r
1
COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
September 28, 1998
11 9:00 a.m.
12 Commissioners Courtroom
13 Kerr County Courthouse
19 Kerrville, Texas
1
1
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
PRESENT: ROBERT A. DENSON, County Judge
29 H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 2
25 BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 3
Fded~~llai~_AB.19q~TIME $_-S r
BIWE G. MEEKER
Clerk County Court. Kerr County, Texee
By: Deputy

1~
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
I N D E X
1.1 Pay Bills
1.2 Budget Amendments
1.3 Late Bills
1.9 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
2.1 Preliminary Replat - Falling Waters
2.2 Enforcement of Rules - 1869 Ranch
2.3 Financial Investment Quarterly Report
2.9 Interlocal Co-op - Insurance
2.5 Interlocal Agreement - Mental Health ~ Chemical
Dependency Commitments
2.6 Alternate Judges - Nov. 3 General Election
2.9 Road & Bridge - Telephone Equipment Contract
2.10 Ninth Amendment and Extension of City/County
Firefighting Agreement
2.11 City/County Agreement - Animal Control Services
2.12 Resolution - Second Amendment to Articles of
Incorp. - Alamo Area Housing Finance Corp.
2.13 Fiscal Budget Book for General Public - $25
2.19 Resolution - TX Counties Storm Water Coalition
2.15 Repairs to Center Point Dam
2.16 Donation of Flagpole - Youth Exhibition Center
2.17 Additional Fees - Mental Health cases
2.8 Job Descriptions - Animal Control Facility
2.7 Refund of Ad Valorem Taxes - Henry Stegmann
2.18 Pike's Peak Road Deed
Reporter's Certificate
PAGE
3
3
12
13
19
18
25
29
39,
70
90
42
49
95
48
99
50
55
56
59
66
71
71
75
2

1 On Monday, September 28, 1998, a Special Session of
2 Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners Courtroom,
3 Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the following
9 proceedings were had in open court, to-wit:
5 P R O C E E D I N G S
6 JUDGE DENSON: This is the Special Commissioners
7 Court agenda for Monday, September the 28th, 1998. It is
8 9 o'clock. We'll get underway with the business in just a
9 minute, but we'll have an invocation and a pledge of
10 allegiance, which I'll ask that you stand for. And, in
11 Commissioner Lackey's absence, Commissioner Baldwin will lead
12 us in prayer this morning.
13 (Invocation and pledge of allegiance.)
19 JUDGE DENSON: Okay, thank you very much. Pay
15 bills.
16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move we pay the bills.
17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
18 JUDGE DENSON: I'm not sure how to do this.
19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm in shack, as well.
20 JUDGE DENSON: All in favor?
21 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
22 JUDGE DENSON: Budget amendments. Number 1?
23 MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for Commissioners
29 Court. I have a bill from Professional Claims Managers for
25 -- actually it's from Beicker Engineering. It's $1,696.29.
3
r
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We need to take from surplus funds to pay it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the date on that bill?
MR. TOMLINSON: September 1.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They shouldn't have done any
work in August, should they?
JUDGE DENSON: I wouldn't think so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I had thought that we had
paid one of these already. I couldn't imagine another one
coming in.
JUDGE DENSON: I know we paid Drash here recently.
This is another engineer, of course. Do you have any detail
that shows when the services were rendered?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, I just -- it just says it's
building distress evaluation invoice. That's one of them
from Drash, 5908.75. Then there's one for 5237.50 from
Beicker. And the rest is from Allison Bass.
JUDGE DENSON: Allison Bass?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
JUDGE DENSON: Oh, well, this is a bunch of
different bills.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's several different bills.
JUDGE DENSON: Allison Bass would have probably
been for some other lawsuit.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's a small amount. It's for --
well, it's in code. I don't know -- I don't know what case
9

1 it is. It's -- it's "PCM" is the reference. It has a case
2 number, but it doesn't say -- it doesn't say who it is.
3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That may have been that
4 E.E.O.C. suit, the balance on it.
5 MR. TOMLINSON: Its $53.32.
6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the bill.
7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
8 JUDGE DENSON: Questions? Comments? All in favor?
9 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
10 JUDGE DENSON: All right. Number 2?
11 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 2 is for the District
12 Clerk. I have a late bill I need a hand check for for this.
13 It's to the U.S. Postal Service for $1,000, and it's for her
14 postage meter. She's moving 5939.52 from photocopy supplies
15 to postage to pay this.
16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
18 JUDGE DENSON: All in favor?
19 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
20 JUDGE DENSON: Three?
21 MR. TOMLINSON: Three is -- is for the 216th
22 District Court. I have an invoice and late bill I need a
23 hand check for to Cindy Snider for 51,330, and it's for a
29 transcript on the Jeffrey Wood case.
25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
5

it
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion and second.
Further questions? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: One question on that, though, Tommy.
The property insurance. What insurance line item is that
coming from?
MR. TOMLINSON: Its nondepartmental. It's the
property coverage on the -- all facilities.
JUDGE DENSON: I see.
MR. TOMLINSON: We lust had an excess amount in
there, and I took it from there.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Number 9?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. Number 9 is for the Ag Barn.
We have a need to move $2,707.65 from the supply line item
into utilities. I have utility bills from KPUB -- yeah,
they're all from KPUB and the City of Kerrville to pay for --
for August. These are August bills.
JUDGE DENSON: Are your utilities running more than
usual?
MR. TOMLINSON: Apparently they are. It's -- we
had $515; we budgeted $30,000. So, they are --
JUDGE DENSON: 'Cause we'll apparently have
something for September tomorrow. I think we did increase it
this year for -- for '98-'99.
6

1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So moved.
2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
3 JUDGE DENSON: All right. Questions? Comments?
4 All in favor?
5 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
6 JUDGE DENSON: Number 5?
7 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 5 is from Road and
8 Bridge. We need to move $840.03 from overtime, $526.37 is
9 the equipment rental, $15.28 into signs and traffic control,
10 and 5312.38 to contract fees.
11 JUDGE DENSON: You said $840.03. It's 5859.03.
12 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, that's right, $859.03.
13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So move.
14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
15 JUDGE DENSON: Questions? All in favor?
16 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
17 JUDGE DENSON: Six?
18 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 6 is for Indigent
19 Health Care. I have a bill for 52,505.72 from third-party
20 administrators. There's 51.08 in this line item, so I need
21 to -- and there's -- there's not anything in the budget for
22 this, either. So we're going to have to declare an emergency
23 and pay this out of surplus funds in the indigent health care
24 fund.
25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this because the indigent
7
. r
1 health care went way over budget?
2 MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. We budgeted 9
3 percent of our eligible expenses, and 9 percent as -- since
9 that number goes up, this number goes up.
5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
7 JUDGE DENSON: Further questions? All in favor?
8 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
9 JUDGE DENSON: Seven?
10 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Seven is for the County Law
11 Library, and I have -- I have $2,952 in bills -- current
12 bills that I need to pay. We have $986.56 in books line
13 item. I have $300 in conferences that we could move from
14 there, that the balance of $1,665.59 needs to come from
15 surplus funds in the law library. And there are surplus
16 funds there, and -- and there is a non -- that is a nontax
17 fee-based fund, is what it is.
18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question: Are these books
19 -- Bob, I guess you're the one that's going to know this.
20 Are they like the pocket part things that come automatically
21 every month? Or is this something that's unbudgeted that
22 we've ordered?
23 JUDGE DENSON: I can't tell you that offhand.
24 There are, as you say, recurring expenses for updating the
25 pocket parts and such as that.
8

2
3
9
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. TOMLINSON: This is -- well, I have -- I have
the bills here if you want me to tell you what they are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why don't I just ask you
that question?
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. One is for $334.89. It's
the Texas Probate Estate and Trust Administration, full set.
That's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's something that we
would order, I would think.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. And then this is -- next one
is $618.31 and it's -- it's a Texas Citations Cumulative
Supplement, so that's a supplement to something we already
have.
JUDGE DENSON: Right, that is an update there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would automatically
come?
JUDGE DENSON: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: The next is from West Publishing,
and it's for $823.10. And there's several items of Texas
Practices, Volumes 916 through 962. Texas Practices Code,
Texas Administrative Code, Texas Digest. Another volume of
Texas Practices, Volume 28 -- 27 and 28.
JUDGE DENSON: And that's updating, too.
MR. TOMLINSON: These are all updates, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I was just
9

i
1 disappointed that -- that we're actually ordering things when
2 we don't have the money to pay for it. That doesn't make
3 sense to me.
9 MR. TOMLINSON: No, I think --
5 JUDGE DENSON: Sounds like most of it is updating.
6 MR. TOMLINSON: These are items that are -- from
7 what I see here, are -- are coming because we already have
B the service.
9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, my only comment is, as
10 opposed to taking it out of reserves, couldn't it -- isn't
11 there enough money left in the property insurance line item,
12 where we took some money under Budget Amendment Number 3?
13 MR. TOMLINSON: Well, this -- this is a -- this law
19 library is supposed to be paid for out of fees that -- from
15 court cases. It's a nontax-supported fund.
16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
17 MR. TOMLINSON: And it's solely a fee-based
18 account. And so --
19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so it's solely library
20 money.
21 MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, and it's solely for -- we
22 collect those fees solely far this purpose.
23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So this has got to come out of
29 Fund 18, okay.
25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sa move.
10

