1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 9 Special Session 10 Monday, August 19, 2013 11 11:00 a.m. 12 Commissioners' Courtroom 13 Kerr County Courthouse 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge 23 TOM MOSER, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 24 BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4 25 ABSENT: H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 2 1 I N D E X August 19, 2013 2 PAGE 3 1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set the Sheriffs’ salary at a level which is 4 at least $5,000 more than that of his Chief Deputy 3 5 1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 6 implement procedures to constitute Salary Grievance Committee under provisions of Sub- 7 chapter B of Chapter 152, Local Government Code 11 8 1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to provide for continuation of Crime Victims 9 Assistance program and obtaining of necessary funding for Crime Victims Assistance Office 12 10 1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on 11 approval of resolution by Commissioners Court authorizing County Judge to execute a Certificate 12 of Approval concerning issuance of revenue bonds designated as “City of Hondo, Texas Higher 13 Education Facilities Corporation Higher Education Revenue Bonds (Schreiner University Project), 14 Series 2013” by City of Hondo, Texas Higher Education Facilities Corporation in satisfaction 15 of requirements contained in Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended 18 16 2.1 Pay bills 20 17 --- Adjourned 22 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Monday, August 19, 2013, at 11:00 a.m., a special 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 8 Let me call to order this special meeting of the Kerr County 9 Commissioners Court posted and scheduled for this date and 10 time, Monday August 19, 2013, at 11 a.m. It is that time 11 now. The first item on our agenda today is to consider, 12 discuss, and take appropriate action to set the Sheriff's 13 salary at a level which is at least $5,000 more than that of 14 his chief deputy. As most of you are aware, I was -- I 15 received a notification of a salary grievance last Thursday 16 that was filed by the Sheriff. The -- the thrust of that 17 seemed to be exactly the issue as outlined on the agenda 18 item, so essentially where we are is, I think if we approve 19 the agenda item, that renders moot -- or should or could 20 render moot Item Number 2 dealing with the Salary Grievance 21 Committee, although we are prepared to go that route also, if 22 that's the Court's pleasure. So, I'll -- I'll leave it to 23 you gentlemen to see which way you want to go. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion to approve 25 the agenda item, as I did last week. 8-19-13 4 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And I'll second it. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 3 approval of the agenda item. Do we have any question or 4 discussion on the motion? 5 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I have some discussion. 6 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You want to go first? 7 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah, if I may. The 8 discussion is, I'm a strong supporter of Rusty. I think he 9 does a great job. I think his organization does a great job 10 for the entire county. But I -- I think -- and I said it 11 last time to the Court. When I look at this, I see a creep 12 between the Sheriff and the chief deputy, and that's the 13 collateral damage of having step increases, I think is the 14 reason that propagates to that. And it will -- what we're 15 doing here is, for one department to do this is -- is 16 essentially a policy change, because doing it for one 17 department -- and I think there are probably other 18 departments that this could occur in in the future, if it 19 doesn't exist right now. And I don't think it is uncommon 20 for a supervisor or head of a department or head of an 21 organization to make less than people within his 22 organization. That's very common in the private sector, and 23 it's common in government organizations, both at the state 24 and federal level, and probably at the county. 25 And there are other department heads, you know, 8-19-13 5 1 that -- that report to this Court, and essentially we 2 consider ourselves supervisor over those department heads, 3 which is not exactly the same. They make more than 4 Commissioners Court. And I'm not proposing -- and I think 5 that's appropriate, too, that they make more than we do. So, 6 I don't see why we're -- why we're treating this department 7 to be different than other departments. I think we can take 8 a single case of -- of this and correct it in other ways 9 other than making a policy change like that. That's all I 10 have to say. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I would agree that 12 this agenda item is a bandaid. No question about it. 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I think it prompts a discussion and 15 consideration of a -- of a broader policy, and I mentioned 16 that when the matter was before us on a general policy matter 17 in an earlier session, that this creep -- 18 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Yeah. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: -- that is occasioned by the 20 longevity increases that employees have, but which are not 21 applicable to elected officials, brings about the problem. 