~~~
•--
d
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, October 25, 2004
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
~i
\n
l~
~1
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
I
22
23
24
.-.,
25
2
	I N D E X	
	October 25, 2004	
		PAGE
---	Commissioners' Comments	4
1.1	Set a Public Hearing for Revision of Tracts	
	No. 15 & 16 of Bluff Creek Ranch	10
1.2	Award bids for truck-mounted asphalt distributor	
	& water distributor, allow Judge to sign title	15
1.3	Consider, discuss and approval of proposed	
	2005 Budget for Kerr Emergency 9-1-1 Network	17
1.4	Accept or reject bids received for electrical,	
	HVAC, plumbing, & pest Control for 2004-2005	37
1.9	Renewal of Agreement with RBC Dain Rauscher, Inc.	
	to serve as County's financial advisor	40,42
1.10	Amend District Clerk's Records Preservation Fund	
	to appropriate $1,400 for a used reader-printer	41
1.11	Consider approval of amendment to Kerrville/	
	Kerr County EMS Contract to permit Kimble County	
	EMS to be primary EMS responder for residents of	
	Y.O. Ranchlands, authorize County Judge to sign	43
1.5	PUBLIC HEARING for Revision of Plat for	
	Tract 118 of Kerrville South II	71
1.7	Presentation on AACOG Weatherization Program,	
	Section 8 Housing, & other related programs	91
1.8	Presentation on "The Boardwalk on the Guadalupe"	
	project	102
1.6	Consider Revision of Plat for Tract 118 of	
	Kerrville South II	107
1.14	Consider and discuss extension of the Lease and	
	Operating Agreement for the Juvenile Detention	
	Facility or other appropriate resolution of	
	existing issues with respect to such Facility	119,191
1.13	Discuss the County's intentions regarding the	
	Hill Country Juvenile Facility Obligations	186
1.12	Consider issuing invitation for bids for	
	evaluation of existing courthouse telephone	
	system and proposals for expansion, upgrade,	
	reconfiguration, and/or other modification	224
4.1	Pay Bills	156
4.2	Budget Amendments	225
4.3	Late Bills	---
4.4	Read and Approve Minutes	227
4.5	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	227
5.1	Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee	
	Assignments	---
---	Adjourned	228
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
On Monday, October 25, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. Let me call to order the meeting of the
Commissioners Court of Kerr County scheduled for this date
and time, Monday, October the 25th, 2004, at 9 a.m.
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Would y'all
stand and join me in a word of prayer, and then we'll do the
pledge of allegiance.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, if there's any
member of the audience or the public that wishes to address
the Court on a matter that is not listed on the agenda,
you're free to come forward and do so at this time. If you
desire to be heard on a matter that's listed on the agenda,
we would ask that you wait until that agenda item is called,
and also, if you would, to fill out a participation form;
they're at the back of the room. It's not absolutely
essential, but it helps me to make sure that I don't go on
10-25-04
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
4
to the next item without giving you the opportunity that you
desire on that agenda item. But, at this time, if there's
any member of the public wishing to come forward and be
heard on an agenda item -- or an item that is not listed on
the agenda, please feel free to come forward at this time.
Seeing no one coming forward, we'll move on. Commissioner
Baldwin, do you have anything for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. Thank you
for offering, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only that there's a
big 5K Walk/Run in Center Point this weekend to benefit the
Historical Preservation Association. If you can walk and
want to enter, you can do that. If you can run and want to
enter, you can do that. If you just want to come and eat
barbecue, you can do that. If you just want to give your
money, you can do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This weekend, the
30th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- can I ask you a
question about that? I saw the advertisement; I'm strongly
considering going down and running.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there any prize? I
10-25-04
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
5
didn't see anything about a prize. I don't do it unless
there's something good for me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there's a prize
for those who finish.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. (Laughter.) A
crown?
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just last week, I had the
opportunity to go to a meeting at Schreiner University
regarding some of their facility upgrades, and it was quite
interesting. They're continuing on their long-range plan to
upgrade, mainly their athletic facilities at this point.
It's a major project. I think it's a -- I want to say,
like, $11 million or $12 million plan they're announcing,
and I think it's going to help that university reach its
goals. And, also, part of the plan is to increase community
involvement at the university and have some of the
facilities open to beyond just Schreiner University. So, it
was interesting, and a good plan. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anything else?
Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Two or three things.
10-25-04
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
6
I want to mention that -- that Texas Department of
Transportation is doing a really good job, in my opinion, of
seeking input from the community and local governments. And
I attended, as you have, two meetings with them lately, and
the last one was in Ingram last week on the -- their plans
for a potential expansion of Highway 39 in Ingram from
the -- from the Y at 27 to the Ingram Dam. It's a needed
project, and I'm hoping they'll go through with it. That's
a very, very heavy-traffic area, including the Ingram Tom
Moore High School. Of course, we met with them a couple
weeks ago to help prioritize future projects, and they have
a meeting scheduled for October 27th at the U.G.R.A. to talk
about flood warning systems. I'm hoping to attend that, and
that will be interesting. I attended a meeting sponsored by
our Environmental Health Department at U.G.R.A. with -- with
Professor -- Dr. Lesiker from Texas A & M University on
septic systems. I would not have imagined that I could
spend an hour or so talking about septic systems and find it
interesting, but it was very interesting. The -- the
engineering and the science of those systems is a lot more
complex than I envisioned, so it was very helpful. And the
three of us attended the grand opening of the dedication of
the Ingram Fire Department, and that is a first-class
facility. They've done very, very well, and -- and our
volunteer fire department capability all across the county
10-25-04
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
7
is in pretty good hands, and just gets better all the time.
That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if I could go
back, you mentioned TexDOT, and I have to bring up something
to do with TexDOT, too. I think it was after our last
meeting that the bids were awarded on the Hermann Sons
Bridge -- or the contract was let. I've talked to the low
bidder, which was Dean Word Construction out of New
Braunfels, and so I think everyone knows the process now.
Well, first of all, the bids came in a little bit high. I
think TexDOT had 900-some-odd -- 910,000, I think, was their
estimate. The bid came in at 1,009,000, about 11 percent
high. According to Dean Word, that was primarily due to
concrete and steel costs increasing, probably, since TexDOT
did their original proposal. The process now is that that
contract goes before the Commission at TexDOT. Hopefully,
they will approve it and -- and will award the dollar
amount, and then they will refer it to, you know, the --
probably San Antonio office, or the Kerrville office, to
finalize the actual contract with Dean Word Construction,
which that whole -- those two things should take, oh, about
six weeks, it's estimated. And no one really sees any
problems in that. And construction, according to Dean Word,
if those things go okay, will begin by the first of
10-25-09
1
_. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
December. They're ready to move in immediately. I think
they were already talking to property owners and trying to
line up where they're going to put their equipment and some
other things of that nature, so the project is moving
forward.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: As Commissioner Nicholson
said, that Ingram fire station is -- it's superb. Anyone
who wants to see what a fire district can do to give an
opportunity to a volunteer fire department need only go out
there and take a look. I'd also point out that a number of
the components of that facility were donated or, in some
cases, provided at reduced cost by the various
subcontractors that were involved in order to confer
additional benefits on that department, but it is a super,
super facility.
Last week, I had the opportunity to
participate in part with our annual jail inspection that's
done by the Texas Commission on Jail Standards, and, as
usual, our Sheriff issued a challenge to the inspectors to
find some deficiencies in his system. Also as usual, the
ability of the inspectors to find deficiencies came up
short. So, again, the inspector was very, very
complimentary of our facility and all of the various aspects
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
•--
25
9
of the inspection, so I want to -- I want everybody to know
how good a job the Sheriff is doing out there on that
facility. And the jail inspectors indicated that they
oftentimes will refer to his facility as a poster child to
other departments that want to look at those. The Sheriff
also had a sheriff and a jail administrator, both incoming
January 1, from another county come up to go through that
inspection to give them a better idea of what's involved in
that, and -- and those individuals thought it was very, very
helpful to be able to participate in that. So, I appreciate
him doing that.
The -- Commissioner Letz talked about the --
the unveiling by Schreiner University of some new proposed
recreational and athletic facilities. I, too, had the
opportunity to look at those last week. It was the same day
that I was privileged to participate in a youth leadership
forum that was sponsored by the University of Texas at
Permian Basin, John Ben Shepperd Institute, that's put on by
the Lower Colorado River Authority. It was a very
interesting forum. We had -- we had student representatives
from -- from Tivy High School, Ingram Tom Moore, Center
Point, and also from Leakey. And I -- I can assure you that
there's some good ideas out there among the youth that are
coming up in responsible leadership positions, and I think,
as we develop those youngsters, our county and our area will
10-25-04
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
be in good hands. That's all I have. Let's get on with the
business at hand. First item on the agenda is to set a
public hearing for revision of Tracts Number 15 and 16 of
Bluff Creek Ranch.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that in Precinct
2, Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: That is in Precinct 2,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It doesn't say that.
MR. ODOM: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was just curious.
MR. ODOM: Well, we tried to contact you, but
this is not for --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh? I must have been
on another planet.
MR. ODOM: I don't know, sir. I had a call
in to you and left a message, but this is to set a -- a
hearing for a preliminary. We haven't gone through that.
So, they brought it in, and we'll be going over that, but
this is around Government Crossing. We ask that you set the
public hearing for the preliminary for revision of plats for
Tracts 15 and 16 of Bluff Creek Trail. And I don't -- was
there anything put in there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. May I
10-25-04
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,,,1 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
see it?
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry. This is a subdivision
that was done in 1998, and they are revising that and moving
down to pick up a well. I think there's about -- they're
moving a line on this to take in a well, and I -- there's
6.5 acres involved in this. I have some questions of the
Court, some guidance on it, because in 1998, you'll see one
of the notes there, it's in Zone A, and that there was no
study done at all by the surveyor. And I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Study as to what?
MR. ODON1: As to set the B.F.E., and a
monument is required, and there's nothing out there. So,
I'm -- my -- this is already an existing subdivision.
There's not any change of acreage. Ther.e's not any change
in the number of lots, so it falls within that 20 percent.
And --
line?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just moving that one
MR. ODOM: They're moving that one line. But
on this is -- also in that area is a Zone A, which is an
unstudied area. The question is, is do we make them, in
this preliminary when I bring it forward, to do that study?
Have the developer to do that study in there? Before, it
24 wasn't done.
,.-..
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's something you
10-25-09
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
want to be in -- you want that done before you come back for
final; is that correct?
MR. ODOM: That's correct. Give the guidance
to the developer whether they would do that study before the
preliminary would come back. I mean, it doesn't have to be
done till the final, anyway.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are these lots -- is
this proposed lot line change and replatting, is this being
done by -- proposed by the developer or by two different
property owners or what?
MR. ODOM: By the developer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By the developer.
MR. ODOM: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Well, I don't
have any problem with having a base flood elevation
established.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'm not sure if
it was re --
MR. ODOM: Required?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This would have been
under the old Subdivision Rules in '98.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What year was the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: '98.
MR. ODOM: '98.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was before the
io-2s-o4
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rules.
MR. ODOM: That was before the rules. But
the question is now; it's existing now. Do we do that, or
do we give a variance on that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- I really
don't want to give a variance, but it also seems a little
bit unnecessary on lots that are over 50 acres in size.
MR. ODOM: That's 50-some-odd acres, mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- and I don't
have the rules in front of me. I don't -- I'd have to read
our rules exactly. I mean, I think, you know --
MR. ODOM: It says if you're going to replat,
that you have to follow the existing rules at the time it's
replatted, so the rules are set now that the B.F.E. --
that's an unstudied area, and they're supposed to set the
B.F.E. as well as set a monument in there that other people
can pick up off of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the current
MR. ODOM: That's the current rule.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's follow the
current rule.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: All right, sir. All I need -- I
need a time set up for the 13th of December. They can bring
10-25-04
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
I
22
23
24
25
it in, and that study would be going on. That wouldn't make
any difference.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll set -- I'll set
my motion on the public hearing. My question is, what are
you going to do to notify the developer of this requirement?
MR. ODOM: Sir? I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you going to
notify the developer just by letter of this requirement?
MR. ODOM: Yes, I will put it in writing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With the current
rules and regulations?
MR. ODOM: That's right, a copy of that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that we
set a public hearing for the revision of plats for Tracts 15
and 16, Bluff Creek Ranch in Precinct 2, for December 13,
2004, at 10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. I have a comment
also.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
setting a public hearing. Any question or comment?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, make sure the
developer's aware this is a minor revision, so he can -- it
can all be completed at the next meeting if he has that.
MR. ODOM: If he has the study?
10-25-09

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~,,, 2 4
25
15
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If that study is done.
MR. ODOM: And if he doesn't, then we
would --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, then he'll have to
come back again. But, I mean, it may be more cost-effective
to delay the public hearing so he just comes one time,
doesn't have to come back and forth to court.
MR. ODOM: I agree. I'll see if they can do
that -- if they have someone that can do that. They walked
in and gave it to us, and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: December 13th is when you
set it?
MR. ODOM: December the 13th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They should be able to, I
would think. That's a-most two months.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions -- any
further questions or comment? 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 awarding bids for
truck-mounted asphalt distributor and water distributor, and
allow County Judge to sign the title for trade.
10-25-04
16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. On October the 12th, we
received a bid from Cooper Equipment. I believe it's in the
best interests of Kerr County to accept both of the
following bids; for used truck with water distributor, with
trade-in of 1984 Ford water truck, and for a total of
$20,700, and a used truck with asphalt distributor for 49,5.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: These amounts were
budgeted?
MR. ODOM: These amounts were budgeted, yes,
sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any further question or
comment?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about that last
sentence there, allow Judge to sign the title of the
trade -- or for the trade-in?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's part of the agenda
item.
MR. ODOM: That's part of the agenda item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just didn't hear it
in the motion. That's fine, whatever you want to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's included.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.,^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
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: That motion does carry. Next
item is consider and discuss approval of the proposed 2005
budget for the Kerr Emergency 9-1-1 Network. Mr. Amerine?
MR. AMERINE: Morning, Judge Tinley,
Commissioners. I'm Bill Amerine, Director of Kerr 9-1-1,
87 Coronado Drive, Kerrville, Texas. The Health and Safety
Code requires that the director provide a proposed budget to
its Board of Managers on an annual basis for its approval,
which was done on the 14th of October of this year, and then
to provide that budget for review and approval of the
jurisdictions of the counties that are serviced by the Kerr
district. I met with the Ingram City Council on Friday and
received their approval. I'm here today, obviously, to
present this budget for discussion and consideration. And
then tomorrow I'll be at the City Council of Kerrville, the
final jurisdiction, for their review and approval.
Just a quick review before I get into
specific details on our budget. Our source of revenue for
the 9-1-1 District comes from surcharges on phone bills for
10-25-09


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
18
a wire line and wireless handsets. Approximately 50 cents
per handset or 50 cents -- 41 cents, actually, for wire line
handsets for residential. That equates to about $365,000
that's projected in this projected year; that's what we have
to operate on. Within that budget, the Health and Safety
Code allows us to create and maintain PSAP's and other PSAP
equipment as decided by the Board of Managers. It also
allows us, through the Commission on Emergency
Communication, to use some of that surcharge money to
provision addressing within the county, which is what we've
been doing for the last 20 months. With that all being
said, I guess I have a question for the Commissioners and
the Judge, of how you'd like me to proceed through the
budget. Would you like to go line-by-line, or would you
like me to summarize each major category? It's your call.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that
either one's necessary. I mean, I've read it, and I --
MR. AMERINE: I'll open it up to questions,
if that's appropriate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a couple of
questions.
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The salary thing,
you're doing something here with the salaries and vacations.
MR. AMERINE: Oh, certainly.
10-25-04

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And if you'd kind of
explain that? Because I think it's kind of neat.
MR. AMERINE: I need to step back to last
year and what we did last year with salaries, and then I'll
step forward to this year. Last year, we did not do a
cost-of-living or a merit raise. We did what -- what is
called an equity parity adjustment. We did that based upon
the survey provided by the Chamber of Commerce that showed
what particular skill sets were paid within Kerr County, and
we adjusted salaries using that as the guide. This year,
because I think we're where we need to be on salaries, I did
not propose any increases. I think my staff, though they've
worked their tails off, understand that we're a public
service agency, and now that we're at parity -- and,
actually, when I say "parity," we're not at the midpoint;
we're somewhere below that. We're not on the upper end of
that scale. They understand that we have different
priorities in 2005, and those priorities are putting money
aside to replace the PSAP equipment, which is now eight
years old, and to wrap up addressing.
Now, specific to your question, because they
have worked very hard, I have a staff of three people
besides myself. We had a couple part-time folks helping us
last year, getting through this addressing and handling
almost 6,000 or more phone calls in the last year to get
10-25-04
20
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this addressing done. I checked with the -- talked with
both the City and Commissioners previously about a proposed
idea of compensating them by giving them an additional week
of vacation, vesting them an additional week. That
translates to about -- when you look at the actual salary
per-hour when you have an additional week off, a 1.92
percent increase in actual earnings. So, hopefully that
answers the question about why we did that and what it
really translates to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the employees
enjoy the -- the extra week's vacation, as opposed to some
kind of salary increase?
MR. AMERINE: I'm sure they will, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, did you hear
that whole thing there?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Won't work in my
department, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Course not. And then
one other question. Over on 3 -- number 3, letter E, you're
talking about your current lease lapse, and when is that
lease up?
MR. AMERINE: The lease will expire at the
end of January, the 31st of January, and we're actually
talking to the City. They're interested in leasing the
entire building, and they're currently in negotiations on
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
t
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
that. If that happens early, then we'll leave early. If it
doesn't, then we'll vacate at the end of January.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For sure?
MR. AMERINE: For sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. AMERINE: That should save us, just
because the whole motivation behind moving out of a building
that is substantially larger than what four people need
should save us, on the average, of about $1,500 a month.
Which will -- again, that additional revenue can go towards
network improvements. Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bill, one question on
the excess vacation payout.
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under Payroll
Expenses line, your proposal here does not allow for rolling
over vacation from one budget year to the other, does it?
MR. AMERINE: It does allow up to a maximum
amount. When -- it's unlikely -- and I know that when you
-- when you talk in these gray areas of "unlikely," that's
kind of a concern, but it's unlikely that my employees will
ever be allowed to not take vacation. Workload can be
managed such that we can make sure that they take their
vacation. It doesn't roll over year-to-year, but we do
allow them to roll offer a maximum of four weeks, 160 hours.
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
22
In that rare and extraordinary case -- and we put this into
our employee manual -- that the workload doesn't allow them
to do so, rather than them losing that vacation, we have
something in the budget now as a contingency of actually
paying out anything in excess of 160 hours. That's a very
unlikely scenario, but we went through this exercise with an
employee who was resigning. We had our attorney at the time
check with his labor lawyers in Austin. You kind of get
into a very sticky area where you start taking away people's
earned vacation because they can't take it, so we just put
this in as a provision to pay out excess vacation if they
were not allowed to take vacation because of workload.
But -- but that's just really unlikely.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, hypothetically,
an employee could roll 160 hours over continually until the
time he decided to leave the employ of 9-1-1, at which time
then you would buy the vacation?
MR. AMERINE: We'd have to buy that vacation
19 back, yes, sir.
20
21
22
23
24
.-~
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's all I have for
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, can you explain a
little bit as to what the plan is for upgrading the
equipment, as to what the timeline looks like, where the
10-25-09
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
23
funds required are going to be?
MR. AMERINE: Initially, earlier this year, I
put together an RFP, a request for proposal, for the entire
PSAP replacement. And around that same time, we were having
some modem problems at the PSAP, which we had a technician
come in and spend a week, and rather than just fix the
modems, we actually had him do a complete refurbishment of
all of our equipment up there; all the calltaker
workstations, all the switches, upgraded all of our cabling
from phone line cabling to Cat-5 cabling, took a look at
both the ANI/ALI servers and the -- and the uninterrupted
power supply units. Basically, just looked at the whole
system, for a couple reasons. One, we are having sporadic
but annoying issues with the modem lines that are essential
for being able to page out emergency services, but we also
wanted to have a baseline of what's the status of our
eight-year-old equipment. I mean, is it about ready to
completely fail and we're going to have catastrophic
failure, or is it in reasonably good shape?
When we went through that process of
refurbishing the equipment, we found that it was in better
condition than we thought. The cabling was bad; we had some
problems with the modem lines, but those have been fixed.
So, when I presented the board the request for proposal to
be submitted to replace all of our hardware, the thought
10-25-04
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
24
process at the board meeting was that, "Let's put this aside
for now." We've -- this technician said this equipment
easily could last another two years, and let's continue to
save revenue as we're doing so that we can pay cash for the
equipment when we get ready to upgrade it. Instead of doing
a complete equipment upgrade, what we're doing is an
enhancement.
We just released this last week to respective
vendors and to the NENA site a request for proposal for
something called a mapped ALI. That mapped ALI is a
separate application at the current calltaker workstation,
so that when a 9-1-1 call comes in, that you not only get
the textual data about information about the caller; name,
phone number, address information. You also get a separate
screen that shows a physical map, very much like the maps
that we produce on paper. That shows an icon of where the
call's coming from. That does a couple things. It gives
the dispatcher, regardless of their level of experience, a
visual cue of where the call's coming from. They can
actually route emergency services by looking at the roads,
the crossroads, and all those things. The actual cost of
providing a mapped ALI application would probably run about
$3,000 to $5,000 a workstation, or about $15,000 on the high
side. That's really cheap enhancement for the PSAP, and
based upon comments of other dispatch centers I've talked
10-25-04

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
25
to, it's one of the best visual tools you can give a
dispatcher.
But, back to the original question, some of
the initial quotes that we got -- these were not request for
proposal quotes, just casual quotes -- ran on the low side
of about $165,000, all the way up into the half million
dollar range to do, I guess, a Cadillac system for the PSAP.
Last year we attempted to upgrade this by going for a grant
through the Public Safety of America Foundation, and that
grant wasn't approved. So we've decided, rather than
continually filing grants, which we may go back to doing,
but instead of doing that, we would just go on a stringent
saving program, save the money over the next few years, pay
cash for the PSAP upgrade when we came to that. Does that
answer your question?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you've got roughly
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What kind of -- what does
the -- what fund balances do you have in that account?
MR. AMERINE: We have $129,000 in a C.D.
which was in Kerr County's bank account when I took over
last June, and we've increased the capital cash fund from
something in the order of $70,000-plus to about $125,000.
We've added just shy of $60,000 to that over the last two
years.
$200,000?
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MR. AMERINE: Approximately $250,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But some of that you
probably keep as reserve?
MR. AMERINE: Some of that we would keep as a
reserve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another question, just to
make sure I understand how this works -- and I see the City
Manager has joined us. Welcome, Ron. 9-1-1 is responsible
for the equipment, and the City runs a dispatch -- runs the
equipment?
MR. AMERINE: Yeah. This has come up in
Commissioners Court before. The way we're set up here in
Kerr County is that we establish the PSAP. We maintain the
PSAP. That's our equipment, including the calltaker
workstation -- the 9-1-1 calltaker workstation. The other
workstations the dispatchers use, they have a police
workstation that gives them access to TLETS and their own
recordkeeping system. The radio system for transmitting
emergency calls out also belongs to the City; that's not
9-1-1 equipment. The only transmit-out equipment that we
own at PSAP is that pager system, and that's just software
that allows us to get pages over to the Advantage commercial
endeavor that actually does send the pages out from their
facility. That -- we just have a modem and software that
gets the pagers over to Advantage.
10-25-09
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
27
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's joint equipment,
basically, what you're telling me?
MR. AMERINE: Yeah, I guess you could say
that, right.
MR. PATTERSON: Just to make it clear, the
way that it's physically set up and the way that we operate
it, the 9-1-1 has a location within the dispatch; it's a
separate room where their equipment resides. They have the
key to it. So, what they do is -- is they bring all the
data in to that point, and then from there, the data's just
handed off to the dispatchers, so there is literally a
physical as well as a management barrier there. So, at the
point in time they hand off the data, all of that
information goes to our dispatchers into our equipment, and
from that point forward, any information that goes out from
dispatchers over our systems, which we fund. Does that
help? Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And my last
question -- back to addressing. You gave us a report
several weeks ago.
MR. AMERINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was very happy to see
that my precinct was at -- I think 213 phones that had not
-- did not have addresses, which I was very happy to see,
but I know that there are other areas of the county where
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~-. 1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
there are more. What is the plan to address that for this
year?
MR. AMERINE: I'd like to answer that, but in
my typical roundabout way, I'd like to give you a little
background. Forgive me in advance for doing that. I think
it's important that the Court and also the public understand
what we've gone through in this addressing effort. Last
year, the County, with us providing the data to you, sent
out almost 14 and a half thousand postcards to the citizens
that we believe needed to be addressed. Subsequent to that,
the Post Office put two different flyers or notices in
mailboxes. These were generic, what we call contingency
letters, just because we wanted to make sure we reached
everybody. They said, "If you have not received a postcard
from the County, please contact 9-1-1."
Subsequent to that, the Post Office, once
they had done their mail route conversion, sent out a
confirmation letter to many citizens saying, you know, "This
is now your physical and mailing address. Please start
using it." There has been -- I can't count the number of
radio and newspaper articles about the addressing effort to
get the word out. So, to answer your question in a
roundabout way, how are we going to address the 3,100 phone
lines -- and that's not citizens. Let me make it real
clear; the semantics are important here. These are phone
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
lines, which probably translates to something significantly
less when you look at residences or individuals, probably on
the order of 1,700 to 2,000 residences or citizens with
phone lines and no address.
That's way too many people to leave
unaddressed in the county. I mean, that's a disaster
waiting to happen. So, what are we doing? We are currently
in the process of addressing letters. Specifically, we got
the phone company, Hill Country Co-op, to provide us the
billing addresses. This is something we've never had access
to before for these phone numbers. We did another
disclosure statement, and we're sending out letters to these
individual users of these phone numbers saying -- and we're
showing them what is at dispatch, a phone number and name.
That's it. And we're telling them this is a public safety
issue that's important to them, and that we'd like them to
come forward so that we can give them a physical address so
that we can find them in an emergency. We're currently
compiling and mailing those as we speak. Now, 3,000 phone
lines or 3,000 letters will take some time to get wrapped
up. So, do I think it's going to take all of 2005? I
don't. I do think, though, when we get a 50 to 60, or even
-- keep my fingers crossed -- a 70 percent callback response
on those letters, that the public safety of the citizens of
Kerrville will be much better served. I'd like to see that
10-25-04
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
through to its end if we're able to do so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. AMERINE: At that point, I think
addressing -- I can honestly say to the Court without
feeling like I'm fibbing, addressing will truly have been
done. And anything that's left over, any isolated
incidences we find from individual calls made to dispatch
that don't have -- don't have addresses can be
catch-as-you-can.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, thank you
very much. I think you've done a great job out there with
the address project, and other areas as well. And I welcome
our representatives, Mr. Ron Vick, who's in the audience as
well. Thank you for attending.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have the
information I need to make an informed decision about the
budget specifically. I've requested information about
audits that I haven't received, so for that reason, I'm
proposing that we defer a decision on this budget until our
next meeting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you explain that
more, please?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've asked for
information about the last three audits -- audit reports,
10-25-09
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
copies of it from 9-1-1, and they -- I haven't received that
information, and I feel like I need that before I can have
an informed opinion about the validity of this budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move for
approval of the 2005 9-1-1 budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the 2005 9-1-1 budget -- '04-'05 budget. Any
questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess a comment. I
don't understand the need for the audits. And, I mean, I --
and they are available to look at, so I don't --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They're available?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm sure -- yeah. I
mean, I'm sure -- they're available, correct?