1 JUDGE DENSON: Reserves -- there are reserves in
2 that very line item?
3 MR. TOMLINSON: There are reserves in that, yes.
4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
5 JUDGE DENSON: What's that?
6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
7 JUDGE DENSON: Who's first?
8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: First.
9 JUDGE DENSON: All in favor?
10 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
11 MR. TOMLINSON: I have one more that I didn't have
12 a copy of, and it's far the retainage to Mart, Inc., for the
13 demolition project, and it's from permanent improvement. The
19 bill is $18,790, and that would be the final payment. We
15 need $8,862 in -- in that budget line item to pay this
16 $18,000. So, we need to take -- take that amount from
17 surplus funds into permanent improvement fund.
18 JUDGE DENSON: This is the retainage on the
19 contract?
20 MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm. This is the final payment.
21 JUDGE DENSON: Right. And he's applied for that?
22 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. I have a copy of Mike Walker's
23 authorization here.
29 JUDGE DENSON: Okay.
25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
11
1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
2 COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: Third.
3 JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion, Letz. And, did
4 you get a second?
5 MS. MARQUART: Commissioner Oehler.
6 JUDGE DENSON: Commissioner Oehler, okay. All in
7 favor?
8 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
9 MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. That's the only -- that's
10 all the amendments I have. I do have a late bill, and it was
11 given to me by the Clerk. Payment to Jean Lowry, 5498, and
12 it's for election clerk. And it's for services from 9/15
13 through 9/30/98.
19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Election clerk? What election
15 did we have during that period?
16 MR. TOMLINSON: Apparently she's getting ready for
17 the general election. I've seen a lot of bills relating to
18 elections coming up.
19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Ballots.
20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ballots and all that. So
21 moved.
22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
23 JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion and second.
24 Further questions? All in favor?
25 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
12
1 MR. TOMLINSON: That's it.
2 JUDGE DENSON: That's it, Tommy?
3 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
4 JUDGE DENSON: Accept and approve monthly reports?
5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's two here. I'll
6 accept those two.
7 JUDGE DENSON: Okay. I've got a motion to --
8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Motion to accept those two;
9 not any more.
10 JUDGE DENSON: Okay.
11 COMMISSIONER LET2: Second.
12 JUDGE DENSON: Sheriff's Department -- well, both
13 of these are from the Sheriff's Department. Okay. I've got
19 a motion and second. All in favor?
15 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's some interesting
17 numbers on there.
18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, there are. I read mine
19 a while ago. Jail population 94, I believe, average.
20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Look at the average per
21 month -- average of the month, and then look at the average
22 of the yeas. Look at it.
23 JUDGE DENSON: I'm looking at the five traffic
29 citations.
25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The average numbers. The
13

