1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, September 13, 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
4v
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
2
I N D E X
September 13, 2004
PAGE
--- Commissioners' Comments ............................. 5
1.1	Resignation of Justice of the Peace #3 .............	13
1.2	Advertising for Proposal for Electrical, plumbing,	
	HVAC and pest control ..............................	16
1.3	Consider advertising for sealed bid proposals for	
	improvements at the HCYEC, set dates for opening ...	17
1.4	Approve road names for privately-maintained roads ..	21
1.5	Revision of Tract 118, Kerrville South No. II,	
	with variances .....................................	22
1.17	Investment options for County employees ............	52
1.18	Consider permitting Shannon Air 1 Subscription	
	Program available for purchase in Kerr County,	
	authorize County Judge to sign authorization	
	letter .............................................	70
1.19	Agreement for Kimble County/Junction EMS provider	
	to assume responsibility as primary responder for	
	911 emergency calls made from Y.O. Ranchlands ......	91
1.23	Consider BB Air Rifle Target Range on HCYEC	
	property ..........................................	103
1.6	Revision of Plat for Lots 6, 7E & 7W into 6R of	
	Falling Water .....................................	---
1.7	Revision of Plat for Lots 21 & 22 into 21A of	
	Falling Water .....................................	---
1.8	Revision of Plat for Lots 41A & 43B into 43R of	
	Falling Water .....................................	116
1.9	Revision of Plat for Lots 46A, 46B & 47A into 46R	
	of Falling Water ..................................	117
1.10	Revision of Plat for Lots 121A & 121B into 121R of	
	Falling Water .....................................	117
1.11	Revision of Plat for Lots 122D & 123D into 122R of	
	Falling Water .....................................	117
1.12	Revision of Plat for Lots 123B & 123C into 123R of	
	Falling Water .....................................	117
1.13	Revision of Plat for Lots 127A & 127B into 127R of	
	Falling Water .....................................	117
1.14	Revision of Plat for Lots 141A & 141B into 141R of	
	Falling Water .....................................	117
1.15	Resolution thanking members of Airport Advisory	
	Board for their service ...........................	120
1.16	Declare trees in right-of-way of Hermann Sons new	
	bridge as surplus .................................	122
1.20	Renewal of Interlocal Cooperation Contract between	
	Kerr County Sheriff's Office and Texas Department	
	of Public Safety for administering the Fugitive	
	Apprehension Program ..............................	126
3
1
~.,, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X (Continued)
September 13, 2004
		PAGE
1.22	Consider easements acquisition for Kerrville	
	South Wastewater Project, Phases II and III,	
	approve compensation, authorize County Judge	
	to execute appropriate documents and	
	correspondence ....................................	127
1.28	Approval of proposed FY 2004-2005 tax rate, set	
	public hearing on same ............................	133
1.29	Discussion and adoption of Tax Rate for Lake	
	Ingram Road District ..............................	138
1.26	Approval of proposed FY 2004-2005 public	
	officials salary, set public hearing on same ......	139
1.21	Approve proposed agreement with Kerrville	
	Christmas Lighting Corporation regarding	
	installation, storage and take-down of Christmas	
	lights on the courthouse during holiday season ....	147
1.24	Consider hiring Employee Health Benefit	
	Consultant ........................................	152
1.25	Discuss transfer of funds to Juvenile Detention	
	Facility Fund from General Fund in exchange for	
	accounts receivable from contracting counties .....	160
4.1	Pay Bills .........................................	174
4.2	Budget Amendments .................................	175
4.3	Late Bills ........................................	---
4.4	Read and Approve Minutes ..........................	187
4.5	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports ................	187
1.27	Approval of proposed 2004-2005 budget, set	
	public hearing on same ............................	189
---	Adjourned .........................................	195
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
On Monday, September 13, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. Let me call to order the meeting of the Kerr
County Commissioners Court scheduled for this date and time,
Monday, September the 13th of 2004, at 9 a.m. Commissioner
Letz, would you do the honors this morning?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would everyone please
stand and join me in a moment of prayer.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this point in
the meeting, if there is a member of the public that wishes
to come forward and address the Court on any matter which is
not listed on the agenda, they're free to do so at this
time. If -- if it is your desire to speak concerning a
matter that is listed on the agenda, we'd ask that you wait
until that agenda item is called. We'd also ask that you
fill out what we call a participation form. They're at the
back of the room. Some have already done so this morning;
we appreciate that. It's not absolutely required that you
do that, but it helps me so that -- that I don't pass you
over when we come to that particular item. But if there's
9-13-04
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any member of the public that wishes to come forward and be
heard on any matter that's not listed on the agenda, feel
free to come forward at this time; we'd be happy to listen
to you. Seeing no one to come forward, we'll move on to the
next portion of the agenda. Commissioner Letz, do you have
anything for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I do. Over the
weekend, Comfort celebrated its 150th birthday. And I don't
know -- I know some people out in the crowd I saw in
attendance. I'm not sure if anyone -- other people from the
Court were there, but it was a really nice event. They had
a parade with a hundred and -- 130 or 160 entries and the
Lackland Band there marching. They had -- if you were an
old tractor buff, it was quite a sight to see the old
thrashers and tractors and other farm implements that were
turn-of-the-century vintage. Pretty interestinq. Then it
was an all-day event at the park. A lot of class reunions
were held, which was a lot of fun. And then there's a --
kind of an unusual thing called the Comfort Pageant, which
started 50 years ago at the centennial, and Vera Flach,
who's a distant relative of mine, wrote the pageant. It's
recreated on the banks of Cypress Creek under the tree --
same cypress tree the first settlers lived under -- camped
under. Really, it's a neat thing. It's narrated, so -- but
about 200 people from the community dress up in vintage
9-13-04
6
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
costumes, and it's everything from the Indian raids to the
cheerle~ading and the current fire trucks they have in
Comfort all takes place, so it's quite an event. That's one
of the great things about living in a small community.
That's all I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I pass.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I do have one
item. I think it's probably unpleasant, but Saturday was
9/11, time for reflection on one of the turning points in
the history of our nation. And before that, last week, I
got a phone call from the San Antonio Express News wanting
to know if there were any 9/11 functions in Kerrville for
the weekend, and I wasn't sure, so I called the Chamber of
Commerce. They did not have anything, so I called the
Visitor's Bureau, and they said yes, there is one function
in Kerrville, and that's at the Kerr County Courthouse,
where the Tivy Band will be, Color Guard, and the County
Judge will be there speaking. And so, okay. So I come down
here, and I'm a little bit late for the -- for that
function; I caught the tail end of the Tivy Band. But I
went around the courthouse square just to see what was going
on, and there was a motor home parked right out here in
front of our courthouse with huge signs representing a
political party. And I can't tell you how that angered me,
9-13-04
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
particularly on the day of 9/11. We have a lot of veterans
walking around here, and it was very offensive to our
citizens, and very offensive to me as well.
Even -- it doesn't matter what party; that's
not -- that's not my point at all here. Even if they had
both parties -- political parties here on the courthouse
square Saturday, it still would not have been right, in my
opinion. It was extremely offensive to me and a lot of
other people. They even -- they even had a little poodle
with a bumper sticker stuck to its hair on the side of it
walking around, these brilliant people, and that's offensive
as well. So, I'm really upset about it. The contract we
have with the Kerr County Market Days says that they will
promote fresh produce, plants, homemade food stuff, art
works, and crafts. It doesn't say anything about we're
going to get involved in the political arena and push our
agenda, make a statement and that kind of thing, That`s
just not going to happen as long as I'm here; I'm going to
tell you that. It really ticks me off.
The way to terminate this agreement, you have
to give the party 30 days notice, and it`s due -- it comes
up December the 18th anyway. If it were up to me -- you
know, I'm going to find some opposition here at the table,
and that's fine, but if it were up to me, this thing would
be terminated today. It would be -- our relationship with
9-13-09
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
8
the Market Days people would be over this moment. But the
contract says -- the agreement says that we will have to
give the party 30 days written notice. I don't know where
that puts us, then -- mid-October, so the thing is due in
December anyway. I'd like to see us give a written
notice -- 30-day notice that it's over.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just -- question. I was
not here. The -- it was inside the -- parked here inside
the parking lot?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. It was a
booth.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was a booth?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A motor home booth.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did it belong to an
exhibitor?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don`t have any idea;
I didn't get anywhere near it. But it had huge signs,
everybody running around with their T-shirts, you know. And
I understand the political arena; that`s what I do, but
not -- not on 9/11, and not on our courthouse square. Very
offensive. Very offensive. And you guys need to appreciate
me by not -- by talking to the crowd that approached me with
it, not letting them come in here. I'm telling you, you
don't want that band of brothers in this room. That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
9-13-04
9
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if your
comments had been a motion, I would have -- I would have
seconded it, because I too had a lot of phone calls about
that particular incident. And, while I didn't know for
certain, I suspected that a space had been leased or been
given, one or the other, by the organization that's in
charge. I've always taken great pride in the fact that our
courthouse square remains free of political activity. If
you want to see the alternate side of the issue, go to
Bandera County and take a look at that courthouse square
during election season, and you'll find the absolute
opposite of what this courthouse square is all about. And I
like it the way it is here; I don't like it the way it is
there. So that says, Commissioner, had it been a motion,
you'd have had a second on this, 'cause I had a bunch of
phone calls about it as well. My other comment has to do --
kind of a follow-up to Commissioner Letz about Comfort and
the 150th, is only to remind everybody that Kerr County will
be celebrating its 150th, I believe, in `06. Which tells
me, since sesquicentennials or centennials, bicentennials or
whatever, take a lot of work, we'd better get cracking.
That's all I got.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Like you,
Commissioner Baldwin, I had -- I had a call. I was out of
town over the weekend, so I was unable to be at the -- at
9-13-04
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
10
the 9/11 service that -- program that was here at the
courthouse. I had originally committed several months ago,
and it was necessary for me to be out of town. My good
friend Joe Benham was kind enough to fill in for me. I also
got calls; apparently not as many calls as you gentlemen
got, but I got some, and that was my first knowledge of it,
getting these phone calls. And I've not had an opportunity
to talk with the -- the leadership at Market Days, so I -- I
don't know what the story is from that end, but I'm
committed to making the activities in this courthouse
nonpolitical, and in fact have -- have declined to allow use
of the facilities here for political groups wanting to meet.
We do have a vehicle in place for the conventions and things
of that nature that are required under the election laws,
but other than that, I don't think it's appropriate that we
have any political activity here on the grounds.
We -- we had someone that made an effort to
post some signs here on the courthouse grounds during the
last campaign, and we, with the assistance of the
Maintenance people, promptly got that issue resolved so that
we wouldn't end up looking like Bandera, as Commissioner
Williams has said. I didn't personally see it, but I
understand it was an absolute nightmare over there. But
I -- I intend to inquire into it, and hopefully it'll be an
explanation which can be presented to this Court that has
9-13-04
11
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
some -- some ability for us to understand why this occurred.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, question on that
point, 'cause I have not looked at the contract. Does it
take a -- I mean, a breach of the contract, which is -- to
me, this clearly is, doesn't require -- would not require a
motion or anything for that letter to go. I don't know why
we can't send a letter. It doesn't mean that -- I mean, and
a vote would come when the 30-day notice letter would be
out, a notice of breach, and let them -- put them on notice
that we're considering that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I've not reviewed the
contract recently. I'd be happy to, but I suspect the --
the 30-day notice provision is very much like some of the
other agreements we have in place, where we have the right
to terminate agreements just by giving 30 days notice, as
does the other party to the agreement, without any basis or
justification or cause whatsoever. But I -- I don't know
what the language of the agreement reads with respect to
breach or cause or anything of that nature, but I would
suspect that it's something that we have to put into an
agenda item if we're going to take formal action on a
contract which the Court was a part of. I really do.
MS. GRAHAM: Just a question. I -- I'm
totally in favor of what you're saying.
JUDGE TINLEY: Please give your name --
9-13-04
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
MS. GRAHAM: I'm sorry?
JUDGE TINLEY: So the court reporter can get
your name, please, ma'am.
MS. GRAHAM: I'm Lori
that put on this fair, were they awa
political convoy was going to be put
there earlier? I'm sure they were -
showed up, and what can do you? You
the phone.
Graham. The people
re at the time that this
there? I mean, was it
- it was there when they
lease the place over
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I imagine they were
aware, because they lease spaces and they mark them off in
advance.
MS. GRAHAM: Okay. So they knew that R.V.
was going to be there?
JUDGE TINLEY: The plain answer is, we don't
know.
MS. GRAHAM: Okay. Well, it just seems like
you're condemning them before you know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, as I indicated, I intend
to talk to the leadership of that organization, find out
what the story is from their side of it. And, as I
indicated, hopefully there's some explanation that can be
brought to the Court that -- that will allow us to make the
appropriate decision. I -- I'm not making any prejudgment.
It is disappointing that we had this kind of activity,
9-13-04
13
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
because I've taken considerable pains, and -- and maybe a
hit or two, by saying no, I'm sorry, you cannot use --
MS. GRAHAM: Well, I agree, it's a shame that
it happened. But I just -- it's condemning them before they
can speak for themselves.
MS. GRAHAM: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Graham.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I would -- you
know, you don't have to do it, 'cause any of us could do it.
I think it should be on our next agenda to hear from them,
and at the same time, we could consider if we want to take
any action at that time.
JUDGE TINLEY: I suspect Commissioner
Baldwin's already got that in mind.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? Let's move on
to the business at hand. First agenda on the item,
Ms. O'Dell. The agenda item is -- is listed as resignation
as Justice of the Peace, Precinct Number 3.
JUDGE O'DELL: Effective today, I am
resigning my position as Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3.
My last day will be September 30th.
JUDGE TINLEY: You will be performing the
9-13-04
14
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
duties of your office till the 30th day of September?
JUDGE O'DELL: Uh-huh.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any member of the Court
have any -- any questions of Ms. O'Dell?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Do you think
you'll get a second on that motion? You won't. So it's --
get on back down; get back to work.
JUDGE O'DELL: It's been hard. So -- anyhow.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know it's been a
difficult -- I've talked with Judge O'Dell about this. I
think maybe other members of the Court probably have too,
and I reluctantly make a motion to accept her resignation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
the acceptance of Judge O'Dell's resignation as Justice of
the Peace in Precinct Number 3 of Kerr County. Any further
questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Want to put in the
effective date in that motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Effective -- well,
effective September 30th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we add a caveat
to that motion, that motion of acceptance, to thank Judge
O'Dell for her diligent service and professionalism in
office?
9-13-09
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
15
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Certainly. Certainly.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's so added. Any
further question or discussion? Thank you for your
assistance and help.
JUDGE O'DELL:
JUDGE TINLEY:
signify by raising your right
(The motion ca
JUDGE TINLEY:
Thank you.
All in favor of the motion,
hand.
rried by unanimous vote.)
All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We
wish you well.
JUDGE O'DELL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Kari.
JUDGE 0`DELL: Thanks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item on the agenda is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, before you move
on, if I could just make a comment related to this, 'cause I
have received -- and I`m sure many of y'all have, just how
we're going to proceed with this. And my intent is, this
will be an agenda item to discuss what we're going to do
with the vacancy at our next meeting. So there's no point
in really scheduling a whole lot of meetings and doing a
whole lot of stuff until the Court has time to discuss this
at our next meeting, which is more of a public comment,
9-13-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
16
'cause I know I've been getting calls on this; I'm sure the
Judge has as well. But we just need to put it on the
agenda. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you indicating that
persons who have an interest should be working up their
communications?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just saying that I
think the Court needs to decide the process we're going to
use, and I think it needs to be at our next meeting. And I
have an idea as to how I feel the process should go, but I
haven't discussed it, obviously, with the rest of the Court.
So I think at that meeting, then the public will know what
the Court's intent is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move on to the
next item, advertising for proposal for electrical,
plumbing, HVAC, and pest control. This is something that is
an annual occurrence, is it not, --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Mr. Holekamp?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to authorize
the advertising proposal for electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and
24 pest control.
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made for approval of
9-13-04
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
17
the agenda item. Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second, with a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded. Any questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glenn, is there
additional information as to exactly what they're bidding
on?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir, there's a packet
that they receive. But it's all detailed, and I didn't know
if y'all would need that in there. And it gives you the
schedule of the hourly rate and that sort of thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same type as we had last
year?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir, exactly the same.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.}
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Next
item on the agenda is consideration and discussion of
advertising for sealed bid proposals for improvements at the
Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center, and set dates for opening
9-13-04
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
18
same. Mr. Holekamp?
MR. HOLEKAMP: This is based on the fact --
on the premise that we are going to do some work out there
at the barn. I know the budget has not been approved -- the
money has not been approved, but due to time frames that I
will have to deal with on advertising, the length for
advertising, and allow time to get those bids in and start a
project, if -- if we plan to have it done by mid-January, it
would really have to get started very, very soon. And, with
the time frame here, this is a minimum amount of time to --
to advertise and accept and then approve. But, again, we
can always reject -- if the money is not, you know,
budgeted, we can reject it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I, for one,
think it's premature.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- I don't --
personally, I don't think it's premature, but I think
there's not enough information. I think -- I mean, when
we're going to -- you have to -- we have to be, in my
opinion, specific as to exactly what we want them to do, and
which is going to be difficult, I understand. But at least
from the standpoint of the -- the ratings and type of -- of
units, the type of roof we're talking about. I mean, you
know -- I mean, I've -- I just don't see how we can -- you
can go out for a bid on something like this without pretty
9-13-04
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
19
detailed specifications, because we don't know what we're
going to get. And if you don't -- we don't have detailed
specifications for this, you're asking for a mountain of
change orders. And how do you compare them? How do you
compare insulation that's included or not included? If this
has a C rating of X, and theirs is Y? This is one type of
roof; this is another. I don't see how we can make an
intelligent decision.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of that, plus the
fact that I believe the Court said that we would -- we
would -- at this point, having not yet approved the budget,
we would place those moneys in Contingency, and we haven't
made the final decision as to whether or not they're going
to be spent. So, I think it's premature.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do think we need to get
online on specifications. And I don't know -- I don't think
we can expect someone to do that free, but we need to know
exactly what we're talking about.
MR. HOLEKAMP: That would be my next
question, is do you want engineering done on it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think it's going
to have to be engineered. I don't think we can spend those
funds without engineering being done, so yes, we have to
hire an engineer. I mean, I -- not that I want to, but I
don't -- I think we're obligated by law to.
9-13-04
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
20
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With that kind of
expenditure, we'd better.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So --
MR. HOLEKAMP: I have no problem. I was --
I`m just trying to relay to you the amount -- the time frame
situation --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. HOLEKAMP: -- that we're going to be
dealing with if we delay this much.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. HOLEKAMP: It won`t be done by January
the 15th if we don't start fairly soon. That was my only
point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- and I
don't know. In the, I guess, thought of time, maybe at our
next meeting we could pick an engineer. I don't think this
is something we can just pick someone. I think we'll get --
there are plenty of local engineers that can do this type of
work. It's not a major project. Maybe you can kind of put
the word out a little bit --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- through your
connections, that there -- maybe the next -- I'd put on it
the agenda for our next meeting to discuss, you know, with
several, I guess, applicants and proceed.
9-13-04
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HOLEKAMP: I have no problem with that
concept at all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else to be offered on
that subject? If not, we'll move forward. Next item on the
agenda, consider approving road names for privately
maintained roads in accordance with 9-1-1 guidelines.
MS. HARDIN: Good morning, gentlemen. Our
list gets shorter and shorter. Today we only have three.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I have one on
there, and I'm certainly in agreement with it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm also in
agreement. One question is, the road that's currently named
Pigeon Roost, is that one that the County abandoned
maintenance of?
MS. HARDIN: Yes. It was Joelle Ranch Road,
then Pigeon Roost, and now they would like it to be Herons
Crossing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of 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.
9-13-09
22
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
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Next
item on the agenda is consider revision of Tract 118,
Kerrville South Number II, with variances. I would note
that some participation forms have been filed in connection
with that item, and we'll get to you at the appropriate
time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to
start this off asking the County Engineer -- Franklin, what
was it dealing with these four -- three -- probably two
issues on the list here, that we agreed to in our last
meeting?
MR. JOHNSTON: We had -- we had a concept
plan, and I think the -- I think you were nodding your head
in agreement on those first two items.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To the variance of --
MR. JOHNSTON: On the lot -- size of lot one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because?
MR. JOHNSTON: The background on that, the --
currently, the property goes to the center of Madrona Drive.
It is an acre-plus. Our rules make them dedicate 60 feet --
60-foot right-of-way. By taking that 30 foot off of his
property, it goes slightly under an acre, and there's no way
to improve it -- increase that size. The road already
bisects that lot -- two lots. And the other variance is the
9-13-04
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
23
lot frontages of less than 200 feet. I think the lots may
have been reconfigured a little bit since the last one.
MR. TUCK: Not much.
MR. JOHNSTON: So I think last time there was
only one lot that was under 200. Now I think there are
three, but they can go into that. The plat's submitted.
There's some minor corrections that need -- surveyor's
already been notified of those, and it will require a public
hearing. And I think, to get 30 days, we'll have to extend
it to October 25th, which is a plat revision.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it's on a water
system?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: If I'm reading it correctly,
you've got a total of five lots. Lots 1 and 2 have the
requisite 200 feet frontage; 3, 4, and 5 do not. Is that
correct?
MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. Three would
be just slightly under. Four would be 76 and a half foot,
and Lot 5, 141.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin, again, back
to our other meeting and the conversation that we had, one
of the reasons that we have frontage -- specific frontage
distance is for -- for sight, putting in a driveway and
being able to see?
9-13-09
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.,.^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. JOHNSTON: Sight and separating
driveways.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For safety purposes.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In your opinion, is
there sight distance there?
MR. JOHNSTON: Actually, I think there is.
And these lots don't all -- don't all access the same road.
