1
._ .,
.-..
2
3
4
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
9.00 a.m.
5
6
7
8
9
10
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
	20
	21
	22
	23
	24
`a	
	2 5
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, Commissic.~ner Pct. 4

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
October 12, 2004
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider allowing Hill Country Mounted Peace
Officers Association to have annual Wild Game
Dinner at the HCYEC 1st Saturday in April each
year, commencing 2006
1.2 Consider advertising for sealed bid proposals at
HCYEC for Engineered Metal Roof Replacement and
HVAC replacement
1.3 Consider TCDRS Plan Rate and changes for 2005
1.4 Consider engagement of Pressler Thompson & Co.
to perform audit for fiscal year ending September
30, 2004
1.5 Consider and discuss the maintenance of Indian
Creek Road
1.8 Consider homeowners' petition to have Hunt Valley
View Drive accepted for Kerr County Maintenance
1.9 Consider road name change for privately-maintained
road not in accordance with 9-1-1- guidelines
1.10 Preliminary plat, Eagle Ridge Subdivision, Pct. 4
1.6 Opening of sealed bids for Annual HVAC, Electrical,
Plumbing, and Pest Control Services
1.7 Opening of sealed bids for used water distributor
and asphalt distributor
1.11 Approve road name changes for privately maintained
roads in accordance with 9-1-1 guidelines
1.15 Consider approving resolution or other action to
participate in Indigent Defense Grant Program,
authorize County Judge to sign the same
1.13 Consider/discuss developing plans for Kerr
County's 150th anniversary in April 2006
1.14 Consider "Policies for Courthouse Building and
Grounds" to determine if revisions are needed
1.16 Consider approval of Fifteenth Amendment and
Extension of City/County Fire Fighting Agreement,
authorize County Judge to sign the same
1.17 Consider appointment of Betty Burney to serve as
temporary Justice of the Peace 3
4.1 Pay Bills
4.2 Budget Amendments
4.3 Late Bills
4.4 Read and Approve Minutes
4.5 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments
PAGE
5
7
13
18
19
22
33
38
48
55
62
63
64
64
73
102
103
110
114
120
121
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	
	October 12, 2004	
		PAGE
1.12	Consider prepayment of resident fees under	
	Residential Services Contract with Kerr County	
	Juvenile Detention Facility for current or future	
	residents	122
3.1	Action taken on Executive Session matters	128
1.18	Report and update from County Attorney and Mr.	
	Walraven on status of EBA lawsuit (Executive	
	Session)	---
1.19	Consider and discuss appointment of individual	
	to fill unexpired term of Justice of the Peace 3	129
1.20	Consideration and designation of County	
	representative for mediation in EBA Suit	
	(Executive Session)	---
1.21	Consider approval of temporary extension of	
	Lease and Operating Agreements on Juvenile	
	Detention Facility and funding of operations	
	and/or other resolution of existing Detention	
	Facility situation	130
---	Adjourned	147
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 Tuesday, October 12, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order the
meeting of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County scheduled
for this time and date, Tuesday, October the 12th, 2004, at
9 a.m. It's that time now. I'd ask for all of you to join
me in welcoming Mr. Bill Blackburn with Partners in
Ministry, who's here with us today to offer an opening
prayer.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. Please
be seated. At this time, we come to a portion of the agenda
where members of the public are invited to address the Court
on matters which are not listed on the agenda. If -- if you
wish to speak on a matter that is an agenda -- or a listed
agenda item, we would ask that you fill out a participation
form at the back of the room. It's not absolutely
essential. It does help me in -- in making an attempt to
not pass over you, because hopefully I won't miss you if I
have one of those participation forms. But if you wish to
speak on one of those items, please fill out a participation
form and -- and get it up here to the front to me; I'd
10-12-04
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
appreciate it. But with respect to any matter that is not a
listed agenda item, feel free, and you're welcome to come
forward at this time to address the Court as -- as respects
anything on your mind. Is there any member of the public
that wishes to address the Court on an item that's not
listed on the agenda? Seeing no one, we'll move on with our
agenda. Commissioner Baldwin, what do you have for us this
morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I just wanted to
announce today's my wife's birthday, and she told me this
morning she's 26, and that if any of you felt led -- and I
want to include the audience as well -- felt led to give her
a gift, you can make the check out to me. (Laughter.)
That's all. That's all. Just wanted to give you that
opportunity.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a --
JUDGE TINLEY: Your opportunity.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm not going
to seize on that opportunity. I had an opportunity,
however, last night to attend the first of two forums for
Headwaters candidates, and there were -- two of the three
candidates from Precinct 2 were present. Third was not.
The unopposed candidate from Precinct 4 was present, as was
the unopposed candidate for -- for the board position
10-12-09
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
at-large. It was interesting, and I hope that the citizens
take the opportunity to avail themselves of as much
information about these folks as they possibly can, and if
you need to hear some of their thoughts on the various
topics, I would urge you to attend the second forum, which
will be Thursday night at the Center Point Independent
School District Cafeteria at 7 p.m. All these candidates, I
believe, will be on display one more time, so you have an
opportunity to listen, ask questions, and form some
judgments, perhaps.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Anything
else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just have -- just one,
really, observation from this morning. I'm probably the
only one that drives in on Highway 27. Anyone that went by
the Ag Barn this morning, it's unbelievable. There are --
it looks -- there are more cars than you get for a stock
show, and there's a line of people for flu shots all the way
around the building. They go around the side and all the
way back to the river side of the property. I've never seen
so many people. Anyway, quite amazing. So, Glenn, if you
didn't know that, you've got a big crowd out there.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, I do know. I do know.
10-12-04
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- but quite
interesting. That's all I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 4?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's a beginning
of an effort to communicate about protecting the
environment; starts this week, Thursday, October 14. It's a
seminar, and it will be held at the Lecture Hall of the
Upper Guadalupe River Authority, and it's a joint effort by
the U.G.R.A. and the -- our Environmental Health Department
to begin a campaign of promoting good environmental
practices. So, it's -- Dr. Bruce Lesiker, a professor at
Texas A & M, will be making a presentation, and for people
who are interested in learning more about a how-to-protect
seminar, I hope you'll show up and learn some more about it.
That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I just want to
welcome some new faces that I see here today. We're
privileged and honored to have you, and we want to welcome
you back and invite your friends and your neighbors, and
we're tickled to death to have you, because this is your
business we're conducting, and you -- you need to be in on
it and you need to have your input on it. That's all I
have. Let's move on and start with our agenda. First item
on the agenda is consider and discuss allowing Hill Country
Mounted Peace Officer's Association to have their annual
10-12-04
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Wild Game Dinner at the Hill Country Youth Exhibition Center
on the first Saturday in April of each year commencing in
2006. Mr. Holekamp?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. This is based on -- did
you see the letter in your backup that came from the Hill
Country -- Hill Country Mounted Peace Officer's Association?
It's -- as I think most of you on the Court know, these
gentlemen and ladies -- I think there's some members -- have
been a very integral part of our community, as in disasters,
support for law enforcement. They support all the youth
events. They -- they do crowd control on numerous events
that take place in the county. And I think, primarily,
their -- their thanks are what people give them, is thanks,
and then they have the wild game dinner every year at the
beginning of April. And this last year, or this -- this
past spring, we tried to come up with some -- some rules as
to booking events at the facility. There are several events
that are exempt from rollovers, if you wish to call them,
like the county fair. They roll over every year a certain
weekend. Same thing with stock show. They're fundraisers
and that sort of thing. And these people have, in the past,
had a -- the first Saturday in April, and they came to me
and had asked if there was a way that the Court could
authorize them having the first Saturday in April. And I
said, well, that was a court matter, and I would bring it
10-12-04
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
before y'all. So, that's what I'm here for. I -- I think
the -- what they do for our community is -- is
self-explanatory from the letter, and I -- I personally
endorse allowing them to have this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you feel like that
if you allow the -- this particular group to roll over,
don't you need to allow everybody else that requires booking
out ahead of time, like the dog agility, the tick-pickers
association or whomever it might be?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, I think there -- there
needs to be a classification of those that do qualify. And
when I say that, those that are -- are youth-oriented,
scholarship-oriented, and community involvement of --
supporting our youth events and our law enforcement
programs, and I -- I really believe they should be in a
category no different than any other youth event like stock
shows or that sort of thing. And, so, when you talk about
the private -- the private entity that is -- is putting on
events for financial gain, or kind of a semi-private, I
don't think they're in the same category.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, this is your
policy that you've created this morning? Or --
MR. HOLEKAMP: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you're going to
have to have a policy or they're all going to be coming in
10-12-04
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
here every Monday, so we need to -- we need to deal with
that one way or the other.
MR. HOLEKAMP: We need a policy, yes, sir.
We do need a policy. I came in because, as I understood
it -- and the way I understood it is anything other than the
rules that we've been going under needs to come before
Commissioners Court. So, I chose to do it this way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see that
particular request in their letter. Their letter only
acknowledges that they hold a wild game dinner every year
around the first weekend in April, but it doesn`t make a
request for it. It comes to my mind that there are two
issues here. First of all, this group, while their purposes
are -- are excellent, and I'm not questioning their
purposes, they don't pay rent on the facility, do they?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, they have in the past.
COMMISSTONER WILLIAMS: What have they paid?
MR. HOLEKAMP: The regular nonprofit local
rate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, the
not-for-profit local rate.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That would be
the same rate that you would charge, for example, the
Sunrise Lion's Club, who hosted also a wild game dinner.
10-12-04
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
11
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And whose proceeds go
to benefit the community.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Is the Sunrise
-- Sunrise Lion's Club date protected?
MR. HOLEKAMP: I'm not -- I'm not sure. I
don't think so.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think so
either. So, I -- I'm curious as to protecting a date. I
think we only have two protected dates there that roll over
from year to year. One is the stock show. Everybody
understands that, and that is protected. Far as I'm
concerned, that will always be protected. And, secondly,
the Kerr County Fair, which is protected dates in October,
and there's a real reason for that. They have to go so far
out in booking carnivals and other things that are attendant
to a fair, they need to know that their dates are solid. I
-- I just don't know that -- that we need to be protecting
everybody's dates, and I think Commissioner Baldwin makes a
very good point in that, if you start here, there's no
stopping point. You can clearly justify the stock show. We
can clearly justify the fair. They are categories unto
themselves. But if you start going beyond that, then who
knows where you're going to end up?
to-ia-o4
1
~-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, last year the Court
approved protecting days for the Home and Garden Show also.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not so sure, if
we brought it back again, I would favor that either.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I understand. I'm just making
that -- that that was brought before the Court also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My comment is -- I mean,
I think we need a policy, but the other thing -- the
uncertainty of the facility, I don't think we can go much
beyond a year at a time on any bookings, other than what
we're already committed to do. And even those, hopefully
those people -- entities understand that there is some risk
of the continued use of that facility. I think the stock
show is protected and will be at some venue, but everybody
else, including the fair, better be aware that, you know,
something's got to be done at that facility, and the County
has discussed everything from shutting it down to everything
except the stock show, to building an expanded facility.
And I think that, under that broad scenario, the only thing
that's really protected is stock show. So -- and I don't
think we can do any more until we -- you know, for this
following year, I think we go ahead and set up a date; I
have no problem with that. But for every -- beyond that, I
think we need to get a direction for the facility before we
start working on a -- really, a long-term policy for use of
10-12-04
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
13
the facility. That's my view.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further to be offered
in connection with this? Is there a motion to be offered by
any member of the Court? The sense I get is it depends on
which way the facility goes. And we need a policy of some
sort, and that, of course, may be in part determined by the
next item. If there's nothing further, we'll move on to the
next agenda item, consider and discuss advertising for
sealed bid proposals at the Hill Country Youth Exhibit
Center for an engineered metal roof replacement and HVAC
replacement.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I brought this back to the
Court. The last time 1 was in court, there was some
question as to a need for engineering prior to putting a
roof replacement on the building. And the bids that -- the
preliminary bids that I have, or proposals that I had
brought were -- were from contractors here in the community
that did not have an engineering plan. But they have -- and
I called them all, and they assured me that if I request,
they will have whatever is proposed approved or -- by an
engineer, or they would not place it there. So, what I've
done is just brought this back with different wording on
the -- as far as the roof replacement is concerned.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my -- I think I'm
the main one that raised that question last time. I'm just
10-12-04
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
not familiar, and I don't see the County Attorney in the
audience, but I have no problem with this -- going in this
direction. I'm just not sure what the state law requires
related to this type of work. If we can just use -- if we
can use their in-house engineers, or if we have to hire an
independent engineer, I do not know. It seems that in some
projects, you have to have an independent architectural
engineering firm to proceed, but I'm not sure if that's only
for new construction or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the
design-build concept for new construction, I believe.
JUDGE TINLEY: If we were building a new
building, of course, there are statutory requirements. This
is in the nature of a -- of a repair, and if I understand
how these metal roof systems work, they're -- they're
pre-engineered systems and they -- they come in that sort of
package. But I think the -- the dividing line here is that
we're doing a repair, as opposed to a new structure, which
falls under a different category, engineering-wise.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- I mean, you
mentioned pre-engineered on the roof. Well, I guess they
take into account how they're going to support the roof,
load-bearing aspects of it, even though it's not a, --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I would say, metal
10-12-09
15
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
building.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One of the local
contractors gave me a copy of a -- of specs on a job that
was done on the post office. It's so close to being the
same size and same issue sort of a thing that it appears
that it's not very difficult to prepare a package to get
bids on it. This is done by a licensed professional
engineer, and it's got the, I guess, typical standards for
doing such a replace -- roof replacement. That's what this
was, is a roof replacement. So, I would think we ought to
be able to put some specs together without having to employ
an engineer to do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that you've got some
general specs to go in the -- do you not?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move for
approval of this agenda item.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any further question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. I'm not ready
yet, Judge. Any -- any advertising for sealed bids for this
10-12-04
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
16
project would have to take into consideration, I think --
correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Holekamp -- that the air
conditioning units that are there now are on that roof; is
that correct?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They have to be
relocated, correct? They have to be removed and relocated?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Over which you're
going to put a tin roof?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And wherever those
A/C units are relocated, it's going to require not only
wiring, but a whole lot of plumbing that goes with that, the
air conditioning, and probably some new vent work; is that
correct?
MR. HOLEKAMP: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that going to be
called for in these specifications?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Well, okay.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Because they would not be able
to be placed back up on this particular type of roof that we
have been looking at. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we'll see what
10-12-04
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the sealed bid brings. I can always vote against it at that
time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. The date is
October 27th or November 8th that the bids are due? I mean,
what's the -- on the first page, they're opened 10 a.m.
November 8th.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I had to back those up because
of the -- let's see. Just a second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're having a
preconference meeting on the 27th?
MR. HOLEKAMP: I have a preconference.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's on the 8th, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Preconference on the 27th of
October.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Submission by 5 p.m. Friday,
the 5th, and opening --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the 8th.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Monday, the 8th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
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.
10-12-04
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
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank
you, Mr. Holekamp.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is
consider and discuss the Texas County and District
Retirement System plan rate and plan changes for 2005.
MS. NEMEC: This was included in the
2004-2005 budget. Those figures are already in there, so
this is just to sign the paperwork for that, which we
decided to do 50 percent of the C.P.I. for the retirees'
cost-of-living insurance. And so I would just need the
Judge to initial on the third page, on the first section
where it says, "CPI-based Annuity," and then the County
Clerk's stamp and signature on the last page.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item as submitted. 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.
10-12-09
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. NEMEC: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is
to consider and discuss approval of engagement of Pressler
Thompson and Company to perform the audit for the fiscal
year ending September 30th, 2004.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which has already
ended.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Yeah, just -- just
did end.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: For the immediate past year.
This matter was submitted to me by the Auditor, and I placed
it on the agenda for the Court's consideration.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the cost of
the audit? I don't see it anywhere.
JUDGE TINLEY: 27 -- it's there on the next
to last page of the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 27,5.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- engagement letter. Not to
exceed 27,5.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see it. Move
approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any further question or discussion?
10-12-04
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. When is the
date that they usually have that complete? Or -- I guess my
real question on this is that the -- on the management
discussion, I want to make sure that the Court has enough
time to look at that, because the -- with the new rules,
that is a much more important part of the -- I just want to
make sure that -- I'm not sure if the Auditor or Judge --
you know, when we get to that point, make sure that we all
get the opportunity to make comments in that management
discussion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: True.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we haven't in the
past, but last year -- the format has changed, and I think
it has become a more important part of the document.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you talking about because
of the new accounting --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: New accounting.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- procedures?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: New accounting
procedures. It's something that should be -- supposed to be
written by the Court, as I understand it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good point. I have a
question, Judge. Does this audit include the audit of the
Juvenile Detention Center's books, as well as Kerr County's
books?
