1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, February 9, 2004
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
'V
~~
.~
`~J
2
1
.-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,~..
25
I N D E X
February 9, 2004
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.10 Presentation of Capital Improvements Program for
Kerrville/Kerr County Airport
1.4 Report from Danny Feller, President of KARFA,
seeking assistance in process for reporting
controlled burns, dispatching methods/procedures
1.5 Request from Environmental Health Department
Manager to provide funding to add staff
1.6 Authorize County Attorney to retain attorney(s)
on contingent fee basis to investigate/pursue
claims against Employee Benefit Administrators
1.1 Approve annual accounts/status of investments
pursuant to Texas Probate Code 887(b)
1.2 Refer fence encroachment on right-of-way on
Michon Drive to County Attorney
1.3 Revision of Floodplain budget
1.7 Consider adding names to War Memorial
1.8 Request for waiver of HCYEC rental fees for
Kerr County Federal Credit Union annual meeting
1.9 Approve Change Order #5 to compensate Compton
Construction
1.11 Approve bill of sale/assignment of wastewater
improvements constructed in Phase I of Kerrville
South Wastewater Project
1.12 Accept proposed Water Availability regulations,
set public hearing on same
4.1 Pay Bills
4.2 Budget Amendments
4.3 Late Bills
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaisons
--- Adjourned
PAGE
4
6
25
37
47
123
125
129
139
144
147
149
155
156
160
162
163
190
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
..-~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-~-
25
On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call the meeting to
order. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'll call to
order the regular Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for
this date, Monday, February the 9th, at 9 a.m., pursuant to
notice that was posted. I believe the honors this morning
go to Precinct 4 Commissioner Nicholson.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Will you join me in
prayer, and then the pledge of allegiance?
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: If there is any member of the
public that wishes to address the Court about any matter
that is not listed on the agenda -- not listed on the
agenda -- they're privileged to come forward at this time,
and encouraged to do so. With respect to matters that are
listed on the agenda, if you wish to speak, we would ask
that you fill out a participation form in the back of the
room; they're available, and try and key to the agenda item
that you have an interest in, and get that up here to us.
It's not absolutely essential, but it helps us in trying to
be sure that we don't miss anybody that wants to speak to an
-y-04
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~-..
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
issue that we have on the agenda. But, at this time, if
there's any member of the public that wishes to come forward
and speak about a matter that is not listed on the agenda,
please come forward at this time. I see no one moving. All
right. Well move on to the next area of the agenda.
Mr. Nicholson, have you got anything for us this morning,
sir?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, sir, I do not.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Mr. Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, I do not.
Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not yet, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a couple of
comments, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: First, I just wanted to
let everyone know that, related to Hermann Sons Bridge
project, we have all five tracts with the title company,
with closings being scheduled. So, what that means is that
right-of-way acquisition is about complete on that project,
and is a -- should be progressing in an appropriate timeline
with TexDOT to get that new bridge built. So, it's been a
long process to get everyone in agreement on that
-9-G4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,-^
25
right-of-way acquisition, but that's the -- from the
conversation I had on the way in this morning, the final
person has agreed.
My other comment is, it's -- two things. To
start with, I'd like to, you know, recognize and thank
everyone in the Comfort school district that voted on
Saturday. There's was an election there; they had a strange
cap on school taxes. School Board wanted to remove that
cap, and it was overwhelmingly rejected; the cap will stay.
So, I'd like to -- kudos to everyone that voted; about 600
out of 4,000 eligible voters that voted, which is not bad
for a -- you know, a single item, off-day election. But I'd
also like to offer as severe criticism as I can to the
Comfort School Board for the wording they allowed on the
k~allot. It was absolutely horrendous. You couldn't tell if
you were voting for it or against it if you weren't really
prepared on the language. And I was at the point that I had
to go to the election people and ask them -- tell them that
I wanted to vote against -- or to keep the cap in place, and
I had to ask them which way to vote, 'cause I couldn't
figure it out from the ballot, and that's really inexcusable
for any elected body to put something on the ballot that is
so confusing that the average person can't understand it.
And I'm saying that primarily for the press, 'cause I think
that it is just unacceptable for any elected body to do what
_-y-„~
1
2
,--
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,^-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-,
25
6
they did on Comfort School Board. Okay, that's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: That it? I would like to
recognize our County Clerk's office here in Kerr County.
They recently received, for the -- I don't know how many
times -- umpteenth time, fourth, fifth, sixth time,
recognition from the Department of Vital Statistics in the
state of Texas. They were one of a few local government
entities that received exemplary recognition for their work
in -- with respect to the tabulation and compiling and
keeping of vital statistics data; that's birth and death
records. And those records, of course, as we all know, are
very, very important, and this is a very -- a very nice
honor that they've received, and I'd like to thank them for
all their work.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's all I have this
morning. Let's proceed on into the agenda. I've been
requested to take an item out of order, rather than its
place upon the agenda, that being Item 10. Do I hear any
objection from any member of the Court?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not I.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hearing none, we will proceed
with Item 10, which is presentation and discussion of
Capital Improvements Program for the Kerrville/Kerr County
Airport, as recommended by the Airport Manager and the
-5-0~
7
1
,^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~--
25
Airport Advisory Board. Commissioner Williams, I believe
you have Mr. Pearce here, the Airport Manager, and
Dr. Davis; I believe he's chairman of the Airport Board; is
that correct?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct,
Judge. Both Dr. Davis and Mr. Pearce are present. They
have a little display, and they want to step us through the
capital projects plan for years '04 through '07. Dr. Davis?
DR. DAMS: Morning. Thank you, Judge and
Commissioners. I think we know each other, but for the
record, I'm John Davis, chairman of the Airport Board. I'm
here today with Dave Pearce, our Airport Manager. We're
going to talk a little bit about the recent master plan that
was approved for our airport, and then some of the economic
development aspects that that has, and then get into the
specifics of the capital funding for the first few years of
that. After a several-year process, our airport recently
approved a master plan, and a master plan is basically an
infrastructure plan for the airport itself for the next 10
to 20 years. It's an F.A.A. -- Federal Aviation-approved
document, and it's really required to get them involved and
get them in the funding of our airport.
Most of the capital improvements at our
airport that apply to runway environment, runway structure,
landing systems, lighting for the airport, and runway
_-a-o.
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,-~
25
itself, those things generally are funded by the federal
government 90 percent, and the local government entities
10 percent, which, since we are co-owners, that would be
5 percent for the Court. The for that comes from an airport
trust fund, which comes from aviation fuel sales, taxes on
airplane parts; it comes from airline tickets. It does not
come from the general federal funds, so it's a dedicated
fund, and that's done with matching for capital
improvements. We've been quite fortunate at our airport to
be favorably blessed with a number of capital improvements,
and with this airport master plan being developed, we --
we're in line to be in the next cycle of funding, provided
the funds are available. And, of course, one of our reasons
for being here today is to let you know about that for
planning purposes, and for you to be planning on your
percent for the next few years.
Most of the airport master plan for the next
10 to 15 years really is involved with moving our airport up
to the next level, and the next level would be an airport
with a precision approach and with a longer runway, which
will allow larger and larger business aircraft to use our
airport. There are two basic types of approaches, precision
and nonprecision. Our airport has nonprecision approaches,
and if you saw the weather this morning, it was actually --
I checked the weather on the way in; it was actually
- 9 - 0 4
1
.-.. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
laudable with a nonprecision approach. People flying jet
aircraft at 130 knots on final approach may not think it was
safe to do that, but it was actually laudable. A
nonprecision approach gives you horizontal, or left-right
guidance. A precision approach adds vertical or up-and-down
guidance to that. And there are two types of precision
approaches; an I.L.S., which you'll hear a little bit about
in a moment, and then G.P.S. The I.L.S. and most landing
systems -- instrument approach systems have all the
electronics located on the field. Of course, the G.P.S. has
all the electronics located in the sky somewhere. That's
how you find fish and find your way when you're lost in the
rent car and all that kind of thing.
In moving up to a precision approach for
larger aircraft -- and I'll come back to that in a minute --
and longer runway, lots of things have to be done. The --
actually, the taxiway will have to be moved. Additional
lighting systems need to be moved. And then, if we go the
I.L.S. route, we'll need to add the actual electronics on
the field. This requires property acquisition. There's
also some clearing of some areas so that the trees and other
things don't infringe on the F.A.A.'s requirements. The
reason for this is not just for landing safely in marginal
weather, but it's because a lot of larger aircraft --
corporate aviation departments require the precision
-9-~.4
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.-~
25
approach and the longer runways for their aircraft to
operate here. And, of course, they can operate here as a
refueling point on a cross-country flight. That helps us
with revenue from the fuel sales. That's one of our two
major sources of revenue. They can operate here to visit,
to come for summer camp, to come fishing, to come hunting.
That helps us with fuel sales and other county and city
services sold to them.
But the -- but the real thing, when you're
moving up into this league, is to look for -- for
corporations that may want to locate here because of our
airport or on our airport, and they're -- they're both
related. There are companies, and Dave will mention a
couple that he knows, that actually require an airport
within a certain distance and certain criteria before they
will locate their company in your area, and that's not
necessarily located on your airport; it's located in the
general area. Of course, those of us who love airports
would love for folks to locate their company here and base
their corporate airplanes at the airport. When they do
that, that helps all of us with additional tax base. So,
either way, whether they locate on the airport or they
locate in the area because of the airport, that helps all of
us by increased revenue.
I think that's kind of the introduction for
_-G-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
the airport master plan and how we see the airport working
for economic development for our area. As I said, it's a
10- to 20-year plan; it's a plan that's always in flux from
the moment that you produce it. And we've tried to outline
as an Airport Board the first five years of how we think the
priority of spending should be delegated, and this also has
to do with how we hope the F.A.A. will choose to fund some
of these projects. I'm going to let Dave now talk to you
about the specifics. And, of course, the first year coming
up is -- is the one that's perhaps the most concrete, but
things can be moved from year -- up, down, depending on the
needs. Dave?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dr. Davis, if I could ask
DR. DAMS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know; maybe Dave
Pearce has the answer. Do you have a number of the amount
of ad valorem taxes that come directly from businesses,
aircraft, you know, other private things that are located at
the airport?
MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir. For property taxes,
$167,000 a year. Right now, from airplane taxes, I'm in the
process of trying to capture that and pull that out, but
right now, our businesses are generating $167,000 a year
that goes into the general funds and schools.
_-y-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
DR. DAMS: Let me mention one more thing not
related directly to the Airport Master Plan, which is really
an F.A.A. infrastructure document, but there's been a lot of
improvements at our airport, the service facilities there;
wastewater improvements, water improvements, new hangars are
going up. We have a new private hangar going up right now
to house jets, you know. We hope they're based here, but
even if they're not, the hangar's being added to the tax
rolls right now. So, there's a lot things -- we have
several new businesses that have located at the airport.
And I'll let Dave go ahead with the specifics of the funding
for the capital improvements, and I'm happy to answer
questions anytime. So --
MR. PEARCE: Judge and Commissioners, thank
you for taking the time this morning to talk about your
airport and some of the benefits it brings to the community.
I would like to start off, first of all, saying a lot of
questions that people ask is, Why do I have an airport?
What do I need to have an airport for, and what does it do
for me? I go down to San Antonio, I jump on a commercial
flight and I take -- go somewhere, and that's the only thing
I have to d~ with airplanes. Well, I'll equate this in one
simple number: $30 million a year of economic impact. That
wasn't generated locally, but the State of Texas did an
-a-oY
1
,-_ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
economic impact study a year and a half ago for all the
airports in Texas, and what did it do for generating for the
Kerrville airport? It was $30 million a year in economic
impact through the multipliers and direct labor, over 570
jobs, and a payroll -- and correct me, Dr. Davis -- the
payroll, I believe, was about $9 million in -- in total.
And that's not just the airport, but it's the businesses
that support the airport. When you take a look at our
community size and look at that number, I think that's quite
a bit.
As Dr. Davis alluded to, some of the
companies locate here not necessarily because they're going
to be on the airport, but because they have access to an
airport. Standard thing is Walmart; Walmart will not locate
a store unless they have access to an airport where they can
ferry folks in and out. Home Depot and Lowe's is the same
way, and I know we have those in our town, and I'm sure
that's quite an economic generator in itself. Those are
benefits that the airport brings to the community, not to
mention that when they come in, they land, they buy fuel and
some various other things. One of the things that Dr. Davis
had mentioned was some things that we're looking at on our
Airport Master Plan, and the Airport Master Plan is really a
direction of where do we think we're going to go in the next
10 to -- 10 to 20 years.
_-a-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~-
25
14
And, by that, the F.A.A. comes in, looks at
where the aviation fleet as a whole is going, what types of
aircraft are coming, they assess the inventory, they assess
the surrounding area, and they look at what your needs are
immediately in the future and help you go to the next level
with how you can prepare for your growth. And that's what
this plan is in front of you, and we've got a bigger diagram
right there to assist with that. The Board and myself sat
down last -- I believe it was April-May, and we worked very
diligently on the master plan to try to look at a
comprehensive document of, okay, if all of these events take
place, and if our owners wish to go this direction, what
kind of planning tool do they have for looking at funding
and funding matches? And that's the Capital Improvement
Program that you have in front of you.
We broke those down by year so we have a
planning document to say, Okay, this is what we would like
to do. These are things that will be coming up, as far as
funding. The F.A.A. will plan that in their master funding
document to look at projects here. So, if we're going to go
that direction, we got a planning tool to know what kind of
funds we would have to have for a matr_h. And, again, all
these projects on here, with the exception of the I.L.S., is
a 90/10 match that we're looking at. That means 90 percent
comes from the federal government; 10 percent comes from
- y - ~~ 4
15
1
,^... 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
... 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,~--,
25
locally, which is 5 percent County, 5 percent City. Yes,
sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the I.L.S.?
MR. PEARCE: The I.L.S. right now is
something that the F.A.A. will not fund. It -- what they're
looking at in 2015 to 2020, they're going to have a -- what
they call a precision approach for global positioning
satellite. They have stopped funding for all of the
I.L.S.'s, and they're going to go to the G.P.S. system.
They will gradually take all their commercial airports
first, and then go to us. So, realistically we know we
would not be able to have a global positioning precision
approach until about 2020, 2025, and that's at best. With
that, however, we did some research to see if we could fill
that gap, if you will, to service our customers and our
corporate folks that want to relocate here, and there is the
ability to service that with a purchase locally of an
I.L.S., and then you'd, in turn, donate that to the F.A.A.;
the F.A.A. takes over all the maintenance on it and takes it
from there. With that, that is about $500,000.
The other things that would help support the
precision approach are FAA-funded, and that's the separation
of the taxiway and the runway, some of the clearing of those
areas. Regardless of whether we go to an I.L.S. or a global
positioning satellite approach, that's precision; we would
-y-o~
16
1
.-, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,...
25
still need to do those things, so they will support that.
Now, any one of these things there's an opportunity also to
get private funding for, just like what happened for the
terminal; the E.I.C. gave the funding match for that. We
could find some other funding for the I.L.S. once we take
care of these other things. But I think it's important that
we identify all the projects on here, we look at them, we
decide whether we want to at least pursue those type of
things, so nothing's a surprise. I think everybody needs to
know -- and then it's your decision; you're the owners of
the airport. So, you may say, "I don't want to do that,"
but at least we know ahead of time so we're not spinning our
wheels trying to capture funding, and we can contact the --
you know, let the F.A.A. know these type of things too,
because they'll look at funding other airports for other
things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dave, on that -- but the
plan, you will -- the, I guess, infrastructure improvements
will be necessary whether you had I.L.S. or not, based --
MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- on trying to get --
MR. PEARCE: Absolutely. To have any type of
precision approach, you have to have that space. And this
is quite common in an airport that starts off as a general
aviation small airport, and then gradually goes up to an
-G-o~
17
1
,..,, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-~
25
instrument approach. Which, what we have now, that gives us
our -- our horizontal guidance, and then the next step is to
go to vertical. This happens quite frequently. That's also
why, when you go out and you see the -- the lighting on the
runways, you don't see any lighting on the taxiways. And
the overlay was not accomplished on the taxiway because if
that taxiway gets moved, we did not want to put the money
there and then have to move the lights again and tear up a
freshly completed, renovated taxiway.
So, with that said, some of these things that
we have here, that we've forecasted that are potential
funding things, you see the first one and you may -- you
know, there's a host of acronyms on there, and you see the
-- the MALSR. What is a MALSR? It's a medium aircraft
lighting system that actually, if you go to a commercial
airport or some of your larger ones, you see those lights in
the movies that have the trees -- they look like a whole lot
of white lights where you follow down. That's what the
MALSR's are. If we install those today, we can enhance our
safety; we can also enhance the -- the approaches and reduce
our minimums of how far down an aircraft can -- can go
before they have to do a missed approach or leave 'cause
they don't have the runway in sight. And that can happen
regardless of whether we move the taxiway or anything; that
could happen today. Those are identified in the master
-~ r4
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.--
25
plan. Those are available for funding. The cost estimates
there, as you can see, they're on the right-hand side, and
we're looking at both ends, so that's about $25,000 total
from the County and the City to do both ends.
I think it's important that, in this process,
if we decide we're -- we're going on to the precision
approach, that we start looking at one small section of land
that we have to procure to do that. Now, you see that
little area where the road is identified; it goes through a
little corner about in the middle of the runway -- and I'm
sorry, I didn't bring my pointer, but it's a little area
right here. It's the last of any purchases of land that we
would need to complete that. The second phase would also
have to be a realignment of the second portion of the road.
The first portion's already been realigned to accommodate
that; there's now a second half that would have to go with
that. And then, also, the relocation of the road. That
really happens in two phases. You procure the land, you
start off with a design, your engineers complete the entire
design and cost estimates, they get ready to bid it, and
then the following year, you go into -- to an actual
construction phase, and that's what we have listed there.
The other area that you would see in this
year is called distance remaining markers, and that's
primarily for the larger aircraft, when they land on the
-5-„~
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..--,
25
runway, there's a lighted number of how many feet are
remaining on the runway, and it goes down 5,000, 4,000,
3,000, so they can see that. Also, when taking off
heavily-loaded, they also have that as an indication so they
know what is their go/no go situation. That can happen also
today. With that said, the rest of them kind of flow out,
as you see, tYiat go out into the year following and then
continue on. I think it's an excellent planning tool.
Certainly, we're not asking for any decisions or anything at
this point. I think there'll be more discussions as we go
through this, but it gives you an opportunity to kind of
look at some of these things and see if -- if this is the --
the direction you may like to go.
Some of the things that. we've actually
accomplished this year, and what we -- I don't want to tie
up too much time, but I think these are very important. As
Dr. Davis said, there was a two-year comprehensive time
spent on this master plan, and that was finished up, and
that's been accepted by the F.A.A., and that helps them for
planning on funding. Some of our revenue things, the County
and the City did develop some T-hangars. We increased our
rental -- I shouldn't say our rental rates, but our
occupancy rates. We were running about 62 percent. We're
up to 100 percent with a waiting list, so that generates
about $48,000 a year that goes into the airport and helps
_-9-04
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pay for some of these -- these maintenance costs and
whatever.
We have renegotiated two leases on B.A.
Products, as you know; that's helped increase our rents, and
brought it up to about $12,000 a year increase, and puts
them a little bit closer to market rate. Kerrville Aviation
had signed a lease with a market rate on it, and that
increased our rents also for another -- I believe it's about
$8,000 a year. And we've got some other opportunities in
there for enhancing rent, if you will. We just completed a
runway overlay, which is the -- it strengthened the runway;
it also smoothed it out with 2 inches of asphalt, a
6,000-foot runway. The striping was completed last week.
The taxiway, we had what they call a seal to help hold the
asphalt right now. We didn't do an overlay, as I mentioned
earlier, but that was completed. The striping was completed
on that also last week, actually Friday.
We have a 300-by-300 concrete apron that was
included in this project. We still have three lines that
need to be poured on that for the concrete, and that will be
turned over for usage for us to help with the transient
aircraft. In addition, we were able to have incorporated
some erosion on the smaller runway, some additional striping
in that area. The entrance road that goes into the airport,
it actually will allow for not only precision approaches,
-y-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
but if and when we extend the runway -- that portion was
completed, and I need to see if they finished the striping
on that. That was supposed to be completed this weekend,
and that should be ready to open up.
T will mention one thing with that entrance
road. They were supposed to the have the blinking light
moved, and actually, there was a decision by the State to
put in an LED light on there, which was not available.
There was some discussion about trying to open up that new
entrance road without the blinking light. I know I can't
control the State and what they do, but it was not very
favorable in my eyes to not have a blinking light at the
entrance road. You know, we've had a fatality there before.
That does concern me, and I'm trying to stop that if I can.
One thing I suggested -- it would be an increased cost, but
that would be at their nickel, if you will, and that is to
take the existing light and move it down until they get the
LED in, and then change over the LED light at that time. I
think that's a dangerous corner.
The other thing I'd like to point out here
is, originally, the plans called for a left -- or a
left-right turn lane -- left turn lane, if you will, going
to the east. And the State had sent somebody out there last
summer. They were out from about 2:00 to about 2:15, looked
at the -- the traffic count, and decided to eliminate the
_-u-v~
1
,,_. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
left turn lane. I, for one, am not in favor of that.
That's a personal thing, but I think that there's enough
traffic there at other times. If there's anything we can do
to try to reinstate that left turn lane, I think it's a
safety issue, and I know it's a State call and it's very
difficult for us to change a state transportation, but it --
I think it is a safety issue. With all that said, I think
I've taken up quite a bit of time here, but I think we've
had a lot of great accomplishments there. I still go back
and -- and look at the county of Kerr, and -- correct me --
I believe it's about 47,000?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Close.