22 And, of course, it prompts the discussion of -- of longevity 23 for elected officials also, which, of course, that's a 24 broader policy matter. But no question but what this is a -- 25 this is a bandaid. It's a fix for right now, so that we can 8-19-13 6 1 move on, and maybe at a future date, have a broader policy 2 discussion, and maybe really fix the entire problem 3 system-wide. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment. And I think 6 the Sheriff's a little bit different. I mean, what you 7 mentioned takes place in the private sector; I totally agree 8 with that. But usually it's because that individual is being 9 paid more because the market requires more for that 10 particular service. 11 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Mm-hmm. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Sheriff's service -- I 13 mean, he does basically, I mean, what the chief deputy does 14 and more; he's responsible for it. And I think that the -- 15 for whatever reason, whether you agree or disagree, the 16 Sheriff is not paid comparable to the only thing that we can 17 really compare to locally, which is the City of Kerrville 18 Police Chief, and there's a discrepancy there, so I think 19 there's an issue there. The other side comes with any 20 elected official; it's very difficult in the marketplace, and 21 what they're worth and not worth is a can of worms that we 22 have to address periodically, and do. But to me, I think 23 this is -- it's justifiable. I don't think it takes place in 24 other departments, but I think you look at them case-by-case. 25 I mean, I think that we're very different. I don't think we 8-19-13 7 1 can compare to, like, the Sheriff or some of the other 2 departments or elected officials in our salaries, the people 3 that report to us. So -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- let me see if I can get 5 some clarification on the intent of the motion. The agenda 6 item says, "which is at least $5,000 more." Is it the intent 7 of your motion that -- that it actually be $5,000 for this 8 coming fiscal year? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, that's my second as 12 well. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And I'll say, too, that in 15 order to fund this, the funding for it, and not jack with 16 what's already been put on file by -- by you as the proposed 17 budget for '13-'14, is that so we don't get anything out of 18 whack, we -- we forego any increases that were proposed for 19 this Court, and that way we won't throw anything out of 20 whack. We don't have to have that. I don't; it's not 21 necessary. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The funding is $2,600. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's okay. There's some 24 other things that this is going to lay into as well. And are 25 you going to forego the grievance committee if we do this? 8-19-13 8 1 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, if it's my turn to 2 speak, I'll be more than happy to. I think all of you know I 3 brought this up not because of my individual salary, but 4 because of the way the system has been worked all this time. 5 I think the County Clerk had a good point last week, week 6 before, when we talked about it with longevity and elected 7 officials, and I think it brings up the bigger issue. You 8 know, and this isn't something new. The first time this was 9 brought to the Court and discussed was the '03-'04 budget, 10 and it's been brought every year since then, so I waited 10 11 years before I decided it was time to file a grievance, and I 12 think it -- it was time. And if it does nothing more than 13 get us all discussing how we're going to address this issue 14 long-term, then I think it's -- it's well worth my filing a 15 grievance. 16 What the -- and I've never been one to not make a 17 suggestion about something that ought to be looked at. And 18 I'm not saying this budget year; I'm saying next one or 19 whatever. But if y'all remember, when the longevity went 20 into effect, a lot of those people that were already here 21 prior, okay, for a number of years were given two steps, and 22 then everybody else that came in were given their appropriate 23 amount. And what I would recommend to this Court, like a lot 24 of agencies do, is set the base salary of the elected 25 official 3 to 5 percent above whatever their subordinate is, 8-19-13 9 1 which is not very much money, but then if they've already 2 been here a full term in their office, give them the two 3 steps and the longevity. If they haven't been, give them one 4 step, and then enact the same longevity policy as you have 5 for the rest of the county employees, and it will solve this 6 problem forever. A lot of them may not even get that 3 to 5 7 percent, because they're above it now. There's very few that 8 are not above that, me being one of them, okay. 9 But then you're -- you're enacting -- like, in 10 Jannett's case, she's been here a while. She'll get two 11 steps; then she'll fall under the longevity scale. I think 12 that would solve your problem. And the reason I say two 13 steps, there's -- with law enforcement, you get the 14 educational too, so it is a possibility that you have a 15 subordinate or an employee that at some point in time could 16 receive two steps in one year, but this would put the 17 separation between them as a policy forever. Now, the issue 18 about the grievance, the grievance committee, by the way the 19 law is written, could only hear my salary issue. They cannot 20 address policy, and they cannot recommend policy. That's 21 what should be done and has to be done by this Court, and I 22 think all of us as elected officials. 