~a,~rf

1
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, November 22, 2004
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
~i
~i
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
2
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
I N D E X
November 22, 2004
PAGE
---	Commissioners' Comments	3
1.1	Approval of Resolution in support of Kerr County	
	being part of the Hill Country Trail Region	6
1.2	Consider plan design for employee health benefits	
	program, determine which proposals may be	
	acceptable for further negotiations	11
1.3	Blanket court order to pay election workers for	
	their services for future elections	20
1.4	Request Court approval to rehire employee at a	
	salary higher than entry level	22
1.5	Discuss Reverse 911 emergency communications system	24
1.6	Final Plat of Eagle Ridge Subdivision, Pct. 4	41
1.7	Preliminary Plat of Big Sky Ranch, Pct. 4	44
1.8	Consider variances for revision of plat for Lots	
	6 & 7 and part of Lots 4 & 5 of Hartshorn Country;	
	abandon unimproved county easement, set public	
	hearing	53
1.9	Consider awarding bids for Exhibit Center roof and	
	HVAC	55
1.10	Approve lease of four new Sheriff's patrol units,	
	authorize County Judge to sign same, and approve	
	first year's lease payments as budgeted	71
1.11	Consider salary supplement for Family and Consumer	
	Science Agent position at Extension Office	73
1.12	Approve form contracts with County-sponsored	
	entities, authorize County Judge to sign same	78
1.13	Approve form contracts with volunteer fire	
	departmetns, authorize County Judge to sign same	80
1.14	Discuss financial status and projections at	
	Juvenile Detention Facility, consider any budget	
	amendments	82
1.15	Consider extension of Temporary Lease & Operating	
	Agreement at Juvenile Detention Facility	82
1.16	Consider and discuss status of acquisition of	
	Juvenile Detention Facility (Executive Session)	82
3.1	Action taken on Executive Session matters	109
4.1	Pay Bills	112
4.2	Budget Amendments	129
4.3	Late Bills	131
4.4	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	132_
---	Adjourned	134
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, November 22, 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 Kerr
County Commissioners Court scheduled for this date and time,
Monday, November the 22nd, at 9 a.m. It's that time now.
Commissioner 3, I believe it's your honors this morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Please stand and join me
in a moment of prayer.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if
there's any member of the audience or the public that wishes
to address the Court on any item or matter that is not a
listed agenda item, you're free to come forward at this
time. If it's your desire to address the Court on a listed
agenda item, we would ask that you wait until that time to
do so, and we'd further ask that you fill out a
participation form. There are forms at the back of the room
that you can fill out. It's not absolutely necessary, but
it helps me to keep track of you and make sure that I don't
overlook you, so that we would ask that you do that. Is
there any member of the public that wishes to talk or speak
11-22-04
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to the Court about any matter that's not listed on the
agenda? If so, feel free to come forward at this time.
Seeing no one coming forward, I guess not. Commissioner 3,
what do you have for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two things. I would like
the remind everybody that this weekend is Christmas in
Comfort. For those that have never attended, it's quite a
unique celebration. It's a night parade, all-day
festivities, lots of shops open, vendors. And I don't know
how many entries they have, but usually -- in the parade.
Usually they have, oh, about 150 or so entries. I think it
starts at 7 o'clock usually. We encourage everyone to come
down to watch that. And I think the other comment goes a
little bit to the weather. I don't know how much rain the
western part of the county had, but the eastern part of the
county, as Road and Bridge is quite aware, has had another
pretty severe flood; washed out a lot of the crossings in
Lane Valley, Hermann Sons, Cypress Creek area. Appreciate
all their work. And it seems these things always happen at
night and on weekends, and we appreciate that crew going out
and helping the public during those events. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 4?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We`re pretty
saturated in west Kerr County. We can't take too much more
rain and the river is up a little bit, but there`s not any
11-22-04
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
flooding been going on. That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. The -- we
had -- had a Christmas tree lighting at the courthouse last
Saturday, and I'm sure the Judge is going to speak to that,
but it was a lot of fun. The parade and all was a -- it was
fun, and I heard numbers this morning of about 250 people --
or 2,500 -- 2,500 people maybe here at the courthouse at
that function, so it was a lot of fun. And I see that high
school football in our part of the country is over for the
year, and it's kind of a good thing. Now we have to put up
with basketball for about a month before we get into the
real man's sport of track. So, I just wanted to get you
guys ready. Track is on its way, and we'll be talking about
that. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner 2?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think kudos go to
the Christmas Lighting Corp. for their work. It's a
really -- the grounds looked good. I know the public enjoys
it, and my thanks and appreciation to them for what they do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: As Commissioner Baldwin and
Williams said, we had our lighted Christmas parade this last
11-~2-09
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Saturday, and it culminated in turning on of the courthouse
Christmas lights to signal the beginning of the local
holiday season. I want to thank the Christmas Lighting
Corporation for all their hard work. I particularly also
want to thank our maintenance staff for all of their extra
work and hours that they put in, and the hard work they add
to this project. Some of you out there that are maybe not
in your twilight years that want to participate with those
folks, they're issuing a call for new and younger blood, and
I would encourage you to join them. It was quite enjoyable
to see the number of people that came out for the parade and
the -- and the ceremonies here on the courthouse lawn in
spite of the weather. As most of you will recall, it was
pretty mucky, and -- but I was tickled to death to see that
many of our citizens from all walks of life. I think the
children drug some of their parents down here because of
Santa Claus being here, and that's good. Whatever it takes.
But I was just tickled to death to see our citizens using
the courthouse and public facilities, and I think everybody
had a good time, and I thank all of those who participated
in it. Let's get on with the agenda, if we might. First
item on the agenda is consider and discuss the approval of a
resolution in support of Kerr County being part of the Hill
Country Trail Region. Ms. Burditt?
MS. BURDITT: Good morning. For the record,
11-22-04
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
my name is Sudie Burditt, and address is 2108 Sidney Baker.
Today I'm here representing the Texas Historic Commission
instead of the Kerrville Convention and Visitors Bureau.
I'm chairman of the Heritage Trails Program for the Texas
Historic Commission, and I am in need of a resolution in
support of reactivating -- and I have some things to pass
out to you. This is the original trail map from 1967. And,
as you can tell, they're antiques, and I want them back,
gentlemen. Governor John Connally, in 1967, established --
asked the Texas Historic Commission to establish trails
throughout the state of Texas for the visitors who were
coming to Texas for the world's fair, which we know as
Hemisfair in San Antonio. The program was done with those
maps. The signs that were put up by TexDOT remain today,
the Texas Hill Country Trail signs. We -- we lost funding
for the maps in early 1980 -- or in the early 1980's, and so
the program, as far as the maps, have been dormant during
this time. Texas Monthly, in the late '80's, did a program
funded by GMC that was an attempt -- they did it one time
only, and so we have been without the maps to go with the
TexDOT signs all these years.
In 1997, the Texas Historic Commission funded
-- started funding one a year to reactivate the 10 trails
and redo colored maps that would do somewhat the same thing
as the early 1967 maps. We are starting the process, and it
11-22-09
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is now time for the Hill Country Trail to do our
application. It is due in Austin by 4 p.m. on May 6th.
Texas Historic Commission will consider our application in
their July Commission meeting. We must have the support of
all 19 counties in order to do this project. The Historic
Commission has $150,000 to fund the program and to print the
maps, and what we need to do on our individual parts is
effort. One of the things that's going to happen is all of
our historic attractions and cultural attractions must be
reinventoried, and so I have a meeting November the 30th
that we have put out for the Historical Commission and Hill
Country Preservation Society and all of those interested in
those type projects to be present at the Union Church at
3 p.m. on November the 30th, and I would like in my
possession at that time a resolution from the Kerr County
Commissioners Court in support of the program. Questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. I have -- I
certainly don't object to the current boundary of the map,
but is there any way to change the boundary or add areas to
it?
MS. BURDITT: No. They're -- the Historic
Commission is not going to consider -- well, what happens
is -- and the biggest one that I've seen in this whole deal
is Fort Martin Scott is not on the Forts Trail. I think
maybe the Forts Trail is the one going around. Fort Martin
11-22-09
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Scott, because in 1967, it was a -- a pile of rubble. And
the Historic Commission is not addressing changing any of
the boundaries or the trail. Now, what's happening is, we
are able to -- because of Internet, the web site will have
-- the new attractions will be on the maps, and each county
will probably end up with -- we're going to -- we're
shooting for 15 to 20 for Kerr County. And what will
happen, though, is all the additional ones will be on the
web sites. And that's how -- that's how they're expanding
the trails.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do the locations in the
county need to be on the map, or just in the county? I
mean, do they have to be on the roads that are designated,
or just somewhere in the county?
MS. BURDITT: No, they have to be in the
county. They do not have to be in --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is Comfort not on
there? Is that what this is all about?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bandera Pass isn't on
there. I mean, it's just -- you know, there's two roads --
a couple roads that are --
MS. BURDITT: Well, Bandera Pass is one of
our 15 on the inventory we've started. You know, we'll
fine-tune that on -- on the 30th when we're all -- when
we're all together. But it's obviously one of the majors,
11-22-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
as far as our inventory would be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where's the funding
for maps going to come from?
MS. BURDITT: Historic Commission. That's
why they're only -- that's why they're only doing one a year
from '97, is because of the budgeting amounts to do them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Statewide
distribution?
MS. BURDITT: Statewide distribution, 500,000
printed the first time. And they will -- they are not
budgeting to reprint them, but they are setting up a
system -- by doing trails and by doing regional committees,
they're setting up a system so that in '08 or '09, at
whatever point we have to, the second printing will have to
come from the regions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Basic distribution
goes through agencies like your Convention and Visitors
Bureau?
MS. BURDITT: And the TexDOT information
centers for the regions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval of the
resolution.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
11-22-09
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
11
approval of the resolution. Any question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
MS. BURDITT: Thank you, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate
you being here today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Sudie.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is
a timed item at 9:15, and it appears to be very close to
that time now. Consider and discuss plan design for
employee health benefits program and determination of
proposals which may potentially be acceptable for further
negotiations between the proposers and the employee health
benefits consultant. Mr. Gary Looney, our health benefits
consultant, is here with us today.
MR. LOONEY: Judge. Morning, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Morning.
MR. LOONEY: What I'd like to do today is
accomplish two things. One, I think that you have some
information that was provided to you in your packets that
gives a specimen contract of a health reimbursement
11-22-09
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
12
arrangement. There's also samples of a simplified plan
design on several pages that's just identified, "Benefit
Schedule." That is not the recommended benefit schedule;
that is a working model. That is not what is being
recommended for the employees at this time. What we're
looking at for the next presentation is a comparison between
the benefit plan as to where you are today and the optional
benefit plan that we're requesting to be proposed from the
different providers that I have identified as the last four
best and final offer individual companies we'd like to get
information from. So, the next step is to take the current
plan design, compare that with the bidders that we're going
to offer the best and final offer to, and then also the
alternate plan design, which is actually a blending of your
Plan A and B with a health reimbursement arrangement, and
then retention of another option that will be a lesser
benefit at a lower cost option. The best and final offer
will be offered to the four organizations or the four
identified people in my letter. And if -- what I need today
is your approval to move forward with that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This -- that we're
looking at does not represent a proposed new plan?
MR. LOONEY: No, sir. No, that is -- that's
a specimen.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you've
11-22-09
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
13
answered my question in your comments, but I was looking for
some comparison against the existing plan, and I don't see
that here.
MR. LOONEY: Comparisons between the
existing --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was looking for
comparison to what we have before us to our existing plan,
but that's coming later?
MR. LOONEY: That's coming later, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: That's -- that specimen that you
see is a working document that we use for comparison
purposes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it a complete
working document?
MR. LOONEY: That's the specimen -- the
benefit plan specimen. Those are just the specifications of
benefits themselves. It's not the entire document, no.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 'Cause one of
the things I did not see, Gary, was --
MR. LOONEY: The H.R.A. arrangement is not
associated with that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I didn't see
prescription drugs in there, either.
MR. LOONEY: The prescription drugs are --
11-22-04
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
14
you know, there should -- if they're not in there, they
should have been. It's a page that's missing. But that's
just what we're using from the working document at this
point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what you really need
today is just authorization to talk to the four companies to
see if they can offer what we --
MR. LOONEY: To see if they'll be able to
perform the services that we're requesting under the health
reimbursement arrangement. They already have bid on the
basis for the basic contracts. Now we're trying to take it
to the next step.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, now I am
confused a little bit by your answer. Is what we're looking
at what we're proposing?
MR. LOONEY: No, sir, it's not. What that --
I'm not really sure how you got that document, as a matter
of fact, because that's a working -- that's a working
document. That's from my --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I picked up my book
and it was in my book.
MR. LOONEY: Well, that was -- that's from
my -- that's actually from my files. So, you know, I'm --
when I saw it this morning, I figured y'all were going to be
11-22-04
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
15
confused by that. I apologize for that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know our
administrative assistant is good. I didn't know she was
that good, that she could get into your file.
MR. LOONEY: I thought she got into my files
when I looked at it this morning, and I was worried -- I was
a little worried about that, because --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like this document; it
helps explain it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It does.
MR. LOONEY: It's a benefit -- it's a benefit
structure that I use to work from to develop the
comparisons, is what I use it for. And that's actually my
working document. So, I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: I apologize for the confusion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Looney, if I understand
what you're seeking today, it's authority from the Court to
proceed to final negotiations between the four listed
proposers who you believe potentially could be accepted, any
one of which could be accepted --
MR. LOONEY: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- by the Court for their
plan, so that you might obtain from them their final and
best offer with respect to basically our current plan, as
11-22-04
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
16
slightly modified as you'd indicated, and secondarily, with
options for the H.R.A. that you're -- you are proposing to
go with, analyzing whether or not those proposers are
capable of, in fact, performing under those documents?
MR. LOONEY: That's correct, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that we
authorize our risk management consultant, Gary Looney, to
proceed with negotiations with Employee Benefit
Administrators, Inc.; Mutual of Omaha; Group and Pension
Administrators, Inc.; and Benefit Planners, and in an effort
to continue work towards our insurance -- county health
insurance. That's it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
the authorization for the consultant to continue to
negotiate with the four named proposers. Any further
question or discussion on the motion? Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just for
clarification, when we had the workshop, we -- among other
things, we learned something about the H.R.A., health
reimbursement, and the H.S.A., health savings account.
These are still on the table as options?
MR. LOONEY: Yes, those are still on the
table as options.
11-22-04
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
17
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Coincidentally, I
picked up an out-of-state newspaper a day or two ago, and it
was talking about the that state's rolling out a new health
savings account, which is --
MR. LOONEY: Is that Tennessee?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, Arkansas. Of
25,000 eligible employees, 45 signed up. And it went on to
the school district; it was a bigger flop than that. So,
I'm -- I would be pretty reluctant to consider that.
