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
Special Session
Monday, May 24, 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
`'/
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
2
I N D E X
May 24, 2004
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Authorize use of courthouse parking & grounds
for Memorial Day ceremony
1.2 Approve road name for privately-maintained road
1.3 Allow Constable Pct. #3 to seek grant funding
for in-car video/audio system for patrol car
1.4 Set Public Hearing for alternate plat of Lots
12 & 13, Hidden Valley Ranch, Pct. 2
1.10 Discuss Kerr County Information/Technology
Policies
1.12 Approve application for Tobacco Compliance Grant
1.13 Consider reclassification of nurse position to
Nurse/EMT position
1.14 Approve 36-month subscription agreement with
Thomson West to replace inmate law library with
CD-ROM library
l.ll Discussion & demonstration of digital camera
system for adult detention center
1.5 Public Hearing on Alternate Plat Process for
Lots 14 & 15 of The Horizon, Section One
1.6 Open bids on 5-year lease of a backhoe loader
1.15 Consider expenditure authorization for right-of-
way acquisitions for Hermann Sons Bridge Project
1.7 Public Hearing on alternate plat process for
Lots 32 & 33 of The Horizon, Section One
1.16 Report on status of Administrative Services
Agreement with Employee Benefit Administrators
1.8 Discuss steps necessary for previously
subdivided Bettac/Rickert property & road
to be in compliance with Subdivision Rules
1.9 Presentation on AquaSource rate increase
4.1 Pay Bills
4.2 Budget Amendments
4.3 Late Bills
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
5.1 Reports from Commissioners, Liaison/Committee
Assignments
Adjourned
PAGE
4
7
8
9
15
16
18
22
24
29
30
31
33
38
39
43
48
78
79
82
83
84
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Cr. Monday, May 24, ZUU4, at 9:00 a.m., a special meeting
of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Ccnunissioners' 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: Okay. Let me call to order
the special Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for this
date, Monday, May the 24th, 2004 at 9 a.m. It is that time
now. I'll call on Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. If you'll
join me, I have a special guest with us today to do the
opening prayer, and I want to introduce y'all to him before
he comes up and does that. Many years ago, I used to go
down to a lake in the afternoon, go down to Hunt School and
throw the football around with some young kids, and one of
those kids went on later on to become a big football star at
Tivy, and then A & I, which is now A & M at Kingsville, and
recently -- actually, a few years ago, retired from the NFL,
Kansas City Chiefs, Mike Dyal. Mike's agreed to come and do
the opening prayer for us today. Mike?
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Mike.
Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Dyal. At this
time, if there's any member of the public that wishes to
-~~-u~
^ 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
,.._ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
come forward and be heard on any matter that is not a listed
agenda item -- that is not a listed agenda item -- you're
privileged to do so at this time. If you want to be heard
on an agenda item, we -- we would ask that you fill out a
participation form; they're located at the back of the room.
It's not absolutely essential. Sometimes it even helps me
to not miss you when that item comes up. Not always, but
sometimes. So, if there's anybody that wants to come
forward and speak on an item not on the agenda at this time,
why, feel free to come forward.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Being nobody coming forward,
let's get on to the next item. I'm sure Commissioner
Baldwin would -- would defer to the most important
announcement of the day that needs to be made by
Commissioner Precin~~t 3, and will allow Commissioner
Precinct 3 to make that announcement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I will do that. Be
honored to, sir.
COMMISSIONER LE'~'Z: I presume that
announcement is the birth of my little boy. For those who
don't know, Karen and I adopted a little boy. Samuel Becker
Letz was born Thursday at 12:56; he was 7 pounds, 13 ounces;
19 inches. Both Karen and I were in the delivery room.
Quite an experience, and he's home, doing great.
s-~~-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
5
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bubble gum cigars.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now that we have the important
announcement out of the way, we'll go to you, Commissioner
Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I can't think
of anything to say.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just got back from
tour or five days on the left coast of the United States of
America, which never ceases to amaze me, what goes on out
there. For those of you who are griping at the gas pump,
it's $2.65 a gallon out there. And that's good for them,
and not so good for anybody else, I guess. But what really
caught my attention out there was the incredible amount of
home building going on in this particular area. I was
visiting a brother who lives in North County, which is about
35 miles northeast of San Diegc. They cannot build houses
fast enough out there. They build them 200, 300, 400 at a
time, and there's a waiting list of people to buy them;
they -- they bid and outbid each other. The rate of -- of
value increases on new homes by about $1,000 a month, the
average. It's just absolutely unbelievable. So, I'm glad
I'm here. It's fun to go, but always glad to get back, and
the hill country never looked better.
5-~~-~~~
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
l~
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank yvu, sir. Do you have
anything else for us, Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just hope everyone will
bear with me, 'cause I really haven't spent as much time as
usual on the agenda, so I may have to read a little bit as I
go through today, as I just picked up my --
COMMISSIONER F3AT~DWIN: Last time you get to
use that excuse, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, I want to brag
a little bit about our Road and Bridge Department. This is
the May/June edition of Lone Star Roads, and we got some
good press. The Rural Technical Assistance Program of
Texas, whose mission is to help rural counties and small
urban areas improve the~r roads and street operations
through technology transfer and training, has recognized our
Road and Bridge Department as being the first one in the
state to complete the basic Road Scholar requirements for
all the current employees, and there's a list of all of our
current employees, and everybody, including the
administrator and the secretary and all the -- all the
hands, completed the course. It's my belief these kind of
things help stretch taxpayer dollars. We do a better job
and get more productivity because we do these kind of
things, so congratulations to Road and Bridge on that.
5-~ 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
._._ 2 4
z5
7
Tree sec:crrd thing is the Hunt Volunteer Fire
Department is having its annual barbecue fundraiser this
Saturday. Best brisket you'll ever have, and all the
trimmings. It's from 1:00 to 5:00 in the Hunt firehouse. I
don't remember what it costs, but it's not -- it's not much.
And, you know, we're pretty desperate out there for funds,
so if you could show up and leave us a few dollars, it would
be good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you reading that
out of that book, too?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, it's just on
here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all I got,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I don't have
anything of particular note this morning, so let's get down
to business, gentlemen. First item on the agenda is
consider and discuss authorizing the use of courthouse
parking and grounds adjacent to the war memorial area for
Memorial Day ceremony to be held Saturday, May the 29th, at
10 a.m. I was asked to put this on the agenda for the
obvious purpose. I thought at first that it was on the same
-'~-c,,
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'' 4
G
25
8
date as Market Days, but as it turns out, it's not, so we
don't have any -- any use sharing to be concerned about. It
can go on as it's happened for a number of years in the past
out there on the -- in the west parking area adjacent to the
memorial.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any further question or
discussion'? A11 in favor, signify by raising your right
hand.
(TYie motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next
item on the agenda is to consider approving road name for
privately maintained road in accordance with 911 guidelines.
Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good to have you here this
morning.
MR. ODOM: Well, thank you. Truby asked me
to -- I think she was on the agenda, but asked me to talk
about this. This is Road Number 1385, and I think the
supporting document shows it at the end of Stony Hill and
5-_4-„4
1
L
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
,_._ ~ 3
14
~' S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
McDonald Loop. And we have the road name changed to Feather
Ridge Road from Road 1385, and we have all the people that
live on it -- I believe there's t,ao or three people that
live on it. They have agreed to that name change, and there
shouldn't be any -- any problems as far as --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any further question or
discussion? A11 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: The motion does carry. Next
item on the agenda is consider and discuss allowing the
Precinct 3 constable to seek grant funding for in-car
video/audio system for his patrol unit.
COMMISSIONER BA~DWIN: Judge, that's a
timed -- it has a specific time beside it. Or this one --
this does, I'm sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I
thought I saw him here just a mimate ago.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: There he is.
5-^4-09

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
10
MR. GARZA: Thank you. I was making copies.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Constable Garza, are
you ready to go on your item? Looks like you are.
MR. GARZA: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, you may proceed.
MR. GARZA: Good morning, Commissioners. I
just want to come before you to ask your permission to seek
grant funding, from whatever source I can locate, to get a
video camera for my vehicle. And I have a copy of the unit
I'm looking at and the costs associated with it, if the
Court is interested in looking at it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much are you
looking for?
MR. GARZA: Sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much are you
looking at?
MR. GARZA: The video camera, sir, will be
about $3,000. I don't know if that includes the
installation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would this be
comparable to what the Sheriff has in his vehicles?
MR. GARZA: Mobile-Vision? I believe so.
I'm not sure.
5-~4-C4
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The second group we have
from the D.P.S. grar:t that they did last year are
Mobile-Vision's, and that's -- and that figure may be a
little bit low. Installation will run them about $100. But
I don't know if D.P.S. is still running their grant program.
If not, there's several other grant programs that he could
apply for that pay it 100 percent. And we'll help him with
it if he reeds help. Those are very needed tools in the
cars.
MR. GARZA: I would appreciate the Sheriff's
input on this. The reason that I had to come before the
Court, of course, is to get the permission of the Court, but
also, on these grant applications, they do require the
entity to sign ott on it; like, in this case, it would be
the County Judge. If this was the city, it would be, like,
the mayor. So, that's why I come before the Court to ask
your permission to allow me to -- if do I find a source,
that when I apply, t'_-!at the County Judge is authorized to
sign on behalf of the County for the grant.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment -- I'm
glad to make a motion on this, but that the -- I guess, the
grant you seek is not from a -- a local grant company, such
as Peterson Foundation or Cailloux Foundation, because I
think if we do go with that, it starts causing problems to
have one constable going to one of these other agencies. If
7-~~-n~
12
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
this is a federal or state-type grant, no problem
whatsoever, and I'll make a motion with that proviso.
COMMISSIONER BP_LDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval to seek grant funding for the in-c:ar video/audio
system for Precinct 3 constable's patrol car from state or
federal sources.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- and the Judge
to sign it when it --
JUDGE TINLEY: And authorize the Judge to
sign the grant application.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. He had a --
MR. GARZA: I'm sorry. If I may, I was also
asking on behalf -- if it's possible for Precinct 2
constable, since Constable Ayala and myself are the ones
that do the traffic enforcement and drug interdiction.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you preempted
half of my question.