Actually, three of them are on Madrona. One of them's on
Kerrville South, and one of them's either Madrona or
Codrington, so they have multiple streets for access. That
would separate the driveways.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I mean,
the -- our Subdivision Rules don't allow -- we can't allow
for all situations, but when you get into 1-acre tracts,
that 200-foot rule is virtually impossible to follow,
because a 200 -- I mean, you almost have to have a square,
'cause an acre is 208 feet by 208 feet, and, you know, the
odds of getting that with our terrain are virtually
impossible. So, a variance for this type of situation is
certainly called for.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what a variance
is for.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, it's --
9-13-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,,..,, 2 4
25
25
it's more the exception under these real small 1-acre lots
to make -- to make that 200 foot. And those are really
more -- really tried in areas with larger tracts and where
you have -- you know, the driveway issue becomes a little
bit more important because the speed's a little bit higher
usually on roads, I guess.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Franklin, point
number 3, what is the minor correction on the plat that is
supposed to be completed for -- for consideration on final?
MR. JOHNSTON: Streets don't contain the
geo-region letter. The site plan needs some more detail.
It's hard to tell on there actually where it's located.
The -- under the engineer's signature block, it should say,
"Meets the rules and regulations with variances," and give
the variance numbers that we'll have today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge? In the agenda
request form, it does not say anything about setting a
public hearing. Are you going to be so strict that we can't
follow through and do that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we
approve --
JUDGE TINLEY: Just a moment. We've got some
participants that want to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry.
9-13-04
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
26
MR. JOHNSTON: I think Mike Tuck has --
JUDGE TINLEY: I mean, you're free to make a
motion at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll withdraw that.
That's fine; you're absolutely right. I was just trying to
get out of here before supper.
JUDGE TINLEY: Linda Ferris?
MS. FERRIS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had filed a participation
form with regard to this particular item.
MS. FERRIS: Hello. My name's Linda Ferris,
and I don't know if I'm going to be one of the ones that's
mostly directed by this addition that's coming into the
property. Mr. Tuck has gone to great bounds of being --
he's tried to be very helpful and very -- I would say
generous on what he's doing. I'm very concerned, because my
water source to my property, into my house and my house
we're living in, is a spring. It's been there for, as far
as we know, probably 30 years. It's supplied the house
that's on the property with water. It's never gone dry,
that anybody that I've spoken to, the last three owners
prior to myself -- correction; I'm the third owner that I'm
aware of. Two owners, it's never gone dry in the last 25
years that we're aware of. I am mainly concerned about, for
one, the water runoff that is going to be coming down from
9-13-04
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
27
these properties. The reason we brought property out there
in the first place is so the fact that we wouldn't have
everybody over there, as far as a joint, I guess -- what
would you say? -- a subdivision, even though there is one,
you know, farther away. Property -- enough property so
everybody wouldn't be on top of each other.
I do know we have a surveyor here that's come
on my property, looked at the spring. He is saying that I
probably will not get any contamination from septic tanks,
which I am worried that four of them will be on top of me
when you approve this, if you approve this. And I
understand, geographically, by looking at this map, that
everybody says that, you know, the water all runs downhill,
and according to these lines, it looks like it will affect
my neighbor more than it will affect me. But we're going to
go out and take pictures and show you the fact that the --
looking at this map, the -- the way I see -- geometrically,
the way the lands falls, it falls right down on my property.
There has got to be at least a 40-, 50-foot drop in
elevation as it goes down, probably even much farther than
that, because I'm not a surveyor. I just know I go out and
walk it, and it's uphill and downhill. Whether or not they
say by all these -- you know, what electronical means that
they give them, is the fact that water runs downhill. And
I'm below the man, and I'm considered -- I'm just really
9-13-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
^, 2 4
25
28
concerned about the water runoff of putting other properties
up there, and the fact that contaminating my water source.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Ferris, which
tract of land are you? 111? 112? 135? Or --
MS. FERRIS: 117.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
MS. FERRIS: I believe I'm 117, the 11 point
acres.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. FERRIS: And I will take pictures as far
as the next meeting -- as far as the public meeting, to come
out and show you just -- and maybe I can get help from other
surveyors, that even though these lands -- it's divided and
you have this nice angled slant, the elevation of the land
is not like that. It just comes down. And when it rains,
I'd be more than happy to have any of y'all walk out there
and see my waterfall and see the caves. Also, that's one
thing I'm concerned about, 'cause there's no telling where
this spring actually comes from. I'm sure underneath there,
there are caves beside mine. There's all kinds of open
areas in this lime rock -- limestone. When the water
filtrates down, there's -- there's no telling where it all
comes from. And that's what -- I'm concerned mainly about
septic systems. I've learned a lot about septics, just like
Mr. Tuck had said. I know an aerobic system will not work,
9-13-04
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
29
because that puts everything above ground, and it's all
going to run down. I do know he's gone to great lengths to
maybe try to improve the septics that he would put in, but
even then, they say 20 percent goes in the ground. And if I
have four double-wides above me, that's still 80 percent
pollutants into the ground. So, those are things that I'm
highly concerned about. I do know the spring is not
perfect, 'cause there's Mother Nature out there, but I do
know the water tastes very good, and I do get it checked
annually. So, those are my main concerns besides the water
runoff. I have a lot of it already, much less covering up
the land with, you know, other things. So, thank you very
much for your time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. We
appreciate your participation. Robert Kass?
MR. KASS: Good morning, gentlemen. My name
is Robert Kass. I own acre -- Lot 112, which is right below
the 118, the one that's going to be divided up. My main
concern is, when I bought that property, it was 2 and a half
acre subdivided minimum. That's why I purchased the
property, wanting to be away from what's happening right
now. I know I can't stop that, but that's my opinion.
Secondly, I'm really concerned about the water runoff. I
am -- according to the Appraisal District, my property is
100 feet below the property above. The water runoff now is
9-13-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,,._ 2 4
25
30
pretty amazing when it rains hard. I'm afraid that when
those lots get cleared for four lots instead of the original
two, it will have a little less cedar trees and things to
divert that water, and become more of a -- be a
concrete-type area where the water runs off, and create
greater velocity and cause some more damage than we already
do get when it does rain hard. We've already had -- the
last two heavy rains have cost over $20,000 worth of damage
done to our property. I'm really concerned about that. My
third one is the variances. I put up a metal building and I
came to this Court two years ago and applied for a variance,
and I was denied. I had to move my building back 10 feet --
that's all, 10 feet -- at the cost of $22,000 to remove the
caliche hillside. So, I was told at that time this Court
was not allowing variances. That was their answer. So,
that -- so that's my concern; they're getting variances when
I couldn't. So, I thank you for your time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Kass. Lori
Graham?
MS. GRAHAM: Hello. I own Lot -- my husband
and I own Lot 111, which is across the street from the
proposed subdivision. And I will not have the environmental
impact that Mr. Kass and Ms. Ferris will have from the
fertilizers that will run off, but I will have the
population impact of all the cars, trucks, extra people, and
9-13-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,._.. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,,.., 2 4
25
31
that is my concern. And that is why my husband and I did
buy there, is that there was not anything at the time
smaller than 2 and a half acres. We do own more than Lot
111; we own 8 and 9 -- or 9 and 10; I apologize. I was
going to build a house there, and according to my husband, I
cannot build my $400,000 house if Mr. Tuck puts in four --
five double-wide homes, because I would be building a white
elephant. So, I am very much against the, to me,
overpopulation of this rock hill. It is a rock hill. If
you look at the property, it has huge slabs of just solid
rock. I don't know how septic tanks will be put in that
will not pollute the area. That is my opinion. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'm going to
make a comment right quick. I don't know that -- this Court
shouldn't even be addressing how many cars are driving up
and down a road; that's not our business. But -- but the
water runoff and possible contamination of sewers, you know,
that's a -- that's a serious deal, and I think that -- that
we should at least see if we can't get an explanation, or if
there's some -- maybe some professional expertise in the
room to advise us on that. But I'm not going to get in a
traffic discussion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a comment similar
to Commissioner Baldwir.'s also. But first, Franklin -- and
9-13-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
._., 2 4
25
32
this goes to a comment that was made by somebody about the 2
and a half acre. My recollection -- I'm not sure how old
the subdivision is; my recollection is that before we did
the major rewrite we did five or six years a-go for
Subdivision Rules, 1-acre lots were acceptable under -- with
a water system, which is the same as we have now. So, I
don't think we've changed anything in our rules since that
time.
MR. JOHNSTON: The only difference was the
previous -- the '98 version said that the public water
system had to use surface water sources.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, but before that
one. Before that one, there was a 1-acre, it seemed --
MR. JOHNSTON: There was.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's always been a
1-acre minimum with water system, so there's really been no
change there.
MR. JOHNSTON: Sometimes lots, however, have
their own restrictions that are deed restrictions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But on the -- on
the other two issues, drainage and septic, I think there is
-- I think there -- you know, I need assurance that there is
not going to be adverse drainage impact, and I think our
Subdivision Rules allow for that. And -- and it may require
a study, I think. It depends.
9-13-04
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
33
MR. JOHNSTON: You have a letter in your
packet there, I think, from Bruce Motheral, that did a -- a
small study on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And -- but, you know,
that is a concern. On the septic concern, you know, I share
the other residents' concerns about contaminating the
groundwater. Septic systems can be put, basically,
anywhere; however, the cost may be very high. And I
would -- I have a hard time envisioning how a -- a lower
income home can justify the cost of a very expensive septic
system, but that's not my concern. I think the other
residents -- you know, my understanding is that they can put
in a septic system, or they can -- we can require a septic
system there that works. But we do have our Environmental
Health Manager in the audience. He can probably ask that
that be -- he can answer that question. Is it possible?
MR. ARREOLA: Well, yeah, that's quite all
right. You know, with the technology, it's possible to do
septics almost anywhere. But I do have a concern on Lots 4
and 1. Slopes there are greater than what we normally allow
for septics, and based on the information I have -- I
haven't been on the property, but the information I have,
it's just bedrock, so it's pretty -- pretty difficult to
have a good working septic system on that type of slope with
that type of material -- that type of rock. So, I -- I'm
9-13-04
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
34
going to submit this back to the developer that it's
really -- doesn't really meet standards.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I, too, have concerns
about septic seepage into springs.
MR. ARREOLA: That's correct. It's just
bedrock.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I'd like to know
more about that.
MR. ARREOLA: Lot Number 4 and 1 are the main
ones. The rest is pretty flat, so there's something that
can be done, but those two do have a problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what you're
down there for.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got one
question. That's what -- it would apply to whether or not
this would be divided into two lots or five lots. It's
going to disturb more than 1 acre. Does that require, under
E.P.A. rules, a joint water runoff hydrology study?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good
question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that has nothing to
do with this Court. I mean, if it is required, it's
required of the developer; it's not a requirement that we
look at. It may or may not be. We typically don't -- we
try not to enforce E.P.A. rules.
9-13-04
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
35
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's wise.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have a
question that -- I'm curious. Are there any deed
restrictions that set up the size of these lots as to be
greater than what's being proposed here? Were there any
deed restrictions?
MR. TUCK: Morning. Mike Tuck.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Morning, Mike.
MR. TUCK.: How are y'all doing? Yes, there
are some deed restrictions in the deed to a Mr. Linscott,
who we purchased the property from, in Volume 360, Page 511.
I have several copies of these if you would like it. One is
no commercial use, and the other is no -- no tract may be
subdivided into less than 2 and a half acres without
permission of the developer in writing. And we have the
developer, Energy/Land's, permission, and it had been
recorded here. They have given their written approval to
cut it into smaller tracts if it's approved by the
Commissioners Court. And so it's not a blanket deal; it's
conditional.
I'd like to address some of the concerns that
were here. Ms. Ferris was talking about she didn't want to
be in a subdivision. Well, Kerrville South Ranches II has
got 150 owners in it. It's a huge subdivision; 700,
800 acres. Then Mr. Kass, on his variance on the building,
9-13-04
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
36
the restrictions that are on his deed right now call for no
commercial use, and he owns two tracts of land there, and
one of the tracts is not -- has been cut into two without
doing a vacate and replat with the -- with the County
Commissioners Court. So, I'm -- I'm trying to follow the
rules here. And the land he presently owns has not been
vacated and replated through court order. Also, on the
drainage, I don't -- the engineer went out there, and it's
basically flat. And I don't -- he doesn't think there would
be any problem with drainage.
And on the spring, we have some topo maps
that were done by Gary Brandenberg, and it shows her spring
to be 38 foot lower in elevation from the top of the
property, and a distance of 350 feet away from the property.
And the state regs, I am told, require that a septic system
be at least 75 feet away from an existing spring, 125 from a
seep, so -- no, excuse me, 50 from a -- a seep, 75 from a
spring. And Charlie Digges is the one that told me that;
he's an engineer. We've gone to great lengths. Charlie
Wiedenfeld has done an environmental report on this and made
some recommendations where the septic tanks will be not
aerating systems, but low-dosing systems with black soil
hauled in, and the cost is going to be approximately $7,000
or $8,000.
Discussed that with Miguel, and we don't know
9-13-04
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
37
the verbiage to put on that. We're working together on that
right now. And 20 years from now, they may have some new
system. Twenty-five years ago, we didn't have aerobics, so
10 years from now, there may be a system that's far greater
than what we have now. The verbiage on the plat right now
calls for it to meet the Kerrville standards, and as far as
the lot size or configuration, I wasn't aware of that in the
Subdivision Regulations. I may be ignorant on that. I
would like for Miguel -- when I talked to Miguel, he was
going to look up the statutes on the state as far as
distance from the spring and the septic tank. And the
engineering that was done shows that the water cannot run
into her spring, and if that's incorrect, I'm not aware of
it. But that's what we have. And Charlie Wiedenfeld has
done a report; I would like for him to convey that to y'all,
and Gary Brandenberg is here to talk about the distance from
the spring and so forth, and I would appreciate y'all's time
on that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me get a clarification
here, if I might, please, Mr. Tuck. This is a matter that
we need to set a public hearing on. Is that correct,
Mr. Johnston?
MR. JOHNSTON: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, basically, the matter is
on the agenda today for the purpose of advising us that this
9-13-04
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
38
matter is now a proposed replat, and it's something we need
to set a public hearing on; is that correct?
MR. JOHNSTON: Preliminary plat revision,
right.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, really, the -- the debate
and the discussion, in my -- in my thinking, is to follow.
MR. TUCK: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Looks like we may be trying to
do this two or three times here. Which is fine; it's better
than doing it not at all, because that way everybody has an
opportunity to be heard. But I think, at this juncture,
probably where we are is to set a public hearing on this
request, to give public notice to all those who wish to be
heard in addition to ycu folks, and possibly others that
were heard today, and at that point in time, at the public
hearing, we'll take up these various questions and
arguments. But, other than that, I think the Court is just
trying to convey a sense of concern about the areas that --
that appear to be in question here.
MR. TUCK: I know that a final decision is
not going to be made here today, and I knew that before I
walked in here. But I -- the people who have concerns here
are genuine and really concerned, and I would like, if the
Court has time, for the people I've brought with me to
address any -- any concerns that they had, if y'all have
9-13-04
~_
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
39
time, and also ask Miguel to tell us what he found out about
the state statutes. And I'm through with everything I had
to say. Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Tuck. What's
the sense of the Court? Do you want to defer these matters
until the public hearing, or would you like to hear them now
and later?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't know
that we would hear the expert-type stuff later. Seems that
the public hearing would be for these other folks that live
near there, and they're worried about the cars driving up
and down the road. I would think that -- I would think that
we need to hear it today, so that if we uncover some major
problems, they'll have time to work on them and get them
fixed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause I think -- plus I
don't know that we have to, but generally we approve a
preliminary before we do a public hearing so we know what
we're --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- going to do at the
public hearing. So, I think it's probably appropriate to
hear them. I also have some additional comments, but we can
hear from the -- anyone else.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, if Charlie runs
9-13-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,„, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
40
into 12 o'clock and we all get up and walk out, just keep
talking. I mean, somebody will record it.
MR. WIEDENFELD: I guess that's my clue to
start walking to the podium. Charlie Wiedenfeld, Registered
Sanitarian with experience in design work, water, and
wastewater. And I was retained by Mr. Tuck to prepare the
environmental evaluation per 30 T.A.C., Chapter 285, which
is the On-Site Sewage Facility regulations, which is
required by y'all's county order also to have prepared. And
in that assessment of the properties within a quarter mile
of the proposed subdivision, I am to look at the lot size --
address lot size, geography, topography, geology, soils,
floodplain, water resources, and then make a summary
conclusion. And you've heard most of it today, and I think
I'm not going to try to get too elaborate on it. But this
area out here is what we would call the Edwards Plateau;
some of the highest properties -- country in the area. It
does slope off almost 100 percent toward the south, and
toward the Ferris'.
I've looked at the springs in the area. I
identified or am aware of two of them. One of them was
brought to my attention by Mrs. Ferris, and we have taken a
water sample from that, and that lab analysis indicated that
it was contaminated with E. coli. She -- in visiting with
25 ~ her, she has said that she's taken analysis annually, and it
9-13-04
1
..., 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
r-,
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
comes back with similar results. This has been my
experience, after working at Upper Guadalupe River lab for
20 years; many of our springs in this area are contaminated
with E. coli, because these springs are in a -- right under
very fractured rock and very thin soils on the very surface
lands. Those are very poor filters for coliform bacteria.
While they do fairly well with sediment solids and make a
very good, clean water that comes out and it looks --
appears good for drinking and we'd all want to take a sip of
it, bacteria-wise, those waters generally are contaminated.
we -- I've seen everything from bat caves associated with
this, bat guano in there, armadillos. Regularly, like in
her spring also, you can see in the -- in the orifices and
holes in the side of the hill right where her spring
collection area is, is open, porous. Animals are
continually moving in and out, so the springs in her area
are already contaminated. It's commonly found. And I'd
already indicated this to her, that it wouldn't be a good --
a good argument that septics would be contaminating a well,
because it already probably -- more than probably is.
So, I'm -- my conclusion in relation to the
septic system is that, you know, the various types of
on-site sewage facilities are acceptable, and they are
feasible solutions to the disposal of domestic wastewater
from the proposed residential development. And since a
9-13-04
42
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
community sewage collection system is not present, this
evaluator recommends soil absorption-type systems rather
than surface application types because of the departure of
wastewater during rainfall events from the proposed
properties and down slope toward the springs. And also, I
feel like, with the state and county standards for the
proper soil types to be used, that you would get adequate
treatment for the domestic wastewater, and it would be a
good filter for any additional coliform that possibly could
migrate. Vertically, it would take at least 60 feet to get
down to the elevation of her spring, and horizontally, over
200 feet, all meeting state requirements. And, again, my
report will be attached to the septic evaluation Miguel just
received this morning, and will be -- he will be reviewing
that to meet criteria as stated in the septic regulation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't leave.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't leave.
MR. WIEDENFELD: Y'all help me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question I have is, you
mentioned that the -- the spring is already contaminated,
but is it a possibility that the increased development above
the spring could increase the contamination?
MR. WIEDENFELD: I would -- you know,
logically, I guess, yes, there will possibly be more water
movement down slope; you know, down vertically because of
9-13-04
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
septics, lawn watering, just additional -- right now, it's
vacant, and no water other than rainfall, and so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In your --
MR. WIEDENFELD: But there will be probably a
lot more soil brought into the area for lawns, and which
will be, you know, better absorption.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: From -- and this is more
a general question, 'cause I really don't think that this
has any -- whether it's subdivided or not, this could happen
by increased lawn size, things of that nature, and
fertilizer, pesticides. Does the type of rock in this
area -- does it filter out some of the chemicals in
pesticides and fertilizers better or worse, or how does it
relate to E. coli?
MR. WIEDENFELD: I'm not really -- I'll make
an opinion and say that I don't think they will. Rock is
not a very good filter. There may be some absorption to
some of the rock, but it's predominantly calcium carbonate,
essentially diatomaceous earth. It is used in a lot of the
filters that you have in the commercial residential-type
filters, so it -- but when it comes to bacteria, the very
minute particles, it's not a very good --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, Mike, I asked
that question just for my personal information, but I -- it
doesn't -- this development plan doesn't increase or
9-13-04
44
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
decrease the likelihood of -- of large lawns. I mean, you
could have a 2 and a half acre tract with an acre of grass.
MR. TUCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you could also have
very small --
MR. TUCK: Well, being familiar with the
water system that will be serving this place and the water
rates that they have, I -- and being consistent with the
rest of the neighborhoods up there, I don't think they're
going to have a lot of watering activity.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I have a couple
questions. Mr. Wiedenfeld, you -- you stated that the water
sample that you took -- or was submitted to you for testing
showed E. coli contamination in the spring. Mrs. Ferris
indicated that she has had it tested, and there was no such
finding. How do you reconcile those two things?
MR. WIEDENFELD: Well, I listened to her
comment this morning, and she stopped and said she had --
she stopped at saying that she has submitted water samples
annually.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask the
question of Ms. Ferris.
MS. FERRIS: Yes, I do -- I do it annually,
and yes, I have to admit, they said it was -- that it had
E. coli in it. And the young lady that I spoke to who does
9-13-04
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
45
the water there, she says for this area, it's the best water
that she's seen, but it is contaminated with that. But it's
not in -- of course, not in my sink. It's not -- I've got a
filtration at the sink. But when you take it from the tank
is where I usually take it from, the pressure -- pressure
tank, so I know what is coming from there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
Secondly, Mr. Wiedenfeld, does your water company serve this
area?
MR. WIEDENFELD: Yes. Wiedenfeld Water
Works, Incorporated, serves, which I am the president of the
corporation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That lends me, I guess,
to my other question; that I don't see here -- do we not
require, Franklin, a letter from the water system that this
-- there's enough capacity for this additional development?
MR. JOHNSTON: We do, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I was going to
ask it later, but since it's the same person, there will be
a requirement to that effect.
MR. WIEDENFELD: I stuck it in this report,
but if you want a separate letterhead, it will be probably
more appropriate, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
9-13-04
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. WIEDENFELD: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Tuck, do you have others
of a technical nature that you want to present this morning?
MR. TUCK: Mr. Brandenberg can testify as to
his findings on the spring elevations and distances.