MR. AMERINE: When the -- when the request
was made by the Commissioner -- actually, it was made by
Ms. Mitchell -- we sent back a clarification e-mail asking
who was requesting it; was it the Court requesting it or
Commissioner Nicholson? And said that we'd be glad to
provide it with an Open Records request. It's at our
office. We'd be glad to show it to anybody that wants to
see it, so I don't understand the issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You do a routine
audit, correct?
10-25-09
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
MR. AMERINE: We do audits every year. Last
year we deferred our audit until -- actually, we did a
two-year audit; we did 2003 and 2004 in one year. Those are
on file at our office. We do -- like I said, there's an
annual requirement to do that. And you can let it go for
two years and then do a two-year audit, which is what we did
last year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By direction of your
Board?
MR. AMERINE: Well, it's actually by
direction of law. Health and Safety Code requires us to do
an annual audit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, no, I meant
deferring for a two-year --
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By direction of your
Board of Managers?
MR. AMERINE: Yes. That was done to -- in
2003, we had some extraordinary professional fees costs due
to a resignation and some other personnel issues, and rather
than overrunning that budget, they decided to defer that
cost to 2004. So, we had the audit done early -- first
quarter of this year, and it was a two-year audit,
2003-2004.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's available for
10-25-04
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
anybody?
MR. AMERINE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any member of the
public?
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's --
Mr. Amerine, what is your objection to providing me copies
of those?
MR. AMERINE: I have no objection, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Why wasn't it done?
MR. AMERINE: I asked for an Open Records
request. You provide it and I'll provide you copies of that
when you come in to see them, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, a County
Commissioner has to file an Open Records request to get that
information?
MR. AMERINE: No, sir. I -- in the original
e-mail, as I pointed out, I was confused about whether the
Court was requesting this o
COMMISSIONER
any confusion about whether
MR. AMERINE:
COMMISSIONER
reason you don't want me to
MR. AMERINE:
r you personally were, sir.
NICHOLSON: But you don't have
or not it was requested?
No, sir, not at all.
NICHOLSON: But there's no
see that?
No, sir, not at all. If you
10-25-04
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,---
25
come over today and request that information, you can see
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I requested it on
the 5th of October.
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have a policy in place,
Mr. Amerine, that for any request for information, albeit
from a citizen, a stranger off Interstate 10, elected
official in the city or the county, that requires that there
be an official Open Records request be filled out in order
and as a condition of your providing that information?
MR. AMERINE: If I was to come into the court
and ask for a transcript, sir, of a particular session,
would I not be required to open -- an Open Records request?
JUDGE TINLEY: If you requested -- asked me?
MR. AMERINE: If I asked -- if I asked
Ms. Mitchell.
JUDGE TINLEY: I can tell you what my
instructions have already been to Ms. Mitchell.
MR. AMERINE: Okay. I'm just asking.
JUDGE TINLEY: And if we get an intelligible
request, we can understand what they are requesting --
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- verbal, in writing, coffee
shop napkin, and we clearly know that it's public
10-25-04
_.. _ ~ r
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
information --
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- give it to them. Right
then and there, if you can. Now, if it is a voluminous
amount of material, maybe we impose a very small basic
charge. If it's not a great deal of material, those people
are paying for the copies. They're citizens. They're
taxpayers. Make them those copies and hand it to them just
as quickly as possible.
MR. AMERINE: We don't have a policy to try
to do anything to restrict individuals from having access to
public information.
JUDGE TINLEY: The response to your question
which required an official Open Records request tells me
that you do, Mr. Amerine, and I don't think that's good
government.
MR. AMERINE: Well, I appreciate your -- your
opinion, sir. I really do. But am I violating the law by
asking anyone to simply write out an Open Records request
for a piece of paper when they want a piece of information?
JUDGE TINLEY: Far as I'm concerned, you got
an Open Records request when it was an e-mail request from
someone acting in any capacity. If it's an intelligible
request, it need not cite Texas Open Records Act or the
statutory reference. If you can understand what they're
10-25-04
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

asking for, and it's clearly public information, I think
good government dictates that you give them that information
as -- as reasonably prompt as possible.
MR. AMERINE: I can't disagree with you, sir.
I can't.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask you, if I might,
sir. You mentioned that last year there were some parity
salary adjustments.
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: What were those adjustments in
terms of percentage or amounts that would give me some basis
to compare it to?
MR. AMERINE: I can't think of the
percentages off of the top of my head, but I can give you
the salary changes, if you'd like me to run down those for
you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. AMERINE: For my junior GIS person, her
salary went from -- I believe it was 22,5 to 24,5. For my
senior GIS person, her salary went from -- I can't remember
the exact number, but something in the order of 26 and some
change, up to 28,5. My office manager went from 25 and some
change to 27,8. And the director's salary went from 42 to
51, 000.
JUDGE TINLEY: What was the last one?
10-25-04

37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. AMERINE: 42 to 51.
JUDGE TINLEY: Office manager, you said, went
from 28,5 to 27,8?
MR. AMERINE: No, sir. The office manager
went from something in the order of 25 and some change up to
27, 8.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you.
MR. AMERINE: Those lower-end figures, sir, I
cannot recall, but that's the general ballpark.
JUDGE TINLEY: Those are the key personnel?
MR. AMERINE: I am very accurate on the upper
end, on the last year's salaries.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Any further
questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz
voted in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Nicholson voted against the
motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank
you, Mr. Amerine. Next item is consider and discuss
accepting or rejecting bids received for electrical, HVAC,
plumbing, and pest control service for the '05 -- or, excuse
me, '04-'05 budget year.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Good morning.
10-25-04
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
~ 18
19
1
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, Mr. Holekamp.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Y'all have those bid
estimates -- or the bids in front of you, and my
recommendation on those is -- I'll do plumbing first. We
had one bid from Whelan Plumbing; hourly rate, $62.50, and
the helper rate at $31.25. And that's the primary one that
I dealt with, because approximately 90 percent of all the
use is during regular hours, regular rates. Unless it was
way out of line, I -- that's the one I'm primarily using.
Okay. On the electrical, there were three bids; D.W.
Electric, Guadalupe Electric, and Butterworth Electric, and
the best bid and low also was D.W. Electric of Kerrville,
Texas. And air conditioning -- and I had to do some
checking on this one, but there were four bids; Hardin Air,
Compton -- Compton's of Kerrville, Air Tech of Kerrville,
and State Aire of Kerrville. The best bid would be Hardin's
Air Conditioning of Kerrville. And then on pest control --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question on that. How is
Hardin cheapest on that?
MR. HOLEKAMP:	Because they	have	no helper
charge. That's hourly rate.	They usually	only	send one
man.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, whereas the others --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Others always send a helper.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wondered about
10-25-04
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
that, too. Okay.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah. Just put "not
applicable" on the helper charge, because they don't do
that. And then on the pest control, we had two bids,
Terminix and Starkey, and very close; the monthly charge of
475 versus 525. And Terminix had the low bid.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glenn?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would you prefer the
motion be to accept all bids, or just the low bids?
MR. HOLEKAMP: I would like all of them if we
could, because there are certain areas that some of them
have much more knowledge on some of our equipment than
others do, and it would probably save dollars if we could do
that. I would appreciate it if we could.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion we
accept all bids, with the recommendation to use low bidder
whenever appropriate.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded
question or discussion? All in favor of that motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
Any
10-25-04
- --- _...r.r..r.rr _____ - ~-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank y'all very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Let's come on
down to Item 9, consider and discuss renewal of agreement
with RBC Dain Rauscher to serve as the Kerr County financial
advisor. Mr. Henderson pointed out to me that -- he was
here just a moment ago.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ron? Would you tell
Mr. Henderson to step in, please?
MR. VICK: Sorry, what?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Henderson out in
the hallway, the fancy guy from Austin. Ask him to come in,
please.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Austin?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: San Antonio.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He lives in San
17
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: When we were having some
recent discussions concerning matters that Mr. Henderson was
involved in more recently, he discovered that his contract
with the County to be the County's financial advisor had
lapsed. And --
MR. VICK: I don't see anybody out here that
10-25-04
- ~~ a - -~ -
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
looks fancy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Try San Antonio. I'll
get him.
JUDGE TINLEY: Kathy's going to find him.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, have you -- while
we're waiting for Mr. Henderson, have you -- or are you --
is this the same form of agreement that we had with Dean
Rauscher last time?
JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding is that it
is, and the fees have gone up slightly, the first time in a
considerable period of time. But I'll let Mr. Henderson
explain that to you if we ever run him down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But from the form
standpoint, we do not need to send this to the County
Attorney's office? The form is substantially the same?
JUDGE TINLEY: Far as I know, that's not
necessary. Why don't -- why don't we defer that one for the
moment and go to Item 10. The District Clerk is asking us
to amend Fund 33-635-411, her District Clerk Records
Preservation Fund, to appropriate $1,400 for a pre-owned
Canon PC-80 reader-printer to replace the existing one that
has become irreparable. That would be in lieu of a cost of
$ 9, 000 .
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does anybody know if
10-25-04
~~. bra --- -..~~r r .~_- --
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this is budgeted funds?
JUDGE TINLEY: These are out of the Record
Preservation. Those are dedicated funds, so they --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I 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. Back
to agenda item Number 9, the renewal of agreement with RBC
Dain Rauscher. Mr. Henderson? The question that has been
posed is, is this basically the same agreement that we've
had in years past? And my response was, it's my
understanding that it is, with the exception that the -- the
fee structure has gone up slightly, for the first time in a
number of years.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'll leave it there in your
lap.
MR. HENDERSON: The contract that's just
expired was originally done back in 1994, and this -- the
terms and conditions of this contract are virtually
10-25-09
.. ~rrrr~ rr.r~ ~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
....
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.-.
25
43
verbatim. The name of our company has changed, and some
verbiage has changed, but essentially it's the same contract
except for the fees. The fees have gone up about
11 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the financial advisory agreement with RBC Dain
Rauscher. 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. The
next item is consider, discuss, approval of amendment to the
City of Kerrville/Kerr County EMS contract to permit Kimble
County EMS to be the primary EMS responder for residents at
the Y.O. Ranchlands, and authorize County Judge to sign the
same. Commissioner Nicholson, I think this matter is a
matter involving your precinct, primarily. I would point
out that we received just this morning a -- a draft of an
agreement which would constitute the amendment. Mr. Motley
got it to me this morning, and indicated that he and
Ms. Bailey with the City Attorney's office had been working
on that last week, and this is the latest thing that they've
10-25-04
_~, - ._ .~ruA~
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
come up with.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think what's
different here -- the only substantial difference is that,
in addition to taking in the Y.O. Ranchlands subdivision to
be served by Kimble County, a few other residences of that
far northwest sector of the county would be included in this
service. I think the County Attorney and the City Attorney
have -- have created a map that would show what -- what
addresses would be included in this service.
MR. PATTERSON: Excuse me, I didn't want to
interject myself. Ron Patterson, City Manager, city of
Kerrville. How are y'all doing today, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine. How are you doing?
MR. PATTERSON: Commissioner Nicholson
referenced a map. I've got two of them here I thought I
would share with you very quickly.
MS. BAILEY: If you just take one of each,
and then hand me what's left.
MR. PATTERSON: The map that you have in
front of you, you'll notice there is an area that is
highlighted in purple, fuchsia, whatever color you want to
call it. That particular area is the Y.O. Ranchlands that
has been the subject of this proposed amendment. One of the
things in our analysis, and in looking at this, is that --
again, I want to make it clear that I'm speaking to you
10-25-04
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
today -- and, obviously, this would have to go back to the
Council for final approval, but in our discussions thus far
with the staff, we have been working on this, and what we've
looked at is that if you look at the Ranchlands, they sit
right in the middle of this corner. And you'll notice the
red line on the map is the boundary line for the county.
And what you have there is, you've got -- north of what's
being proposed to come out of our service area in our
current EMS agreement, there is a pocket that would be
created up there between the Ranchlands and the county line.
What we would propose to you is that, if an
amendment is going to be done, that you consider -- consider
everything that's highlighted in the brown. The reason for
that is -- is that we would either have to go right past the
service area in the purple or go through it to be able to
get to that pocket that's up there in the northern area.
So, what we're asking you is, if you're going to consider
this, we'd like you to consider everything that's in that
brown area, simply because it's going to clarify it, and we
know exactly what -- what areas are going to be served and
which ones aren't. It'll also make it easier for dispatch
to be clear on which addresses get serviced through the
dispatch to Kerrville EMS versus through the dispatch to the
Kimble County dispatch. So, again, that -- I wanted to just
clarify that map. That is something that we worked on as of
10-25-09
r~ ~ ~~ ~~r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
late Friday. I wanted to make sure that we had that
information.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ron, can I ask you a
question? Right up here, it says Highway 83, Edwards
County. Where -- where does Kendall County come in -- I
mean Kimble County come in?
MR. PATTERSON: It actually -- it's going to
sit up in here and right around the corner here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Up in here?
MR. PATTERSON: I can't tell you exactly
where that is, but it's right in that area somewhere.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It does touch, though?
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Goes in and out several
times, Buster, up through there on 83. You'll be in Kerr,
Edwards, Kimble, Kerr, Edwards, Kimble. It changes a lot
across the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But the question is,
it goes into the -- the Y.O. Ranch, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ron, I have a -- I guess
a slight -- well, kind of a philosophical question on this
as to the format we've been using, and I think I brought it
up at our last meeting a little bit. To me, I don't really
know why the Commissioners Court needs to be involved in
10-25-04
47
1
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 whole process. To me, it is an issue of -- under -- I
mean, we contract with the City, and if the City is
comfortable with making the change, I don't see why we need
to be part of that. Do you agree with that? I mean, is
this -- I mean, could this be done without the County
Commissioners Court even being involved, and the City was
wanting to do it?
MR. PATTERSON: I would respectfully
disagree, sir, that, no, I do believe you have to be
involved. If you read the agreement, it identifies the
service area being the boundaries of the county. That
service agreement is entered into by and between the
Commissioners Court and the City of Kerrville. In order to
amend that, we do need to have a formal action. And, again,
you'll recall that -- and, again, just to make it clear,
this is at the request of the Commissioners Court to remove
this area. So, again, it's not something that we are, I
would say, endorsing or pushing. It's something that we're
willing to do and take a look at. Again, this is your
service area, and it's your citizens, so we're willing to do
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're doing it at the
request -- I mean, we're doing it because some citizens
requested -- asked it of us. You're doing it because we're
asking?
10-25-04
48
1
,,-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PATTERSON: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My next question, this
is -- I don't really know who it's to. Probably to
Commissioner, Precinct 4, or maybe Mr. Budow. I mentioned
this to Mr, Nicholson before the meeting. I've been
thinking about this over the weekend, and I had a discussion
with a resident within the Y.O. Ranchlands of -- about their
not being in favor of -- of us doing this, of the change.
And that triggered a question in my mind as to -- I guess,
kind of, as to what authority does Mr. Budow, who's making
the request to us representing other citizens -- what
authority does he have to show us that he's really
representing the majority of the citizens? And originally,
I think, which was Y.O. Ranchlands; now it's expanded to an
even larger area. I'm very concerned -- really, I think it
needs to go to the County Attorney. We have an obligation
to provide the emergency services, and if -- you know, I
need a comfort level that someone who is not in favor of
this doesn't turn around and sue us because Kimble County
makes a mistake. You know, and we had an agreement, then
arbitrarily -- or it could be conceived somewhat arbitrarily
changed it and gave it to a volunteer service, where we had
a -- a non-volunteer service under the original agreement.
So, I've got a -- a big issue with that, and
it's something I think needs to be resolved, one, from this
10-25-04
r+
49
1
2
._..
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
standpoint, but also I'm curious from my own precinct,
because a similar thing is probably going to be coming
forward for at least part of my precinct, that we would
rather have coverage out of Kendall County, because it's
very difficult to get, like, Falling Water Subdivision. I
mean, so I think it's something that we may do some more of.
But I'm concerned of, one, what authority the residents are
coming to us requesting this, and two, would it be a County
Attorney question as to what authority or what do we need
from the citizens before we make a wholesale change?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with
Commissioner Letz on that; that, you know, if there --
you'll get your turn, sir. If there are citizens out there
that are not in favor -- I mean, this issue is huge to me.
It's so, so important. It affects many different areas, and
one of those areas that -- that keeps coming to my mind is
the level of service. Now, they're dear friends of mine up
in Kimble County, and I'm sure that their heart's in the
right place and all that, but there is no way that they can
provide the level of care of that the City of Kerrville can,
and that disturbs me. You know, if there is -- if something
-- if something goes wrong in this whole thing due to the
level of care, I'd just -- I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but I
know one, and I just -- that just scares me to death. I
think we're going down the wrong -- wrong road on this
10-25-04
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
thing. I really and truly do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask a
question -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It -- I really think
that -- you don't have to get mad.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm amused.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're amused? Well,
good. Glad you are. The -- the level of care is the most
important part of this thing. We're talking about people's
lives. You know, if there are citizens in this area that
don't have the same desire as you have, I'm going to have a
hard time voting for it; I can tell you that. It's going to
-- it's going to -- if it's just you, you go out and do
whatever you want to, but there's other people that --
people's lives that we're dealing with here, and I think
there's some responsibility on this Commissioners Court.
And that's very, very serious, in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Both Commissioner
Letz and Baldwin touched on a point of concern. Ron, on
this one that has the colored overlay, I just want to be
sure I understand.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're saying that an
EMS unit out of Kerrville can't get though the pocket up in
the northwest corner without going through this purple area;
10-25-04

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
is that correct?
MR. PATTERSON: It either has to go through
it, or going to go right in front of it. You see where
Highway 83 is, sir, right there on the far left? They're
either going to run right up that road to get up into that
area, or they're going to have to go up into the Y.O. Ranch
Road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which, if they
went way out to 83 and then up, creates more -- more delay
in getting there, because the distance is probably a little
bit longer.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. And the bigger
concern, really, is not just the road miles, but also just
being sure that our dispatchers are clear on what areas get
dispatched to Kerrville EMS, and who gets Kimble County. If
we have a defined area that we know that -- you know, A, how
you get there, and B, making it very clear that this area is
one service provider, we know that's going to go direct to
Kimble, it'll -- it's much more efficient, and we also have
a higher confidence level that the right unit will get
dispatched.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tell us, if you
will -- I'm reading from the County Attorney's memo to us
which we just got.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
10-25-04
1
._-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And he says, "The
City is not comfortable with, one, EMS units traveling
through a nonservice area." Expound on that a little bit
for me, will you please?
MR. PATTERSON: Well, just exactly what I was
saying, is that in order to get to this northern pocket,
this brown area up above here, they're either going to have
to go right by it or go right through it to be able to get
there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, what is your
level of discomfort for going through? That's my question.
MR. PATTERSON: Well, it really has to do
with, as I just said, two issues. One is making sure
dispatch is clear. We've got -- over here, we do serve;
over here we don't, and over here we do. I mean, I want to
be sure that the right unit gets dispatched.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: That is the biggest concern.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: When we talk about having to
go through it, it's really a matter of making sure the right
unit -- because it does not make sense. If these folks are
receiving service because they're closer to Kimble, these
folks are even closer. I mean, if that's the argument and
rationale, it seems to me that that would hold for that
10-25-04
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
whole area.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can see your point.
I appreciate that.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. No problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 'Cause we have some
roads that start in the purple area and then go into the
brown area, and it probably could lead to some confusion. I
can understand that. I guess my next question is -- it's
got to be directed to somebody, Mr. Budow or Commissioner 4.
Mr. Budow, probably. How many people do we know are living
in the brown area, as opposed to in this purple area, and
what do we know about those people's willingness to
participate in this change of service provider?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll let Mr. Budow
address that. And also -- do you have a copy of the map?
MR. BUDOW: I do.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is this an accurate
representation?
MR. BUDOW: More or less. It's sort of old,
and I would disagree with Mr. Patterson's description that
you have to go through. In fact, the -- the best way that
the Kerrville -- City of Kerrville EMS determined to get to
any of these areas north of us was around us, not through
us, because our roads are not such that they would want to
pursue that.
10-25-04
54

1
1
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. PATTERSON: I made it clear that either
they've got to go around it or through it.
MR. BUDOW: So that would be number one. But
I think, to answer your question, this is a map of that area
also, the red area, and it's owned basically by five people.
Three of those -- four of those five people are current Y.O.
Ranchlands owners. They also own in the area of the pink.
So, if -- if you're looking for what those people think,
I've spoken to the two largest landowners in that area who
own, cumulatively, about 3,000 acres of that little strip
there, and they're supportive of it. If Mr. Letz has had a
call from an individual, I'd love to hear about it, because
we've had general meetings, we've had board meetings, we've
had discussions about it, and not one individual person
spoke up -- chose to speak up as opposed to it. We've had
the Kimble folks out to answer questions. We've had the
Shannon people out to answer questions. We've had
Commissioner Baldwin question whether Kimble was capable
over the last seven months. We've had several newspaper
articles saying Kimble is capable. You voted once already
to -- to go forward with it. If the curveball at this point
is, "Let's deal with these folks up there," great. Let's
deal with them. They will, I believe, happily cooperate
with the plan, because it is in their interest to do that.
And the ones that I've spoken to have reiterated that.
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many property owners
are there in the brown area, about?
MR. BUDOW: I said six. There might be
eight.
pink.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean the brown and the
MR. BUDOW: Oh, including the brown and the
pink? The brown is about eight, because they're very large
chunks of land. In the pink, there are 112 landowners.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- you know, and
the question I really -- that I have probably is really a
County Attorney one. I understand you've had meetings out
there, and I think we all are aware that, even though health
care is a little bit more of a priority to most people,
people are somewhat apathetic about getting involved with
these; they don't like disagreeing with -- in public. I
really want to know, from the County Attorney standpoint, if
we're opened up to any liability of -- of making this change
if people don't want the change. And I -- you know, and
it's for you as well, really. Your association, I mean.
The subdivision clearly -- well, I shouldn't say clearly. I
would be very surprised if your sub -- if the subdivision
rules or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Covenants.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- covenants address this
10-25-04
iii ~ - - - - -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
issue of -- of, you know, the Board making this decision.
Therefore, it's an individual kind of a group. And, you
know, I really would be a lot more comfortable if we had
some real way of recording that; you know, 51 percent, you
know, 100 percent. You know, what the percentage is of
people that really want this change. Because I think that
if we make a change, and it is, you know, 50 -- 50 or close
to that, if it's not a huge percentage, I would have a real
problem going along with it. And I think that everyone
needs an opportunity somehow to voice their opinion, because
it does affect their lives.
MR. BUDOW: If you will tell me what it is
you want -- if it's 70 percent, if it's 51 percent, if it's
everybody in the brown, if it's everybody in the pink and
everybody in the brown -- I will get it done. But let's
just be clear about what the -- what we got to do to get it
done.
JUDGE TINLEY: You just want to know the
rules of the game.
MR. BUDOW: Well, the converse of that is,
well, we might have one individual who says no. I'll put 60
or 70 in front of you next week, if you want, that say yes.
And so you're going to have to deal with the majority, I
believe, who say yes, and who are now going to ask the
question, what is Kerrville really doing for us in the
10-25-09
- ~i~ __

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
best-effort case? They haven't responded in a timely
fashion. I would take issue with Commissioner Baldwin's
point that Kimble is not as good as Kerrville. If we want
to have that trial or that hearing, let's have it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would disagree with
your statement about -- that Kerrville hasn't provided
anything.
MR. BUDOW: Fair enough. So you would. But
I thought we'd already heard all that out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, but I think
that this is an issue. I mean, whether ten residents of the
Ranchlands -- you know, I really don't feel comfortable
telling you who he is -- or who they are; it's a couple.
They clearly -- they felt like it was a train they couldn't
stop, but they disagreed with the train. They think it was
wrong. But I -- they think it's not a better service. But
my question, again, goes back to the County Attorney. What
do we need to have, as a Court, from the citizens to make
sure that we're protecting all the residents of the county,
and from a liability issue, the Court itself? 'Cause I
think -- I've never done this. We just have always went
with a county-wide arrangement. In the past -- and this is
before Mr. Patterson's time -- I know there was an internal
agreement between who the First Responder was in part of my
precinct, but it was never done, you know, in writing. It
10-25-04
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
was just a verbal agreement that Kendall County EMS
responded basically about a mile into Kerr County, but both
responded.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me pursue that, if I
might. Mr. Patterson, Kendall County EMS, operating out of
Comfort area, is that a voluntary -- a volunteer-type
organization?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a professional, paid
organization?
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are they not covered under the
existing Kerrville/Kerr County agreement where they have
primary responsibility down in the Comfort area, and a
portion of Kerr County?
MR. PATTERSON: I don't believe so, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
MR. PATTERSON: There is one point in time
where we had an agreement where there was actually a code --
an area code that was being serviced.
MS. BAILEY: The contract references it, but
my understanding is that that's not actually being done;
that Kerrville responds in the whole Kerr County area.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm just going on what the
contract says. What I read says that 995 primary
10-25-04
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
59
responsibility is Kendall County EMS.
MS. BAILEY: It does say that.
MR. PATTERSON: You're correct. But what I'm
telling you is, in practicality, I don't believe that
service is still occurring.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It is not. Now, there
was a temporary accommodation, when the Hermann Sons Bridge
was out, that Kendall County -- until the temporary bridge
was put up, Kendall County agreed to service the Hermann
Sons retirement community on a temporary basis. They
occasionally -- until, I'd say, about a year ago, even this
stopped. But for a while, Kendall County was dispatching a
unit to stabilize, but as long as I have been a
Commissioner, they have not transported anybody, and have
refused to transport. They will -- they, for a while, were
sending a unit to stabilize. Kerrville would send a unit,
and then Kerrville would do the transporting. Since -- I'd
say for the last year or so, they won't dispatch a unit,
period, out of Kendall County.
MR. PATTERSON: That's correct, sir. They do
not come into the county.
JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me that possibly
the contract needs to be amended so that that provision is
no longer effective, then. At least in --
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir, we can do that as
10-25-04
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
60
well. The issue there is that you had a service provider
who just stopped providing service. At that point in time,
it was either we were going to step up and provide it, or
they weren't going to get service, period.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, for information,
myself and the Commissioner from that area, Commissioner
Busby, are trying to get something going again, because it's
something that both of -- Commissioner Busby and myself feel
Kendall County is better able to serve a -- a small part of
Kerr County over there, Falling Water Subdivision being the
most notable, because we have to go into Kendall County for
possibly 10 miles, then come back into Kerr County in order
to get to this subdivision.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. It may make sense
to do the same kind of thing we're doing here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question to
Mr. Budow -- I'm not trying to pick on him; I just want to
know what we need to do from the County Attorney standpoint.
