1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
September 19, 1998
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: ROBERT A. DENSON, County Judge
H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
T. H. "BUTCH'" LACKEY, Commissioner Pct. 2
* JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 9
* (Commissioner Letz not present for afternoon session.)
FYed ~ZDayof~AD. t~j_QTtME~Z~ PM
&IlIE G. MEEKER
Clerk County Court, Kerr County, Texas
gy; ca~'~Deputy
8
9
10
11
12
13~
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
	I N D E X	
		PAGE
1.1	Pay Bills	3
1.2	Budget Amendments	3
1.3	Late Bills	15
1.9	Read and Approve Minutes	16
1.5	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	16
2.1	Revision of Plat of Ingram Hills	16
2.2	Final Plat of Fall Creek Estates	19
2.3	Irrevocable Letter of Credit - Cypress Springs	22
2.4	Preliminary Plat - Cypress Springs	25
2.9	PUBLIC HEARING - Replat of Pecan Valley Lot 3B	49
2.10	PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed Tax Rate	50
2.5	Clarification of Roadway - Center Point Dam	52
2.6	Preliminary Plat of Mountain Home Oaks	55
2.7	Release of Check - Mt. Ridge Spur	56
2.8	Preliminary Replat - H. Cooper Subdivision	57
2.11	Audit by Pressler, Thompson, and Company	62
2.12	Approve Order of General Election	63
2.13	Interlocal Agreements - Mental Health	
	Chemical Dependency	63
2.19	Revision of Fiscal Year '98 9-1-1 Budget	69
2.15	Budget Amendment - J.P. 1	73
2.16	Revised Job Descriptions - Maintenance Dept.	79
2.18	Restructure of OSSF/Floodplain Management Fees	76
2.19	Adding Name to War Memorial	78
2.20	Grant Application - Texas Parks & Wildlife	79
2.21	New Rate for Medical Examiner Services	83
2.22	Designation of Day of Week Court will Convene	89
2.23	Certificate of Substantial Completion -	
	Annex Demolition	85
2.17	Special Recognition - Former J. P. Pat Knox	87
2.29	Plan of Action - Resolve Electrical Problems,	
	First Floor Annex	89
2.25	Resolution in Support of S.T.A.R. Day	101
2.26	Appoint Interim Road Administrator	103
2.27	Tax Assessor/Collector Branch Office - Ingram	105
2.28	Release Security Pledged - Security State Bank	116
9.1	Action taken - Executive Session matters	124
5.1	Reports by Commissioners - Center Point Dam	193
2.1	Power of Attorney, Ingram Hills Tract 29	196
Reporter's Certificate	198
On Monday, September 14, 1998, at approximately 9:00
a.m., a Regular Session of Commissioners Court was held in
the Commissioners Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
6 P R O C E E D I N G S
7 JUDGE DENSON: Good morning. It's Monday,
8 September the 14th. It's 9 o'clock. We have a regular
9 Commissioners Court agenda, and a very extensive one, this
10 morning. However, before getting started, we'll have an
11 invocation and pledge of allegiance. This morning,
12 Commissioner Baldwin's in charge of the invocation. if
13 you'll please stand.
14 (Invocation and pledge of allegiance.)
15 JUDGE DENSON: Thank you very much. We need to pay
16 bills, gentlemen. Questions or motions?
17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve the bills.
18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. Big agenda, we need to
19 get moving.
20 JUDGE DENSON: Okay. All in favor?
21 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
22 JUDGE DENSON: Okay, budget amendments. Number 17
23 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for nondepartmental,
24		and	it's	to transfer	55,068 from our insurance liability line
25		item	to	autopsies to	pay bills totaling the 55,068.
3
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that they're
9 going to go up. Didn't we -- I have a letter from somewhere.
5 MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Somewhere that Austin's
7 going to go up. Do we not just simply --
8 MR. TOMLINSON: $100 a month
9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- we simply don't do
10 business in San Antonio any more?
11 MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think there's a place there
12 to do that, the way I understand it.
13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We might want to look into it,
14 'cause they certainly die in San Antonio. Maybe they don't
15 do contract work, but Austin's' getting pretty steep. The
16 transportation is about the $1,100 a autopsy now.
17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That might be a business to
18 consider after retirement, Judge.
19 JUDGE DENSON: We've got a motion, second.
20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Got a motion -- didn't I make a
21 motion on that?
22 COMMI33IONER OEHLER: Yeah.
23 JUDGE DENSON: Okay. All in favor?
29 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
25 JUDGE DENSON: Number 2?
4
1 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 2 is for the 216th
2 and 198th District Court, and involves the Ag Barn
3 facilities, nondepartmental, and the Health Department. I
4 have bills from the court -- from both courts for -- let's
5 see. For the 216th Court, I have I have bills totaling
6 $2,788.50. From the 198th Court, I have bills -- one for
7 $3,960.50 and one for 52,952. Then I have a bill for a court
8 transcript, and I need a -- that I need a hand check for, for
9 a late bill to Cindy Snider for $1,925. And it's for a court
10 transcript for the State of Texas vs. Jeffrey Wood. And this
11 line item transfer -- we're transferring $5,000 from a line
12 item in the Ag Harn facility, $631 from nondepartmental for
13 liability insurance line item, $640 from nondepartmental for
19 the independent audit line item, $300 from nondepartmental
15 for the tower expense, and 51,603 from First Responders,
16 which is a line item in the Health Department.
17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
19 JUDGE DENSON Questions? Comments? All in favor?
20 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
21 JUDGE DENSON: Number 3?
22 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This for J.P. 1, to transfer
23 $38 from his telephone line item to pay a maintenance
24 contract for a copier.
25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So move.
5
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Second, Commissioner Lackey. All in
favor?
9	(The motion was carried	by unanimous vote.)
5	JUDGE DENSON:	Four?	
6	MR. TOMLINSON:	Four is	for Maintenance, and it's a
7	transfer of 51,000 from	repairs an	d maintenance to supplies
8	in that department.		
9	COMMISSIONER L	ACKEY: So	move.
0	JUDGE DENSON:	I've got	a motion, Commissioner
11' Lackey.
12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
13 JUDGE DENSON: And a second, Commissioner Oehler.
19 All in favor?
15 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
16 JUDGE DENSON: Five?
17 MR. TOMLINSON: Five is for the jail and the
18 Sheriff's Department. I have overtime for the jail, I
19 believe it is -- yeah, for the jail -- for 38,901.92, and
20 for the Sheriff's office for 310,837.32. To apply that,
21 we're transferring $6,600 from jailers' salaries, 31,710.49,
22 from nurses' salaries, 36,259 from deputies' salaries, 33,000
23 from group insurance from the Sheriff's Office budget, and
29 51,471.77 from retirement in the Sheriff's budget.
25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, do you know what the
6
total overtime expense in the jail and the 3heriff's
Department this year is?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you guess?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, yes, I -- I can, too. It's
-- it's $39,018 for the jail, and it's $90,000 and some
change for the Sheriff's Office.
8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Almost $80,000 in overtime.
9 JUDGE DENSON: Yes.
10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm doing something wrong.
I1 It's my fault.
12 JUDGE DENSON: Well, you're the one that
13 implemented the overtime program.
19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is true. This is true.
15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, is there any
16 explanation, the reason for the overtime?
17 MR. TOMLINSON: No. Just -- it's an itemized list
18 of -- what I have is the hours, number of hours, and the rate
19 fox each department. That's all I have.
20 JUDGE DENSON: This is, I guess, sort of
21 rhetorical. And of course, we were informed back a year or
22 two ago that it's absolutely necessary, it's mandatory that
23 we pay overtime to comply with the law. But for so many
24 years, and I know the first -- up to the first couple years
25 of my term, we always managed to get by without working
7
11
9
5
6
7
81~'
9
10'
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
overtime. We accumulated a little bit of comp time, people
would take off. But we don't -- we don't do that any more.
We had to implement an overtime program, like you said, and
all of a sudden, 580,000.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Two departments.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is that if it's
because we -- the staffing was down, that's one thing, but if
there's been overtime, that's two different issues to me. I
would prefer the Sheriff to come in and explain why we have
this much overtime, or give -- give additional information.
I mean, lust -- you know. That's too much money without
having an explanation as to why we have the overtime.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, for purposes of this budget
amendment this morning, I think we need to handle this,
because what we're talking about is employees' paychecks that
are being held up if we do not. But I certainly am in
agreement with you that there needs to be a look at overtime
from an overall standpoint. So I'll make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second it.
JUDGE DENSON: Further discussion? Comments? All
in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Number 67
8
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 6 is for Juvenile Probation.
We have attorney ad litem bills for -- we have one actually
for $1,975, with unexpended balance of $1,562.50. We have a
bill for electronic monitoring for $575. In order to pay
those, we're moving $1,550 from transportation of juveniles
and $1,000 from retirement line item in Juvenile Probation.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: So move.
JUDGE DENSON: Motion, Commissioner Lackey.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
10		JUDGE DENSON:	And second, Commissioner Oehler.
11		All in favor?	
12		(The motion was	carried by unanimous vote.)
13		JUDGE DENSON:	All right. Seven?
14		MR. TOMLINSON:	Number 7 is for the Commissioners
15		Court, and it's -- I have	a bill for $2,008.69, and it's to
16		-- it's from Gary Javore.	It's for a bill from Dr ash
17		Consulting Engineers for	the lawsuit. This is per previous
18		Court order. We have to	declare emergency and pay this from
19		surplus.	
20		COMMISSIONER LE	TZ: So moved.
21		COMMISSIONER OE	HLER: Second.
22		JUDGE DENSON:	Got a motion and second. Further
23		questions? Comments? Al	l in favor?
29		(The motion was	carried by unanimous vote.)
25		JUDGE DENSON:	Eight?
9
MR. TOMLINSON: Eight is for the County Court. I
have bills for $2,500 for Court-appointed attorneys,
transferring that amount from the special prosecutors line
item.
5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
6 COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
7 JUDGE DENSON: Got a motion and second. Did you
8 get that, Tammy? All in favor?
9 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
10 JUDGE DENSON: Nine?
11 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Nine is another one for the
12 jail. Request from the Sheriff to transfer $2,892.38 in
13 prisoner medical. We do have bills totaling that.
19 Transferring S900 from jailers' salaries and $1,992.38 from
15 capital outlay.
16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
17 COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
18 JUDGE DENSON: Second, Commissioner Lackey.
19 Comments? Questions? All in favor?
20 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
21 JUDGE DENSON: Ten?
22 MR. TOMLINSON: This is -- 10 is for J.P. 2. It's
23 a request from Dawn Wright to transfer $175 into telephone
24 from software maintenance.
25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So move.
10
1	COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
2	JUDGE DENSON:	Motion and second. Questions?
3	Comments? All in favor?	
4	(The motion wa	s carried by unanimous vote.)
5	JUDGE DENSON:	Goodness gracious. Eleven?
6	MR. TOMLINSON:	Okay. Number 11 is for the County
7	Clerk, Billie Meeker, to	transfer $600 from her elections --
8	election judges into mac	hine repairs in the County Clerk's
9	budget. The other one -	- the next one is to transfer 5500
10	from overtime into part-	time salaries in the County Clerk's
11	budget.	
12	COMMISSIONER B	ALDWIN: Tommy, can we go back to the
13	first one, please? I'm	-- I think you misstated it there,
19	and for the record --	
15	MR. TOMLINSON:	Well, it comes out of the -- $600
16	comes from elections --	you know, elections department,
17	judges and clerks, into	the County Clerk's budget. I'm
18	sorry, that's backwards.	
19	JUDGE DENSON:	Just the opposite.
20	MR. TOMLINSON:	Okay.
21	COMMISSIONER B	ALDWIN: I don't see it that way
22	written down here, but -	-
23	JUDGE DENSON:	The $600 is coming out of the
29	general --	
25	MR. TOMLINSON:	You're right. Okay, let's see.
		11
The next one is to transfer S46 from elections -- or ballot
2 line item, $1,000 from employee training, $65.20 from
3 notices, $670 from machine repairs. Correspondingly, they go
4 into supplies in the elections budget of $96.97, $1,000,
5 565.20, $670, and then there's a request to transfer $691.22
6 from group insurance -- and this is out of records management
7 -- into -- for $641.22 into salaries in that department.
8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my only question, is
9 that very last one. Why would we be increasing salaries in
10 record management?
11 MR. TOMLINSON: I think -- think in the budget
12 process, we budgeted the wrong step in grade --
13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
19 MR. TOMLIN3ON: -- in that department, by one step
15 in grade.
16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay this bill.
17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
18 JUDGE DENSON: Okay.
19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you mean amendment?
20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Amendment, I'm sorry.
21 JUDGE DENSON: Further questions, comments on this?
22 All in favor?
23 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
24 JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Twelve?
25 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Twelve is for the Sheriff's
12
1	Department. It's a request from the Sheriff to	transfer
2	$1,695.95 from capital outlay to the telephone	line item.
3	COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.	
4	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.	
5	JUDGE DENSON: Motion and second. Fu	rther
6	questions, comments? All in favor?	
7	(The motion was carried by unanimous	vote.)
8	JUDGE DENSON: Thirteen?	
9	MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Thirteen is fo	r Ag Extension
10	Service, request from Eddie Holland to transfer	$899.30;
it	$99.30 to miscellaneous and 5800 to telephone.	
12	COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.	
13	COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: Second.	
19	JUDGE DENSON: Further questions? Co	mments? All
15	in favor?	
16	(The motion was carried by unanimous	vote.)
17	JUDGE DENSON: Okay.	
18	MR. TOMLINSON: We have --	
19	JUDGE DENSON: Fourteen?	
20	MR. TOMLINSON: Right.	
21	JUDGE DENSON: Which is a handout.	
22	MR. TOMLINSON: Right. It's for Road	and Bridge.
23	It's to transfer $1,740 from overtime to books,	publications
24	and dues. And it's for -- I have a bill that's	payable to
25	Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and it's	for the new
		13
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
91
10'
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
subdivision regulations.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So move.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Further questions? Comments? All
in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DEN3ON: Fifteen?
MR. TOMLINSON: Fifteen is -- is for Indigent
Health Care. We have some -- we have current billing of
$62,991.51, with a zero unexpended balance. So we have to
declare emergency and pay this out of surplus funds.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, how far have we gone
over our 10 percent now?
MR. TOMLINSON: We haven't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We still have not gone over?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What did we budget, 6 percent
last year? Last year we budgeted 6 percent?
MR. TOMLINSON: It was roughly that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This brings our total to right
at $580,000.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. Our 10 percent is -- is
approximately $600,000 and some change.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
19
1 JUDGE DENSON: And a second. Further questions?
2 Comments? All in favor?
3 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
4 JUDGE DENSON: Sixteen?
5 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Sixteen actually is a part
6 of 15, and it's -- it's a transfer of 522,137.55 from the
7 general fund into indigent health care fund. We didn't have
8 enough cash in that fund.
9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
11 JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion and second.
12 Further questions? Comments? All in favor?
13 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
19 JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Is that it7
15 MR. TOMLINSON: That's all the budget amendments.
16 JUDGE DENSON: Sir?
17 MR. TOMLINSON: That's all the budget amendments,
18 but I have a late bill.
19 JUDGE DENSON: Right, okay.
20 MR. TOMLINSON: It's from Mart, Inc., for the
21 demolition of the old 7ai1 for 557,948. I have a Certificate
22 of Payment signed by Mike Walker for this. It does not
23 include the retainage, so we still have that. SO,
29 apparently, this is their last bill until we -- until we get
25 final approval from him.
15
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So move.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Further questions? Comments? All
in favor?
5		(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
6		JUDGE DENSON:	Okay. We need to read and approve
7	minutes o	r waive the re	ading and approve.
8		COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: I move that we waive the
9	reading a	nd approve the	minutes.
10		COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Second.
11		JUDGE DEN3ON:	All in favor?
12		(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
13		JUDGE DENSON:	Okay. And do we have any monthly
19	reports?	Yes, I see we	do.
15		COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Truckloads.
16		COMMISSIONER	LETZ: I move we approve monthly
17	reports.		
18		COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Second.
19		JUDGE DENSON:	Accept and approve monthly reports.
20	I've got	a motion and s	econd. Further questions? Comments?
21	All in fa	vor?	
22		(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
23		JUDGE DENSON:	Okay. Consideration agenda. Top of
24	the list,	2.1. Consider revision of plat of Ingram Hills,
25	Tract 24,	Precinct 9.	County Engineer, Mr. Franklin
16
Johnston.
MR. JOHNSTON: Good morning.
JUDGE DENSON: Good morning.
9	MR. JOHNSTON:	Revision of plat, itself, appears to
5	be in order. The only	thing that I had a question about, it
6	came in late. Instead	of the owners signing the plat, the
7	realtor wanted to sign	it -- he submitted this; we have the
8	original -- as a power	of attorney. I'm not sure -- they
9	have the wrong county o	n it, for one thing. It says Kaufmann
10	County instead of Kerr	County, and it's not notarized. I was
11	going to see if that wa	s an acceptable power of attorney
12	instrument.	
13	MR. VICKERS:	I have the corrected one I gave to
14	them a while ago.	
15	MR. JOHNSTON:	Oh, you brought that in7
16	MR. VICKERS:	Gave to it Bruce a while ago.
17	COMMISSIONER	OEHLER: The Judge has it.
18	MR. JOHNSTON:	Gentlemen, if that's acceptable, I
19	recommend approval.	
20	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Is that okay?
21	JUDGE DENSON:	No, I don't think that's a -- that
22	will pass legal muster	as a power of attorney. For one
23	thing, it's not recorda	ble. And, certainly, we'd want to
29	record it. It doesn't	have an acknowledgment on it. It
25y should be signed under oath, also.
17
MR. JOHNSTON: Is there a standard form that they
should use for that, or just to go an attorney and have one
made? Is that --
JUDGE DENSON: Right. That's what I would always
recommend, is get their attorney involved. But I personally
don't think this is sufficient. But, gentlemen, y'all have
7	equal vote and voice on	this.
8	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: I'm in agreement with you.
9	JUDGE DENSON:	Hate to slow down the process, but
10	these things have to be	done properly, and I'm afraid this
11	isn't. By not passing	this today, what ramifications would
12	it work on the people t	hat are trying to get it done? What
13	-- is there going to be	any kind of substantial harm worked
19	on your clients if we wait until next Commissioners Court
15	meeting to do this?	
16	MR. VICKERS:	I wouldn't say -- not major harm, no.
17	Been working on it for	a long time.
18	JUDGE DENSON:	Yeah. I'm afraid that's what we're
19	going to have do. You	know, we could -- to try and
20	accommodate you, we cou	ld probably just put this on the shelf
21	or pass on it for right	now until this afternoon, because
22	we're going to be in se	ssion, in hopes of these people
23	getting together maybe	a proper power of attorney and get it
29	faxed in here. I take	it they live out of town?