MR. PEARCE: And the City of Kerrville is
about 22. So, you take a look at those communities, and you
say, $30 million of economic impact, that's not bad. That
is really not bad. And I'm really proud to be part of this
team. I think this will help us in the future, whether it's
a company that locates down the street here or locates
somewhere within Kerr County. Just the fact that having the
airport will make -- help them make that decision to come
here; that's jobs, that's tax base, that's economic impact,
and I'm sure proud to be part of that. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: David, one quick
question. Under calendar years '5 and '6, you have the
realignment of the airport loop road, and there is a
~. - CJ' - 17 4
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
,~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-,
25
23
realignment going on now. Is that the same one, or is this
the anticipated --
MR. PEARCE: No, sir, that's the anticipated
future one. That goes after -- to accommodate the remaining
portion of the taxiway. This new road actually comes here
and comes to this point, and -- and ties into the old road,
so it would take it from this pint down, approximately -- I
think it's about 1,500 feet, if you will. And that would be
the second portion of that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: David, the airport
is one of the functions that the County supports that is a
good candidate for being self-supporting. That is, the
revenues generated directly by the airport would cover the
costs of maintenance and operations. Is that going to
happen?
MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir, I think we're headed
in that direction. And -- and, to be quite honest, if we --
and we're not asking for that money, but if you -- if you
give us credit for the fact that what we are directly
supporting is going into the General Fund through tax base
and everything else, we're more than self-supporting. And
we're certainly not asking to -- you know, for the tax base.
Just an acknowledgment that we have $167,000 that we
directly generate right there on the airport, plus the other
$134,000; you see that we're -- we're beyond that, if you
_-a-o~
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,_, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
..-.. 2 4
25
24
will. I think it's a good thing, though, to see things go
in the General Fund. We can help pay for police and fire
and schools and all the other stuff, 'cause that's a benefit
for everybody in the community.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dave, on that topic, can
you go over a little bit about, I guess, the cost of some of
these aircraft that are beginning to look at Kerrville to be
housed here, what their -- what the -- I guess the value of
those aircraft are from a tax base -- where they get taxed
MR. PEARCE: Actually, the types of aircraft
we're looking at are things which -- we have one located
there right now, our Challenger; Bombardier builds it. It's
a 604, takes about eight to ten passengers. It's a business
jet nonstop to Europe, if you will. The range on that is
anywhere from 14 to 18 million dollars, and that's just one.
We also have had a Global Express land there a couple of
times, and a 737 that landed there. That Global Express is
a larger -- one of the biggest business-type aircraft, and
they run right now about 58 to 60 million dollars per
airplane. That doesn't include fuel, anything else, so it's
quite substantial. You would see anywhere from the smaller
Cessnas that run 3 to 4 million up tom, realistically,
$16 million a copy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The hangar that's
_-5-~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
about -- about to be under construction anticipates housing
some aircraft of this nature; is that correct?
MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir. They have a
Challenger 601. Two more jets have just signed leases or
tentative agreements when they -- when it's done. One of
them is a -- a Citation. The other one fails me now; I
think it's 3 million -- about 5 million a copy that have
both just relocated here, and I wish I could take credit for
that. I can't; that's our fixed-base operator who
negotiated those and brought those folks in here, so my
hat's off to him.
DR. DAVIS: But I think our airport owners
can take credit, because we have the airport here that
supported those.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much, Mr.
Pearce, Dr. Davis. We appreciate you being here with us
today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, doctor.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is
a timed item scheduled for 9:30, that being Item Number 4,
consideration and discussion of a report from Mr. Danny
Feller, president of Kerr Area Rural Firefighters
Association, seeking assistance from the Court to bring
about needed improvements in the process for reporting
controlled burns and in dispatching methods and procedures.
- 9 - 0 4
1
.- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
---
25
26
Mr. Nicholson, I believe this item was put on the agenda at
your request?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. We have at
least two people here who are in our community that are
involved in providing emergency services -- I mean, in
addition to the Sheriff. We got Tom Michaels back there --
wave your hand, Tom -- who's a firefighter, and he's also a
member of the 9-1-1 Board of Directors. And we have
Mr. Danny Feller, who is the president of KARFA. He's also
a firefighter. I think all of you are familiar with the
Kerr Area Rural Firefighters Association; in fact, the Judge
had a hand in establishing that organization. So, I'll just
turn it over to Mr. Feller and -- and listen to him.
MR. FELLER: Okay. We're here to --
actually, we had asked for this meeting to address some
concerns. I'm Danny Feller, president of KARFA. It's a
chartered organization that was chartered in -- in October
of 2002. We're here to facilitate or help to coordinate a
process for safety and prevention of fire and -- and
disasters. Our concerns when we -- we spoke were about some
of the communication problems we've been having, delayed
pages and -- and non-pages, and different protocols for some
of our First Responders, and -- and medical services that --
that affect the welfare of our citizens, health of our
citizens. Last Wednesday, we had a meeting to address this
-~-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
issue with Bill Price and Bill Amerine from 9-1-1, and we
may have started a procedure to find a solution for this
problem. So, at this time, we'd ask that the Court -- we're
not asking the Court to take any action today, but if we
don't get a solution worked out in -- in the very near
future, we feel that it's important that we be allowed to
return and have the Court revisit this issue for us. Upon
the announcement that we were coming to Commissioners Court,
there was some scurry of activity to get -- to get this
problem resolved, and we feel that if we don't get this
problem resolved soon, the Court can be of great assistance
to help us take care of the citizens.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Feller -- and I
mentioned this a few minutes ago to you. What you're
addressing, to me, is part of a bigger problem that we have
in Kerr County as to how we handle outdoor burning. And at
our last meeting, we started -- or, actually, the Judge, I
believe, sent a memo to the County Attorney requesting
pretty detailed information as to what the legal authority
is of this county or any county to get involved in burning,
and I guess my question is to the County Attorney. Is that
ready yet?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, it's not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know when we will
have that? Because I really don't know how we can go too
_ - 9 - 0 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
far on trying to change -- I don't want to do a policy and
then have to redo a policy. I think --
MR. MOTLEY: The County has authority.
The -- the only part of it, I guess you'd say, that's up in
the air, or not -- would be the part about requiring one of
the people seeking to burn to notify their area volunteer
fire department. The County certainly has authority to
enter into county burn orders or to -- to create those, to
create the office of the county fire marshal, to create
other power. The only part of it that we've not got an
answer for is the part about requiring somebody to ask the
-- you know, to advise the local fire department.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, so you're saying
that we have the authority to -- and if someone -- that we
can -- if they light a fire without notifying people, we can
cite them?
MR. MOTLEY: I believe so. I believe so.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought we asked
specifically what the nature of the citation was and what
the penalty would be.
MR. MOTLEY: I'm saying I think it's a Class
C. I'm thinking it's a Class C, fine up to $500. But that
might be pinned down a little bit better, too, by next week.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- I think
we really need to address this. We're at a good time, in my
-G-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
mind, to kind of revamp some of this. We're at a -- looks
like a wet period for a while, so I don't think we need a
burn ban. But I think that it's really important that we
find out exactly what the authority of the County is and
what -- you know, what we can do, what we can require
specifically, and then we can, you know, figure out whether
we need a committee format or whatever to meet with KARFA,
9-1-1, dispatch, Sheriff's Department, and figure out how we
can -- you know, what needs to be done, and then figure out
one way to get this out to the public.
I think one of the problems we've had
recently, we've kind of been changing and redoing things,
and I think we're just adding to the confusion. So, if we
can hold off on -- which I think we have the time right now
to really come out with a good set of rules, guidelines that
we can give the Sheriff and -- you know, 'cause he's -- his
deputies are the primary ones with the legal ability to go
out there and cite somebody when they don't do something
right, and so we need to have a, you know, clear authority,
from -- I guess under the Penal Code, 'cause that's what he
operates under, from prior conversations I've had with the
Sheriff. And that's what we need from the County Attorney's
office, really, is basically a draft, or be willing to draft
language and -- just to make sure we can do it right one
time. So, if you could -- you know, are you going to, at
_-~-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
our next meeting, give us more detailed information? I
mean, you said we can do anything we want, and I don't --
MR. MOTLEY: I said we can draft -- we can
draft an order that regulates burning trash in the county.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about prescribed
burns? And what about burning brush piles and --
MR. MOTLEY: Well, again, I really think
probably by the next meeting, we'll have a more definitive
answer for you. We were looking more at the issue -- not
specifically what types of rubbish and such could be burned,
but what the nature of the requirement that somebody could
be placed under to notify their -- you know, their area
volunteer fire department. That's part of what we were kind
of working nn, but we don't have an answer for you yet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, just --
MR. MUTLEY: I apologize for that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I would like, you
know, is to know exactly -- different types of fires, I
mean, just as specific as you can get, so that we can then
go to the next level and work with the Sheriff's Department
as to how we enforce it. Because the rules are meaningless
unless we can give the Sheriff the ability to enforce the
rules. Talking about citations and things of that nature.
MR. FELLER: David, I have a booklet here
that was put out in 2000 by the T.N.R.C.C., and in that
_ 9 0 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-,
25
31
booklet, it -- it describes the general requirements for
burning and prescribed burns, and some of the liabilities
that -- that go along with -- with burning that gets out of
control and that sort of thing.
MR. MOTLEY: If I can get a copy of the
citation from you --
MR. FELLER: Okay.
MR. MOTLEY: -- in a little bit here -- are
you leaving right after this?
MR. FELLER: No, I'll stay around for you.
MR. MOTLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think there is one
issue that we should address today. In our last
Commissioners Court meeting, when we lifted the -- when we
reestablished the burn ban and then lifted it, either in the
court order or in -- in the comment from the Commissioners
Court, we said that people who plan on burning should
contact the Sheriff's Department. And subsequent to that
meeting and subsequent to my putting this on the agenda, I
received a copy of a document from Kerr 9-1-1 that outlines
procedures for burning, and this document says, "All burns
must be coordinated with the Sheriff's Office and Kerrville
Police Department, and should be coordinated with the
respective fire departments," and gives telephone numbers
for that. So, that would -- that would ask someone or
-~-o~
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~.
25
require someone to make three telephone calls, and I don't
think that's practical and probably not going to happen.
The suggestion of KARFA, and I support this, would be that
what is needed is one phone call to the -- to PSAP, the
9-1-1 dispatch office, and that that dispatch office would
notify, as they do on other emergency information, the
Sheriff's Department and the respective fire departments
that might be involved.
MR. FELLER: If I could add, also, this
morning, I understand you guys -- the Commissioners lifted
the burn ban, and the procedure for that would be to ask
that the PSAP or the paging service would notify the fire
departments of this change, and which would be done on our
paging system or on -- on radios. I think you called the
change in this morning?
MS. SOVIL: Mm-hmm.
MR. FELLER: At about 8:45, 8:50. It's
currently almost 9:45, and we've yet to receive a
notification of this. This is -- this is one of the
problems that -- that we're having, is some of these things
are not notified, are not sent out. And, occasionally, when
we have controlled burns, we'll arrive at a ranch after
being paged out to a brush fire to find that, yes, the
landowner has made a call in to what they assumed was the
proper authority, which they've called in to the Sheriff's
-ti-o~
1
~.,, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
Office to report a controlled burn, and when we arrive on
the place, we've got an irate landowner, because here we are
with several fire trucks running around on the country that
he's trying to improve. And when we call back to find out,
you know, "Well, did the guy call in?" Yes, they called in,
and there is a controlled burn there. But, indeed, we got
the page through the system -- through the -- should be the
same system in which the call was reported.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. I bet we can
get to the bottom of it, Danny. I wanted to bring up one
point, just kind of a sideline to this. It is education.
Somehow, we've fallen short of educating people. I believe
that the Texas Forestry Service has videos, fire -- fire
videos. And I have seen them somewhere, and I can't
remember if it's Soil Conservation or Forestry Service, but
they're excellent, and I would like to see KARFA or this
Court -- preferably you all -- to sponsor a meeting and show
these videos, and let's invite everybody in the county to
learn about proper burning techniques. And I just think
that that would be a huge plus for us all. And, hopefully,
that maybe we can end up -- each fire department can end up
with a copy of the videos, and then you can train as you see
fit. But I just -- I think that that would be a wise, wise,
wise thing for all of us to do.
MR. FELLER: Yes, sir, I agree with you.
_-9-09
1
.. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.-~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, as a
follow-up to that, I don't know if KARFA or Danny knows
this; NRCS is -- has been and is talking about setting up a
prescribed burning association for Kerr County to try to
help coordinate a lot of this. And you may work -- I don't
know if you have talked with Joe on this -- Franklin.
MR. FELLER: No, I haven't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Joe Franklin is very much
-- very interested in getting exactly what Commissioner
Baldwin talked about working. And Joe's a soil -- NRCS
office of Kerr County, and they're looking at -- they're
aware of the same problem, 'cause we've pulled them into the
process of -- of approving prescribed burns. So, I think
that you might want to get with Joe Franklin, 'cause I know
he's working on some way to figure out an association to
help educate, and that would be a way. And I think they
have the -- probably the staff and some funding to assist
this public education idea.
MR. FELLER: We also work with a
representative from Fredericksburg that is in the Texas
Forestry Service, and last year we had a -- a one-day clinic
on -- on wildland and firefighting skills and management.
We were supposed to have another of those clinics Saturday,
but David, the guy in charge, had the flu, and so he
couldn't do the presentation, but we'll be rescheduling
_-Q-o~
35
1
.^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that. And when we do that, we send out a -- we have a
newsletter that we send out to all of our citizens, and
advising them of the meeting, and invite them to come down.
And we also contact the other fire departments in the area
and -- and advise and invite them to come down as well, and
bring along anybody that -- that they feel could benefit
from it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. And thank you
for all KARFA does and all the fire chiefs and fire
departments.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
MR. FELLER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Feller. We
appreciate you being here this morning, passing that along
to us. The next item is a timed item also on the agenda
that was set for 9:45 this morning. That's Item Number 5,
discuss and consider request from Mr. Miguel Arreola,
Manager of the Kerr County Environmental Health Department,
to provide funding to add staff to the O.S.S.F. and Solid
Waste -- let me back up for just a moment, and I've just
been handed a participation form with respect to Item 1.4,
which was the item we just took up, that I did not have
until moments ago. Mr. Tom Michak?
MR. MICHAELS: Michaels.
JUDGE TINLEY: Michaels? All right, sir. I
-9-0~
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-~.
25
apologize for being unable to read your writing.
MR. MICHAELS: The way I scribble, I should
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We had one in here
earlier.
MR. MICHAELS: Yes. Good morning, Your Honor
and Commissioners. I just want to take a moment of your
time. We won't be very -- very long or very -- very drawn
out. But I represent the firefighters on the Board of
9-1-1, and at this particular time I'm working with Bill
Amerine, who unfortunately isn't able to be here at this
time, but he asked me to pass on to you Commissioners and
the Judge that he supports the program of the firefighters,
and that we will be working very closely, and myself, as a
firefighter and a representative of the Board, to work with
9-1-1. As you know, 9-1-1 basically is a conduit to go
ahead and make things happen. We are not -- we're not a
PSAP or where we dispatch; we are not dispatchers. We're a
conduit, so our information is -- we basically take a bushel
of information and we hand it to the PSAP, who then informs
the necessary authorities, such as the ambulance, fire,
police, and so forth.
So, at this time, -- all I want to say is --
like I said, Bill Amerine is -- is in complete support. I'm
-5-0~
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
very sorry that he couldn't be here, but he had a medical
emergency that he had to attend to; his wife was -- is not
feeling well. But is there any questions that you may have
for me on behalf of 9-1-1? I'd be more than happy to
answer. Again, I just wanted to be here to show the support
towards the ultimate resolution of this concern regarding
the timely information, I guess you could say, in regard to
getting that information both out to the fire departments,
police department, emergency and so forth. So, that's all I
have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. MICHAELS: Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Appreciate
you being here.
MR. MICHAELS: You bet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's get back to Item 5 set
for 9:45, a timed item. Discuss and consider request from
Mr. Miguel Arreola, the Manager of the Kerr County
Environmental Health Department, to provide funding to add
staff to the OSSF and solid waste functions. Commissioner
Nicholson, I believe that you asked that this matter be
placed upon the agenda.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, and I'd like to
give the microphone to Mr. Arreola to describe his proposal
and the need for additional staffing in the department.
-y-a4
38
1
,., 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~-
25
MR. ARREOLA: Good morning, gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Morning.
MR. ARREOLA: We have some good news from the
Environmental Health Department. We're growing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure that's
good news.
MR. ARREOLA: That's good news. I have some
handouts to give you, just the charts of the latest numbers,
and they show basically how the first quarter of this fiscal
year behaved. So, we grow basically about 30 percent from
the year before, and also from 2002, so we grow pretty --
pretty good. Also, this month, just the month of January,
it shows a growth from the prior two years. Now, that has
caused an awful lot of work for the staff, the current staff
of the O.S.S.F. Department, and we've been working long
hours, and we need some help.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One thing I'm going
to ask and suggest is that the -- that the County Auditor
provide a forecast of -- for the rest of this year and for
next year also, of the anticipated costs and revenues of the
O.S.S.F. -- or of the Environmental Health Department. It's
difficult to determine -- as you can see, we have a -- a
significant increase in the amount of activity and the
amount of fees charged and received, and I can't tell if
that's -- I don't think anybody else can either, if that's a
-.-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~... 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
•--
25
39
temporary situation or if -- if building activity and other
activity's going to continue, and that O.S.S.F. will bring
in more revenue than we'd anticipated. But we need that
information before we begin to make decisions about whether
or not we have the proper staffing level. My rough estimate
is that, this year, revenues will probably be on the order
of $30,000, $35,000 more than they were for the last fiscal
year. Could be more than that; I'm not sure. So, before we
make -- consider any decisions that -- that might include
increasing the cost of staffing there, I think we need more
information than we have in-hand today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I agree that we
need to do that. My question is -- I visited with
Mr. Arreola a little bit about this as well -- is that --
and I think two weeks, we can probably wait, but we're at a
point that if his staff -- he can't keep up, then we need to
start prioritizing or setting some guidelines as to what he
shouldn't do, 'cause I know he is spending a lot more time
on solid waste issues than I think was -- has been done in
the past, and what he anticipated and we anticipated. So,
you know, we're -- you know, my constituents, and I know
your constituents, because you've had them before us on the
agenda, want us more on solid waste, and I'm getting ready
to give him about three letters this afternoon he's not
aware of about other things I want him to look at in solid
-5-0~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~-
25
40
waste areas. We need to be able pretty quickly to tell him
some priorities as to what to do, because I don't think it's
fair for us to -- you know, to delay this much. I think if
it's going to wait two weeks, I don't think that will be a
major change, but I think we need to be prepared at our next
meeting to either say cut back on solid waste, cut back on
O.S.S.F., or here's more staff. Those are the options that
we have. And, you know, I don't -- none of them are great
options, in my mind.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. It -- with the
increase in activity, it is true that we're trying to do
these programs with fewer people than we used before, and
they're under quite a bit of
a -- a remarkably good job.
documents last week. They w
Miguel, talking about what a
don't know about the rest of
letters like that.
stress, and they're also doing
I got -- received three rare
ere letters from constituents to
terrific job he was doing. I
y'all, but I don't often get
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is rare.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And he needs some
help. If this level of activity is going to continue, we --
we're going to have to find a way to provide him with it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One of my questions is
the status of the solid waste grant. Aren't we --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll be happy to tell
-a-o~
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You are pursuing that?
Wouldn't that affect our -- these questions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it might and it
might not. If we are successful in our application being
funded -- and if I were a gambling man, right now I'd gamble
that we're probably not going to be successful our first
time out. But if we were successful, that grant anticipated
adding to the Solid Waste staff and adding to the programs
that Solid Waste would be empowered to enforce and make it
possible for Kerr County citizens to recycle a lot more
things than they're doing right now. So, we did make the
presentation. Mr. Arreola and I went to San Antonio last
Wednesday. We appeared jointly before the Solid Waste
Committee that reviews all applications, and we're sitting
back waiting to see how the roll of the dice comes out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think another -- you
know, just for us to be thinking about over the next two
weeks while we're waiting for some additional data, is that
a lot of the area of growth is not revenue-generating. The
solid waste inspections, which take time and that -- I mean,
we don't get any -- it's -- there's no revenue generated by
solid waste, basically. And they're also inspections that
are not -- well, I guess they do generate revenues.
O.S.S.F. inspections do generate some revenue, but I think,
- y - ~ 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
from what I'm hearing, a lot of growth is in areas that we
don't get much revenue from, so that needs to be weighed in
the decision. And, Miguel, I mean, two weeks is -- I know
you need help now, but that will work?
MR. ARREOLA: The request we have is -- we
got two requests. One is just for O.S.S.F., because it's
growing so much and we need extra help there. Plus Solid
Waste is also taking a lot of our time, and we need someone
else there, too. So, it's actually -- we're looking for two
new people. On Solid Waste, with my -- probably a part-time
person will be sufficient. On the O.S.S.F. we do need one
full-time employee. The growth has been steady on the
O.S.S.F. It is bringing revenue; it is bringing extra
income throughout the year, so it's been steady. I can't
say it's going to continue like that, but looks like it's
going to go that way. So, it is -- it's important for us to
have it as soon as possible, 'cause if not, we're going to
start seeing problems. Right now, we're in the pretty good
time; we can still manage everything as long as we -- we get
the resources. In the chart, we're probably going to --
look back at the second one, where we're showing pretty good
against the last year and everything. Except on the last
one, wYiich is licenses, that is the amount of paperwork we
need to do to finish all the -- the process, and that's what
we're hearing right now. If we continue to do that, then
-9-~4
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~--
25
we're going to have some problems with that. Those need to
get to the homeowners and all the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Miguel, would part-time
-- as a short-term fix, would part-time employment help?