MR. BUDOW: I understand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To be able to make these
changes just arbitrarily --
MR. PATTERSON: I want to, just for the
record, say too, and for the citizens out there as well,
we're not opposing this. We're not proposing it, but we're
not opposing it. I just have a couple of other items that I
10-25-04
61
1
.._, 2
I 3
4
5
6
7
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do want -- I would like the Court to look at when you do
look at this change. One of the issues that we need to make
sure that we examine closely, in terms of a practical
standpoint, is that if you decide to go forward with this,
obviously, when the call comes in, as we were discussing a
little bit earlier, when that hits the 9-1-1 and then gets
transferred into the dispatch, what will happen is -- is
that we will pick that call up and forward that on to Kimble
County. That's not really a big issue. We can make that
happen. One of the things that I do want to make sure of,
though, is that, as we look at doing this, that we also
consider how we handle the First Responders in that area.
Currently, right now, when that call comes in out in these
areas, we will take care of dispatch or actually paging out
or handling those -- toning out those dispatches -- not
dispatches.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: First Responders.
MR. PATTERSON: First Responders, sorry. And
what I want to be clear on is -- is that, right now, those
First Responders are trained in the Kerrville EMS protocols.
But what's going to happen is -- is that those First
Responders are going to be the first ones on the scene --
and, again, this is just a comment to you. I would
encourage you to make sure that those First Responders are
aware of and work with Kimble County to make sure that they
10-25-09
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
get all their protocols straight so they're working off the
same sheet of music. The second thing is -- is that the
Court needs to make a decision. Do you want those First
Responders to still be dispatched when that hits us, out
through our dispatch? Or does Kimble County -- you may want
to ask them this question. Whenever that hits our dispatch
and we forward it on to Kimble County dispatch, do they want
to take care of forwarding out the First Responders?
Because, again, if it's going to be their EMS on the scene,
they may be the ones who want to make that decision. Just
something to think about. Again, we don't need to be making
those decisions. We don't need to be making those. So,
you -- I'm just giving you -- this is things you need to
look at and talk with them about.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ron, would you be
comfortable if I were to talk -- if I were to talk to the
First Responders that are under your guidelines -- under the
City of Kerrville guidelines, and they had the desire to
service that? Would -- would you be comfortable?
MR. PATTERSON: Oh, sure. We don't recommend
any change. We think they should still service this area;
the First Responders should stay in place. None of that
should change. We just want to be sure that the First
Responders who are going to respond in this area are
familiar with the Kimble County protocols, which -- you
10-25-04
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know, this shouldn't be that hard, but just to be sure. And
the second thing is, who do you want to dispatch or page
those particular First Responders? Do you want Kimble
County making that decision, or do you want, whenever it
hits our call -- our call center, that we forward it out?
We just need to know.
MR. BUDOW: The Kimble Sheriff's Office,
who's the dispatcher for Kimble, has already agreed to
dispatch the First Responders, as they currently do with our
fire protocols. So, this would just add EMS to the fire and
First Responder protocol, so no -- no change there. And the
first -- only First Responder I know in our direct area was
actually trained by Kimble County people, so they -- they're
aware of both county protocols.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay. Well, we do know for a
fact that we have First Responders who are going -- who
would be responding to this area, and some who are in here
who would be responding down into this area, and that's
fine. We just want to be sure that all -- everything's
squared away. That's it. Just want to make sure when they
do get there, they can provide appropriate services.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I've got
three -- three items here that I think are what we're saying
is required to bring this to some conclusion. The first one
is an opinion from the County Attorney on whether or not we
10-25-09
- - - i ._+- - - _ `-_.~ i ~
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would have any liability by taking this action, and I think
the Assistant County Attorney's here, is she not? Would
you -- would you take that on?
MS. FISHER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. It would be
good if we could get that in the next few days. The second
thing is an indication of support from the people who would
be affected by this. The people that we've talked about in
the red and in the brown. Mr. Budow, can you help us with
that?
MR. BUDOW: What would you like?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, you know, just
some kind of a -- a list of the residents, and whether
they've -- you know, yes, no, or didn't contact.
MR. BUDOW: So, you want a --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't -- you know,
or something similar. I mean, I'm -- and I'm trying to --
MR. BUDOW: Well, if I held a vote of the
association and -- and came back with a 70 percent response,
is that what you want? Or do you want me to call everybody
on the list?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- you
know, a percentage is fine, but I need to know how many were
present.
MR. BUDOW: Sure.
10-25-04
. `_--- ~ r _-- --- i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean --
MR. BUDOW: Not 5 out of 500. No, I
understand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I kind of want to know --
might be 80 percent support at the meeting, but if there was
only 10 people there --
MR. BUDOW: With a legitimate quorum, a
majority is what you're looking for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I also want to
know about the people outside the pink area, too.
MR. BUDOW: I'll go all the way to the north
end of the county; I'll call everybody in that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said it's only six or
eight outside of it?
MR. BUDOW: It's not hard.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- yes, I'd
like to know what the quorum is, and then a percentage.
And, like -- but if you have, say, 40 people or 50 people
show up, or -- I don't know what your quorum -- 160 people
show up --
MR. BUDOW: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's 100 percent,
well, that means that there's 60 out of 115 that we know are
in favor of it. That means there's a bunch of undecided.
Then I think that information, along with the information
10-25-04
- - ~. - _ _-. r .~ ~ _.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
66
from the County Attorney --
MR. BUDOW: More likely than not, I'll just
call everybody on the list and just say, "Are you or aren't
you?" And I'll be able to answer whatever questions they
have, and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then as to something that
we have that you can give us that says this is -- you know,
all these people want this.
MR. BUDOW: That's fine. I just want to make
sure I understand. That one "nay," if that's going to
derail us, then I guess I'd like to understand that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't -- I
don't think so. In my opinion, no. But I really want to --
that's where the County Attorney question comes in, 'cause
that's a new thing I've thought about. Every time it's on
the agenda, I think of new questions. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the third
thing?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: County Attorney
opinion on liability is going to be taken care of. Get some
indication of support from the red and the brown. The third
thing is capability. We have heard before that Kimble says
they can handle it. They're closer; they can get there in
less than half the time that Kerrville can. They got a much
lower ratio of population served to ambulances, like
10-25-09
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
one-tenth or one-fifth of the ratio that Kerrville has.
What else can we do to -- to satisfy ourselves that Kimble
County has the capability to provide good service to this
area?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My opinion on that one --
I mean, I agree with -- Commissioner Baldwin raised the
concern, but I think that's something that needs to be made
clear to the residents. I mean, that's something that -- I
mean, you know, if they want to opt to a -- a type of
service that they think -- you know, that's their call, in
my opinion. I think it's -- you know, I just hope that they
fully understand what they're doing. And I can't -- you
know, you've got to trust they do. As long as we get -- as
long as Mr. Budow --
MR. BUDOW: So, it's a subset of number two.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Really, just make sure
that they clearly understand they're going to -- and it may
not be so easy to go back the other direction again. I'm
not sure, you
question, too,
a heart attack
in place, does
Kerr County at
know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
if Kimble County comes
under their care, even
Kerr still -- is there
all? Who do I need to
MR. PATTERSON: I thin
And back to your legal
in and someone dies of
though the agreement's
any liability with
look at?
k I need to sit down,
10-25-04
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
is what I need to do. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I kept looking at Ron;
Ron's going to sit down. I know there's a County Attorney
in this room. There she is.
MS. FISHER: I'm the Assistant County
Attorney.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, ma'am.
MS. FISHER: I don't have an opinion to offer
at this point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know you don't,
but at some point.
MS. FISHER: But if you want somebody to look
at to get one, I'm the one to look at.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have one other
question. Maybe it's part of the fact finding here. How
many units does Kimble County have available to respond to
calls, versus how many units does Kerrville EMS have
available to respond to calls? And if all the units are
tied up, is there a backup?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Kimble has three and
Kerrville has five.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Three versus five.
MR. PATTERSON: Plus reserve units.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. If the three
10-25-04
69
1
2
..-,
I 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are busy -- I'm not looking for trouble, but let's just
examine it. If the three are busy answering calls elsewhere
in Kimble County, which puts them further away from Y.O.
Ranchlands area, what happens?
MS. BAILEY: We do have an existing
interlocal mutual aid agreement between Kimble County and
Kerrville, such that we could respond -- Kerrville could
respond. But, in that event, it would be not as Kerrville
under this agreement, but it would be as Kerrville working
through Kimble County by mutual aid agreement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: Kimble County would have to
call us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It works both ways,
Commissioner. If our five boxes were tied up because of
some horrible disaster here in the county, which is probably
statistically more likely than their three being tied up,
then we have mutual aid agreements for them to come in and
help us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That answers my
question, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're pretty well
covered, I think, with all counties in a disaster-type
situation through the mutual aid agreement. The problem
10-25-09
~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
comes on just the normal calls.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Fourth issue was a
question of whether or not First Responders would be
dispatched by Kerrville or Kimble County. I think that was
answered; they'd be dispatched by Kimble County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kimble County.
MR. PATTERSON: We would just like to make
that clear here, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, there's only two
questions.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else to be offered in
connection with that item? Anyone have a motion to offer at
this time? Hearing none, we'll move on to another item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only -- Judge, if I
could make a comment, next time it comes back, I hope -- I
hope it's a final agreement that we can act on.
MR. BUDOW: From your mouth to God's ears.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're running a little
behind on a timed item. I will recess the Commissioners
Court meeting at this time, and at this time I will open a
public hearing for the revision of a plat for Tract 118 of
Kerville South II.
10-25-04
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
{The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 10:25 a.m., and a public hearing
was held in open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: I do have a speaker that --
AUDIENCE: Who do I need to turn this in to?
(Participation form handed to Commissioners.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're not up yet.
MS. TIEMANN: I'm not up yet? About how much
longer?
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably going to be after our
break, Sue.
MS. TIEMANN: Which is?
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably as soon as we get
through with this item, so we can give the reporter a break.
If there's any member of the public that wishes to be heard
concerning the proposed revision of a plat for Tract 118 of
Kerville South II, they're privileged to come forward at
this time. Ms. Ferris?
MS. FERRIS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll give your name and
address to the reporter?
MS. FERRIS: My name is Linda Ferris. I'm at
137 Indian Head Trail, Kerrville, Texas, 78028. I would
just like to state the fact that Mr. Tuck has really been --
I was going to say outgoing with this, as far as giving me
10-25-09
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
information on everything that he has done, and I appreciate
his honesty and everything about this. I picked up the
wrong packet as I walked out of the house today, so I don't
have the information right in front of me, but I pretty much
remember it from memory. He has gone through with the
survey again and looked at my main concerns. 'Cause I don't
know if you realize; I am the one that owns Tract 117, which
is the property directly below the property that he is
trying to subdivide. Why, thank you, sir.
I will probably be one of the most affected
by his proposals and what he's trying to do. One of my main
interests is -- is the fact that my house is spring-fed. I
don't know if y'all remember all this; of course, you've got
so much on your mind. I am one of those that I am very
concerned of the fact that, if I don't consider the property
across the street, I'll have four new septic tanks above me.
That really concerns my water. When you think about it, he
puts -- the contamination -- and I do know my spring is not
perfect. I do have it tested. I know he has had it tested.
But I've also talked to them about the fact that they will
be able to show me where my activity levels that would rise
or fall with the fact of contamination due to septic
systems. With the new septic systems, we've realized -- I
talked to Mr. Tuck -- that aerobic systems will not work,
because I think 80 percent is spread above the ground.
10-25-04
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
He has sent me information that they did a
survey that 2-point-something percent of acreage drain off
into my property. That's half of his acreage, drain down to
my property. We realize aerobic septic systems won't work,
because where is all the contamination going to go?
Downhill. They also were accepting the fact that they were
going to dig into the land to do the septics. At the last
-- I don't remember the gentleman's name; I apologize. The
County guy that does the septics, that approves them, he had
admitted to us that Lot 4 and Lot 1, he would not accept,
because they were at too much of an angle. They presented
over a 20 percent -- degree downward slope, and at the
bottom of Tract 4, it was a 40 percent slope. He said that
they would not be able to do topsoil, which on the others
that they would. He said that they would have to dig down.
Of course, that's my concern, even though we
do not know where the spring collects its water from. And I
know that you said at one point that you couldn't consider
that, because the fact that you had to take it from the
point of receiving it. So, we have no idea what cracks and
crevices or where the water drains down from. But my
concern is also when you start digging into the land, which
I hope they do not blast, because of all the crevices to
change the formations, but digging into the properties,
whether or not that will change anything underground. I
10-25-04
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
understand, with the top three, that they will be able to,
like I said, haul in water, so hopefully -- I mean haul in
dirt, so that won't. affect me as much. The septic systems
that are out there that I've talked to one other gentleman,
20 percent is what would go into the ground, if I understand
that correctly. That most of it would be absorbed and be
correct, but 20 percent still filters through. That's
80 percent contamination coming down into the water system
down there.
And I know at one point that you said that
what's the difference between having five homes up there
versus two? Well, it's 100 percent contamination versus
maybe 2. If I had a chance of getting 2-in-5 cancer, I'd
rather have 2-in-5 than 100 percent. I do know he's made
this elevation -- as far as the way the water does come
down, it is a cavern. It comes down, it goes into the
valley. And I understand that, like you said, over half his
acreage is going to drain off into mine, which, of course,
represents -- affects everybody else down the valley. You
can ask Mr. Clemens, who has got all our fill dirt down into
his, you know, pasture, where all the -- everything goes. I
do know that Mr. Tuck has said that there's an existing
culvert up there where the water flows, that he said maybe
that is what's going into my spring and down my cavern. But
there's no septic tanks above that. That's all dry land --
10-25-04
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
or undeveloped land. So that, at least, makes me very happy
to know that. I appreciate him going through all that. The
other thing is that they're going to use rock saws, which I
believe -- is it true that you don't blast any more for
septics? Is that correct? Does anybody know?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you --
MS. FERRIS: I'm just worried about the
formation, and whether or not, once he develops -- if he's
allowed to develop this, and if my spring dries up and I
have no water, what are my options after that? Who's
responsible for over 30 or 40 years of this being a water
source, that it's gone? And those are some of my definite
questions and definite concerns for that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ms. Ferris, does your
property front Madrona Drive?
MS. FERRIS: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there not a water
source on Madrona provided by one of the independent water
companies?
MS. FERRIS: Yes. Yes, sir, there is. And
it's at the top, just like you said. My property -- my
home -- my home -- my residence is at the bottom. And I
have not considered the consideration of the money source --
of the cost of getting a rock saw and drilling to do a line
properly. I would not do PVC above the ground. So, to cut
10-25-04
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
from the top down to the bottom, I do not know what the
initial cost of that would be. It would be an option. But,
in a sense, I know it's my problem, but I didn't cause the
problem. Why should it have to be my result to fix? Those
are my main concerns. Of course, besides every time they've
been out to survey, I can hear them. Of course, trash
coming down the hill, anything -- if they decide to burn, if
they decide to do anything, I am just going to be one of the
ones most affected.
I thought when we purchased this property --
because it said in the original plat nobody could subdivide
less than 2 and a half acre lots, because I did not want a
mobile home park above me. I bought an amount of acreage so
I wouldn't have that. I understand he's gone through the
proper channels. I cannot deny that he has done all the
proper steps. I cannot fight that, and I understand that.
It's just upon the mercy of the Court to realize that I
don't want something that's been going on for 30 or 40 years
to affect how I have to change my point of living to do
other routes. The water tastes great; the plants love it.
The water people even said that it's probably one of the
best water systems around. So, those are my major concerns.
Thank you very much for your time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Ferris. Audrey
Rooney?
10-25-04
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
MS. ROONEY: I'm Audrey Rooney, 110 Sun Haven
Drive, Kerrville, Texas. The lady before me had a whole lot
more concerns than I have. I just want to say that I object
to the subdivision of this 5 acres into 1-acre lots. It --
especially considering hat he's going to be allowed to put
used trailers, and that would make five used trailers, as
opposed to, if you leave it at 2 and a half -- dividing it
into 2 and a half acre lots, that will only create two. We
have enough trailers in our neighborhood now. We don't need
any more. That's all I have to say, but I do agree with
this lady, and I understand her predicament, and I wish you
would consider what she's asking you to do. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Rooney. Is
there any other member of the public that wishes to be heard
with respect to this subdivision? Yes, sir? If you'll give
your name and address to the reporter.
MR. SCHEINEMAN: Michael Scheineman, at 118
Codrington. I'm a few lots down from this, but I was
notified of this by letter. I've lived there since 1992.
My former wife lived there since 1976. And the main reasons
that we moved out there were so that we did not have to take
and deal with the city or its traffic or all it brings with
that. We don't want any more subdivisions there. As -- and
I don't know how many -- I think there's several of us that
are here that I just notice -- recognize as neighbors. It's
10-25-04
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
getting hard enough just to take a walk at night without
having to dodge traffic. And we like it out there. We paid
for that out there on that basis. We don't desire to have
it subdivided any further. And we're depending upon the
deed restrictions that we have right now to hold this at
this point. And I don't know about the other lady; I can --
Mrs. Ferris, but I respect her wishes also.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. I appreciate
you being here. Mr. Steve Benson? If you'll give your
address to the court reporter.
MR. BENSON: Steve Benson, ma'am. 103
Holland Lane. I'm going to speak very briefly, gentlemen.
My father and I, we built some -- bought some land out there
in Kerrville South some -- oh, goodness, 30 years, 35 years
ago. I'm one of the persons that has environmental
standards as far as trees, as far as water, wildlife. I've
seen a lot of them streams out there dry up. I dug a lot of
holes out there, seen a lot of wells drilled. You
acknowledging the fact now that that gentleman, whoever he
may be, have gotten his approval to subdivide and make this
mobile park available for people that he wish. A lot of
decisions have been made. Can we support a lot of this --
these decisions? A lot of these subdivisions that pops up
basically the same -- overnight, one a day, a week, you
know, they decide, "Let's vote about it. Let's talk about
10-25-04
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
it." He may have already got his approval.
We've already been talking about here earlier
today, if I do recall right, do we have enough emergency --
emergency network to service an area? All these decisions
that is being made here, we've got to be able to make our
decisions wisely for this general area. As far as the water
is concerned, I've seen a lot -- a lot of wells go dry in
the month of June, July. And once they get dry and the
weather -- water goes down a little low and the pressure
drops a little bit, you got this seepage come in, you got
the contamination. Whether you want to accept it or not,
you got the contamination. All the -- all of the chances
that you take, all of the regulations and rules that you
bring in, progress is going to continue one way or the
other. It's going to continue. Our decisions as far as
water supply, subdivision, septic tank, it's going to have
to be looked at real closely.
I may not be heard right now, gentlemen, but
I can assure you to tell you, I do a lot of walking in that
area. I've done a lot from 1972, when I was a young lad. I
did a lot of walking out there before that little old road
going down Vine Street, just one little old bitty road, and
many other areas up in there before the back road that
connected Kerrville South together. I seen the flood in
1978, how it washed away a lot of stuff, and a lot of
10-25-09
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
80
streams, creeks, and everything went dry. I ask you
gentlemen, if you decide to pass this as he's got it, take a
good, long look at it, and all these subdivisions. I'm
going to tell you, I have no plans of going off and doing no
such thing myself as putting in a subdivision. I bought a
lot of land out there, and I have my problems, and I'm going
to do the best I can to divide, do whatever I got to do.
But as far as developing, I'm looking at the wildlife, I'm
looking at the water. I'm looking at decisions you're going
to make for the future of this area and the areas that's
around.
Whether you want to accept it or not, this
July coming up, this following year, all of you here, you go
down toward the Guadalupe River. We had a little rain here,
oh, sure, last year. This year's been good, plentiful.
Farmer's Almanac want to say it's been good. You go down
across the big bridge down here across the Guadalupe River
around July, August, and you take a good look at that water
drop. You take a good look at it. And then you get on out
there toward Hunt and you go out, get on out toward
Kerrville South. I know, gentlemen. I'm standing up here
partial to no one, and no one is probably listening. I'm
going to tell you, you may not hear what I say now, but in
the years to come, and what I have seen, this day will be
remembered. My name is Steve Benson. Thank you very much.
10-25-04
- ~~ _ ._ - i ` Il
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Benson.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have here a letter which was
addressed to Kerr County Clerk, Mrs. Jannett Pieper, from an
Alan L. Lin, giving an address of 11610 Whisper Valley, San
Antonio, Texas. The letter to Ms. Pieper reads, "I own a
lot at Madrona Drive. I oppose the plat revision of
Kerrville South Number II, Tract 118, Volume 4, Page 64, by
Mr. Mike Tuck. I plan to build a house there. The plat
revision may block the view of my planned house. Thank
you." And it's signed by Mr. Lin. Is there anyone else
that wishes to be heard with respect to the matter that's
before the Court at this time? Yes, ma'am? If you'll come
forward and give your name and address.
MS. GRAHAM: I'm Laurie Graham, and I own the
property -- I'm at 3101 Legion Drive at this time, but I
also will have an address of 155 Kerrville South Drive,
which has finally been approved by the Post Office. I own
the property directly across the street from this proposed
plat 1 --
AUDIENCE: 18.
MS. GRAHAM: 118. And it's not going to
affect me much, except for, one, the view, but mostly it's
going to affect me as I want to build a house that's going
to cost over $100,000. According to my husband, it's going
10-25-09
82
1
2
..-
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
' 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to cost me $400,000. I can't do that house, but hopefully
we can come to a middle-of-the-road agreement and get my
house built. But my concern is putting all the -- and I
just heard the "used mobile home" part up there, that I can
not build my house. It will be a white elephant. So, I'm
very concerned on what the property values will go to, as
I've seen what -- anyone can go get a note now and buy. It
doesn't mean they're going to pay for it. Like I said, I
live on Legion Drive. I have the low-income housing behind
me. I have mobile homes across the street, six lots,
50-by-150. I can tell you, there's a lot of trash. They're
getting worse and worse. Anyone can get a loan; doesn't
mean they're going to pay for it. And when you put five
mobile homes up on 1 acre, anyone can buy it. Doesn't mean
they'll nurture it and take care of it.
So my concern is, since anyone can buy a
mobile home and get in a 1-acre lot, my house -- my values,
everyone's property values up there --even though they are
supposedly going to pay more for this, and they're going to
be double-wides, double-wides don't mean a thing. I live in
a mobile home now; I want out of there desperately, but I
take care of it. But that does not mean the property will
be going up in value, with 1-acre lots around me. And that
is my concern. The property -- it's not going to have trees
on it any more. Right now, it's just solid rock and cedar.
10-25-09
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
83
I don't believe there's an oak on the property. There might
be one or two, but there is not an oak on the property.
Across the street, there is a madrona tree on the one narrow
lot I believe he subdivided, Lot Number 1. And there's very
rare madronas up there. When the County pushed that road,
Codrington, over to make -- to connect with Kerrville South,
they took out two or three madronas -- yes, madrona.
Putting the mobile homes on there is going to
take out a lot of trees, which -- cedar, I'm all for it, but
when it's all rock and cedar, there's just not going to be
anything there but five mobile homes in a row. And I'm
truthfully against it, 'cause I see it out my window every
day, six mobile homes in a row. And, actually, it's more
like seven now. So, I know I live in one, but I really
don't like them, and I wish we didn't have to have them.
But we do. They just have their place, and it's not on what
we bought this acreage for. And people up there are trying
to make it better, cleaner. It does look a lot better since
we bought it. And I've been up in that part of the country
a long time, visiting friends. Hazel Calcote's a good
friend of mine, and I used to go up to her house every day
when I was seven years old. So, this is my concern. It's
just not something that we need as a community trying to get
better. Low-income. housing has its place, and I have it
behind me and I'm trying to get away from it, and that's my
10-25-04
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
concern. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Graham. Is
there any other member of the public that wishes to be heard
on this issue? Yes, ma'am? Please come forward. Give your
name and address to the court reporter.
MS. ESCOBEDO: Good morning. My name is
Elizabeth Escobedo, and I'm the property owner of Lot 136 on
the map that was sent to me. The "6" is missing, but it is
down below the 135. This is property that I bought a few
years back. I've only been a property owner there for a few
years, and it's undeveloped at this time, but my plans in
the future would be to develop it. It's a little over
5 acres, and I find it -- coming from the city of San
Antonio, I find it a reprieve to go out and just be in
nature, in the trees, to see the deer, to see the other
little animals around, to be able to walk on the quiet
streets. And I -- one reason that we buy away from the big
cities is to get away from the congestion, the light
pollution at night, the cars going by, and I would just not
want, right across from where I have purchased property to
build in the future, to see these 1-acre lots.
And in my mind, I'm telling myself, well,
if -- if Mr. Tuck can divide his property into 1-acre lots,
maybe I should think the same way and divide my property
into 1-acre lots and sell off, and -- and maybe go buy
10-25-04
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
somewhere else where I won't have the congestion to deal
with. Coming from a city and living in a neighborhood where
you have neighbors all around you, I'm looking forward to
the time when I can have 5 acres and not have to have a
next-door neighbor be able to look into my yard or into my
kitchen window to see me prepare supper. I'd rather look
out and see the deer and the trees and the beauty that God
has given us. The nature that God has created for us gives
us a type of reprieve that we can't get from any other
source, in my opinion. And I think that Kerrville has so
many beautiful natural areas, and that's one reason why I
bought the property here, is to get into the hill country
and enjoy what God has given us, I believe as a gift, and I
think we ought to take care of it. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Ms. Escobedo. Is
there any other member of the public that wishes to be
heard? Please come forward. Give your name and address to
the reporter.
MS. NOWLIN: My name is Portia Nowlin. I'm
at 115 Codrington. I'm. Lot 135, and I am opposed to any of
these changes for all the reasons that my neighbors have
stated. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else
wish to be heard? Yes, sir? Come forward and give your
name and address.
10-25-09
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
MR. HOWARD: Brett Howard, 200 Marshall. I
had a certain expectation for the restrictions to be kept
the same whenever I signed my name on the deed. That's my
number one point. Number two, besides the environmental
concerns, even if you -- which you realize that you're going
down a slippery slope towards -- where does it stop? Every
year for the next five years, is Mr. Tuck going to develop
five more acres there? We're going to have 50 lots there,
1-acre lots? And I'm afraid of where we're going more than
anything else. 'Cause if it stops there, fine, but it's not
going to. Thanks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir?
Please give your name and address for the reporter, if you
would, please.
