1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
111
121
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Tuesday, October 13, 1998
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
F~ 21 Dayof~AD. t~AMG__
BIWE G. MEEKER
Cork Count(y~Court Kerr County, Texu
By. ~~...~Z'(~no.J~ D.pwy
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. 4
10',
11~
12
13
19
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	7
1.3	Late Bills	8
1.4	Read and Approve Minutes	9
1.5	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	
2.12	Kerr County Women`s Chamber Christmas Lighting	10
2.1	Final Plat of River Ridge Ranch	15
2.2	Final Plat of Creekwood V	20
2.3	Concept Plan for 80+ acres in Hunt area	23
2.4	Variance - South Fork Subdivision water lines	29
2.5	Right-of-way request - Wiedenfeld Lane	39
2.6	Using accrued sick leave while on workers comp.	35
2.7	Right-of-way easements - Pikes Peak Road	42
2.8	Allow Road ~ Bridge to advertise for bids	93
2.10	County acceptance of Lazy Valley Road	94
2.9	PUBLIC HEARING: 45 mph - Sheppard Rees Rd.	60
	No dumping - Sunset Cemetery	
	No parking - Hermann Sons Rd.	
2.11	Sentricon Termite Colony elimination system	65
2.22	Cherry Springs Road/Yellowstone Lane repair	72
2.17	Union Church Building	83
2.13	Animal Control Fee Schedule	107
2.19	Appt. to Kerr Emergency 911 Network Board	107
2.15	County-sponsored contract - Dietert Claim	110
2.16	Burn Ban	111
2.18	Final Payment - Change Order #2	112
2.19	Estimate of Construction Cost for Phase 3	113
2.20	ADA site-work approval	121
2.21	Provisions for Phase 3 Renovations and cost	125
--	Liquidated Damages clause	130
	Reporter's Certificate	140
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
91
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Tuesday, October 13, 1998, at 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:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE DENSON: Good morning. It's Tuesday, October
the 13th, it looks like about two minutes after 9:00. We
have our regular Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for
today, that being the first meeting in the month of October,
1998. However, before we get into business, we'll have a
little prayer and a pledge of allegiance, as we usually do.
And if you'll all please stand and bow your heads.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE DENSON: Thank you. Okay. We need to pay
some bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second, with a question.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. What's your question?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, it's not a
question; it's a concern.
JUDGE DENSON: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 'Cause I've already --
believe me, I've already asked the question. But in the
Commissioners Court set of bills, we are spending $393 on a
high-back swivel chair for the County Court at Law Judge. I
3
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
understand his chair is bad and he's sick and all these
horrible things are happening, but as far is as the taxpayers
are concerned and being able to see where their money is
going, just automatically pulling it out of Commissioners
Court capital outlay line item and sending it down there is
the wrong thing to do. I see there's nothing I can do about
it. I don't really want to change that, other than this will
change next year, this kind of function. He can either wait
a week, buy it out of his own budget, or they can come in
here and we'll go through the process of transferring it from
one department to another. But just to automatically -- and
particularly the Commissioners Court, which is -- I'm
responsible for, or we are, just to pull money out of that
budget and send it down to another department is the wrong
thing to do. And I -- I don't like that kind of thing and I
really disapprove of it. However, it's there. Nothing we're
going to be able to do about it. Move forward.
JUDGE DENSON: Let me ask you, Mindy, what do you
know about that? Other than mechanics.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry, Mindy.
JUDGE DENSON: He obviously --
MS. WILLIAMS: That's fine. When Glenn came in and
said that the Judge's chair was not repairable, we needed to
get him a new one, he discussed it with Tommy. And Glenn
said, "I've got the money in my budget." And Tommy said,
9
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
"There's money in Commissioners Court capital outlay for such
items, we will pay it from there. Go ahead and order the
chair," which I did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see.
can go in the Commissioners Court budget and
chairs, you can by computers and screens and
pencils. I mean, why do it that way if it's
if it's going to be a contingency-type fund?
in their own budget? This inflates Commissi
You can go -- we
you can buy
tires and
going to be --
Why not put it
oners Court --
this is not a true picture for the Commissioners Court
budget.
JUDGE DENSON: I agree with you. I'm just trying
to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, the newspaper's here;
we'd better get back to business.
JUDGE DENSON: I think I'm just trying to think
through it, as you are. This is one of those unforseen
items. This -- this came up -- I mean, I didn't know
anything about it. Of course, I look over the bills, but I
didn't pick out that item. But from what Mindy just told me,
with our Maintenance Supervisor coming to the Auditor and
saying that the chair was not repairable, that, to me, means
that it came up all of a sudden.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE DENSON: It wasn't planned like in our normal
5
1 budget process.
2 MS. WILLIAMS: Right.
3 JUDGE DENSON: Where we -- each department has
9 their own group of capital items that they plan to buy during
5 the year.
6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could we not transfer the money
7 from our contingency fund to County Court at Law?
8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, that's proper way to do
9 that.
10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then -- I mean, that, to
11 me, would be a mare accurate way -- that's where the money is
12 going.
13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't mind that at all.
19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We keep the money under
15 Commissioners Court because we don't know where we're going
16 to have unexpected, you know, capital outlay needed. But, to
17 me, it probably ought to be transferred to the department at
18 that point where it's needed, as opposed to keeping it under
19 ours, because --
20 MS. WILLIAMS: It was my understanding that the
21 money that was in the Commissioners Court capital outlay was
22 for lust such unforseen emergencies, when it's not in the
23 department's budget under their capital outlay. And this is
29 the first time the question has actually come up, but, yes,
25 it can be done where we could transfer it from Commissioners
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
151
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Court capital outlay to whatever department is getting the
equipment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what we do every two
weeks.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah. No, I mean, you know,
everyone is right in what they're saying. We keep that
contingency just in case there is some kind of emergency,
just like this, where there was not money budgeted for the
chair because they didn't know the chair was going to become
unrepairable during the course of the year. However, what
Buster is saying is absolutely correct. From an accounting
standpoint, if you go back and you look at the historical
data, it won't reflect that --
MS. WILLIAMS: Which department actually got it.
JUDGE DENSON: -- that it was paid out of the
County Court at Law for this capital item. It would look
like that the Commissioners Court spent these X dollars.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right.
MS. WILLIAMS: We can certainly probably change
that this budget year.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. All right, any other
questions on the bills? All right. All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Budget amendments.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, we have one. And this
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will be applied to the '97-'98 budget, the one we just
finished. We are needing to amend the building construction
line item in permanent improvements. We did not have Mr.
Walker's final bill in order to do it, you know, previously,
so we are asking to move the amount of his bill for his
September expenses to come out of surplus reserves, and we're
also requesting a hand check to be issued to Mr. Walker.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this a bill or retainage?
MS. WILLIAMS: No, this is strictly Mr. Walker's
bill. The $18,000 that's shown on there is the amount that
we are holding on the retainage for the construction company,
the demolition company, and that will not be released until
Mr. Walker says everything's okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see. So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion and second.
Further questions? Comments? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Late bills?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, I do have one. Just got
it this morning. The Tax Assessor needs $10,000 for her
postage meter. They're getting ready to send out tax
statements and they will not have enough postage if we don't
give them this money right now. This will cover them for the
next couple of months. And she didn't realize until this
8
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
morning that they were that low. Otherwise, she would have
given it to me earlier. So, we need a hand check to the
Postmaster for $10,000.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion and second.
Further questions? Comments? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: That's it?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: We need to waive reading of the
minutes and approve same.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I so move.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Got a second, Commissioner Lackey.
All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: And we have some monthly reports.
We need to approve -- accept and approve same.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So move.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second it.
JUDGE DENSON: We have a second. Further
questions? Comments? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Can we do this one first?
9
1
2 project.
31
9I
I
5''
6
71
9,
10!
111
121,
13,
14
15'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. The Christmas lighting
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: We're going to jump to 2.12 in order
to accommodate Ms. Ayala, who's here from the Women's Chamber
to speak on this subject. She has a tight schedule she's
running this morning; she needs to get back to other duties.
And that is 2.12, consider and discuss Kerr County Women's
Chamber Christmas lighting project. And, our Treasurer, Ms.
Nemec, and Ms. Grace Ayala are here on that subject matter.
MS. NEMEC: Thank you for taking this up early.
JUDGE DENSON: Sure.
MS. NEMEC: Grace is the Women's Chamber Courthouse
Lighting chairperson, so I'll just let her talk to you about
what we're planning. We're real excited, 'cause we're
getting all the schools involved this year, and they're going
to help us not only put the lights up and take them down, but
we're going to have a program and they're all going to be
involved in it also. So, I'll just let Grace talk to you
about it.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay.
MS. AYALA: Thank you for having us. We ask your
blessing on our Christmas lighting this year. We plan to
start decorating the courthouse and the trees and everything
around on the 24th, and then we're going to have -- we have
~ 10
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 children from the school, the choirs, and we're trying to
get the whole community involved, and I think that we have.
And, so, we're going to have two work days, which is the 29th
and the 31st. And I hope that it won't interfere with your
project around here, that -- that, you know, remodeling or
whatever. Hopefully, that -- you know, everything is in
place from last year where we won't have to do too much, you
know, connecting or whatever. And, we will try to get with
-- I think his name is Glenn? Your Maintenance person, and
see if everything is -- is okay, if it's okay with y'all.
We have a program, which is with -- we're trying to get
in with Main Street and have it all together far the Bear
Walk on -- in December. And, so, we have the kids involved.
We're going to have a program from 2:00 to 7:00, and every
hour a band or a choir or something will come in, and so we
want to have refreshments for them, and we probably will have
coffee and hot chocolate -- and hopefully it will be cool
enough for hot chocolate -- and cookies and things like that
going on during the day to coordinate with the Bear Walk.
And, so, I think that we have -- I've talked to the -- to the
different people that are involved with the choirs and the --
the schools, and the -- you know, the different
organizations, and they -- they're real excited that the
whole -- that we've asked them to do this and that the whole
community is going to be involved. Thank you very much.
11
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: Ms. Ayala, let me say a couple of
things, if I may. First, of course, and foremost, I want to
again thank the Women's Chamber for all your efforts in
making this -- in my opinion, it's been an outstanding
project for our county and our courthouse.
MS. AYALA: Thank you.
JUDGE DENSON: Bringing us up to -- up to the same
level of some of the other counties in the Hill Country with
their outstanding light shows during the Christmas season.
But, Maintenance -- and this is at the risk of sounding that
I'm not in support -- or this Court is not in support of the
lighting project, which is not the case at all. But,
Maintenance was involved physically in a lot of the work
putting up lights last year, and I've been asked by the
Maintenance Department to -- to let y'all know that our
availability on actually getting physically involved with the
lighting, itself, is somewhat limited because of our
manpower.
MS. AYALA: Sure, I understand.
JUDGE DENSON: And because of all of our duties of
the Maintenance Department. Now, there will be several
things that you'll need, as far as a little technical help
and such as this, that we'll be --
MS. AYALA: Yes.
JUDGE DENSON: -- ready to assist in any way we
12
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
can.
MS. AYALA: Good.
JUDGE DENSON: But if y'all would just please
understand that.
MS. AYALA: Yes. We'll try not to get in anybody's
way and do the least -- I mean, you know, get as little --
you know, do most of it ourselves. You know, hopefully.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah, that's what we would like to
see is if y'all could get the necessary volunteer help out of
the community.
MS. AYALA: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: It certainly would be appreciated.
MS AYALA: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE DENSON: And minimize our role, because of,
like I say, the --
MS. AYALA: Sure.
JUDGE DENSON: -- all the duties of our limited
staff in the Maintenance Department.
MS. AYALA: Sure, I understand.
MS. NEMEC: I think, at the most, we might have
some, like, electrical questions for Glenn, but other than
that, we plan to take it on ourselves.
JUDGE DENSON: Super. Super.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Wonderful.
JUDGE DENSON: Thank you.
13
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. AYALA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we need a motion to approve
their program or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She asked for a blessing, is
what she asked for. Bless you.
MS. AYALA: Thank you.
JUDGE DENSON: Just continue y'all's fine effort.
Okay. Hack to the --
MS. AYALA: Thank you very much.
JUDGE DENSON: Yes, ma'am, thank you. Back to the
top of the agenda, 2.1. And before we take that up, let me
-- there's an informational matter. T think, Commissioners,
all of you have received a copy of this. I received a letter
from Dean Mitchell, President of Headwaters Independent Water
Conservation District, dated the 29th, '98 -- September,
about a round-table meeting to be held at the Guadalupe Basin
Natural Resource Center on Thursday, October the 22nd, 1998,
at 6:30. This is to discuss various issues that are vital to
Kerr County's future in connection with water and wastewater
issues and resources. This will be a very, very important
meeting. The public is involved -- invited, excuse me. But,
certainly, the entities that play a role in this subject
matter are encouraged to come, which would include the
Commissioners Court and U.G.R.A, and then Headwaters and, of
course, the City. And I'm glad to see there aze a lot of
14
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
people in the audience today that have played leading roles
in that in the past, so you may want to, if you can, make
time to attend that meeting. It will be important.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on that -- I can't
remember how it was worded, but anyway, Dean called me and
asked me to co-chair that meeting.
JUDGE DENSON: Excellent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I told him I would, unless you
want to do it7
JUDGE DENSON: No. Excellent. You and I haven't
had a chance to talk, because you're already heavily involved
in our water planning and all, and I think that will fit
perfectly. Okay, super. Okay, back to 2.1, consider final
plat of River Ridge Ranch, Precinct 4, and consider
dedication for Cade Loop. Our County Engineer, Mr. Franklin
Johnston.
MR. JOHNSTON: Good morning. Well, this plat was
all ready to go when we put it on the agenda. Then they hit
a couple bumps in the road, and Z think they've all been
resolved. I'll let Don Voelkel fill y'all in on that, and
Mike Lindley.
MR. DON VOELKEL: This is Mike Lindley, and I'm Don
Voelkel. They had --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this different from what
we had?
15
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. LINDLEY: Just the name.
MR. DON VOELKEL: The only thing that's changed is
two things: Louis Howard had River Ridge Ranch out here. He
didn't have it registered with the State, which our people
did; they filed an Assumed Name certificate with the State
for River Ridge Ranch, but they didn't want to -- I think
last Thursday, Louis called the people in Austin and just
kind of requested that we revise that, change it. And, so
that's why we've done it. It wasn't in our -- we didn't
cause this. We just -- we acquiesced. So, we changed it and
checked with Tammy, and River Valley Ranch is what we've gone
to, if that's okay with everybody here, instead of River
Ridge, so we didn't -- he already had checking accounts and,
you know, been calling it that for years.
The only other thing is we had originally -- I talked
with Franklin, and he and I and David Motley had gone out --
the portion of Cade Loop when you cross the bridge below the
dam and come across the property had been given as easements
in the '50's by a man named Garrity and also Ms. Allie
Burton's family. It is now fenced. The County's
right-of-way, if you'd want to call it that, is between the
fences. And what we talked about, Franklin and Motley and I,
was to dedicate everything between those fences. And the
last little stretch where it dead-ends -- where it T's down
here at Cade Loop was only 50 feet wide, so we were going to
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
give an extra 10 feet to make it all 60, and we even gave
some extra right-of-way near the crossing where there's some
real steep slopes, you know, when you're going up that hill.
We had dedicated -- or planned on dedicating the full
right-of-way all the way through, and just to clean it up,
abandon those other easements that were given so we don't --
there's no question about where they were or if we had a
little sliver of the land between the fence and -- you know,
instead of having a problem, we wanted to just abandon those
in favor of the dedication. We weren't going to abandon
anything, we were just going to reinvent this road -- I mean,
make it where it is. And -- and David and Franklin and
everybody said that seems like the best thing do do.
Well, then I think David talked to somebody -- talked to
Mr. Pollard, and he said you can't do that unless everybody
signs an agreement that it abandons that and so nobody's
rights are violated. So, in the interim, I've talked to
David Jackson. He's talked to the attorneys for the owners,
and what we've decided to do is just leave everything with
the easements the way they are and go ahead and dedicate
this, even though we're dedicating some existing
right-of-ways, but dedicate the strip, and then after the
fact, if we can, figure out some way to abandon those
without, you know, messing with anybody's rights.
So, in a sense, we're leaving the dedication where it is
17
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
and leaving the easements where they are, and then after the
fact, if we can, we'll go back and clean it up. We -- since
we made the -- these changes -- we just did these yesterday,
'cause the guy -- they worked it out Friday, so we wanted to
make sure everybody was in agreement and everything was okay.
And then, if it is, then we'll get the signatures from all
the people. We've already gotten everybody's approval; we
just haven't gotten the signatures. We were waiting to make
sure that y'all would accept the name change.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Looks good to me. Some of
that right-of-way was off -- off in the fence right next to
the road, some of that area, and that, at least, gives you
room to widen it at some point.
MR. DON VOELKEL: That's kind of what we want to
do; leave everything the way it is, and then later come in,
try to fix the easement situation. And the only place that
would come into effect is if there was an area outside the
fence where the road went and it might encumber someone's
property, and we just have to deal with that. But if we can
do that after the fact, it will go away. But we'll already
-- we will already be doing it this way; we will already have
dedicated the road right-of-way, so that exists and we're not
abandoning that. And, so, the only thing we'd be abandoning
is any slivers that might be in the vicinity of that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That is County-maintained
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
road, has been for years. It's lust really kind of a
formality, looks to me like.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Take it up in the future, if
possible.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move that we give final
plat approval to River Valley Ranch, Precinct 4.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Further questions? Comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One question. I mean, is
that what you --
MR. JOHNSTON: Since they don't have their model
ready right now, approve it with these changes, and then as
they get their signatures and bring them to me, I'll bring
them to the Judge and then we can get a review. That's --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I amend my motion to state
what the County Engineer is requesting.