MR. ARREOLA: For O.S.S.F.?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, yeah.
MR. ARREOLA: We'll take anything.
(Laughter.) But it's -- I think a full-time is -- is really
needed. We have enough work for a full-time employee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess what I'm thinking
is, as an option, we may have part-time as -- if this is an
anomaly, through part-time, we're not adding a position. We
can kind of budget some part-time help for maybe the rest of
this budget year, or even in the budget process, and then if
this workload continues, look at increasing staff during the
budget process. And if this is an anomaly, that'll solve
itself. We haven't added a position, don't have to worry
about reducing staff. And if it isn't an anomaly, we've got
some time that we can --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I also want to point
out, in the memo from Number 4 to us, that there may be some
money laying around in his budget that was specifically
budgeted for that reason. So, I mean, you could -- you
could use that for -- for part-time employment through the
rest of the year, or till that money runs out or whatever.
_ _ Q
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to just
throw a comment or two in here, please. I want to thank
Miguel for his efforts. He's working hard to make the
department work, and it's not an easy task. And I
appreciate these pretty color charts you presented to us,
but I would be a little happier if I saw on these charts
expenses plugged in against revenues and workload. How
much -- I need to know where the expenses are with relation
to the workload, and I'd like to see, if at all possible, it
track against last year or the year before. Even though the
County only had a small piece of -- of the financing of the
program, the program was there, and if we're tracking last
year's numbers in terms of inspections, et cetera, et
cetera, et cetera, I'd like to see how those numbers track
against the expenses.
MR. ARREOLA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if you can get
with your programming guru and figure that out and add it to
the chart next time, I'd appreciate that.
MR. ARREOLA: Sure, we'll get you that
information.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's good. That's
what we need, and I think you need to talk to the County
Auditor and get his help in --
MR. ARREOLA: Sure.
_-9-0~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- doing the actual
and the forecast.
MR. ARREOLA: Okay. And the other part is,
the Solid Waste, we just got a -- received a letter from
Mr. Williams about more problems on solid waste in the
county that we need to investigate, so we're going to get to
it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. The letter I
sent you?
MR. ARREOLA: Uh-huh. But, you know, that's
going to take time away from O.S.S.F.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I -- all the
Commissioners got. topics, I'm pretty sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- excuse me,
Judge. I guess one thing -- I mean, what Miguel's final
comment was, it takes time away from O.S.S.F., I guess the
direction I think we probably could give him possibly now,
what's more important to us? You know, do you want him to
go -- 'cause I'm getting ready to send a bunch of solid
waste letters down there, too. Do we want him to put
O.S.S.F. on the back burner or solid waste on the back
burner?
MR. ARREOLA: I don't think none of them can
wait.
_-G-a~
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. That's the
problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we have an
obligation to do them both.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Do the best you
can for the next two weeks, and we'll try and help you.
MR. ARREOLA: All right, we'll do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner -- or
Mr. Holekamp has a comment.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Just a comment. If -- I know
Miguel took on the Solid Waste part of the environmental
budget, just kind of cold turkey when he moved over here. I
would -- I would offer my services to help them, if they
wish, to catch up. I'll be glad to help him any way I can,
and work witYi Mr. North to maybe -- maybe expedite some of
these issues and organize it a little bit. And I'll be glad
to help if I could, if that would help y'all in the short
term.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sure that offer would be
greatly appreciated by Mr. Arreola.
MR. ARREOLA: Sure is.
MR. HOLEKAMP: But that's up to y'all, if
y'all wish for me to intervene.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is it Jentsch or Tench?
-9-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..,
25
47
MS. JENTSCH: Jentsch.
JUDGE TINLEY: Jentsch. Ms. Beth~Jentsch has
filed a participation form.
MS. JENTSCH: Thank you. Judge and
Commissioners, I want to thank you again for all the help
that we've received, and what I've come to speak to, if I
can, is Mr. Arreola and what a fine job he's doing. He is a
people person. My neighbors that I've spoken with are just
delighted. The -- having an old car removed from your
neighborhood, the -- the relief felt is just
incomprehensible. If you've never had it, trust me, it's
something, and I thank you so much. And this man, he calls
when he says he will, he comes when he says he will, he
writes letters. He does everything, and he does it with
little fuss. He goes to the people that are the
perpetrators and he says, "Will you please do this," and in
short order, it's done. So, if there are any monies that
you have to help a man like this, a young, energetic -- a
man who truly has the -- the need of the people in his
heart, please give him the money. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Jentsch.
Anything else on this particular agenda item? The next
agenda item is a timed item also set for 10 o'clock this
morning. Item Number 6, consideration and discussion of
authorizing the County Attorney to retain litigation
-y-og
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
attorneys on a contingent fee basis to investigate and
pursue claims or other remedies against Employee Benefit
Administrators and/or others arising out of payment by Kerr
County of health care funds to Employee Benefit
Administrators. Mr. Motley.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: David, while you're on
the way up here, would you just clear my mind up, define for
me what "litigation attorney" is? Just that word,
"litigation." I think I know what an attorney is.
MR. MOTLEY: It's somebody who actively
engages in litigation of this type.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry, say it
again?
MR. MOTLEY: It's a firm who is actively
engaging in litigation of this type, is what I would define
it as.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "Litigation" meaning
lawsuit, suing someone? Or investigation? Or what does the
litigation mean?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, all of that. I mean, you
have to investigate something before you actually, you know,
get underway and pick a jury and all that. So, all of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I'd like to
lead the discussion, if you don't mind.
-G-o~
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would like to lead
off the discussion, if you don't mind.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Motley -- it's his agenda
item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that,
but I also have the prerogative of leading off the
discussion. He can respond to what I'm about to ask him.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Motley?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I had some comments I was
going to make.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So do I.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Motley, you may proceed;
it's your agenda item.
MR. MOTLEY: It's a very simple issue. The
issue is dating back to December the 9th of 2002. Was the
Commissioners Court advised of all options they had at that
point in time as to how to handle an insurance situation and
a shortfall that was determined to exist by our third-party
administrator? And when a bill was compromised down, there
was approximately $400,000 over and above a certain
sub-benefit that was yet to be paid to the medical
providers. The question is, was Kerr County at that time
advised that they had an option to pay no money to anybody?
We had two options clearly presented to us. One would have
-9-0~
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
been the $400,000 option, which was followed. The other one
would have been to purchase a 15/12 insurance policy for an
additional $270,000 premium. And I believe the third option
would have been to do nothing, to leave Methodist Hospital
and the medical care providers who provided the services to
the former Kerr County employee to seek their recovery from
this person's estate. This is something that happens every
day. That option, I believe, was not presented. And I
looked and again reviewed the notes from that meeting. I do
not see anywhere where that option was presented by the
Employee Benefit Administrators representative.
That is the sum total of what I'm concerned
about, and what I have spoken to the Court about before.
Moving ahead onto Texas Rangers and this and that and the
other, I think, is very premature at this time. I'm -- I'm
talking about the issue of, were we notified of this option?
And what moneys, if any, can be recovered as a result of our
not being notified of this option and not being able to take
advantage of it? Can we recover any moneys? And that's
what I'rn urging the Court -- or for that reason, I'm urging
the Court to allow me to retain counsel, experienced
litigators in the insurance area, on a contingency fee basis
to investigate this and see if something was wrong and if
moneys can be returned to the taxpayers of the county, and
that's what I'm trying to do. As a legal advisor to the
-5-0~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,--.
25
51
County, I think that is the most proper option at this time.
And I don't really know anything else to say other than
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, let me lead in
the Court's discussion, if you don't mind, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: You may.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Motley, when
initially this matter was discussed by Commissioners Court
in executive session several months ago, I recall your
office was instructed to continue investigating the matter
and prepare a written report of your findings for delivery
to the Court. To date, I have seen no written report of
your findings. Instead, what we have before us today as a
backup to this agenda item is your memorandum dated
February 3, 2004, which has no semblance of a report, and if
I were called upon to describe this memorandum, I would
characterize your broad-based allegations of wrongdoing on
the part of Kerr County elected and appointed officials as
political opportunism and being totally devoid of substance.
MR. MOTLEY: What does this have to do with
what I'm presenting today?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hold on.
MR. MOTLEY: What does this have to do with
what I'm recommending today?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to ask you
-y-u9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~-..
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
some --
MR. MOTLEY: No, no, wait a minute. Wait a
minute, stop. I'm not going to sit here and listen to all
this --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, you wrote the
memo.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You wrote the memo
to --
MR. MOTLEY: Wait a minute. I have told you
what I think, and I have told you before what I think is the
best course and policy for the County to follow.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we're going to
ask some questions about that, if you just hang on just a
second.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I understand that, but you
are clearly outside the area of what we're here to discuss.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Be that as it may,
I'll get right back into it if you'll just give me a second.
Therefore, to facilitate our ability to have enlightened
discussions and to determine -- will you pass this out,
please? -- our discussions to determine what, if any, civil
investigation will be authorized, Judge, I'm going to move
the following, and we'll have a discussion. I'm going to
move, Mr. Motley, that the County Attorney immediately
provide all members of Commissioners Court a complete and
-5-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
comprehensive report in writing that includes the following:
1. Any and all substantial -- quote, your
language -- any and all substantial documentation,
transcripts and other material, unquote, in your possession
in connection with Commissioners Court --
MR. MOTLEY: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- in connection with
the Commissioners Court December 9th, 2002 authorization --
MR. MOTLEY: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- of payment of
$400,000 for health care services for a Kerr County
employee, deceased, which you have characterized as, quote,
unlawful in your memorandum dated February 3, 2004.
2. In addition to Employee Benefit
Administrators, identify all, quote, others, unquote, that
you seek to have authority to investigate.
3. Specify the details and identify the
persons involved in any, quote, unlawful authorization and
payment by Kerr County of health care funds to Employee
Benefit Administrators, unquote.
4. Identify by --
MR. MOTLEY: Do you have a copy of that I
could have?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- name and position
?-y-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.--~
25
54
MR. MOTLEY: Do you -- excuse me, do you have
a copy I could read from?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, we have a
copy.
MR. MOTLEY: I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I asked Mr. Baldwin
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Number 4, identify by
name and position any and all individuals interviewed to
date by the County Attorney and/or his staff in connection
with the above-referenced matter.
5. Provide all citations of law alleged to
have been violated, with the names of those who have
violated same, and the date the violation is alleged to have
occurred.
6. Provide the basis upon which you
conclude, quote, that Kerr County expended county funds for
the benefit -- personal benefit of a former employee and/or
his estate, with no legal obligation to do so, unquote.
Further, in this context, provide your interpretation of
Line 1 in the Schedule of Benefits for Kerr County employees
that guarantees a $1,000,000 lifetime maximum benefit, and
explain, please, why this guaranteed benefit for employees
should not apply in this instant case.
-5-0~
1
,.., 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-,.
25
55
7. Provide any and all evidence in your
possession that leads you to conclude beyond a reasonable
doubt that all expenses of the Kerr -- that Kerr County
covered in December 2002 was part of the transplant
procedure performed on the Kerr County employee prior to his
death, thereby rendering these expenses to be not eligible
for recovery from Kerr County's reinsurance carrier.
This report -- Number 8 -- shall be in the
hands of each member of this Court not later than Thursday,
February 12th. That is a motion, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: You through, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, thank you. Maybe
it would be good for those members of the public and the
media who are here today that don't have an understanding of
this particular matter to have some basic understanding of
the facts which gave rise to this entire transaction. To
that end, I think a fair reading of the documents and
records which have arisen in connection with this entire
matter would reveal the following.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, can you -- is this
coming from an analysis that you did, or an analysis from
the County Attorney?
JUDGE TINLEY: Does it make any difference?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, sir, because the
-a-o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
County Attorney represents the Court as our civil guidance;
you do not. So, if you are working with the County Attorney
on it, I need -- from a legal standpoint, I don't think
you're authorized to do so.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're saying I'm not
authorized to work with the County Attorney on matters that
affect county business?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On legal -- from a legal
standpoint, no, sir, I don't believe you are -- you're
authorized to represent this Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me ask the County
Attorney that.
MR. MOTLEY: I'm allowed to work with any
member of this Court on any matter that affects comity
business. If you're saying that Judge Tinley may not file a
lawsuit on behalf of the Court, that would not be something
that -- that normally he would do as part of his duties as
the County Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you relying on
communication with Judge Tinley as an attorney related to
your --
MR. MOTLEY: I tell you what, I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, that's a question,
David.
_ - 9 - r 4
1
,.-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
MR. MOTLEY: Hold on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes or no?
MR. MOTLEY: I've talked to Judge Tinley --
don't give me that yes or no stuff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I will.
MR. MOTLEY: No, you won't. No, you won't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you have --
MR. MOTLEY: Hold on just a minute.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. MOTLEY: This is my issue. I have talked
to Judge Tinley about this. There's not one thing wrong
with me conferring with him or you or anybody else on this
Court about this issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree, as long as it's
not using him as an attorney and using his legal opinion.
MR. MOTLEY: That's -- that's absolute
horseradish. I don't know where you come up with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I --
MR. MOTLEY: As long as he can't use his --
he is what he is; he's an attorney with, you know, dozens of
years of experience. You want me to talk to him and him
somehow forget that he has, you know, 40 years of legal
experience when we discuss a matter?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm saying we had the
same discussion with the prior County Judge, that he does
_-y-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
not represent me, as a Commissioner, in legal matters.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You --
MR. MOTLEY: I don't believe he's taken on
that role.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I'm not
purporting to act as a legal representative of this county.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I just want to
make sure that you're not, you know, working from a legal
standpoint with the County Attorney on this, and on
something that affects me as a Commissioner. That's all I'm
asking.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we should all work
with our County Attorney on matters which affect taxpayers
of this county.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: And -- but I think the public
needs to understand what the facts are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree, and I have --
JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll permit me --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I won't. You
interrupted me.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir, you interrupted Mr.
Motley and myself, and you stand down, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're not going to
o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
allow me to speak?
JUDGE TINLEY: The reasonable -- the
reasonable review of the record in this case indicates that
Kerr County has an employee --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Excuse me, point of
order.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- benefit system, and that
system is --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Point of order,
Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A point of order. Are
you speaking -- you just made a statement that "a reasonable
interpretation." Is that your reasonable interpretation, or
the Court's?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir, it's my reasonable
interpretation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just wanted to make
sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: I can not read your mind,
Commissioner, to know what your interpretation is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just want to make sure
that this is just your opinion.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll permit me the
courtesy. This employee health benefits system is a --
basically, a self-insured one, with a stop loss insurance
-a-o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
benefit. What this means is that the first $40,000 of each
employee, each year, is covered by the County. For anything
in excess of $40,000, we have purchased what's known as stop
loss insurance, and additional benefits over $40,000 are
covered in accordance with the plan that all employees fall
under. Fourteen months ago, a previous Court had before it
our third-party administrator, in which the third-party
administrator sought the Court's assistance in a situation
involving a former employee who, by that time, was deceased.
What had occurred was that there were significant medical
services provided to that employee, and there was a total
hospital bill described as initially almost a million
dollars, which had been negotiated down to $650,000, and
based upon a specific benefit in the health insurance plan
of the county and the stop loss reinsurer, there was an
additional benefit of $250,000. This left, according to the
third-party administrator, a balance due to the hospital of
approximately $400,000.
The third-party administrator presented to
the Court, in December of 2002, two options. One was an
option whereby the County would purchase an additional three
months coverage. This additional three months would be a
period in which the third-party administrator could attempt
to resolve this outstanding balance with the stop loss
insurer. That $270,000, had that option been selected and
-a-o~
61
1
,,., 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,--~
25
paid, would have been gone forever. The second option which
was presented to the Court was that Kerr County advance up
to $400,000 to pay the balance of the former employee's
hospital bill. As part and parcel of that option, the
third-party administrator made assurances to the Court that
he felt like, once that was paid, he could get nearly all,
if not all of that money back. I believe there was a
reference of 99.9 percent.
The Court, at that time -- the previous
Court, having had no consultation or other advice from the
County Attorney, opted to advance up to $400,000 of Kerr
County funds for the express purpose of paying that hospital
bill. Since I took office approximately 13 months ago, I
have brought this matter before the Court on a number of
occasions for a number of reasons. I have a number of
questions and concerns, and I trust that you will too once
you know all the facts. On a number of these occasions, I
asked the third-party administrator to give us an updated
report of where we were on this matter. During the course
of these updates, the third-party administrator acknowledged
that Kerr County had no legal obligation or responsibility
to pay the funds which the prior Court authorized.
Secondly, the third-party administrator acknowledged in
these subsequent discussions after the fact that there was a
third option available at that time, that third option being
-9-04
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,_._
25
to do nothing, because there was no legal obligation. But
he also acknowledged in those subsequent discussions that
that third option was not presented and, in fact, was not
discussed.
The third-party administrator also advised
that of the $400,000 which was authorized to be advanced and
was subsequently transferred to the County's insurance
reserve account, only $258,000 of that sum had, in fact,
been paid for the intended purpose, and that was in the form
of two checks written to the hospital. The third-party
administrator further advised that the balance of that
$400,000, which had been placed into the health benefits
reserve account, $142,000 had never left that reserve
account and had, in fact, been returned to Kerr County. In
fact, he brought it with him in the form of a check the
morning that he arrived here for the first update, I
believe, in April or May of last year. The third-party
administrator has indicated to us that that $142,000, plus
some other funds which he managed to obtain from the stop
loss insurer, aggregate approximately $200,000, and that we
have thus recovered approximately $200,000 of the $400,000
which was initially authorized. There was another occasion
last fall in which $162,00 was forwarded to this county
from the third-party administrator, which was indicated to
be in reimbursement of this matter. The members of this
-9-0~
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.^
25
Court knew, of course, that that was not the case.
At this point, according to the figures from
the third-party administrator, according to the last report
he gave to the Court, Kerr County is down about $200,000.
Only last month, the third-party administrator appeared
before this Court and stated then that all of the members of
this Court, at the time in December of 2002 when the
expenditure was authorized, and several county officials, at
a meeting approximately one week before that meeting in
December 2002 -- that it had been made very, very clear to
them that Kerr County had no legal liability to pay any of
those funds. In light of that background, we're here today.
There are an abundance of legal and factual questions that
we have before us. One, obviously, is what disclosures did
the third-party administrator make or fail to make when he
appeared before this Court in December 2002 and the funds
were authorized to be paid on the former employee's hospital
bill? Secondly, what duties did that third-party
administrator, in his capacity as handling our health
insurance claims -- what duties did he have to this Court
and the citizens and taxpayers of this county, and did he
breach any of those duties?
With respect to the expenditure of the funds,
I have not seen any documentation or evidence which clearly
indicates to me -- and I suspect other members of this Court
_-O-U4
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,-~
25
have not either, 'cause I'm not aware that they've requested
any such documentation, except possibly in this matter from
Commissioner Williams. Which clearly indicates that, in
fact, the $258,000 or any other funds which were reported to
have been expended or to be expended were, in fact, expended
at the time, in the amount, for the purpose, and to whom
they were stated to be expended.
With respect to reimbursements, we have the
last report from the third-party administrator that
indicated we've been reimbursed approximately $200,000 of
the $400,000. A newspaper report I saw this morning
indicated that he has reported we've been reimbursed
approximately $169,000. As indicated previously, there was
documentation presented to the Court indicating that an
additional sum had been paid in reimbursement, and I
question whether or not that, in fact, is reimbursement as
indicated. Bottom line is, nothing has been shown to me
which clearly indicates the amount of reimbursements that
Kerr County has received. We need answers to these
questions. The citizens and taxpayers are entitled to
answers to these questions. It is their money that has been
paid out. This controversy will not go away until all of
the relevant questions are answered.
What we are talking about is over 4 percent
of the entire General Fund expenditures of the '01-'02
_-9-04
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
budget. That's a pretty good chunk of dough, and I think we
need to know more about it. Even though the actions that
permitted these expenditures and authorized the payment of
that $400,000 was action taken by a previous court, I think
that this Court remains accountable to the taxpayers for
those funds. We should be accountable and provide them with
satisfactory answers t~ all of these questions, and if
there's any reasonable possibility that we can get any of
this money back for the benefit of our taxpayers and
citizens, I think we ought to do it. It's my opinion that
if we fail to do it, we would be derelict in our duty and
violative of our oath of office.
In September last, I requested that the
County Attorney be authorized to look into this matter and
to take any action that Yie thought might be appropriate to
recover these funds for the benefit of the taxpayers. When
the matter was presented to the Court, the Court declined to
authorize him to do so, but rather directed him to look into
the matter, and as the County's legal adviser under the law,
advise the Court of the best course or courses of action
available for the Court to pursue. Well, gentlemen, you
asked for it. You got it. He's here. He's told you what
he is requesting to be pursued. He is asking for your
authorization to proceed. And what he has proposed will,
number one, I think if they're obtainable, get answers to
_-y-o4
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,.,, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
these questions. Number two, if the citizens of Kerr County
are legally entitled to recover any of these funds, I
believe the course of action which he's outlined will permit
that to occur. But the best of all worlds is -- what he's
asking is that it be done on a basis that is of no
additional cost to the taxpayers of this county, a
contingent fee basis. That is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many more pages
you got there?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that if the lawyers that
pursue this matter are able to recover something for the
benefit of the citizens, they will get paid. If they're not
able to, they will not get paid. To me, it's a no-brainer.
But it is important that this matter go forward very quickly
and very timely. There are statutes of limitations in civil
actions, and that statute or statutes are running as we
speak. Further delay can only jeopardize and compromise the
interests of the taxpayers and their ability to recover what
they are justly due. I -- as I say, I think it's a
no-brainer. It's a win-win situation. If there's nothing
to be gained, certainly, competent lawyers will come to that
conclusion and say it's not worth running with.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you -- time out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Under the circumstances, I can
- G - O ~
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
•--
25
not imagine how anyone who has the interests of the citizens
and taxpayers of this county as his primary concern and who
desires to protect the integrity of this Court could vote
against what the County Attorney has presented here today.