MR. CLEMENS: Name's Al Clemens, and our
address is 230 Kerrville South Drive, and we happen to be
just about at the bottom of the runoff that Ms. Ferris was
discussing. And there's one other place where it rolls
across the road and into their pond, and based upon the
topography of this dirt -- and, by the way, I'm not
anti-growth at all. You know, 1-acre parcels are fine. I
was -- have a little real estate background and so on and so
forth. But, because of the topography of that ground up
there, the underlying -- what appears to be a major rock
shelf and stuff, I am really concerned about the hydraulics
10-25-09
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and what the engineering and -- and installing that many
septic systems is going to do to the quality of the
groundwater flow that we get going. Because every year,
with the torrential rains that seem to wash down more and
more topsoil from above coming down on our property, and I
have no idea what the engineers can come up with as far as
deterring that effluent so it doesn't -- and the old saying
of what rolls downhill.
And, heck, I wouldn't mind cutting up my dirt
into some smaller things and selling it off, but there
again, we just had to have an additional septic system put
in, and it was a big one, to handle -- and I know we've got
more dirt than they've got up on top of that ridge, because
that rock comes up real quick. So, anyway -- so that's got
to be a major consideration. I'd hate to have to go back to
this guy after he puts its all in and say, "Well, you need
to come and clean up my property." And also, where it comes
down through, by the way, it's quite a nice little channel,
and it's a lot closer to our well than where we had to make
sure a new system was put in. Quite a ways away from that.
So, there would be a possibility of even temporary or
possible contamination there, too, so that's just
considerations that we're concerned about.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Is there
anyone else that wishes to be heard this issue? Yes, sir?
10-25-09
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
88
MR. KASS: Bob Kass, 120 and 130 Indian Head.
I'm at the bottom of the hill, middle of 118. I'm opposed.
And I agree with everybody, and I just hope that you will
maintain the 2 and a half acres, which would make me very
happy. And I'm still not convinced that I'm not going to
get washed away when this all takes place. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Anyone else
that wishes to be heard? Anyone else that wishes to be
heard with respect to the revision of the plat for Tract
118, Kerrville South II? Seeing no one else seeking
recognition -- you want to be heard in the public hearing,
Mr. Tuck?
MR. TUCK: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
MR. TUCK: According to Ms. Ferris, there's a
problem with --
JUDGE TINLEY: Give your name and address.
MR. TUCK: I'm sorry. Mike Tuck, P.O. Box
823, Ingram, Texas, 78025. We're not building roads, so
we're not changing any of the drainage right now. Our
engineer has told us teat once the homes are put in, that
the drainage may change slightly due to the driveways, but
that the -- if people put in yards, assuming they will, that
that will mediate that problem. I don't see any problem
with the drainage, and we have followed the Subdivision
10-25-04
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
89
Regulations. Many of the people up here talking have not
followed the Subdivision Regulations, but we have. And many
of the people up here have not followed the Subdivision
Regulations of the County, but irregardless of that, we
have, and we hope you'll approve it. Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Any other
member of the public wishing to be heard on the issue of the
revision of plat for Tract 118 of Kerrville South, Section
II? Yes, ma'am?
MS. CLEMENS: Hi, I'm Julie Clemens. My
husband's already addressed you, but we actually have two
residences at the bottom of the hill. And a couple years
ago, when -- I'm sorry, the address is 230 Kerrville South
Drive, and also 109 Indian Head Trail South. A couple years
ago, when we had that really bad flood and a lot of rain, we
had a torrential river running right through our field.
Tremendous amount of topsoil came down off of the hillsides.
The way they -- as Al was mentioning, the way the topography
is, it sort of surrounds our property, which lays in the
valley. And, at that time, the Kass' had a lot of problems
with their house too from the water coming off the hillside.
And it's kind of a double-edged sword, because if it rains,
we get a lot of water. If it's a dry summer -- we ended up
dropping the pipe in our well another 40 feet a couple years
ago, and we have about a 500-foot-deep well at this time.
10-25-04
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
So, I think it really is a serious consideration that there
could be damage to properties laying below this proposed
subdivision. But I think, truly, the thing that concerns me
the most is that we moved here from Seattle a few years ago,
and we love this country. We love the beautiful scenery.
And the people that live in the area that we live in, we all
have acreage parcels. We have livestock. We have a
lifestyle that is unlike what you would find, even in
Kerrville, and I think it's going to affect everyone in the
area, whether they have water problems or not, because this
is a country lifestyle that we have chosen. And it could
easily -- I can see where if -- if one subdivision is
allowed a short platting, there will be more, and other
restrictions in our covenants will also probably be
challenged over time, and I just hate to see that happen.
Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Any other member
of the public wishing to be heard on this issue? Seeing no
one else coming forward, I will close the public hearing on
the revision of plat for Tract 118 of Kerrville South II.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:57
a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I will reconvene the
25 ~ Commissioners Court meeting. We need to give our reporter a
10-25-04
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rest, and we're going to take about a 15-minute recess.
(Recess taken from 10:58 a.m. to 11:15 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to
order. Item 7 is a timed item we're running late for,
presentation by Ms. Jackson, details of the AACOG
Weatherization Program, Section 8 housing in Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, it's a
pleasure to introduce to the Court Rose Jackson. Rose is
the Housing Manager for AACOG, and there have been some
articles in the newspaper recently about weatherization.
But I had asked Rose a month ago to come down and talk to
the Court briefly and tell us what the Weatherization
Program is all about and how our citizens can avail
themselves of it. And with Rose today is Anna Kehde, who is
the Section 8 Housing Specialist. And we do have Section 8
housing in Kerr County, and I think the public needs,
perhaps, to know a little bit more about that. So, without
further ado, Rose Jackson.
MS. JACKSON: Thank you, Commissioner
Williams. I appreciate your invitation to us from AACOG.
Anna, if would you stand up? 'Cause she's going to be -- as
Commissioner Williams has said, she's going to be doing the
Section 8 program introduction. I distributed a Power Point
presentation, copies of the Weatherization Assistance
10-25-04
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
Program, and also distributed what is our bargain basement
type of flyers at this point. We're going to try to spruce
it up a little bit, but we're still going to stay within
economic bounds. And good morning, gentlemen. I'm sorry,
I'm still having a little allergy, so I'm still a little bit
fuzzy, but good morning. Alamo Area Council of Governments
operates a Weatherization Assistance Program in 12 counties.
If you open the little blue brochure, the 12 counties are
listed on your right, and, as you can see, there's Kerr
County. It is a free program. It is funded by the
Department of Energy and the Texas Department of Housing and
Community Affairs, and we provide insulation.
You can see the different types of services;
weatherstripping, caulking, repair broken windows, storm
windows, new gas water heaters, space heaters, window
air-conditioning units, and housing -- excuse me, heating
and air conditioning central systems. It is a free program.
It is primarily targeting the elderly, low-income, disabled
people in the community. And in this regard in Kerr County,
the only thing that people have to do is they just merely
have to call the Alamo Area Council of Governments, or maybe
one of you all, and we'll be more than happy to have them
file an application. And, as they file the application, the
only important thing that we have to find out is that the
client may be eligible, but the house may not be. And by
10-25-04
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
that, I mean if the house has poor electrical wiring, if the
house has poor foundation problems or roof leaks or plumbing
problems, then we cannot provide the weatherization work.
It is a free service, but the way that the Department of
Energy stipulates is that we cannot be investing some of
their funds into a house if the house has a lot of need for
other types of repair, and we're not a home repair service
agency.
We also have -- one thing that I wanted to
mention, and one of the reasons Commissioner Williams had
asked me to come down here to Kerr County to talk a little
bit about weatherization, is that we are looking for a lot
of people from Kerr County. We have lots of people. We --
by the way, we do about 300 homes a year, and I would say
that last year we did -- about 65 or 70 percent were homes
in Bexar County. The other 11 counties went ahead and
consolidated in terms of making up the residual of
40 percent. This year, we have 60 percent rural counties,
and among those is Kerr County. We'd like to continue that
effort in trying to get more services out to Kerr County
residents. I did want to mention that it does not have to
be just a single family unit. It could be, say, a duplex or
a house that is rented. If the house is rented, we do
approach the landlord and make sure that it is appropriate
for the landlord to want to participate in this program.
10-25-04
94
1
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 we do ask them, as well, if they would like to make a
contribution, but it is a voluntary contribution, and this
is only for multi-family units, apartment complexes. But,
typically, there is -- there is no charge for the people
that are living in the homes whatsoever.
How did weatherization start? Well, back in
the '70's, we had what was called an energy crisis, and then
the Department of Energy was created. And then we had the
Department of Energy believe that what we needed to do was
to actually try to go into the homes and try to help people
reduce the costs of their energy bills. So, weatherization
through -- whether it be insulation, air infiltration
measures, air-conditioning repairs, brand-new air
conditioners, whatever, the whole idea behind it is to try
to reduce the energy bill for the client. And for every
dollar that's invested, in terms of any type of measure that
we install in a house, there is at least $1.30 returned on
that particular measure.
That, in a nutshell, is what the
Weatherization Assistance Program is. I've really kind of
been abbreviating quite a bit, because I know y'all have
quite a bit of an agenda for today. And, with that, I am
available, as well as I do have more flyers and
applications. I did want to mention, though, that in terms
of professionalism, we have a professional staff. We have
10-25-04
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
two inspectors. If you contact us, you're eligible and the
house is eligible, the inspector will go out and do a bona
fide assessment of the house, and it takes about two to
three hours. He has equipment where he checks the attic, he
checks the stoves, the water heaters for any carbon monoxide
gas leakages. He also checks the refrigerators and other
appliances that you may have. But the whole idea behind the
weatherization thing that I would like to stress is that,
even though it's a free program and it's a government
program, I did want to stress that it is a professionally
operated program in terms of our inspectors that we have and
the services we provide. I'd like to have Anna, at this
time --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rose, before you get
away on this, before we change topics --
MS. JACKSON: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a couple quick
questions, just to help us understand a little bit more.
There is an eligibility baseline; is that correct?
MS. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And as I read this --
your brochure, eligibility is the household income, and
cannot exceed 125 percent of the low-income guidelines.
Translate that for me, if you will, into dollars.
MS. JACKSON: Okay. It -- there is a
10-25-04
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
breakdown on the application, and basically what it says is,
say you have a family of four. If it's $13,000 or less,
there will be a total breakdown; then they would be
eligible.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. JACKSON: Of course, if your social --
the only income you have is Social Security or S.S.I.,
you're automatically eligible for the program.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. JACKSON: People that live in the house,
18 and older, if they do have full-time jobs, that is
counted. But, here again, as you start growing the size of
the house, that's taker. into account, and so the -- the
median income actually starts to rise. So, actually, I said
family of four, but I meant family of one for $13,000. So,
it's -- it's pretty much in line with what the federal
standards are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a maximum
number of dollars that can be spent on any particular one
individual house that you're working with?
MS. JACKSON: Yes, sir. We have -- we are
limited to spend up to $3,000 per unit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. JACKSON: That's in a good year. And, by
that, I mean -- for instance, this year we have such a large
10-25-04
97

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
outcry for people that need help that the inspectors just
don't take the $3,000, automatically say, "I'm going to have
you have $3,000 worth of measures in here into your house."
They try to look at it intelligently and wisely, how we can
spend -- allocate the money. So, we're averaging right now
at about $2,000 per home.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And does your staff
contract for the work from local -- or do you leave it to
the homeowner to do that? How does that work?
MS. JACKSON: No, sir. What we do is, we
have a contractual arrangement. It was a request for bid,
and we have two contractors. They work for us. We send
them out into the -- to the different houses and have them
do the work. They have -- if you pardon me, this is the
feminine touch -- we give them a recipe. It's really a
statement of work, and on the statement of work we tell them
exactly what are the measures they have to do. Repair the
windows, caulking, weatherstripping, how much insulation,
R-12, R-19, and they have their recipe; they know what they
have to do. So, every client has no worry about the type of
reputation of the contractors.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, lastly, how does
a Kerr County citizen who might be eligible avail themselves
of this service?
MS. JACKSON: Simply just give -- they can
10-25-04
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
give you a call, or the best thing to do is to give us a
call down at the Alamo Area Council of Governments, and
there is a toll-free number. It's 1-800 -- it's on the
little brochure -- 749-2110. And they'll just -- an actual,
live person will answer the phone and will actually ask --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Real, live person.
MS. JACKSON: A real, live person, unless
she's on the other line. But there will be a real, live
person that answers the phone, and there'll just be a series
of preliminary questions asked to see if the -- if the
person on the other side actually qualifies for the program.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Great. If you would
give those extras to our administrative assistant over there
against the wall, she'll hand them to anybody that calls and
asks for them.
MS. JACKSON: And, with that -- and thank
you, Commissioner Williams. You asked me all the good
questions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there may be
some other -- the others may have some.
MS. JACKSON: Okay. And, Anna, if you'd come
up? She'll do -- we also have a Section 8 program as part
of the Alamo Area Council of Governments, and it's funded by
the U.S. Department of H.U.D., and she's going to talk a
little bit about that. We do not exclusively work in Kerr
10-25-04
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
County, but it just seems like we're in Kerr County a lot.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
MS. KEHDE: Some flyers here for you, too.
Let me explain just a little briefly about the Section 8
program, which is now called the Housing Choice Voucher
program. H.U.D. likes to change things around quite a bit.
Here's another flyer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MS. KEHDE: The Section 8 program is a
federal -- federal rental assistance to families with low
income, and rental assistance is based on a family's income.
What's nice about the Section 8 program is that it's
different than public housing. Public housing is associated
with an apartment complex, and families move there and they
get rental assistance. With Section 8, you can move -- you
typically go into a -- with a private landlord. For
instance, here in Kerrville we have -- we have 10 landlords
that we work with, and we're always trying to expand that.
We have -- we work with five different large apartment
complexes here; Heritage Oaks, Kerrville Housing, Kerrville
Plaza, The Meadows, and Oakdale, and two of those are
actually senior citizen apartments. And there are Section 8
program works in 11 counties. We don't work in Bexar
County. The other counties are Gillespie, Kendall, Comal,
Guadalupe, Wilson, Karnes, Atascosa, Frio, Medina, and
10-25-04
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
Bandera. However, Kerr County is our biggest -- we have
most of our tenants there.
We have 98 vouchers in our program, and at
this time we have 62 tenants -- 62 of our tenants live here
in Kerr County, and actually here just in Kerrville. And so
the majority -- over half of our funds go to Kerrville to
provide rental assistance. And so, right now, we have --
it's a -- the program is in demand constantly. I have
people calling me all the time. Right now, we have a
waiting list; it's about 160 people are waiting for the
program, and we only have 98 vouchers to give out. And so
that's about -- I'm estimating about a one-and-a-half to
two-year wait, and so we have closed our waiting list, so we
are not accepting any new tenants at this time,
unfortunately. So, people can call me for information, but
I would not be able to help them immediately. And -- but on
the -- on this flyer, there are phone numbers, as Rose had
said. And I guess that's it. So, if you have any
questions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does your office get
involved with developers who wish to build Section 8
housing?
MS. KEHDE: No, we do not. We -- we have --
not with this Section 8 program, no. We just strictly
provide the vouchers, and that's it.
10-25-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
i
20
21
22
23
24
..-,
25
101
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're just
responsible for putting people in the units?
MS. KEHDE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. JACKSON: Commissioner Williams, if I
may, I'd like to say thank you so much again for the
invitation. Just two quick things on the Section 8 program.
It is strictly just a rental assistance program. And I
don't want to just say "just" a rental assistance program,
because we do help quite a few people in the community -- in
the different counties with rental assistance that they
really desperately need in order to -- to use some of the
moneys that they're saving to adapt and get on with their
lives. I also wanted to just mention one more time about
the Weatherization Assistance Program. We also do mobile
homes. So, it does not have to be just a single family
unit, a dwelling. It can also be an apartment, but it can
also be a mobile home. And just recently, we met with the
people from one of the Kerr gas and electric companies, and
we were hoping to work with them, and they are working with
us and trying to have some of their customers referred to us
that they feel they need some of the weatherization help.
So, again, thank you so much. We appreciate your time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for coming
down.
10-25-04
102
1
2
...~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~ 11
12
13
14
15
E
16
17
I
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you for being here. At
this time, we have another timed presentation, which we're
running just about an hour behind consistently. The item
that was timed for 10:30 is a presentation by Ms. Sue
Tiemann on The Boardwalk on the Guadalupe. I apologize for
the delay, Ms. Tiemann. We're glad to have you here.
MS. TIEMANN: Well, thank you for having me.
And I think I passed out a while ago a brochure to all of
you regarding the boardwalk. I am Treasurer for a group of
citizens that is called the Central Development Kerrville
Group, and we got together almost two years ago to start on
some of the things that were decided in the comprehensive
plan for Kerrville in 2000, and one of the things was a
boardwalk that would turn -- or utilize the river in a more
positive manner for the whole city. And we have -- as you
can see from the brochure, it has a layout there that shows
where the boardwalk will be. It's on the back side here,
and it's that little orange area.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My apologies, Sue. I
forgot to pass them out.
MS. TIEMANN: Forgot to pass them out, okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now they're no longer
in the dark.
MS. TIEMANN: Everybody's in the dark? The
boardwalk will go from Schreiner One Center all the way down
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
103
past Sidney Baker onto the next lot, which is owned by Kevin
Sutherlin, at the corner of 16 and Water Street. It will,
in most areas, be cantilevered out over the top of the
embankment, so it will be street level. And part of the
concept is that the businesses down there -- the retail
stores will open up their back doors so pedestrians and --
will walk through instead of just by. The boardwalk is
designed to be about 12 feet wide at most locations. Some,
it might be a little bit wider. The idea is to have it
where it can be used for different venues. It will also
have various locations with little pop-out viewing areas
that are quite large. We do have one large area that's
called a pavilion which is on the front here. This will be
at the end of Earl Garrett where the star is, but it will go
down. The Bank of America already has a boardwalk there,
and we're just going to attach to that and build this
pavilion, which will be 40 feet square, so it's going to be
pretty good size. We'll also have a ramp that will go down
at that particular location to the river level for the
walking trails, so it will be handicap-accessible. And
other locations, we will just have stairways going down.
Some are already in existence. Others we'll need to build.
The cost for this project going to be around
a million dollars, and this is basically a first phase. We
hope, once this is done, we can enhance it and move further
10-25-09
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in both directions. We would like to have another big
pavilion located at the old mill site on the other side of
Schreiner One at some point; that's what we're hoping. The
structure itself is going to be out of steel and concrete,
so it will not wash away. It's -- you know, it will be
sturdy in every way. We are working with the City. We're
working with Parks and Rec's, and we will be turning the
project over to the City for maintenance, or the Parks and
Rec's once it is completed, and they will maintain it. As
we speak, all the owners have turned over -- or maybe it's
already that way. The -- from the top of the riverbank down
to the river walkway is already in the Parks and Rec's or
the City's ownership, except maybe where Pampell's is, and I
think that's in the works, if it has not been done already.
We are going to be starting our fundraisers. We figure most
of the money will come from private grants or foundations,
and we hope to get some public funds. We were looking to
E.I.C., and if there's any way that y'all can feel free to
give us some money, we'd be more than willing to take it.
Y'all have any questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think E.I.C. is
planning on picking up our part of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: More than likely,
yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- Sue, do you have
10-25-04
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
any idea of what your goal for commencing this is?
Obviously, when you get money.
MS. TIEMANN: Obviously, as soon as we get
the money, or -- if we start getting in funds, then we can
go ahead and get some of the drawings started. What you see
here has all been donated by private citizens, or goodwill
more than anything else, from a couple of architects in
town. Gary Corman and David Martin have done all the design
work. Schreiner University has been very gracious in doing
these brochures -- David Smith, who is head of their Graphic
Design Department. So, we have a bunch of really interested
entities in town, as you can see on the back of this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My other question, by
the picture --
MS. TIEMANN: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know that's an artist's
MS. TIEMANN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- as I recall, that bank
is pretty steep along most of that area.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Like a cliff. Anyway, is
the plan to -- really to landscape it to anywhere close to
that, to really clean up that whole bank up to the bottom so
10-25-04
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you can really see out?
MS. TIEMANN: If you notice, recently the
Parks and Rec's have gone out there and cleaned up the side
from Water Street down through -- I don't know how far down.
I don't think they've gone out to, say, down G Street, but,
you know, a lot of area they have cleaned up. And, yes, I
think they will do a better maintenance job than they have
in the past, because I think it will be used, and then
they'll want it to look nicer. So, yes, I think it will be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's just that it
seems like it's a part of this. To make this work and be a
-- a real boardwalk people want to use, that view has to be
enhanced. And I -- it just seems a very hard task to fix
that cliff, or leave it as a cliff and just bottom area.
But I think it's a good project. Looks like a good idea,
something that would be worthwhile. And if you ask for
funds, I don't -- we're always short of funds here, but we
do have some trustees occasionally that can do some work
through the jail, and they can maybe can do some clearing
and community service occasionally maybe over there.
MS. TIEMANN: Well, that would be through
Parks and Rec's; they're the ones that's taking care of
that. Now, the materials we're using are -- is a composite
material that doesn't warp, doesn't rust, doesn't break, you
know. It's very, very low-maintenance, so once it's built,
10-25-04
107
1
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's going to be there for a long time without any problems.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have any
questions for Ms. Tiemann?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Beautiful.
JUDGE TINLEY: We thank you for being here
today.
MS. TIEMANN: Well, I thank you very much for
asking me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it. If we can,
let's go back to Item E and finish this item up quickly.
That agenda item is to consider revision of plat for Tract
118 of Kerville South II.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was a little bit
surprised by a statement that was made in here this morning
about Lot 4 and Lot 1 not being approved by Environmental
Health. Do you know anything about that?
MR. ODOM: I don't. To my knowledge, what we
were told is that this was all -- went through. The -- I
think that's previous. I wasn't here for the preliminary,
and I'm just getting caught up on it, but my understanding
is that -- and Mr. Tuck is here. I don't -- he can probably
relate to that. But my understanding is that this low-dose
10-25-04
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
system was what was proposed, and that 4, as I showed you
before, there was a change there in reference from
Environmental Health to do this on Lot 4. And Lot 1, I
heard nothing about not doing that with -- except I had two
exceptions to this, which was -- one was this lot size on
Lot 1, which, when you go back to 118, you can see that it
was already cut anyway, and that it was deeded to the center
of the roadway. And, of course, now with the replat,
they're deeding that to us, and it makes that lot
nine-tenths. I don't count that as a substantial change.
It was already there. It's something that we have in our
Subdivision Rules. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. ODOM: -- to my knowledge, that would
work.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. The -- I
think we had gotten through all of the lot size and property
line and middle of the road and all; we'd already gotten
past all that, and our question last time was, can we get a
little more clear picture of drainage? I think that's where
we left it, you know. I think it would have been approved
last time except for that one issue.
MR. ODOM: And I believe with this replat, it
was showing the drainage there and the runoff. It hasn't
changed. All he's doing is setting the line. So, the
10-25-04
~ i r t r
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
drainage is there. I've listened to some of the people here
talking about it, but this is from an engineer, and looking
at the runoff, that 2 acres is basically -- that's the
normal runoff that's going there. I mean, I don't see any
increase, and I have a letter from the engineer stating that
fact. That --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, this is --
that's another issue I want to bring up, is this letter.
And this may be a standard letter. You know, I'm -- I --
I'm a County employee, so I probably qualify for some of
those programs AACOG just brought in here, but this letter
says -- and I want to read the first sentence. It says, "In
reviewing the above-referenced replat and the topographic
information you have provided, we observe that there is to
be no construction at this time."
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, what the hell
does that have to do with drainage? I mean, I -- I
didn't -- I'm not following that.
MR. ODOM: Well, what you've got --
basically, what you have is what you see out there. There
is no construction, no change. There's no roads. There's
no drainage ditches. And, normally, there would be a
drainage study, but -- but there's no change in it; there's
no roads in there. The roads are already fronting on County
10-25-04
~ ~ + - - +- ~ __ ~....__ r
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
property.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. ODOM: You have no drainage structures
whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One final question
from me. Is Lot 4 -- you and I were out there a few days
ago.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I -- and I just
failed to ask this question. How does this Lot 4, the
little finger that comes up to Madrona Drive --
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you with me?
MR. ODONT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that anywhere near
consider -- could be considered a flag in any way? Flag
lot?
MR. ODOM: Well, this is -- would -- the
answer to the question, if we had a flag subdivision, I
would say that would fall under it. But this -- because of
the design of the land, or the proximity and everything, I
don't see anything in the Subdivision Rules that precludes
someone to make a flat lot.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: Flag subdivision, there's rules --
10-25-09
~. .~
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
111
state rules against that. I mean, Vernon state statutes
says you can't do that, and -- because you've met the
acreage. 1.03 in the Subdivision Rules says they can make a
lot if it's 1 acre on centralized water.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to clear
that up. Do you see -- do you see that this subdivision and
this makeup of lots comply with Kerr County's rules and
regulations -- Subdivision Rules and Regulations?
MR. ODOM: I have two exceptions. We
discussed one, the size of that lot. Lot 1 is below 1 acre.
We discussed the variables that affected that. The other is
the frontage on Lot 4 and Lot 5.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. ODOM: They are -- do not meet
subdivision standards.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because of site
distance?
MR. ODOM: Because of size of the entrance to
the lot. One is 40 foot and the other one is 140.51 feet,
but they do front County-maintained road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. See, I don't --
personally don't have any problems with either one of those.
Outside of that, do they comply with all state laws and
County rules and regulations?
MR. ODOM: Yes.
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~--.
25
112
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And the only
other point I wanted to make to, you know, the citizens --
several of them were talking about their reason for
opposition was that the -- more traffic, and they moved here
from San Antonio to enjoy -- well, I've lived here for 56
years. Can you imagine what I feel like this place has
gotten to? And these good people that are concerned about
new people coming in, well, they got in. So, you know, the
way I look at this thing is, as long as this subdivision is
complying with the county rules and regulations and state
laws, it's a done deal, in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have a couple
questions.
MR. ODOM: All right, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner Baldwin
dealt with one aspect of it. How does Lot 4 -- one more
time, tell me how Lot 4 comports with our Subdivision Rules,
which I believe prohibit flag lots?
MR. ODOM: I don't recall reading anything on
flag lot. Flag subdivision, yes. But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a -- our
Subdivision Rules do nct prohibit flag lots. It was done by
state law.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
10-25-04
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
113
MR. ODOM: And, you know, the catch on this
is 1 acre, and there's still -- however, that -- to meet
those rules and regulations, they've got four lots on one
site here, but they still have over 1 acre. Somehow, you're
going to have a difference in -- in approach to the ingress
to it. And I believe that we're talking about -- in the
future, we'll be looking at that in the Subdivision Rules,
and there wouldn't be an exception on that. But that's to
be finalized when we -- we have not met yet, but I believe
that that would be resolved. That wouldn't be an exception,
probably.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a couple other
questions I want to deal with here. I, too, have some
concerns about the letter that was sent from the engineer
with respect to runoff -- talking about there should be no
change in runoff. He's observed that there's no
construction plan currently or presently; therefore, no
change in runoff will be anticipated until construction is
proposed within the tract, at which time you may want to
review any possible changes to runoff. I guess it's a
reasonable assumption that if we put in impervious surfaces
on all of those lots and driveways, et cetera, there will be
some changes --
MR. ODOM: There will be some changes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- that affect the
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~-.