10-12-04
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
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't believe it does. The
Auditor, of course, could answer that more definitively, but
I feel that it probably does not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who would normally do
that, and how would that be handled?
JUDGE TINLEY: That I would refer to the
Auditor, who -- I saw one of the Auditor's representatives
here a bit ago, but I don't see her now. Hopefully we can
get an answer to that question shortly. If you like, we can
come back to it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to have an
answer to that question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll withdraw the
motion for now, temporarily.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. MITCHELL: Mindy's on her way.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Maybe we can get this
disposed of without having to come back to it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could be. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand there's a
representative from the Auditor's office on the way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Here she is. Ms. Williams?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir?
10-12-04
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
JUDGE TINLEY: The question that's -- that's
come up is whether or not this audit that Pressler Thompson
does for the County includes the Juvenile Detention
Facility.
MS. WILLIAMS: I believe that it does.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: But I'd have to go back and
look at last year's to be certain.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: But I believe that it does.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Would you be kind
enough to check that for us? And if you'll come back to us
with a response, why, we'll come back to that item.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay, will do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that satisfactory,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
MS. WILLIAMS: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to Item Number
5, consider and discuss maintenance of Indian Creek Road.
Commissioner Nicholson asked that this be placed on the
budget -- on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I quite frequently
get requests from my constituents to pave a road, and here's
10-12-04
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a case where I've had a request to not pave a road. The
last portion of Indian Creek Road is unpaved. It's
expensive to maintain in an unpaved condition because every
time there's a -- a rain, we have to get out there with the
grader and push rocks back and forth. It's on our schedule
to -- to improve it and sealcoat it and do that now. I've
heard from -- well, the landowners on the unpaved portion,
most of them, probably somewhere around six or seven, are
not residents there. It's -- they own land there; they use
it for recreational purposes or whatever, but they don't
live there. There are two residences toward the end that
are full-time occupied. Some of the people who -- who do
not live there have asked that we not proceed to pave it,
and their concern is that that will attract more undesirable
traffic, litter, whatever. The people who live there, who
are residents there, do want the road paved, of course,
because it's not a very -- very good road.
We've taken the position -- I've taken the
position that we're -- we're not going to leave it like it
is. It's too -- it's too expensive to maintain, and it's on
our schedule as a Priority 3 improvement, so we're either
going to sealcoat it or we're going to listen to a request
from the landowners to abandon it. The people who live
there do not want it abandoned; they want it -- they want it
improved and sealcoated. The others prefer that we not do
10-12-04
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
that. So, Mr. Odom's here to answer questions about it.
I'm not -- I'm not going to propose any action on this,
except to say to Mr. Odom, go ahead with your plans to
improve and sealcoat that road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If it were my
precinct, I think I would address it from a little bit
different point of view, in that if the majority of the
landowners didn't want it paved, I wouldn't pave it, but I
would certainly maintain it for future paving. I would
maintain it in a caliche form, because at some point there
would be possibly new ownership, and that particular road
someday is going to connect with Turtle Creek. Probably not
in your and my lifetime, but at some point it will, and to
-- you know, to have the base work prepared and ready to go
for paving it sometime. I would -- I just -- with the
majority of the landowners, that's what I would do. But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many property
owners are there on Indian Creek Road?
MR. ODOM: I believe there's seven or eight.
Truby, am I right in that number?
MS. HARDIN: That's right. Mr. Allen's here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is Mr. Allen part of
this gig?
MR. ODOM: Yes, he is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
io-iz-o9
25
1
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. ALLEN: I'm one of the two residents of
Kerr County that use that road every day. It's our only
access to -- to town. Indian Creek Road is 3 miles long, as
y'all know. The problem is, the first 2 miles are paved;
the last mile is unpaved. And if my information is correct,
Commissioner Nicholson, the folks that are against this
paving, none of them are residents of Kerr County. And
those of us that use it every day -- well, I shouldn't speak
for Mr. Walton. I spoke with him, and he said it didn't
make any difference to him. But it sure -- sure would --
it's a safety issue, as far as I'm concerned, 'cause when
large rains come, y'all know what happens. I'd like to see
it paved. But those residents that are -- I think there's
only one -- of the five or so that complained about it, I
think only one of them live in Texas. Most of them are
absentee owners that, in my seven years living there, I've
-- I've seen one or two in seven years. So, they're not
using the road, Buster, like those of us that live there
every day.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think it makes
any difference. I think the simple fact that they pay taxes
is the -- is the issue, to me. I don't care where they
live.
MR. ALLEN: Yeah, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom?
10-12-09
26
1
...-, 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. ODOM: Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson
indicated that there's a fair amount of expense having to
maintain that road in its unsealcoated state.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Relative to the cost of
sealcoating and future maintenance, what is the cost to
maintain it in its unsealcoated state?
MR. ODOM: Normally, we figure that it's
going to run -- by the time we get the proper equipment out
there, maintainers, rollers, water trucks, and the labor
involved, that you're running at $700 to $1,000 a day to do
that, and you figure that you're going to take a half a day
just moving equipment in, and another -- it's a day and a
half to two days to do something if it's minor. This
section of road is about seven-tenths of a mile,
three-quarters of a mile that's dirt. It's 30 foot wide, is
the easement. It's along a creek, where the creek
intermittently crosses it. That's all I have, so anything
in the future would have to be -- as Commissioner Baldwin
says, we would have to go to 60-foot right-of-way. Either
we'd have to condemn it, or if anybody develops that, it
might be.
In the past, there -- my understanding, there
was an easement somewhere, maybe back up to Upper Turtle
10-12-09
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Creek. Commissioner Baldwin's more familiar, I think, from
years ago on that. But my problem is, as Mr. Allen says,
when it rains, we lose the base down in that bottom. So,
about three-tenths of a mile is down in that bottom, quarter
of a mile, and so we end up with the drainage the way it is.
It just washes out the road; we have to go back in and
rebase that, so you're certainly at $700 to $1,000. Depends
how hard the rain is. If you get an 11 and a half inch rain
in 45 minutes, you've got a -- got a problem. So, our
policy for 14 years has been that as we can get to -- we
have 3 percent of our roads not sealcoated. This
three-quarters of a mile is part of that 3 percent.
We're looking at this year of getting
several -- one in Commissioner Williams' and two, I think,
in Commissioner Letz' area -- small roads, trying to upgrade
those that we think we can do. It certainly behooves us, as
to the taxpayers and our maintenance schedule, to -- to
sealcoat it. It has proven very cost-effective to -- to do
this. We may only have -- maybe 95 percent of the road will
not give us a problem. After we sealcoat it, maybe
5 percent in that creek might. That's probably a 20 or
30 percent probability of that 5 percent that we're going to
have certain areas that's going to be there. We'll work on
it. We'll work it out over time. We'll find what Mother
Nature's doing, and we can stay within that scope, that 30
10-12-04
28
1
--~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~.,. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
foot. We don't have much room. We're only talking about
the width of a chip spreader, 12 foot at the most, and try
to do -- widen some crossings right there to make it safer.
That's about all we can do. 30 foot's --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The answer is easy
for me. It's to go ahead, approve it and sealcoat it. The
residents get a better road and the County saves money, so I
can't -- I can't see doing anything differently.
MR. ODOM: May I also inject a little bit of
history too, very short and very quickly? That this road
doesn't always stay within the right-of-way. It comes
out -- I've had it surveyed, the points out there. We've
identified probably 95 percent of the points on the ground
that were surveyed for us, but that road stayed -- we have
it by adverse possession, so if anyone comes back in, I
don't intend to realign anything. Since the lawsuit
probably back in the '60's or '70's -- I don't know what
that history is; I didn't see it in my folder. But there
was a lawsuit from the district court that gave them that
right-of-way. We ended up with that maintenance. I intend
to stay within that road. Even if it's out, the state law
says it's mine after 10 years of maintenance. I've been
here 14. Buster's been here since the unitized system and
prior to that, so we have enough time to justify staying on
that road to make it work, do what I need to within that 30
io-12-09
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
foot of that roadway. So, it may come up in the future,
after I do something that, "My road's not right." Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to say
something, Leonard. I just recently wrote an article for
our statewide magazine and stated in there that Kerr County
has a little under 500 miles of county roads, and I can't
remember the number right now, but you only have how many
miles left before you're --
9
10 or less.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: 3 percent, so you're looking at 15
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 15 or less miles --
MR. ODOM: 12 to 15 miles.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that are unpaved --
MR. ODOM: That are unpaved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- in this county.
And as I travel around, there's not another Commissioners
Court in this state that can say that.
MR. ODOM: I don't -- I don't think there's
many. If it is -- it may be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I haven't found them.
MR. ODOM: Okay. I think it's real well.
When I started in April of '91, we had 120 miles of dirt
roads. We have methodically -- the Court had asked us to
methodically do not only preventive maintenance, but as well
as the Priority 3 roads where you turn a gravel road into a
10-12-04
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sealcoated road and get it into your perpetual maintenance,
and that's what we're trying to do. We're not trying to
stir up anything, but the Commissioner wanted to bring it to
court. My recommendation is that we go forward, or
either -- if you tell me no, I say drop it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're not going to
hear a no from me.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That was a good --
good article, Commissioner. And the picture was taken
before you got your hair cut.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: And maybe before some other
things.
MR. ODOM: W~
Commissioners Court and the
take no credit there, other
me, they're good people.
COMMISSIONER
there's not -- I don't have
=_11, it bodes well for the
men there in Road and Bridge. I
than the people that work for
NICHOLSON: That's right. And
any proposal. We'l1 just
proceed.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have a
motion that they wish to offer? Any other observations, or
can we move on? Ms. Williams? You have some information on
the audit issue that we've got before us?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. You were asking
i0-12-04
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
31
about the Juvenile Detention Facility, whether it was
covered in the audit.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
MS. WILLIAMS: It is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: It is covered.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Agenda Item Number 4, engagement of Pressler
Thompson Company to perform audit for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2004.
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, let me just ask
a question right quick. This has kind of been in the back
of my mind. This would be a good time, I think, to clear
that up. If we get down the road with the Juvenile
Detention Facility and dealing with banks and New York and
all of those kinds of things, and we -- it really looks like
we might be able to restructure some debt or something like
that, won't -- won't they require an audit of some sort at
that time? Wouldn't you think that they would? And if I
were them, I would -- I would ask for an audit that`s
10-12-04
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
outside -- outside, not necessarily from some company in the
City of Kerrville. But I'm talking about, if I were going
to hire one, I'd go to San Antonio or Austin to get one. Am
I kind of off-base thinking like that? Or --
JUDGE TINLEY: Our -- our annual audit is
provided -- is required by law.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ours, I understand. I
understand that.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have that done.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm talking about the
Juvenile Detention Facility.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have that done, and that is
done as a matter of due course. Certainly, if -- if any
outside agency wants to -- such as a lender wants to do an
audit, I see no problem with this Court giving that
permission for that to occur, or facilitating that to occur.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we may -- we could
possibly do two audits, then, is the point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- but that audit
will be paid for by whoever wants the audit, I would think.
JUDGE TINLEY: At that point, that would be
my position for sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, this is our
official audit. Any other audits people want, they're
welcome to do it at their expense.
10-12-09
33
1
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: Yeah. We're required by law
to -- to have an annual audit, and -- and we've done that.
And if they want something over and above that, they can
certainly propose it, and, you know, they need to be up for
consideration. But, like you mentioned, at this point it
would be on their nickel. Any other 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. Let's
move on to Item Number 8, if we might, consider homeowners'
petition to have Hunt Valley View Drive accepted for Kerr
County maintenance.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. We have a
petition from all of the landowners in Hunt Valley View
Ranch Subdivision for the County to assume responsibility
for that road, maintenance of it. I think the road was
built probably 1999?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And at that time,
after completion, it was inspected, and there were some 13
deficiencies noted between the state of the road as
constructed and our standards. And Mr. Odom Yias reexamined
10-12-04
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
the road and finds that -- that probably two of those
deficiencies have been corrected, but 11 remain. So, my
proposal is that we deny the request for the County to
resume responsibility of maintenance of that road until such
time as those other 11 deficiencies are corrected.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And that's a motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
denial of the request of the petition as presented by the
homeowners to have Hunt Valley View Drive accepted for Kerr
County maintenance. Any further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just for your
information, talking with Mr. Odom, these deficiencies don't
appear to be real serious. It's probably something that
they can take care of, and they'll probably be back in here
with another request.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if they get it -- our
policy has been that when they get the road up to standards,
we will generally accept it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did you have any comments or
thoughts you wanted to offer on this, Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: No, sir. I -- you know, I'm not
10-12-04
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that familiar with it. I've had to go back in the records,
and I think certain members here are more familiar with it.
But that is the policy. I would prefer to -- personally,
when you do a private subdivision, you know that -- I'm
going to tell you -- take off my hat, just as Mr. Odom, just
saying that, you know, private subdivision is private
subdivision. The variance is still there with 18-degree
slope. You're going to have drainage problems always in
there. That variance was given. However, if they fix the
things that I see there -- these are the same things that
were mentioned in 1999; still weren't done. If those are
done, I would assume that if the Court accepts it, that is
the Court's decision. We'll take it for maintenance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. I have a
similar situation in Creekwood Estates, where from time to
time that surfaces, and those homeowners, some of them have
indicated an interest in taking over -- the County taking
over maintenance of the road. And I believe we have core
samples on file indicating, in this instance, that -- in the
Creekwood instance, that the road base was not built to
County standards. Do we have similar core samples on file
in this one that would indicate that the road was, in fact,
built to County standards, or -- or the upgrade can be very
simply accomplished?
MR. ODOM: Looking at the minutes, I went
10-12-09
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
36
through the minutes that those -- I haven't seen the test
results, per se. Mr. Voelkel was involved in that, I
believe, and I -- he could verify that a little bit more.
But what I saw in the minutes, reading the minutes of the
court, that that had been accepted; that the test results
were such that they were accepted. But I haven't seen it in
that folder. Franklin was involved in that. That was 1999,
and I wasn't involved in it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When it comes back,
would you address that when you --
MR. ODOM: I will address that. I'm looking
for that now. But I -- in the minutes, it indicates that
that was accepted. There were variances from the road
realignment and from the steepness of that slope. I think
it was a 21-degree slope, and they hammered a little bit and
it went down to 18.07, if memory serves me right. And we
called for a 12 percent slope. So, there was problems at
the double pipe; there was problems with the soil
conditions. They were such that Hearn Engineering even made
the comment that the soil is so poor that it would have
problems in drainage. I do have something I'll pass the
Court. You have part of the pictures. I believe they're in
black and white, but I have some in color, and you can see
that that erosion problem from that steepness is a
consistent problem. So, I will have to do some more
10-12-04
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
37
research, unless Lee pulls from memory on any of that.
Tests were done, were they not?
MR. VOELKEL: That's correct.
MR. ODOM: And it was a Grade 3-type caliche,
and I would assume that the proctors and all were there.
But there's -- it's a very narrow road. Drainage is a
problem there. There's -- you can read that dossier, and I
gave the punch-out to Commissioner Nicholson. So, if that's
done, that's fine, but that's a decision of the Court. I
would prefer to -- prefer not to. That's my personal
opinion.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Odom, I faxed
that punch list to
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- the owners.
MR. ODOM: With all due respect to the
Commissioner, I'm not trying to be belligerent or anything
else, but I'm just looking at a maintenance standpoint.
And, until those are corrected, we certainly do not wish to
take it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that conforms with
policy, too, does it not?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, it does.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further on
this particular issue?
10-12-04
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
MS. PIEPER: You need to take a vote.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That was the reason I
was looking at you. Any further question or discussion on
the -- on the motion? All in favor --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the motion
again?
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion was to deny the --
the homeowners' petition to have Hunt Valley View Drive
accepted for Kerr County maintenance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further 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. Let's
move on to the next one, Item Number 9, consider road name
changes for privately maintained road that is not in
accordance with 9-1-1 guidelines. Ms. Hardin?
MS. HARDIN: Good morning, gentlemen.
Mr. Jack Clarke had come in and asked that his road name be
changed -- be named Clarke Drive. However, there are two
Clark Roads in that geo-region, one being Clark Street in
Ingram; the other is Clark Ranch Road, which is a County-
10-12-04
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
maintained road. And I don't have a map with me; I thought
Mr. Amerine was going to be here, but they're all very near.
They're all off Junction Highway north of Ingram.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Our road-naming
guidelines disallow us to name another road Clark. We've
got a Clark Street in Ingram, and we've got a Clark Ranch
Road out off of 1340. Naming another west Kerr County road
Clarke Road -- and this is a private road, by the way --
would -- could result in good deal of confusion when -- when
they're sending out emergency services. In order to name
this one Clarke Road, we would have to, in my opinion,
change one of the already established road names to
something different than Clark.