If any member of this Court does not support the proposal as
presented by the County Attorney, I think that member should
be prepared to answer some very, very probing questions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you mean by
that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Probing questions. Such as,
Commissioner, if that was your own personal $400,000 that
you had entrusted to a third-party, and they had expended
it, and you had a reasonable opportunity under the
circumstances to recover that at no additional cost to you,
wouldn't you proceed to try and recover it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Part of that money is
mine.
JUDGE TINLEY: It certainly is, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Secondly --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Secondly? You did
"secondly" an hour ago.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- whose interests were being
protected when there was a failure to support the effort by
the County Attorney to get answers to the questions and
-G-c~
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
•--
25
attempt to get some of that taxpayer money back? If we fail
to make the effort, we have no right to blame others for
adverse consequences that may follow. We'll only have
ourselves to blame. As I say, I think it's a no-brainer;
it's a win-win deal, and the County Attorney should be
authorized to proceed on a civil basis to investigate this
matter and to pursue whatever efforts he legally has
available to him to secure collection of these funds.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, may I be
recognized now?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm next. I'm next.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I asked first.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you through?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Real quick, may I say
something that I don't think this Court's brought up?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. I would like to
say one thing. If y'all remember, this is one of my
employees. This employee that died's spouse still works for
me. I have watched this issue go from executive sessions,
where it belonged -- and I agree, all Judge Tinley's
questions need to be answered, but to watch it turn from
that into the political football that I believe personally
it has turned into, and the arguing in this court has done
nothing but bring all those issues back up for my employee
-G-~~
69
1
,^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-..
25
and has put her into being a basket case the last several
weeks. And I think this issue needs to be resolved; it
needs to be looked at strongly, but it needs to get out of
the political arena, and do it in a dignified manner for my
employee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, and I agree
with you a hundred percent.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Sheriff. My
apologies if this has caused any distress to your employee.
Mr. Motley's proposal would turn this over to private
attorneys, and they would take it from there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, may I be
recognized now, please?
COMMISSTONER BALDWIN: Judge, I agree with
about 85 percent of what you said, and I don't think anybody
at this table would disagree with it. And I don't think
anybody in this room would disagree that we -- that if money
needs to come back to us, that we need it. We want it, and
it's our money; we want it back. There -- there's no
question of that whatsoever. But I've got a couple of
questions about the -- about the attorney. You say it -- in
the Judge's book he just wrote there, that it would be zero
expenses to the County, this attorney. What about his
expenses? Is that also included? Don't attorneys charge --
MR. MOTLEY: There may be some minor expenses
-9-G9
~o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-
25
that are along those lines. What we're talking about,
though, is the cost of recovering the -- the funds that
we're dealing --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand -- no,
no, no, no. We're talking about additional costs to the
taxpayers of the county.
MR. MOTLEY: No, I mean the Judge said a
contingency fee. It is based on what they recover. They
will receive the fee for what they recover out of that.
Yes, there may be some expenses; there surely may be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, there may be
some expenses. I'd like to know what -- normally, what they
-- what they charge on that.
MR. MOTLEY: I can't tell you that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know you can't,
David. Just -- I'm not -- you and I don't need to get in a
shouting match.
MR. MOTLEY: No, I'm not. I just can't tell
you that. I'm just telling you that the other --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. But I'd
appreciate it if you would at some point.
MR. MOTLEY: Would what?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me what attorneys
charge for expenses.
MR. MOTLEY: I'll try.
-9-0~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
71
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The taxpayers would
MR. MOTLEY: Yes, I'll try to do that for
you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. Now, it
appears in -- in your letter that -- that you're including
the Commissioners Court in the lawsuit; that, in other
words, you're going to sue the Commissioners Court. Does
our insurance --
MR. MOTLEY: Excuse me, you didn't need to
ask the question -- it doesn't appear that way. It appears
that way if you read it that way. I didn't say that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just got it from --
MR. MOTLEY: I didn't say that, didn't imply
that, don't mean that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't interrupt,
please. I just got that interpretation from probably --
MR. MOTLEY: Well, that's an incorrect --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- from probably the
brightest legal mind in this town. So, I mean, I'm just
going on what -- what my legal advice is saying, that it
clearly says you're suing the Commissioners Court. But
let's say --
MR. MOTLEY: Where does it say I'm suing the
-~-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
72
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "And others, arising
out of any unlawful authorization..."
MR. MOTLEY: So, any other person besides the
insurance company means you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I finish a
sentence?
MR. MOTLEY: Any other person besides the
insurance company means you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Unlawful
authorization, yes, sir.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, that's not what that is --
was intended to mean at all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I ask a question?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who else -- I mean, who
else authorizes funds? Who authorized $400,000? The Court.
MR. MOTLEY: It wasn't just limited to
authorization of funds.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what you said.
No --
MR. MOTLEY: It wasn't limited to
authorization of funds.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'm -- let me just
say that, you know --
MR. MOTLEY: It's going to get real boring
-9-G9
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
real fast.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know it's going to get
real boring real fast. But -- are you finished?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me just finish my
question here. Let me finish my question. I know what I'm
reading and I know what I'm understanding. My question
is -- is when -- when there's a lawsuit comes against the
Commissioners Court, does our liability insurance pick up
our legal fees?
MR. MOTLEY: When -- say that again?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When the lawsuit comes
against the Commissioners Court and I'm being sued as a
county commissioner, and I'm going to have to get legal
representation to defend me, does our liability insurance
pay for that?
MR. MOTLEY: When you say "the lawsuit,"
you --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A lawsuit.
MR. MOTLEY: Any lawsuit?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, specifically,
this one, yeah.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, again, I -- this is not --
a lawsuit against the Commissioners was not contemplated
when the memorandum was written. Was not contemplated at
all.
-~-o~
1
.-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what it says,
David. I'm just going by what I'm reading in your letter.
MR. MOTLEY: I'll be happy to read it, if you
want me to, out loud.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
MR. MOTLEY: "I'm requesting Commissioners
Court authorization to retain the services of an experienced
litigation attorney or firm of attorneys with experience in
insurance matters of this sort to investigate and pursue on
behalf of Kerr County any and all claims for reimbursement
and/or other remedies which Kerr County may have against
Employee Benefit Administrators and others arising out of
unlawful authorization and payment by Kerr County of health
care funds to Employee Benefit Administrators." Okay. "And
others" -- you, for some reason, think that means
Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Unlawful
authorization. There's no one else that's authorized any
payments but this Court.
MR. MOTLEY: You think that's limited to
that, though, is what I'm saying. You think all of this is
limited -- we're seeking to go against any entity. You are
- 9 - 0 4
1
~.. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
75
just putting this -- making this way too personal. This is
not about the Commissioners. This is not --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, "unlawful
authorization." We're the only ones that have --
MR. MOTLEY: Look, I wrote the memo, Buster.
I didn't intend for anything -- for the Commissioners to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why are you yelling at
me?
MR. MOTLEY: Because I'm -- I can't
understand why you keep on belaboring this point. I told
you --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because it looks like
I'm getting sued, that's why
myself.
I need to know how to protect
MR. MOTLEY: Well, let me ask you --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Counselor --
MR. MOTLEY: That's fine. Do you want to do
that -- I'm pleased to do that right now, to flesh out how
you're going to protect yourself today. Is that what you
want to do in Commissioners Court?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I need to
know before I vote on this issue. I'm trying to --
MR. MOTLEY: You may have representation by
the County --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Please don't --
_-9-0~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
76
MR. MOTLEY: -- and you may have to hire an
attorney. That's what you're asking. If you were sued, it
could be either way. It depends on whether those activities
that you engaged in were within or without the scope of your
authority as a commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right, uh-huh.
MR. MOTLEY: You know, that's the answer for
that. But that's not what's on the table today. And I
don't care what you say, that's not what we're looking at.
I'm trying to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why are you being so
rude?
MR. MOTLEY: I'm not being rude, Buster. I'm
not. I'm just not quite as cute as you are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we all know
that. But --
MR. MOTLEY: Okay. My point is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, the point is that
we're talking about some major things here, to me.
MR. MOTLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I need to know --
I need to know, if there's a lawsuit, does our liability
insurance cover us?
MR. MOTLEY: I believe I just answered that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you answer it
_-~-a~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
77
again?
MR. MOTLEY: I believe I just answered. I
said it depends on -- if you were sued, at some point, it
would depend on whether we're talking criminal action, civil
action; it would depend on whether your actions as
commissioners were within or without the scope of your
proper duties as county commissioners, and that's the
answer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now can I ask a question?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- after listening to
all this, actually, I'm glad I didn't get to speak for a
while, 'cause I got to listen to everybody else. What comes
to me is that we're pretty much all in agreement. I think
if you look at -- we have had, for some reason -- and I
will, just for the record, say last time we went into
executive session on this, I wanted this to be held in open
session. I don't know what's different about today's
discussion; it's basically identical to the one we had two
weeks ago, but that's neither here nor there. I have twice,
possibly more, in executive session asked that this be
further investigated and thoroughly investigated, acid I have
been denied that. Now, no one's made a motion to pursue
that, other than this particular one. I have asked the
_-G-~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
78
question before, is this criminal? Is this civil? And on
and on; I'm not going to go back through those transcripts,
but, clearly, I have wanted this investigated.
We've talked about the Texas Rangers in
executive session, whether they should be brought into it.
We've talked about the District Attorney's office; we have
either the 198th or 216th that could investigate it, and
I've never received a good answer as to why it shouldn't be
those avenues. If we're talking about the -- you know, what
I read in the memo, unlawful authorization of payment, to
me, that's probably -- you know, to me, that means criminal,
and criminal means -- basically, that amount is probably a
felony, and that probably means it's beyond the County
Attorney. And I'm, again, just reading what's here. So I,
again, would like to see this investigated by the Department
of Public Safety Special Crime Unit, by the Texas Rangers,
by either of the District Attorneys that we have. And the
reason I -- you know, I say that is because the County
Attorney has many times during executive session said that
the reason he wants to go this route is that he doesn't
understand this type of law.
MR. MOTLEY: I didn't say that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said you are not
qualified to --
MR. MOTLEY: I did not say that.
-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
...-..
25
79
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- do this type of
investigation. You have said that.
MR. MOTLEY: I did not say that. I said it
would take experienced counsel in this area to provide the
kind of help that we need.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and you're not
experienced counsel in this area.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I don't think I said,
well, you know, I just can't do this. That's not what I
said, Jonathan, so why don't you be accurate about what I
say, please.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that I am
accurate. But what the County Attorney has said just now,
that he is not experienced counsel in this type of law and
wants to refer it to someone else, I have no problem with
that if there needs to be an investigation -- I mean a
lawsuit, I should say. But the first step, to me, is a
thorough investigation. And I haven't seen any data written
that this Court has asked for to show what we're trying to
investigate. It's been very broad-brushed up to now. So,
you know, Commissioner Williams' motion that's still on the
table is the first -- I don't -- it's the second attempt to
get this reduced to writing. It's a little bit more
substantial -- it's a little bit -- the reason I haven't
seconded it, it's a little bit voluminous; I think it could
-9-r~
1
..... 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
80
take a long, long time to get that, and I don't think that
serves anyone any purpose, 'cause this needs to be looked
into. The problem I have with the recommendation that the
-- you know, the County Attorney's going with is that if
there is a claim, we're giving the plaintiff's attorney --
and the amount is $200,000, we're giving the plaintiff's
attorney about $90,000. Well, it seems -- that's 40 percent
of $200,000 -- $85,000, $90,000, plus expenses. To me, that
is not a prudent way to handle the taxpayers' money. If
there is a --
do nothing?
MR. MOTLEY: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, let me speak. Let
MR. MOTLEY: You think it would be better to
23 give --
24
,.-_
25
_-9-04
JUDGE TINLEY: I've heard that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- to give us some
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I don't think we
should do nothing. I am more willing -- and am willing to
refer it to either District Attorney's office, the Texas
Rangers or Special Crime Unit. If they decline to do it,
then I'd be willing to go in and hire an insurance
specialist that you say you are not, and I don't believe
Judge Tinley is -- he doesn't represent us, anyway -- to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
advice. To give us advice. Now, that is what -- and I
really want to hammer this point home. I want it
investigated, but I don't want to give all the money to an
attorney if there's something done wrong. And it's -- and
when you talk about 40 percent contingency fee, I don't like
that approach. If there's money to get back, I want this
first thoroughly investigated. If Benefit Administrators or
anybody else deceived this Court, did anything wrong, I want
to know and I want to go after them. But until I can be
given some, you know, basis for that, you know, I can't vote
to hire an attorney on a contingency basis. I would be much
more -- and you have not presented to me or to this Court,
to my knowledge, any other options than this. I suspect
that there are investigators -- insurance investigators that
will do this on an hourly basis; there are attorneys that
will do this on an hourly basis, and my preference is to go
that route, so that if there are damages, the taxpayers of
this county get those funds, and not a plaintiff's attorney.
That's all I have to say.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is it my turn now?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As a Commissioner, I
have to rely on the County Attorney's advice on legal
matters. Have to, and I need to, and I do. The County
Attorney has a lot of experience in law and in being County
-9-G9
82
1
~... 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Attorney and Assistant County Attorney and other things, and
I'm not going to look over his shoulder and look at the
evidence that he's developed that -- that led to these
conclusions, no more than I'm going to ask the County
Engineer to show me his formulas when he tells me rainwater
runoff rate is going to be something. That's not an area of
expertise I have. I don't have any expertise in law,
either. What I do know is that if we -- and I support this
approach that -- that David has brought to us. What I do
know is that a capable law firm, a good -- a capable
litigation attorney, he or she is not going to pursue this
case unless he or she thinks it's a good one. He or she is
not going to waste their time and resources pursuing
something that they're not going to recover on. And I think
that is the most cost-effective way to go about it. Let
them bear the expense of it, and let us reap the benefits of
their -- their efforts if there is a good case.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe the County
Attorney said we bear the expenses, though. See, we bear
the expense and give the money away, whereas if we hire an
independent investigator, then we pay the expenses and then
we can get the full amount back. And I just -- I don't
understand -- acid really, you know, what I want is for
someone to present to me all of the options. Clearly,
there's nobody in the -- and I think, from a conflict of
-5-0-~
83
1
..._ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
r,
25
interest standpoint also, there's no one in-house to do this
thorough investigation, in my mind. It needs to either go
through the -- through the criminal side through the
District Attorney's office -- and that would be my
preference, to give it to them first, let them look at it.
If there's something criminal that will -- that's been done,
let's get that out on the table and let's pursue that as
much as we can. If there isn't, then I think we look at the
civil side, but I think we need to bring in a knowledgeable
expert that we don't have in-house. And we're going to
spend the money on expenses either way, so why not at least,
you know, spend the money and then -- you know, I can't
imagine it's going to cost us $90,000, which is a maximum
contingency fee, to do some investigation. I just -- it
doesn't make sense to me to proceed this way.
But where we are in clear agreement is, I
think everyone on this Court has said let's investigate it,
and a lot of allegations have been made, and I think it --
the taxpayers and this Court and everybody else involved
needs to get to the bottom of it. And I think hiring an
investigator or, you know, either -- one, I would like to
get something in writing as to what the allegations are and
what's been gone over. We've asked for it and, you know,
for several months have never received that. But the second
thing, I would really request the County Attorney would come
-9-C4
84
1
,,., 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,,,,_ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,,.,-..
25
back to us, 'cause he is our civil counsel, as to what the
other options are. I mean, are there investigators out
there? Are there attorneys that will do this on an hourly
basis? What are the other options? And then, once we have
the options on the table, if he -- you know, and --
MR. MOTLEY: I don't need to come back. I
don't need to come back. I can tell you now, your best
option is to do what I've told you to do. That's your best
option.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you presented other
options to this Court?
MR. MOTLEY: You are the only one that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you --
MR. MOTLEY: Excuse me, can I answer?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I asked you a question.
MR. MOTLEY: I'm trying to answer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. MOTLEY: You're the one that keeps
talking about the Texas Rangers and the D.A. and the
criminal thing. I didn't say anything about any criminal
anything.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No -- well, wait, you
did. In your memo, you said unlawful authorization of
payment of Kerr County funds. That is criminal.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I guarantee you -- you
-9-0~
85
1
,,_, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~
25
seem very sensitive to the word "criminal" or something,
because all I'm telling you is that I'm talking about a
civil -- somebody to look into this civilly, and that's the
way to get the money back. If we want to have an
investigator go look into it, they may tell us this one or
that one broke the law, but by that time, our statute of
limitations on our civil case is gone.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the statute?
MR. MOTLEY: Two years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, we have until
when?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, it depends on when you
start counting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm asking you, when do
we start counting? When is the statute of limitations up on
this case?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, is it up on the date we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't ask me a question,
David. I'm asking --
MR. MOTLEY:
that would actually require
going to be the day we gave
the day you voted to give t
day the debt was incurred?
COMMISSIONER
I'm going to tell you something;
some research, whether it's
the money -- is it going to be
~e money? Is it going to be the
I have no idea.
LETZ: That is exactly my point.
-a-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~-.
25
86
You're asking us to make a decision, and you don't have --
you can't answer our basic questions.
MR. MOTLEY: I'm telling you that I think
that there are some options on that, depending on the facts.
Jonathan, this is a civil investigation. We're trying to
get -- I'm trying to get the money back for the County.
That's my -- what my goal is. And the fact -- I don't know
why you are jumping all over this word "unlawful payment,"
saying that everybody here is fixing to be dragged out of
here in chains, 'cause that's not what I'm talking about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said -- and you're
saying that now, but your memo -- and I showed it to some
very good legal minds in this county also, and they said
they think it is either a very poorly written memo, or
you're going after some criminal idea; you think something's
criminal.
MR. MOTLEY: Let me tell you, I don't really
care what they think. I am the legal officer for the Court.
I'm telling you the best course of action now is to do what
I've been asking y'all to do, to allow me to hire somebody.
And you're sitting here saying, "Well, gee whiz, we might
spend $80,000 or $90,000 to recover money that is due to the
County." If it, in fact, is due, if there's been something
done wrong, then we ought to get money back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're saying that --
_-a-o~
87
1
,~... 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MOTLEY: And the fact that somebody
actually made some money -- or a law firm made money by
returning us money that's lawfully due us seems to really
upset you, and I don't understand that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Giving $80,000
potentially to an attorney really upsets me.
MR. MOTLEY: Last time you referred to them
as "ambulance chasers," so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right.
MR. MOTLEY: And that's offensive. That's an
offensive term.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, let me try
again, and maybe Mr. Motley and I won't get into --
MR. MOTLEY: I'm not going to go through the
thing again. I'm not going to listen to this again.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just -- may I make a
comment?
MR. MOTLEY: If you're going back through
the -- I'm not going through --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have provided you
with this, so you can take whatever amount of time you want
to read it. And if you want to throw it around, fine, you
can do that. That's your prerogative. I want to make a
comment. May I?
_-9-04
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MOTLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Perhaps
the choice of words in your memorandum wasn't what you
intended it to be. Perhaps. But it doesn't read that way,
and it poses for us some questions. If there are dollars
out there to be recovered on behalf of Kerr County, then
let's recover them, period.
MR. MOTLEY: That's what I've been saying.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's not cast
aspersions all over the lot; let's just say what we mean.
And all I tried to do in this memorandum to you -- or this
motion, is to get the questions on the table that we've been
asking for answers to, and we don't have them. That's all
I'm saying.
MR. MOTLEY: I think you have all you need.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon me?
MR. MOTLEY: I think you have everything you
need. I think you have everything you need.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Show me one document
you've provided me that shows me anything related to this.
MR. MOTLEY: Have you taken the time to look
at the transcripts of the various meetings where this has
been discussed? I mean, we have five meetings. Have you
looked at those?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, I have.
_-9-04
89
1
,,_ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've looked at some; I
haven't looked at all five.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I read them all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you said --
MR. MOTLEY: That's enough for what I'm
looking at.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, you said substantial
documentation, transcripts and other material. I have
access to the transcripts; that's public. I don't know what
you're referring to when you say substantial documentation
and other material.
MR. MOTLEY: I don't know that I owe you an
explanation of every piece of paper I've read. I don't
think that that's required. I'm telling you now that these
five transcripts alone support the issue that I'm requesting
you to allow me to hire counsel on, which is, were we
adequately informed of our third option to do nothing? And
I maintain that we were not informed. Now, if you can read
this and tell me where we were, why don't you show it to me?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, David, I have
offered to talk to you and you have declined to -- to talk
to me on this topic. You and I talk all the time; we talk
daily. I've asked you before, have you talked to any member
of that Court at the time? Have you talked to Tommy
Tomlinson? Have you talked to Barbara Nemec? Have you
-9-0~
90
1
._.. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,...
25
talked to anybody? And you said, "No, I don't have to."
Well, I can't --
MR. MOTLEY: It's not that -- it's not that I
don't have to. I'm telling you --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said --
MR. MOTLEY: -- I know what I need to know by
reading these statements.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And -- but you're also
saying that you're not knowledgeable enough to pursue it
from an insurance standpoint.
MR. MOTLEY: I'm saying that I'm not the guy
that's going to be able to track the funds and do the
accounting and the auditing and the legal analytical work
that's going to talk about this sort of funds that we need
to ultimately do the job. No, I can't do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you present options
to this Court of the way to proceed? You gave one. There
are other options.
MR. MOTLEY: The other option is to blow off
the civil and go criminal and just make this a criminal --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other option is --
MR. MOTLEY: Which is what you're asking me
to do.