25	MR. VICKERS:	Yes, sir.
18
1~
2
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12~
13'
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE DENSON: I don't know. That would make you
jump through some hoops today. What I would prefer to do is
just set it for next agenda.
MR. VICKERS: Okay.
JUDGE DENSON: About two weeks from today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we come back into session
this week and we recess, and they happen to get it in and we
are coming in for some other reason, we could act on it this
week.
JUDGE DENSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No
in back in session. It probably
JUDGE DEN3ON: We have
actually, for budget approval.
Thursday of this week, make this
Monday.
guarantee we're going to be
won't be --
a meeting on the 21st,
And we could, up until
an agenda item for next
MR. VICKERS: Okay.
JUDGE DENSON: If you want to try and do that, let
us know.
MR. VICKERS: Okay.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay, 2.2. Consider final plat of
Fall Creek Estates, Precinct 2. County Engineer.
MR. JOHNSTON: This is an item that Mr. Lackey had
brought to our attention -- what, a year, year and a half
ago?
19
1 COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Yeah. And through the help
2 of the County Attorney, we tracked all the owners down of --
3 it was a subdivision in form, I guess, but it was never made
9 as a subdivision. It was -- all the lots were sold when we
5 found out about it. So this plat is bringing it up to date.
6 A year late, but it's -- it's a plat of the -- what they did
7 out there.
8 JUDGE DENSON: Was a preliminary plat approved by
9 the Court?
10 MR. JOHNSTON: No, there wasn't any plat.
11 COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Never done a thing, lust went
12 out there and started building houses on it. And when I went
13 to Granger MacDonald, he said he had nothing to do with it,
19 that he had sold it to some firm out of Houston. And
15 somewhere here I see where Granger signed it.
16 JUDGE DENSON: Oh, yeah, that's -- I recall. This
17 is the one that we had the County Attorney write a letter to
18 the trustee of, I think, in Beaumont?
19 MR. JOHNSTON: Don Voelkel probably has more
20 information on it; he knows that gentleman.
21 MR. DON VOELKEL: They had already sold all the
22 tracts, and that's why it took so long. They had to ship
23 this all over the state to get all the signatures and
24 notarized and all.
25 JUDGE DENSON: Are we bypassing part of the
20
1 ordinary procedure? Or preliminary plats? Public hearing?
2 MR. JOHNSTON: I don't -- we're just trying to get
3 caught up with what's actually on the ground.
9 COMMISSIONER LACKEY: The way I found out about it,
5 one of the neighbors was complaining to me about when they
6 built the roads, they just dumped the gravel, went over the
7 fence on his property, and he was complaining about it, you
B know. When I went out to look at the roads, I didn't -- I
9 didn't like what I seen, so I come and got Frank and we went
10 back out there.
11 MR. JOHNSTON: And to make it more interesting,
12 it's half in Kerr County and half in Bandera County.
13 JUDGE DENSON: Right.
19 MR. JOHNSTON: So, pending our approval, then it's
15 going to get recorded in Bandera also.
16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are these County roads or
17 private roads?
18 MR. JOHNSTON: Private.
19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Private roads?
20 MR. VOELKEL: And between the public road of Fall
21 Creek Road and their property is a private road through
22 Granger's property. I mean, we couldn't have made that
23 public anyway, I guess, because of that fact.
24 MR. JOHNSTON: Without his approval.
25 MR. VOELKEL: Right.
21
1	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: One of these notes says that
2	these are private roads	?
3	MR. VOELKEL:	I think on page 2.
9	JUDGE DENSON:	All lots are sold?
5	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Better late than never.
6	COMMISSIONER	OEHLER: Yeah.
7	JUDGE DENSON:	Do I have a motion?
8	MR. JOHNSTON:	I think the filing fee has not yet
9	be been paid. Don's ca	rrying the check in his pocket.
10	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Let's see it. No, I'm
11	teasing you.	
12	JUDGE DENSON:	Okay. This guy was hard to track
13	down.	
14	COMMISSIONER	LACKEY: Boy, I hate to approve it,
15	but I guess -- maybe th	ey learned their lesson.
16	JUDGE DENSON:	Is that a motion?
17	COMMISSIONER	LACKEY: I'll make a motion.
18	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Second.
19	JUDGE DENSON:	Further questions? Comments? All
20	in favor?	
21	(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
22	JUDGE DENSON:	2.3, consider irrevocable Letter of
23	Credit as substitution	for the Performance Bond on Cypress
29	Springs Subdivision, Pr	ecinct 9. This is on the agenda at
25	the request of the Engi	neer and one of the developers. Now,
22
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16'
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this was either considered or we briefly discussed it?
MR. JOHNSTON: It was on the agenda last time, and
you requested a financial statement of the -- the Raymond
James Bank, and that's included in this packet, or it should
be -- you know, should have been.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My memory says that we had
asked Mr. Pollard -- is he still looking into this thing?
JUDGE DENSON: I don't know. I recall that, too.
MR. JOHNSTON: I talked to Tom Pollard on the
telephone, and his position was he'd prefer a Performance
Bond instead of a Letter of Credit. He felt that was more
secure for the County. But he said he was --
JUDGE DENSON: That's the position we're in now.
MR. JOHNSTON: -- going to make that recommendation
to the Court.
JUDGE DENSON: 30, our counsel is advising us to
maintain the status quo.
MR. JOHNSTON: Performance Bond. That was what he
told me on the phone.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you think that we should
wait and talk with counsel? Isn't he scheduled in here
today?
JUDGE DENSON: He's not going to be here today.
Let me ask -- at the risk of getting into someone's personal
business, which I don't want to do, but I think it's
23
necessary for this Court to -- in an attempt to accommodate
why this change is being requested or what hardship it will
work on the developers if we don't approve.
MR. JOHNSTON: They're all here; I think we can ask
them.
MR. WHIDBEE: There would be no hardship in using a
7	Performance Hond or just	agreement in lieu of a Performance
8	Bond. This was a -- Raymond James is my stockbroker, and my
9	broker simply asked, "Is	there anything that I can do to help
10	with the project?" And	this was his approach to solving the
11	problem of Performance B	ond. We can -- we can use any of
12	those three instruments.	
13	MR. JOHNSTON:	This may or may not even be a
14	factoz. If they build all the roads before final plat
15	approval, they don't need this particular bond; they just
16	need a maintenance bond.	This is only if they get plat
17	approval before all the	roads are complete. It wouldn't be
18	due anyway till -- till	sometime in the future. It doesn't
19	happen today.	
20	MR. WHIDBEE:	That's correct.
2I	MR. JOHNSTON:	They're just trying to cover their
22	-- see which way to go.	
23	JUDGE DENSON:	Well, based on advice of counsel, as
29I reported by our County Engineer, I don't think I'm in a
25 position where would I approve any --
29
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
JUDGE DENSON: -- type of motion or action on this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
JUDGE DENSON: Is there anyone on the Court that
5 wants to make a motion or pursue this at this time?
6 (No response.)
7 JUDGE DENSON: We'll just -- we won't take any
8 action on it today. Maybe later on if we need to reconsider,
9 we'll be glad to, but as the engineer said, if the roads are
10 put into shape and completed early on, then -- then we
11 actually bypass this problem.
12 Okay, 2.9. Consider preliminary plat for Cypress
13 Springs Subdivision, Precinct 4. County Engineer, also we
14 have the developers. Let me make a comment. I know we had
15 Mr. Moran and some other people here in Court back a few
16 weeks ago, just a predevelopment conference or whatever you
17 want to call it. And I know Bill Tucker, the resident
18 engineer from Texas Department of Transportation was here.
19 And, I don't know, I felt that there was a lot of feelings on
20 different people that were in the courtroom at that time
21 about questioning whether there was a good spirit of
22 cooperation on this matter. I had the opportunity to talk
23 with Mr. Tucker last week on a nonrelated matter, and he
29 brought up the fact that he had met with Mr. -- is it
25Y whitbee?
p 25
MR. WHIDBEE: Whidbee.
JUDGE DENSON: Mr. Whidbee and Mr. Moran subsequent
to our last meeting, and had a very, very pleasant meeting,
very cooperative meeting, very positive meeting, and wanted
me to pass that along to the Court. And he was very, very
pleased with the way everything had gone,
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He has signed off here,
so --
9	COMMISSIONER	OEHLER: I think one of the things in
10	question was whether th	ese lots that front 39 have access to
it	39 on the north side of	the highway, and they don't. They're
12	served by one of the pr	ivate roads; therefore, it won't be
13	more than lust one acce	ss to Hiqhway 39.
14	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: And they also took the tracts
15	along Guadalupe off the	plat, which will simplify it a lot.
16	They shouldn't have bee	n really included, in my mind.
17	COMMISSIONER	OEHLER: I think it looks very -- it
18	looks good.	
19	JUDGE DENSON:	Do you want to make a motion?
20	COMMISSIONER	OEHLER: Yes, sir.
21	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Well -- go ahead.
22	COMMISSIONER	OEHLER: I --
23	MR. JOHNSTON:	There's some variances requested.
29	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Yeah, we've got to talk
259 about these variances here.
26
1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let's hear the variances.
2 MR. JOHNSTON: We had a meeting last week with the
3 developers and Lee Voelkel and we covered most of these
4 topics, but two -- you know, they require your approval for
5 the variances. The first variance, the road shown on the
6 preliminary plat -- you know, if it lust came in as a
7 preliminary plat, when you look at it, it would be considered
8 local roads per our subdivision rules. They are seeking a
9 variance for Cypress Mill Road, Cypress Garden Road, and
10 Cypress Road from the local road specification to a paved
11 country lane specification. And this is where they're asking
12 for a variance. They're using the definition of a country
13 lane that we have in our regulations, and I quote, instance
19 where roads serve less than 15 lots, unquote. And in
15 considering this variance, you'll need to make -- it's a
16 policy decision that could change the subdivision rules in
17 the future, the question being, is the 15 lots referred to --
18 does it refer to a subdivision, entire subdivision, or just
19 the end of a road that has 15 lots on it? Or does a country
20 lane road change to a -- does a local road change to a
21 country lane at the end of the road? That's what they're --
22 basically what they're asking for. A little cul-de-sac that
23 comes off of it, and then the end of the road. That's one.
24 The other one is that they would like to -- there's one
25 more thing on that. i would recommend that both Cypress
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
91
10'
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Springs Road and Cypress Mill Road remain local roads, for
two reasons. One, the road extends beyond Phase I. It
dead-ends off the plat, so we don't know how many more lots
will add onto it. And the roads have, I think, more than 15
lots, you know, facing them. And the second variance they're
asking for is the base material for the local road
specification. I would not recommend that, because it -- it
changes the definition of a local road without changing the
name. It lowers the class of road, but it's still calling it
a local road. So I think if they do that, you know, they
ought to call it what it is, a country lane.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Franklin, back to the first
part. If it's 15 lots or less, it's a country lane, right?
To me, when I look at it, Cypress Road and Cypress Garden
meet this qualification.
MR. JOHNSTON: The cul-de-sacs?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I lust -- the way I --
maybe we didn't properly define it, but those two roads, I
mean, the service of those is gust less than 15 lots on both
sides of those roads. There should be -- obviously, more
people could drive on it, but that wasn't the intent. To me,
those two meet the definition of a country lane. Cypress
Mill and Cypress Spring, to me, look like a -- more of a
collector-type road, which would be the local road. That's
the way I look at it. And I guess --
28
1!
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11'
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, this is Cypress
Springs. That's the one that's going to access Phase II.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's -- if you come up
Cypress Springs and turn to the right, what's that road's
name?
MR. JOHNSTON: That's Cypress Springs. It
continues on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cypress Springs kind of winds
around?
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
COMMIS3IONER LETZ: Okay. Isn't that right?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: It continues off the top. Cypress
Mill continues off to the left.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It will be the main feeder
road fox Phase II, and possibly Phase III, whatever they
decide to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But these others, I can see
where, you know, there's nothing wrong with -- there's less
than 15 lots on those roads.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where does Cypress Mill go? I
mean, it dead-ends at the property. Is that just the
property line? There's nothing ever going to happen out
29
there?
MR. JOHNSTON: I think the master plan shows
there's several more lots beyond that that could be tied-in,
but they don't have that tied down for sure yet.
MR. VOELKEL: That's correct.
MR. JOHNSTON: There's extra -- it's not the
7' property line of the whole lot; there's more land over there.
8	COMMISSIONER	OEHLER: The thing is, I don't have a
9	problem with them using	on-site materials, providing they can
10	meet the specification.	I don't think that the term "crushed
11	base" necessarily means	that that is the superior material.
12	If you can get on-site	material that will meet those
13	specifications or come	real close to them, then I don't think
19	that's a factor. I hav	en't thought so since the very
15	beginning of the rules	process.
16	MR. JOHNSTON:	Well, for country lanes, I think
17	they run a test and I t	hink they can meet -- probably meet
1S	the specs on -- on the	country lane road. But the local
19	road, the specs call fo	r crushed limestone. Unless they set
20	up a crusher, they prob	ably wouldn't meet that spec without a
21	variance. That's what	they're asking for.
22	COMMISSIONER	OEHLER: I guess where I go back to on
23	all this stuff is that,	you know, this is going to be a
29	private road, number on	e.
25	JUDGE DENSON:	Private. And I -- that's important.
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
You know, a lot of the subdivisions that we approve in here
are public in nature, and it may be privately-owned roads
that are going to be maintained by the property owners'
association, but the public has access to them. In other
words, they go through that subdivision to get to another
subdivision or what-have-you. This is a gated community and
it doesn't go anywhere else, so it's -- it's private in
nature, where the public isn't even invited on these roads;
the general members of the public shouldn't be in there.
And, you know, I think we are getting very, very close to
telling people, you know, what they can do with their
property, which runs against my grain, anyhow.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I'll use an example.
You know, we approved a subdivision that doesn't have near
this many lots and things, but private roads in what used to
be Whiskey Canyon. The roads that are proposed to be built
in here are much superior, even using on-site material, to
what the people have out there. They only have, like, 10 or
12 feet of pavement in that subdivision. I mean, there are
places where you can't hardly pass a car, and we approved
that one. Granted, those are real large acreages and there's
not as much volume of traffic, but this is -- you know, this
has the proper width of right-of-way. And I believe that the
developers are also going to be living in this type
subdivision with people they sell to, and they're not going
31
1 to put in an inferior road, because they`re going to have to
2 listen to all that goes on when the roads fall apart. And I
3 don't think all the people that buy there are going to be
9 wanting to go back and redo those roads within two years. I
5 don't believe that that's the kind of road they're building.
6 I think what they're proposing is, you know, as close to a
7 crushed base -- you might say base road -- that you can get.
8 And I do believe it is -- it's a gated subdivision. It's
9 private roads, and you can call them whatever you want to,
10 but I still believe that they ought to get a variance for the
11 type of materials that they wish to use to build those roads
12 with.
13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, you know, I look at it
19 that if we give a variance here, we might as well rewrite the
15 subdivision rules again, because they're not worth anything.
16 And we had went through over a year of talk on this, and we
17 had many developers coming in, and, you know, they basically
18 agreed with the specs that we -- those that participated in
19 the process, with the specs that we came up with, you know.
20 That was -- and it was -- I mean, it's a gated community now,
21 but there's no insurance it's going to always be a gated
22 community. You know, it can be --
23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It would take a vote of the
24 entire homeowners' association to abandon it being private.
25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It can be a gate that can be
32
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
left open. There's -- Falling Water is an example out there.
I don't think it's ever been closed. It's got a gate and
there's people living in that subdivision. So, you know,
it's just goes back to whether we want to redo, again, the
roads part of the subdivision, to me, because if we give a
variance on this issue here, there's no reason we can't give
it to everybody else.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, there's not, as long as
it's a gated community and privately-owned -- private roads.
If you're going to have County-maintained roads, then you're
going to have to follow the specs, because, you know, we're
going to take them over, we're going to maintain them from
now on. But on this one, there is no cost to Kerr County
whatsoever. And I don't remember one time we've taken in one
of these kind of subdivisions and taken over the roads. They
don't want the public back in there; they want it to be as
private as it can be. And there's a big difference between
opening it up for the whole world and just opening it up to
landowners and their guests, and they're going to be
responsible for them. This is no cost to Kerr County
whatsoever.
JUDGE DENSON: Is there a notation on the plat --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, yeah.
JUDGE DENSON: -- about it being a gated community?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe so.
33
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE DENSON: Is there?
MR. JOHNSTON: Not gated community.
MR. VOELKEL: I don't believe we have the gated
community on there, Judge, but just the fact that it's a
private road. The final plat will have that special note
that goes on there, but at this point, there's no language
about a gated community that I'm aware of.
JUDGE DENSON: We need to make some notation on
that plat about it being a gated community. I'd certainly
vote for a variance in accordance with what Commissioner
Oehler --
MR. JOHNSTON: The down side is, it's a private --
gated now, but like Commissioner Letz said, 900 people can
show up one day and say, we want it public. You approved it,
so you maintain it.
JUDGE DENSON: To me, we're leaving a paper trail
that the Commissioners Court acted on the fact that it was
disclosed as being a gated subdivision.
MR. JOHNSTON: So, you're saying if they ever
wanted to make it public, they'd have to --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They'd have to bring them up
to the standard of the day.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's what it says on the plats.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That pretty well covers what
they're expecting to do if they want them taken over by the
34
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
County. It's no --
MR. JOHNSTON: That's what we had with the old
subdivision rules.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I just think we're
dabbling too much in private property -- private issues that
really are not a cost to Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm going to disagree.
I know you find that hard to believe. But the subdivision
regs were built and worked on for almost a year, and they
came across this table right here several times. That was
the time that y'all needed to address that, not now. This is
the wrong time do this thing, so I disagree with you. I may
-- I may agree with you in theory, but if -- if we're going
to agree that we're going to address this private property
issue, which may or may not be, then we need to qo back and
address subdivision regs, not piecemeal this thing like this.
So, because we have adopted the subdivision regs, and it is
built-in that all roads will be County-standard, then I'm
opposed to the variance. And another reason I'm opposed to
it is because our County Engineer is recommending -- and I'll
tell you, the one point he's making here that y'all haven't
addressed is those roads stop at the edge of that little map
there, and they continue -- probably continues onto page 23
and Phase II. So, in my mind, that really is a major artery,
or the possibility of a major artery, and needs to be built
35
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
81
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
according to -- accordingly. So, because of those reasons,
I'm going to be opposed to the variance.
MR. MORAN: I'd like to interject one thing.
JUDGE DENSON: This is Mr. Moran, Gary Moran.
MR. MORAN: We've had several tests performed out
there on these different types of material. One is so we
know how to build our roads and what kind of material we're
going to build on it on. And we've had also one tested,
intended to use for base, and it meets all the criteria of a
-- of a Type 2, State-approved material, except for the
passing of a Sieve 90, which is 9 percent over -- or .06
percent, meaning it's a coarser aggregate and it's never had
nothing done to it; it hasn't had a roller put on it or
anything else. And the only difference between it and a
crushed limestone or crushed base is that the aggregates is
just a little bit mare coarse. And, that -- the time we put
a roller on it or pad on it, it would meet any requirements
as far as a Type 2 material.