MR. BRANDENBURG: My name is Gary
Brandenberg. I own Texas Land Boundaries, a land surveying
company here in Kerrville, and I am a registered
professional land surveyor. And, essentially, I can attest
to vertical and horizontal separations of the spring and
Mr. Tuck's property. I went out with Mr. Wiedenfeld on the
additional investigation of the spring's location, and
basically to provide him with those measurements, and
essentially my contribution to this cause would be just
simply that, as a surveyor and a mapper. I can provide
distances in regards to the minimum standards of separation
for septic systems and property lines, things of that
matter.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What was the distance
-- the vertical distance from this property down to the
young lady? I've written down 60 feet, but I think it's
something a little -- that's ballpark.
MR. BRANDENBURG: Ballpark, her spring
elevation is at 1880, and the Tuck property essentially is
in the neighborhood of 1940. There is a low corner on the
9-13-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
Tuck property which dips down to, roughly speaking, 1910.
So, it -- you could say there's, generally speaking, a
30-foot vertical separation at the minimum scenario.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 30?
MR. BRANDENBURG: 30 feet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1940 down to 1880?
JUDGE TINLEY: He said it went down to 1910.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh.
MR. BRANDENBURG: Yeah, the low spot. That
particular low spot actually would have more of an effect on
the Bob Kass ravine than it would on the Linda Ferris
routine. But what that water does once it disappears
underground, I have no -- you know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. What about the
distance horizontally?
MR. BRANDENBURG: The Linda Ferris well to
the Mike Tuck property, in round figures, 350 feet would be
the nearest -- closest that it gets to it. The -- I did not
prepare a distance for the Kass property.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one
question. I want to direct the question, if you don't mind,
to our Environmental Health Department Director. Miguel,
what is the minimum state standard for septic migration?
MR. ARREOLA: To a water source?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To a water source.
9-13-04
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
48
MR. ARREOLA: 75 feet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
MR. ARREOLA: 75 feet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be to a
spring or a well?
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir -- well, not a well.
Spring or surface water.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Spring or a seep?
MR. ARREOLA: Seep.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
Mrs. Ferris had her hand up, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, ma'am?
MS. FERRIS: The only thing I want to say is,
one thing that I don't know if everybody else is taking into
consideration, they're only doing it from the spring -- they
say from the point of collection. As everybody knows, like
you said, it's all rock up there and caves and caverns and
everything underneath, 'cause we have no idea where this
spring originates from or where it collects to. Everything
is designated by where the point -- where the -- you know,
the line goes into the rock. This spring could start in the
middle of Mr. Tuck's land. It could be underneath -- you
know, who knows where it's coming from? Who's to say it
wouldn't actually be more contaminated? But I think the
only thing -- the emphasis that everybody is stating is
9-13-04
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
where the point is collected, but it never states where does
the water start. And that's one of the big concerns.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we have --
MS. FERRIS: It's the recharge, and it's
everywhere.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At some point, I have
to vote on this issue, and I have to base my vote on facts
and laws and rules and regulations. I can't base my vote on
what might be, or where something might have started. So,
you know, Miguel -- if Miguel -- if you're the authority on
distances and you know what the state law says, if you're
the guy, then at some point, and I don't care if it's today
or at the public hearing, you need to state, "You can do
this, and you can't do that," and -- so I can vote. You
know, this thing of -- of what might happen, who may do
what, we can't -- we can't use that as a tool to vote.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I think the
other point is that the fact that there's going to be
potentially five residences versus two residences doesn't
change -- I mean, you could have two huge homes or five very
small homes, and they're going to have the same amount of
septics, same amount of everything else. So, you know --
you know, the fact that it's going to be more tracts, I
think, you know, doesn't sway me as much as the fact that we
need to protect -- design systems that protect the
9-13-04
50
1
._._ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
environment. Whether they're big or small doesn't make any
difference. And that's going to be up to the Environmental
Health Department to approve a system that meets state law
and county rules. And that system -- you know, probably one
of the best designs they're working with in most departments
will protect the environment.
On the drainage issue, which is really the
only other issue that I have, I do not think the letter from
Mr. Motheral is sufficient. It is just -- it's basically a
three-line letter, and it says, "...does not appear to
create any flood problems." Well, you know, that is not
sufficient as a study. And I think that a little bit -- you
know, I don't -- I don't know how far -- I'll leave it to
the County Engineer to determine exactly, you know, what is
sufficient, but to me that is not enough, based on some of
the rainfalls that we have. But just to kind of -- my final
comment is, you know, I do not have a problem with the
development. I don't -- do not have a problem with the
variances. I think variances are appropriate and are
addressed in our Subdivision Rules, the variances of this
type. My concerns are drainage and septic, and if I'm going
to vote for this, I'm going to need to be assured that those
two issues are taken care of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's where I am.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm going to
9-13-09
51
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
make a motion to set the public hearing. And I would assume
that on October 25th, we will have a public hearing, and I
will assume that the very next agenda item would be an
approval, for this Court to approve. So, we'll probably go
through this again	on that	day, to --	to	satisfy -	- and	I
think Mr. Letz is	correct;	to satisfy	the	concerns	that	he
had, and Mr. Williams was -- gave an "amen" to do that.
But, you know, be prepared to -- to -- for an agenda item
for approval. But it might not happen, either, so be
prepared for it not to happen. So, I move that we have a
public hearing October 25th, 2004, at 10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
set a public hearing under Revision of Tract 118, Kerrville
South Number II, with variances, on October the 25th, 2004,
at 10 a.m. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One comment. I
think it probably -- I also want to hear more about the
drainage issues. That -- that tends to pop up and cause us
some difficulties all around the county. I appreciate
Commissioners Letz' comments. I think it's likely that it
wouldn't make much difference whether there are two
residences or five; they're probably the same, but I would
like to hear some more about that in our public hearing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
9-13-04
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
52
comments? 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. We do
have a timed item that was set for 10 o'clock. It's 10
after that now, so we'll go to that item, Number 17,
concerning investment options for County employees.
MS. MECHLER: Good morning. Can I hand each
of y'all a ...
{Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's be quiet a minute.
JUDGE TINLEY: I apologize. Is that Mechler
or Mechler?
MS. MECHLER: Yes, I'm Joyce Mechler.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. MECHLER: I have the Edward Jones office
that's right across the street from the courthouse, right by
Kerr County Abstract. It's on the corner of Earl Garrett
and Main Street. And I've visited with a few of the County
employees and with Barbara Nemec a little bit, and would
like to offer my services as far as payroll deduction. And
so, she said to get that accomplished, I should come maybe
explain to y'all what the benefits would be. And -- and
9-13-04
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
53
beside the fact that I'm right here in town to visit with
people, I would kind of like to give you an overview of what
our office can offer.
On the front of that, right now, your county
has a 457 plan which allows County employees to do more than
this, but most of them probably are not doing their IRA's or
Roth IRA's, and so I've kind of drawn a little sheet here to
explain the differences. At Jones, you can have an
individual retirement account, which is an IRA, a Roth IRA,
or a regular account, and the employees would have the
option of doing one of the three. Now, every individual is
eligible to put $3,000 a year into a retirement plan, which
is either a Roth or a regular IRA. Now, if you notice,
referring to these two sheets, I ran one of our mutual funds
for $250 a month for 20 years, which would be the maximum
that a person could invest. And if you use the American
funds and you go back 20 years and look at the returns, $250
a month would have grown to $254,517, and those are actual
numbers that these funds returned. Their 10-year average is
13.92 percent.
So, what I did is, this illustration is based
on that $254,000. If a person had done that in a regular
IRA, and then they want to take it out and spend it, it's
all taxable. So, if they're in the 25 percent bracket,
$254,000, they would lose $63,000 in taxes to get it out to
9-13-09
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
54
spend it. If they do it in a Roth IRA, they grow absolutely
tax-free, so there's no tax coming out, and they get to
spend the whole amount. And then a regular account, they're
going to pay taxes through the year on capital gains, and
then at the end, it's going to be another 15 percent to take
it out. What we do at Edward Jones is, we get an individual
in -- and I've given you a new account package, so this
is -- we always sit with every person that comes in, and we
spend a lot of time talking about goals, where they want to
be, what are they saving for. Because you can't pick a
vehicle or an investment until you know what the person
needs.
And so that's what I'd like to do, is take
your employees, give them an hour or two appointment, no
charge at all, just to kind of tell them what we offer and
talk to them about what they need. Some of them aren't
going to need the same as others. Some are going to need
regular accounts, 'cause they're saving for maybe weddings,
and not necessarily for retirement. Or some are going to be
saving for a home, so it's not a blanket investment for each
person. Each person needs their individual. So, inside the
packet, I've kind of given you some of the tools we use.
This financial goal worksheet is in there for the person to
fill out so we can talk about what they want to do. And
then just a little bit about mutual funds, and I always
9-13-04
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
55
teach them about that before we invest. I mean, you have
lots of different kinds of stocks and mutual funds.
Now, the second Pape under here starts with
$254,000, goes back 20 years, and if you had retired with
that $254,000 in those American funds, you'd have started at
an annual total of $15,000 a year. The 20th year, your
annual total is $74,000 to spend, and you still have $1.1
million in the account for inheritance or whatever purposes
you want to use. So, if you get in the right mutual fund --
you know, there's 11,000 mutual funds out there, so it's
just as hard to pick a good mutual fund as it is to pick a
good stock. American and Hartford Funds both have managers
with 20 years of experience. Their average manager has 22
years of experience. We also do C.D.'s, bonds; all of the
investments are available in all three accounts. So, what
I'm really asking is permission to maybe work with Barbara
and offer this to your employees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question. The
question is really probably more to Barbara than it is to
you. Now that we're going to have payroll deductions -- or
not payroll deductions; we're going to have --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Direct deposit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- direct deposit. Is
that why this is coming to us? I mean --
MS. NEMEC: No, that has nothing to do with
9-13-04
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
56
any of this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess --
MS. NEMEC: This is -- we have -- currently,
we offer the employees, and when each employee signs up, a
new employee signs up, we give them a -- a sheet of paper
that has available plans, and it just describes everything
that the County offers to them. We currently have a
volunteer investment program for the employees. That's with
Nationwide and VALIC. Some of you may remember that we were
with Nationwide for years and years, probably more than 20
years, and VALIC came in several years ago and said they
basically do the same thing, but they're located in San
Antonio, and the employees would have access to them every
pay period; they'd be down here answering questions or
whatever. Well, that might have happened for the first two
months, and we haven't seen them since. So, it's -- we
offer that. They do have investment choices. I don't know;
maybe some just feel more comfortable with someone local
being here, and they've been approaching Ms. Mechler about
it, and that's when she called me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question is, I
don't understand why we need to do anything as a Court. I
mean, I think that every employee has a right to work with
any investment company they want anywhere in the world.
MS. NEMEC: The Court has to give me approval
9-13-04
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to make that a payroll deduction. I cannot just let anybody
in here and go sell their products to employees.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And approval as to
the plans being offered, for example, from Edward Jones?
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or from Wells Fargo
or --
MS. NEMEC: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- or from anybody
else. So, that means we have to make approvals for each and
every one of them?
MS. NEMEC: You don't have to, and I wouldn't
suggest that. What happened -- several years ago, this
happened with our life insurance policy. The Court did not
offer life insurance at one time, and the employees
panicked; there was no more life insurance offered to them
through -- through our health insurance. And so everybody
out there that sold life insurance came in and offered life
insurance, and at that time, that Treasurer said, "Whoever
wants to, just go." Now we go through Franklin Life,
Lincoln Life, Colonial Life. You have representatives in
here bothering employees all the time. So, no, we have to
be selective, and just because it gets out in the paper that
one investment firm came in here to try to do this, and ten
follow. We have to draw a line somewhere. We can't have
9-13-04
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
58
people going into every department and trying to sell their
products to everybody.
MS. MECHLER: And that really isn't my plan.
You know, I won't be here -- I -- I just want to be
available. My plan is not to come market to your employees.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Nemec, do you have a
problem with individual employees coming to you and
requesting that you do a payroll deduction for whatever
purpose, whether it be to a savings account in a bank, to an
investment group, a brokerage house, an insurance --
whatever it may be. Do you have any problem with that?
MS. NEMEC: The only time --
JUDGE TINLEY: If the Court gives you just
carte blanche authority to -- to do whatever deductions that
the employee requests you to make?
MS. NEMEC: I do have a problem, 'cause it
gets to be a lot of work. You have all these different
companies that you're dealing with. You have billings that
you're having to reconcile at the end of each month, you
know. I mean, if it's being payroll-deducted, we need to
put it in the computer and payroll-deduct it. They send us
a billing; we need to reconcile the billing to make sure
that what we've payroll-deducted for each employee
reconciles with their billing. And if we just let -- you
know, leave a blanket open for just anybody to come in here,
9-13-04
59
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 can get 20 people that we're distributing checks to and
reconciling billings at the end of the month.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think my point is, if -- if
it's not permissible for the employee to make the employee's
own designation, whoever -- whatever purpose that that
employee may desire, if -- if we're not willing to do it on
that basis, I certainly don't want to be in a position of
selecting one, two, or three different investment products,
savings accounts, whatever they may be, and saying these are
the only ones we're going to authorize payroll deduction
for, because that's not giving that employee the freedom
that employee needs in order to make --
MS. NEMEC: They have choices already,
though.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- to make decisions.
MS. NEMEC: They have choices already,
though. With this one, that would be a third investment
company that's in here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what -- what I --
what I'm saying, I think I hear the Judge saying as well, is
I don't want to -- I want to get rid of the ones we have. I
don't want to add more; I want to eliminate what we have.
Because I think that, with the current direct deposit that
we are allowing to go to, any employee that wants to enter
into any type of direct payroll deduction, they can do it
9-13-04
60
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
out of their personal accounts, you know, just as -- a lot
easier. I mean, if I want to give money to buy, you know,
funds through whatever -- mutual funds or investment
company, whatever, I just set it up through my personal
checking account. I don't see why the County should be
involved in that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. I think
that, you know, any employee that wants Edwards Jones or
anybody else, they can have that -- they can set it up, and
that can be drafted on -- on their account instead of ours.
MS. NEMEC: The only problem is that it
wouldn't be tax-free if they go that route. Am I correct?
MS. MECHLER: Well, actually --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know why not.
MS. NEMEC: On certain investments.
MS. MECHLER: On the 457, it has to come out
before, but not on an IRA.
MS. NEMEC: We have two 457's in place right
now, which is Nationwide and VALIC.
MS. MECHLER: You know, if they did regular
IRA's, then it's -- you have -- they can take the tax break
at the end, but they don't get it out of their check. And
on the 457, I don't know how many -- how much they're doing.
They're allowed to do more than $3,000 a year, because
they're government employees.
9-13-04
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Current IRA code
allows them to take it as a tax deduction at the end of the
year?
MS. MECHLER: If it's a regular IRA and
they're not doing more than $3,000 a year. If they're doing
more than $3,000 a year, that 457 plan allows them to do
more.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, we've got two different
investment vehicles with specific companies under the
so-called 457.
MS. MECHLER: I think what I'm hearing from
the employees -- and, you know, I'm not picking on those two
companies. I don't know much about them, to be honest.
It's just that when I have clients and they work here, and
I'm looking at those investments, they're really confused
about what they own, and I help them pick investments in
those vehicles. And I was just trying to offer a way for
them to have something local so they can get some help.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't want to take
on a lot of additional administrative burden that the
taxpayers would have to pay for; however, I firmly believe
that anything that can be done to educate employees about
the value of regular savings and -- and the powerfulness of
the exponential curve, it would -- is worthwhile. I don't
-- I don't want to get in the business of selling investment
9-13-04
62
1
.- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
,,._ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.,.-.
25
things, but I don't mind being -- allowing the knowledgeable
people to educate employees about how they can create a
million dollars when they retire.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that,
but there's a way to do that so as not to inundate the
Treasurer's office or take time away from employees at work.
You can conduct semiannual seminars; you can do it in the
district courtroom, invite as many participants --
MS. MECHLER: I could do those with no
10 charge.
11
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As many as you want
to present, and let them make their choices.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Something like that
sounds like a good plan to me.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm concerned now that we've
got two specific vendors that are authorized to do something
to the exclusion of others, and I don't think that's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't either.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think if we're going to do
it for anyone, we've got to be able to do it -- that same
thing for anybody that wants to do that same program.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you say -- did you
say Nationwide?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir.
9-13-09
1
~., 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
r
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~..
25
63
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They've been around
here -- they fell off of Noah's Ark in Kerr County.
MS. NEMEC: They were here when I got here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I know. And
they -- I used to deal with them. They never produced
anything for me. The -- and then VALIC?
MS. NEMEC: VALIC.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't understand why
they're not up here daily.
MS. NEMEC: They presented themselves to the
Court that they would be, and that's when the Court voted on
it, but we don't see them.
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, can I say something
as an employee that receives a paycheck monthly here? The
last two companies that came through here were completely
Greek. You know, I -- I didn't even remember who they were
until Barbara said it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They were what?
MS. PIEPER: They were Greek. When they came
in talking to us, I didn't understand what they ware saying.
But her being local, I mean, I think that would be much
easier. Because I plan on retiring one of these days, and
with these other companies being out of town, not being able
to -- to just call them when I need them, I think I would
like for y'all to go with her.
9-13-09
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
64
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's my whole
point; we get the guy who speaks in Greek, we get the one
that speaks Italian, the one that speaks Australian, the one
who speaks English, and let them all come at the same time.
MS. PIEPER: I can go talk to her on my own,
but if y'all don't authorize the payroll deduction, then I
may end up paying more taxes. Is that correct, Joyce?
MS. MECHLER: You could. Just depends on
your -- each individual. You have some employees that
probably have a husband or a wife making enough money where
they want to do more than $3,000 a year, and then you need a
457 plan. Now, we can do a 457 proposal and roll the 457
plans you have now into a 457. I don't think it's any
different than, like, our hospital, who has their plan in
place. I mean, most companies, even tax-free on
governments, put those plans in place through different
companies.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I know there's
a couple questions, but I think, to me, if we have the 457
already in place, I think we have to open it up for anyone
that wants to do a 457, but that's it. If you're going to
do a regular IRA, do it out of your personal checking
account. You get the same benefit out of it. I don't -- I
mean, there's a little bit of change as to when you get
the -- the deduction, but I just think that it's -- I'm not
9-13-04
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
65
in favor of spending a whole lot of County taxpayer dollars
MS. MECHLER: You might want to -- the 457
plans have fees associated with them, so you don't probably
want to do multiple 457 plans. Like -- 'cause each company
will charge you --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand.
MS. MECHLER: -- a fee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's -- we're
opening it up to multiple companies. Hopefully, the
employee -- well, the employee -- you know, if they're
willing to make -- if it's worth it to them to change
companies and pay additional fees, well, that's --
MS. NEMEC: My office cannot handle paying
out to multiple companies. I cannot -- we are up to our
ears already. That 457 would have to be through a payroll
deduction.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- I can't imagine
there's that many employees that are going to take advantage
of a 457. I mean, I --
MS. NEMEC: Every little thing you add on
for -- in payroll deductions adds up. You know, we have
AFLAC, we have Flex One, we have our regular insurance. We
are payroll-deducting to where a printout used to print out
on one page. For each employee -- for an employee, all the
9-13-04
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
66
deductions, it's taking three pages 'cause of all the
deductions that we have. On top of what -- what the Court
has authorized for payroll deductions, we have child support
orders, student loan orders that we have to deduct for,
Hilco Federal Savings loans.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my -- kind of
my point. I think we're -- we're potentially throwing an
extra burden on a two and a half person department.
MS. NEMEC: And I don't mind, but, you know,
I may need help.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unnecessarily.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sheriff, you had a
question?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only comment I
have -- and I do have an investment account with Edward
Jones. There's a number of different Edward Jones
representatives here; you'd have to let all of them in,
okay? 'Cause mine's a different account. But why -- and
mine is -- like you said, Jonathan, it comes out of my
checking account. It don't bother me. Why should the
County get involved at all in any of it, unless an employee
wants to have it automatically withdrawn before, and then
that employee can come to this Court and Barbara and ask for
permission for that specific one to be taken out, but not
let just everybody in.
9-13-04
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
MS. NEMEC: It's not cost-effective to do
that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's why it doesn't
make any difference whether it's drawn before or after.
JUDGE TINLEY: Truby?
MS. HARDIN: I would like to say something.
And Nationwide, they came here some -- a little over 10
years ago. There are quite a few people at Road and Bridge
that have it. We don't have any problem contacting them.
We can do it on the Internet; we can pick up the phone. It
works. We don't have a problem with it.
MS. NEMEC: And that's other thing about
rolling over Nationwide and VALIC into another one. You
have some employees who will tell you Nationwide -- forget
it. And then you're gcing to have the other effect on
VALIC. So, you can't tell these employees that they have to
roll over what they're -- what the Court has previously
approved, and they've been in it for years and years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Truby, to your knowledge,
did most of the employees do a payroll deduction?
MS. HARDIN: Yes, payroll deduction. We get
a statement every quarter. You can go online and check how
much you have, what your -- you can change your --
MS. NEMEC: That's another thing. You can
change your investments all the time, so it's not like you
9-13-09
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
68
set up these employees and that's it; you don't ever have to
deal with that again. Any time they want to change their
investments to more or to less or -- that -- that goes to my
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just like the
insurance; there are enrollment periods. You take the
enrollment, you're stuck with it for a year, good, bad, or
indifferent. And this is no different than that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Mechler, you have swatted
a hornet's nest here.
MS. MECHLER: I'm sorry. I really didn't
intend to do that. I could help Barbara with some of that
end of stuff. That -- I could be talking to the employees
about their changes and doing that part, where that would
alleviate that from her office. But I'm just here to make a
proposal. And I appreciate your time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Mechler.
MS. NEMEC: If it's okay, you know,
Commissioner Nicholson had a good idea, and that's what I
look at when things like this come through my office, is I'm
willing to do anything that's going to help the employee.
And maybe, if I can get with Ms. Mechler and set up a
seminar time, and if anybody else contacts me and they want
to do the same thing, then fine. But it just wouldn't go
through the payroll department.
9-13-04
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- I'd encourage
that.
