`~
__ .~
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
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
March 8, 1999
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, County Judge
H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 9
.•-~.
x ~4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,r„ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
/"'~
,	
/~r~~ 02,.E .~Q-• - - -' u~LOLu.a.
/+'"	
I N D E X	
March 7, 1999 PAGE
Visitor's Input	3
Commissioners' Comments	
Commissioner Williams	5
Commissioner Letz	6
Commissioner Griffin	7
Judge Henneke	g
1.1 aS76.tpay Bills	9
1 . 2 Budget Amendments oZ3783, a23'7~f	17
1.9,~574.~Read and Approve Minutes	19
1.5~3186Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	20
2.1,2378? Disposition of exterior walls	20
Delegation of authority - constr. decisions	24
2.2x.3788 Review of 1997-1998 Audit	27
2.3,x.3?d~Hurn Ban	33
2.4J3790 Resolution - Independent status, V.A. Medical	34
2.5.~5'79~ Resolution - timeline for providing wastewater	
treatment in unsewered areas of Kerr County	39
2.6 dS~ytFinal Plat of Shirley Addition	93
2.8a379,~ Annual Hids - Road ~ Hridge Department	97
2.15~I~~ Transfer of ownership - Reservation School bldg.	60
2.7.1,~79yFunding County share of Fall Branch Bridge	68
2.9oZS~9~ Cade Loop - Modification of Dedications	79
2.10a~~Copier lease budget amendment - County Atty.	81
2.llJdo~~ Corporate credit card for Gounty Officials	84
2.12.2+1747Rules of Procedure, Conduct, and Decorum	93
2.13.'~?4gLetter to 911 Board requesting periodic reports	96
2.19i1oN~ Purchase of court reporter computer & software	103
2.16 ~1np~ Request for police vehicle and radio -	
Constable, Precinct 2	lIl
3
r"`
/"'~
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
On Monday, March 8, 1999, at approximately 9:00 a.m., a
regular session of Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning, everybody. We'll
call this meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court to
order. It's 9 o'clock on Monday, March 8th, 1999. I believe
Commissioner Griffin has the invocation and the pledge this
morning.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, and it's my privilege
and pleasure to introduce Pastor John Green of the United
Methodist Church of Hunt, who will offer our prayer this
morning.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thank you very much, Pastor
Green.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this
to speak on an item not listed on
so at this time. Is there anyone
an item not listed on the regular
MR. BENHAM: Should I c
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
MR. BENHAM: Thank you.
time, any citizen wishing
the regular agenda may do
who would like to speak on
agenda? Yes, sir?
Mme up there?
My name's Joseph Benham,
.~"~
4
~'`
I^
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 I'm a Kerr County resident, and I'm also a former
president of a property owners' association, former school
board member, and former secretary of a water district, and
vice chairman of a volunteer fire department board. I
mention those things because I know what public service is
all about, and I commend you gentlemen for the work that you
do, and appreciate the time you put in on it. I know from
personal experience if you were compensated by the hour, you
probably would get something less than the minimum wage for
what -- for the time you put in, and I appreciate it.
I'd like to put in a word for continued support of our
library here. One of the things that my wife and I have been
most impressed with about the -- our move to Kerrville is the
quality of the City/County library. And, I know that money
is always tight when you're allocating the taxpayers' funds
and the property owners' funds, but I think this library is
an amazingly impressive facility for a community of this
size, a semi-rural community. I moved here from the Houston
area, a community of 55,000, and our library wasn't nearly as
good as the one you have here in a considerably smaller
community, so I just urge you, when you're putting your
budget together, to please keep the library in mind and the
importance of that library. They've been kind enough to put
me on the board of the Friends of the Library since I came
here, and I'm trying to do what I can to be of help to them

5
r,.,~
r",-
.^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
in that regard.
I've also got a couple of remarks about the V.A.
Hospital I'd like to make. I assume you'd rather have me do
that at that point in the agenda than now; is that correct?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, sir. We have your form and
we'll take this up at the appropriate time. Thank you for
your comments.
MR. BENHAM: Thank you for your time, gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there anyone else who'd like to
address the Court on an item that's not listed on the regular
agenda? If not, we'll move to the Commissioners' comments.
Mr. Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have none today, thank
you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a couple, Judge. I
happened to pick up, while visiting my son, a copy of the
Houston Chronicle yesterday, and I noticed a very compelling
article about energy companies getting thirsty, and it deals
with major energy companies across the United States who are
buying up water utilities. I know we've had some experience
with that locally, particularly in Center Point, where
AquaSource came into the Hill Country and purchased the Hill
Country Utilities, and probably is looking at others, as
6



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
well. I think it's an article that bears folks' reading and
understanding. And, Jonathan, I'll see that you get a copy
of it, 'cause it deals with the things that you're dealing
with. And, if anybody else wants a copy, all you need to do
is give me a holler, and I'll see that a copy is run for
that.
Secondly, there's an article in yesterday's Kerrville
Daily Times on the front page talking about the golf course
that is soon to be under way and construction at Commanche
Trace, which is fine. That's good. I just happened, while
patrolling the roads the other day, to swing into Commanche
Trace to see what's going on, and there is work going on
there dismantling the old stables and all sort of things out
there, so I suspect that we'll be hearing more from them
about their planning in the very near future, hopefully.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment regarding the
Constable Precinct 3 position. One of the things I've been
waiting on and I received last week is a determination from
the County Attorney regarding residency requirements. And,
his opinion is that whoever we appoint for that position has
to be a resident and have been a resident for six months in
Precinct 3, which is different than we had originally
thought. But, it will preclude a number of the applicants.
I think I have five, as I recall, but some of them are not --
7
.-.
r-~

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
may own property in the precinct, but are not a resident and
will not be able to be appointed based on that situation
alone. On timing, hopefully, I think, in the next two weeks
I hope to meet with those that are eligible under that
requirement, and I think I'll probably put it on the agenda
for our first meeting in April to fill -- fill that position
at that time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, that's it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Griffin?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just that the Ingram Annex
facility is in operation, and we've got business going on out
there. I think the computer is either in or will be in this
week for the -- for the D.P.S. -- or D.M.V. facility and
being able to issue license plates and so on. But, it looks
very good. And, once again, I'd like to thank Glenn Holekamp
and his crew for really turning to to get that facility
turned on, and Leonard Odom for helping us with some
patchwork on the -- in the parking areas we've got. Things
are looking pretty good. I'll be working on signage on that
this week and see if we can get a classy, proper sign up and
get all of that sort of thing finished off, and perhaps some
signage with the Highway Department indicating where the
Annex is, as well.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: May I make a comment on
8
.''~
r"`~

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
that, Larry? I'm glad -- I'm just so happy that that's going
on out there, that you're seeing -- you're seeing different
departments coming together to provide a service for the
taxpayers. And that is just so neat, and that's the way this
thing's supposed to work. Thank you for providing that for
us.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, good. That's Paula
and others that really had a lot to do with that, and I think
it will be a big help to the -- to the operation of the
courthouse here, as well, particularly when we've got parking
problems with construction.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Vezy good, thank you. I have a
couple things. First, I want to remind everyone that our --
the second meeting in March is scheduled to be an evening
meeting, which will be at 6:30 here in the Commissioners
Court. I want to remind everyone of that scheduling change.
And, also, to the Commissioners, I think we all need to think
about different boards and groups to which we are liaison and
see if it might be appropriate to invite some of those groups
to come and make a presentation to the Court as to what
activities they are involved with, what they're looking for
in the coming year. I think that evening meeting is
particularly appropriate for us to have reports from the
different groups we're involved with around the county.
The second thing I want to do is I'm very pleased to
9
1"~

i"^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
announce that the Tivy High School Mock Trial Team won the
state mock trial championship for the second year in a row
this weekend in Dallas. They will be going to St. Louis the
second weekend in May to compete in the national
championship. It's a very significant accomplishment by
these kids, and it's due in large part to the encouragement
and instruction and advice they get from Judge Ables and
Judge Prohl here in the courthouse. And, both judges give an
incredible amount of their own time and effort to help these
kids master the art and science of mock trial, and they just
flat steamrollered them up in Dallas. So, we ought to be
very proud of those kids.
If there's nothing else, let's turn to the approval
agenda. First, the bills. Does anyone have any questions
regarding the bills?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: None here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: None.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: None.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I have a couple. Page 2, under
County Court at Law, we have Mr. Duncan for travel expense.
Do we know what that is, Tommy?
(Discussion off the record.}
MR. TOMLINSON: It's mileage to Austin for his --
it's a hearing on this House Bill 662. He was to testify at
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 hearing. It's a -- concerns a bill that's -- commits
counties in the state, like Harris County, to levy a
transaction fee on collections.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we have -- Jon, are you and
Buster aware of any policy on County employees testifying in
Austin? Is that something that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. If I was going there, I
would have told you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we approve or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What travel? Is it out of
the County Court at Law travel, out of the Judge's travel?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would view it as -- you know,
that department has discretion, I guess, as to -- it's coming
out of his budget. I think if you're going -- I agree that
I'm a little concerned about anyone going, representing the
County's interest and not having, you know, some authority to
do so. But the other side of it is, I mean, it's County
Court at Law's budget.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think it's especially --
the way I understand it, it's not specifically this County's
interest; it's just for informational purposes for that
committee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But whenever you're testifying
before a congressional committee or a state or federal --
11
,~-^
r"`