14
15
16
17
t 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
114
runoff, correct?
MR. ODOM: There will be some. It would also
be offset by vegetation. It depends how much they clear. I
can't say what they might clear to put that in there. But I
don't see -- we have a similar situation in 4, that
something -- you know, we're not having construction; we're
not even building roads into something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I may, I saw -- I read
through that, and I had that same question, and I started
thinking about it. Our Subdivision Rules never address what
the runoff's going to be after construction, 'cause we don't
know what the construction's going to be. Our Subdivision
Rules address runoff at the time the subdivision is put in.
And we can't -- you know -- you know, it would be -- we
would never -- no engineer would ever sign off on a drainage
plan, because that's something -- they can put in a solid
asphalt sidewalk or they can put a little outhouse up there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I understand
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a big what-if.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The point of it is
that any construction does change the runoff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But that's not
part of our Subdivision Rules, is my point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I guess what --
10-25-04

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
115
what's in front of us today, we really don't discuss either
in terms of restrictions, because the deed restrictions here
talks about 2 and a half acres. So, I assume that -- that
that deed restriction has been removed? Would that be a
safe assumption?
MR. ODOM: You're asking --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know to whom
I'm addressing the question, but --
MR. ODOM: Well, I'll tell you what I know.
I've asked that question, and legal -- David is here. I
called him about that specifically, and he returned the
call. And, basically, that is a civil matter. I don't know
of any --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I realize that.
MR. ODOM: How I can --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It may be a civil
matter, but if there's a deed restriction and plat approval
is asked by the Court, wouldn't -- wouldn't it be logical
that we need to know that the deed restriction's been
removed?
MR. ODOM: There is a letter.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in there, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Last document.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one?
JUDGE TINLEY: Last document.
10-25-09
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
116
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe I didn't read
far enough.
MR. ODOM: It says in -- Number 10 is the
exception you're talking about. It says if it has
permission of the developer. I believe Mr. Tuck has that.
I received a letter on that; I believe so.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ODOM: He has met that -- that criteria.
But then, again, that is outside Subdivision Rules, when I
start thinking what consideration the Court would use. But
I'm looking at the platting procedure, and it meets platting
procedure with those two exceptions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I just have a
general comment. This is really more to the people that
came and voiced concern, and we have to act based on the law
that we're looking at. If there's some civil way that y'all
can prevent this from happening, I have no idea. I know
that from what, you know, the developer did early on, he did
give this lot permission to be subdivided further. So --
but that's really nothing to do with this Court. I mean,
bottom line is that our rules allow this subdivision, and
there's nothing we can do to prevent it. We can make sure
septics go in properly, and that's -- but that's not through
the subdivision process. That's really through the
Environmental Health Department's -- you know, their
10-25-04
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
process. They will sign off on this before it's approved,
so that's how that is addressed. Now, I think I have a
little bit of a concern about going to five lots. I think,
you know, it is better suited for a four-lot development.
But because of some of -- the fact that the road and the
Madrona Road issue, that first -- I can see how we get to
five, too. I mean, either four or five, clearly, he has the
right to do by law, and we don't have any way to stop it.
That's just -- that's how I look at it. If we were to
prevent this from happening, I'm sure pretty much that we
would be sued, and we would lose. That's all the comments I
have.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree with what I
just heard here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is your recommendation
for approval?
MR. ODOM: My recommendation is approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Upon the
recommendation of the Road and Bridge administration, I move
that we approve the revision of plat of Tract 118 of
Kerville South II.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the revision of plat of Tract 118 of Kerville
South II. Any further question or discussion?
10-25-04
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have a question.
The plat that I have has not been circulated. Is there a --
MR. ODOM: I have it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a version that has
been signed by everybody?
MR. ODOM: Yes, I'm sorry. I'll let you --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe you. I just
wanted to make sure.
MR. ODOM: I have the mylars here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. You have the
mylar?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Has it been signed off
by Environmental Health?
JUDGE TINLEY: Lower left.
MR. ODOM: Lower left. Miguel signed it
10-10-04.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 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.
10-25-04
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. At
this time, we're going to go to Item 14, and that is an
executive session item, so we will go out of open session at
11:50 a.m.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, just so I
understand, why is this an executive session item? Under
what --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I want to
know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Acquisition of real property.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would rather see it
in open session.
COMMISSIONER
it, personally. I think it
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
it's -- since we're talking
facility --
LETZ: I think that's stretching
should be an open session item.
WILLIAMS: I do too.
LETZ: I mean, I just -- I think
about the operation of the
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we're also going to be
consulting with attorneys with respect to this, also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think --
JUDGE TINLEY: Main thing I wanted to get
into first was the consultation with the lawyers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think --
10-25-04
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
what -- for what -- I think anything the lawyers have to say
related to the operation of the facility is open court. If
we get into a situation where we're, you know, doing the
lease negotiations, I can see that, and I can see litigation
with the attorneys, going into executive, but I just don't
see how we're getting into either of those items today. I
see this as operation of the facility, and I'm saying that,
based on the proposal that I have from the Sheriff, which
has nothing to do with, you know, leasing really; it's about
whether we're going to expand the jail by a bunch of beds,
buy a new facility, and the other part of it is the
operation of the juvenile detention facility. And I -- and
those discussions, I think, need to be in open court. Now,
if we get into the other two items, litigation or
negotiation of a lease, I don't have a problem with those
two.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the last one you
mentioned is one that we're possibly going to be interested
in initially, and I want to handle that first, because
Mr. Spurgeon, one of our attorneys, has a commitment later
this afternoon that he's got to clear out of here pretty
quick on. So, it's for that reason that I think it's
appropriate for us to go -- it deals with the strategic
interaction relative to the other lawyers that are involved
in -- in this matter. Mr. Motley, do you have any thoughts
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
_, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121
about that?
MR. MOTLEY: You're referring specifically to
the -- and this is just on 14? We're not talking about 13
now, right?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we're not talking about 13
at this point in time.
MR. MOTLEY: Hold on just a moment, Judge.
Well, I -- you know, I'm going to say that it's a little
bit -- I'm not sure that anybody would necessarily be able
to hazard a guess as to what is going to happen
litigation-wise in conjunction with this operating
agreement. You know, right now -- you know, there's no
immediate threatened action, but I think it depends a lot on
what actions are taken by the Court as to, you know, whether
or not some sort of litigation is going to ensue. You know,
and I don't even know who -- who would be all the parties
and who would be in a position of plaintiff to institute the
suit. So, I -- I think that you're looking at a likelihood
of some sort of court intervention, again, depending upon
what actions are taken. So, I don't know if I've answered
your question or not. I'm not sure precisely what your
question was. But, you know, I think the idea is, should we
be discussing this matter, 14, in executive session because
of the possibility of litigation? I see it as certainly
being a possibility. And in conjunction --
10-25-04
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
122
JUDGE TINLEY: What about with respect to
strategy concerning the discussions with lawyers on the
other side of this issue?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, strategically, I mean, it
would be every reason in the world to have an executive
session, in my estimation. Because if we have any
strategies that we are seeking to pursue, you know, it would
be -- it would be foolish, it seems, at this point to reveal
those to people who are potentially on the opposition. If
we have something -- some course of conduct that we're going
to seek in order to protect ourselves or to get a
distinctive advantage for the County or for the Juvenile
Board, it seems to me that those things -- strategically,
there's every reason to keep that in executive session.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do not see the word
"possible litigation" here at all. This is a pretty clear
agenda item here for me. And I know that it could come to
litigation, but I don't know that. And even if it does
qualify for closed session, I don't think we should do it.
I think there -- that's probably the problem with the
juvenile detention facility today, is closed session,
behind-the-door nonsense. These things -- this stuff needs
to be done right out ir. front of God and everybody, I'm
going to tell you that. You're going to have a hard time
with me doing anything until this thing gets out in front of
10-25-04
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
everybody.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I mean, I don't
see -- that potential litigation issue clearly doesn't get
us there. One, it's not listed on the agenda that way.
Two, based on litigation, it could happen -- every item we
discuss could end up in litigation on every vote. I mean,
we could be sued on the one we just did. So, that doesn't
work.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're telling me that you
want to discuss the -- the strategy with our attorneys
insofar as negotiations with the attorneys representing the
other parties in this matter?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm telling you I'm not
going to discuss strategy till I get the options on the
table. And until I know what the Sheriff wants to do, what
Ms. Harris wants to do, what the Juvenile Board wants to do,
and tell me that in open session, I'm not willing to discuss
anything to do with that lease and extending it or not
extending it or anything else. And if that means
Mr. Spurgeon has to change his schedule, he has to change
his schedule, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not only in terms of
that, but the cost to do these options that need to be
talked about today, I think this all needs to be out in the
public. I agree with my two colleagues. And if we
10-25-04
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
determine that the lease is going to be extended, they think
it's feasible to do that, then that's the time we go into
closed session to talk about the strategies to make that
happen. That's the way I see it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got no problem talking
about the -- the particulars of the transaction. My concern
is with Mr. Spurgeon's schedule and him needing to get on
down the road. I wanted to get the particular portion of it
that we needed to discuss with him done firstly. I think
that will take just a matter of a few minutes. Hopefully,
we can break for lunch immediately after that, come back and
then come into open session, but that's merely a strategic
matter.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there some possible
litigation? I mean, I'm --
JUDGE TINLEY: There's always possible
litigation, Mr. Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I understand
that, Judge. And that's -- no, we can't do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think litigation is
necessary when you're consulting with an attorney, as a
matter of fact. But, be that as it may --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is it that we
have to discuss with him that we can't discuss in front of
the people that pay for this? What is the point that we
10-25-09
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
need to discuss with him in private?
JUDGE TINLEY: The strategy on how it's
approached.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On how what's
approached, Judge? Whether or not to lease it, or the
conditions of the lease?
JUDGE TINLEY: There's a combination of -- of
both of those factors.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Last time we agreed
to -- that we would leave it open through December 31. Oh,
yes, we did. We agreed through December 31, and we would
not pay the attorney fees. And they -- and they have come
back and said, no, we want you -- that will be cool, but we
want you to pay the attorney fees. Are we talking about
other than that? Something other than all that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My recollection was
that the Court did not agree to the December 31 extension.
We got hung up on conditions that might be attendant to
that, not the least of which was legal fees. That was my
recollection.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We keep going there.
We --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think that's an
executive session discussion. I think it's open session.
JUDGE TINLEY: Apparently, it's the consensus
10-25-04
~..
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
126
of the Court that -- is that your desire, to do whatever we
have to do in open session, Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. I mean,
I'm not -- I can't progress from where we are until I know
what we're talking about doing, and that -- and that is
clearly not in executive session, to me. I mean, I
understand Mr. Spurgeon may have to go to San Antonio. We
may have to come back tomorrow; we may have to recess.
Well, so be it. I can't continue a discussion on this
facility until I talk to the Sheriff in open session,
Ms. Harris in open session, and my colleagues on the Court
in open session as to what direction is the best for this
County to take on that facility. And until we decide that
direction, the rest of it's meaningless to me. You know, I
think we're all very familiar. We need to make a decision
real quick, or we need to get that facility closed down and
emptied out by the end of the month. So, I know that's one
option. The other option is for us to decide to do
something with it, and that whole discussion is not in
executive session, in my mind. So, I mean, I think -- I
know the two options. And one option is shut it down and be
out of there by -- in the next 10 days. Okay, I don't need
the attorney to tell me that; I've already been told that.
And the other one is a philosophical issue as to whether or
not it makes economic sense to the taxpayers of this county
10-25-04
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
127
for the County to take over that operation of that facility.
And that discussion is open session, in my mind.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It seems to me,
Judge, that the two documents we have in front of us today,
one of them is from the Sheriff, which we just received this
morning and haven't had a chance to study it, and the second
is a document that is a projection of -- of operation --
budget operations expenses from Ms. Harris, amended today
because there was an omission or an error in there. Those
are two things that both go to the question of whether or
not this Court's going to approve a continuation of the
lease, in my mind. If we determine that we're going to do
that, based on what's in either or both of these documents,
and believe it is in the best interests of the taxpayers,
then I think we should shut the door and talk to lawyers
about how we make that happen, and what conditions we'd like
to negotiate or have negotiated to make it happen, or in the
alternative, be a deal-breaker.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's fine, if you wish to
proceed.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to err on
the side of openness. I think I'm more or less agreeing
with Commissioner Williams. We might get to a point where
we're heading into a strategic discussion where we don't
want others to know what our strategy is, and at that time,
10-25-09
128

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we need to go into executive session. But it sounds like we
need to start down a path before we know it.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the consensus. I will
call in open session, then, Item 14, consider and discuss
extension of lease and operating agreement for the Juvenile
Detention Facility or other appropriate resolution of
existing issues with respect to said facility. As the
members of the Court know, there's a -- there are some
alternatives available to us with respect to the resolution
of this issue. I think Commissioner Letz has already posed
two of them, one of which is for us to stand fast as we do
now, in which case, by its own terms, the current extension
that we're operating under will expire as of midnight
October 31st. Other possibilities are acquisition by the
County and/or others.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And/or others?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's interesting.
Are there others? I mean, is there real --
JUDGE TINLEY: There have been private
organizations that have looked at the facility, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- you know, I
don't see a whole lot of talking up here -- just to make
sure I understand what's kind of on the table, and I -- I
mean, from what I understand, the option is to convert the
10-25-04
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
newly constructed area -- basically, transfer it to the --
to the Sheriff as an addition to the jail. And he has the
scenario primarily for female detainees, though it could be
used for other purposes with no renovation required. And he
is prepared to budget as to how to do that from his
standpoint. Of course, he wants more money in that budget,
but, anyway, that's okay, Sheriff. And --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me see if I
understand it. We have two options; let the lease expire
and shut it down by the end of this month, or take some
action to use it in some way that the Sheriff's proposed.
Are those the two options, or is there a third option?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there's probably
thirds and fourths and fifths, but I think those two
options -- the shut-it-down option, we all know that one.
This is an option that, I guess, the Sheriff and Ms. Harris
kind of worked out amongst themselves about one operating
the juvenile facility, one -- I don't know who operates --
or who put that all together or who made the division, but I
think this is a proposal. I mean, the whole thing could go
to the Sheriff's Department, I guess.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that mean that
the County purchases -- is that what we're saying? If the
County would purchase it before we go with the half-Sheriff,
half-Harris program?
10-25-04
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be my
understanding.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what we're
saying?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's essentially
what it boils down to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the County would
buy it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Henderson, how do we
-- you know, assuming the County is to buy it, how do we buy
it? What does that -- what do we have to do from a tax
standpoint?
MR. HENDERSON: The -- the County has the
authority, under the Certificate of Obligation Act of 1979,
to issue certificates of obligation to acquire the facility,
and it would be an acquisition of real estate, so there
would be some, you know, title transfer policy and other
issues involved. But we would issue certificates of
obligation to do that. The tax rate impact, because of the
debt reduction the County's already anticipating in its
existing debt, would be -- there would be no tax rate
increase as a result of -- of issuance of C.O.'s to acquire
the facility. However, what it means is that your tax rate
would not fall as far as it would otherwise fall.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much would it not
10-~5-09
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
fall?
MR. HENDERSON:
COMMISSIONER L
it not would not fall 1.6?
MR. HENDERSON:
penny if do you the deal. If
of obligation transaction, it
So --
About 1.6 cents.
ETZ: Would it still fall, or
It would fall one-tenth of a
you don't do the certificate
would fall about 1.7 cents.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, essentially, the --
the tax anticipation note that's coming out -- in other
words, pay it off next year, we're going to keep that tax
going?
MR. HENDERSON: Exactly, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To pay for this. And how
long will that certificate of obligation be?
MR. HENDERSON: It would run out, I believe,
to 2023. Let me doublecheck that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be a debt
restructuring; is that correct, Mr. Henderson?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. We would take out
the lease revenue bonds that are outstanding and replace
them with certificates of obligation, with a final maturity
of 2023. My calculations, I would estimate that the amount
of -- of debt service for that transaction would actually be
about half a million dollars less, based on the County's
10-25-04
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
bond ratings and -- and ability of the County to acquire
municipal bond insurance; that their interest over the life
of the transaction and debt service over the life of the
transaction would be about half a million dollars less than
is currently outstanding on the lease revenue bonds
transaction.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: During that -- up to
2023, is the debt being -- how, I guess -- we have two
C.O.'s, essentially, right now. Obviously, one of them's
not -- one's --
MR. HENDERSON: From previous debt
transactions, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Then we have the
jail.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this going to keep our
debt level basically uniform all the way to 2023, or when
those others get paid off, will there be a reduction at that
time?
MR. HENDERSON: Well, if you'll look at Page
4 of what I just handed out, you'll see a Column B, total
outstanding debt service. That's the debt of the County
currently outstanding. You see that would fall from fiscal
year ending '05 of $1,130,000 down to $682,000 in '06.
Column D represents an estimate of the debt service on
10-25-04
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
issuance of certificates of obligation to take out the lease
financing. Column J would be the resultant total combined
debt service. It would still fall from 1,130,000, but
instead of falling down to 682,000, it would fall down to
1,090,000. In either scenario, you see another significant
drop in debt service in the fiscal year ending '09.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When would the new
debt pick up?
MR. HENDERSON: The first payment on the new
debt would be the fiscal year ending '06, so it would be no
tax rate or budget impact this year with respect to any debt
issued, should the County elect to acquire the facility.
There would be an operational budget impact, but no budget
impact with respect to debt.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, as I read this,
basically, when the jail gets paid off -- the current jail
gets paid off in 2012, that following year, 2013, there
would be almost a 3-cent reduction in tax rate to reflect
that?
MR. HENDERSON: Well, it'll fall from 3.8 to
1.67, or about a 2.2-cent decrease in --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2.2?
MR. HENDERSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was going up to that --
yeah?
10-25-04

134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HENDERSON: You can see -- now, we would
look for it to fall from 4.5 down to 4.4, and then to 3.7,
and then eventually down to 1.6. If you're looking at
Column L -- I've got to get bifocals. Column L --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have them up here, if
you need to borrow them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: '012 is when the jail
is paid off; is that correct?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do these figures take
into consideration the current outstanding for the
communications systems?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. Those --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's built into
the numbers through --
MR. HENDERSON: Under Column B.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: '05 through -- '05
through how far?
MR. HENDERSON: I think through '08.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: '08? Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So, the total,
excluding the debt service, is 7,331,000? 'Cause of the
cost of the -- the bonds that cover the old and the -- and
the new detention facility?
MR. HENDERSON: I'm sorry?
10-25-04
i _ ~ --- - ~
-_- - ~
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 7.3 million is the -- is
MR. HENDERSON: That's -- that's principal
and interest together.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's principal and
interest?
MR. HENDERSON: If -- if I might,
Commissioner, maybe I can just kind of walk you through
everything I have in the package, and maybe I'll address
some of your questions. On Page 1 is a recap of the debt
service on the existing lease revenue bonds. This is a
schedule based on the original maturity, and does not
reflect the fact that the first two year's worth of payments
have been -- have been made. But there is the debt service
that's outstanding that the -- that the existing bondholders
are at risk for. The second page is a sources and uses
statement, where we -- we look at what the cost of taking
out those lease revenue bonds are. And we'll start at the
uses. You see that the debt on the outstanding facility is
4 million, 975. I've just estimated the cost to transfer
the real estate title policies, whatever other title work
needs to be done, at 25,000. Municipal bond insurance, cost
of issuance, and accrued interest through December 31st of
'04, which will tie back to a timetable of events I've got
at the back of the schedule. So, the total required funding
10-25-04
- ~ -- ~ ~. rte- ___ _._ ~ -~_--- ~'
1
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
would be $5,212,000. Under sources, you see how we estimate
we would get the funds; a par value of certificates at
4 million 780, slight premium on the certificates, cash in
the reserve fund of $411,000, accrued interest gets us to
$5,212,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under -- on Page 2 --
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The bottom line,
total uses is 5.2125.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 5,212,057.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that is greater
than where we are today.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir, it is, because
there are -- number one, the biggest figure is -- that
includes the accrued interest. There's interest outstanding
on the lease revenue bonds from August 15th through the
closing date on the acquisition. That -- that would need to
be paid.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are the call
provisions going to be waived in this scenario?
MR. HENDERSON: We have not been successful
10-25-04
137
1
,,.,, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in confirming with the trustee that they have formed a
bondholder's committee and are prepared to discuss such
things as waiving the call provisions. I have been in
contact with a number of bondholders, and, in fact, there
are some bondholders in the courtroom present today. It is
my suspicion that, under the circumstances, we ought to be
able to negotiate a waiver for the call feature, but that
work would need to be handled through the trustee. We've
not confirmed that from the trustee.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you look correctly
at what you've presented us today versus what you opined in
your letter of October 8th --
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- we're $600,000
further in the -- in the hole today, by reason of 5.212, as
opposed to a potential 4.670 restructure.
MR. HENDERSON: Well, no, sir. The -- the 4
million, 670 that you see in the letter of October 8th, that
would compare to the 4 million, 780 that's on the top of the
sources, and in that letter, I referenced the par value of
certificates. The number in my letter of October 8th also
considered utilization of $411,000 in reserve funds, and
other costs involved. It also considered a premium on the
bonds. And what I've simply done is convert some of that
premium to par value of certificates, but this is within
10-25-04
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$10,000 or $12,000 of what I was estimating October the 8th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I'm sorry I
interrupted.
MR. HENDERSON: No, it's quite all right,
Commissioner. But, as I said, discussions with the trustee
and their counsel has been interesting, to say the least,
and we have not yet achieved the status of being able to
discuss such things as -- as waiver of the call features.
But, again, between the bondholders that are represented in
the room today and other bondholders that I've spoken to
who've contacted us proactively, I certainly would not
anticipate that waiving the call features would be an issue,
but we do have to go through the trustee to deal with that,
or through some sort of tender offer. Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Your earlier statement
was the trustee -- you're unaware of whether the trustee has
talked to the bondholders or not?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean,
-- how can we proceed if the trustee isn't
bondholders? That's something the trustee
involved with, and I don't know that we ha
over the trustee. I don't know if they do
could you explain that?
how does -- how
talking to the
needs to be
ve any leverage
either. What -
MR. HENDERSON: That might be better answered
10-25-09

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
by our counsel. I will simply answer the first part of your
question, which is that I have been contacted by a number of
bondholders who have indicated to me that they have not been
contacted by the trustee. It would certainly make sense to
me that the trustee should have contacted them and created a
bondholder committee by now, but we have no evidence that
that's occurred.
anything?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. HENDERSON: Would you like to add
MR. SPUR.GEON: No. Actually, there's nothing
more to add. The part -- or I guess I will say one thing.
These bonds are held by what's called book entry only, which
means that the trustee themselves may not actually have the
name of the bondholders; that the bonds are actually held in
what's called a depository trust company. But they've made
a request to the D.T.C. for the name of the bondholders, but
Bob's also given them some names of bondholders, and to my
knowledge, I think the gentlemen that are here in the room
today will confirm to you that the trustee hasn't talked to
them.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does the fact that
the trustee has not acted suggest anything to you about
their -- their motivation or willingness to come to some
resolution of this?
10-25-04
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
MR. SPURGEON: Are you talking to me?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Anybody.
MR. SPURGEON: Commissioner, I was hoping Bob
was going to answer that. No --
MR. HENDERSON: I'm smarter than that.
MR. SPURGEON: In my view, the trustee has
been very concerned from the beginning -- and this is not a
surprise to anybody. They've been very concerned from the
beginning about potential liability to them in taking
possession of a -- an operating juvenile facility. That's
why the extension agreement was entered into the end of
September, so that -- and from their standpoint, you have to
understand, they don't have a license to operate the
facility. You can understand all of that. I mean, it makes
perfectly good sense. So, a lot of what they have appeared
to have done has been to be sure that they aren't put in the
position to have an operating facility placed on their lap.
It just seems a little surprising we haven't seen a little
more proactive work in trying to deal with bondholders, to
be honest with you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
MR. SPURGEON: I think there's kind of --
there should be two paths going down the road.
MR. HENDERSON: So, going back to the
presentation on Page 3, then, it's just an estimate of the
10-25-04
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
141
debt service, on the $4,780,000 in certificates of
obligation. And then we're back to Page 4, where we talk
about the tax rate impact of that. The subsequent pages are
breakdowns of the costs. I know how important transparency
is to the Commissioners Court. And Pages 5 and 6 give
various detailed estimates of what will be involved, and
then the last page is a timetable of events with respect to
what it would take, what milestone would have to be
accomplished in order to issue certificates of obligation.
I will tell you that -- that I think my presentation really
may be slightly out of order with respect to, you know, the
consideration of the Commissioners Court needs to go
through. This is designed to show you what the costs would
be and what the structure would likely be should the
Commissioners Court elect to acquire the facility. I think,
as has been addressed earlier in the Commissioners'
deliberations, you know, what's important is -- is how do
you get to a decision about making -- about deciding whether
or not you're going to acquire the facility?
I think there are three things that need to
be dealt with. One is the -- the operational effects from
the County's general fund, which Ms. Harris' budget and the
Sheriff's budget addresses in part, because what their
budgets really address is what it would cost to the County
in terms of operating expenses should the facility be
10-25-04

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
142
acquired and continue to operate as a joint juvenile
facility and a women's adult facility. What their numbers
don't really address is what happens to your general fund
budget if you decide not to acquire it? There's going to be
a number of costs that I think the Sheriff is prepared to
discuss with respect to transportation -- transporting
juveniles to other locations, and dealing with problems of
adult prisoner capacity and moving those to other
facilities. So, I think it might be appropriate to have the
Sheriff or Becky address those issues, and then get to what
-- what's in the best interests of the County in terms of
acquiring the facility or -- or not acquiring the facility.
Now, one thing that I would like to also
address with respect to the -- the options that were laid
out, the Judge mentioned, and Buster Baldwin picked up on
the possibility of -- of the facility being sold to a
third-party. There has been a third-party -- been three
separate third parties that have expressed interest in the
facility. One, I think, was here when we met in August on
the subject. He has since declined their interest. We --
we do have one term sheet that was faxed to us late last
week, but what I think is important to understand -- and,
again, I defer to the attorney -- is that this Commissioners
Court doesn't own that facility, and you can't engage in
conversations about selling the facility to a third-party.
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
143
That's really not for the Commissioners Court to decide.
You're either going to acquire the facility or you're not,
and if you don't acquire the facility, then, as Tom pointed
out, we'd need to empty the facility under the threat of the
temporary restraining order that -- that the trustee's
attorney was prepared to file last Friday, but was talked
out of doing that. They would acquire an empty facility on
December the 31st at midnight, or midnight a.m. on November
the 1st, and then it would be up to the trustee to decide
what offers from third parties they may wish to entertain.
I'll be happy to answer --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think you said
December 31st.
MR. HENDERSON: I'm sorry. I meant
October 31st, November 1st.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question with regard
to rate, Mr. Henderson.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In your letter, you
talked about the debt could be lowered from its existing
5.21 to less than 4.5, but what I'm looking at in your
spreadsheet here is, in fact, 4.75.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. These are
estimates. I will tell you that the current existing market
is still less than 4 and a half percent, but in the
10-25-04
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
interests of conservatism, I did run the numbers at
4.75 percent. Current market would be less than 4 and a
half percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To what extent does
the Standard and Poor's spanking that we received have on
the rate that we would get?