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess my question is, do we
have a problem since we already got two, even though one of
them's in the city limits of Ingram, apparently? Do we not
already have a problem?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One's Clark Ranch, one's
Clark --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Street.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Street, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'd like to point
out as well, you have -- in Ingram, you have Clark Street,
C-1-a-r-k. Then have you Clark Ranch Road; it's near 1340
and 41, if my memory`s right.
10-12-04
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
40
MR. CLARKE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is way out there;
that's C-1-a-r-k. And then you have a street and a road --
ranch road, and then Mr. Clarke has requested C-1-a-r-k-e
Drive. So, there -- there's some differences there, you
know. I mean, I'm stretching it as far as I can, but it's
pretty tough. So -- but I see 9-1-1's here now, and if
you're -- it's going to be your decision, I'm sure not going
to get into it. I just wanted to point those out, that
there is some differences in the three.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And before -- maybe
Mr. Amerine will have a comment. My recollection is that,
on occasion -- it could be Jack Clarke Road. I don't know.
I mean, it would meet the guidelines, but it makes it a
little bit different. We've done something a little bit
similar; actually, I think we approved one in my precinct
kind of like that. Then the person decided they didn't want
it after we explained the EMS concerns that we had, why we
were having concerns. But that's another option, could be
Jack Clarke Road. Except that --
MS. HARDIN: I thought that name was offered,
was it not?
MR. AMERINE: That name was offered; first
name, last name. That removes the sound-alike that you get
when you have just Clark Road and Clarke Drive.
10-12-04
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: So, Jack Clarke would be
acceptable?
MR. AMERINE: Yes, it would.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But not -- but maybe
not to him.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not to Mr. Clarke.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the next issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Clarke's here.
MR. CLARKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jack, they're offering
you Jack Clarke Road, or street or drive.
MR. CLARKS: May I say a few words?
JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly.
MR. CLARKS: All right. This is all on
private property. These roads have been named since 1975.
I have talked and discussed it with each Commissioner now.
My Commissioner was the last one I got to discuss it with.
I've been down to the 9-1-1, working with a lady. I think
she was -- I thought she was the one in charge. I don't
know. This is not the lady.
MS. HARDIN: No, this gentleman is the
director.
MR. AMERINE: I'm not a lady. (Laughter.)
MR. CLARKS: But, anyway, we've got -- we had
it worked out with her, and I've got -- she told me I had to
10-12-04
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
42
change the numbers from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 to 101, 102...
And I've got a plat drawn here of all of it, and it's all on
private property. And I'm not asking you to fix any roads
or anything. A11 we want to do is to keep the name as-is,
Clarke Drive, and that's the way it's been. And in the
ranch there, we've got South Clarke Drive, we've got North
Clarke Drive, and the main road is Clarke Drive, and it's
been that way since 1975.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Amerine, if --
if Mr. Clarke dials 9-1-1 from his home, does the "Clarke
Drive" pop up on the screen?
MR. AMERINE: Not today. That -- not to take
anything away from what Mr. Clarke said about the name of
the road, it's never been registered with the County through
the formal process, so to us it was a private ranch road,
that's all.
MR. CLARKS: Never had anybody you could talk
to.
MR. AMERINE: I understand, sir.
MR. CLARKS: The first man you had with
9-1-1, he ought to have been run out before he ever started.
MR. AMERINE: Our objective, of course, is to
make sure that we reduce the number of duplicate road names,
especially within the same geo-region. We already have a
Clark.
10-12-04
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
43
MR. CLARKS: Not anything in that area.
MR. AMERINE: Within the same west
geo-region.
MR. CLARKS: It's in the same Commissioner --
district, but it's -- one's in Ingram, one's way out on a
ranch road, and mine is between Ingram and Mountain Home.
And, like I say, it's all on private property. Not asking
for any upkeep or anything else. All we want is to keep the
name as-is.
MR. AMERINE: We currently have complaints,
not with the Clarke Road, but with other duplicate road
names that we have yet to resolve between roads that sound
the same. We currently have conflicts. We've currently had
the law enforcement/EMS state that they've been confused,
because the way the 9-1-1 system works, it displays the
name, a phone number, a physical address -- that's a house
number -- and a street. It does not -- does not reflect on
the screen the community, because the communities are not
really that well-defined. It's -- a phone exchange
community could be all over the place. We could have people
living very close to Ingram that are in a Kerrville
extension. So, the point being, I understand Mr. Clarke's
point. Our position is that we want to do as much as we can
at 9-1-1 to reduce duplicate road names. That the
differentiation in an emergency, when someone is calling and
10-12-09
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
44
saying, "I have an emergency at Clark Road or Clarke Drive"
will be lost on the dispatcher, and we -- we'll have
conflicts, I truly believe, in the future.
MR. CLARKS: Well, does "Clarke Drive" sound
like "Clark Street"?
MR. AMERINE: Yes, it does.
MR. CLARKS: It does?
MR. AMERINE: Yes, it does.
MR. CLARKS: Well, you go to any of the
cities, and you'll see names identically the same, only
maybe one will be a road, one will be a drive, one will be a
street. And I can't see where the difference is.
MR. AMERINE: I understand, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Clarke, "Jack Clarke"
wouldn't be acceptable to you? I mean, really, I think
that's probably -- that will, I think, solve the EMS
problems.
MR. CLARKS: I think that's just a -- a
matter of form. But, I mean, I guess I'm being just as
hard-headed as they are. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, Jack Clarke seems
like a compromise. It keeps the family name on the ranch
road, and I know it's private. And I understand the reason
why you'd want to use the -- you know, have the Clarke name
on it, you know. To me, if you can accept Jack Clarke, that
10-12-04
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
would be a way for to us move forward and, I think, meet our
guidelines.
MR. CLARKE: Okay. I'd be on J. Clarke,
then, Drive.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's got to be "Jack."
MR. CLARKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right?
MS. HARDIN: It can't be --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It will help with us,
Jack, when we go out there, 'cause if they go to the wrong
one, they're going to be 40 miles out of the way, and that
does cause a situation.
MR. CLARKE: Jack Clarke Road?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Jack Clarke Road.
MR. CLARKE: I wanted "Drive."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jack Clarke Drive.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we can solve that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I heard that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We got it. Jack Clarke
Drive.
MR. CLARKE: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You are hard-headed.
MR. CLARKE: Not near as hard-headed as you
are, Buster. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: True.
10-12-09
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me check with the
reporter. Did you get that down, madam reporter? Thank
you.
MR. CLARKE: Do I need to get a form from
y'all or anything to get with 9-1-1 and get this all
straightened out?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're going to take
care of it right now, Mr. Clarke.
MR. CLARKE: Sir?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're going to take
care of it right now. I move that we approve the name "Jack
Clarke Road" for the road in question.
MR. CLARKE: Drive.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Drive.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
the road to be renamed Jack Clarke Drive. Any further
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to add,
that's C-1-a-r-k-e.
MR. CLARKE: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
10-12-09
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
47
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
MR. CLARKS: Thank you, gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Mr. Clarke.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Jack.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. CLARKS: Well, now, do I -- I was going
to say, do I need to get anything to take to 9-1-1 and get
all this --
MR. AMERINE: I'm here.
MR. CLARKS: You got it?
MR. AMERINE: I got it already.
MR. CLARKS: Okay. I want to go by and get
my signs. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. Wait.
Actually, does he install his signs?
MR. AMERINE: Well, there's two different
ways to do it. If he wants the road sign, he has the option
of going through Road and Bridge for a fee, but we've also
offered for private roads a standard 9-by-12 blue sign,
which we'll put a road sign on if they're willing to mount
it on their own post.
MR. CLARKS: Well, that's what they told me.
1U-12-04
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. AMERINE: Yes, sir.
MR. CLARKS: They'd put a sign out in front,
but then I would put all the rest of them up.
MR. AMERINE: Well, if you're going to do one
out front, that would be Road and Bridge through Truby
Hardin here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You ought to let them
come out there and do that.
MR. AMERINE: They can do that.
MR. CLARKS: Whatever.
MR. AMERINE: We can do the house numbers,
but we won't be doing 1, 2, 3, 4. We'll still have to start
at 101.
MR. CLARKS: That's what I said, 100 through
107.
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir.
MR. CLARKS: Okay. All right if I leave?
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Appreciate
you being here today. Let's see if we can quickly do Item
10, consider preliminary plat of Eagle Ridge Subdivision,
Precinct 4.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We got Eagle Ridge
Subdivision.
MR. VOELKEL: I'm here to answer any
10-12-0~
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
49
questions if we have them. Mr. Odom's here to make a
presentation, I would assume.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- go ahead, Dave.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, this is --
we've looked at the preliminary plat of it before, and we've
met with the -- the TexDOT engineer and the -- and the
developer. And TexDOT is requiring that, for eight of the
lots, that they share a driveway to reduce the number of
driveways entering on 1340, and in order to do that, the
final plat is going to need to show the length and depth of
the driveways. Portions -- as you know, portions of this
property are in the floodplain. We're going to need the
developer's engineer to ask for a waiver that a drainage
study is needed, but we think the drainage study is not
needed. When you stand on 1340, you can see where the
water's going to go; it's going to go to the Guadalupe
River. And the final plat needs to show 20-foot setbacks on
each lot.
MR. ODOM: Yes.
MR. VOELKEL: One other issue I was going to
mention, too, on the final plat that we'll come back with --
of course, this plat shows the -- the floodplain line on it.
The final plat will actually have -- which is something that
the rules are asking for, asking for a B.F.E., or a base
flood elevation for each lot. That will show on the final
io-12-09
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
50
plat, and then we'll also have monumentation noted on the
final plat for a benchmark for people to use that develop
this property, to be able to tie into a benchmark for this
elevation. So, that will all be --
MR. ODOM: All be there.
MR. VOELKEL: -- on the final plat.
MR. ODOM: And I have a note here. It says,
"All plats shall contain the following note." Aggie
engineering here. "Prior to construction on any lot, the
owner of said lot shall..." It's on Page 2 of our --
there's a note that I need to add, I want them to do, and I
believe it has to do with -- dealing with either the Highway
Department, or --
MR. VOELKEL: Septic systems.
MR. ODOM: Septic system, that's it.
MR. VOELKEL: It's the note on the final
plat, which, since the Environmental Health Department is
not signing the plat, it's a plat that goes -- a note that
goes on all plats that he does not sign. It's a standard
note.
COMM
received word from
down through there.
we'll probably have
and I think this is
ISSIONER LETZ: Actually, the -- I've
-- we need to start sending them back
We're going to have our new rules -
it on our agenda next time that we -
in time; we can grandfather the
10-12-09
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
subdivision. He has -- state law requires him to sign
all plats --
MR. VOELKEL: Well, just so you'll know, --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- under our Subdivision
Rules.
MR. VOELKEL: -- the Environmental Health
Department has been in the review process for the plat. We
submitted a fee for their review, and he got back with me on
some items we needed to address, and I addressed those
issues. So, they have been in the loop. It's just a matter
that they haven't been signing the plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Shouldn't be a problem on
this one.
MR. ODOM: Also, he had said that we had to
have the monument location and the minimum floor level the
B.F.E. was going to put on here, but I also want on there
the minimum -- the lowest floor level minimum on the -- on
that B.F.E. so the people will know, and I believe that is 2
foot that we have. That has been changed; it's 2 foot above
the B.F.E., so I want that on there so that people that buy
this lot down here will know. Of course, they're going to
be either outside of the 500-year frequency, or they can be
in the 500-year frequency. Zone A, definitely they would
have a problem, and we would come back on building on that.
But, if these notes are made as the Commissioner said, I
10-12-04
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think we're in good shape.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All the road cuts are
on State Highway 1340?
MR. ODOM: That's correct. And by -- and
there will be a design for each one. There'll be a detail
for what that slope will be to get on and off, because at
the topo, the land varies. And I've talked to Mike Boyd
over there at the State, and he has, I believe, met in the
preliminaries before I came aboard with everyone. So that
detail will be there for each lot so that it won't be a
surprise to the people. They'll know what they have to do
to -- to wrap. It will be a double wrap on some of these
lots. And so, I -- Lee is doing that now; he's establishing
the B.F.E. out there. And I take those topos right at the
property line. There'll be a double-wide driveway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lee, I have one question.
Was this area restudied by FEMA after some of the recent
years?
MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it going to --
MR. VOELKEL: But Waldemar is about where the
study ends, so this is beyond the detailed studied area.
MR. ODOM: He literally has to go out there
and scale it off, and he shot the grade.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was just wondering,
10-12-04
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
'cause those areas that are -- because of the number of
significant floods we've had, FEMA has restudied a lot of
areas very specifically. I wondered if this is one.
MR. VOELKEL: Just beyond that point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Addressing will be
addressing on -- as -- as it would be on 1340? There's not
going to be any attempt to establish another Eagle Ridge, is
there? Because we already have an Eagle Ridge Road in
Precinct 2. So, all addressing will be --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, it will all be
1340.
1340.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- on 1340?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
MR. VOELKEL: We're creating no roads.
MR. ODOM: No roads there. There's no roads.
MR. VOELKEL: Won't be any road names.
MR. ODOM: All access will be off of F.M.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I'd move that
we approve the preliminary plat of Eagle Ridge Subdivision
with the requirements that were noted in the minutes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item stated. Any further question?
10-12-04
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do have a comment,
going back to a comment that Commissioner Nicholson made
with regard to the drainage study. Even though I don't
think much of a study would be needed, I don't think we
should waive that for the final. I think it's a bad
precedent. I think that an engineer -- you can get a very
quick, you know -- I mean, it's not going to cost much to
get an engineer to say drainage is not going to be an issue
here.
MR. ODOM: He just left, but I believe in
that meeting, from my understanding, that the owners were to
get their engineer to look at that and to give us a letter
of waiver on that, so we would have that in the file.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not really a waiver; it's
more a -- they're just saying that it's okay.
MR. ODOM: It's okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Meets engineering
requirements or something along that line.
MR. ODOM: Not changing anything. Will not
put any roads in, will not put any drainage structures out
there. Just driveways, and topos there. It just runs off.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just don't like the word
"waiver."
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good point.
MR. ODOM: Probably a pretty good use of the
10-12-04
55
1
.- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~.., 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
English language.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further 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. We
have a timed item that we've run past, being Item Number 6,
that being the opening of sealed bid proposals for the
annual HVAC, electrical, plumbing, and pest control
services.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard?
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: The first proposal --
MR. KING: My name is Kenneth King. Have we
talked about Indian Creek? My Commissioner told me to be
here at 10:00 or 10:30. Someone told me it had already been
discussed.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We handled that
item, and we've made a decision to go ahead and approve the
sealcoat on Indian Creek.
MR. KING: Without allowing the landowner to
talk or anything? That's a pretty tricky way to do that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I apologize
10-12-09
56
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
for giving you bad information on the timing.
MR. KING: Pretty sorry way to run things.
JUDGE TINLEY: The first proposal I have is
from Hardin Heating and Cooling. The outside of the
envelope is marked "HVAC proposal." The proposal lists
hourly rates depending upon the time frame. Scheduled
working hours -- do I need to read these each into the
record?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably.
JUDGE TINLEY: Regular working hours 8:00 to
5:00, $75 an hour. Overtime working hours, technician per
hour, $75. Weekend working hours, technician per hour, $75.
Holiday working hours, technician per hour, $75. Charge for
components, repair parts, and supplies, cost plus
45 percent. Warranties on materials and parts range from
one to five years, and labor is one year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's just HVAC?
JUDGE TINLEY: Just HVAC only.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, does that same
company have a bid for electrical and plumbing?
JUDGE TINLEY: Don't know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As well?
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll get there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is each one of these
separate? I mean --
10-12-04
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm dividing them into
HVAC, electrical and plumbing and pest control.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next bid that I have is
from Compton's of Kerrville, HVAC proposal. The amount
shown, technician charge per hour, regular working hours, is
$67. Helper charge, $33.50. Overtime working hours,
technician, $100.50 per hour; helper charge, $50.25.
Weekend working hours, technician, $100.50 per hour; helper
charge, $50.25 per hour. Holiday working hours, technician
charge, $134 per hour; helper charge per hour, $67. Charge
for components, repair parts, and supplies, just shows a
list. Warranties, materials, and parts, 90 days or per the
manufacturer. Labor, 90 days or per the manufacturer's
warranty.
Next bid that I have is HVAC from State Aire,
local company. The regular working hours, $65. Helper --
that's per hour for technician. Helper charge, $37.50, with
a notation that additional response time to be as required.