COMMISSIONER	NICHOLSON:	Let	me try	this
again. It's real simple to	me. And I	-- I	think	everybody
-9-09
1
,_. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.--
25
91
at the table believes that there's some expectation that we
can and should recover some money. It might be 10 percent
expectation, might be a 99 percent; I don't know. And --
and David has said to us, "Here's the way to do that." It's
a risk management issue. Don't put your cash at risk in
hiring an attorney by the hour to do this. It's -- get a
competent law firm that specializes in civil litigation to
investigate this and come back to us and say, "Yes, you've
got a good case and we'll take it," and go forward with it,
or, "No, we don't like your case and we're not going to
spend any more of our time."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a good and
prudent and proper approach to it, and it's the approach
that everybody uses in something like this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. David, I
have a question for -- now, just take a deep breath.
There's no yelling or any confrontation here. I just simply
want to know, how do you go about hiring an attorney like
this? Do you run ads in the paper? Do you call your
friends? How does that -- how does that happen?
MR. MOTLEY: That's for me to know and you to
find out. How about that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Want to bet?
MR. MOTLEY: Listen, I'll do it. I'll find a
-9-0~
1
,- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,^. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
way to get the right firm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, how do you do
that? Am I going to be in on the hiring?
MR. MOTLEY: No. I'm asking for the
authority to -- for me to make the decision.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Authorize --
MR. MOTLEY: Which has been very commonly
done throughout the counties in the state by the county
attorney, by the way. County Attorney is looked at as the
manager of legal affairs of the county in most counties.
And I'm saying that I'll find -- I'll find a qualified firm.
And I meant that as a joke; I wasn't trying to be smart with
you, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
MR. MOTLEY: But this is a civil inquiry on
my part at this time. And Jonathan's saying, "What are our
options?" Our options are to say, well, let's just take
this civil thing and put it in the back closet while the
statute of limitation's ticking, and then get some criminal
investigation --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, that is absolutely
wrong as to what I said.
MR. MOTLEY: Hold on a minute.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, you interrupted me.
-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
..-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
r
25
93
MR. MOTLEY: We're going to get the Texas
Rangers in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not what I said.
I said -- you said that is not going to work. All I want --
what are the other options from the civil approach?
MR. MOTLEY: I don't think we have any.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't think we have
any? We can't hire someone to look into this?
MR. MOTLEY: You can hire somebody hourly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you were going to
speak about expenses. You can't tell us how much -- how do
I know these expenses aren't going to possibly exceed what
we're going to pay hourly?
MR. MOTLEY: I don't know. I guess maybe --
probably the best thing to do, maybe just blow the whole
thing off. Really, just blow it off, and just don't get the
money back. I think maybe that's the thing to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not what I want to
do.
MR. MOTLEY: I think -- I think we -- what
else do y'all want to talk about? I'm up here; I'm telling
you I think the best option is to spend the money necessary
to have some incidental expenses, hire a firm -- outside
firm on a contingency fee basis to find out if there's a
problem. If there is a problem, where the money went, what
-9-04
1
_ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
moneys may be recoverable on a contingency fee basis. I
don't begrudge them one penny for the work they do. They
will have earned their money. And I don't know what your
hangup is about lawyers making money -- or making some money
on a case. I don't -- and you may think that's funny, but
that's how they make their living, and that's fine that they
do that. They may be equipped to find money that's due this
county. As I perceived it, the other option you presented
is to go to the Texas Rangers, go to the D.A.; let's make it
criminal. I don't want to make it criminal. I think that's
a bad idea.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it -- my question is,
is it possible it's criminal? And you have never addressed
that.
MR. MOTLEY: It could be possibly criminal,
absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if it's criminal,
where do we go with it?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, where we go is we go after
the civil part first, before our statute of limitations runs
out. That's what we do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we don't pursue it --
the criminal at the same time?
MR. MOTLEY: I'm not saying we don't pursue
it at the same time; I'm not saying that. Right now, this
-y-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
95
is what we need to do. This is what we need to do. We
needed to do it the last time I talked to y'all about it.
And I tell you what, the last thing I wanted to do is bring
it up in public. That's the last thing I wanted to do. But
last --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You did it your way.
MR. MOTLEY: And did I have any luck last
time?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We did it in executive
session.
MR. MOTLEY: Did I have any luck whatsoever
getting this done?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're getting
information.
MR. MOTLEY: I don't know exactly how much
information, frankly, that you're entitled to on this; I'll
be honest with you. I don't mean to be ugly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait. You're
representing me, and I don't have access to the information?
MR. MOTLEY: No, I said I don't know how much
you're entitled to. I mean, you're saying, you know, like,
you want to see what papers I've looked at and what I've
done and this and that and the other. I don't think -- I
don't think that's part of the deal. I don't think that's
part of the deal at all. I'm telling you I think this is
-5-0~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~
25
96
the best option we have at this time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're not willing to
tell me what you've done?
MR. MOTLEY: I tell you, I just did. I just
did. I told you I read these five transcripts, and that's
enough for me to know -- to believe that we were not given
that third option on December the 9th of 2002. Now, what
else do you want to read?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, can you bring back
at our next court what the expenses are going to be to hire
an attorney under your plan, and what the hourly rate is and
what it would -- estimated cost to have it looked into?
MR. MOTLEY: What's going to happen then?
We're going to have to do this next time?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hopefully resolve this,
'cause I'm really tired of talking about it, and I think we
need to get to the bottom of it.
MR. MOTLEY: Why don't we put a cap on the
expenses, then?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's an option.
MR. MOTLEY: Put a cap on the expenses.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not to exceed what?
JUDGE TINLEY: $2,500.
MR. MOTLEY: A dollar and a half. I mean,
what do y'all want? I know, that's what I -- that's the way
_-9-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
97
I feel, like y'all are -- y'all are just attacking these
guys for doing their job. I mean, that's -- you know,
40 percent contingency, that means 60 percent of something
is better than 100 percent of zip.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not arguing that.
You just said why not put a cap on it, the expenses.
MR. MOTLEY: $5,000? $10,000? I have no
idea. $5,000 or $10,000. I have no idea.
JUDGE TINLEY: $2,500.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for your
answer.
12
13
14 answer.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MOTLEY: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for your
MR. MOTLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is serious. I
know -- I know, compared to the uproar up here, this is
small potatoes, but still, I represent the people. On this
expense -- and I'm kind of hung up on this expense thing,
David. Lawyers charge, like, $10 or $15 for a telephone
call, and $4 or $5 for -- okay. Charges for telephone calls
and copy machines and those kinds of things, about -- about
how much, so we can -- so the public can know how much money
they're spending? How much I will be voting on if we're
talking about a cap here?
_-~-c~
1
~. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
98
MR. MOTLEY: I just said $5,000 or $10,000
would be a cap. I can't sit here and tell you how much any
given law firm is going to charge for a 15-minute phone
call, if they're going to have a 15-minute minimum. I don't
have any idea what you're going to find in any given case.
I'm saying a $5,000 or $10,000 maximum. We could probably
do something like that. But I think if --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm thinking more in
the lines of $500, maybe.
MR. MOTLEY: $500?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm talking to the
Judge now. We're -- we're trying to get a motion going
here, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a motion on
the floor already.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm thinking, you
know, if you cap it -- I mean, I -- if you could tell me
what -- tell me what expenses are. I mean, don't you think
that the public --
JUDGE TINLEY: You're asking me?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you have things in the
nature of copy costs, long distance telephone toll charges.
You have -- occasionally, you'll have some filing fees,
obtaining certified copies of records.
- y - ~ 4
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mileage.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, on travel, sometimes
there's mileage. But all of the things dealing with
investment of time, that's part of the contingency. That
goes in -- it's only the out-of-pocket, the actual
out-of-pocket. You know, $2,500, $5,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $2,500 would cover --
probably cover that. And I just -- I'm just trying to get
to the point to where the taxpayers can see, I mean, how
many -- what this is going to cost, about. I mean, I don't
want to -- I don't want to put $10,000 on there if it's
really going to be $2,500.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, whatever's not expended
for actual out-of-pocket expenses would come back to you
under the customary contingent fee contract. If you
authorize 10 and they only spend $1,600, for example, on
out-of-pocket, the balance comes back to you. That's the
way it normally works, the way I've seen it work.
Mr. Clack's here; I'm sure he could probably verify that
that's generally the way it works. He works on that basis a
whole lot.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Clack.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hi, Mr. Clack.
MR. CLACK: Good morning.
-5-0~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know
Mr. Clack.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Clack handles lawsuits on
a contingent-fee basis on a frequent basis, to my best
information.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, is there -- I'm
not trying to -- we're friends now.
MR. MOTLEY: I think we're friends all the
time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- or has anyone
looked into, I guess, you know -- how would you say it? If
there's nothing wrong and we pursue it in the way that
you're doing it, through hiring outside counsel, is there --
have you looked into the risk that may be putting the County
at towards getting future insurance contracts?
MR. MOTLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we go into it and this
is a frivolous thing or something like that, --
MR. MOTLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- does that have any
impact? No, it won't? Or you haven't --
MR. MOTLEY: I have not looked into it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause it's something
that I'm just -- I'm wondering. I don't want to -- and
anyone else on the Court, 'cause I don't know; this is
2-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,-,.
25
101
really a legal issue. It's a concern that I have, that if
we -- if we get a reputation for doing this and there's
nothing there -- and, you know, if there is, obviously, it
wouldn't make any difference. Obviously, we're going after
someone; I think that's good to have the insurance industry
as a whole know that we're going to watch our claims and
investigate them. But if it's -- if there is nothing there,
there is maybe some other negatives -- a negative point
there as well.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think Commissioner Nicholson
answered that. If this matter is laid in the hands of
competent, experienced, civil litigators, if they see that
there's not anything that's worth their time, what they will
be investing their time and their expertise in pursuing,
they're going to hand it back to us and say, "Thanks, but no
thanks," and you don't get there, is the way it works.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, Judge, I hope you
don't take offense to the fact -- when I am critical of you
practicing law. I mean, you're not representing the Court.
I know it's very difficult. I know you can't hardly -- it's
difficult to separate the two, but it's just -- you know,
it's -- I presume it's difficult to be an attorney and then
not try to represent us. As you're -- when you're talking,
you're representing just yourself; I understand that. But I
just bring it up to let the public know that, 'cause
_-~-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~-~.
25
102
everyone knows you are an attorney; that you, in your
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not saying you were.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- representing the County in
a legal capacity here. The only way I do that is in a
judicial capacity on the three dockets that I handle. But
it -- Commissioner, as you know, it's extremely difficult
for me to disregard 35-plus years of -- of background and
practice of law, and the education and experience and
training that go with it. But there's our legal
representative. He's -- he's giving us his recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a comment. I
don't want to deal with this any more. That's -- I agree
with you; it's our money out there and we need to go get it.
And I think we've had the discussion and -- and all of it.
My questions have been put on the record here, in case
something pops up bad. I do not like your threat of suing
the Commissioners Court. And I don't like your threats of,
if we don't do something, there could be some bad
consequences. I detest that kind of language. However, if
you'll put a cap of $2,500 on any expenses, I'll vote with
you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Just -- we've got a
motion that has been hanging here for a good while, and I --
-~-n~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
103
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Point of order.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'd like to wind this thing
up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wasn't making a
motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I moved all these
various items, which was an effort to get the information
that I think we have not been given. If we need to clear
the deck to figure out a way to attempt to get Kerr County
some money back, I'm willing to pull the motion. But all
this does is illustrates all the questions we have that
haven't been answered. With all due respect, I'll withdraw
my motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, motion's withdrawn.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can reinstitute
it if you want to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have is
the -- David, could you explain how we proceed if we do what
you want? Which I'm still -- I wish we would have some
other options, but you -- obviously, I'm not going to get
them. Can you walk through the -- I guess, the -- if we
were to give you authority to hire outside counsel, what
happens, and what happens when they reach their cap and what
monitor do we have and what information do we get? Because
- 9 - ~ 4
1
... 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.--
25
104
at some point, I would really like to get some information
as to what the allegations are that I haven't gotten in
three years. And the other thing I would like to have,
which is related, have we -- has the County ever gone to
Employee Benefit Administrators and/or our -- I won't say
"ever." Have we gone through Employee Benefit
Administrators and/or our reinsurance carrier to try to
resolve this prior to litigation?
MR. MOTLEY: I don't know if the County has.
Are you asking me if I have?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, you
represent -- you're representing the County. That's -- I
mean, it seems to me if we're getting ready to hire an
attorney to go out after something, we ought to at least try
to work out a deal before we go spend any money.
MR. MOTLEY: I believe we've had a
representative of E.B.A. in this court at least four times
subsequent to the time that the moneys were provided.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, is it -- I guess
my thought is, if you hire somebody all of sudden, and we
get back $100,000, $200,000, whatever it is, 40 percent of
that's going to the attorney. Wouldn't it be better to at
least -- like, two weeks to let you try to talk to them, or
someone on your staff to try to talk to them to avoid the
taxpayers spending that much money? And I'll give you the
-~-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-,.
25
105
assurance that if we -- you know, if you would, you know,
visit with them, or if you feel you're qualified or
whatever -- I just hate to give the -- give away -- I won't
say "give away." I hate to spend that much of the
taxpayers' money if there's something to be got out there,
and I don't know why we can't have you, as our civil
attorney, meet with them azid say, you know, "We feel you owe
us money," and at least have an answer. And, you know, to
me that's a reasonable step. And if you can't come to a
resolution, I'll go with -- I will do -- I may even do what
you want anyway, but I'll do what you want. I mean, I think
that that is a prudent first step for the taxpayers of this
county, to at least try to work out a deal before we hire
outside counsel.
MR. MOTLEY: I've not done that. But, as I
said, the E.B.A. administrator -- or the E.B.A.
representative has been here on four occasions subsequent to
December 12th -- or December 9th of 2002.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm aware they've been in
court. They haven't been in a sit-down meeting to say, hey,
we think there's something -- I've got -- you know, I'm
speaking as you -- "Here's some of our concerns," you know,
which you obviously have, and obviously the Court has.
MR. MOTLEY: There's been at least two
meetings between a representative of the County and
_-a-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-,
25
106
representative of E.B.A., representative of Finley. I
believe there were at least two meetings.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know there have been
meetings between County personnel. All I'm asking from a
legal standpoint from your office is, would you do that
before -- even if we give you authority to hire outside
counsel, would you meet with them to try to work it out, see
if there --
MR. MOTLEY: I don't know that I will or
won't. I don't know that I will or won't. I don't know
that that's a terrible idea.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is a terrible idea?
MR. MOTLEY: No, I said I don't know that it
is a terrible idea. You asked other options. It's possible
maybe we could hire somebody hourly. That's possible. It
is possible that we don't proceed civilly and that we would
seek the assistance of some criminal investigator, some law
enforcement agency, and proceed criminally, which is what I
think the Court has urged previously, maybe even today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I could just make a
comment there, and I -- you keep on referring back to me
wanting to bring in the Texas Rangers. I have, since making
that statement -- I was under the impression that they -- in
this situation, they would deal with some civil issues, and
I think it was even unclear whether -- how much they would
_-~-u~
1
,_-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
107
or wouldn't. I have since talked with Kyle Dean, and they
will not do the civil issue, so I agree that if we're going
civilly, you know, you clearly cannot go that route.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the comments
you're making, Commissioner, go to the underlying issue --
one of the underlying issues, and that is whether or not
Kerr County has an action against the reinsurer of our
insurance plan, and those are medical questions in terms of,
where have these expenses gone? Are they attached to the
transplant procedure or are they separate? Those are
medical questions. Insurance-type medical questions. I
don't hear any answers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because I think -- I
mean, I think your point -- well, I mean, my understanding
is that we have been -- "we" being through, I guess, the
Employee Benefit Administrators and maybe the Auditor, maybe
the Treasurer; I'm not sure exactly who -- we have been
trying to get these funds back from our reinsurer for the
better part of a year. But I have not -- I was not
personally involved with that. I'm not really sure where we
are on all of that. And it just seems to me that the -- and
the part of the issue T don't want to rehash -- I mean, T'm
not going to argue with the Judge's interpretation about it,
and most of what he said, I think, is fairly accurate. But
I think that -- I mean, it's kind of like I would like one
9-0^
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
108
last effort to try to resolve this without hiring outside
counsel, which I see as a -- as potentially very costly to
the taxpayers of this county, even on a contingency basis.
But it is costly, and to try to resolve it before you do
that. You know, I mean, I could probably go along with
giving you authority to do what you want to do, but I would
ask you, as our civil attorney, to also try to work this out
before you do that. And I don't think that step has been
done yet, and I just don't think that it is -- I mean, I
know other people have, and I know we've -- the Court's
dealing with them. But --
MR. MOTLEY: I would like to answer both
questions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. MOTLEY: Number one, nobody seemed to be
very concerned about the cost involved of doing nothing
before today. So, nobody's been too worried about that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Excuse me. Costs --
MR. MOTLEY: Nobody has been too worried
about the cost to the County and the county taxpayers of
doing nothing before today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've been talking --
MR. MOTLEY: Now, all of a sudden, it's an
important thing that we have some kind of a last-minute
pow-wow and sit down, see if we can work it out. That may
-G-c~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,~
25
109
be a good idea. But, as I said, prior to today, I didn't
hear anybody express any interest in the moneys that were
out there, possibly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Judge -- excuse me,
David. We have been trying, I believe, since September --
December of '02 to get this money back through various
representatives. I mean, the Judge has had this, clearly,
on the -- on the agenda several times.
MR. MOTLEY: I'm talking about after the last
meeting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've tried to work it
out with the reinsurance company. There have been
communications -- I'm going based on other conversations
I've had with the Auditor and Treasurer. They've tried to
get the money back; I believe we have tried. So, I think
that we -- the County has clearly tried to get the money
back as -- you know, from the very beginning.
MR. MOTLEY: Right, but I'm talking about
after the third appeal was denied. I'm saying once that's
over with and they said this is pretty much it, then I think
that's what everybody said; this is pretty much it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I never received anything
about a third appeal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't know
anything about the third appeal.
_-G-~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-~
25
110
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nobody -- I don't know
anything about the third appeal.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Motley, if the Court would
authorize you to do as you have requested and place an
expense cap -- an out-of-pocket expense cap obligation of
$2,500 to Kerr County, you would still, before you finalize
that arrangement, under that authority, have the ability to
attempt to make some -- some recovery directly from E.B.A.,
would you not?
MR. MOTLEY: I believe so.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that would be an option
for you to -- to pursue before you acted on the authority
given to you by the Court?
MR. MOTLEY: I believe I -- I believe I
always have that option available before -- before retaining
counsel or having the funds expended or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, will you tell
us -- will you exercise that option, is my question. I
mean, I know you have the option. And maybe you can't say;
I don't know. But, I mean, I would just feel a whole lot
better if you would at least try to resolve this before we
hired outside counsel.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I -- you know, I -- I tell
you, right now I don't know that -- that that's something
that I definitely will pursue. I will take it under
_-G-oq
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
111
consideration.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, the -- the
defendant will have an opportunity -- is aware of whatever
action we take, and will have an opportunity to -- to
contact the County Attorney and, if he so chooses, a law
firm to discuss a possible settlement prior to hiring an
outside firm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But as soon as he
hires -- if he hires a firm today -- I mean, I'm not saying
you're going to, but if you hire someone today, from that
point on, as I understand the way those contracts generally
are, everything recovered after that gets split 40/60. And
I just would like -- I'm trying to save the taxpayers a
bunch of money.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would offer a
motion that -- that we authorize the County Attorney to
retain litigation attorneys on a contingent fee basis, with
a $2,500 expense cap, to pursue claims and other remedies
against Employee Benefit Administrators and/or others
arising out of payment by Kerr County of health care funds
to Employee Benefit Administrators.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to
second it, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to
_-Q-G4
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
second it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Did you hear me say that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm asking if you're
going to second it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you read that again?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd already put it
away, assuming it was going to pass. I make a motion that
we authorize the County Attorney to retain litigation
attorneys on a contingent fee basis, with a $2,500 expense
cap, to investigate, pursue claims or other remedies against
Employee Benefit Administrators and/or others arising out of
payment by Kerr County of health care funds to the Employee
Benefit Administrators.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could -- would --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to
second it, Judge?
MR. MOTLEY: Only thing he didn't say there
was a 40 percent cap on the recovery.
JUDGE TINLEY: Contingency?
MR. MOTLEY: Yes, sir. That's the only thing
I heard that wasn't in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be the
case, 40 percent cap? Retainer cap?
_-~-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
113
MR. MOTLEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With a $2,500 expense
cap?
MR. MOTLEY: If we can get somebody to do it
that way, that'll be the case.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number 4, try it again
and put the number 40 in there somewhere.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I'll do that,
but if I'm going to do that, I'm going to have to ask
David -- my experience with this is there's often a two-tier
schedule; that if a matter is settled out of court, it's a
lower contingency fee, like 30 or 35 percent. If it -- if
they must go to court, they spend a whole lot more time in
preparation and -- and then in court itself, and it's a
higher number. But I -- again, I'm not going to substitute
my judgment for the County Attorney's. He's an expert in
these matters, and we ought to authorize him to hire -- hire
a good firm and make a -- a conventional agreement with
them.
MR. MOTLEY: I'd be willing to look into a
lower contingency rate for out-of-court, or some sort of
settlement like that. I'd be willing to inquire into that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question is also -- I
mean, I think we need to be very specific. I mean, 'cause
G-o~
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
114
that -- and maybe we should do this -- the way you worded
that, it's basically -- I don't know; the Employee Benefit
Administrators have been our provider for, I don't know,
five or six years, and you're -- that's a huge -- I mean,
you're asking them to go into that whole period. You're not
being specific to any specific event. So, if you're just
talking about basically all of our payments over the last
five years, you're not -- I mean, you're not saying
anything. I wish you would be more specific. Or maybe it's
okay the way it is.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Maybe being open
will give them the discretion to -- to follow anything that
comes up, would be the -- the better thing to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you accept an
amendment that qualifies the contingency as being up to a
maximum?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: 40?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To hire -- so we'll
amend that to say retain litigation on a contingent fee
basis up to 40 percent of the amount recovered.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With the additional
cap on expense.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: $2,500 cap on
expenses.