MR. GARZA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is fine. Why
not Precincts 1 and 4 as well?
MR. GARZA: They're not interested, that I
know of. I mean, Constable Ayala and myself are the ones
that are interested in getting this for safety reasons, so
we can do drug interdiction and highway interdiction on the
s-~~-_;~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,~3
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
ir_terstate and county roads. Gde're the ones --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you would be
seeking funding sufficient to accommodate two installations?
MR. GARZA: Well, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hopefully?
MR. GARZA: Yes, sir, Commissioner. My
intention was just to come before the Court to ask for the
permission to --
CCMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's all
right.
MR. GARZA: And, of course, I was trying to
include Precinct 2, but I wasn't sure if he would have to
come on his own to ask permission, or if the Court -- or if
I could do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we could make
that broad enough approval that you seek grant funding for
equipment for constable vehicles.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll amend my motion to
include all four constables.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only comment I would
have, Jonathan, is on your part of the motion about staying
with federal or state funding. Our first grant that covered
a -- the majority of all our cars, we only got, like, four
or five out of the D.P.S. grant, 'cause it wasn't even
available back then. And Ingram Marshal's grant that
-_~-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
1U
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
covered theirs did come from local funding -- local grant,
and I think cutting that off may be detrimental to being
able to get a grant, 'cause I don't know what federal ones
are even out there any more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't have a
problem, necessarily, of going back and retalking about
that, but I think that when we start going to some of the
local sources, I think the Court needs to look at it real
hard, because there may be, county-wide, a better reason to
go for a grant. I'm not saying that this is -- I think
safety of our employees -- certainly, constables -- is a
high priority, but when we start going to some of the -- I
mean, we're very fortunate in this community to have some
fantastic foundations, and I just think that we need to use
-- use them judiciously. I'm not sure that, you know, right
now is the time to approve going to them. But, certainly,
pursue the others. If you can't make any headway, come
back.
JUDGE TINLEY: 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: The motion does carry. Thank

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
you very much, constable.
MR. GARZA: Thank you, Judge. Thank you,
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item on the agenda is to
set a public hearing for the alternate plat of Lots 12 and
13 in Hidden Valley Ranch in Precinct 2.
MR. JOHNSTON: Morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think you have a drawing of
this. What they're doing is moving the boundary line
between Tract 13 -- 12 and 13 by 50 feet, so it's alternate
platting process. They need a public hearing. I'd suggest
June 28th meeting as the public hearing date.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're expanding
Tract 13 from 5.30 to 5.57; is that correct? No, looks like
they're both --
MR. JOHNSTON: They're reducing that one,
increasing the other one. They're moving that line about
50 feet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: Something to do with the
stream or something in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we need a public
hearing on this?
s-~~~-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
16
JUDGE TINLEY: He indicated -- suggested
June 28th, '04. What, 10 o'clock?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd move we set a
public hearing on June 28th at 10 a.m. for the plat revision
for Hidden Valley Ranch.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JtTDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
setting a public hearing on the agenda item. 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: The motion does carry. Thank
you. Let's move on down to what's listed as Item 10 on the
agenda, consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
the Kerr County Information Technology Policies.
Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. This is
the revision that incorporated all of the changes that were
requested and suggested and made at the workshop that we
held on February 23rd. In your par_ket is the red-line which
shows what went out and what went in, and behind that is the
clean copy. I assume we got all the changes. We reviewed
all of the minutes of the workshop, reviewed the marked-up
5-~4-~,4
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
copies, we tried to incorporate everything and everybody's
thoughts. Is that correct? So, to the best of our
knowledge, this is Ltie finished product, unless, of course,
the Court has some other ideas and wishes to make some
additional changes and modifications.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Honestly, I haven't read
it -- read the revised copy, but I think that -- you know, I
would prefer that we give all the other elected officials
and department heads a little bit more opportunity,
possibly, to look at it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make it available -- or
actually, probably send a copy to each of the elected
officials and department heads.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then bring it back at the
next meeting. Then, that way, if everyone is agreed, we can
proceed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. And if
any members of the Court have -- having checked it, you
know, red-line -- revisions against the red-line, you see
other things that need to be done, well, please let us know
and we'll do that. Kathy, if you'd be so good as to send
copies to the elected officials/department heads, we'll put
it back on for next time. No problem.
-^=~-o~
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that
agenda item?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It looks good. It
incorporated, I think, all the -- all the improvements I
thought were needed, so I think we're pretty close, if not
there.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to move on to Item
12 and get some of the Sheriff's items out of the way, and
maybe move on down that way for a bit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about 11?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's a demonstration,
and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That is ready, too, and
doesn't -- wouldn't take all that long. It's just whatever
the pleasure of the Court is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which item?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 11.
JUDGE TINLEY": Let me go ahead and get 12 out
of the way. Consider, discuss, and approve application for
Tobacco Compliance Grant.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is one of those
yearly grants that comes up. I have not applied for one in
the past. We've been asked to by a number of agencies,
including the Comptroller's office that does set those up.
s-~~-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
19
It's mainly just for, oh, teaching kids on the tobacco laws
and that, and getting advertising materials or informational
materials out to the licensed places and the places that
sell tobacco and alcohol and different things. It's not a
matching grant at all. It doesn't cost us anything, and the
grant amount just depends on how many places you have in
your county that sell tobacco and tobacco products, and how
many kids you have. So, it could be anywhere from $1,500 to
$25,000. I just don't know. Gde just have to wait and see.
But Sherry James, our D.A.R.E. officer, is the one that
would be in charge of educating the kids on it, and I don't
see any drawbacks to having this little bit of extra money
for help on education of kids.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somewhere in this
material, I read that it would fund sting operations.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It can fund sting
operations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would mean what,
trying to find locations that sell tobacco to minors?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we talking about
tobacco and alcohol? Or is this --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mainly, this is written
for tobacco, but it can be either one, and we work with
T.A.B.C. on these sting operations and undercover operations
-~~-o~
20
L
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 help funds those -- those type deals.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know T.A.B.C., in
years past, has used this operation in Kerr County, and it's
been very successful. Very successful.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would the amount
of the grant be, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Anywhere from $1,500 to
$25,000, depending on where all the criteria falls in with
the state Comptroller's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They make the
decision --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They make the decision.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- of the amount?
Not what your request is?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. We just
apply for the grant, and with the materials, they make the
derision.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's another
example of the state legislature taking tax money and --
away from taxpayers, moving it to Austin, laundering it,
then sending it back to us and telling us how to spend it.
I don't know if we've got a problem with children using
tobacco products or not. It's a catch-22. The money's
available. You almost have to take it when they want to
s-~~-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
21
give it to you, but I -- I resent it and I wish they'd quit
doing that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. It's our money.
It's our money, anyway.
JUDGE TINLEY: They're going to give it away
to somebody, though.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's put our hat out
there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know, but it does --
someone else is going to ask for it, so I move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: M~ti~n made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And authorize County
Judge to sign the same.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item, and authorize County Judge to
sign the grant application. Any further question or
discussion? All in favor, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Next Item
Number 13, consider and discuss reclassification of nurse
position to a nurse/E.M.T.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have talked about
this in the past. We have two nurse positions at the
Sheriff's Office. One is our head nurse; she's been there a
number of years. I don't anticipate losing her, you know,
at any time. I hcpe -- hope she doesn't even want to retire
for a long time. Second position is a little bit lower ~n
classification as to salary scale and that, and getting a
nurse in that position to stay, with the number of shortages
for nurses everywhere, it's hard to get one that stays to
deal with inmates. So, I really want to just adjust this
classification. And you'll see the job description that we
have attached; the only thing we changed in the job
description is under Page 2, the last paragraph,
Certificates, Licenses, and Registrations, we've added the
very last line, "State-registered or licensed vocational
nurse or E.M.T." And what it does is allow us to get an
E.M.T. into that position or an intermediate E.M.T. or a
paramedic. And the way we have suggested this be done is,
the salary scale we're paying right now, if you look
nationwide, it's in line with that. It's a little bit
higher than what Kerrville Fire Department pays for just
E.M.T.'s, but it is in line with where that salary scale
5-~4-~4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lU
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
goes . Ar.d then, if he were aii E . M. T . intermediate, we' d do
the same thing as we do for law enforcement, which would be
one step. And then, if they were a paramedic, do another
step at that point, so they could go up to two steps in the
step and grade.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you saying you're
not going to adjust the salary at this time?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm not going to adjust
the starting salary at all. It's just with the
certifications, since we have the educational in law
enforcement and jailers and dispatchers, I would want to be
able to have that same educational step with that person
being an E.M.T. intermediate or being a paramedic. And with
their job duties and their training, several hundred hours
of training to even get the E.M.T. -- I think most
everybody's familiar with that, and the paramedics, even
that much more -- I think it'll give us a lot in the jail as
far as emergency medical evaluations and need.
JUDGE TINLEY: That complies with Jail
Standards Commission requirements?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you were to implement
this now, do you have funds in your budget?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move for approval.
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
24
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any further question or
discussion? A11 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: Next item nn the agenda,
consider and discuss and approve 36-month subscription
agreement with Thompson West to replace the inmate law
library with a CD-ROM library.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's not really a
CD-ROM. It's a total online deal through West Law, but it's
built for inmates in correctional facilities. Right now,
our law library, just the updates, subscriptions, and
add-ons, is -- and Judge Tinley would be able to attest
to this -- costs us about 46 -- between $4,300 and $4,600 a
year. Now, none of this comes out of Commissioners Court
funding or out of County funding. Everything through this
is paid through our proceeds from commissary account which
is available. If we go to strictly online, it's about
$1,800 a year. We can have one computer set up in a secure
location where you can take ar, inmate in there and he can
search his own laws and things that he has a right to be
-,~-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
25
able to do, without being able to do anything else. It's
strictly -- that's the only thing on the computer, and the
safeguards through West Law are made that way and designed
that way for inmates. It's just a -- a large savings tool
for the County. The computer itself will come out of those
proceeds to hook it up, and then the subscription, yearly,
will come out of the proceeds from commissary also. So, the
inmates are paying for their own law library.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question. Does -- does this
kind of legal research facility comply with Jail Standards
Commission requirements and federal court requirements?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: State and federal?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Will this impact space?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It will give us a lot
more space where our current law library is, to be able to
use that space for anything else.