Emergency is defined as one hour. Non-emergency is all
other, I suppose. Overtime working hours, $97.50 per hour
for the technician. Weekend, $97.50 per hour. Holiday,
$97.50 per hour. Charge for components, repair parts, and
supplies, actual cost plus 30 percent, with a notation of
equipment, 20 percent. Warranties, materials and parts, per
manufacturer, typically one year. Labor, 90 days per
10-12-04
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
service call.
The next one I have is from Air Tech, HVAC
bid. Regular working hours, technician charge per hour,
$64; helper charge, $30 per hour. Overtime, again, $64 an
hour; helper charge, $30 an hour. Weekend working hours,
technician, $64; helper charge, $30. Holiday working hours,
$64 an hour; helper charge, $30. Charge for components,
repair parts, and supplies, actual costs plus -- the blank
is left blank; plus "blank" percent. Warranties, per
manufacturer on parts. Labor, one year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was the last one on
HVAC, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have three on the
electrical.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, do you think
this part of the meeting is the reason we have the room full
of citizens today? I mean, this is pretty exciting stuff.
JUDGE TINLEY: It is. It was a timed item
also, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They drove far to come
in and be a part of this. This is good. Dedicated
citizens.
JUDGE TINLEY: On electrical, first one we
10-12-04
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
have is from --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Guadalupe, I believe.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Guadalupe Electric.
Regular working hours, $75 per hour; helper charge, $15 an
hour. Overtime working hours, electrician, $112.50 per
hour; helper charge, $22.50. Weekend working hours,
electrician, $150 per hour; helper charge, $30 an hour.
Holiday working hours, electrician, $150 an hour; helper
charge, $30 an hour. Charge for components, repair parts,
and supplies, actual cost plus 80 percent. Warranties,
materials, and parts, one year. Labor, one year. Notation,
45-foot aerial truck, $125 an hour. 26-foot Genie Lift, $20
per hour.
Next one is from Butterworth Electric.
Regular hours, electrician, $50 an hour; helper charge,
$22.50. Overtime charge for electrician, $50 an hour;
helper charge, $22.50. Weekend, electrician per hour, $75;
helper charge per hour, $33.75. Holiday working,
electrician charge, $100 per hour; helper charge, $45 an
hour. Charge for components, repair parts, and supplies,
actual cost plus 35 percent. Warranties, materials and
parts, manufacturer's including one year. Labor, one year.
The next one that we have on electrical is
D.W. Electric. Regular working hours, $50 an hour,
electrician; helper charge, $20 an hour. Overtime,
10-12-09
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
60
technician -- electrician, $70 an hour; helper charge, $30
an hour. Weekend electrician, $65 an hour; helper, $30 an
hour. Holiday electrician charge, $65 an hour; helper, $30
an hour. Charge for components, repair parts, and supplies,
actual cost plus 20 percent. Warranties, materials, and
parts as per manufacturer's warranty, and labor, one year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One plumbing.
JUDGE TINLEY: One plumbing bid from Whelan
Plumbing. There's some notations. I'll try and just hit
the high points. Regular working hours, plumber charge,
$62.50 an hour; helper, $31.25 an hour. Overtime plumber
charge, $93.75 an hour; helper charge, $46.88 an hour.
Weekend plumber, $93.75 an hour; helper, $46.88. Holiday
plumber charge, $125 an hour; helper charge, $62.50.
Charges for components, repair parts, and supplies, actual
cost plus 30 percent. Warranties, materials, and parts, 90
days on repairs. One year for new fixtures. Labor, same as
materials.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pest control, we have
two.
JUDGE TINLEY: And we have two on pest
control, one from Starkey --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Starkey.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Pest Control. These are
all monthly services. Courthouse, 100. Sheriff's
10-12-04
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
61
Department, 230 -- these are dollars. Extension Office,
$30. Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center, $60. Animal
Control, 30. J.P. 4 and Tax annex, $30, and Adult
Probation, 45.
And the second one i
again, monthly services as follows:
Sheriff's Office, jail, and J.P. 2,
$25. Adult and Juvenile Probation,
Exhibit, $95. Animal Control, 45.
in Ingram, $25.
s from Terminix. Here
Courthouse, $95.
$95. Extension Office,
$95. Hill Country Youth
And J.P. 4 and Tax annex
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. I move we
accept all bids and refer them to the director of
Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
acceptance of bids and referral to director of Maintenance
for evaluation. 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 NICHOLSON: Judge, I might
change my opinion about County Commissioners being overpaid.
I'm thinking about going to electrician school.
10-12-04
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
62
JUDGE TINLEY: Or plumber?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plumber.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or helper.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Basically, a
helper.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 85 bucks an hour?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wrong business, huh?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whew.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now for the other exciting
timed item on today's -- this morning's agenda, open and
consider bids for used trucks, one being a water
distributor, and the other being an asphalt distributor.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have one for each one,
Judge.
tough.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is going to be
JUDGE TINLEY: The first one is for purchase
of the used truck with water distributor. It comes from
Cooper Equipment Company in San Antonio. The bid is gross
$27,500, allowing a trade-in value of $6,800 for an existing
water truck, for a net cost of $20,700. The bid for the
used truck with asphalt distributor also comes from Cooper
Equipment Company, San Antonio. The gross amount is
$49, 500.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we accept both bids
io-iz-o4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
and refer them to Road and Bridge for recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
acceptance of bids and referral to Road and Bridge
Department for review and recommendation. 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. Why
don't we go to Item 11, consider approving road name changes
for privately maintained roads in accordance with 9-1-1
guidelines.
MS. HARDIN: Good morning, gentlemen. These
all fit the guidelines, and I don't think there's any
controversy on any of them.
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, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
10-12-09
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
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to pass on 12 for
right now because of some possible interplay with a later
agenda items. Going or_ to Item 15, consider and discuss
approving a resolution or other action to participate in the
Indigent Defense Grant Program, and authorize the Judge to
sign the same. This is an item that I put on, basically an
annual requirement. We get grant funds under the Indigent
Defense program, and they require that we provide an annual
resolution that says if we administer those funds
inappropriately, that we'll be responsible for paying back
any that we administer inappropriately. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval, and
authorize County Judge to sign the same.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 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.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 13, consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to develop plan for
Kerr County's 150th anniversary in April 2006.
io-12-04
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, this -- I
placed this on the agenda after Commissioner Letz and I met
with General Schellhase, who is a member of the Kerr County
Historical Commission, with regard to how best -- if and how
best to commemorate and celebrate Kerr County's 150th
anniversary, which will take place in April of 2006.
General Schellhase has put together some of his thoughts --
Walter, if you'd come to the podium, please? -- some of his
thoughts with respect to how this might take shape. What we
don't know is who-all's going to do it and where the funds
are going to come from. But, General Schellhase?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Well, at our last Historical
Commission report to the Court, we -- meeting update, we
asked y'all to put this on the calendar somewhere down the
line several months ago. It didn't happen, so we decided to
initiate some meetings with a couple Commissioners and say
this is something that's -- the time is slipping by. At
that time, we had 21 months to get this done; now we have 18
months to get this done. So, the Historical Commission
feels like that the Commission needs to take the initial
steps to get this kicked off, make a decision if they want
to do it and feel like it should be done, and how to go
about it. We've put together some guidelines based on the
100th celebration that was well-done in Kerr County, and we
feel like something comparable can be done also. The
10-12-04
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
guidelines that we've put together were based on the 100th
agenda that they had for the four or five days involved.
Our initial charter was issued in the last week in April in
1856 -- 1856, so we now have 150 years in 2006. So, we're
down to 18 months to get this done.
And in some counties -- Commissioner Williams
brought back a brochure for Karnes County, where they did it
for a whole year, participated in activities for one year.
One whole year. Last -- the 100th, that was done on the
exact dates of the charter for the county, and for a
four-day event. We're recommending again this year that we
do it for -- or 2006 for a four-day event, starting on
Wednesday and ending on Sunday. And we've laid out several
activities that could take place during that period of time,
and started on an itemized list of who would participate in
that. It's going to have to be a total community activity,
and the Commission needs to make a decision whether we want
to move forward with this, and -- and would like to remind
you that this is a -- a Commission -- a County celebration,
not a Kerr County Historical Commission celebration.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think this -- the
reason I think it's appropriate, probably, to put this on
the agenda now is -- and this is something that I've also
shared with General Schellhase -- I don't see the County
putting a lot of funds into this, but I think from a -- a
10-12-04
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
use of facilities, and possibly through some of the
Maintenance Department or some other areas, maybe jail
inmates, you know, different things to help where needed
could be appropriate. I think it is a worthwhile event. I
think if we can just settle on the dates, get the dates set,
and then, you know, either members of the Court, members of
the community try to figure out a steering committee and
move forward. I really don't see that the -- the Court has
a whole lot to do with the -- you know, other than bringing
attention to it, setting the dates when it's going to be,
and allowing courthouse facilities or court facilities --
County facilities to be used with this. I think the key is
raising money, and I think that by the Court designating
this is when it's going to be, that'll help in that effort.
In our discussions, Commissioner Williams,
and with General Schellhase, I think it either needs to be
taken under the umbrella of some nonprofit, or a new
nonprofit created, you know, to have this take place. I
think these discussions are going on in both directions
right now, so they can raise some grant funds. So -- so, I
think that the -- you know, it's something that is
worthwhile. I think it was a big plus to Comfort recently
when they had their celebration, and I think it's something
worthy that this county should, you know, undertake. I
think that the Commissioners Court is a good spot to kind of
10-12-04
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
kick it off and set the dates, and then turn it back to the
community to fill in the blanks and raise the funds.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't -- I don't
disagree with what Commissioner Letz is saying, but I do
think, first of all, we have to establish that it is --
excuse me -- it is Kerr County's obligation and
responsibility. It is the 150th, or sesquicentennial
celebration. That is a noteworthy achievement. We should
commemorate it to the best possible effort. How we do that
is another matter. So, I think today we can set the dates,
and I would move that at the right time. But I'm going back
and discussing how other counties have done this, and the
most notable one that I know about recently was Karnes
County, and I provided that information to General
Schellhase. They formed a separate corporation and they
raised all the moneys necessary to get the job done. And I
don't even think the County was involved in any seed money
in that particular event. But I think time is of the
essence, and I'm not sure that we're going to be able to
form a separate corporation and -- and engage the right
people to get involved in it, and -- and raise the necessary
amount of money and go through all that corporate finagling
and so forth and so on.
So, I think if we could find the right
not-for-profit group -- and the one that comes to mind
10-12-04
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
69
readily is the Arts and Crafts Educational Foundation --
Texas State Official Arts and Crafts Educational Foundation,
who has the River Star Park on County grounds. And if those
folks would be willing to assume it as a -- as an event that
would be staged on their grounds, that would be a good spot
to do it. And I think we all need to put our best efforts
and minds together in determining who a steering committee
would be. I think the steering committee has to have
representation from the Historical Commission, because I
really believe that's a necessary element to the success of
it. But I think each of us, undoubtedly, could think of
some person who has enough community involvement and enough
willingness to assist in this -- in this matter to get the
thing kicked off and rolling. So, I guess that's where we
are today. What we want to do is set up the dates
officially. Is that correct, gentlemen -- General?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that we
set the date officially for the Kerr County sesquicentennial
celebration as April 23 through 27, 2006.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
the event to be set to occur April 23 through 27, 2006. Any
question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- you know, I
io-i2-o4
~o
1
~_ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
guess a little bit more general comment before we vote on
that and move forward. I think that every -- everyone on
the Court should try to think of one or two individuals from
their precincts that can kind of -- that can go to the
steering committee. Whether -- whether the Court appoints a
steering committee or we kind of help get some names into
it, I think one of the things that is important is that you
get a good geographical spread. I think you need to have
representatives from the far east and the far west and north
and south, because there are different communities that can
bring something to the table here. So, I think that that is
something we can be involved with. And I -- have you talked
to Bob Miller, General?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes, Bob Miller's very
interested. And, in fact, I'm meeting again with him at
1 o'clock today to get some more details as to what might be
involved, and he's kind of interested to see what the Court
was going to do first.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think my view, you
know, is that if the Texas Arts and Crafts Foundation takes
this on, that it would be probably a -- they would be
compensated out of some of the funds. Basically, I think
you need to have an executive director, for lack of another
term; someone who's going to spearhead it and do a lot of
work to put on an event of this type. And if it's just done
10-12-04
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
on a purely volunteer basis, my gut feeling is it's not
going to happen, you know. But I think if you have someone
who's paid, and those funds to pay that individual come out
of grant proceeds or fundraising in the community, I think
we can come up with a very good event that the County can be
proud of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with
that, but I think the most important element now is for us
to come up with or assist in the formation of a steering
committee, and that has to be people who are connected in
the community and have the best interests of the community
and want to see the celebration happen. Because fundraising
is a -- is a very, very important element of the whole
thing, and without that fundraising, it's not going to
happen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. Okay.
MR. SCHELLHASE: I might point out that 50
years ago, Kerr County already had a float which was being
used in parades around the state. The first one was the
Fourth of July. So, we're already --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Already had one in
the equivalent time frame.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Fifty years back, we're
already four months behind the curve. And we have 50 more
years to cover in that celebration. So --
10-12-04
72
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further 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.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll need to talk
again.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Could we get the Court to
perhaps make a motion cr a provision to proceed with a
steering committee so we can move forward with that?
Perhaps charge each Commissioner with providing two or three
names from their geographical region to start this ball
rolling?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my preference,
General, would be if we can figure out who the executive
director's going to be, and get their input as to how they
want to proceed. And I think that the -- you know, I -- we
can put it back on the agenda, and at that time have the
appointees at the same time. I think we can accomplish it.
If the Court's going to make some appointments to a steering
committee, we can do that under one agenda item and -- you
know, and do that same thing. But I think it's -- really,
the first step needs to be to get an executive director, you
10-12-04
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know, at least in place, and then see how they think they,
you know, will run the show.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would it be safe to
suggest that both you and I would be willing to join the
General in discussions with the Arts and Crafts Fair
people -- Mr. Miller -- to see if they're willing to move
forward in that direction?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's do that.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all we have on this
item, gentlemen? Why don't we stand in recess for about 15
minutes?
(Recess taken from 10:36 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order, the
Commissioners Court meeting. Let's go to Item 14, consider
and discuss the Policies of Courthouse Building and Grounds
to determine if revisions are needed. Commissioner
Nicholson, you asked that this be placed on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I put it on
the agenda so that we might discuss the issues and come to
some -- hopefully come to some sort of consensus about what
rules we have for use of the courthouse facility and the
courthouse square. At the last two Commissioners Court
10-12-04
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
meetings, we've had some discussion about whether or not we
have a policy that prohibits political discourse in the
courthouse or on the courthouse square, and the debate arose
when we reported that some citizens had apparently
campaigned for Senator John Kerry on a Market Day Saturday.
At our last meeting, it was pointed out that I voted for a
policy that prohibited political activity on the courthouse
square. This troubled me, and I began to wonder if I had
voted for this policy before I voted against it.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What did you decide?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, what I've done
is I found the -- the policy that we approved, the
guidelines that govern the use of the courthouse building
and grounds, and I don't find any -- any prohibition on
campaigning or discussing politics or other political
discourse in those guidelines. And I also found where we --
our minutes of our Commissioners Court meeting where we
discussed that, and I don't find anything in there about
barring political discourse on county facilities. It's my
opinion that -- that there is no more appropriate place than
the courthouse and the courthouse square to engage in
political discourse. It's the -- it's the people's
courthouse, and we've not -- in my view, we've not done
anything to abridge people's First Amendment rights, and I
10-12-04
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would like to see them here engage in political activity.
There was also, I think, maybe some view that -- that we ban
political signs, including bumper stickers, from -- from the
courthouse square, and I don't even see how that would be
practical, let alone constitutional. I guess you could --
if I've got a George Bush sticker on my car, I guess I could
park it across the street if bumper stickers are banned from
the courthouse. But, anyhow, I think we can't let this lie;
we have to come to some understanding, some consensus about
what are our rules for use of the courthouse square
facilities and whether or not political activity is -- is
restricted.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I -- of course,
I'm the one that brought the policy to the court that
subsequently was approved last June.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many times?
JUDGE TINLEY: It was the third time I
brought it -- or third time since I've been on the Court
that it had been brought to the Court. Let me clear up one
thing. It's been indicated to me that -- that I am
responsible for a declaration or an edict that there shall
be no political meetings in the courthouse or on the
grounds. That's not correct. I did with respect to the
courthouse building itself, and it was a matter that was
brought to the Court and -- and officially adopted, that --
10-12-04
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
that the courthouse be used for official government
business, with the stated exceptions in the policy, and the
political exception being the -- being the conventions that
are required under the Election Code by -- by the political
parties. And we've done that and will continue to do that.
That's an exception. I -- I certainly didn't -- didn't
propose anything with respect to the courthouse grounds.
The policy speaks for itself.