_-9-U9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.._
25
115
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going to
second it, Bill?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now it's out there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded.
Now, are we going to be able tc wind this up, or do we need
to take a break and come back and act on the motion? Any
further questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only comment is
that I would like -- and I would never, ever try to tell the
County Commissioner how to run -- I mean the County Attorney
how to run his business, but I would like to have updates
occasionally in executive session, where someone would come
to this court and let us know where we are and wtrat's going
on with it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- I agree with
that. But, I mean, I guess my -- my biggest problem still
is, I still really don't know what the allegation is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Neither do I.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: None of us do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, which -- you
know, and I guess -- and we're not going t~ ever get there.
I don't understand. So -- or from what I am told. So, I
wish that somebody -- being in your office, David -- would
-G-~_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-..
25
116
give us in writing specifically, just so I'm aware when
we're getting these updates, what we're -- where the problem
is, what the problem is specifically. Because, in my mind,
I'm still not clear.
MR. MOTLEY: You know what? I mean, I don't
mean to argue with you, but I think you know what the
problem is. I think you know what the problem is. I think
everybody on the Court knows; I've expressed it a half dozen
times.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you're
MR. MOTLEY: I'm saying the guy did not tell
us what our third option was, and I'm saying what happened
after that with the money, I don't know, but I want somebody
to help me find out. That's pretty easy stuff right there,
and I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That third option is
doing nothing?
MR. MOTLEY: Yes. That's -- that was never
informed -- that was never given as an option in the court
on December the 9th, 2002.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Motley, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't have much --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Smith? You had filed a
participation form. Do you wish to be heard? I realize
it's a little late in the game, but you had filed a
-y-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117
participation form. We'd be happy to hear from you, sir.
MR. SMITH: If it's time, I would, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Please come forward, sir.
MR. SMITH: My name is Lamar Smith.
Obviously, I'm not your present congressman. I picked up
the paper this morning, San Antonio Express, and -- I'm sure
everybody did that takes it, and I was not familiar with
this issue in the court, other than the squib about the
Judge and I guess the third-party administrator had a little
bit of flap sometime in the local paper. That article
raised more questions than it answered. Assuming the quotes
were accurate -- and I assume anybody that was quoted can
correct that in this meeting if they want to. I want to
thank the Judge for giving a background, and hopefully the
Commissioners and the public know, if they agree with what
he said as to the facts, the factual background. And let me
say that I think all the facts need to come out for the
people of this county. And I realize it's election time,
but let me assure you, I have no dog in any political fight
in this courtroom. I am here strictly as a taxpayer of nine
or ten years in this county.
Now, unfortunately, Commissioner Letz raised
an issue that embarrassed me when he talked about D.A.'s,
and I happen to be a pro bono assistant D.A. for Bill -- for
Bruce Curry's 216th, so I'm not touching any legal issues

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
about criminal. I'm talking about civil remedies and
possible recoveries. And if -- if, in fact, it appears we
were not liable when the decision was made to pay the
$400,000, it was bad advice, either no legal advice or bad
advice or misinformation by the third-party administrator.
At least that's clear, I think, today, which in the
newspaper article was unclear.
Now, I don't know if we're still operating
under that policy or a new one, but it appears the
administrator was given some bad poop for the Commissioners
to act on. Now, we can talk today about trying to recover
$200,000. What's raised my hackles as a taxpayer is,
because of that advice, the County put up $400,000 -- and
his quote was "for compassionate relief," which is very
commendable. But has that prejudiced us for a precedent,
that any time in the future, it we have a similar situation,
we have now opened Pandora's box on unlimited liability
under a precedent and/or a discrimination. So, I don't know
whether the Court or the County can get additional insurance
coverage, and so the County's not liable for this third-tier
unlimited liability. But either we're liable down -- down
below for compassionate relief, or we get some -- can we get
more insurance? Because we may have -- this Court or a
prior Court may have made a decision based upon erroneous
recommendations and legal facts that may prejudice us in the
~ o~
1
,.., 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
119
future.
And, Mr. Letz, I saw your quote. I don't
know whether it was accurately reported, but I read it as
being we have the money to make these type of compassionate
payments. And I don't know whether we have a cash reserve
set aside, self-insurance, but to me it sounds kind of
unlimited. So, my concern -- and if we dire an attorney, I
think this Court needs a legal opinion. Are we -- are we
already pregnant on this issue on future liability under a
precedent being set based upon bad information or
information that was not legally correct by your third-party
administrator? But, in any event, I would -- I think you
better look for some new third-party administrators if this
is the kind of relationship the County was in and got
ourself in a deep pit. And so the $200,000 is a lot of
money, but my concern is an unlimited future liability that
may have been created by bad advice from your third-party
administrator.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You raise an
interesting point, Lamar, and the Schedule of Benefits in
the Kerr County Employees Handbook provides that Kerr County
guarantees a $1 mil.l_ion lifetime maximum benefit. The
second part of your point is, are we covered at the moment
or are we uncovered'? The truth of the matter is, we're
uncovered, because even though we approved renewal of the

1
,,.., 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
120
insurance, the documents have never been signed.
MR. SMITH: So, we -- we are obligated, then?
We were obligated to pay the million -- the million dollars?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, we had a million
dollars at the time. And that is -- part of the heart of
the question is to -- whether or not we were actually
liable -- liable or not, and you get into a whole lot of
fact issues and other issues. And that's why we -- the
original -- when the original funds were spent, I mean,
depending on how they -- you know, and I guess I can look at
it as -- how I understand it is, when you go to a doctor,
your insurance pays based on the r_odes they turn in to the
insurance company. That's part of the issue here, is that
if it was -- if Box A, B, C were blackened, we may not have
been liable. If Blocks A, D, F were blackened, we were
liable, and that was part of the issue. And the other part
of your question, I'm not sure the quote you're referring
to. I think that --
MR. SMITH: It was in San Antonio Express
this morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I haven't seen it, so I'm
not aware of what you said. I think that the other part of
that, though, is that we are partially self-insured, so we
_ - G - ~ 4
121
1
.,._ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
..--~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
•--
25
fund our employees. I mean, ours are self-insured. So, I
think that we make our decision each year based on advice we
get from a number of different quotes we get from insurance
and analysis of the data, and primarily we get -- hire an
adviser that gives us some advice. That -- I don't know. I
think you have to look at what you're exactly talking about.
I think what this has raised is that I will be much more
cognizant in the future to make sure our insurance benefits
are at a level that provides the employees of this county
with adequate health coverage. And that's -- and I
question, you know, the cap that was in place, the $250,000
on transplants. I think we need look at that, because I
think that is an issue. I think we have an obligation to
insure the employees of this county adequately, and that's
something I take very seriously. And we -- and at the same
time, we also need to look at the -- the cost of that
insurance and spend the taxpayers' dollars and my dollars
very wisely. So, you know, I think that your -- your points
are well-taken. I'm not aware of any precedent, but that's
a good question, I guess. But I do think that, on the
compassion side, what I'm basically saying is that we need
to have insurance coverage that covers our employees.
MR. SMITH: I agree, but I'm confused now. I
didn't realize the County was obligated up to a million
dollars. And if we paid $400,000, out of the million, I
_-p-o=~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
122
don't -- I'm missing an issue here somewhere.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So are we.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So are we. That's
exactly the -- why we are hoping this all gets further
investigated. And -- and we're just like -- we're going
down that road.
MR. MOTLEY: Isn't the County liable up to
$40,000, then we have a million dollar stop loss policy with
another insurance company? They are responsible up to a
million dollars, and 250 cap on a transplant sub-benefit.
Isn't that what it was?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. MOTLEY: County was liable up to the
first $40,000; then our Union Labor Life or whatever the
name was, our stop loss carrier, was liable up to a million;
isn't that correct?
MR. SMITH: So, it's not the County's
obligation?
MR. MOTLEY: Right.
MR. SMITH: Above the 250?
MR. MOTLEY: That's right.
MR. SMITH: Okay. Well, that's ...
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Smith. We
appreciate you being here today. Is there any further
question or discussion on the motion? All in favor of the
-~-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
123
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Our
court reporter i_s probably frazzled. I'm surprised she
hasn't killed all of us, primarily me, because I'm the one
that has the authority to pull the string. Why don't we
come back at 12:30, and we'll see if we can wind up this
agenda.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 12:30?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll stand in recess till
12:30.
(Recess taken from 11:39 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It's -- it's a minute
or two past 12:30, so we'll come back to order and reconvene
the regular Commissioners Court meeting posted for this
date, which was in recess until 12:30. The next item on the
agenda is -- looks like we go back to Number 1, doesn't it?
Boy, that's disheartening, isn't it? First item on the
agenda, approve the annual accounts and status of the
investments pursuant to the provisions of Texas Probate
Code, Section 887(B) County Clerk's here with us, and had
_-9-c~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.-..
25
124
this item placed on the agenda.
MS. PIEPER: This is just one of those items
that, once a year, I'm required to bring before the Court
for your approval. This will show the amount of
investments, where it was invested at, how much interest was
paid, and on which case number that it was placed into.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Thank you.
Ms. Pieper.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, can I bring up
something right quick? I don't know this, but the Auditor
may want to get the bills paid so we can pay our bills in a
proper timing. You don't care?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't care.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right, Tommy
doesn't care. Forgive me.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is too
-Q-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
^.
25
125
entertaining for him to miss.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: Just blame it on him.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He just really doesn't
care about county government.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll go to the second item on
the agenda, consider referring to the County Attorney a
fence encroachment on right-of-way on Michon Drive for
removal.
MR. JOHNSTON: We were called by the Post
Office. When we first learned of this, they were putting up
fenceposts, and we had -- we called the land owner and sent
her a letter, and we thought we had an agreement. They were
going to move it back a little bit, but they went ahead and
put it up -- see in the picture, one was placed -- the post
is right almost at the edge of the asphalt. Just -- and so
we feel like we need some help from the County Attorney
probably to get it removed and relocated.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We11, I want to make a
comment before we get -- I'm certainly in favor of it, but I
had seen the memo that the engineer sent to the County
Attorney, and -- about getting on the agenda, et cetera, et
cetera, and I wrote the County Attorney a note saying, Why
can't we just -- why can't you just go do it? Why -- you
know, there's an encroachment on a county right-of-way. We
-y-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.--.
25
126
have plenty of -- of rules and regulations, comments
everywhere, that says that he could do it, and because of
the fact that we have a -- one gentleman over there that
lives in a wheelchair, and his wife is not in much better
shape, that -- they can make it out to their little mailbox,
but now they have to go all the way to town. Why wouldn't
the County Attorney just go ahead and -- because this is
going to be a long-term deal. And long --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: "Long-term" as in --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, who knows how
long it's going to take to get to the bottom of it, get them
to take their fence? The Postal Service will continue to go
back now to delivering mail for these people. And the
County Attorney says no, he wants a court order. Now, that
goes over my head. I don't understand that. You know, is
there some kind of policy that the County Attorney doesn't
act without a court order from the Commissioners Court?
Or --
MR. JOHNSTON: I think we've always had a
policy we'd come through the Court to go to him, 'cause it's
another department.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I understand
that, on normal situations. I happen to know my precinct
better than anybody else, and I -- I think that we need to
go full bore and get that fence moved so these people can
-~-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
•--
25
127
get their damn mail.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think your point's
well-taken, and it's -- it's not the policy that it comes
here because they are -- all of the -- I won't say "all."
Many of the OSSF violations certainly don't come to us
before they get handled.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, if it's a
violation of county law, it's a violation of county law.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm frustrated with
the whole area of enforcement. It ought to be easier, when
it's clear that somebody's in the wrong, whether it's OSSF
or solid waste or encroachment or whatever; steps ought to
be taken to remedy the problem immediately.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Immediately.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If they can -- if
they can lawfully go out there with a bulldozer and knock a
fence down, I'd recommend that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I was about to
ask that question. At what point we do we just send the
bulldozer up there and take the damn fence gown? How many
more letters do we have to write?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I
think the answer is that -- the County Attorney's not
_ S - ~ 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
128
present, but the County Attorney needs to do his job in
these matters and enforce county -- our laws, which I --
county laws are the ones that we basically -- or state laws,
if there are state laws. How we get that done, maybe we can
decide on Wednesday.
COMMTSSTONER NICHOLSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Frank, has this woman
MR. JOHNSTON: By phone. Not to our letters.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But by phone?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: And what was the response?
MR. JOHNSTON: She says it's her land. Road
easement's across her land, and she felt like she can do it.
It's her property.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, that's about,
what, 10, 12 feet onto the right-of-way, something like
that?
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, it's a distance. I'm
not sure exactly how far, but it's definitely more than
2 feet away from the pavement. I'd say, you know, at least
6, 8 feet .
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't make any
difference, 6 or 8 inches or 6 or 8 feet.
-G-~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.--.
25
129
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I move that we
ask the County Attorney to do his job and contact these
people in regards to the fence encroachment on the
right-of-way on Michon Drive.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item,
Number 3, consider revision of Floodplain budget.
MR. JOHNSTON: Back in November, when we
started the -- I started doing the floodplain, I think the
comments and the -- were that we'd try it for a while and
just see how much it actually cost, and you put some money
in the line item. We have three months experience now, and
I think you have the backup there that shows what the
average salary has been running for three months, and that's
about how much money you put in the budget for what we've
expended so far, not -- not including the -- you know, the
travel, the training and all that. It's just that one line
item of the salary. And I think you said come back in three
months and we'd look at it again, so that's what we're
_-~-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,...
25
130
doing. I tried to project it out, what it would be for the
rest of the budget year if it continued on with this average
salary, as it has been.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I notice one -- one of
your -- part of your note here, the very last line, the
week-long training course in March or April of this year was
a part of your built-up hours. I was assuming --
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I haven't gone yet;
that's coming up in March, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You did go to some --
MR. JOHNSTON: Two-day course here in
Kerrville, and a one-day course in Austin so far.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, explain where are we
on the budget right now. Is it your handwritten notes -- I
can't read this page, the copy. So, is it the handwritten
notes on the side, is what we approved?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. I didn't include the --
I think I have a print -- you have a printout with the -- of
what the -- from the Auditor.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is this what you're
talking about?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. That's that -- that was
as of probably the end of -- that's in December, I think.
First of December for that.
-a-~~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~
25
131
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, what kinds of
documentation are you getting from the County Engineer for
the hours and the work that he's putting in?
MR. TOMLINSON: His log. I mean, as to
how -- how many hours he spent.
MR. JOHNSTON: I've been sending you a time
sheet every month.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I've got it
here. Is it the same thing -- he gets the same thing?
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know that we had
talked about it -- if nobody else is going to talk, I will.
We had talked about -- T think back in the budget, when
there was some talk about cutting your position or
something -- I can't remember what it was all about, but we
had talked about -- or maybe when we put you in this
position, that we had talked about working specific days and
specific hours and those kinds of things. I can't remember
all those details.
MR. JOHNSTON: You asked me did I do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, is that what it
was?
MR. FELLER: Yeah, I think so. And -- so, in
lieu of that, you said to keep track of your time. That's
- 4 - '~ 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
132
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Since then, you've been
providing a log on a monthly basis of -- I don't know if
it's in here or not. So, you're asking that -- what are you
asking exactly? What do you think you need in salary items?
What I'm trying --
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I guess it's -- it needs
more money to keep it -- keep it going like it --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that this $14,000
number?
MR. JOHNSTON: Right, for the rest of the
year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, that averages out
about $1,600 -- 16, I7 a month for the remaining eight
months?
MR. JOHNSTON: Sy the time you add all those
items in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know what all
those items are. I just took the 14,367 --
MR. JOHNSTON: Oh, it's insurance and
withholding, all that stuff.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, it
extrapolates over eight months, right?
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of it.
MR. JOHNSTON: Rest of the budget year.
_-9-G9
133
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What is it exactly
we need to do, Tommy? If we're going to authorize this
$14,000, what is the process?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, if the money's
available somewhere in the existing budget, then we do a
budget line item change to facilitate that. If -- if it's
not available, then we increase the budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it a possibility
that --
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't see that there's
any -- any room in the Road and Bridge budget to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's not a Road and
Bridge function.
MR. JOHNSTON: Not a Road and Bridge
function.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nothing to do with Road
and Bridge.
MR. JOHNSTON: Should come from Floodplain.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we were to, for
example, Tommy, authorize transfer of funds from whichever
court we put $150,000 in for a trial that's not going to
take place, would that be one place to look at it -- look
for it?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, if we think the --
we're not going to use that.
-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
134
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I understand.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think that's
known yet. I mean, I think -- as I understand it -- I don't
want to rely on your legal advice, Judge.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Psychological
advice.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if Mr. Seard -- if
that individual is declared competent, then that trial will
proceed, so I don't know how you budget for something like
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we get into
a long discussion about how we do that? That's just an
aside.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We need to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just kidding.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We need to pay the
Floodplain Administrator. I think the question is where
we --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the right way
to put that money in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where the money comes
from. Tommy's looking.
MR. TOMLINSON: We do have an item later on
_-~-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
r
25
135
for -- a late bill for Hermann Sons Bridge project to come
out of Flood Control. I think that's somewhat related. I
mean -- I mean, what -- what his duties are, in my mind, are
somewhat related to Flood Control. Is it -- is that an
option, to take moneys from that fund?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my preference is
going to be -- I'm not saying where the money should come
from, but to put enough money for three more months in
there, and during that time, we will review the workload,
job descriptions, all that stuff that we talked about during
the budget when it comes to reviewing the Road and Bridge
Department, if there's a more effective and better way to
structure that department, and this would give us three
months to get that done.
15
16 that.
17
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. I agree with
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And then just
whatever the monthly amount is with a, you know, per-month
basis that we need. And that we -- we talk about three
months, three-eighths of 14,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 14,4 I'm seeing here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Weren't we supposed
to have done that by now? Already?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, but we didn't do it,
so we're going to give us three more months to get that
-y-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
136
done. I don't know. What's three-eighths of $14,367.57?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's ascertainable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whatever that amount is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: About $5,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess that money
could come from -- I don't know that I -- Flood Control, I
don't like taking it from there, 'cause to me that money is
for flood-related, not floodplain administration. So, do we
have anything -- any Contingency left? Do we have $5,000
available in Contingency?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, I believe we do.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We need about 5,400.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we take the
three-eighths amount of the amount requested out of
Contingency.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
transfer from -- I guess that's Commissioners Court
Contingency?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's
Nondepartmental.
JUDGE TINLEY: Nondepartmental Contingency in
an amount equal to three-eighths of the amount over in the
Floodplain budget for salary-related items.
_-9-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
137
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hold on, Judge. Oh,
three-eighths of $14,367?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question.
Do we know how many -- how much fees that all this has
generated?
MR. JOHNSTON: We've had four or five
permits, I guess, in that time frame.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much is it for a
permit?
MR. JOHNSTON: Some of them are ~0-something
dollars, some of them are 200. But as you talked about
first, like, a whole year, there was only 20-some permits,
but there's more -- there's more to do than just the
permits, as I found out. There's almost daily calls about
people inquiring about property, whether or not it's in the
floodplain and what level it would be. I think that's part
of our job, to research to answer those questions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you handle that or
does the secretary handle it?
MR. JOHNSTON: I do it.
-9-09
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
138
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That might be part of the
solution, where we need to do maybe some other -- that's why
we need to look at that whole department, I think, as to
where we're spending the money, because I don't know that
it's -- we need to pay an engineer to do basically clerical
research, you know, as to the ownership acid things like
that. Maybe we ought to come up with a system that's more
efficient use of the engineer's time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item
on the agenda is Number 7, consideration and discussion --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Frank, would you turn
down that fan a little bit back there? Excuse me, Judge.
It's getting cold. Air-conditioner.
JUDGE TINLEY: Cut it off.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Turn it off; I'll turn
24
....,
25 Judge.
-_-o~
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Sorry,
the fans down.
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Item 7, consideration and
discussion of adding names to the War Memorial.
Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: You asked that this item be
placed on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much.
It has been brought to my attention that we should add the
names of the recent servicemen that have given their lives
for our country to the memorial wall on the courthouse
square. Now, I got a call yesterday stating that -- that
the names that go on that memorial are supposed to be people
that were born in Kerr County. Now, I don't -- I just don't
know that. I wasn't here when the memorial was put up and
the deals were cut and all that; I just don't know. And I
apologize, I haven't had time to research it since
yesterday. And so, Thea, do you have any recollection of
how that worked?
MS. SOVIL: The only thing that I remember
is, the last time we did it, we presented a birth
certificate proving the man was born in Kerr County. So,
that apparently -- you know, I hate to use "assume," but
apparently that was the justification for putting on the one
name that we added.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I don't have
-y-o~
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,,..,
25
feelings one way or another about whether they should be
born in Kerr County or not, but what do y'all think?
JUDGE TINLEY: It would seem to me that if
there's some specific criteria that exists somewhere, we
probably need to know what that is before we make a decision
and go forward on that basis.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. Does anybody
have any idea where I should go and look?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who -- who created the --
who funded the memorial?
MS. SOVIL: The memorial was funded by a
group of ladies that got together and started the war
memorial, and the big fight was where it was put. Remember
that? And -- but they raised the money; they did it. The
only thing the Commissioners have done is added that one
name.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The one that's in the
backup here?