JUDGE TINLEY: What about logistical
requirements of -- of usage of personnel when somebody's got
to be able to do their research? How --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It will save us a lot.
We have an area in the multi-purpose room where we will set
up the computer to be able to have an inmate do this. You
can put him in there, lock him into a certain area there to
s-,~-~~
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
where you can watch him. CurrerrLly, if an inmate wants a
law book, they have to tell you which one and the jailer has
to go down, get that law book, take it and an inmate to a
solitary cell and let that inmate do his research in a
solitary cell, which causes a lot more time and -- and that
on the jailers. So, this will free up jailers.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, it's going to save money,
it's going to save space, and it's going to --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Save time.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- increase the efficiency of
your personnel?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. I'll second
the motion, but I have one more question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion made and
seconded for approval of the agenda item. Questions or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you sure one
computer's going to do it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't have a bunch
of folks out there that are researching law?
5 - ' 4 - J 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
27
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, we always have
our -- you know, a number of them that want to, but this
type of deal is just as we can schedule them to go in there
and use it. It's -- it's not something where we have to
give all of them access at the same time. This -- it's just
scheduling, just like visitation or anything else.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what will you do
with the old books?
SHERIFF HIF;RHOT,7ER: That's a good question.
I haven't really thought that far ahead, but we'll be able
to use that space. Whether I donate them up here, get a --
I have to look at the legal requirements on how we can get
rid of them, since they were purchased through the proceeds
of commissary over the years, and then have -- how can we
dispose of them? Can we donate them to the County's law
library? Do we have to just destroy them or sell them or
what?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're pretty well
booked -- full.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. What you're seeing a
lot of, Commissioner, is, even in private law libraries,
because of the space demands that -- that the hard copy
creates, you're seeing a lot of these end up going to
landfills or shredded or recycled or whatever, because used
law books used to be worth some money. They're a liability
~_ __;~ _
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
now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it a possibility
that the library would be receptive to taking them?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm sure the Sheriff
would be happy, to avoid having to pay landfill costs, if
that ends up being his last option, to give them to anybody
else if he can legally do so.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you can legally do
so, would you check with Mr. Martinez over at the library
and see if he's receptive to --
SHERIFF' HIERHOLZER: Definitely. If we can
legally do so, then I'd go through the Auditor to get the --
you know, disposing of County property order and that, and
if we can give them to the library or wherever, even one of
the colleges or whatever, we'd love to be able to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they went to the --
probably wouldn't be surplus, but if they went to the
library, we can probably -- we fund the library; we can just
shift them over there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. Or Schreiner
has a library as well; maybe they'll use them.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 'Cause they are
up-to-date, you know. They just cost us a lot to maintain
every year. The -- Item Number 12 would take not more -- or
s-~9-o9
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
11, whichever one it was -- wouldn't take more than about 15
minutes, if y'all want to do that whenever.
JUDGE TINLEY: I planned on swinging back to
that one as soon as we get through here. Any further
question or discussion on the motion that's pending on Item
14? 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: That motion does carry.
(Discussion ott the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go ahead and go to Item
11 now, the discussion and demonstration of digital camera
system for the adult detention center. This is a discussion
and -- and show-and-tell type item. We'll be outside --
there's a mobile demonstration unit outside. We'll be out
there. I -- I don't think we're going to need the court
reporter for the purposes of that, so we'll -- we will
suspend her activities right now and go off the record for
that item, since no official action will be taken unless and
until we come back in. And, in fact --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I haven't posted it for
any kind of action to be taken. It's dust more of a
discussion and demonstration, because in the budget process
5-~-,~~
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
this year, as y'all are aware of, our camera monitoring
system in the jail needs vast improvement.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, at this point, we will go
off the record and we'll be outside for demonstration.
(Court went outside at 9:33 a.m. for
demonstration of digital camera system.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, that's Item 11.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't have anything
other than what y'a11 saw on it. Thank y'all for taking the
time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Sheriff.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate it. We will go
back on the record and go to Item 5, which was scheduled for
10 ~'cl~ck. It's a couple of minutes after that now. That
is a public hearing. So, I will recess the Commissioners
Court meeting at this time and open a public hearing for the
alternate plat of Lots 12 and -- excuse me, alternate plat
for Lots 14 and 15 of The Horizon, Section One, located in
Precinct 1.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 10:03 a.m., and a public hearing
was held in open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the
public that wishes to be heard in this public hearing with
respect to the alternate plat process for Lots 14 and 15 of
s-~4-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
31
Ttie Horizon, Section One?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one to come forward
or indicate they desire to be heard, I will close the public
hearing on the alternate plat process for Lots 14 and 15 of
The Horizon, Section One, and I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for this date.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:04
a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And looks like we're about as
close to 10:05 as we're going to get, so we'll go on to the
next item, which is a timed item for 10:05, that being Item
6, open bids and read aloud on the five-year lease of a
backhoe loader. The first -- first bid that we have is from
Anderson Machinery in San Antonio. The -- id's a five-year
lease, 60 months at $1,227 a month for a total of $73,620.
A guaranteed repair expense feature from delivery to five
years or 7,500 hours, whichever shall first occur, that not
to exceed $2,875. That is a total cost bid of $76,495. I
assume that the guaranteed repair expense is an alternate
that we can agree to accept or not accept as we choose.
Would that be correct Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Well, I'd have to see it, exactly
what -- what it's got, but I would assume it -- what this --
5-~4-i_.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
32
this bid was supposed to be cumulative of -- of maintenance
as well as the backhoe itself.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So --
MR. ODOM: So it should be combined. What I
have to do is look at what it's going to cost me on 60
months and all added to it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, the repair expense
would not exceed $2,875 in the first five years or 7,500
hours, whichever first occurred, and that added to the base
lease cost would be $76,495. The -- the next bid that we
have is from --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Holt.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Holt Caterpillar, San
Antonio, Texas. The base bid for the five-year lease, 60
months, at $786 a month for a base cost of $47,160. The
guaranteed repair expense on this one from delivery to the
first five years or 7,500 hours, whichever first occurs, not
to exceed $275, for a total cost bid of $47,435. And the
last bid that we have is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's two different
ones.
JUDGE TTNLEY: There are two options in the
last bid from R.D.O. Equipment Company in San Antonio. The
first one is John Deere Model 410-G. It has a base cost,
five-year lease, 60 months, at $874.23 per month, for
s-'~-^~
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
$52,453.80. It's annotated that there's a purchase option
at the end of the lease for $24,187.05. The guaranteed
repair expense from delivery to five years or 7,500 hours,
whichever first occurs, not to exceed $8,500, for a total
cost of $60,953.80. The optional bid is for John Deere
310-SG, which has a base cost, five-year, 60 months, at
$804.46 per month, for a total of $48,267.60, annotated at
purchase option at the end of the lease is $21,342.32. The
quaranteed repair expense on this bid is, from delivery to
five years or 7,500 hours, whichever first occurs, not to
exceed $8,500, total being $56,767.67.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I move we accept
all bids and refer them to the Road and Bridge Department
for evaluation and recommendation.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
accept the bids as opened and refer them to Road and Bridge
for evaluation or recommendation. Any further questions or
discussion? A11 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: That motion does carry. Why
don't we go to Item 15, consider and discuss the expenditure
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
authorization for right-of-way acquisition for the Hermann
Sons Bridge project.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, this is a budget
amendment. First, I'd like to express my appreciation to
David Motley. David spent a great deal of time last week
really trying to finalize some of these deals. He was in
San Antonio trying to track down Mr. Tijerina when he was
down there. Later in the week, he and I met with
Mr. Tijerina in Comfort, and then following that, he went
back down there and picked up the actual deeds from
Mr. Tijerina. So, he -- he did a lot of work; I want to
thank him for what he did. Bottom line of all that, unless
something changed in my absence the last part of the week,
we have a deal now with all five of the people.
Mr. Tijerina, who was the holdout, we have a deal with him
that I would recommend -- it is a higher amount than the
appraised amount, but I think it is going to be very
reasonable. The appraised amount was a total of $12,040,
what the amount was.
In meeting with him, we came to an agreement
of $16,000 total payment. And how I came -- and that was
the max that I offered at one point, and that was the
maximum I thought the County should pay. And that number,
in my mind, was fair, because it basically -- it added
10 percent to the value. There was some appreciation,
5-~~-n~
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
probably, or likely since the original appraisal took place,
and so -- and we knew it was going to cost us about $3,000
to go through the commissioner condemnati~ii process, not to
mention the time it was going to take us. So we probably,
in fact, saved a little bit of money. Also, it's part of
the overall project because of the deal we worked out with
the Grand Lodge of the Hermann Sons. Actually, it's a
minimal amount. There's about $3,700 excess that they did
not -- that we did not need for this right-of-way
acquisition to -- actually, about $200 from the total
budgeted amount, which I think is a pretty good deal.
David, that's -- everything I said is correct?
MR. MOTLEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nothing changed?
MR. MOTLEY: No. No, I think there would be
appreciation in that property from the time the appraisal
was made and until the time of the hearing, and 10 percent
may -- that's a good ballpark guess it would go up. And
we'd have to do that if we went to condemnation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So, the amount of
additional funds that we need to authorize is $3,978. That
would come out of Flood Control, and we will handle a budget
amendment for that amount. I guess we can handle it all
right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much?
s-'~-~~
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
36
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $3,978. And there is a
budget amendment form in our package, so we need to approve
that amount to come from Flood Control Reserves, and we need
a hand check to Fidelity Abstract and Title for that amount.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you so move?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I so move.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to do
a budget amendment to the Flood Control budget from Reserves
for $3,978 to complete the Hermann Sons Bridge project
right-of-way, and authorize a hand check in that same amount
to Fidelity Abstract and Title Company to close that matter
out. And I assume, if there's any further documentation
that I need to sign, that authorization is in there also?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This wraps it all up,
then? All your pieces are together?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're all together.