JUDGE DENSON: Did you get that? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
MR. DON VOELKEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bless you. Do I have to do
this to everybody?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You do you after the Aggies
win.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, that's right.
(Off-the-record discussion.)
19
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13i
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE DENSON: Okay, 2.3 -- excuse me, 2.2, consider
final plat of Creekwood V as approved by City of Kerrville.
MR. JOHNSTON: Creekwood V is a -- it's an E.T.J.
plat. It's one lot, consists of 590-plus acres. This
particular owner, I think, was surrounded by other parts of
Creekwood, and he just wanted to be involved in the
subdivision, I understand. Lee -- do you have any questions?
Lee Voelkel is here to talk to it. I think, according to our
guidelines, it's not -- platting wouldn't even be required
for that large of a lot, but since it was approved by the
City, this was the County portion of that process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Franklin, is that the reason --
I mean, we haven't seen this before, have we?
MR. JOHNSTON: No.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because under our rules, it
should have come here before, unless it's under our old
rules. I don't know when this --
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, I don't know when all this
started, how long ago. In the past, we've always brought it
here once, but I think our new rules address that, that it is
a two-step process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see a problem with it,
but -- I mean, just because of the situation, the size of the
tract, but we need to make sure we're following our rules.
20
1 MR. JOHNSTON: So, under our new rules, when it
2 goes to the P and Z, it should also come to the County for
3 preliminary approval.
9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this -- you know, is this
5 part of -- this is a separate subdivision? Or is it being --
6 are we amending Creekwood or --
7 MR. JOHNSTON: No. As I understand it, Lee
8 probably --
9 MR. LEE VOELKEL: Maybe I can clear it up a little
10 bit, John. This was a piece of property that was sold when
11 the ranch was originally surveyed, the 3,000 acres. Jim
12 Ernst bought that, and he had a sale right away of this
13 3,500-acre tract. It was not platted. Subsequently, he came
14 back and platted Creekwood I through Creekwood IV, which is
15 property that surrounds this 3,500-acre tract. The man that
16 owns this plot, I think the reason he wants to file a plat,
17 he is subject to the restrictions -- the deed restrictions
18 for Creekwood -- all of the Creekwood properties, which also
19 includes road maintenance, because they're private roads. He
20 felt like if he was going do that, he wanted to be part of
21 the subdivision and have a plat of a subdivided lot. So,
22 that's basically, I think, the reason that he's decided to do
23 this. But it's never been platted before, never been
29 replotted. This is just property that was surrounded by the
25 remainder of Creekwood property.
21
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is just a single lot, 590
acres?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Yes, sir, correct.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's added into. So,
really, our rules don't require it to be platted.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a separate subdivision
than the other one.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's not even a subdivision;
it's an addition to a subdivision.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Something --
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, it's a similar -- it's a
separate subdivision.
JUDGE DENSON: One person at a time for our court
reporter.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a subdivision, but subject
to the homeowners' association of Creekwood. Correct?
MR. JOHNSTON: I think the access --
MR. LEE VOELKEL: That is correct.
MR. JOHNSTON: -- is through another Creekwood
section.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That part is the homeowners';
it isn't our concern. So, okay.
JUDGE DENSON: I need a motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8,
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE DENSON: We've got a second, Commissioner
Lackey. And that is to approve final plat of Creekwood V.
All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. 2.3, consider concept plan
for 80-plus acres in Hunt area. This is on the agenda at the
request of County Engineer, Lee Voelkel, and the Key family.
MR. JOHNSTON: This is a concept plan, and
consequently, I just have a little check sheet. I think Z'll
let Lee Voelkel and Becky Key make their presentation.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Let me distribute to you guys a
copy of the U.S.G.S. map which I've kind of colored. It's
highlighted.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bless you.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: The Keys are here, by the way,
too, if you have any questions of the Keys. We're at the
preliminary -- preliminary stage of this. Just to kind of
show you, this 80-acre tract is highlighted there in yellow.
The location -- if you know where Casa Bonita Lodges is, this
property is across the highway. It backs up to Japonica
Hills, which is at the top of that yellow drawing there, and
you see a little red line at the top there. That is one of
the road easements in Japonica Hills that adjoins this
property, which would be possible access to it. I've also
got a red line drawn on the left side of the property, which
23
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
is a public right-of-way easement that comes into the
property from that direction. I'm not sure --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Rustic Hills?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Rustic Hills, that's correct.
That's the name of the unplatted subdivision that adjoins us
there. My understanding, from Becky Key, is that these will
be 10-acre tracts or larger, which would, of course, put us
in the country lane-type road. If it's a public road, of
course, it will be paved. If it's private, I guess that's
the option of the owner, whether or not they want to pave
that road.
MR. JOHNSTON: I guess the question comes in about
the easement section, since there's an existing subdivision,
how they will be improved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just the red line portion.
MR. JOHNSTON: Red line?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Yes, sir. That is an easement
that's provided for in Japonica Hills. My understanding is
that it is a public right-of-way. That's something that Ms.
Key has looked into with her attorney, and that's what they
tell me. I think the plat reflects that. It's unimproved;
in other words, the road has never been built there. You go
out on the ground and it just looks like normal ground. It
would be the owner's responsibility or the developer, which
would be the Keys, to develop that road and, of course, not
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the County's, to actually build a road in the easement.
MR. JOHNSTON: Do they want the roads in the
subdivision to be private or public?
MS. KEY: We'd like for them to be public, but they
would have to be paved. Y'all don't accept the country --
unpaved country lanes?
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
MS. KEY: We'll just have to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the easement, if they're
part of the subdivision, they're subject to our rules. If
they're not, they're not. That's just how you make a
subdivision. To me, obviously, I would prefer those two
easements be -- I would prefer, anyway, that they be part of
the subdivision and they be built to County specifications.
JUDGE DENSON: It would be access --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, these two red lines.
JUDGE DENSON: Becky came to my office, and I
talked with her once about the access out of Japonica Hills,
which would be the uppermost access as written in red. As
Lee said, that is provided for and set out in the plat of
Japonica Hills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE DENSON: And it's an easement that's
established, but no road is built. So, it -- I don't know
how it can actually be part of the new subdivision.
25
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: Right. It could not.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It doesn't enter this new
area until it gets to this property line.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Correct.
MS. KEY: So, would that road have to be consistent
with the roads that are existing in Japonica now? It could
-- if we lust did unpaved country lanes, could we do an
unpaved country lane accessing our development?
MR. JOHNSTON: I would -- I think that since that's
a public easement already, it should be built to, you know,
public standards, regardless of the roads inside the other
subdivision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's going to be
County-maintained, it's going to have to be to County
specification. If it's going to be a private road in
Japonica Hills, it's subject to Japonica Hills.
MR. JOHNSTON: Well it's a public easement already.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: That kind of answers that.
JUDGE DENSON: It's already dedicated.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Correct.
MR. JOHNSTON: So it would have to be a paved road.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: So that road would be built to a
different standard than the roads in the subdivision.
MR. JOHNSTON: Possibly. It depends on how you
want to --
26
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 BALDWIN:
MR. JOHNSTON: -- the
probably be built the same way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
Rustic Hills? Who is that? Wh
JUDGE DENSON: That's
COMMISSIONER OEHLER:
house.
Sounds good to me.
public in the subdivision;
Where does this one go,
gyre's Rustic Hills?
past -- past the Casa Bonita.
Turn right by Mark Key's
MS. KEY: Yeah, right before. Right before Mark's
house.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Take a right, go down to the
end of the road, you run into this property.
JUDGE DENSON: Looks good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Looks good.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: We'll be back.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm sure.
MS. KEY: Got another blessing?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bless you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question: where's your house on
the map?
JUDGE DENSON: Oh, no, this is the south part. I
live over on the north part.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see Bob's house.
MS. KEY: Bob's house is somewhere in this
vicinity.
27
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
MR. LEE VOELKEL: I tried to get you on this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Becky's wanting to sell you
this corner right here, though. Or maybe give you, I don't
know yet.
JUDGE DENSON: Let's see. Let's go to 2.9.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did we vote on that?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Wait a minute, I'm not
through with this yet.
JUDGE DENSON: Oh, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I try to get a word in, but I
can't seem to get one in.
JUDGE DENSON: Go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Our rules do say that the
County does not take over country lanes that are not paved
for maintenance? Does that say that specifically in the
rules?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. What page? Do you
know?
MR. JOHNSTON: 34.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER:
wasn't sure whether that was a
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah.
are only -- can only be a priv
COMMISSIONER OEHLER:
It does say it. 'Cause I
possibility, you know.
It says unpaved country lanes
ate road.
That answers that. I wasn't
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
sure on that one. Okay, I'm through.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, they don't have
anything to approve. This is a preliminary conference.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I couldn't remember if we --
it's a concept.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's another blessing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Blessed.
JUDGE DENSON: All right. 2.4, consider granting a
variance to subdivision regulations for South Fork
Subdivision water lines crossing a County road. This is on
the agenda at the request of County Engineer and Bill Vlasek.
MR. JOHNSTON: Vlasek Pump was putting in a water
line along Felix Fisher Road, and I think we've worked out
the problem. They were right at the edge of the pavement,
within 2 or 3 feet, instead of at the edge of the -- of the
right-of-way. I think that was a misunderstanding of where
the actual right-of-way location was, and we worked that out.
They're going to redo -- remove the line, put it over within
3 feet of the right-of-way. Their question now is crossing
the road in three places, how deep? And our subdivision
rules specifically has detail that shows 3 foot deep for the
top of the pipe, plus the thickness of the pipe, plus 6
inches below in a sand bed. So, it would be 42 inches plus
the thickness of the pipe. And, they're requesting a
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1'
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
variance to that depth, so I'll let them make their
presentation.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Bill, you can step up. I had
a telephone conversation with Bill Vlasek, who's coming up to
the lectern at this time. And, the way he described it to
me, what he wants a variance on is where he has just bedrock
that he's having to go in, and to go 92 inches into -- into
solid rock is not only extremely expensive, it really doesn't
serve the -- the purpose of what our rules are all about.
And he even brought up another point; that, for example, if
he did do that, go down 42 inches and put a PVC line in, and
he had some kind of leak or have to repair it in the future,
you're going to have to dig out an awful lot of rock. So,
what he's asking, I think, if I remember correctly in our
telephone conversation, is that we grant a variance only as
to those areas where he has hit solid rock, that he not have
to go down to that depth. And I can't see any real reason --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's not just solid rock,
it's solid flint.
MR. VLASEK: That's right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And,
sense to require that of somebody wh
deep enough to be below the road and
and it would be hard to repair, like
goodness, I mean, the cost of that -
to me, it doesn't make
en they can get it down
the ditch. I don't --
you said. But, my
- you burn up more teeth
30
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15'x,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
on one of those rock saws in five minutes than you can pay
for in a week.
MR. VLASEK: Yeah. We went 12 feet just to see
what we could do. We burned up a whole set of teeth.
They're, like, $3.75 each; there's 72 teeth.
JUDGE DENSON: You're talking about 12 linear feet?
MR. VLASEK: Well, we tried to go through flint.
We just went 12 feet going 4 inches deeper, and we burned up
a whole set of teeth, just to see what we could do, just to
test it. You just can't penetrate it. It would all have to
be dynamited or jackhammered out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How deep?
MR. VLASEK: Well, it's going to be encased in rock
all the way, and average overall depth that we've been making
is about 20 inches, 20 to 29. It varies in places, it
doesn't just run straight.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, to me, that's fine.
It's the standard of electric companies in this area and
everything to grant variances for this type of --
JUDGE DENSON: Franklin, do you have any comment?
MR. JOHNSTON: Other than, you know, if we go with
less than what the -- maybe the water companies that give us
a waiver, County Maintenance ever breaks their line, they
won't charge the County. That's all -- we run into that all
the time. We're always breaking these shallow pipes. We're
31
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
paying these huge bills to hav
COMMISSIONER OEHLER:
dig down greatly into flint --
line's going to be. You do in
soil, but not this hard stuff,
surface.
them fixed.
I don't think you're going to
into rock, as deep as that
areas where you have soft
unless it's right on the
MR. JOHNSTON: The ones we have the mast trouble is
on the hills, and that's rocky; it's not in deep enough.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't have a problem with
a request on that, but, I mean, that's not that big a deal
either way.
MR. VLASEK: We'd be glad to fix it if it ever
broke. You'd have to dynamite the whole road up to get down
low enough to break that pipe. It's really tough.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's kind of a moot point,
but if you want the waiver, that's fine.
MR. ODOM: And if he moves over to the right-of-way
back there, it's -- our problem is right up to the edge of
the road, if a piece of heavy equipment runs over it, it
crushes the test line, and here we go right there. But if he
moves on over there, that's logical. That's --
MR. JOHNSTON: If it's properly encased on the top
with the -- you know, a layer of concrete like we have
showed, sand and concrete.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's easier to grant a
32
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
variance. If we grant a waiver, we have to get legal
opinions, draw it up.
JUDGE DENSON: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: We've got a motion and second to
grant the variance.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Are you going to put a depth
on that, 18 to 20 inches, or something like that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 18 to 20.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, he says 20 to 24.
MR. VLASEK: Yeah. Yeah, some places you go 24.
Make it 18 to 29, cannot penetrate the flint at all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 18 to 24.
JUDGE DENSON: That's a variance of 18 to 29.
MR. VLASEK: Okay. Well, I appeciate it.
JUDGE DENSON: Any further questions or comments on
this?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We get a second on that
motion?
JUDGE DENSON: Yes, I got a motion, got a second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, I'll make a second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Give him the second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can go first, if you want.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No.
33
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
JUDGE DENSON: All right. Elroy, do you have
anything to say?
MR BERING: No, sir. Thank you.
JUDGE DENSON: All right. All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: You got it.
MR. VLASEK: Thanks a lot, appreciate it.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. 2.5, consider right-of-way
request for Weidenfeld Lane, Precinct 3. County Engineer.
MR. JOHNSTON: In August we were dealing with the
-- we were requested to send a letter to the title company,
Kerr County Abstract and Title, concerning this road. I
think property was being transferred. At that time we found
that Kerr County did not have a deeded right-of-way for
Wiedenfield lane, and the person purchasing the property was
willing to dedicate a 95-foot easement to that road. And,
so, we wrote a letter saying we would be willing to accept a
95-foot easement, so they are now -- I guess we're getting
authorization now to go ahead and have that survey drawn up.
They said if we do the paperwork, that they would give us the
easement the to 2.3 acres -- or give us the right-of-way to
it, I guess, not an easement. There's a little drawing in
your packet that shows where it's at.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How wide is it between fences
now? How wide is it? Or the -- is it 45 feet?
39
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
MR. JOHNSTON: I think that's what it is. That's
why they come up with that width. It's already fenced.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is that -- and
maybe you did --- I would have had a wider one, because we
negotiated -- we set the amount. It's kind of hard to go
back. So -- but, so moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
MR. JOHNSTON: We started off with none, so we got
95.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion and a second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Motion to do what?
JUDGE DENSON: To accept the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 95 feet.
JUDGE DENSON: For Wiedenfeld Lane.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or a matter of title transfer.
JUDGE DENSON: All right. All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. 2.6, consider allowing a
County employee to use approved sick leave to make up the pay
difference when an employee is out on workmen's compensation.
And --
MR. JOHNSTON: We're asking, I think, clarification
of the County policy based on the State Labor Code that's in
that packet you have on page 6, Section 504.052, titled "Sick
Leave Benefits." It says the governing body of a political
35
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
subdivision, by majority vote, may provide that while an
employee of a political subdivision is receiving benefits
under this chapter -- this chapter is dealing with workmen's
compensation -- the employee may elect to receive previously
accrued sick leave benefits, whether statutorily or
contractually, in an amount equal to the difference between
the benefits under this chapter and the weekly compensation
that the employee was receiving before the injury was -- that
resulted in the claim. Sick leave benefits received under
this subsection shall be deducted proportionately from the
employee's sick leave balance. This section does not limit
the medical benefits to be paid to the employee. Sick leave
plan may not require an employee to take sick leave benefits
before receiving benefits under this chapter.
JUDGE DENSON: Let's see. I think we need to ask
the input from our County Personnel Officer, who is our
Treasurer, Barbara Nemec. What do you think about this?
MS. NEMEC: Well, I guess what they're trying to do
is incorporate this in the Personnel policies. Is that what
I'm understanding? So this wouldn't be just done -- are you
asking for one individual employee, or just an overall --
MR. JOHNSTON: It will be an overall policy.
MS. NEMEC: -- change to Personnel policies? Well,
I think probably talking to other elected officials and
department heads, how it would affect their offices, would be
36
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 good thing to do, because there are some elected officials
that have a lot of employees on worker's comp, and so many
times we've seen that when they lust -- when they're out
after the 7th day and they see that they're only going to get
paid 70 percent of their salary, it's kind of an incentive
for them to get back to work.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Number one, I'm really
confused why this is coming from the County Engineer. We're
talking about a -- a policy change. I mean, I don't get it.