1 average for the month is, like, 91. The average for the year
2 is, like, 390. Look at that.
3 JUDGE DENSON: The average daily inmate population
4 is 94.
5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Go one more column.
6 JUDGE DENSON: Year-to-date --
7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Average.
8 JUDGE DENSON: 298 -- I don't understand that.
9 Okay, let's see.
10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would accept those.
11 JUDGE DENSON: Yeah. Let's get on with our
12 consideration agenda. 2.1, consider and discuss preliminary
13 replat for Falling Waters Subdivision. We have the County
14 Engineer, Mr. Franklin Johnston.
15 MR. JOHNSTON: You have a plat. This has some
16 minor revisions. On some of the lots they don't have the
17 200-foot frontage. Little minor things. They redrew the
18 lines. I lust talked to Mr. Hellenberger; he's in town. He
19 brought all the fee checks along. He apparently received
20 them late from the owner. He's around paying fees this
21 morning, so they're getting that taken care of. This is --
22 basically, there's some large acreage lots in Falling Water
23 down by Comfort, and they divided sections of them up into
29 smaller lots. This subdivision has central water. I think
25 the smallest lot on here's 125, and it's 2.3 acres, but it is
19
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
served by a water system, so I think they all, you know, meet
the standards. They all go up from that to 5 and 10 acres.
And since their original deed restrictions said no
subdivision of lots, guess they'll have to go through the
regular replat process, so we need to set a date for a public
hearing, and I think that will have to be, like, November
9th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: These are pretty significant
changes, though, correct? I mean, these aren't minor
changes. I was looking at former Lot 112, now the two lots.
I mean, the majority of the lots have changed, when I glanced
through. I don't have a problem with it, but it's not --
they're not minor changes.
MR. JOHNSTON: They're not minor; they're dividing
these largest lots up into smaller ones.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that a --
MR. JOHNSTON: They started off, all the lots were
10, 12, 15 acres. Now they're getting them down -- you know,
dividing them down to 5, 6, 10 acres, couple of them are 2.
They said they're all selling except for big ones.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Pretty severe draws in some
of that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's some concern -- I mean,
I'm real familiar with the subdivision, and they've done a
real good job with all the roads and public water system;
15
that's real nice of them, but these axe getting pretty tight.
What's the smallest one, Franklin, that you recall going down
to?
4 MR. JOHNSTON: Smallest one I see on here is Lot
5 125 on the first page, I think, right in the center.
6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2.3. Only thing I -- you know,
7 my only comment would be, really, that I think you need to
8 let the developer be aware that there may be some
9 requirements for drainage studies.
10 MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because they are making -- I
12 mean, like, Lot 92 is basically on a cliff, the way it looks
13 like. And I think that down towards --
19 MR. JOHNSTON: The old one.
15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now it's 131.
16 MR. JOHNSTON: Right, there's some real severe
17 grades in there.
18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, you know, there may be
19 some studies required on some of these areas, so they should
20 be aware of that, because it's a requirement that may not
21 have been under the old rules.
22 MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I don't have any problem.
29 I will -- you know, I was unaware this was coming on until I
25 got my packet. I would appreciate if you would at least tell
16
me ahead of time.
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. JOHNSTON: They were kind of running late.
They wanted to get it on, so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. But I don't have any
problem with what they're doing.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Have you got a date for the
30 days?
MR. JOHNSTON: I think it would be November 9th to
give the full 30 days.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 9th of November?
MR. JOHNSTON: That should give them plenty of time
to do their their drainage study and everything.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do they have frontage
requirements on the cul-de-sacs, as well, as far as you're
aware?
MR. JOHNSTON: I believe so. They -- on their
original one, they had some small dimensions and they went
back and -- and changed them all. I think they have them
all now that are -- meet our requirements.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. I move we set
preliminary replat and set the public hearing far -- what
date?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: November 9th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: November 9th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 10 o'clock?
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
19
15'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At 10 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: 2.2, consider enforcement of Kerr
County Subdivision Rules and Regulations at 1869 Ranch
Subdivision, Precinct 2. The County Engineer put this on.
And we have a request from Mr. Ken Muller from Boerne to
speak on this matter, which, Mr. Muller, we'll recognize you
and let you speak in lust a moment, but let's let the
Engineer lay this out first.
MR. JOHNSTON: This was an item that was brought to
my attention by Commissioner Lackey. He said there was a
road built down there some time back, and he said he was told
that was a private road to a residence, wasn't any part of a
subdivision. And then we went down; we saw the sign that
went up that says, "Land For Sale" next to that road. We
didn't know anything about it, so we assumed that it was some
kind of a subdivision. So, that's why we've brought it to
your attention, and thought it should be investigated.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. And the backup material for
this agenda item reflects that the property is owned by Ken
Muller.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's my understanding. I think we
called KCAD; I think that is the owner of it.
18
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question, just to
get me up with y'all, obviously. It looks like there may be
a subdivision down there that hadn't come before this Court,
and a road being built into it, and -- I mean, the whole
thing. A real, live subdivision going in.
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, looks like it, but we have no
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
way of knowing --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I'm saying;
that's what it looks like. And property for sale, et cetera.
So, okay, I'm there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's on Highway 27, right on
the border between my precinct and Butch's, real close there.
And it's -- it's got frontage on Highway 27. Then I believe
the developer built a road, you know, just -- maybe Ken can
explain it -- along the fence line on the east side, and it
was a place where they had to call it -- it's a long,
straight road right along the fence line on the east side of
the property; that's all I know about it. I believe there's
some property on the -- probably on the south side of the
highway, as well; both north and south sides of 27.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Mr. Muller?
MR. MULLER: Thank you, Judge, Commissioners.
I want to thank you for allowing me to appear before you.
I would request, though, if possible, I might go as long as
5 minutes, and I notice you have a 3-minute limit, so I would
19
request that. What I'd like to do is just discuss why I'm
here, what are my plans, and the governing laws and then the
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
summary.
I'm here because of a third-party call that someone
called and said, "Hey, I see where you're on the agenda in
Kerr County on Monday morning." And that sort of surprised
me, 'cause I didn't know what was happening. And I called up
last week, and Tammy was kind enough to send me a copy of
your agenda, and I saw where my property was on there. And
so, one of the first questions Z would ask is, would not the
process be better served if someone who owns property in Kerr
County, if there is a question about it, if that party was
contacted and the questions asked of them, rather than taking
up the time of the Court? Because in this particular case,
if I hadn't heard about it through a third party, I wouldn't
be here and there might be same misimpressions. So, all I
would suggest is that you possibly consider a method or
procedure that gets the party involved whose property it is
before, necessarily, it comes before the Commissioners Court.
What are my plans? I have approximately 750 acres on
both sides of Highway 27, and also on Stoneleigh Road. My
circumstances have changed and I wish to sell two or three
parcels, and that's how I have it advertised. I have it
advertised from 115- to 200-acre, 250 acres; in other words,
four parcels. After I sell two or three, I will keep the
20
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
rest, including the south side of Highway 27. In fact, I
have somebody looking at approximately 900 acres of it, and
if they purchase it, I probably won't sell any more. Any
sale of property will include frontage on either Highway 27
or Stoneleigh Road. I gave Mr. -- Commissioner Lackey a
railroad storage tank down there for the Elm Pass Fire
Department, so I got to meet him. And I believe he asked me
at that time about that, and I told him it was just a
driveway. It's only 10-foot wide; it is paved. It was never
any intention to be a road and to subdivide off it.
The governing points on this potential sale are as
follows. Unless your rules have changed, agricultural use is
excluded from the general provisions, and that's your Order
15296, which I believe is recorded in Volume 291, Page 332,
et cetera. And, in that, especially under Section 3.16,
subdivision does not include division of land for
agricultural purposes. My land is being sold for
agricultural purposes, because I'm talking about 200-acre
parcels. But, even if it was not agricultural, the State law
is as follows. Platting requirement under Section 232.001 of
the Local Government Code, and under the A. G.'s opinion,
J.M. 1100 on the summary, Page 576 of the Attorney General's
records, is that under Local Government Code, a division of
land is subject to platting requirements only if the division
includes laying out streets, alleys, parks, and so forth.
21
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
I'm not laying out a street, I'm not building a road. Any
land that I sell is going to come -- going to be a part
that's cut off of the highway or off of Stoneleigh Road. My
division is into two or three parcels of 700-plus acres. It
does not involve any new streets, and any property sold will
have frontage on Highway 27 or Stoneleigh Road.
There is a case in point which I'm sure you're familiar
with, but I'm gust going over some of this to have it of
record, and I appreciate your patience, and that's the Court
of Appeals case dated 8/16/95, which is Elgin Bank vs.
Travis Count v, which was appealed from the District Court.
Elgin Bank owned 150 acres. It had frontage on several
roads, and they wanted to cut it into eight pieces. Now,
they were certainly smaller and they weren't agricultural, I
wouldn't think. But, nevertheless, it was 150 acres into
eight pieces. Travis County asserted that they file a plat.
The Court of Appeals disagreed. Section 232.003 of the Local
Government Code is the only authority upon which the County
may base a platting requirement.
The Court of Appeals held that Travis County may not
require any owner who subdivides, but does not lay out
streets, alleys, and so forth, to prepare a plat. And in
that particular case, Travis County wound up paying all the
costs relating to appeals, both in the District Court and in
the Court of Appeals, and probably wound up paying the
22
1 attorneys fees because the Declaratory Judgment Act waives
2 governmental immunity. All of that, as I say, is basically
3 for the record. The question is, I have some land; I'm going
9 to cut it up into two or three pieces. It's advertised that
5 way. How anybody got the idea I was going to have a
6 subdivision -- I suppose my name precedes me, and some of my
7 other work and activities. Maybe that's what it was, I don't
8 know. But I wanted to bring this to your attention so that
9 you would know what I was doing, and I have no intention of
10 cutting any lots off that road, and you have that on record.
11 Do you have any questions?
12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only comment I have is you
13 cited a -- in the Subdivision Rules, 3.16. Our rules don't
19 have 3.16, which leads me to believe you probably don't have
15 the current rules. Current rules were passed under Order
16 25319 on May 11th of '98.
17 MR. MULLER: Okay, then, I do not have it.
18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway, in that regard,
19 there is no longer an exemption for agricultural land.
20 MR. MULLER: Okay.
21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the rules.
22 MR. MULLER: Well --
23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason I think you were --
29 it was put on the agenda by Commissioner Lackey and the
25 Engineer is that we were not aware of what you were trying
23
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
do. It was our way to get you here to explain it.
MR. MULLER: Yeah, but no one called me and told me
to come today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't know --
MR. MULLER: You know, that -- that's all I'm
saying. But I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But your reputation does -- is
part of the issue. And you did cut a road along the side,
and the appearance was you were doing a subdivision. And if
you're not, you're -- under the Elgin Bank rules, as known,
you know, I don't think there`s any problem with that.
MR. MULLER: Well, it's nice to get it clear and to
bring it up so that you know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's my only comment.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah. The only comment I would have
is -- and, of course, Commissioner Lackey is not here to
respond to any of these statements -- is that I know the
Engineer, per his little note in the file, and the fact that
Butch Lackey saw some work being done out there on the road,
was to put on it the agenda, bring it to the Court, and the
Court to take action as a body and possibly appoint someone,
either on the Court or the County Attorney, whomever, to --
to get in touch with you and ask you for an explanation. It
was not to make any finding today that some violation had
occurred or some ulterior motive was in play. I think that
29
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
161
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
was probably the reason why you were not contacted direct, is
that this Court certainly was not going to take any action
today that would be detrimental to you, Mr. Muller.
Otherwise, I think that puts the issue to bed.
MR. MULLER: Well, I appreciate the time and I
appreciate your comments, and I'll do what I have said and
we'll go from there. I thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nice to see you.
JUDGE DENSON: When is the courthouse going to be
complete down in Boerne?
MR. MULLER: They're looking now at probably
opening it up on Election Day, unless the County Clerk has
her way, and she's asked them to wait a few days. They're
looking at around November the 1st. It keeps getting pushed
back because of problems and supply and contracting.
JUDGE DENSON: It will be a nice addition --
MR. MULLER: Yeah, it's going to be a nice --
JUDGE DENSON: -- for the County government.
MR. MULLER: Thank you very much.
JUDGE DENSON: Yes, sir. Thank you. 2.3, consider
and discuss Financial Investment Quarterly Report. Barbara
Nemec, our Treasurer.
MS. NEMEC: Good morning.
JUDGE DENSON: Good morning.
MS. NEMEC: Our first page here, we have the total
25
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
bonded indebtedness for $7,790,805.07. Since this report,
the general obligation for $71,750 has been paid off. And,
then, Fund 58 and 59, the Road and Bridge and general
contractual obligation for $88,000, that will be paid off
February of '99. So, we will only have the 1994 jail bond
payment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fantastic.
MS. NEMEC: On the next page, these are our funds
that are on deposit with our depository, Security State Bank.
And, you'll see there in the transfer from investments and
transfer to investments, there's a large amount in transfer
from investments. This was the -- in June was when we went
ahead and started investing funds with Logic. So, what I did
was I took the majority of the funds that were in the
Federated account and transferred them to our County
depository, and then transferred them back out into Logic,
so that's why you see this large amount there. The ending
balance on deposit at Security was only $183,837.93, with the
rest of the funds being invested in either Logic or
Federated.
On the next page, this is our Federated government
money-market account. And, we started off with an ending
balance -- or beginning balance of $9 million, and brought
that down by the end of June to $1,391,000. And, again, that
was because in June, we started investing with Logic, and
26
1 they offer a -- a larger yield. So, the major -- the
2 majority of the funds are being invested with Logic. On the
3 next page, you'll see, by month and by fund, what the
4 interest is on there. And, on the 3-month average yield,
5 it's 5.17 percent. And, I think when we went with Logic, I
6 think Commissioner Oehler asked how much more would we be
7 getting in interest compared to Federated, and I said
8 something like .28 basis points, and what we've actually
9 gotten this time around is .35. So, we're doing good with
10 them. So that's why the majority of the funds are in Logic.
11 The next page, this is our Logic investment account.
12 And, beginning balance of zero, 'cause we just opened it up
13 in June, so that's why you see the transfer in, where all of
14 those funds were transferred in. And then on the next page,
15 it has it broken down by month for interest, and then you'll
16 see down there the yield was 5.5209 percent. And this --
17 this yield is even larger than your government agency
18 discount notes, which are on the next page. One of them --
19 and these axe 3-month yields. One of them is 5.28; the other
20 is 5.37. So, Logic is still offering a larger yield than
21 this. So, for this next quarter, we probably won't have
22 money tied up -- Logic is so liquid, you can just call the
23 next day and get your money out, and yet it brings this type
24 of yield, so it really doesn't make sense to tie up money and
25 earn this type of yield. I think probably the only way we're
27
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
going to get more yield in doing government agencies is going
out, maybe, six months or longer, and right now we're not in
the situation where we should be doing that until tax season;
then we can look at something like that. So, that's what
this is.
And then the last page is lust a breakdown by month and
fund of what the discount agencies earned in interest. Any
questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks good. Good yield with
the current market.
MS. NEMEC: Yeah, I was happy with it. Thank you.
JUDGE DENSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do we need to accept that?
JUDGE DENSON: No, I don't think there's any action
to be taken.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just a report.
JUDGE DENSON: It's just informational in nature.
MS. NEMEC: Well, the Local Government Code does
say that I have to present this quarterly, and the Auditor is
to audit to see if it has been presented to the Court. So, I
don't know if you have to pass a Court order to show that --
to accept the report.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay.
harm anything, so --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN
Well, it certainly wouldn't
I move we accept the report.
28
it
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Third.
JUDGE DENSON: All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13i
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. 2.9 is discussion of
interlocal co-op with local governmental entities. This is,
I think, the second in a series of presentations that have
been made by Bryan Finley and Ray Rothwell of Employee
Benefit Administrators, Inc. Mr. Rothwell? Mr. Finley?