MR. LOONEY: The Stag of Texas offered to
the teacher retirement system this year -- prior to this
year, they had planned on offering a health savings account
to all teachers, and in August they pulled that option from
the offering. So, H.S.A. -- H.R.A. is the primary; H.S.A.
is secondary. The only other thing, Judge, is timing. Do
you have a court meeting scheduled before December the 2nd
next month?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, but we could.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, our meetings -- our
regularly scheduled meetings are the second and fourth
Mondays. But I understand the urgency and the need to get
this matter resolved, and --
MR. LOONEY: I'd like for you to consider a
special court session, possibly later in the week. Not the
2nd, but later in the week, to go over and make a
11-22-04
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The 2nd is a Thursday.
MR. LOONEY: Thursday?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thursday, December 2nd?
MR. LOONEY: December 2nd, yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have probate in the morning,
but I could probably be available probably by 11:00.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How long do you
anticipate?
MR. LOONEY: It will probably take anywhere
from an hour and a half to probably, at the most, two hours.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1:00?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure what I have in
the way of juvenile hearings scheduled. I normally have
juvenile hearings scheduled on Thursday starting at 1:30.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about Wednesday?
JUDGE TINLEY: Wednesday. I can work on
Wednesday.
MR. LOONEY: Later afternoon on Wednesday?
3:00?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 3:00.
JUDGE TINLEY: 3:00 on Wednesday is fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's December 1?
11-22-04
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
MR. LOONEY: December 1st.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What time?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 3 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 3 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gary, whatever you do,
don't link us with the state of Arkansas.
MR. LOONEY: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever they do, go
the other way.
MR. LOONEY: Either them or Tennessee, either
one. Tennessee just closed down their state-operated
program, reverted back to public. Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll post a notice, then, for
3 o'clock on Wednesday, December the 1st, to consider
adoption of employee health benefits plan.
MR. LOONEY: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Thank you very
much, sir. Appreciate you being here this morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We haven't voted, have
we? Did we vote?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we didn't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to vote.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We have a motion
and a second?
11-~2-04
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir.
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 on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and approve a
blanket court order to pay the election workers for their
services when submitted by the County Clerk to the Auditor
for all future elections. I think the Clerk wanted this
item on so that there wouldn't be a delay in her being able
to pay the people that work the election, and they could get
paid rather promptly.
MS. PIEPER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much delay is
there now?
MS. PIEPER: Well, usually we -- usually
there's at least a two-week delay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
MS. PIEPER: Usually there's a two-week
delay, because we have to wait until the next Commissioners
Court. Unless I put it on the agenda during the time
that -- of the canvassing. But this way, the -- the
11-22-09
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Assistant Auditor said if we do it this way, then the minute
I hand her the timesheets, then she starts figuring it and
can get them paid.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is just a policy
change. We can do this, I think, probably for future years,
'cause there's no more elections this year, so this is for
-- I have no problem with it. I mean, it's -- they're
budgeted funds. As long as they're budgeted funds and
there's money in the account, they're working, I don't see
any reason -- never have seen a reason for them to come to
us for approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are budgeted
funds for the election, but the actual bill exceeded the
budgeted funds.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if they don't have
the money --
MS. PIEPER: Not on the election judges. I
had plenty of money for the election judges and clerks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I thought I
read it the other way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of a
court order to authorize paying election workers for their
services when those bills are submitted by the County Clerk
to the County Auditor for all elections.
25
11-22-09
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
22
1
°" 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank
you, Ms. Pieper.
MS. PIEPER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item on the agenda is
request for the Court to approve the rehire of a previously
employed employee at a salary higher than entry level.
Ms. Uecker?
MS. UECKER: Yes, sir. I recently lost an
employee because she was moving to -- back home to south
Texas, and so I had the opening, and that was at a 13. The
employee that left was at a 13-6. I've had several
applicants for that position, one of them being a former
employee that worked for me about 20 years, and -- well,
actually, before I became District Clerk, and who's by far
the more qualified, and I would like to have her fill that
position, but rather than at the 13-1 entry, at the 13-6.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. Second.
11-22-04
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: That was a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was a motion, I
guess.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Rehire at 13-6; is that
correct?
MS. DECKER:
more, but, you know, that's
COMMISSIONER
that Simona was here before
MS. DECKER:
COMMISSIONER
MS. DECKER:
Yeah. I'd like for it to be
BALDWIN: Are you telling me
you?
No.
BALDWIN: Oh, god, nobody --
No, nobody's been here before
me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're talking Noah's
Ark stuff.
MS. DECKER: I learned to walk in this
courthouse.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And those funds are
budgeted because the employee that left was at a 13-6?
MS. DECKER: Right, mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
11-22-04
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"' 2 4
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
MS. DECKER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Thank you,
Ms. Decker. The next item on the agenda is Reverse 9-1-1.
That's interesting. Commissioner Williams, you want to
bring this one to us?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, I will. Several
months ago, I guess, really following the early spring
flood, I had a constituent call me and refer me to an
article in Express News about a Reverse 9-1-1 situation, or
a system that was in play in Comal County, I believe, and
wanted to know what, if anything, we could do about a like
situation here to provide warning for folks who live up and
down the river and the creeks in flooding situations. So, I
called our friend, Mr. Amerine, asked him what he knew about
it; he said he'd heard about it, but he would take a look
into it. And, so, with that introduction, I'd like for him
to tell us all about it, because it does seem to me that it
offers some potential, particularly in a county like ours
where flooding events are frequent. Thank you for coming,
Bill.
MR. AMERINE: Thank you, Commissioners, Judge
Tinley. Thank you for having me here today to talk about
this emergency communications system. And I'm going to stop
11-22-04
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
referring to it as Reverse 9-1-1, because that's actually a
registered product name, and I don't want them calling me
and asking me how interested I am in buying it at this point
in time. But I think Reverse 9-1-1, the reason why that's
caught on is because that's -- essentially, the concept
behind this is that you have some form of an emergency that
you want to notify a large segment of your population. You
use largely the same databases that we use for the typical
9-1-1 system; phone list, phone numbers, locations. This is
something that's already been nationally used by multiple
jurisdictions. There's a hoard of companies out there
providing services, and I'm going to talk a little bit about
the difference between those types of services, and the --
the capability versus cost, and then talk about what the
Court might want Kerr 9-1-1 to do going forward, as far as
perhaps providing full-blown business cases, cost analysis,
and maybe implementation plans for a future date.
Essentially, an emergency communication
Reverse 9-1-1 system is -- is the ability to call a segment
of your population with a prerecorded message and let them
know that they're in some form of public safety hazard.
Could be a chemical spill, a derailment of a train, like
we've seen several in San Antonio with toxic chemicals. It
could be the Guadalupe going over its banks. Could be an
escaped convict, which we just recently had here in Kerr
11-22-04
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
County. It can be any number of things. It could be used
for letting folks know that there's a lost child. I mean,
the limit of -- there is no limit on the sort of things that
a jurisdiction could use this notification system for.
There's two basic types of systems. There is
a service that you can pay for; provide your databases --
your phone databases, and essentially they manage all the
infrastructure, the hardware, the premise equipment, if you
will, the phone lines, to be able to provide these messages
when you need them. There's a standard package with a
certain number of timed calls that you get for an annual
fee. If you exceed that, there's a cost for exceeding that
fee. There's also a premise-based -- or an equipment-based
system that you could actually buy the hardware, the phone
lines, and you could manage all that yourself. There's
typically -- just like with our 9-1-1 system that we manage
today, there's upgrade costs every few years. There's
maintenance costs, and there's also the month-to-month phone
line costs that you have to have to be able to provide that
service. It's not complex technology. It's not difficult
to manage.
There are -- from the funding perspective,
there are FEMA and other grant funds available to get you
started in this. What we really need to do next is have me
come back to the Court and provide you full business cases
11-22-04
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on a cost-versus-capability by vendor, and talk about what
the Court would like 9-1-1 to do -- Kerr 9-1-1 to do going
forward as far as implementing a system like this. And,
with that brief introduction of what it is, I'll answer any
questions you might have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: First question, is this
-- I mean, is this something that 9-1-1 will undertake?
MR. AMERINE: I think that's something for
discussion. It's not mandated by law. It is a public
service. It could be managed by any number of groups, by a
collective of the law enforcement agencies in Kerr County.
It could be by P.D. or by the Sheriff's Office. It could be
us. It's not mandated by law, but, certainly, we could do
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the cost --
MR. AMERINE: Cost can be substantial if you
buy your own equipment. It can be fairly affordable if you
don't, but it's based upon capability. If you're only going
to make a few thousand calls a year, 30-second to 1-minute
calls per year, which will be based on the events that occur
here in Kerr County that require a call, then it can be
quite affordable. If we were going to use it for
everything, it can be -- can become quite expensive. I
mean, if you looked at the packet I provided you, you saw
costs that could be as little as $5,000 a year, all the way
ii-zz-o9
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
up to 50, 60, 70 thousand dollars a year. Just depends on
the system and the capability you buy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, the cost --
who would pay? The 9-1-1 budget, or --
MR. AMERINE: Certainly could be considered.
I'm not -- I'm not here today to say that's out of the
question, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, okay, it's on the
table for anyone.
MR. AMERINE: Yeah. I think understanding
full cost versus capability is the first step before
worrying about who's going to pay for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bill, I can
understand where you would get the information to
disseminate if it was a law enforcement matter. That would
originate from the Sheriff's Department or the Police
Department or Texas Department of Public Safety or something
like that. How would you gather the information for
dissemination if it were a flooding event?
MR. AMERINE: Well, I think TexDOT's
currently -- I mean, there's all sorts of things that are
going on right now to help the residents of Kerr County as
far as early flood warning. There was a demonstration -- I
didn't attend it, but I was over there at TexDOT for just
11-22-C4
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
part of the demonstration of some early warning devices.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got some
information to share with the Court here on that.
MR. AMERINE: Right. In all the instances
that I have actually called and spoken to folks, it seems to
be that this -- the process to get a Reverse 9-1-1 or an
emergency notification system has been a collective effort
by the various jurisdictions within a certain area. Hasn't
been a -- "Well, the Sheriff decided to do this," or "9-1-1
has decided to do this." It's been a collective effort,
because it's not just a single-user system. It wouldn't be
just for P.D.'s use or just for the Sheriff's use, or
TexDOT, or the Forest Service. We have wildfire problems
here, you know. Perhaps -- you know, there's any number --
the possibilities are unlimited on who might want to use
this, so I can't see how a single entity or jurisdiction
could possibly manage it and have control over it. Would
you really want -- and I don't mean this as any kind of
disparaging remark, but do you really want Kerrville Police
Department deciding that something the County wants to
notify citizens of doesn't meet the threshold for doing
that? So, I think all sorts of things to get from A to B
here have to happen, as far as setting up, what it's going
to cost, how it's going to be paid for, who's going to own
and operate it, what are the arguments for making a
11-22-04
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
notification. All those things have to be worked out in
advance. I don't think any of those are insurmountable.
I'm not talking years; we're talking months to work those
issues out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To the extent that
you're knowledgeable, how did Comal County set up its
system?
MR. AMERINE: My understanding -- and I
didn't see specifically Comal as much as I did some of the
other agencies, but many of the agencies have sat down and
gone through this process that I just defined; finding out
what the cost will be based upon vendor, getting the
interested parties together to talk about co-ownership of
responsibilities and costs, and then actually requesting the
funding. And, in many cases, grant funds, like I say, have
been used. There's a real direct tie to interoperability,
which is a big keyword for FEMA funds, and there's a
Homeland Security factor involved with a Reverse 9-1-1 kind
of capability that makes it a shoe-in for grant money. But,
again, on Comal County, I have not asked them how they did
their funding.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Amerine, following up a
bit on Commissioner Williams, in an event that requires
notification because of a geographical aspect, I assume this
is GIS-driven? You can merely carve out a segment and
11-22-04
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
everything -- everybody within that --
MR. AMERINE: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- those coordinates can be
notified?
MR. AMERINE: It's actually -- most systems
allow you to do any number of things. One of them is -- can
be list-driven, where you have a list of people that you
always want to notify in a certain event. And it can be
GIS-driven, where -- and it's really quite simple. We
already have the databases at 9-1-1 that will feed into a
Reverse 9-1-1 system, where someone does nothing more -- and
it may be a service agency that we provide the data to. We
might say from this point on the Guadalupe to this point,
anybody within a 3-mile limit on either side of that road
needs to be notified. They draw a circle around that area.
It generates the call list. They record the message to go
out, and then they execute the message and it goes out,
typically around 1,000 calls per hour.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Following up on
Commissioner Williams' concerns, it would be important to be
real clear about who has the authority to put something
on -- what message goes on something like that. I'm
thinking about the chlorine leak down at San Antonio. You
had three or four different agencies there, and one of them
might have been saying there isn't any problem, and the
11-22-09
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
other one saying there's a problem and people need to leave
their houses, and the third one saying no, people ought to
stay in their houses. It would be -- there's a lot of
potential to do something badly wrong on whatever the
message is in a situation like that. Floods are probably a
lot more clear, or criminals roaming around the county. But
there are some situations where we could put bad advice out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sure that's
probably true. It goes to the point Mr. Amerine was making
about someone else making the call as to what's important
and what's not. My original thought had to do basically
with flooding.
MR. AMERINE:
COMMISSIONER
Does TexDOT currently monit~
U.G.R.A. used to do that.
MR. AMERINE:
COMMISSIONER
MR. AMERINE:
Right.
WILLIAMS: Flooding information.
~r the rise in the river?
I do not --
WILLIAMS: They gave it up.
I do not know the answer to
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe they monitor
certain roads.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, but not when
the river's cresting and where.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I have -- on that
11-22-04
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
issue, though, I have talked to Greg Etter about that, and
they are looking at putting some models together, probably
with FEMA's help, so they can say rain -- like, a rain event
on Johnson Creek, what's that going to do, you know,
downstream, and how long it takes for that water to get down
to just one of the low water crossings. So, there will be
some notification when to -- the problem is, of course, it
depends on where the events are exactly and, you know, how
many -- how much it rains downstream.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember when
U.G.R.A. bought the early warning system and put them up.
They never did work, number one, and were probably purchased
with some taxpayers' money, but I understand that they --
now that they realize it couldn't work, they gave them to
another agency that's not even in our county. A taxpayers'
purchase there. But if you talk to the -- well, you talk to
the fire department people in the City of Kerrville, they'll
tell you that they still would prefer to rely on the old --
the olden way of the guy standing out on 1340 on a bridge
and telling -- calling and telling them on the phone,
"There's a 3-foot rise coming." That you can count on that,
and there's no question of it. And those old-timers out
there can tell you when it's going to hit Kerrville and the
whole thing.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a good
11-22-G9
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
system now; T.D. Hall calls me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Actually, there's -- the
system you're talking about the taxpayers paid for is up and
working. There are more monitors. You can go on the web
site for U.G.R.A. and you can get the exact level of the
river in, I believe, six different spots from Hunt to
Comfort, of the river. 'Cause it tells you how many feet it
is and how many cubic feet per second are flowing, and it's
from -- it's about a minute old -- no, it's every 20 minutes
it's updated, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that part of the
system they originally installed?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe so. I believe
those monitors that went down to -- I mean, the stuff that
went down to G.B.R.A. somehow got back to U.S.G.S. I think
it's that original -- I don't know. I don't know if it's
the same monitors, but it was part of that deal when it went
to G.B.R.A., as I understand it. And it's -- you can look
exactly -- the problem is, when I look at the data, I don't
know what it means. I don't know what it means when they're
telling me that the river is at 6 feet in Hunt. Well, I
don't know how -- you know, how high that is without going
out there with a measuring stick to tell me. I need some
better information so I know what that translates to through
ii-z2-o9
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
the flow of the river. If you look at -- like, for example,
they have one at Heeson Dam, they have a monitor. It will
tell you it's 2 feet. Well, 2 feet at the dam, 'cause the
river's so wide, will be 28 feet in Comfort. So, it's hard
to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's -- a lot of
that information is available now. You just -- someone
needs to translate it so it's more user-friendly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then this gets to
the dissemination of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
MR. AMERINE: Just kind of a -- a side note,
if you will. This isn't the first time this question has
been brought to Kerr 9-1-1. The Texas Department of Health
came to me to -- for databases, and then asked what methods
we would have for disseminating a public health issue where
they needed to get certain segments of our population in for
vaccines. A logical conclusion is you'd use something like
a Reverse 9-1-1 or an emergency notification system to
identify certain segments of the population to get the word
out as far as where they come to get vaccinated. So, it is
an ongoing, and becoming more prominently requested service.