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
whatever, you're still -- what you're saying is having an
impact on legislation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That you believe will be
favorable to Kerr County, as well as others.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no idea what this
legislation is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, there's no question --
Mr. Duncan actually wrote the -- wrote the bill and took it
to Hilderbran, and Hilderbran has introduced it. It has
officially come out there now and is on the floor to be
worked on. And, it's a -- he's got huge support -- statewide
support for one little old bill. It's a good bill.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Another question I have, under the
216th District Court there on page 2 is $2,500 for Harold
Danford for representing Mark Shaw. I guess he was
court-appointed to represent Mr. Shaw?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Was Mr. Shaw indigent or --
MR. TOMLINSON: He was -- I know he was appointed.
I don't know the details, but I did ask that question,
myself. That's the answer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to have the answer.
That's a great question.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone else have a problem
with --
----1
12
,~'^

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- the County paying for an
attorney to represent an elected official that's -- that's,
you know, subject to criminal process?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Good question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If he's indigent, he has a
right to this attorney, right?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Certainly. I mean, everyone has a
right to an attorney in a criminal proceeding if they can't
afford to pay fox one themselves. It's my recollection Mx.
Shaw was on the County payroll during the time that he was
undergoing this process. So --
COMMISSIONER LET2: Who makes the determination,
the 216th Court? Or --
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's a good question. They're
the ones who appointed him, so they're the ones who probably
should have looked into the question of his financial ability
to pay. Perhaps we ought to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hold that one.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- hold that one and see where we
-- what we can find out about that one. Another question I
have is -- going over even further, page 15, we have $2,510
for Mr. Jenschke on work done on Weatherby Road. At the same
time, on page 12, we're paying Schwarz Construction Company
$31,920.50 for Weatherby Road. What did Mr. Jenschke do that

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
wasn't covered by the contract with Schwarz Construction
Company?
MR. ODOM: Either -- Judge, I don't know whether --
he lust did a sealcoat for us, but I don't know whether that
was a bill for that, or we leased the grid roller to crush
the rocks out there which we couldn't -- couldn't break up,
so that may be for the leased grid roller. I don't know what
that bill was.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, he was doing work on Weatherby
Road?
MR. ODOM: No, sir, Mr. Schwarz was doing the work.
We borrowed -- you know, we had to lease a piece of equipment
from Joe -- from Joe Ed that Mr. Schwarz used on the lob.
That may have been the lease for the grid roller.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Why did we lease the thing if it
was for Schwartz? Why didn't Schwartz lease it?
MR. ODOM: Because he didn't have that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That wasn't part of his contract
that he --
MR. ODOM: That weighed 30,000 pounds, and so we
didn't have a piece of equipment to pull it, so we used his
dozer to pull that. Mr. Schwarz did not have a grid roller.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And that wasn't part of the
contract with Mr. Schwarz --
MR. ODOM: No, sir.
14
r^

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- that he had the equipment that
he needed?
MR. ODOM: No, sir. That particular item he did
not have, sir. Mr. -- Mr. Jenschke had that. And Mr.
Jenschke lust got through sealcoating the road, so I don't
know whether -- whether or not that was that bill or not. I
didn't see the bill, but it may have been -- it's probably
the grid roller.
MR. JOHNSTON: Both of these contractors are on the
annual bid for labor.
MR. ODOM: And equipment, if we don't have it.
MR. JOHNSTON: We can draw from whatever they have
to do contract labor lobs.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You say an "annual bid".
That means an annual bid for the hourly rate?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Were these both done on an
hourly basis?
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it wasn't -- Schwarz didn't
bid for the project?
MR. ODOM: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, this wasn't a contract that

15
~`^

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
he bid for?
MR. ODOM: No. And he had the equipment for most
of it, plus there was a -- that's right, his dozer was there.
We also got Jenschke's dozer out there to make some
scorifying, because his dozer would not go through that rock.
So, we had Jenschke there with the dozer to get the ditch
line, and plus I used the grid roller. So, that may have
been -- it may have been lust on the dozer and not grid
roller; I'm not quite sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just as a note -- I guess a
comment to the Court, this has been a little bit in my mind
since I was on the Court. We get very few bias for
contractors, and of those we do get, really, Edmund Jenschke
is the only one that has a large amount of large equipment in
this county, or even if you're talking about any county
around here, other than going to Bexar County; if you go to
any of the surrounding counties. So, I think that we do -- I
think Road and Bridge Department does a real good lob on
trying to encourage smaller contractors to bid, such as
Schwarz and, I know, James Ray at times. And sometimes they
do -- and we do approve their bids with their hourly rates
always, but, almost by necessity, because of the equipment
required that Edmund Jenschke has, they're going to be our
primary contractor, unless we're going to do -- it's lust a
necessity. And, their rates are fairly fair, but they're the

16



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
only game in town.
MR. ODOM: Only game in town. We've encouraged
others to do it, Judge. And, what I have is two packages.
Today at 10 o'clock you'll see, hopefully, I -- you know,
he's bid, but I have a package for larger equipment that we
know that we're going to be in rock or something that --
that's going to take bigger equipment to do; i.e., like
Schwarz gets in there and he can't -- that little 650 John
Deere cannot cut that rock. He broke two shanks and he said,
"Glenn. I can't move it." So, we were -- unfortunately, we
were in the driveway trying to fix it, so we asked Joe Ed to
bring in a dozer and then the grid roller to crush up some
aggregate, and Schwarz used the grid with his little 650 to
pull it; it weighed 30,000 pounds. I don't -- you know,
little 930 loaders, the biggest loader I got, lust -- you
know, it's just not big enough for 30,000 pounds.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Do I hear a motion to
approve the bids -- the bills, including Indigent Health,
except for the bill to Harold Danford for $2,500?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I so move.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve the bills,
including Indigent Health, except for the $2,500 attorney fee
bill for Harold Danford for representation of Mark Shaw. Is
17
r"`

<^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are we going to do with
that bill? Is Tommy going to research and come back or what?
Are we just going to lay it down? We don't want to go out
and find out the -- who's going to do that?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think the the Judge is here
today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The District Judge?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll inquire about it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All in favor, raise your right
hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget amendments.
Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have two today. One is for the
Ag Barn. It's between Supplies line item and Telephone in
the Ag Barn facility. And, based on my projection, I think
we need to move this $683.20 into the Telephone line item on
it out of Supplies to finish the year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have a question. Why
18
e^.
~``
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
-- how can we be so underbudgeted on telephone? What was the
-- what created this?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't remember. I mean, I don't
know why we underbudgeted $960 in Telephone. I just --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 'Cause current expense is
larger than the whole budget line item for the year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, no. The -- the $589 is
estimated to cover the rest of the year. The current expense
is $98.20.
MR. TOMLINSON: Current expense is $98.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we -- I think we messed up.
MR. TOMLINSON: Apparently.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only way to say it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: Just one of those things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve the budget
amendment for the Ag Barn. Any further discussion? All in
favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
~'`
19
~""`
~"".
e..,.,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Second one is for Justice of
the Peace Precinct 9, to move $27.50 into his Bond line item
out of Miscellaneous. He had -- this is a bond for his
employee. Apparently, we only budgeted $200 and his -- his
bond alone was $177, so we need it for the other bond.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve the budget
amendment for J.P. 4. Any further discussion? If not, all
in favor, raise your right hand.
{The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Mr. Auditor, do we
have any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Has everyone had a chance to
read the minutes? If so, I'll entertain a motion to approve
the minutes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we waive reading and
zo

/"
r""
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approve the minutes. Any further discussion? If not, all in
favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.}
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Monthly reports.
Anybody have any questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve all three
of them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by Commissioner
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve the
three monthly reports we received. Any further discussion?
If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.}
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. We'll now move to
the consideration agenda. First item we'll take up is 2.1,
consider and discuss disposition of exterior wall panels from
courthouse annex and delegation of authority to County Judge
to make decisions regarding construction issues. This is on
the agenda because, after talking to Commissioner Baldwin, I
found out that there had been discussion in the previous
Court about what to do with the panels. Since it was
_ _ --- -- _ ------- - -r -
21
~^

~.
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
discussed at the court level, I felt it necessary to bring it
back to the Court.
MS. HARRIS: Christina Harris with Mike Walker's
office. I'm going to hand out something here to you. This
is just a reminder of the alternates that were bid on and the
ones that were accepted and not accepted. As you can see, j
Alternates 2 and 5 were the ones that were accepted by the
Court, and the one that's in question today is Alternate No.
5, which is removing the precast panels and delivering them
to the site to be used by the County. The contractor has
made it pretty clear that he would just as soon give $8,500
back to the County in the first change order than have to
deal with those panels. He's a little bit afraid of damaging
them, and there's quite a bit of question about how -- the
methodology of pulling the panels down. So, that's really
what the issue is, is lust whether or not you really want to
keep the panels to be reused or lust let the contractor get
rid of them.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, the idea would be we
would get an $8,500 credit?
MS. HARRIS: That's right. And the credit would
show up in the first change order, which --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
MS. HARRIS: -- is being -- will be forthcoming.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. I'd like to ask
_r
22