MS. NEMEC: I'd be happy to assist anyone in
setting up seminars to educate our employees on anything.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the employees need to
have as much information as they're willing to try and
absorb about what their -- what their investment and
retirement opportunities are, and I think that's great if
we -- if we give them an opportunity to have that vehicle
available. Thank you, Ms. Mechler.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- along that line, I
think it would be better to try to -- for you to pick
several dates during the year, maybe twice a year, and have
a set time when we can set up and they can come set up here.
Our employees can go visit with them, whichever one they
want, rather than have, you know, this -- one week we're
going to have this one; this week somebody else. That way
employees can talk to several at one time and make a choice.
MS. NEMEC: I can do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a
better --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
MS. MECHLER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't -- why don't we
stand in recess for about 15 minutes?
9-13-04
70
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
(Recess taken from 10:32 a.m. to 10:42 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to
order. We have a timed item for 10:30 that we'll go to now,
consider and discuss permitting the Shannon Air 1
Subscription Program available for purchase in Kerr County,
and authorize County Judge to sign authorization letter.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We have Mr. Harry
Budow with us, who's president of the Y.O. Ranchland
Homeowners Association. This is the carry-over of an item
that was on the agenda last time, and what we're seeking is
a letter from the County Judge to acknowledge that Shannon
Air 1 will be offering its services in west Kerr County, and
particularly in Y.O. Ranchland Estates. Mr. Budow is here
to answer any further questions you have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why is it that we're
involved?
	COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON:	The Texas Health
Code requires	that the County acknowle	dge that	it'll be the
31st of 30 --	in addition to 30 other	counties	that Shannon
Air 1 is -- i	s taking subscribers.		
	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:	And with	zero
liability to	the County?		
	COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON:	That's	true.
9-13-04
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's strictly a
contract between this gentleman and the helicopter out of
San Angelo?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A subscription, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Each resident out
there can choose to pay the -- I don't know if it's $39 or
$49 a month, and be a subscriber to the service.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it has no impact or
effect one way or the other on current EMS coverage?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It does not -- oh,
it could have an indirect effect of reducing revenues, if
they --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And increasing costs.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, indirect
effect. If, instead of calling an ambulance out there, an
EMS ambulance, if a subscriber opts to pay to call the air
service, then we would lose the revenue derived from the
cost of that run out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we`d also lose the --
I guess what I'm saying is that there's a potential that --
and it's going back tc the memo received from the Assistant
City Attorney, in that the -- if they call and -- say that a
person, you know, calls 9-1-1 and calls Shannon, or however
they contact that, we're going to send -- or through our
9-13-04
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
72
contract with the City, EMS is going to be responding;
Shannon's going to be responding. One of them's going to
transport. The only revenue side to this equation is the
transport.
MR. BUDOW: If I may, the next item on the
agenda, which is also a timed item, is that Kimble County
has agreed to act as our first responder and primary
responder, so the answer to your question is -- is no,
Kerrville would not respond.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That cannot take place
until we amend the contract with the City of Kerrville.
MR. BUDOW: That's why the interlocal
agreement is on the agenda, as you directed the County to do
on April 12th of this year, to this issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not opposed to it. I
just want to make sure you know that the -- that until --
there is a potential adverse effect to the County through
the EMS contract -- or through the future EMS contract
negotiations unless that area is completely removed from the
EMS contract coverage area. And if that takes place, then I
can see no effect. But it could -- you know, I'm just
trying to -- there's a lot of steps down the road,
especially with -- I know we're going to be renegotiating
our EMS contract this year, so I just want to make sure we
have it all lined up.
9-13-04
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question.
I'm not sure that it's a concern, but certainly, I'd like
for somebody to assure me that the absence of a First
Responder making the recommendation to call the helicopter
does not open up anybody for liability. 'Cause the current
situation requires a First Responder, I believe -- correct
me if I'm wrong -- to make the call for an air -- air lift,
if you will.
MR. BUDOW: That is within the contract that
you have with the City. That is the current situation.
Critical Air cannot respond, as I understand it, unless
Kerrville EMS calls them. And that is --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. BUDOW: -- by contract with the City and
Critical Air. Shannon does not have that requirement, and
our agreement with them would not require that. They, in
fact, today will respond to us on an 800 call, if we call
them today, and they respond in this county frequently. The
difference that we're talking about is a nuance. In order
to be able to buy a subscription, for us to be able to not
call them once in a blue moon, but to have them know who we
are and to have an ongoing relationship with them at the
fixed $49 price, or $39 price, they require -- the state,
actual]y, health, as was suggested, requires the
acknowledgment by the County Commissioners so that they are
9-13-04
74
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
allowed into the county. Now, as an individual caller, I
can call them. La-Ha can call them. Lots of people do call
them, and they can come on a one-off basis. But in order
for us to have a relationship with them as the Y.O.
Landowners Association and have a subscription service, that
subscription service -- because now they're offering a
health care service, if you will, in the county -- requires
that acknowledgment on your part.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- you know, this
is really the question I have. But they are -- this and the
next item are very closely related, to me. The interlocal
agreement does nothing to change the contract with the City
of Kerrville, and we cannot -- the fact that we, if we enter
into an interlocal agreement, all of a sudden are saying
that Junction is now the primary responder there, as I
understand it, the City of Kerrville is still going to
respond until we amend that contract, because they're
obligated under the contract to do that. So, until -- those
two things have to happen simultaneously, to me. Now, the
Shannon contract, that could happen today. 'Cause from
reading -- my recollection of the memo from the Assistant
City Attorney is that our contract -- EMS contract does not
preclude us from doing that. It's just -- you know, it
doesn't -- it's really kind of -- it's a gray area in that
contract, so that can be done. But the interlocal agreement
9-13-04
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
75
does affect the EMS contract, and -- you know, and that's an
adverse impact to the rest of the county until the EMS
contract with the City of Kerrville is renegotiated. And I
don't see that happening -- I mean, there's -- if we were
to, at this point -- well, we can't give notice under that
contract.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They've already given
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's for next year,
so we're talking about a contract that's going to be
renegotiated sometime ~n the next 12 months. And I'm just
concerned as to what happens if we sign this interlocal
agreement today. You know, is that a -- a breach? Because
a breach may have some other consequences under the EMS
contract.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which would raise
another question, Commissioner. Why is it necessary -- if
the subscribers can call an air service directly, and the
air service will respond without the intervention of a First
Responder, why is it necessary?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: An interlocal contract?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're not talking
about Kerr County being a party to this agreement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I understand
that.
9-13-04
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Simply acknowledging
that they're going to be in our county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. I'm
following up on -- I think we've jumped to the next agenda
item, actually. But that's my question. Why is it
necessary for us to have an interlocal agreement with Kimble
County and City of Junction if the subscribers can deal
directly with the air service? What's the reason?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you get -- I
think that I understand the reason very well. You get
quicker ambulance service. But I just -- my point is that
we can -- I am reluctant to enter into that interlocal
agreement until the EMS contract's on the table at the same
time, because we are changing the intent of that contract.
The Shannon agreement, I think we can do that. I don't see
any problem with that. I see some potential negatives, you
know, but according to the memo from the Assistant City
Attorney, it's a gray area, and we can do what we want under
that. But I think the other one affects the current
contract. Now, I don't know -- you know, the shoe`s on the
other foot here. The City wanted to renegotiate earlier and
we said no. I think we have to look at it the other way at
the same time. I mean --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My question is, the
item before us, the helicopter deal, if -- and Number 19,
9-13-04
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
77
the Kimble County issue, what if we don't approve the Kimble
County issue? How does it affect your helicopter issue?
MR. BUDOW: It doesn't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It does not at all, in
any way?
MR. BUDOW: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 'Cause I -- if I were
going to vote right this moment, I would not vote for the
Kimble County issue.
MR. BUDOW: I guess the only -- it doesn't
affect it, other than it puts a burden on the resident --
the citizen to make two telephone calls.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. BUDOW: As opposed to, if you were to
approve both of these, one telephone call can be made by the
citizen. So, you're basically putting the burden back on
the citizen to manage their nuances of being in the far west
Kerr County. That is, you got a -- you know, you call
9-1-1, and you also got to call the air subscription
service.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What we're saying is, we
don't have a choice. We're under a contract. We can't just
unilaterally change the contract that we're under, any more
than the City can unilaterally change it like they tried to
last month.
9-13-04
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
78
MR. BUDOW: So -- so, for a year now, or a
year and a half, we'll need to wait to have an arrangement
whereby we can get 15- or 20-minute response versus 45
minutes or an hour response from an emergency service,
because of your contract with the City?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. BUDOW: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because, I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't understand
that.
MR. BUDOW: Well, what I understood the
Commissioner to say was, because there's a contract between
the County and the City --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MR. BUDOW: -- that is nonexclusive,
according to the City Attorney, that the County is unwilling
to do an agreement with another county for a mutual aid
interlocal agreement that might impact a contract between
the County and the City.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, what I don't
understand is the difference in time you've alluded to.
MR. BUDOW: If we dial 9-1-1 now, and Kerr
County -- or excuse me, Kerrville EMS responds, it takes --
pick a number -- let's just say -- an hour's a round number.
If Kimble County EMS responds, they're able to respond in
9-13-04
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
~9
half that time. So, the difference is -- is that they can't
respond unless there's an interlocal agreement between the
counties. So, if we're to wait for a year and a half for
this agreement to be addressed, or a year for it to be
addressed, then we will be waiting twice as long for our
ground emergency response.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just think -- the
difference, I would say, is that the City of Kerrville may
say by our next meeting, 'cause we couldn't do it before
that, that they're willing to delete the area from the
contract. But that's something that -- you know, and do a
contract amendment. I don't know if they want to do that or
not. I mean, that's a question I don't think has been asked
of the City of Kerrville. But I just don't see how you can
enter into a -- is it an exclusive contract? No, but I
think it's very -- you know, the intent of that agreement is
definitely being changed by that interlocal agreement, as
currently written, without something happening with the City
of Kerrville contract.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is not a new
issue. I think this --
MR. BUDOW: April.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, we had an
interlocal agreement with Kendall County EMS service at one
time to provide service in -- ground service in Kerr County.
9-13-04
80
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
They unilaterally canceled it after -- after not being able
to work out the dispatch protocols that they needed. So,
I -- I've asked the County Attorney for his opinion on this,
and I haven't gotten it. And I did get a copy of the letter
that you did from the -- from Ilse Bailey that appears to
say that -- that any barriers to us contracting with
interlocal agreement for their service --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Budow, let me ask
you a question while they're looking there. Is this -- what
about -- what about a neighbor of yours that would rather
lay there and wait for the city of Kerrville ambulance than
they would a chopper out of San Angelo? Do they have -- do
they have that -- is that available to them still?
MR. BUDOW: If they want to -- I'm not sure I
understand the question. I mean, I'm here to represent the
11,000 acres and hundred and some-odd landowners -- 112
landowners.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But you have the
option to call the -- call an ambulance out of Kerrville,
and the chopper out of San Angelo.
MR. BUDOW: Depends on the resolution to what
we're talking about. If the interlocal --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let`s pretend that we
approve this today.
MR. BUDOW: Right.
9-13-09
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-_
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Will you have the
option to call an ambulance or a chopper?
MR. BUDOW: I don't believe so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It would be strictly
chopper?
MR. BUDOW: No, sir. No, no. When you dial
9-1-1, our ideal scenario is you dial 9-1-1; Kimble County
EMS is rolling their ambulance, and the Shannon Air
helicopter is coming simultaneous to that, so that we are
both getting ground service in the most immediate way
possible, approximately 30 minutes, and we are getting air
service. Those two entities are willing to work together,
the air service and Kimble EMS. Different than Kerrville
EMS and Critical Air, because of their relationship.
Critical Air will not respond until Kerrville EMS is
on-site, whereas Shannon Air will respond simultaneous and
in parallel with Kimble EMS.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
that they launch a chopper out of San
on the scene. But, does -- will your
option of getting an ambulance or a h
MR. BUDOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
There are many times
Antonio without being
neighbor have the
elicopter?
Yes?
MR. BUDOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. That
9-13-04
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was my entire question.
MR. BUDOW: Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood
ambulance versus --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess this is
more -- and I guess my concern is that, by entering into
this interlocal agreement with Kimble County -- back on the
other item, I know -- but by doing that, Kerr County,
through its EMS contract with the City, are required by law
to send an ambulance out that way regardless of that. I
mean, we don't have a choice; we have to respond. If we
don't, I think there's a huge liability to the County and to
the City. So that, you know, we're tying up two ambulances,
one from Kimble and one from Kerr, until we can get that
contract modified.
MR. BUDOW: I may be mistaken, but don't you
have interlocal agreements now with other counties whereby
you respond or they respond, depending -- weren't you
describing that to me, depending upon where the overlap is?
MR. MALONEY: That is with the mutual aid,
and what we have currently is with Gillespie County. That`s
a different basis, because Gillespie County does have part
of I-10, approximately 5 mi]es of I-10 in their response
area. But that is with Gillespie County strictly, not with
Kimble County as far as theirs.
MR. BUDOW: But the same situation -- I guess
9-13-04
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what I'm trying to understand, if that situation exists with
Gillespie County now, how would having the same mutual aid
agreement with Kimble County be -- be different?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the difference
is, as I see it -- it's not that it can't be done. We can't
unilaterally do it.
MR. BUDOW: It needs a contract amendment
between the City of Kerrville and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. BUDOW: -- and the County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. BUDOW: Of course.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. BUDOW: Right, which is what you
originally directed the County Attorney to do on April 12th
at this meeting, when we first brought this up, and now I'm
just resurrecting it five, almost six months later. And --
and being a little bit disappointed that we're supposed to
now wait another year in order to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You do not have to wait a
year. I'm just saying the contract, I know, is going to
be -- we've been given notice that the contract's going to
be renegotiated.
MR. BUDOW: It's not simple.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hopefully this can be
9-13-04
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
resolved, you know, much sooner than that. I don't know why
the City of Kerrville wouldn't want to give up -- or
wouldn't agree to give up this area. I'm just saying I'm
reluctant to enter into an interlocal agreement where we're
going to have two ambulances now being sent to the same
house, thereby tying up two ambulances. I don't think
that's what you all want.
MR. BUDOW: No, we want to relieve the city
of Kerrville from responding to that obligation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's what I think
needs to be done.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I think Ilse
Bailey says that it's okay. It's not specified the County
is prohibited from utilizing other service providers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think it's -- I
think it is. I'm not going to vote to send an ambulance out
to far west Kerr County on a run that's totally useless.
And they have to do it under our contract until the contract
gets changed, because then we're taking an ambulance totally
out of service that could help other people in the county.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we approve the
interlocal agreement, Kerrville will not be making those
runs out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:	Yes,	they	will.	They're
obligated under our contract. We'	ve got	to	change	-- I'm
9-13-04
85
~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
saying we have to change the contract with the City of
Kerrville.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's not Ilse
Bailey's opinion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it is. They're
going to still respond.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not specified that
the County is prohibited from utilizing other service
providers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But it -- okay.
Well, like I said, I'm not going to vote to send an
ambulance out to west Kerr County for no reason. Yes, we
can do it, but the City of Kerrville is still going to
respond to every call out there until the contract gets
amended. Am I -- am I right?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the record, who
is this gentleman, please?
MR. MALONEY: Eric Maloney.
MR. AMERINE: He's supervisor of Kerrville
EMS.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It wasn't on the
record who it was.
MR. AMERINE: I just want to make one
comment, and this addresses part of this question. And I've
spoken to Mr. Budow and the Y.O. Ranchlands about their --
9-13-04
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-1-1 will not change their call protocol until that
contract amendment that Commissioner Letz is talking about
is addressed and there's an interlocal agreement. We will
not customize per-citizen how we do 9-1-1 calls. We have a
standard protocol. Or else what you'll have in front of the
Court and in front of the City Council is, "Well, for this
particular citizen or that subdivision, I want to be called
differently." And we deal in standard protocols, because
you can't have a 19-, 20-year-old dispatcher with 50 or 60
or 150 different protocols for calling out emergencies.
Now, this particular one is not a big deal. I just want to
make that clear. Once this amendment to the contract is
established and there's an interlocal agreement, our
dispatch function for all those addresses that reside in the
Y.O. Ranchlands will be simple. We'll call both the
Junction EMS and this air flight support out of San Angelo.
And EMS -- and this is what Mr. Budow was suggesting -- for
Kerrville will not respond unless Junction EMS, who's a
basic service EMS, says, "We cannot provide the life
support," or San Angelo air is not available. It's -- they
only get dispatched in the occasion that they`re not getting
the support they need from Kimble County.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Amerine?
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's my
9-13-04
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
understanding that 9-1-1's involvement in this -- this
system -- this process ends when the telephone call ends.
MR. AMERINE: That's true.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, the protocol for
calling out emergency services is not a matter for 9-1-1.
MR. AMERINE: I'm just telling you how
that -- that the City will not do 150 -- I'm just -- again,
I should not be representing them, but I'm talking -- the
9-1-1 protocols are based upon standard protocols. And
truly, Commissioner, you don't want each individual citizen
who wants to be called differently in front of your Court
asking for a different protocol.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What I want is for
the citizens in far west Kerr County to get adequate
emergency service.
MR. AMERINE: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And right now, I
don't think it' adequate. And, again, I'm going to have to
listen to the County Attorney and the -- the City --
Assistant City Attorney on their opinions about whether or
not --
MR. AMERINE: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- the contract
needs to be amended. It`s my opinion it does not need to be
amended.
9-13-04
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. AMERINE: You're absolutely correct. I
want to clarify something, 'cause I think this is constantly
confused; then I'm going to sit down and let Mr. Budow stand
back up. The Health and Safety Code requires -- gives me
liability to make sure that dispatch does the appropriate
job; in other words, that they are dispatching the
appropriate agencies. Very clear. That when a 9-1-1 call
comes in, that the appropriate responding agency is
contacted. That's where my responsibility ends. We,
through a contract with the City of Kerrville, have given
that full discretion to the City on how to accomplish that
task, but I still have a play in that. I still will advise
and consult the City on what the appropriate protocol will
be. I don't think the City would do it anyway; you know,
what I'm talking about is do multiple nonstandard protocols
for individuals, special interest groups. So, it's a real
simple thing. It's a real simple thing to have a standard
protocol for this homeowners association, but two things
have to happen; an interlocal agreement with Kimble County,
and that contract amendment. I don't -- I don't take calls
from citizens that say, "I want to be called this way." I
refer them back to the Court and to the City to resolve
those issues. That's my only point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is -- and
I don't -- maybe I read this differently than the
9-13-04
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,-..
25
Commissioner of Precinct 4 did. I'll read the sentence or
phrase. It says, "I note that Kerrville EMS is still
contractually obligated to respond to these calls." That,
to me, means that they're going to send an ambulance there,
and for no reason. And that's just wasting money and
putting other citizens, you know, in jeopardy. So, I think
that -- you know, to me, it's a simple thing. We go to the
City and say, "Will you eliminate this geographic area from
your primary area and make it a secondary area?" And I
don't know why they wouldn't say yes. I mean, it's -- you
know, but I think that has to be done before I'm willing to
do an interlocal agreement. Unless one of the -- City or
County Attorney says that I'm reading that wrong.
JUDGE TINLEY: Seems to me like we have two
distinct issues before us today. One is the -- the major
issue of whether or not these citizens should have the
ability, by subscription to an air ambulance service, to
call those people directly and say, "I need your help," and
this county incurs no liability or responsibility for. And
then the second deals with the -- the primary responsibility
for ground emergency medical services, be they First
Responder or -- or EMS. I would think the First Responder
would be the same in nearly every case. If we've got some
in the area, they're probably going to be affiliated with
the appropriate agency where they live that serves that
9-13-04
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,-,
25
area, I would think. But that may be another sub-issue
there. But, on the first issue, I think the decision is to
merely acknowledge that they're accepting subscribers, and I
think the indication from the Assistant City Attorney
clearly indicates that the whole issue of -- of air
ambulance was outside the parameters of the contract at the
time it was thought of, so I think where we really are
having a problem is with the second issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too. It doesn't
matter -- I mean, you know, if they want to get a -- a
steamboat out of Michigan, I don't care. You know, that's
your business. But the second issue, I do have some -- a
couple of questions about it. I didn't realize that we
could talk about it quite openly, 'cause you haven't called
it yet. But --
JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly be easier when I
call it, won't it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Obviously.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll have beaten it
to death by then.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I make a motion that
we --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got some
questions, Commissioner -- oh, you're going to do the -- the
9-13-04
91
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
chopper thing. Very good.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That we authorize
the County Judge to sign a letter acknowledging that Shannon
Air 1 will be providing air ambulance services to the Y.O.
Ranchlands Estates.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
further question or discussion? All in favor of that
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. Let
me now call the next item posted for 10:45. It'll be a
brand-new item for all of us, I'm sure. (Laughter.)
Consider and discuss an agreement for the Kimble County or
the City of Kerrville (sic) EMS provider to assume
responsibility as primary responder for 9-1-1 emergency
calls made from Y.O. Ranchlands Subdivision.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think the deal
with this one is for us to be -- as a group, to be clear
about what additional input or information we need to vote
on this the next time we have a Commissioners Court meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. My -- my
concern is that -- again, back on the other issue. If you
9-13-04
92
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
want a helicopter, that's your business, and I see how that
works pretty clear. But I do not see how the ambulance
service out of Junction -- I'm not real comfortable with
that thing. And it's your life, and, I mean, obviously --
obviously, you're taking your life in your own hands, but
there are other citizens out there that -- that I'm
concerned with. I don't know that they are in big agreement
with you or not; I don't have any idea. But I'm
wondering -- Junction, they are -- they're a volunteer
service. Yes?
MR. BUDOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. How many
ambulances do they have in service there? Two, right?
MR. BUDOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two. And I just
wonder if they -- if they have really thought through this.
Say they have an ambulance going to the Y.O. Ranch and one
at an automobile accident out on Interstate 10, and the
County Judge has a heart attack in the Commissioners
Courtroom, which I wouldn't understand, but -- and they --
they don't have an ambulance to get him. You know, that
bothers me a little bit. What do they -- who's going to --
who's going to own what after that lawsuit? Is -- is Kerr
County involved in any way? Any kind of liability in that?