There's gust something behind the whole deal that's not
washed out here yet, but it will happen.
JUDGE DENSON: Let's ask Franklin that very
question. Is this to address one employee of Road and
Bridge?
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, Road and Bridge has several
employees at any one time on workmen's comp. It's not meant
to be for one employee. It's a policy.
JUDGE DENSON: No. No, what I'm asking, I guess,
to put it a different way, is is there an existing situation
that it is to address?
MR. JOHNSTON: There is at least one.
JUDGE DENSON: Who is that?
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I think we if get into
personalities, we probably ought to do it in Executive
Session.
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 '',
lll~
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE DENSON: I tried to help you, Mr. Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Well, I thought that
that's what it was, something like that.
MR. JOHNSTON: I'm speaking basically of the Road
and Bridge Department. Commissioners Court is the policy
body -- policy directing body of Road and Bridge, and so
we're bringing this as a policy question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- I mean, I agree with
Buster, there's got to be something behind it. People don't
standardly read the Labor Code to come up and define the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, what -- the way I
understand this thing is that it gives -- I think it gives
this Court the ability to release sick leave monies to pay
along with, and --
MR.JOHNSTON: Differential.
MR. ODOM: No, offset.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Offset.
MR. ODOM: Only the offset.
MS. NEMEC: Right now, once they're out on the 8th
day, then the employee gets paid 70 percent of their salary
by our worker's comp carrier.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, last year or some
time ago, we had this -- a similar conversation about this,
of employees saving up their sick leave and having the
ability to transfer it to another employee that may be real
38
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
sick and just run out of all the benefits, and I could
transfer mine over there, which I just disagree with. I'm
sorry about their situations, but sick leave is sick leave,
in my -- this is my opinion. We -- we pay fox this
insurance. We pay for unemployment insurance. That's what
that is, it's unemployment insurance. And sick leave is for
sick leave. I don't believe in -- I think it's a wrong thing
to do to transfer one of those to another, so I'm not in
favor of doing what you're asking me to -- asking the Court
to do, I can tell you that. That's just me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with Barbara. I would
like to, you know, maybe put it back on the agenda next time
and see what -- you know, this is talking about a major
Personnel change. It's also going to have major budget
implications, I think, for both of those. We need to find
out, you know, what we're talking about.
MR. ODOM: But it wouldn't -- it couldn't affect
the budget. You already have sick leave there, so you're not
-- you're not costing any more money. It's --
MR. JOHNSTON: Sick leave is already accrued.
MR. ODOM: Sick leave is already accrued, you know.
MR. JOHNSTON: When you run out, you run aut.
MR. ODOM: And then if an individual is -- is on
sick -- on workmen's comp, by the time he comes back, the way
you're doing it now -- because on page 5 -- you need to read
39
1
2
3
9
5
6
71
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
page 5 under 509.051; it has to do with offsets. A person is
being penalized, because your retirement is even changed.
You're changing your retirement date if you don't pay offset.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I still think we need to
put it on the next agenda. I don't think it's fair to put
Barbara on the spat without having some time to look through
it.
MR. ODOM: I agree.
MS. NEMEC: It would affect the budget, because
right now, when they get paid 70 percent of their salary, our
worker's comp carrier pays that, and the department head has
that money that that employee is not being paid due to that
they're out on worker's comp benefits, they have that money
to bring someone else in and pay -- and have them substitute
-- relieve the duties of that person that's out. So, that
money, in some cases -- and not all; some people, you know,
do not -- are not able to hire someone to come in and be
trained for whatever they're doing. But I know, like, in the
County Clerk's office, there's lot of worker's comp claims in
there that are for long periods of time. And, that's --
that's one office that that change would affect.
JUDGE DENSON: I think the prudent thing to do
would be to carry this over to our next agenda and give our
Treasurer the opportunity to look at it, and Commissioners to
study it also, see the long-term implications. Yes, sir?
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let me ask a question. The
way our policy works now is after somebody's injured on the
job, after the 7th day or the 8th day, they automatically go
on workmen's comp; is that correct?
MS. NEMEC: Salary continuation benefits, yes. We
pay them for the first 7 days, and then on the 8th day, our
worker's comp carrier pays them and we no longer pay them at
that point.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. Let me give you -- the
next question is, if the person has built up 40 days of sick
leave -- I think that's where this is all going -- and all of
a sudden, it doesn't matter how much sick leave they've
accrued; they can't -- they can't take it as their sick leave
because they're on workmen's comp; is that correct?
MS. NEMEC: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They can't take it all up
before they go on workmen's comp. That's what the problem
is, because they've accrued all of this and, all of a sudden,
they're on workmen's comp and they're not allowed to use
their sick leave, is where we're going with this, I believe.
JUDGE DENSON: Right.
MR. ODOM: It's not a choice.
JUDGE DENSON: The distinction is that sick leave
is there for a purpose, and then workmen's comp is there for
a purpose.
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
ZO
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right.
JUDGE DENSON: Two separate, different things.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly. That's what I'm
getting at. I was just trying to understand what -- how it
worked a little better. I think it ought to be on the next
agenda.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah, we'll do that, put it on the
next agenda for further consideration. Okay. 2.7, consider
allowing County Judge to sign right-of-way easements for
Pike's Peak Road.
MR. JOHNSTON: This is an item that was on the last
agenda. It's -- it's very small little parcels of property
that give and take to realign a road.
JUDGE DENSON: Tom Pollard did all the --
MR. JOHNSTON: Did all the legal work.
JUDGE DENSON: -- legal work, and everything's done
at this point. Everything's --
MR. JOHNSTON: All it needs is a signature.
JUDGE DENSON: Needs my signature, the Court's
approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So move.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Got a motion and second. Further
questions? Comments on this subject matter? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
92
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, Franklin, I'd like
to go back to that just for a second. In our -- I'm familiar
with it because you and I had had these talks about this
particular one, but in our agenda, that's all there is, is
the agenda request form. I think it would be kind of neat
for these other guys that -- just some kind of simple, typed,
one-paragraph explanation of what this might be in here so
that -- I mean, they may have some questions about it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
MR. JOHNSTON: Actually, we brought it all down the
previous time. I don't think we even kept a copy of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And then -- I just
think that would be a proper way to do it.
MR. JOHNSTON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, our secretary, by
Court order, is supposed to require to you do that, but it's
fallen through the cracks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And plats are also helpful.
You know, just a little Xerox of same map.
MR. JOHNSTON: It was already here in your office,
you know, all of that packet was here.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Did we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We did.
JUDGE DENSON: We approved that? 2.8, consider
allowing Road and Bridge to advertise for bids on the
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12I
13,
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
following capital purchase items: a used gradeall, two
one-ton trucks, and breaker for backhoe.
MR. JOHNSTON: These are all capital purchase items
in our budget, and you're lust giving the authorization to go
out and advertise for bids.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion and second.
Further questions? Comments? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Let's see. We have a timed matter,
that 2.9, at 10 o'clock, so we -- we're a little bit early on
that. Let's take up 2.10, consider and discuss County
acceptance of remaining portion of Lazy Valley Road. This is
put on the agenda at the request of Commissioner Letz. I'll
let him take it up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What this is, this is a --
there's a .9-mile section, the little bit of highlighted
section on the plat of Lazy Valley Road, that is not County.
It's a private road right through there. The County has done
work on this. They required an easement to tie it up to
McDonald Loop earlier, and they certainly own the major
portion of Lazy Valley as a County road. And same of the
people that use that road have come and requested that the
County accept that .9 mile. The people that own it -- and
44
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14i
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
the reason I put it on the agenda, they've requested a
meeting scheduled for this afternoon late. I need some
direction from the Court as to what to do. I think the
concept is certainly correct, that we would -- I would like
to have that full road being a County road. Doesn't make
sense to have a little segment that is not. The landowners
have agreed to give us so far as a 60-foot easement to get
on-site material as needed for road construction, and that's
what they've agreed to. I have told them that I thought
that, you know, it would be reasonable if they would also pay
for the cost of the seal coating and the aggregate, but I
thought it would also be reasonable, because it's something
that would benefit the County, for the County to pay for the
-- you know, the actual labor to do that. And I think
Leonard's aware of it. He may have some comments.
MR.
also aware of
enlighten the
the reasoning
that McDonald
Am I correct?
ODOM: Yes, I -- Mr.
several years ago --
Court on that little
why -- where you're
Loop had to do with,
Holekamp's here. He's
and maybe Glenn could
bypass road. Glenn? And
talking about tying into
I believe, a school bus.
MR. HOLEKAMP: It was -- it was -- you're talking
about through the Palmer property, right?
MR. ODOM: Yes.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. Yeah, that was to -- to give
95
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19 i,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
access to school buses, which would have eliminated about
five miles of route. And, plus, there was one severe hill in
there, so if anybody's ever d
buses to negotiate. So, when
there, it was to benefit lots
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
wouldn't have a problem with,
County to do the whole thing,
riven it, that was real hard for
we put the cut across through
and lots of people.
And I wouldn't generally -- I
I mean, you know, for the
but I think that under the
present standpoint, that we need to have -- the people need
to contribute, because we are accepting a private road into a
County system. It's not up to County standards.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What condition is it in
today?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a -- I guess it's fairly
level through most of the property. It's not a big hill.
But it's, like, a caliche gravel old country road, you know.
MR. ODOM: Estimates would be a week and a half,
two weeks at the most, you could you seal it.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: I think you ought to do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're going to pay the cost
of the aggregate. That's what I'm asking, the aggregate and
the oil. They're going to pay for that, and they would, you
know, be more than happy for it not to be seal-coated, but I
think that then we'd be stuck with the whole bill down the
road. So I just told the guy -- I was talking with Bob
96
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 I
12 ~'
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Herbst -- that he'd have to pay something. And, you know,
we're meeting tonight -- or this afternoon, rather, to go
over if the Court, you know, agrees to this, so I can tell
them how much money they have to raise. I don't know if the
Court's ever voted on this before, but it would help a lot of
people, and it's an area that we're getting a lot of growth
in the county. I think it would be real beneficial to have
Lazy Valley -- to be able to tie through all the way as
County road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you're wanting to accept
a piece of private property into the County road system, and
they may or may not provide material?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have agreed to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They have agreed?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- provide material.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Provide material, and may or
may not provide money to go out and buy the oils or whatever
it is to pay the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Yeah, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If they agree to that. And
then -- so, the County's going to go out there with our men
and equipment and pave a private road?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not a private road.
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19 i
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE DENSON: It will no longer be a private road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're giving a 60-foot
easement. I think the -- the alternative is, down the road,
the County's going to need this property. I think we will,
'cause it's getting a lot of development in there, and I
think that it's going to be a situation that it's going to
cost the County more in the future. The people are -- they
are in kind of a situation right now where the people that
use the road a lot -- and a lot of people use it, you know.
The other option, also, is they can close the road. I told
them this, and they're -- if you close it and make people
drive a huge distance around -- a lot of people axe using it
as a public road right now, as a cut-through and a shortcut.
And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I really like the idea of
connecting those two -- those two sections together or those
other two roads.
JUDGE DENSON: Mr. Holekamp?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Let me ask Commissioner Letz, you're
talking about the property now -- D. D.'s; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's correct.
MR. HOLEKAMP: At one time he had agreed to take it
off the tax rolls, that property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Evidently, they --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Has he backed off from that?
48
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 LETZ: The past, I guess, two years,
I've been talking to the -- I have not talked to D. D. and
Mr. Herbst, and they have recently been talking more and more
and wanting -- I've told them roughly in the past, you know,
what we're going to require, and they were able to -- they
got the material, the 60-foot easement, and it wasn't any
problem. They said, "Talk to D. D. about that," and then
I've talked to -- I said, "Well, you're going to have to pay
something towards, you know, the paving or the seal coat; the
cost of it, anyway." And you know, they obviously weren't
excited about that, but I said that's what would I recommend;
that option is that we would pay the -- or provide the labor
to do it.
MR. HOLEKAMP: But it is currently a public road.
It's not a private road.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, it's public in the sense
that --
MR. HOLEKAMP: By use.
JUDGE DENSON: -- the public has access to it, but
as far as ownership goes --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Ownership underneath that surface,
yes, sir, you're correct. It's private. I'm not so sure
that they would not take that -- take it off the tax rolls if
they would not make a full-blown County road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, then, if they do that,
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
then we're accepting -- then we're in worse shape.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I understand. But what I meant from
-- and the issue with Commissioner Baldwin was -- was a
private road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, I think they
could easily lust say, "It's yours," and deed it to the
County. Then we'd be stuck with it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll go along with you,
Commissioner Letz.
JUDGE DENSON: Make your motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that we accept
the remaining portion of Lazy Valley Road, subject to
obtaining the 60-foot right-of-way, use of on-site materials
for construction, and the property owners' --
JUDGE DENSON: Participation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- participating up to the cost
of the oil and the aggregate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that motion.
JUDGE DENSON: Further questions? Yes, sir?
MR. JOHNSTON: It would actually be a dedicated
right-of-way?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: We would survey it and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: -- they would sign it over?
50
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15,
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, correct.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Further questions? Comments?
MR. KRALOVETZ: Excuse me, Commissioners. My name
is Bob Kralovetz. I'm sorry to be here late. The notice in
the newspaper yesterday for the public meeting was that it
was to start at 10:00; at least that's what we saw in the
paper. And there is an item there that several ranch owners
in Creekwood Ranches are interested in. It is item 2.2 on
your agenda, and obviously, I understand maybe you're already
past that approval. There are several landowners that oppose
that item. We were --
JUDGE DENSON: Yes, sir, just one second. We were
in a meeting -- or in the middle of voting on this agenda
item that's before the Court at this time, that's being 2.10.
MR. KRALOVETZ: Right, I understand.
JUDGE DENSON: Let us make our vote on that.
MR. KRALOVETZ: I thought that you had done that
already. I'm sorry, I was -- I saw a nod of heads there.
JUDGE DENSON: All in favor, 2.10?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: All right. That's taken care of,
and now as to -- our meetings start at 9 o'clock.
MR. KRALOVETZ: I didn't know that.
JUDGE DENSON: And sometimes we have public
hearings on certain subjects that will be a timed meeting.
51
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9'I
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
For example, we have one that we'll be going into in just a
moment. But, on the 2.2 that you're addressing specifically?
MR. KRALOVETZ: Yes?
JUDGE DENSON: Creekwood V, that has been approved
already. That was, like, 9:30 this morning, 9:20. But, to
try and give you an explanation, the way it was presented to
the Court was that it would not have, really, any effect on
any individual. It was simply the owner of Creekwood V
wanting to become part of the overall Creekwood developments,
I, II, III, and IV.
MR. KRALOVETZ: Again, I apologize for the
out-of-order asking of this question.
JUDGE DENSON: No, sir, go right ahead.
MR. KRALOVETZ: Who, might I ask, made the
presentation on the Creekwood V?
JUDGE DENSON: Well, it was the -- the surveyor.
Our Engineer was involved along with --
MR. KRALOVETZ: Mr. Voelkel?
JUDGE DENSON: Correct.
MR. KRALOVETZ: Okay. And who else?
JUDGE DENSON: Our County Engineer gives us input
or advice on all of these type of matters.
MR. KRALOVETZ: Okay. Well, Creekwood Ranches, in
total, accounts for about 20 families. The owner of the plot
that is asking for Creekwood V has been a -- an unusual kind
52
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19 I
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of landowner who has responsibilities, as it relates to road
maintenance, for other parts of Creekwood. Creekwood I and
Creekwood II. He has not seen it appropriate to share his
responsibilities for road maintenance under the existing
Creekwood road agreements that he has, and his land is
subject to these maintenance requirements under the deed of
boundaries and restrictions for his land. That land is a
total of 380 acres. He has purchased 210 additional acres.
He has been threatening some of the additional adjoining
landowners in the remainder of Creekwood with things like
subdividing the additional property into 5-acre plots, which
is not permitted under the landowners' agreements for the
appropriate documentation for their land, where we have
25-acre restrictions. He has also threatened putting up a
TV tower for development, and -- and also talked about
letting people in this development in the 210 acres in the
back have access to the roads in Creekwood I and II. We
don't believe that he has the right to -- to annex that kind
of additional land into his defined boundaries and let people
that are maybe going to buy 5-acre plots drive on the roads
for Creekwood I and II.
So, there are at least 15 landowners out there that
oppose the expansion of anything to do with Mr. Burgess'
land, and our -- the president of our landowners' association
couldn't be here because he's had surgery about 10 days ago.
53
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
There are -- there are two landowners represented here now.
There are two others that were supposed to be here,
supposedly, because we thought this thing started at
10 o'clock. And, oux legal adviser basically suggested that
our president of the landowners' association meet with Mr.
Vetter of the City and his staff early on in this process.
They did that in July and August. My understanding is that,
initially, one of the staff agreed that this kind of
expansion that he was talking about for Creekwood V was
inappropriate. He was overruled by Mr. Vetter, and basically
told -- they told us that we needed to get our attorneys
involved earlier in the process; otherwise, there was nothing
we could end up doing about it. There are 15 families,
taxpayers, at least, that want the Commissioners to know this
is a significant
COMMIS
All -- you know,
subdivision. It
association. We
having --
problem.
3IONER LETZ: Could I make lust one comment?
all we did was approve a single-lot
has nothing to do with a homeowners'
didn't do -- I mean, any problems you're
MR. KRALOVETZ: But you may --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- have nothing to do with us.
