads. 4 MR. STANTON: But you named the department heads, 5 and the department heads are the ones that you were trying 6 to -- 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I was talking about some that 8 we've paid too little already. 9 MR. STANTON: No, that's what I'm saying, 'cause 10 you're taking the department heads out of this equation. And 11 not -- I don't care one way or another for me, but you take 12 the two and a half percent out, and we were talking -- or you 13 guys were talking about trying to increase certain department 14 heads. But by taking the department heads out of it, you're 15 actually decreasing what they're getting. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see what you're saying. He's 17 saying that we're -- 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know what he's saying. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that was -- that's why I 20 was going to say something else. I think that I was looking 21 for -- to put that fund in, but I didn't know we had that 22 number, and in a separate line item so that we can look at 23 adjustments midyear. 'Cause it's not going to change tax -- 24 change the tax rate, how we do the tax rate, and it gives us 25 the flexibility, when we have time to really look at the -- 9-8-08 163 1 you know, around the first of the year, to look at those 2 three departments as to if we want to make an adjustment, and 3 put funding in the budget to be able to do that if we choose 4 to. And if we don't, then it just goes back to reserves. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Any more discussion or questions on 6 the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 7 your right hand. 8 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 10 (No response.) 11 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Any other 12 business to be conducted under that particular agenda item? 13 Hearing none, we'll move on to Item 27; consider, discuss, 14 take appropriate action to renew the data processing services 15 agreement with Indigent Health Care Solutions and allow the 16 County Judge to sign the same. Ms. Hargis? 17 MS. HARGIS: As you know, the County is required to 18 -- to pay so much for indigent health care every year based 19 on our -- our tax levy, and this is a very large sum of money 20 that we've had on an annual basis. It's come to my attention 21 within the last week that we have had a great deal of 22 difficulty holding onto the employee at the hospital who 23 makes these -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: You're on the wrong agenda item. 25 We're talking about the contract. 9-8-08 164 1 MS. HARGIS: The contract's already signed, isn't 2 it? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think it's approved by the 4 Court. 5 MS. HARGIS: I don't think we had a new one. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it's before me. 7 MS. HARGIS: I didn't put the contract on; I just 8 put the second one. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: No, I did, apparently. It got under 10 your name. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Data processing services, 12 indigent health care. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 14 MS. HARGIS: I'll defer that one to you, 'cause I 15 don't know. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 17 MS. HARGIS: 'Cause I didn't know we had a new one. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: That's the contract -- a renewal of 19 the contract that we had in place with Indigent Health Care 20 Solutions, and I believe the County Attorney has reviewed it 21 and had some thoughts about one versus two years. 22 MS. HARGIS: Yes, I recall that. This is the 23 software company that we deal with that -- that keeps all of 24 the percentages, and we're actually using their server, not 25 ours. And they keep that data upgraded all the time, so we 9-8-08 165 1 make sure that we don't overpay or underpay any of these 2 amounts that we have. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question. 4 Does this affect in any way where our -- where our indigent 5 health care employee is, whether there in Peterson Hospital 6 or Kerr County Courthouse? 7 MS. HARGIS: No, this software is used by my 8 office. This is -- this is on the county side. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve it. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 12 approval of the agenda item. Question or discussion? All in 13 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 14 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 16 (No response.) 17 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's now go 18 to Item 28; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action 19 regarding the Indigent Health Care Service Agreement with Sid 20 Peterson Hospital and Kerr County. That would now be 21 Peterson Regional Health Care Center, right? 22 MS. HARGIS: Right. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 24 MS. HARGIS: We currently have an agreement in 25 place that was signed in 2001. The agreement calls for the 9-8-08 166 1 hospital to provide an employee in their facility, and that 2 the County would then pay 50 percent of the cost of that 3 employee, which includes benefits, Social Security, and so 4 forth. I've only been -- I've been here a little over a 5 year, and in that time frame they have had three employees in 6 that position. This position is very valuable to us as a 7 county, because this is the person who makes the people 8 eligible and who makes sure that we pay -- or don't pay for 9 cases that we -- that we may or may not be liable for. They 10 currently do not have anyone in this position at all; have 11 not now for a week. They do not have anyone to train this 12 position. They have actually offered to pay one of our 13 employees after hours to come over to train their employee, 14 because they don't have anyone. And -- and we can't allow 15 these medical bills to sit on that desk very long. As you 16 recall, the Judge several months ago mentioned that once a 17 person becomes eligible and they have a claim, we have 90 18 days to pay that claim based on the -- the rate we should pay 19 it at. If we go over the 90 days, we have to pay 100 percent 20 of whatever the cost is. So, my suggestion, after working 21 with the hospital all week long and -- and coming up with 22 several ideas, what we have -- what I'd like to suggest to 23 you to consider is that the County now hire this person, Sid 24 Peterson Hospital pay 50 percent of this person, and we house 25 them in our facility so that we have the control over who 9-8-08 167 1 they make eligible, so that we make sure that we don't pay 2 for bills that we don't need to pay for. And this person has 3 been housed -- in most counties, according to our employee 4 who used to work there, all of the people are housed in the 5 county offices; they're not housed in the hospital. So, 6 we've really lost control of this person, and the more they 7 turn over, the worse it gets. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The hospital is willing to go 9 along -- 10 MS. HARGIS: The hospital is willing to. I told 11 the -- I've been dealing with the assistant administrator; he 12 just took over this department a week ago, and he and I have 13 been discussing it every week, and they really don't have 14 anyone at all to train them. The person who trained the girl 15 that just left, she quit before this one did. So, we 16 currently have the only person in town who is trained on that 17 side, that -- to fill out the eligibility sheets and so 18 forth. And we really need to get this person in place, 19 whether it be here or there. They don't know exactly how 20 they're going to do it over there. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What would the salary be for 22 this person? Or what is -- what are they paying right now at 23 the hospital? 24 MS. HARGIS: I think the hospital is paying 25 somewhere between 10 and 12. And it was our suggestion that 9-8-08 168 1 we bring them in at a 14-1. We talked all week as to whether 2 or not -- which is 26,000 -- whether or not the person was 3 leaving because it wasn't enough pay for their job and so 4 forth and so on. At the time, it doesn't seem to be the main 5 reason. One of the main reasons is that, because they're 6 50 percent hospital and 50 percent county, they're kind of 7 pulled both directions, and so when they don't have anything 8 to do, then the County -- then the hospital has them working 9 on their stuff, and so our -- the indigent health care kind 10 of takes a -- you know, a -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Back seat. 12 MS. HARGIS: -- back seat, so it's not getting the 13 attention. And it's worth a million-plus to us. It's worth 14 at least a half a million to them; you would think they would 15 be more aggressive with it as well. But it's -- to them, 16 it's better to make everybody eligible. To us, it's not. 17 So, if we have the person who's properly filling out the 18 paperwork here, and they're going to pay -- they have agreed 19 to pay the 50 percent. We just basically switch the 20 contract; we now house the employee. They pay 50 percent of 21 whatever we offer the employee. We house them here. Then we 22 will get our bills in a more timely manner so that we don't 23 have to worry about the 90-day situation. In fact, in 24 July -- I don't know if you remember or not -- I brought over 25 a huge number of bills. It was close to 150,000. And the 9-8-08 169 1 stack she brought over was literally 12 inches high, and we 2 quickly went through to make sure there weren't any old bills 3 in there, and there were some, and we had to check on them to 4 make sure that they didn't go past the 90 days. I'll give 5 you a for-instance. If you got a hospital bill that's 6 50,000, we might pay 10. If the 90 days goes by, we pay 50. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I forgot what I was 8 going to ask. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe I'll remember. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jog your memory there. Or 12 actually, I'm going to make a statement or two. But we act 13 like -- we act like this is something new over there, going 14 through employees every other week over there. It's always 15 been that way, except for the lady sitting here. 16 MS. HARGIS: Yes. That's a very valuable lady 17 right there. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very valuable. But it's 19 always been that way. We would meet one week, and next week 20 we'd have a whole dadgum new employee over there, and all of 21 a sudden, we're in training mode again. It's been that way 22 since day one. The program itself is one of those things 23 that -- that I think is the right thing to do. Indigent 24 health care, those people that are truly indigent, that are 25 in need, that's our -- that's our business, is to help take 9-8-08 170 1 care of our neighbors, and that's what's neighbors do. 2 Besides that, it's State-mandated. (Laughter.) 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In which case, State pays. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That helps it along real 5 rapid. But I want the thing brought over here, and so that 6 we can control it for the first time. But one thing I want 7 to remind y'all, that if our -- and I'm pretty dang close to 8 being an indigent, okay? So I want my -- I want my COLA, 9 Bruce. If I were an indigent and I needed to meet with 10 someone and do the paperwork, I don't think I'd want to do it 11 out in front of everybody. I want some privacy, 'cause I'm a 12 little bit embarrassed by this kind of stuff. So, wherever 13 we house them -- house this employee, I would hope that it 14 would be in a private location, not out in the middle of the 15 hallway out here. I guess that's about all I have to say. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let me comment on 17 what he's saying before you answer, Jeannie. This whole 18 contract -- existing contract will have to be reworked to 19 accomplish what you want to set out. I don't have any 20 objection to that. But I notice in this contract, in 21 addition to -- it talks about this coordinator being a 22 part-time hospital employee. Hospital employee. And then it 23 talks about retain -- the hospital will retain administrative 24 supervision of the coordinator. So -- and then it talks 25 about keeping all the records, supporting documents, and 9-8-08 171 1 blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So, what you're 2 really doing is setting up a sort of department here. And 3 the Commissioner's right; we need to make certain that there 4 is privacy involved in this and that those records are 5 protected, because there's federal law that deals with that 6 as well. 7 MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir. We -- we do keep the ones 8 that we have in our location under lock and key. Those are 9 locked every night, and they're only opened when someone is 10 working on them. Now, I really -- you know, Beth has been 11 instrumental in helping me to work through this situation. I 12 mean, I actually worked on this probably for five days, 13 talking back and forth to the hospital, because, really, they 14 didn't have a handle on the importance of it. I think they 15 do now. But I think that we need to bring it over here to 16 keep control over it. I -- I've looked at several spots in 17 the building, and we -- I don't have any room in my office. 