You know, I just wonder if -- I'm not taking one side or the
9-13-04
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.._ 2 4
25
other. I'm just expressing -- I have a concern about that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And they're
volunteers. You stated that it would take Junction half the
time that it would take the City of Kerrville to respond. I
don't know that that's true. They're volunteers. What if
their ambulance drivers are out building a roof out on the
ranch? How long is it going to take them to get down, get
in an ambulance, and get going?
MR. BUDOW: The half a dozen instances we've
had so far is the only evidence I have. And the result, at
least with the fire -- Kerrville Fire -- excuse me, the --
the fire group, after you provided us -- gave us the ability
to move to them as a direct first responder, was better than
halftime response. But will it happen every time? Can it
be that way? No. But the citizens of this area, the 100 or
so landowners that we've polled and that I represent and am
an elected official representing them, feel like the hour
time -- the golden hour that my heart is either not beating
or beating, is best spent getting any help -- professional
help to me as fast as I can get there, and any delay in that
process is putting me at risk. And Kimble, volunteer or
not, appears to have, after four or five months thought --
they didn't immediately hold up their hand and say, "Oh,
please let us do this." They're not soliciting us; we're
9-13-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
soliciting them. And they took five months, all this time
while we were considering these various issues, to both --
both staff and train, and they're prepared to handle us.
And so, while your questions are -- are absolutely the right
ones, they are the same ones we've asked, and it's the same
ones that your citizens in far west Kerr County have
concluded is the best solution for them under the
circumstances. We'd rather have Kerrville EMS with a
station on the front of -- you know, on our ranch, but that
isn't going to happen, and I'm not here asking you for it.
I'm just looking for an alternative solution.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to hear
from Kerrville EMS.
MR. MALONEY: Commissioners, the one thing I
do want to bring to your attention, 'cause I don't know if
it was -- and Commissioner Baldwin did bring it up, is that
the two services are not the same. Between Kerrville --
Kerrville is MICU-capable, so we run with paramedics on
every ambulance. So, when you're getting there with a
paramedic, our best that we can do is as much as most of the
air services, with the -- with the exception of a few.
Junction does not have that. You may get a paramedic. Then
again, you may just get two basics who respond there.
Getting two basics to respond there is the same thing as
this County has been doing now. It has been providing the
9-13-09
95
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
First Responder program, and we do have an AED in the area.
In talking to Bill about this, there will be the one concern
that, currently, to get a First Responder into Y.O.
Ranchlands or anywhere that we do, we do page out through
the radios. So, Junction will have to resolve this problem,
because we do have some that do work on the Y.O. Ranch or in
that area, so they would not be getting that First Responder
if we do switch over to Kimble County. Not that -- it's not
a bad thing, and don't get me wrong, but we would also have
to work out that issue there, since we do provide the Kerr
County First Responders.
MR. BUDOW: Don't you agree -- I mean, when
we met, you and Chief Holloway both, I think, agreed with us
that the fastest we could get a response out there was our
best -- was the thing we should do in our best interests.
MR. MALONEY: Right. But also, at the same
time, I do think some good points have been brought up. And
I think some -- some things have been brought up that does
make them seem like it's the same service. I do want to
bring it to your attention, because you did mention it, that
it is not the same service.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The quality of care.
MR. MALONEY: Yes, sir. Kerrville is, you
know, top-notch. That's nothing to say against Junction,
but the level of certification is -- is major. It's a major
9-13-04
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
96
issue. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I kind of -- I
agree. We should be predisposed to trying to assist in
finding the best way to get medical service out there as
quickly as possible. And I don't believe that we have to
wait a year to resolve the issue. But I -- I am on the same
page with Commissioner Letz with respect to the -- the
Assistant City Attorney's analysis of the situation, of
which she says, following up on the quote that Commissioner
Letz said, that the County's cost under the contract might
therefore be adversely impacted by any agreement that we
permit another emergency service to receive payment for a
service that's also provided by Kerrville EMS. We have an
open issue with respect to this between the City and the
County that has to be resolved. Essentially, that boils
down to economics. And, so, I'm -- I, for one, would like
to figure out if we have -- or determine whether or not we
could amend the existing agreement before it is open for
negotiations as a whole to accommodate what you'd like to
see.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to -- I'm
going to put this back on the agenda for two weeks from now,
and going to ask that the County Attorney and the City
Attorney -- Assistant City Attorney, if she chooses to, be
here, and anyone else representing the City that could give
9-13-04
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
97
us some input to make a good decision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what needs --
what I would need to be in favor of this is for the City to
amend the contract and say we are -- in this area, we are no
longer the primary responder, or primary -- whatever the
terminology is, for this area; we are secondary. 'Cause I
think there's -- I mean, the interlocal says they're still
going to be a backup. That, I think, addresses some of
Commissioner Baldwin's concerns of only having two
ambulances in Kimble County. But that's what I need. I
mean, I just need -- so we're not sending -- or so the City
of Kerrville is not sending an ambulance out there for no
reason.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, let me redo my
question one more time as to my concern. I'm going to
change it around just a little bit. What if both of their
ambulances in Junction are busy there, and they cannot get
to the Y.O., and a person is hurt bad or even dies? Now, is
there any liability on the County for that, that we're
not -- we're not responding at all?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe the interlocal
agreement is set up that Kerrville is the secondary
responder.
MR. BUDOW: That would be correct. And if
they are also busy and can't respond, then that's --
9-13-04
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
98
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think --
MR. BUDOW: -- that's the way that works.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think what
Commissioner Baldwin says is an important point, because a
system has to be set up, because when it's toned out through
9-1-1, it's going to Kimble county. Somehow, Kimble County
is then going to be responsible to get it back to Kerrville
EMS that they can't make this response. And this happens
frequently in eastern Kerr County between Kendall and Kerr;
there's lots of problems with that relationship. But, you
know, there is that stabilizing issue.
MR. BUDOW: You gentlemen have sort of said
that two things would have to happen. I would be ecstatic
if I came back the next time and those two things had
happened. One is amending the EMS interlocal agreement, or
at least determining that that is an option prior to waiting
until the end. So, that's question number one, is between
the City and the County. That agreement, can it be -- may
we amend it? And then item number two is the interlocal
agreement, then, between Kimble County and Kerr County in
order to facilitate first responder and second responder
backup.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. BUDOW: And I appreciate the reason why
all those things need to happen. I'd just like to happen --
9-13-04
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
99
to address them and come to a resolution.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got one more
question. I think it was already addressed by 9-1-1, but
I'm not sure. How -- and Rusty may get in on this deal.
How, when you set off the tones, are you con -- how do you
contact Junction? By pigeons or smoke signals? Or do they
have radios?
MR. AMERINE: I don't know the answer to that
question. That's something we're going to have to -- I was
talking to Eric --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what Eric's
talking about.
MR. AMERINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
MR. AMERINE: Right now, when we tone out
First Responders on a medical emergency, it does automatic
calls to all radios in the county. The First Responders
know the area of response. They hear the location of the
emergency and then they respond appropriately. I don't know
if -- and this is something that, legitimately, before any
interlocal agreement is set up, aside from the contract
amendment with the City, we'd have to find out if Junction
EMS can respond to those radio calls, if they can receive
them and respond to them. That would be something that
needs to be a prerequisite.
9-13-09
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
100
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If they could not,
would you have to rely on a telephone?
MR. AMERINE: We would have to do telephone
or page. We currently page Junction Fire -- Volunteer Fire
Department with respect to that. We've already adjusted
that. So, obviously, radio is quicker than page, and we've
talked about the problems with geographic coverage with
pagers and reliability of pagers. Radio is the best way to
go. And, according to Lee Hall, who's the fire chief out
there, they get all the radio calls that they can receive.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
MR. AMERINE: So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is another
issue. I hate to raise it, but there is potentially another
-- potentially another issue. We provide, by contract with
the City of Kerrville, a certain amount of funding for this
purpose, to provide the EMS service. Is there going to be a
charge from Kendall County -- Kimble County for EMS service?
MR. BUDOW: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Similar to what we
have by contract with Kerr County?
MR. BUDOW: No, sir. I asked that specific
question, based on Commissioner Nicholson's question, and
their answer is no. They -- they are not looking for a
charge on the interlocal agreement or mutual aid agreement.
9-13-04
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just thought I'd
get it out there on the record.
MR. BUDOW: That's a good question,
economics.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My final comment is, I
appreciate -- I mean, I appreciate all your legwork, because
you're going to save me some legwork, 'cause we need to do
something in eastern Kerr County as well. And it's -- and
I'm thinking of making notes on all the things we need to
talk about.
MR. BUDOW: I'm here to help.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If I can make a comment,
the one thing I would have a concern over is what Bill
was -- was getting to earlier, is your 9-1-1 dispatchers are
-- in our situation, are also police dispatchers for
Kerrville Police Department. Problem is, if they end up
with a different list of -- if the call comes from this
area, you have to call this ambulance service or you have to
call this helicopter, you have to call -- I think it`s --
it's going to hurt the response totally. Why -- in the
negotiations with the City of Kerrville and with Kerrville
Fire Department/EMS, why shouldn't that interlocal agreement
be from Kerrville EMS to Kimble County, to where that 9-1-1
call is still dispatching Kerrville EMS? If they need help
getting somebody out there quicker, they contact Kimble
9-13-04
102
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
County or they contact, you know, Comfort or Fredericksburg,
like I've heard them do a lot of times when we're already
having problems getting somebody there. But that way, your
dispatchers aren't calling the wrong one and putting
liabilities on people that shouldn't be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a pretty good
point, Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The quickest way of
getting help, and let them work it out with the different
responding ambulances.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What I would like to
hear two weeks from now is for our EMS expert, the boss --
that's you -- to say, "Yes, this is the right thing to do
for these reasons," or, "No, I've got these concerns about
the safety and health of people in west Kerr County, and we
need to consider something else." I'd like -- I'd like to
hear your opinion on this.
MR. BUDOW: Do I need to bring a bunch of
folks to convince you that I'm representing a bunch of
folks? Or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, we have it on the
record; you finally said it, that you`re the elected
official and you represent every one of them.
MR. BUDOW: It's -- yeah. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all I need.
9-13-04
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
103
That's all I need.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you're welcome to
bring a bunch of friends if you want.
MR. BUDOW: No, I think that --
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that
particular item?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Lord, I hope not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you.
MR. BUDOW: Thank you, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: In the interest of time and
accommodating those that are here with us today, it's been
suggested that we move on to Item 23, consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action on BB air rifle target range on
Youth Exhibit Center property. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I
asked you to move it up, 'cause our friend Arthur has been
sitting back there monitoring this all day, and while this
may be morning entertainment, it's getting close to lunch,
and he may have other things he'd like to do as well. Since
the last time this was on the agenda, Mr. Nagle and I
visited with the -- or made an appearance -- he, basically,
more than I, made an appearance before the 4-H folks to talk
about the integration of this particular project that
Mr. Nagle has an interest in into a 4-H program. The last I
heard from the Extension Agent was that there was a
9-13-04
104
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
willingness to do that, but they were in the process of
gathering some more information and so forth, and I haven't
talked to them within the last week or so. Mr. Nagle, I
wanted it on the agenda, and so, Arthur, it's all yours.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Arthur, can I ask you
a question? Then I'm -- you're through with me.
Geographically, location on the property. Where do you
propose it?
MS. NAGLE: Behind the major building, next
to the fence pertaining to that road behind all this
property.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Got me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right behind the goat
barns.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
MR. NAGLE:
COMMISSIONER
where you put the hogs back
the public highway?
COMMISSIONER
BALDWIN:
WILLIAMS:
~g Barn.
BALDWIN:
there, be
WILLIAMS:
Goat barns.
Or pig barns.
Behind the hog barns,
tween that building and
That's my
understanding.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Up near -- against the
fence back there or something?
MR. NAGLE: That's right, sir.
9-13-04
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
105
COMMISSIONER WILLTAMS: Somewhere in that
general area.
MR. NAGLE: That's right, so it'll be out of
the way with other activities occurring at that property.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they're thinking
back over more away to the east.
JUDGE TINLEY: I was thinking that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Back behind the barn, the
horse barn.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I thought
in the beginning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That area is used --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that the area
behind the horse barn or behind the hog pens?
MR. HOLEKAMP: I think he's talking about
behind the hog -- hog barns.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I
thought, behind the hog barns.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That area is used
extensively right now. That's where we store all the dirt
and sawdust and all kinds of stuff.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And a road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And a road.
9-13-04
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
106
MR. NAGLE: The range will be next to that
storage of sawdust and dirt and what-have-you. Those two
large piles of dirt, be next to them. But they are
overgrown with weeds and so on, so they haven't been touched
for quite a while.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not stock show
season yet.
MR. NAGLE: Last time when I appeared, I
asked for permission to build a BB air rifle target range on
public property. I felt we had a desire and a need, and it
would be a supporting activity to have the target range
available to dad and mom and the use of their families. It
also would be a place where people could -- adults,
particularly, could improve their aiming and their shooting
pertinent to fall and wintertimes. Since then, Commissioner
Williams has very graciously taken a look at the property
that we thought might be the best out there, and he
concurred, and this is immediately behind those big -- that
big building, the Ag Barn, behind the pig pens, next to the
piles of dirt. I do not believe that it will interfere with
any other activity, such as parking for activities of an
agricultural nature. Since then --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. NAGLE: -- we have come up with the rules
of the use of the target range, which is the first page of
9-13-04
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
107
your handout. And you will note on that first page of the
handout, over on the right-hand edge, there's a picture of a
soldier. The purpose of that picture is to give a picture
of where his trigger finger is. His trigger finger is away
from the trigger. Very important safety rule, as we point
out in the front. No weapons ever pointed at people. No
weapons ever with your finger on the trigger. No weapons
loaded, unless you are ready to shoot for some reason.
You'll also note from the rules that there must be what we
call a range boss, an adult on the premises at the time.
The range boss will be authorized and directed to use a
couple of rules and use a couple of orders. One of the
orders is, "Rifles down." When that occurs, then you can go
forward and retrieve your target, or place it if you want,
or replace it and put up the new target.
If you noticed our ad in Friday's paper for
the air rifle target range, you noticed that there were
adults in that picture with the ad. The -- I envision that
there will probably be as many, and maybe more, adults using
this range than youth. That's because, over on the last
page of your handout, you'll find in the number of officers
running the club, there will be a teams facilitator, and --
and then, secondly, a reporter. The teams facilitator will
be a person or persons who will be out looking for teams of
four persons to represent either a business or a club or
9-13-04
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
108
some type of activity that they would like to have their
name in the paper occasionally for having been outstanding
in their -- their team, or in shooting at the range. I, for
one, think once in a while, maybe that ultimate target for
all of us to work on would be a ladies team out of the First
Methodist Church against a ladies team out of the First
Baptist Church, and then the winner having to go against the
ladies team out of the First Presbyterian Church. I think
you would get the entire city out to be looking at this.
These rules are for every shooter, not just for youth.
We`re not pointing this up for youths; we're pointing it up
for the adults. We want the Kerrville target range for air
rifles to be the center of air rifle shooting in the hill
country, and I would like, gentlemen, for you to vote in
approval of same. By putting the range on, I will have to
pay for its construction, since you all are short of money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me make a couple
points to the Court about -- about this, and this proposal,
where we are. When Arthur and I have talked, on those
occasions we have talked, I did indicate that if -- if it
were to be outside the area that we have talked about -- I
think I talked to you, too, Glenn, about it -- would be a
suitable area. However, I also made the point that I
thought this program best fit under 4-H, and I think if 4-H
is to take this program in as a part of its mission, it
9-13-04
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
109
would have to be inside in the range. And I think that's
kind of where Arthur and I come apart a little bit. He
prefers it outside. If it's to be a part of 4-H, they would
prefer it to be inside so that it's under their control,
with their safety -- their rules and their regulations and
their personnel. The other concern which I've expressed to
Arthur on a couple of occasions is -- has to do with safety,
in that if it's out there, and there is -- there are no
adults available to supervise the activity, and -- and young
folks or old folks, whomever, show up with BB rifles, is
there a liability or is there a problem? And I think that
question needs to be addressed to the satisfaction of the
Court.
MR. NAGLE: The rules that will be in --
available to every shooter, whether they are a youth or an
adult, describes that if there is only one shooter at the
range shooting, no problem. It can even be one youth. No
problem, because he has to put his -- the rifle down in
order to go get his target to change it. If there are two
persons shooting, there must be an adult on the range known
as a range boss. Now, that adult does not have to be
related to either of these two youths, but I see the range
being used a lot of times by adults of this community who --
where even one of these adults would have to assume the role
of range boss and order "Rifles up" or "Rifles down." When
9-13-04
110
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
your rifle's down, then people can leave the firing range
and firing position and go and change their target or put up
new targets. When the order is "Rifles up", then everybody
is back on the firing range, firing positions, and no one is
by the targets, and you can commence shooting again.
We have -- we have, under -- under safety, we
have the parents who bought the rifle for the youth, and
also, hopefully, as we talk about teams where the parents
are going to have a rifle for use in their team shooting,
they`re going to be concerned about and instruct their youth
how to operate. I've had -- I hear of certain mamas who are
asking that their small youth commence with BB air rifle
shooting, rather than commence with .22 rifle shooting.
They have complained about their kids isn't big enough,
heavy enough to hold the .22. They don't know anything
about sighting the rifle. They don't know anything about
where to put their trigger finger on their barrel of their
gun. And they would like to see this BB air rifle
ability -- facility available to start the youth there, and
then move them into the better -- the better weapons as they
would go.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Nagle, I have -- I
mean, I think it's a good project, and I applaud you for the
time you've put into it, obviously. But I see it really
working one of three ways, 'cause I don't want the County to
9-13-04
111
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
be in a position where we're running this, and I don't see
how -- because just by letting any organization do something
on our property, I still think we're responsible. So, to
me, it has to come either under 4-H, or the County has to
enter into a lease agreement with the -- with an
organization, if we can find a piece of property that we're
willing to set aside for a long period of time, similar to
what was done with Little League, and lease that property to
you, and then you can do what you want, you know, subject to
the terms of the lease. And that removes -- and there would
be insurance requirements and other requirements there,
which I think protects the County and gets it removed from
us. That's the -- I don't see how it can work otherwise, of
just having a facility out there on County property. 'Cause
once it's out there, the County -- anyone can use it
whenever they want, and if someone gets hurt, we will get
sued. So -- we`ll probably get sued if it's done under a
lease agreement, but that way at least the responsibility of
the insurance is put off on the organization doing it.
Another option which you may be interested in
pursuing is talking to Little League. Little League has
a -- everything on the other side of the road is County
property that`s leased. There is property that is available
over there. I mean, and most of it that can be used far
baseball and softball fields has been utilized, but there is
9-13-04
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
112
some areas that can be used, and you may be able to enter
into a sub-lease agreement with Little League to get part of
their property, where it wouldn't interfere with our
operation at the ag facility. And then, with Little League,
you may be able to -- you know, economy of scale -- get
insurance, parking, things of that nature. Unfortunately,
I'm no longer part of that organization, so I can tell you
who to contact, but it's not me. But I think that may be --
I think Little League will probably have to come to the
County to get an amendment to the lease to allow it, but to
me, that seems like a better approach. 'Cause I just -- I'm
real uncomfortable with putting it on County property
without having a -- either a lease agreement or something to
really insulate and protect the County, and also insure the
long-term upkeep and maintenance of the facility. That's
kind of where I am. Either 4-H or some sort of a lease
agreement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think under
4-H is a good place for it, and I've encouraged 4-H to do
it.
MR. NAGLE: Well, we'll turn, then, our
papers of design and -- and rules and what-have-you to 4-H,
and 4-H can do -- you can use 4-H where -- however way you
want it. I'll be out of it. But we just won`t have
anything to do with this. That`s perfectly all right. But
9-13-04
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I don't see how, when I'm putting this up -- I will not be
putting it up now. When I was to be putting it up as a
public facility, I'm giving you the range with all that it
has for the public to use anytime. You can't make money
with this. It's not a money-making operation. It has to be
free. It has to be something that is geared to the family.
I wanted the family. I wanted adult teams to be using this,
and to be representing the businesses of the City of
Kerrville and -- and Comfort and Ingram and what-have-you.
I guess there's no way to bring those two together, and so
I'll just give all my papers to Roy, and he can do what he
wants, and I don't care. But Roy -- by turning it in to
4-H, Commissioner -- and that's the purpose of us talking,
is to decide what's the best way to do -- and I don't
disagree with what Commissioner Letz is bringing out. But
4-H is not going to emphasize adult utilization, just like
they don't involve anybody else in using their .22 target
range right now, except about five or seven people. That's
it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the mention that
Commissioner Letz made about an option of seeing if the
Little League organization might be interested in it, and
that would allow both youth and adult participation by going
that route, so you may want to give -- you may not want to
put all your eggs over in one basket. You may want to meet
9-13-04
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
114
with bath of those organizations. And if you're -- if
you're really concerned about the adult participation, look
more to the Little League people. I'm sure Commissioner
Letz can tell you who's -- who the leadership of that
organization is, even though he's not in the middle of it
now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- and I think -- I
don't think they'd be interested in running it, would be my
guess, under their charter, but I think they would produce
the property and do a sub-lease.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the property
is much more attractive over there with the Little League
area. Kind of -- it's more rustic behind the baseball
fields, back up in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: By the water tank,
there's some area that's pretty much unused.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good
suggestion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other comment I
would -- in lieu of this, is just if -- if it proceeds, as
far in lieu of using bales of hay, you might try to get a
bunch of -- someone just to donate some fill dirt, make a
big pile of dirt to shoot into. That will be more
permanent, as opposed to hay. I'm thinking of -- I drive up
and down the highway and I see all these bales of hay that
9-13-04
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
115
slowly just start falling over and rotting, whereas a big
pile of dirt can be packed, and probably get donated, and
be -- from a maintenance standpoint, might be a lot easier.