23 So, would this solve the issue, okay, for this 24 year? Yes. Would I drop the grievance for this year? Yes, 25 because you're taking care of the only thing the grievance 8-19-13 10 1 committee can really do, too. But my long-term deal is, this 2 needs to be a policy issue or a policy change with all of 3 this working together. It needs to be done to create that -- 4 that difference. I disagree with what Commissioner Moser was 5 saying about, you know, who should make more, or subordinates 6 make more. I just don't believe that's -- that's appropriate 7 or accurate. And I don't want to use my job duties as 8 reference to it. I could, and I think they're a whole lot 9 different than most people's, especially with the liability 10 and everything else in it. But what I'm trying to get across 11 here is just for us to all work together and create a policy, 12 whether it be before this year's budget is adopted or whether 13 it be in next year's, but something needs to happen, or else 14 what the Judge said -- this is a bandaid; he's exactly right. 15 We'll be right back here next year. Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Well, I just -- I was 17 addressing the policy thing, okay. And I think the Judge is 18 right; this is not addressing the policy, this is addressing 19 the specific issue. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. Hopefully, this will 21 get the policy started. 22 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So, my -- my discussion was 23 really relative to changing a policy for a specific thing. I 24 would not be for that. 25 THE CLERK: Commissioner, is this court order for 8-19-13 11 1 this fiscal year only? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Hargis, if I recall, earlier 4 this morning, when I was going over the management letter 5 draft that you furnished, you indicated that revenues under 6 the current budget were in excess of budgeted expenses by 7 approximately 34,000? Is that -- 8 MS. HARGIS: 20,000. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Say again? 10 MS. HARGIS: 20,000. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: 20,000, okay. So, there's adequate 12 funding to absorb this 2,600, whatever it is, dollar excess, 13 to take care of that? 14 MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir, there is. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or 16 discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, 17 signify by raising your right hand. 18 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 19 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 20 (No response.) 21 JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go to 22 Item 2; to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to 23 implement procedures to constitute Salary Grievance Committee 24 under provision of Subchapter B of Chapter 152 of the Local 25 Government Code. Sheriff, it's my understanding, based upon 8-19-13 12 1 your statement to the Court a little bit ago, that you're 2 withdrawing your salary grievance that was delivered to 3 myself as chairman of that committee last Thursday, correct? 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, reluctantly, I do 5 believe that this Court has taken care of any issue the 6 Salary Grievance Committee can actually respond to. I do 7 hope that we can all agree -- gentlemen's agreement, 8 whatever -- that we will work on a policy to fix this issue 9 so that we don't have this same thing come back year after 10 year. And that's -- with that, yes, I would withdraw it. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Thank you, sir. Let's 12 go to Item 3 on the agenda; to consider, discuss, and take 13 appropriate action to provide for continuation of Crime 14 Victims Assistance program and obtaining of necessary funding 15 for Crime Victims Assistance office. As most of you are 16 aware, our Crime Victims Assistance office has been 17 grant-funded for, I believe, eight years now. And, of 18 course, there was application made for continuation of grant 19 funding. A portion of it was funded by the county, and it 20 was an in-kind mostly. But I believe the first 13 slots on 21 the -- on the grant request, after they'd been graded, were 22 funded, and if I'm not -- if I'm correct in my thinking, the 23 Crime Victims Assistance officer, the grant application was 24 sitting at number 14. And what happened was, in prior years, 25 approximately $2,800,000 have been provided in funding, and 8-19-13 13 1 this year there was a decrease of about $700,000, so it 2 didn't get funded. You've got material in front of you which 3 indicates that it's a prosecutor's obligation under the law 4 to have a Crime Victims Assistance officer. I -- I think 5 we're a little different than most counties in the state, 6 whereby they will have that office under the prosecutor. I 7 think it would be terribly inefficient if we were to say the 8 198th D.A., one new slot for them; 216th D.A., one new slot 9 for them. County Attorney, one new slot for each of them to 10 have their Crime Victims Assistance officer. 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And each agency. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: And in the past -- I'm sorry? 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And each law enforcement 14 agency is also required. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: So, we -- you've got a potential for 16 a whole lot of new bodies being created. We've created a 17 model by which we have -- have it under the county 18 government, and it serves all of -- all of those 19 prosecutorial and law enforcement agencies. I'm not sure 20 where we are on the funding now. I know that once we 21 received notice, Ms. Hargis has been making the rounds of 22 those that benefit from this Crime Victims Assistance office 23 that we have here. And I'm going to ask her to -- do you 24 have any firm commitments, or are you still in the 25 negotiation stage with those offices? 