I think the question is figuring how to get there. And it's
on my agenda, and I guess I'm asking the Court -- I think
11-22-04
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"` 2 4
25
Rusty wants to say something here -- but ask the Court
whether they'd like to have Kerr 9-1-1 continue to pursue
this to some fruition.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me make an inquiry, if I
might, first. Sometime back, the Sheriff brought us a
proposal for having several lines -- multiple phone lines
available for a mass notification situation. How does that
-- how does that relate, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's pretty well the
same thing. His deal would be a lot better. I've looked at
this for a number of years, because there's been too many
instances when we really needed to be able to notify a
certain group of the public. Jonathan and them can remember
a murder that occurred down there, and we get all these
calls, or we've had missing children on the weekend when I
can't get notification to all the surrounding areas. It's
one of the best programs I've ever seen, and doing it
through 9-1-1 would make the best sense in the world,
whether it's -- you know, the City budgets part of it, we
budget part of it or whatever. Because they've got the
database already, instead of trying to get people to sign up
and register, and you only get so many with a lot of the
plans I had looked at. Plus, the plans I had looked at ran
anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 trying to get that done,
and doing it as a county-wide deal through their
11-~2-04
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
organization and the emergency agencies putting in for it
would be best.
You could also adopt and have to adopt the
policies, kind of like the Amber Alert does, to where
there's certain criteria that has to be met before you can
put out that deal. But I'm kind of like Buster, too, on the
flooding situation. You know, the best predictors and the
best notification you're ever going to get of the flooding
is the officers or the volunteer fire departments that are
out there watching it coming up, 'cause they can tell -- or
T.D. Hall; I've used him for 20 years on letting us know
what the river's going to do, because he's so -- so great
out west. So, that's why you get it, and then if you've got
the protocol that you put that in and have a certain person
that's able to issue that and get it out to the people, that
it's a fabulous system. There's a lot of agencies across
the state and across all the states that are using it, and
it really needs to be looked into.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I, for one,
would like to see Mr. Amerine pursue it, come back with
something a little more definitive, but I wanted you to
bring it to us today. I'm not sure how the rest of the
Court feels about it. I do appreciate you taking the time
to do what you've done. I want to add one other thing to
this discussion. It's nothing that we're going to do or
11-22-04
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
need to spend money on, but at a recent meeting at TexDOT --
the Judge and I were there -- Mike Coward provided us with
this information. This is a new safety flood gauge that has
flashing lights and the transmission of signals and so forth
and so on. Believe it or not, I believe it's manufactured
in Boerne, and TexDOT's going to try three or four of them
here in Kerr County. It's new. It's a better alert system,
a warning system at the -- at the crossings. I'm not sure
which crossings they're going to arm with these new devices,
but they're going to do it and give it a test run here in
Kerr County.
JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me that we
basically have two areas of interest, and that is, one, a
little bit more specific information as it might relate to
Kerr County, its population, its -- the type of risks that
might be incurred or the type of notifications that might be
needed, number one. And, number two, what type of funding
-- outside funding is available out there in the way -- be
it FEMA, Homeland Security, or -- or other funds that might
be available to defray that cost. That's what I'd like to
see Mr. Amerine develop and get back with us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we need to
formalize that with a motion, Judge? Or just informally
indicate --
MR. AMERINE: I have it on my list of things
11-22-04
39

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to do, and I'll --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. AMERINE: -- I'll try to get more
definitive cases available for the Court and come back and
speak to you. If I could just make one final comment, I
know you'd like to move on in your agenda. Just about every
other jurisdiction that has this system has -- and perhaps
because a lot of citizens see these kind of notifications as
nuisance calls, it's essentially the same technology that
telemarketers use to contact folks with A.V.R.'s, automated
voice units, to try to sell you something. And despite the
fact that the messages that we might want to send out are in
the best interests of the people receiving calls, many of
the jurisdictions, if they have an "S" for subscription to
the program, have given citizens or companies the ability to
opt out of the program. That's something that we might want
to consider as we get down to more finite detail about what
these systems offer. So, anyway, just a final thought.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems to me that this
is really a County budget issue that we'll be talking about
-- well, I'm pretty sure it is. Probably won't be talking
about it until May or June, anyway, so I don't see that we
need to rush. Be happy to sit down and talk with you every
day, but I don't see County funding coming.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We won't need to do
11-22-04
40
1
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 every day.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the other
thing --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm relieved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At some point fairly
early in the process, City of Kerrville needs to be brought
into it.
MR. AMERINE: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because, I mean, it
doesn't make sense to do it --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Everybody.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- outside. It's got to
be county-wide.
MR. AMERINE: And there may be state funds
from D.P.S., because an awful lot of your hazardous spills
are going to be on I-10 coming through the county, so I
think all the jurisdictions need to be part of this process.
Here on Homeland Security, for this state, most agencies
like Kerrville P.D. have already received most of their
equipment. And I think this next round of funding that's
going to come, you know, ought to -- it's going to be a
little bit less, but it's going to be more geared towards
this type of program for the County to start doing for
notification, and you'll see some money available through
11-22-04
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that quite a bit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Bill.
JUDGE TINLEY: We thank you for bringing that
to us, Mr. Amerine.
MR. AMERINE: You're welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: Looking forward to your
further work on that. If there's nothing further on that
particular agenda item, we'll move forward. Next item is to
consider the final plat of Eagle Ridge Subdivision located
in Precinct 4. Good morning, Mr. Odom.
MR. ODOM: Good morning, Judge. Can I just
inject something here on this last conversation? I think if
you contact the D.P.S., Texas Department of Public Safety,
they're in charge or the coordinator for emergency
management, and I think the gentleman's name is Scott
McCord. And, also, the hazard mitigation grants I believe
is the Texas Water Commission, and so if you contact Scott
up there in Austin or the Water Board, maybe there's some
grant money for mitigation to do some of this that you're
talking about. Okay. What we're here for is the final plat
of Eagle Ridge Subdivision, and I think you have it before
you. Open for any discussions, but my recommendation is
that we accept this final plat.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
11-22-04
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- the plat of Eagle
Ridge Subdivision in Precinct 4.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just -- question. On the
floodplain portion, this delineates Zone A and Zone X.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is Zone A the floodway
and Zone X the 100-year floodplain? Or --
MR. ODOM: Zone A is an unnamed area. It's
not the floodway. Floodway is undefined in there. Zone X
is an area that floods maybe sheet flow for a foot or
something, but it's not anything that we can impose that's
where they can build at. But Zone A is -- is undefined as
far as the floodplain. And he's got this -- he's already
determined the B.F.E. out there, base flood elevation, plus
1 foot. And that's right up underneath each numbered area
where they had to build a fence forward to in that zone.
They could do it in Zone A, but I think they'd rather be in
Zone X as far as insurance is concerned. But they would be
coming to me on that.
MR. VOELKEL: Commissioner, Zone A is the
100-year floodplain; Zone X is the 500-year. And what
Mr. Odom says about it's undefined in Zone A, the map does
not give you any elevations. That's basically what we've
11-22-09
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
had to go out and find for this subdivision.
MR. ODOM: Thank you. That was an easy way
to say that. That makes exactly --
MR. VOELKEL: You said it.
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry, I'm going back to being
a lawyer now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One just said it the
Aggie way.
MR. ODOM: Zone A is 100 years, undefined,
and had to be determined. So, we -- my calculations, he
went out to determine that. Zone X is a 500-year frequency;
it happens about two-tenths of a percent. You got a 1
percent chance for a 100-year frequency. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The B.F.E., those are the
numbers in the box under --
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Like 1891 MSL?
MR. ODOM: Right.
MR. VOELKEL: That's correct.
MR. ODOM: That's correct, plus 1 foot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: Am I correct on that?
MR. VOELKEL: Right.
MR. ODOM: Did I answer your question
logically?
it-ZZ-o9
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I just wanted to
make sure there was a reasonable amount of property in each
lot to build on, and there is.
MR. ODOM: See this dotted line up there?
So, there's enough there that they can build. You know,
they could build in the -- in the Zone A, but they would
have to go through a letter of amendment for a revision for
fill and stuff like that. So, it could be done, but that's
up to the individual and what -- how much insurance they
wish to pay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did we vote?
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Thank you.
Let's move to next item, consider the preliminary plat of
Big Sky Ranch in Precinct 4.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the
right-of-way on that main road going through there?
MR. ODOM: Excuse me just a second. Let me
put this back here. The right-of-way is 60-foot. However,
in this preliminary plat, the previous County Engineer --
11-22-04
45
1
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 they originally came in with were about, I think, 50
lots. They've changed this back to 15-acre lots; they had
5-acre lots. That right-of-way is 60 foot, but there are
some -- some variances I'll bring to the Court. This thing
has already been built. Mr. Johnston had approved it about
a -- it was about a year ago, I think, and he approved the
subgrade and the sealcoat. I caught this, and we went out
and the Commissioner and I have looked at it. It was not
acceptable. It was to be a local road. They have it as a
country lane as the way this was coming down. So, they've
changed the preliminary to a country lane, which is a
16-foot pavement, to be County-maintained.
The lots were changed back to 15-acre lots or
greater, and I've got a situation out there that's been
approved by Franklin that I've got two cul-de-sacs that are
smaller than what they're supposed to be, but they're -- you
can turn the radius on them. I had my haul truck go out
there to try it. I had the individual's haul truck; my haul
truck was a little bit too short for it, 'cause it's longer,
but we feel like it's acceptable. The biggest thing that
would be going in there is a garbage truck. The sealcoat
was not with the correct rock. Wasn't TexDOT, but it was
pea gravel, and Franklin had allowed them to do that before
on another subdivision off Lange Ravine, and so those are
the two variances. Other than that, it was built to specs.
11-22-09
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
" 24
25
They've changed this up to be 15-acre lots, and I think --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You drill what,
three test holes to look at?
MR. ODOM: Yes. And I had the -- I had their
P.S.I. come out from San Antonio, dig the three test holes.
I picked the sites. It passed. It met the base material,
which was a Type A, Grade 3 caliche, and it's acceptable.
Sealcoat's good. The rise is a little bit short, but other
than that, this subdivision is -- meets all the subdivision
specifications.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can tell you, by you
doing the test on the subgrade, I -- I feel a lot better
about it.
MR. ODOM: I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm glad you did that.
Thank you for doing that.
MR. ODOM: Well, they had the test on the
subgrade, but I had the test on the base done.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I meant the base.
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
Franklin doesn't have the authori
cul-de-sac size. I can see it on
that's -- I guess I have a bit of
on that. I'm sorry if they built
Leonard, the -- I mean,
ty to give a waiver on the
the rock and that, and
a problem giving a waiver
it. I mean, the rules are
11-22-04
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
the rules, and I don't -- I don't recall giving a waiver on
that. I wouldn't know why we would give a waiver.
MR. ODOM: I don't either. I went through
and read everything that I could get, and he accepted -- he
made two inspections out there. They had sub -- sub-base
tests done. The way I see what happened, it was the radius
itself was cut out, but the radius should have been not in
the depth of that. It should have been the road -- you
know, the diameter of the subgrade itself. But the total
cut was where it was at, and Frank should have caught that,
but he didn't. And he allowed -- passed the sub -- you
know, it passed. Allowed them to put base down, and they
went forward with it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Leonard, would you
explain the field note or the plat note at the bottom that
says "2.12 acres within a 50-foot-wide strip along the
occupied right-of-way of Lower Reservation Road to be deeded
to Kerr County." What does that mean, and why is it a
50-foot-wide right-of-way when you said earlier that it's
supposed to be 60?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where are you reading?
MR. ODOM: Where are you at?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right on the bottom,
looking from the left to right, the second field note.
"2.12 acres within a 50-foot-wide strip..."
11-22-04
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
JUDGE TINLEY: It appears that's half of the
roadway. The line goes down the middle of that Lower
Reservation Road, it appears.
MR. ODOM: Well, Reservation's about 50 foot.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: 2.12 in a 50-foot-wide strip.
That is the right-of-way for Tatsch -- what we used to call
Tatsch. It's called Lower Reservation now, so that's the
existing out there, and that was probably to the center of
that road. His half was into the road. And those are
normally deeded or easements -- prescriptive easements, and
they were to the center of Tatsch Road, so that would come
out with the 2.12 acres. All that is Tatsch Road. They
just have -- now that we platted, they have to deed that
over to us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I
don't have a problem with that. I think that -- and it's
too late to catch that at this point, but in the future --
we should have required, I think, them to give us additional
-- get up to 60-foot on Tatsch Road as well, just so we can
start getting the width on some of these roads. But, you
know, that's not that big a deal. But I am a little bit
hung up on this cul-de-sac.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, they --
11-22-04
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
you know, they didn't ask for a waiver. They weren't
granted a waiver. And that cul-de-sac needs to be to our
minimums; otherwise, we have no leg to stand on when any
other developer says we don't want to do it. That's
basically what they did.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I share your
concern, Commissioner, but I'm also concerned that the
County represented to this developer that that was
acceptable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, they didn't. In our
rules, unless they have a waiver from the Court, there is no
representation.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does every developer
know that? Should they be able to rely on what the County
Engineer tells them?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it's the
obligation of the County Engineer to go out there and
measure the dam -- or the cul-de-sac. I think, you know, on
the road and the materials used, there -- I think there is a
responsibility, but that the -- you know, for the County --
for us to say the County Engineer needs to go out there, or,
you know, Leonard needs to go out there and check that
right-of-way all along to make sure that it's -- and the
road width is, you know, the minimum or the specifications
that they're supposed to be building it to is unreasonable.
11-22-04
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
50
You know, if there's -- the material was varied a little
bit; they used, I think, a different type of rock. But I
disagree on the cul-de-sac, and I think that's an issue we
get into on -- you know, you said a garbage truck is the
biggest. Well, we also have fire trucks. And, you know, I
don't think the County probably -- or volunteer fire
departments don't have any trucks that can be a real
problem, but I see the precedent as to why have the rule?