The -- the recent incidents that brought
attention to this matter both occurred during the Market Day
function, and at that point, that was a contract user, which
is permitted under the -- under the policy, and the -- the
Market Days people had control of the courthouse grounds
where supposedly this activity occurred. If the Court wants
to change the use of the facilities, the courthouse building
itself, to allow any sort of political meeting, that's
certainly the Court's prerogative. I would suggest that
we're going to get into issues, as was the concern
previously, that you're concerned about having people
available to make sure that the courthouse is secure,
that -- that there's cleanup that has to be done.
After-hours situations come into play. It was not meant to
attempt to restrict or otherwise prohibit political or other
free speech. Certainly, that's -- that's acceptable. You
can't control what people say. But the issue came about
10-12-04
77
1
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 of the -- the other collateral issues; the staffing
issues, the personnel issues, the security issues, the
maintenance and cleanup issues. That's how that came to be.
With respect to the outside of the grounds,
the only -- the only opinions I've heard expressed are that
we certainly don't want our courthouse grounds looking like
Bandera County has in the past. They had a -- it was just
riddled with various campaign signs and materials. I think
Commissioner Williams had an opportunity to observe it. I
observed it, and it -- it looked worse than a landfill, very
frankly. But, you know, it's up to the Court. I wanted to
clear up the misconception, though, that I had -- that I had
issued an edict that there shall be no organized political
activity on the courthouse grounds. That's not even the
policy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, you don't have the
authority to issue edicts, I don't think.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That shouldn't have been
an issue. But I think -- and I don't -- I'm not real sure
how the whole thing got to where we are today. I think it's
a good discussion. The issue originally was we contract
with the Market Days people to do a function on the
courthouse grounds a certain number of weekends or days a
year. And the purpose -- and that contract says -- you
10-12-04
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
know, while it specifically, I don't think, said they
couldn't have political vendors, I think the intent of the
Court always has been that that was to be a -- to sell
produce and local-made crafts, and I think the rub was that
it was a -- a use of Market Days which was not the intended
purpose of Market Days. It had nothing to do with free
speech. It was use of a contract that we have with the
entity, Market Days. And I think, as Commissioner Baldwin
and others have said, that issue can be addressed when we
renew that contract with that association.
From a free speech standpoint, and the
political -- there's nothing in our policy that prohibits
people talking politics on the courthouse grounds, having
bumper stickers or anything like that. There is, as I would
read our rules, a prohibition against doing a political
rally on the grounds. And the reason is just as you said,
maintenance. We have certain people, you know, nonprofit
civic organizations, school organizations, veterans groups
that are recurrent contract users, the ones that can have
organized events on the courthouse square. I really don't
have a problem with letting political parties do it too, but
I think the issue is more an accountability and maintenance
issue than anything else. And, you know, we can easily add
the -- you know, to me, I think it's a -- probably a good
spot to have political rallies. However, the political
10-12-04
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
parties are going to be responsible for the cleanup and the
maintenance and making sure that trash is picked up if we do
that, just like we do with every other civic organization
that uses it. And they actually may qualify under civic
organizations; depends on how you want to define "civic
organization." But I think that's the -- there's never been
any prohibition that I can see about people talking politics
on the courthouse square. That's ridiculous.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How about something
more formal? For example, if I want to announce my
candidacy for governor, and call the press and tell them
that I'm going to be on the courthouse steps to make that
announcement, then that's acceptable political activity,
right?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's happened.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's happened
before.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON:
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
you know, my comments.
JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't
governor, though.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON:
parties, but I've got it in mind. (La
Yeah.
I want to clarify,
know he announced for
I may have to change
ughter.)
10-12-04
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
80
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe that's a
portent of things to come, Judge. I want to clarify also my
comments with respect to signage. My comment was limited
solely to placing signs on stakes, driving them into the
ground, and leaving them there. And I likened that to what
I know to be the fact -- was the fact in Bandera, although I
think they've now rescinded that, and they do -- I believe
they, if I recollect correctly, are not allowing any in any
more. I think that's not acceptable. My -- my issue is an
even playing field. If a political party wishes to conduct
a rally, fine and dandy, just so that any political party
that's legitimate in Kerr County has an equal right and
equal opportunity to do so, and equal -- equal obligation to
clean up the grounds and make certain they left them in the
same condition that they found them, and that's my only
concern.
We've already accommodated Kerr County's
political parties having their -- their conventions here,
and precincts going to have their conventions here. That's
all quite legitimate and quite acceptable, as far as I'm
concerned. That's all part of the public discourse on -- on
the political issues, and I think that's quite acceptable.
So, I never once said anything about bumper stickers. If
you've got a bumper sticker on your car, I think it would be
ludicrous to think that you couldn't park here or that you
10-12-04
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
81
should take the bumper sticker off before you drove on the
grounds. That was never what I said, nor never my intent.
I think that would be a -- that would be just totally out of
the realm of -- of good judgment. So -- and I don't plan to
take mine off of my truck right now, either. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And another comment I
have -- and the issue doesn't go with the rallies being held
here; it's the procedure for doing so. And I think that's
real clear, and it says in our procedures, "Any group
desiring to use any portion of the courthouse grounds shall
make the request for such use in writing to the Courthouse
Facilities Director." All we want to know is who's going to
be accountable if something is damaged or trash isn't picked
up. That's a pretty simple process.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think Commissioner
Letz' comments earlier about the -- the flap, if in fact a
flap does exist, had to do with the Market Days. I think
there was a general feeling that whatever took place was not
within the context of our understanding of how they would
operate on the grounds. So, if somebody wants to stage a
rally after Market Days leaves that day, cleans up the
grounds, far as I'm concerned, go for it.
JUDGE TINLEY: We had a couple of
participations requested for this particular issue.
Mr. John Moorman. Yes, sir? You filed a participation
10-12-04
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
82
request?
MR. MOORMAN: Yes, sir. May I speak now?
JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly, sir.
MR. MOORMAN: Okay. I'm John Moorman, and I
live over in Kerrville South. And I would like to start out
with a couple of compliments, first to Commissioner
Nicholson for again raising the issue and allowing for some
further clarification, because, hearing from several of you
gentlemen and in the community, there really has been a lot
of misinformation and confusion and concern. But it is a --
a very important issue, so I think it's worth spending a few
more minutes on. I also appreciate the nonpartisan tone
that I've heard here today, because we know this is a very
contentious election year, and it's real easy for people's
emotions to get inflamed, and misinformation and that sort
of thing.
I'd like to address my brief comments to two
points, one having to do with the policy passed in June
having to do with the use of the courthouse building and
grounds, and then, secondly, to the contract of Market Days.
It's been helpful to hear the discussion. I understand now
that the courthouse grounds are open to a wide variety of
uses, as long as there is written request to the courthouse
administrator, who would then outline what responsibilities
the organization would need to -- and, you know, who would
10-12-04
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
83
be liable if there's damage and that sort of thing, and that
certainly sounds reasonable. The use of the courthouse
building, the inside, when it's not normally open, I also
think that's very reasonable that you would want to have
somebody here opening and closing the building, being
responsible for security, cleanup, that sort of thing. So,
now that that's clarified, I think that there may be several
groups interested in holding some rallies or some political
activity on the courthouse lawn, and now that we know what
the -- the rules are, why, I think it would be much simpler
to follow them.
As to the Market Days, which is how we got
into the whole thing, just a couple of facts. My
understanding is that the manager of the courthouse -- or
the Marketing Days stated that the Republicans had had a
booth there twice. The Republican -- the Democrats had a
booth there once. If you look at their web site, their web
site says one of their functions is for community groups to
meet and network, quote, unquote. To use Marketplace Days
as a place to get to know people and -- and network. And,
by precedent, apparently, passing out literature, you know,
kind of fitting in, having a booth, that sort of thing, has
apparently been a historically accepted practice. My
concern is that when the Democrats attempted to sign up for
a booth for the remainder of the Market Days between now and
10-12-04
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
the election, their check was returned to them and they were
told that they could not have a booth, even though there had
been a precedent set for that. And I think the issue that
that raises is one of, has there been a change in policy?
And, if so, where -- or why was there a change in policy?
The perception in the community is that the
Commissioners Court had put pressure -- under threat of not
renewing a contract, had put pressure on the Market Days to
exclude political -- Republican or Democrat -- booths until
the contract was renewed. So, that's the problem that I
have today. Is -- does the Court hold that their contract
with the Market Days would disallow either Republicans or
Democrats to have a booth during Market Days? And if you
could give me just an up or down, yes-or-no answer to that,
I would appreciate it. Because if you're saying that your
-- the contract -- your interpretation of that contract is
that they can't have -- allow political parties to have
booths, why, then we'll discuss that with you after the
election, and maybe during the next election when some of
you Commissioners are running. If your answer is that it is
allowed, well, then, I think we might like to go back to the
Market Days folks and perhaps ask for a booth. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Dot Larimer?
MS. LARIMER: Thank you, sir. Good morning,
gentlemen. Gosh, I hate to even start after John's very --
10-12-09
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
85
very good words there. But let me say, first of all, that
the agenda item as it was printed doesn't have a for or
against position. There's no motion indicated at this point
on the printed agenda that was provided to the public. I
do, however, favor freedom of speech on the courthouse
square. I've read the policy that you're addressing today.
As it is written, it seems to me to be sufficient. The way
it has been interpreted is what I see to be the problem. At
election time, it is customary for persons with particular
political persuasions to express their various opinions by
speaking outside the voting site, by wearing their hats,
their T-shirts, their buttons, et cetera, by putting bumper
stickers and banners on their cars, on their pickups, on
their vans, their SUV's, and yes, even their RV's. The law
requires the 100-foot distance marker for any of these to
occur. Beyond that marker, any other disallowance in public
areas, I would suggest, may be a violation of a citizen's
First Amendment rights.
I've heard it mentioned that the only reason
for the current policy is to keep costs down as they relate
to maintenance; that is, to litter. There has been a
similar problem in years past on Texas highways, and the
people who deal with those concerns have addressed those
concerns in a different way. They didn't close down the
highways to people who might litter the highways. Let me
10-12-04
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
say that we all know that democracy is messy, but it's the
best thing we've got. And I can't think of another thing
that might be even better. And I would encourage you to
make an interpretation that dealt with those issues that I
have suggested are important for voters and people who are
campaigning in a way similar to what the Highway Department
did. I think it was during Mark White's administration that
the campaign, "Don't Mess with Texas" began, and groups
began cleaning up the mess that was on the highway, and
they're doing a pretty good job. Perhaps those people who
come to the courthouse square could make sure that their
signs are removed. But during election time, I think it's
really important to allow people to have their signs and to
have them out where people can see them, even during early
voting. I know that there are some people who are going to
be opposed to that because of the negative comments that
have been made about Bandera. It may be messy, but that's
what democracy is all about. I thank you for your time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Is there anyone
else that wishes to be heard on this particular agenda item?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One thing real quick,
Your Honor.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The -- I was just
looking at the policy that you have as far as the rallies.
10-12-04
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
87
Some of y'a11 will remember -- the only thing I'd like to
see -- it says they have to make written notice to the
Facilities Manager, being Glenn. If you do revise the
policy, the only preference I would have in there is that
there's a time frame. Because a lot of people that do the
rallies, whether it be political or whether it be like we
had several years ago, the KKK, when they did theirs, I need
time to be able to set up security issues around the
courthouse. And that would be my only thing that needs to
be set up, 'cause it does require a lot more manpower at
times when you're talking security issues that need to be
addressed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sheriff, on that point, I
think we tried -- I think we intentionally left the policy
as broad as possible, and hopefully, if there's going to be
a -- you know, a group that is likely to attract a large
number of -- of participants, that the Maintenance Director
will contact your office. But -- and I think that's
something you need to work out with that -- that department.
Because if it's a group -- a rally that's going to likely
attract 10, 15, 20 people, there's no reason for you to be
involved. But if it's going to attract 2,000, yes, you need
to be involved.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Depending on what type
of group is coming, yeah. Yes, sometimes we are.
10-12-04
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Needs to be worked out.
Basically, it's the discretion of the Facilities Director.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'd like to see a
minimum -- give us at least time to be able to set up
off-duty personnel coming in. As far as the signs all
around, the only problem that would cause us if people put
signs all over is it's our department now, pretty well,
through the work program, that does all the yard maintenance
out there as far as mowing, and I don't want our guys to
have to get in the habit of pulling up and putting back
political signs all over the courthouse square during this
time of year. That would take a lot of time, and if they
don't get them back where that person wanted their
particular sign, or where it was before, it's just going to
cause a headache for us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My experience with
rallies -- political rallies where signs are involved is
that when the people come with the signs, that's one thing,
and that's absolutely fine.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If they want to hold
up two signs in two hands, or four signs in three hands,
doesn't make any difference to me. When the people go, the
signs go. And that's my only point, instead of driving
stakes in the ground and leaving them here and cluttering up
10-12-04
89
1
,._. 2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the courthouse lawn. I don't want my sign there, and I
don't want your sign there on the courthouse square in a
permanent type position. If you want to stage a rally and
bring 500 people, 500 signs, be my guest.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the only other
comment in response to Mr. Moorman's comment, it's not an
agenda item to discuss the contract with Market Days, is one
thing, so we really can't discuss that. But I have not --
well, this Court and me personally, or as a commissioner,
have not visited with anyone from Market Days. So, I mean,
we have -- the Court has given Market Days people no
direction one way or the other on what they're doing.
They -- they can choose to do their contract the way they
see fit, and we'll, you know, react accordingly when we --
or make changes accordingly in the new contract. I mean, I
can't say anything. I mean, all I can say is that, you
know, I don't -- well, I can tell you today, there's not an
agenda item that allows the Court to, you know, really
discuss that contract. Now, I think that the -- the point
you had that under the -- if they are basing their decision
on, you know, community involvement, that`s a pretty good
argument, you know. I mean, I can see that argument, but
it's a -- you know, I don't see that we can give you a -- a
yes or no today, because it's not something we can discuss.
And, further, as I said, Market Days people have never come
10-12-04
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
to the Court as a whole. May have come to some of the
individual Commissioners; I don't know. I have not talked
to them.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you know --
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you wish to be heard,
ma`am?
MS. OHLSON: Yes, please.
JUDGE TINLEY: Come forward, please. Give
your name to the reporter.
MS. OHLSON: My name is Shirley Ohlson,
0-h-1-s-o-n. As -- as you talked about, you know, the
question about whether or not there was permission given,
you know, to them to do such and so, or what they thought, I
would request that the Court find out where the lady did get
the impression that certain people were not to be allowed --
political groups were not to be allowed to come to Market
Days. I think it's very important for the Court to find
that out, because she invited us in first. She was very
glad to have us there, and then suddenly she says, "I'm
sorry, but you can't be there," and she returns our money.
So, I think it's very important for the Court to find this
out, to follow through on it, and to make it a part of
public record. I hope that's not an unreasonable request.
10-12-04
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
IZ
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ma'am, I don't -- I don't
want to get in a dialogue. I don't disagree with you at
all, but the Market Days people have not come to the Court.
MS. OHLSON: They returned our check.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's --
MS. OHLSON: So something -- something gave
her the impression, and the only people that have that
ability are sitting right in front of me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I disagree. I
think the impression came possibly from the press.
MS. OHLSON: Well, I wish that you would find
out for me. Would you do that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't -- how?
MS. OHLSON: All you have to do is just call
her and find out. One of you, anyway.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Ohlson?
MS. OHLSON: Yes?
JUDGE TINLEY: Have you made inquiry of the
Market Days management?
MS. OHLSON: I know that the Market Days
management returned our check and said that it was not
feasible for her to have us there. Dot might wish to -- to
address that a little bit more.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the extent of your
information?
10-12-04
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
MS. OHLSON: That is my information.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I guess my question is,
did anybody inquire why this action was taken by the Market
Days people?
MS. LARIMER: I'm very sorry that I don't
have the letter with me that she sent to me, but I was left
with the impression that it was a matter of their contract
renewal was being held over their head, so to speak, and
that they were going to interpret the policy of -- in such a
way that it would not allow us to be there. Let's see if I
can recall -- one of the things I was told was that we
couldn't come in --
JUDGE TINLEY: Was this in the letter?