18 The problem -- the only problem I had with it being in -- 19 around in Mindy's office is, again, we get into internal 20 control here. We're taking cash, and so we don't really -- 21 we're really limited as far as space is concerned. I don't 22 know exactly. I mean, I didn't want to choose a place, other 23 than Beth had told me in the other counties, they usually 24 work under the collector, in the Collection department. 25 That's a small office, and now they have Adult Probation 9-8-08 172 1 coming and going out of there twice a week, once on Tuesday 2 and once on Friday. So, there is a little spot, but it's not 3 very private, in the County Clerk's office at the end there 4 where there's a couch. We would have to put the file 5 cabinets in somewhere else. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're talking about where 7 this is going to go, and we need to get rid of all this 8 rhetoric and decide first who's going to be in charge of it, 9 and then figure out what we're going to do. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want it over here. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I want -- it's fine to be 12 over here, but I think it ought to be in the Treasurer's 13 office. The Treasurer ought to be responsible for it. I 14 think we ought to give her a part-time employee or another 15 full employee with what she already has, with the lady that 16 already has the experience. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm almost there, except for 18 the cash issue that she's talking about. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What issue? 20 MS. HARGIS: The cash issue. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Internal control. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The Treasurer doesn't have 23 internal control? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, no, no. It would be -- 25 we would be breaching that by adding this on. I'm -- I'm 9-8-08 173 1 getting on the same page too, but we need to protect that 2 internal control with handling of cash. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And this has the 5 possibility of breaching that. If we can deal with that, I'm 6 -- I'm right there. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me -- I need to back up 8 just a hair. The person that does this, don't they also -- 9 they work with the family or the people to find out if they 10 qualify? 11 MS. HARGIS: Yes. They have to interview all these 12 families. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't know that the 14 Treasurer's office is where I want that person. 15 MS. HARGIS: It has to be handicapped-accessible. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. The Treasurer's 17 office -- I mean, it's just -- 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's not big enough. I'm 19 just saying I think it ought to be under her, under her 20 bailiwick. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, yeah. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we have any more space 23 down there that the Historical Commission's currently taking 24 up? 25 MS. HARGIS: Well, we have some more space, but, 9-8-08 174 1 again -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not 3 handicapped-accessible. 4 MS. HARGIS: Not handicapped-accessible, because 5 you have -- you can go to the elevator, but you still have to 6 go up stairs to Mindy. And I actually helped a handicapped 7 lady one day, and I didn't think she was going to get -- she 8 didn't realize there was those extra set of stairs, and we 9 had a terrible time getting her down that little small flight 10 of stairs. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry, Rex, you got to move 12 upstairs. 13 MR. EMERSON: Corner office. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much space do you need? 15 One little office? 16 MS. HARGIS: They need a small office. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about Constable, Precinct 18 3? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do have a lot of space 20 right downstairs in the basement right off the elevator. If 21 you wanted to craft an office for this purpose, we could do 22 it right there. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think issue number one is, 24 we need to take advantage of this opportunity and get control 25 of that position and that program here, because, by its very 9-8-08 175 1 nature, it's a conflicted program. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: We need to be in charge of it. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll find a home for it. We'll 7 find a home for it. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're getting the cart 9 ahead of the horse. 10 MS. HARGIS: Yes. We need to deal with the 11 hospital first, and -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's -- how is this 13 agenda item styled? 14 MS. HARGIS: Regarding the agreement. The 15 agreement is now that Sid Peterson have the employee. So -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We really need to restyle 17 this within the framework of what we're talking about so the 18 County Attorney doesn't go ballistic over here. We really 19 need to renegotiate the contract, with a view toward that 20 employee becoming a Kerr County employee and doing that here. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And have the County Attorney 22 write a new agreement. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And instruct the County 24 Attorney to write a new agreement. That's a motion. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 9-8-08 176 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion and second on the floor. 2 Question or discussion on that motion? Essentially, we're 3 going to put a new agreement by which we put ourselves in the 4 position the hospital is presently in, and we'll take control 5 over it, and they will pay to reimburse us for 50 percent of 6 the cost. 7 MS. HARGIS: Okay. The only thing I would ask the 8 Court is if we can get the agreement on the table and get it 9 negotiated by next time. Because, again, we have no one 10 doing this right now, and they have someone who's -- who's 11 basically just shuffling paper, but they're not really 12 interviewing or doing anything right now. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? 14 MR. EMERSON: Can I ask who we're dealing with at 15 the hospital that I can communicate with? 16 MS. HARGIS: Joe -- 17 MR. EMERSON: Joe Piszczor? 