MR. KRALOVETZ: Hut what you may have done is you
may have established a precedent by putting --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He can call the subdivision,
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 I
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you know, Man on the Moon. It still is a one -- it's a
one-tract subdivision. He happened to call it Creekwood V.
It has nothing do --
MR. KRALOVETZ: I'll tell you what his intentions
axe, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He didn't do that. If you have
a civil problem or civil problems with this landowner, that's
something we can't deal with. We had no basis for declining
that. He had a subdivision of one tract, 590 acres.
MR. KRALOVETZ: And what was the basis for the
approval-- presentation of the approval?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the basis he wanted to plat
a one-lot subdivision, which is within every rule that we
have. We had no legal way to not approve it. Is that --
JUDGE DENSON: That's correct.
MR. JOHNSTON: The E.T.J. already approved it.
JUDGE DENSON: And his --
MR. JOHNSTON: It was just a formality.
JUDGE DENSON: His misconduct as to violating any
kind of existing property owners' association rules as to
roads in those other Creekwood subdivisions, and/or his
future actions about trying to subdivide that tract that we
approved today, is -- is not before this Court. And as
Commissioner Letz said, any private problems that you might
have with this gentleman, you may want to consult your
55
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
111
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
attorney if he's not adhering to the existing rules. We
didn't do -- I don't think we did anything -- well, first of
all, we did what was legal before the Court. He complied
with the rules in order for us to approve what he requested.
We had no basis in denying it. As a matter of fact, if you
want to talk about what-if's, we would be subject to a
lawsuit ourselves because we did not comply with the law if
we refused him.
MR. KRALOVETZ: So, if I buy adjoining land to our
property, I can bring it in and have it platted as an
additional piece of property that is now adjoined to mine
that I originally had as part of Creekwood, and then I can do
anything with it because you have approved the annexation of
this additional property?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He has one lot. If he's going
to divide that lot into two lots or 100 lots, he's got to
come and replat it.
MR. KRALOVETZ: He has one lot? He had two lots.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well --
MR. KRALOVETZ: Under Creekwood I and Creekwood II,
and he had a third parcel, and he how has got them all in
one?
MR. JOHNSTON: They were never previously platted,
they were just acreage. This is the first time it's ever
been platted.
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8i
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. KRALOVETZ: Excuse me, are you the County
Engineer?
MR. JOHNSTON: I am.
MR. KRALOVETZ: And your name is?
MR. JOHNSTON: Frank Johnston.
MR. KRALOVETZ: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSTON: Once it's platted, then you have to
go through the replat process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now he's subject to a lot of
rules, because he has a one-lot subdivision. If he wants to
have two lots or put in roads, if he wants to do anything
with that, he's going to have to replat it.
MR. KRALOVETZ: So that -- were there roads on the
propezty that he platted?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He has access; he has no roads.
The way we've seen it, he just has a 590-acre lot.
MR. KRALOVETZ: And his access for the entire
parcel is now off of Creekwood Road.
JUDGE DENSON: Whatever his access is now, I don't
know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We didn't affect access, but
there's no roads -- I mean, if he's going to do what you're
thinking he's going to do, make a big subdivision there, that
will have to be replatted.
MR. KRALOVETZ: And who will have to approve that?
57
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: This Court, as well as the City.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it will be subject to the
homeowners' association. That's not our --
MR. KRALOVETZ: I understand that. I'm just
worried about who's approving -- approving plats and what the
objective and the result of approving a plat is.
JUDGE DENSON: This is E.T.J. property.
MR. KRALOVETZ: I understand.
THE COURT: And it will go --
MR. KRALOVETZ: Part of it is.
JUDGE DENSON: It will go before the Court -- this
Court as well as the City for preliminary approval, as well
as final.
MR. KRALOVETZ: Again, there's no subdivision of
the property now; it's all one plot?
JUDGE DENSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One lot, 590 acres.
MR. KRALOVETZ: Okay. All right, well, thank you
for taking your time and listening to me. I'm sorry for
being late, again. We really wanted to be here during the
item on the agenda.
JUDGE DENSON: And should this come up in the
future, we do begin our meetings at 9 o'clock.
MR. KRALOVETZ: Now I know that.
JUDGE DENSON: And public meetings, we usually do
58
1
2
3
4
5
61
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
set those at 10:00.
MR. KRALOVETZ: Okay.
JUDGE DENSON: As a general rule. In case this
subject matter comes back before us and we have a public
meeting on it, it will be at 10:00. But, don't ever hesitate
to just call the County Judge's/Commissioners Court office,
and our administrative assistant should be able to provide
you with you any information you need.
MR. KRALOVETZ: Okay, thank you. I'm new to the
area.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't catch your name?
MR. KRALOVETZ: Bob S. Kralovetz,
K-r-a-l-o-v-e-t-z. I'm on the board of the homeowners'
association, representing the homeowners.
JUDGE DENSON: All right, thank you very much.
MR. KRALOVETZ: Thanks again. Thank you for taking
your time. Appreciate you listening.
JUDGE DENSON: Thank you for your input. Okay, we
do have a 10 o'clock public hearing. This is 2.9, and it's a
public hearing to consider adoption of no dumping at Sunset
Cemetery, 95 mile-an-hour speed limit on Sheppard Rees Road
and no parking on Hermann Sons Road. So, at this time, we
will adjourn our Commissioners Court meeting and go into our
public meeting and open on it up. And, we are open at about
10:16 on October 13, 1998.
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:16 a.m., and a public hearing was held in
open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE DENSON: Is there anyone present here that
would like to comment on any of these matters? Yes, sir?
MR. PACKARD: On the speed limit --
JUDGE DENSON: I need you to identify yourself,
please, sir.
MR. PACKARD: We don't want to do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's true. Don't make him
do it, Judge, you'll regret it.
MR. PACKARD: I'm Duan Packard. I live at 107
Kodiak Trail at the end of Sheppard Rees Road, and I just
would like the Court to understand that I believe that the
speed limit, as it previously existed, was perfectly
adequate. I think 35 is an insult to most people's
intelligence, and it ought to be posted at a rural road speed
limit of 55, if it's necessary to put signs up.
JUDGE DENSON: I think it's on the Court -- I mean
on the agenda today because of potential or possible inherent
danger from people driving too fast out there. I think
that's what --
MR. PACKARD: A posted speed limit is not going to
slow that down.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, maybe. Let's just hope that
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
161
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
law enforcement will have some role to play in that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, at one time there
really wasn't a speed limit at all out there. And, we came
along with all the new subdivisions, and looking -- planning
is an unheard of word in Kerr County, but looking down the
road and seeing this traffic coming, we're trying make some
plans with the Engineer, et cetera, and so we thought, well,
we'd better put some speed limits on it. And I think some of
the law enforcement people came and requested that we start
addressing that, and so we did, and we put 35 on it. This is
one of those things that we're fixing. And we put a 35
mile-an-hour speed limit on it, which is way too slow, so
we're going to -- what we're doing here is hitting a happy
medium of between 35 and the full steam ahead speed limit,
and put 95. And, this -- that's been kind of the agreement
between all of us that have solicited about it, and believe
me, I have visited with a lot of people about this. Some
unpleasant conversations. I know you find that hard to
believe. We're going to land on 45 here.
JUDGE DENSON: That's your recommendation?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is, absolutely.
Definitely, that's where we're going with this thing. I
don't know about dumping and those kind of things.
JUDGE DENSON: Mr. Johnston, do you have something
to say?
61
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13'
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
z2
23
29
25
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I drove Sheppard Rees over the
-- where the County Maintenance starts to the end of it,
where it turns into Bear Creek or Root Road. If you drive at
95, it takes 6 minutes to drive out there. Turnaround, come
back at 35, it takes 7 minutes. It's not a whole lot of
difference, road's not that long.
MR. PACKARD: One of the big differences is in a
lot of the stretch of road, the natural speed on that is 50
or 55. And, if you're not absolutely paying total attention
to your speed limit, to your speedometer, you're going to be
doing 50 or 55 on a lot of those sections of road, because
it's the natural speed of the road. So, you know, trying to
set it at something that requires total attention, is -- is
going to be counterproductive.
JUDGE DENSON: Yes, sir? Did you have --
MR. MANGHAM: I'm Dulane Mangham, I'm at 1826
Sheppard Rees Road. And, it seems that at 35, you can't even
pull those hills at 35 mile an hour. You've got to get more
speed than that. I agree that the speed limit shouldn't be
no 65 or something like that, but I -- I'm agreeing with Duan
that it should be 55. You've got Bear Creek over there;
there's no posted signs over there on the speed limit, and
they drive 55 or, I guess, 65, I don't know. And that's a
little 40-foot easement, the road is. So, basically, even on
Lemos down here, it's 90 miles an hour. That seems like that
62
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
we're -- I know that the speed has been excessive in certain
areas, but then set it and release it more so you can keep
people from driving excessive, instead of penalizing people
that's trying to get to and from town and to their place.
JUDGE DENSON: What did you -- I thought it was of
particular interest, the comment made by our Engineer, when
he said that the difference in time between a 95 mile-an-hour
speed limit and 35 is one minute, from Bear Creek to
wherever. To what point were you talking about?
MR. JOHNSTON: City limits.
JUDGE DENSON: To the city limits.
MR. JOHNSTON: Where the County maintenance starts.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: State Hospital.
MR. PACKARD: Ten miles an hour over 6 miles, that
doesn't compute. I don't want to get in an argument about
how to tell time, but -- you know.
JUDGE DENSON: Let's see. Leonard do you have
something?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. The gentleman is talking
about going up the hills. There are some plans at this point
to eliminate that. We're working on that now to take that
roller coaster out of it.
MR. PACKARD: Oh, that's all the fun.
MR. ODOM: Well, that's the fun. And, you know, we
look at our liabilities. A lot of the roads are built and a
63
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
19
15'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
lot of the problems on those curves that I find now have to
do with, you know, the shoulders -- there are no shoulders on
them. And, you start to get beyond 35 and we're going to see
problems starting in November when these hunters start. It's
very difficult. Where do you go7
The law says that you drive the road by the road
conditions. Even though it may be at 55, that may be a 35
mile-an-hour road, it may be 30, it may be 45. But the
bottom line, to come up with the right one, you've got
country lanes that are very narrow right-of-way, line of
sight. All that has to do with where you're going. Now, 95
is reasonable. And -- and over the next couple of years, I'm
sure that that will be a project that we will be looking at,
to jump in and correct that part from the city limits to that
subdivision up there, and then look at later on toward the
back, but it's going to take time and money, and -- but we
are trying to address that. You have to be reasonable, or
tort liabilities comes into play.
But, the bottom line is that the Court has the right --
even if you did all the engineering you want to, the Manual
of Uniform Traffic Control Devices says one of the warrants is
a political warrant. So, if you say 95, then that's the way
it needs to be. It needs to be something that's --
certainly, 35 -- 35 is, to me, unrealistic on a road. That's
my opinion.
64
11
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: That is mine, too.
MR. ODOM: Fine.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19~
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Any comments on dumping at
Sunset Cemetery or parking on Hermann Sons Road?
(No response.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. We'll at this time adjourn
our public meeting and go back into Commissioners Court and
take up these matters, and I'll entertain any motion.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:24 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we adopt all
three of those changes.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: I second that.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a motion and a second. Any
further comments? Questions? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. It is 10:25. Let's take our
morning break. Let's take about 10 minutes, come back in at
about 25 till 11:00.
(Whereupon a brief recess was taken.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. It's about 23 till 11:00 on
the 13th of October, 1998, and we'll resume our Commissioners
Court meeting and agenda. Let's see. We're at 2.11,
consider and discuss Sentricon Termite Colony Elimination
System donated by Lester Humphrey for two years with an
65
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
option to continue coverage thereafter. Starkey Green?
MR. GREEN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: Would you, if you don't mind, just
take up position at that lectern and tell us what you have,
what this is all about.
MR. GREEN: Okay. It's the Sentricon Termite
Colony Elimination System. What it is is a -- it's -- you
can use it as a preventive, and if you have existing
termites, you can use it to kill off the colonies instead of
using chemicals. The courthouse -- I did an inspection on
the courthouse. I didn't find any active termites on the
courthouse, but there was some two-by-fours and stuff
underneath the basement -- or not the basement, where the
crawlspace is on each side of the basement, and there was
some old termite damage on the two-by-fours just laying on
the ground, but there weren't any active. But, Lester
Humphrey Pest Control was wanting to donate the system to the
County for the courthouse -- for the historical part of the
courthouse, to help preserve the building and all that, and
to use it as an awareness thing to the community and help the
place for us. And the value of the Sentricon system, if
y'all did have termites on the courthouse and y'all got a bid
for it, would run you about 52,700 for your first year, and
then you'd have a renewal that would -- if you kept it in --
kept the system in the ground, it would cost you $500 a year
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
lli
12
13
19
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
to keep it in the ground.
JUDGE DENSON: Mr. Green?
MR. GREEN: Yes?
JUDGE DENSON: Inform the Court actually what is
done, physically, the installation of the system. What does
the system look like and how is it done?
MR. GREEN: Okay. It's a little monitoring device
that we place in the ground on the outside of the building.
They go in every 10 feet, all the way around the outside of
the building. And, basically, what they are is on the inside
-- we call it a monitor, but basically what they are, they're
aspen wood. And, termites forage for food all the time.
Even if, say, they were eating on the wall right here, even
though they were feeding on the wood right now, they don't
know how much wood they have, so they forage out, trying to
search for more food. And, when they do, they'll run into
our stations, and we check your stations every month.
And, whenever we find them in the stations, we take
these monitoring devices out, and we have a little Tupperware
bowl that we knock the termites off the monitoring devices,
and we pull them into a bait tube. And, it's basically
treated paper towel, and the paper -- what it's treated with
is a green fibrillator. Termites molt four to six times a
year, and whenever they get in contact with this bait, it
prevents them from molting, changing form, shedding their
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
skin. And, whenever they do try to do that, it just -- they
just fall apart.
And, the termites that do all the damage are your --
they're called your workers. You have workers and soldiers.
Soldiers protect the colony. The workers feed the colony.
And, the workers feed on this bait, take it back to the rest
of the colony and feed it to the colony, and it kills them
all off. And you don't have the -- all the chemicals and
smell and people saying that they're allergic to it and all
that. It's really an excellent system, and less intrusive.
You don't have all of -- like, if you had a chemically-
treated building, you would have to drill all your plumbing
areas, any stress cracks, and all that doesn't happen with
the Sentricon system.
JUDGE DENSON: Mr. Holekamp, comments?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, they're already in place out
here, quite a few of them, and I think Mr. Green put them
there a couple of months ago. I think the previous
Maintenance person agreed to allow you to put them out there;
is that correct?
MR. GREEN: Yes.
MR. HOLEKAMP: And, so, they're out there. And I'm
sure Mr. Green has been monitoring to see if there are
termites in them. We don't mess with them.
MR. GREEN: Yeah, we come back --
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14I
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HOLEKAMP: They're under the surface, so you
can mow over them or weed around them, so they're really not
-- it's lust like a little green plate sitting out there, a
bunch of them.
JUDGE DENSON: Right.
MR. HOLEKAMP: So --
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah, I talked with him, and he told
me about the history of -- with our department and so forth.
And I told him I thought it would be the proper thing to do
is come before the Court and get formal approval, and to
educate the Court what these things are.
MR. GREEN: They don't attract termites. A lot of
people ask that question and think that, but they do not
attract the termites. They're gust there, and if termites
are in that area, they'll most likely find them. And with
them all the way around the building, they will find them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you catch any -- have you
caught any termites when you go out and empty them?
MR. GREEN: Not here. We haven't caught any here,
but we have several -- we have, let's see, 35 locations here
in Kerrville that we do have activity in the stations.
There's -- we have only about 10 of them that have colony
elimination. And, how you can tell how you get colony
elimination is all your workers feed -- like I was saying,
feed the rest of the colony. The soldiers protect the
69
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
colony. They don't know how to feed themselves; the workers
have to feed them. So, your workers start dying off first,
'cause they get it firsthand. And after they start dying
off, you'll start seeing more soldiers searching for food,
'cause they don't know how to feed themselves, so they're
trying to search for workers to feed them. And, you'll see
them in the stations, and you'll start seeing -- and
eventually you'll see all soldiers and no workers, and then
they'll just die off and you'll find dead soldiers in your
bait tube. That's how you know that you have colony
elimination.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now that we're into the
education portion of Commissioners Court, what does the aspen
wood -- why aspen wood? Why not oak wood or some other --
MR. GREEN: It's softer. Just like if they come
into a house that has sheetrock and wood studs, they'll start
eating the sheetrock first 'cause it's softer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it doesn't -- so, aspen
wood doesn't necessarily smell better or --
MR. GREEN: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- taste better?
MR. GREEN: It's just softer, and they prefer
softer wood.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This has really been good,
Judge.
70
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: I'm glad you like it, Buster. I
thought you'd really zero in the on the workers and soldiers
and all, one not being able to feed itself.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do they ever -- do you ever
find termites infested in cedar?
MR. GREEN: Cedar, they -- that's one of the least
that they do. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Isn't that amazing?
MR. GREEN: A lot of people don't think that they
would get into cedar, but if -- if it's fresh cedar, 'cause
of the sap, they won't, but if it's real old, you'll find
them in it. Not very often, but we do find them.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Well, I'd like to make a
motion that we approve the Sentricon Termite Colony
Elimination System that's been installed at the courthouse on
a free basis for two years, with an option to continue
thereafter.