Why don't we just say you can make the cul-de-sac any size
you want?
JUDGE TINLEY: We are dealing with a
preliminary plat, are we not?
MR. ODOM: Yes, this is a preliminary.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is the first plat that
was submitted, and --
MR. ODOM: They submitted one once before,
but they've changed it. They had 5 acres and probably
30-some-odd lots out there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And everything's
already built.
MR. ODOM: Well, let's put it -- when I came
on board, that's what I saw out there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, would
it -- what's the right protocol here? Should we approve the
preliminary plat with the requirement that the cul-de-sacs
11-22-04
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
51
be brought into compliance with our rules, or shall we not
approve it and wait for it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we can approve
it, but the final plat approval will not be granted until
they get the cul-de-sacs to our specifications.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we
approve the preliminary plat of Big Sky Ranch in Precinct 4,
with the requirement that the developer bring the
cul-de-sacs into our subdivision rules compliance by the
time he brings back the final plat.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. And if I might
make a --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- a brief -- I guess an
amendment to that? And to -- to, I guess, approve the
variance in material used in the --
MR. ODOM: On the sealcoat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the sealcoat.
MR. ODOM: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just one quick
question. Leonard, are there any unaddressed stormwater
issues?
MR. ODOM: No. At 15 acres or more, you
don't have to have a drainage study. You don't have to --
11-22-04
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
that's in Zone X up there, so we have no authority --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ODOM: -- by law to do anything.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We hear about the
Great Divide in Texas. This thing is right on top.
MR. ODOM: Right on top. It's really
better -- this plat here is a whole lot better at 15 acres
than it was at 5.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
comments? We have a motion and a second to approve the
preliminary plat of Big Sky Ranch in Precinct 4, subject to
the cul-de-sacs being brought in conformity with the
Subdivision Rules prior to final platting being approved,
and further subject to a variance being obtained on the
material used in the sealcoating. Any further question or
comments? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it break time?
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to the next item on
the agenda, --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's your answer.
11-22-04
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
53
JUDGE TINLEY: -- to consider variances for
revision of the plat for all of Lots 6 and 7 and parts of
Lots 4 and 5 of Hartshorn Country, Volume 1, Page 68, and
the abandonment of unimproved county easement, and set a
public hearing on the same.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is a plat -- I
believe in September, this was brought to you before.
Mr. Cowart came before the Court and was talking about
changing four lots. This subdivision is over 50 years old,
and changing four lots to two. And, so, what you have
before you is a preliminary plat. I'm asking the Court if
we will need -- this word probably is not the best one. I
don't know what else to use, other than "variances" for
this, but one would be for the size of Lot 2. Am I right on
that? Also, a variance for the lot frontage, that 50-foot
easement. There was a county easement going up this. It
was 50 foot wide. It was never built, so we need a variance
for this lot size at 2.54 acres. This is where the home --
the old homestead, the Hartshorn homestead is at. I believe
last time that there was a problem with this line; you can
see this dotted line. This was moved away. That was one of
the comments in the minutes. They moved this line back up.
And that we want to abandon this 50-foot unimproved road
easement, go back to Lot 1. That way it's not county -- not
on records for the county. And to set a public hearing for
11-22-04
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
54
December the 28th, 2004, at 10 o'clock, or the time set by
the Court. I think this cleans things up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One of those that's
making a bad old situation better?
MR. ODOM: Better. That's what it's doing.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a participation form
that was filled out by Mr. Cowart. Do you wish to offer
anything, Mr. Cowart?
MR. COWART: No, sir. No, I was here a few
weeks ago.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move for
approval, and that includes setting a public hearing for
December 28th at 10 a.m. I just said that December 28th to
let everybody know that we are here working.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item and setting a public hearing.
Is there any further question or comment or discussion? All
in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
(Commissioner Baldwin left the courtroom.)
11-22-04
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 WILLIAMS: Why don't we take a
break, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think Commissioner Baldwin
has indicated it's time for us to take a short break, so
we'll stand in recess for 10 to 15 minutes.
(Recess taken from 10:05 a.m. to 10:20 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order. We
recessed a few minutes after 10:00. We'll now take up the
next item on the agenda, which was a timed item for
10 o'clock. Consider and discuss awarding bids for the Hill
Country Youth Exhibit Center roof and HVAC. Mr. Holekamp.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Good morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bids were previously opened
and referred to you. What do you have for us this morning?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. I have selected the two
bids who met the requirements and the parameters set up, and
the -- the preconstruction and also the conditions. The
roofing bid proposal submitted by Feller Construction --
Fabrication, I should say, of Hunt, Texas, with a bid of
$108,431, is the one I have selected as being the best bid.
One bid that came in was a little less, but did not include
the air-conditioner curbs, which are required on that type
of a facility. The air conditioning, Hardin Air and Cooling
of Kerrville, with a bid of 41,425, was not only the low
11-22-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
bidder, but also the best bidder based on the -- the
conditions that we had set out for that building. So, those
are my two recommendations. We had several really good
bids, and I want to go on the record to say I appreciate the
bidders that did participate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we approve this
today, Glenn, when -- when is the starting date and when is
exit date?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Commissioner, I -- I had a
feeling you may ask that, and I -- I chose not to get with
them until this is approved to set up the time and dates and
that sort of thing. Timing is going to be very important
due to stock show in January. Weather conditions really
become a factor here in December and January. Some of it
may not be too conducive to -- to doing that roof work.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we're not going
to get in the middle of the --
MR. HOLEKAMP: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- the program and
MR. HOLEKAMP: No, sir, I would not do that.
Either we can do it before, or we'll not start it until
after.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I sure wish we
could do it before and have it done.
11-22-04
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
57
MR. HOLEKAMP: I would have to make some
calls to make sure of that. I don't know the availability,
as far as the contractor, how long it takes him to crank up
and get going. I don't think the project takes that long.
It just a matter of weather, how the weather will cooperate
with us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glenn, I apologize for
getting here a few minutes late. The 108,000 --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's that note say
before that?
MR. HOLEKAMP: That's air conditioning curbs.
They set the curbs for the air-conditioners.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it doesn't include
the -- the air conditioning is not included?
MR. HOLEKAMP: No, just curbs. They're set
up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this was the --
Feller Fabrication was the low bid?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's Alfred Feller.
MR. HOLEKAMP: And then Hardin had the air
conditioning and heating, which those units would eliminate
the -- the need for gas heating on that roof of that -- or
in the exhibit hall.
11-22-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was the -- the
amount we budgeted for those two projects?
MR. HOLEKAMP: If I'm not mistaken, it was
$150,000, so it's going to be real close.
JUDGE TINLEY: Those amounts are within that,
though?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Barely.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Barely.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
the approval of the agenda item and award to the two bidders
as recommended by the Maintenance Director, that being
Feller Fabrication for the roofing system with curb, and the
HVAC to Hardin Heating and Cooling. Any question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Comment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have some
comments -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Comment I have is just
going to what Glenn was talking about when I came back in
the room, related to the timing. It would be great to have
it done by the stock show. I don't see any possible way. I
mean, you're talking about the holidays coming in here, and
11-22-09
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
59
I would imagine it's at least going to take several weeks of
construction. And the stock show folks start working out
there almost full-time about the first of January. You
know, I think it's unfortunate we can't get it done. That
was our goal. But, you know, I don't want to be at -- it's
got to be clear that we're either done before and at least a
week ahead of time, or we don't start it.
MR. HOLEKAMP: That was my comments. I think
that would be very -- be very important that we handle it
that way.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd like to lean on
them to -- or ask them to do it, you know, and have it done
a week before we start. If they tell us they can't do that,
well, they can't do it, but it sure would be good to have an
improvement out there when we have our junior stock show.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It would curb the
whining -- I mean concerns.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry.
COMMIS
any questions I might
that I am totally and
expenditure of money.
the dodo bird, and to
recover a pigpen that
3IONER WILLIAMS: Well, the absence of
have asked would probably be a tipoff
unalterably opposed to this
That building needs to go the way of
put $150,000 into that building to
needs to be taken out, to me, is a
11-22-04
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
waste of taxpayers' money, and I'm going to oppose it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're only covering the
front portion, correct?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, they have pigs
in that, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: During the show.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Getting a little
rough.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- you'd know this
and I wouldn't, but haven't -- over the past several years,
maybe going back further than that, we've budgeted money to
-- to make capital improvements out there, and then this
money went unspent. If we didn't -- my question is, if we
didn't do this now, wouldn't we just be continuing that past
practice?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we'd probably use
about one-fourth of it and bulldoze it down, and take the
rest of it and start our process for building a new one.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think I'm
going to persuade him, do you?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I would -- you
11-22-04
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
61
know, my feeling is that this means that building is going
to -- hopefully the pens behind it are going to go, but this
building's going to stay and be part of that long-term
facility out there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's another good
reason why I'm opposed to it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's a commitment, in
my mind, for the Court to keep it there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is a commitment.
I'm not going to make that commitment for that building.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
comment upon the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just wanted to point
out to Number 2 here that he's outnumbered here this
morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. But as
you have done so often, I can speak.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have one more
question. How -- okay. As I understand, the roof is going
to be a slight pitched roof going to the west.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. How are they going
to -- what is the plan where they tie into the -- I don't
know what you even call that.
11-22-04

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
MR. HOLEKAMP: The existing indoor arena?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, that mess of offices
and stuff in between the two buildings. That's --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, no, it'll be covered
there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, where does it
start? Is it starting on the existing arena and going all
the way over that covered area?
MR. HOLEKAMP: It's going to start at the
existing indoor arena roof where it comes down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. HOLEKAMP: It comes down right at the
offices.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right on top of the
offices.
MR. HOLEKAMP: This roof will come to there
and be sealed up against that roof. The water from the
existing -- existing indoor arena will be taken to the south
towards the wash rack area, and then the remaining water
will be taken to the west.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How far --
MR. HOLEKAMP: But that will be sealed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my -- my concern
is that the -- well, I think that building is salvageable.
That office area between the two is not, long-term. So --
11-22-04
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
MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, I'm hoping with a roof
on it, it will be salvageable. See, this is where our
problem has been with the water --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. HOLEKAMP: -- issue there. Too much
water coming off the indoor arena roof, complicating on top
of the flat roof, just gives us way too much water.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll go back. I do not
see those offices in that center area being part of a
long-term fix out there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I don't either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I'm looking at this
roof on the current -- well, what's termed the exhibit hall.
So, on their structure, it can't be supported over those
offices, in my opinion. See what I'm saying? I don't -- I
want those offices out of there.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, but the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're making a case
to go back to the drawing board, Commissioner.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, because the engineering
is -- is using the structure of the indoor -- the exhibit
center as a support -- part of the support. And it goes all
the way to their part of the offices.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't mind it
going to the exhibit hall, but, I mean, there's no -- I
11-22-09
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
don't believe there's any structural thing holding up those
offices. It's kind of bridged between two walls, kind of
stuck between.
MR. HOLEKAMP: You're talking about the
upstairs only. No, the other is all -- that's all part of
the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, okay.
MR. HOLEKAMP: -- the exhibit center.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The upstairs part. The
upstairs.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, but that -- really,
we'll be bypassing that. That's really not an issue. But
we have to use the existing exhibit center framework, which
goes all the way to the indoor arena.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought there was a gap
between -- I thought there was one building, then the other
building.
MR. HOLEKAMP: No, just the roof is over it.
But, I mean, when these fellows bid it, they were using the
exhibit center as the foundation structure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. HOLEKAMP: And that's part of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I guess --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Where the offices are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, aren't the
11-22-04
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
offices and the restrooms and the concession area all in
that same general part of that building?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I -- I was under the
impression that you have the exhibit hall, and then we have
the new arena, and then we kind of put lean-to roofs over
that center area over time that have -- but that the exhibit
hall -- is it an L-shaped building? It's not a square or
rectangle?
MR. HOLEKAMP: It's pretty much a rectangle.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then it's got to be an L,
because those hog racks -- I mean --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, I know what -- yeah, but
that -- that's not going to affect the roof structure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As long as the roof is --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Because the indoor arena is --
is one size.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. HOLEKAMP: So we're going to it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. HOLEKAMP: That is the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just going to bridge over
that area. As long as you bridge over it, I don't have a
problem. We can tear out everything underneath it.
MR. HOLEKAMP: That's correct.
11-22-04
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And my other
question is, is there a warranty on this?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, the general metal
warranties that we get with -- I didn't bring all that with
me, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, there's a
warranty on the connecting to the arena, and that we're not
going to have leaking anywhere over the offices?
MR. HOLEKAMP: I believe Mr. Feller made it
very clear to me that he would make sure it's warrantied.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we can make sure it's
in the contract.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. HOLEKAMP: No, I don't see -- none of
them, you know, gave me a, you know, 5-year, 10-year,
20-year or whatever. I mean, it's partly because that was
not part of the bidding requirements.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just want to make sure
that where they make the connections to the arena --
MR. HOLEKAMP: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that that labor and
that -- that's not easy to do that.
MR. HOLEKAMP: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want to go back
11-22-04
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and patch it three or four times in the future at our cost.
So, it's at their cost if it has to be patched.
MR. HOLEKAMP: See, there's going to be a lot
of flashing done on those, because, like I said, maybe
before you came in, is some of that water is going to be --
off of the main roof is going to be taken to -- to the south
instead of taken to the -- to the west.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and it's going to
go to --
MR. HOLEKAMP: It will have to be done with
flashing and drainage panels.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it being taken past
the hog racks to the back of the building, or emptied into
where the hog racks --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, there are floor drains
in there, so it will probably go into one of those big
ground drains in that wash rack area. Those are all already
used for dumping the water off of those roofs.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This roof's going to
cant east to west; is that correct?
MR. HOLEKAMP: I'm sorry? East to west?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Going to cant east to
west.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where's that water
11-22-09
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
going to go in relationship to the River Star Arts Park?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, it will be on this side of
the road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where's it going to
go? How are you going to take it off?
MR. HOLEKAMP: It's going to go to the back
of the barn to the ditch, and then go to Flat Rock Lake.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When you're saying how's
it going to get there, right now the area floods, the whole
east side.
MR. HOLEKAMP: We're going to have to do some
landscaping to get it back there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But that whole area
back there by the barbecue pits and the water tower and all
that, that gets inundated with water now.
MR. HOLEKAMP: A lot of that's from the
parking area. That's not from the roof.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How are you going to
get the water off the roof to where it needs to go, which is
the Guadalupe River?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Drains.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think -- I
don't know if Commissioner Williams is on this line of
thought. My line of thought is, we're getting ready to
spend $150,000. This thing better not leak, and it better
11-22-04
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
drain off that property. That's -- that's what I'm saying.
And -- and I'm -- you know, we need to make sure that
somehow, whether it's in this proposal or we have a plan,
because we are dumping a huge amount of water onto that road
now.
	MR. HOLEKAMP:	Well	--
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	On the road that goes
alongside	the west side of t	he bui	lding.
	MR. HOLEKAMP:	You'	re correct.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	We need to either make a
swell, get	that water all out of t	here.