MR. HENDERSON: Well, that's an excellent
question. The answer is that if we move -- if the County
moves to acquire this facility, Standard and Poor's will
reverse their rating action and take the County back from
B/double A-minus up to the single A that it had before,
which would make us eligible for municipal bond insurance.
So, if you -- if you move to acquire the facility, we can
reverse Standard and Poor's action, and you'll see no impact
of that. If you decide not to acquire the facility and the
facility does go into receivership with the trustee, I think
it's very clear that your bond rating will continue to be a
triple B-minus for the -- at least the intermediate future,
if not the foreseeable future, and the negative impact of
that would be felt if and when the County attempts to borrow
money again in the future for some other project.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. HENDERSON: But we would anticipate, with
an affirmative decision by the Commissioners Court to
acquire the facility, that Standard and Poor's would reverse
10-25-09
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
their recent downgrading of the rating.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bob, what -- do you have
an estimate of what the cost would be to the County to not
acquire it, and to basically default on the bonds? You've
mentioned, I think, at our last meeting that we are
obligated for a certain number of attorney's fees and other
things along the line, but do you have any idea of what that
total cost might be?
MR. HENDERSON: Well, actually, I don't --
I'm not the best person to address the issue. I don't -- I
don't personally -- I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe
that you are obligated for attorney's fees to the trustees
under the existing documents, but I'll let Mr. Spurgeon
address that issue. I think the costs to the County of not
acquiring this facility are going to be quantified in two
ways. The first and immediate impact is going to be what's
going to happen to the Sheriff's budget as a result of the
closing of the -- of this facility, and the requirement then
to transfer juveniles to other locales and bring them back
for hearings and -- and all of that. And, again, I think
the Sheriff has worked up some figures to discuss with the
Court. They're not part of this existing presentation. And
then, also, the cost of beginning to move adult prisoners to
other locations because of the capacity issues at the
County's current jail facilities. So, that's one set of
10-25-09
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
costs, and that's going to be an immediate negative impact
on the County's general fund. The other set of costs are
going to be the costs affiliated with increased borrowing
costs and restricted access to capital markets as a result
of Standard and Poor's downgrading of your bonds. And we're
not going to be able to quantify that cost, you know, until
the County comes up with a project that they need to finance
and we need to, you know, access the capital markets.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I'll make a
comment. I would recommend we go to lunch. It's 12:30. I
think it's appropriate to go to lunch. We can reconvene,
Judge --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to make an
observation here; that this is the County Judge's agenda
item, and we haven't given him a chance to say one word.
Sorry, Judge.
MR. HENDERSON: I might -- before the Judge
steps in, I might also ask Mr. Spurgeon to address your
question more directly, 'cause he does have a conflict this
afternoon.
MR. SPURGEON: I do, 'cause I will probably
need to be leaving pretty quick. I have a meeting in San
Antonio I just can't get out of this afternoon, so I
apologize. But, in answer to your question, no,
Commissioner, I don't think the County has any obligation to
10-25-04
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
be paying any sort of costs in connection with the close of
the facility and those things. I mean, the documents are --
are very clear that -- that once it goes over -- I mean,
you've not appropriated. You don't have any obligation to
make any further payments for any matter. What will happen
is that, once the facility is sold, the trustee will
essentially take off the top the costs of -- of what it took
to essentially administer the estate, if you will. But in
terms of coming back here, I don't believe the County has
any obligation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, they should
be -- I don't know if any of these suits in here are part of
the New York crowd, but. they should be absolutely ashamed of
themselves for even asking the taxpayers of this county to
pay their damn lawyer fees. That's nuts.
MR. DONELSON: Not me.
MR. SPURGEON: These are all bondholders that
are here. They're not part of Bank of New York.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't know
that, but I'd like to have the opportunity to go out behind
the shed for a couple tours and have a visit with them about
it, 'cause that -- to ask our taxpayers to do that is just
absolutely -- I mean, I'm sorry; I can't get my mind around
it. Doesn't make any sense at all.
10-25-09
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
148
JUDGE TINLEY: I can certainly give you a
telephone number of the -- of the lawyer that I'm sure you
want to have that discussion with, if you'd like to,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That'd be fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Spurgeon, is there
anything else that you can see that the Court may need to
have from you because of your needing to be absent this
afternoon?
MR. SPURGEON: Only thing that -- I mean,
from my standpoint, I guess, goes back to the agreement that
they've proposed. If you decide to do something in terms
of -- of acquiring the facility, you're going to need to
enter into the agreement that the bank has been forwarded,
essentially to keep the facility operating for the next
couple months. And the proposal that we talked about
before, and the first draft of the -- of the agreement
provided sort of open-ended on attorney's fees, which that
is clearly something that you're going to want to -- well,
you'll want to discuss as to whether -- or how you handle
that. I'm not going tell you what to do, to any of the
Commissioners. But I will tell you that the agreement that
was originally proposed still has the open-ended nature of
the attorney's fees, and so any -- if you want to alter that
in any manner, you'll need to deal with that. If you choose
10-25-04
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
not to -- to purchase the facility, they will, I think, most
likely proceed for a T.R.O. tomorrow to essentially
formalize the process of being sure that the facility's not
turned over to them. They -- they fully understand that the
County also understands that they should not and probably
cannot turn over an operating facility to them. There's
just legal complications of that; they don't have a license
to operate, as we've talked about. But it would not
surprise me if they would actually go ahead and take this
action just so that they -- essentially protecting
themselves, that they don't have an operating facility that
they receive on November 1st. Judge I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that what that
T.R.O. would be? Temporary restraining order to prevent us
from turning over to them an operating facility?
MR. SPURGEON: Yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there anything at
all that says we can't turn over to them a non-operating
19 ~ facility?
MR. SPURGEON: No. I -- no, there's not. I
think they -- they expect, under the documents, that -- that
they would receive possession and control of the facility at
the end of the lease term, which in this case is
October 31st. But their -- their concern is not having any
juveniles in that facility, so that the liability issues
10-25-04
150
1
2
..-..
~ 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that may go with it would be eliminated. So, Commissioner,
no, there's -- if the Juvenile Board essentially were able
to get all the juveniles out by -- by Sunday, that -- that
would not be a problem. But I'm just telling you, I
wouldn't be at all surprised to see them file a T.R.O. in
the appropriate jurisdiction. I assume it's here in Kerr
County. Not exactly sure where they would file it, but they
would file a T.R.O. just to protect themselves; that would
prevent you from turning over an operating facility. I
don't think that's anybody's intent, but -- but I would
expect that to happen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tom, so assuming they
filed the T.R.O. tomorrow, and we can't get the juveniles
out by Friday, so we would have until we can get them out.
But -- and we would have to pay the costs. What happens if
we don't have them out by Friday -- or by Sunday, whatever?
What if we don't have them out by Sunday?
MR. SPURGEON: I'm not sure if I can answer
that question for you, to be honest with you. I don't know
what the nature of the T.R.O. would actually read; I mean,
what kind of extensions that they might impose. I -- to be
honest, I probably could not begin to speculate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. SPURGEON: Again, a lot of that, of
course, goes back to the Juvenile Board. Doesn't go to the
10-25-04
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
151
Commissioners, but -- well, actually, it does go to the
Commissioners, because the documents are -- you being the
lessee on the documents, they're wanting to prevent you from
turning over the facility as an operating facility. They --
they are fully prepared to take physical possession of the
property. No question about that. And then go through the
procedure to eventually find an owner of the facility at --
at some purchase price. And, Judge, other than that, I
can't think of anything else that I would -- I mean, there's
-- I would like to be here if I could for it, but I really
cannot for the rest of the discussion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One -- one further
question. I was in a coma there for a couple of minutes, so
forgive me. If we decided that we need to purchase that
property, will we go through this whole process that you
just described? And then we have the opportunity to
purchase?
MR. SPURGEON: If -- if you choose to
purchase -- if you decide today to purchase the facility, I
think you'd be making a decision to purchase it at -- at a
price that would allow for purchase price where the
bondholders would be paid off at 100 cents on the dollar.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
MR. SPURGEON: I think we've -- there was a
question asked earlier in the month about, could the County
10-25-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
152
purchase that at some purchase price less than that? And
my -- I can't tell you exactly what would happen, but I
think you would probably have some difficulty doing that,
because you are -- they would -- the bondholders may take a
look at that and say, hold on, that's not -- that's not
playing on an even playing field. You're getting this
facility for so many cents on the dollar at our expense.
And we either pay at -- at the outstanding indebtedness, if
you will, but to come in at a lesser price, I think, could
subject you -- now, whether or not they would win the suit,
I can't tell you that, but I think they would have some
difficulties.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What if we decided
that we're just going -- we're going to empty it out and
turn it over to them Sunday? What is it, Sunday? And then
they -- they take control of it, and then they start looking
for a buyer. We come in at that time?
MR. SPURGEON: Commissioner, I -- again, I
don't know how they -- that they would eventually react to
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I really don't get
this thing at all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have another
question, Tom. I'm -- I'm hard-pressed to -- to make a
decision, not knowing from the bond trustee what the
10-25-04
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ultimate answer is with respect to waiving the call
provisions, 'cause that's money -- that's taxpayers' money
we're talking about. It's all taxpayers' money, but that's
even more taxpayers' money, and I want to know -- I want to
know how we can expedite that in our decision-making
process.
MR. SPURGEON: There's -- there's two ways
that that will happen, Commissioner. The -- the call
provisions can be waived directly by the bondholders through
some sort of a tender process if we don't even go through
the procedure where the trustee --
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me interrupt you, if I
might.
MR. SPURGEON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we not getting into --
have we not been getting into some strategic issues here?
MR. SPURGEON: There are -- yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. SPURGEON: But, Commissioner, you might
want. to ask the question of some of the bondholders. Bob
and I have always, frankly, speculated over the last month
that the bondholders, under the circumstances, would
probably be very willing to give up the call provision for
being able to be made whole. You may want to ask the
question of the bondholders that are here. Now, that
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~ 11
12
,,,^ 13
14
15
16
17
I
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
154
obviously is not a -- not even 50 percent of the bondholders
are here, I feel pretty confident. I don't know how much of
these bonds are held by the people that are in this room,
but you may want to get a reaction from them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, but is it not the
trustee that has to make the decision, not the bondholders?
MR. SPURGEON: No, not really. That's the
bondholders' -- the trustee will not make that without the
bondholders' consent.
MR. HENDERSON: I have personally been in
contact with bondholders representing slightly more than
50 percent of this debt, and the bondholders I've been in
contact with are prepared to waive the call feature. My
reference to the trustee is really a matter of procedure and
technicalities. Of course, we can always make our offer to
the trustee contingent upon, you know, a waiving of the call
feature by all or a majority of, or whatever the documents
require in terms of bondholder consent. Mr. Spurgeon and I
and the Judge have also talked about another strategy to
deal with those bonds, which is a tender offer which we
could get directly to the bondholders, and effectively
circumvent the trustee, and ask the bondholders to respond
back directly to an offer for their bonds at whatever terms
is -- meets with approval of the Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Spurgeon, are you
10-25-04
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
155
going to be back at your office late this afternoon, or are
you busy the rest of this afternoon?
MR. SPURGEON: I will be back in my office
probably by about 4 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 4 o'clock. What I'm
thinking is that -- I mean, if some questions come up, I
mean, after we -- if we figure out what we want to do, then
we have some more questions, we can reach you by telephone.
MR. SPURGEON: I'm pretty much out-of-pocket
from about 2:30 until about 4 o'clock, and then after
4 o'clock, I should be available.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we can set up a
conference call in the morning or something.
MR. SPURGEON: That would be fine. That
would be fine, no problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm ready to go eat.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Tom.
MR. SPURGEON: Thanks, Commissioners.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Spurgeon. If
we need you, we'll try and get ahold of you.
MR. SPURGEON: Okay. Thanks, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we stand in recess
until a quarter till 2:00?
(Recess taken from 12:40 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.)
10-25-04
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
156
(Commissioner Letz not present.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order and
reconvene. For the Auditor's convenience, he wants to be
able to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pay the bills.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- get on with paying the
bills. He asked that I go ahead and take this issue up.
So, that brings us down to that particular --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the
bills, Judge.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
payment of the bills. Any questions? Comments? Page 7.
Sheriff, I note that Moore Medical Corporation -- is that
pharmaceuticals?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's been a switch, then?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. No, that's not --
that is not prescriptions. Moore Medical is where we buy
some of our equipment and other over-the-counter type stuff
from that we get at a cheaper rate. We order it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay?
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, thank you. Page
10, Environmental Health, last entry. Sunset Entertainment.
10-25-04
~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I had that one
marked, too.
JUDGE TINLEY: $1,900, full-day shoot?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I guess that's
coming out of our -- I'm guessing that's coming out of our
budget for public education, publicity. That's what it
sounds like.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's exactly what it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are we doing,
making a film --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- on how to build a
septic tank, or what?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know. I
know that they're cooperating with the U.G.R.A., who's
paying part of the expenses; that they are moving forward.
MR. TOMLINSON: I remember this was part of a
discussion in the budget process.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Everything you want
to know about building a septic tank, but were afraid to
ask, right?
MR. TOMLINSON: I won't go there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can have your own
video at home?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
10-25-04
i i ` ~ ~~. +

158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
than this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doesn't get any better
JUDGE TINLEY: Produced and directed by
Sunset Entertainment. Page 19, the bottom line, looks like
it's a pretty good jump. Are we pulling the jail ones over
there now to do that under this service?
MR. TOMLINSON: We're not there yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It's just a jump, huh?
MR. TOMLINSON: Just a jump.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's all the
questions I've got. Any other questions or comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
(Commissioner Letz entered the courtroom.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Now we can get back to --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I had your proxy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I apologize.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- where we were on Item
Number 14, and we are probably to the issue of discussing
the alternatives. Sheriff, what do you have for us?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I can go over the
proposed that I had given you. One thing I would like to
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
159
add to that, this is a jail census. I only have one copy,
'cause it is a number of pages, that I just ran a few
minutes ago, showing that right this moment, we have 27
females in custody and 130 males, being a population of 157.
That's as of 20 minutes ago. The jail is built to house 32
females. We have 32 female beds. We've been running 27,
28, right in there, for as long as I can remember now.
We're able to pass our jail inspection, 'cause we're still
able to classify these females in with the groups they are.
We're just running out of beds. I did also, during the
lunch break, had called over and talked to Sheriff Milton
Jung at Gillespie County to see what his housing conditions
are and -- and where he's housing now, and if he would
anticipate that if the County were to take this over and we
open up more beds, would he house here? He is housing about
20 to 25 out-of-county at this time. He's housing them in
Comanche County at a daily rate of 35 a day. We charge 37.
He said it's a lot shorter trip, but he just wouldn't know
what his Commissioners would want to do.
In talking with James MacMillan also at
lunch, Sheriff of Bandera County, Bandera County, as we all
know, has been talking back and forth for years about
building a jail, maybe doing a bond deal. James told me the
last thing they talked about last budget year was that once
they got their Road and Bridge bond stuff taken care of,
10-25-09
160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
then they were going to go out for a bond issue on building
a jail for them. They have never even started getting their
Road and Bridge stuff taken care of, so he's saying that it
is not going to happen any time in the future. We currently
have about 10 or 12 of his inmates in our jail. He said
that he is housing about another 35 in Guadalupe County
right now that he would much rather house up here. So, if
we were to take it -- open up 30 beds for males, and
possibly, you know, 15 beds for females once we made the --
the few modifications that would have to be done out there,
I think we could very easily house out-of-county for the
unknown future. I just don't know how long it's going to
last. 35 to 40 inmates at $37 a day. I don't believe we
should change it to accommodate with Gillespie County or
anything. Kendall County, we have been housing a number of
theirs off and on lately. They -- I didn't talk to the
Sheriff-elect about this. Now, they do have on their
election this time a $7 million bond proposal to build them
a 102-bed jail. I don't know where that's going with their
election, the early voting. Nobody has any idea.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can I interrupt you a
second, Rusty? Probably more for Tommy, the question. On
our out-of-county rate for the inmates is what, $37 a day?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And our debt service is
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
161
included in that? Have you --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the -- not -- I
wouldn't say, per se, the debt service, but the amortization
of the property itself is included -- is included in the
cost. So, I -- we amortize or depreciate the building
over -- I think it's a 30-year period. And, I mean, that's
pretty standard in the -- in the accounting terms. So, it's
a -- it's a fully constant amount, the $37 is. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Have you looked at
-- at $37 per inmate, what is this additional -- if we were
to buy the new -- new portion and put that kind of as under
the Sheriff -- under the jail, what does it look like at $37
a day? I mean, are we going to -- is it fully amortizing?
Are we getting -- accounting for the full amount that we're
paying for that property? Basically, I don't want to
subsidize -- you know, if we turn it into a jail, I want to
make sure it's paying for -- on its own, not looking to what
we're charging -- what the old jail costs. Does that make
sense?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, I know what you're
talking about. I don't -- I haven't -- I have not done
that. I would be surprised that it made any material change
in --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be about the same?
MR. TOMLINSON: -- in the daily amount.
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.-..
14
15
1
16
17
I
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
162
We -- we did this study for -- actually, for federal
prisoners, and what we did, we used the federal prisoners
guideline as far as, you know, what we included in the daily
rates. I just don't -- I just don't see that it makes any
significant amount.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't make any
significant difference? Do you know what -- out of the $37,
what portion of that $37 is the amortized amount? What I'm
trying -- what I want t
facility thinking we're
taxpayers -- I mean, if
money back from housing
we can't rely on that.
s get at, I don't want to us buy this
helping the jail out, and have the
we can come out making some of the
out-of-county prisoners, fine, but
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In the current facility,
what I can tell you is it costs us -- because the staffing
ratios don't change once we hit that 144 inmates, okay,
which we've always been at since I've been Sheriff, I don't
have to add more staff until after you get to the 192. So,
the staffing ratio hasn't changed. So, even though we have
the same staff, the cost to us on housing, as far as food
goes -- now, medical is reimbursed by whatever county we're
housing for. We pay for it up front. They -- we bill them,
and they pay us back for the medical, so that's kind of a
wash. The cost to us of housing an inmate per day is right
at $4 a day in the meals, because we do fix so many, and
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
163
it's all at wholesale rates, and we fix our own, so it costs
us about $4 a day to feed an inmate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To feed an inmate?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: To feed an inmate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But that's not your
total cost to house an inmate.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, my cost for
staffing and electricity doesn't change, 'cause it would be
the same whether I had 144 inmates or 192 inmates. And we
always --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It will change if you
add the juvenile facility, 'cause you're adding more staff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. That's what I'm
talking about. If we add -- and we -- you have to look at
both. If we added the juvenile facility, it would free up
technically 32 beds in our current facility, okay? Which
would allow me to house probably 30 more out-of-county
inmates there. Taking 27 females out of our current
facility, putting them in the new facility, which at that
point, after the initial start-up costs that I've -- I've
explained in here, I could house up to 48 females in there.
To take 30 there, I'm housing them -- I'm running 27, 28
females on average right now. You could probably take
another 10 on top of that, so you could get to where you
could house 30 out-of-county inmates in the two combined
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
164
facilities, on top of the 10 we're housing right now.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, Sheriff --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Total out-of-county
would be about 50.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- let me have a
shot at it. I'm talking only operating costs now, not
amortization. On Page 4 of your report, it says that to
operate the 48-bed adult female detention facility would
cost about 560,000 a year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And on Page 3 -- 2,
it says it would bring in about 405,000.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That 405,000 is
averaging 30 a day. If we could house 40 or -- a day right
off the bat, you're talking 600-something thousand.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Forgetting the
capital costs, this 405 versus 558, we've got something like
$150,000 annual deficit. Are you telling -- telling us that
we're going to make that up by being able to rent out spaces
in our current jail?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What I'm -- what I'm
saying is, I figured that 405,000 at housing an additional
30 out-of-county inmates, okay?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In your current
jail.
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
165
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In our current jail.
And I did not even add in the possibility of housing another
10 in the new facility.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We'd have a net
operating loss on the order of $150,000 a year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If we could house 40, 10
in the new one, we would have a -- it's never -- I wouldn't
-- I hate to say it's going to be a profit, 'cause I don't
know how long that's going to last. But if you had 40,
okay, at $37 a day, I believe -- if somebody's got a
calculator --
JUDGE TINLEY: 540.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: How much?
JUDGE TINLEY: 540.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 540, and it is going to
cost me 558 to run it, at my best estimate right now. So,
you're talking about a $15 -- I mean $15,000 deficit. Now,
you -- you need to take a lot of things into consideration
with that in -- in laying everything out on the table, is
that T.D.C. is already notifying areas that they're fixing
to hit maximum capacity and shut the doors. If this Court
remembers what happened back in '93 when they hit that, we
were -- we ended up housing inmates from Bell County at
almost $50 a day, I believe it was, Buster, if I recall
right. So -- because it does stack up county jails greatly.
10-25-04
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
166
The one benefit this time to counties, if you can ever
consider it a benefit, is that back then when they did it,
T.D.C. never paid for us housing what we all considered
their inmate. He was finished here; he's supposed to be in
T.D.C. Now, after housing a state paper-ready inmate for 45
days, under the legislative laws, T.D.C. has to start paying
that county for housing that inmate. And I don't know what
that exact rate is; it's between 40 and 50 a day, okay? So,
it's even more than what we charge out-of-county. So, you
could get some --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: By creating the
48-prisoner facility for women, we might come close to
break-even, or we might lose $150,000 a year in operating
costs. And we'd be adding something over $400,000 a year in
capital expense, so we're looking at a half a million dollar
additional cost to taxpayers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's another
offset, though; he just hasn't gotten there yet. And that
other offset is the added costs to his department for
transporting juveniles out of state -- out of the district.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I need to explain that,
because where that is, by Section 52.026(c) out of the
Family Code, it states that, "On adoption of an order by the
Juvenile Board and approval of the Juvenile Board's order by
record vote of the Commissioners Court, it shall be the duty
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
` 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
167
of the Sheriff of the county in which a child is taken into
custody to transport the child to and from all scheduled
juvenile court proceedings, appearances, and other
activities as ordered by the juvenile court." What that
means is, right now the closest facility, from my
understanding, is Hondo, and I think it's, like, a nine-bed
facility. And you have to remember, Bandera, Gillespie, and
those counties, Mason and them, also house their juveniles
out here when they have some. They don't have as many.
That facility would fill up in nothing flat; we wouldn't be
able to house kids there. The next closest place, my
understanding, is in San Angelo right now, and I don't know
how long that one would last.
It would -- and this would be if the City of
Kerrville -- if a Kerrville police officer picks up a child
for burglary or whatever at 2 o'clock in the morning, he
brings that child to my office, not the adult facility,
'cause he can't come in the doors; he's a juvenile. He
brings him to my office. We have to immediately, at that
time, transport that child to a facility. If that's the
first time he's picked up, within 48 hours we have to bring
him back for his first court hearing. If he has to go to a
doctor, and if he has to get sent for a psychological, which
I think the post ones all have to have psychologicals, we
have to trans -- go get that child, wherever he is, and
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
168
transport him. The burden on our department would make --
would force me, 24 hours a day, 'cause you just don't know
when this is going to happen, to hire at least two more
transport officers.
My transport division right now, just on
adults, is averaging 60,000 miles a month. Two more
transport officers for the Sheriff's office would be
deputies, 'cause I need them to be armed, transporting these
kids. That's a starting salary of $30,000 each -- 29,995,
if they're just right cut of the academy, and then with no
tenure or anything. And to fill two positions 24 hours a
day, seven days a week, is 10 officers. So, you're going to
hire 10 officers at $30,000 a year in order to run the new
facility. Now, I'm talking about adult. Becky's going to
have to talk to the juvenile part. But for us to run that
new facility is 12 employees plus one clerk, which would be
13 employees, but 12 at 26,000 a year for adult jailers to
be over there to house adult females. Now, it would -- you
know, so either way, I'm looking at a big hit in this year's
budget or next year's budget on either additional staff to
transport kids all over the United States -- or all over
Texas, anyhow, all the time, at any moment's notice.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what you're saying,
Sheriff, is that if you -- if we shut down that entire
operation out there and there's no more -- no juvenile
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
169
facility in Kerr County, you're estimating it could cost
your department about 300,000 a year?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, at least. That's
only on salary, and not on vehicles.
MR. HENDERSON: Or benefits, which is another
30 percent.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Vehicles would be bad.
You go through two vehicles a year, pretty close to it,
every other year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'd go to 400,000 by the
time you add everything up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, there's one
sentence in your introduction there I don't understand.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you can help me
with it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Paragraph 2, you talk
about the number of juveniles in Kerr County, which -- whose
population has increased.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is also increasing.
Then you go on to say that juvenile crime will increase at a
much faster rate if there is no place in Kerr County to lock
up offenders.
10-25-09
170
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Explain that for me,
please.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Number one, your
Juvenile Probation Office, and Kevin can address that, is
the one that finally gives the final okay; yes, lock that
kid up. If you don't have a facility -- and I'm speaking a
little bit out of turn, but what I seen in the past when we
just had the little one up here, and when it closed for a
while, is Juvenile Probation says, "No, turn them back loose
to their parents," so that you don't have to transport quite
as many, except for the more serious ones. When you do
that, 35 seconds later, that kid's right back on the street;
you're having to deal with him again. Because the problem
is, to begin with, the parents aren't going to watch him.
They're running the streets all hours.
The other issue is that a lot of your adult
offenders -- they're seeing this more and more in the drug
trade. The adult offenders will have juveniles do their --
what we call muting, running the drugs from one location to
another, because that juvenile's not going to get in trouble
for it as much. And when they can say, "Hey, there's not
even a juvenile facility for them to put you in," you're
going to have juveniles that'll take that -- if they're, you
know, transporting a pound of weed in a backpack for an
10-25-04
171
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
adult offender, which is not unusual at all, okay, then
they'll take that $100 from that adult offender to take that
pound of weed from one block to another block and drop it
off, and you're going to have more and more kids doing that
type activity 'cause they can see very quick, easy money for
kids to make, and you're going to see the crime go up with
juveniles. There's no doubt in my mind.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge? Can you -- if
Harris County sent a youth up here to our facility -- your
facility, their facility, whoever owns it this week, can you
not perform those hearings? The 48-hour hearing or --
JUDGE TINLEY: In the manner you've asked the
question, no. And I'm not sure, even with an interlocal
agreement, if you could do that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think you'd have to go
under a change of venue for the entire criminal case that
he's being --
JUDGE TINLEY: You'd have to acquire
jurisdiction of the case.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kevin?
MR. STANTON: I think Mr. Baldwin's --
Commissioner Baldwin's kind of confused on what we're
talking about with the -- with -- on the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm never confused.
Politicians are never confused.
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.-_
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~-.