18 MS. HARGIS: He's the head of that department now. 19 I have his name -- 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, in the meantime, Beth 21 needs to be doing this somehow or another. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Somehow or other. And figure 24 out -- 25 MS. HARGIS: Beth is helping the hospital -- 9-8-08 177 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 2 MS. HARGIS: -- as much as she can. She also has 3 her job here, so she's going over -- you know, I don't want 4 to get into the Treasurer's -- 5 MS. TAYLOR: There are no applications right now. 6 I mean, I've gone through -- and we've gone through them, and 7 we're getting them all processed, so hopefully... Right now, 8 there's nothing. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: You're keeping your thumb in the 10 dike. 11 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's what you need to be 13 doing. 14 MS. HARGIS: The main thing is, we just don't want 15 to be backlogged. And so I guess, perhaps, maybe there could 16 be a plan by the next court session as to where we might 17 house this person. And could we start, maybe, interviewing 18 for this person in advance of the agreement, or not? 19 MR. EMERSON: They've got to create the position 20 and the funding. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can't do that under this 22 court -- agenda item, I don't think. 23 MS. HARGIS: Okay. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we could. Under the 25 way it's -- the motion was framed, we could. 9-8-08 178 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Frame your motion. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Contract to include that Kerr County 3 hire the employee to be in charge of the program, and be 4 administered on a county basis. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: That calls for an employee. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And authorize the Treasurer 9 to -- we don't know the levels. I mean -- 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Salary would be 26? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're getting -- it's a pretty 12 far stretch to get to step and grade based on the agenda 13 item. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we deal with the 15 contract and taking over the employee, and then sort out all 16 the other issues and come back. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: On the 22nd. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're moving in the right 19 direction. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion and a 21 second. Further -- further discussion on the motion to redo 22 the contract, the interlocal agreement with -- or the 23 contract with Peterson? All in favor of the motion, signify 24 by raising your right hand. 25 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 9-8-08 179 1 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 2 (No response.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. 4 MS. HARGIS: Thank you. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I guess we want to fold up 6 our others before we go back to the closed session. Would 7 that be the Court's pleasure? Let's go to Section 4 of the 8 agenda, payment of the bills. Here's the bills. 9 MS. HARGIS: Commissioner, we were able to 10 customize the -- or add the account numbers to the report. 11 We have not got the budget line item; we're waiting on Incode 12 to customize the report to add that additional column for 13 you, but you do have the account numbers for each one of 14 them. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, ma'am, and it looks 16 very good. Thank you so much. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No -- yeah, I move that we 19 pay the bills. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I thought that's what you were 21 thinking. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly what I meant. 23 I got haywire. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the 9-8-08 180 1 bills. 2 (Discussion off the record.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Question or discussion on the 4 motion? 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do have a question, Judge. 6 On Page 1, the Commissioners Court, what in the world are we 7 doing paying lawyers for anything? 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Rex can explain that one. 9 That's for the thing on the deed, to Richards. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Professional services, 11 draft, deed correction? 12 MR. EMERSON: If you go back 15 or 20 years, when 13 we had a whole series of roads that apparently the cattle 14 guards moved while they were trying to install them. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 16 MR. EMERSON: We missed our right-of-way on a 17 couple of them. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 19 MR. EMERSON: This is one of those. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A couple? 21 MR. EMERSON: We -- we addressed this issue back in 22 January originally -- 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Wood Trails. 24 MR. EMERSON: -- and formulated the documents, put 25 them together, and then some question came up as to the 9-8-08 181 1 accuracy of the surveys, so Lee went out and resurveyed them 2 again. We had to move everything over. And because of the 3 liability and the fact that we wanted to clean this up -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: See there, Buster? They didn't want 5 to acknowledge that those cattle guards moved. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. (Laughter.) 7 JUDGE TINLEY: They finally had to do it, didn't 8 they? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whole dern road's moved now. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, the roads didn't, but the 12 fence lines did. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fence lines. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Property lines. 15 MR. EMERSON: Anyway, to make a long story short, I 16 paid the -- I paid an attorney to work with Lee Voelkel to 17 get the deeds 100 percent correct. And it's been an ongoing 18 cluster for about two months. Hopefully we're cleaned up 19 now. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably was the attorney that had 22 control of the clients? 23 MR. EMERSON: Hopefully. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Did they get them signed? 25 MR. EMERSON: Well, we're working on it. 9-8-08 182 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. Any other questions or 2 comments? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Page 17. Is Peter Lewis 5 going to bring us something we can hang our hat on, after we 6 paid him $4,500? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Peter was going to come this 8 time, but because of the length of the agenda, the time 9 needed to do the workshop, I deferred it till the next 10 meeting. He wants about -- it's going to take at least an 11 hour of focus. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would hope so. I'm -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: At those rates? 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: At those rates, they need to 15 take at least an hour. Long as that's included in his price. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? 17 All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right 18 hand. 19 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 20 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 21 (No response.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget 23 amendments. Oh, do we have some fun here. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have them, don't we? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's that time of year. 9-8-08 183 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question. 2 MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number 2, Road and Bridge. 4 Now -- 5 MS. HARGIS: He was short some crews, and that's 6 the reason why it -- so he had some money in his crew 7 salaries, and he needed some money in his contract fees for 8 engineering. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Makes sense to me. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I thought it was the 12 other way around when I first looked at it. I was wondering 13 why he was adding 50 grand to his crew salaries. 14 MS. HARGIS: Most everybody is staying within their 15 own department. The only place we're having problems is 16 Court-appointed attorneys, which I don't think any of you 17 were -- that and the housing, the alternative housing. Those 18 were the two areas that we had to get out of -- out of -- and 19 Rusty was kind enough to give up some money. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Some jailer salaries? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Looks like I bailed out 22 Commissioners Court here. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Somebody have some cost 24 overruns? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, y'all had some professional 9-8-08 184 1 services shortage, and I was kind enough to take care of that 2 for you. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, that's good, Judge. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Does that include some kind 5 of a psychiatric evaluation or something like that? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: For me? 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: For us, being as you bailed 8 us out. You get yours free, don't you? Over at the state -- 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Well -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, he can go on the 11 couch any time. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably on a weekly basis, they're 13 looking at me. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we approve -- 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the budget amendments as 17 presented. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion and -- 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to approve 21 the budget amendments as presented in the summary sheet, the 22 total of -- looks like 28. Question or discussion? All in 23 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 24 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 9-8-08 185 1 (No response.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Do we have any 3 late bills? 4 MS. HARGIS: No, sir. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: We haven't had any late bills in a 6 long time; you guys are staying on top of it. 7 MS. HYDE: She stays on top of us. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Huh? 9 MS. HYDE: She stays on top of us to make sure we 10 get the bills in. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good thing. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Seems to be working, doesn't it? 13 I've been presented with monthly reports from County 14 Attorney, denominated Annual Report of Income Received; 15 Constable, Precinct 1; Constable, Precinct 4; County Clerk, 16 both general and trust fund; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 17 3; Environmental Health; and Justice of the Peace, Precinct 18 1. Do I hear a motion that these reports be approved as 19 presented? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded, approval 24 of the reports as presented. Question or discussion on the 25 motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your 9-8-08 186 1 right hand. 2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 4 (No response.) 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Reports from 6 Commissioners. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Buster, you got anything? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here's a couple things -- 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do, but I can't tell 11 y'all. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Couple things that I'll 13 give you that came out of the AACOG meeting. What I'm 14 handing out is a report that's done by the Alamo 15 Worksource -- Workforce Solutions, in color, and it depicts 16 the Kerr County job report and the unemployment rate. And 17 you'll notice that for the month of July, we went up from 3.8 18 to 4.1 percent. On the back -- or the second page, there's a 19 pie chart that shows where the county employment by industry 20 is, how it's broken down. Second thing I want to bring to 21 your attention is that there was a memorandum given to AACOG 22 Board of Directors, as well as the Rural Judges Committee, 23 that says Texas Department of Transportation has recommended 24 all Councils of Government across the state of Texas assume 25 the responsibility for backing rural planning organizations, 9-8-08 187 1 and they're suggesting that AACOG take over the 2 responsibility for rural planning transportation issues. 