MR. GREEN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: With an option to continue
thereafter. "Option" is the key word here, okay.
JUDGE DENSON: In other words, he's going to want
us to pay him far it after two years.
MR. GREEN: No, it would be, like, 5225 or S250 for
the renewal. But -- and that's half of what it should be on
the renewal.
71
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That would be up to the
Commissioners Court at the time to make that agreement or not
make it.
lC
11
12
1.
19
1°_
lb
17
18
19
2C
21
22
2.
29
2°_
MR. GREEN: I'd need to come back in at that time.
JUDGE DENSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, when does this two years
start? With -- with our previous maintenance guy, or today?
MR. GREEN: Today. It would start today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all are really kind.
That's good. I'll second that motion, Judge.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Been good for me.
JUDGE DENSON: All right. Further questions on
termites? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
MR. GREEN: Thank you.
JUDGE DENSON: Thank you very much, Starkey.
MR. GREEN: Thank y'all.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Judge, could we go to the
addendum? Mr. Schirmer is here; he's been sitting here for a
while.
JUDGE DENSON: Yellowstone Lane?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. We'll take up 2.22.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I guess what this is really
72
1C
17
1~
1.
19
1°_
lE
li
18
19
2C
21
22
2.
29
2°_
about, Mr. Schirmer contacted me about a week ago or so, and
he's trying to figure out some way to get some relief on a
road that's not a County-maintained road. It's Cherry
Springs Road, and also Yellowstone Lane, I guess, is what it
says on our agenda here. He has a son that has been in a
severe accident and has some head trauma. I've got a letter
here from the doctor that he provided for us. And, let's let
him get up and explain what his problem is, and what -- and
his request of us to try to figure out what we can do for
him, if anything. Mr. Schirmer?
MR. SCHIRMER: Okay. Thank you very much fox
letting me come up here today. It's nice to meet you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
MR. SCHIRMER: We've -- I've had that property back
there since '78, when they first wrote that subdivision up,
and we moved back into there in '99. This summer -- I've got
-- at this time, I've got Priscilla, 7, Lance is 8, Natalie's
11, Heather's' 13. Some of them go to Ingram, some of them
go to Hunt, Texas -- or to Hunt School. This summer Lance
was in a three-wheeler accident up in Colorado against my
wishes. He did receive Level 8 head trauma injury. His left
side of the face hit the dirt road, and the bike got him on
the other side. His prognosis is that in six months to a
year, his short-term memory will be back to 80 to 90 percent.
My problem right now is that he can't go to school at this
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16i
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
time. My wife is home-schooling him, but to be able to take
the girls down to the bus stop, I've got to take him across
this section of road, 9 and a half miles of unmaintained
County road. It's a platted subdivision, but the roads were
never opened to the public back there.
And this road, when we first bought the place, or even
moved back there four years ago, the road wasn't that bad.
Since then, since this E1 Nino stuff -- well, we had a real
dry summer. It wasn't in too good of shape before that.
What didn't blow away during the summer has washed away with
this last 7- or 8-inch rain we had up there. And, with all
my heart, I can't take Lance up and down that road, or my
wife -- you know, try to take the kids down to the bus stop
and bring them back. We put Lance in the truck, this road --
it takes 25 minutes to drive it in dry weather. It's a
4 and-a-half mile section of that road, takes you 25 minutes
to drive it. I just can't put him in the truck and do it, so
I really can't take my kids to school here.
We -- about a year and a half ago, we had a fire at the
house. The volunteer fire department -- well, they got
there, but, you know, it was a while after the wife had got
the fire out. Police protection, it took about an hour and
95 minutes for the S.O. to respond to a call out there we had
recently. They parked their cars 9 and a half miles away and
requested a 4-wheel drive truck to get there. This is a few
79
1[
1]
1:
13
19
1°_
lE
17
lA
19
2C
21
22
23
29
25
weeks ago. And this was also in dry weather. In wet
weather, the kids miss probably two weeks of school during
the year. And I realize it's a -- you know, the roads aren't
open to the public. I'm the only one that lives back down
Yellowstone Lane, which is a little over 3 miles. Most of
the property back there -- there's actually two houses in
that section that are actually residents. All the rest of
the property is owned by absentee landowners, deer hunters
out of Houston, Beaumont, out-of-state, out-of-city. And,
you know, inadvertently, I put myself in a bad position, and
I really don't know what to do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The boy's home-schooling,
did you say? Your boy is home-schooling?
MR. SCHIRMER: Yeah, right now we're home-schooling
him. The wife took him out of Hunt School and is home-
schooling him, because he has a learning disability at this
time. And, due to the road, she's taking the girls out of
school so she doesn't have to put Lance in the truck and
drive him four times a day up and down that road to go take
the girls to the bus stop and pick them up again. It's just
too rough on him. I mean, there's places in that road that
you literally have to crawl over, and in a 9-wheel drive
truck to get in and out of there, and not talking about --
there's probably eight low-water crossings, when --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much off of 1390 -- how
75
much of Cherry Springs Road is redone?
MR. SCHIRMER: I'm not sure of the mileage.
MR. ODOM: Cherry Springs, I -- all of that I
1C
1]
12
1.
19
1F
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
maintain.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do what?
MR. ODOM: That's County-maintained. Cherry
Springs is -- is to the back. Now, you have to understand,
there's Cherry Springs and there's Bee Caves. I think what
-- where this gentleman lives, way at the back Cherry Springs
takes a left, and it's a dirt road, and you just keep going
back that way. How far and where, I don't know. I don't
maintain that. But --
MR. SCHIRMER: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: Everything's been done -- well, I don't
want to say everything. There's a few roads that don't have
any homes in there, but I made the entire loop.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, do you live in Bee Caves
Subdivision?
MR. SCHIRMER: I live behind Bee Caves Subdivision.
My only deeded access to there is to go take Cherry Springs
to the end, where you paved by Mr. Clark's house.
MR. ODOM: Uh-huh.
MR. SCHIRMER: And then go south and by Mike
Smith's house, down the road, take a -- I'd have to end up,
you know, pinpointing that, and I take that Cherry --
76
Yellowstone Lane and come all the way back around that, the
east end of that old Cullum Ranch behind Bee Caves.
Actually, if I could get access through Bee Caves, there's
about 2,000 foot at the end of the cross-cut road that would
1C
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
connect me onto that, but I haven't got access. There's two
90-acre tracts there that weren't -- the road wasn't platted
on.
MR. ODOM: But they are using it, is my
understanding; am I correct?
MR. SCHIRMER: Yeah, there's two families.
MR. ODOM: That private easement along two 90-acre
tracts, and his property abuts that. He needs permission to
go across those two 40-acre tracts. Then he would get down
to a public road that is not maintained back there.
MR. SCHIRMER: That would be a real sharp -- I'd
save a couple miles of driving.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, you know, we -- we run into
situations all the time where people are having problems or
in some extremely difficult plight because of where their
home is located, and the private roads. And yours is
certainly exceptional because of your son, his condition.
And I know I may sound insensitive to your situation, but
we have to -- we have to tell people that they made a
decision --
MR. SCHIRMER: Sure.
77
lC
lI
li
1.
19
1°_
lE
li
18
19
2C
21
22
2?
29
2°_
JUDGE DENSON: -- when they bought their property
that they were remote, and if they had road problems, that
they were going to have to deal with them as they then
existed or as they might exist in the future.
MR. SCHIRMER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: And that we, the Commissioners Court
-- and I, of course, am just speaking my own opinion, but
this is sort of the philosophy that we've adopted in the
past, is that it would be unfair for County taxpayers out
there -- for us to say that, all of a sudden, we want to take
in what will amount to be thousands of dollars worth of road
repairs or maintenance because of your situation. And, it's,
as I say, very difficult, particularly in your situation, to
deny you any relief, but I don't see how we rightfully can do
this. I don't know what kind of dollars we're talking about.
I just know that they would be extremely substantial.
MR. SCHIRMER: Sure.
JUDGE DENSON: But I personally owned property in
Bee Caves years ago, and those roads are always horrible, and
particularly during the winter season when it's raining a lot
and all. But I know that property owners at some times would
contribute collectively to try and repair them, but as you
very well pointed out, most of those lots out there in Bee
Caves, anyhow, are owned by absentee owners.
MR. SCHIRMER: Yeah.
78
JUDGE DENSON: .Coming here to deer hunt, and
they're just up here a few times a year; they don't care
about the condition of the roads.
1C
11
12
1.
19
1~
lE
17
18
19
2C
21
22
2.
29
2F
MR. SCHIRMER: True, yeah.
JUDGE DENSON: They want to go up there and get in
a war with a -- with the wildlife and go back home.
MR. SCHIRMER: Yeah. There's probably a couple
dozen homeowners there in Bee Caves area that, you know, have
little association. My problem is, me and Mike Smith live
out there. He lives about a mile down Cherry Springs from
the end of the pavement, and I live another 3 and a half
miles back there, and then there's no other people that
actually live back there in that area. And it's nice and
quiet.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah, I know it is.
MR. SCHIRMER: Nobody comes back there. But I just
wanted to, you know, check and see if there's some temporary
or emergency work. I talked to a guy that has a gravel pit
about a mile and a half down Cherry Springs, and he said,
"Help yourself." That Cherry Springs is a 60-foot easement,
and I believe it was dedicated, you know, but it was never, I
guess, accepted for County maintenance. Hut the roads are
platted. It's a platted subdivision, if that might help.
It's kind of --
JUDGE DENSON: No, it really doesn't. It's the
79
policy of the Court, and .it has been the policy for a long
time, that we won't accept roads for public maintenance -- or
County maintenance unless they were -- one, if they serve a
number of people, there's some real purpose for it. But,
two, and more importantly, that the roads were brought up to
lC
1]
12
1?
19
1_
lE
17
18
19
2G
21
22
2?
29
2°
a certain standard.
MR. SCHIRMER: Sure.
JUDGE DENSON: Before we would accept it. There,
again, acknowledging that we have many taxpayers out there
that we have to be concerned about.
MR. SCHIRMER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE DENSON: Because we will be taking County tax
dollars from everyone in the county to work on these specific
roads.
MR. SCHIRMER: Oh, yeah. And that road grader
wouldn't do any good on it right now, maybe just a few spots.
There's only a few spots that are good. The rest of it are
hills on both sides washed down, you know, way below the
bedrock, you know, where you crawl over the ledges. But
there --
JUDGE DENSON: Why don't you consider, as an
alternate plan, selling your property?
MR. SCHIRMER: I've thought about that. Right now,
it -- you know, I might have to end up doing that just to pay
the medical bills. But, you know, we put a lot of years and
80
a lot of time into that thing. And, you know, that's an
1C
11
li
1~
19
1°_
lE
17
18
19
2C
21
22
23
29
2~
alternative, you know.
JUDGE DENSON: If you had a big hole in the road or
a big draw washed out, or something like that that made it
impassible, and there was something that we could get our
Road and Bridge Department to go out on, say, an emergency
situation and clear up one little area, patch it or whatever,
that would be one thing. But you're talking about several
miles of road?
MR. SCHIRMER: Oh, yeah, several miles, 4 and a
half miles.
JUDGE DENSON: And you're talking to us about a
permanent situation as far as maintaining that road?
MR. SCHIRMER: Well, at least it, you know, maybe
would give me some time to -- you know, it you did temporary
repairs, like I say, there's some things that could be fixed
with a loader and a motor grader. Plenty of caliche out
there, maybe go through and fix some bad spots. I don't know
how long it would take or what you may be looking at, but
there may be some temporary stuff that you can do, you know,
with material and a motor grader. And --
JUDGE DENSON: Can you get some of the other
property owners out there to pitch in?
MR. SCHIRMER: I've been talking to a few of them,
and a few of them said they would pitch in. I don't know,
81
you know, how much -- what it would take to bring it up to
where it would be fairly drivable. And, you know, if maybe
you could get y'all's guys to go out there and -- and to just
take a look at the gravel pit, take a look at the condition
of the road, I could get back with y'all -- find out what
we're looking at on that from your standpoint, and --
JUDGE DENSON: I just don't think we can do
anything.
MR. SCHIRMER: Mm-hmm.
1C
11
12
13
19
if
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE DENSON: From what you've described to me. I
mean, I sincerely apologize, but -- because I do feel real
sensitive to your personal situation. But --
MR. SCHIRMER: I thank you.
JUDGE DENSON: But it's just extremely difficult
for us to act on something like this.
MR. SCHIRMER: Mm-hmm. Okay. Well, I appreciate
it. Thank you very much.
JUDGE DENSON: Yes, sir. It's 11 o'clock. 2.17.
I'd like to make a rule that whoever brings in a subject like
that, that they talk rather than the County Judge.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You volunteered.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's a fair rule.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, I'm the one that's forced to
talk if y'all are quiet, because this is my position.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was going to put it off on
82
1
2
3
9
5
6',
7
8',
9',
101,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. ODOM: Well, I was fixing to exit.
JUDGE DENSON: Let's see, 11 o'clock. 2.17,
consider and discuss Union Church building as presented by
the Kerr County Historical Commission. Gentlemen, I wrote
y'all a -- we have Walter Schellhase here from the Historical
Commission. And I sent y'all all some information concerning
the proposed site for the Union Church, that being at
Schreiner College, and there are certain conditions or
suggestions about how that would be maintained in the future.
And, Mr. Schellhase wanted to come before us today and talk
about this. Mr. Schellhase?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Thank you, Judge. Does everyone
have a copy of the information that we have to answer for
Schreiner?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah.
MR. SCHELLHASE: If you do, I'll just make a quick
recap. This started about three years ago, when Mr. Nugent
donated this building to the County, the County accepted it
with the agreement it would be moved off the site. I got
involved in this in November of last year. so we're
approaching a year now trying to get something done. Mr.
Nugent's preference was that it be relocated at Schreiner
College. We looked at numerous sites around the city, which
a lot of them were the County sites. The location at
83
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
Schreiner College, we were surprised when we were offered the
site right at the -- at the exhibitors' parking that's used
for the fair, which is right on Memorial Boulevard; if you
were going down Water Street, you'd be looking right into the
site. High ground, great visibility.
The person we were dealing with out there, Ed Wagner,
kind of totally misread the Board, in that he felt like they
-- that they would like to have ownership, as I discussed
with you, Judge, several times ago. We developed a plan,
which we provided the Court, the restoration-preservation
plan, and then we developed a utilization plan. The
Executive Committee met and said that they do not want to own
the building, they would like for the County to retain
ownership of it, and gave us some conditions that we would
like the Court to sign off on, which we made the proposals
to.
The County would retain ownership and sign a lease with
Schreiner College for that location, which they propose 25
years. That the Commission would do the renovation in a
timely manner. We gave them an outside date of calendar year
'99, of which they agreed to. The County would cover the --
or the building would be covered by all liabilities to
protect them. We're proposing it would be the same as any
other building owned by the County. That the Commission
would escrow 58,500 in order that the building may be moved
89
11
21
61
7
8'
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
off of the site. That's what it's going to cost us to get
the building to the site, so they would like to have that
provision in the event that we did not do what we said we
would do, that they could move the site to some other County
property. That the building would be included in the
County's normal maintenance, both daily and scheduled
activities, both long-range. The County would do the
scheduling activities; they do not even want to be involved
in scheduling, although they would like to use it three times
a week, perhaps as much. That the Court would establish a
user's fee for the structure. Schreiner would -- the college
would have their security people do the normal on-site
security with their people.
The building would be equipped and monitored with an
alarm system, which we agreed we'd include in the restoration
plans. They did not want any historical marker or any marker
placed on the property that would encumber the property. In
checking with the State Historical Commission, that's not a
problem, because those markers do not encumber the property;
it just gives the Commission an opportunity to do something
with the building in the event it were to be demolished.
Schreiner requested a sign placed on the project, because the
building does look pretty ratty right now, and when it would
be placed on their site, they would like to have a sign that
shows the building as it will be after it's restored so that
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 li
13,
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they won't create any -- too much ill feelings within the
community by locating this structure. In case you're not
familiar with it, it is the old Army/Navy Surplus store
located on Lemos Street at this time. The college has been
approached by one church group that would like to use the
building on Wednesdays, which we have discussed with them.
There could be a substantial amount of money for restoring
that building, that they would donate to restore it. The
college themselves would like to use the building several
times a week, and they're willing to pay a fee for it.
What we would like the Court to do is to pass a
resolution supporting these provisions, so that we can go
back to the college. Their Board of Trustees meets the 15th,
which I believe is Thursday. The Executive Committee, with
these provisions in hand, will recommend that this site be
approved, and that we can move forward with the project. At
this time, the Historical Commission has approximately
$30,000 in hand to start the restoration and make that
donation. So, are there any questions you'd like --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Liability, maintenance,
scheduling, and the user fee schedule?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the four things that
this --
MR. SCHELLHASE: And signing a lease.
86
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 BALDWIN: Signing a lease --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, that was it. I was just
going to make sure, that's all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess we've been talking
about this for the two years I've been on the Court.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Three years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I've only been on the
Court two years; it started a year before I got here. And, I
guess this is the first time that I was aware -- maybe I
wasn't listening -- that the County was accepting a lot of
maintenance liability.
JUDGE DENSON: This is the first time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, good.