MR. BRYAN FINLEY: Again, just let me say that Ray
is the representative of Employee Benefits, our third-party
administrator. And, as you will recall, we were asked to
bring an update on the possibility of establishing an
interlocal co-op, and so Ray is prepared to give you a report
at this time.
JUDGE DENSON: Very well, Mr. Finley. Thank you.
I Mr. Rothwell?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to point out
there are two Finleys in the audience; they're bringing in
the big guns on us this time.
JUDGE DENSON: Father and son. Does that mean big
and little guns?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Daddy was a pistol and all
that.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay, Mr. Rothwell.
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
111
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ROTHWELL: Thank you. Last time we were here,
we were asked to come back with an update on the interlocal
co-op. Two or three things that have happened since then.
We have met with the City Personnel Director -- or Human
Resources, I guess it's called over there. They have a great
deal of interest in looking at, reviewing, and seeing the
options available to the City and County if that were -- were
of interest to the County Commissioners and to the City
Council. We're waiting on the data from them to be able to
get some more specific costs -- or reinsurance rates, I
guess, is a better way to say that. So, there is an interest
from the City side, the Human Resources Department, on -- on
going forward and looking at a combined employee health
insurance program.
We've made it very clear to them that the benefit
structure with the City can be different from the County. We
would look at trying to have, maybe, the same fixed cost
rates for the two, but maybe a different attachment point or
a different monthly funding for the self -- for the
self-insured from the City side and the County side,
depending on benefit structure. It could vary a little bit.
In the interim, because this does have a November renewal
date, we have gone out far competitive bids to eight of the
largest reinsurance companies in the country. We've gone out
to, like, Conseco, MegaLife, Alliance, Gerber, TransAmerica,
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12I
13!
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Continental. Those are companies that we've asked to give us
a renewal quote on the County business.
I've also told each one of those reinsurers -- and it's
people we deal with every day; we've got business with at
least five of those companies with some of our other
business. I've asked them, at the same time they're giving
us a specific reinsurance quote on the County business, to
assume that the -- the City does have about the same number
of employees in their insurance program that the County does.
It's plus-or-minus 10 or 12 people is the difference in the
folks that are insured on the City program. I've asked them
to assume that the demographics, age-sex mix is about the
same, the claims experience is about the same -- and it is;
the claims experience is pretty close. I'm not sure about
the -- the demographics of the employees. But I've asked
them to give us a quote on approximately 500 bodies,
utilizing the County's benefit program. The County's program
is a little bit better than the City program in coverage.
We've also asked -- and in discussions with Barbara and
some of the -- some of the folks at the County, we've asked
for an optional dental program to be available for County
employees, one that the employee would probably pay for. But
the current dental program that's in place with some of the
employees with the County is not very good, and probably it
borders on being a waste of their money, but that's a
31
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
personal opinion. So, we have asked for a competitive rate
on a dental program that would be an optional -- optional
kind of program.
That's the update we have. We will have rates back
within the next 8 or 10 days to present back to you on your
County program. At the same time, we'll have ballpark rates
on what a co-op rate would be for you and the City. And the
City -- hopefully, by the end of this week, we'll have the
data from the City that we can get specific for the City.
The City's renewal date is the same as the County's, but it
doesn't mean they have to come into a co-op on that date.
They could renew their current program for a month and then
change a month later. So, we've had those kinds of
discussions with them, too. That's where we are with the
update on the co-op and the update on your specific rights.
We are out competetively bidding the reinsurance from the TPA
side. That's our responsibility, we do that annually. The
same thing was done last year. The rates haven't changed in
two years. And -- and we'll see where we go from here. Any
questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. I'm going to make a
comment, Ray. This Commissioners Court has worked very hard
in bonding a relationship with the City Council over in
Kerrville, and you and your sidekicks over there really make
it easy for us, and I appreciate that very much.
32
MR. ROTHWELL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What you're doing.
3 MR. ROTHWELL: You know, there's a lot of things
4 that -- that can jointly be purchased between the two
5 municipalities. We would even like to invite the school
6 district in, and we'll be having some conversations with the
7 school district. They've got a new employee there and -- or
8 two new employees, I guess; Personnel Director, finance guy,
9 and the Superintendent. But we will continue those
10 discussions also.
11 JUDGE DENSON: Ms. Nemec?
12 MS. NEMEC: Judge, rates are very important to our
13 office, as well. However, service is -- is a major part of
19 what we deal with, and that counts a lot in our office. And
15 I know that back before Bryan Finley and Associates took
16 over, that Ada was at the paint where she was going to need
17 either another full-time person to help her, or I kind of
18 thought maybe she was going to walk out the door. That's
19 just how -- how frustrated she was with the insurance. And
20 -- and she's very pleased with the service that we've gotten
21 from them, and I just want her to say a few words on -- on
22 the service that we get from them. It's important, and I
23 know sometimes y'all don't see that part of it, but it is
29 tremendous service.
25 MS. MARTELON: I can't say enough nice things about
33
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
the people that we deal with on a daily basis. They are
efficient, they are prompt, they are courteous. They're on
top of everything. We have not had an occasion ever where
they didn't get back to us within 29 hours with a solution.
We don't have disgruntled employees any more. And, just
generally, I can tell you that they are the most professional
people that I have ever had to deal with. You know, we're
pleased. Me, in particular.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's great.
MR. ROTHWELL: (Handing papers to Commissioner
Oehler} In case you haven't filled out your daughter's
papers.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, you want to talk about
this a little?
MR. ROTHWELL: No.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I have filled those out and I
sent them in.
MR. ROTHWELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And I got a response back --
you prompted this. I wasn't going to say anything.
MR. ROTHWELL: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But one thing I disagree with
on this, I believe this has to be sent to the school. I
found out later.
MR. ROTHWELL: Yes.
34
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And have the school fill it
out. That insults me just a little bit, to not take a
parent's word that, "Yes, my daughter is enrolled in Baylor
University," and, "Yes, my other one is in Texas University."
And I can't fill this out and send it in; therefore, the
claims don't get paid for months. Now, I take offense to
that, and I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's the way I feel.
MR. ROTHWELL: May I respond to that from an
insurance side? I spent 22 years-plus with Blue Cross/Blue
Shield, and I've worked with a lot of insurance companies.
Every student form that I've ever seen from any insurance
company requires it to be signed by the Registrar's Office
and have a seal of the college. Unfortunately, it's a
requirement to do it every semester. And you have to -- if
you're in the following spring semester, Bruce, it has to be
done. It has to be done by the school. I'm sorry, that's
the rules, and that's true with all insurance companies.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm going to follow that, but
that offends the hell out of me.
MR. ROTHWELL: I understand.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes. I'm paying money to
send them to school, and if they weren't in school, I
wouldn't say they were in school.
35
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
MR. ROTHWELL: I know that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And I don't appreciate it one
bit.
MR. ROTHWELL: But Joe Blow down the street might.
And I don't know of any -- I don't know of any insurance
company that doesn't require it by the school with a
Registrar's seal on it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, there's a slight
difference, though. This is a partially self-funded plan.
MR. ROTHWELL: That's true.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is not going out and
buying insurance on the street for full coverage.
MR. ROTHWELL: It's your plan. We're trying to
protect that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand that, but I also
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If this affects our County
deal here, you may be in trouble.
MR. ROTHWELL: Is that right?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll take his side.
MR. ROTHWELL: You know, the thing about it -- it
does affect your County things. We're trying to pay the
claims to the benefit -- to the benefit structure of the
County's program. It's your program. We're trying to use
your money the way it's supposed to be used. One of the
36
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
151
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
requirements is if a child is over 19 years old and they're
in school up to age 29, they're eligible for insurance. We
verify that through a -- through an eligibility form that,
unfortunately, Bruce, has to be done by the school.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
MR. ROTHWELL: Sorry I opened that book.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You shouldn't have done that.
MR. ROTHWELL: You're right. I thought I might
have --
JUDGE DENSON: When you deal with him in the
future, you'll deal with him one-on-one.
MR. ROTHWELL: That's right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The claims don't get paid
very timely, either; I will say that. I have had a lot of
experience with claims not getting paid. This may be part of
the reason. But, there are a lot of things that aren't paid
by our insurance coverage that we have. And our program
doesn't pay on -- in reality, what the face value that I took
it at in the beginning -- thought it was going to pay, it
does not. I pay more money out just in office visits and
things that don't come under the plan. And that's probably
going to be there with whoever we get. It's our plan; we
have to put whatever we want in that plan into it.
MR. ROTHWELL: Bruce, in Kerrville, with the
exception of three or four doctors -- what is y'all's -- $10
37
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
or $15?
MS. NEMEC: $10.
MR. ROTHWELL: With the exception of a $10 office
pay, you shouldn't have to pay a doctor anything for an
office visit.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I got a bill yesterday --
over the weekend.
MR. ROTHWELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: For $64 for my daughter when
I took her in. And, I mean, it says, "No pay," zero, zero,
zero in what qualifies. And that happens --
MR. ROTHWELL: Tell you what, I'll make you a deal.
I'll get with you one-on-one after this, get it straightened
out.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I wish you hadn't done this.
JUDGE DENSON: If you wait until January the 1st,
you'll be rid of him.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll be gone.
MR. ROTHWELL: Is that right? Could I meet with
you on the 10th? Bruce, I will call you this evening.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't appreciate this thing
right here whatsoever.
MR. ROTHWELL: Okay.
MS. NEMEC: This is the first complaint that we've
had in months and months and months. I've never heard of it.
38
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. Well --
MS. NEMEC: And usually we're the first to hear of
it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You don't have a daughter in
college, either.
JUDGE DENSON: Before he was on the Commissioners
Court, he was such a shy little boy.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I was.
MR. ROTHWELL: I remember.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Made me mean.
JUDGE DENSON: Let's see. 2.5, consider and
discuss for approval Interlocal Agreement for mental health
and chemical dependency commitments at Kerrville State
Hospital with Lavaca and Jim Wells County, and authorize
County Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So move.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All in favor?
JUDGE DENSON: I'm thinking whether whether we
should --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You don't want to do this?
JUDGE DENSON: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are they part of the
cachement area?
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah. Yeah. We have 2.17. I don't
39
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
know. Let's hold --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll withdraw my second.
JUDGE DENSON: -- off on that, on 2.5, until we
take up 2.17, in the event we want to change those contracts.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. 2.6, consider and discuss
changes in appointments and alternative -- excuse me,
alternate judges for the November 3rd general election. And
we have the Democratic chair here, Sharon Bantling. And
before you make your presentation, Mrs. Bantling, let me say
I think you came to us -- was it last year that you became
the chair, or the year before?
MS. BARTLING: In '97. April of '97.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay, April '97. So, you're 18
months into yours term.
MS. BARTLING: Right.
JUDGE DENSON: Your office. And, while it was
certainly a pleasure meeting you on that date that you came
in and made a presentation, I believe you stated something
along the lines that you plan on changing the approach to the
Democratic Party in Kerr County, Texas, and you were going
out, going to work to get the candidates for all offices.
And, I just want to say that I think you've done an
outstanding job.
40
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. BARTLING: Well, thank you very, very much.
JUDGE DENSON: You've gotten candidates. You've
gotten -- I think, rather than just simply someone to put
their name on the ballot, you've gotten qualified candidates,
and otherwise you've -- I think you've brought a lot of
credibility and a lot of professionalism to your office.
And, again, I want to compliment you for that.
MS. BARTLING: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear.
MS. BARTLING: I apologize for taking your time,
but there are two corrections, and we want to keep all of
this legal for the alternate election judges. To replace
Ruth Hall in Precinct 211, I have Lila Silva. And in 303,
Emil Habecker is traveling, unable to serve, and I recommend
Helen Barham for just the November 3rd. She is a Republican.
I was unable to find, at this time, a Democrat for Precinct
303. There are about 200 voters total, registered voters in
Precinct 303, and almost enough Republicans that I could have
named someone from outside the precinct, but not quite. It
was 78.2 and it needs to be 80. So, I asked Lydia Albrecht,
who is the Republican election judge, to name some friend of
hers that she would feel good about working with all day, and
so she asked Helen Barham, B-a-r-h-a-m. So, if it -- with
your consent, we'll notify those people.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Questions? Comments? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
MS. BARTLING: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
JUDGE DENSON: 2.7 deals with a Tax Assessor/
Collector request. We'll wait on that one, we'll lust hold
it until later this morning. I ran into Glenn Holekamp on my
way in the office this morning. He was having some -- a
water leak or some kind of problems, and said that he may not
be in here until later in the morning, so we'll pass on 2.8
also for right now.
2.9, consider and discuss approving contract for
telephone equipment at the Road and Bridge offices and
authorize County Judge to sign same. I think, Tammy, you
have the originals to that?
MS. MARQUART: Yes.
JUDGE DENSON: That's between Kerrville Telephone
Company and Kerr County?
MS. MARQUART: Yes, sir.
MR. TOMLINSON: Is this --
JUDGE DENSON: It's a telecommunications equipment
lease, and it's between Telecom Systems Corporation, d/b/a
Telephone Business Systems, and Kerr County. Tommy, did you
92
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
have a comment?
MR. TOMLINSON: Is this for a '98-'99 expenditure?
JUDGE DENSON: We have Tom Daniels in the
courtroom, who is here on behalf of the Kerrville Telephone
Business Systems, and ask for any comment out of him. Can
you answer that question?
MR. DANIELS: This -- I think his question regarded
County funds for '97-'98? I wouldn't know what -- what funds
it would be coming from, County-wise. I was lust here to
answer any questions on equipment or year 2000 compliance,
things of that nature.
MR. TOMLINSON: I lust think it might cause an
audit exception by -- by entering into a contract for a
service that we're going to pay for out of the '98-'99 budget
by entering into that agreement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are we talking about,
three days? Three days?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, why don't we wait and
D make it effective October 1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, as the date on that
contract that you're going to sign this afternoon.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Does that make sense?
MR. DANIELS: Actually, the date the contract would
start would be the date of installation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're not going to install
93
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
it for three more days, right?
MR. DANIELS: Or more, right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See how easy that is?
MR. DANIELS: No sooner than that, no.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Make a motion we make it
effective October 1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Make funds available --
JUDGE DENSON: Approving a contract and authorize
County Judge to sign same, and effective October lst, '98.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: And I've got a second. Further
questions? Comments? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Thank you, Tommy.
MR. DANIELS: Thank you.
JUDGE DENSON: 2.10, consider and discuss approving
the Ninth Amendment of an Extension of City/County
Firefighting Agreement and authorize County Judge to sign
same.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Further questions? Comments on
99
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
this? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: 2.11, consider and discuss agreement
between City of Kerrville, Texas, and Kerr County regarding
provision of Animal Control Services, and authorize County
Judge to sign same. Do we -- this got on the agenda at my
request, but it was based on approval by counsel, Tom
Pollard, of the contract that had been presented, a proposed
contract. And, Mr. Holekamp -- and i think all members of
the Court may have copies of it. But, then, I'm informed
that the City hasn't actually approved the contract,
themselves, as a body. But, I can't imagine there being any
changes, because they -- they are the creators of the
contract, themselves. You know, if y'all want to approve
it --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, what are the --
excuse me, I'm sorry.
JUDGE DENSON: However y'all want to handle it.
And then Commissioner Baldwin has some thoughts on it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question on the
actual contract here. What are these little circles and
question marks? I mean, and I agree that those questions
should be asked. What is the two -- this $250 and -- and the
word "if" and all that? What -- can you explain that?
JUDGE DENSON: Tom just --
95