MS. LARIMER: -- as a nonprofit -- no, this
part that I'm getting ready to tell you was not in the
letter. But the part I'm getting ready to tell you was
the -- the person I spoke with on the telephone, at the
Market Days telephone number that's listed on their
brochure. We were told we couldn't come in
sorry, I'm having a hard time recalling all
If I had the policy in front of me, I could
exactly. But she said we had to -- to show
in order to be a nonprofit. Well, I spoke
about that, and the attorney said you don't
501(c)(3) in order to be a nonprofit. Now,
under a -- I'm
of these terms.
refer to it
501(c)(3) papers
pith an attorney
have to be a
that's why I
10-12-04
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
said that I think it's a matter of interpretation of the
policy that is the problem. And if, here today, each of you
could do something that would help to interpret the
policy -- what you're dealing with today is the policy. If
you could interpret the policy in such a way that the people
at Market Days would be absolutely clear that they could
allow both the Democratic party and the Republican party to
have a booth at Market Days without them being penalized or
dressed down when it comes time for them to renew their
contract, I think they would feel more comfortable about
that as well. I can't speak for them, and I'm sorry they're
not here to speak, but that's my interpretation of the
situation.
JUDGE TINLEY: If I understand you correctly,
ma'am, when you asked why you were not accepted, the
response was if you could present a 501(c)(3) certification,
that would be acceptable?
MS. LARIMER: I believe that was the way it
was put. I said, couldn't we enter under the --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Civic organization
is -- I think is what you --
MS. LARIMER: Well, I looked at all of the
things that were listed there, and we are nonprofit and we
are civic organization. And they said -- they just said no,
they just -- they don't want to deal with it. They don't
10-12-04
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
want the hassle. And they -- I'm left with the
impression -- I can't speak for them, and don't think that
I'm trying to speak for them, but I'm left with the
impression that they just don't want to deal with the hassle
when it comes time for renewal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I --
JUDGE TINLEY: That was your impression.
MS. LARIMER: That was my impression. If I
had the letter that was sent to me, I would give you the
JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly, that would be the
best indicator of what their response was. But --
MS. LARIMER: But could you, here today, make
an interpretation so that they would understand that it
would be all right for us as a group to be there?
JUDGE TINLEY: Unfortunately, the Market Days
contract, which is what we're talking about now, is nowhere
on the agenda.
MS. LARIMER: That's what I said.
JUDGE TINLEY: As a consequence, we're not in
a position to -- to discuss the Market Days contract. There
will be a time, obviously, when that -- when that will be
available to us.
MS. LARIMER: But, sir, the policy is what is
on the agenda, and if you could interpret the policy at this
10-12-04
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
point, as an agenda item, to say whether or not that -- we
would be allowed on the courthouse square.
JUDGE TINLEY: I disagree with you as to the
MS. LARIMER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: The issue is, what does the
contract with Market Days people say?
MS. LARIMER: That's not what's on the
agenda.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand.
MS. LARIMER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the interpretation of that
contract is not on the agenda, and what the Market Days
people are operating under is the contract, so that`s really
where the issue is contained.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me explain. In my
opinion, political events can take place on the courthouse
square under a civic organization, but it has nothing to do
with Market Days. They're two -- they're two separate -- I
mean, and I -- that's just the way I look at it. I mean,
and I don't have the Market Days contract; it's not on the
agenda. I haven't really looked at it, 'cause no one's
asked me to. I mean, the issue -- you know, there's a
contract issue with Market Days. That's one, and the other
issue is, can political functions use the courthouse square?
10-12-04
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
And on that latter one, yes, I think'-- you know,
political --
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- you know, parties can
hold rallies and do what they want, you know, if they just
request it through the Maintenance Director. But --
MS. LARIMER: But not at Market Days?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it has nothing to
do with Market Days. Market Days basically has a license to
be in charge of the courthouse square on those days, if that
makes sense. I still see a blank look.
JUDGE TINLEY: The control, as it were, of
the courthouse grounds on the dates and hours covered by the
Market Days contract is covered by that agreement. With
respect to other times, they're covered by the policy. And,
were any political group to seek permission at some time
other than the Market Days dates and hours, that would be a
matter of separate consideration. Since we, by contract,
have given the Market Days people the authority to have the
control of the grounds during that period of time, the Court
doesn't feel like we have the authority to give them a
contract and then come right in on top of them and pile
things on them, as it were, over and above that which the
contract calls for.
MS. LARIMER: So, if --
10-12-04
97
1
2 from?
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: Do you see where I'm coming
MS. LARIMER: I see where you're coming from.
So, if they should change their minds and accept my deposit
and check for a booth on the courthouse square at the next
Market Days, you would not have any objection to our being
there; is that correct?
JUDGE TINLEY: That is a matter that's under
the Market Days contract agreement, and the Market Days
people are in control for the grounds at that particular
time and on those dates.
MS. LARIMER: Exactly. But you would not
have any objection if they accepted our check and allowed us
on the courthouse square at that time?
JUDGE TINLEY: We have no right to object.
MS. LARIMER: Sounds good to me.
JUDGE TINLEY: They're administering that
contract. Now, when the contract comes up for renewal, it
may be a matter of discussion at that point in time as to
how the contract will be framed for future events, if any.
MS. LARIMER: And I see that's what their
concern is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But let me also say on
that point that every year that we do this contract, or
every year -- this is going to be the third year, I think,
10-12-09
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
98
that we enter into this contract -- changes are made. And,
you know, this has come up -- it's a new thing that's come
up. I don't think -- I think people are -- I think they're
trying to read things into it that I don't -- personally
don't see, is the problem. I mean, I think the --
MS. LARIMER: Who's they? "They" are trying
to read things into it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You are trying to read
into it. I mean, I -- I mean, I think that there's a -- the
issue is that this was not the original intent of the
contract when they first brought it to us three years ago,
of having political items. Doesn't mean it can't be there,
but it's not the -- it's not what they told us originally
they wanted to do. If they want us -- you know, I don't
have a big problem one way or the other with it. I just
think the people need to live up to their contract with it,
and if they want to do this, they -- if they want to let,
you know, other vendors come in, make -- you know, that's
something that's open for discussion. I mean, I think -- I
don't know where they have gotten some of the perceptions,
other than the media, 'cause they haven't talked to me.
That's all I can say. I don't know if they talked to any
other Commissioners or not. I've not talked with anybody
associated with Market Days in months.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nor have I.
10-12-09
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
99
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Neither have I.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, that's all I can say.
MS. LARIMER: Well, I've heard from three of
the Commissioners.
JUDGE TINLEY: I talk to people with Market
Days probably twice a month, 'cause that's when they're
here, 'cause I'm generally down here on Saturday -- every
Saturday, nearly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you wanting me to
respond? You're asking me if I communicated with -- with
the Market Days people? Is that your question?
MS. LARIMER: Well, I didn't ask a question.
These -- these others have volunteered the information that
they have not spoken with the people at Market Days. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have.
MS. LARIMER: -- I was just hoping --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have. Yes, ma'am, I
have. And I indicated to them that we would deal with the
contract December 9, I think is the time. And I have no
intentions of stopping the contract. I have all intentions
of renewing the contract. I like the program. I think this
entire issue has spun completely out of control. I simply
said -- and I have no problem with political parties. I've
seen senators, governors, all kinds of people here in this
courthouse and the courthouse lawn. I simply said that on
10-12-04
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
100
that particular day, when there was a -- the 9/11 program
was going on on the lawn, it offended a lot of people. And
I stand by that; it did offend a lot of people. And I would
fight to see that that offense was not -- does not occur
again. Simple as that. It didn't have anything to do with
freedom of speech, had nothing to do with who you are or
what party. I said that in the newspaper a couple of times,
actually. Had nothing to do with any of that. It's just
that particular day when there was a lot of veterans here,
and they were offended.
MS. LARIMER: Well, not all of them were
offended, and you heard from another one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not going to get
off into some silly argument with you at all. I'm telling
you what was said, and the thing has been spun out there by
good politicians. Y'a11 seem to be good politicians.
Republicans and Democrats have spun this thing out there.
That's -- there's nothing to this issue at all. Nothing to
it.
MS. LARIMER: Well, that's good to know. I
would like to know if -- if I could have a response from you
regarding the comments that I made with regard to signs,
shirts, T-shirts, hats, buttons, bumper stickers, banners on
various vehicles on the courthouse square during early
voting, and on election day. That will take place in the
10-12-04
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
courthouse. And, as I mentioned, we know there is a law
about the 100-foot distance marker. We're aware of that,
but beyond the distance marker, it is customary everywhere
in these United States for people to be able to campaign
beyond the distance marker, and how would you interpret that
and allowing us to campaign in that way? How would you
interpret the policy allowing us to campaign?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll start on this. I
think it's been said at least a dozen times here at this
table that there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe 15
times. I think -- personally, I think it's okay, as long as
you're outside the 100-foot marker, you don't break the
state law, that you do not put a sign -- do not hammer a
sign in the yard out there. Do not do that. That's what --
MS. LARIMER: So, it's carry the sign, but
don't leave it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you can -- I
mean, I think that -- one, we couldn't change anything today
anyway, because it's not on the agenda. But -- you know,
and I think if you wanted clarification, or any party wants
clarification, or if Jannett -- you're really not involved.
If Glenn wants clarification, he can put it on our next
agenda as to whether we're going to allow political signs
the day of the election or not. We can, you know, discuss
10-12-04
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
it again. But as of right now, I mean, you can have bumper
stickers, buttons on your car; you can walk around, you can
-- you know, carrying signs. You can have -- what do we
call those things that you -- sandwich boards on. You can
do anything you want, as long as you meet state law.
Permanent signs being hammered in the courthouse, that's a
no for any organization.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's see if I can
simplify it. If you drive up, Dot, in your car with a Kerry
sticker on it, or Bush sticker on it, whatever, and you're
wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with whatever it is, supporting
your candidate of choice, and you have buttons all over your
hat and you're carrying a sign and you stay 100 feet beyond
the limit, God love you.
MS. LARIMER: Thank you. Very good. I thank
you all for your attention to this matter and for your
consideration in every way. Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does anybody have a motion to
offer on the agenda item? Hearing none, we'll move on.
Item 16, consider and discuss approval of the 15th Amendment
and extension of the City/County Fire Fighting Agreement,
and authorize County Judge to sign the same. This is a
renewal of our agreement with the City of Kerrville with
regard to firefighting services.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
10-12-09
103
1
,_._ 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: 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.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Next
item on the agenda is consider and discuss the appointment
of Betty Burney to serve as temporary Justice of the Peace,
Precinct 3. Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda.
As you'll recall, at our last meeting we had appointed Kari
O'Dell to -- as a temporary J.P. until we filled that slot.
She has since served notice that she does not wish to serve
in that capacity, and I think we need to have someone
online. I talked to Judge Burney -- former Judge Burney, if
she'd be willing to fill in as needed. Her compensation
would come out of the salary line item. May have to be
transferred in the part-time, or however we do that. The
Treasurer handles that part, but it would be whatever the
hourly compensation rate is for a J.P. on a contract basis,
and ask her to -- if she would be willing to fill in until
we make a permanent appointment to fill that position. And
10-12-04
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
104
Judge Burney agreed. I think she's amply qualified; she's
done this before. And that's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two questions. Judge
Burney, do you need to be bonded? To serve on a three --
three-week or two-week or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Need to be bonded?
Yes?
MS. BURNEY: I suppose so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, you know, mother
said not to swear, but you have to be sworn and all that,
wouldn't you? So, we need to come up with the 150 or
whatever it is for a bond.
MS. BURNEY: I don't know how they charge on
a -- a short-time basis. If it's a full --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, okay. That was
my only concern. Certainly, Judge Burney's been a servant
to this community for -- well, I won't go into how many
years.
MS. BURNEY: Let's not go there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, ma'am.
JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate you mentioning
that, Judge Burney, 'cause I was about to ask, so I'm not
going to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think I visited --
10-12-04
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,_._ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.-_.
25
and I don't see there's a whole lot of -- there is not, you
know, a lot of work, necessarily, that has to be done. A
lot of it can be put off, but there is a weekend coming up.
I know, from talking with the other J.P.'s, that -- that
J.P. 3 was on-call, and there may be a few things come in
that need to be dealt with. So, I don't think it'll be a
full-time slot for the rest of this month, plus or minus a
few days. So, I'll make a motion that we appoint Betty
Burney to serve as temporary J.P., Precinct 3. Funds to pay
the salary will come out of the salary line item for J.P. 3,
and it'll be at the hourly rate for J.P.'s, as determined by
the Treasurer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a time
frame?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Until the appointment of
a permanent position.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This bonding issue --
I think the bonding issue really needs to be addressed. I
mean, 'cause I don't think that she can do any business
there without being bonded, and that's a -- that takes a
while to go through the insurance company and get all that
done, so somebody needs to jump on that pretty quick.
10-12-04
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
JUDGE TINLEY: She's previously been bonded,
so I think -- I think that's going to make that a --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hope so.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- much more doable thing from
a time frame standpoint.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One question. And
everybody knows I've known Judge Burney forever, and would
love to have her back as a J.P. again.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, I said we weren't
going to go into this time frame, because she warned me
about it. Now you've done it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My only concern is, can
a person living outside that precinct legally be appointed
as a fill-in J.P.? 'Cause that could affect things that she
has to do for our office.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only thing I can remember
is, my recollection is that we did the same thing for Judge
Knox. Am I not right, Judge Burney? Didn't you fill in for
Judge Knox for a while?
MS. BURNEY:
COMMISSIONER
J.P. at that point, either?
MS. BURNEY:
filled in for anybody.
COMMISSIONER
Yes.
LETZ: Yeah. And you weren't a
I don't recall.
I've always been a J.P. when I
LETZ: But -- you were a J.P.,
10-12-04
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
but you weren't in office at that point. I think that was
after you had left office when you were --
MS. BURNEY: Not that I recall.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't remember. She
was -- she was a J.P. at that point?
MS. NEMEC: I believe so. She was just
taking over the duties at the time. I've gotten questions
-- I've gotten calls, questions whether that could be done
or not too, so I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. I didn't
think of that one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask this
question. Rusty, your -- your concern is the legal end of
it, of her -- her sentencing or --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, issuing arrest
warrants, death certificates, you know, autopsy --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And coming back later
with a problem, and she didn't have the authority to do that
and that kind of thing?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it --
MS. PIEPER: I think that's correct; I think
they're supposed to live in the precinct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz, I'm
talking to you. Is it -- is it your intentions that she do
10-12-04
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
all of those kinds of things? Or is she just going to set
bonds in the jail, or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My intent would be
everything. And I hadn't -- and the reason is that -- one
of the reasons is on the weekend, you know, they're on call.
They pretty -- they obviously have to do pretty much all
those functions for that weekend period.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know, on a
temporary basis. I just don't know the answer on temporary.
Obviously, on a full-time basis, it does, and I don't --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you think we could
get an answer from the County Attorn
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
Assistant County Attorney is sitting
MS. FISHER: I'd have
don't know the answer right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
ey?
County Attorney's --
right there.
to research it, but I
We're going to be here
at 2:00.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we pass on
that? Because, I mean, if we can't -- we certainly don`t
want to do something that's going to not hold up in court or
cause a problem down the road. So, if we could check on
that and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Come back at 1:30?
10-12-04
109
1
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: -- come back at 1:30 with
an answer	-- probably a call to the Secretary	of State can
probably	clear it up real quick.	
	MS. FISHER:	All right. I can	do that.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Okay. So, the -	- we're not
ready to	take action on the	motion that's been	offered?
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Not at this	time.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	All right. Beca	use the other
items we	have relate to other items to come in	at 1:30 --
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Why can't w	e do 1.19?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What about 12?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's executive session.
We've already done 12, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we haven't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I was thinking we
could go into executive session on Item 12, recess that
executive session, and at least get that item probably taken
care of before lunch. Or we can go to lunch now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Well, what I was going
to do was go ahead and go down and handle our housekeeping
items and get those out of the way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then that will put us back
here at about 1:30. So, we'll go down to the approval
10-12-04
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
110
agenda, and first item is payment of the bills. Anybody
have any questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have one
simple question, I'm sure, but I -- I need an answer to it.
And it's under -- on Page 1, 401, Commissioners Court, that
middle -- the middle item, Texas Association of School
Boards. Have we -- have we joined with them? I mean, I may
have slept through that part of it. Did we join with them
in some sort of co-op purchasing?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's my understanding.
Madam Treasurer, do you have any info on that?
MS. NEMEC: I don't, I'm sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: The Auditor's rep is here. Do
we purchase through the Texas Association of School Boards?
MS. WILLIAMS: Buy board?
JUDGE TINLEY: Their co-op purchasing.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, we do.
JUDGE TINLEY: And we're required to pay an
annual fee of $200 in order to participate in that?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, we are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was my only
question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question on
Page 9 and 10, under 660, County-Sponsored Activity. Bill
Smallwood, $529 for sound system?
10-12-04
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MS. WILLIAMS: That's part of the Historical
Commission expense for the Union Church.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. On the next
page --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Maybe you could
borrow it for the Ag Barn, Bill.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I was
hoping. On the next page, we have sound system -- Sound
Distributors, Inc., and that is a -- there are costs
associated with, looks like, the purchase of an amplifier.