	MR. HOLEKAMP:	Yes,	sir.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	And we need to figure out
what that'	s going to cost, '	cause	that's not in these
numbers.			
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, I won't
make any promises that if it doesn't work that way, I won't
come back and say, "I told you so."
MR. HOLEKAMP: The only thing I will tell you
is, we still got the same amount of roof.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, but it's flat
now. You're canting it; you're going to make sure it goes
off. It's coming down -- it's coming down at a greater
velocity.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It comes down onto the
11-22-04
~o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
taxpaying public now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Some of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We want to -- let's
vote, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin and Nicholson voted in
favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioners Williams and Letz voted
against the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Chair votes in the
affirmative. Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait, wait, wait. Did
the County Judge vote?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He just did, real
quick.
JUDGE TINLEY: It was two-two.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you get that down?
I want copies for all my friends.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He did it so quickly,
you could hardly see his hand go up and down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a comment. My
vote against that was because I don't think we're ready to
start. I think we need to get this drainage item worked
11-22-09
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
out. I'm in favor of putting the roof on, but I think we're
pushing it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm proud of you,
Judge.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Would it please the Court if I
tried to get the drainage issue resolved prior to commencing
on this project?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure you're going to
know what the drainage issues are until you're further
along, to tell you the truth.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we are --
we're -- we can figure out the amount of water coming off
that roof, and it's going to end up there. We require
drainage studies everywhere else for the public and for
developers. It's the same thing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You got a court order.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go for it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item on the agenda,
consider and discuss approval of lease of four new Sheriff's
Office patrol units, and authorize the County Judge to sign
same, and approval of first year lease payment as budgeted.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is just --
actually, a supplement to the lease that was done July 14th,
2000. This is just adding the new -- four new cars to it,
and we'll need a hand check or whatever for the amount of
11-22-04
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$35,983.11. It's already in the budget for these items.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I faxed all this over to
Motley for him to look at. I just went down to his office
to see if he was there, and he's not in yet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any further question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does anyone know what
the number is in the budget? The amount that is in the
budget to make this purchase?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There is actually
44,000-something in our Capital Outlay for this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember now.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The rest of that is for
the second payment later on in the year for the pickup.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
comments? All in favor of the agenda item?
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item
11-22-04
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"-' 2 4
25
on the agenda is consider and discuss a salary supplement
for the Family and Consumer Science Agent position at the
Kerr County Extension Office. I don't see Mr. Walston here
today with us. Was he planning on being here?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure. I think we
can handle it without him being present.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I talked to him about it
and told him I'd put it on the agenda. I think his memo is
self-explanatory. It's just a matter of, you know, in
trying to get the best person to fill that position, he
feels that with the salary freeze that's going through the
Extension Office, that if the Court could provide a salary
supplement, it would enable them to, you know, sort of
attract a better candidate. This person works a lot with
the -- primarily with the youth -- or I won't say primarily;
about equal, probably, with the youth organizations, 4-H, as
well as other areas in the community. I guess when I was
talking to Roy about this, I was thinking in the back of my
mind about the juvenile detention facility, and we spend so
much time and money and effort on the troubled youth in the
community, that it -- for a very small amount of money, we
could do something that's positive to the positive youth in
the community. The amount that Roy and I talked about was
somewhere in the $3,000 to $4,000 range as a supplement this
11-22-09
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
year. We have that in our budget as a result of
Ms. Chapman's position not being filled for a while. It
would be a -- have a budget impact next year, but this year
it would be within the budget. And I'll make a motion to
offer a salary supplement of $3,000 for the Family and
Consumer Science Agent at the Extension Office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Up to three --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $3,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: In the sum of $3,000. Any
further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That money is in the
budget due to an employee leaving earlier?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, Ms. Chapman's. We
budgeted to fill this as of October 1, and it probably will
not be filled until the end of December, so it's -- two
months of salary's not going to be paid.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it's her position
that we're filling?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, that -- for that
position, yes. And I -- I think the -- my feeling is that
there's a condition with this; that this person that is
11-22-09
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
attracted has to have a background and a focus on youth.
That's my reason for pushing this, is to help that side of
that program, 4-H.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't know --
okay, that's fine. I don't think that she did that that
much. Seemed like she helped with -- she handled older
folks' checkbooks and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: She didn't, but that
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. I agree with
what you're saying, if we can do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's what I say; I
think it's conditioned upon the -- them improving the youth
side of that. And this supplement is not guaranteed if they
don't do that, if they bring a person in that doesn't do
that. And I think that's -- I would not be in favor of
increasing -- or keeping that supplement next year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two questions. What
is that salary that's currently available for that position?
And, secondly, is that totally funded by us, or is it
partially funded by Extension?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's partially
funded by Extension, and I'm not sure what the total salary
is, but the -- and I think Roy Walston's memo set out that
due to the salary freezes through the A & M system, it's
11-22-04
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
harder and harder to get people to take moves. And I think,
more and more, to get a real attractive candidate in this
county, they're supplementing these salaries.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does this go through
Cheryl Mapston, or does Roy handle it?
JUDGE TINLEY: It will go through the
District Director.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: But, as I'm sure you recall,
the District Director has been pretty considerate of
allowing us to have a lot of input in her decision.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: The individual that -- that's
under consideration is an experienced Extension Agent, and
one that has had a lot of experience in 4-H and youth-type
projects, and that's a lot of the reason that they're
wanting to create an attraction to get that agent to come on
board here, as opposed to the current post. Any further
question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it's
well-known that I don't have a lot of value for the work
product of this job. I don't -- doesn't have anything to do
with the individual performing it. It's just that I don't
think taxpayers ought to be spending their money on the kind
of things that this job produces, so I won't be voting for
11-22-04
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
~~
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 4-H? You don't think we
should spend money on 4-H?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's a lot of money
for a few children. But I -- I'm focusing mostly on the
work product I've seen, like the benefits of drinking red
wine and how to set a colorful dinner table.
JUDGE TINLEY: If I might make an
observation, and I've done it on numerous occasions
previously, as the primary juvenile judge in this county, I
don't recall having before me a single child subject to my
court's jurisdiction that's been actively involved in the
4-H program. I think the benefit to be derived from this
expenditure is considerably in excess of what's going to be
spent because of that, if for no other reason.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
comments? 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.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, they
11-~2-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
78
don't just exclusively talk about red wine, do they? I
mean --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, white wine's
not as good for you as red wine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But they do talk about
white wine? I mean, I wouldn't want the County to be
involved in something where we're just kind of color-blind
about some things.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The article I read
was about red wine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to take a look
at that over there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I prefer the
chardonnay myself.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next agenda item is
consider and discuss approving the form contracts between
Kerr County and the County-sponsored entities, and authorize
the County Judge to sign same as they are returned by the
entities.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see. We have
Dietert Claim, and we have what else?
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Mitchell has all of the
original contracts. The one that you've got in your agenda
book is a sample.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
11-22-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
79
JUDGE TINLEY: For one of the agencies.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is just a
sample? The Dietert is just a sample?
MS. MITCHELL: Well, that's the correct one,
but, I mean, I only put one in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All these have been
approved by the County Attorney?
MS. MITCHELL: Yes, they have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval of
the Alamo Regional Transit contract, K'Star contract,
Dietert Claim contract, Kid's Advocacy Place contract, Kerr
County Soil and Water Conservation District contract, Hill
Country Crisis Council contract, Hill Country
Court-Appointed Special Advocates, better known as CASA, and
Kerr Economic Development Foundation contract.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the contracts and authorize the Judge to sign
the same as they are returned. Any question or comment 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. Item
11-22-09
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
80
13 is consider and discuss approving the form contract
between Kerr County and the volunteer fire departments
servicing Kerr County, and authorize County Judge to sign
the same.
MS. MITCHELL: Judge, on the volunteer fire
department contracts, David Motley e-mailed me and said that
he was looking at those and he didn't see any major changes,
but I have not heard back as of yet. He thought they were
okay, but he hasn't e-mailed me back on that, and he's not
in his office; I already tried calling.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is this the same
contract that we signed with them last year? I think it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Should be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the amount the
same?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see.
MS. MITCHELL: The amounts in there are from
the budget book that y'all budgeted.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Didn't we -- I probably
shouldn't be bringing this up. I think it was contentious
several years back. Don't we have an audit provision in all
these contracts as to the use of County funds?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say it again?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Audit.
11-22-09
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't we have an audit
provision as to use of taxpayers' funds by these
departments?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think Tommy -- is
Tommy here? I think Tommy said to us that they bring in
paid receipts.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. TOMLINSON: It will be on the receipts.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's how they get around
that. In lieu of audit, he has to approve the prior
expenditure before he reimburses.
MR. TOMLINSON: I had a problem with part
of -- half of their funds. Most of the fire departments get
private money, and in the process of auditing, one had to
deal with the other, so some of the fire departments had a
problem with us auditing funds that they received from
another source. So, I think this is a way to circumvent
that problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we approve
the Kerr County volunteer fire department contracts. That
would include Castle Lake Volunteer Fire Department for
$1,000; Comfort, $13,000; Elm Pass, $13,000; Ingram,
$13,000; Tierra Linda, $1,000; Center Point, $13,000;
Divide, $13,000; Hunt -- zero? $13,000. That was a joke.
Mountain Home, $13,000; Turtle Creek, $13,000.
11-22-04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oops, Junction,
$1, 000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the volunteer fire department contracts as
enumerated by Commissioner Baldwin. I assume that
authorizes me to sign them?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 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're
now to the portion of the agenda -- we have three different
agenda items concerning the Juvenile Detention Facility.
While we reserve the right to go into executive session to
consider items that are permissible in executive session, I
think what I'll do in order to facilitate this thing is call
all three of those items, and we'll be open for the public
portion of it. Item 14 is to consider and discuss the
financial status and projections at the Juvenile Detention
Facility, and consider any budget amendments. Second is to
i1-22-09
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
consider and discuss extension of temporary lease and
operating agreements at the Juvenile Detention Facility, and
lastly, to consider and discuss the status of the
acquisition of the Juvenile Detention Facility. I would
note that we've had two participation forms filed, and the
first that we had filed was Mr. B.A. Donelson, representing
First State Bank in Stratford, Texas. Mr. Donelson? Feel
free to come forward.
MR. DONELSON: If it's all right with you, if
I could follow after Mr. Malone?
JUDGE TINLEY: Surely, that'll be
satisfactory. The other participation form that we have had
is Mr. Mike Malone with Vinson and Elkins, in his capacity
as legal counsel for the Bank of New York. Mr. Malone?
MR. MALONE: Thank you. Thank you, Judge. I
am Mike Malone. I'm with Vinson and Elkins. I'm a lawyer.
I'm here as counsel to the Bank of New York. As I think you
know, the Bank of New York is the trustee for the bonds, the
proceeds of which were used to construct the juvenile --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Malone, will you
pull the microphone a little closer to you so we can hear
you?
MR. MALONE: Is that better?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hope so.
MR. MALONE: All right. The trustee learned
11-22-04
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
of the financial circumstances of the detention center in
September, and we've been in continuous communication with
the bondholders since that time. The trustee and the
bondholders were very pleased to learn in October of your
plan to develop a means of refinancing the facility pursuant
to which the bondholders would be taken out substantially at
par. And, by contrast, as you can imagine, we were -- we
were very disappointed to learn in November of circumstances
which called that plan to refinance into question. I think
it's fair to say that the bondholders were shocked at that
development. And, at their request, we put together a
conference call of all the holders which we conducted last
Tuesday, and at that meeting we were requested to start some
sort of an investigation as to how these bonds came to be in
the situation that they're in. I'm not at liberty at this
point to identify the holders to you, but I think you know
some of them. Some of them are here in the meeting with us
today.
But I want to make it clear that the Bank of
New York is not a bondholder in this financing. The Bank of
New York serves in an administrative capacity as the
corporate trustee. These bonds are held almost entirely by
community banks, all of which are located -- all but one of
which I believe are located here in Texas. These -- these
bankers are following developments here very closely,
11-22-04
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
because, among other things, they've got obligations within
their banks to report to the various committees and to their
Board of Directors, and, for that matter, to state
regulators as to the quality of the investments and problems
that have occurred with respect to this financing. So, as I
say, the trustee's been asked to institute an investigation
to try to figure out what's going on here.
I then questioned myself, well, how do I get
that done? I've been working with a couple of folks in our
Austin office that have experience in FOIA requests, Freedom
of Information Act requests, and they're in the process of
drafting those requests so that we can begin to gather
information to get into a position to answer the
bondholders' questions. As I see this process starting, I
-- I have to express some degree of trepidation. You hope
that what you do as a lawyer brings value to a transaction.
This is the sort of work which, you know, may or may not
benefit the holders ultimately. It's something that we've
got to do, but it -- but it may -- may likely require some
significant amount of time, and therefore expense, and we
assume not just our time and expense, but -- but your time
and your staff as we try to parse through the history of
this thing and get into a position to answer questions. So,
while we're not lazy persons, we abhor waste. I can tell,
based on the tenor of the conversation this morning, that
11-22-04
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you're sensitive to that too, and so we want to see if
there's a way that we can avoid that if at all possible.
So, I'm here to make three points. One is, I
want to put a face on the bondholders to make sure you
understand that the people that are affected by this are --
are local community bankers here in the state of Texas.
Rightly or wrongly, these bankers looked at this investment
as one that would be backed by Kerr County. They were very
surprised to learn that Kerr County has elected to issue the
notice of nonappropriation. And they've got a
responsibility to their banks and to the state to understand
how the wheels came off, and therefore, we're compelled to
be involved in this investigation if we can't figure out a
way to -- to resolve these issues. So, we're very hopeful
that the County will either decide to appropriate the funds
necessary to keep this financing on track, and make the
lease payments, or go forward with the plan that you
discussed in September to issue the Certificates of
Obligation to refinance this thing, and take the bondholders
out at par. If -- if you can't get to that point, as I say,
we've got no choice but to go forward with our investigation
and get into a position to answer these questions.
And I'll tell you that some of the questions
that surfaced at the bondholder meeting are a concern that
Kerr County-initiated inmates are being placed in facilities
11-22-09
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
87
outside the county. You know, the assumption from the
bondholder perspective is you've got inmates that are going
to need to be in a facility; that they go into the facility
in Kerr County to help provide funding to justify keeping
these bonds in place. They also want us to look into the
cost of the facility. We're looking at -- the newer
facility came in at something like $100,000 per bed, and our
understanding is that similar facilities can and have been
constructed for less money than that. So, they want us to
be in a position to explain, you know, how those funds were
invested, how the contracts were awarded, that -- that sort
of thing.
And then the third area that we know we'll
have on our radar screen is to look at operations during the
time that these bonds have been in place, and be in a
position to explain how the facilities have been run and how
they've been supervised. There will be other questions I
know that will -- that will arise as we get through this
process, but that's what we're looking at as of today.
Again, this is not work that we're anxious to get into, but
the bondholders want you to be aware of the position that
they will be placed in if we can't get these -- these bonds
back on track one way or the other, and on behalf of the
bondholders, we -- we urge you to do that. Thank you for
your time. If you've got any questions of me, I'd be happy
11-22-09
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to stay here and visit, or I'll sit down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- if I might. I mean,
at our last meeting -- I know you weren't present, and --
but I know some of the bondholders were. I was under the
impression that we were likely going to receive some sort of
a -- you know, an offer from the bondholders. I mean,
clearly, this facility doesn't work going forward, and it
seems like we're going the opposite direction.