But we -- that's another whole --
MR. NAGLE: That has to be worked out,
because it should be over 5 feet high.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. NAGLE: To get the height of 5 feet, you
have to have a pretty broad base.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate
you being here today.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One more question
for Mr. Nagle. You've mentioned that it would be good to
promote competition between various groups like the
Methodists and Baptists. Do you think you could get some
competition between the Republicans and Democrats, if you
could find four Democrats?
MR. NAGLE: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the City
and County?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's where I thought he was
going. Thank you, Mr. Nagle.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's get it on.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let`s come back to Item 6, if
9-13-04
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
116
we might.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll get a
spit-and-whittle contest going.
JUDGE TINLEY: Consider revision of plat for
Lots 6, 7E and 7W into 6R of Falling Water Subdivision,
Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I believe that
Item 6 and 7 both need to be pulled. They're posted
incorrectly. Those are both in The Reserve Subdivision at
Falling Water, not Falling Water. They're not posted
properly.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I would -- I've
advised the developer that that's the case.
JUDGE TINLEY: As to 6 and 7. Okay, let's
come to Item 8, consider revision of plat for Lots 41A and
43B into 43R of Falling Water.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: May I make a comment on
this one?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it please the Court,
I'd recommend we handle 1.8 through 1.14 together. They
were listed as a single public hearing and were handled that
way. They are all in Falling Water Subdivision, and they're
all combining lots and making larger lots, and I would
9-13-04
117
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
recommend approval on all of them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You figure out how to
make that motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Let me first call
the agenda items in question. Item 8, consider revision of
plat for Lots 41A and 438 into 43R of Falling Water; Item 9,
consider revision of plat for Lots 46A, 468, and 47A into
46R of Falling Water; Item 10, consider revision of plat for
Lots 121A and 1218 into 121R of Falling Water; Item 11,
consider revision of plat for Lots 122D and 123D into 122R
of Falling Water; Item 12, consider revision of plat for
Lots 1238 and 123C into 123R of Falling Water; Item 13,
consider revision of plat for Lots 127A and 1278 into 127R
of Falling Water; and Item 14, consider revision of plat for
Lots 141A and 1418 into 141R of Falling Water.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, Judge, I think I
spoke a little prematurely. Now I'll make a motion for
approval of Items 1.8 through 1.14.
MR. SPENRATH: If I could, right quick, Item
1.11 and 1.14, I Fed Ex'd those out. They didn't send me
the plats back, so those plats are not being presented to
the Court today. They will need to be approved onto the
9-13-04
118
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
next agenda item.
MR. JOHNSTON: Or we could approve them
subject to -- you know.
MR. SPENRATH: Or we could approve them --
MR. JOHNSTON: Record them as they come in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're all the same.
MR. SPENRATH: They're all the same. Every
one of them is the same.
MR. JOHNSTON: Just the owners.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can approve them all.
There's no problems with any of these, Franklin, are there?
MR. JOHNSTON: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're all exactly what
we want to see happen.
MR. SPENRATH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second the
motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Items 8 through 14 on the consideration agenda.
Are we required to have a public hearing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've had a public
hearing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
9-13-04
119
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
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, before we move on,
and I did not check -- Franklin, you might check the public
hearing for 1.6 and 1.7, and make sure those were a separate
public hearing, or if they were combined under the Falling
Water public hearing. If that was the case, we're going to
have to do a new public hearing for --
MR. JOHNSTON: I'll check the records.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, very good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question.
Is -- is this -- we're combining lots and making them
larger. Does that mean the market is -- the people want
larger pieces of property?
MR. SPENRATH: You'll get no market analysis
from me .
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Brad's kind of stepping
back on that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, what do you see
out there? That's what it sounds like.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I think it's --
it goes both directions. I think some of the lots, and I
suspect these are, are kind of strange configured lots. And
9-13-04
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
120
they're -- and I think the attempt is probably to make them
more marketable by combining them, changing them a little
bit. I know some of them -- I'm not sure if it's that, but
I have talked to the developer, and on some occasions, some
people are buying multiple lots, and they want the developer
to combine them into one lot before that purchase is
consummated. They basically want him to bear that expense.
MR. SPENRATH: Of these nine, seven of them
have already been -- had transactions on them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
MR. SPENRATH: So they're already sold.
People own them. They bought two lots, and they want to put
them into one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to have
some money out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Requiring the developer
to do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that? Let's
move on to Item 15, if we might, consider and discuss
resolution thanking members of the Airport Advisory Board
for their service. Commissioners Letz and Williams.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda.
I think the backup's pretty self-explanatory. However, I
apologize to the Court that I never got around to writing
9-13-04
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
121
the resolution that I said I was going to write. But,
basically, the point of this is we had an Airport Advisory
Board for a number of years, and then we now have a -- the
airport -- a Joint Airport Board. Two of the members,
Mr. Miller and Faught, were on the Advisory Board and were
not carried over into the new board, and I just thought it
would be appropriate for us to prepare a resolution of -- or
a certificate of thanks to them. And I think we could
probably dispense with this today if we just authorize
myself and Commissioner Williams to prepare a resolution for
the County Judge to sign, and basically outlining our thanks
for their service in the community.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm just wondering,
Commissioner, along those lines -- we've talked about it.
I'm just wondering, since the Advisory Board has now gone,
they all served on the Advisory Board, and they're all gone
off of that board. We have reappointed two to move forward.
I wonder if we shouldn't do that same thanks to all of them
who served on the Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a good point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sounds like the proper
approach.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll draft it, and
9-13-04
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we'll do it for all of them, and we'll go from there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you thinking that may
not happen if I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. I'll send it
over to you, then you can edit it and send it back.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Third.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I make the motion
and second it too?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion
that -- that Commissioner Williams and Letz will draft a
resolution offering thanks to the members of the Airport
Advisory Board and authorize the County Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second.
Any questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Next
item is consider and discuss declaring trees in the
right-of-way of Hermann Sons new bridge as surplus. Just --
there's a method to the madness.
9-13-04
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess there must
be.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the
agenda --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, can I
point out the clock?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I'll be going --
we're not going to spend a whole lot of time on Hermann Sons
today. The project's up and going. Contract's going to be
let next month. There are a number of large pecan trees
right in -- in the road right-of-way. Been working with
TexDOT; as many of the trees as possible are going to be
saved, but some are going to have to be cut down. The
thought that occurred to me was that pecan wood is somewhat
valuable wood, and someone may pay to take those -- cut
those trees down and haul them off for us, thereby saving
the County money from cutting down trees, bulldozing and
burning them. So, as I understand it -- and I see the
County Attorney here, so he can correct me if I'm wrong
here -- if we declare the trees as surplus, then we can
pretty much put them out for bid and contact anyone we want
to and see if they want to, you know, either pay us some
nominal amount, or some amount, or just take them and cut
them down for free and do what they want with them.
9-13-04
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MOTLEY: I don't know what kind of
condition the trees are in, if they're leaning over or what.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not counting the
one on the trailer. We're talking about -- these are
growing trees.
MR. MOTLEY: I think that's right. I think
they do probably have value. It may not be apparent to the
average citizen, but I think to the right person, those
things have a lot of value.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I'll make a motion
that we declare the trees surplus in the right-of-way for
the new Hermann Sons Bridge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a --
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So we're
declaring them surplus, which means that if somebody's
interested, they contact us?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only one I can think
of offhand would be Charlie Forster, the Wooden Nickel.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who has the equipment
to take them down and move them.
9-13-04
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who are they going to
contact?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I was just going
to -- I mean, I was actually going to contact Charlie
Forster, and also some of these others, just a couple of
them around here, see if they're interested, or we can put
it -- maybe the paper --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I mean, what
about someone out there -- Triple L from Bandera, who does
he contact to find out about the location and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Myself.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And give them -- be
sure to print his home phone number.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: His e-mail address,
too.
JUDGE TINLEY: The surplus pecan tree guru.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pecan tree. Any
cypress trees out there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe they're all
pecans. We avoided all the cypress trees, I believe, but
there are a couple pretty nice trees, and they're, you know,
tall, straight trees; should be of value to somebody. I
just hate to see them bulldozed and burned up when they're
9-13-04
126
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
of value to somebody. And, like I said, it would save the
County money, which we can hopefully use on the project in
Commissioner 1's precinct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a German, see?
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's see. We have a motion
and second. Any further questions?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, I've got
40 acres of cedar I'm going to declare surplus.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further discussion on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's
move on to Item 20, consider and discuss renewal of an
Interlocal Cooperation Contract between the Kerr County
Sheriff's Office and Texas Department of Public Safety for
the purpose of administrating Fugitive Apprehension Program.
Sheriff, if my understanding is correct, we just annually
renew this, and if you pick up a certain kind of felon, why,
you -- you get a little bounty on this deal?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that correct?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's exactly right.
9-13-04
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. 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.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we
-- do we want to wander into 21, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd as soon dispatch
22. That shouldn't take but a second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we go to Item
22, then? Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
easements acquisition for Kerrville South Wastewater
Project, Phases II and III, approve the compensation, and
authorize County Judge to execute appropriate documents and
correspondence.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. My
-- my agenda backup statement pretty well tells the story of
why these easements are necessary and how we got to this
point. Being unable to work it out with LDB Corporation,
which would have been a longer easement around a larger
property perimeter, and probably the costs associated with
9-13-09
128
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
acquiring that and the extra linear feet of pipe more than
equal what we -- would surpass what we're doing here. So,
if there are any questions about it, I'll be happy to answer
them. The funds come from the grant. And a budget
amendment is there for -- to support the fund transfer from
one line item to another for property acquisition. And I
would move the approval of the easements. County Attorney
is drafting the appropriate documents, and may even have
them as we speak.
MR. MOTLEY: Not quite. I talked to the
engineer over at Tetra Tech, and he didn't have answers for
some of the questions that I had spoken to you on the phone
about.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. MOTLEY:
going to need to -- he told
need to talk to you about w]
He had some -- there's some
for me.
COMMISSIONER
MR. MOTLEY:
It was after hours Friday. I'm
-- he directed me to U.G.R.A. I
~o you would contact over there.
technical answers he didn't have
WILLIAMS: There's what?
Cameron -- there were some
technical answers --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Technical.
MR. MOTLEY: -- questions he did not have an
answer to. He referred me to U.G.R.A., and I need to get
9-13-04
129
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
with you and see who you think I should contact over there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, fine. Be happy
to do that.
MR. MOTLEY: I could meet you here in just a
minute. I'm pretty close to having them done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Those technical
issues are not an impediment to the Court approving
easements?
MR. MOTLEY: No. No, they have to do with
issues such as use of the easement for other uses.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. MOTLEY: And, you know, such as that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. MOTLEY: Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any questions or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Why
9-13-04
130
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
don't we break for lunch now? We'll be in recess until --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- 1:30.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before -- what's our --
what's your plan for attacking this afternoon's agenda? Do
you have a court docket at 3 o'clock?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, but if that needs to
wait, it can wait.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't -- I
presume we're going to go straight into a budget workshop at
1:30. Or are we?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we'll --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm wondering how we're
going to do it, because some things are more time-sensitive
from the standpoint of getting this budget moving than
others. I was just curious as to --
JUDGE TINLEY: You know, we put it on one
agenda. I can -- I car. reconvene the court meeting, then
recess that and go into the budget workshop.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Kind of a mix-and-match deal,
but I wanted to make sure that we had the items that were --
that we needed to take action on, mainly the last three, as
actual agenda items, so we wouldn't have that difficulty.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That leads to the
9-13-04
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
131
question, then, is the posting the way it is, Judge, is it
your -- is it your intention that those are action items in
the budget workshop? Or is the budget workshop separate and
apart, and those are action items in the open agenda aside
from the budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: They're aside from the --
aside from the workshop.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's why they're listed --
they continue to be enumerated in the same order as the
agenda items.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just wanted to be
sure, because a budget workshop is not an action --
JUDGE TINLEY: No. No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- scenario.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, we're going to
be here most of the afternoon.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What time? 1:30?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm.
(Recess taken from 12:01 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order,
reconvene the meeting of the Commissioners Court posted for
this time and date. What's the preference of the members of
the Court? Would -- would you like to get into the budget
9-13-04
132
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
workshop or finish up some items on our court agenda, or
what's your pleasure?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's finish the
court agenda.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm a court agenda
guy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was a budget guy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Boy, we got a race
developing here. What about --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, and my reasoning
is, I believe there's some pretty tight timelines we have to
meet on budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think that it's --
I don't know how much time Ms. Rector needs to get this
stuff moving and posted, and the papers --
MS. RECTOR: Well, I needed to get it to the
paper by noon, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the sooner we can get
to a vote on some of those things, that's pretty important.
MS. RECTOR: Yes, so that I can get it
printed and get it to the paper today, 'cause it's got to go
in tomorrow's paper.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, with that consideration
9-13-04
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
133
in mind, we will recess the Commissioners Court meeting and
I will call to order a workshop that was posted for this
time and date at 1:30, which it's just a moment or two after
that, that being a budget workshop.
(The regular session was closed at 1:32 p.m.,
and a budget workshop was held, the
transcript of which is contained in a
separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting for this date that was recessed
earlier today at approximately 1:30, and we'll come back to
the agenda. Would it be appropriate to go to the last item
on the agenda, Number 28, because of publication deadlines
that we want to get accomplished?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call Item 28, consider
and discuss approval of the proposed Fiscal Year 2004-2005
tax rate and set a public hearing on that. We've each been
presented with the tabulations furnished by the Tax Assessor
and the Auditor. I believe that's the one we just made the
correction on. And if -- I'm looking at the calendar that
the Tax Assessor has furnished for us. Are we still going
on that September 14th date, Ms. Rector?
MS. RECTOR: Yes -- for the publication?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MS. RECTOR: I've got a space reserved as
9-13-04
134
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
soon as I can get it in.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, the 21st will be okay
also?
MS. RECTOR: Public hearing on the 21st.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's on a Tuesday, is it
not?
MS. RECTOR: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And we can't finalize
that thing on the meeting on the 27th?
MS. RECTOR: No, 'cause that does not give me
the 3- to 14-day window that I need for the publication. So
that's why I revised it to adopt on the 30th, so that I can
get my second notice in on the 24th.
JUDGE TINLEY: The 30th is on a Wednesday?
MS. RECTOR: We have to adopt the rate by the
30th.
JUDGE TINLEY: What day of the week is that?
MS. MITCHELL: Wednesday.
MS. RECTOR: Wednesday.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And, Ms. Rector, this
particular vote is a record vote, is it not?
MS. RECTOR: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that
we adopt the tax rate as follows for '04-'05 year -- we have
9-13-04
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.-,
25
to do it by item, don't we?
	MS. RECTOR:	You're not adopting it today.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: What are we doing?
	MS. RECTOR:	Approving the proposed rate.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Okay, a motion to approve
the proposed rate. We need	to read each one out, probably.
	MS. RECTOR:	Okay -- well, the total rate.
	MR. TOMLINSON: The M & O rate and the Road
and Bridge	rate. The total	of the -- of the M & O rate.
	MS. RECTOR:	The total Maintenance and
Operations	rate, and then your Road and Bridge.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Okay. Motion to approve
the M & 0	rate of .3412, and a total Road and Bridge rate of
.0309, for	a total county rate of .3721.
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
the approval -- approval of the proposed '04-'05 tax rate as
indicated in the motion. Any discussion? Comments?
Questions? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, let me take the record
vote. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
9-13-04
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Tell me again what
I'm voting on?
JUDGE TINLEY: The proposed Fiscal Year
'04-'05 tax rate, for a total of .3721.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This isn't the final
vote; this is proposed? We're going to have a public
hearing?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Then we're going to
vote on it again?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson also
votes aye. Do I need to go ahead and --
MS. RECTOR: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Chair votes aye also. Okay.
Now, public hearing on the proposed FY 2004-2005 tax rate.
Do I hear a motion setting that for September 21st at 1:30
p.m.?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved, Judge.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
9-13-04
137
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: Motion made and seconded to
set a public hearing on the proposed Fiscal Year 2004-2005
tax rate. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: We don't need a record vote on
that one?
MS. RECTOR: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Didn't think so. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's -- that's the
21st?
JUDGE TINLEY: 21st at 1:30 in the afternoon,
Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What's the consensus of
the Court about those last two items, as opposed to going
back and doing the clean-up on the rest of the agenda? I
don't think there's -- we have a compelling requirement like
we did on the publication, do we?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Set salaries? Didn't
we have three items on our agenda that had to be dealt with?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
JUDGE TINLEY: That has to be published also.
9-13-04
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
138
MS. MITCHELL: I need to have that to her
tomorrow by noon. No later than noon tomorrow.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: You also have the Lake Ingram
Estates Road District.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we've got that here on
the addendum. Why don't we just go ahead and do the Lake
Ingram Estates now? That was set for 2:00. We're an little
bit past that. I'll call Item 29, discussion and adoption
of the tax rate for Lake Ingram Road District.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve
the proposed tax rate of .87 for 2004-2005.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
the proposed adoption of the Lake Ingram Road District tax
rate for '04-'05 at .8700. Does this one require a record
vote?
MS. RECTOR: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
9-13-04
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
139
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. That
gets that one done. Okay, why don't we come back to Item
26, consider and discuss approval of the proposed Fiscal
Year 2004-2005 public officials salary, and set a public
hearing on the same. Question. Are we going to -- if it
gets published on Wednesday, there's not going to be enough
time to have this included?
MS. MITCHELL: On the 21st? No, we have to
have at least -- it has to be no more than 30 days, and not
less than 10 days.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can do it on the 30th.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why -- why couldn't we do it
-- why couldn't we do it on the -- no, we couldn't do it on
the 24th, could we?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can do it on the 27th.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or 27th, yeah. That's what I
was thinking about, our regular Commissioners Court day.
The schedule for public officials salary, I don't have one
before me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't either.
MS. MITCHELL: No, because we haven't gotten
it finalized.
MS. NEMEC: I turned in some figures to
Kathy, and she gave me a sheet a little while ago so that I
could compare it to my notes, and there are two
9-13-04
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
140
discrepancies that we probably need to talk about. One is
probably just a calculation error on my part, and that's on
the County Attorney's office, so I'll check into that real
quick. The other one was on the County Judge's salary. I
thought -- what I understood was that I was supposed to take
the base salary, add 3 percent cost-of-living, plus the
$1,300 increase for elected officials, and knock down all
the rest of the supplements that were on that salary, and
those were going to be paid through fees. But with the
figures that Kathy gave me, it looks like those were
included on the salary. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: There's two supplements that
-- that are included in there. One is a state supplement
that has always been included. The other is the Juvenile
Board. The others are strictly salary items, and they go
over into the salary. That's -- that's how that got to
where it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those two supplements go
in with the salary stuff, right?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, they're -- they were shown
in previous years, and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, they're shown
separate, but they -- FICA and all that stuff goes in with
that stuff?
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah.
9-13-09
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
141
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MS. NEMEC: Okay. Just as long as we're in
agreement, 'cause I understood it totally different than
what's on here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now the mental health
issue is kind of like on a contract basis?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's handled totally
off to the side. There's no payroll taxes or any of that
stuff paid.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What did you understand?
I guess I'm trying to -- I don't see how there could --
MS. NEMEC: Well, here, I'll just show you a
for instance. This is what I -- what I worked off of. If
you see the top line there, the County Judge's salary, the
forty thousand --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
MS. NEMEC: I understood to take that amount,
add 3 percent plus $1,300, and that -- and then the $10,000
supplement with -- that's from the state, and the $1,200 is
from the Juvenile Board. But those other two supplements, I
understood those were going to be the fees that were going
to be paid to the Judge through Accounts Payable. But it
looks -- what they're proposing for the Judge's salary is
$53,192 on this Elected Officials Salary that was given to
9-13-09
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
142
me a little while ago, plus $11,200 for the supplement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait. 53 --
MS. NEMEC: 192.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 192. I don't see that.
I mean, it should be 40,665 times --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, and then add the nine.
That's the -- the County Court salary there. What -- what
is in this figure is whatever the COLA's are added to the --
see, this -- you're working off a prior year, so this four
was added back here. So, you got that figure plus this
figure, and then the three on there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's the -- the mental
health stuff? Wasn't it down -- wasn't it here?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's it here, right here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You wouldn't add that
back in there and then add it back into the salary.
MS. NEMEC: That's what's confusing me,
'cause that looks like what it's doing there, and that's not
what I understood, so I just want a clarification. I don't
want anything to come back on me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just the -- what I don't
-- I mean, this is the -- this $4,000 --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- was the mental
hospital supplement that we've changed how we do that
9-13-04
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
143
completely, right? You get paid -- that's based on the
number of hearings you hold?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whatever that money is,
JUDGE TINLEY: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's gone.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was the $5,716 last
year? Where is that?
JUDGE TINLEY: It used to be 97 -- or
$9,000-something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: But it got reduced to five; we
put the four down here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But what does --
where does that come from? What's that money for?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a -- that's a salary
under the County Court budget that's been there for years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The County Court. So,
then -- well, then, to me, you would add the base salary
plus the -- going on -- be $40,665, plus $5,716, times --
MS. NEMEC: 3 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 3 percent, plus
$1,300, or whatever that number is, is what the salary
9-13-04
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
144
should be. Isn't that right?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That sounds right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can tell there's a
lawyer involved in this stuff.
MS. NEMEC: Just give me a figure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I just zeroed it out.
MR. TOMLINSON: What happens to the $4,000
that got taken out of the original $9,700?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The $4,000 goes.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's going to be on a 1099.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's on a 1099. Based
on however many hearings he does, he gets --
MS. NEMEC: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- he gets paid for that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the same with
the J.P.'s, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same as J.P.'s, and
that's not even considered in their salary. If they do the
work, they get paid. If they don't, they don't.
JUDGE TINLEY: 53,192 or 3.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Something like that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 53,192.
JUDGE TINLEY: Uh-huh. That's what I just
9-13-04
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
145
calculated, 53,192.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Judge? Yes,
that's what it says.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. And I got there the
same way that you indicated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Take that, that, and
that, multiply it by --
JUDGE TINLEY: 1.03, and then add $1,300.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. NEMEC: Okay. So, then, it's ready. If
y'all are in agreement with that, it's ready.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Should the County
Surveyor be on here?