MR. SCHELLHASE: This just came up on -- the
Executive Committee met on the 12th of September, and the
Executive Committee is the one that came up with this list of
things that they would like to be assured would be done
before they will recommend it to the Board.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my concern comes from
reading your complaint again. Historical marker -- several
buildings of that nature in my family right now, and
maintenance enters to a whole new realm when you have a
historical marker on a building. You can't go out and just
fix it, everything's got to be submitted. We're talking
87
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 a lot of money to the County, I guess, what the bottom
line is. And my preference would be for us to wait for -- to
give it to the Historical Commission, if we could. I would
rather not the County have to own and operate this facility.
I would rather give it to another entity that can -- you
know, either through grants or stand-alones or fees or
whatever. Because it's just -- you know, I see this as being
a pretty big expense down the road for the County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When we talk about
maintenance, I wasn't listening probably as close as I should
have at that point, but you're talking about maintenance.
Are we talking about -- you said something about every day.
We're talking about going by and cleaning it up, as well as
the electrical, plumbing, and those kind of maintenance?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, so, all the above. We
own it, we need to take care of it, is what you're saying?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Correct. Correct. Now, this is
not a zero-type thing, you know. Schreiner -- that's why the
provision for the user fees, because Schreiner is willing to
pay to use the building. And they would like to use it as
much as three times a week. The one church that has
approached us on the use of the building on Wednesday --
Wednesdays is willing to pay a substantial user's fee, or the
discussion has been with the possibility of as much as
88
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9',
l0l
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$75,000 towards the restoration. So, it obviously will be a
cost to the County, the same as any other property they own,
but it also has an income stream that's possible.
JUDGE DENSON: Let me say this. One, Dr. Rector is
here also from the Historical Commission. And, Mike Walker,
if I recall, you're still a member in standing there, aren't
you?
MR. WALKER: Yes, sir, I guess, if I paid my dues.
DR. RECTOR: Board of Directors, right.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. If I recall accurately, and
possibly Commissioner Lackey and Commissioner Oehler can help
me with my memory, I was on the Court three years ago when
this first came up. At that time, Commissioner Baldwin and
Commissioner Letz were not. This first was -- came up as a
result of a presentation made by Clarabell Snodgrass.
MR. SCHELLHASE: That's correct, and Wanda
Henderson.
JUDGE DENSON: And Wanda Henderson. And I came
away from that initial meeting, at least, with the impression
-- whether my inferences were right or wrong -- is that this
was a concept of, you know, saving this building that Jim
Nugent was going to tear down.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Correct.
JUDGE DENSON: And going to be through private
donations, private funding, private fundraisers and all, that
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17'
1S
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
the project would come about, meaning that the County wasn't
going to be spending any money on it.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Correct.
JUDGE DENSON: You say y'all have 530,000 now?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Roughly, yes.
JUDGE DENSON: And I think that's, maybe, the
questions that Commissioner Baldwin -- or concerns that
Commissioner Baldwin and Commissioner Letz have, as well as I
do at this time. If you start talking about a no-end
situation about money, this could be a very, very expensive
proposition. I don't know how we can address that, but --
MR. SCHELLHASE: Well, I think if the County chose
to retain ownership and not maintain it, you know, we
wouldn't want to restore it. Obviously, it has to be, you
know, certainly a break-even situation to be worth the
restoration. We're talking about spending $150,000,
$200,000. You're not going to do that without some
indication that the building is going to be an asset to the
community. You know, if it's not, obviously there's not any
reason to do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like what we're talking
about, I really and truly do like what the plan is. And it's
definitely an asset to our community. I want to use the
building. I want to have a meeting in there, I think that's
exciting. But we have to somehow come up with -- I mean,
90
1 it's like a budget process. We have to come up -- we need to
2 know, how much is it going to cost us to maintain the thing,
3 Glenn? I mean, are you going to have to hire -- we're going
4 to have to hire another maintenance person to go over there
5 and clean it on a daily basis or three times week? Or -- you
6 know, we've got to know about that kind of stuff, in my
7 opinion. And who's --
8 MR. SCHELLHASE: I envisioned this, Buster, that it
9 would be on the basis of a user fee and it would be contract-
10 cleaned, you know, based out of the fees that are collected.
11 If the fees weren't, obviously, enough to maintain it after
12 use of the function of some sort, then, you know, it wouldn't
13 be done.
19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have to make this
15 decision today?
16 MR. SCHELLHASE: We need the resolution from the
17 Court that they support this position -- you know, certainly
18 not the details worked out, but so that the Executive -- the
19 Board could meet and act on it for the 15th at their Board
20 meeting.
21 JUDGE DENSON: What do you -- let's talk a little
22 bit about restoration. You mentioned the figure $200,000,
23 and you you also mentioned that Schreiner College is prepared
29 to spend $75,000?
25 MR. SCHELLHASE: No, we have a -- the llnitarian
91
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 S
19'
20
21
22
23
29
25
Church has been -- has approached the college that, with the
restoration of the building on their site, that they would
like to use the buildiing on Wednesdays, and for that they
would enter into a lease with the County for the use of it on
Wednesdays, or in exchange for that, donate a substantial
amount of money towards restoration. That's one user. We
think there's other users also.
JUDGE DENSON: So, what we're talking about is that
the County is going to spend the money for the restoration?
MR. SCHELLHASE: No, sir, all the restoration will
be done by donations. The Historical Commission will do the
funding, raise the funds to restore the building.
JUDGE DENSON: And let me -- what if -- and this is
just -- just us discussing. What if we move that building in
its present condition to that location, and we're not able to
raise the funds to -- from donations to restore it? Now, I
understand that you have that addressed in your information,
that y'all are going to have to escrow that $8,500 to move it
somewhere else.
MR. SCHELLHASE: To County property, of which we
have been offered several, as you know, sites that the County
has, the Ag Barn being one of them.
COMMIS3IONER OEHLER: It seems to me that if we
enter into an agreement with Schreiner College for them to
house the thing, that we should also get them -- being as
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
161'
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they have maintenance personnel on site, that they would be
the ones to maintain it. And let them utilize it, in an
interlocal agreement, for maintaining it. And, then, the
rest of the income that would be derived from it just would
be to come to the County to do -- repaint the building or,
you know, if it has a need for something in the future to be
done, it would be -- there would be money in the bank to do
it with. But I can't see having a building at Schreiner
College that's utilized by Schreiner College, but maintained
by Kerr County. That's the only thing that I have. Only one
thing I see that could --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there a legal problem
with that?
JUDGE DENSON: Well, normally speaking, that's --
when a building is erected on some real property, on some
land, it becomes part of the real property, and the owner of
the land owns the improvement. That's just a general legal
principle. But, certainly, through agreement, both parties
recognizing and acknowledging that the improvement is owned
separately from the real estate, it can be done. But, you
know, why wouldn't Schreiner want to accept the building? If
the Historical Commission would -- could think or agree along
those lines? If they're willing to have the building
restored and on its property, why not them accept just total
ownership?
93
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
DR. RECTOR: I think this gets into -- if I may?
JUDGE DENSON: Sure.
DR. RECTOR: If I may answer that, I think from
talking with them, this gets into a little bit of a political
problem, in that they have in their future plans a major
chapel for Schreiner College. Schreiner has no religious
facility, though it's a religious-affiliated college, and
they have plans for a major chapel. They do not want this to
be construed as to be the religious facility for the -- for
the college. You know, they don't mind it being on the
property, but they really don't want benefactors to look and
say, "You've got a chapel; you don't need money for another
one." And I think that's part of their -- of their thinking.
They're willing to pay a user fee, and we're talking
probably $75 per use on this. And it -- from the talks that
we had with Ed Wagner, talking with him, it seemed that when
it looked like the college was going to take over the
maintenance of the building and, really, the running of the
building, it looked like that the user fee would not only pay
for the use of the building, but perhaps even set up enough
money -- throw off enough money to set up a perpetual fund
the keep the building maintained, and -- and ongoing. It
looked like a substantial income stream. I feel like that --
that this really is very comparable to the Ag Barn. It's
going to be constructed, put in usable condition, in pristine
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
condition, and then given to the County. And really, all
that we're looking for the County to do is to then take over
the scheduling and the maintenance, the same as what you're
doing with the Ag Barn right now.
As Butch will tell you, we have talked to the County
over the years about putting it on County property. If it
were put on County property, the only difference would be it
would be taking up County property rather than taking up
Schreiner property. The County would still be looking at
doing maintenance and the scheduling and all of those things.
Our agreement with the Commissioners Court is that we will
not look to the taxpayers, to y'all, for restoration funds;
that we will raise those from private donations, and that
when the building is completed and turned over to the County,
it will be in its restored condition.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The comment I have is that the
comments you just made, that the -- my impression has always
been that the Historical Commission was going to operate the
facility and take care of it. That's kind of what I always
thought, and maybe I just never asked the question.
DR. RECTOR: The problem we get into, Jonathan, is
that the Historical Commission is a group of volunteers and
that much of it changes from year to year, when officers
change and so forth. And to have a volunteer that is
available to do scheduling all the time, available to open
95
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the building, to do what is done at the Ag Barn, really is
just not -- not very practical to have to be able to depend
on somebody to do that, to have them available. You almost
need a salaried-type individual that's on the job to do that
kind of -- that kind of thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's -- and the other
comment is that at some point in the discussion, it was more
of a -- rather than, I guess, a location, was the hope or
dream of having a historical area. And I don't know if that
was -- you know, and this is going to pretty much stop that
idea completely, it seems to me, because this was meant to be
-- or presented to be the -- kind of the cornerstone of an
area where we could accumulate historical items and
buildings, and that won't be able to happen now.
DR. RECTOR: We had looked at the Winfield Scott
property for that; it would be ideal. The thing that wasn't
ideal was, I think, the 37 milliion that they wanted for the
property. Now, it just -- it just was -- you know, $150,000
we can raise. 37 million, you know, is out of the -- out of
the question. We looked at -- General Schellhase has talked
to benefactors, has talked to grant people, talked to
foundations about purchasing that land. And -- and we just
have really come up with -- with nothing, and we're at the
point now where Mr. Nugent really needs it moved from his
property. And we're looking at either moving it to a
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16'i
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
temporary storage site or moving it to a place where we can
begin restoration. And, it really just makes a lot more
sense to move it to a place where restoration can be --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that it would
handle two moves.
DR. RECTOR: Yeah.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Well, you're right, the building
is deteriorating very rapidly. There's a hole in the roof at
this time. It probably will have a hole in the floor before
too long. Well, depends upon the rainy season.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other site that we had
talked about out by the Ag Barn is -- really, the spot that I
had thought we had talked about was really just as a -- the
west side of whatever creek that is right there. Used to be
an old storage area. In fact, where the Indian mound is.
That we can't do anything with that property anyway because
of -- or it's at our discretion what we can do with that
property. Anyway, what's wrong that? And I know y'all
looked at it.
MR. SCHELLHASE: We did.
DR. RECTOR: I think the concern was is that it was
out of the way enough that -- that it would not be convenient
for meetings for people in town for business -- business
meetings. We had a little bit of concern about vandalism.
We -- I think would smile more upon it being actually on the
97
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
Ag Harn property, similar to where the County Extension
Office is, because it could then be pulled into activities
like the County Fair, rodeos, that type of thing, where it
can be opened for use there. Being across the street, our
concern is that the utilization would lust not be as -- as
frequent as -- and if you don't have it in a visible place,
it's going to be much more difficult for us to raise money to
restore it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll tell yau, I support the
idea of doing it at Schreiner College. I think that's a good
place; I think you're going to get good exposure there. And,
as far as going along with that being -- with your proposal
here or your -- whatever we call these things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Resolution.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Resolutions, I think that's
great. But, you know, it would have to be -- for me to go
along and vote for going ahead and supporting this, there
would have to be some other parts of this agreement worked
out with Schreiner College. I can't imagine it being there
and them not maintaining it and them not scheduling the use
of it. Because, otherwise, you're going to have to pull
somebody away from here to go -- someone says, "I'm going to
go look at it." Okay. We've got to send somebody over there
to show them the building, and then there are people right
there on the campus that can do that. I mean, they could use
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
the thing, far as I'm concerned, for nothing as much as they
want to, as long as they would schedule it and clean it. And
maybe overall giant maintenance to be done would be -- you
know, if it needed a paint job 10 years from now, maybe the
County might have to pay it, but I can't see obligating our
Maintenance staff or our scheduling people to do that when
they're not on location.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you throw out a number
that the -- this church is willing -- you used the word
"substantial," but was there a ballpark number?
MR. SCHELLHASE: We've heard it was -- we heard as
much as $75,000. That's totally, you know, hearsay; it's not
something that needs to be publicized.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the college using it as
much as $75 a use?
MR. SCHELLHASE: $75 per use. Schreiner would like
to see us eventually, as a long-range plan, work in our
fund-raising to establish an endowment that would take care
of the maintenance and the normal day-to-day operation and
utilities on a long-range basis, of which they are willing to
help in that, although they cannot commit any funds to this
project at all at this time. They're willing only to provide
the site. This is kind of different, Judge, from what I
briefed you the first time, because the first time Schreiner
-- we were led to believe Schreiner wanted ownership,
99
11
21
9
5
61
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Schreiner wanted to schedule, Schreiner wanted to use it when
they wanted to. But the Executive Committee did not see it
that way. So, you know, that's just a misread, you know, on
our leadership part.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I agree pretty much with
what Bruce said on the scheduling and the maintenance part of
it. I would think that Schreiner -- and there don't -- I can
see the ownership issue from them from a political
standpoint, but the maintenance and scheduling, in lieu of
paying this $75 -- I mean, they would come out ahead,
probably, you know, so I would I think they would probably be
willing to do that. The other question I have is who is
responsible for the renovation if the Historical Commission
fails to raise the full amount? I mean, if we own it and
it's out there at Schreiner College, evidently, it appears to
me that Schreiner's the one committed if this thing's going
to be fixed up. What happens -- and probably -- I'm guessing
we're on a time period too. I mean, what happens if --
MR. SCHELLHASE: We've agreed to do the exterior
restoration within the calendar year '99, be finished. We
believe we have enough funds and commitment to do that at
this time, so that the outside will be finished and
presentable so that the college will not be ashamed of it
sitting out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
100
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
MR. SCHELLHASE: The interior, we haven't started
on that yet. We haven't even done the restoration plans. We
don't really know what all has to be done. You know, we
haven't -- we're not going to spend that kind of money till
we know where we're going to be and what we have to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The County -- I guess the
question is, is the County accepting liability for that
renovation if you can't raise the money? You know, I mean,
is that what I'm hearing?
JUDGE DENSON: No.
MR. SCHELLHASE: I don't see that the County is.
You know, the Commission is an arm of the County. If we need
the money, we'll come back to the Commissioners Court and ask
for it.
DR. RECTOR: It might well be that the [text stop
far the building is the landfill.
JUDGE DENSON: You're saying in your proposal that
y'all are escrowing $8,500 to move it?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Far Schreiner to move it off the
site.
JUDGE DENSON: From Schreiner College to the
landfill?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Correct.
JUDGE DENSON: In the event --
MR. SCHELLHASE: That we don't perform. That's
101
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
correct.
JUDGE DENSON: I -- now, we made a commitment in
the past to -- to embrace -- to support this project, and I
don't really see any real big changes that should make us say
we don't want to forward with the project, but for one. From
what Mr. Schellhase has said this morning, I think there is a
good probability that maintenance can be provided by
contract, and from money that's raised through use. So, what
we have, the one sticking point, if you will, is the
scheduling. I would -- I would certainly support the concept
that you brought to us today, where -- where the County is
not obligating itself to provide funds for restoration, and
to go along with all the other items, if we could get
Schreiner College to schedule.
MR. SCHELLHASE: I think Schreiner College does not
want to do the scheduling, simply because they're going to be
a heavy user of the building, and in that there have been
church groups approach the college with regards to the use of
the building, and all those church groups aren't
Presbyterians, and they feel like that they would be put in a
difficult position. That's kind of the way I read it. So, I
think that's -- I don't -- you know, you could kick any of
these items on this list back to the Historical Commission to
handle. We've discussed scheduling with Mindy Wendele at
Main Street. We didn't know if you want the City to schedule
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8i
9,
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
activities in a County building, but that's certainly an
agency that could do it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sounds like good idea to me.
MR. SCHELLHASE: We've discussed --
JUDGE DENSON: I'll make a motion that the Court
agrees or consents to the proposal that you've made today,
but for the County accepting scheduling responsibility.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
DR. RECTOR: Doesn't matter who does it, as long as
it's not the County, correct?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
JUDGE DENSON: I've got a second. And we can work
on that in the future.
DR. RECTOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that, to me, is -- I would
rather -- I mean, the scheduling may not be much of a
problem, as such. The maintenance issues down the road --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have sewer, water
hookup. Who's responsible for all that? All kinds of little
things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, I just --
JUDGE DENSON: I don't think we're obligating
ourselves for "X" dollars. I think we always had the right
to refuse anything. We do not have money set aside in the
103
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
171
1811
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
budget. We have not agreed to any dollar amount or whatever
obligation at this time.
MR. SCHELLHASE: If we see a problem at this time
next year, we'll be back.
JUDGE DENSON: I want to tell you, I may not be
here -- well, I won't be here next year. But what I'm going
to tell you, and what I would think these Commissioners are
going to tell you is y'all have -- y'all better create some
kind of fundraising activity next weekend.