MS. SOVIL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
MS. SOVIL: We did not pay for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. I understand
that. I don't think we should. But I -- if we are stewards
of it and it was given to us, it's our responsibility for
the upkeep of it, I think we -- you know, we are -- or have
-S-C4
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
done that. And, in the absence of criteria, I think we need
to develop one, because, to me, it is more -- in my mind,
more fitting, rather than whether you were born here, is
whether you were here at the time of your death -- if this
was your residence or you were buried in Kerr County. To
me, that is a -- certainly as important an item as the fact
that you were born here. It -- especially with the mobile
nature of society today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think we need to
see if there is a policy in place, and then --
MS. SOVIL: I do know that the men from World
War II were the ones that enlisted in Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Enlisted in Kerr
County?
MS. SOVIL: Enlisted in Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That doesn't
necessarily mean they were born in Kerr County. They
enlisted.
JUDGE TINLEY: From Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That almost makes
sense, 'cause all those names out there were not born in
Kerr County, I bet you.
MS. SOVIL: I do know that they were enlisted
?-~-o.
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
from Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was World War I,
you said?
MS. SOVIL: Two.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, when -- whenever
that day was that the Commissioners Court said yes, we -- we
want you to build something out there and we'll maintain it
for history, was there -- do you think that there was any
talk in that, or in the court order, saying you have -- in
order to get your name on this thing, you have to be -- you
have to --
MS. SOVIL: No, there was no criteria set
down.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Zero?
MS. SOVIL: Just donated to the citizens of
Kerr County, and -- and the County chose a spot, after much
deliberation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What organizations
were responsible at the beginning to do that? Do you know?
MS. SOVIL: It was a group of women that
their husbands were in Iraq at that time -- Iran -- where
were they, Kuwait? Desert Storm.
MS. LAVENDER: Desert Storm, maybe.
MS. SOVIL: At that time. It was -- their
-a-o~
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
husbands were in the military.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Desert Storm?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was before that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This was here long
before 1991.
MS. SOVIL: No, sir.
MS. LAVENDER: No, it's a recent --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's about right.
MS. SOVIL: It was put up after Desert Storm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Really?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause Commissioner
Holekamp was, I believe, a Commissioner at the time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, if there's no
criteria --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could we ask
Mr. Holekamp or Bruce Oehler or somebody who was here if
they recall that discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we need one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm like Commissioner
Letz. If there was a policy, let's find out about it. If
there wasn't, let's make one.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's make one.
JUDGE TINLEY: I believe like he does. If --
if Kerr County was their home of record -- that's the magic
term in military parlance -- at the time of of their demise,
_-a-o~
144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I think they probably ought to be eligible.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Could we see if we
can find out what the criteria was, then? And if we don't
appreciate that criteria, then we -- we can set a new one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to table
this, if I could, please. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Very good. Thank you, Mr.
Baldwin. Next item, Number 8, consider and discuss request
for waiver of rental fees for Hill Country Youth Exhibition
Center for the annual meeting by Kerr County Federal Credit
Union.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you had fun
today?
MS. ALEXANDER: I've had a blast, thank you.
It's much more entertaining than work today. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: What kind of work do you do?
MS. ALEXANDER: I'm a teller.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay.
MS. ALEXANDER: So I count money all day
long. Our annual meeting for the credit union is coming up
in March. We -- the only facility in Kerr County --
Kerrville that's big enough to hold our -- the group that
we're expecting is the Ag Barn. At this time, we are
requesting that we be granted the nonprofit status, because
?-y-~~
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.....
25
145
the credit union is a nonprofit organization, so that we may
do that. And after we -- after I spoke with Jamie at the Ag
Barn, she said that it was a difference of roughly $550,
give or take; that the regular rate was around $700, and the
nonprofit rate was 187, 190-something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're requesting a
nonprofit rate?
MS. ALEXANDER: We're requesting the
nonprofit rate because we are a nonprofit organization.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we did this
same thing with the other credit union --
MS. ALEXANDER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- here in town just
recently. I move that we approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item as a nonprofit status, and the
rate. Any further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: W~11, I'll just make
my standard speech. I'm -- I'm more interested in
increasing revenues from facilities like this than I am
discounting them. Just -- quoting a famous poet, a bank is
a bank is a bank. And this is a bank. And --
MS. ALEXANDER: But we're not a bank, sir;
we're a credit union.
_-9-G9
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.--
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
MS. ALEXANDER: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A bank is a bank is
a bank. And I -- I will vote to give them a discount.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Thank you,
ma'am.
MS. ALEXANDER: Thank you very much,
gentlemen. Have a nice day.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's Kristi
Alexander. Thank you, Kristi.
MS. ALEXANDER: Thank y'all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item on the agenda is
consideration discussion and taking appropriate action to
approve Change Order Number 5, compensate Compton
Construction for extra rock excavation in the Oak Grove
Mobile Home Park, and additional stabilized base used to
cover 10-inch line in Riverhill Golf Course. This was on an
earlier agenda, and it's being brought back by Commissioner
Williams.
_ ~ o~
147
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I brought it back
basically to give Mr. Compton an opportunity to explain why
he needed the extra dollars. I did not see Mr. Compton in
court this morning, and I don't see him here this afternoon.
So, I understand that Commissioner Letz and others had some
questions about it, legitimately, so we'll try it again
another time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pass on the item for now, very
good. That takes us to Item 11, consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to approve a bill of sale on assignment
of those certain wastewater improvements constructed in
Phase I of the Kerrville South Wastewater Project, as
provided in the intergovernmental agreement for the 2001
Texas Community Development Program award dated October 9,
2001, between Kerr County and the Upper Guadalupe River
Authority, and authorize the County Judge to sign the same.
Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. This is
in keeping with the interlocal. We are at that point in
which the sewer collection system is well into completion.
My understanding is that the City Council, tomorrow night, I
believe, will take up the interlocal agreement between the
City and U.G.R.A. for treatment rights and fees and so forth
for the treatment of the wastewater that comes out of this
system. It was never our plan to own and operate beyond
-a-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,.., 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
148
construction point, and this would be the first phase, Phase
I. We are asking -- asking that it be turned over to them,
"them" being U.G.R.A., and we will proceed to construct
Phase II. Engineering and so forth is underway now. That's
all. So, I move approval of the bill of sale. By the way,
I have had it reviewed by the County Attorney. He had no --
nothing to add to it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You got that verbally?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got it verbally,
yes.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: I	knew there wasn't
anything	in here. I second	the motion.	
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Motion and	a second for
approval	of the agenda item.	Any questi	on or discussion?
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: It's	a very basic
question.	Bill of sale is t	he -- that's	the -- that's what
we're doing?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're turning over
the assets, yeah. At this point, we own them. We built
them. We funded it with grant money, so it was our project,
and we have -- we have to turn it over to them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it seems -- "bill
of sale" seems like strange terminology. To me, it's an
assignment. But I don't know that -- if the County Attorney
approved it, I'm not going to argue with the County
-y-~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,.. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
149
Attorney.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think Commissioner Letz may
have the same question that I do, and that is, when you --
we're dealing with something that's in the ground, and that
doesn't hardly seem like a bill of sale is the appropriate
documentation. But it's provided for in the contract, and
that's what they want, and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll sell them those
pipes before they get soiled.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before we get what in
them?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I said soiled.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item is consider and
discuss accepting the proposed amended Water Availability
Regulations and set a public hearing on the same.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda
-9-0~
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
based on our last meeting when we discussed Water
Availability Requirements. I have attempted to redraft
them, basically making them as non-onerous as possible, in
light of the fact that almost everything we're doing
previously to now has been done by Headwaters. But I think
it does give some basis for our lot size to keep the Water
Availability Requirements around. And our lot size
currently is based on that, and based on the acreage
requirements and gallons-per-day usage and such as that. On
the second part of this, setting the public hearing, I think
I really would prefer not to set a public hearing at this
time. I think it would be easier for the public if we did
Subdivision Rules, Manufactured Home Rental, and Water
Availability at the same time, maybe as three separate
public hearings, maybe one public hearing. But if we could
at least put this to bed, that will be one thing less that
we have to deal with at a future date.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you, what
changed? This looks like exactly the same thing we've
always been doing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we used to require
a developer to drill test wells. We used to have all kinds
of requirements related to sewer systems, sign-offs, things
of that nature. All we're doing now is saying that we have
a lot size based on usage, and we are no longer requiring
o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
151
developers to drill test wells, provide geologic and other
testing data. We're not requiring an engineer to certify
there's enough groundwater down there. We're not requiring
any of that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it says that
if we stick to our 5-acre rule, the rest of that's not
necessary. That would be okay with the 5-acre rule.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I must have a
different --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is the revised --
one. This is the new form. The old form
was about four pages long.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it says that the
Commissioners Court has the authority to require any person
seeking plat approval to show compliance with requirements
that an adequate water supply and sufficient quantity and
quality is available, so that's still in there. I thought
that's the part that we were removing. Tell me where I'm
going wrong here.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next paragraph,
Commissioner, says any person who follows the criteria set
forth immediately below shall be deemed to have satisfied --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the requirement of
Commissioners Court. So, it's all incorporated into that.
2-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
152
Basically, a -- the subdivision requirement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, there is a -- and
I wouldn't have any objection to it. There is -- an
argument could be made, and I could make it, to eliminate
these completely. And the reason I chose not to is that,
because of the priority groundwater nature of this county,
we have additional authority than many other counties in the
state do, and we also have a higher minimum lot size than
many counties do across the state, and that is based on
water, essentially. And this is just affirming that we are
in an area that has -- has been designated as Priority
Groundwater Management Area, and is kind of giving a little
bit of protection, for lack of another word, to the Court by
saying we're basing our lot size based on water, and we're
getting our data based on Headwaters and the State.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And Headwaters has a
5-acre minimum; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. So, really,
these don't -- all this basically, in my mind, says is that
we have a 5-acre lot size. That's the whole gist of these
Water Availability Requirements.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Jon, wouldn't
you take this -- this general statement here, 1.01, just
take that out? You may want to leave some of the language
that Kerr County's in a priority area, but you have that 1
-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
r.. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-,
25
153
and 2 sticking out there, that if boy-dummy here comes along
and reads that and doesn't read 1.02, then I'm thinking that
nothing's changed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that you
lose anything by deleting the 1.02, possibly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What happens if
Headwaters changes its --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good
question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- current rule?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Makes it less
stringent?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Less stringent? I think
that the -- we are -- our authority comes under Chapter 35
of the Texas Water Code for us to do this, and I think
that's what's necessary to cite as to where our authority
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The compliance with the
water -- I mean, I think it's -- 1 is redundant, since we've
taken a lot of it out, and 2 -- you know, we're telling them
that that is the fact ~f the case under 1.02. So, I mean, I
think you can eliminate the 1 and the 2, and I think you
would probably --
-9-0~
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,,.._ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
154
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To me, you're just
creating some confusion here by having 1 and 2 in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any problem
with that, deleting the -- I would delete "to show" in that
sentence above, and the 1 and the 2. The last two words of
the first paragraph, where it says "to show."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. I agree with
you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that sentence would
read, "Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 35, Section 35.019,
Texas Water Code, the Kerr County Commissioners Court has
the authority to require any person seeking plat
approval" -- well, that doesn't really --
JUDGE TINLEY: You got to add something to
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about "to meet these
Water Availability Requirements"?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Since we're not ready to
set a public hearing, do you want me to redraft that, bring
it back next time?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We can't adopt it at
this point, anyway. You're going to want to roll this in as
part of something bigger anyway for a single public hearing,
aren't you?
- 9 - v 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
155
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I may -- I
will bring it back at our next public -- at our next agenda
so we can at least get this document put to bed. I will
bring it back next time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. Anything
further on that item?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we have anything to
do in executive session?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I hope not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Pardon?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I said I hope not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought we took care
of that this morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll move into the
approval agenda, then. Mr. Auditor?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the
bills.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
pay the bills. Any question or discussion? All in favor of
the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
-9-G4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
156
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Notion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait -- oh, nevermind.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, no. I just had a
question. You mentioned bills and paying the bills, and I
had a question, but it's --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's have it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It brings up stuff from
this morning's conversation as to where the $2,500 comes
from. That's what just clicked in my brain. But we can
discuss that at a later time. We didn't --
MR. TOMLINSON: We have --
MS. SOVIL: We've got money in Professional
Services.
MR. TOMLINSON: Professional Services.
There's a budget for that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We just, at some point,
need to designate where that money comes from.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know if there's any
money in it, but there is a line item.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Budget amendments.
_-a-n~
-- ~ i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I've got one that I'm looking at, Budget Amendment Request
Number I.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for -- I have a
bill payable to Fidelity Abstract and Title for $12,459.
It's for the right-of-way acquisition for the Hermann Sons
Bridge project.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does that also include any
title and related expenses in order to close those out? Is
that turnkey?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This includes closing out
one tract, one of the five tracts.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is Mr. Tijerina's
tract. $12,000? Is that what you said?
MR. TOMLINSON: $12,459.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the one tract that
we're working on first. And Jimmy Peschel was trying to
come up with a bigger number -- well, we could do it at our
next time, but this is one. Obviously, we can't close any
of them until we get the money over to Fidelity's hands.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's true.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So --
JUDGE TINLEY: This is just for the one
transaction?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One, but it does include
_-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~„, 2 4
25
158
all related expenses through Fidelity Abstract.
JUDGE TINLEY: This will handle the entire
Tijerina transaction?
Tommy?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, great.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is Fund 22,
MR. TOMLINSON: It's Flood Control fund.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Number 1. Any further question
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge -- nevermind, we're
not coming back today. I was under the impression we were
going to have a larger number today, of four tracts to
summarize. We don't have that?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's all we have. No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Since we're having a
workshop, could we, if we get that number before we leave
-5-04
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~.
25
159
for the end of the day -- because I'd hate to hold up
closing three of the other tracts if we don't -- you know,
if we -- 'cause we can't get money over there, other than
today, for the next two weeks.
JUDGE TINLEY: We could stand in recess for
that purpose. And I -- I've got a number of juvenile cases,
but if we get that before us, why, we can -- we can do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we just remember at
the end of day just to recess for the time being, we can --
I'll call Fidelity Abstract to see if they have a larger
number that will include more of those tracts.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which prompts a
question. Judge, you've got a large agenda for juvenile
hearings?
JUDGE TINLEY: One or two.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh?
JUDGE TINLEY: One or two.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This courtroom is
going to be available for a workshop?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. I've got a courtroom
available for -- you're going to be here. You'll have this
court available. I'm going to do my juvenile cases down the
hall in the other courtroom. I've already got those
arrangements made.
o~
160
1
2 Thank you.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have a late bill --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- I need a hand check for,
and it's -- that's -- it's payable to J.I. Special Risks
Insurance Agency for $2,784, and it's for storage tank
pollution liability insurance. It's -- comes out of Road
and Bridge budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a budgeted item?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve a late bill and authorize a hand check to J.I.
Special Risks Insurance Agency in the amount of $2,784 for
storage tank pollution liability, Road and Bridge. Any
further questions or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Anything
else, sir?
-9-G4
161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Thank you, sir. I
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, Tommy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, we just did that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We just did that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The dam one?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's Tijerina.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, this isn't Tijerina.
It says it is 2,000 -- oh, I see. Nevermind, you're right.
You're right. You're right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it shouldn't be
"repairs to dams." That's all right.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we -- we set up another
category for that, so we're all right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where are you going?
MR. TOMLINSON: Hmm?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where are you going?
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm going to go let the
Treasurer have this so she can hand out checks.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you come back?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I have before me
-9-04
162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
	21
	22
	23
~..	2 4
	25
reports from the Sheriff's Department, Constable --
MS. SOVIL: Missed the minutes.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Precinct 4, and Constable
Precinct 1, the Kerr County Environmental Health Department,
Justice of the Peace Precinct 4, and the Library Advisory
Board.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Really?
MS. SOVIL: They were faxed.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm?
MS. SOVIL: They were faxed, weren't they?
JUDGE TINLEY: I had one in my box from the
Library Advisory Board. Do I hear a motion to approve these
reports as presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made
approve the listed reports as presented.
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd
comment that, yes, we have a constable re
constable report out of Number 4, as well
constable out of Number 4, so that's good
opinion. I appreciate that. Well, I do,
that's good reporting. That's -- they're
asked them to do, and we appreciate it.
and seconded to
Any further
just like to
sort out of 1 and
as a deputy
reporting, in my
anyway. So,
doing what we
-9-G4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
163
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And there was another
report turned in, too, a racial profiling that was submitted
to the Judge. I don't know if that needs to come back as an
actual item on the next agenda, but that's Buster's favorite
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have to purchase a
new wheelbarrow to get it in.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, we hauled it in in
two or three wheelbarrows the other day, so it's sitting in
there for y'all to look at.
JUDGE TINLEY: Have you -- have you picked it
up off of the ledge there?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've gone through
every bit of it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Okay. All right. Do
we have any other reports to consider here today? The
information agenda, reports from Commissioners and liaison
committee assignments, do we have any reports?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a couple,
Judge. Let me review first just information items out of
AACOG. I kind of have both good news and bad news there.
Good news is that Kids Advocacy Place, Hill Country CASA,
and Hill Country Crisis Council were ranked one, two, three
in their applications, and likely will be awarded funding in
the amount of 44,746 to the Advocacy Place, 37,682 to Hill
- 5 - C 4
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
	23
	2 4
~,,,~	
	25
Country CASA, and 71,506 to Hill Country Crisis Council.
They scored well on their applications and were ranked real
high. The bad news --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that compare with
the numbers last year? Or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's what they
asked for. They're going to be awarded what they asked for,
so I guess it does. Bad news is that the application put in
by Crimestoppers -- is that correct, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the School
Resource Officers was thrown out by the Governor's office
for being incomplete. If I can find my memo, I'll tell you
where they were incomplete.
MS. LAVENDER: It was one "X." One "X" was
eliminated, and we didn't have the data to back up one of
the answers that we put in it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The note says they
did not provide statistics necessary to meet grant
application requirements, such as incidents of drug use,
alcohol abuse, violence, et cetera, did not complete the
determined eligibility form correctly, they omitted answers
to a series of questions, and the Governor's office ruled
their application ineligible. That's the bad news.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was the -- which
_-~-o~
165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~-~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,.~. 2 4
25
one?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The three resource
officers, I believe.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That is -- our grant for
the three resource officers ended last year. We're in the
one year of funding that right now. My intentions in budget
time is to -- since Tivy High School and Kerrville School
District is inside the city, to pull our School Resource
Officer out of there and pull him out of Ingram, because
that's also in the city limits of Ingram; let them start
doing that. So, Crimestoppers was going to try and assist
those agencies by applying for a new grant. One is, it's
not all Crimestoppers' fault that that grant didn't go
through. Sitting on the -- on one of the committees at
AACOG, part of the other reason was, I don't know if it
would have made it through AACOG voting, because they had
not had the required grant training to write the grants for
AACOG. You have to have the grant training, and the way the
Governor's office put out that memo on the grant, it was
kind of a last-minute memo saying that Crimestoppers are
eligible to apply for this grant, but they never put in
there anything about you need to have the grant training
first; you need to have this, 'cause they couldn't have made
the deadline if they would have.
So, this was the first-year attempt by
_-9-~4
166
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Crimestoppers, and I would expect them to -- I would
expect -- and I'm not speaking on their behalf -- that they
may want to try and apply for that grant again. But it is
going to -- either we have to reapply for the School
Resource Officers -- which I'm not so much in favor of
doing. I can do that if the Court wishes, but right now I
have three School Resource Officers, and, like I said,
during budget time, I anticipate that I will come back to
y'all and ask to keep one that will take care of the Center
Point, Hunt, Divide schools, and then move the other two
back onto very needed patrol positions that we have, which
wouldn't change our budget, but we had to commit this year
to funding them, unless City of Kerrville and City of Ingram
take care of those schools that are now in their
jurisdiction.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, do you have any
data on drug use or alcohol or crime statistics that --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We do keep records and
have records of all offenses that any of our School Resource
Officers -- monthly reports that they have been required to
fill out that would show any of the type of offenses,
whether it be violence, whether it be, you know, tobacco or
truancy or drugs or anything else. We can -- we can compile
those to where we'd show it county-wide. But right now the
officers are required to do a monthly report, and we do have
-y-o~
167
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.--^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
..~ 2 4
25
those.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was thinking more of a
broader -- I mean, what program was in the three years we've
done it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Three years -- we did
three years funded; this is the fourth year that was
unfunded.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just wondering if
there's any data that would show that this was a good use of
tax dollars or a bad use of tax dollars. I mean, if you
look at the -- you know, county-wide juvenile crimes, you
know, before and during, there ought to be -- if it was
working, there should be some reflection.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can definitely put
together those statistics, 'cause we've kept them every
year. We've had to by the -- the requirements, what all we
have done at the schools. I will tell you Kerrville ISD,
you know, in my mind -- and after having one officer for the
entire school district, it's a definitely needed program in
Kerrville ISD. It's a program that should have more than
one officer at it. Ingram's grown; all the school districts
are growing. I think it's a very wise and good program. I
am telling you it's assisted our agency in solving crimes
that did not occur on school grounds, just because of the
relationship that those School Resource Officers develop
-y-og
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
168
with the -- the students. We find out a lot of information
on other crimes that we're investigating that weren`t even
on school grounds. But at this time I feel, since, you
know, Kerrville's in Kerrville, they ought to fund their
own, and Ingram should probably start looking at grants to
fund theirs. We did it for the first time ever of having
officers in the scYlools, and I can get you those stats if
y'a11 wish for me to bring them back. But we're at the
point Kerrville needs to take care of Kerrville, Ingram
needs to take care of Ingram.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rusty, in terms of
K.I.S.D. and the high school, does the city police
department also put a resource officer out there?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, Kerrville Police
Department only has a D.A.R.E. officer with the Kerrville
school district. He teaches a D.A.R.E. program. They have
-- and then they have an officer that's paid for by the
school, I think, to help direct traffic in the mornings, but
they do not have a full-time officer at the -- at the
schools. We're the only agency that puts full-time officers
at schools.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might -- and this is
just a suggestion -- between now and budget time, try to
meet with Dr. Troxel, possibly. I'm just thinking. I know
Reuben, who`s the officer for --
_-5-0~
169
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- K.I.S.D., has done a
good job on knowing and, you know, getting into kind of
being around the students, you know, and I think has been
accepted by them. And you're saying that he's been somewhat
effective from the standpoint ~f getting information?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He's been very
effective. Reuben's big problem is, he can't be in ten
places at one time, and that is a serious problem in
Kerrville, 'cause you have the high school wanting him at
the high school; the middle school needs him there, 'cause
the kids there we have problems with just as much, and the
elementaries need him at those. So, you know, Kerrville
Police Department -- what I would recommend, when they get a
new chief, is that they seriously look at putting several
officers in Kerrville schools. I just don't know if it's
the County's responsibility. You know, we've tried it to
see if it would help the schools, and it has. There's no
doubt in my mind it's a great program and it needs to be
continued, but I don't know if y'all are going to want the
County to continue it for the City.