3 What does that mean to us? It means that probably we would 4 have no more of those area engineer type meetings that we've 5 had in the past where we indicate to him what we'd like to 6 see prioritized for the future, but this would be handled 7 through all the rural counties through AACOG, and it's called 8 rural planning. And so there was a resolution top to bottom, 9 and the board and the rural judges would be the policy-making 10 board for this particular situation, and the resolution is 11 that the AACOG Board of Directors establishes the area judges 12 committee as the policy board for rural planning organization 13 responsible for conducting regional transportation planning 14 for the 11-county rural region surrounding Bexar County, 15 blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and so forth. And that was 16 adopted, so I think -- I don't see anything inherently bad 17 about it. It just means we won't be meeting with the area 18 engineer as we have in the past. It'll all be handled 19 conjunctively. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Getting into a bigger 21 bureaucracy. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably, yeah. And, 23 F.Y.I., in terms of Alamo Regional Transit, there's a -- a 24 consultant study about to be released determining how we can 25 improve regional transportation in Kerr County. Just for 9-8-08 188 1 your information, through the month of July, the total number 2 of trips that were provided by Alamo Regional Transit was 3 9,063 trips, totaling 125,000 miles of transportation 4 provided to those who need it in Kerr County. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Done? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's it. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Main thing, as I mentioned, 8 Peter Lewis will be on our next agenda. Because of the 9 length of this one, I pushed it off for two weeks. It will 10 take an hour, hour and a half to do it in a workshop format, 11 set at 1:30, if possible. And, you know, we'll have some -- 12 basically, three, four, five options that we can start 13 looking at for refiguring buildings and doing things, and 14 pick and choose what we like, don't like, and the intent 15 being there will be this meeting and then the final meeting, 16 rather than have a whole bunch of workshops along the way. 17 Trying to move it along pretty quick. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have one other 19 quickie, Judge. Just for the benefit of the Court, T.Y.C. is 20 due to have a -- its one-day inspection of our Juvenile 21 Detention Facility, I believe, on the 26th. Is that correct, 22 Jody? 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all I have. Bruce? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Peter Lewis is going to be 9-8-08 189 1 here on the 22nd? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Boy, that's going to be a 4 full day for everybody. We start at 7:00 that morning, you 5 know. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can set up a separate day 7 for it if we need to. I just -- you know, if the agenda 8 starts getting like today's, I'd recommend we do a special 9 day, because it's too important for us to be rushed on it. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We got to have enough time -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- to sit and look at it. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: We've got a whole slew of year-end 15 stuff; tax rate, budget, everything is going to get nailed 16 down two weeks from today. We might be better served by 17 maybe doing it on Tuesday afternoon or -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll check with Peter and get 19 with Jody. Are we all available Tuesday, the 23rd? 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sure, any time. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Afternoon, after about mid-morning. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tuesday afternoon, okay. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, afternoon I'm okay. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Let's see if we can 25 work that out, do a workshop at 1:30. 9-8-08 190 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A workshop at 1:30. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Can we schedule a separate 4 evening budget, elected official, and tax rate hearing on the 5 22nd for the evening time, say at 6:00 or 6:30? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: We're required -- we've given our 8 notices under the statute. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm just asking if it's 10 possible to have a second -- a second one of those meetings 11 on the same day. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: For the tax rate? 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The tax rate, budget, and 14 elected official salary increases. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: How many times do you want a swing 16 at this? 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm not going to swing. It's 18 a public hearing, right? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a chance for the 21 public to swing. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with Bruce. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I've had people ask me about 24 it. Some of them are working. They said, "We'd like to come 25 and voice our opinion, and we can't come during working 9-8-08 191 1 hours," which is whenever our regular budget hearing or those 2 hearings are. They're at 9:30, 9:45 or whatever they are. 3 They're five, ten minutes apart on the 22nd. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we should do it -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Going to have to be in advance of 6 that. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, because on the 22nd, 8 we're going to have to take a vote. We're going to have to 9 vote in here to make all our deadlines, I think, so we need 10 to do it before the 22nd in the evening. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. It's already 12 published. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can still do another one. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We could do one ahead of 15 that, right? Because we're -- if the Court wanted to. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't need to call it a 17 public hearing. We can call it a public meeting. It 18 wouldn't be the official hearing, but we could do a meeting. 19 MS. HARGIS: Diane's not here, but there are 20 publication rules. And, like, from the -- from today, when 21 we had the first public hearing, it's not -- it's not sooner 22 than three days from today, or not -- not later than 10 -- I 23 mean 14. So, that's why we put it at the next meeting. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: We're going to comply with what we 25 published. We're going to have another public hearing on the 9-8-08 192 1 22nd. 2 MS. HARGIS: Okay. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Just -- you know, as we're required, 4 and after we've published notice. What Commissioner Oehler 5 is suggesting is that we have some sort of a public meeting 6 to receive input from the citizens with regard to -- 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Three issues. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: -- these various issues. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That has nothing to do 10 with -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Legal requirements. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- legal requirements. 13 MR. EMERSON: I hate to be a sourpuss, but what 14 agenda item are we on? 15 JUDGE TINLEY: We're not on an agenda item. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're -- this is Commissioner 17 reports. We're -- this is -- we just scheduled a workshop. 18 Can we not schedule a meeting for a -- 19 MR. EMERSON: Not during the report section. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When do we do that? 21 MR. EMERSON: Unless you can tie it to one of those 22 agenda items. Or you can just schedule it. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We'll do it with Jody after 24 the meeting. 25 MR. EMERSON: There you go. 9-8-08 193 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else? 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We didn't put a day with it. 4 We're just talking about having a meeting. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Lemos Street bridge, the award's 6 been made. All contract documents are in process of being 7 put into place. It could begin as early as the tail end of 8 this month. Probably will not really begin until the latter 9 part of October, depending on when the contractor can kind of 10 get his people into place. The bridge will not be 11 operational for that entire period. They're going to shut it 12 down completely. Late May maybe it'll be back up and running 13 again, so we're going to have some traffic problems. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, being as you mentioned 15 that, I've been on all this other stuff. I've kind of gotten 16 away from what I was wanting to talk about. Hope Crossing at 17 this side of Camp Waldemar is pretty well complete; has a few 18 little minor details left. Both Smith ones -- Smith 19 Crossings are under construction. Detours are in and 20 operational. Traffic lights are working. Had -- went to a 21 preconstruction meeting on Panther Creek Crossing, which is 22 this side of the River Inn. It was let. Going to start 23 construction in the next week or two on it. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge? 9-8-08 194 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I notice in this memorandum 3 from the City Manager to Mayor and Council that they have 4 scheduled for October 14th -- or they're thinking about it -- 5 an interlocal agreement with County Road and Bridge for 6 street maintenance, chip seal. Are you familiar with all 7 that? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir. When did that -- when did 9 that rear its ugly head -- rear its head? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in there. You'll see 11 it highlighted. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that hot off the press? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Their press. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think I'm included in their 15 distribution. Well -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we can make that 17 happen, Judge. Let me find it for you. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, I don't think that's 19 necessarily a bad thing. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don't either. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, it'd just be nice if they 22 let us know ahead of time. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Kind of nice if we knew 24 about it. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 9-8-08 195 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Are they working a deal with 2 our Road and Bridge Department without our -- without talking 3 to us about it? 4 JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the item under October 14th, 5 pending agenda items, is interlocal agreement with County 6 Road and Bridge for street maintenance, chip seal program. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe someone should inform 8 them they can't interlocal with County Road and Bridge. 9 Interlocal with County Commissioners Court. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe somebody needs to 11 inform them of the process. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I've encouraged our Road and 13 Bridge Administrator to -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be cooperative. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: -- be cooperative and confer with 16 the Public Works Director over at the City. I don't think I 17 told him to see if he can cut a deal and do a contract. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sign any agreements with him. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just thought I'd let you 20 know. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate that. Okay. Any 22 reports from elected officials? County Attorney? 23 MR. EMERSON: Very, very briefly. Just wanted to 24 let y'all know that we've -- you probably saw the expense on 25 there, but we've ordered Rosetta Stone for the office, in 9-8-08 196 1 Spanish. We're making an effort to become more efficient and 2 bilingual, and save the Clerk's office hopefully from having 3 to translate all day every Tuesday. That's the theory, 4 anyway. So, we're going to work on that. And the proposed 5 position that's in the budget for the new County Attorney 6 position, we posted it on the T.D.C.A.A. web site as an 7 anticipated position. We've received, I don't know, 25 or 30 8 resumes up to this point. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that all? 10 MR. EMERSON: There's been a lot of interest, so 11 it's good. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Really. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question. 14 Rosetta Stone is just absolutely out of this world, great 15 stuff. Have you -- have you got it plugged in and running -- 16 up and running and trying it or anything? Yes or no? 17 MR. EMERSON: That's -- short answer is no. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I'm looking for. 19 And why not? 20 MR. EMERSON: Because there's an administrative 21 block on all the computers on installing software. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry, what? 23 MR. EMERSON: There's an administrative block on 24 installing software on all the laptops and computers in my 25 office, and we have not been able to get I.T. down there to 9-8-08 197 1 either install the program or remove the block. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not just your office. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How long have you been 4 trying that? 5 MR. EMERSON: Two weeks. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two weeks. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Call every day at 8 o'clock 8 in the morning? 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you sure you don't want 10 to have your evaluation next week? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good point. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a shame. That's a 13 rotten shame. Truly is. 14 MR. EMERSON: Theoretically, I'll be able to do 15 more than order Mexican food if we ever get the program in. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Hope you'll be able to shop 17 for groceries, too. In San Antonio. 18 MR. EMERSON: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, our last two executive 20 session items, are they lengthy? Do you have any idea? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know. Not my items. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause there's a -- 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think they're going to be 24 that long, but let me -- any more from elected officials? 25 Department heads? 9-8-08 198 1 MS. HYDE: Health fair Thursday, 9/11. Starts at 2 6 a.m., so the S.O. can come, okay? Ends at 7:30, so the 3 S.O. can come all day long. 4 MS. PIEPER: Is it come and go? 5 MS. HYDE: Come and go. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Starts at 6:00 in the morning? 7 MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: For the benefit of the Sheriff's 9 Office. 10 MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: And runs until 7:30 in the evening 12 for the benefit of the Sheriff's Office. 13 MS. HYDE: Absolutely, sir. 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, wait a minute. 15 MS. HYDE: Yes, sir. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I'll expect to see the Sheriff there 18 at 6 a.m. and at 7:30 p.m. 19 MS. HYDE: I did not ask for security; I asked 20 somebody to open the doors. But I did ask for security to 21 shut the door. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Doing it on 9/11, that's the 23 wrong day. We have a lot of things going on that day. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: 24/7 operation, Sheriff. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I know. It's also a pain, but 9-8-08 199 1 that's all right. We're learning. We adjust to it. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: You had something? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, just the -- if the 4 executive sessions are not critical, I might excuse myself 5 and go to an Airport Board meeting. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Both of us. We both have 7 an Airport Board meeting. 8 MS. HARGIS: Won't take but a minute. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Won't take but a second? At this 10 time, we will go out of public or open session at -- at 2:48 11 to go into executive or closed session. 12 (The open session was closed at 2:48 p.m., and an executive session was held, the transcript 13 of which is contained in a separate document.) 14 - - - - - - - - - - 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Its 2:54; we're now back into open 16 or public session. Any member of the Court have anything to 17 offer in connection with the matters considered in executive 18 session? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under Item 29, I make a motion 20 that we set the Assistant Auditor's step and grade at 18-2, 21 effective September 1. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as 24 indicated. Question or discussion on the motion? All in 25 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 9-8-08 200 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 3 (No response.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Any other 5 motions to be offered in connection with matters in executive 6 session? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure how to do the next 8 one. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: County -- County pay the difference. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that the County 11 pay the difference between our standard amount and COBRA 12 amount for additional employee. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Employee spouse. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Employee spouse, as discussed 15 in -- well, that's it. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: As per the agenda item? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, do we have to -- the 18 employee name? Do we need to go into the name of the person 19 or anything of the employee? 20 MS. HYDE: That should be HIPAA-protected. 21 MR. EMERSON: Why don't you use the initials if 22 you're going to do that? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want to do it. I 24 mean -- 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about, "as detailed by 9-8-08 201 1 the Human Resources Department"? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. That's it. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I have a motion and a second. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The guy with the tie on. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Question or -- 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The other guy. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: -- discussion on the motion? All in 11 favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand. 12 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 14 (No response.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion also carries. Further 16 business to come before the Court? We'll be adjourned. 17 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 2:57 p.m.) 18 - - - - - - - - - - 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9-8-08 202 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 12th day of September, 8 2008. 9 10 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 11 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 12 Certified Shorthand Reporter 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9-8-08