MS. NEMEC: He has never been on here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We just allocate the
money in Contingency and --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I know we don't pay
him --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We pay him way too
damn much already.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I just --
procedurally, should he be on here? 'Cause it says elected
officials, and he are one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, do we need a
motion, Judge? To the effect of what?
9-13-04
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
146
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got a red "X" drawn
through one I got here.
MS. MITCHELL: That's because that was just a
format. I didn't have the date for the hearing to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We approve the schedule
and set public hearings.
JUDGE TINLEY: Public hearing for the 27th.
Do I hear a motion to that effect?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At 10 o'clock. So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded
for -- to approve the proposed FY '04-'05 public officials
salary and set a public hearing for September the 27th at
10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a Monday.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a regular meeting day,
mm-hmm. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Okay,
why don't we go back now to Item 21, consider, discuss, and
9-13-04
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
147
approve a proposed agreement between the Kerrville Christmas
Lighting Corporation and the Court in reference to the
installation, storage, and take-down of the Christmas lights
on the courthouse during the holiday season.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're on.
MS. MITCHELL: What about 1.27?
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll get to that.
MS. MITCHELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've been trying to
work with the County Attorney to simplify this process and
accomplish what the Court wanted to see accomplished, which
was some type of an agreement put into place. And when it's
all said and done, Mr. Motley and I agreed that the simplest
way was just merely a licensing agreement, and not deal with
all that stuff that was -- that was proposed by the
Christmas Lighting Corporation in terms of dates and who was
going to purchase and who's going to store and who's going
to do this and who's going to do that and so forth. And we
give them an in date and an out date; in effect, it becomes
a license. I believe the Court all has a copy -- members of
the Court has a copy of this. It simplifies the process
considerably, and also goes on to point out a stipulation
that there has to be a County facilities supervisor
involved, or his designee, one or the other. And that is
the individual that acts as the supervisor over the
9-13-04
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
148
community service workers when they're there. This does --
the license agreement does provide for Kerr County jail
trustee workers, but that's never been the case, and that
needs to be stricken from the license agreement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where is that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in the big
paragraph, starting, "All communication..." About the
fourth line down. So, that needs to be stricken.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill, what Kerr County
jail trustee workers?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They've never used
those.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So that needs to be
stricken?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so that -- and
the Sheriff's Department designee or the jail designee, that
-- that verbiage needs to come out, 'cause they're just not
using those folks, nor plan to. And so it's just a very --
a simplification of the whole process. I submit it to you
for what it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, this -- all the rest
of the backup is just backup, and this one page is all we're
talking about?
9-13-04
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
149
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They'll start this year
October 23rd, and they'll end January 16th?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. And I
agree with the County Attorney; this is a lot cleaner way to
try to address it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree, and we're --
we're getting here what I had requested in the beginning, is
an agreement --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- of some sort. I
still don't like the dates, but it's nothing to fight about.
But we have -- we have an actual agreement to work with, and
that's -- that's really all I was asking for when the storm
hit. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I'l1 make it
in the form of a motion. If there's a second, then we can
talk about approving it as corrected.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. I have a motion
and second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One or two comments.
One, I think the -- the dates they outline in their
9-13-04
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
150
letter -- I still would like -- I hope they follow that. I
mean, I still don't want to see the big sleigh and these
other big things, snowmen and all this, out there in the
middle of October. I mean, I hope that there would -- which
caused the beginning of the storm last year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They're out in front of
Walmart today; I saw them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe they will.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The idea is, we want to
be as discreet as possible as long as possible.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we can convey
that to them; I think they're amenable to that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And my other question
goes -- I'm not sure -- I don't know if it's them or if it's
our maintenance department, but whoever is responsible for
all these lights hanging in these trees that don't work,
they need to come down.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's all part
of their project, so that needs to be readdressed by them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't -- I don't
know who -- I mean, the tree that -- I know this one right
out here, that -- you could hang somebody if they -- you
know, I'm surprised they haven't, you know, done that
already by walking under the tree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can convey that to
9-13-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.,..,, 2 4
25
151
them. You're absolutely right. And up until the last two
years, I believe, they made arrangements with KPUB -- they
did make arrangements with KPUB to bring the lifts in and go
up and -- you know, and drape the trees. Well, the last
couple years they did not do that, and as a result of that,
now there's wear and tear, and we've got them hanging all
over the place. That needs to be corrected, I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, I think --
you know, as long as those lights get fixed by this season.
And I don't -- you know, community service workers, a lot of
these people, certainly, I don't -- I hope I don't see them
up on ladders, climbing these trees, taking these lights
down. But, you know, community service or something, we
just need to get that -- at least from a safety standpoint,
or appearance of safety. I think they're all disconnected.
That has got to be cleaned up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll convey those
sentiments back to them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it would be
very wise to take all the old trashy ones that are just
hanging down out there first; take -- clean all that out
first so they'll know what they're working with.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We have a motion
and a second to approve the licensing agreement, with the
9-13-04
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
152
corrections as designated by Commissioner Williams. 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: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Be sure to tell them I
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I will. I absolutely
will.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll say you were
happy to second it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, thrilled.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Next item, Number 24,
consider, discuss, and approve hiring employee health
benefit consultant. Your hardworking committee has been
hard at work.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. We have,
Judge. And the committee -- not real sure how the news got
out, but we interviewed four different companies to -- to be
our employee health benefit consultant. We interviewed two
one day, and two another. The first two, I would say
9-13-04
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
153
that -- that I rejected on the spot because of their lack of
involvement in county government. Just -- it wasn't totally
void, but it wasn't very much to it. The second two guys
was -- were very, very difficult -- it was difficult for me
to make a decision on it. One -- one fellow's just done so
much work for this county, and has a list of clients --
counties that are -- you know, took up a whole page to read
them all. And then the last gentleman that we interviewed
with was just so professional, and -- and I think the Judge
probably has some further comments about that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I was particularly impressed
by his broad breadth of experience in the insurance industry
generally. He's been in the third-party administrator
business. He knows how those operate, so he knows what to
look for, for example. He's got government experience.
He's got school district experience. He's got private
sector experience. There were a couple of things that
struck me particularly well with this gentleman. One was
plan design. He seemed to be open to some pretty innovative
plan design, so that we can target the needs of our
employees, but doing so in a way that we might be able to
eliminate some costs and create some incentives in the -- in
the system itself for the employees to -- to want to take an
interest in so that it'll function better. The plan design
aspect is what really impressed me about this gentleman.
9-13-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,--•-
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
154
The other thing was to try and incorporate some wellness
programs. And I think anybody -- any larger employer now
that is not considering or trying to at least incorporate
something in the -- in the wellness area is -- is missing
the boat, because I think there's a good deal of savings
that can be achieved, as well as not having lost time
from -- from illness by your employees. I think the safety
program is going to help there. And when Ms. Amy Chapman
initiated her wellness program, I think we saw some -- some
pretty surprising results, and saw them pretty doggone
quick. I was pretty surprised. So, I've become a fan of
this wellness thing, and I -- I really like to see that.
And all of those factors cause me to -- to conclude that I
-- I think the last guy -- his name is Gary Looney. He's
from San Antonio.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Gary Looney?
JUDGE TINLEY: Looney. That's who I
strongly, strongly lean towards. Not to say that the other
gentleman is -- he's got the proper credentials and has a
lot of experience in the field. But, overall, I just was
more impressed with Mr. Looney.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are the fees pretty
well --
,.--~
25 differe
9-13-04
JUDGE TINLEY: There was a little bit of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,_,. 2 4
25
155
estimates, so I'm not really sure there was any estimate --
what we're looking at is about 10 to 12,5, in that range.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What did we budget?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we did --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know we budgeted
something; I can't remember how much.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems like we put 10
Tommy, do you recall?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't recall.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably under
Professional Services, so it's really not going to be broken
out separately. Okay, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's where
we put it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, along with that,
we're going to have to do a contract -- I'm assuming --
there's a sample contract in his book that he provided to
the County Judge, not me. And -- and so I would -- you
know, what I want to do is make a motion and vote on this
thing, and have a contract with him contingent upon the
County Attorney --
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- approving this
particular one, or modifying it in some way. So, I do move
that we enter into a contract with Gary Looney of Catto and
9-13-09
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
156
Catto of San Antonio for -- for our employee health benefit
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gary or Jerry?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is Gary E. --
excuse me, Gary R. Looney.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do you spell Looney?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: L-o-o-n-e-y. I made
the motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
the employment of Mr. Looney as the employee health care --
health benefit consultant for Kerr County for the ensuing
policy year, I guess we'd say. You had a question,
Mr. Tomlinson?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. I was just curious to
know if this was a year-round --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- consultation services.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, he would be available --
he'd be on an as-called basis. There's -- there's certain
things up through the -- the putting in place of the program
and making sure that it's in place properly. And after
that, it's kind of on an as-called basis, if there's
questions about it, if it's working properly or something.
MR. TOMLINSON: I just think that -- I just
9-13-04
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
157
think that's necessary.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- to use one
of Commissioners 1's terms, I'm excited. I think this is
the direction we need to be going.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Goosebumps?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Goosebumps.
MS. NEMEC: Just -- I have a question; I kind
of need some direction from the Court. We have AFLAC and
Flex One that is offered to our employees. That's offered
through Bryan Finley and Associates and is not any part of
E.B.A. However, they kind of work together because of the
different tier plans that we have, and if they go to a
higher deductible, then they can have that money to buy
AFLAC or Flex One products, whatever. I was contacted by
Mr. Finley's office. They're ready to come and do the
reenrollment sometime in November, and I am just wondering
if them coming in and us having a consultant is going to
kind -- is going to be able -- are they going to work
together? Is this separate and aside from what Mr. Finley
is offering? Or should I just have Mr. Finley contact the
9-13-04
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
158
consultant and let them work it out?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me tell you the
way I see this thing. Because of the short time frame we
have to get going on our insurance, this guy needs to hit
the ground running, this week. This very week that we're in
right now. And he is going to contact you and Tommy both.
I hope you would agree to help him get through this thing --
MS. NEMEC: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- and get it going.
And then -- then I see it as a -- you know, let -- let him
handle the thing from that point on. He's going to be
different. This is going to be different than anything
we've seen around here.
MS. NEMEC: Well, we needed to do something
like this. I'm really excited about it, myself.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Well, you're
not getting too excited or anything where you need some
medical attention?
MS. NEMEC: Well, I'll let you know in a
little bit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. You're not
turning red or anything.
MS. NEMEC: Not yet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's water behind
you. Deep breath.
9-13-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,~ 2 4
25
159
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, one other
thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm assuming that you
are going to phone him immediately, or shortly -- quickly as
possible to let him know what has happened, so that he can
then --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- get these people
going?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's your damned
old book. I don't want it.
MS. NEMEC: Now, if he finds that this AFLAC
and Flex One and all that is separate from what he's doing,
then he can notify the Court at that time and explain, but
I'll just put them in contact and let them work it out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Those guys know the lingo;
9-13-04
160
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
they know how the game's played, and they -- let them run
with the ball.
MS. NEMEC: Good deal.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Next item, consider and
discuss transfer of funds to Juvenile Detention Facility
Fund from the General Fund in exchange for accounts
receivable from contracting counties. I think we've kind of
sort of touched on this one, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which one?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's Item 25, I'm sorry.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think you have a list of --
of receivables in question. Since I printed that -- your
copy, I've had two payments, which brings it down to
$131,644.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 131 --
MR. TOMLINSON: 131,644.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- 644.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who paid? Which counties
did we --
MR. TOMLINSON: It's Bandera and Guadalupe:
Let me -- let me explain the mechanics of what -- what I
have in mind. This is the last month of the year. If -- on
the balance sheet of the County, if -- you know, if you
approve this, I will show those receivables as receivables
9-13-04
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
161
into the County, and not -- and not -- excuse me -- not the
facility. I will show a -- we'll show a liability of equal
amount on the records of the facility to -- to Kerr County.
So, basically, what we're doing is -- is exchanging assets.
There's no -- there's no expenditure of -- there's no
expense involved. There's just a -- a change -- a change of
assets. The issue that I have right now is that we -- we
have timing problems with collecting revenues from the
contracting counties. The problem is that I -- we can't
meet current obligations with accounts receivable; we have
to have cash to do that. So, that -- that's the reason for
-- for my request. And what I will do, based upon this
approval, as payments arrive, I will credit the County with
those payments until the balance is zero.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I presume this is, I
guess, an appropriate -- or there's no legal problems with
doing this? I mean, we can exchange assets with a
wholly-owned company?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ken Lay does it all
the time.
MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, it's the -- the
financial reporting of -- of this transaction would be in
our audited financial statement, so it would be -- you'd see
a -- you'd see a receivable on one -- on the County and a
liability for the facility.
9-13-04
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
162
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So this helps the
facility solve a cash flow problem. Doesn't cost us
anything.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to ask the
question a little differently. Local Government Code
permits us to purchase -- purchase accounts receivable?
MR. TOMLINSON: It permits you to transfer
funds. You could transfer funds to -- to that -- to the
facilities fund, I think, without the trade. I think you
have that option to -- to transfer funds to any other fund
that's for County purposes. We -- we, on a regular basis,
transfer funds from one to the other.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know we do, but
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. But these -- but
these -- both of these funds are -- are for County purposes,
and they're -- from a reporting standpoint and from an audit
standpoint, they are -- they are all on the same page. I
mean, a reader of a financial statement sees both
side-by-side, so they're part of a financial statement. So,
we're not -- we're not transferring funds from -- from the
County to a non-county or a non-public-related entity. So,
I mean, it's within -- within the realm of County purposes
or public purposes.
9-13-04
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
163
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, let me ask you
a little bit different way. When you received the money
from Bandera and Guadalupe County, where did that money go
into?
MR. TOMLINSON: We receipted the money on
those two into the -- to the fund that accounts for the
operations of the Juvenile Detention Facility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that under the
Juvenile Detention Facility budget?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if we do this, that
-- say, when Harris County pays us their 86,000, that check
will be deposited in the Kerr County General Fund?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we approve it, from
that point on, the moneys go into the County budget?
MR. TOMLINSON: From this list, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're just
talking about the list; we're not talking about any and all
accounts receivable from this point forward, undefined.
You're talking about this list.
MR. TOMLINSON: They're not defined, so we
can't -- we can't go there. I mean, because we don't know
what those are. But just for this -- for today, it's just
9-13-04
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
164
on this -- the counties on this list.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, the -- and from a
-- I guess from an earlier comment, all of these counties
have always paid their bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. I've never -- never had
a --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they're not
delinquent now? It's just a matter of we need the cash
sooner than --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, some of them are 30 to
60 days, but it takes some time for -- especially large
counties, for a bill to get from us to the Probation office,
from Probation office to the Auditor's office, and then to
Commissioners Court to be approved, and then -- and then
paid. So, in some situations, they're 60 days.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, and that's very
intentional with their size budget. That's them keeping
that money a little bit longer. It's a lot of money.
MR. TOMLINSON: So -- so, it's -- and also,
it's the end of the year also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: And that has some impact on
it also. I mean, some counties are waiting till October
lst, probably, to pay it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy?
9-13-04
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
165
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm guessing that some of the
small counties are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you say Bandera
and Guadalupe?
MR. TOMLINSON: I received payment today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And those two
numbers, Bandera and Guadalupe, total $5,644, and off of
that bottom line would bring it down to 130,407?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, my calculation is
131,644. I may have miscalculated.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's got his
handy-dandy calculator here.
MR. TOMLINSON: I have this -- this on my
computer, and I deleted those -- those amounts, and --
unless I have an error in my total.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was just taking the
two numbers you gave me and subtracting them from 254.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I noticed that. I
thought maybe they were partial payments from those
counties.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you get,
Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I just put back in the
Bandera County one. That runs me up above the 134,051, so
there's a -- there's a calculation error there somewhere.
9-13-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
166
MR. TOMLINSON: I apparently have a problem
with my formula, in the total.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I hate to question an
Auditor. Makes me feel bad.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, you know, I do make
mistakes, that's for sure, so I readily admit that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I think
Commissioner 4 said does it cost us anything, or some -- one
of the Commissioners said that. There is a slight cost from
the standpoint this fund -- this cash would then be not
drawing what little interest we get, but it's a pretty minor
amount, I'm sure.
,~ 13
14 true.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Less than 1 percent. That's
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the figure that you've
got only reduces it by the amount of Guadalupe County, the
2,407, to 131,644.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MR. TOMLINSON: So, you need to subtract
Bandera's also?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I guess.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I know I got the
payment, so I just made an error.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 2,407.
MR. TOMLINSON: Should be, like, 129, maybe.
9-13-04
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
167
Bandera's is
paid.
problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got 128.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't remember what
So, I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This list says 3,237.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that's not what I was
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, there is the
MR. TOMLINSON: That's the problem. I
remember now. It was -- I received 31 -- 3,194.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can probably
craft a --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not-to-exceed motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- a motion to cover that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me try to make a
motion that we transfer funds to Juvenile Detention --
Detention Facility Fund from General Fund in exchange for
accounts receivable from contracting counties. Such funds
totaled $134,051 on August 31, '04, less any payments made
subsequent to that.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. I can correct -- I can
correct it.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
9-13-04
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
168
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. See?
Everybody's quiet down there.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second to
transfer from the General Fund into the Detention Facility
Account. The balance of those receivables and cash is
$134,051, less payments that may have been applied on those
receivables since August 31, '04.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. I think Tommy
answered it, but without the fund -- without this change,
there's not enough cash to make some current payments that
are needed?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you tell me how --
how much that is? How much money are we going to spend? I
mean, how much do we get back?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the -- the average
payroll is $63,000 to $64,000 every --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Monthly?
MR. TOMLINSON: Every two weeks -- or every
15 days. And I have approximately $40,000 in -- in
invoices.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, how much are we
talking about?
MR. TOMLINSON: So, that's --
9-13-04
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
169
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $200,000?
MR. TOMLINSON: Approximately $100,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $100,000. Well --
MR. TOMLINSON: Now, if I have --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if we
should be putting approximate numbers. Seems like we need
to get a definite number and actually put it in your motion.
My opinion.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, you do have -- you do
have a definite number in the motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Approximately
$100, 000?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, that's -- that wasn't
part of the question. The question from him was, was the
amount on this list the amount -- the amount of receivables.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Less any payments
made subsequent to that. So, it's a finite number; we just
don't know what it is. But it can't exceed 134 --
MR. TOMLINSON: Can't exceed the amount that
he described.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see. Okay. So,
we can't -- we're not going to exceed -- how much is the
receivables?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. I mean, we will
eventually, but --
9-13-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
170
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We will eventually,
all right. That's question number two. How many times are
we going to do this?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What do you mean by
we'll exceed that eventually?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I -- once the exchange
is made, once the -- once the cash is -- is with the
facility, I will use that cash until the -- until all the
obligations are paid.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. But this
is -- this is a one-time deal.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're doing this to
help solve a cash flow problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And we're not going
to be -- unless there's a new deal made, we're not going to
be taking on any more obligations.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there any
prohibition to you using the $171,000 that they show in
their reserve balance?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't follow that.
9-13-09
171
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, on the last
printout you did for the budget, you show Juvenile Detention
Center with a fund balance of $171,000.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that was the estimate.
We have -- today, we have $55,000 cash.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which would be
considered the reserve?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what you're saying
MR. TOMLINSON: Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Without this -- I mean,
you -- you don't make payroll in two days without some cash
coming in, and you probably -- actually, just a couple
payments probably get you enough to make payroll.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: I made -- Commissioner, I
made the estimate of 176 back when -- when our population
was higher than it is, you know, today. I mean, we -- the
last month's revenues for detention services was $57,000,
$56,000. Three months ago, it was $90,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it needs to be turned
24 around quickly.
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very quick.
9-13-04
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
172
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we're going to
spend approximately $100,000 today, and we will get back
131?
MR. TOMLINSON: Your -- the County will get
back exactly what --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're spending?
MR. TOMLINSON: -- what we're approving
today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it won't exceed
the 131.
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're going to give
them -- I mean, as I understand it, we're going to -- as
soon as we approve this, if we approve it, you're going to
do the transfer, and $131,000, plus or minus, is going to go
into that Juvenile account. You're going to pay all the
bills that need to be paid and keep that remainder of that
cash there to use, and then we're going to get paid back as
these counties pay us back?
MR. TOMLINSON: Exactly right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then, in the
meantime, you will have funds sufficient to meet your
payroll and other expenses; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For the short term.
9-13-04
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
173
MR. TOMLINSON: For the short term.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: We hope.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess the -- if the
hopes are not met, we'll be talking about this again, won't
we?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, the risk to
the County is minimal -- actually, it's zero. I mean, we
could have the Kerr County Attorney go get the money.
But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the basis of what
he's asking us to do, it is, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions -- I'm
sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you -- do you --
how aggressive are you in collections? I mean, I know this
is a different type. I mean, it's not something that we
send the police after them or anything.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm on a first-name basis
with every one of these people. They hate to hear my voice.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do they? I like that
part. Good.
MR. TOMLINSON: You know, I -- when they
don't pay, I either call the Auditor's office or -- or the
9-13-04
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
174
Judge that put the kid here, and that gets their attention.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good deal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is the furthest
out of all these accounts receivable?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Harris.
MR. TOMLINSON: Probably Montgomery County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further questions
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank
you very much. Do we have any items to -- tell you what.
Let's -- we still got the Auditor here. Why don't we go do
that portion of the agenda and get it knocked out. Pay the
bills.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move we pay the
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
payment of the bills. Any question or discussion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
9-13-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
175
(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 for the County
Clerk. Her request is to transfer $4,530.70 into Office
Supplies in the County Clerk's budget from Election Judges
in the Election budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm reading this note
at the bottom. It says, "I also have outstanding bills that
have not yet come in." Do we just wait till next month and
do this again, or what?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I think it's intended to
include the amount being transferred in anticipation.
MS. PIEPER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's part of the
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 'Cause you already
show a fund balance adequate enough to cover that.