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
Mr. Longnecker what his recommendation might be, since he is
our consultant, and see if he'd advise us, make a
recommendation. I assume -- there he is.
MR. LONGNECKER: I'm Keith Longnecker, and, it's my
recommendation that trying to save these panels would be a
rather expensive deal. Not only will you have to use the
$8,500 to take them out and and store them, but they will
have to be stacked in a very delicate way. They would have
to be spread out over a very large area. And then to
rehandle them into a new building, your cost could exceed $12
to $19 a square foot, which is what the panels would make up,
and this is going beyond the price of a good brick wall or
something other than the panels, and you could certainly --
they would be very expensive to reuse, is my opinion. And it
would speed up the process if we could simply remove them and
discard them into a sanitary fill somewhere, and then save
the $8,500, which could be used to the advantage of that
first change order. I don't see that they are that good of
panels to try to save. The contractors --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do we have anyone who may
have a requirement that we know of, or even a possibility for
that sort of thing? The reason I ask the question is
because, if we don't, that tends to -- to me, to favor what
you're saying. Save $8,500 and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason it was set up this

23
r.-..
/'`

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
way originally was that Mike Walker -- it was probably his
idea, I think -- that if the County ever had any need for
them -- and the need that may be out there somewhere in the
future would be a facility out at the Ag Barn. But, after
hearing this, you know, there is nothing concrete. It was
just kind of a --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: "Maybe" thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, maybe we could use them.
But, after hearing this, if the cost of keeping them is going
to exceed a new wall, I certainly think that would be rather
ridiculous to do that, and they may not work anyway.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I'd be in favor of -- I'll
make a motion to dispose of these exterior wall panels to
wherever the contractor so chooses and receive an $8,500
credit in the change order.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz and
seconded by Commissioner Griffin that we dispose of the
exterior wall panels and return an $8,500 credit in the first
change order from the contractor. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to comment.
I appreciate you bringing this back to the Commissioners
Court. These kind of issues are the issues that need to come
before the public.
-- ---...- - - - -- -- ----T
29
,~'.~
~^
1
2 hand.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: All in favor, raise your right
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.}
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
{No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: The second part of this agenda item
is to try to determine if we should delegate authority to
deal with these minor construction issues to the County Judge!
or anyone else on the Court. I think we're going to have a
plethora of these as they come up. And my personal feeling
is that, so long as they don't have any adverse financial
impact on the County, that we need to have one person who can
act on these, as opposed to having to bring it to the Court
and perhaps delay timely resolution of these minor issues.
Anyone have any thoughts on that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my comments or thoughts
are -- is the -- I thought the intent was to put this in the
contract with the consultant, with Keith. That contract was
signed last week and I did not see it, and I think the -- I
worked on the draft of it and don't know what was in the
final one. But the thought, I thought, was to delegate all
of that, where if -- as long as Keith was comfortable with
it, I mean in writing, to him, and -- I'm a little
uncomfortable to let anyone on the Court, whether it be a
Judge or any Commissioner, be responsible for it, just

25

r"``
/'~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
because of the historical problems and that, you know, we've
had with construction on the jail. And there were two
Commissioners that were in charge of that project and got
really criticized unduly for it, and they were trying to do
their best. So, I think it's unfair to have any member of
the Court singled out, and I think it's
try to -- if it's not specifically said
Mr. Longnecker to, you know, modify his
addendum to it to specifically give him
And, if he is uncomfortable with a part
there's no cost -- if he has a question
it back to the Court.
better, really, to
in the contract, for
contract or add an
authority on items.
icular item where
or something, bring
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that remains in this
contract. This came up in the context that he brought the
issue in and said, "What do we do?" Well, I mean, the way to
handle it is really as you've outlined. If we've given him
the authority, let him make the decision. And if he doesn't
want to make the decision, then the question becomes, Do we
bring it to the full Court, put it on the agenda and delay a
decision for a couple of weeks, or how do we do it? That's
really the purpose of the discussion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if he's uncomfortable
making a decision, the full Court should make the decision.
And I think, as an example, the one that's on the agenda
here, I think that was a Court decision because -- and it

26
r^


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
should have been. I mean, it's a -- just because, as an
example, if, you know, Commissioner Williams and I had been
really on the ball and had things planned out at the Ag Barn
for the future and there was a use for them, you may not have
been aware of them if you were the one-person delegate, or
Commissioner Baldwin or anybody else. And I -- you know, I
really don't think there should should be that many -- if
he's uncomfortable making it, I think the full Court should
make the decision. And that may require, I understand, some
additional meetings.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I'll tell you right now, I'd
be loathe to call an additional meeting just to make a
construction decision.
MR. LONGNECKER: My understanding of my agreement,
as I have read it -- I don't have a signed copy back yet, but
I would be making the decisions, provided they didn't require
changes in the monetary sums of the contract. And, if there
was any disagreement between myself, the architect, and
contractor, that we would bring it back to the Court and let
the Court decide for us.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's clearly the way we'd
like for it to work, so why don't we just leave it that way
and stand on the contract?
MR. LONGNECKER: That"s where I stand with it at
this time.
27
~"`~
~."`
r'`
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 HENNEKE: Okay, excellent. All right, we'll
move on to Item 2.2, which is review of the 1997/1998 audit
by Pressler Thompson and Company.
MR. TOMLINSON: I have -- Doug Sundberg, a partner
of the firm, is here today to summarize the body of the audit
and answer any questions that you might have.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Mr. Sundberg?
MR. SUNDBERG: Good morning, gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How are you doing?
MR. SUNDBERG: Just fine. Have y'all had a chance
to -- y'all had a chance to review this, so I want to just
take a few minutes to touch on a couple things, and if you
have any questions, I'll try and answer them. Starting on
number -- page number 2, which is our Auditor's Report, this
year we have a -- a qualified opinion, as opposed to an
unqualified opinion, for one reason or another. And that is
explained in the -- in the third paragraph there regarding
the Year 2000 issue. The Governmental Accounting Standards
Board came out and required all governmental entities to put
a note in their financial statements regarding the Year 2000
issue, what you're doing in that regards and where you stand.
That is -- that note is Note (i) on page 32 of your report.
That was not a problem. But when they did that, the American
Institute of CPA's came out and said, That's fine; if you're
going to put them in there, we're going to make them qualify
28
~.
~,"'~
f"'`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the opinion, because we don't feel there's enough audit
evidence to say it's actually working or not working until we
get there. So, that is -- we're kind of stuck with that
qualified opinion at this point until we get to the -- to the
Year 2000. But that's the only reason a qualified opinion is
in there this year; otherwise, you would have got a clean
opinion as in the past.
On page 6 is the balance sheet, which shows your assets,
liabilities, and fund balances for all the governmental fund
types, for proprietary funds, proprietary fund being the
operation of the Juvenile Detention Center out there, the
agency fund, and your account groups for your fixed assets
and long-term debt, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doug?
MR. SUNDBERG: Yes?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you take me to the
juvenile facility, please?
MR. SUNDBERG: Yes. It's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm on page 6.
MR. SUNDBERG: Okay. Actually, that is the first
column on page 7, proprietary-type fund type.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There it is. Okay.
MR. SUNDBERG: That's the balance sheet for the
Juvenile Detention Center.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
29
r"`
/^
r""
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. SUNDBERG: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does -- on that column, the
$34,000 across the page, that's the, I guess, quote, profit?
You know?
MR. SUNDBERG: Well, that's their fund balance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the fund balance.
MR. SUNDBERG: It says Retained Earnings, but it's
not a -- but it's -- in our terms here, it's basically the
fund balance.
~I
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's the --
MR. SUNDBERG: It's the accumulation of earnings ~
and so forth over the last year and a half or whatever that's
been in operation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's an accumulated number?
MR. SUNDBERG: Right. I'll show you that when we
get back here a few pages, I'll show you how that came about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
MR. SUNDBERG: Okay? On the next page -- on pages
8 and 9 is the statement of revenues, expenditures, and
changes in fund balance, the first column being the General
Fund. Total revenues of $6,307,000, and total expenditures
of $6,879,000, and other financing sources of $11,000, so you
had excess expenditures over revenue this year of $583,000,
which reduced your fund balance down to $1,636,000. Now,
that -- that deficit for the year was budgeted for, as you
30


/"`
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know, and so it was not unexpected.
The other three columns on the next pages are the
combination of all the special revenue funds, debt service,
and capital project funds that are detailed out later in the
report. The next several pages are your various funds,
budget versus actual. Unless someone has questions on those,
I'll -- we'll skip through those. You can look at those, how
you compare to the budget for the current year. You had
budgeted a deficit for the year of $633,000, actually ended
up with a $583,000 deficit for the year. Okay.
Then, if you turn back to page 18, which will address
your question regarding proprietary fund, Juvenile Detention
Center, this is a statement of revenues and expenses and
changes in retained earnings for that facility. We had
revenues for the year of $1,716,000. We had total operating
expenses of $1,278,000. We had other operating income and
expense of $222,000, so we had a net profit for the year of
$215,000 out there. We had a deficit fund balance at the
beginning of the year, according to what we have here, of
$493,000.
Now, you'll notice right below that, there's a prior
period adjustment, that $262,000. What happened, as we came
into this year, we found out in -- in trying to balance
things out, that we had gotten an erroneous figure from the
mortgage company in the prior year. We're trying to
31
T