25
172
MR. STANTON: Sorry. The -- the kids that
Mr. -- that the Sheriff is talking about holding the
hearings on and being detained 48 hours, those are Kerr
County kids. Those are our kids. The kids that are in the
facility from Harris County and other jurisdictions that are
in long-term placement, those kids are court-ordered by the
Court to be there for an extended period of time, so there
-- there's no need for additional hearings on those kids.
It's just the short-term kids that we're talking about
that -- that Rusty or myself or whoever would end up having
to transport for the initial hearing within 48 hours. Then,
if they're detained for an extended period -- extended
period after that, every 10 working days that child would
then have to come back before the Court until that child's
released.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. No, I wasn't
confused at all. I understand that clearly.
MR. STANTON: Sorry. Well, you said Harris
County kids. We don't have hearings on Harris County kids.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, let me do it
this way. Let's pretend that we take one of our own kids to
Hondo.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can't -- instead of us
hauling him back and forth, can't a judge in Hondo hear the
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
173
-- do the little hearing thing?
MR. STANTON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. You answered my
question.
MR. STANTON: The only way that could
happen -- and there is a way around that, but the only way
that could happen is if the child and his attorney agree to
waive the hearing. They can't waive the initial hearing,
but they can waive any future hearings.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, one other thing
that I'd like to -- or a couple other things I'd like to
mention. What -- and the Judge was present, 'cause I
specifically asked the state inspector -- I believe the
Judge even posed it to him -- what is the cost today --
average cost or estimated cost to build one adult bed? You
know, single facility. And right now, it's between $40,000
and $50,000, is what we were told. So, if we want to add on
to our current facility out back, you're talking between
$40,000 and $50,000 per bed. That facility, we can do some
minor alterations on it, get it up to 48 beds without adding
all that type of cost. 48 beds at $50,000 would be, what, a
little over $2 million cost just to add onto our current
one. The other problem that we have is that the current
jail was not built with adequate administrative space,
10-25-04

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
174
office space, things like that. There are four offices out
there that could also be utilized, which would also take a
burden off our administrative space in our current jail
without having to try and figure a way to add onto it, which
would be extremely difficult to do with the way that one was
designed. You can't go out either side. One side you got
the sallyport on; the other side, you got the J.P. office,
and then the City's required little lake -- draining tank
every time it rains. Out back, you're going into the jail.
You know, you'd have to add on out front to add space onto
the administrative part.
Some of the other deals -- and this is
something that -- why we're going to run out of space. If
you look at the bottom of Page 3, on the last paragraph,
what was quoted in the long-range planning committee -- or
by them that we did in 2002, is that in May of 2002, when
the study -- long-range planning study studied the then
current situation in the Sheriff's Office and adult
detention, they factored in the population growth and
different things, and came up with the rate of increase that
we're going at. If you will also recall, in 2001, our
current jail, a 192-bed facility, hit populations up to 208
during part of that year, and we ended up shipping back all
of our out-of-county housing and had to do away with housing
any out-of-county for a number of months before we could get
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
._.. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
175
our own population back. I don't see that we're going to
have anything occur in the foreseeable future, except our
population rates continue to rise, and we're about at max.
We're above the 80 percent recommended, whether it's males
or females. This county would have to do something in the
very near future to add onto that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, what would
the start-up costs be? You got a page that talks about
start-up expenses, one-time, for 89, 90. Does that include
any structural changes that you would have to make to that
facility dictated by the Commission on Jail Standards?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. Item Number 6 on
the start-up costs says "upgrade to meet jail standards." I
estimated that about $75,000. What that entails is -- and I
would really feel a lot more comfortable getting one of
their people that does their design and that than just an
inspector, but the inspector and I both concluded that what
he saw would probably be exactly what's going to entail. We
-- it's just for final cost. What that entails is the dorms
that they have out there, there's three dormitories; they're
eight-person dormitories at this time. Each dormitory has
eight single beds in it, single little enclosed areas, and a
common kind of dayroom area. What you would have to do
there is, for eight people, they can do it with one shower.
We would need two showers in each one of those dorms. There
10-25-04
176
1
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 space next to the one shower that's in them now to where
a second shower, or just a remodeling of that first shower
could be done, and I think could be done fairly inexpensive
to make that a double shower, a two-person shower area.
With that, that would take care of the major part. The
other part is, you have to have a safety vestibule for this
to be a maximum security facility, going into the dorms.
State standards require one of those doors has to be
electronically controlled. The one that is there now is
electronically controlled, so we would come from outside of
it more into the main common area and put another safety
vestibule there. We could build it out of even a heavy
chain link. It's just got to have a separation to where you
offer safety for -- for your employees and them getting in
and out and dealing with inmates, and open one door without
opening the whole facility. Or you can even now, because a
lot of older jails didn't have safety vestibules, and they
were required, is now they manufacture prefab safety
vestibules that you just set in front of those doors, and it
creates that. So, I think that could be accomplished at a
minor expense. The only other expense I would have is their
visitation area in that facility does have two separate
doors. I don't have a problem separating how you enter it,
but we would have to put a wall up, and either a chain
link-type deal so that you separate visitors from inmates on
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
177
the visitation, and that's in the one room. And that can be
done with chain link or with plexiglass or with the, you
know, cinder-block and what. Those are the only main
renovations that would have to be done. So, when I had -- I
had 24 hours to come up with y'all a budget, pretty well, so
a lot of these prices I feel are high, or high compared to
what the actual cost would be, but I did not want to give
you the impression that we could do it cheaper, and then
later on come back and say no, it didn't work.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, as I kind of go
through this -- let me see if can summarize. If you take
over the new facility, convert it to a jail -- I'm not
worried about start-up costs. Just on annual operations,
best case, if we get completely full almost, it'll break
even on operating costs?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: As long as we can house
the 30 in the current jail and 10 over there, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a best case.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Best case, it would come
real close to break-even.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Won't do anything to
service the debt.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
10-25-04

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
178
addition, what was the cost of that addition?
MR. HENDERSON: Approximately 2.6 million.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2.6 million?
MR. HENDERSON: That included architect fees
and a lot -- it did not. include land costs, because the
facility already owned the land -- corporation already owned
the land.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we can build a new
facility cheaper than we can buy this one.
MR. HENDERSON: Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If $50 a bed is the high
side of a new jail cost.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what they're
estimating with us.
MR. HENDERSON: I
though. I think it's $50,000 to
correct me if I'm wrong, Sheriff
I'm building for other clients a
have to build new meeting rooms,
cafeterias, new laundries. So I
to be more than that if you were
stand-alone --
think that's an addition,
add to his existing jail --
-- because the jails that
re not at $50,000 where you
new lawyers rooms, new
think, you know, it's going
to build a new
COMMISSIONER LETZ: From my standpoint, my
option is to buy a facility and make it a jail, or add onto
the current jail, and we're cheaper by adding onto the
10-25-09

179
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
current jail than to buy this.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You are until you start
looking at the administrative side too, and your office
space and having to reconfigure your administration part of
the current jail. That's going to be the side that's hard
to add onto. And, as you see in here --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hard to add onto if you
add onto the current jail?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. As you see in
here, we have already turned workroom areas and closet areas
and everything else into office space, okay? The new
facility will give me more -- it will give me an empty
office space in the current jail, and it will give me a
minimum of two empty offices in the current administrative
area. 'Cause you're having to take care of two problems
there, or you would be taking care of --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think the answer
is, it would be cheaper. How much cheaper, we don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be pretty close.
It's not a significant change.
MR. HENDERSON: Commissioner Letz, I was
pulling 2.6 from memory. I think that's pretty close, but I
could be off a little bit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:	But	it's	basically -- I
mean, it's not like we're making -	- it'	s a	great deal for us
10-25-04
~, _ _ ~
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
180
to convert the new juvenile facility into a jail. That's
not a -- we're just as well-off adding onto the jail, bottom
line. I mean, operations and everything else is going to be
within a couple hundred thousand.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's another
factor to consider, though, which I think might be an offset
to that. We're talking about today in terms of acquisition
costs. We're talking about tomorrow with respect to
construction costs. And tomorrow's construction costs are
going to be different than they are right today. They're
going to be higher.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's true. But we
don't need it today.
MR. HENDERSON: Particularly steel costs
being the way it is since they built that thing two years
ago.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we don`t need the
addition now. We're going to need the addition to the jail
in several years.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's -- you know,
we talked about the jail overcrowding and the jail running
above 80 percent in 2001-2002. My concern now also is, yes,
we're going up. Milton told me a while ago, when I talked
to him -- Sheriff of Gillespie County -- his female
population is constantly going up now, more than his male.
10-25-04
- -s _. s
181

1
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 James MacMillan told me the same thing a while ago, in
Bandera County. The other problem is -- is if what T.D.C.
is warning us all about now comes true in the next few
months, then we're all going to be in trouble; we're all
going to have a hard time housing and having enough space,
'cause that is going to stack up in county jails. And the
way I saw it last time they went through this, is Harris
County, you know, Dallas County, Bexar County, all those
that have a lot of T.D.C. inmates, they always get
first-come, first-served type priority in getting them into
T.D.C., 'cause T.D.C. doesn't want to pay them, and Harris
County is liking their federal monitor and things like that.
So, what happens is your county jails -- I can remember at
one time here, we were stacked up to 30 or 40 inmates
waiting to go to T.D.C., and we started housing them in Bell
County, because it just got too many. You know, we're not
designed for that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to consider it
from another point of view. I want to pick up where
Commissioner 4 left off.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're talking about
basically $560,000, give or take a couple, to operate it,
and you're projecting some yearly income of 405,000. So,
you're -- you know, we're looking at 150,000, plus or minus,
10-25-04
182

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in terms of red ink.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. On operations
alone. To purchase a facility, we purchase the facility for
whatever the cost is going to be, and it's one debt service
amount that services not only your projected future needs or
the female quotient, if you will, but the juvenile quotient,
all right? So that's one debt to take care of two things.
Now, the other side of the equation is, what's the juvenile
going to do to it? How much more red ink is there? I know
you can't answer that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can't answer that;
don't intend to. I can tell you, during the inspection, it
was the opinion of the inspector and myself that the current
-- the older building out there, the juvenile facility out
there, the original building, there is no way I could ever
use it or convert it into an adult facility without just
a -- renovations costing more than it would to start off.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, now we've got to
examine what to do with the juvenile side. You do not want
that part; you want the new part, I understand.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're correct, I don't
want that part. But I cannot emphasize enough that, with
this county the way it is -- and you started on it on my
introduction in here -- is no matter what happens, if they
10-25-04
183
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
end up having to go somewhere else and build a juvenile
facility or whatever in this county, in my opinion, this
county has to have a juvenile facility. We need a place to
put kids. We have too many things going on in this county
and too many kids that we deal with in this county, that we
need a place to put these kids. We were -- we had a meeting
a couple weeks ago with the school districts, a
representative from each one, that they even want to
purchase classroom area, which would be in the old facility.
And they've got some portable classrooms for these kids that
are expelled from school because of criminal violations once
they expelled them, and it was a big concern of Dr. Troxel.
If they expel them, they just run the streets, and then we
all end up dealing with them. As a condition of release
from the facility -- or as a condition of confinement, is
they want to take the money that they're allocated by the
State and give a large portion of that to the juvenile
facility to have those kids attend class -- school class at
that facility. And that's about 35,000 a year or so to do
that, and they're providing the teachers and their portion
of the State funding to contract with having kids in there.
To me, there's a lot of value in that, because now you're
keeping kids at least in the school.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, you're
saying if we don't have the juvenile facility, it's going to
10-25-09
184
1
2
3
4
` 5
6
I 7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.,-,.
25
cost an extra $300,000 for your operating expenses for the
transportation of juveniles hither and yon. So, now that
were hemorrhaging red ink, let's find out what the whole
picture is. I'd like to know the other side.
JUDGE TINLEY: Before the Sheriff gets
through here, your current jail budget is just under
$2 million a year at this time?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct. And
80 percent of that is salary.
JUDGE TINLEY: How self-sustaining is that
operation?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Running a jail is never
a profit-making business. It's never going to be. My
opinion, it's never been designed to make money. I don't
think you can expect that to make money. That's part of
keeping -- and I'll get on my soapbox for just a minute, but
that's part of keeping our community safe and keeping crooks
locked up where they ought to be locked up and out of
society to keep hurting our citizens more. And that's just
part of what our taxes, mine included, are set to pay for
and to take care of. And, as we can, yes -- as, you know,
good government leaders or whatever, if we can house other
counties locally -- I will never, ever house federal inmates
out there, but if we can do things to offset that cost, then
I think it's our job to offset it. But I think the bottom
10-25-04
185
1
2
i 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
line is, it's our responsibility to keep these people off
the street.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sheriff, I
appreciate you putting this together. It's a good report in
a short period of time.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Give my secretary a big
applause, because it did take a lot for her to have to sort
through --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I especially
appreciate not having to file an Open Records Act request to
get that information.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you.
MR. HENDERSON: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: The Sheriff was very, very
clear at the inception, when I commented about him using a
lot of staff out there; he said it was he and Nancy, and the
two of them just buckled down and went after it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good job.
MR. HENDERSON: Judge, excuse me for
interrupting. The gentlemen from the First National Bank of
Stafford (sic) were on the agenda to speak to this item, and
they've got to catch a 4 o'clock flight, so they were
wondering, before Ms. Harris stood up, if they could address
the Court before they left for the airport.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've -- let me go ahead and
10-25-04
186
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
call that item, if I might, so that they can have their
opportunity. We will defer for the moment Item 14, and call
Item 13, discuss the County's intentions regarding the Hill
Country Juvenile Facility. You're Mr. Futrell?
MR. FUTRELL: Yes, sir, I am.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you're from Stafford,
Texas?
MR. FUTRELL: I'm from Dumas, and the
chairman here is from Stratford, and we have offices in
Dalhart as well. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. FUTRELL: -- we're --
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me preface my -- my --
before you get started, the agenda erroneously shows
executive session. When -- when we received a request to be
on the agenda from the bank there in Stafford -- or
Stratford, excuse me, I -- I attempted to emphasize through
our coordinator that we are dealing with the trustee, and
under the documents, as we perceive them and interpret them,
I think we have an obligation to deal with the trustee
because of how the transaction was structured, and -- and
under the present situation that we're in. Notwithstanding
that, certainly, we're happy to listen to anything that you
might have to say. I -- I personally would feel very
reluctant to engage you in a back-and-forth because of what
10-25-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
187
I feel our obligation is to deal with the trustee, and I
hope you'll understand that.
MR. FUTRELL: Yes, sir, I do.
JUDGE TINLEY: These other Commissioners can
make their own choice on that, but I'd be happy to listen to
anything you have to say.
MR. FUTRELL: First of all, I'd like to say
that we're here to let you know we're really on your side.
There are a lot of bonds out there outstanding that
community banks have acquired to finance this project.
We're not here to jump up and down and cause a disturbance
and upset anybody. I think it's important to know, because
I sat in the side chair for four years as a commissioner for
the City of Dumas, and I sat in the center chair for four
years, and so I know how it feels sitting in those chairs.
It's always different when you get in those chairs, and it's
always different when you move from one chair to the other.
So, it's not an easy issue. I know you have lots of -- lots
of intervening and resultant ramifications that have come
out of any decision you make. Some of them have already
come up, and as S and P came up with a downgrade on the
County's credit, things that can last for a long time and be
either detrimental or beneficial. It's -- it's in your
hands and it's your choice.
We also know that when this facility was
10-25-04
188
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
instituted and this project began a few years ago -- two
years ago, there was a need there at that time, clearly.
And I feel sure there is a need at this time for this
facility and other facilities that the Sheriff has
discussed. And I know the way life is in America and the
world; those facilities and the need for those facilities is
not going to go away. The fact that someone came and
changed some rules on how people are reimbursed and censuses
were affected by different factors, things that happened
after your decision was made, extremely unfortunate, and --
and impactful on all of us, and it's regrettable that that
happened. And that's where we find ourselves today. We
believe that you men are faced with a lot of pressures from
all sides as to which way to go on this. And it's easy to
get caught up in the immediate questions of how to tweak,
how to run, how to build, how to twist this thing to make it
operate well today. It's important that we ask you to also
step back and consider 10 years from now, when we still have
a need for a juvenile facility, when we still have a need
for increased adult facilities, will we have taken an
approach today that -- that was more fortuitous in
appearance today than, in the long run, was detrimental?
So, we just want you to know we encourage
you -- you men; we know it's difficult. And we -- we have
worked with the same trustee also as bondholders, and the
10-25-04

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
189
other gentlemen that are here, and have contacted different
people. We also know that this is something that, anytime
it goes to the courthouse -- and I understand there are
barristers in our presence, but anytime it goes to the
courthouse, you know who usually wins there, and it's
generally -- I wouldn't suspect it would be the County, and
I wouldn't suspect it would be the bondholders. It's liable
to be the attorneys in the middle. And I would encourage --
encourage you all to pursue an avenue that can keep this
facility open, and build a program that can -- that can keep
it open, moving down the road. There have been issues of
call provision. I can't imagine someone out there holding
these bonds, faced with these circumstances, saying, "No, we
don't want our bond called right now." There have been
questions about certificates of obligation being issued down
the road also. There are a lot of options open to you.
And, once again, I'd say if you had one of
these bonds and someone said, "Would you accept one of the
County's C.O.'s in lieu of that?" That seems like a fairly
cut-and-dried decision at this point. So, looking at a
bigger picture -- and I understand I have my -- my
institution's self-interest at heart, but I always try to
look at things from a long-range, bigger picture
perspective, and when you look at it from that viewpoint, it
really seems like, gentlemen, that -- that the -- the long
10-25-09
~ ,~.. r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
` 21
22
23
^ 24
25
190
run best decision for your area in this part of the state is
to -- is to find a way to keep this facility open and moving
down the road.
JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate your taking the
time and the effort and the expense of being here with us
today. I apologize for the delay of getting you in the
chute here, but --
MR. FUTRELL: Judge, you can only --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- all's well that ends well.
MR. FUTRELL: That's right. Well, we
appreciate your time very much.
MR. DONELSON: I'm also representing that
bank, and I -- can I make a statement?
JUDGE TINLEY: Surely.
MR. DONELSON: I'm B.A. Donelson, Chairman of
the Board. Brent is more eloquent than I. And we, too, see
problems that you're facing. I guess my concern -- and you
addressed the $28,000 bill that the attorneys for Bank of
New York have already touched, and it was mentioned there
that maybe we all ought to let the facility go back and buy
it back. Well, I promise you, if they've spent $28,000 and
haven't talked to a single bondholder, they'll eat up that
facility before we ever get a dime, and I'm sure you know
that they get theirs first, and they don't care how fast or
how far that meter runs. I think you would all agree with
10-25-09
~_ ~ - -- "r _ "~""~ .
w
191
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that. And my point to that is, if you want the New York
lawyers to have it, they can take it. I mean, they have the
ability to get it, and, quite frankly, that's what will get
most of it. And I don't think it would look too good if you
came back and, you know, two years later you bought that
back for a million dollars, and that firm had got a million
and we got nothing. So, our hopes are -- and you do have a
difficult decision to make. I don't -- don't envy you at
all. And, you know, it's just like Brent said, if -- if it
goes too far and it needs answered soon, I hope that some
thought will be given -- and I understand your position as
the Court; you only made a lease. It is kind of surprising
to see, in two years, that it's changed as far as from the
prospectus we bought, and that's hard to understand and deal
with. But, God bless you for your decision that you've got
to make, 'cause it's a tough one. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all have a good
trip. Nice seeing you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's get back to Item 14, and
I guess we're through with the Sheriff. And now,
Ms. Harris, you're on.
MS. HARRIS: I'm on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, as she's making
10-25-09
192
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
her way up here, is there any way that we're going to see a
bottom-line figure of all of this? Is it going to be
200,000? Is it going to be 9 million?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to defer to the
Auditor on that, Commissioner. If anybody ought to be able
to have those numbers kind of scared up and herded together,
I think it would be him.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would, too.
MS. HARRIS: It's going to be okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, Ms. Harris.
MS. HARRIS: Okay. I put together the budget
and distributed the budget on Wednesday of last week.
Unfortunately, Tommy looked at it for the first time this
morning, and so I will give you the big pill to swallow
first. Tommy already found a mistake in my figures.
Because I don't have anybody to blame, 'cause I did this all
by myself, so I can't point any fingers at anybody but me.
And since I'm not a C.P.A. and I'm not an auditor, I think
of salaries, and I inadvertently left out the withholdings,
and Tommy pointed that out this morning. That -- and that
totally changes the bottom line on the one building -- well,
of course, it would change the bottom line on both
buildings, but it changes the bottom line on the one
building. And, so, instead of it being good news, it's
horrible news. The big pill is, you'd have about a --
10-25-09
193
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
314,000? About a $314,000-a-year deficit when you include
the withholdings.
JUDGE TINLEY: Benefits and payroll costs,
we're talking about? And what is that -- that number, then,
is going to be about --
MR. TOMLINSON: It's --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- 244?
MR. TOMLINSON: -- 30 percent.
MS. HARRIS: 30 percent of the salaries
that's on the first page.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Help me. Is this on
the so-called "old" facility?
MS. HARRIS: Yes, it is. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if we operate
that --
MS. HARRIS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- as a -- it would
cost us 300,000 a year in operating it?
MS. HARRIS: That's right, providing that I
keep all the figures exactly the same as I put it on here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What if we --
MS. HARRIS: That's salaries.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- go to the bigger bad
pill?
10-25-04
194
1
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. HARRIS: To the bigger bad pill?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On two buildings.
MS. HARRIS: On two buildings? Yes, your
deficit would be approximately -- you know, add the 314,000,
which would be even more, 'cause you've got more personnel;
you've got more staff for the second building.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It almost doubles?
MS. HARRIS: Judge Tinley has got the
calculator.
JUDGE TINLEY: Calculator is not wanting to
work as good as I'd like it to. I need my other one.
MS. HARRIS: When you add the additional
salaries onto the salaries of the first building --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be more than probably
close to 400,000 --
MS. HARRIS: Right, exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- additional, so it'd be
almost $700, 000.
MS. HARRIS: Probab
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
MS. HARRIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
MS. HARRIS: Round,
what can be done -- that erroneous
anything you want to figure. It's
1y so.
$700,000 deficit.
That's right.
Round, big numbers.
big numbers. Okay. Now,
400,000 just pops up in
there. What can be done
10-25-04
195
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
differently in the first building is, as you can see, you've
got 42 beds that -- total beds. You've got to reserve a
certain amount of beds for short-term, preadjudicated kids.
You've got to have a male dorm; you've got to have a female
dorm, so right there, you're going to cut out 18 beds. So,
that limits you to 24 long-term, post-adjudication beds,
maxed out. We can never take any more than 24 long-term
kids. We have 20 kids -- long-term kids today, so we're
almost already there. My recommendation would be that we do
not do the substance abuse treatment program in that case,
then, 'cause we can fill up 24 beds with just regular
behavioral kids and correctional kids, offer the general
programming that we offer today, and then that way you don't
have that Q.C.C. treatment person at that $36,000. You
would no longer have that in the salary.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that, if you went to
one facility, other than under the employees, you have,
obviously, Facility Administrator, yourself, and then
Assistant Facility Administrator.
MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there any way that you
can combine the Assistant Facility Administrator with the
Q.C.C. treatment, have that be one person?
MS. HARRIS: No, Q.C.C. treatment has to be a
specially licensed person that -- unless you hired that
io-zs-o9
196
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
person, that specially-licensed person, then, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could you have a -- could
you combine those two?
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And make a --
MS. HARRIS: Yes, you could. Yes, you could.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you operate only
the so-called "old" building --
MS. HARRIS: Yes?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- and you don't do
the substance abuse --
MS. HARRIS: Yes?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- will that be
enough beds so that Kerr County would not have to take its
children out of county?
MS. HARRIS: Yes, I believe it would. Kevin,
don't you think so?
MR. STANTON: I'm sorry, I wasn't --
MS. HARRIS: That's okay. The one building,
if we had 18 pre beds, would that be enough for you?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, that would be plenty.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, basically, we're no
different.
MS. HARRIS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Between -- if we close,
10-25-04
197
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we spend 300,000 transporting prisoners. If we keep it, we
lose 300,000. So, on the juvenile side, we lose 300,000
from now on.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's pretty close.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what it looks
like, doesn't it?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's operating. That has
no -- no relation to debt service.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, of course --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's operating only.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you do the whole
scenario, you're talking about the County buying it, and so
that takes that out of the equation, 'cause you're going to
pledge tax dollars.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we still pay for
it; the taxpayers still pay for it. But, actually, Rusty's
number was 400,000 for transporting, 'cause you have to add
in vehicles and all the other stuff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Pretty close.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Really, it's 400,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Easy.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Of course, that could
also go up or down a little bit, Jonathan, depending on how
far we have to transport them and how many times, but yeah.
10-25-04
198
1
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: Ms. Harris, a
question on your staffing.
MS. HARRIS: Yes?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on 42
residents -- that's the original building, correct?
MS. HARRIS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that level of
administration -- is that what you have in the place today?
MS. HARRIS: Yes, that's what's there today,
except for that Q.C.C. That person's not there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And -- and in your
mind, that level of administrative staffing has to -- has to
carry over to a reduced operation?
MS. HARRIS: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do we effect some
changes there?
MS. HARRIS: Well, there are some positions
that probably can be combined that I have listed here. You
could probably combine some of those positions. And you
don't need two administrators.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I appreciate
your candor.
MS. HARRIS: You don't. You don't need two
administrators.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure does make it a -- make it
10-25-04
199
1
.-. 2
t 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
._-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a pretty tightly tethered operation for the administrator,
though, doesn't it?
MS. HARRIS: Mm-hmm. It can be done. I did
it -- and I'm not saying that I would be the remaining
administrator; that's not what I'm saying, but I
administered a 48-bed unit by myself. Now, I had a
treatment director. I had to because of the substance abuse
treatment license. But if we don't go that route, I don't
have to have that person.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the advantage of
getting the substance abuse treatment? I mean --
MS. HARRIS: You're going to -- think about
this, as well. Females -- girls are difficult to handle.
They are more expensive. They -- they bring with them a
larger liability. If you went strictly all boys, then if
you had the substance abuse treatment license, you will
bring in more boys requiring substance abuse treatment,
because there's more boys that are diagnosed with a
substance abuse problem than girls. So, if you've got a
substance abuse treatment program, if you didn't take
females any more, that opens up another 12 beds for boys, so
you're still at 24. You're still going to be at 24 kids;
you just have all boys, but your liability's going to go
down and your medical expenses are going to go down
considerably. Girls are expensive. And -- and your suicide
10-25-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
200
assessments are going to decrease by 80 percent, 'cause
girls scream, "I want to kill myself," and you've got to
have a suicide assessment done every time, at $85 a pop.
And we absorb that cost; that's part of our service.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's not part of medical
costs that you can pass on?
MS. HARRIS: No, that is not part of our
medical costs that we pass on, no. No. So, you can
consider that as well. We can change the population to
strictly male, do the substance abuse, and bring in more
boys.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- financially,
is it -- is our reimbursement level higher with substance
abuse?