MR. JOHNSTON: Type 2? Or caliche, Type 3, you
mean?
MR. MORAN: No. According to the engineers that I
submitted a record to, they said the only difference between
this material and the stuff they use on State roads is this
is a little coarser aggregate, and in passing a Sieve 90,
it's supposed to be at 80 -- I think an 80, and it's an 86,
36
1	which is	.06 percent more coarser aggregate. And	that's the
2	only diff	erence between the two material	s. And we	submitted
3	six other	samples showing the materials	of what's	out there,
9	as far as	what we're going to encounter	when we go	to build
5	roads, th	e plasticity in them, how much	percentage	of
6	caliche.	Now, we've performed, I guess,	maybe sev	en or eight
7	tests out	there already, and I think --		
S		MR. JOHNSTON: I haven't seen	it. I hav	e six of
9	them that you furnished	-- I think six. And five of them
10	didn't meet the -- meet	any specs. They were dust -- you say
11	you saw profiles. And	the one, like I said, is close, but my
12	understanding was that	was a caliche spec.
13	MR. MORAN: N	o, it's --
19	MR. JOHNSTON:	Because the Type 2 is crushed, and
15	they weren't crushed.	
16	MR. MORAN: R	ight, that's what I'm saying. From
17	our engineers, it meets	all the requirements of a Type 2,
18	except for the coarsene	ss of the aggregates. It's .06
19	percent over, which is	right there on the line. And it's
20	never been nothing but	dug by the ground.
21	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: If the material is equivalent
22	to a Grade 2, you know,	I don't have a problem with you using
23	it, but --	
29	MR. JOHNSTON:	I don't have a problem with
25	equivalents. I didn't	really read it that I way. I thought
37
it was a caliche spec.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the intent of the rules
is it should meet that quality. So, I mean -- and I don't
have -- for that, I defer to that totally to Franklin and
your engineer.
6	MR. JOHNSTON: And it should also be	understood
7	that when they use on-site material like that a	nd have a
8	test, that needs to be stockpiled so we know wh	at part
9	they're testing and what they're going to use.	You know, not
10	just based on one sample somewhere.	
11	COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, the class	ification, I'm
12	not in favor of changing, other than what we've	just -- I
13	said earlier.	
14	MR. JOHNSTON: If they can meet these	specs for
15	Type 2, I think, you know, it would be great.	I think we
16	need more testing of it before they have --	
17	MR. MORAN: I haven't seen them.	
18	MR. JOHNSTON: And besides the roads,	I had a
19	couple other comments, which we went over last	week. They
20	have an engineer hired to do a drainage study.	We went over
21	all that. Looks like they're going to work all	that out.
22	There's nine lots that don't have the minimum f	rontage that
23	we call for in our subdivision rules. I don't	know if you
29	want to grant a variance to those or, you know,	they can
25	reconfigure them. Some of them are just a few	feet, some of
38
1 them are, you know, several feet as to the way they have them
2 laid out. And the water system that they're putting in, a
3 central water system, it's shown on one of those drawings.
9 My question was, does the well lot in the main -- water main
5 need to be part of the subdivision, or have an easement to
6 bring that into the Phase I? Right now it's completely
7 off-site.
8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Why does it need to be
9 on-site?
10 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, say that only the Phase I --
11 they sold the rest of the property. Where would the water
12 come from?
13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're looking down the road;
14 we don't know what they're going to do.
15 MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They're going to have to meet
17 the criteria on the next phase to be able to do it, correct?
18 Whatever they decide to do somewhere in the future, that's
19 going to have to meet the criteria of that day, right?
20 MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That doesn't have anything to
22 do with what we're talking about.
23 MR. JOHNSTON: Well, now, a for-instance. Say that
29 they only do Phase I and they sell the back to someone else
25 and their well's on that lot. How do they get water down to
39
Phase I if it doesn't have an easement or part of the
subdivision?
JUDGE DENSON: Well -- and I'm like Bruce. In our
action today, why do we have to guarantee there be a water
source for this undeveloped acreage?
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, some of the lots -- if they
drill their own well, some of the lots are too small. Some
of them are two acres.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Most of them are in excess of
2.5 acres.
11			MR. JOHNSTON:	Right. But there are, what, five or
12		six of	them with two ac	res. They wouldn't meet the criteria
13		if they	didn't have a w	ater system.
19			COMMISSIONER	OEHLER: There's five lots out of --
15			COMMISSIONER	LETZ: I mean --
16			COMMISSIONER	OEHLER: -- forty.
17			COMMISSIONER	LETZ: They're going to have a water
18		system.		
19			MR. JOHNSTON:	Right.
20			MR. VOELKEL:	Correct.
21			MR. JOHNSTON:	It's on top of the high hill,
22		logical	place to put it	. Just a question; I guess Headwaters
23 or somebody covers all that, but should that be tied in by an
29 easement, or the property of the subdivision line go up and
25 take that in?
90
1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a problem putting in
2 an easement from the well to here?
3 MR. MORAN: No.
4 MR. VOELKEL: That was our intent, that we have an
5 easement. And, of course, what would be written up in the
6 Deed Records -- or the Real Property Records coincides with
7 the plat, although it's not going to be on the plat itself.
S COMMISSIONER LETZ: That solves that.
9 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. And there -- there's one
10 other thing; that the road going -- the main road, Cypress
11 Springs Road, where it goes up and makes a left, and then it
12 makes -- makes kind of a Z shape, which we talked about, and
13 I -- they're going to make some minor changes. Section 502-B
19 says that all roads should be 90 degrees, all intersections.
15 That one's about a 120-degree turn.
16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They can modify that pretty
17 easily by cutting off that point that -- I mean --
18 MR. JOHNSTON: Is that easy, Lee?
19 MR. VOELKEL: Sure, that's not a problem. We'll
20 reconfigure that.
21 MR. JOHNSTON: That's all I have.
22 JUDGE DENSON: We're going -- what kind of dollars
23 are we talking about on the material, using on-site versus
24 off-site, bringing it in to meet the specs of the subdivision
25 rules? What's the difference in the dollars?
91
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
S
9~
l0l'
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MORAN: You're talking probably $100,000,
$150,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I go back to what I said. If
they can come up with on-site material that meets the same
quality as the Grade 2, I have absolutely no problems giving
a variance fox that, but I think it's -- the quality should
be the same.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Within a reasonable --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean -- you know.
MR. MORAN: Mr. Letz, the only thing with a -- a
Type 2 -- and I firmly agree with all of y'all. The roads
should be built out of quality materials, and that's
something that we want to do. But just specifically in the
-- the subdivision rules, that it states for a crushed-type
material. Now, that puts you -- you have to, you know, have
a machine you put on it and crush it. If you can find
material that's on-site that meets all the requirements of
that material except for the crushed part, and meeting it
within .06 percent, that material should be of equal value or
maybe just as good a road once it's put down as any road you
can get.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I don't know enough
about, you know, building roads to tell you -- to make a
comment, really. I mean --
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. The 6 percent he was talking
92
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
about, it's a gradation of different sizes of particles that
make up the entire road base. But it doesn't really addzess
the crushed part. That's -- that's round stone versus
fractured faces, which rounds tend to, you know, not hold as
well as a crushed one. They lust hold up better to traffic.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is additional testing necessary
for you to agree that it's the same quality? Or will it
never be the same quality, in your opinion?
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, you can never stand up there
and say that all crushed stone is the same as crushed stone.
Just -- you know, it's not. That would be -- that would be
the part you'd have to grant a variance to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, obviously.
MR. JOHNSTON: You might be able to get the
gradation; that one sample was real close on that part. The
plasticity was acceptable on that -- that one test. So, some
of the key factors are the same, but it's not -- or it's
apples and oranges.
MR. MORAN: I think one of the biggest -- biggest
problems with caliche is the plasticity, or index of how well
it will hold moisture and retain that moisture and make it
pliable. And, the materials that we tested and the samples,
as far as the PI index, the plasticity, the in-binder in it
is way down in the range that it calls on for on Class 2
materials.
93
MR. JOHNSTON: That's true. The one test, the
Number 6 test was -- the liquid limit and the PI were in the
range --
MR. MORAN: Very much on the good side. I mean,
5~ you can't get no better.
6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Like I say, I'll defer to
7 Franklin and Leonard on this. And Leonard's going to turn it
8 down, but if the quality's the same, in their opinion, it
9 will meet the quality standard, I don't have a problem with
10 the variance. But other than that, I do.
11 JUDGE DENSON: Okay. In the interest of moving
12 things along, if I don't have any kind of motion for action
13 to be taken on this approval of the preliminary plat with the
14 variances, we'll just need to pass on this and take it up
15 next time. Now, whether you can comment on the issue that
16 Commissioner Letz has raised about the analysis of that
17 material that's on-site --
18 MR.JOHNSTON: They have more tests, also. I'd like
19 to take a look at those.
20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Other than that, I think it's a
21 good subdivision. I think I've -- I'm in favor of it totally.
22 We just spent a lot of time on those subdivision rules, and I
23 just hate to give a variance to them right off the bat.
24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, you know, rules don't
25 always address every issue. That's why there is a provision
94
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 I
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
for the variance. And based on what is before us, I can't
see not approving it and giving a variance to the crushed
base and allow them to use on-site materials, providing they
will, within reason, meet the specifications that are in the
subdivision rules and regs. Because, really, I mean, they're
telling you they've gone through testing. They already told
you that, you've seen documentation of it, and they're trying
to do the best lob they can do with what they have to do.
I mean, it's dollars and cents, what it amounts to, and it is
a private road, no cost to the County whatsoever. That's
where my -- my deal is. This doesn't cost us a penny. This
will only do good for Kerr County. The better the lob they
do, the more tax base we get in there, the more tax money
we'll get in here to do other things with, but it won't be
spent on this subdivision. It may be spent on somebody
else's' roads, but not a dime on this one. And I don't see
anything -- any problem with requiring them to go where the
roads are a larger angle than 90 degrees and cut a little
corner off and make the turn radius -- I don't have a problem
with doing it. I think that's reasonable to add to the
request, to request that.
But I'll make a motion that we grant preliminary
approval of Cypress Springs Subdivision, Phase I, and allow
them to use on-site materials to build the roads, providing
that it is the same or close to the same quality as crushed
95
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
base. And that we ask them to take and cut the corners where
the access -- the roads that adjoin or run into each other
will be a 90-degree angle to access each road, or somewhere
close to 90. Long, drawn-out motion.
JUDGE DENSON: That is. And I'll second the
motion, if you'll include that they need to have a notation
on the plat that it is a gated community.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Gated community. I'll
include that in my motion.
JUDGE DENSON: You've got a second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How -- question. How do you --
your part about being the right quality -- the on-site
material being the proper quality, who's going to determine
it7
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The engineering lab. The lab
tests that they've done, that they provide lab tests to back
up their materials, and it meets or is close to the quality
of Type 2 base material.
MR. JOHNSTON: What does that "close to" mean? A
percentage-type thing?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER:
Within, five, six percent one
way or the other.
MR. JOHNSTON: Five or six percent?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, I think that's
reasonable. I think if you tried, you couldn't hit it
46
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13,
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
exactly with crushed road base every time, because it varies
depending on the content and the size it has in it. You
know, the size of the rock that's in it, that's variable too.
Everybody's crushed limestone is not the same.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's why they test it, also.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bruce, where is our County
Engineer-slash-Inspector in this? Is he involved in this?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, subdivision rules say
so. I don't believe it ought to be that way, but the rules
say it should. So I guess that he can be an inspector on the
job.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. Did you just
say that we're going to -- that you're recommending that we
take the word of some testing company and not our own
employee?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, sir, because they're the
ones that are going to have to back it up if their tests
fail.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm going to oppose that
big-time.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't believe our Engineer
has a testing lab; they have no equipment to do it with.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe not, but he's our
Engineer.
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't care who he is. I
take the word of experts who have a testing lab to
substantiate the tests that they do on materials.
MR. JOHNSTON: I agree with Bruce a hundred percent;
we don't have any facilities to test. We just deal with
reports.
JUDGE DENSON: You will bring the results of the
testing back before this Court?
MR. MORAN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE DENSON: For final approval, with your --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: With recommendation --
JUDGE DENSON: -- with your two cent's worth put
in7
MR. JOHNSTpN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can interpret them.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, I don't have a problem
with that.
MR. JOHNSTON: I also have a question about -- does
the County inspect private roads? You just said private,
gated roads. That came up on Saddlewood, and we determined
we didn't -- we didn't go on private property and inspect
roads.
(Off-the-record discussion.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. We've got a motion and
second. I think it's clear enough. Tammy, I can help with
98
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15 ',
16'
17'
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
you with that order if it comes about, Further comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all it is?
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah. Are you satisfied?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Satisfied the roads are staying
as they are -- there's no variance on the road
classification. Shouldn't have said that, probably.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, the only variance would
be to use on-site materials as opposed to crushed road base.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. I have no problem
with that.
JUDGE DENSON: Further questions? Comments? All
in favor?
(Judge Denson and Commissioners Lackey, Letz, and
Oehler indicated affirmatively.)
JUDGE DENSON: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Otte.
(The motion was carried by a vote of 9-1.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Are we through with Cypress
Springs for today? Looks like we are, from our agenda.
I need to move to two 10 o'clock matters that we have
set, one being 2.9, Public Hearing and consider final
approval of replat of Pecan Valley, Lot 3-B, Precinct 2. And
we need to close our Commissioners meeting at this time and
open a public hearing on that matter.
{The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:10 a.m., and a public hearing was held in
open court, as follows:)
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE DENSON: The County Engineer's here on that
also, along with Mike Tuck. Is there anyone from the public
that would like to address this?
(No response.)
JUDGE DENSON: I don't see any showing that there's
a member of the public that wants to comment on this matter.
Therefore, we'll close our public meeting and go back into
Commissioners Court and take up the matter.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:11 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.}
JUDGE DENSON: Franklin, do you have comments on
the final approval on this replat?
MR. JOHNSTON: I recommend final approval.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: I move that we approve it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion, Commissioner
Lackey. Second, Commissioner Baldwin. Further questions?
Comments? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. The next matter for public
hearing is agenda item 2.10, Public Hearing on the proposed
tax rate. And, again, we'll close our Commissioners Court
meeting and open up a public hearing on our proposed tax rate
that has been published.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:11 a.m., and a public hearing was held in
50
1 open court, as follows:)
2 JUDGE DENSON: And I'll ask that same question. Is
3 there a member of the public, or anyone else for that matter,
9 that has any comments or questions about our proposed tax
5 rate?
6 (No response.)
7 JUDGE DENSON: It doesn't look like there's anyone
8 that wants to comment on that, so I'll close our public
9 hearing on that matter. I will note that it's 10:12, 12
10 minutes after 10:00, 19th of September, 1998.
11 (The public hearing was concluded at 10:12 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
12 reopened.)
13 JUDGE DENSON: We're back in Commissioners Court
19 meeting, and we we need -- Ms. Rector, we need to approve
15 that tax rate?
16 MS. RECTOR: (Nodded.)
17 JUDGE DENSON: Do we need to take any action on
18 that today?
19 MS. RECTOR: You need to set your date and time for
20 your next meeting.
21 JUDGE DENSON: Yes, but that's already set, I
22 believe.
23 MS. RECTOR: But it needs to be made public in this
29 meeting.
25 JUDGE DENSON: Yeah. The 21st at 10 o'clock is for
51
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
19
15'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
us to adopt the budget, which has the tax rate in it.
MS. RECTOR: Right.
JUDGE DENSON: So, actually, there's no formal
action for us to take today, other than lust simply having
that public hearing. Okay. All right. Back to -- in order
on the agenda. And let me say this; for purposes of our
usual morning breaks and such as that, we have a very long
agenda today. We'll be here way on into the afternoon
finishing up this agenda. But rather than take our usual
break at 10:00 or somewhere along in there, at 11 o'clock we
have a little special recognition of a former elected
official, and so we'll take our morning break at that time
and take care of the formalities of that. Right now, we'll
go back into our agenda in order, 2.6, and continue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have 2.5.
JUDGE DENSON: Excuse me, 2.5, I'm sorry.
2.5, Clarification of roadway below dam in Center Point.
County Engineer.
MR. JOHNSTON: During the recent rains, the road
crews were out putting up high water signs. They were
approached by the City of Center Point and told that they
need to put signs and barricades on the road below the Center
Point Dam, Park street. They explained that the City of
Center Point was responsible for the road, for their streets
on both sides of it. It's a bridge -- actually called a
52
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bridge; it's a 20-foot span, but it's a little low water
bridge. And we went ahead and put the barricades up, but we
want clarification that this is part of Center Point. We
shouldn't be putting signs up in the city limits of Center
Point.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, who -- does the City of Center
Point own the -- own the dam and road?
MR. JOHNSTON: County owns the dam, but the bridge
-- it's been inspected by off-system TexDOT bridge program,
so I guess it's a TexDOT bridge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, some Center Point
folk are here. Well, just because TexDOT inspects it and
tries to put it on the off-system program --
MR. JOHNSTON: It's on the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that doesn't necessarily
mean that it's a -- I mean, is that supposed to mean
something? Who actually owns it? The County could own it or
City could own it.
MR. JOHNSTON: I'm not sure what that means. Z'hey
write up deficiencies on it.
MS. HARDIN: It's just part of the road base. If
it had to be replaced or repaired, the State would come in
and take care of any major expenses. But minor things, like
cleaning gravel out or blocking -- closing off the roadway,
whoever is in that area -- like on G Street, the City does
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
it. The low-water bridge by 539, the City does. If it's on
a State road, the State puts up the signs. If it's on a
County-maintained road, then they put up the signs. But --
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. I'm looking at the
photographs, or copies of photographs, in the agenda, and I
can see now that it looks like the dam and the road are
separate. They're two separate items.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
JUDGE DENSON: The dam, which you tell me the
County owns and are responsible for maintaining, is
completely separate from the roadway.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
JUDGE DENSON: The roadway, when Center Point
elected to become a city, --
MR. JOHNSTON: That was part of the streets --
JUDGE DENSON: -- everything within the city limits
became their responsibility. And I think that's the answer
to the question. Center Point is responsible for that road.
MR. JOHNSTON: That was our --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Heck, I'm with you, Judge.
With you 100 percent. Can we move on to the next item?
MR. JOHNSTON: That was our feeling. I just --
JUDGE DENSON: Let's see. Do you want some
declaration by the Court? What do you need?
MR. JOHNSTON: I guess a Court order we can send to
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16'
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Center Point, clarify it.
JUDGE DENSON: I think Road and Bridge -- they
don't need to be taking any action as far as putting up
barricades or signs or anything on the city street.
MS. HARDIN: I talked with the Highway Department,
too. They said in the future, that Bridge Report will go to
Center Point. We've been getting it because we maintain
these roads. And the next one that comes out will go to
them.