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
accumulate all this information for the first year and get it
all, and we had trouble obtaining all the information
necessary, and so that -- that figure had to be adjusted this
year. So, rather than distort the current year operations,
we put it down here to get things in balance to where they're
supposed to be. That gave you -- ended up giving you the
$39,969 fund balance retained earnings for the facility as of
September 30. And, then the following page is the analysis
of -- of cash flow for this facility for the year.
The only other thing, flip back to page 32, Note (i)
there is the note I mentioned previously regarding the Year
2000 issue. These items are being addressed, and in talking
with Tommy, you're on the right track in getting those items
taken care of and looked at. And the following note there is
that prior period adjustment that I had dust mentioned. The
rest of the report is -- is combining schedules for all the
special revenue and agency funds and so forth. I won't go
through each one of those.
The last two pages -- well, the last two, starting on
page 80 and 82, are the governmental reports we need to put
in there regarding your internal controls and compliances and
so forth. Those are both clean opinions for this current
year, and there's nothing on the findings and question costs
schedule back there. The only other item, then, is the
management letter that you were given, which there's some
32
~,"`.
/^

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comments we made and observations during the current year. I
would like to add lust one comment, one addition to that, and
that none of the items mentioned in there do we consider any
material weaknesses in any of your system or anything. Just
observations we made that you may want to consider in your
operation. That's -- anybody have any questions?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anybody have any questions or
comments of Mr. Sundberg?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very well done, sir. Thank
you, good and faithful servant.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No comments. Looks good. I
think -- I congratulate Tommy again for doing a good lob of
keeping our records straight, and Barbara.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Barbara.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have to approve it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Accept it, I guess.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll move it be accepted as
presented.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we accept
the annual financial report for fiscal year ending September
30, 1998, by Pressler Thompson and Company. Are there any
further comments or discussion? If not, all in favor, raise

33
~``
/^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
your right hands.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Report is adopted. Thank you, Mr.
Sundberg.
MR. SUNDBERG: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Appreciate you.
MR. SUNDBERG: You bet.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moving on, the next item is 2.3,
consider and discuss resolution for burn ban. Actually, this
resolution would be to extend the existing burn barn, which
we enacted by emergency session last Tuesday, I believe.
We've had a little moisture over the weekend. What do you
all think about continuing the burn ban?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion we extend the
burn ban two weeks.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion to extend the burn ban for
two weeks, moved by Commissioner Letz, seconded by
Commissioner Baldwin. Does anyone else have any discussion?
If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)

34

i"~
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 HENNEKE: Motion is carried; burn ban is
extended for an additional two weeks.
The next agenda item is 2.4, which is consider and
discuss resolution supporting independent status for the
Kerrville V.A. Medical facility. The resolution is in your
packet. This resolution really stems from the meeting that
was held at the Municipal Auditorium, sponsored by
Congressman Lamar Smith and attended by standing room only of
veterans who are very concerned about the status of the V.A.
Medical facility and their ability to continue to receive
first-class medical services at that facility. In preparing
the resolution, it was my intent to support the Veterans
Council and the veterans in their efforts to require the
federal government to live up to the commitment to these
people. If the resolution is adopted, it's my intention to
send it not only to our congressional delegation, but also to
all the county judges of all the counties in our cachement
area, encourage them to do something similar and forward it
on to Washington.
Mr. Benham, I know that you have requested an
opportunity to speak to us. At this time, if you would come
forward, sir?
MR. BENHAM: You've essentially covered what I was
going to cover, which isn't in your resolution. I support
the resolution 100 percent. I am a veteran. I do carry,
~""`.
35
/"``
/'`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
still, a 10-percent disability, and I was a patient at that
hospital in the 1950's, after the Korean War. In those days,
it was known locally as the Legion Hospital; I don't know if
you still call it that. I got excellent care there. Every
veteran that I know who has since been in that hospital or
was in there when I was there got excellent care. And, I
urge you to do everything you can to restore the full medical
and surgical care there, rather than letting it be turned
into a nursing home/Alzheimer's facility. Nursing home and
Alzheimer's facilities are very important; I may be in one
myself one of these days, but -- my children may think I
belong there now, but the fact is that we need more than lust
nursing home and Alzheimer's facilities here. And I was
delighted to hear from your Honorable County Judge that he is
encouraging the -- your counterparts in the other counties in
the Hill Country to do the same.
In the prepared remarks which I'll give to you
gentlemen, I -- I advocated that, and I hope that Mayor Low
will do exactly the same thing with all the other
municipalities in the Hill Country. As I say in my final
paragraph here, Benjamin Franklin got it right the first time
when he told the Continental Congress that, "Gentlemen, we
must all hang together or we will surely hang separately."
If we hang together, we may keep our Veterans Hospital. If
we leave each county to -- if each county simply were to
,i``
36


.~
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
allow the others to treat it as their problem and not a
regional problem, I think our chances are much less great.
I hope you'll forgive me and won't be offended if I
point out that there is one typographical error in Paragraph
3 of the enactment. I'm a newspaperman by trade, and an old
editor can't resist. The word "its" does not require an
apostrophe in there, but other than that, it's a great
resolution. I hope I didn't offend you by pointing that out.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We can always use help with our
editing.
MR. BENHAM: With your permission --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And always remember that the
Judge is a lawyer; I don't know if he can be offended.
MR. BENHAM: Well, I would certain think that --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I take offense at that.
MR. BENHAM: I would certainly assume there's a
secretary somewhere that it could be blamed on.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Never. Never.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Spell-check.
MR. BENHAM: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for
your time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I also agree; very
well-done resolution. Only thing I would add to it, if I
could, was not only to restore the medical facility to
_~
37
r
/^

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Kerrville, but bring Audie Murphy to Kerrville. If we're
going to roll anything together, Audie Murphy needs to roll
into Kerrville.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That may be a bit overreaching.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I understand.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would like to make a
motion that we adopt this resolution as written, with the
typo correction. And, I fully support it, of course, and I
think you're to be commended, Judge Henneke, for taking the
initiative to get in touch with the other county judges and
county courts in the area, because I think that will make a
-- make a significant difference. And I would like to make
the motion that we adopt the resolution.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we adopt the
resolution in support of independent status for Kerrville
V.A. Medical facility. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- one other comment is that
-- Commissioner Griffin made his motion before I could even
get a word in.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- again, I additionally
support this. And, to the other county judges in the area,
we are -- this is, I believe, the second or third resolution
38
r~

r^'~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that we have passed regarding this facility. I think we need
to continue doing it on a somewhat regular basis, just so we
can keep this in the forefront and keep the -- these
resolutions going in, into Washington. We've had pretty good
success previously with the other county judges. I do know
we have two new county judges around; I know Judge Sansom in
Real County, and I can't think of the new judge in Edwards
County. But, you know, they probably may not be as familiar
with that situation as the other ones are, but we've had
pretty good support, I think. The -- again, the City of
Kerrville has taken a great leadership role, as well as the
Veterans Council.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one comment, Judge.
The last paragraph of the resolution, I think, is an
important part. After the big meeting last week, it's pretty
obvious that we -- Hill Country Veterans Council, working in
conjunction with the Chamber, managed to get the attention of
people like Mr. Coronado and Dr. Chong, who were both
present. If they didn't understand the emphasis that they
were trying to place, they -- they are severely challenged in
that regard. But, I think the emphasis now shifts to
Washington, and I think we have to make that important --
that point. And we'd do well, then, to resolve we are making
that point, but the emphasis truly is shifting to Washington.
And it was pointed out at the meeting that the folks -- some
39
,~-~
r""
r^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the people in the administration are the ones who are
initiating a lot of these budget changes, which then trickle
down and have an effect on us locally, and I think that
everybody who intends to get involved and help in pursuing
this issue has to know that pressure now has to shift to
Washington.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If not,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries; resolution is
adopted. Let's move on now to agenda Item 2.5, consider and
discuss approving resolution urging establishment of a
timeline to provide wastewater treatment in unsewered areas
of Kerr County. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, we've put together
this resolution for what I thought was a really obvious
reason. We've had discussions initiated by the Headwaters
Underground Water Conservation District involving this Court,
the City Council, U.G.R.A., and any and all other interested
parties in Kerr County with the one stated goal of attempting
or wanting to achieve sewage treatment facilities for the
unsewered areas of Kerr County, to the extent that that's
possible. And, what seems to me to be a reasonable follow-up
90
/'`