My question is, is that part of the renovation of the sound
system for the Ag Barn, or is that separate and distinctly
apart?
MS. WILLIAMS: I can't really answer that,
'cause I'm not sure. I don't think it's part of the
renovation, though.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we'd set aside
in the budget something close to $8,000 for a new sound
system.
MS. WILLIAMS: Well, was that in last year's
22
23
24
.--~
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rehab -- pardon?
MS. WILLIAMS: Was that last year's budget?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, in the ensuing.
MS. WILLIAMS: This is an encumbrance. This
10-12-09
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is coming out of last year's budget money.
JUDGE TINLEY: So it wouldn't relate to that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So it wouldn't relate
to that.
MS. WILLIAMS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess your concern
is -- or maybe your concern is spending $800 on something
we're getting ready to redo?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Or if this is
part of the rehab, not spending the $800 again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good
question. That last little sentence you had there, that was
a good one.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And S8UU is not
sufficient to cure what's wrong with that system.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it's not. It
needs more than an amplifier. So, I guess that's the little
extra --
JUDGE TINLEY: That servicing work has
already been performed, has it not, Ms. Williams?
MS. WILLIAMS: I believe so. Ms. Nemec is
going to pull the invoice so we can look at it, and I might
be able to give you a little bit better answer.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, amplifier
10-12-04
113
1
2
3
4
could mean a number of things.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's usually
the big amp with knobs on it; you hook the miss and stuff
into it, booming your voice, making your voice sound above
5 the crowd.
6
7 voice raiser.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Electronic
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the answer is?
MS. WILLIAMS: And the answer is...
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For an amplifier.
MS. WILLIAMS: The answer is, I'm not real
sure. (Laughter.) I'll be honest with you, I'm not real
sure right now. I notice that there's an e-mail attached to
this. It says that they're working on the order. Could you
send Mr. Holekamp the invoice for the amplifier? It was an
add -- alternate they want to pay from this year's funds,
and the remainder when we complete the install next month.
So, this is evidently something that was --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's associated with
the rehab. Sounds like it's associated with the rehab.
MS. WILLIAMS: But it was started prior to
October lst.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. All right,
that's fine. That's fine, thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Glad to see that's
10-12-04
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
underway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval -- move
approval of the proposed -- easy for you to say.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you approving?
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion and second for payment
of the bills. 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. Next
item is budget amendments.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. We have two.
JUDGE TINLEY: Budget Amendment Number 1,
County Law Library.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. This is for
invoices that were prior to October lst. We didn't get them
in in time to pay them in September, so we`re encumbering
them back into last year's budget. The only problem is, we
don't have enough money in that particular line item, so we
have to do a budget amendment first and take it out of fund
surplus so that we can tie these back to last budget year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fund 18 surplus is?
10-12-09
115
1
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: Library.
MS. WILLIAMS: It's Law Library, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. 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 2.
MS. WILLIAMS: This was evidently an
oversight. I'm not real sure, but we were requested to
reallocate $2,000 out of the County-Sponsored line item for
CASA. I believe they only requested $3,000. We budgeted
five. Big Brothers/Big Sisters did request funding. For
some reason, it didn't get put in there, so we're moving
$2,000 from CASA down to Big Brothers/Big Sisters.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought we
discontinued the funding to Big Brothers and Big Sisters.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did last year.
Not the current, but last year we did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We approved to put it
10-12-04
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
back in?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
discussion to put it back in.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON:
that Big Brothers/Big Sisters wasn't i
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
year, is your recollection?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON:
think.
I don't recall a
No. I'm pretty sure
n there for funding.
It was taken out last
Year before last, I
MS. WILLIAMS: I was under the impression
that year before last, they failed to even request funds.
That's why it wasn't funded. But this year they did request
funds.
MS. MITCHELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we approved it? I
mean, a lot of people request things, but us approving them
is another -- is another issue. I just don't recall it, I'm
sorry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We didn't discuss
inclusion.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It wasn't in our
budget.
MS. MITCHELL: Yes, it was.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It was?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't blink around the
10-12-04
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
budget.
MS. WILLIAMS: Don't breathe.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Take it back.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And CASA is
indicating they want -- they don't want the $5,000 that was
approved for them?
MS. WILLIAMS: Their letter only requested
$3,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gets stranger and
stranger.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want it to be noted
that at 9 minutes till 12:00 on the 12th day of October in
2004, an organization requested less funding.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We knew they requested
it. We don't know whether we approved it.
MS. MITCHELL: That I don't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the assumption was
made that there was just an error made when there was an
over-allocation made to CASA.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let`s put it in the
proper place. I mean, let's don't give them more than they
really want, CASA.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They get three.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If they want three,
we'll give them three.
10-12-09
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Then there's two left
over to put somewhere else.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
split it up between Little
I'll be quiet.
LETZ: In the general fund.
NICHOLSON: Yes.
BALDWIN: I'm there.
LETZ: Or you take the two and
League and -- and Y.M.C.A. and
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'll just be
honest with you; I cannot remember us approving funds to go
into Big Brothers and -- do you?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't have any specific
recollection of anything with respect to Big Brothers/Big
Sisters.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was under the
assumption that us funding Big Brothers was over two years
ago.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, my
recollection is that there continues -- for the last two
years, there continues to be a line item in there with zero
dollars in it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That more than two
years ago, we decided not to fund that any more.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
to-lz-og
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That whole page,
basically, if there is not a pretty direct -- or maybe a
pretty indirect dollar line to a County function, we don't
fund under that County-Sponsored.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that was sort of
the sense of the discussion when they were removed two times
ago -- or two years ago.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're not really a -- I
mean, the rest of them are utilized by some of the judicial
branch or law enforcement branch of the County, and Big
Brothers did not meet that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does it require a
motion to set -- set the fee for CASA at this time? I'll
move that CASA's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you just --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- budget actually be
changed from $5,000 to $3,000. That's per their request.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we need --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's in the budget
for CASA?
MS. WILLIAMS: Right now, five.
JUDGE TINLEY: Shows five.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, it says five?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we just fund
the request for three, and we leave $2,000 in the budget?
10-12-09
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It will go back in the general fund. Or we can take it when
we have another budget amendment at some point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whatever.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a motion with
respect to Budget Amendment Request Number 2? If not, we'll
move on. Any late bills?
MS. WILLIAMS: No, sir, that's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have before me the
transcripts of the meetings as follows: Emergency Session,
Friday, September 3, 2004; Regular Session, Monday,
September 13, 2004; Special Meeting, Tuesday, September 21,
2004; Special Session, Monday September 27th, 2004; Special
Session, Thursday, September 30th, 2004; Emergency Session,
Thursday, September 30th, 2004. Do I hear a motion that
those --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- transcripts be approved as
presented?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve as
presented.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the transcripts as presented. Any question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
10-12-04
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I've been presented with
monthly reports from the County Clerk, noted General and
Trust; Sheriff; Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3; Justice of
the Peace, Precinct 2; and District Clerk. Do I hear a
motion that those reports be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved -- second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
we -- for the approval of the indicated monthly reports as
presented. 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. Do we
have any reports at this time from any of the Commissioners
or elected officials? Department heads? We will stand in
recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(Recess taken from 11:56 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me call to order --
back to order the Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for
10-12-09
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
this time and date. We were in recess till 1:30; it's just
a bit past that now. The remaining items that -- I have a
timed item for 1:30, which is an executive session item.
So, at this time, we will go into executive or closed
session.
(The open session was closed at 1:32 p.m.,
and an Executive Session was held, the
transcript of which is contained in a
separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we're back in open
session as of 3:47. Let's go back to Item 12, consider and
discuss prepayment of resident fees under residential
services contract of Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility
for current or future Kerr County residents. My purpose in
putting that item on the agenda was to characterize payments
that the court -- that the County makes towards the
Detention Facility, that we characterize those payments as
prepayments for residential services provided to Kerr County
for Kerr County residents under our existing residential
services contract for either residents that are presently
there, or those that may be placed there and be housed there
up through the end of -- October 31st, and to the extent
there's any of -- any prepaid funds available thereafter,
if -- if the facility is kept open. My point being, if
we're going to be -- if we're going to be covering any
operational shortfalls, that it at least should be for costs
10-12-04
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
that we would have to pay anyway for our own residents.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do we do that?
On the basis of your decision to send a juvenile to the
detention center for "X" number of days, and we pay for "X"
number of days up front, or how's that work?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, for example, the -- the
Auditor has furnished us with a -- with a projection of --
of what the cash flow is going to be and the operational
expenses, and it shows an operational shortfall through the
end of -- the end of October.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let us suppose the Court were
to authorize the payment of that amount -- up to that amount
as prepaid residential services. Our contract provides that
we pay a daily rate, and whatever rate that is would just
accrue against that amount. We would end up having to pay
that anyway for each day, as provided in the contract, that
the child's in the detention facility. I'm merely wanting
to -- to provide a method whereby we can characterize what
our funds are being expended for, and as long as they're
spent for what we're required to spend them for anyway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- I'm not sure I
totally understand how the mechanism works, but I don't have
a problem with prepaying what we know we're going to spend
during the month of October. But, considering the
10-12-04
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
uncertainty after the end of October, I don't want to pay
any November.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, no. You can say a certain
amount, such as the operational deficiency that's listed
there on -- on the projection.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: $3,800, $4,000 that's prepaid.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's all we're
talking about now?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you plug in the figure,
but you would specify a figure. It will not be open-ended.
And it would be specifically prepaid residential services to
be provided during the month of October of 2004, or if there
are excess funds beyond if they remain at that facility
after that point in time.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And the reason for
this is to put some money in their bank account right now?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: October's one-third
over.
JUDGE TINLEY: Not necessarily. It would --
rather than Kerr County paying those funds anyway, we are at
least paying them for something that we're obligated to pay.
And that's --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm getting there.
10-12-04
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
Why are we doing that? Because they have a cash flow
shortfall now, and they don't want to wait until they bill
us and we pay it?
JUDGE TINLEY: No. It's in order that the
funds that we obligate -- that are projected to be
deficient, that they go into our residential services. I
just want to limit our liability to the maximum possible.
Now, it may well be -- and the question comes to mind,
certainly, well, if there's -- if there's a deficiency on
the other end, aren't we really on the hook for it? I don't
know that for certain, but I know we're on the hook for our
residential services under the contract for our kids.
That's my only reason.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why is it we don't
just wait and pay it when it comes due?
JUDGE TINLEY: We could.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way we do
it now, right?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do it like anybody
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There has to be a
reason that you're asking to do this. You know, Number 4 is
trying to ask that question. Now, I don't know the answer
10-12-04
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
yet. What is the reason for doing something like this? Why
don't we just wait and pay it like we've done for years?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure if the cash
flow's going to be there through the end of the month.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cash flow problem.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if they need "X"
thousand dollars -- $5,000, and we know we're going to incur
that much expense in October, I don't mind paying it now, if
that's what we have to do.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure exactly what the
amount will be. All I'm going off of is the estimate of --
of the Auditor on --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wouldn't we be better
served going off the estimate of how many Kerr County
juveniles are out there and what we're going to be paying on
a per-diem basis, and try to estimate that rather than try
to estimate the shortage?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's certainly another way
to approach it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That seems to me to
make -- I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, the thing we need to also
understand is, this would only relate to what we call
preadjudicated residents. It cannot be postadjudicated,
10-12-04
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
because the postadjudicated are basically handled through
State funds. I don't -- how many preadjudicated Kerr County
do we have now?
MR. STANTON: Seven, Your Honor.
MR. HARRIS: Seven.
JUDGE TINLEY: Seven?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How long will we have
seven? I mean, how long until they get -- become
postadjudicated?
MR. STANTON: I couldn't answer that for you,
sir. They're upstairs having court right now, and I
couldn't tell you how many the judge is going to detain and
how many he's going to release.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many do we have on
the average day? I mean, is there such a thing? Do we
usually have about five to seven?
MR. STANTON: We have four to five a day,
yes, sir. Four or five a day on the preadjudicated phase,
so we could calculate it. We're on the order --
JUDGE TINLEY: $320 to $400 a day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, instead of
going through all that, or -- well, so many unknowns, if the
Auditor's estimating a shortfall of $3,827, why don't we
just say okay, we'll meet the shortfall of $3,827, and be
10-12-04
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
done with it?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's another solution.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the amount to be
applied against our account over there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. If there's
anything left, we get it back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make a motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second that
motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there a motion to be
offered in connection with any matters covered in executive
session?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: First, let me make a
comment on Item 17, which is the appointment of Betty
Burney, just as information. I see Ms. Burney in the
audience. It is, I guess, the opinion of the County
io-i2-o4
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
Attorney, through the Secretary of State's office, that
we -- there's no provision to appoint a temporary J.P., so
whoever we appoint will be the J.P., and therefore that item
will -- we won't take any action on that. We can't do it.
Item 19, I'll make a motion that we appoint Claudio Castillo
to fill the unexpired term for J.P., Precinct Number 3.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
appointment of Claudio Castillo for the unexpired term of
J.P., Precinct 3. 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.
MS. NEMEC: Could I have an effective date on
that, please?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As soon as he's eligible.
MS. NEMEC: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know how long to
get bond and all that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further to be offered
in connection with matters discussed in executive session?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't know where to go on
that one.
10-12-04
130
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. PIEPER: Jonathan, how are you spelling
that first name?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Claudio is C-1-a-u-d-i-o.
And in -- in absence of any decision on -- relating to the
Juvenile Detention Facility, on the 31st of this month, the
trustee will take over ownership and possession, correct?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we did talk
about asking Ms. Harris and the Sheriff to develop alternate
strategies and give them to us as quickly as possible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Spurgeon, about how
much time will it take the Bank of New York to react to a
decision of either no extension to the moratorium or an
extension to the moratorium?
MR. SPURGEON: If -- if there's -- if there's
a decision to essentially not extend the October 31st time
period, I think you would see that Bank of New York would
probably react pretty quickly to go through sort of a legal
process to seek a T.R.O. that would limit their liability in
terms of time that they would take possession of the
facility. And I think they would, at that point, start very
quickly the process of having the juveniles be moved and
those things so that the facility is completely closed by
October 31st. I think that would probably happen --
wouldn't surprise me if you start seeing some things by the
end of the week, that they would start doing that.
10-12-09
131
1
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 made one comment to me, they think it
will take a couple weeks to move all those juveniles. I
haven't -- I couldn't even begin to comment if that's
accurate or not, but that's their thinking, that they need
to have enough advance notice so that they can be in a
position to do what they feel needs to be done in order so
that once the lease agreement has terminated, there are no
juveniles at the facility at the time. If there's a
decision on the part of the -- of the Commissioners to
extend that time period somewhat, I think they would also
react very quickly in terms of putting together some sort of
a moratorium agreement or modification agreement, whatever
you want to call this, to have available for the
Commissioners Court to adopt within, you know, the next week
or so. I think if they -- but if they had an action by the
Court today that said we're willing to go forward in some
sort of a temporary basis, that would allow them -- I think
stop the T.R.O. proceedings, frankly, and to move into
drafting some sort of an agreement and have it ready for you
all to review and approve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, in our
discussions, we did indicate sort of a desire for you to
explore beyond October 31st from -- with certain provisos
having to do with legal -- legal fees.
MR. SPURGEON: Right.
10-12-04
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if they're
unwilling to do that, then they're unwilling to do it.
MR. SPURGEON: I think I'll probably get a
pretty quick answer out of -- well, and the attorney that's
working on this would have to, certainly, talk to the folks
at the Bank of New York, but I think if -- if you want me to
go back and -- and suggest another date to them, a
December 31st date or something to that effect, and -- and
cover the issue regarding legal fees and those type of
things, I think we'd have a -- an answer back from them
within the next couple days in terms of what they'd be
willing to -- would they be willing to accept it on those
terms. I think they'd respond very quickly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess kind of what I'm
hearing, and based on discussions, is that my preference
would be no action today. Give Ms. Harris and the Sheriff
till the end of the week to come up with some -- some
numbers to really look at -- at the operational options for
that facility, either as an adult facility or juvenile
facility. Have a special meeting Monday, and let the Bank
of New York know definitively on Monday whether or not we're
going to extend a moratorium or not. Though I think, in
your communication, if they ask -- I think there's a very
high likelihood we will not. That's just kind of what I
am -- my personal feeling. I don't know; we didn't take a
10-12-09
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
vote on it, obviously, yet, but just kind of the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think, certainly,
Mr. Spurgeon could engage Bank of New York's counsel on the
other issue that was attached to the moratorium.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is if we're
willing to extend till, say, December 31?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Trying to get the
-- talk to Bank of New York a little bit about that. We can
probably receive that by e-mail; you don't have to make a
trip up here, I mean.