MR. JOHNSTON: If you can pass an order, we can
send it to them to clarify it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't need an order.
JUDGE DENSON: We don't need an order. It's like
every other street in Center Point.
MR. JOHNSTON: Okay.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. 2.6, consider preliminary
plat of Mountain Home Oaks, Precinct 9. County Engineer and
Rick Perry.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think you have that in your
packets. It's a subdivision near Mountain Home. I drove up
there last week and looked it at it; very nice-looking
property. They devised their roads and their lot sizes and
the number of lots to meet the country lane unpaved road
criteria, not counting the three that face the access
frontage road. I would recommend approval.
55
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
161
17~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JllDGE DENSON: I've got a motion and second.
Further questions? Comments? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: 2.7, consider release of check being
held for Mt. Ridge Spur and accepting road for maintenance.
County Engineer and Mike Tuck.
MR. JOHNSTON: Mountain Ridge Spur Road is in
Mountain Ridge Estates, built to County specs about one year
ago. And he put up some money for the maintenance
requirement, and a year's expired. And I drove over the
road; it looks fine, so --
JUDGE DENSON: What do you recommend?
MR. JOHNSTON: Recommend you accept it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So move.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I get to do it.
JUDGE DENSON: You want to do the second?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll do the second.
JUDGE DENSON: He does the first.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE DENSON: Motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
second by Commissioner Letz. All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
56
1 JUDGE DENSON: 2.8, consider preliminary replat of
2 Lot 2 in H. Cooper subdivision, Precinct 4. County Engineer,
3 Lee Voelkel, and Perry Bushong.
4 MR. JOHNSTON: He wrote a letter, and I think
5' that's in your packet.
6 MR. VOELKEL: Frank, can I make a comment before
7 you get started? We've had a little change since we wrote
8 that letter.
9 MR. JOHNSTON: Go ahead.
10 MR. LEE VOELKEL: When we prepared the agenda item
11 for Commissioners Court, I'm sure you'll see in your packet,
12 we had a request for a variance from road construction
13 completely. This is a replat of one lot; it was, like, 17
14 acres, redividing it into three lots. Since that letter was
15 written for your packet, Commissioner Oehler and I went on
16 the ground to look at the site. Mr. Oehler had certain
17 suggestions that he thought were appropriate for this road,
18 or for what construction needs to be done for this road. I
19 have talked to Mr. Bushong since then, and he is in in
20 agreement to do the suggestions that Mr. Bruce Oehler has for
21 the road construction, so we're a little bit different than
22 the letter, which said, We don't want to do anything, to a
23 point now where Mr. Oehler will make suggestions and whatever
29 suggestions he makes would be appropriate for us to do.
25 JUDGE DENSON: What if the Commissioners Court
p 57
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
doesn't agree with him?
MR. VOELKEL: Well, unless the Commissioners Court
does not agree with that, yes. If the Court agrees with it,
Mr. Bushong will agree with it; how about that?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: As Mr. Voelkel said, we went
out and looked there at things last week, and the first part
where it comes out of Thunder Road gets -- it's an upgrade of
more than 12 percent. This portion is paved and has good
drainage down the sides. It needs to be -- grass needs to be
killed on it, cleaned up, holes patched in it, and reseal it.
And then once you get to the top of the hill, just kind of a
pasture road that runs through there. And my suggestion was
that he -- he base the road out, pave it, put a cul-de-sac up
here at the end, rather than just have a road that ends. I
think that was proposed in the beginning. And that way, this
-- these lots would be somewhat the same with roadways and
whatever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All you're doing is --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Really, it's just on the
grade. I believe that by -- I believe trying get to 12
percent grade on this, you do more damage to your drainage,
and forcing water to do things that it has not been doing.
The ditch and everything is open; it's a deep ditch on the
high side. There's a culvert that goes under the roadway and
goes down and goes into a natural drainage ditch. I think it
58
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16'
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
just needs to be cleaned out, but I think the configuration
needs to remain like it is and the variance be granted on the
grade. It's just there's no way to make the grade any
better, that I can see. It's nearly impossible to get it to
less than what it is now.
MR. JOHNSTON: The road's paved country lane.
MR. VOELKEL: It's classified to be a paved country
lane. That would be the specifications that would be built,
with the exception of the grade. That would be the only
variance that would be requested. I brought a little colored
diagram along this morning just to show you what Bruce had
mentioned. The entire area there that's colored is built,
and it's a paved road. The very first 300 feet, which is the
orange section, is the area where the grade is steeper than
12 percent. It's around 17 percent. As they go up halfway
up the hill to the top of the hill, which is the green
section, it's 1.3 percent, so we do qualify for the upper
part; it's just that lower section of the road that we just
don't have the 12 percent on.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There's not much way to get
it. I mean, it's next to impossible to get the grade of 12
or over.
MR. JOHNSTON: The only other comment I had is
there's a Lot 1 in the replat and there's a Lot 1 in existing
lots. They need to reconfigure the lot numbers; twa Lot
59
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13,
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Number 1's in the same subdivision.
MR. VOELKEL: That will be no problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I had a couple of questions,
Lee, please.
MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On the U.G.R.A. plat review
-- and somebody just needs to tell me what this says. I
can't read -- I think it's Wiedenfeld?
MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well tract of insufficient
size for the placement of well?
MR. VOELKEL: Correct. Let me clarify that, if you
will. What we have here in this area where we've got well
tract on .06 acre. Right behind that, which is that little
rectangular -- that's not a part of this plat; it's a part of
the Shalako Estates that adjoin it. There was an existing
well site where there's an existing well and a water storage
tank. What we're doing is providing an additional area to
add to the well site if, in the future, any of this needs to
expand. In other words, if the water system needs to expand,
another well needs to be put in and another storage tank
needs to be put in, they would have that additional space.
This space actually is not -- this .06 acres will not be used
by itself as the well site; it's an addition to an existing
well site.
60
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. JOHNSTON: Will there be a water system for
these three lots?
MR. VOELKEL: That's correct, the water system will
serve these three lots.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In your letter here, it says
that the road will be used to access these three only. It
says only the three new lots and the well site, period. The
owner of Lot 1 of H. Cooper subdivision also has rights to
use it?
MR. VOELKEL: That's correct. The owner of Lot 1
here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which is this right here?
MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir. His main access is not
this road here. He has other access. He has a barn on this
side of the property.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see it now, okay. All
right, thank you. That's all.
MR. JOHNSTON: And you'll get the letter from
T.N.R.C.C. about the three lots, the three --
MR. VOELKEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move that we approve the
preliminary replat of Lot 2, H. Cooper subdivision, with the
variance of grade on there -- with variance of grade of
roadway.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
61
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13!
14
15
16
17
1S
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE DENSON: Further questions? Comments? All
in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
MR. VOELKEL: Excuse me. Do we need to set a date
for public hearing to come back, approve the final plat? Or
is that --
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah, we -- we will have to have a
public hearing on it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I guess we need to that or we
need to -- it doesn't say that in the agenda request.
(Off-the-record discussion.)
MR. JOHNSTON: We need to set a date for 30 days.
JUDGE DENSON: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't have a calendar.
JUDGE DENSON: I don't either.
MR. VOELKEL: I don't either.
(Off-the-record discussion.)
JUDGE DENSON: October the 26th?
MR. VOELKEL: That sounds fine.
JUDGE DENSON: October 26th at 10:00.
Okay. 2.11, consider and discuss agreement with
Pressler, Thompson and Company to audit Kerr County as of and
for the year ended September 30, 1998, and authorize County
Judge to sign same. Auditor.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- I don't have anything to
62
add to it.
10
11
12
13
19
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve.
MS. HARDIN: It would be October I3th.
JUDGE DENSON: October the 13th?
MS. HARDIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: For the public hearing? Today's the
19th, isn't it?
M3. HARDIN: This is September, so October 13th.
JUDGE DENSON: It would be October the 26th.
MS. HARDIN: Okay.
MR. VOELKEL: 26th.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. I had a motion from
Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: And I got a second from Commissioner
Lackey to approve the audit business. And all in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay, 2.12. Approve order of
General Election, November 3rd, 1998. Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: I have a second by Commissioner
Letz. All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: All right. 2.13, approve interlocal
63
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13,
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
agreements from mental health and chemical dependency.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So move.
JUDGE DENSON: Guadalupe, San Patricio, and Kendall
County.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion and a second.
Further questions? Comments? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: All right. 2.19, consider and
discuss approving revision of fiscal year '98 budget for
9-1-1 to coincide with a calendar year. T. Sandlin,
Director, is present. Do y'all want to approve? Y'all need
to hear something from him?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we approve, but
I do have some comments -- or, actually, a couple of
questions. But I move that we approve the budget. Everyone
else has done it. City's approved it; isn't that correct?
City approved it last week?
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'm not sure what Center
Point and Ingram have done.
MR. SANDLIN: All three have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It doesn't affect us in any
way -- our budget one way or another.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, does this agenda item ask us
69
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19 ~
15'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
to approve the budget or approve a change of a fiscal year?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Change of the dates from --
MR. SANDLIN: Actually, the change to -- to
revision of the budget --
JUDGE DENSON: Revision of fiscal year 1998 to
coincide with calendar year.
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, sir, it's to make that
adjustment. We had to extend our year by three months, or a
calendar quarter, so we would have a 15-month year. And in
doing so, the question came up, is that an amendment or
revision? We got into wordplay. An amendment to the budget
requires all of the participating jurisdictions to approve it
as in the manner they approved it, et cetera. So, rather
than play word games, I brought it to everybody so that --
make sure everything's on the up-and-up.
JUDGE DENSON: So we won't actually be approving
the budget until January the 1st?
MR. SANDLIN: Hopefully much before January 1st. I
plan to have the -- our new fiscal year proposed budget
available in October for review by jurisdictions.
JUDGE DENSON: For 15 months?
MR. SANDLIN: Pardon?
JUDGE DENSON: I'm missing something?
MR. SANDLIN: See, our budget year ends with
y'all's, on the 30th.
65
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE DENSON: Right.
MR. SANDLIN: And, according to our accountant,
it's the accountant's idea that the way we need to get up so
that we match the calendar year was we needed to extend this
current calendar year by a quarter. Okay? So this budget
year will have 15 months instead of 12. I know that sounds
strange. Then we're able to start -- then we'll start our
new calendar fiscal year January 1, 1999, which will require
a new budget, as if we had done the budget year October 1
instead of January 1.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. So we'll -- we'll be
approving in October sometime, T., the budget for the fiscal
year ending September the 30th, '98? And then in January --
or are you going to bring us another budget for 90 days
tacked on?
MR. SANDLIN: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, we're going to approve
-- that's already been done.
MR. SANDLIN: That's already been done. All we're
doing is asking for approval to extend this current year
budget by three months so we can end this year with the
calendar year, and then our new budget will start January 1.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I made a motion, but I want
to talk about 9-1-1 just for a moment.
66
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13~
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE DENSON: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: I'll second.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a reluctant second there.
Okay, now talk about them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have this newspaper here
that, in -- you know, being -- being a -- and I'm going to
admit it, I'm a politician. And having a little ding or a
rock thrown at me here is -- I really don't like. And there
is a lot of talk around town, you know, about maps and we
can't get maps out, we can't seem to get 9-1-1 up and running
because of duplication of roads and streets. And I will
agree that you did bring one of these CD discs by my office
months ago, and -- and several of us here in the courthouse
have them, although I don't have a computer. But my point
is, if that's the way that we're going to address
duplications or whatever these problems are of not having a
county map, that is the wrong way to do it.
What I want to do is suggest to you, if we have a list
of duplicated streets, that you walk in here and stand here
and say, "Here's duplications. Would you please change
these?" And we will do that. Actually, I prefer the
suggestion right here; add a prefix here to the duplication
-- or to one of the duplications. I see Battalion Chief
Crooks of the Fire Department has really studied this thing
and looked at it and has put it in place, and I have visited
67
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
with him, and I have a great deal of faith and trust in him.
And he says that's the way to do it, and that that is going
to work for all emergency services in Kerr County. Now, my
question is, why don't we do this thing? Why do we fuss at
each other in the newspaper? Why don't we just do this? Why
don't we do it?
MR. SANDLIN: My question for --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I sat here 10, 12 years ago,
basically, going through these same things.
MR. SANDLIN: I understand. Let me make it clear,
I wasn't here in charge 10 or 12 years ago. Bear in mind,
too, that not only do I have to deal with the County: I have
to deal with three cities. And what we are working
desperately to do, as far as mapping of them -- I've invited
you all over; I invite the public over. Some of you have
been there. As far as drawing little lines on the paper,
drawing the little lines on the computer, getting it
geodetically correct, we've done that. That's been done for
several months. We are -- in fact, I'm having a meeting with
our G.A.S. committee tomorrow hopefully to bring forth a
final draft of their recommendation on resuming the
road-naming, street-addressing guidelines, whatever you want
to call it, how we'll actually address this thing.
The last few months we've been through several -- for
lack of better words -- models. We've been modeling --
68
1
2
3
9
5
6,
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15.
16~
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
someone comes in with, "This is the way they do it in
Minnesota," "This is the way they do it in Arkansas," "This
is the way they do it in San Antonio," "Here's how they
handle it in Boerne." How does this apply to us? We ran
these various models to see what would work best for Kerr
County. We've gone full-circle on several things, and I
think that using the prefix designation tied to geographical
areas that we've defined by road boundaries will help some of
that. And I will be able to bring you, hopefully in a matter
of weeks, a report -- or these guidelines that outline this,
so I can hand them out to everybody and everybody can read
them; we'll all be on the same page. So, I'm trying to get
everybody, all three cities and the County, all on the same
sheet of music, and sometimes that's difficult.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me say this to you, and
I -- and I'm not speaking out of turn. I think every one of
these guys sitting up here, if there's something that we need
to do that we can do to get this thing up and running, say
it. Let's do it.
MR. SANDLIN: Let me get these guidelines in place
so that we know that we're all on the same sheet of music.
Because what's happened in the past is, maybe the County's
agreed to do something here, and City A has agreed to do
something here, and City B has agreed to do something here,
and they haven't meshed. And I don't have any way of taking
69
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
German, English, and French, and putting it in this computer
that does only English and have it come out English.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nothing's come to us in the two
years that I've been on the Court.
JUDGE DENSON: Let me make the suggestion that you,
in the next 30 days, get on our agenda in the form of a
report or a workshop or however you want to handle it.
MR. SANDLIN: I'd love to have a workshop where we
can sit down and discuss lust that and nothing else.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Okay, do that within the next
30 days and you can bring everybody up current where you are,
what the problems are, and maybe get some suggestions.
MR. SANDLIN: I feel your pain, and I hope you feel
my frustration.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, Buster made one point; he
stated simply, I think, that we're getting a lot of
information in the newspaper, and we should be getting it
directly from you. So, bring us up-to-date in a formal
setting.
MR. SANDLIN: I would lave to.
JUDGE DENSON: Thank you very much.
MR. SANDLIN: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We didn't vote on his deal,
though.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't -- let's wait and see if
70
1 he's going to come
2 JUDGE DENSON: You made a motion. Do you want to
3 take that back? Do you want to be an indian-giver?
4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Indian-giver? No.
5 MR. TOMLINSON: I'd like to ask a question. It may
6 be a little late, but why axe you changing the fiscal year?
7 MR. SANDLIN: Why am I changing fiscal year?
S Because of bookkeeping procedures. We have to keep several
9 reports, various State and Federal reports; some that
10 everybody's familiar with, such as TWC reports, FICA reports
11 and all that, that are based on the calendar year. And,
12 rather than having to keep one ending year open, like the
13 third quarter of a year, and open up another one in the
19 middle of the year and just keep that balancing act -- I
15 don't have a accounting staff or an engineering staff or
16 anything. It's me and a secretary that handles that, and
17 it's very difficult sometimes to make those various calendar
18 years match.
19 MR. TOMLINSON: It just seems different to me to
20 have all other governmental entities in this county the same,
21 and --
22 MR. SANDLIN: Oh, no, all of them aren't.
23 MR. TOMLINSON: I know the City and County and
29 school district.
25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Those are the three important
71
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12~
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ones.
MR. SANDLIN: They also have to stay up with that,
and they're manned so that they can keep up with this part of
things. This is part of the recommendations of my accountant
at our last audit to help streamline and keep things easy for
us.
MR. TOMLINSON: We don't -- the only thing I can
see that would be a problem for us is -- and we don't
actually fund 911.
MR. SANDLIN: No.
MR. TOMLINSON: So, I mean, if we did, it would be
a problem.
JUDGE DENSON: Completely different story.
MR. TOMLINSON: But I was just curious, 'cause I
deal -- I deal with different fiscal year ends all the time
in the State and County and -- and the Federal government,
and it's not a -- not really unusual to me. But I do
understand.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. You're not an indian-giver?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am not an indian-giver. I
will not be called an indian-giver.
JUDGE DENSON: You made the motion and Commissioner
Lackey made a second. All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Did anybody vote for its besides me7
72
1 Did we have any opposition to this?
2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see any reason to do
3 it, but I'll do it.
9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't see any reason, but I
5 guess I'll go along with it.
6 JUDGE DENSON: Okay, everybody went along with it.
7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But I'll tell you what, we
8 need to look at that budget, though. That's coming up.
9 Their expenditures exceed their income.
10 (Off-the-record discussion.)
11 JUDGE DENSON: 2.16, consider and discuss revised
12 lob descriptions for the Maintenance Department. I don't see
13 Glenn here. It may be that we want to -- look here.
19 (Glenn Holekamp entered the courtroom.)
15 JUDGE DENSON: I missed 2.15, so Glenn is really on
16 time. Consider and discuss budget amendment to change the
17 allocation of capital outlay from printer stand to tabletop
18 work space. And, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, it's not
19 necessary that you handle budget amendments like this in the
20 future. I mean, you can; we love to see you, love to hear
21 from you and all that. But if you lust run those through the
22 Auditor's office, we handle those things lust in the normal
23 course of business.
29 MR. TOMLINSON: I told him that since this was
25 capital outlay, that the Court needed to to approve a capital
73
expenditure -- or a change in the capital expenditure, since
it was a change in the budget. What it is, it's in the
budget, in the '98 --
J. P. ELLIOTT: '97.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- '97/'98 budget in the back, in
the appendix, it says that his capital outlay is for printer
stand.
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
2
2
2
2
2
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Do you want to approve it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I'll move that we
approve what all this is here.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a second, Commissioner
Lackey.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A tabletop work space.
There's work going on down there, is the point.
JUDGE DENSON: All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay.
J. P. ELLIOTT: And, Judge, I would rather have the
Auditor come before you than having to be in here as well.
JUDGE DENSON: All right. Okay, let's see. 2.18
-- excuse me, 2.16, consider and discuss revised lob
descriptions for Maintenance Department. Mr. Holekamp?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Did y'all receive those revised iob
79
descriptions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I had a
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They
Just for my own edification -- I know
names by things, but should you and I
so I can put a name by it7
MR. HOLEKAMP: Absolutely,
problem.
look at them.
do look good, Glenn.
we don't put people's
get together privately
whatever. I -- no
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. All right, we'll do
lOfl that.