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
to the City of Kerrville's enactment of its resolution,
Resolution 9-118, which they enacted in January of this year,
seems to be to try to urge our Court to try to urge us -- the
establishment of a timeline. It's one thing for us all to
say we are willing, ready, and able to do these things. It's
quite another thing to determine when we begin, and hopefully
establish a line at which point we will finish. And, that
seems to be the dragging or the slippage involved in
everybody's resolve to do this; we haven't established a
timeline.
This Court can't establish a timeline, but we certainly
can encourage the City of Kerrville and Upper Guadalupe River
Authority to get their heads together and -- and begin that
process. U.G.R.A. has a 24- and 48-month plan. It just
doesn't have a particular starting point that the 24-month
meter begins to run, and I think that's what this is all
about. And I would urge the Commissioners to give their
consideration to it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good idea. I
think it's something that -- you know, we're in an awkward
position, because we really don't have a lot of direct
control over this, but we certainly can do what we can to
encourage the -- I guess my -- in my mind, there's probably
two public entities and one possible private entity, being
the City of Kerrville and U.G.R.A. to take on this problem,
,~'R
91
i"~
~'.
/"~
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
and Aqua Source being a private company saying they will be
-- you know, consider doing this in this area. You may want
to add them in there, or private enterprise. It's general --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I mentioned the private
water companies involved somewhere up in the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think the -- one of the
things that we can really -- in addition to doing this, is to
encourage this -- a solution to this problem is to, you know,
continue to participate with Headwaters' quarterly meeting.
I think they're coming around about quarterly right now that
Dean Mitchell has decided to do these. I think it's
important for us to do that, and our attendance probably does
more to get this process going than anything else, and
contributing at those meetings.
The only change I would -- you know, would offer, you
know, is I think it might be better to -- as opposed to
specifically mentioning Center Point, Guadalupe Heights,
Kerrville South, and Ingram, maybe be just a little more
general; say areas of Kerr County, you know, that have --
each with significant population densities. Just because
there are those areas, but our concern is the other areas --
I can't think of the name of the subdivision across from The
Woods that's a very -- you know, highly, densly-populated
subdivision, and there may be some others, some out towards
Comfort in Westwood, that we may want to try to encourage.
--7
42

r''`

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
So, you know, I'd rather encompass too much, as opposed to,
you know, being real specific on the area that we're talking
about targeting. That would be the only change that I would
offer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It does kind of speak to
that in the last "Whereas." U.G.R.A., in its 29/48 plan,
will serve areas of Kerr County not presently served. I
really like that language there, because that -- you know,
even if Center Point and Ingram did their little thing, that
language still covers that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can accommodate that,
Commissioner Letz, just by changing the first "Whereas" to
read, "in areas of Kerr County with significant population
density." Take out the word "four" and take out the
parentheses.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be great. I
appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have no problem with
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You make a motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I make a motion that the
resolution be adopted as amended in the first "Whereas."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we adopt the resolution
93
P'`

/^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that urges establishment of a timeline, as amended. Any
further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right
hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries and the resolution,
as amended, is adopted. Next item is 2.6, consider final
plat of Shirley Addition, Precinct 4. Commissioner Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Franklin is going to talk to
this one.
MR. JOHNSTON: This plat is in the City's E.T.J.,
and it has passed the City Planning and Zoning. We have the
City Council -- it's been approved, meets all the County
requirements as far as size and frontage. However, we have
not had the mylar back from the City yet with all the
signatures on it. I don't know if you have any questions for
Lee. He has the specifics on that. We, in the past, have
sometimes passed plats pending, you know, signatures, and
then bring it in later.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There are no issues here.
MR. JOHNSTON: No issues.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There's no open issues. The
City has approved it; we just haven't gotten the mylar back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only question on this is --
44
f'"`


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 it -	- you know, nothing do with	the -	- the request here
at all;	it's more of the procedures.	Did	we look at this
earlier?	I don't recall looking --	this	is the first time I
recall looking at this.
MR. JOHNSTON: The City E.T.J. plat -- typically,
it passes their scrutiny first; then it comes to us only one
time, final --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As I recall, we changed that in
our subdivision rules because of -- because it came out of
Saddlewood two years ago when they -- the City approved it
and this Commissioners Court barely -- I guess on a 3-2 vote,
voted to approve it, because they did not comply with our
regulations, whether or not they complied with City's
regulations or not. You know, I think it was later
determined that we were correct, that they did not comply on
the roads with the -- with the City's own regulation, so I'm
real concerned about us getting these things after the fact.
I really am. You know, the --
	MR. JOHNSTON:	So they should	submit them to us at
the	same time they submit them to the P	& Z?
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: At least w	here they're going.
I d	on't know about the	fact that it's in	the E.T.J., because
I -	- I mean, Commanche	Trace is another	one under the City.
We	did work -- I think	you presented the	concept plan to us,
but	that concept has greatly changed, as	I think Commissioner
45

.^

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
Williams alluded to earlier. We need to be aware of that,
because they are subject to our regulations, whether they're
in the E.T.J. or not.
MR. JOHNSTON: I would say it makes sense that the
concept plan --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is my only comment; we
need to make sure that we're given an opportunity to review
these, because it puts this Court in a very awkward position
if we disagree with something after P & Z approves it, and
we're at the final 11th hour. I mean, we'd cause a great
deal of expense to the developer if we change anything at
this point. It really makes it almost impossible for us to
change things. That's my only comment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And my only comment is,
Judge, I don't mind -- I think that we should approve these
kind of things, and then when -- when they get through with
their plat, to bring it in here for your signature that --
that everyone -- everyone has signed off before it comes to
you. You're the very final -- final signature. If there is
one missing, you know, I would hope that we would not be
approving anything that U.G.R.A. or some other agency may not
agree with.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's --
MR. JOHNSTON: That's our present policy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. I was just hoping to

96
/'~


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
remind some folks.
MR. JOHNSTON: I'll notify alI the surveyors of
this, make sure that they're aware of the new --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think one just got notified.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where does that leave this
one?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, with -- and I support
the comments of both of the -- that have been made. And,
with that in mind, I would make a motion that we approve this
plat for today.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And authorize County Judge to sign
same after the -- the signatures of all other parties have
been obtained?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So amended.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve the -- the
final plat of Shirley Addition, Precinct 9, and authorize
County Judge to sign the plat at such time as all other
signatures required on that plat are obtained. Is there any
further discussion? If not, all in favor, please raise your
right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
47
r"`
r"`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. At this time,
we're going to skip to Item 2.8, which we have advertised for
10 o'clock, which is the opening of annual bids for
aggregate, oil, culverts, base, equipment by the hour, lease
of backhoe and purchase of breaker. Do we have any bids?
(Bids handed to Judge Henneke.)
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: We have a number of bids,
including, I'm informed by the County Clerk's office, one
that came in from Edmund Jenschke, Inc., an hourly equipment
bid. It was received today. The note says they said the
person that had this was in a car wreck Friday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretty poor excuse, but
okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So the question becomes, do we want
to consider this as one of the bids?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm in favor of accepting as
many as we can get.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks like we have a lot.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We have a few.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll be here a while on those.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's good.

98
~^
,•^
f""
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, you're doing a good
job.
MR. ODOM: We sent out 32 packets on everything to
try to get as many people as we could get.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The Judge is going to ask for a
little help here, since I haven't done this before. Do we
open them now and identify them?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Generally, the -- open them,
read them, and then give them all to Leonard to review them
and come back with a recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Give them to somebody else
to figure out.
MR. ODOM: Just acknowledge who's basically bid,
Judge, and you might want to go over -- some of the numbers
get extraporaneous -- you know, there's a lot of different
equipment in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll be glad to open them and
hand them to you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I take it, then, we actually need
to open them, okay.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: We have three bids here from Ergon
Asphalt and Emulsions, Inc. First, for paving aggregates is
a no-bid.
MR. ODOM: They're petroleum.
99

r^"
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 HENNEKE: The second, for emulsions, is unit
cost: CRS-2h, .6475 per gallon; HFRS-2, .6475 cents per
gallon; SS-1, .6475 cents per gallon; AEP, .7075 cents per
gallon. On corrugated metal pipe, there are no bids from
Ergon.
MR. ODOM: First bid was 64 cents, Judge?
JUDGE HENNEKE: .6475.
COMMISSIONER LET2: Judge, I tried to find numbers
there, but I couldn't do it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: This from Bridges Asphalt Products,
Inc. It says, "We respectfully respond 'No Bid' to the above
referenced items," which is no-bid for road base material.
"Please keep us on your list of vendors" for different items.
I interpret that as a no-bid.
Next is from Texas Fuel & Asphalt Company, Inc., bid on
emulsions. Their bid is, on each of the four types, .7430
cents per gallon.
Bid from Kerr Enterprises, Inc., paving aggregate,
asphalt emulsion oil, or corrugated metal pipe. Paving
aggregate, gravel, crushed stone natural, 6.25 cents per yard
-- I guess it is per cubic yard -- 6.25 dollars per cubic
yard. Limestone is the same. There's no bid on crushed
gravel, crushed stone, or natural limestone rock asphalt.
They also did not bid on the pipe or the emulsions.
Kerr Materials Company. There is a bid here on Type B

50
~``

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
uncrushed pit run. Base material, $3.70 per cubic yard, both
Grade 1 and Grade 2. Those are the only bids from Kerr
Enterprises, Inc.
From Koch Materials Company for emulsions, we have a bid
of 79 cents per gallon in each of the four categories. That
is their only bid.
There's a bid from R.D.O. Equipment Company on the 426-C
backhoe loader or equivalent, and the bid is -- here
somewhere. The bid is a 5-month lease at $1,289.08 per
month, total of $77,092.80. Guaranteed repair expense of
$5,000, for a total bid of $82,093.80. For the hydraulic
hammer to fit backhoe loader, the total bid is $21,757.36.
And those are leases, lease-purchase agreements.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a no-bid.
JUDGE HENNEKE: B & R Equipment we have a no-bid;
they're unable to meet bid specifications.
Corrugated metal pipe, we have a bid from Wilson
Culverts, Inc. 15-inch arch, $4.86 per linear foot, I take
that to be. 18-inch arch, $5.83. 24-inch arch, $7.75.
30-inch arch, $9.71. 15-inch coupling bands, $7.29. 18-inch
coupling bands, $8.75. 29-inch coupling bands, $1]..63. And
30-inch coupling bands, $19.57.
From Bridges Asphalt Products, Inc., we have a bid for
asphalt emulsion oil. CRS-2h is .8545 cents per gallon. The
other three categories -- or the -- no, HFRS-2 is .8300 per
/"`
51