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16i
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that Tommy's handwriting?
JUDGE DENSON: Tom Pollard. And he says they were
not -- it wasn't significant.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Great question. The
thoughts that I have on this thing is, again, I've already
tooted the horn one time this morning, and I really want to
toot the horn that this is a contract between the City and
and the County, and it's another one of those ways that the
-- that the governments are coming together and working
together, particularly in the County and this City. And, I
want to -- and I don't take this stuff lightly; I think this
is really important. I've been hearing the natives beating
the drums out there for five or six years now, that we want
to see more cooperation between City and County. Here it is.
And this is a big deal. And, when we get down -- press
corps, when we get down to
JUDGE DENSON: They're busy writing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Quit all that writing; I'm
trying to talk to y'all. When we get down to actually
signing the contract, I -- you know, I think that we need to
get -- we can get the mayor over here and the County Judge
and Mr. Holekamp, and -- I'm serious, and some folks, and
let's have a photo op, and let's let the public know, the
taxpayers know in this County that there is some cooperation,
that we are working hard to get along together. Okay? So
96
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
we're going to do that. We'd like to invite y'all to come
along and participate. And, Judge Denson has appointed me to
coordinate this thing, so y'all -- that's all. We're going
to do it. So, we'd like some participation. Bill, you can
even come. Commander, glad to have you folks. Okay. I
don't -- I may start crying if we don't stop. I mean, this
is big. My point is, press, that we want to hammer this
thing; we want to toot the horn on this thing. This is a big
-- this is a big deal. May not see it today, but believe me,
we'll see it later on.
JUDGE DENSON: I think what he's saying, to sum it
up, is we're now keeping the City's dogs, so we might as well
pick them up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly what I'm
saying.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we feel we can do it
probably more economically and more efficiently.
JUDGE DENSON: Do you want to approve this
contract? And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Effective --
JUDGE DENSON: -- authorize me to sign it,
effective some glorious day --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Upon approval of City
Council? Is that what we're saying? I move -- or would you
like ta?
97
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can do it; you made the
speech.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move. I'll do it.
JUDGE DENSON: Move we authorize -- approve the
contract and authorize the County Judge to sign same, subject
to approval by the City of Kerrville?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You can kick that soapbox out
from under him.
JUDGE DENSON: You've been quiet since Mr. Rothwell
left.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Can't get a word in edgewise
here.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Consider and discuss -- this is
2.12, consider and discuss approving Resolution by the
Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, authorizing the
filing of a Second Amendment to the Articles of
Incorporation, Alamo Area Housing Finance Corporation, and
authorize County Judge to sign same. This is from AACOG.
Based on attorney's recommendation, we change the language in
that -- in the Articles of Incorporation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is -- is this a Section
48
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
8 -- Section 8 monies,
i.e., the apartment coy
name of the thing.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
think that's what this
federal monies? Federal housing;
nplex over here? I can't think of the
OEHLER: Oakdale.
BALDWIN: Yeah, Oakdale Apartments. I
is. I'm not positive, but I've seen
y'all do this every year.
JUDGE DENSON: Yes. This is per their letter,
Fulbright and Jaworski. This is General Certificate of Kerr
County pursuant to Corporation refunding of its 1997
single-family housing revenue bonds. And then, also --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE DENSON: Also, Kendall County has become a
member of the corporation.
JUDGE DENSON: I vote on this exact same thing at
AACOG this coming Wednesday. It's on the agenda.
JUDGE DENSON: All right. You want to make a
motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do. I move we approve.
JUDGE DENSON: And I'll second. Okay. All in
favor?
{The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: All right. 2.13, consider and
discuss authorizing the County Clerk to make available to the
general public a copy of the Fiscal Budget Book for $25. Our
99
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
administrative assistant brought this to my attention while
we approved the budget, and I have a copy of it available at
the County Clerk's office at her standard charges for
copying. It's, like, a buck a page, and so the budget book
would be extremely expensive, someone having it. I think in
the past we've charged $25, and that's what we need to do on
this. And that's sort of an arbitrary fee, but it's a fee
that we pay for copying and to offset some of the expense
involved, but yet not be so expensive or so exhorbitant where
members of the public couldn't afford it. That's the intent
there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Further questions? Comments? All
I in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. 2.14, consider and discuss
approving Resolution to join the Texas Counties Storm Water
Coalition, and remit 5750 to the Texas Association of
Counties. Commissioner, Precinct 1 put this on. This is --
qo ahead, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Just -- if you'll
just follow this with me, as you know, the E.P.A. has been
kicking -- this is Phase II of we don't know how many phases.
Phase I dealt with some cities around the country, and now
50
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
Phase II is -- is doing the same thing they did in Phase I,
only they're broadening it out, and it -- it has targeted 13
certain counties in the state, but it affects every county in
our state. And what it is, it's the Environmental Protection
Agency's Storm Water Phase II; and what this thing does, it
causes a county to do all kind of things. As an example,
when we're dealing with one acre of land or more, if the
County goes out and grades a County road of one acre or more,
which doesn't take much, then we not only have to file a plan
with the E.P.A.; we have to file updates with E.P.A., we have
to train the public in what to expect on the runoff into the
County ditch, and on and on and on and on and on. Doesn't
deal with water quality; it deals simply with runoff. It --
I mean, there is just oodles and gobs of information here
somehow that I've run into, and it does affect every county
in the state of Texas.
Let's see. And what -- what's going on here and what
I'm proposing is that we get in a proactive mode on this
thing, instead of waiting for -- instead of waiting -- you
know, having the wait-and-see approach of what the federal
government's going to do to us. Then I think that, you know,
we -- you know, it's our responsibility to take a step out
there and join other counties, a coalition of counties across
the state, to go to E.P.A. Up to this point, Texas
Association of Counties, our association, has picked up
51
J
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
the tab, and they have filed some briefs with the federal
government, et cetera, and so they -- they've gotten our foot
in the door. And now it's time for all the counties to come
together to fight against this thing.
To just give you an example of what the cost might be,
some of the counties have actually looked at it long enough
to where they've come up with some estimates. Our friend,
Jim Sagebiel, down at -- Judge Sagebiel down at Seguin,
Guadalupe County, estimates it's going to cost his county the
first year, this next year, $350,000 just to get the thing in
place. We don't budget that kind of money for these kind of
things. This is an unfunded mandate, big-time. And, so,
it's my opinion that we join in with these other counties --
and there's already a pretty good little group of them. They
met in Fort Worth this last week. So, we're not too late,
but we're not in the front end of the thing, either. There's
lots of them that have been put together.
And they've outlined here -- in this letter from TAC,
they've kind of broken it down of the size of counties and
how much money they would like for us to pitch into this.
And I would also like to -- my opinion -- participate with
them financially. There is money our budget to move around
to pay that $750.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with Buster. This
comes out of next year's budget? Or this year's?
52
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 BALDWIN: No, there's money there
right now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Enough that we can find 5750?
I think it's a good idea. I think it's -- the consequences
can be devastating to all counties, us included. That's
ridiculous that this is -- one, that this is coming into the
E.P.A. I mean, it's -- I think that their mandating counties
to do this type of --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fred, one thing that they
were going to require -- I mean, like, if somebody develops a
piece of property on one acre of land and they start building
a home, we are required to inspect that home and watch -- and
do the silt filtration and the whole thing, and educate the
neighborhood of what all that's all about. And, during the
construction, it is our responsibility to make inspections,
regular inspections, pile all that up in a neat little pile
and report to the federal government about somebody's
one-acre lot. Okay? So what they're wanting us to do is --
MR. HENNEKE: They don't have the power to do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- they're wanting counties
to pass ordinances, step number one in this -- I mean, this
is federal government here. Counties don't even have the
authority -- don't have the power to do this thing. That's
how stupid this thing has gotten. So, I really don't want
Kerr County or this Commissioners Court to have anything to
53
1 do with these nuts.
2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you made a motion for the
3 Resolution --
9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if I'm through
5 yet. I lust kind of start boiling when I think about it.
6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's enough. I'll move
7 that we -- that we pay that, we participate in fighting the
8 E.P.A. requirements.
9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pass the Resolution.
10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Pass the Resolution.
11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See? They're not even going
13 to let me vote on this thing.
19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just to get you to be quiet.
15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I found a bunch of money in
16 our budget, enough money to do this. Thank you.
17 JUDGE DENSON: There are 38 counties that are
18 designated as small municipal separate storm sewer systems,
19 abbreviated referred to as MS4's, that will come under the
20 Storm Water Phase II impact. Kerr County is not one of them.
21 However, what you said about the one-acre rules, that impacts
22 all Texas counties.
23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
24 JUDGE DENSON: And I agree with you 100 percent,
25 that we should get in on the front end of this thing, rather
59