MR. TOMLINSON: She's anticipating the other
bills. So, I mean, this is her request.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're anticipating
9-13-04
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
176
another $13,000 in bills between now and the end of the
year? I mean, you have $8,330, and you're requesting
another 45.
MS. PIEPER: Having this additional $4,530,
plus what I -- the $8,330, yes, that will take care of the
rest.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 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 1. Any question
of the motion, signify by
arried by unanimous vote.)
All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is for the Ag Barn
and Maintenance from Mr. Holekamp. His request is to
transfer $412.50 from Maintenance Salary in the Ag Barn to
Contract Fees in Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Number 2.
9-13-04
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
177
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Need a hand check?
MR. TOMLINSON: Hand check.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And to whom?
MR. TOMLINSON: To Olivia Avila.
JUDGE TINLEY: Olivia Avila?
MR. TOMLINSON: Avila.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Avila, A-v-i-1-a.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. In that amount,
$412.50?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Motion includes a
hand check to Olivia Avila in the amount of $412.50. Is
that correct? I don't know who made the motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, that's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. 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.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
Budget Amendment Request 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Three is from Court
Collections, Brad Alford, to transfer $509 from Group
9-13-04
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
178
Insurance to Office Supplies.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any 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.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
Budget Amendment Request Number 4.
MR. TOMLINSON: Four is from Justice of the
Peace, Precinct 3, Kari O'Dell, to transfer $138 from
Equipment Maintenance to Postage.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request 5.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 5 is from the District
9-13-04
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
179
Clerk. Her request is to transfer $500 from Part-Time
Salaries to Microfilm Records.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
Budget Amendment Request 6.
MR. TOMLINSON: Six is for County Court at
Law, Judge Brown, to transfer $2,263.69, from Master Court
Appointments to Court-Appointed Attorneys.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. The
motion does carry. Budget Amendment Request 7.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 7 is for
Nondepartmental. We have current bills in Autopsy and
9-13-04
180
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
Inquest of $4,060. We need to transfer $1,361.21 from
Property Insurance line item, and $2,698.79 from Address
Coordinator.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That depletes the
Address Coordinator line?
MR. TOMLINSON: It does.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't call for a vote, did
I?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
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 8.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 8 is for Road and
Bridge Administration. The request is to transfer $65.25
from Telephone to Notices.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
9-13-09
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
181
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any 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.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request 9.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 9 is for the 216th and
198th District Courts. For the 216th Court, we need to
transfer $14,370.68 from Special Trials to Court-Appointed
Attorneys. For the 198th Court, we need to transfer
$16,987.10; $3,017.50 to Court-Appointed Services, and
$13,969.60 to Court-Appointed Attorneys.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just an observation,
that it seems to me like items that we budget on
contingency, like special trials, often wind up being the
source of making up shortfalls. Maybe that's due to
government; maybe it's not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is not.
9-13-04
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
182
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not due to
government, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- it's one of those that
we don't have much control over.
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: Motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request 10.
MR. TOMLINSON: Ten is for the County Jail
and the Sheriff's Department from the Sheriff, to transfer
$3,041.59 from Group Insurance; $1,573.72 to Operating
Supplies, $1,442.87 to Utilities, and $25 to Vehicle
Maintenance. Also request to transfer $6,064.29 from Group
Insurance in the Sheriff's budget, $5,093.39 to Vehicle
Repairs and Maintenance, $940.95 to Gas and Oil, and $29.95
to Operating Expenses.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hit another deer?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It was my chief's fault.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
9-13-04
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
183
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot of that is just
vehicle maintenance itself coming up lately.
MR. BARYON: I did not hit a deer, no.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or --
motion made and seconded for approval. Any further question
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request 11.
MR. TOMLINSON: Eleven is for maintenance --
Courthouse and Related Buildings from the Maintenance
Supervisor to transfer $2,500 from Leasehold Improvements to
Repairs and Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget
9-13-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
184
Amendment Request 12.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 12 is for the County
Auditor's office. My request is to transfer $190 from Group
Insurance to Conferences. I have a -- a late bill that I
need a hand check for to the Texas Association of County
Auditors for $190. This conference actually is in October,
but I need to get the -- my registration in before the end
of -- before October.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where are y'all going,
south Austin? Where is it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sixth Street.
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve and
authorize a hand check.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval, and authorize hand check to Texas Association of
County Auditors in the sum of $190. Any question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
23
24
~-..
25 Amendme
9-13-09
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget
your right hand.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
185
MR. TOMLINSON: Thirteen is for the 198th
District Court. It's a request from Judge Prohl to transfer
$565.05 from Special Trials; $75 to Books, Publications, and
Dues, $490.05 to Conferences. I do have a late bill
attached for a hand check to Judge Prohl for $797.15.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that for his
conference?
MR. TOMLINSON: For his conference, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval, and authorize hand check to Judge Prohl for
reimbursement of conference expense, $797.15. Any question
or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I wonder if we could
fund the Ag Barn repairs out of Special Trials transfer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question is -- and
maybe just -- one of the items or categories that it seems
we could control is conferences. I can see where Tommy is
paying a year early, but it sure would be nice if everyone
would follow the conference line item budget. This is a
pretty extraordinary -- I mean --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seven hundred -- how
much?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, no, the overage is
9-13-04
186
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
almost $300. But out of a $2,000 budget, that's missing the
mark pretty big.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I want you to go talk
to Judge Prohl about that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You bring it up. I'm
behind you 100 percent, man.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did we vote on that
one, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we haven't. We're having
lots of discussion, though. I thought maybe you'd want in
on it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I'm fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When we go up there
and talk to him, we'll tell him that, "Bill says..."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.
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: Motion does carry.
9-13-04
187
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you sure you
don't have another one, so we don't have to stop on 13?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's all we got. That's all
we got here. Did we get all your late bills?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: You got a late bill?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, I don't.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay. I have here before
me the transcript of the Kerr County Commissioners Court
regular session held on Monday, August 9th, 2004, and the
transcript of the Kerr County Commissioners Court special
session held on Monday, August 23rd, 2004. Do I hear a
motion to approve these transcripts as presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved -- second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. I
have before me monthly reports from Constable Precinct 3,
Sheriff, Justice of the Peace Precinct 1, District Clerk,
9-13-04
188
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
County Clerk, Solid Waste, Justice of the Peace Precinct 4,
and Road and Bridge. Do I hear a motion to approve these
reports as presented and received?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZh: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. The
motion does carry. Do we have any reports from any of the
Commissioners on any of their liaison assignments or
otherwise? Any elected officials, department heads desiring
to render reports to the Court? Okay. Do we have anything
to go into executive session about, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One quickie.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have one remaining
item that I intentionally left till the tail end, so that if
there -- there were any cleanup items, we could come back to
it. Do you want to go ahead and final out the budget
situation, or hold it open?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can do that, I
believe.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's do it.
9-13-04
189
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: Okay. Let me go ahead and
call Number 27, consider and discuss approval of the
proposed Fiscal Year 2004-2005 budget, and set a public
hearing on the same.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would the
suggested date be, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got two different public
hearings already.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 27th?
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the timing requirement
on the budget, Tommy?
MS. MITCHELL: It's the same. It's the same
as the --
MR. TOMLINSON: I think it's --
MS. MITCHELL: -- elected officials.
MR. TOMLINSON: 27th.
JUDGE TINLEY: We can do that on the 27th
also?
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
one at 10 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
JUDGE TINLEY
LETZ: 1:30?
WILLIAMS: Afternoon?
LETZ: Well, we have the other
BALDWIN: How about 11:59?
WILLIAMS: That's good.
10:30, 11:00, whichever. I
9-13-04
190
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don't think we're going to have much -- I may be surprised.
If we run over, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 10:30.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: However, I have a comment
before we get to make a motion on that. Or not a comment,
actually; a change. On Page --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here we go again.
JUDGE TINLEY: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Page 2, Commissioners
Court, under Professional Services.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've already overspent
the amount under that item, and we know we're going to have
engineering and other potential things at the Ag Barn, so I
think we probably should put $20,000 there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Exactly the figure I was
thinking of.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would move
that we approve the proposed Fiscal Year '04-'05 budget and
set a public hearing for September 27th at 10:30 a.m.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
9-13-04
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
191
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the FY '04-'05 budget. I assume you're talking
about the budget that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That we --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- we just made the last
correction to just moments ago?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Including the last
correction we made just moments ago.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the Auditor will
provide us with a new revised budget as soon as --
JUDGE TINLEY: He can make that run, sure.
Any -- did I get a second on that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I did, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The process on this
is that we're going to hold a public hearing on the budget
and have a final vote on it; then we're going to hold a
public hearing on elected officials' compensation and have a
final vote on that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And tax rates.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And tax rates. So,
all we're voting for now is to hold a public hearing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
9-13-04
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
192
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You can probably
tell by my comments that I'm still not satisfied with the
budget. I'm looking forward to hearing what the public
thinks about it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And let me ask you a
question. If we get down to that public hearing, which is
the 27th, a few days before when it goes into effect or
should go into effect, and we do change it, is there
another -- oh, look at old Tommy go back there. There is no
other time frame to run ads in the paper telling everybody
what we're doing?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, you -- you can -- you can
change the proposed budget at adoption by amendment. If you
have -- if you want to make a change on that date, you
can -- you can vote on an amendment to the proposed budget,
and that -- and that becomes the adopted budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you -- can you
adopt a budget after October 1? Yes, is the answer. But I
don't recommend it.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think you can.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we have to set
the tax rate by --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- by the 30th of the
9-13-04
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
193
month, but we do not have to adopt the budget by the 30th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they're certainly
related, but they're independent actions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if you set the
tax rate, the only amendments that you could make,
realistically, would be those that -- that reduce spending.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. That's
right, you could reduce it. You couldn't increase it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couldn't increase the tax
deficit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I suppose.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think that's
what Number 4 exactly was thinking. But you have plenty of
time to tinker.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we can tinker with
it. Before we vote on the final budget, there's still one
more opportunity to tinker with it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm still not
excited by it, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I understand.
Neither am I.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
9-13-04
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
194
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That doesn't require
a record vote, does it?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think so. I think the
only one that requires a record vote is tax. Okay, now we
come down to the -- the executive session.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Kathy? I'm sorry,
Judge, go ahead.
JUDGE TINLEY: And it's indicated that we
have an item or two to look at.
(The open session was closed at 4:48 p.m.,
and an Executive Session was held, the
transcript of which is contained in a
separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: It is now seven minutes after
5:00, and we will reconvene in open session. Is any action
proposed to be taken with respect to any matter discussed in
executive or closed session?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hearing nothing, I will
9-13-04
195
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
declare the meeting adjourned, and also declare adjourned
the workshop that we left in an open status.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 5:07 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF 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, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 17th day of September,
2004.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
9-13-04
ORDER NO. 28789
~' RESIGNATION OF JUSTICE OF THE PEACE #3
Came to be heard this the 13th day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to accept the resignation of Kari O'Dell, Justice of the Peace
#3 to be effective September 30, 2004.
ORDER NO. 28790
ADVERTISE FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HVAC AND PEST CONTROL
Came to be heard this the 13th day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to authorize the advertisement for proposal for Electrical,
Plumbing, HVAC and Pest Control.
ORDER N0.2879i
ROAD NAME CHANGES FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED ROADS
Came to be heard this the 13th day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to approve the road names for privately maintained roads in
accordance with the 9-1-1 guidelines as follows:
Existing Name New Name
Pigeon Roost Ln. W. Herons Crossing W.
8006 Rambling Creek Rd. N.
8008 Tatsch Rd. N.
ORDER NO. 28792
PUBLIC HEARING
REVISION OF KERRVILLE SOUTH NO. II TRACT 118
Came to be heard this the 13th day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to set a public hearing for October 25, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. for
a revision of Tract 118, Kerrville South No. II.
ORDER NO. 28793
SHANNON AIR 1 SUBSCRIPTION PROGRAM
Came to be heard this the 13th day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to authorize the County Judge to sign a letter stating that
Shannon Air 1 will provide air Service to the YO Ranch Subdivision.
ORDER NO. 28794
COMBINE AGENDA ITEMS
Came to be heard this the 13th day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to combine items 1.8 thru 1.14 as one item.
ORDER N0.28795
REVISION OF PLAT FOR FALLING WATER
Came to be heard this the 13th day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to approve the Revision of Plats for the following Lots of
Falling Waters Subdivision
Lots 41A & 43 B into 43 R
Lots 46 A, 46 B & 47 A into 46 R
Lots121A&121Binto121R
Lots 122 D & 123 D into 122 R
Lots 123 B & 123 C into 123 R
Lots 127 A & 127 B into 127 R
Lots141A&141Binto141R
ORDER N0.28796
AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD
Came to be heard this the 13th day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Letz to draft a
letter thanking members of the Airport Advisory Board for their service and authorize the
County Judge to sign.
ORDER N0.28797
DECLARING TREES SURPLUS
Came to be heard this the 13th day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to declare the Pecan Trees in the right of way of Hermann
Sons new bridge as surplus.
ORDER N0.28798
INTERLOCAL CONTRACT
KERR COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Came to be heard this the 13th day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to renew the Interlocal Cooperation Contract between Kerr
County Sheriffs Office and the Texas Department of Public Safety for the purpose of
administering the Fugitive Apprehension Program.
ORDER NO. 28799
KERRVILLE SOUTH WASTEWATER PROJECT PHASES II AND III
Came to be heard this the 13th day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to take appropriate actions on the Easements acquisition and
approve the compensation for such and authorize the County Judge to execute the
appropriate documents and correspondence.
ORDER N0.28800
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED TAX RATE
Came to be heard this the 13th day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to approve the proposed tax rate of .3721 and set a public
hearing for September 21, 2004 at 1:30 p.m.
ORDER N0.28801
PROPOSED TAX RATE
LAKE INGRAM ESTATES
Came to be heard this the 13~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to approve the Lake Ingram Estate proposed tax rate of
.8700.
ORDER N0.28802
" PUBLIC OFFICIAL SALARY
PUBLIC NOTICE
Came to be heard this the 13~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to set the Public Official Salaries as such and set a pubic
hearing for September 27, 2004 at 10:00 am.
OFFICIAL	PRESENT PRESENT PRESENT	PROPOSED PROPOSED	PROPOSED
OFFICIAL	PRESENT	PRESENT	PRESENT	PROPOSED	PROPOSED	PROPOSED
	SALARY	SUPPLEMENT TRAVEL	SALARY	SUPPLEMENT	TRAVEL
~. CONST.#1	$29,429	$0	$0	$31,612	$0	Vehicle
CONST.#2	$29,429	$0	$0	$31,612	$0	Vehicle
CONST.#3	$29,429	$0	$0	$31,612	$0	Vehicle
CONST.#4	$29,429	$0	$0	$31,612	$0	$0
CO. ATTY	$66,996	$33,900	$0	$70,306	$33,900	$0
CO. CLK	$42,249	$0	$0	$44,816	$0	$0
CO. COMM	$37,792	$0	$0	$40,226	$0	$0
CO.JUDGE	$46,381	$15,200	$0	$53,192	$11,200	$0
CO.TREAS	$42,249	$820	$0	$44,816	$1,600	$0
DIST. CLERK	$42,249	$3,000	$0	$44,816	$3,090	$0
J.P. #1	$33,640	$0	$0	$35,949	$0	$0
J.P. #2	$30,378	2,050	$0	$35,949	$0	$0
J.P. #3	$30,378	2,050	$0	$35,949	$0	$0
J.P. #4	$30,378	2,050	$0	$35,949	$0	$0
SHERIFF	$51,735	$0	Vehicle	$58,437	$0	Vehicle
TAX	$42,249	$0	$0	$44,816	$0	$0
ASS/COLE						
ORDER N0.28803
KERRVILLE CHRISTMAS LIGHTING CORPORATION
Came to be heard this the 13~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the annual agreement between the Kerrville Christmas
Lighting Corporation and the Kerr County Commissioners Court.
ORDER N0.28804
EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT CONSULTANT
Came to be heard this the 13~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to hire Greg Looney of Catto &Catto, contingency upon the
County Attorneys approval.
ORDER N0.28805
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY
Came to be heard this the 13~` day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer $131,051 from the General fund to the Juvenile
Detention Facility Fund in exchange for accounts receivable from the contracting
counties.
ORDER NO. 28806
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
On this the 13th day of September 2004, came to be considered by the Court various
Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts Payable
10 General	$101,051.64
14 Fire	$10,416.67
15 Road & Bridge	$46,177.27
18- County Library	$4,904.86
19- Public Library	$32,265.00
31-Parks	$170.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$13,771.16
80-Historical Comm.	$100.64
TOTAL CASH REQUIRED FOR ALL FUNDS: $208,857.24
Upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin,
the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to pay said Claims and Accounts.
ORDER N0.28807
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY CLERK
Came to be heard this the 13`t' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes;
Expense Code Description Requested +Q
10-403-310 Office Supplies $4,530.70
10-402-108 Election Judges ($4,530.70)
ORDER N0.28808
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COURTHOUSE & RELATED BUILDINGS
AG BARN FACILITIES
Came to be heard this the 13th day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 transfer the following expense codes and make a hand check
payable to Oliva Avila in the amount of $412.50;
Expense Code Description Requested +()
10-510-553 Contract Fees $412.50
10-666-106 Maintenance Salary ($412.50)
ORDER N0.28809
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COURT COLLECTION
Came to be heard this the 13`'' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes;
Expense Code Description Requested +()
10-429-310 Office Supplies $509.00
10-429-202 Group Insurance ($509.00)
ORDER N0.28810
BUDGET AMENDMENT
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE #3
Came to be heard this the 13~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes;
Expense Code Description Requested +()
10-457-309 postage $138.00
10-457-450 equipment maintenance ($138.00)
ORDER N0.28811
BUDGET AMENDMENT
DISTRICT CLERK
Came to be heard this the 13~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description Requested +()
10-45012 microfilm records $500.00
10-450-108 part-time salaries ($500.00)
ORDER N0.28812
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY COURT AT LAW
Came to be heard this the 13~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes;
Expense Code Description Requested +()
10-427-402 court appointed attorney $2,263.69
10-427-403 master court appointments ($2,263.69)
ox~~~ N®, a~$~~
~~~~~~ ~.1VI~N~N~~N`~

Game tea he heard this the l3~' day of Septe~nb~r 2QA4 with ~ motion, rraad@ by
Gammiaaionsr I~iehalsan, Socondeet by ~o~nission~ ~,~t~, the ~e~urt unaninnousty
approved ~y a voto of 4A0-a to transfer the fc~llov+in~ Q?tpons~ opd~s;
Eacpansa Gods	Description
1 QAOA-40'i	autopsy ~ inq~aast
10-a0s-1o7	adarass ooorclir~ator



0.409.480	Requested +p
SA~,Q~O.Ot}
($2,698.79)
property insurance ($1,361.21}
o~nE~t No. 2gi~14
>~[1>QGE'~' ~1VIENI?MEN~
ItO~A ~ BRIDGE tit,AiV~INiS'~'RA'I'fON
~IN~'I' SYSTEIVI
tame to be heard this the l3`~ day of Septetnt~ar 2Q04 with a motion made ley
Gommissianer Letx, Seconded by Gammissianer Nicholson, the ~oart unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-®-4 to transfer the following expense codes;
Expense Code Description Requested ~p
15-600-430 notices $65.25
15-600-420 telephone ($65.25}
ORDER N0.28815
BUDGET AMENDMENT
216th DISTRICT COURT AND
198TH DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 13th day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 transfers the following expense codes;
Expense Code Description
1035-402 court appointed attorney
10-435-417 special trials
Requested +Q
$14,370.68
($14,370.68)
10-436-401 court appointed services
10-436-402 court appointed attorney
10-436-417 special trials
$3,017.50
$13,969.60
($16,987.10)
~UD-G~T A1VI~NI~l1~~~1'T
~QIJN1'Y ~~~
S~I~RIF~' ~' A~~~R~~N~'
dame t~ be heard this the 1 ~~' dad of Septem~r 2(1A4 with a mQti~n madc lay
GAtnmis~iQner Leta, Seconded by ~~mm~issianer Baldwin, the ~a~rt ~ar~anr~o~asly
apprtaved by a vote o!F 4-Q-Q tca transfer the ~11Awir~g expen~ oAd@~,
Expense Code	Description	Requested +A
1a56a33o	aperatirtg supplies	51,573.72
1x512-440	utilities	51,442.87
1x512-454	vehicle maintenance	525..00
1x512-202	group insurance	{$3,041.59)
1 a56x330	operating expense	$29,95
1x560-331	vehicle gas b oil	5940.85
-- 10-560-454	vehicle repairs 8 maim.	55,099.99
1x560-202	group insurance	($6,064.29}
ORDER N0.28817
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COURTHOUSE & RELATED BUILDINGS
Came to be heard this the 13~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description Requested +()
10-510-450 repairs 8 maint. $2.500.00
10-510-470 leasehold improvements ($2,500.00)
ORDER N0.28818
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY AUDITOR
Came to be heard this the 13`" day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes and make a hand
check payable to TACA in the amount of $190.00
Expense Code Description Requested +()
10-495-485 Conference $190.00
10-495-202 Group Insurance ($190.00)
ORDER NO. 28819
BUDGET AMENDMENT
198TH DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 13`j' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes and make a hand
check payable to Judge Karl Prohl in the amount of $797.15;
Expense Code	Description	Requested +Q
10-436-315	books, publication/dues	$75.00
10-436-485	conferences	$490.05
10-436-417	special trials	($565.05)
ORDER N0.28820
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Came to be heard this the 13~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the minutes from August 9~' and August 23, 2004.
ORDER N0.28821
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 13th day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports;
Constable Pct. 3
Sheriff
Justice of the Peace #3
District Clerk
County Clerk
Solid Waste
Justice of the Peace #4
Road and Bridge Department
ORDER N0.28822
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED 2004/05 BUDGET
Came to be heard this the 13~' day of September 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the proposed 2004/05 budget and set a public hearing for
September 27, 2004 at 10:30 a.m.