I'm not sure -- there's one that I'm not positive that we
have the paperwork. The deal's made; it's just a matter of
getting the people to come in and sign it. I think the
other four have been -- you know, everything's been taken
care of. Deeds are in our hands.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll meet the
5-_4-U4
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
37
deadline for TexDOT?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And just an update on
that part of it. I talked to Mike Coward; it has moved
forward to Austin, and the letting process is underway, and
the bids are due back September 1st on the bridge. The
bridge should be under construction before the end of the
year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHULSON: Just, that's a good
piece of work. It's amazing that once in a while, we get
something done quickly and efficiently. Congratulations,
Commissioner Letz and David.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon's aged about seven
years through this, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure it was all the
Hermann Sons. I think this last week took a pretty good
toll on him.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He hasn't seen
anything yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? All in
5-~4-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
38
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: T~11 opposed, same sign. The
motion does carry. We'll now go to a timed item which was
scheduled for 10:15, that being public hearing on Item -- on
the alternate plat process. So, I will recess the
Commissioners Court meeting at this time, and I will open a
public hearing on the alternate plat process for Lots 32 and
33 of The Horizon, Section One, located in Precinct 1.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 10:15 a.m., and a public hearing
was held in open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the
public that wishes to be heard with respect to the alternate
plat process for Lots 32 and 33 of The Horizon, Section One,
located in Precinct 1 of Kerr County? Anybody wishing to be
heard on the public hearing?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Being no one coming forward
and no one indicating a desire to come forward, I'll close
the public hearing on the alternate plat process for Lots 32
and 33 of The Horizon, Section One, in Precinct 1, and I
will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting at this time.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:16
a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
-_ .-~.,~
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to the end of the
agenda and go to Item 16, consider and discuss a report on
the status of the administrative services agreement with
Employee Benefit Administrators. Pursuant to the motion and
the instruction from the Court at the last meeting, I made
modifications to the administrative services agreement with
Employee Benefit Administrators, and forwarded that to
E.B.A. Last week, I got a call from one of the principals
at E.B.A. indicatinq that they had received it; they had
reviewed it. All of the changes that were made were
acceptable to them, with one exception. They are of the
belief and the opinion that the consultant recommended a
three-year deal, and the interpretation of the E.B.A. rep
was that the Court's action was to, quote, accept the
consultant's recommendation. And, therefore, their position
is that they have a three-year deal. I assume it's tendered
in their agreement, rather than a one-year deal with two
one-year options at our option to renew that agreement
for -- for two successive one-year periods.
I didn't have further discussion. I told the
principal I would bring it before the Court. My personal
feeling is, as the agreement is tendered, we can't lawfully
accept that, because it's a straight-out three-year
agreement, which would bind a future court to make an
expenditure of funds.
-_~-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
40
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Judge, my memory
says that -- I mean, I -- I didn't -- I don't recall voting
on a three-year -- three-year anything. I voted as -- the
recommendation was to go with a certain company, and that
was my vote. It didn't have anything to do with a time
frame. I don't recall a three-year conversation. I'm sure
it happened.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My recollection is
exactly the same as Commissioner Baldwin's.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was just curious as
to whether or not the minutes reflect their position.
JUDGE TINLEY: There was a three-year -- a
three-year reference in those minutes, and the reference was
that the administrative cost that -- there was a, quote,
guarantee to freeze those administrative costs for a period
of three years. The actual agreement itself was bid as a
12/12, or in some cases, there was a reference, I think, to
one bidder bidding a 12/15, which would be -- with a
one-year agreement, but being able to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Spread it --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- being able to pick up the
following three months. The following quarter, in other
words. But that was mainly as to the -- the stop loss
insurance contract. But there was a reference to a
three-year, and it was in the expert's spreadsheet. It
F _--ii 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
41
related to the freezing of the third-party administrator
administrative costs. And if -- there was another one, for
example, that -- that gave us a fixed cyst for the second
year. It wasn't the same, but they fixed the cost for the
second year as a quote guarantee. But I just saw it as a --
as a fixed cost in the event we renewed it into a second
and/or a third year, but not a three-year agreement. The
bottom line being that the agreement as tendered, I don't
think we can lawfully sign a three-year, straight-out --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- commitment -- agreement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree, but I think also
you go back to the request for bid was for a one-year deal;
it wasn't for three. I mean, you know, either way, it's a
one -- any way you look at it, it's a one-year deal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, a one-year
contract with two -- with two option years at the same rate
yields the same thing for both parties.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The way I see it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think I've got the consensus
of the Court. I will proceed in that direction.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, will that queer
the deal with them? Or what's the --
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know. I -- I
- ~ 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
42
indicated to the principal of E.B.A., when I had that
discussion that I've relayed to you, that I would bring it
to the Court, get the Court's feeling about it, and report
back. So, I will report back accordingly. That's where we
are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on that, do you
plan to send them a letter to that effect? I mean, I think
that if it's -- it would be probably better from a
documentation standpoint if we sent a letter, say, as
opposed to just a phone call. That way, it's -- there's no
misunderstanding.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'll be happy to do that.
I'll -- and I agree with -- with that approach, I think, in
order that there be no recollection problems. Anything
further on that item? Okey-doge. Let me see where we are.
I tell you what let's do, then. Why don't we take our
mid-morning break a little bit early, and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good idea.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- and we'll come back at a
little bit after 10:30, and we'll -- we'll be on schedule
with our timed items, or at least the first one, reasonably
close. So, we'll stand in recess until 10:30 or shortly
thereafter.
(Recess taken from 10:22 a.m. to 10:33 a.m.)
5-~9-Q9
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
43
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to
order. We were in recess for a bit. We're now back in
session. Next item on the agenda is Item 8, consider and
discuss steps necessary for previously subdivided
Bettac/Rickert property and road to be in compliance with
the Kerr County Subdivision Rules. This was a timed matter
for 10:30. We're pretty much on target; it's a few minutes
after 10:30. The engineer, I believe, is on this item, and
Mr. Hart, you're on it also. And who's going to lead it.
off?
MR. JOHNSTON: I think Commissioner 1 put it
on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I did, because I'm a
nice guy.
MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we need to take a vote on
that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Afraid we can't get a
majority?
MR. JOHNSTON: It's precinct -- actually in
Precinct 2. It's as a result of an opinion by David Motley
of the property that you just talked about, whether or not
it's in compliance with the Subdivision Rules. I think the
conclusion of David's memo was that it -- there's no reason
5-~9-~i9
1
2
3
4
J
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
why it shouldn't be subdivided; should have been subdivided
instead of partitioned by nonjudicial means.
JUDGE TINLEY: The controlling factor being
because it actually, quote, laid out a road, unquote?
MR. JOHNSTON: Laid out a road, yes, sir. We
actually sent the owner a letter back over a year ago. I
think we told him at that time that our opinion was it
needed to be platted. He argued, saying it didn't need to
be, so that's why we're here a year later.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You might refresh
the Court's memory, too, Franklin, that you and I visited
that --
MR. JOHNSTON: Several times, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Drove that property
and that road in question, and I believe our conclusion was
it did not meet county standards for country lane. Is that
correct?
MR. JOHNSTON: ThaL's correct, did not meet
the standards.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're here to find
out what -- basically, to affirm that it needs to be
platted?
MR. JOHNSTON: I guess --
s-~~-n4
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
here for?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think sort
of. I think what we're -- we're seeking -- come on up.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think that question is
already --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe he'll tell us
what we're seeking.
MR. JOHNSTON: -- under a dispute in another
agenda.
MR. HART: Your Honors, as you've discussed,
County Attorney Motley's opinion is that the road is not in
compliance, and that the property was not platted in
compliance that it needs to be. I think your rules clearly
show that the minimum requirement would be a country lane,
which, in the definition of a country lane, above the
definition of road in the Definitions section of the rules,
it says, "This type of road shall be mandated by the
Commissioners Court in those cases where right-of-way exists
and minimum access is desired." What -- what we're asking
is -- County Attorney Motley's opinion was March 30th. One
clarification, that it does need to have -- be improved with
a country lane, it does need to be platted, and that the
present access road does not meet the requirements. So,
those are the points, really.
And I think Mr. Franklin and Commissioner
5-~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
46
Williams -- both stated that it does not meet the
requirements of a country lane. So, you know, I think we're
there. My client, Mr. Colvin, and rris son, Jay Colvin, IV,
who, for some reason, thinks he wants to be a lawyer, are
here today, and we're just asking that the Court rule
that -- follow up on the opinion and rule that it must meet
the requirements for a country lane; that it needs to be
platted, and the fact issue of it's not in compliance at
this time with that country lane requirement is what we're
asking.
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, bottom line is,
if -- it the instruction is that it must be platted, what
automatically follows is, at a minimum, it must be a country
lane; meet that requirement under the platting requirements.
MR. HART: I believe so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just the imposition of the
platting requirement would cause these other things to
follow.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a better
approach, because I'm not sure -- I mean, y'all have said
country lane. It depends on the use of the property and how
many lots he puts cn there, whether it qualifies. If it's
more than -- five?
MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. At the
present time, it's just two lots on it.
s-~~-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
47
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If it remains as it
is, a country lane would suffice, but if somebody else broke
it up into --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: More.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- multiple lots --
MR. JOHNSTON: It would be different.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is possible.
That standard -- that standard would have to be raised.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I would say that
I would offer as a motion that the Court affirm the County
Attorney's memorandum of March 30, 2004, in this matter, and
which will require a platting of that particular piece of
property, azid as such, trial triggers all sorts of other
things. Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
require the platting of the property in accordance with the
County Attorney's opinion. Any further question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a discussion. I
think the next step would be for the County Engineer to
inform, with a copy of this order attached. And if he
refuses, refer it to the County Attorney for enforcement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And send it to both
s-'~-,~
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
48
parties.