COMMISSTONER BALDWIN: Well, actually, I've
said this in hearings of this court before. The school
district needs to be paying for this.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There are some -- some
-9-04
1
-^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
170
different requirements the school meets, because then they
fall under the education codes. And I know a lot of our --
we tried to get the school to come in during budget time --
the schools, to see if they would help kick in for funding
for this year. We didn't have much success in that. But
their -- under their requirements, if they're actual school
employees and under the Education Code, some of the things
they can do are -- are not -- are extremely limited compared
to what a peace officer can do that's hired by law
enforcement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what Commissioner
Baldwin was referring to is basically an interlocal
agreement of some sort to have them fund, whether it be a
deputy or a police officer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Partnership.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Partnership. And I think
that it's a -- you know, that should be pursued again,
because I think they certainly have it within their purview
to fund such a --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, it may be between
the City and the County, you know, the Court or whoever
wants to get together. I will tell you it's an excellent
program; it needs to continue, but I don't know if it should
be run strictly out of the Sheriff's Office and the County
funds or not, or any of the City funds for city -- City of
-~-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.~.
25
171
Kerrville.
appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Sheriff. We
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one other,
Judge. It has to do with Mooney Aircraft. I participated
in the negotiations with Mr. Patterson and the Mooney
executives last week in which we presented -- what is that?
MS. PIEPER: Computer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that you beeping?
MS. PIEPER: The computer is saving.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which we presented
the counterproposal to Mooney as detailed to the Court in
the executive session. I will say that the attitude and the
atmosphere of the meeting was good, very instructive, and
conducive to negotiations. My feedback from Ron Patterson
afterwards was that Mooney folks were pleased with our
presentation, and it appears that we'll find a basis of
reaching an understanding along the lines that we detailed
for the Court. In that connection also, we got into the
discussion about the environmental concerns. Mooney is --
may even by now have hooked up its domestic waste stream to
the city sewer system. If not -- if not, they're very close
to it and they are, I believe, doing the required
engineering to determine what the pretreatment would be for
-O-G4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
172
industrial waste stream. And we got into some discussion
about how to remediate the pond and so forth; that's all
part of the -- of the County proposal, and they didn't have
any particular issue. They know it has to be done and so
forth and so on.
I have done some investigation in one of my
meetings up at AACOG to find out if there's any funds
available out there that might be of assistance that this
Court could participate and -- and maybe file an
application -- a grant application to assist in that
remediation. There are two sources of funding that may be
available. One is probably not realistic, and that would be
the Superfund site, 'cause this doesn't qualify for
Superfund site. And the other would be what they call the
Brownfields cleanup moneys, and Mooney might be eligible for
that. The County would be eligible to assist and join in
the application, and the City had indicated, through Ron,
that that can be developed. The City could -- would be
willing to -- we believe, to join with us in a joint
application with Mooney to see if we can find some
Brownfields money for that purpose.
The other -- another aspect was, there is a
-- there is a -- there is a desire on the part of Mooney to
try again for Texas Capital Fund money, and again, that
window of opportunity -- I need some information about that
-y-o
173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
window of opportunity, and had indicated that if Mooney
wants to try to do that, instead of the City going on its
own, as it did last time trying to assist them, that perhaps
the application would be better received if both the County
and the City come to the assistance of Mooney, try to see if
we can get some Texas Capital Fund money. I think we're on
the right track in terms of accountability.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, what's
the next step on the issue of the management structure at
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Waiting on a document
that the City Manager's putting together, and it should be
ready for release to us, I would think, any day now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's my only comment on
that. I mean, I think I've been fairly involved with the
airport, and I think that -- I mean, despite all of the
hoopla that's gone on in the last 11 months or so regarding
management out there, I think that the City and the County
are about to -- you know, are very close to being in
agreement as to a good way to at least recommend to the two
bodies that own that facility -- and I think a lot of the --
if there was any ill will, which I think there may have
been, it is behind us. And I'm -- I also want to really --
I was very impressed with the Airport Board. I was at that
meeting. There was quite a bit of discussion, and I saw
-a-o~
174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
commitment of five members of the community, five members
that were on that board, both County and City
representatives, of taking their position very seriously and
doing a very good job, and very mindful of it and very
willing and anxious to work with the City and the County to
come up with a way to better govern the airport, and they
were willing to do whatever is necessary from their
standpoint to help the City and the County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's --
Commissioner Letz, that is true. And our two appointees'
terms expire the 31st of March, and I'll have the
reappointment of those two gentlemen, Mr. MacDonald and
Mr. Miller, on a court agenda coming up, either the last one
this month or first one in March.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My sense of the
capability of the whole board, all five of them, was the
same as Commissioner Letz', and I also found that -- I think
they all have good business sense, that they approach --
approach their duties in a very practical way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One other -- you're
absolutely right, Commissioner. One other example has to do
with a big document that the -- that the Airport Manager put
out in terms of rules and regulations and whatever,
whatever, whatever. Those five gentlemen did a pretty good
job of shooting that document down and suggesting that it go
_-9-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
175
back to the drawing board, and instead of trying to dress
documents down to fit Kerrville, why not take the existing
rules and regulations and standards and beef it up to meet
our needs today and going forward in the future? And that's
probably what will happen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anything --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I've got a -- I
want to make a comment on that, and then I've got something
else. I don't know if your term -- I can't remember the
term you used about bad feelings between --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I11 will.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ill will between the
City and County. I don't know if that's a good choice of
words or not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because I think that,
you know, this -- this is brand-new ground that we're
plowing. And government grinds along real slow, and I just
think that anytime that you're going through something like
that, there's all kind of little bumps in the road, and I
think we have an excellent working relationship with the
City. I really and truly do. I feel good about that. One
more thing, Judge, please.
JUDGE TINLEY: Surely.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to go back to
-5-c~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
„o..
25
176
our insurance discussion this morning just for a moment,
just to kind of clear up something in my mind. Number 4,
you can retire to your office. I want to ask Tommy -- let's
say that Mr. Rothwell, for one reason or another, is getting
his feelings hurt, or he's fixing to get sued, or -- or
whatever it might be, coupled with this letter here to Judge
Tinley -- Tinsley (sic) about us not being covered,
insurance, and all those things come up, and he decides that
he doesn't want to be the County's representative any more,
or doesn't want to participate with the County -- Kerr
County's insurance program any more. What do we do in that
case?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't know -- I don't
know what the -- I don't know what the contract really is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think there's
an out for everybody, isn't there?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think the -- I don't
think -- well, the issue that I -- what I'm hearing is with
our stop loss carrier, not -- not specifically Employee
Benefits. I mean, for the future. I mean, as far as having
a contract in place with our -- our third-party -- or our
stop loss carrier. That's what I'm --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Mr. Rothwell was
just handling that? He was the -- he's the broker for that?
MR. TOMLINSON: Their -- their firm -- well,
-9-09
177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
..-._ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
all the bidders, for that matter, went out to get proposals
from stop loss carriers of their choice. Or maybe that's
not a good word, but they -- they asked for proposals from
different companies to -- to carry that part of the
coverage. And that contract, in my mind, is between the
County and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The insurance.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- and these people, and not
Employee Benefits and those people.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Well, I'm just
referring to this letter from Mr. Rothwell to the County
Judge, and it seems to me that he's frustrated for one
reason or another, and I don't -- I don't understand all
that. But my -- my question is, let's pretend that he gets
real frustrated to where he doesn't want to have any
business to do with Kerr County. Do we replace him with
another company like him? Or what -- what do we do?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. I mean, I
would -- I would think that -- that we -- you know, we've
already awarded the proposal or the contract, so we would
have to void that contract and -- in some way, whatever --
whatever method is available, the contract we have now, and
enter into another one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think -- I mean,
your -- part of your question -- the next part of it is,
_-9-c~
178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,_.. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what is the status? And we approved it, and I guess -- I
don't have it with me -- the letter said that the Judge
hadn't signed.
JUDGE TINLEY: My concern -- my concern for
not signing it was there was nothing in the -- in the award
that I'm aware of that authorized me to sign any documents
in connection with it, number one. Number two, the other
concern I have, I was presented with a sheet that had a
bunch of blanks filled in, and I know not whether or not
those figures are, in fact, the same ones that constituted
the award. Now, whether I need that certification from the
Treasurer or the -- or the Auditor or whomever, I'm not
sure, but I was brought a sheet of paper that had a bunch of
blanks filled in on it and a bunch of numbers filled in, and
I don't know -- number one, I don't know whether they're
correct. And even if I was comfortable that they were
correct, there's nothing in the award of that bid that
authorized me to sign any documentation on behalf of Kerr
County. And there -- you know, there have been a number of
instances where we've had that difficulty, had to go back,
because some action was taken, but nobody was authorized to
confirm it on behalf of the County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand clearly
what you're saying, and -- and probably agree with most of
it. However, are we not covered at this moment?
_-9-~4
179
1
.-~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
..-, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't guess -- we
don't have -- we don't have any stop loss coverage until
we -- that's -- to my way of thinking, until we have a
contract with -- with the firm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. We're putting
the County at risk here, it appears to me. Does that sound
familiar? I mean, something needs to be done. Give me the
damn thing; I'll sign it. I mean, let's do -- we got to do
something. Who's responsible? I would just assume the
County Judge would be -- would be the guy to sign.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, I look back
at the motion -- I believe I made it at the time. It did
not add that language. And I don't know -- you know,
through oversight, I presume, it was not --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the court order?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, in the court order.
And in my motion, I didn't specifically, based on the
minutes, authorize the County Judge to sign it, and I think
that's something that we frequently add at the last minute,
whatever. I -- it's just an oversight. But I am very
concerned that -- I mean, to me, this qualifies as an
emergency. If that's what's holding up the signature to
guarantee our employees' insurance, I think we need to call
an emergency meeting and I'll, you know, amend that motion
or make a new motion, authorize the County Judge to sign it.
-9-09
180
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Because I was not aware of this -- that this was not signed
until Friday, or I guess over the weekend; I came in and
that letter was in my box. But I think that it's of grave
concern, because, basically, we don't have stop loss
coverage right now, from what -- as I understand the letter.
And -- and this -- and it wasn't an agenda item, so we
couldn't really get into too much other information on them.
But, you know, if that is, in fact, the case, I think it
qualifies as a clear emergency for the County.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, if there's a question
about the form itself, I would suggest that we ask our --
our consulting person, who -- who is very familiar with all
the proposals.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Gray?
MR. TOMLINSON: Mr. Gray. To see if, in
fact, what he saw is -- or what he examined in the process
of his determination -- whether or not what's on the form
is --
JUDGE TINLEY: Conforms to that? To the
award?
21
22
23 a --
24
,-.,
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Does this mean there's
MR. TOMLINSON: He's the -- he -- in my
opinion, he would be the one to determine if it is -- I
-9-0
1
.-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~., 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
181
mean, none -- I personally didn't -- don't know enough about
the RFP to determine whether it is or not, and I don't know
if any of us are. But I think we relied on his expertise to
determine the RFP. I think we can do the same to -- to get
his opinion on -- on whether or not -- on the accuracy of
what is on the form.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, does this mean
there's a question as to whether or not the County's
employees have health insurance at this time?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, they have insurance
because of the fact that we're self-insured, but we're --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have insurance, but
it's 100 percent paid for by the County right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No stop loss.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no -- nothing. I
mean, anything we -- anything over $40,000 would be the same
situation we had with the --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Without any kind of
contract being signed, is the percentage -- the benefits or
anything even really determined?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. I don't --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We don't know what we
would have paid if we had hospital bills?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I would suspect that --
that the record is going to show that, in fact, we've made
-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.--.
25
182
payments which includes those premiums, and those premiums
have, in fact, been paid to the stop loss carrier and
they've banked those premiums and accepted them. We have as
much stop loss coverage in place right now as we had the
date that this document was prepared and sent down here.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My concern -- and I'm
going to be blunt about it, because I have the most County
employees, probably, out there -- is I agree with Jonathan
100 percent. You know, if this has been known that our
contract hasn't been signed, I'm a little bit upset over it,
because I feel it does jeopardize all the employees, and it
should have been an emergency item before this Court a long
time ago to get it signed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the Judge has a
good point, though, that if they accepted payment of the
premium -- I think there's still a risk. I think, you know,
whether it's an emergency item, I think we need to get this
resolved A.S.A.P.
JUDGE TINLEY: It needs to be clarified, no
question about it. But I think, under the circumstances, if
we were hauled in the courthouse, we'd be able to establish
that we, in fact, had coverage.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's not -- I'm not
comfortable where we are right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not either.
_-p-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
183
MR. TOMLINSON: I didn't look at it in that
light, in that we'd already paid premiums to them, but we --
we have, in fact, paid premiums to them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm afraid we have --
we'd have to go to a courtroom, though, for that to come
out, to say --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can hire an attorney.
MR. TOMLINSON: Since that's the subject
right now, I -- just a request. Since last Thursday, I've
had five conversations with newspaper people; three of them
were in Bandera when I was in Bandera. And I -- I would
like to have a little insulation. I would -- if we have
pending litigation, I don't see any benefit in -- in County
employees making any comment about the issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
MR. TOMLINSON: And I just -- you know, I'm
getting a little tired of it, especially when I'm not even
in my place of work. So I would -- I would like to be able
to just say, you know, "Refer your questions to someone
else."
JUDGE TINLEY: What's to prevent you from
doing that?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I -- it seems -- I
mean, it seems like that, you know -- that, you know, you're
the one they called, so they're expecting some kind of
-y-n~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,..~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-,
25
184
information. So, you know, you feel a little bit
uncomfortable saying -- saying no, that -- that you can't
give anything. And so, I mean, that's the way -- that's
just the way I feel about it. But I would like something
definitive to say, you know, go see whoever, but not me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think your -- I mean, I
certainly get -- I'm sure everyone else up here gets a lot
of calls. It's almost impossible to say "no comment,"
because if you say no comment, then you're hiding something.
And -- which isn't necessarily the case, but that's just the
nature of being a public official. But I sympathize with
you, 'cause you're not elected and you're not a --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, would you give
us some legal advice here?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, no, come on.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz doesn't want
me to give legal advice.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 112 years you've been
a trial lawyer, you know.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree with Tommy.
JUDGE TINLEY: You need to go consult that
brilliant legal mind.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The employee that this
2-9-G9
1
_.. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
185
affects has even gotten calls at her residence about this,
which has made this a whole lot worse, to me. You know, I
just -- I wish there would have been --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, in that
individual's case, she could have referred those calls to
you. In the case of the Auditor, he can refer them to the
County Attorney or the County Judge.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And she is doing that.
But the problem that I have is what I said earlier today, of
this started out as an executive session -- executive item.
I think it should have stayed that way. I think all the
questions should -- Judge Tinley had or anybody had --
everybody agrees with the questions, but I hated it to be
seen to where, you know, it has affected a widow lady.
And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We feel the same way.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we've -- we've moved on
from that. Do you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What would it take --
what do we have to do to get you to sign the contract or the
agreement, whatever it is -- the application?
JUDGE TINLEY: Two things. Number one, if --
if the expert is willing to confirm that that is, in fact --
that conforms to the award, and the Court gives me the
authority to sign documents on behalf of the County,
-5-c~
186
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
documents to confirm and to finalize that award, I will do
so. Short of the so-called "expert" doing it, I suppose
those of you that voted in favor of it can confirm that.
I'm not sure how comfortable you'd be that it conforms, but
I think the expert's probably the best --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the best source.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, can -- will someone
please call Mr. Gray and ask him that question? I don't
have --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy will.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a copy of
the --
JUDGE TINLEY: The document that was
presented? It's downstairs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, would you do
that?
MR. TOMLINSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that not the
personnel officer's duty?
JUDGE TINLEY: I would think so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Suggestion.
_-9-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
187
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to -- I
think we need to get this resolved, from the standpoint of
signing. I think if it takes an emergency meeting -- which
I think this, in my mind, would qualify, 'cause it's
pretty --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll ask the County
Treasurer to -- to call Mr. Gray -- huh?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just -- she's not here
today, I don't believe.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to ask
somebody to call Mr. Gray and see if he will confirm the
numbers, and then if he will, then we'll call a meeting.
How's that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we -- I think we'll
-- we have a workshop scheduled. I mean, if we're going to
do an emergency meeting, it can be -- try to do it when
we're going to already be here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We wouldn't get it
done today, would we?
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know why not. We
have a workshop at 3 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Don Gray's not
going to stop a fishing trip just to deal with us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
-~ o~
188
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, gentlemen? If
not, we will stand in recess for --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's good.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- for a period not beyond
1:45 tomorrow afternoon, subject to the call of the Chair.
(Discussion off the record.)
(Commissioner's Court recessed at 1:47 p.m.,
and reconvened at 3:00 p.m.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. We're going to
reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting of February 9th,
'04. Is there other issues that need to come before this
Court?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have a new budget
amendment -- revised budget amendment. Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The revision is that
the current expenditures are $26,140; that's three parcels
of land. The budget amendment needs to be $16,140, as
opposed to the first amendment of $2,459.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And as an explanation,
this -- I talked with Fidelity Abstract, and this covers the
acquisition and expenditures related to acquiring three of
the right-of-way parcels for the Hermann Sons Bridge
project. There are two other parcels still to -- that will
come in at our next meeting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fund 22 still takes
-y-c~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
189
care of that?
MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move the budget
amendment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Motion's been made and
seconded to approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1 --
line item description is "repair to dams" -- at a cost of
$16,140. All in favor, please raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Motion passes. Is
there any other further issues to come before this Court?
Well, this Court will be recessed at this time, and now
we'll open up for the workshop.
(Commissioners Court recessed at 3:02 p.m.)
_-9-09
190
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,---
25
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR I
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 17th day of February,
2004.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY:
-------- ~Gt!J~ --------------
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
9-04
Order 28516
Litigation Attorney
Came to be heard this the 9th day of February 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0, to authorize the County Attorney to retain a litigation attorney on a
contingent fee basis up to 40% contingency fee and a $2500.00 expense cap to
investigate and pursue claims or other remedies against Employee Benefit
Administrators and/or others arising out of payment by Kerr County of health care
funds to Employee Benefit Administrators.
4
ORDER NO. 28517
Approve Annual Accounts of Investments
Came to be heard this the 9th day of February 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0, to approve the annual accounts and status of the investments pursuant to the provisions of
the Texas Probate Code 887 (b).
1
ORDER NO.28518
Michon Drive encroachment
Came to be heard this the 9th day of February 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0,
to refer the removal of a fence encroachment of right-of--way on Michon Drive to the County
Attorney.
2
ORDER NO. 28519
Floodplain Budget Revision
Came to be heard this the 9th day of February 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, revise the Floodplain Budget by 3/8
of $14,367,57 to be taken from non-departmental contingency fund.
3
ORDER N0.28520
Kerr County Federal Credit Union
Came to be heard this the 9th day of February 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to allow the Kerr County Federal Credit Union to
rent the use of the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center at the non-profit rate.
s
Order No. 28521
Bill of Sale and Assignment
Kerrville South Wastewater Project
Came to be heard this the 9th day of February 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0, to approve the Bill of Sale and Assignment of those wastewater improvements constructed
in Phase I of the Kerrville South Wastewater Project as provided in Intergovernmental Agreement
for the 2001 Texas Community Development Program Award, dated October 9, 2001, between
Kerr County and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority and authorized the County Judge to sign.
Qrder No. 28522
Claims and Accounts
On this the 9~' day of February 2004 came to be considered by the Court various
Commissioners precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
10- General $82,463.71
14 Fire Protection $15,370.75
15 Road & Bridge $10,195.88
19 Public Library $32,265.00
28 Records Mgt $2,161.72
50 Indigent Health Care $12,269.63
62-1994 Jail Bond $375.00
63-Lake Ingram Estates $12,035.00
80 Historical Commission $5.78
TOTAL CASH REQUIRED FOR ALL FUNDS: $ 167,142.47
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner
Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to pay said Claims
and Accounts.
ORDER N0.28523
Budget Amendment
Herman Sons Dam
Came to be heard this the 9th day of February 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to
transfer $16,140 from Fund #22 Surplus into Line Item 22-670-450 to pay Fidelity Abstract and
Title Company for the purchase of the right-of--way.
Order No. 28524
Special Risk Insurance
Came to be heard this the 9th day of February 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to
pay JI Special Risk Insurance Agency $2,784.00 out of line item 15-611-480 for the Storage
Tank Pollution Liability Insurance Renewal.
9
ORDER N0.28525
Monthly Reports
Came to be heard this the 9th day of February 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of
4-0-0, to approve the monthly reports from the following Officials:
Justice of the Peace #4
Kerr County Sheriff
Constable Pct. #1 & #4
Kerr County Environmental Health
10