11 MR. HOLEKAMP: What we -- just a quick summary of
12 what we did is we took assistant supervisors completely out
13 of it, and we just named positions based on senior
14 maintenance custodian. We grouped them together instead of
15 specializing people. Everybody is eligible to do any task
16 that's needed within the maintenance or custodian. That's
17 basically what this has done.
18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sounds good to me.
19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sounds good.
20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sounds good to me.
21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Less chiefs and more Indians.
22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we approve the revised
23 job descriptions for Maintenance Department as presented.
24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Third.
75
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion and second.
Further discussions? Comments? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank you.
JUDGE DENSON: All right. Thank you, sir. We'll
see you this afternoon.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. Approximately 1:30 or
2:00?
9	JUDGE DENSON:	1:30. Okay, 2.18. Consider and
10	discuss restructure of	fees for on-site sewage facilities and
11	floodplain management.	I just put this on the agenda as a
12	follow-up from our last	meeting when we had talked about
13	those.	
19	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
15	JUDGE DENSON:	And --
16	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Did we approve them last
17	meeting?	
18	JUDGE DENSON:	Well, everybody spoke in favorable
19	terms, but it wasn't on	the agenda.
20	COMMI33IONER	LETZ: Oh, okay.
21	JUDGE DENSON:	I brought it up in the context of
22	the budget.	
23	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Right.
29	JUDGE DENSON:	About whether we were going to have
25	to pay an increased subsidy to U.G.R.A. And, with their
76
proposed fee structure change, we will not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion me approve the
new fee structure required by U.G.R.A. regarding the
Floodplain -- O.S.S.F. and Floodplain Management program.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Motion and second.
7		COMMISSIONER	HALDWIN: In this letter dated August
S		27 to you from -- I don	't know who at U.G.R.A. --
9		JUDGE DENSON:	From Jim Brown, General Manager.
10		COMMISSIONER	HALDWIN: Yeah, okay. On page 2 --
11		one, two, three, four,	fifth paragraph down, he talks about
12		having another workshop	.
13		JUDGE DENSON:	Yes.
14		COMMISSIONER	HALDWIN: Okay. Are we going to have
15		another workshop with h	im? And why?
16		JUDGE DENSON:	It's not really necessary.
17		COMMISSIONER	HALDWIN: I don't see it either, but
18		I'm willing to go there	and meet with them; that would be
19		great and wonderful.	
20		JUDGE DENSON:	Why don't you?
21		COMMISSIONER	HALDWIN: Well, I think I will.
22		Larry, do you want to g	o? You buy the lunch and fix half the
23		flats, buddy.	
29		JUDGE DENSON:	Okay. Did we vote on that? All in
25Y favor?
p 77
11
3
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. 2.19, consider and discuss
adding name to war memorial, Rex Aubrey Raiford.
Commissioner, Precinct 9.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I was contacted a while back
that we need to add this name to the war memorial. This was
7	one that was	not caught whenever	the war memorial	was built.
8	We had to add	one, I don't know,	about three years	ago, a man
9	that had died	in -- I believe it	was World War II	at that
10	time. This -- this one is Aubrey Heagan Raiford -- I mean
11	Rex Aubre	y Raiford, I'm sorry. And he was killed in some
12	shipboard	during the Korean conflict. And the way we did
13	this the	last time, I contacted Don Hagel at Garden of
14	Memories,	and they came down and etched it in the granite. I
15	think the	cost was about 5125. The County bore the expense
16	of it. I	don't know, maybe it's a little bit mare now, but I
17	lust need	approval to have that done, and then we'll have to
18	find the	funds.
19		COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm definitely in favor of
20	it.	
21		COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
22		JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion from Commissioner
23	Letz.	
29		COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second.
25		JUDGE DENSON: Second, Commissioner Oehler.
78
Comments? Questions? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it definitely -- being
that we have the name of Rex and Aubrey -- I mean, this must
be the grandfather. Is it Gene's grandfather? That doesn't
interest the public, nevermind.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sure. He was born in 1931.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Old western Kerr County
9~ pioneers.
10		COMMISSIONER OEHLER:	Yeah.
11		JUDGE DENSON:	2.20,	consider and discuss grant
12		application to the Texas	Parks	and Wildlife Commission for
13		County Park at Flat Rock	Dam.	Commissioner Letz?
19	COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think	most of you have heard
15	by now that the grant application for	-- with the Parks and
16	Wildlife for the Flat Rock -- or Flat	Rock Park, whatever
17	it's called, was denied by the Parks	and Wildlife, and the --
18	I wanted to let everyone know that.	Also told not to
19	resubmit it, end of the file on this.	It was interesting; I
20	have had several conversations with t	he consultant we had
21	here to help us with this, and he was	, I think, rather
22	surprised that it was declined. One	thing that he mentioned
23	to me, that if we were able to contin	ue with the park, he
24	would provide their services, within	reason, at no additional
25	charge to the County. He feels that	it's a good-faith effort
79
on their part, which I thought was very nice of them to offer
that free to the County.
1
1
1
1
Other issues, which it was rather disturbing to me that
Walter was at a meeting with Parks and Wildlife, I guess the
last -- maybe a week ago Friday, and visited with Tim
Hogsett, who's the director of this program. And he brought
up -- this park came up, and Tim Hogsett told Walter Heard
that if Kerr County, and specifically myself, would have
supplied the proper information, it would have been approved,
which about sent me through the roof. We jumped through
every hoop possible with the Parks and Wildlife.
Commissioner Baldwin and I went up there and met with the --
with their staff on this park. They gave us a checklist of
140 what we needed to submit, and we went above and beyond,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
submitting far more than we were asked to. And they just --
it is beyond me why they would make that comment, that if we
would have provided the information they asked for, it would
have been approved.
I just -- you know, for some reason -- and I think the
reason is that the State Park across the river, the director
of that department was opposed to us having a park across the
river. I think that was the main reason. I don't know why
the Parks and Wildlife can't say the reason as to why it was
denied, which that is the only reason that I'm aware of,
negative.
80
On the upper side, or the next thing is -- and I'm glad
Fred Henneke's in the audience. Most of you are aware we had
3 a 5200,000 grant from L.C.R.A. to get this whole project
4 started. Twenty thousand of that went to the development of
5 a master park plan and the work that Rhodes and Associates in
6 San Antonio helped us with. 5180,000 was to go to the park,
7 or towards the construction of the facilities on the park,
8 and I'd like to -- you know, for the Court to formally
9 request L.C.R.A. to consider letting that grant stand and
10 providing it to the County, and let us proceed with a park --
11 maybe on a little bit smaller scale than was originally
12 envisioned, because that grant was contingent on getting the
13 grant from Parks and Wildlife.
19 MR. HENNEKE: No, it was not. That grant is for
15 Kerr County to use in connection with this park, period.
16 They encourage people to get these grants to try and leverage
17 up the Texas Parks and Wildlife, but that is Kerr County's
18 money to use for this park, and -- and it is the sticks and
19 bricks grant. They allow up to 10 percent to be used for
20 development of the application to Texas Parks and Wildlife.
21 The remainder is to be used for sticks and bricks. And,
22 again, it is specific to this park, but that's our money. I
23 think what we -- what I would suggest the Court do -- and
24 I'll be happy to facilitate -- is to get the Kerr -- the guy,
25 McGowan, to get over here from L.C.R.A. and give us a
81
1
2
3
9
5
6i,
7i
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
briefing on what they need to see before they basically turn
over the remainder of funds. It's my understanding -- but,
again, I'm a director, not a park guy -- that basically what
we need to do is show them what we're going to do with the
funds, and then they'll write us a check for the balance.
And we have to -- we will have to account to them as to the
use of those funds. If it's like the other grants that we've
gotten in Kerr County for the Little League, for the 4-H, for
the Hunt Fire Department, for the Hill Country Arts
Foundation, we will have to account to make sure that the
funds were used for the purpose that the grant was approved.
But beyond that, it's our money and all we need to do is make
sure the mechanism is understood.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reports from the Commission
-- I'd like, you know, permission to visit with Walter Heard
and take him up on his free services, look at the park plan
and reduce it down to basically a hundred and -- you know, I
think some community service hours, stuff like that, we can
keep that in there, but reduce the plan down to what we have
the money to do, using the -- the community service workers
and L.C.R.A. money.
JUDGE DENSON: I think the Court previously
appointed you as liaison in charge of this, and so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Keep going?
JUDGE DENSON: Keep going. Don't stop yet.
82
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11~
12'
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Walter Heard also suggested
that we open up a stand across from the State Park where we
rent innertubes, paddle boats, and everything else they rent
across the river, but charge a much lower fee.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'm in agreement with
that.
JUDGE DENSON: That will be one of the things -- we
want to put about $25,000 into paddle boats, see if we can
get that approved. Okay, 2.21 -- and, Pat Knox? Is Pat --
excuse me. Pat Dye, is Pat Knox going to be here?
MS. DYE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: In the courtroom?
MS. DYE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: She'll be here by 11:00?
MS. DYE: Yes.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay, good. 2.21, consider and
discuss new rate for Medical Examiner's services effective --
effective October 1st, '98. That's the letter, I think, that
y'all made reference to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Looks like they're going to
-- Travis County's going from $900 to $1,000 for each body.
JUDGE DENSON: And per our contract with them, we
either object and get out of the contract, or agree.
83
11
3N possible.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And look for somebody else if
4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I doubt there is anyone.
6 JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion and second.
7 Further questions? Comments? All in favor?
8 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
9 JUDGE DENSON: 2.22, consider and discuss
10 designation of a day of the week on which the Court shall
11 convene in regular term each month during the next fiscal
12 year. This is lust some housekeeping we have to actually
13 approve what our regular -- by law, what our Commissioners
19 meetings are going to be.
15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I like it the way it's been.
16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second and fourth Monday of
17 each month, regular meeting being the first, and --
18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- special meeting being the
20 second.
21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that motion.
22 JUDGE DENSON: Okay. I've got a motion and second.
23 Further questions? Comments? All in favor?
29 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
25 JUDGE DENSON: All right. And I don't see a
84
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Walker. Consider and discuss -- well, we can probably take
this up without him. Consider and discuss approving
Certificate of Substantial Completion for Kerr County Annex
demolition, and authorize County Judge to sign same. Since
we've already approved payment, I think we can approve
signing -- me signing their documents.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've not talked to him on this,
but --
JUDGE DENSON: He has signed it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, he's signed it. Far as I
know, they're done. It's all empty.
JUDGE DENSON: All right. Is that a motion to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Actually, I'd probably rather
wait for Mike to be here to make sure.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, he did sign the letter.
JUDGE DENSON: The form, Certificate of Substantial
Completion. He has signed it as of the 21st of August.
Maybe we can call him.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is he going to be in here?
JUDGE DENSON: Not that I know of.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here in his letter it says,
"The following list is a compilation of items observed by
architect on a walk-through on August ZOth," and it just kind
of tuns down a little list of things that haven't been done
yet. Do we --
85
JUDGE DENSON: Well, I think what he means -- I
don't know, but we can still get him in here before we
approve this. When he says "substantially complete", he
means just that. It's really done, but here is a bunch of
items --
1C
lI
1:
1.
ZS
15
lE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE DENSON: -- they need to do to actually
complete it. The "substantial completion" is a term used by
the American Association of Architects in their contracts
that triggers release of funds, except for retainage, which
is actually the action we've already taken.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We approved the payment this
morning.
JUDGE DENSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And --
JUDGE DENSON: And you -- you approved payment
based on substantial completion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE DENSON: So that's how -- that's why we
approved the payment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we ought to approve
the documents.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second it.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion by Letz, second by
86
Oehler. All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. We've made real good headway
this morning.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll be finished before lunch
break.
g JUDGE DENSON: It's 11:00, and at this time I'm
9 going to take up 2.17, which is entitled -- our agenda item
10 is entitled Special Recognition of former Justice of the
11 Peace, Precinct 1, Patricia Knox, for services to the Kerr
12 County community. I had the opportunity to discuss this with
13 the former County Clerk, Pat Dye, and with her assistance and
19 help, which obviously all of y'all -- you know, she's not
15 even in office any more, but she has the caring and
16 considering heart and feeling for Pat Knox; she went out of
17 her way and picked up a plaque and made arrangements fox
18 other events that are going to follow today's meeting.
19 But, I personally started out in County government about
20 the same time that Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, Pat Knox
21 did, back in '84 or '85, when I was in the County Attorney's
22 office, and I worked very, very closely with her at that
23 time, and have known her for a long time also. And I think
24 this lady has done an outstanding lob for our -- our
25 community. I'm not going to be so silly to say that -- you
87
1	know, in	the past	that there	has	been	some	differences and
~
2	all that.	Those	are things	that	come	come	up in the ordinary
3 course of business in our duties. And those things are
9 buried and put to rest from long ago. I think this is the
5 time today for us to come together as a group; not only our
6 Court, but other elected officials, and truly recognize the
7 achievements that this lady attained and the duties that she
8 performed in an outstanding fashion for the County from June
9 the 11th, 1989, to August the 31st, 1998, as it says in the
10 plaque that Pat Dye was able to put together.
11 It says, Patricia Knox, Justice of the Peace, Precinct
12 1, in recognition of 19 years of outstanding service for Kerr
13 County. And I'd like to ask, Judge, if you'll come up. Let
19 me give you this and say thank you very, very much.
15 (Applause.)
16 MS. KNOX: It was the hardest thing I ever had to
17 do in my life was to retire. I love the people. And I
18 always teased everybody, said I wasn't a politician. And
19 like Mr. Denson says, sometimes I got in their hair, but all
20 in all, I've worked with an awful lot of commissioners and a
21 lot of good people over the years. And Mr. Elliott now is
22 going to take my place, and i wish him the very best, and I
23 will always be around if he needs me. Again, I want to say
29 thank you. This means an awful lot to me, and I appreciate
25 it from the bottom of my heart.
88
1
Z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25~
(Applause.)
JUDGE DENSON: And now, again, with the help of Pat
Dye and so many other ladies, we're going to have a little
refreshment dawn in the Auditor's office. And so why don't
we take a -- about a 20-minute break, Commissioners Court,
and we'll be back at 11:20.
(Whey
JUDGE
September, '98.
see we have our
the Certificate
shouldn't have.
=upon a brief recess was taken.)
DENSON: Okay. It's 11:20, the 19th of
We're back in session after our break, and I
architect with us at this time. We approved
of Completion earlier. Speak up if we
MR. WALKER: No, that's fine.
JUDGE DENSON: We approved payment, except for
retainage --
MR. WALKER: Okay.
JUDGE DENSON: -- per the Auditor's information to
us that you had approved that. And, let's see, is there
anything else on here that deals with you?
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Yeah, 2.24.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah. 2.29, consider and discuss
approving plan of action recommended by architect and
engineer to resolve electrical problems on the First Floor
Annex.
MR. WALKER: Excuse me, Judge, can I back up to the
89
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8,
9',
l0l
11
12~
13'
14i
I5~
16'
17~
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
substantial completion thing? I need to explain one thing to
you.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah.
MR. WALKER: The contractor was supposed to get a
Change Order 2 put together. We still do not have that. So,
it is -- it is 90 percent, subject to the Change Order No. 2,
which was just a handful of small items, essentially.
Really, I think they were mostly credit items back to the
County back when we had the water damage to the Tax Oftice
and so forth. So, it is -- it is 90 percent, which whatever
the change order amount needs to be adjusted to, and it's not
-- I can't tell you what it is, because I haven't seen the
figure yet, but it is not substantial. And then I explained
to him that the 30 days waiting would -- the meter would
start from today, when you did what you did, voted on, and
then his 10 percent, plus whatever adjustment comes out of
Change Order 2 would be his final payment. I hope I didn't
misspeak on that, but I thought that's the way it would work.
So, that's all I wanted to clarify.
JUDGE DENSON: What about this plan of action?
MR. WALKER: Okay. Plan of action --
JUDGE DENSON: It's scary.
MR. WALKER: Please. Please don`t be scared. You
were given this last time, I believe. I don't know if you
were reissued that. We had a scheduling difficulty of some
90
1 sort, but I want to let you refresh your memory. We sort of
2 broke this into three phases -- or scopes, I guess, would be
3 proper, so we don't confuse it with our other phases. And,
4 Ed Thompson's here from Lux Engineering, and I'm going to let
5 him explain it to you. I would simply tell you that Scope
6 No. 1 is fixing the immediate things in the Tax Assessor/
7 Collector's office. No. 2 is really what we're basically
8 already doing. It amounts to very little more money in the
9 scope of the Phase III contract. And the Scope No. 3 items
10 were to be thought about another day. I don't even want to
11 get into them, because they're technical and we've talked
12 with Tommy briefly about it. They're -- that's something
13 that we probably need a workshop to work our way through and
14 find out what the County needs. So, if I can turn it over to
15 Ed Thompson, I'll let him explain to you what -- what he has
16 in this Scope 1.
17 MR. THOMPSON: You gave us -- or gave Mike
18 authorization to spend a little money to do some testing and
19 some reconciliation of the power problems and so forth on the
20 annex. I've been over here four different times from 15th of
21 June through the 30th of June, talked to department heads and
22 quite a few people about the power problems they were having
23 with their computers and what-have-you. And, the top section
24 of the first item, and there are four items under it, are
25 things that should be done right away to cure the things that
91
1 have been -- that are happening right now. And I think Item
2 2 on that list has already been done, that in the Tax Office
3 -- the Deputy's Office of the Tax Office, that a circuit
4 breaker was changed out. And I don't think Paula can answer
5 that you've had any more problems?
6 MS. RECTOR: I don't think we have.
7	MR. THOMPSON: So that may have solved that
8	problem. But -- so, hey, we were	right. Number one, the Tax
9	Office and Vehicle Registration.	Paula has a completely new
10	system coming down on her from the State, and she has asked
11	for information about what the new power load may be, what
12	that requirement may be for the new equipment they're
13	sending. And at this point, have	you received --
19	MS. RECTOR: I have not	received anything from
15	them. I did request it, though.	
16	MR. THOMPSON: Yes. I	have suggested that because
17	we do have some circuits that are	available in the existing
18	panel, that in order to be ready	-- she doesn't have a real
19	good schedule, either, about when	they're going to be
20	providing this.	
21	MS. RECTOR: We don't.	
22	MR. THOMPSON: But they	're probably going to call
23	her on a Monday morning and say,	"We'll be there in 30
29	minutes." I thought that we probably should provide two
25	additional circuits, and I -- you	probably don't know what
92
11
the configuration is going to be, either?
MS. RECTOR: No.