MR. SPURGEON: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems to me that that
may be the best route, because it gives -- it just gives
more time for everyone to dot their I's and cross their T's,
have a little more reality in where everybody is in the
game. And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, just go ahead and
extend the date today?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'd like to, but
we don't know -- yeah. Yeah, that would be fine with me.
Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't know what
that's going to cost us.
10-12-04
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
134
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't know about
this attorney fee thing that I'm not willing to vote to pay
for.
JUDGE TINLEY: You can submit it conditioned
upon their agreement that that not be attached to it. But
it merely be attached --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly --
JUDGE TINLEY: Continue the operational, but
that's it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can put a limit of
$50,000 on the operational --
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't see that working.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- with them.
MR. SPURGEON: No, Judge, I don't either.
Actually, they'd have a tough time probably agreeing to
that, 'cause they --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You could limit the
attorney fees, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. SPURGEON: Well, I think there's -- that
may be a separate issue in terms of, I mean --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which I am zero on.
I'm hung on zero.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm good with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, do you want to instruct
10-12-04
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
Mr. Spurgeon to make -- make that proposal to the trustee?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To extend to
December 31, and ask Mr. -- ask him to visit with the New
York folks and see if that's feasible on their end?
MR. SPURGEON: I'll be glad to do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then we can be
back in here on Monday to get that answer, and -- and -- or
are we making that decision right this moment?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if it's a firm offer you
want him to extend --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- you can -- you can vote to
-- you can make a motion and we can vote to go forward on
that basis, to extend a moratorium till December 31.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If we go that route,
we're essentially agreeing that Kerr County is going to
underwrite the costs of the facility, to the tune -- for the
balance of the year, to the tune of about $50,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of an
estimate we've been given.
JUDGE TINLEY
Whatever the operational costs
are, that --
10-12-04
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
136
MR. HENDERSON: I would suggest that you
reconfirm that estimate with Ms. Harris.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
I'd like to do. I don't want her to r
so I'm not suggesting that -- both she
to do some number-crunching.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON:
the $50,000. I just -- I just want to
that we are -- if we vote that way, we
unbudgeted funds that are precious.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
I think that's what
ush to judgment on it,
and the Sheriff need
I'm not hung up on
remind myself again
are voting to spend
Mm-hmm, very much so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, ma'am?
MR. HARRIS: I need a little clarification
about what is this proposal that you want the Sheriff and I
to come up with? This is the first I've heard about it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the -- the -- what you
project insofar as your census and the operational costs,
not just necessarily through the end of the year. Obviously
that portion, but then on an ongoing basis, what you feel
like you can do out there at that facility. Some real, hard
number-crunching.
MR. HARRIS: So, y'ap's thinking is that one
building would be for the Sheriff and the other building
would be for us? Is that what your --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have no
10-12-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
137
preconceived -- we have no idea.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have no idea. You
have to come back and tell us, you and the Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As to -- basically,
thinking out of the box as much as you can as to what will
make that facility pay for itself. That's -- you know, is
there any way that using it as a juvenile facility or an
adult facility, that that facility can cover operating
expenses and debt service? I mean, is there any way to do
it? If there's no way to do it, that's the answer; it can't
be done. If there is something that -- and, granted,
there's -- its not a guarantee. There's risk involved. I
mean, you're making assumptions about attendance and
everything else.
MR. HARRIS: Do you want me to press ahead
about getting that one full-time counselor that I'm required
to have with the substance abuse license?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
MS. HARRIS: Am I supposed to do that?
JUDGE TINLEY: This is a danged if you do,
danged if you don't deal. Her ability to go forward on that
substance abuse program requires her to have that in place.
Is there any way you can do that on a contract basis, or do
you know?
MR. HARRIS: It has to be full-time. The new
io-iz-o4
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
138
standards that went into effect September 1 says that
person's got to be full-time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. HARRIS: And, by the way, everything is
completed. Everything has been approved. I had to write a
request for a waiver for one of their standards regarding
strip searches. It's been approved on the low level; it's
gone up to the next level. I should hear something today or
tomorrow. But everything else -- the application, policy
and procedures, everything's been approved for the license.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that would add a
maximum of how many detainees? How many would you expect if
you were full?
MS. HARRIS: I licensed for 18 beds, 12 boys
and 6 girls.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, Ms. Harris, what
I'm looking at is to make projections best you can. If we
assume -- you know, if we authorize that person, then how
many persons are -- you know, what's the additional increase
in expenses? What's the additional increase in revenue?
And just try to figure out the best realistic, you know,
guess, which is an educated guess on your part as to what
that facility's financial situation is. And I'd look at it
as the whole facility as a juvenile facility, half juvenile/
half adult, and then -- which, of course, the Sheriff would
10-12-09
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
139
have to look at the adult side of it. Or 100 percent adult,
which the Sheriff would have to do that part.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's fair to
tell Ms. Harris why we're asking for that, and I think we've
not done that. We're trying to explore an option as to
whether or not it makes any sense for us to consider
acquiring the facility, Kerr County acquiring it and working
with our bond people in that -- in that connection. Now, in
order to do that, we need to know, you know, what is the
best assessment? Is it -- is it all juveniles? Is it
something that's hybrid? What could we expect and how would
it happen? I know it's a crunch project, but that -- the
whole thing's under the gun right now, so that's what we're
asking.
MR. HARRIS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the proposal as to the
moratorium to try and give us a little bit more time than
what we've got to -- to really evaluate this situation and
really look at our options.
MR. HARRIS: And, too, and I need -- 'cause I
get referrals for long-term postadjudication kids. Do I
take them or do I not?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're struggling to
find a way to keep that facility open, and we don't have
very good options.
10-12-04
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
MS. HARRIS: And if I tell them no -- if I
ever tell a county, "Don't send me any kids because I'm not
sure what's going to happen," that will not be good.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure, I understand
that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is a dilemma.
It's my best guess that the numbers won't justify the County
keeping that facility open.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd still like to
extend the moratorium through December 31. And this throws
a whole new light on it, but I don't know that that's
something that this Board of Directors right here should be
doing. We're just trying to, you know, keep the thing open,
and how Mrs. Harris deals with all those internal things, I
don't have any idea. But I don't think it's -- that kind of
thing is up to us. I think we need to take our step as
policymakers, and do all we can reasonably, which to me
would be December 31. And I -- I think -- I think if we
come back and we can't cut a deal of some sort with the New
York Bank, I can't imagine the doors staying open another
day. I just -- I can't see how it would happen. I don't
see how that would work, unless we do this again, and we
throw in taxpayers' -- I mean, if we start throwing mega
taxpayer money at this thing, then we're going to have to
10-12-04
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sit down and really ask some tough questions and get some
tough answers for the taxpayers to understand this, or I
won't -- I won't participate in it from that point on. I'll
tell you that much. That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that a motion? I
was just going to get ready to ask that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As close as I can come
right now. Extend the moratorium till December 31. Now,
how you put the language about the lawyers fees and --
JUDGE TINLEY: You just don't include that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: With Kerr County being
responsible for the operational costs incurred through that
period, and -- and that's it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tom, come back up. I
have a question.
MR. SPURGEON: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we were to -- if
we were to vote to extend the moratorium or whatever you
call it until December 31st, if the answers that we're
asking our good folks to come back and give us are really
dire, are we obligated to stay through December 31st? Or
can we do something less than that?
MR. SPURGEON: I think, actually, part of
it's going to depend on the wording of the agreement. I
10-12-04
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mean, I think your -- the agreement that -- and it's
probably one of those negotiating points, to be honest with
you, Commissioner. I think when they -- the bank will come
back with an agreement to essentially say, "We're going to
extend this till December 31st," everything's going to stay
the same. But I think you can put a provision that gives
you the option to give them, let's say, a 30-day notice.
They're going to want some kind of a notice so that it
doesn't get thrown back in their lap with two days or
something like that. But, I mean, I think you might be able
to put something in the agreement saying, "We're willing to
commit to December 31st. If we find out beforehand that the
numbers just aren't going to work, we reserve the right to
-- to accelerate it, after giving you some reasonable
notice."
that basis.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move to go along on
JUDGE TINLEY: Fifteen -- maybe 15 days
notice. Would that be enough? Or 20?
MR. SPURGEON: It's tough for me to negotiate
-- or to figure out what they might want. I think you could
certainly propose to them 15 days or something to that
effect.
the agreement?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who actually writes
10-12-04
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, they'll submit one,
and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They?
JUDGE TINLEY: Bank of New York.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. SPURGEON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then we'll review it on
this end, proposing changes, modifications, additions.
MR. SPURGEON: And I'm assuming, from -- from
discussions I'm hearing, that in terms of the legal fees
issue, that's -- that's a -- that's a non-starter.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a deal breaker.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a deal
breaker.
MR. SPURGEON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would second the
Commissioner's motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: What was your motion, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Extend the moratorium
till December 31.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With the cancellation
clause.
JUDGE TINLEY: With a -- with a right to
cancel prior without -- with reasonable notice, to be
negotiated.
10-12-04
144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That was your motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: You seconded?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question, and
it's real quick. What is the -- it appears to me that
something's going to come back. There's going to have to be
some agreements worked out, maybe some details worked out.
Would it not be wise to appoint -- the Court to appoint a
committee that has authority to make those decisions without
having to call emergency meetings? Because if they come
back with some kind of account, nobody wants to pay $1,000
of legal fees, that's going to mean a special meeting. Or
are we just going to have a special meeting?
MR. SPURGEON: What I might even suggest,
maybe your motion today is -- is to -- and maybe this is
going backwards, Commissioner Letz. Maybe I'm speaking too
soon, but maybe your mction is to authorize me and the Judge
or someone to talk with the Bank of New York, tell them what
the -- what the commitment of the Court has been, subject to
acceptable language in an agreement. I, frankly, think an
agreement will probably have to come back to the Court --
10-12-04
145
1
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: Okay.
MR. SPURGEON: -- for formal authorization,
but you're at least giving your permission for
representatives of the County to go to them, express the
intent of the Commissioners Court, asking them to submit an
agreement for your approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like that. I like
that scenario.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: David, do you want in
on the action? Do you feel like --
MR. MOTLEY: I don't have anything to add to
it; I can say that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't feel like
that you need to be there, as the County Attorney? You feel
like that --
MR. MOTLEY: You're talking about as far as
being involved in the discussions between the Commissioners
Court and this Bank of New York?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I'd be more than happy
to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you think there's a
need, or do you think this attorney here is enough to --
MR. SPURGEON: I certainly wouldn't mind him
10-12-04
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
taking a look at the agreement, or whatever process he'd
like to be involved in, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. MOTLEY: Yeah. Believe me, this is a
little bit outside the normal realm of, you know, what we do
over here, but I'll be happy to contribute any way I can.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, I'm ready to vote.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm very reluctantly
going to vote for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Call for --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Seems like buying an
option.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. I
think that's everything we had on today's agenda, gentlemen.
Unless there's something --
MR. SPURGEON: We're going to go.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't drive too fast.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Unless I missed
something, I think that covers everything for today.
io-i2-o9
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Far as I know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we will stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 4:16 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR I
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 18th day of October,
2004.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
10-12-09
ORDER N0.28862
ADVERTISEMENT FOR SEALED BIDS
HILL COUNTY YOUTH EXHIBIT CENTER
Came to be heard this the 12th day of October 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to approve the advertising for sealed bids proposals at the
Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center for an Engineered Metal Roof Replacement and
HVAC.
ORDER NO. 28863
TCDRS PLAN RATE AND PLAN
CHANGES FOR 2005
Came to be heard this the 12th day of October 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to approve the TCDRS plan rate and reitree's cost-of-living
insurance to put 50% of C.P.I. for retiree's cost-of-living insurance.
ORDER N0.28864
AUDIT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30,
2004.
Came to be heard this the 12th day of October 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to engage Pressler Thompson & Company to perform audit
for fiscal year ending September 30, 2004.
ORDER N0.28865
PETITION TO HAVE HUNT VALLEY VIEW DRIVE ACCEPTED
FOR KERB COUNTY MAINTENANCE, PCT 4.
Came to be heard this the 12th day of October 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to deny the request for maintenance until it is brought up to
standard.
ORDER N0.28866
ROAD NAME CHANGE FOR PRIVATELY
MAINTAINED ROAD THAT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH 911
GUIDELINES.
Came to be hear this the 12th day of October 2004 with a motion made
by Commissioner Nicholson and seconded by Commissioner Letz, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to approve the name of
Jack Clarke Drive.
ORDER N0.28867
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EAGLE RIDGE SUBDVISION, PCT. 4
Came to be heard this the 12th day of October 12, 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to approve preliminary plat. With requirements noted in
minutes.
ORDER NO. 28868
OPENING OF SEALED BID PROPOSALS FOR ANNUAL HCAC,
ELECTRICIAL, PLUMBING AND PEST CONTROL SERVICES.
Came to be heard this the 12th day of October 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to approve sealed bids of Hardin Heating and Cooling,
Comptons of Kerrville, State Air, Air Tech, Guadalupe Electric, Butter Worth Electric,
D W Electric, Whelan Plumbing, Starkey Pest Control, Terminex Pest Control. Refer to
Maintenance Department for recomindation.
ORDER N0.28869
BIDS FOR USED TRUCKS, 1)
WATER DISTRIBUTOR, 2) ASPHALT DISTRIBUTOR.
Came to be heard this the 12th day of October 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz and seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to approve bids for 2 used Water
and Asphalt trucks. And refer bids to Road and Bridge for recomindation.
ORDER N0.28870
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED ROADS IN ACCORDANCE WITH 911
GUIDELINES.
Came to be heard this the 12th day of October 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to approve bids for 2 used Water and Asphalt trucks. And
refer bids to Road and Bridge for recomindation.
Existing Names
7001
PVT Rd. 157 N
8013 N
8012 N
Taylor Rd. W
Approved Name
Claret Fields W
Dunks Drive N
Jody Rd. N
Del Valle Ip N
X Out Ranch Rd. W
ORDER NO. 28871
INDIGENT DEFENSE GRANT PROGRAM
,,., Came to be heard this the 12th day of October 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to participate in Indigent Defense Grant Program and
authorize Judge to sign the same.
ORDER N0.28872
KERR COUNTY'S 150TH ANNIVERSARY APRIL 2006
Came to be heard this the 12th day of October 2004 with a motion made
by Commissioner Williams and seconded by Commissioner Letz, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to set the dates of
23rd thru 27th day of Apri12006 for Kerr County's 150th
anniversary. And talk to the arts and crafts association.
ORDER N0.28873
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT AND EXTENSION OF CITY/COUNTY FIRE
FIGHTING AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE COUNTY JUDGE TO SIGN THE
SAME
Came to be heard this the 12th day of October 2004 with a
motion made by Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Baldwin,
the court unanimously approved by vote 4-0-0 to approve the Fifteenth
Amendment and extension of City/County Fire Fighting Agreement,
and authorize County Judge to sign the same.
ORDER N0.28874
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 12th day of October 2004 with motion made by
Commissioner Letz and seconded by Commissioner Nicholson ,the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts.
10 General	$169,684.23
14 Fire Protection	29,302.00
15 Road & Bridge	32,317.76
18 County Law Library	854.79
50 Indigent Health Care	31,926.30
80 Historial Commission	145.93
83 State Funded 216th	
District Attorney	1,428.75
Total cash required $ 265,659.78
ORDER N0.28875
BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Came to be heard this the 12 day of October 2004 with
a motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by
Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved
by a vote of 4-0-0 to approve the Budget Amendments.
Expense Code Requested
18-650-590 $4,361.00
18 Fund Surplus 4,361.00
ORDER N0.28876
READ AND APPROVE BILLS
Came to be heard this the 12th day of October motion made by Commissioner Nicholson
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-
0-0 to approve the Minutes from Emergency Session Friday, September 3, 2004; Regulaz
Session Monday September 13, 2004; Special Meeting, Tuesday, September 21, 2004;
"^ Special Session, Monday September 27th, 2004; Special Session, Thursday, September
30, 2004; Emergency Session, Thursday, September 30th, 2004.
ORDER N0.28877
APPROVE AND ACCEPT MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 12th day of October 2004 with a
motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to approve the
Monthly Reports.
County Clerks
Sheriff
JP2&3
District Clerk
ORDER N0.28879
KERR COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY
Came to be heard this the 12th day of October 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Nicholson the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to authorize a payment up
to $3,827.00 as a prepayment of Resident fees.
ORDER N0.28880
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE # 3, CLAUDIO CASTILLO
Came to be hear this the 12th day of October 2004 with a motion
made by Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to appoint
Claudio Castillo to fill the unexpired term for J.P. Precinct # 3.
ORDER N0.28881
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY
Came to be heard this the 12th day of October 2004, with motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, to extend the moratorioum to December 31 2004, with the right to cancel
with reasonable notice.