8-19-13 14 1 MS. HARGIS: I would say I'm still in negotiation 2 with all of them. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: But in the course of those 4 negotiations, you've -- you've got people looking at their 5 hole card, so to speak, to see how they might be of help? 6 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's where we are, 8 gentlemen, and I think it's -- I wanted to bring this matter 9 to you as soon as possible, because the grant funding for 10 that position does not run until September 30th. It runs 11 until October 31; it's on the state -- it's on the state 12 timetable and fiscal year. So, we got to figure out what 13 we're going to do. But the big challenge is going to be 14 trying to figure out a combined funding mechanism by 15 utilizing funds from these prosecutors' offices and other law 16 enforcement -- 17 COMMISSIONER MOSER: How much money are we talking 18 about here? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: We're talking about approximately 20 $75,000. 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 22 MS. HARGIS: 76. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: $76,000. 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Okay. 25 MS. LAVENDER: It's actually August 31st, not 8-19-13 15 1 October. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm? Did I say October 31st? 3 MS. LAVENDER: Yeah. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: I was really off-base, wasn't I? 5 MS. LAVENDER: End of next week. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, okay. But we have time to 7 address the issue formally and take final action next Monday 8 at our meeting. Hopefully, by then we'll have something more 9 formal -- I mean more solid on contributions for the funding. 10 But the law says thou shalt have such an office. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Does that office need to be 12 full-time, or be can it be part-time? 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think because of -- because 14 of all the agencies that it serves, it necessarily would be 15 full-time. The -- I had a discussion with the 216th D.A. 16 about the statutory language of it being under the D.A.'s 17 office, and he said -- he said, "I don't agree with that." I 18 think we've got the best model in the state, because if -- if 19 the position is placed under the District Attorney's office, 20 there arise fairly frequently conflicts between the Victims 21 Assistance office and the prosecutor's office, and if it's 22 under the prosecutor's office, you've got a real problem 23 there. So, -- 24 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Or the victim does. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: -- I would agree that we have the 8-19-13 16 1 best model in the state. Plus I think it's the most 2 efficient, because you got one person that's -- that's 3 serving all those prosecutorial and law enforcement agencies. 4 COMMISSIONER MOSER: So, it's one person serving 5 five different organizations, essentially. Law enforcement 6 plus -- is it four or five? 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What you have is both -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: You also got Gillespie County, which 9 is part of the 216th. 10 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: You've got Bandera County, which is 12 part of the 198th. Now, the -- the extent of the services 13 there are not a great amount, but -- but they're being 14 furnished also to those two counties, so Ms. Hargis has also 15 reached out to those two counties for consideration for 16 funding. So -- 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'd like to defer on it until 18 the next meeting and then try to find enough funding to fund 19 as much of it as possible. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 21 COMMISSIONER MOSER: There you go. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if -- I mean, does it 23 only cover the 216th? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: No. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It covers 198th too. 8-19-13 17 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, and County Attorney. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm saying -- but all the other 3 counties, you know, need to help fund it. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't disagree. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They need to do their 7 proportionate share, for sure. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Right. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: And that's -- 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You also have -- he may not 11 like me saying it -- Kerrville Police Department. It covers 12 their person, too. They're required, same way I am. We're 13 all required. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then they should fund it 15 partly. It's one thing when it's a grant. It's a different 16 thing when it's being paid for out of tax dollars. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I agree with you. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: I wanted you gentlemen to be aware 21 of the problem and what we're trying to do about it. 22 Hopefully, we'll have us a palatable answer come the 26th. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sounds like we need some kind 24 of an answer. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Okay, let's go to Item 4, 8-19-13 18 1 then, if there's nothing further on 3; to consider, discuss, 2 and take appropriate action on approval of resolution by the 3 Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, authorizing County 4 Judge to execute a Certificate of Approval concerning the 5 issuance of revenue bonds designated as, quote, City of 6 Hondo, Texas Higher Education Facilities Corporation Higher 7 Education Revenue Bonds for Schreiner University Project 8 Series 2013, unquote, by the City of Hondo Texas Higher 9 Education Facilities Corporation in satisfaction of the 10 requirements contained in Section 147(f) of the Internal 11 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 12 Schreiner University has a project going, and some 13 of you may recall that earlier we took similar action on -- 14 on a project that they had in order that the -- the 15 indebtedness instruments, the bonds that they issue, would be 16 classified the same as tax-free municipal bonds, and it made 17 it more attractive for investors, brought the cost down to 18 Schreiner University, and this is essentially one of those 19 instances. We have no liability by approving it, but it is a 20 -- a condition precedent to them receiving that same tax 21 treatment. A lawyer from Fulbright-Jaworski in San Antonio 22 contacted me about this issue and asked me to present it on 23 our agenda. Obviously, Schreiner University is a -- is a 24 major partner in our community. It's a four-year university, 25 educational institution, and I think anything we can do to 8-19-13 19 1 facilitate them advancing their interests, particularly since 2 it's with no liability attached to us, is something we ought 3 to do. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem with 5 doing it, but should we have our attorney look at it rather 6 than Schreiner's? I mean, the fact that Fulbright-Jaworski 7 says we should do it doesn't give me a lot of comfort level. 8 I'd rather have our attorney look at it, you know. I don't 9 want to incur costs, but I know nothing about this. This is 10 something that I have to rely on somebody, and I don't -- not 11 that I don't rely on you, Judge, but I would rather rely on 12 our bond counsel. 13 COMMISSIONER MOSER: I think that's a good idea. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do it subject to that being 15 approved? Or do we need to do it this meeting? Can we wait 16 till next meeting? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: We could wait till next meeting. 18 They're going to finalize it the end of this month. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, let's wait till next 20 meeting, give everybody a chance to look at it. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: "Everyone" being our bond 22 counsel. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good from my standpoint. I 8-19-13 20 1 mean -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: You want to refer it down to Tom 3 Spurgeon? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tom Spurgeon. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think it's a good idea, 7 because there may be some very small print somewhere. 8 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Might have a little bit of 9 liability. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We might have a little 11 liability, and we don't want it. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: It was represented to me that 13 there's absolutely no liability on behalf of Kerr County. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We've heard that before. I 15 know that's not always the case. 16 COMMISSIONER MOSER: Is this like free lunch? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll get that down to 18 Mr. Spurgeon. Okay, payment of the bills. You got some 19 bills you want to pay, Ms. Hargis? 20 MS. HARGIS: I do. I forgot to give you one for 21 her. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Kendnel Kasper is the 23 retainage that -- 24 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: -- was on the contract, and the 30 8-19-13 21 1 days has run since substantial completion? 2 MS. HARGIS: Right. And the other one is Peter 3 Lewis. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. It's in connection with the 5 198th D.A.'s project. Those funds actually are furnished by 6 the 198th D.A.'s office. They're just -- 7 MS. HARGIS: Well, one of them. The other one is 8 for the event center. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, the others one's event 10 center. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. Okay. Those are capital 12 funds, then. 13 MS. HARGIS: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for 18 approval of the payment of the bills, as evidenced by the 19 summary furnished. Question or discussion? All in favor, 20 signify by raising your right hand. 21 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 23 (No response.) 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Anything else to 25 come before the Court on this particular agenda? Hearing 8-19-13 22 1 nothing further, we're adjourned. 2 (Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:25 a.m.) 3 - - - - - - - - - - 4 5 6 STATE OF TEXAS | 7 COUNTY OF KERR | 8 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 9 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 10 official reporter for the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 11 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 12 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 21st day of August, 13 2013. 14 15 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 16 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 17 Certified Shorthand Reporter 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8-19-13