/',

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
gallon. SS-1 is .8300 per gallon, and AEP is .8600 per
gallon.
Proposal from Priour Construction for Type A and Type B
road base material. There's actually only a bid for Type C
crushed gravel, $3.50 per cubic foot -- cubic yard.
Champion Asphalt Products bid. On paving aggregates,
there's no bid. On emulsions, each of the first three
categories are .6079 per gallon, and AEP is .6574, and
there's no bid on the corrugated metal pipe.
MR. ODOM: Sir, may I ask you -- the first bid was
what? 64-what?
JUDGE HENNEKE: .6074. And that's for the first
three categories, and the fourth category is .6579.
MR. ODOM: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The bid from Contech Construction
Products, Inc., for corrugated metal pipe. 15-inch arch,
$5.15 per linear foot. 18-inch arch, $6.10 per linear foot.
24-inch arch, $8.05. 30-inch arch, $10 per linear foot.
15-inch coupling bands, $6.70 each. 18-inch coupling bands,
$7.95 each. 29-inch coupling bands, $10.50 each. 30-inch
coupling bands, $13 each.
The bid from Collar Enterprises for emulsions, they have
a bid here in the fourth category in which they said
"Pennzsuppress-D" for $3.75 per gallon of concentrate.
MR. ODOM: It's totally something else that's --
52

fi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's obviously for somebody who
understands what they're talking about, not for me. This is
a bid from Collar Enterprises again for equipment, and they've
made a bid on SS-1 or Pennz distributor with operator, but no
heater, 3,600 gallon-2 with compartments, 14-inch spray bar
maximum, $65 per hour.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I sure hoped he was going to
get a heater on that one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That means the operator
stays cold?
JUDGE HENNEKE: The bid from Masters Construction
-- Master Construction, correct. First of all, for equipment
and operator, Cat D7 dozer, $85 per hour. Scraper, $100 per
hour. Cat 140G motor grader, $55 per hour. Track loader, ~
$65 per hour. DW20 Hyster roller, $55 per hour. 12-ton
pneumatic roller, $35 per hour. 2,000-gallon water truck,
$35 per hour. Asphalt distributor, $50 per hour.
Supervision by the hour at $19 per hour, and labor by the
hour at $10 per hour.
MR. ODOM: That is Package B, right, Judge?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That is what?
MR. ODOM: Package B?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's Package A.
MR. ODOM: Package A?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. Package B is a Cat D-6 dozer

53

r^
r...,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
for $65 per hour; a scraper with heaped capacity of 11 cubic
yards for $65 per hour; Cat 12G motor grader for $95 per
hour, 930 loader, $60 per hour; 12-ton flat wheel roller for
S35 per hour; 12-ton pneumatic roller, $35 per hour,
1,500-gallon water truck, $35 per hour; asphalt distributor
at $50 per hour.
This is from Martin Marietta Materials, Southwest
Division. Paving aggregates. For each of the categories of
aggregate, they have a bid in each category of $12.85 per
cubic yard. And that is the only bid we received from Martin
Marietta Materials. No, here is another -- here's a
different bid from Martin Marietta Materials on Type A
crushed limestone. Grade 1, $9.75 per cubic yard. Grade 2,
$4.05 per cubic yard.
This is a bid from Drymala Sand & Gravel of Comfort.
Paving aggregate bids in two categories: Type A, Grade 9,
$7.25 per cubic yard. Grade 5, $6.50 per cubic yard.
Henry Griffin Construction, again, for base material,
Type A crushed limestone, $5.80 per cubic yard for Grade 1,
$5.80 per cubic yard for Grade 2. Type B uncrushed pit run,
$9.25 per cubic yard fox both Grade 1 and Grade 2. Type B
crushed pit run, $5.80 per cubic yard for both Grade A and
Grade 2. Type C crushed gravel, $5.80 per cubic yard for
both Grade 1 and Grade 2.
Henry Griffin Construction bid on paving aggregate:
59
/"`
/'~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Type A, Grade 3, $6.75 per cubic yard. Type A, Grade 4, $6
per cubic yard. Type A, Grade 5, $6 per cubic yard. No bids
on the -- any of the Type B aggregates.
This is from EPR-1 of Houston, Inc. This is for
emulsions. Fourth category, AEP, is 45 cents per gallon for
EPR-1 Prime as a substitute for AEP. There, you'll have to
decide whether that's an acceptable alternative or not.
That's the only bid from them.
MR. ODOM: That was f.o.b. Houston, Texas, wasn't
it? That's all right, Judge; I won't do that to you. That's
probably f.o.b. Houston.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Doesn't say.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Bid from Wheatcraft, Inc. Type A
crushed limestone, Grade 1, $5.50, 1 1/2" minus. Grade 2,
$5.50 per cubic yard. And go back to Grade 1 for $6.50 per
cubic yard at 3/4" minus. I guess that's from their Highway
1340 location. From their Highway 173 location, they have a
bid for Type A crushed limestone at $8 per cubic yard for
Grade 1 at 1 1/2" minus. No bid for Grade 2. Bid for
Grade 1, $9 per cubic yard at 3/4" minus. They have a bid
for Type C crushed gravel, 9" and 1 1/4", at $10 per cubic
yard for Grade 1.
Bid from Wheatcraft on the paving aggregates, Type A,
Grade 3, $8 per cubic yard. Type A, Grade 4, $8.25 per cubic
yard. Type A, Grade 5, $7.50 per cubic yard. Type B,
/"`.
55
/'`

er'`
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
Grade 3, $7 per cubic yard. No bid on Type B, Grade 4.
Type B, Grade 5, $6 per cubic yard.
This is from Schwarz Construction Company. No bid on
equipment specifications, Package A. On Package B, Cat D-6
dozer or equivalent, $65 per hour, which I see does not meet
the specs. Scraper, heaped capacity of 11 cubic yards, $75
per hour. Cat 12G motor grader, $65 per hour. 930 loader,
$70 per hour. 12-ton flat wheel roller, $50 per hour. 12-ton
pneumatic roller, $98 per hour. 1,500-gallon water truck,
$45 per hour. No bid on asphalt distributor.
The bid on the lease of backhoe loader from Texana
Machinery in San Antonio, Item 1, the new current backhoe
loader. Case 590SL, 5-year, 7,500 hours, full machine,
$1,335 per month, for a total of $80,100. Guaranteed repair
expense, zero, for a total bid of $80,100. On the bid for
purchase of hydraulic hammer, they have a Tramac 190 for one
year, total bid of $15,900. Those are the only bids.
From Anderson Machinery, San Antonio, a bid on the
backhoe loader. Manufacturer Model No. JCB. 5-year lease at
$1,102 per month, for a total of $66,120. Guaranteed repair
expense, $2,500. Total bid cost is $68,620. On the
hydraulic hammer, Manufacturer Model No. JCB 550. Total bid
of $20,375.
Another	bid on the	backhoe loader from Holt	Company	of
Texas in San	Antonio.	Manufacturer model number	926-C.	$80D
56
~.

~^
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
per month, for a total of $98,000. Guaranteed repair expense
of $950, for total bid of $48,450. For the purchase of a
hydraulic hammer, Manufacturer Model No. NPK H-4XE, bid is
$16,300.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last one.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Last, but not least, there is a bid
on the Equipment Package A from Edmund Jenschke Company. Cat
D-7 dozer with ripper, $100 per hour. Scraper, heaped
capacity 22 cubic yards, $100 per hour. Cat 190G motor
grader, $76 per hour. Track loader, breakout force of 35,300
pounds, $90 per hour. DW-20 Hyster roller, $65 per hour.
12-ton pneumatic roller, $55 per hour. 2,000-gallon water
truck for $50 per hour. Asphalt distributor, $94 per hour.
Supervision by the hour at $25 per hour. Labor by the hour
at $19 per hour.
Package B, Cat D-6 dozer, $80 per hour. Scraper, heaped
capacity of 11 cubic yards, $80 per hour. Cat 12G motor
grader, $79 per hour. 930 loader $78 per hour. 12-ton flat
wheel roller, S75 per hour. 12-ton pneumatic roller, $55 per
hour. 1,500-gallon water truck, $50 per hour. Asphalt
distributor, $94 per hour.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, how long will it take
you to go through these? I mean, what -- two weeks?
MR. ODOM: Well, it would probably take a day to
put it on spreadsheet. You know, maybe this afternoon, but
57
/`~
r^