MR. MALONE: We discussed that potential at
our meeting last Tuesday, and, you know, we don't have any
basis to formulate an offer. You know, the bondholders know
nothing more than what was in the offering materials when
they made the investment. If -- if there is to be an offer
made, it seems to us that the County is in possession of
institutional knowledge with respect to this facility, and
in a better position to gauge what the -- what debt service
could be supported by operations, both now and as you hope
to operate it going forward. So, I think the bondholders
would certainly be amenable to, you know, hearing a proposal
from the County, but any number that they would propose
would just be something that would come out of the air.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any investigation
11-22-04
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
that might be undertaken -- is one being authorized and
initiated by Bank of New York? Is that correct?
MR. MALONE: Bank of New York, on direction
of the bondholders, would -- would pursue remedies. And, at
this stage, the remedy that we've been asked to undertake is
just to investigate the facts and be in a position to enable
the bondholders to report to their committees and to their
boards.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that would be an
investigation of Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facilities
Corporation, or Kerr County?
MR. MALONE: Well, I guess it would be -- it
could conceivably be all three, including the Juvenile Board
that's been responsible for supervising and operating the
facility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it would be
conducted at whose expense?
MR. MALONE: Well, I suppose that remains to
be seen. Ultimately, the fees and expenses of the trustee
are secured by the trust estate, you know, which is the
facility itself.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Malone, have you or any of
the bondholders, to your knowledge, made any requests for
information to this date?
11-22-04
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
90
MR. MALONE: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I assume that was public --
under the Public Information Act, we're talking about?
MR. MALONE: There has been no formal request
made under the Freedom of Information Act. We're in the
process of drafting those as we speak. We have made
informal investigations, had discussion -- you and I have
been on the telephone on one occasion. I visited with --
with the bond counsel, spoken to the financial adviser, and
also spoken with the woman that is, I guess, the Executive
Director of the facility. So, we're gathering notes, but no
FOIA request has been issued to-date.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. With respect to the
informal request, be they verbally, e-mail, or any other,
other than a formal request under the -- under the Public
Information Act, has there been an instance with respect to
either you or any of the bondholders that requested
information informally that was not provided to you?
MR. MALONE: I can't say that there has been,
no. There's been good cooperation to-date.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. From a timeline
standpoint, do you have an estimate of -- of what this is
going to take in terms of time?
MR. MALONE: The investigations?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
11-22-04
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
MR. MALONE: I really don't. As I say,
there's a couple of folks in our Austin office that work in
this area. I've got minimal experience with respect to it,
and so I wouldn't be in a position to -- to guess, but I --
I would expect that if we don't get some requests out this
week, they'd certainly be out the next week.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I just asked our
administrative assistant to try to find the County Attorney.
I'm a little uncomfortable, until I visit with him a little
bit, of really going much further at the moment, because I
think there's some other issues. I just have -- I have some
questions. I mean, 'cause it sounds more like a visit with
the County Attorney. So, anyway, I just put that on the
table before we go much further.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'd like to
have a visit with the County Attorney, and I would like to
visit with the County Attorney-elect also.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the concern I have --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because we are
changing County Attorneys, Mr. Malone, first of the year.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a concern from a time
frame standpoint. We currently have that facility in
operation, and if -- if that facility ceases operation
because of a noncontinuation of the lease and operating
agreements or any other reason, I see it as having a
11-22-04
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
material effect upon the value of the facility, and the --
the assets that are under the trust -- trust agreements and
the financing documents. My concern is -- and, you know,
it's not a concern necessarily from our end, but do you and
your bondholders have the luxury to -- to utilize this time
for that purpose? I realize you may say, well, you know, we
can't afford not to, but --
MR. MALONE: Well, it's not a process that
would be conducted in a vacuum. We could continue to
communicate with the County about alternatives that are
available to preserve the asset as a going concern. I think
your point may be that it would have more value as a going
concern than as an empty facility, and while I have no
expertise on that, I certainly wouldn't disagree with it.
So, you know, my point is that we're not going to launch
this investigation and then refuse to communicate. We'll --
we'll hear any reasonable offer and carry that to the
bondholders, see if there's a way to get this thing
resolved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, it seems that one
of the items on the agenda also is the -- I guess the
extension of the operating agreement.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, you know, I think my
view, and I think the majority of the Court's view, has been
11-22-09
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 we try to keep it open as long as we can to try to work
something out. But there's a limit to that, because, I
mean, the County is -- is spending taxpayer's money just
putting -- I won't say throwing it away, but, you know,
we're spending money out there on a daily basis. And, in my
mind, we were, at this meeting, going to make a decision
whether we were going to try to resolve it by the end of
December or -- and, really, an extension into January wasn't
even a consideration at our last meeting. And I guess I --
Mr. Malone's opinion -- I mean, it seems like they're almost
asking us to shut it down, and then go through all the data
and see if it can ever be reopened.
MR. MALONE: I don't think we're here to ask
you to shut it down. I think if -- if the decision is that
you're not going to fund the shortfall through tax dollars,
then before we took -- took the facility, by agreement or
foreclosure, we would want it empty. We're not in a
position to operate a juvenile detention facility. We just
don't have the gears to do it, so -- but, in the meantime,
and in recognition of the fact that the facility may have
more value as an operating entity, we're here to encourage
you to appropriate the funds to keep the facility open. I
think the thing that surprises the bondholders and other
observers in this process -- and we understand that, you
know, the State has shackled you with an unfunded mandate in
11-22-04
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-' 2 4
25
terms of the cost of operating the facility. We're also
aware that funding available through the State has been
reduced, and it's a bad situation. But the thing that
surprises, I think, the holders is that you wouldn't decide
to go ahead and appropriate the funds to keep the facility
in place in order to preserve the value -- or to preserve
your ratings for other bond issues going forward. In other
words, if you look at what's required to -- to be applied in
terms of tax dollars versus what it's going to cost the next
time you need to go to the markets for another bond issue --
you know, the markets have a long memory on these things,
and it appears to us, you know, that this is -- this would
be money well spent in order to avoid very significant
increases in the cost of credit in the future. Other
counties have been in this same situation, I just learned
this morning, and made, you know, the tough decision to go
ahead and refinance their bonds to preserve their credit
rating. Because it may cost "X" now, but if you don't spend
that, it's going to cost X-squared in the future.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- it goes the
other direction as well. Other counties have -- I mean,
there's an argument both ways, I guess.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you familiar with the Hays
County situation with respect to their juvenile detention
facility, Mr. Malone?
11-22-04
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
MR. MALONE: I learned secondhand this
morning that Hays County has decided to issue Certificates
of Obligation and refinance those bonds. Now, as I say,
that is secondhand information. I just pass it along for
what it's worth. But that was an example cited to me of
another similar situation. Unfunded mandate from the State,
cash crunch. You know, what's the course of least
resistance? Where do we incur the least damage over the
long run? I think they decided they want to refinance those
bonds, preserve their rating.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did your -- did your
investigation of that situation reveal that there was
nonappropriation in Hays County?
MR. MALONE: No, sir, I have not made an
investigation. What I'm reporting to you is what I heard in
the hall as we were waiting for our opportunity to speak
with you.
COMMISSIONER
a confirmation of that from
COMMISSIONER
Attorney is not to be found
to talk to him. So --
COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS: We could probably get
our financial adviser.
LETZ: Judge, the County
but I'm -- to me, I really want
WILLIAMS: The Auditor has his
hand up.
MR. TOMLINSON: I just have a request. If --
11-22-04
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
if we do have -- if there is a formal request under the Open
Records Act, there's a 10-day limitation on -- under
statutory limitation, for -- to be able to retrieve that
information. I foresee that -- that that might be a problem
with -- with the time limit. So, if possible, if the
requester can -- could waive that 10-day request, it will be
helpful.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- maybe there's
legal reasons why they want to do it formally. I don't know
why we wouldn't let them -- you know, I mean, within
reason -- have all the information that they request.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was the point of my
question to Mr. Malone. I -- as to whether or not there
have been previous informal requests, and -- and that hadn't
been responded to in a proper and timely manner. I
certainly -- if it's public information, I want you to have
everything that you're entitled to. And if you'll -- as
long as it's an intelligible request that we can determine
what you're asking, we'll do our best, on a timely basis, to
gather it up and get it to you. That's always been my
position with regard to public information. You don't have
to make a formal request. It doesn't even have to be in
writing, just as long as we are aware of what you -- what
you're asking, and number two, that it's, in fact, public
information.
11-22-04
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's kind of my view.
I mean, I don't -- I'm certainly not trying to keep anything
from you. I want you to have as much as you can, because
the sooner we can get you, you know, information you need,
the sooner we can hopefully get this resolved.
MR. MALONE: Well, I'm not trying to burden
this process with unnecessary structure or expense, for that
matter. I will discuss with the holders at our next meeting
the -- what I understand to be the proposal that we get this
investigation done on a less formal basis, and see if that
meets their approval. As I say, I just -- I started down
this process just not knowing how to conduct an
investigation of a deal like this, and then talking to my
partners, and the FOIA requests are the -- the method that's
available to us, and I think a typical approach. So, we --
we've got that process started, and I just wanted you to
have that as one of the factors to consider as you decide
how best to move forward.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Malone, let me
ask you a question. I think I understood you to suggest
that the bondholders would like to see the operation
continue during this period of time. Is that what I'm --
did I hear that correctly?
MR. MALONE: I think that's fair.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that mean, in
11-22-09
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
your mind, the County continuing to underwrite the
day-to-day operational expenses? Or does that entail, in
your mind, an appropriation of a bond payment?
MR. MALONE: We have in -- in place a
moratorium agreement, I guess an extension of the initial
moratorium agreement that we signed, that runs through the
end of December. And under that agreement, the County
has -- has agreed to step in and keep the lease in place and
continue to fund it while we try to get our legs under us
and decide how best to address this problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That expires
December 31st, with 30 days cancellation notice on the part
of the County; is that correct?
MR. MALONE: That's correct, right. You
know, I don't know the view of the holders as to the effect
of that moratorium, but my assumption would be that as long
as there's some progress being made toward a decision that
might lead you to the same place that we understand Hays
County came out, that, yes, we'd want to keep the process --
we'd want to keep the facility open. We'd want the County
to continue to operate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's
important -- in my mind, it's important, because it's one
thing for us to agree to continue the operation, but I would
not want it in any -- if we went along with that, I would
11-22-04
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
°' 2 4
25
not want it implied that by doing so, we have agreed to
appropriation for bond and debt service that we had
heretofore declined to make.
MR. MALONE: Well, I think that's a factor
that can be taken into account as we write whatever
agreement is written. I certainly understand your position.
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess my question at this
point is -- and, certainly, I'm -- Mr. Donelson, I want you
to have the opportunity to be heard, if we have no more
questions for Mr. Malone. And then I guess my question then
is, do we have anything additional to discuss with regard to
these three items in an open session format? Or whether or
not we should finish up the rest of the agenda, then go on
to executive, or vice versa. Any -- any further questions
for Mr. Malone? Thank you, Mr. Malone.
MR. MALONE: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate you being
available to us. Mr. Donelson?
MR. DONELSON: Yes, sir. Gentlemen, I thank
you again for allowing me to visit with you. I am a
bondholder, so I have probably a different view than some of
the -- even Mr. Malone. When we left here about a month
ago, we thought we were going to do something. It sounded
great for all of us, and -- and I went home, and then heard
later that things had changed. Let me speak to the time
11-22-04
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
issue just a minute. One of our problems has been getting
to find out who the bondholders are. It's incredibly hard,
under the laws today, to find out who the bondholders were,
so we were just -- I think we had 90 percent of the bonds
represented in that meeting last Tuesday. And -- and, of
course, that's the first time we had an opportunity to have
somewhat of a consensus. Now, based on that, we formed our
opinions, and I think, as Mr. Malone said, there was -- we
didn't have anything that we felt like we should offer to
the Commissioners, because, there again, y'all have more
information. Not that you haven't been willing to provide
it, but we just have not had an opportunity to ask for it or
know what to ask for.
So, we're at a point now where we think the
players are pretty much in place for the -- from the
bondholder standpoint. We'll be able to make a decision on
wherever we go, whether it's investigation or if y'all shot
us a deal or whatever. I think we now have the ability to
make decisions that we haven't had beforehand. I will also
say that time is all our enemies, you know, from the
standpoint of Ms. Harris, who can't operate the facility the
way she would like to because of the uncertainty, and I
think that's understandable by all of us. It's -- time's
our enemy from the standpoint that we now have a trustee,
and we're spending some money. And I do know, Mr. Williams,
11-22-04
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
who's going to pay that, and that won't be the County;
that's going to be me. And, so, we think it's important to
decide something quickly for everybody, for Kerr County. I
will say this, and I'm probably stepping out of line by
saying it, but I've been a little bit surprised at not
hearing more from the position of the Juvenile Board. You
know, I -- seems to me like they ought to have a place in
this arena too, whether they're supporting you to go forward
or not. And -- and I don't live in Kerr County, so they
can't do anything to me. But it just -- it would be nice to
have the whole consensus of everybody, that being the
Juvenile Board, the County, and the bondholders, to get us
through that. And that basically is my -- are my comments.
We bought this bond in good faith. We understood that it --
while we saw that it's not a direct obligation of the
County, it appeared to us that the lease was, and it's been
very surprising to us in a couple of years that this thing
has deteriorated so fast. And I don't -- you know, that's
-- that's probably part of what we're interested in from the
standpoint of the investigation. Okay?
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have any questions for
Mr. Donelson?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a couple of
comments, though. I wish I could hug you.
MR. DONELSON: Is there any press here?
11-22-09
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that mean you
want to do it or not? Let's give them time to get cameras.
But you're absolutely right. We -- we would like to know
what the position of the Juvenile Board is as well. I've
called on them many times to explain to the taxpayers of
Kerr County what has happened -- what has happened with this
thing. We have voted -- we have spent, to-date, a little
over $200,000 of taxpayers' money to keep this thing open,
and I see here that we have some bills to pay today of
almost $16,000 more. And if -- if the board would come
along and explain to the taxpayers -- not to you, not to me,
but the taxpayers -- of what happened to this thing. And
all -- all we hear from them is that the State changed their
funding, and -- and some mean old agency has come in and
done something; I don't know what it is, but it's not a --
it's not a management problem at all. But when I see that
the former director out there, that her last paycheck was
$11,390 for work she's done, it seems -- that's a management
problem. There is no possible way. And I'm not addressing
you. I'm kind of addressing these other guys. But --
MR. DONELSON: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- there is more
problems with this thing than a '47 Plymouth, I can tell you
that. And we have -- we've waded -- waded through all of
11-22-04
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
these problems and kept spending taxpayers' money, and I'll
be damned, here we are today and we still don't have a
solution. And so we're -- we're going to be asked to
continue spending taxpayers' money. I, for one -- it's a
bad investment. I mean, I was elected by the people, not to
get along with you, not to get along with the New York bank
or some lawyer from Dallas, Texas. They didn't elect me to
get along with the County Judge. They elected me as -- in a
representative government, to represent them in their
finances and their business -- daily business, and I see
this as a major, major bad investment for them. So, far as
I'm concerned, we can rock along through December 31, and
we'll see you guys some other time.