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
than wait. So, consequently --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Proactive. Proactive.
JUDGE DENSON: Consequently, I'm supportive of it
also, even though we need to spend 5750. And, as
Commissioner Baldwin said, they sent us a chart and we fall
under counties where our population is between 25,000 and
50,000, and that's how they've determined our share of
contribution to the coalition. So, I think -- let's see.
Did you make a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bruce and I.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I did, and Jonathan seconded
it.
JUDGE DENSON: And that motion is to?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Participate in the coalition
and pass the resolution, fox 5750 to be paid to the Texas
Association of Counties.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'd like to provide all
of this information I have in here to the newspaper people,
just to show you how friendly I am.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. We need to take action on
this and end it. All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
(Off-the-record discussion.)
JUDGE DENSON: Let's see. 2.15, I think we're
55

1 probably going to have to hold until Commissioner Lackey gets
2 back. It was consider and discuss repairs to Center Point
3 Dam. If y'all recall, he brought that up at our last
4 meeting, and it was not posted or not part of the agenda, and
5 so I rolled it over to this one. However, he's on vacation
6 now, and we'll just take it up at the next meeting when he
7 returns.
8 Let's see. Let's do 2.16, consider and discuss
9 accepting donation of flagpole from Hill Country Airborne, to
10 be utilized at the Hill Country Youth Exhibition Center.
11 Commissioner Gene Richie came to see me last week and told me
12 about this matter, and it's yet another thing that he and
13 Hill Country Airborne has done, with -- with a donated tent
14 for our county and our community. He's come up with this
I5 flagpole, which is a vezy expensive item, and is going to
16 donate it to the County. A12 we're going to have to do is
17 maintain the pole. T think he even said something about
18 other organizations may be interested in donating flags and
19 such, but I asked him to come this morning and us recognize
20 him and maybe he can tell us a few more details about it than
21 what I've said. Mr. Richie?
22 MR. RICHIE: Thank you, Judge. Hill Country
23 Airborne has a lottg record of promoting things in the county
24 and the community as a whole. I did mention to you that we
25 had asked the Host Lion's Club to get involved with this
56