MR. SHELLHOUSE: Well, keep in mind, we haven't
even started our fundraising project yet, 'cause we feel like
we should be able to tell the people where the location is
going to be, and yet we've already received substantial
commitments. So, you know, we're not looking at this thing
as not being a possibility. I mean, we're looking at it as
being a doable deal. But we have to have a final location.
Keep in mind, also, whatever action you take here today might
mean nothing at all. The Board of Trustees has to sign off
on this, and we're counting on the Executive Committee to
carry that to the Board of Trustees based on your action.
So, if you support it, we think we have a better chance with
the Hoard of Trustees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm in favor of the concept,
but I'd really rather not be tied into the actual -- some of
these provisions. I mean, and it will affect our budget this
109
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
year. We're going to have to add it to our -- if nothing
else, for insurance.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah
I can only speculate about
that. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Minimal, I'm sure.
JUDGE DENSON: If you put it under our blanket
coverage for all of our buildings, that it's going to be
minimal.
MR. SHELLHOUSE: And for the year -- for this
coming calendar year, I'm sure that we could put that into
our funding side of it for the first approach.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe that the one thing
that -- you know, we tend to look at the dollars instead of
-- which we're supposed to do; I mean, that's our number one
priority. But, the other side of the story is that this is a
historic building. It's not in very good condition. We have
a group that wants to restore it, and whatever little we can
do to make that possible to happen, we ought to do it, bottom
line.
JUDGE DENSON: And that's where I'm coming from.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I agree with that. I'm
just concerned, down the road, with some things that -- I
mean, there could be some major repairs that someone's going
to have to be -- and I don't want the County to be, you know,
in a position of really being held over the barrel down the
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
road to do some kind of a major repair on our own. I really
would like -- at some point we're going to have to get the
Historical Commission back in here to help with fundraisers
if we need them, and to help with this as a joint project. I
mean, obviously, we're the entity to own it and to do the
day-to-day operation part of our -- coordinate how that's
done, but I don't want it just dropped in our lap, even
though it's dropped in good shape.
MR. SCHELLHASE: I might point out, y'all haven't
maintained it too good so far.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, it's not ours until it's moved
off of Mr. Nugent's property. But I've got a motion and
second, and I want it clear in my motion that the County
responsibility for spending money is subject to negotiation.
MR. SCHELLHASE: I understand.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Thank you.
DR. RECTOR: Thank you, gentlemen.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay, let's see. Mike, you've got
your fastest glib delivery ready today?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Did y'all do the fee schedule thing?
JUDGE DENSON: No. That's where we are, actually.
106
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
2.13, consider and discuss changes in Animal Control fee
schedule.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So move.
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Already seen it.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Did y'all see where the change was?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. It's just, what, one
or two?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Well, the main -- the main one that
was necessary was that now, when you register a dog in the
city and the county, the veterinarian that does that at the
time, a rabies vaccination, retains $1 of the $5. Only in
the city were they allowing that before; the County was
keeping all of it. But we're trying to do incentives so the
vets don't have a problem. Otherwise, they weren't -- and
it's very consistent with what we're doing in the city.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay, we've got a motion and second.
Further questions? All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDE DENSON: Okay. 2.19, consider and discuss
appointment to the Kerr Emergency 911 Network Hoard. Bruce,
you put this on.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I did?
JUDGE DENSON: Looks like you did.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I guess -- I really didn't,
107
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
but I --
JUDGE DENSON: Well, I know that
notes here, that George is out -- his term
expired the end of September.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. We
member from the County. I've only had one
interest to me in doing that, and that bei
Kathy Mains. Kathy Loeffler Temple Mains.
person that I've had express --
-- well, per the
has already
need a new Board
person express an
~g -- let me see -
That is the only
JUDGE DENSON: Gestures won't work. We need
articulation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, actually, there axe a
couple of people that Commissioner Letz and I have been kind
of kicking around talking about. I don't think we're ready to
lay a name on the table today, but more importantly to me
right now is we have a note here from Commissioner Oehler
saying that Mx. Pendergrast is -- would like to leave the
Board. But there's also a letter here from Mr. Sandlin that
says he'd like to stay. I mean, that's the way I read it,
anyway.
JUDGE DENSON: That's August 27th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Has expressed his desire to
continue serving in his current capacity as a member of the
District Board of Managers.
JUDGE DENSON: Well --
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: George -- that's -- Sandlin
got his terminology messed up, I believe.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: His term has expired; he
needs to be replaced.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my comments are that,
because of the problems, at least, I perceive with 911, I
think this appointment's pretty important.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I would rather table this,
let us have another two weeks to dig out --
JUDGE DENSON: So done.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's fine.
JUDGE DENSON: And and my feeling is that you and
Buster should have the greater input on this Court than the
rest of us.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree.
JUDGE DENSON: Because y'all -- seriously, y'all
will be serving with them.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree.
JUDGE DENSON: So, you guys get together and
continue trying to come up with a name, and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We will be here in two weeks
with a name.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And, the newspaper may
109
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
want to -- anyone in the community that would like to, feel
free to call Buster. And then he can get with me and we can
go over these.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 792-2216.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. 2:15, consider and discuss
approval of County-sponsored contract between Kerr County and
Dietert Claim. This is lust a continuation, I think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same thing.
JUDGE DENSON: Renewal. And, Thea tells me Tammy
has the contract?
MS. MARQUART: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it exactly the same as we
approved last year?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Certainly can't tell by our
backup here. There's nothing.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You want her to print a
contract for everybody?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. I think -- I think it
would be wise, though, to put a little note in here to
Commissioners Court: "Gentlemen, this -- the contract remains
the same. This is nothing but bookkeeping."
JUDGE DENSON: I mean --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The administrative assistant
does things like that.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, now, I assume that it's the
110
i
1 515,000 -- that's right. I helped Thea draw up the contract,
2 make the change. Because, remember, we've been giving
3 Dietert Claim 515,000 each year, and then we agreed to give
9 55,000 for the rural public transportation --
5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
6 JUDGE DENSON: So I took the very contract that we
7 had had previously and made one small change to it, in
8 connection with the rural public transportation services.
9 So, it is, in fact, the same contract.
10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it includes the rural
11 transportation?
12 JUDGE DENSON: Yes, and it's something that we
13 approved during the budgetary process.
19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
16 JUDGE DENSON: Further questions? Comments? All
17 in favor?
18 (The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
19 JUDGE DENSON: Okay. I put the burn ban on back --
20 you know, a couple weeks ago when we were getting prepared
21 for our agenda, because it was so dry. We've had, I think,
22 one rain since then, but --
23 COMMISSIONER LACKEY: I think we're in pretty good
24 shape down on my end.
25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm okay.
111
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: We're okay till we get our
first freeze.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This winter's going to be
tough.
JUDGE DENSON: 2.18, consider and discuss approving
a final payment with Change Order 2 for credit to owner for
Phase II. And Mike's on the scene.
MR. WALKER: Thank you, Judge, Commissioners. I'll
try to keep this as brief as I can. And I would suggest to
you that if you want to go ahead and approve the change
order, which you should have a copy of, please go ahead and
do it, but I'm going to have to take the final payment off of
the docket, because he doesn't have all his paperwork done.
He hasn't finished the final inspection, got the City's final
inspection. He's just not done. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion to approve
Change Order No. 2.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
MR. WALKER: But you did --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No payment. Payment wasn't --
no payment on that, just approving the change order.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We authorized payment of your
bill this morning.
112
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12i
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. WALKER: Thank you. But you -- okay. But you
did not authorize his final payment?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No. It was explained to us
that the retainage was still there, and it was not going to
be spent.
MR. WALKER: Okay.
(Judge Denson left the courtroom.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2.19.
MR. WALKER: 2.19, is that the estimate?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Devore is out of town this
morning, could not be here. I'm going to -- I'm going to pass
out a little supplemental information after going over it.
We felt like we should add something to it, because he
admittedly did not have all the figures there for furnishing
audio-visual equipment. So, the first page will look pretty
much like the one you've got, and the -- the next one is
where we make some suggested changes. What we did is, as you
see it on the first page, where we've sort of highlighted the
subtotal construction cost --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mike, let me make a brief
comment --
MR. WALKER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- on what you just handed out,
and also to rib you a little bit, and Mr. Devore, for not
113
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
being timely. In July, we authorized Mike to use Jim Devore
to come up with a cost estimate so we'd have it in time for
our budget process, come up with a true number. We -- it was
after the process when I remembered that we never did receive
that, and I pretty much talked to Mike about that, and I
think he's -- anyway, there's been problems in getting it and
whatever. The value now has been revised, and it's a
legitimate value, I think, of what we have out of this before
we go out for formal bids -- or proposal, rather, to find out
if we're way off base, and just -- so this number is kind of
a benchmark to find out if this is what we think it's going
to roughly cost. And when we go out for bid, if we are way
high or way low, we would be able to make adjustments if
needed. Mike?
MR. WALKER: Thank you. And, again, I assure you
that we've been pushing as hard as we can, and I apologize
for any part that we had in that delay. But, in Mr. Devore's
defense, he could not go out and get really good tight
numbers without finished drawings, and we fed him drawings as
fast as we could. But I think the -- yes, part of your value
was diminished in the estimate that you agreed to take on,
and I would be glad to discuss that in any -- any terms you
want to discuss it. Basically, I paid for half of it out of
my fees and you paid for half of it out of yours -- out of
your funds. Of course, you paid for all of it, so it's -- it
119
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
may be semantic.
But, anyway, back to the first page. If you take the
51.756 million and you carry that over to the second page, we
have a little bit different take on it, because we felt like
that there were a couple of things that -- that we had some
problems with. And because Jim had to leave town, I didn't
really get to thrash all these numbers with him, but one of
the things we felt like we needed to add back were the
furnishings and audio-visual equipment, which needs to be an
integral part of the courtrooms. And, so, that -- that is
back. We added that number back in, and then we -- we
differed with him considerably on what -- what a reasonable
overhead and profit for a contractor was. He had some 20
percent, if you add the two numbers on the first page, profit
and overhead together. And, in talking with contractors, you
know, I'm just -- I know he was trying to be safe, but I felt
like that maybe we wanted to present it in a little more
realistic fashion.
We've also got -- we had added bond amount, which was
somewhat less than what he had, because 5 percent bond is a
very high bonding figure for the caliber of contractors that
you'll have bidding this, because you'll have guys that have
very good bonding capacity coming out of San Antonio, Austin,
maybe even Houston. And we only have one local contractor
that can -- can bond out, that I'm aware of. So, you know, I
115
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
think that the bonding will be a little down; that's why we
used that number. What we did add back in here, which Jim
does not have, the contingency amount. The last time we
presented it to you, we had, like, 5 percent, because we were
-- we were so afraid of not having enough cushion in the cost
factors. But, we've added the 2 percent in there, and so we
-- you can see we almost come up with the same number.
In addition to this number, of course, you need to add
fees, and then actual loose furniture. In other words, we
have built-in furniture in here. But we do have things like
attorneys' desks and podium and that sort of thing, but we
don't have all the desks in all the offices, all individual
desks and stuff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our $2.3 million -- the 2.3
that we budgeted is pretty close?
(Judge Denson returned to the courtroom.)
MR. WALKER: It's -- yeah, but it's -- it's risky.
If you had all -- if -- I don't know if that was in addition
to what you budgeted last year, or how you did that. I
wasn't into the budgeting process. But, if -- 'cause you've
already paid me a large part of my fee, like 75 percent or
something. So, you know, I don't know what went into that,
but I think that that 2.3 is going to be very, very close,
very tight. And, so, what I've done --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what you've got?
116
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15I~
16,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. WALKER: So, what I've done is I've attached a
couple of things to here. Somewhere in that packet, you
should have a list of -- Linda, can I have that back for just
a second? We've conjured up a number of alternates and unit
prices, because we are afraid when we get bids -- we want
them to be able to be reduced if they have to be, to
reorganize a few things. And you can look over those and see
the -- the base bid items. There's a lot of built-in
furniture and so forth on there that we more or less felt had
to be there, the benches and the seats and -- and those kind
of things. And then we have, below that, something called
"Unit Prices of Added Millwork." This is stuff that we got
individual prices for; they can fall off the list if y'all
elect to take them off of there. And then, of course, we
have a whole list of, like, six alternates, and we may come
up with one or two more, as things that we can just summarily
pull out of the -- the bid amount if we need to do that.
Also, I have included, just for your information
purposes, demolition and alternate alterations notes. And,
lest you think the project is going to be easy, I've broken
it down into the Phase 3-A, 3-B, and the very levels and what
has to take place. You'll see some things in there we've not
really had a lot of time to talk about. But, there are some
things in there that are -- that are -- there are a lot of
ramifications in the operation of these two buildings, and so
117
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 II
13 ',
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
I would welcome you to -- to look over that. This will be
the instructions that will be given to the general
contractor. I'm -- I'm not saying they won't change, because
they can -- they can propose alternate means of sequencing
the work. But, there's going to be a lot of shut-down time.
There's going to be a lot of shuffling things around, and in
-- I asked Jim, when he did his contracting estimate, that he
take into account that the guys have got to stop and start
and move and stop and start and move. So, those are some of
the cost factors involved.
That's really all I have to talk to you about on
that issue, other than the timing of the bidding. We're
proposing to ask you at the next Court meeting, which is, I
hope, the 26th, I think, to go out for bids, and then I'd
like your concurrence on when to take bids. Jonathan and I
talked about that it would be -- we could do it the 23rd,
which is the week before Thanksgiving, which is not -- I
think you have a Court meeting then, but that may not be the
best time. We had talked about putting it off till December.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me give you the thought
process I had on that. I mean, we're going out for bids in
the next couple weeks, and the issue is -- is we're going to
be pushing into December before making a decision. And, it's
up to, really, the Judge and the Commissioners. Would this
-- this Court be better to award the bids, or the next Court?
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 i
11 I!,
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
My feeling is that it should be this Court, because otherwise
we're going to delay more time in trying to get the next
Court up to speed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As long as we do it before the
end of the year, it doesn't make any difference, at this
point, to me, you know. You know, we're nat going to --
nothing's going to be started between the 1st of December and
31st of December, anyway. So, you know, I would say the
first week of December, to have the bids back, and give these
people as much time as they may possibly need, because it is
a pretty complicated project.
MR. WALKER: It's hunting season.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Put them out the 23rd of
this month?
MR. WALKER: 26th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 26th, whatever. And then
around the first -- first week or so of December?
MR. WALKER: I think that's the 9th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: First meeting is the 9th.
MR. WALKER: First meeting is the 9th, I believe.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: About 90 days.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we don't go that way, we cut
it back to less than 30, to our meeting prior to that. So, I
think we ought to give them the 95 and the first meeting in
119
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
December.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that.
MR. WALKER: Okay, that's all right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then any -- you know, since
we just got this today, some of this stuff, we may just look
through it. Also, I'd like to get -- have Glenn look through
it, see if he has any comments before you go out, some of
your sequencing.
MR. WALKER: Well, we'd like to -- we're doing our
check sets now; we're doing our final check sets, so we're in
the process of pulling it all together. If we want to change
it, it's a lot easier to change now than after we go out for
bids.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The main areas we need to look
at, alternates -- as I understand, we're talking about --
under these unit pieces, adding millwork, these are things
that we can drop out if the bids come in too high?
MR. WALKER: Yeah. The -- all the B items. The
base items kind of need to be there, but the rest could drop
out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Although it's also items that
are going to be bid on as alternates, right?
MR. WALKER: Linda's been out on vacation, so I
really haven't had a chance to go over this business with
her, but she mentioned one or two of them to me that she may
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not agree with. But, just to know, so that -- you know, that
we've taken every step we can think of to be able to back
stuff out of here should we have a bidding problem.
JUDGE DENSON: You did inform her about the
demolition of the Jefferson County Courthouse when we were
getting all that used office furniture and all to be used --
to use up here?
MR. WALKER: Sure. I think I forgot to tell Linda.
Well, that's 'cause I didn't know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hand signals don't cut it in
here, lady.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's not hand signals.
MS. UECKER: I ain't saying nothing.
MR. WALKER: Judge, the way this is set up -- I'm
sorry, do y'all need to act or something?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, no action on that. 2.20,
ADA?
MR. WALKER: Because -- yeah, the ADA thing. I'm
just going to pull this out, because, basically, we talked to
them again, and we think that we're going to submit it the
way it is. We think that we've sort of -- sort of stretched
the -- the ADA stuff, but I do think that we probably can get
site approval. If they reject it, then we'll have to deal
with it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Site approval? What do you
121
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
mean, after it's built?
MR. WALKER: They may not like the way all our
parking places are configured and so forth, so that may -- I
mean, essentially, we're going to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our ADA problem is centered
around parking? That's it7
MR. WALKER: Well, it's called Site Access, so it
has to do with driveways, curb cuts, sideswalks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But every ADA issue in the
building has been approved?
MR. WALKER: And -- and these ramps have to be
redone, so we're getting people to a certain point, but the
parking --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not going to have a
bathroom situation again where we have to redo a bathroom at
the last minute?
MR. WALKER: Well, they hit us in our preliminary
review; they've already made us redo the bathroom.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the only question is going
to be the parking around the building?