MR. DONELSON: I think you can probably count
on that. I mean, seriously, and it's a serious problem. I
know for every one of you it is. I don't know -- I can't
evaluate what it is to your community. I just know the
obligation that -- we put up a lot of money based on a lot
of people's opinions, and we'd hoped to get it back. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It certainly wasn't
this Commissioners Court's opinions, though, that made you
make that purchase.
MR. DONELSON: I'll let y'all -- no, I
understand. I'm a grown boy.
11-22-09
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Donelson. In
response to Commissioner Baldwin, I'm the chairman of the
Juvenile Board, and I have told this Court previously, and
I'll tell them again today, that the Juvenile Board has no
independent source of revenue other than what is generated
from that facility, so we're not in a position to direct
which direction this thing goes.
MR. DONELSON: May I comment to that?
JUDGE TINLEY: With regard to the information
that -- that is in-hand by this Court, I don't know where
Mr. Baldwin got that information about the former director's
paycheck. I made inquiry of -- of the Auditor here, oh, a
couple of weeks ago, I guess, as to what inquiries, if any,
members of the Court have made to him about the operational
aspects of the finances of the juvenile facility. His
response to me was that when there was -- it became a
certain amount of public information about allegations of
wrongdoing out there last year, that Commissioner Williams
made one inquiry as to whether or not the Auditor felt the
census was going to be affected. Other than that, as of a
couple weeks ago, those were the only -- that was the only
inquiry made.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I --
JUDGE TINLEY: That information is available,
has been available to any member of the public. Certainly,
11-22-09
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
there's not specific information available as to the
individual residents because of confidentiality reasons, but
the operational aspects, the budgets, the operating
statements, the expenditures being made, that's available to
any member of the public. It's available to any member of
this Court, any elected official or department head in this
county, and all they need to do is ask for it. Just like
the suggestion made to Mr. Malone a little bit -- excuse me,
a little bit ago, if there's something he wants, if he'll
just let us know what it is, we'll do our best to get it to
you. I've heard the allegation that the -- that the
Juvenile Board hasn't been forthcoming with information, and
if you haven't got any information, all I can say is, it's
your own damn fault. It's there. If you want something,
ask for it. You'll get it. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's not true.
JUDGE TINLEY: But I'm not going to sit here
and be beat up on because I didn't trip somebody in the
middle of the street and hand them a wheelbarrow full of
information.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, your -- your
statements are incorrect. One, I've talked to the Auditor
about the facility and the financial situation. Whether he
-- you phrased the question or he didn't remember it, I
don't know. Two, you came to this Court after the problem
11-22-04
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
was developed out there. I -- and this Court has been very
irritated with the Juvenile Board, that we were not given
any warning until basically, like, two weeks before the
recommendation of the Juvenile Board was nonappropriation of
funds. If that's being forthcoming with this Court, that's
something new to me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's -- you
need to correct the statement, too, Judge -- I made more
than one query of the Auditor, because people on the street
would ask me, "What's the deal with the juvenile detention
center?" But that's academic; that's neither here nor
there. I think it's -- it's highly unusual that any of us
would be able to read in a bond trading publication that,
over the course of two years, 800,000-plus dollars in
reserves were dissipated. That wasn't general information
made public to the taxpaying public in Kerr County, but it
was made public to those who deal in bonds on a routine
basis. That's very interesting. And if it triggers some
queries, then God love them; go get it. Let's find out why.
Because I think what Commissioner Baldwin said earlier,
Judge -- and not necessarily a reflection on you, but there
were some systemic management problems. There were exterior
forces that probably complicated the exterior -- the
systemic management problem. And the confluence of all that
is on this desk today, and it has been for the last two
11-22-09
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
months, and it ain't going away.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's no question but
what there were a lot of different factors that came to
bear, and I think when Judge Ables appeared before the
Juvenile Probation Commission in Austin in September, he
called it the -- all of these factors coming together
constituted a perfect storm which brought us to where we
are. But we are where we are. The information is public.
You gentlemen and anyone else is welcome to it, to the
extent it's public information. We'll maintain the
confidentiality that we're required to under the Family Code
for juveniles, but other than that, anything's public.
Anybody --
MR. DONELSON: Judge, can I clarify my
comment just a minute?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir.
MR. DONELSON: What I was saying about the
county -- or the juvenile facility is, I just hope they
would be supportive of going forward, is what my deal is,
and that they would be in there and -- I mean, they
apparently believe in that, and I hope that group would join
us all in trying to keep this alive. But that's what it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, Mr. Motley is in
the courtroom now, and, you know, if the Court doesn't have
any objection, I'd like -- really like to go in executive
ii-22-o9
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
session and visit with him a few minutes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anyone else have
anything to offer right now with respect to the open session
forum? At this point --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Auditor has
something.
JUDGE TINLEY:
MR. TOMLINSON:
another meeting this month, t
JUDGE TINLEY:
one scheduled for December 1.
MR. TOMLINSON:
Tommy?
Well, are we going to have
he corporation?
I'm not sure yet. We've got
Well, there's an item in
there -- an item about a budget amendment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: I would have more -- I'd have
a more definitive answer about a budget amendment at a later
date if -- if the Court amended it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure what, if any,
action we're going to need to take on that item. It's there
in case any action was needed.
MR. TOMLINSON: But I -- but today, I don't
have a -- a definitive amount, and so if it's possible that
the Court would have another -- another meeting before --
before the next payroll, then I could do that. Or we can --
I can make an estimate today, if that's what you want me to
11-22-04
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're going to be
-- I mean, my thought is that it's 11:30 now. We go in
executive session, then break for lunch, and come back at
1:00 or 1:15 and continue, probably in open session.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's my sense of it also.
Any -- anything else that needs to be in open session at
this time? If not, we will go into recess on the open
session, and go into executive or closed session.
(Discussion off the record.)
(The open session was closed at 11:34 a.m.,
and an Executive Session was held, the
transcript of which is contained in a
separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to
order in open session. It is now 2:40 in the afternoon, and
we're back in open session. Does any member of the Court
have anything to offer with respect to any of the agenda
items that were under discussion previously, or as discussed
in closed session?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No good
Okay, I'll make a motion that we offer the
1.75 -- $1,750,000, conditioned that we --
able to issue new investment-grade debt in
that the County receives a full release to
involved on any further action.
options here.
bondholders
the County is
that amount, and
all parties
it-2a-o9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
110
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There may be some
other conditions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And probably some other
conditions that our bond counsel --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any other conditions
we talked about, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Comprehensive release between
all parties, agreement of all bondholders, other reasonable
requirements as may be required by -- reasonably required by
County's attorneys. And did you want to put a response fuse
on that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, time. We need
a time for response.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Time of response is that
there is no motion to extend the -- what's the other thing?
-- the moratorium agreement. So, basically, it's until next
Monday; it's on the table.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
discussion? I assume the motion included the matters which
I delineated also?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: As did your second?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Beg pardon?
ii-22-o4
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion included the
matters I delineated?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. Any -- any
question or discussion? All in favor of that motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Williams and Letz voted in
favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioners Baldwin and Nicholson voted
against the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I will vote in favor of the
motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's two in one day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two votes in one day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any other business
to consider with the remaining agenda items? Any other --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. I think we're
done.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move on to
Section 4 of the agenda, if we could, please. Is the
Auditor here? Great, okay.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Tom. Appreciate
11-22-09
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What are we doing?
Paying the bills?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's where we are. First
item.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move we pay the
bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second, with some
questions.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
payment of the bills, with questions. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. My question
is on Page 16. That would be the Juvenile Detention bills.
I've gone through here, and the end of last week I had
gotten one kind of ugly phone call and one very nice phone
call that we -- from some folks, and they want to know where
their money is. One is over six months old. And I -- I
think that, in our approval of picking up the tab for the
juvenile facility, to the tune of a little over $200,000,
I'm thinking that we have voted to pay everything we've been
asked to pay. Now -- now we're having bill collectors --
they called me. I think everybody in here got a message,
but I -- I called them back and talked to them, and I'm just
kind of wondering, why aren't we paying our bills? I don't
know how old -- how old the dentist bill is. It's over
11-22-04
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$2,000, though. But this one OB/GYN -- did I say that
right?
MS. HARRIS: Yes, you did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is over six months
old. It's a little over $500. And why -- why haven't we
paid them, and why aren't they in here?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why weren't they in
there before?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why haven't we paid
these bills? Now we're having this ugly thing -- or I'm
having this ugly thing with this juvenile detention
facility --
MR. TOMLINSON: Solved that problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- and now -- and now
bill collectors are calling the Commissioners. I don't get
it.
MR. TOMLINSON: I solved the problem today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
MR. TOMLINSON: I solved the problem today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it --
MR. TOMLINSON: The bills are still not --
the bill that you're talking about is not in this group of
bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: But it is in our system.
11-22-09
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We -- we date-stamped the bill that you're talking about on
November the 17th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's when we got it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where was it for the five
and a half months before we got it?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the -- the issue of
medical bills is -- from a mechanical or a procedural
standpoint, is very cumbersome, because we -- we have paper
trails both directions between us -- between my office, the
facility, and provider on a constant basis. And the reason
is that when -- when a -- when a detainee goes to a
physician or the hospital, the facility okays that -- that
treatment with the county the child is from. Once the
service is provided, the facility gets the bill. All right.
We hold the county responsible -- I mean the sending county
responsible for the invoice. So, what's happened in the
past is -- is that we -- we have not paid the bill, knowing
that the child's family has insurance. What's happened in
the past also is that we -- we paid the bill immediately
upon receipt. Once the bill gets to the sending county, the
county either pays us or pays the -- the hospital directly
or the provider directly, or -- or the child's insurance
provider pays the vendor directly. Then we have this paper
trail of checks coming back to us because we've overpaid
11-22-04
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
them. So, it -- I've had many visits with Sid Peterson
Hospital and with other vendors on this very issue. It's a
frustrating thing, and -- and gradually we're -- we're
trying to work this out. Prior to -- prior to the Court
deciding to make -- to subsidize the operations, if I were
to get a bill in the office, I would have written a check
for it that day. We didn't get the bill until after -- this
last one that you're talking about, until the 17th of
November. Well, it was prior to the cutoff for today's
bills, so we won't pay it until the second week in December.
And those are the kind of issues that we -- that we're
dealing with. And, I mean, I've apologized to vendors.
I've -- I've been trying to be very diplomatic with all of
them to try to get them to understand this is the situation.
I mean -- I mean, there wasn't any reason for them to call
you. I mean, I -- I handled the bill today with -- with the
person at the doctor's office.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you pay the bill?
MR. TOMLINSON: What?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you pay the bill?
MR. TOMLINSON: Not personally, no.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't ask you if
you personally did. See, Tommy's still mad at me from
lunch; he jumped all over me.
MR. TOMLINSON: But I told them that --
11-22-04
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is the bill paid? Are
they going to call me back?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. They're --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the other
one?
MR. TOMLINSON: I haven't seen it yet. I
don't know what bill you're talking about. I don't -- I
have not seen a bill from a dentist for $2,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you know, the --
we laugh all the way through this thing, but it is not
funny.
MR. TOMLINSON: I know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is not funny when I
get a call from a bill collector on the Juvenile Detention
Facility. There's not a damn thing funny about that at all.
It just drives me up a wall. I mean, I apologized, and I
assured them that they would get paid and all.
MR. TOMLINSON: I've heard more of those
conversations probably than you have, because I talk to them
all the time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. You've been
responsible for the juvenile facility all this time, too.
MR. TOMLINSON: And I paid them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm a County
Commissioner that didn't have anything to do with it until
11-22-04
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
September 1. That'	s what I'm	talking	about.
MR.	TOMLINSON:	And we'	ve paid them when we
receive them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, these people
need to be paid, and I don't think that these men sitting at
this table need to be getting phone calls from --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't either.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- from providers in
our own community. I mean, that's -- this is not a good
thing. But other than that, I'm happy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, wait. While we're
on that -- how do we handle -- I'm looking at the Sheriff.
How do we handle -- the same situation has to happen at the
jail.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's handled a little
bit differently in the jail. Our computer system -- first
we determine -- we have had meetings with Sid Peterson and
the providers, so we determine if it's an incident that
occurred inside the jail, you know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we turn that
thing down so it doesn't hum?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If it's a longstanding
illness --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's worse.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There you go.
11-22-04
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That got it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Now, just
talk a little louder.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. If it's a
longstanding illness, an illness that occurred before, we
have a form we fill out when the person goes to the hospital
or to the doctor saying that they're responsible for it and
not the County, and we've got a pretty good agreement with
them that they do that. If it's something that occurred in
the -- in the jail that we're responsible for, then that
form says that we're responsible for it, and they send us a
bill. At the same time, our nursing staff keeps them all
signed up for indigent care, if they qualify for it, so we
keep that going. If it's an out-of-county --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, go ahead.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If it's an out-of-county
inmate, we make the decision. Because they're being housed
in our -- in our facility, so we make the decision on
whether or not they go to the hospital, and whether or not
we're responsible for it or whether the inmate is. If we're
responsible for it, at the end of month, when we send out
our out-of-county housing bill, which is all kept in track
by the computer system, then it also sends out another bill
that's medical that we mail to those counties to get
reimbursed for all the medical expenses that we paid on
11-22-04

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
their inmates that month. So, as soon as we get --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we prepay?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We prepay it, then we
get reimbursed. Tommy does that and gets it reimbursed from
those counties, and we don't have any problem doing it that
way that I have ever been made aware of.
MR. TOMLINSON: There's quite a lag time in
the time -- in the chain, though. I mean, from the time we
get the bill and we get our money back, I mean, it's -- it's
60 to 90 days.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Particularly with
people like Harris County, that takes a long time to get
through their system.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The housing contract we
have with those other counties stipulates in it that they
will reimburse us for any medical bills incurred -- for any
medical bills incurred by their inmates.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we --
MR. TOMLINSON: What happened -- a lot of
times the problem I have also with other counties is that
if -- if we pay the bill and we send it to Gillespie County,
they may decide not to pay it until they get reimbursed from
the family. So, you know, we're sitting here paying their
bill, waiting for them to reimburse us, and then finally,
when it does happen, it probably goes -- probably going to
11-22-04
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
go directly to the hospital, and then the hospital has to
turn around and write us a check. So, I mean, it's -- it is
a problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's -- I
understand the problem side of it, but I also -- you know,
people -- or businesses in this community that do business
with the County, whether it's the juvenile detention
facility, the jail, or any other department, should get paid
promptly. And if we -- you know, it's just kind of the cost
of doing business, way I look at it. If we're going to
house out-of-county people in either one of those
facilities, I think we have an obligation to make sure our
local vendors are at least paid promptly. You know, how
that is best handled, I don't know. I'll leave that to you
all. But I would think -- I don't like -- I forgot which
one of y'all just said this, but if we have a -- whether
it's a juvenile or an adult inmate, and they -- the county
we're housing the inmate from doesn't reimburse us until
they get reimbursed, that isn't good.