3		MR.	THOMPSON:	But	we	can	provide the circuits in
9		the area where	they will	have	to	be	installed, and then it
5		would be easy	to extend	that	to	the	new equipment. Item
Number 2 has already been done. In the Treasurer's office,
7	there is	a microwave that	is continuing to trip a	circuit,
8	and this	is just because	the microwave overloads	it. There
9	are other	circuits right	outside of that room tha	t can be
10 picked up and carried to this location, and so by doing that,
11 we would then take -- get rid of that problem for her.
12 I think the main concern that I have is Item 9, that the
13 -- and that is that the existing panel that feeds the
14 courthouse mainframe system that everybody uses in all of the
15 workstations around is not -- does not have a completely
16 separate power supply. And it is the computer's power supply
17 that needs to have a separate circuit. What this suggests is
18 that we add a circuit breaker in the line that feeds this
19 power -- this existing computer, and that will then be
20 according to the Code and it will make it so that if anything
21 happens to the main power supply that's coming into the room
22 where this is, that this circuit breaker then will interrupt
23 that, and will make it so that that system won't shut down.
29 The other thing that's going to take a little bit of
25W time is that, in my checking with my instruments, there is
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12,
13'.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
some power that is running in the grounding system of the
computer system, and that means that there are some stray
circuits in equipment or what-have-you that could cause some
problems. And this means just taking the system apart and
getting into it with instruments, and we'll take some time to
do that. So, $3,000 or $9,000, something like that, could be
just for the electrician's time to get in and maybe make
changes in plugs or what-have-you. Whatever is causing this
power to come into the grounding system is not a good thing.
So that -- that would be immediate things that can be done.
The testing to find where this power source is coming --
this stray power is coming from could be done on the weekend.
It could be done from 5:00 to 9:00 while you have someone in
the building. We have the drawings and so forth. What I'd
be glad to do would be to get -- with Mike's direction or
whatever you feel, to get an electrician or couple of
electricians in here and go over what they need to do and
supervise or what-have-you to do some testing. We need to
get above the ceiling and open some junction boxes. There's
just things that need to be done.
Under Scope 2, what we're doing is, in the new annex
design, there will be a separate panel in which -- to which
all of the computer systems will be installed. That means
when you have people who come in to do maintenance for a
computer problem, they don't have to look through a lot of
99
1 panels; they have one place to go. The second thing that it
2 means is that, if you ever want to have an uninterruptible
3 power supply fox all of the computers in the building, with
9 this separate panel you'll be able to just take that
5 emergency source to one place, and that will mean that all of
6 the circuits, then, within that panel will all be served by
7 that system. We have already accomplished that purpose in
8 the modification that we did on this floor, when this -- all
9 of these offices were modified. The maintenance of the
10 system will be a lot easier also, because -- or the power
11 problems will be less, because we do not have any motors in
12 that circuit coming from air-conditioning equipment and so
13 forth. So, it's just a better -- it's the way that modern
19 systems are designed. Some of this needs -- we'll just
15 continue to do that, because it probably adds maybe 52,500
16 overall to the cost of the job just to provide that extra
17 panel, and it -- you'll save that much and a lot more in the
18 future just because it's separated.
19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You say it's going to be
20 there anyway, that --
21 MR. THOMPSON: We're designing it that way.
22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Okay.
23 MR. THOMPSON: Yes. In other words, that's what
24 we're into right now. The circuits have all been separated
25 and it will be a separate panel.
95
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14~'
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the -- the cost to do
the Scope 1 is what were concerned with today. What's the
cost to fix the problems?
MR. THOMPSON: I would think, on the outside, we're
looking at less than 55,000; maybe between $4,000 and 55,000.
And most of that will be time for people to come up and chase
these circuits out. We have the drawings that we can do
this, but we need to get -- it's going to be disruptive in a
way, because we have to check individual pieces of equipment
that are causing these problems, and we need to find out
which circuits that feed what equipment are providing some of
this power in this wiring system and grounding system.
MR. WALKER: The 55,000 also includes what you've
already paid us.
MR. THOMPSON: That's true, I didn't mention that.
MR. WALKER: I think that's probably -- that's
topside.
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah, I would say so, right. So,
we're looking at maybe S3,000, 59,000.
MR. WALKER: Additional.
MR. THOMPSON: Additional.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's something we need
to qet done. I mean, they're -- what they've done so far has
certainly helped. There's just some problems in the wiring
that's happened over the years by adding computers and
96
electrical changes without really going in and doing it
properly initially.
MR. THOMPSON: That's true. When electricians come
in and do those things, they always do them -- they're
right-handed, so you look at all the right-hand circuit
breakers. But, anyway, no, you're absolutely right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, you know, that it's
just part of the, you know, renovation project.
JUDGE DENSON: Mm-hmm.
10 MR. WALKER: You want it done now? I guess our
11 question was, do you want us to go ahead and do it now, or do
12 you want us to plow it into the renovation process? If you
13 want them to go ahead and just get it done, there's not any
19 reason that Ed or Lux Engineering can't use -- work with the
15 electrician to do it.
16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We certainly --
17 MR. WALKER: It will cut me out. But, you know,
18 it's not nearly as serious a problem as --
19 MR. THOMPSON: No.
20 MR. WALKER: -- as it initially sounded like, and
21 so we're able to narrow it down and -- and, you know, Ed's
22 done a good job of pretty well functioning. But there's
23 still a little poking around that's qot to be done to find
29 out for sure, yes, they are all the problems.
25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to do the Scope 1 work.
97
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12'
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
That has to be done before we can tie into -- I mean, all of
the --
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 2 and 3. So, Tommy, is
there any money to do it this year? Do they need to wait
till after October 1? This comes out of that different fund,
right?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, we're going to have to -- well,
we're going to have to do a budget amendment to pay retainage
anyway. Because when we -- when we did the budget from
'97-'98 for capital improvements, I don't think -- I don't
think that we thought that Mike would be as far as long on
this phase. So, most of what we put in the budget was for
the actual demolition. So we -- we're going to need to do an
amendment whenever we approve the payment of retainage. So,
in answer to to your question, no, we don't. As it sits
today, we don't have the money in the budget for that. But
if we pay the retainage this year, we're going to have to do
an amendment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're going to pay the
retainage until next budget year.
MR. WALKER: It's 30 days.
JUDGE DENSON: Per the contract, it's paid at 30
days.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I'd have to look at it. I
98
don't remember how much we're going to have to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, to me it's simpler just
to go ahead and do it, but do it next budget year, where the
money is -- I mean out of this electrical work. Maybe this
can maybe come out of some other item.
MR. TOMLINSON: There may be some in --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we have -- this is a
maintenance issue as much it's a renovation issue.
MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, yeah, I think you're talking
10 about --
I1
12
1.
19
1'_
16
li
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can -- if there's money
there in Maintenance, I wouldn't object to getting with the
Maintenance Supervisor and working out with his budget if we
can do it right now.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think that will be a place to go.
MR. THOMPSON: That third item on there is -- we
would suggest that we have -- you may call it a workshop or
whatever, but if the department heads in the courthouse,
together with Maintenance and Tommy, get together and talk
about what they see coming in the time that they have here,
that will -- that may influence the -- or may have some
bearing on the needs for an uninterruptible power supply for
all of the computer systems in the building. It may not even
be necessary, because you already have some of that. But
some of them you don't have, and it would just be nice to get
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16'
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
together now as we're getting ready to make another big
financial improvement on this thing. If there are things
that can be done as we go, it would save money to do them
now, even though you may not want this in the future. So,
it's just a thought. It might be something that we just want
to table now and not worry about it. And then maybe Tommy
could get us together with the department heads and talk
about that and come up with something that we can see coming
down the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you talking about
planning and trying to look into the future? County
government? Come on, man.
MR. THOMPSON: We're going to try.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Surely not.
MR. THOMPSON: We're going to try. Well, look what
we did in this phase that we just finished. We've got the
computer circuits all set up, so that's ready. So we did
that.
(Judge Denson left the courtroom.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think this takes any
Court action today. I think if you just get with the
Maintenance Supervisor, see if he has money to work it into
his budget this year or next year to do this maintenance work
over in the annex.
MR. WALKER: We don't really -- for Scope 2, all we
100
1 really -- if the Court has any difference of opinion -- I
2 mean, we're just going to add that to the amount of work that
3 needs to be done in Phase III, just to make sure that
9 everything he's talked about is tuned up and ready so that
5 the Phase III will -- will flange right in. That's not
6 really -- we're just kind of letting you know what we're
7 doing there, unless somebody has an objection to it. And the
8 Scope 3 stuff, we'll talk about later.
9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
10 MR. WALKER: That's all I have.
11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that's it.
12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That is. Well, the Judge has
13 stepped out for a moment and asked me to continue with the
19 agenda. 2.25, consider and discuss approving resolution in
15 support of State of Texas Anniversary Remembrance, S.T.A.R.
16 Day. And I think we have a resolution. I'll read the
17 resolution.
18 WHEREAS, the citizens of the Republic of Texas in 1895,
19 in order to insure the continued blessing of liberty for
20 themselves and their posterity, welcomed the admission of the
21 Republic of Texas as the 28th state of the United States of
22 America when J. K. Polk was the 11th president of the United
23 States of America, signed the Joint Resolution of Congress
29 for Texas Statehood on December 29th, 1895; and
25 WHEREAS, on 19 February, 1896, members of the first
101
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15''
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
legislature of the State of Texas and other officials
gathered together at 12:00 noon with citizens in front of the
wood-planked capitol building on Hickory, which was 8th
Street, and Colorado Streets in the City of Austin to witness
Dr. Anson Jones, the last president of the Republic of Texas,
lower the Lone Star flag of the Republic of Texas for the
last time and raise the flag of the United States of America
to the top of the mast, and see James Pinckney Henderson
sworn in as the first governor of the State of Texas; and
WHEREAS, George W. Bush, Governor of the State of Texas,
has for the last three years proclaimed the 19th day of
February as the STATE OF TEXAS ANNIVERSARY REMEMBRANCE
(S.T.A.R.) DAY in the State of Texas.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Commissioners
Court of Austin County, Texas, does hereby request the 76th
Texas Legislature meeting in 1999 to consider establishing
the STATE OF TEXAS ANNIVERSARY REMEMBRANCE DAY, as Special
Observation Day on the 19th day of February each year to
observe the birthday of the State of Texas and celebrate the
rich history and diverse heritage of the people of the State
of Texas.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It should say Kerr County,
shouldn't it7
COMMIS3IONER OEHLER: Well, I think we probably
should put Kerr County in there instead of Austin County.
102
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11.
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I move that we agree
and approve.
(Judge Denson returned to the courtroom.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This thing -- I read this
thing last night, and I saw somewhere it -- Governor Bush is
simply proclaiming that the 19th of February is S.T.A.R. Day
throughout the state, but it is not necessarily a holiday.
It's not -- we're not talking about a holiday here.
JUDGE DENSON: You're going to make that clear,
huh?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to make that
clear, we're not talking about a holiday, but doggone if I
can find it now. But it's in this letter somewhere.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was a motion you made?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it is a motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And with the one change,
change it from Austin County to Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, Austin County to Kerr
County. I saw that, too.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Do we want to take up the next --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well --
JUDGE DENSON: Did you know that Leonard has just
103
it
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
been released to come back to work?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So I think it's --
JUDGE DENSON: It's moot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- it's moot, as long as he's
able to continue.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think we do need to monitor
it, make sure that he does -- if he's able to, he needs to be
at work. If he is not there, then I think we need to take
some action, because I believe that it's important.
JUDGE DENSON: Right. Well, it's -- they just
showed me a little fax that just came in, that he does have
an injury.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, yeah, he has an injury.
That's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just that, you know, we
probably should have done this a month ago when he first got
injured, that there has been no one formally appointed by the
Court to be running the Road and Bridge Department. And I
just think that if Leonard is going to be out, that that
should be done. Because he is back now, we can just take no
action on it, unless his injury gets to a point that he has
to start leaving again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, if -- what if that was
to happen? Why don't we do something now to have that in
place and -- huh? Do y'all have a suggestion? It's not a
104
1~ big deal.
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMI3SIONER LETZ: I talked with Leonard about it,
and this is a praise to him. He had a recommendation of who
he would like appointed, and it was Ray Cook. And if -- you
know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I guess maybe we might
be getting into something here. I don't know. I had a
conversation with him this morning; he called me, and some
things have changed, as far as that he gathered everybody
together and let them vote themselves.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was one of the guys that
lives down in your area.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They all live down in my area.
(Off-the-record discussion.)
JUDGE DENSON: It doesn't sound like we're in a
position to make a decision
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. I apologize.
JUDGE DENSON: Let's lust move to the next agenda
item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
JUDGE DENSON: 2.27, consider and discuss proposal
from City of Ingram relative to office space Tax
Assessor/Collector branch office. I have a letter to submit
to y'all. This came from -- from the letterhead, signed by
105
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12,
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
the mayor of the City of Ingram. However, before -- before
receiving this in fax form, I had a brief conversation with
the City Attorney of Ingram, and it was sort of a -- sort of
a caution, I think. I think he was telling me -- he says,
Y'all will be receiving this letter, and he says, Please
understand that this is sort of a -- I think he called it the
"first shot across the bow." And, he says, We can settle
into negotiations on this, and I said okay. I said, I really
don't have any comment until I see the letter, itself. And
he says, Well, don't -- y'all don't be offended or anything.
He says, When you get the letter, lust understand that that's
a starting point. I said all right.
And, so, I received the letter, and I was offended. And
I put it on the agenda for to us look at it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you over your offense by
now, or --
JUDGE DENSON: Yes. I'm going to let Bruce --
Bruce went out there and talked to the folks. And, I don't
know, in my mind, we've really gone out of our way to be
cooperative with the City of Ingram in the past. There have
been a number of things where we've worked with them, that
they've come to us and made requests that -- you know, Our
funding is limited in our little city, and would y'all please
help us with this and a117 And I think we've always been
accommodating, and it doesn't seem like this is -- we're
106
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
161
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
receiving reciprocal consideration.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I went out -- and Paula was
there -- and I made a presentation. And, evidently, I
confused a couple of them by my statements of saying, you
know, we provide a service for your stray dogs and whatever,
at a real reduced rate, and we do some dispatch work for you
for almost nothing, and you use our County yard for your
equipment and whatever. And now we're asking you to allocate
space for our Tax Assessor/Collector for a satellite office.
Well, they took that to mean -- part of them did -- that they
were -- I was trying to tell them that we would not charge
them any more for services for the dogs and cats and that we
wouldn't charge them anything for dispatch any more, and
that's not what I said. The paper was fairly accurate at
what they reported of what I was trying to get across to
them.
And, I have not seen any other letter other than this
one right here, which I guess is the last response that
you've gotten from them September the 8th. But I'm a little
offended, too. I think that we have bent over backwards to
help them, and there was going to be a lot of renovation
required out there to bring that space into usable space for
the Tax Assessor/Collector. I mean, right now there's some
partitions -- sliding partitions in there, and it would need
an air-conditioning unit and it would need -- you know, they
107
1 wanted us to put a separate meter, I think, and all kinds of
2 things that were going to cost a lot of money, and I think we
3 would be obligated to do that, but not that and pay rent,
9 from my perspective. I kind of feel like that, you know,
5 they really have not tried to be cooperative whatsoever.
6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You made the statement that
7 this letter is the first shot across the bow. Is that the
8 second shot? I mean, y'all kind of catch me --
9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They wouldn't even talk about
lOh it in our presence, really.
11		COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: I see.
12		COMMISSIONER	OEHLER: The day I went to the
13	meeting,	Paula was ther	e with me; they didn't ever really
19	discuss	the issue. The	y wanted to meet on it again later and
15	discuss	it and give us	an answer prior to this meeting today,
16	and I gu	ess that's what	this is.
17		JUDGE DENSON:	This basically says 5350 a month.
18	They're	wanting to offs	et what they're paying us now, plus us
19	do the r	emodeling, bear	the expenses for it.
20		COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Pay our electricity.
21		COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Yeah. Paula, how much right
22	now are	you using Bill	Ragsdale's office?
23		MS. RECTOR:	How much space?
24		COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Will that work? I know it's
25W not great, but is it just
108
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12,
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MS. RECTOR: We need more room. We're just kind of
sitting in a corner, you know, where we take the table --
take it down every week and kind of move his -- push his
stuff aside. So that part of his office is totally unusable
while we're there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What is your response to what
they offered?
MS. RECTOR: I feel the same as you do. I was
offended by the letter also, and by the comments that the
City Attorney made to me, saying that this was their attempt
to get the ball rolling. I think it -- they got it rolling
in the wrong direction.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think we discussed here not
long ago, take and sell that property there in the Loop. We
should probably just go ahead and do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That doesn't have anything to
1 do with this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree.
JUDGE DENSON: Put it on the agenda, declare it
surplus.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But I felt -- I was really
kind of offended by the -- you know, their expecting us to
give everything and them nothing for a service to the general
public.
109
1 JUDGE DENSON: Yeah, and that's a good point.
2 A very good point is that this will serve a lot of the -- the
3 City of Ingram residents. This --
4 MS. RECTOR: Well, even, too, the residents of
5 Kerrville, because of a lot of them don't want to come down
6 here and stand in line; they will drive to Ingram to get
7 waited on a lot quicker. We've had some people from
8 Kerrville in there. If they're in that area, they stop in
9 and go ahead and get their license there. So, it's not just
10 a benefit to west Kerr County, but to all of Kerr County;
11 anybody that's in that area can use that facility.
12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I just don't understand
13 it. I mean, I'm just totally blown away by the attitude that
19 we're supposed to fix it all up plus pay rent. And we're
15 doing all the services for them under what it's really worth.
16 MS. RECTOR: That was one of the questions that I
17 posed to Danny, was if someone was to come in there and rent
18 that space, would they be obligated to do all the renovation
19 to make it workable for them? He said yes. Perhaps that's
20 why no one's coming in there, because of the amount of
21 renovating that has to be done. That the City is not going
22 to provide anything but the space, and then they take care of
23 the inside of it. We're talking heating and cooling. And
24 they wanted a separate meter, which I understand there would
25 have to be a lot of rewiring done to do that also, and that's
110
11
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
expensive.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, let's point out, though, they
are going to provide water and they're going to allow you to
use the restroom facilities.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I just think we're to
the point where we have to rethink this thing. And the one
big advantage to it -- and I think this was where Paula was
coming from -- was that the law enforcement office is right
there, and it gives her a certain amount of security, which
we really can't get anywhere else. But, you know, I don't
believe that that is all that big a deal. I think the main
thing is that she would have some other people nearby.
MS. RECTOR: That was my main concern. If I'm
going to have one employee, most likely a female, when we
deal with the large amount of money that we do, especially
during tax season -- we intend to collect taxes there -- that
I would not want to put my employee in that position where
they were in any danger at all by being off by themselves.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we just respond to them
and say that, you know, we get rid of -- we're not going to
give them 3350 a month and we'll do the rest of it, period.
And if they don't accept it, we'll reevaluate their contract
with the County. I mean, I don't have a problem with us
paying for fixing up the office or paying utilities. But I
don't understand that, you know.