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
project with us. In fact they're going to dig the hole, and
they're also willing to provide flags, not just this year,
but I think maybe the coming years. So, really, that's all
I've got to say.
JUDGE DENSON: It's -- describe the pole.
MR. RICHIE: It's approximately a 46-foot pole,
comes in two sections. It has a gold ball on the top of it.
It has two pulleys with ropes; one for the American flag, one
for the Texas flag. It's 8 inches at the base, and will be
put into the ground approximately 4 foot. Very nice
flagpole, very large; probably larger than the one here in
front of the courthouse.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's the plan to place it on
that property?
MR. RICHIE: We've consulted with the people out at
the Ag Barn. It's going to be right in the center,
so-to-speak, of the entrance into the office and -- would you
call it a meeting area? Most of the --
MR. WILLIAMS: Two walkways that go into the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we talking about the
Extension Service building, not the Ag Barn?
MR. WILLIAMS: Not the barn part, but the -- the
part where you have --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Eddie Holland's office?
MR. RICHIE: No. No.
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
131
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. WILLIAMS: The hall -- the hall part where you
have the dinners and so forth.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: There are two walkways that go in
two doors in that center section.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That little yard space there?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a great idea.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Appreciate your efforts, once
again.
MR. RICHIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you think when we get the
thing erected, we could gather up all the newspapers out
there?
JUDGE DENSON: Sign the dog contracts out there?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We could sign the dog
contracts under that flagpole.
JUDGE DENSON: I make a motion that we accept the
flagpole donated by Hill Country Airborne, and extend many
thanks to that organization.
MR. RICHIE: And the Host Lion's Club.
MR. WILLIAMS: Kerrville Host Lion's Club also,
Judge.
JUDGE DENSON: And Kerrville Host Lion's Club.
MR. WILLIAMS: Its a' a joint effort.
58
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
JUDGE DENSON: Okay, a joint effort. Just make it
a joint effort with my motion. Okay, that's my motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Further questions? Comments on
this? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Gene and Bill, again, thank
you both very, very much, and your organizations. Okay.
Consider and discuss additional fees available to the County
for handling mental health cases. I have -- I do apologize
that I didn't get the provisions of the applicable law as
backup on this, but what it is, the Texas Mental Health Code
provides that there can be up to $50 fees charged for holding
a mental health commitment hearing at the State Hospital on
behalf of the County Judge and on behalf of the County
Attorney. In other wards, $50 available on each. And this
would be in the form of court costs. And what it would be,
it would be additional revenue to the County. Presently, I
think we charge, what, S5 for each?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, S5 and $10.
JUDGE DENSON: $5 and $10. $5 for the --
MS. MEEKER: S10 for the Judge, I believe.
JUDGE DENSON: And $10 for the Judge?
MS. MEEKER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: So, we're charging $15 where we
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
could charge up to $100, so we're leaving $85 on the table.
Mr. Motley brought this to -- to my attention, and I passed
it along to the County Clerk and asked her what she thought
of it, and she gave me those -- that 515 number. This is
something, as I've already said, that's available to us.
Now, we've discussed on many occasions in the past the
problems we've been having with Bexar County, getting them to
pay for -- in accordance with the contract that we have with
them. This might be one way of offsetting some of that
inconvenience and troubles that we have in collecting our
bills. But if we do it, we're going to have to do it to all
contracts. We can't lust simply -- 'cause it's going to be
court costs. It's going to be fees that our County Clerk's
going to charge everyone; not only Kerr County patients that
go out to the hospital and open up a case over here, but any
of those other counties out there that we contract with
through interlocal agreements, we're going to provide
hearings and services out there. So, it will impact any and
every county in the cachement area of Kerrville State
Hospital, and I wanted to bring it to your attention. And,
Mr. Motley also informed me Thursday or Friday that this does
not apply to the J. P.'s at all; this is only for the County
Judge and the County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, what's your
recommendation for the fee, the amount?
60
1
2
3
4 Court.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19'
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE DENSON: I don't have one.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're looking for one?
JUDGE DENSON: I'm looking for the wisdom of this
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a couple of
questions. What makes us think that -- I mean, we can't
collect what we charge Bexar County now.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, we're collecting it, but it's
just -- it's like pulling teeth. Now, when we renegotiated
that contract, one of the things that I had put into that
contract that I thought would expedite the handling of our
bills and get us paid more timely was that interest after, I
think, 30 days, or maybe 60 days.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sixty.
JUDGE DENSON: They have to pay 10 percent on top
of the bill. And that hasn't slowed them down any.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, so, now we're talking
about charging them some more, and not collecting that
either. So, my -- I couldn't care less about Bexar County,
what they do, but one of my concerns is for some of these
smaller counties that don't -- are a little less blessed than
others, and they have the patients that come over just like
everyone else, I'm sure; of possibly putting a burden on
them, and that would be my concern. It would be the only
concern I have. I don't think that I would -- I would vote
61
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
131,
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
for going up to the full amount on any of them, but I could
see that -- let me ask you this. It's not to exceed S50 on
the Judge, not to exceed $50 on the County Attorney. Can we,
like, do one without doing the other? Can we go up $15, $20
on one and not even bother the other?
JUDGE DENSON: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it does take quite a
bit of both the County Attorney and the County Judge's time;
just a way for us to recoup, as a County, I mean, some
reimbursement for their time. And I would think, you know,
something reasonable. I certainly don't want to give the
maximum, but $25 and $25 or $35 and $25, something like that.
$10 for the Judge and $15 for the County Attorney. I mean, 7
think that's somewhere in that price range. To me, it's
still reasonable and doesn't -- you know, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're $10 and $5 now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $25 and $15? I think -- you
know, I don't want to go out and try to amend these
contracts. Just as they start coming in, send them out with
the new fees. I don't want to try and amend everything.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We held one from this
morning because of that.
JUDGE DENSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. MEEKER: We don't have Bexar County yet.
62
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
131
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The contract?
MS. MEEKER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We'll probably get it about
January.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do they come in throughout the
year, or are they all supposed to be October 1? When --
what's the date of these contracts?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's the anniversary dates.
I think we did them all different.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know we do them year-round.
MS. MEEKER: No, they all have the same date.
Don't they, Tammy?
MS. MARQUART: Yes, ma'am. Hut I -- I think Bexar
County was approved in December, when they had those meetings
down there with Hexar County.
MS. MEEKER: Oh, was it?
MS. MARQUART: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know the past three
Commissioners Court meetings we've approved some --- several.
JUDGE DENSON: And here's -- it may be that we
don't even have to address the contracts, themselves, as far
as this being a separate item. I'm looking at the Lavaca
County contract that was proposed this morning for us to
approve, and all it says -- and all these contracts read the
same. It says, For all cases, the County agrees to pay Kerr
63
1 County all court costs set by law and such other costs set by
2 order of the Kerr County Commissioners Court under authority
3 of law.
9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: As long as we don't exceed
5 the amount, they're mandated to pay it.
6 JUDGE DENSON: That's right. So we don't have to
7 address each contract separately, is what I'm saying, as far
8 as an individual item in that contract that's going to
9 change. You just -- it just talks about court costs. That
10 is what these fees are, are part of court costs.
11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we can just set the fee
12 structure.
13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We set the fee schedule and
14 be done with it.
15 JUDGE DENSON: Exactly. What about S25 and $25?
16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that's fair. You're
17 spending more time as time goes on over there. I mean, it's
18 taking more of the County Attorney's time; it's taking more
19 of your time. And that's a big percentage increase, but it's
20 not a big dollar increase, I don't think, with the number of
21 cases in all these small counties.
22 JUDGE DENSON: What do you say about that, Billie?
23 MS. MEEKER: Sounds good. It won't begin to take
29 care of our problem of all those thousands of dollars we eat
25 for the hair-splitting counties, but it will help.
69
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
JUDGE DENSON: That one --
MS. MEEKER: That one county takes hours and hours
and hours of time and telephone calls, and we still don't get
the money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you're talking about
Bexar County?
MS. MEEKER: Yes.
JUDGE DENSON: And we're not through with that yet.
MS. MEEKER: I hope not.
JUDGE DENSON: The Court asked me to look into that
a little further and come back and make a presentation on
what direction we want -- may want to take on that.
MS. MEEKER: I would support that.
JUDGE DENSON: I'm not there just quite yet, but I
think this Court is -- from previous discussions, they're
prepared to terminate, and discontinue providing services to
Bexar County.
MS. MEEKER: Well, it almost gets to the point of
being ridiculous to read their hair-splitting.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For what?
JUDGE DENSON: I make the motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Raising the fees?
JUDGE DENSON: Right. I move that we increase fees
for the County Judge and County Attorney handling mental
65
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
health cases per the Texas Mental Health Code to $25 each.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second the motion.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Further questions or comments
on this? All right. All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Holekamp is back there.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah, I'm back to him.
(Off-the-record discussion.)
JUDGE DENSON: Mr. Holekamp, let's see. This is
2.8, consider and discuss approving amended job descriptions
for Animal Control Facility. Mr. Holekamp?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Did y'all get copies of those?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Do they seem to be acceptable to
y'all?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They look great to me.
MR. HOLEKAMP: It didn't really change a whole lot.
It was a structure on the Animal Control Officer, primarily,
to have a little authority over the assistant, if we bring
the City on this week.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we bring the City on?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, I haven't -- the contract
hasn't been signed yet.
66
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. All right.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I didn't want to make an assumption.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was going
Glenn, you -- your pay scale goes from -- on
Control Officer goes from 16 down to 12?
MR. HOLEKAMP: That's -- the Assis
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And another
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then we
number 8?
to ask you,
the Animal
Cant is 12.
12?
drop off to
MR. HOLEKAMP: That's -- well, that's for our
Kennel Worker, pretty much comparable to a custodial-type
position.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see, okay. Once again, I
like it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we accept the amended
job descriptions for the Animal Control Facility as
presented.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion and second.
Further questions and comments? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
(Off-the-record discussion.)
MR. HOLEKAMP: 2.11?
67
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 LETZ: We did it.
JUDGE DENSON: We've approved it.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Did y'all do 2.11?
JUDGE DENSON: Subject to -- that's the contract
for Animal Control Services. We've approved that subject to
the City approving it.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay, that's fine.
JUDGE DENSON: Do you have any comments?
MR. HOLEKAMP: No, none whatsoever. I have a
comment -- can I? -- on 2.16, on the flagpole, I'd like to
ask Mr. Richie and them a question.
JUDGE DENSON: Does this have anything to do with a
dog and a flagpole?
MR. HOLEKAMP: No. No, not on the flagpole, no.
I understand the flagpole's to be put up and there will be,
you know, the pole and a cord and everything. Is it going to
be a lighted flagpole, or will it be a -- are we going to
have to put it up every morning and take it down every
evening, or what is y'all's idea on that?
MR. RICHIE: I would recommend that we -- there's
an electric outlet right near the base of the pole. I would
recommend an extension with a small light facing up.
(Off-the-record discussion.)
MR. RICHIE: I would say the cost to put a light on
it probably wouldn't run over 550.
68
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
MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, what I meant is that if we --
I just wondered if we were going to be required to pull it
down and put it up every morning, if you know.
MR. RICHIE: That's really not our responsibility.
I think we've already talked to the people out there and
recommended that they put a small light facing up.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, okay. Nobody had said anything
to me about it, and I was just curious, because some of my
maintenance people would probably be the ones that have to do
it.
MR. RICHIE: Right.
MR. HOLEKAMP: And I just --
MR. RICHIE: When Bill and I were out there, we
discussed it with Mike, I guess it was, and we recommended it
would be very simple to put a light up there; probably
wouldn't cost $50.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay.
MR. RICHIE: Save all that trouble.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, that was the only question I
had is on the light, because otherwise we'd have to take it
up and down.
JUDGE DENSON: Do you have a problem -- when I saw
you this morning, some kind of water leak?
MR. HOLEKAMP: It was an air conditioner that froze
up over the J.P.'s office in this new remodel, and we had a
69
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
bunch of tiles that fell.
JUDGE DENSON: Wet?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fall on the J.P.?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Pardon? It was right in front of
his desk.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, poor planning on where to
put the unit?
MR. HOLEKAMP: We have the -- the thing resolved.
As we speak, they're having to wait for it to thaw out so
they'll be able to do the work on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that unit under warranty?
MR. HOLEKAMP: It went out in June.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Imagine that.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Y'all have anything else for me?
JUDGE DENSON: No, sir. Thank you very much.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank y'all very much.
JUDGE DENSON: We need to approve these contracts
now. I think I had a motion and a second?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I withdrew my second, but
I'll reinstate it.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. And the original motion was
by Commissioner Baldwin. That's on the mental health and
dependency -- chemical dependency.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
70