MS. HARRIS: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or does it make any
difference on that side?
MS. HARRIS: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's our female
population from Kerr County, basically? How does --
MS. HARRIS: From Kerr County?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, Kerr County.
MS. HARRIS: We don't have any Kerr County
females in long-term.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
10-25-04
201
1
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. HARRIS: All of ours are out --
out-of-county girls.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Substance abuse. I
understand a couple of years ago the program was here. We
had the program here.
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it was bringing
into the facility in the neighborhood of 100,000 -- or would
have brought in 100 -- in the neighborhood of 100,000 a
year.
MS. HARRIS: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretty good income
there. And then, in the dark of the night, the program
disappeared.
MS. HARRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Along with -- and I
don't know why, and, obviously, the Juvenile Board's never
going to come and explain to the taxpayers why that
happened, but I would certainly question five men that would
jump right back and try it again.
MS. HARRIS: Number one, I'm not applying for
a grant. The substance abuse treatment license that was
here previously was -- had to be in place in order for a
grant to be in place. I'm not getting a grant. I don't
want a grant as far as substance abuse treatment is
10-25-04
202
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

concerned. I strictly want the license to allow our
facility to provide the treatment, so there would be no
grant money associated with that. But I understand what
you're saying as well. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you see any prospect, with
the demands on juvenile justice space, and presumably it's
narrowing now, and the demand for substance abuse programs,
of being able to put a premium on substance abuse residents,
cost-wise? Charge more?
MS. HARRIS: Charge more? No, I don't. You
would think that we would be able to charge more, and we
would be justified if we did. If -- if a county's going to
jump on board and pay us that extra cost? In my estimation,
that would be no, and that's because of the marketing factor
that's out there in the counties. Counties are strapped for
money; they're going to look for the best deal in town. And
there are literally -- there are more beds -- juvenile beds
than there are juveniles at this point in time, and that's
because in the 90's you had a lot of private corporations
that jumped on board and thought it was going to be a
money-making deal, and they built private facilities. If it
had been restricted to the facilities that were -- that were
built by that legislative bond money, we probably wouldn't
even be standing here and having this discussion today.
But, you know, the need for substance abuse treatment is
10-25-04
~` ~
203
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
definitely out there, more so for boys than for girls. And
there's always going to be a need for substance abuse
treatment. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ms. Harris, how many Kerr
County residents do we have out there, on average?
MS. HARRIS: On average? Long-term?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Long-term and
preadjudicated.
MS. HARRIS: Last year, I believe that there
were two. We've got one right now.
MR. HENDERSON: That's long-term. That's not
precertified and pre --
MS. HARRIS: And pre?
MR. HENDERSON: Seven or eight, right?
MS. HARRIS: Okay. In the year -- let me
tell you this way, 'cause I've got -- I ran some historical
data that the facility had. In the year 2002, the facility
averaged 19 pre's, but you're asking for Kerr? Just a
minute; I've got that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kevin, do you know?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. We've averaged about
seven -- six to seven kids a day out at the detention center
for the last year, year and a half.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the pre?
MR. STANTON: In the pre. And we've averaged
10-25-04
204
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

about one, one and a half in long-term.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- Ms. Harris, what
would the staffing requirement be to only use the Juvenile
Detention Facility for preadjudicated? If we cut -- just
shut the doors on it, put mothballs in it and said all we
want to have is preadjudicated?
MS. HARRIS: Still 1-to-8 during the waking
hours and 1-to-12 at night. So, depending on how many pre's
you have.
JUDGE TINLEY: So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, if we can average six
to seven --
MS. HARRIS: Okay. Depends on if you got
males and females. You're going to have to have two dorms,
one for males and one for females, so that's two staff per
shift. So, that's six staff, and then you've got to take
consideration those staff's days off, so you're going to
have to have nine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Versus what?
MS. HARRIS: Or six -- I mean nine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nine?
MS. HARRIS: Nine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Versus when you have your
fully -- if you fill up, you know, the whole facility, how
many do you have? How much staff, then, do you have?
10-25-04
~~ -
205
1
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. HARRIS: If you had the 42?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MS. HARRIS: I believe I put down here 18
full-time staff.
MR. STANTON: Commissioner Letz, one of the
things that you might want to consider also is, if you
turned it into just a short-term facility, you would still
have the contracts out with the surrounding counties to
house short-term kids; it just wouldn't be our kids. You
would still -- based on the averages that she'd have, you'd
still have about 19 kids a day out there, because not only
are Kerr County kids out there short-term, but the
surrounding counties also place kids out there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Which I would
personally -- I'd recommend doing. That's the same thing as
we're dealing with in the adult jail. Continue to house the
pre's for Bandera, Gillespie, Burnet, 'cause they don't have
juvenile facilities anyhow, and at that point, you are
making the revenues off those kids at whatever rates she
charges per day on the pre; I don't know what it is on
those.
MS. HARRIS: The same as the post; it's $83.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $83.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me see if either you
or one of the three of you there can answer my question.
10-25-04
_Ir _r . _..~ .
206
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
What I'm trying to get at is, do we lose less money if we
only use it for preadjudication, or do we lose less money if
we try to fill it up all the way?
MS. HARRIS: You lose less money, I would
think, if you have just pre's, 'cause you don't have -- you
don't have near the staff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're better off just
using it as a small preadjudication facility, as opposed to
trying to fill it up. And --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If you want my personal
opinion into that, that's -- Becky doesn't like hearing
this, because that is exactly what my recommendation would
be. I'm not in favor of housing Dallas', Houston's, all
their kids in our facility with our kids. I think it ought
to stay local with our surrounding counties, pre or post, as
long as they're local with our surrounding counties.
MS. HARRIS: But, remember, you don't make
your money off of pre's; you make your money off of
long-term kids.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm saying.
I need to -- I don't know.
MS. HARRIS: You make money off the long-term
kids.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know how you
calculate the cost of using it as a preadjudication facility
10-25-09
207
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
only versus trying to fill the whole thing up like you have
in your proposal number one here.
MS. HARRIS: Those 24 long-term kids are
paying the majority of your bills, because they're --
they're there for a minimum of six months. You know you're
going to get $83 a day for 180 days. For preadjudicated
kids, you don't know how many you're going to have. You
don't know how many you're going to be able to keep. It's
-- exactly, it's just like this. You can't count on your
revenue. You cannot count on a specific amount of revenue
from just preadjudicated kids.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you get on a --
how is the per diem calculated on preadjudicated?
MS. HARRIS: It's $83 a day across the board.
We charge $83 either way; we charge $83 a day. Doesn't
matter if it's pre or post.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At what point does
the State's reimbursement affect us by reduced -- reducing
per diem? Is that in this equation?
MS. HARRIS: No. And the reason for that is
the facility does not receive any reimbursement, okay?
Where that difference is, and what I believe that you're
talking about, Commissioner Williams, is what the State
reimburses the placing county in regards to the
classification of that child.
10-25-09
208
1
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: Okay.
MS. HARRIS: Because it's on a level system.
We take -- like, the old level system, Level 6, those are
T.Y.C. kids. The facility takes Level 5's and 4's, and
there's -- there is a reimbursement to the placing county in
regards to what that classification is. Right now, the
level -- what used to be Level 4 is $80, and what used to be
Level 5 is $106. Isn't that right? Oh, he's gone.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, if our county were
to sentence our own kids post-adjudication out there,
long-term, then the County would get reimbursed even more
from the State for those placements?
MS. HARRIS: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Instead of sending them
to T.Y.C., have it as a local prison, which I think would be
a great idea for our kids.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have a reason --
obviously, the judges who do the sentencing don't sentence
them out there. We only -- only average 1.5 persons here.
I'm looking at the Judge; he's one of them. The other one
sentences as well, but -- I mean, and they -- I understand
they have to wear their other hat and do what they think is
best for the child, but that's, you know, part of the
problem too. I mean, you know, if they're sending them
somewhere else, we got to spend the money wherever they go.
10-25-04
209
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I
think we know that if we keep that so-called old building as
the juvenile facility, it would cost about 300,000 a year in
operating costs. Have we learned anything about whether or
not, if we turned it into a preadjudication facility only,
whether it would be a significant decline in that number, or
just pocket change?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's probably --
well, what I'm hearing is we lose -- we cut our expenses,
but we cut our revenue, so I'm not sure you'd end up a whole
lot better off.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm looking at three
big buckets of money.
MS. HARRIS: That 300-some-odd thousand
dollars will diminish if you leave it just a
preadjudication, because you're not going to have near the
staff, and that $314,000 has to do with the withholdings.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Again, we're looking
at real big numbers if you --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we lose our revenue
too, though.
MS. HARRIS: That's true.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, you're saying
you're going to --
MR. HENDERSON: That seem to be my problem,
10-25-04
210
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
when you said we could make -- we'd lose less money if we
only did preadjudicated, but then -- then you follow it on
by saying we make all of our money from the post-adjudicated
long-term.
MS. HARRIS: That's right.
MR. HENDERSON: So, those two sentences seem
to conflict. Which one is --
MS. HARRIS: Okay. I've got six pre kids out
there today in a 42-bed facility. If there wasn't anybody
else out there, I've got six pre kids, and I don't know how
long I'm going to be -- how long I'm going to be able to
keep these six pre's, whereas I've got 20 kids I know I'm
keeping 180 days.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's the difference,
is the predictability on how long you're going to keep those
kids.
MS. HARRIS: Exactly.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Depends on what the
judges do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What she's saying, I
think, is we're not better off going solely preadjudicated.
MR. HENDERSON: That's what I'm gathering.
MS. HARRIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't sound that
way.
10-25-04
211
1
_, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-,
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What I'm saying is,
with your plan, we're -- it's going to cost us 300,000 if we
wake up Monday morning and -- and this is our facility. And
with your other part, it's going to be some capital there to
fix it up, but it's going to cost us maybe 150,000 a year,
maybe not.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, at the very most.
It could only be -- if we -- as long as our population stays
like it is and we get that facility open, it could only be
20,000, because then you're housing 40 more out-of-county
instead of 30.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Our principal and
interest is going to run something over 400,000 -- 410. So,
we're looking at $860,000 a year additional costs to Kerr
County, maybe a little less, depending upon what the Sheriff
and the juvie facility do. That's what we're looking at.
If we -- if we're looking at keeping it, we're looking at
850 -- 800,000 to 850,000 a year additional.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if we don't keep it,
we're looking at --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 300.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, 400 for the
Sheriff, plus --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- you know.
10-25-04
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
212
MR. HENDERSON: If I might, could I hand this
out?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
MR. HENDERSON: Commissioner Baldwin asked a
few moments ago for the bottom line, and -- and I apologize
for the lack of nice Power Point numbers here, but -- but
this gets right at exactly what Commissioner Nicholson is
talking about. You need one? I'm sorry. What we've heard
from the director of the juvie facility is, operating with
42 inmates would cost us about $315,000 a year in operating
deficits out of the juvie center. Operating deficits out of
the jail is 20,000. And that compares, Commissioner
Nicholson, to the 140,000 you just talked about. It depends
on that extra 10 inmates. And then the debt service would
be about $410,000, so you're looking at about $745,000 a
year, what it would cost you if you kept the facility -- if
you bought it and kept it open. On the other hand if you
close it, the Sheriff has got salaries at $300,000. We need
to add 30 percent in there for the benefits. He estimates
cars and equipment at 50,000; gas, oil, and maintenance at
about another $35,000. And he also addresses in his written
report to you the capacity needs of the jail, and estimates
that he would lose income on about 10 beds out of his jail,
which, at $37 a day for a year, is 135,000. So, the
negative impact on the Sheriff's budget if you close it is
10-25-09
213
1 I $610,000.
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 difference between those two figures is
about $135,000, which, on your general fund, amounts to
about 50 -- not 50 cents, but .56 pennies, slightly over
half a penny. Your -- your rollback rate is about 2.6. So,
I think what you're faced with -- with deciding is, you
know, for more or less half a penny on your -- on your tax
rate, you know, do you want to own the facility versus
closing the facility? And I think you have to look at the
ancillary benefits and negatives to each -- you know, to
each. If you close it, yeah, you could save half a penny in
your tax rate, but you're dealing with a long-term municipal
bond rating that's much lower. You're dealing with having
to have more people on your Sheriff's Department, and the
headaches and the transportation of juveniles to other
facilities. I'll let the -- the Sheriff's already made
comments about what he thinks will happen with juvenile
crime. On the other hand, you know, if you close the thing
and you're sending your prisoners out of state, there may be
-- I mean out of county, there may be some, you know,
liability benefits. I've heard a couple Commissioners
mention that. So --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think your
assessment -- what you've given us and what you said is
about as close as we're going to get to having our arms
10-25-04
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
214
around the issue. So, we can beat this for another couple
days, and it wouldn't likely be much different than this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, this is
welcome, to put it together this way as a spreadsheet.
MS. HARRIS: I've got one more thing to say,
and then I'm going to sit down.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, ma'am?
MS. HARRIS: I've signed on to ride for this
brand, and I'm riding for this brand, and I will continue to
ride for this brand. Put all the money aside, put all the
figures aside, put all of this mess aside. You've got a
bunch of other people that are riding for the brand, too;
that are sitting out at that facility, that have hung onto
that saddle horn just as hard and fast as they can, the ones
that were here before I ever got here, and they had a rough
ride, and they have stuck it out. Then I came along and I
signed on, and six other people did too, and they're hanging
on, and they intend to hang on as well. You've got a
humanistic side to this, gentlemen. We didn't sign on just
to ride fence; we signed on to do everything. We signed on
for the duration. Now, I understand that you've got a
decision to make, and I understand that it's based on money.
Everything is, and I'm realistic enough to know that. What
I'm asking you is, we reed to know. My people have been
10-25-04
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
215
very, very patient, but they're scared, and I have lost some
-- some people. I've had three men quit. The women are
still there, but the three men quit. But they need to know.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I hate that part of
it worse than anything else.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, let me come back to an
issue that I raised with the Sheriff about his budget of
almost $2 million, what he is generating to offset it, which
is not a whole lot of money.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: For the past eight, nine
years, that juvenile facility has been paying its own way.
It hasn't been a blip on the radar screen to this Court to
speak of, 'cause there was no need for it. Paying its
expenses of operation, paying its debt service, creating a
reserve, positive. A little over a year ago, the rules of
the game changed. Expenses went up, revenue went down, and
during the course of this year, that reserve has dissipated
because of the deficit. I'm just wondering if -- if we
haven't, in our minds, created an expectation or a
requirement that a juvenile detention facility be
self-sustaining or self-supporting. Have we kind of come to
expect that? Require it? We had a great deal for a number
of years, but I think the good ride's over. We didn't cause
10-25-04
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
216
it to happen; we just happened to be -- happened to be
around when it happened.
I don't see any reason why the juvenile
justice system should be treated any differently from the
adult criminal justice system. I can see a reason why you
may want to invest more in your juvenile justice system than
you do in your adult criminal justice system. When these
young people are in this phase of their life, before they
become legally adults for criminal responsibility purposes,
we have a greater ability to rehabilitate them, to turn
them, as it were, than you do with adults once they start on
their life of crime. I think it's very much like the Fram
commercial; you pay me now or you pay me later. If you look
at a -- just a typical adult criminal justice situation,
Class A or B misdemeanor offense, an adult, the individual's
arrested, incarcerated. You figure the administrative
costs, law enforcement costs to do the arrest, the
investigation, bonding costs, the legal cost for both the
prosecution and the defense -- and, yeah, we pay most of
that, 'cause most of them are indigent -- the clerical and
the administrative expense of the courts, post-adjudication
supervision. You start running up these numbers, you can
make a pretty good case about spending some money up front
to keep kids from getting into that adult criminal justice
system.
10-25-04
1
r.... 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
217
You want to stack some more numbers on top of
it? The adult that was arrested, he loses his job because
he was arrested; he was in jail for a few days, maybe. He's
got dependents; a wife, children. What sort of demands do
they put on social services? Start running some of those
numbers and see what you come up with. Where are you going
to spend your money? Are you going to try and solve the
problem up front? I see these kids, and I know there are
some of them that can be turned. But if they're not turned,
they're going to end up in the adult criminal justice
system. It's merely a call to where you spend the money and
what benefits you derive. It's a tough decision, but I
don't think we should have the expectation that any law
enforcement, criminal justice system, juvenile, adult,
mental health issues there or not there, ought to be
self-sufficient. If we could make every operation of
government self-sufficient, we wouldn't have to levy taxes.
It's a tough call, gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is that.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's time to fish or cut bait.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, a
comment on that. And I don't disagree with anything you
said, Judge. But part of the problem is that the facility's
a lot more than we need for the juvenile facility. And
we're not talking -- I mean, long-term, we need it as -- for
10-25-04
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
218
the jail. But from a short-term decision today, we don't
need that jail part, so we're having to make a decision to
buy a lot more than we need, you know, which makes it a lot
harder from my standpoint. My next question, has the
Juvenile Board -- I presume they have met and discussed
these same basic numbers and issues. Do they have a
recommendation?
JUDGE TINLEY: The Juvenile Board's approach
at this point in time is, the Juvenile Board has no ability
to generate any revenue, so it doesn't make any difference
where they'd like to go. They don't have the funding to go
anywhere independently.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, is that a no, they
don't have a recommendation? Or -- I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: We --	the	Juvenile	Board	has
not adopted any official position.	They	haven't	been	asked
to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, this is one of
the greatest phenomenons in history, in my opinion. I
remember sitting at this table, and when -- (cell phone
rang) That's a $200 fine -- $400. The -- the Juvenile
Board comes in and wants to form this corporation many years
ago, and we were told that that is the reason you're going
to form this corporation, is to remove it from the
Commissioners Court and the taxpayers, and that thing get
10-25-04
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
219
out there and run on its own and be its own self out there.
The Commissioners Court has nothing to do with it. The
taxpayers are totally removed from the picture. And -- and
in a short period of time, suddenly here we are completely
and 100 percent responsible for this entire deal, and can't
even get a recommendation from the Juvenile Board to what --
what we should do. That's a sad commentary, in my opinion.
And that was a few short years. Zero, nothing to do with
the taxpayers. 100 percent. It's just absolutely a
phenomenon, in my mind.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- what --
you know, I guess a second -- I won't say a second issue.
If I was to decide to bail it out and buy it, if the County
recommended it, a condition, from my standpoint, is the
Juvenile Board will no longer operate anything out there,
because they haven't showed an accountability to operate it
this time, in my mind. And I understand some of the
situation. And the Juvenile Board still exists; I
understand that's by law. They're out there; they can do
the things that they do in other counties, but I don't see
why they need to manage the facility. Doesn't make sense to
me. I think it should be either run under a corporation
formed by this Court, with people that we appoint to run it,
or run by this Court.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We may be getting
10-25-04
220
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pretty close to getting into strategic issues. You've got a
-- you've got a good question, but I'm wondering, where do
we -- does the information-gathering or tactical part quit
and the strategy part begin?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's time for
that. I think we need to have some searching discussions
here, and I think a lot of that has to do with strategy, and
I would recommend we go in executive session.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we get an order to
that extent?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You need to take a
restroom break? If you like, I'll move we go in executive
session. Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I assume that`s the consensus.
Is that your consensus, --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. We're
moving forward here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe you can do some further
bashing of the Juvenile Board even in a more fist-pounding
manner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll do it in
private.
10-25-09
221
1
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'll close the open
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In my mind, there's --
well, I would say that several in the audience may want to
stay nearby in case we have any specific questions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think --
MR. HENDERSON: Want me in or out?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we'll need you,
need the Sheriff, need Ms. Harris probably.
(The open session was closed at 3:15 p.m.,
and an Executive Session was held, the
transcript of which is contained in a
separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back into open
session. It is 4:47, it looks like. Does any member of the
Court have anything to offer on the matters that were
discussed in executive session?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, can you
improve your handwriting a little bit?
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably not. That's probably
better than what it is generally.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that
Kerr County Commissioners Court make an offer to the trustee
to continue the lease and the operating agreement for a
period up to 12-31-04, with the option to extend for
successive 30-day periods; that we will not be responsible
10-25-09
222
1
.__. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for attorney fees that may have been incurred by the
trustee, and the County will -- what's that? -- oh, will
cover operational cost deficiencies; and that the County
intends to acquire the facility contingent upon, one,
existing bondholders waiving the call feature, or accept a
tender offer on an acceptable basis to Kerr County and the
bondholders; secondly, being able to legally issue
certificate of obligations in an amount necessary for the
acquisition costs to acquire the existing -- to pay off the
existing bonds, based on an acceptable tender offer; and
third, receiving appropriate assurances from the Texas
Commission on Jail Standards that the new portion of the
existing Juvenile Detention Facility can be modified at a
reasonable amount -- reasonable sum to house 48 adult
maximum-security prisoners.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could you restate that
motion, please?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Contingent upon all of
those things?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If any one of those
things don't rise to this level; i.e., the 48 adult beds,
then the whole thing's off?
JUDGE TINLEY: We would have the option, yes,
10-25-04
223
1
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 way the motion is stated. Our acquisition of the
property will --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Back to square one
and talk some more.
(Cell phone rang.)
MR. HENDERSON: $600, this man's up to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, 600 bucks.
MR. HENDERSON: $800.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Going to pay those
attorney fees, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pay the Commissioner.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion before the
Court. Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, should there not
be additional language -- any other requirements that our
legal counsel may deem appropriate to add to that offer?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would accept that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Subject to reasonable approval
of County legal counsel.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's pretty normal.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
10-25-09
224
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And who's going to get
this to counsel?
MR. HENDERSON: We will have a conference
call in the morning.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good.
MR. HENDERSON: The Judge and I and the
attorney will discuss this in the morning.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, good.
MR. HENDERSON: Or this afternoon. I see the
Judge looking at his watch.
JUDGE TINLEY: We may do it sooner rather
than later. 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. We
have one more item on the agenda that we've not acted upon,
being Item 12. I sent out a memo to a number of elected
officials and department heads. I've not gotten as good a
return as I expected to have on those by this time. I don't
see it as something that it's barn-burning; I'd just as soon
pass it for now. So --
10-25-09
225
1
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: I was kind of excited
about it. I thought we were to the point where we really
needed to move on something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You and I are going
to have a party line.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, we're not. That's
exactly my point here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's exactly your
point.
JUDGE TINLEY: You don't have one now, do
you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, we don't.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you're okay, then.
You're good for a while.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not going there.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, we'll go ahead and pass on
that item. The Auditor's not here. We have, I think, one
budget amendment, do we not?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wasn't that taken
care of in the agenda item?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir. We only paid the
bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We did that, didn't we?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We paid the bills.
to-z5-o9
226
1
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 paid the bills.
Didn't do the budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was in the
agenda item. We approved it earlier.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wasn't that Law Library
thing an agenda item?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The District Clerk's?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, that was a
different --
MS. PIEPER: That was, like, a records
management for a microfiche reader. This is something
different.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Different fund?
Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Budget amendment is from the
County Law Librarian to increase County Law Library budget
by $1,919.86, funds to come from Fund 18, surplus.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any further
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
10-25-04
227
1
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: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That notion does carry. I
have before me a transcript of the Commissioners Court
meeting Tuesday, October 12th, 2004. Do I hear a motion
that this transcript be approved as submitted?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the transcript as submitted. 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: I also have before me monthly
reports presented by Justice of the Peace Precinct 1,
Justice of the Peace Precinct 2, Justice of the Peace
Precinct 3, and Justice of the Peace Precinct 4, as amended,
and the Kerr County Environmental Health Department. Do I
hear motion that these reports be approved --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- as presented?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
10-25-09
228
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approval of the listed 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: The motion does carry. Have
we got any reports from any of the Commissioners on matters
that are peculiar to their respective liaison assignments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not here, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any elected official have a
report they want to render to the Court at this point? Any
department head have a report they want to render to the
Court? Any further business? We stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 4:55 p.m.)
10-25-04
229
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF KERR ~
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 2nd day of November,
2004.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : ~~~~/G
Kathy B nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
10-25-04
ORDER N0.28882
SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR MINOR REVISION OF TRS. 15 & 16 BLUFF
CREEK RANCH.
Came to be heard this the 25th 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 set a public hearing for the 13th day of October 2004 at 10:00 A.M. for Tracts 15
and 16 Bluff Creek Ranch.
ORDER NO. 28883
AWARD BIDS FOR TRUCK-MOUNTED ASPHALT AND WATER
DISTRIBUTOR
Came to be heard this the 25th day of October 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 the bids from Cooper Equipment, and authorize the Judge to
sign the title.

..
ORDER NO. 28884
PROPOSED 2005 BUDGET FOR KERR EMERGENCY 9-1-1 NETWORK.
Came to be heard this the 25th day of October 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 3-1-0 the 2005 Budget for Kerr Emergency 9-1-1 Network..
1
..
ORDER N0.28885
BIDS RECEIVED FOR ELECTRICAL, HVAC, PLUMBING AND PEST
CONTROL SERVICE.
Came to be heard this the 25th day of October 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously
1 approved by a vote of 4-0-0 all Bids received.
ORDER N0.28886
BUDGET AMENDMENT
DISTRICT CLERK'S RECORDS PRESERVATION FUND.
Came to be heard this the 25th day of October 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to amend fund 33-635-411 to appropriate $1,400.00 fora pre-
owned Canon PC-80 reader printer.
ORDER NO.28887
RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT WITH RBC DAIN RAUSCHER INC.
Came to be heard this the 25th day of October 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 the renewal of agreement with RBC Dain Rauscher Inc
as Kerr County's Financial Advisor.
ORDER N0.28888
REVISION OF PLAT FOR TRACT 118 KERRVILLE SOUTH II
Came to be heard this the 25th day of October 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 the revision of Tract 118 Kerrville South II.

„~ ORDER N0.28889
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
On this the 25th day of October 2004, came to be considered by the Court various
Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Expenses Amount
10-General $177, 5 84.15
14-Fire Protection 13,000.00
15-Road & Bridge 84,400.71
18-County Law Library 4,410.89
26-JP Technology 362.72
32-Parks 84.76
50-Indigent Health Care 42,214.89
80-Historical Commission 47.90
Total Cash Required for all Funds $322,105.99
Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Nicholson.
The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to pay said Claims and Accounts.
ORDER NO. 28890
EXTENSION OF LEASE AND OPERATING AGREEMENT
FOR JUVENILE DETENTION FACILILTY.
Came to be heard this the 25th day of October 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously
approved to make an offer to continue existing lease and agreement for a period up to
12/31/04
ORDER N0.28891
BUDGET AMENDMENTS
COUNTY LAW LIBRARY
Came to be heard this the 25th day of October 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following the following expense codes;
Expense Code Description Requested +()
18-650-590 Books $1,919.86
Funds to come from Fund #18 Surplus Reserves
ORDER NO. 28892
READ AND APPROVE MINUTES
Came to be heard this the 25th day of October 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the Minutes from Regular Session Tuesday, October 12,
2004.
ORDER NO. 28893
APPROVE AND ACCEPT MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 25th day October 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of
4-0-0 the following Monthly Reports.
Justice of the Peace 1, 2, 3 and 4
Kerr County Environmental Health Department