MR. WALKER: Except for one thing, and you're -- I
think you're aware of this, and that is that the restrooms
down the hall here -- by their logic, if you can call it that
-- is that those restrooms have to be accessible. Now, what
we're saying is that we're doing so little work to the first
122
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9I
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19~
20'
21
22
23
29
25
floor -- which basically is the outside, redoing the bridge,
putting the elevator in, and redoing the ceiling -- we're
saying that this is so unsubstantial that we're not even
going to bring the subject up. But there is every
possibility that they will say, "Well, where's the rest of
the first floor, and why don't you make it match?" So, I
can't -- I can't guarantee anything on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a big problem.
MR. WALKER: Well, if you want me to bring it up,
I'll bring it up now, but I don't -- I'm hoping it's kind of
the type that it goes away.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, but what are we
talking about? If they say those restrooms have to be in
compliance, what does that mean in dollars?
MR. WALKER: I have not even studied the restrooms,
so I can't intelligently answer it, but I would say that it
would -- basically, we would -- we would probably gut those
restrooms as they sit right now and reconfigure them, based
-- I mean, try to keep them within the confines of that space
that they're in.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: $3,500 ought to take care of
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: S20,000? $10,000?
MR. WALKER: It would probably be about another
$20,000.
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $20,000, and we don't have any
choice. If they say we have to do it, we have to do it.
MR. WALKER: Well, I've got a list of six variances
I'm going to file the with them that have to do with, like,
the restrooms. He wants those old restrooms upstairs to be
accessible, even though we're putting in an accessible
restroom. So, I mean, you know, those are variances that
we're going to file variances, like to the keep the doorknobs
to stay historical upstairs, those kind of things. We're
going to file variances, and we have a -- we kind of have a
-- we know we have a snowball's chance of getting that
passed. But the things like the restrooms and -- you know, I
think it will slide by, but I don't know. I just don't know.
MS. UECKER: Even if you call them private
restrooms?
MR. WALKER: We will do that. We'll probably get a
letter from the Judges or whatever we have to do if that
issue comes up. But we have to file -- when we file these
plans for final, we'll have a lot of backup to go with it so
that we'll -- hopefully, they'll approve all of these. But
last time I filed six and they approved one, which was the
door handles.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. We're through.
MR. WALKER: Except for one thing.
JUDGE DENSON: What?
129
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
MR. WALKER: The last item I had was the -- some
contract items on Phase III. That kind of got skipped to the
end here. These are sort of some heavy-duty things, and I
think I've talked with Tom Pollard about all the legal
issues, I think I talked to him about, but there are some
things here that are pretty important. One of them is
liquidated damages. Liquidated damages, as you're probably
aware, is a two-edged sword. If you go in and say there's
going to be liquidated damages of so much a day; far every
day you don't complete past the days that you bid, then you
awe us "X" dollars a day, the problem is that you -- you will
probably pay for that in the bid amount.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You get it one way or the
other.
MR. WALKER: We don't recommend anybody -- and the
lawyers don't, either -- using a penalties and bonus deal,
especially in a deal like this, because it's so -- I don't
know, it's so complicated. But, liquidated damages, if you
wanted to say -- and I'm just using this as an example --
$200 a day liquidated damages past whatever they bid -- in
other words, you ask them to bid for a number of days, and if
they -- let's say they say --
JUDGE DENSON: Wait a minute. You said Tom does
not recommend it?
MR. WALKER: Tom -- Tom really did not make a
125
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
decision on this one way or the other. I'm bringing it to
the Court to ask you, and you may want to defer it to him,
OY --
JUDGE DENSON: We will. I think we need to have
his input.
MR. WALKER: I don't know what you want to do about
it, and I need an amount. If you're going to do one, I need
to know a dollar --
JUDGE DENSON: He'll be here this afternoon, so
we'll talk about that.
MR. WALKER: Okay. Next item I had in there was
salvage of 15,000 square feet of space. If you took all
these panels out here off of this building, which we're going
to do, you have basically what you see up there right now;
you have 15,000 square foot of space. One of two things
happens to those panels. They go in the -- they go to the
dump, and you pay dump fees based on tonnage. And, as you
can imagine, they're really heavy; it does -- it's a lot of
money, costs money to get them out there. You have the
outside shell, 15,000 square foot, or if you want to leave
the windows out, you'd have less than that. There's window
sections that are a foot wide up there. If you wanted to
pour a slab, put up the interior columns, and use this as a
-- I mean, this is hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of
precast that the County paid for. Obviously, you've got to
126
1
2
3~1
91,
5
6'
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
be careful with it. I mean, you can't
there. You've got to -- you know, you
carefully transport them. But, if you
Ag Barn or another piece of property -
Glenn at length about this. You could
-- and the County's always needing sto
easily come up with 15,000 square foot
know that, because I need to tell them
dust throw them out
need to fairly
had a place, be it the
- I've talked with
-- you could come up
:age space. You could
of storage. I need to
what to do with the
panels when they take them off. If it's --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Put them out for bid? Could
we get anything for them that way?
MR. WALKER: I don't think so. I don't know for
sure, but I don't -- I would -- I would doubt it, simply
because of the -- you now, it's something you'd have to have
a specific use for. And Linda says she wants them at her
house. But, I mean, the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Put them on the church.
JUDGE DENSON: Make the walls of the church.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's -- we probably
could use them somewhere, but would we ever use them is the
other issue. That's a lot more less likely. But, at the
same time, at the -- we can either talk about something at
the Ag Barn or the new building or new structure out there,
and that type of thing would be a great exterior. I mean,
it's not that ugly.
127
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 OEHLER: Heck, it's not ugly at all.
MS. UECKER: Couldn't you even use them as a slab
or parking area or something?
MR. WALKER: You've got to be careful. They're
designed to be vertical and designed to carry a load.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We probably have the room over
there at the Indian mound; we could probably stack them up
over there. We may never use them, but we could.
MS. UECKER: I have a place to stack them.
MR. WALKER: One of the things that you maybe could
consider, we could -- say, we could make that an offer. If
they will give us an alternate price to take those and stack
them. I need to give them a location, and you need to know
where it's going. I guess I could say within a 5-mile
radius.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Within a 5-mile radius.
MR. WALKER: We could do it that way, and that
would pretty well nail it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do that.
MR. WALKER: Okay. Last item, we've already talked
about.
JUDGE DENSON: All right. Thank you.
MR. WALKER: Thank you.
MS. UECKER: I have a comment. First of all, I
want to go on record thanking and commending this Court for
128
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
allowing me to have quite a bit of input into the design and
the -- whatever needs to be done, working with Mr. Walker.
It's been a pleasure. Because even in Kendall County right
now, that didn't happen. The Commissioners Court made those
decisions. They're getting ready to open a new facility that
they're already having major problems with, because the
people that should have been consulted that knew what they
needed were not. So, I want to commend this Court and thank
you for allowing me to do that. And, as far as some of the
other fixtures that are in the old courtroom, I've talked to
Mr. Walker about that. I want to use some of those benches
in the foyer instead of building new ones, so I think we're
going to be able to save some money. The benches in the
courtroom and also, like, the Judges' benches, we can use
those as storage areas, work areas. I mean, I don't want any
of those destroyed; I want them used if we can use them to
save the County some of that money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure that we allowed --
I don't know that we allowed you to do it. I think you kind
of decided -- took it upon yourself to do it.
MS. UECKER: What's the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To get involved with this
project.
MS. UECKER: Yeah, but it was the right decision.
129
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: Thank you, Linda.
JUDGE DENSON: Linda, I'll be practicing law again
one of these days. I expect special treatment out of the
District Clerk.
(Off-the-record discussion.)
JUDGE DENSON: We're adjourned for lunch.
(Lunch recess was taken at 12:09 p.m.)
JUDGE DENSON: It's 1:30 on the 13th of October,
'98. We'll go back on our Commissioners Court agenda. Mike
Walker was here earlier -- and he said he was going to
return, but I don't see him -- talking about the contract for
construction of Phase III. And, specifically, talking about
a provision in that contract, liquidated damages, and said
that he had talked to you about it, but that you really
hadn't expressed an opinion one way or another. And, so, we
just sort of carried it over to hear from you on that.
MR. POLLARD: All right. I'm going to have to look
at it and refresh my memory, if you've got a copy of it.
JUDGE DENSON: No, I don't have it. What -- here
he is.
MR. POLLARD: Okay.
JUDGE DENSON: Mike, talk a little bit about the
liquidated damages provision in the construction contract
which would serve to penalize the contractor for failure to
130
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
complete, timely, the work and all.
MR. WALKER: Except we don't ever say penalize; the
lawyers don't let us say that. Okay. What is often done in
public contracts -- I don't know what percentage, but usually
you have a liquidated damages clause. And, what that does is
-- particularly if you're in a position where it's going to
cost you money, like if you had people stuck out somewhere in
other leased spaces and things like that, where it was --
could be costing you money to lease that space, or for some
other reason, it was costing you some sort of damages, Tom
will probably tell you that -- that you -- if it ever gets
down to collecting those damages, you may have to prove those
damages; that they're just not automatic. But,
theoretically, the meter starts ticking when you -- if they
don't reach substantial completion by so many days, then this
liquidated damages kicks in. Obviously, you give them
extensions for time, for weather, labor disputes, acts of
God, and all those kind of things, but there's always that --
that, I guess you'd say, hammer hanging over their head; that
if they don't perform, you know, on time, then this is going
to kick in.
What we've found in the past is that you always pay for
that, because if a guy is going to go in, he's going to
low-ball the cost and the amount of time it takes to do the
job. So, he gets to bid how many days he says he's -- it's
131
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
going to take him to do it. If he does that, then we've
always been told that they put money in there in case they
have to pay -- let's say he had to pay 30 days' worth of
liquidated damages. Well, if you make that a lot of money,
5250, $500 a day, obviously, you're probably going to see
that reflected in the bid price. So, the only reason that we
suggest it -- and, first off, it's a legal issue, so we don't
like to get into it, but the main reason that we ever suggest
it is that if you have critical timelines where you've got to
get people out of leases and, you know, pull in your forces
and you're going to be out some money that you could prove in
a court of law, you'd have to go to it.
Generally, we just try to stay away from it. But, in
this instance, where I don't know that you have any people
you're pulling out of a leased space -- theoretically, all
you would do is you'd inconvenience, say, Linda or the judges
or whoever -- whoever's going to be moving into those
offices. Is it -- is it worth it to have the possibility of
increasing the overall cost? And I'm not talking about a lot
of money. I mean, you know, if they put $50,000 on there,
that would be too much. I don't know, what's 200 times 30?
You know, it -- it could be a substantial amount of money.
But, because we let them bid the number of days, we give them
a max. We may give them -- and I probably need to talk to
you about this. We may give them -- 18 months is not a long
132
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
time to do this job. That sounds like it is, but from the
time they move and shuffle and do all these other things they
have to do here, they could well be here that long. We would
probably suggest that we set 18 months, maybe 16 months, as a
max, and let them bid whatever they want to bid. If they
want to bid a year, fine. And then, the question is, do you
want liquidated damages to kick in beyond that, whatever time
it is?
The thing about penalties is they say, you know, you
can't do a penalty unless you do a bonus, and then it gets
complicated, and so everybody in the construction industry
pretty much stays away from penalties and bonuses.
MR. POLLARD: Sounds like a policy decision rather
than a legal one.
JUDGE DENSON: Right.
MR. POLLARD: What's the trade-off? If you have a
penalty provision, it's going to be reflected in your bids.
So, what are you going to do?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see the need far it in
this situation, because if they take an extra month -- as
long as the cost doesn't -- as long as the cost is capped
somewhat -- I mean, is capped, I don't see that it would
affect that too much. Of course, plus, I think, because a
lot of the delays in a major construction project -- a lot of
them are more due to weather than anything else. And the
133
1~
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
191'
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
building is already there. I mean, I guess there may be same
things that have a delay. If we get into two weeks of rain
when they get ready to roof it, that would obviously put them
behind schedule, but I --
JUDGE DENSON: Well, the contract calls for --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Weather delays.
JUDGE DENSON: -- weather delays.
MR. WALKER: Yeah. Like, if they had the wall torn
off and it started raining, we'd have to -- if they're inside
working, no, they don't get anything.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, if I was a
contractor -- I mean, you're not getting all your money until
you're done. You get to that point, that 10 percent
retainage and all, that you're not -- the longer you drag it
out, you're penalizing yourself, because you're not getting
paid.
MR. WALKER: Well, and there's that -- that thing I
mentioned to you today, the business about the overhead. I
mean, they set up to do it in so many months, 'cause if they
don't, they've got $8,000, $9,000, $10,000 a month overhead
for that project to keep it running. So, it's to their
benefit to get through with it, too. I mean, the only thing
you run into with guys in this business, they are busy right
now. You could get in a situation where, you know, they just
can't get their subs in to perform. Kind of like -- no, I
139
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
won't say that. But, anyway, you know, everybody's having
trouble getting people to do the work right now. And that
would be the worst situation you could get into, is that they
just literally can't pull in the people to get it done. And,
in that instance, they have no excuse for that. I mean, they
would be paying damages in a situation like that. So, it --
that would be what they would probably be more afraid of.
And the reason they're more afraid of it is because, with
most of these bidders being from out of town, they're having
to rely on local folks that -- that may not have a great
reputation for getting the job done on time, and so they
would be more likely -- hunting season again; here we go.
But, they would be more likely to -- to pump it up again,
depending on what their timeframe was, time of the year and
so forth.
What I hate to see you do, quite honestly, is spend
money -- you're already being penalized for having to use
out-of-town contractors. They're having to -- there is a
travel distance factor in there. I think the strongest
argument against liquidated damages is the fact that it would
cost you more money because of the time factor, the travel
factor, and the unknown factor of them having to deal with
people that they're not familiar with, because a lot of the
subs will probably be local.
MR. POLLARD: All I can suggest to you is, if you
135
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
111
12~
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
decide that you do want to do damages or have something over
their head, then I think liquidated damages is the way to go,
rather than having to go in and prove what your damages are.
Saves a lot of expense and makes the matter a lot easier to
handle at that time. However, whether or not to have a
penalty is -- sounds like a policy decision, and it will be
reflected in your original bids, apparently. So, whatever
you think.
JUDGE DENSON: And what Tom is saying is -- it's
legal in nature. For example, if the contractor gave us a
date that he was going to be complete with the contract, and
he failed to perform, then the -- if you had to file a
lawsuit for breach of contract, you would have to prove up in
court, by evidence, what damages Kerr County was suffering as
a result of nonconformance on the contractor's part, which
might be difficult to do. And that is the very reason why
liquidated damages are used in a contract, is it measures --
it gives a certain amount that both parties to the contract
agree on up front will be the amount of damages, so that's
not disputable in court. You don't go up and say, "I have to
prove it." You have it right there in the contract. But, I
still -- I'm not sure whether we really need it. There may
need to be something to prompt timely performance on the part
of the contractor, but I'd hate to have a provision in the
contract that would make him put in a fudge factor and make
136
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
-- make his bid more. But, it might be wise to have
something out there that maybe not will kick in the day after
he's supposed to have completion; maybe 30 days after
completion.
MR. WALKER: We have done those kind of contracts
also; that's very common.
MR. POLLARD: I think Jonathan's idea was real
good.
JUDGE DENSON: What's that?
MR. POLLARD: Some kind of retainage in there till
we finish the job. That's going to encourage them. That's
the carrot out there for them to finish it, without a
penalty.
JUDGE DENSON: There is a 10 percent statutory
retainage in all these contracts.
MR. POLLARD: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Coupled with the overhead.
And --
MR. WALKER: Yeah. But, there's one other thing I
guess I should point out, and I don't know what the exact
statistics are on this, but very seldom is -- even when
people have liquidated damages, when they enforce it -- I
think the City of Houston -- or the City of Kerrville has
probably enforced it maybe once or twice.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, and that's something else that
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
llj
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Jonathan said which is absolutely correct. In this
situation, there is not any real adverse consequences to come
to Kerr County by not having it completed on a certain date.
We're still going to be living in the same cramped quarters
that we were before.
MR. POLLARD: It's not like you have some leases
that are going to go into effect at the end of construction
and you've got damages because of that; it's not like that at
all.
MR. WALKER: See, I didn't know -- because of the
surplus space that we have downstairs, I didn't know if you
had in mind -- y'all have discussed, maybe, that -- the
possibility of needing that space to get somebody out of a
leased space. In this case, that's very easy to prove up. I
mean, that's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not -- we don't even have
the budget right now to finish those offices, so it would be
real hard to say they're ready to move in when the contracts
aren't even able to be completed.
JUDGE DENSON: So, if there's no motion for
liquidated damages, let's --
MR. WALKER: Just leave it out.
JUDGE DENSON: -- leave them out.
MR. WALKER: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE DENSON: All right. At this time, being
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8'
9~'
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
quarter to 2:00, October 13th, 1998, we'll close our
Commissioners Court meeting and go into Executive Session to
discuss pending and possible litigation, as posted. Tammy,
would you mind flipping the little sign on the door?
MS. MARQUART: I sure will.
(The open session was closed at 1:45 p.m., and an
Executive Session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. It looks like about 6 minutes
until 2:00, and we're in recess.
(Commissioners Court was adjourned at 1:54 p.m.)
139
C E R T I F I C A T E
2 The above and foregoing is a true and complete
3 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
9 Official Reporter of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
5 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
6 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 19th day of October,
7	1998.	
S		
9		
10		
		
		Kathy Banik
12		Certified Shorthand Reporter
13		
19		
15		
16		
17		
18		
19		
20		
21		
22		
23		
29		
25		
140