MR. JOHNSTON: P.ight.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or
discussion with respect to 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: The motion does carry. Thank
you, Mr. Hart, Jonathan.
MR. HART: Thank you, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item on the agenda is a
timed item for 10:45.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we can go with
that.
JUDGE TINLEY: But it appears that Judge
Edwards is here, so we'll go to Item 9, presentation on the
AquaSource rate increase. That was put on by Precinct 1
Commissioner Baldwin, and he's going to have Judge Edwards
give us the low-down here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am. Judge Edwards,
thank you very much for coming. This issue has popped up --
of course, most of us sitting at this table have met with
AquaSource and clearly understand what's coming about. I
have had numerous phone calls from the community or my
5-~4-04
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
49
precinct with concerns; particularly this morning, my phone
has not stopped ringing. And, Danny, something interesting;
we're talking about a -- I think we're talking about a
40 percent increase, is what AquaSource -- and some of my
bright, retired folks have done some mathematics. One of
them came up with a 56 percent, and one has come up with a
77 percent increase. So --
MR. EDWARDS: I think the problem with
that -- and I'll cover that and explain that. Let me take
you back pre-AquaSource, pre-2001, just give you a brief
overview of the inequities of the system as it was then.
The inequities exist on several levels. First of all, at
the application level, there's absolutely no incentive for
them not to file an application, and there is no -- and
there is no incentive -- I mean, there's incentive for them
to file the application. There's n~ incentive for them to
ever settle, but to take it to the utmost extreme. The
reason for that is that the law provides that AquaSource, or
Aqua Texas, as provided, will recover all of their legal
expenses from the ratepayers, spread over a period of time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Win, lose, or draw.
MR. EDWARDS: Beg pardon?
JUDGE TINLEY: Win, lose, or draw.
MR.. EDWARDS: Win, lose, or draw. So they
have no -- nothing to lose by filing a rate application any
s-~ ~-,~
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
50
time they have the opportunity. At the end, there's no
incentive to try to come to the table and deal with the
local authorities in any way, because the longer they
stretch it out, the more legal fees the attorneys receive.
Secondly, an inequity exists at the environ level. Those
are the people who do not live within the city limits of an
incorporated city that's affected by this, and that's the
name that they've given to them. The environs have no way
to be protected. They must organize individually or as
groups, et cetera, et cetera, and the utility can resist
them and get their legal fees, but the environs can not
recover their legal fees. So, the inequities that existed
in the system even before AquaSource and the 2001 case we
tried was tremendous, in my opinion.
I think those in -- those inequities were
recognized by the Legislature, because when AquaSource came
forward and filed this statewide application, which was to
put all of their ratepayers, some 200 separate units in some
50 counties in some 15 or 20 different cities, all in at the
same rate, and the Legislature recognized the inequity of
that and passed a law prohibiting that. And it went through
the Legislature; both houses passed it, went through several
amendments, and stood up. Harvey Hilderbran sponsored it.
We followed it, and it was passed, except that when it all
was printed out, it contained one sentence which exempted
5-~ 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
51
AquaSource from the law, and we've tried every way in the
world to find out how that happened. There was never an
official amendment to it or anything else, and I promise
you, the only explanation I have ever been given by a
legislator who really knows the process is, it was done by
the "magic typewriter" in Austin. And that's a very common
term in Austin, the "magic typewriter."
So, we're not certain, though, that
AquaSource was exempted from it, but that -- that position
has never been litigated. You know, you have to look at
what it was before and after, before they filed a rate case
with this system over here and a rate case for the system
over here and a rate case for the system over here, et
cetera. And, so, to resist this rate increase, all the
people in that -- under that system had to do was to gather
the necessary financial and engineering data to resist it,
and it may not have over 100 or 150 or 200 connections, and
the data required was not that extensive. When you go to a
statewide system, the data required and the expertise
required explodes exponentially. AquaSource spent $1.4
million litigating that first case that we fought. Although
we had about 15 cities involved that were affected by it,
only four cities contested it. I put the coalition together
for small cities to fight it, and we had to gamble that the
T.N.R.C.C. then, T.C.E.Q. now, would allow us to spread our
-~~-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
52
expenses over the entire body of the ratepayers, 39,000
customers, and not just over the body of the ratepayers in
the city, which would have beetiluaybe a few thousand, 4,000
or 5,000.
And, so, you can see it makes a big
difference as to whether our rate expenses are going to be
spread over 3,000 customers, or whether it's going to be
spread over 39,000 customers. We had to gamble to a certain
point, take the r_hance that we were going to get our -- our
expenses covered over the entire spectrum of the rate case.
The administrative law judges refused to rule upon that, and
as a result, that decision was never made, but we did put
that into our settlement. So, when you -- when you figure
that you have to get, you know, information covering
200-some-odd systems to present this data to try to resist
this, you can see the amount of expertise that's required.
And out of that -- the cities, incidentally, spent $400,000
fighting this case. It was well worth it to the cities, but
the sad part about it is, the environs who we represented as
best as we could up to the very last minute, when -- when
T.N.R.C.C. took over their negotiation, and 15 minutes
before the case was disposed of, gave the environs another
dollar rate increase, just like that, with four lawyers
sitting there screaming at them not to do anything because
we felt like we had a winning situation. So, the environs
5-_ _ ~~-
.-- 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
have little ~r no protection in this -- in this rate case
application process.
Now, the rate case that we're facing doesn't
cover 39,000 customers, it covers 100,000 customers, so the
data to be required to put it together is now three times as
much as it was last time when we spent $400,000. And so you
can see that this just exponentially gets more and more
difficult for all ratepayers to contest it, and almost
impossible for ratepayers that are not in the jurisdiction
of a city. It's almost impossible for them to do anything
effective. In fact, I don't know that there's anything they
can do effectively. It's a very inequitable law. The magic
typewriter erased that. They did pass some law allowing
them to go into regions, and since that law, I think
AquaSource at that time saw that probably being contested,
but maybe not. They went ahead and agreed t~ put all the
rates into four regions, except for the four little cities
that contested this thing.
And, to show you the effect of it, if we do
nothing in Ingram, our rate at the end of four years -- if
we don't protest this rate increase, our rate at the end of
four years will be less than the rate of the people around
the city of Ingram is today. That's how inequitable it is.
We can go four more years and still be no worse off than
everybody else is in this county today. It makes absolutely
s-,~-o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
no sense, engineering-wise, financially, ethically, morally,
legally, to me, that 200-some-odd systems should have all
the same rate. You can have a system that's brand-new,
no -- no future requirements made for maintenance, et
cetera, et cetera, good rate. You got one over here that's
dilapidated, going to require thousands of dollars to be
spent on it, and these people over here are subsidizing what
these people over here have to do. It's just that simple.
It's the first time in history it's ever been accomplished
on water rates.
As I say, the magnitude of the data to be
gathered this time is just -- it's unbelievable the way it
has to be. These last -- just the application last time --
the application, not the data supporting it -- took up two
file boxes -- two letter-size file boxes. That's just the
application itself. We are in four regions now, and then
the four cities have their separate rate. They're now
trying to reduce two of those regions into one region, which
will put them down to just three regions. And, again,
they're now taking the water rates in 11 counties and 15
counties in another region, and consolidating them into one
region of 26 counties. And my guess is, next time around,
they'll probably consolidate those. They're consolidating
northeast and northwest; my guess is that they'll try to
consolidate southeast and southwest and get it down to two
5-'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
55
regions. So, this becomes a more difficult thing as it --
as it progresses. And it's unfortunate that the counties
could not have participated in the first one, and all of the
cities didn't participate in the first one, because even
though they didn't participate, weren't represented, they're
paying for the legal expenses of $1.8 million, and will be
for three more years on their water bills, at a rate of 85
cents a month.
The company this time is proposing to, as I
say, reduce it to three regions, and they are proposing to
extend the 85-cent surcharge to cover the legal expenses,
suggesting that they're only going to spend about $400,000
this time because they're going to try to handle it
in-house. And, of course, it's going to be almost
impossible for those probably 60,000 to 70,000 ratepayers
who are not in the city to organize to do anything about it.
And if they don't organize and get the signatures as
required for hearing, it's a done deal. There's no protest,
there's no hearing, there's no nothing for the environs.
Now, the cities, we will all have hearings; we'll all
protest it -- well, I say that. I don't know whether the
other cities will or not. Twelve of them didn't last time,
and their environs are paying for it now. Ingram, I'm happy
to say, wound up with the lowest rate in the entire
AquaSource system, and the other three cities came out
-_~~ r~:~
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
considerably better than they would have had they not
contested it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Danny, what were the
other three cities?
MR. EDWARDS: Sorry?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What were the other three
cities?
MR. EDWARDS: The other cities were
Woodcreek, Wimberley --
MR. DAMON: Houston.
MR. EDWARDS: One of them dropped out because
they didn't have anything except sewer, so it was just
Wimberley, Woodcreek, and Ingram that wound up in the final
analysis on water. We started out with four, because one of
them had sewer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: On the so-called proposed
40 percent rate increase to be brought in over four years,
does the application allow for 10 percent the first year,
and then the second year, 10 percent on the rate as
established the first year? And -- in other words, is it
compounded?
MR. EDWARDS: No, it's -- basically, they've
tried to kind of spread it out over 10 percent per year.
And the reason you're getting different rates, Commissioner,
5-^~-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
57
is because it's not just the -- the fundamental, or what
they call the basic rate that they're increasing. That's --
that's whether you use any water or not. What they're doing
is also increasing the per-gallon charge, and it varies from
system to system. And that also has to be thrown into the
calculation of what your total rate increase is, because if
you're paying $1.30 per 1,000 and it goes up to $3 per
1,000, that has to be calculated into your base rate in
addition to the 40 percent increase on your base rate,
whether you ever use any water or not. So, you're going to
get different numbers depending upon how you calculate that
and how much water you use.