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
22
23
24
25
that's pushing the ladies to -- I mean, we're not in a hurry.
We have awhile, so I -- you know, I can try to put it
together, but I really would like to put it on a spreadsheet
and look at everything.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Did you get this one?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, those are the first two.
MR. ODOM: If you'd like to put it -- are y'all
going to meet this afternoon?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's really -- I mean, probably
briefly, unless you tell us you'll have these ready and you
want to have them ready. Otherwise, we'll put them on the
next agenda.
MR. ODOM: That's fine. Let's not -- I really need
to look at it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If it's something you really need,
we'll accommodate it, but otherwise we'll take it up in due
course.
MR. ODOM: We'll do it next time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What we're faced with on this
-- I mean, the aggregate -- I mean, I've learned to go
through these. They request bids on certain things, and they
get back on something totally different all the time, so they
have to go through and kind of figure out, you know, all of
the different -- especially on, like, the aggregates. Some
of those are all f.o.b. prices. You've got to look at where
58


/'~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
it is. You might spend more per yard in Comfort -- if you've
got to deliver it in Comfort, as opposed to bringing it from
west Kerr County, and vice-versa. So, anyway --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the hammers -- I have
written down here pneumatic hammer, trimatic hammer, and
there was one other kind of "matic" hammer, which is all the
same hammer, isn't it?
MR. ODOM: Well, let's hope that the weight -- you
know, we gave a specific for the weight that we wanted on it
to try to break -- if you have a real light hammer, then
you've done no good whatsoever. And will they be compatible
to what -- what I bid? I try to bid them -- to have whoever
got it, that I would be looking at that bid if everything's
kosher with it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm just wondering if, in
the course of events, inasmuch as you have to take all of
these submissions and sort them out, make sense out of them
and make some determination as to which ones are acceptable
or don't meet spec, I'm just wondering whether or not it
might be to the Court's advantage, and yours as well, for the
bids to be sent to you to be opened by you at such-and-such
time, and to report back --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can't do it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Can't do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, in effect, what we
59



1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
generally do, unless some of them are way off and we throw
them out, we accept all of them and then they have the
discretion to pick based on availability.
MR. ODOM: Based on freight -- the freight cost, as
Commissioner Letz said. It -- that has a determination of
where that sealcoat is at the time, and, you know, what is my
cost compared to -- and part of it's time, though, because,
as a public entity, you know, time is important for us, for
the schedule to make it work. Not only the cost, but also
time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, really, it's amazing.
I mean, it's great we got the number of bids we have, because
it's the best response we've ever had.
MR. ODOM: We had some good bids. We had 20 or 21
cents difference on the price of petroleum, the emulsions,
and then $800 versus $1,300 in a lease. That's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's working.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we refer all the bids
to the County Engineer's office.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin has moved and
Commissioner Griffin seconded that we accept the bids and
refer them to the County Engineer/Road and Bridge Department
for analysis and recommendation to the Court at its next
regularly scheduled meeting. Any further discussion? If
60
/^
r-
~^
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
not, all in favor, raise your right hands.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, the Judge needs a
drink of water, so we're going to take about a 10-minute
break and resume at 20 minutes till 11:00.
(Recess taken from 10:30 a.m. to 10:90 a.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioners Court will now be
back in session. We'll take up Agenda Item 2.7, which is
consider funding the County share of Fall Branch Bridge.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Have a seat, Franklin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We're going to jump --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Griffin has asked that
we take up item 2.15, since there's an individual here from
Harper. And, with -- with no objection, we'll accommodate
him to that extent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 2.15?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll now take up Item 2.15,
consider and discuss approval of transfer of ownership of
Reservation School building to an appropriate entity in
61

/'`

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2I
22
23
29
25
Harper, Texas, to facilitate restoration and use by the
Harper Chamber of Commerce. Commissioner Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. I think all of the
Commissioners and you, Judge Henneke, have received a small
package that should -- it's either in the book, or -- I think
I may have distributed some earlier. Very quickly, on the --
on the background for the Reservation School, when Bruce
Oehler was driving me around, he showed me the old school
there, right before I took office, and so I was familiar with
it. I was familiar with it when -- I was familiar with it
when the subject came up. But this is -- this is Joy
Kyriopolis (sic).
MS. KYRIAKOPOLOUS: Kyriakopoulos. Let's get it
straight.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I won't try to spell it, but
I do have it in writing.
MS. KYRIAKOPOULOS: I've been here for many years.
Just a brief history --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If I may -- I'll let her
speak to this, but the reason I think this is a good idea and
something we ought to pursue is that, again, I have seen the
building myself. It's in a very bad state of repair. It's
in an area where it is very susceptible to vandalism. It is
a historic piece of the county, and I think that this
willingness to take this on and get it moved somewhere and
62

r"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
restored where it can be preserved, I think, is a very good
idea. So -- and I think what we're looking for today --
because there are some things that still need to be done. I
have not yet coordinated with the Kerr County Historical
Society, which I need to do, and there are maybe some legal
issues about how we transfer ownership of this building and
is there a quid pro quo and exactly how to do that. So, I'll
have to work on those issues, but I don't see any -- any
show-stoppers there. I think we should be able to make it
happen. With that, I'll let you, Mrs. Kyriakopoulos --
MRS. KYRIAKOPOULOS: Okay. Just to get the record
straight, it is not the actual school, per se. That was
demolished years ago and was taken away. So, what we have
left is the 24-by-24 foot building that -- best thing about
it is the roof, if you've seen the pictures. I have more of
them here. The roof is holding it together at the moment.
So -- and this was a little building used by the teachers at
that time, years ago.
Just a brief history of mine. I've been here for 30
years. It dawned on me this morning. I didn't get anything
until I was coming down, and I thought, Oh, gosh, I've been
here over 30 years. I can remember when the train used to go
through town, you know. And over that time I've been in real
estate and different businesses and so forth. In fact, we
still have a home here in town and a business here in town.

63
/~


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
But I've seen so many things just wiped out, you know, just
gone, the history and et cetera of the area. Eleven --
almost 12 years ago, we bought some land out of the area,
five miles from these little buildings, so I've seen them
just -- just deteriorate even more over the years.
In January of this year, I was elected president of the
Chamber of Commerce, which sounds like a grand title.
However, this last -- and I thought, Wow, the time has come
to move this thing, you know, do something with it. I did
contact the local ranchers surrounding there, and their
comment was, "My god, that thing has not been burned down
yet?" "Why do you want to fix it up? You need to haul it
out of here." So, I thought, good idea. I did check with
some of the past presidents and Chamber members, and it seems
like a good idea. However, I'm not able to generate any
financial support at this point in time.
In checking through books that I have had this last
month to do myself, I fully realize now that the financial
backing might not be there, and it might, in fact, have to be
up to some philanthropic person to haul it somewhere into
town and hopefully then generate some enthusiasm to do
something with it. And that's what we're looking at at the
present time. One of the past presidents has offered his
particular piece -- part of his property on 290 downtown as a
temporary place to park it and so forth. And I, myself, have
64
,i'`
/'`
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
an acre of land just 200 feet off Main Street. It could be
parked there on a temporary basis, until such time as we
generate sufficient community effort to do something with it.
And that's where we stand right now.
Our budget in the Chamber is -- our operating budget is
around $9,000 to $5,000 a year, so that tells you we just
can't -- and that includes several fundraisers. The
fundraisers for this would have to be really good ones,
because we're looking at a minimum -- one of the past
presidents has moved two buildings in recent years, and his
comment was that we're looking at around $7,000, minimum,
just to move it. Not to restore it, just to move it. And, I
have some tentative bids.
We haven't really gone into it really heavily, because
it's not ours to do anything with yet, and I just don't want
anybody around there, you know, wanting to do something and
maybe get hurt. But, we're looking at, like I say, from
about $7,000 to $16,000 just to move it. And, I know what
you're going to say next, like some of the old-timers out
there. "My God," you know, "what are we doing?" You know,
"Is that woman crazy?" Well, yeah, I'm crazy, I guess. I'd
like to see it saved, if possible. And that's where we stand
right now. I don't have a lot of support, except for "Let's
you and them do this," you know.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I understand. And I think
/^
65
i"`
~^.
~"~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that what I would like to come away --
MS. KYRIAKOPOULOS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- today with is just a
sense of -- of the Court that -- that this is something we
should look at. That I will work on this with the Harper
Chamber --
MS. KYRIAKOPOULOS: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- and the appropriate Kerr
County entities to make sure that -- and including the County
Attorney, on how we transfer the title of this. We --
actually, Kerr County owns about three-quarters of an acre of
land and this building, so we could give the building -- we
could exchange the building for some quid pro quo, as I
understand it, and that perhaps would be a cleanup of the
site. And then we might want to consider that three-quarters
of an acre as something we might want to auction or -- or
whatever to get -- because it's -- if you go and see where it
is, it's not worth anything to the County as it is.
MS. KYRIAKOPOULOS: If you gentlemen would like to
look at some of yesterday's pictures?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, I've showed them all
the pictures, and I'd like to see those, too.
MS. KYRIAKOPOULOS: These are yesterday's.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But I think, today, that --
I think we don't need a motion today, but I would like to get
66

/'`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a sense of the Court that this is something we should pursue,
so that --
MS. KYRIAKOPOULOS: I would like --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three-quarters of an acre?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: About that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the Kerr County Ranch
West.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The Kerr County Ranch West.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Couldn't we have put Paula's office
out there?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Paula's office.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm certainly in favor of it --
I mean, of both those points. I think having that piece of
property -- I think we could get rid of it, the County having
it out there right now.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. And I think it would
be very good if that piece of history could be maintained,
and I think it's -- it is appropriate in Harper, since many
of the people who went to that school are from the Harper
area.
MS. KYRIAKOPOULOS: Right. We have a reunion there
every year of the -- of these old-timers. Now, real
old-timers.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy, is this building covered --
is this a scheduled building on our insurance?