111
1
2
3
4
5
6'
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSTONER BALDWIN: I agree. It just blows me
away, though, that any -- it doesn't matter, you know, that
they use our County property out there or that we take care
of their dogs and for years, patch their roads and streets in
downtown. I mean, that doesn't bother me. The fact is, our
Assessor/Collector in this Commissioners Court is trying to
provide a service for the taxpayers in this county, and it's
being bogged down. Obviously, there's an attorney behind all
this. I mean, is my guess right?
JUDGE DENSON: You're right on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I thought. I
knew you'd recognize it. You bog down over something -- I
mean, we're going to sit here and negotiate back and forth
just to be negotiating. It's ridiculous.
JUDGE DENSON: Another point that -- what does the
fire district -- the boundary or the area that it serves?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 367 prefix, I believe.
COMMI3SIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
JUDGE DENSON: You know, we -- the County provides
additional funding or subsidy to that fire district, and I
think it -- it's always been my intent that part of the
reasoning for that is to prevent any kind of increased taxes
on the fire district, which I think it certainly serves the
City of Ingram, and maybe some other areas, too. The City of
Ingram, when they incorporated, they knew they had to provide
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12',
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
certain services to that city, including fire protection. So
we have an indirect -- we're indirectly subsidizing the City
of Ingram on fire protection, also.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I lust think, you know, that
we give and we give and we give, and every now and then it's
time for somebody else to help with the process. I mean,
we're putting basically -- your putting S15,000 in salary,
which I explained to them, to an employee to provide the
service, as well as the supplies and things it takes to
operate that office. And I felt like we had more than done
our share of what had to be done to make that office
possible. And it lust, you know, didn't even -- didn't hit a
nerve.
MS. RECTOR: I think one of the things they also
have overlooked is that I am their City Tax Collector. I
collect taxes for the City of Ingram and for the fire
district.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You can't help people that
don't want to be helped, that's all I can tell you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you say that again?
That was good.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, there's not anything we can do
about this at this time. Do you want to talk with them
again, Bruce?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll be glad to talk to them
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~i
25
again and see if they change their mind, if they would
reconsider; it would be the only thing I could do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it might be better for
the Judge to send a letter out there saying, We reject your
proposal. If you would like to, respond, respond.
JUDGE DENSON: I'd be glad to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's give -- so we'll pay
for tiring up the office space and we'll pay for the
electricity and having the meter running there, and -- what
is it?
MS. RECTOR: Heating and air conditioning.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And, really, making a solid
wall where there's sliding curtain partitions right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And there are two doors to
it. It's just a small little rectangular room. We're going
to have, like, heating and air conditioning put in. You have
to have some wiring done to accommodate the system, just like
she has over here for renewing license plates and changing
titles and all that stuff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's several thousand
dollars.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Its several thousand dollars,
I would imagine somewhere between $5,000 and $6,000 to fix it
where it's usable space.
119
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12I
13'
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem with
that. It wouldn't be -- you can't expect the City of Ingram
to renovate the office space and give it to us. So, I mean,
I don't have a problem with the County paying for that. I
don't know if we have it in the budget to do it; I don't
know.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It would have to come out of
public improvement along with some of this over here. But
it's -- you know, I think that's more than generous.
Because, actually, at some point in time, it's the property
of the City of Ingram. And interlocal agreements that will
-- that will tie that into actual payment for use of space
for a certain period of time, for five years or three years
or whatever the term might be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I don't know
how you get it in a letter, but I don't -- we don't need a
long, drawn-out negotiation over this. They either accept it
or the heck with it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. We lust won't provide
the service. Unfortunately.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay.
I'll send them a letter. Be
glad to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When we pull out, do we take
our air conditioner with us? Go get U.G.R.A.'s truck to go
over and get it7
115
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9~i
l0
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right. Judge, you've
done the -- you've got us through the entire agenda before
lunch.
JUDGE DENSON: I'm pondering use of the U.G.R.A.
truck to pick up an air conditioner in the City of Ingram
building.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we don't always get
back everything we loan out, is the point.
JUDGE DENSON: 2.28, Consider and discuss releasing
security paid by Security State Bank and Trust. Let's see.
Barbara, did you put this on the agenda?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: I see my name on it. It's wrong.
Yes, ma'am?
MS. NEMEC: Well, we have -- this will leave us
with $3.5 million in pledged securities, and we only have
51.8 million on deposit, so I don't see any more than that
being on deposit, so it will leave us enough pledged
securities to release that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Motion, Letz. Second, Baldwin. All
N in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. See y'all at 1:30.
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
(The morning agenda was concluded at 12 noon.)
JUDGE DENSON: It is 1:30. It's the 19th of
September, '98, Commissioners Court afternoon session. I see
Leonard Odom here.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: Hey, Leonard, how are you?
MR. ODOM: Just fine, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: You're feeling good?
MR. ODOM: Feeling better. I don't necessarily use
the description "fine", but better.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah. We, of course, had a few
agenda items to consider today as part of your situation.
MR. ODOM: That's what --
JUDGE DENSON: I had that faxed notice from that
clinic in, and got word that you're back on the job.
MR. ODOM: I'm back. I'd be more than happy to
discuss, you know, any of that with you. I'm sorry I didn't
come this morning, but I had talked to Buster this morning --
it was later than I thought, and y'all were going into court
-- to see if you wanted me to come down prior to that. But
when I had talked to Jonathan last Thursday, I believe, I was
in part of the day to go over some stuff with contractors for
the new budget year, and he said something about 1 o'clock.
That's the reason I didn't come this morning, if y'all were
117
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
19
151'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
going to have Executive Session on this.
JUDGE DENSON: No, we don't have any -- it's moot.
I mean, we don't have, really, anything to discuss in
Executive Session.
MR. ODOM: Well, I mean, if there's any -- I don't
quite understand why we had it in the first place, but, I
mean, if somebody's got something they wish to ask me or
complain about, I'd be more than happy to try to address it.
JUDGE DENSON: No, it wasn't directed at you. And
I can't be specific about it, but it was all in the context
of having someone in charge out there, and we were going to
appoint someone. But, in context, again, of appointing
someone, there was going to be some discussion about same of
the complaints that were going on, because there was not, you
know, some head out there to operate things. Nothing
directed at you personally.
MR. ODOM: Okay. May I address that, please?
And I'll tell you that I think that that situation is
probably a little bit misconstrued, because I have --
probably not one day has gone by where I have not conversed
-- or at least by the next day, over the phone. The only
time that I've ever probably been out was the first -- August
the 9th and 5th. That's when my back just laid up on me
prior to that on that Saturday, and then I was down; I
couldn't come in. But I've always been in, either on a
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
Monday or -- or a Tuesday, just like I normally do, to brief
-- be briefed on where we're at and what we're doing.
And, so, I talked basically with Truby, I talked to Ray
Cook. And that's who I basically had in charge at that point
to take care of the men, as far as if there was a
controversy, Ray was supposed to take care of it, 'cause he
knew every one of those young men out there and, you know,
almost raised them. So I felt like there wasn't any
problems. And I didn't hear of any problems where we're at.
The only thing we ever did from August -- and I have these
charts that I -- that we use on the basis to analyze and look
at. But, you know, we were out of money, the men are slow,
you had the rain in August. If you look at black -- if you
see those charts like that, that black is "Other". That's
busy-work.
You see in July, we were on schedule. And we told you
we'd be out of money. Basically, that's where they're at.
When you start getting into August, look at black. Now, when
the cat's away, mice play. And when you have busy-work, then
you have this problem of people doing their work. These men
did the program in July. Buster had -- was the last one that
we had. We had it done except for the striping and, I think,
about 5 percent of the seal left. So the work was there.
The line items are normally dead, and when you have
busy-work, and then you have the -- you know, the rain that
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
we had, and then they get -- they get slower.
And there's some things that were going on that I was
briefed on. And, basically, my understanding is that Mrs.
Hardin, you know, is my assistant; she's not a secretary, but
we do converse. And Franklin was there and spent, I think,
every day there -- you know, not the whole day. So I felt
like I had a very good handle on things, and I knew I'd come
back. But it's like dealing with doctors. You just don't
get anything when you deal with the State, trying to get
permission to do anything. You can't do a whole lot until
you get -- get their permission to do anything. So, I --
their thinking drug out a little bit more than I wanted to.
But the good Lord knows I'm not well, but I'm better.
I've got a herniated disk with an extrusion out on the nerve
root that I lose feeling in the left leg and -- and my heel
and my foot. So, I've taken cortizone or steroids, they told
me, for two injections. So, I'm better; I don't have the
pain. I have more mobility than I had. And -- and he said
there was no reason that I couldn't go back to work. Let's
take a look and see how things go, and go forward with an
operation if we had to. So, that's where I'm at. I did --
when Jonathan told me there was some complaints, it sort of
surprised me, because --
(Knock on the door.)
JUDGE DENSON: We're not in Executive Session.
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Off-the-record discussion.)
MR. ODOM: And, so, you know, basically, I asked
Truby to go ahead and call the supervisors in and ask them
again, because, you know, like I say, Monday and Tuesday, I
had no inclination that we had problems. We had a few things
of people being a little bit slow. Like I say, if you look
at August, see black, you see that disparity. I looked at
September to see where I'm at. We're getting focused and
going back to my normal operation. Because September -- I
saved the money for September, because this is hurricane
season, September and October.
JUDGE DENSON: Now, I --
MR. ODOM: I'm just trying to give you some basis,
Judge.
JUDGE DENSON: We don't -- yeah. We don't have to
discuss it. Everything's cool, as they say.
MR. ODOM: Well, apparently there was some
problems, but I'll tell you what, if there is -- I asked the
men to go back in to vote, instead of me just taking Ray. If
there's, apparently, a problem, then Ray's not doing what he
was supposed to be doing. So, I asked them to vote, and they
came up with a name, and I have an individual in case I'm
down again like this, and I may very well be. I'm told that
if I had to have an operation, they said I'm healthy,
everything is fine except that one extrusion, and it wouldn't
121
1 be two days, and two days recoup -- I mean two weeks, and I'm
2 back. And he said that I -- you know, pain and everything
3 else will take a little time to numb, but it will be fine if
4 that's the way I wish to go. So, I have someone to replace
5 me. The men -- and I'm saying not only supervisor, but the
6 men voted on it, and I agree with that. So, I have a person
7 everybody seems comfortable with.
8 But I don't think that we -- I just don't operate out of
9 disorder. I think y'all have been around me eight years;
10 Judge, you've been for four, and you've known me off and on
11 for four years, Buster. I just don't operate -- I know
12 what's going on. And I'm really shocked to even think that
13 someone would misconstrue that there's not a handle and that
19 things are out of order. There are some individuals out of
15 order. You look at black; those individuals were corrected.
16 I don't want to get into that. I think that's where the
17 problem came.
18 JUDGE DENSON: Well, I think --
19 MR. ODOM: I believe an individual outside our
20 department brought something up, too. So --
21 JUDGE DENSON: Now, I don't have any -- as I say,
22 nothing, no specifics to mention to you right now. And I
23 think the purpose of our meeting was simply to get this here
29 and talk about it.
25 MR. ODOM: And I appreciate it, and we should --
122
JUDGE DENSON: Are there really problems, or is
there just talk going on?
MR. ODOM: It was talk.
JUDGE DENSON: And you're back, and so it's moot.
Forget about it. Let's move on.
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry that you had to bring it up on
the agenda, but I personally don't think it's there.
JUDGE DENSON: We found out this morning; we had
posted the agenda last week.
10~ MR. ODOM: That's all right.
11	JUDGE DENSON: We found out you were back. We're
12	happy -- glad you're feeling better and	--
13	MR. ODOM: I appreciate that.	
14	JUDGE DENSON: -- and back on	the job.
15	MR. ODOM: Well, I think we've	got it -- if there's
16	any questions, we'd be more than happy t	o go over it, but if
17	I am out over any length of time, I have	the process to go
18	on. I have an individual that everybody	knows that does a
19	good job, and we'll just keep trucking.	
20	JUDGE DENSON: Good deal.	
21	MR. ODOM: We have it planned.	So I apologize if
22	there's any -- misconstrue that I don't	know what I'm doing,
23	'cause I do.	
29	JUDGE DENSON: No one has said	that.
25	COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No one I	know said that.
123
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16!,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. ODOM: I don't mean that. I got that. I'm
just saying that that would even come up, with the department
running askew. I thought it was operating very well without
me necessarily standing over it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you know what I know
about it all?
MR. ODOM: Sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tivy fight never dies.
MR. ODOM: Oh, boy, we're going to -- if we just
keep them going, that defense is coming around. We get the
offense going, we're all right.
(Off-the-record discussion.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay, it's 20 minutes till 2:00, and
we will now close our Commissioners Court meeting, unless
there's something else y'all wnat to talk about in open
session. 'Cause we do have a couple matters in Executive
Session. So at this time, we will close.
(The open session was closed at 1:90 p.m., and an
Executive Session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. It's 2:37, September 19, '98.
We're out of Executive Session, into open session, and we
need to -- let's see. I make a motion that we authorize
Glenn Holekamp to turn the matter we discussed in Executive
Session over to the County Attorney's office for further
129
action.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Further discussion, comment on that?
91 All in favor?
5		(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
6		JUDGE DENSON: Okay. And, Mr. Pollard?
7		MR. POLLARD: Thank you, sir. I was wondering,
8	have you	-- I can't spot it in the agenda. Was it on the
9	agenda to	close that road down in -- and authorize a deed
10	into the	City of Center Point for that road that was down
11	there on	-- on the campus of the Center Point Independent
12	School Di	strict?
13		COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was not on today's
19	agenda, n	o. I thought we did that.
15		JUDGE DENSON: That's what -- you know, that came
16	through a	nd I signed it.
17		MR. POLLARD: Oh, you did?
18		JUDGE DENSON: There was -- I think Thea or
19	Franklin	said we'd have taken action on that back some time
20	ago.	
21		COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A couple of months, yeah, we
22	did.	
23		MR. POLLARD: I was not aware that anything had
24	been done	about that formally, so -- but I did talk to Craig
25~ Leslie Friday, and he indicated that he was going to draw up
125
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
a deed and get it over here through me to y'all. So I -- I
don't think -- that would be the final action, was getting
the deed from the County to the City, and then the City of
Center Point is going to close it formally down there.
JUDGE DENSON: I thought I signed something last
week on that.
MR. POLLARD: Okay. That was one thing I wanted to
inquire about. I haven't gotten the deed yet, but I assume
I'll get it in the next few days and I'll inquire.
Some time ago, you told me to make sure and check with
y'all on anything somebody contacted me direct about, just
before I"did anything on it. I have a letter here from Kerr
County Road and Bridge dated September 10, '98, from Franklin
Johnston saying there's an unrecorded subdivision on Morriss
Witt Ranch. There's a private road easement known as Dry
Creek Road, and it provides access to Lot 12. One owner now
owns Lots 7, B, 9, and 12, and the owners of all adjacent
lots wish to abandon that and proceed to build a fence
between 7, 8, 9, and Lot 10 along the property lines. Since
this is a private easement in an unrecorded subdivision, does
Kerr County have any legal interest in it being abandoned?
Does the Commissioners Court have any jurisdiction in this
situation? Do you want me to respond to it, or is this one
of the things that you want to respond to? You've done some
of those in the past without it coming through me.
126
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17'
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE DENSON: Well, it doesn't sound like the
County has anything to do with that whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Unrecorded subdivision.
JUDGE DENSON: Unrecorded and private easement.
MR. POLLARD: If that's the case. So, y'all want
to go ahead and respond to that and tell him about it, then?
JUDGE DENSON: Yes.
MR. POLLARD: Some notes I wrote on it, in case you
wanted me to look at it. I said how do we know that it's a
private road? Are there any documents saying that it's a
private road, not a public road? And if it's an unrecorded
subdivision, they went down and recorded it in the deed
records, is what they did, without going through the process;
and does that act -- if it doesn't say that it's a private
road on there, does that dedicate it as a public road? If it
does, does that give the County an interest in --
JUDGE DENSON: Why don't you handle it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He was just getting warmed
up, too.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Why don't you just cease and
desist right there?
MR. POLLARD: I -- it's up to you. I don't care;
it doesn't make any difference to me. But I -- as I got it,
I wrote -- wrote those notes down on here in case you did
want me to look on into it. These are questions I had. So I
127
1
2
3
9
5
6
7,
a ~'
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can just tell him that y'all said that it's not a public --
that it's not a public road, so the County has no interest in
it, and let it go at that, if you want me to.
JUDGE DENSON: That's what he says in his letter to
you?
MR. POLLARD: He -- he says it is a private road.
JUDGE DENSON: He says private road and unrecorded
subdivision?
MR. POLLARD: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE DENSON: Based on his information, the County
does not have any interest in that whatsoever.
MR. POLLARD: Oh, okay, that's what I'll tell him.
All right, Marian Campbell. I sent a pretty good-sized
package of material from this attorney -- and this is the
lady that was in the County Clerk's office that had an
automobile wreck on -- late in the afternoon and was hurt,
and incurred a lot of medical expenses and all. And it looks
like the facts that we assumed what they were at the time all
turned out to be true. And, that she has -- he sent over a
whole bunch of stuff here, 20 some-odd thousand dollars worth
of expense.
I did check with the administrator for the County's
plan, and they have an agreement whereby these providers --
if it's for a County, even though it might cost 510,000, they
have an agreement that they -- that the pzovider then has to
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do it through that plan for $2,000, for example. Biq
discounts. And they, in fact, reduced 20 some-odd thousand
dollars down to, I think, $13,000 or something like that,
$17,000. Big discounts, almost $30,000 discounted down to
that. And that's -- and so the -- and the bills got paid and
the administrator had to pay them within 30 days or that
agreement wasn't effective. So the administrator did, in
fact, go ahead and pay them within 30 days from the date of
presentment.
Now these folks are finding out that the guy on the
other side only had 525,000 worth of liability coverage on
his vehicle, and so they're settling for policy limits, and
they want the County to -- who has a writ of subrogation
through the County's plan, the County's health plan -- to
seek reimbursement. And there is a written document in there
that the -- there's an assignment from the employee of some
of those benefits. So, the lawyer is asking that the County
waive some or all of it. In fact, he even cited a case that
says the County's not entitled to reimbursement until they
get all of their money back first, all of their out-of-pocket
expenses. I don't read the case exactly like that. The way
I read it, if there is a sharing, you have to share the legal
fees and expenses, too. But you can -- you recover on a pro
rata basis as to what the recovery is, to the -- to the total
expenses.