I don't know what Ingram's going to do. We
are having a meeting next Tuesday. I would hope that they
would encourage -- or would allow me to try to put together
a coalition and to try to resist this matter on a
large-scale basis, because, certainly, Ingram could never
have authority to stand alone, and had we not convinced the
other cities to take the gamble that we could go up to a
certain point and bear the cost -- but then we hoped that we
could finally get a ruling that our cost would be spread
over 39,000 customers. This time, our cost would be spread
over 100,000 customers, so they're saying that they're
willing to leave the surcharge at 85 cents and just extend
it till the litigation expenses from this one is covered.
s-~~ o~
1
-^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
21
22
23
24
25
58
So, the procedure allu~st preempts the environs from doing
anything, quite candidly. And that's it in a real nutshell.
I do have a couple of comments I'd like t~
make for counties. I -- I think that there's some things
that the counties can do to be effective and to help the
environs. There's, I think, 50 counties involved in this
this time. I know there's 45 or 46. I don't know --
Article 13.182, I think it is, prescribes that these rates
must be determined -- if these are done on a region basis,
they must be done on a region-to-region basis. Now, that's
not what Aqua Tex -- Aqua -- pardon me, Aqua Texas now wants
to do. They want a flat rate, consolidating two, and just
fight the rest of them on a unified basis. It would appear
to me that, since these rates have to be determined on a
case -- on a case-by-case basis, region-by-region -- as I
say, there's -- I think there's 15 counties -- 15 counties
in the southwest region, which is where we are. There are
two things that I think could be done. I think, first of
all, if each county just kicked in $4,000 or $5,000, and all
15 counties participated, you would have enough to hire an
attorney to represent all the environs that are not in
cities.
Something that I think would be even better,
or maybe a part thereto, is I'rl not convinced, and I don't
think any of the lawyers are that want to stand up and fight
5-~' ~ -Ci4
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
this thing are convinced that this region system is -- is
even legal. It just doesn't make sense to me that 25
separate water systems within - more than that; 100 water
systems within a region all have the same percentage of
operating expenses and maintenance expenses, et cetera, et
cetera, et cetera. There's no way. I think the ironical
part about this thing is -- is that when they filed for
their 2001 rate increase, the one we fought, the reason they
gave us was that there were a number of compliance orders
outstanding that required these various systems to be
updated by T.N.R.C.C., and they needed this money to make
these updates. That's the way they -- that's the way they
filed their application. "We need this money to comply with
these updates."
This application opens up with the statement
that they need this money to meet the compliance mandates
issued while AquaSource -- AquaSource owned it and didn't
do, and now they're going to have to do them. That's an
insult to me, to an intelligent businessman, because if I
was buying a company and I knew I had these compliance
updates I had to require, you can bet I'd be knocking it off
the purchase price, and I guarantee you, Aqua Texas knocked
it off the purchase price. So, AquaSource got it to do it,
didn't do it. They probably got it off the purchase price,
and now they want a rate increase to go ahead and do what
5-~'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
60
they -- what the other didn't do. This is triple-dipping,
to me, literally. And -- if that makes sense to y'all. It
makes sense to me. And that's -- that's the way I see this,
is, literally, we're getting hit three times -- three times,
anyway, for what T.N.R.C.C. says they need to do to these
systems.
So, I would like to see -- I'd just love it
if we could make Aqua Tex fight on as many fronts as
possible. All the cities qet together, fight them
individually; all the counties in each region get together
and fund $2,000 or $3,000 for a war chest and fight each
region, and attack the validity of consolidation in each
region. Say, "Wait a minute, you shouldn't have put me in
there with this one. Go back and undo the regions." Which
have never really been validly approved by any court system.
I'm not sure that they're even valid to begin with. So,
maybe I'm a dreamer and believe in justice, but I know one
thing; that until the people or the counties or the cities
stand up and fight this system, it will only get worse,
because there is absolutely no protection for the environs
in the law as we stand here today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Danny, what's the time
framework we're working under with the hearings and the rate
24 increase?
25
MR. EDWARDS: The effective rate -- the rate
5-~ 4-i'~ 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
10
17
18
19'
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
goes into effect July the 13th, I believe. However, if
people file within 91 days from the day the rate increase is
supposed to go into effect - if 10 percent or 1,000,
whichever is less, files complaints with the T.C.E.Q., then
a hearing becomes mandated. If 10 percent of the people in
each city file with just their city, then a hearing becomes
mandated, although the city can have a hearing with or
without the 10 percent. And that's what's Ingram did last
time, although I think we probably had our 10 percent. Jim
Damon got Greenwood Forest together, and he's doing it now,
and I think we had enough complaints to mandate a hearinq in
the City of Ingram, but we would have had the hearing
anyway. We can do --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 10 percent of -- of
the region? 10 percent of the environs in the county?
10 percent of what?
MR. EDWARDS: Yes. (Laughter.) The law's
not clear, but the way I read it, Mr. Commissioner, it's
1,000 -- 10 percent of the total ratepayers affected or
1,000, whichever is less. So, I say 1,000 would be what --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which would be
region-wide?
MR. EDWARDS: Region-wide, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question, Danny. So,
July is the -- is the --
s-^~-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
62
MR. EDWARDS: I believe it's July the 13th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- operative time
when the new rates are -- are thought to go into effect, and
that would mean that anything that cities and/or counties
have to do, that initiative has to be mounted between now
and then; is that correct?
MR. EDWARDS: We have 91 days. The cities
have 91 days from the date that it's supposed to go in
effect to -- to do several things that I won't bore you
with, but we can put a temporary rate in, escrow rate in,
permanent rate in. We can suspend the rate for 90 days,
keep it from going into effect. There's several things that
the city can do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- I
understand, and cities have opportunities to do things
that -- that the folks in the counties don't have, unless
there's some kind of a defense initiative.
MR. EDWARDS: Well, it's 91 days from the day
the rate goes into effect that the environs have to file
their complaints with the -- with T.C.E.Q.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I guess I have a
couple more questions. In each of these situations -- I
think Professor van Bavel told me that it was something like
40 different systems owned by these folks in Kerr County; is
that correct? Does that resonate?
s-,~-,~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
MR. EDWARDS: There are 3,000 Aqua Tex
customers in Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, would it make
sense that, in each of those situations where there are
groups of folk served by a small Aqua Texas system -- is
that what it is? -- that they would, within the framework of
that system, mount their initiative for petitions or
whatever is necessary to present to the rate folks in
Austin, and at the same time, another initiative take place
on the county level? Which leads me to ask another question
-- two more questions.
MR. EDWARDS: Let me answer the first one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Answer the first one.
MR. EDWARDS: What happened the last time,
and I'm assuming that will probably -- the last time we
fought this, we appeared before the Commission, and the
Commission had just decided a similar question on what we
submitted to them seven months earlier. We simply pleaded
their own decision to them; said, "You can't do this." And
the chairman of the Commission said, "That was another case.
We're not interested in it. This is this case." They
literally overturned a previous decision they had made seven
months before. Because it's just three -- three engineers
sitting up there. With all due respect to engineers, they
don't know the law, and a couple of lawyers don't know the
s-=~-~~~
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
64
law either. That was strange, but they just arbitrarily
said we're going to overturn the law -- our decision.
What happened, though, as a result of us
doing this, we had such a large turnout -- I don't know how
many turned out in Austin for the first hearing, but there
was probably 250, 300 people there, and it got to be a real
mess. And so, what the administrative law judge did was to
organize groups by geographic areas, if for no other
reason -- and Kerr County was one of these geographic areas.
And they did permit spokesmen for property owners --
official property owners' associations to speak for the
entire property owners' group. That's, I think, leading up
to your question. So, they could literally go in and say,
"I represent 4U ratepayers." And so, what they did was
throw that subdivision in with other subdivisions around it,
and then appoint -- allow those subdivisions to appoint a
spokesman, a spokesman for all of those subdivisions, so
treat everybcc4y didn't have to keep ccmiiig back.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, that -- that
leads -- kind of leads into where I'm going. There has to
be some coordinating effort to -- to get representation from
each of the systems here in Kerr County to effectively raise
our voice --
MR. EDWARDS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- collectively.
-~~-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
65
Which someone asked me, and I want to ask you; you're
suggesting that perhaps our county, which is one of 15 in
the southwest region, get together with others to retain
counsel to do this. I'm wondering if -- while that's not a
bad suggestion, and it's something probably we ought to take
a look at, I guess I'm wondering whether or not Texas
Association of Counties is in a position, through its legal
staff, to be of assistance to us.
MR. EDWARDS: I can't answer that. Because
they wouldn't -- they weren't the last time, because we
requested it. We asked that it be looked into, and we got
no response from them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I guess that
would be up to us, then, as counties, to badger them and
let's see if we can get some response. Which leads me to my
last question. Aside from a court resolution in opposition,
what authority -- or what can counties do?
MR. EDWARDS: By law, nothing. From a
practical standpoint, I don't know why the counties could
not assist in organizing themselves -- among themselves by
region, and that's something you may want to ask your County
Attorney. I haven't found anything that prohibits it, doing
what I suggested. Just say, "We're going to protect our
taxpayers; we're going to kick in $4,000 or $3,000, and
we're going to hire an attorney to represent the southwest
5-~9-u4
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
66
region people," or whatever. That's just a suggestion on my
part. Whether or not it's legal, I don't see any -- any
prohibition against it, quite honestly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, to follow that
up a little bit, is there any mechanism for the environs in
Kerr County to, I guess, request the County to act on their
behalf? Is there a way that this can be done?
MR. EDWARDS: Yes, they can. They did it
last time. It was done last time, and got no response.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, but is there, I
guess, a -- to give us a legal -- you know, if 10 percent of
the environs of Kerr County came to us, I mean, would the --
then the T.C.E.Q. listen to the attorney and give the County
at least a -- a spot at the hearings?
MR. EDWARDS: Be a good makeup. It would be
a good facade. It's nothin
COMMISSIONER
MR. EDWARDS:
it when you get 10 percent,
1 percent, 100 perr_.ent.
COMMISSIONER
MR. EDWARDS:
~ legal about it.