MR. TOMLINSON: No, it's not. That happens.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to have in our
contract with them, we send them the bill; they pay it back
to us if we prepaid it. I would probably rather us prepay
it.
25 ~ SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, when we send the
11-22-04
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
other counties their bills, I hope that's not happening with
any of our adult ones. I don't know, 'cause when we send
them out the bill every month, they get a copy of the actual
medical bill and everything else. It's just that we paid
it, and they pay the money to Kerr County.
MR. TOMLINSON: As -- just today I visited
with -- with the business office at Peterson Hospital, and
they're in agreement that they're willing to -- to send
their billings directly to the county that the child came
from, just to save some -- some time in the process of
shipping a bill around from place to place over a --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a related
question. Is there an appropriate paper trail for payroll
and related expenses with the appropriate approvals in place
for the Juvenile Detention Center?
MR. TOMLINSON: The payroll is -- is -- the
mechanics of the payroll is exactly like employees of the
County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Like what?
MR. TOMLINSON: We treat them -- we treat
that payroll the same as the County, employees of the
County. They get the same benefits. The -- the payroll
cutoff's the same time. Far as the payroll system's
concerned, you wouldn't know if they were a regular County
employee or detention -- detention facility employee.
11-22-04
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In your mind, what
constitutes an extraordinary payroll-related expense?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't follow that one.
What do you mean, an extraordinary payroll expense?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Something other than
routine payroll. Accrued vacation.
MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, that's standard.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Accruals.
MR. TOMLINSON: We do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do we do that?
MR. TOMLINSON: If someone leaves from the
County Clerk's office, and they have -- they've earned
vacation or comp time or holiday pay that they have --
that's on the books, we pay that employee those -- that time
when they leave.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under what
circumstances do we pay holiday pay?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, if they've worked a
holiday, and -- and it's -- and that's part of the time that
they've earned that -- that hasn't been paid to them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Like Rusty's office,
as an example; he -- he'd be the only one. He'd be the only
one that would work on a holiday, wouldn't he?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. I'm
just asking.
11-22-04
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
MR. TOMLINSON: That's -- that's a problem
system-wide, in that we have -- when somebody leaves, we --
we have earned time that -- that we pay them for when they
leave. That's -- that's in --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Personnel Policy.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think the deal is, in
the personnel, there are limits on that time. I think you
can only carry 180 hours --
MR. TOMLINSON: Right, there is a limit.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- vacation, and there's
limits on how much you can actually carry to be paid for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what is the paper
trail for a request for the payment of accruals, whatever
they are?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it would be either
their time card or a letter from the department head or the
elected official, whoever's in charge of -- of the
department.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Back to the -- are you
done?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Back to the OB/GYN bill
in-hand, why can't that be paid as a late bill and approved
right now?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have it. I don't
11-22-04
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
124
know what -- it's in the works. It's already been -- I
explained that to them today. I talked with the people
there, and that's fine with them, to be paid next time. I
don't have it, so I don't --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm ready to vote. I
can't wait to vote.
JUDGE TINLEY: I got a couple questions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dadgumit.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me get my yellow pad here.
Page 1, Commissioners Court. Deductible, B.I. claim. See
what I'm talking about?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, I know what you're
talking about. I don't know what case that is. I'd have to
look it up.
JUDGE TINLEY: It says Lozano on the print I
have.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know what coverage it
is. I don't know if it's general liability or --
JUDGE TINLEY: It's a B.I. claim; almost have
to be.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it could be -- well,
yeah, it would be. Or it could be --
JUDGE TINLEY: Could be comp.
MR. TOMLINSON: No, couldn't be auto there,
so it is general liability. We have a $10,000 deductible,
11-2~-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
125
so it would be -- it would be probably as a -- as an
attorney's bill. I'll have to look it up and see.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that an employee?
MR. TOMLINSON: Hmm?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it a bodily injury
claim for an employee?
MR. TOMLINSON: It wouldn't -- I don't think
so, no.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, it's some third-party
claimant, apparently.
MR. TOMLINSON: If it was an employee, it
would be worker's comp.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll put one in next
month and see.
JUDGE TINLEY: I was going to say --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three grand.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe we want to take a look
here, while Commissioner Baldwin is looking for that
particular --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, do you want to
look it up?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: 9075. Let's go to Page 8,
Sheriff. Guardian Security. That is just a piece of our
11-~2-04
_ t
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
upgrade?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The 10,000-something,
yes. That's the interview. That's -- we're still --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the interview, okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's the interview
room. That came out of Criminal Investigations. That was
budgeted.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is not part of the
general security --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The 39.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- remedy that we're going
into this year with that? 40,000, mas or menos?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think we had 39,000
budgeted. I have not had them do that yet, because even
though I have gotten estimates and proposals, per se, from
three other companies, there's a question of whether I still
need to go out for actual bids, since it is an expenditure
of over $25,000, and the County Attorney, Mr. Motley, is
looking into that to see if we need to bid it, or if all
those other proposals that we had gotten before budget time
would suffice for the bid. But that's the interview room.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. That's all the
questions I've got, gentlemen.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. It is -- this is a
settlement that the attorneys representing Texas Association
11-22-04
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
127
of Counties entered into with Norma Lozano for an accident
on -- it's July the 27th, '04.
JUDGE TINLEY: Slip and fall? Or do we know?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, how does
something like this get to Texas Association of Counties?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it would have to be
turned in as a third-party liability claim. Then we refer
it to them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who does?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You do?
MR. TOMLINSON: We do.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's another thing I can't
figure out. It's listed under us, Commissioners Court.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that -- it's -- it's
for professional services, I believe. Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, the deductible just
related to the attorney's fees that got charged against us
in connection with that claim?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the letter from -- from
TAC indicates that -- that they -- that this is a
settlement, and in addition to medical expenses that we
already paid for in the amount of $985.06.
JUDGE TINLEY: If we've got a $10,000
deductible, then it's clearly within our deductible.
11-22-04
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
128
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess I'm curious more
about -- if it's -- if it's being charged to Professional
Fees, I can understand why it got placed under Commissioners
Court.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's why it's been charged.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's the only reason,
is because it relates to professional fees?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But Commissioner Baldwin
had a good fundamental question. Just for education, how do
these claims -- I mean, who -- if someone falls, how do they
file a claim?
MR. TOMLINSON: Generally, when we have a
slip and fall or any kind of accident, the security officer,
Chuck, will investigate, write it up, give it to us. We --
we fax a letter, and plus the report from him, to -- to
Texas Association of Counties. They -- they send the letter
and report to their adjusting agency. If -- if there's a
need for further investigation, they assign someone to do
it. If not, then they -- they will deal with the injured
directly, pay their medical bills. Or -- and if there's a
litigation, then they assign an attorney to the case and
handle the case on their own from there on.
11-22-04
--
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
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- okay, you answered
my question.	I mean, locally, it's Chuck who primarily gets
it to you, and then it gets filed.
	MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
	JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on the bills?
Do we have a	motion and second?
	MS. PIEPER: Yes.
	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: Do we have any budget
amendments?	Hearing silence --
	MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have one, but there
-- there was	the one associated with Item -- I think it's
14.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's Item 14?
JUDGE TINLEY: Budget amendments.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But what was -- oh,
juvenile detention? That one.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understood you to say that
you didn't have an amendment figure for us.
MR. TOMLINSON: There's -- we have
li-zz-o9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
130
approximately $80,000 in receivables.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much?
MR. TOMLINSON: $80,000 in receivables. We
have 20 -- there's $20,600, approximately, in cash today.
Less the 15 that we've approved, that gives us five. I
don't have any way of knowing how much we're going to
collect between now and the payroll, which will be the 30th.
The last time the payroll was fifty -- almost $59,000. We
don't have any more bills between now and the next court
meeting, so I think I'm -- to be safe, I would -- I would
estimate 60. $60,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the -- if we go to
60, what's the total amount that we have authorized or
transferred into that juvenile detention facility?
MR. TOMLINSON: That would be one -- it would
be 130 plus -- be 260. $260,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 260 total?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 200 now.
MR. TOMLINSON: 260.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 260.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. We transferred 130 --
seems like October.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, but that -- receivables
were -- that was -- that was a dollar-for-dollar swap,
li-zz-o9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
131
wasn't it? Wasn't it?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, yes. But that's -- I
mean, to answer his question, that's how much we --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we probably still
have some of that -- I'm guessing that some of that is still
owed to us?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. Yes, it is. Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that
we declare an emergency and transfer $60,000 into the
Juvenile Detention Facility budget to cover payroll expenses
on November 30th.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
declare an emergency and transfer $60,000 to Juvenile
Detention Facility for payroll coverage. Any questions or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other budget amendments?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Do we have
any late bills?
11-22-04
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
132
MR. TOMLINSON: I have one. I think you've
already approved it, but it's for the Ford Motor Credit for
the down payment on those --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, we did.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- Sheriff's vehicles.
JUDGE TINLEY: $35,000, roughly.
MR. TOMLINSON: $35,983.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we approved it.
MR. TOMLINSON: All right. I don't see any
transcripts here. What about monthly reports?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir, we have those.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MS. PIEPER: We have those.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I've been furnished
with monthly reports for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3;
Justice of the Peace, Precinct l; and Road and Bridge. Do I
hear a motion that these reports be approved as submitted?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the designated monthly reports as submitted.
Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
11-22-09
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Do you
have any reports you wish to give us with respect to your
liaison assignments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, but I
appreciate you asking.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't believe I have
any.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I asked the Animal
Control officer to put a report in your in-baskets about
activities this year, and the reason I did that was because
of the front-page articles in the San Antonio newspaper, and
wondering if that might create some hysteria about -- about
euthanizing animals, and the reports -- the numbers are
good. So, I just wanted you to have that in case you had
questions about it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You could speak
intelligently.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Take more than that
report.
11-22-09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
134
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If I get any calls,
I'll refer them to you, Buster.
JUDGE TINLEY: Intelligently and without
outrage.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, no outrage.
JUDGE TINLEY: No outrage. Any -- any
further reports by anyone on the Court, or elected officials
or department heads? Any further business, gentlemen, that
is covered by the agenda?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see we have a new
Daily Times reporter with us today. What are you doing on
this side of the river?
MR. MACCROSSAN: Temporary.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He got promoted.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're moving up in
the world.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a demotion.
MR. MACCROSSAN: That's what you call it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He hobnobs with those
City guys; he may think this is a demotion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Being no further business,
we'll stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 3:10 p.m.)
11-22-04
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
135
STATE OF TEXAS I
COUNTY OF KERR I
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 29th day of November,
2004.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
w
BY: __ ___ _____
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
11-22-04
ORDER N0.28911
RESOLUTION
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of November 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously
approved by vote 4-0-0 for Kerr County to be part of the Hill Country Trail Region.
ORDER N0.28912
EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of November 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously
approved by vote 4-0-0 to authorize our risk management consultant, Gary Looney to
proceed with negotiations with Employee Benefit Administrators, Inc.; Mutual of
Omaha; Group and Pension Administrators, Inc.; and Benefit Planners, and in a effort to
continue work towards our insurance -- county health insurance.
ORDER NO. 28913
ELECTION WORKERS SERVICES
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of November 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to authorize the County Clerk to pay election workers for their
services when submitted by the County Clerk to the County Auditor for any and all future
elections.
ORDER N0.28914
RE-HIRE A PREVIOUSLY EMPLOYED EMPLOYEE
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of November 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to re-hire Simona Garza at a salary of 13.6.
ORDER N0.28915
FINAL PLAT OF EAGLE RIDGE SUBDVISION
Came to be heard this the 22day of November 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the final plat of Eagle Ridge Subdivision.
ORDER N0.28916
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BIG SKY RANCH
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of November 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 the final plat of Big Sky Ranch.
ORDER NO.28917
VARIANCES FOR PLAT OF HARTSHORN COUNTRY AND COWART
ADDITION
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of November 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to grant the revision of parts of Lots 4 and 5 and all of Lots 6
and 7 of Hartsorn Country and granting a 50' abandonment of unimproved county
easement on Lots 1 and 2 of the Preliminary Plat of Cowart Addition and set a public
hearing for December 28, 2004 at 10:00 A.M.
ORDER N0.28918
BIDS FOR EXHIBIT CENTER'S ROOF AND HVAC
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of November 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 3-2-0 the bids of Feller Fabrication, the installation of engineered
metal roof system in the amount of $108,431.00; And Hardin Heating and Cooling the
installation of HVAC in the amount of $41,425.00.
ORDER N0.28919
LEASE OF 4 NEW CARS FOR SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
Came to be heard this the 22day of November 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 the lease of 4 patrol units and authorize the Judge to sign the
lease, and approval of $35,983.11 the first years lease payments as budgeted.
ORDER N0.28920
KERR COUNTY EXTENSION OFFICE.
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of November 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court approved by vote of
3-2-0 to supplement the salary for Family and Consumer Science Agent position at Kerr
County Extension office in the amount of $3,000.00, with the condition to improve the
youth side of the program.
ORDER N0.28921
FORM CONTRACTS
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of November 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following contracts, Alamo Regional Transit, Kid's
advocacy Place, Kerr County Soil & Water Conservation District, Hill Country Crisis
.-. Council, Hill Country Court-Appointed Special Advocates (aka CASA), Kerr Economic
Development Foundation, K'Star, Dietert Claim and authorize the County Judge to sign
the same as they are returned.
ORDER NO. 28922
VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS FORM CONTRACTS.
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of November 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by vote 4-0-0 the contracts between Kerr County and the following volunteer
fire departments, and authorize the Judge to sign the same.
Castle Lake VFD
Comfort VFD
Elm Pass VFD
Ingram VFD
Tierra Linda VFD
Center Point VFD
Divide VFD
Hunt VFD
Mountain Home VFD
Turtle Creek VFD
Junction VFD
$ 1,000.00
13,000.00
13,000.00
13,000.00
1,000.00
13,000.00
13,000.00
13,000.00
13,000.00
13,000.00
1,000.00
ORDER N0.28923
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY
Came to be heard this the 22nd of November 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court approved by vote of 3-2-0 to offer
bondholders $1,750,000.00 for the Juvenile Detention Facility with conditions to be met
by bondholders.
ORDER N0.28924
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
On this the 22nd day of November 2004, came to be considered by the Court various
Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Expenses Amount
10-General $171,741.27
15-Road & Bridge 53,746.01
50-Indigent Health Care 44,330.10
76-Juvenile Detention Facility 15,286.64
80-Historical Commission 82.17
Total Cash Required for all Funds $285,186.19
Upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson seconded by Commissioner Baldwin.
The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts.
ORDER N0.28925
BUDGET AMENDMENT
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of November 2004 with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to declare an emergency and transfer $60,000.00 for payroll
coverage.
ORDER N0.28926
APPROVE AND ACCEPT MONTHLY REPORTS.
Came to be heard this the 22nd day of November 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.
J.P. # 3
J.P. # 1
Road and Bridge