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: Contract with Jim Wells and Lavaca
County, 2.5.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My motion. I'm still there.
JUDGE DENSON: We have a motion and I've got a
second, Commissioner Oehler. Okay. All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, we don't want to do
Number 7?
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah, I've just had Thea call the
Tax Assessor's and she will not be here. That's simply a
housekeeping matter, that as a result of Ag value, we need to
do a reimbursement.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So move.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: And then we have a -- an addendum to
our agenda. Consider and discuss approving Pike's Peak Road
deed and authorize County Judge to sign same. This is
something that the Road and Bridge initiated. Our counsel
has taken care of it. It's to straighten out Pike's Peak
Road. We were donated some property, and we're conveying
some property back to get the easement right where they can
straighten out that road. Again, just some housekeeping
matter.
71

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
Il
12
13
19i
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there any action
required? Or you say --
JUDGE DENSON: Here's the paperwork, and it's just
approving the County conveyance of some property described
and authorize County Judge to sign same. If y'all want to
look at that -- this little plat, what they're doing, again,
is an effort to try and straighten out that turn.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Looks like we're taking as
much as we're getting, giving back what we're taking. Just
on the opposite side of the road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's in my precinct, and
this is not going to cut it, far as I'm concerned, getting
this piece of paper. I want to be notified by Road and
Bridge and talked to about these things that are happening in
my precinct, especially when we're dealing with public
property. So, if y'all vote on it, I'm going to vote against
it. They can -- they need to handle this in a little more
proper fashion.
JUDGE DENSON: Let me make this affirmation. And I
didn't -- I received this on the 22nd of September, all this
paperwork, attached to a transmittal letter from Tam Pollard
to Franklin Johnson. And, he states in his letter the number
of different things that needs to be done. And I noted to
Theo, on the 22nd of September, to hold this until all that
documentation had come through, and then we'd put it on the
72
~ J
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
111
12~
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
agenda. She sent that to Road and Bridge, and she had a
pretty negative response from them; that they had had all the
paperwork done and it was complete, and that this needed to
be taken care of immediately, that we're behind on it already
as it is. And, so, would we please put it on the agenda.
And, at that time, the agenda was complete; thus the
addendum. And, so, Truby says we need to have it done.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry, Truby's not the
Commissioners --
JUDGE DENSON: You're the Commissioner of that
precinct, and I think what you decide should be what is done.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much. Thank
you.
JUDGE DENSON: So there'll be no action, and I'll
tell Truby to talk to you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I'd rather talk to
the County Engineer, where the buck stops over there, about
this kind of stuff. I'm not going to tolerate it.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. That takes care of our --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're done completely
till -- do we have Executive Session with Tom this afternoon?
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah, but I don't think he's going
to be here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, do we need to have an
Executive Session, then?
73

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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a darned good
question. I don't think we can have one if he's not going to
be here, unless you have something you need to report on.
JUDGE DENSON: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know.
JUDGE DENSON: Let me ask before we -- hold it just
one second.
(Off-the-record discussion.)
JUDGE DENSON: Mr. Pollard reported this morning
through his secretary-wife that he is in Uvalde today on a
court case, and that there is nothing of significance of a
legal nature that he needs to apprise us of this afternoon.
So, we're adjourned.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, I should maybe, Kathy, say
that we're in recess, in case we have to clean something up
today.
(Commissioners Court recessed at 10:95 a.m.)
79
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
C E R T I F I C A T E
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
Official Reporter of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 1st day of October,
1998.
Kathy B k
Certified Shorthand Reporter
75