LETZ: Okay. It's just --
You can do it now or you can do
or you can do it when you get
LETZ: It doesn't --
Nothing in the law that says
you can or can't. So --
MR. DAMON: The last rate increase, I came to
our Councilmember, Commissioner, and he said there was no
5-~4 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
67
way that they could help us with any financial help. We
took collections up in Greenwood Forest, and we came up with
over $5,000, so -- just to help this thing and fight it.
But that's probably what's got to be done, is get not only
Commissioners Court to help, but also the environs kick in
MR. EDWARDS: Actually, we had -- I forget
the exact number. We had six or seven subdivisions in Kerr
County that raised -- Pecan Valley was one of them. Yeah,
Pecan Valley was one of them that raised money, because when
we went into this battle, we had no assurance, as I said
earlier, that the cities would be reimbursed for the
expenses, so we were taking a big gamble that Ingram could
not afford, all the little cities could not afford. We did
have several thousands of dollars donated by the
subdivisions, about six or seven of them. Greenwood Forest
donated $4,000 or $5,000; we had a few hundred from other
subdivisions. And what we did, we utilized that to fight
the battle up to a point where we could get some assurance
whether we was going to get our attorney's fees reimbursed
or not. So, we had a little bit of a safety factor in
taking the gamble, but it wasn't much of one, because before
we knew -- before we knew whether or not we were going to
get reimbursed, we'd already spent something like $50,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know if most of
5-_.-U4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
72
23
24
25
68
the affected subdivisions are organizing in any way at this
time?
MR. EDWARDS: I --
MR. DAMON: Not yet.
MR. EDWARDS: My recollection is that
probably a majority of them have property owners'
associations; Saddlewood, you know, some of these, Greenwood
Forest.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my next question
would be probably to the County Attorney. Is it appropriate
to spend County funds, via the Commissioners Court
administrator, to notify -- contact some of these
associations and, you know, let them -- kind of act as an
organizing tool?
MR. DAMON: I've already tried, and I've got
a couple small ones right now -- High Point. I did talk to
Windmill Ridge, but I don't think they want to participate
at this time, and two others. I can't remember, but they're
-- they're all interested in, like, the coalition of
environs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the question, David,
is can the County spend funds, period, on this?
MR. MOTLEY: I'm not sure about for the
aspects -- or for the type of expenditure you're referring
to. But I was thinking, Danny, that there was a provision,
s-,9-n4
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
69
and maybe it's in a whole different area, that said counties
could spend funds or provide expertise, engineering,
whatever, and was entitled to recoup that later out of the
costs of litigation. Is that no longer the law? I thought
we had run over something like that back --
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah.
MR. MOTLEY: -- two or three years ago.
MR. EDWARDS: I think we came -- I came to
the conclusion, David, at that time that there wasn't any
prohibition against y'all protecting the property owners of
the county.
MR. MOTLEY: No. And they're certainly
citizens of the county. And, you know, I was just thinking
there was something that specifically allowed the County to
contribute funds or expertise in-kind.
MR.. EDWARDS: Yeah, I agree, I think there
was. There wasn't anything -- we couldn't find anything to
prohibit it.
MR. MOTLEY: You know, I'd have to go back
and look at some -- some of this, but -- 'cause my
recollection is that there was actually a statute allowing
it, and I believe, as Danny is saying, there's nothing to
prohibit it. And we're only allowed to do what the
Constitution -- the laws, you know, tell us we can do
affirmatively. But, you know, l don't see anything that
5-~'4-04
~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
certainly prohibits this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my -- my concern
is, this is a pretty large group, but if you take it down
to -- if we do it here, I can also then see the County can
expend funds to help another small group do something, and
that's -- and that's a little bit more iffy, if that's
something that county governments should be doing. I just
want to make sure that we're on firm legal ground. If we
start expending County funds on this endeavor, and if we are
on legal ground, I think, you know, i would support it, but
I want to make sure that we legally can do it. And, you
know, I hear you saying that there's nothing to prevent us
from doing it. Well, that's questionable, I mean, what we
can spend money on, if it's not a County function.
MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Commissioner, may I --
again, as a businessman, practical, if the County would do
nothing more than help organize the other counties,
Greenwood Forest would give you the $5,000 that you could
contribute to the fund. I'm not sure you'd even have to
raise the money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll take it.
MR. EDWARDS: You can just take -- get the
other counties awake and organized and doing something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Clearly, I think we can
do 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
71
MR.. EDWARDS: As attorneys, we can't go out
and solicit clients. I've got a law firm that we worked
with last time, that we were able to get two little cities
to hire a law firm in Austin, and I have to say that I got a
lot of credit for winning that, and I like to think that I
did, but we got an Austin law firm that was carrying a big
ball on this, and that's what needs to be done this time. I
don't want to fight this again. I want -- I want one big
law firm to take it now and to try this thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate your bringing
this matter to our attention. It seems as though the
organization effort is already taking place among the
property owners' associations, subdivisions, et cetera. I
think probably the effort we need to make at this point is
to contact the other counties in the southwest region. If
you could provide --
MR. EDWARDS: Be happy to.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the Court with an
itemization of those counties --
MR. EDWARDS: We did that last time.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- we can at least do some
communication.
MR. EDWARDS: We've always contacted the
other attorneys -- or the other counties. Not to solicit
business, but we just simply sent them a notice that they
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
72
were involved, et cetera, et cetera, you know. Nothing ever
came of it. We had no -- no counties respond to anything.
And, as I say, 12 of the cities didn't respond. In fact, I
had difficulty keeping Houston in, because they only had
1,200 customers. They didn't want to get involved in a big
litigation for 1,200 customers. But when we were in the
early stages, spreading that over another 1,200 customers --
we didn't know how it was going to be spread -- was a
substantial reduction in costs to all of us if they stayed
in. So, the City Attorney there agreed to stay in, and they
ultimately drove a bargain and made AquaSource buy their
system from them at the end of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I'd like to
take that a little step further, if the Court doesn't
object. I think, if we have multiple systems in Kerr
County, up to 40, I think we need to know who they are and
how many of them have homeowners' associations and a contact
person. Somehow or other, that has to be coordinated so
that we know that everybody in Kerr County, for example,
other than through the newspapers, has been advised
accordingly. And then, of course, we need to know about the
counties -- the other counties, and whether or not -- and we
need to investigate that and Texas Association of Counties,
see if they'll be of assistance to us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the mailout from
5-~4-04
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
73
Aqua Texas listed the subdivisions in Kerr County, did it
not?
MR. DAMON: About eight of them. Was that
all of Kerr County?
MR. EDWARDS: No, I don't think so.
MR. DAMON: Our particular one, we had, like,
eight different subdivisions involved. I think because we
came under the Ingram water system is what --
MR. EDWARDS: We were fortunate. I mean, the
environs in our area were extremely fortunate because, you
know, one of the things we strove for and were successful in
doing is having all the environs -- the environs that are on
the Ingram system get the same rate that the Ingram system
had. They were trying to give them different rates, and
that absolutely doesn't make any sense, that somebody out
here outside the city has to pay a different rate than we do
in the city on the same identical water system, but that's
actually what they were trying to do. And that -- we were
able to defeat that quite rapidly, but the other cities
didn't, 'cause they didn't protest it. So, there are other
cities out there where the environs are actually paying a
different water rate than the city is, and they're on the
same system.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Professor van Bavel,
what did you receive in Pecan Valley?
s-~~-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
?4
MR. VAN BAVEL: We -- every customer in Texas
received the notice that describes what was going on and why
they needed more money and just how the rates would change.
And from -- you know, their list of the subdivisions in Kerr
County is not complete, as the gentleman over here implies.
We were not on there, unless we were on a name that I didn't
recognize. But, anyway, that's -- their list gives us four
subdivisions in Kerr County, but I think there must be more.
I would also say, in connection with what Commissioner
Williams has proposed or suggested, that I think, legally,
there may be some questions for which there is no answer,
but there's also a moral way, a publicity matter in these
issues. And if the County could work with the other
counties to publicly, first of all, denounce this outrageous
rate increase, that would be, in my opinion, very helpful,
and the T.C.E.Q. will take this into account, particularly
if representatives of the counties were present at a
possible hearing, because they will take place, more than
signatures in support.
Ncw, as far as the money goes, it would be
wonderful if the County would legally, or perhaps --
hopefully, say, put $5,000 or so to -- in the effort to do
that part of the organ=zation, account for the 15 or 14
counties involved. As far as -- I can only speak, of
course, for our subdivision. We have started to become
~ _ ~ 4 _ ~~
75
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
active and rr.ake a lucre accurate and informative list of the
subdivisions, particularly ones that have homeowners'
associations. If they don't have a homeowners' association,
it's going to be very difficult, of course. But, when it
comes to the money part, let me give you a calculation that
I made, and that is, in Pecan Valley -- and it's no
different for_ the other subdivisions -- the average increase
per year for each customer would be a minimum of $400 a
year, and it's probably going to be more like $500 a year.
That's an extra expense of each customer. Okay. We have 25
or a few more people that are connected, so there's $10,000
a year that is going to have to be paid by the people who
live in Pecan Valley. We are -- we have no problem with
considering contributing to the funds that the County might
want to allocate. We'll give you $500, $1,000, $1,500.
That's no problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Keep going.
MR. VAN BAVEL: Per customer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Professor, if you'd
give us -- would you provide me a copy of what you've got so
we can see what it is and --
MR. VAN BAVEL: Well, you mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whatever it is you
got from AquaSource.
MR. VAN BAVEL: Well, this is something that
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
AquaSource mailed out to every single customer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you bringing
that matter to us, Judge Edwards.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got another
question, Judge Edwards.
MR. EDWARDS: May we be excused?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, I got one more
question. If this so-called magic typewriter phenomenon
were resolved in favor of the language that was supposed to
be in that bill, what kind of impact would that have on our
ability to fight the rate increase?
MR. EDWARDS: Commissioner, I wanted -- I was
in and out of my environment in being in this environment.