129
1
2
3
9,
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12j
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
It's down to a policy matter. I think you could insist
on the full amount, and if you -- which would be less the
attorneys fees and expenses of collection, and he says he has
it on a 40-percent fee, plus expenses, but he didn't tell me
what the expenses were. And I did also ask why there was
such a late reporting involved. You remember the accident
occurred in February or so of -- of '97, and the first time
the plan administrator heard of it was in March or April of
'98. The plan administrator was really upset about that, and
wanted me to ask that question of everybody, but then told me
in the phone conversation that there was no late-reporting
requirement in the County's plan. So, I don't know, it's not
material to anything. But because the plan administrator
wanted me to ask the question, I did write the employee's
attorney, Mr. Glenny, and asked him that question, and he
says he doesn't have any explanation for why it was
late-reported. So we don't know any more than before.
For a while, Pat Tinley represented this lady, and I
think he jockeyed around with the company for a while and
then he finally referred it to this lawyer here. So, that's
probably why -- that probably explains why the late reporting
occurred. They just didn't get -- get around to getting the
bills until the new attorney was involved in it, and then
submitted them at that time, would be my guess. Do you have
any questions?
130
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16',
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
(No response.)
MR. POLLARD: I did mention once before that I
thought the County might have set a precedent that you might
want to consider. That turned out to be -- I finally
remembered what that was. It was a lady -- an indigent lady
over at Peterson Hospital that the County was obligated to
furnish some medical care for. I could probably go back and
identify the name through the files if you wanted me to.
But, the County paid for it, and then she ended up -- it was
treating her for injuries as a result of an automobile
accident, I believe -- or some kind of accident; it may not
have been automobile -- and there was a subrogation involved
whereby the County would be entitled to reimbursement for
part of the monies advanced for her indigent care over there.
And, y'all did waive -- my recollection is you did waive the
right of reimbursement, right of subrogation on that.
JUDGE DENSON: Subrogation in terms of dollars, 60
percent of -- and we haven't seen this guy's fee contract,
have we?
MR. POLLARD: No, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: But he's saying he's got 90 percent?
MR. POLLARD: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: Sixty percent of $25,000 is $15,000,
and then less whatever kind of expenses they may have. And
just an arbitrary figure on that, $3,000 or 54,000. So,
131
probably what we're talking about is S10,000. 510,000 or
$12,000.
MR. POLLARD: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: That the County has the right to be
reimbursed out of that settlement. So that's what we're
giving up.
7 MR. POLLARD: She is also -- Mrs. Campbell also
8 claims 372 hours of lost work as a result of the accident,
9 for a total claim of S3,117.36, in addition to her $26,000 --
10 almost 527,000 in medical expenses.
I1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But the medical expenses only
12 cost $17,000?
13 MR. POLLARD: Yes, sir.
19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what we actually paid,
15S correct?
16		MR. POLLARD: Let me look at --	get that figure. I
17	believe	it was even -- it might have even	been less than
18	that.	But, anyway, it's in the same area	, yes. Gives you an
19	idea of	-- It doesn't have it in that let	ter. Just a minute.
20		JUDGE DENSON: She's presently	employed by the
21	County.		
22		COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know.	I mean, I know her.
23	And I -	- I guess my question is, it said	that she lost that
29	work ti	me, but was she paid like she was	-- I mean, did she
25~ have enough sick leave built up where she never did miss a
132
check?
MR. POLLARD: No. I -- my recollection, in talking
to Billie, is that she was docked some because she ran out of
sick leave.
5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Ran out of sick leave?
6 MR. POLLARD: I can't give you a figure on how
7 much, but I -- I remember Billie telling me that that did
S occur.
9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What I'm interested in is
10 paying her whatever time it was that she lost because of this
11 out of what -- the 525,000 that they're going to get from the
12 insurance company.
13 JUDGE DENSON: The lawyer gets a goad part of that.
14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that's her problem. If
15 he's going to clip her for 90 percent of that, then that's
16 him getting her, not us.
17 JUDGE DENSON: No, I think he has a lien for that,
18 'cause he's collected that money, I think. Do you agree with
19 that, Tom?
20 MR. POLLARD: Yes.
21 JUDGE DENSON: That he has a right to that money,
22 superior to the County's?
23 MR. POLLARD: That's the way I read the case
24 opinion.
25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What you're saying is there
133
wouldn't be any money left for her?
JUDGE DENSON: Theze's about 10 -- the way I look
at it, and this is just, granted, some numbers, we're looking
at about $10,000 or $12,000 that will come back to the
County. But if she has this claim for lost -- well, the
County wouldn't be responsible fox her lost wages.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Wouldn't workman's comp cover
	those lost wages?		
9	JUDGE DENSON: Yeah,	to some degree, but at a
10	reduced amount, probably.		
11	COMMISSIONER OEHLER:	What's the	difference between
12	workman's comp and what her regular salary	was? I guess what
13	-- a figure is what I'm trying	to get at.	
14	MR. POLLARD: I -- let's clarify	this.
15	COMMISSIONER OEHLER:	We did not	waive the
16 subrogation whatever. We -- we're entitled to $10,000,
17 right?
18 MR. POLLARD: It looks like it to me.
19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The lawyer gets his --
20 MR. POLLARD: He's going to take $10,000; that 90
21 percent is 510,000, so he's going to take that. And that
22 leaves $15,000, then, to be spread between the County and
23 hex. And she's -- she's claiming damages of $3,000 and
24 something, although we're not obligated to pay hex for hex
25 lost time. She's saying, "Those are my damages," though.
139
1 And, coming back to this case, this case says that you -- he
2 reads it as that it -- you've got to reimburse all the
3 damages first before you can start reimbursing the County
9 theirs. That's the way he cited that case. And I think --
5 you know, the case opinion is not real clear. My
6 interpretation is otherwise, that you've got to share it.
7 And I think you're going to end up -- if you don't waive it,
8 you're going to end up in a lawsuit over it.
9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because of the previous one
10 that we did2
11 MR. POLLARD: No, because of the -- his
12 interpretation of that case. And he's going to say, I think
13 y'all aren't entitled to any of it because of that case, and
14 I'm saying I don't read that case that way. It looks like we
15 are entitled to some of it, and I think it will end up in a
16 lawsuit.
17 JUDGE DENSON: Well, and here's -- here's something
18 else. Per that case, he probably thinks that he has a right
19 to reimbursement for his out-of-pocket expenses.
20 MR. POLLARD: Medical and that will be some more.
21 JUDGE DENSON: Yeah. That's -- and if he took some
22 depositions, such as that, that can be several thousand
23 dollars. This -- based on all this, this girl -- I don't
29 know how long, in terms of an employee, she is, but I know
25 she works here now at the --
135
1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Three or four years.
2 JUDGE DENSON: She's obviously hurt. She's wearing
3 a back -- I see her around here right now with a strapped-on
9 back brace-type deal. You know, if it was $50,000 -- and I'm
5 not trying to throw money away, but if it was $50,000 or
6 $100,000, if it was something substantial, my feelings may be
7 different. But with you also saying you think we may wind up
8 in a lawsuit, I mean, I think we ought to just go ahead and
9 waive it and forget it.
10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is she going to be taken care
11 of, though? I mean, is she going to be -- is she going to
12 get the money for the last wages out of this deal if we waive
13 subrogation?
19 MR. POLLARD: Well, that's hard to say.
15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is he going to give her the
16 money out of what they're getting to reimburse her, or is she
17 going to come to the County in addition to what they're
18 getting in settlement and ask for that as damages from the
19 County?
20 MR. POLLARD: She's not entitled to recover damages
21 from the County.
22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what I'm --
23 MR. POLLARD: She would -- as far as -- this case
24 says that in a subrogation deal, that the injured party has
25 to get all her money back -- this is his interpretation --
136
1 the party has to get all of their damages back and then start
2 reimbursing anybody that's entitled to subrogation. I don't
3 read it that way. But that kind of brings that back into the
9 picture for consideration. I don't think -- only if we get
into a subrogation lawsuit would that have any materiality.
6 It does not mean that she can recover from the County. My
7 understanding is it was a nonwork-related injury. It
8 happened just before 5 o'clock, and she must have been on her
9 way home or something, and they're not claiming anything to
10 do with on-the-job injury-type thing. So, it's kind of hard
11 to explain why that would come back into it. But, I mean, I
12 think the Judge understands what I'm talking about.
13 JUDGE DENSON: Yes, I understand.
19 MR. POLLARD: But it -- she's not going to be able
15 to recover from the County for that. There's -- he's going
16 to take 510,000, that's 90 percent; plus he's got some
17 expenses, and let's say they're $3,000 ox 54,000. If he's
18 taken any depositions at all -- this case is about two years
19 old, approaching two years old. Chances are he has incurred
20 expenses like that. Let's just say $2,500. Now you're down
21 to $12,500 to be split, and you've got to decide, does the
22 County want part of that and have -- let Mrs. Campbell have
23 only part of it, or does the County want to let her have all
29 of it? If you do want to split it with her, what kind of
25 figure do you want to split? Do you want to --
137
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I guess that I -- my point --
you're finally getting to what -- the question was I was
asking.
MR. POLLARD: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I just didn't state it
correctly.
MR. POLLARD: Okay. All right, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: In her best interest, would
9 it not be better for us to go ahead and let them get all
10 their -- you know, get his deal over with, get his
11 percentage, his expenses, and go away. And then we have a
12 deal where we're going to keep -- we're going to get
13d whatever's left over and
14		MR. POLLARD: No, it's all part of the settlement.
15		COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- and	deal with her?
16		MR. POLLARD: It hasn't been	settled. It will not
17	be settled	until this agreement's made	and incorporated all
18	as part of	one document. You can't get	rid of the lawyer.
19	He's in it	to negotiate, he represents	her on the matter.
20	You can't	get rid of him.	
21		COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm not	saying -- I guess I
22	am, too.		
23		JUDGE DENSON: He's an advoca	te. You know, he's
29~ got a 60/40 contract with her, and he's going to get his 90
25 percent of $25,000, which is the only money out there.
138
Limited policy.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
3 JUDGE DENSON: And so that lawyer's going to get
4 his ten grand out of this thing.
5 MR. POLLARD: Then she should get 60, right.
6 JUDGE DENSON: She's not going to get anything,
7 'cause the 60 comes through the subrogation agreement that ~
8 she signed.
9 MR. POLLARD: What he'll do is say, "All right, we
10 refuse to settle it," and he'll file some sort of a -- the
11 insurance company on the other side will just pay it into the
12 registry of the Court and there will be some sort of an
13 interpleader suit filed between the County and Mrs. Campbell,
14 then, fighting over it. The insurance company's going to
15 say, "Look, we only have 525,000 liability, and we don't know
16 who it goes to and we don't want to get into that. We're
17 just going to dump it in the registry of the Court and say,
18 'Y'all fight over it,"' and that's what happens. Mrs.
19 Campbell's lawyer then comes in with an interpleader suit,
20 sues the County. We've got to respond and work out who gets
21 the 15.
22 COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Give it all.
23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me just ask one
29 question. If we were trying to decide how much of the money
25 that we wanted, would we just grab a number out of the air,
139
1I
7
8
9
10
11
12
13!
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
or does it have to be a percentage?
MR. POLLARD: Well, it can be subject to
negotiation, yes. You could do whatever you wanted to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't want to hear Tommy
talk about it any more.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: That costs us, doesn't it7
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See how much it's cost us
already.
MR. POLLARD: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Be a -- go away, Mr. Pollard.
MR. POLLARD: All right. Y'all want to waive it,
then; is that right?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: I do, too.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, let's do this; let's waive it
if your fees on this matter will be paid.
MR. POLLARD: Okay.
JUDGE DENSON: And I think that's equitable.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do, too.
JUDGE DENSON: That's fair all the way around.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is good. That's
excellent.
JUDGE DENSON: Have your time that you've' been
involved reimbursed, and we waive.
(Off-the-record discussion.)
140
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. I make a motion to waive
County subrogation rights on the Marian Campbell matter,
subject to the County's counsel being reimbursed for
attorneys fees.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Commissioner Lackey?
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: It don't matter, just get it
9 done.
10 JUDGE DENSON: Does it make any difference who's
11 the second?
12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, you're welcome to it.
13 JUDGE DENSON: Okay. All in favor?
14 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
15 (Judge Denson left the courtroom.)
16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Are we through? Is that it?
17 MR. POLLARD: No, there's one or two other items.
18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One or two more?
19 MR. POLLARD: This one is another one from Kerr
20 County Road and Bridge. Franklin Johnston, in late August,
21 said there's been a request for a -- to consider an
22 irrevocable Letter of Credit for substitution for a
23 Performance Bond on Cypress Springs Subdivision in Precinct
29 No. 4. Once again, nobody's given me an okay to go ahead
25 with that. Do y'all want me to look at the --
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10~
11~
121
13~
14
15
161
171
18'
191
20
21
22'
23'
291
251
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We took care of that this
morning, I believe.
MR. POLLARD: Already taken care of?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. They're going to build
the roads first, and before the final plat, the roads will
probably all be finished and it will be a moot issue.
MR. POLLARD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But if it's not. that thev'll
provide a bond.
(Judge Denson returned to the courtroom.)
JUDGE DENSON: That was a call, gentlemen, that
concerns the Court. I guess it's the -- the Tax Board, the
E.I.C. or whoever they are over here at the City, wanted to
know, what is the County's firm commitment for the extension
of water and sewage out to the airport? And he hasn't been
able to get in touch with Commissioner Letz, so I instructed
the administrative assistant to call him back and say that
the County has no firm commitment at this time; that we would
take up the matter in the future in the form of possible
reimbursement contribution.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who was it that called?
JUDGE DENSON: I don't know, someone from the Board
over there. They were going into a meeting at 3 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, if you remember, we
sent Commissioner Letz to the City Council and dealt with
142
1 that issue, and the City Council -- the mayor, himself, is
2 supposed to call over here and set up a meeting with them and
3 us -- not E.I.C., the two elected boards -- to work the issue
9 out. And we're sitting here waiting on the mayor to call,
5 and have been for weeks.
6 JUDGE DENSON: Okay.
7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I personally -- I mean, I
8 know him; he's a hard-ass. But, personally, I think that we
9 need to deal directly with the City Council, not an appointed
10 board. That's my opinion.
11 JUDGE DENSON: That's fine. We're not going to do
12 anything on it.
13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it's County money, too,
19 not just City money. County taxpayers pay that sales tax
15 just as much as anybody else.
16 MR. POLLARD: I'm through.
17 JUDGE DENSON: Are we --
18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Your through? Boy, am I
19 glad.
20 MR. POLLARD: I'm sorry.
21 COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Can I ask one question on
22 this here, under 5.1?
23 JUDGE DENSON: Report from Commissioners? Sure.
29 COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Z think it was two or three
25 years ago -- do you remember, Bruce? Maybe the Judge was
143
1 here. We voted to -- we took a bid from Eddie Taylor to
2 repair that dam at Center Point for a hundred and -- either
3 170-something or 190-something dollars. That has never been
9 done. And I was down there Sunday, and a bunch of kids was
5 all gathered around. I drove up there to see what they was
6 doing. They had big old rocks; they was chipping it out
7 more, and it's something that we need to get fixed.
8 JUDGE DENSON: I thought that had been --
9 COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Never has been fixed. When
10 the river was way down low here a while back, I asked him to
11 do it, and he just didn't have time.
12 JUDGE DENSON: When did the -- someone had taken
13 dynamite down there and --
19 COMMISSIONER LACKEY: They've got it down now; it's
15 about that deep (indicating).
16 JUDGE DENSON: Buster, for your information, when
17 Butch reported there was someone that wanted -- someone had
18 put the dynamite on that dam and blew a hole in it, and then
19 from that point on, the kids would go down there and pick at
20 it and mess with it, and they were enlarging the hole. So,
21 it had become a very, very dangerous situation. And we
22 approved -- Eddie Taylor said he would fix it for 5150 or
23 $200, whatever it was.
29 COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Might have been $200.
25 JUDGE DENSON: The Commissioners Court authorized
199
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
121
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it a couple years ago.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Yeah, about about two years
ago. Why I was asking, I had a little conversation with Ray
Lehmann. He -- you know, he knew all about it, and he asked
me if it had been fixed. I told him no. Well, he wants to
fix it, same price as Eddie Taylor quoted me on it. And he's
got some kind of a new epoxy stuff that he can use on it to
fix it. I told him I'd have to take it to Commissioners
Court, I couldn't tell him yes or no.
JUDGE DENSON: I can't recall whether we said in
that order -- when we approved it, whether we said that Eddie
Taylor had to do the work. We may have said that we approve
expenditure for repair of the dam of "X" dollars.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: To Eddie Taylor. Yeah, it
was to Eddie Taylor. I looked it up here a while back.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, we need to put it back on the
agenda, I'm afraid, and authorize someone else.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Tell Ray to make a formal bid
on it after -- at the next meeting when it's on the agenda.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah, I don't think we can properly
do it today.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: I won't be here, but will you
take care of it, have it put on the agenda?
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah, sure I will.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: I'm not going to be here for
145
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
the next meeting.
JUDGE DENSON: You going to Colorado?
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: I'm going further than that.
JUDGE DENSON: Just taking a little vacation?
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Yeah. I'm leaving next
Tuesday week, right after our next meeting.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Going to go to Tokyo?
MR. POLLARD: Montana.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: I've got a daughter there.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah, I knew you did. Well, have a
good trip. Let's see, maybe you can bring us back some elk
meat or something.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Nah, that's nasty stuff.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. We're in recess.
(Commissioners Court was adjourned at 3:03 p.m.,
but was reconvened at 3:15 p.m. to deal with an
additional matter.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. It's 3:15 on September the
19th, 1998. Commissioners Court is coming back in session as
a result of a form, a power of attorney, being faxed in on
the first matter, the first agenda item. That's consider
revision of plat of Ingram Hillls, Tract 29, Precinct 9.
And, I do have a power of attorney now that's in good form,
and it's saying -- let's see. Franklin, who's not available
right now, said he recommended that we pass that, except for
196
11
10
11
12
13
19
15
16,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
the little handwritten power of attorney that he had this
morning, if I recall correctly.
And I didn't -- in my opinion, that power of attorney --
purported power of attorney was ineffective, wasn't legally
correct. But this is a form that says the powers are given
as to cause our signature to be placed on plat of property
for presentation to the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, and to cause the plat of property to be filed with the
office of the County Clerk of Kerr County, Texas, and to act
for us and in our stead as our agent and attorney in fact.
And, it is acknowledged and signed by both Daniel Botkin and
Connie Botkin, and it's giving the name of the agent as Cully
Vickers. That's who -- the guy from Coldwell Banker, Ron
Imel and Associates.
So, based on this, it would be my motion that, subject
to the approval of the County Engineer, that we approve the
revision of plat of Ingram Hills, Tract 24, Precinct 9, Kerr
County, Texas.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Further questions? Comments? All
9 in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. All right. Sorry to have to
call y'all back in. We're in recess.
(Commissioners Court was adjourned at 3:17 p.m.)
197
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C E R T I F I C A T E
The above and foregoing is a true and correct
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
Official Reporter for the Commissioners Court, Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 22nd day of September,
1998.
Kathy B ~ik
Certified Shorthand Reporter
148