I'm not an administrative lawyer. That's the first water
rate case I've ever been in in my life. I'm an old trial
lawyer. That's all I know, is trial work, and I wanted to
take that case straight to the courthouse and attack the
constitutionality of it. Even after it was -- when it was
settled, I settled for the City of Ingram, it was such a
favorable situation that it was no longer economically
feasible for me -- for me just to try to go to the
courthouse on this thing. But I don't -- I think the entire
system is still questionable, and if it were attacked on a
region-by-region basis, I don't even think they could make
J-4-~I d
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
~~
their rates stand up on a region-by-region basis and have
100 and 150 units in one region all having the same rate.
It's just economically impossible that that would be the way
it should be. So, I think the system can be undone. But,
again, maybe I'm an optimist. One way or the other, I would
take that approach. I would take the position that we're
going to fight southwest -- southwest district only, and if
you don't like what we get, we're going to the courthouse
and undo this thing. One final question -- or answer,
Judge. This is -- this always, or 90 percent of time, will
wind up like all litigation; if you push it hard enough, you
got enough power, they'll settle. This case will probably
be settled. How well you settle depends upon how powerful
you are in your representation.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, that brings us
to the area of the agenda for closed or executive session,
so I will recess the open Commissioners Court meeting, and
we will go into executive or closed session.
(The open session was closed at 11:22 a.m.,
and an Executive Session was held, the
transcript of which is contained in a
separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It is 11:28, and we
will reconvene in open session now. It appears to me we're
s-,a-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
78
down tc paying the bills.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move we pay the
bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second -- third.
Whatever.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
we pay the bills. I have a couple of questions. Page 2,
Nondepartmental. Why I haven't spotted this before, I don't
know. Internet service, almost $250?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's our line charge, our
monthly charge for DSL.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we need that many?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's one charge for
everybody. Everybody in the system has access for one fee.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's as good a deal
as we can get?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you think? Okay. Page 8.
We got $16,000 worth of training costs for the Sheriff's
Department for software?
MR. TOMLINSON: We -- the Court approved that
purchase -- the purchase of that software.
JUDGE TINLEY: This shows training.
MR. TOMLINSUN: Well, part of it -- part of
~-^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
79
the -- part of the invoice was training.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What you're telling me,
this $16,000 is for the software and the training?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: And so we -- we just
allocated the whole bill to wherever it should go.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, it included the
purchase of the new software?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, that's all I have. 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: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is -- is for the
216th District Court. The request is to transfer $100 from
Miscellaneous and $5 from Office Supplies to Books,
Publications, and Dues to pay the -- the Supreme Court $235
for the state bar dues for Judge Ables.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
5-~4-Q~
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
80
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. All in
favor, signify by raising your right hand.
MS. PIEPER: Judge, I believe there also was
a request for a hand check.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, that's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sorry, did I miss that
somewhere in the motion?
MR. TOMLINSON: Need a hand check for that
also.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. To State Bar of Texas?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It included a hand check.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Motion made and
seconded for approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1
and issuance of a hand check to State Bar of Texas for $235.
Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bar dues? Is that
what you said, bar dues?
(Mr. Tomlinson nodded.)
MR. MOTLEY: Doesn't that go to Supreme Court
instead of the State Bar? Bar dues?
JUDGE TINLEY: It would be the Supreme Court
of Texas. I stand corrected.
s-gig-u9
81
i
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. TOMLINSOPI: Yes .
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, absolutely not.
JUDGE TINLEY: 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: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 2 is for the
County Treasurer. The Treasurer's requested a $20 transfer
from Office Supplies to Books, Publications, and Dues.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Need a hand check?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY:
approval of Budget Amendment
or discussion? All in favor
raising your right hand.
(The motion c
JUDGE TINLEY:
Motion made and seconded for
Request Number 2. Any question
of the motion, signify by
arried by unanimous vote.)
A11 opposed, same sign.
5-~9-G9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1~
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget
Amendment Request Number 3 -- we've already handled this
particular item in a court action concerning the Hermann
Sons Bridge matter.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And a hand check was
authorized.
JUDGE TINLEY: And a hand check was
authorized.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's all I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. No late
bills, huh?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. I have before me
monthly reports from Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3;
Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4; County Clerk; Justice of
the Peace, Precinct 1; District Clerk, as amended; and
Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2. Do I hear a motion to
approve these reports as presented?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve the reports as presented. Any question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
-_z-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
83
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Do we
have any reports from committee/liaison assignments from any
of the Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing, Your Honor.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just an update on the
airport. We're progressing, little step at a time. But I
think we should, sometime during the month of June -- I
thought hopefully by the end cf May, but I think it'll be
during June, we'll have a final report to the Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Our last meeting was
canceled. Has it been rescheduled?
MS. MITCHELL: Not as of yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Four?
(Commissioner Nicholson shook his head.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Any reports from elected
officials or department heads?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Lunchtime?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Getting close to
lunchtime.
5-~4-~4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any other reports
that need to be brought before the Court's attention? Any
other business to come before the Court falling under this
agenda? If not, I declare the meeting adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:35 a.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OE KERR ~
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, aL Lhe Lime acid place rieretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 27th day of May, 2004.
JANNETT PIEPER, /Kerr County Clerk
-- -----------------------
Kathy Ba ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
-_ .-~i~
ORDER N0.28651
MEMORIAL DAY CEREMONY
Came to be heard this the 24th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, to use the Court House Parking and Grounds adjacent to the War Memorial
area for Memorial Day Ceremony to beheld Saturday, May 29th, 2004 at 10:00 a.m.
ORDER NO. 28652
ROAD NAMES
Came to be heard this the 24th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, the road name for Privately Maintained Road in accordance with 911
Guidelines;
Existing Road Name New Name
1385 Feather Ridge Rd. N.
ORDER NO. 28653
GRANT FUNDING
Came to be heard this the 24th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, to allow Constable Pct 3 to seek grant funding for in-car video/audio systems
for all four Precinct Constables and authorize the County Judge to sign the Grant
Application.
ORDER N0.28654
PUBLIC HEARING
HIDDEN VALLEY RANCH
Came to be heard this the 24th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, set a Public Hearing for June 28, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. for an Alternate Plat of
Lots 12 & 13, Hidden Valley Ranch, Pct. 2.
ORDER NO. 28655
TOBACCO GRANT FUNDING
Came to be heard this the 24th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Conunissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, the application for Tobacco Compliance Grant and authorize the County Judge
to sign.
ORDER N0.28656
RECLASSIFICATION
Came to be heard this the 24th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, the reclassification of the Nurse to Nurse/EMT position for the Sheriffl s
Department.
ORDER N0.28657
INMATE LAW LIBRARY
Came to be heard this the 24th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, to authorize a 36 month subscription agreement with Thomason West to replace
the inmate Law Library with CD-ROM library.
ORDER N0.28658
BACKHOE LOADER
Came to be heard this the 24th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, to accept the three bids as follows on the 5-year lease of a Backhoe Loader
and refer them to the Road and Bridge Department for evaluation and recommendation.
The first -- first bid is from Anderson Machinery in San Antonio. A five-year lease, 60
months at $1,227 a month for a total of $73,620. A guaranteed repair expense feature
from delivery to five years or 7,500 hours, whichever shall first occur, that not to exceed
$2,875. That is a total cost bid of $76,495.
The Second --Holt Caterpillar, San Antonio, Texas. The base bid for the five-year lease,
60 months, at $786 a month for a base cost of $47,160. The guaranteed repair expense
from delivery to the first five years or 7,500 hours, whichever first occurs, not to exceed
$275, for a total cost bid of $47,435.
The Third with two options -- R.D.O. Equipment Company in San Antonio. The first
one is John Deere Model 410-G. It has a base cost, five-year lease, 60 months, at
"" $874.23 per month, for $52,453.80. It's annotated that there's a purchase option at the
end of the lease for $24,187.05. The guaranteed repair expense from delivery to five
years or 7,500 hours, whichever first occurs, not to exceed $8,500, for a total cost of
$60,953.80.
The optional bid is for John Deere 310-SG, which has a base cost, five-year, 60 months,
at $804.46 per month, for a total of $48,267.60, annotated at purchase option at the end of
the lease is $21,342.32. The guaranteed repair expense on this bid is, from delivery to
five years or 7,500 hours, whichever first occurs, not to exceed $8,500, total being
$56,767.67.
ORDER NO. 28659
BUDGET AMENDMENT
HERMANN SONS BRIDGE
Came to be heard this the 24th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, the expenditures for the Hermann Sons Bridge right-of--way project by
transferring $3,978.00 from Surplus Funds into line item 22-670-450 Repairs to Dams
and issuing a hand check for $3,978.00 from Flood Control payable to Fidelity Abstract
and Title Company.
ORDER NO. 28660
SUBDIVISION RULES
Came to be heard this the 24th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, that the Court affirm the County Attorney's memorandum of March 30, 2004,
which will require a platting of the Bettac and Rickert property located in Precinct 2.
ORDER NO. 28661
Claims and Accounts
On this the 24thday of May 2004 came to be considered by the Court various
Commissioners precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
10-General	$154,122.15
14- Fire	$13,000.00
15-Road & Bridge	$38,297.00
26-JP Technology	$799.98
29-Courthouse Security	$795.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$15,163.57
80-Historical Commission	$40.88
81-District Administration	$600.00
TOTAL CASH REQUIRED FOR ALL FUNDS $222,818.58
Upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to pay said Claims and Accounts.
ORDER N0.28662
BUDGET AMENDMENT
216TH DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 24th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, The request is to transfer $100 from line item 10-435-499 Miscellaneous
and $5 from Office Supplies line item 10-435-310 to Books, Publications, and Dues line
item 10-345-315 to pay the Supreme Court $235 for the state bar dues for Judge Ables
and issue a hand check.
ORDER N0.28663
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY TREASURER
Came to be heard this the 24th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, The request to transfer $20.00 from line item 10-497-310 office supplies to line
item 10-497-315 for books-publications-dues.
ORDER N0.28664
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 24th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, the monthly reports as submitted from the following offices;
Justice of the Peace #1, 2, 3, and 4
County Clerk
District Clerk- Amended