67
r
r

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think it is.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Somehow I didn't think it was.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think it's fully
depreciated.
MR. ODOM: No asset value whatsoever.
MS. KYRIAKOPOULOS: I think the biggest expense is
going to be in shoring it up and stabilizing it so that it
can be moved. That's going to be the biggest thing. But,
like I say, I haven't had anybody out there really rooting
round underneath, because I didn't want any liability
problems. So, we lust -- all we're doing is kind of a
drive-by, you know.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any further
questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have may be --
you know, the -- maybe it doesn't -- probably doesn't make
any difference, is that it's odd that this ended up in the
County's ownership, as opposed to the school district.
Almost all these little school buildings were deeded to the
school districts.
MS. KYRIAKOPOULOS: Like I say, the school was
wiped out a long time ago. The land that that was on was
given back to the ranches who had donated to it begin with,
so I think that's what you're looking at. This particular
piece had a different venue to it.
68
~"`

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You and the County Attorney
work out how to make it happen.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay, and I'll do that.
Thank you very much for coming.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. KYRIAKOPOULOS: All right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Appreciate it. I'll let you
have those back.
MS. KYRIAKOPOULOS: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll now go back to the agenda,
Item 2.17, consider funding the County share of the Fall
Branch --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Z.7.
JUDGE HENNEKE: 2.7, yeah, thank you. Consider
funding the County share of the Fall Branch Bridge out of the
Schreiner Trust Fund. Commissioner Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. This is -- Mr. Odom's
going to talk to this. And this is, I believe, right in line
with what the Schreiner Trust Fund money proceeds are to be
used for. So, Len?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. What has happened is -- and I
was not able to budget for this, and it's not as much an
oversight as it was a local situation back in the summer.
And the Court had -- I mean, the Highway Department had
discussed the possibility of -- of funding these projects on

69

~'`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the off-site bridges; however, at the time, that money was
not allocated, and then they were talking about a surplus
coming in. This was --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is State funds. State
funds.
MR. ODOM: Yeah, State funds. Basically, that's
what's building this. We are to participate in the
engineering costs, is where this comes from. There's two
structures. One is behind the Ag Barn, that narrow structure
back there before you come up to 27. They wanted to widen
that. They also wanted to widen the structure at Fall
Branch, was the first indication that we had. Instead of
taking the structure out, they wanted to widen it. Since
that time -- and I discussed it with them in August, because
their fiscal year starts in September; ours starts in
October. For budget purposes, did I need to address the
Court before the budget was finalized? And the answer was
they couldn't tell me; that things were being held up at that
time due to, they said, local reasons. That they didn't know
if the -- if the off-site -- that this money would be funded
or not, so they didn't have an answer.
Now, they lust contacted me, at which time, immediately
after that, I talked to Larry and I talked to Bill about the
-- about this possibility of coming down, and could we put
this off until the budget time? They told me from the time
~`*
70
~^
~'`
r""~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they notify me, I had 45 days to fund it. I said that on
Precinct 2, I didn't have a problem, because I felt like I
could take that out of -- out of my budget, out of
Contingency or out of Contract Fees and maybe the extra
surplus that we might get on these bids and -- and the lease
and all. So, I think the funding there will not hurt me.
But, the other was $3,000 that was coming up, and that's
in this packet that we gave you. It explains Schreiner Trust
Fund; it is essentially to be used for Precinct 1 and 4, for
improvements thereof, and we need to come to the Court. And,
this is a Precinct 4 project. There was some discussions
with the State about the location of this project and the
viability of it. Could it be substituted? Could I
substitute it for some other things? And, understand that in
this county, a lot of what people call bridges -- it has to
have -- I believe the minimum is a 12-foot span to be
construed as a bridge.
MR. JOHNSTON: Twenty foot.
MR. ODOM: Twenty foot, okay. So, you have to have
a 20-foot span. Most of ours are low-water crossings. There
was a discussion -- what has happened in the past is that we
had insight -- we had input from the Court as to the location
of these off-site facilities. The State has taken that away
and they put it on computer system. They say that they want
to get away from political influence, and they put it on a
71
,--
i-.

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ZS
system of merit. And, this came up as one of those that was
construed, because of narrowness and age, that it was being
undermined. So, from that criteria, Austin depicted this
particular site and the other one over behind the Ag Barn as
viable projects. I asked them if we could substitute. The
answer was no, that we would go to the end of the list in the
state of Texas if we pass this up.
And, the other thing that bothered me was that if we did
pass up any of these projects, that the tort liabilities
would be incurred. They said that if anything should happen,
that they had -- I had my opportunity to do this, and that
they would wipe their hands of this structure, this one
structure that's in the Commissioner's Precinct 9 there; that
it is an old highway structure, and they deem to replace it.
I do think it's good money spent. I think -- that tort
liability bothers me. I don't like to be left out there, who
knows where. Somebody else's project would go in if we pass
this up. We've leveraged our project 10-to-1 -- our
participation.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If I might interrupt just a
second, the bottom line on this is here the State has this
list of projects that they prioritize. They come to us and
they say, "That bridge ought to be replaced, and we'll put up
90 percent of the money; you've got to put up 10." If you
say, "We don't want to do that," okay, fine, they'll go give
72
F°
.'"
n
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
the money to somebody else, the next one down the list, and
that project goes to the bottom. What we're really looking
at here is, by using some of those interest monies off of the
trust fund, off of Schreiner Trust Fund, if we leverage with
the State at about 10-to-1, we get that bridge replaced.
MR. ODOM: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If we pass it up, we
probably won't get it, and as -- as Mr. Odom is saying, what
happens then is that, if we were to have an accident there,
the tort liabilities sense is that here was a chance that the
-- I mean, this is not directly due to costs, but here's a
chance that you had of upgrading that bridge to current
state-of-the-art specification, and you passed it up. So
that -- you know, that you -- it could be said that you, the
County, are negligent because you didn't -- it's just another
nail in the coffin on that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the Riverside Drive --
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- I think that's a point
to be made in support of that. But, first of all, you
indicate you can find $19,000?
MR. ODOM: $16,000, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $16,795.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's important that
73
~~'~

r-~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that one be done at the same time, because if we contemplate
additional use of the Flat Rock Lake Park, that bridge
becomes more --
MR. ODOM: Becomes very viable, yes, sir. And --
but understand that I'm not asking the precinct to do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand.
MR. ODOM: Internally, I can handle that. I'll
have a better answer for you, you know, once I analyze these
bids that I have, what I have in excess there, and which I'll
come to the Court on the agenda for it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's really what I wanted
you to say for the record. Thank you.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. And, so -- but, now,
understand that these projects to be put together -- that the
bids have been going up. That $99 million that the State of
Texas is putting into the off-site bridges is -- that's extra
money above what was already allocated. They're already
indicating to me that the prices are going up 15 to 20
percent, since there's so much work out there. So, there's
an increase, so this is reflected in that. We don't know
exactly what will happen in June and July. This is going to
go out in July so we can coordinate this construction at the
Ag Barn for January, before you use that facility. We think
it's a 90-day project, and should be able to go in and out.
The other one would be -- what they're going to do is
74


I
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
combine these two projects, because they're small. That way
we can get a better bid. So, we're trying to utilize our
money and put it together; that one individual would come in
here at one time. Phase 1 would be that one first, to get it
down, and at the same time be working out there, and which
we'd have a bypass to take the few people we have out there.
But, in the future, again, to justify this, you never know
how these ranchers are going to subdivide. And, if we have
the opportunity, I think we ought to upgrade our
infrastructure, and this is a -- I would like to do some
others at different locations, but I'm -- my hands are sort
of tied. So, I ask the Court to use this Schreiner Trust
Fund for it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have two questions. One,
this Fall Branch Bridge, do you have any idea what the
traffic count on that thing is? I mean, are we up to two
cars a day now or --
MR. ODOM: I don't have -- I don't recall that.
That's very good question. It's embarrassing because I don't
have the answer for you. Like I told you, it's -- well, I
don't know, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Around two?
MR. ODOM: It's very small.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's absolutely nothing
there.

75
/"'~
r"
/"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: And that's the reason I explained to you
that if I had a choice to do another project --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I understand how the
-- I understand how the program works, and I understand the
off-system program and that that's really federal money
that's come down and all that kind of stuff. And, these
projects -- we've done seven or eight of these kind of
projects in Kerr County.
MR. ODOM: We've done --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Indian Creek.
MR. ODOM: Lane Valley. I did Indian Creek.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Several.
MR. ODOM: Several.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of these exact same things.
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And they never start on time
and they never run the costs that they agree, but it's a good
program.
MR. ODOM: And we also participated with the City
of Kerrville, too, I believe. We worked in that way and put
up some money.
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: My other question, we're
talking $33,800 out of the Schreiner Trust Fund. How does
that affect our plans with Sheppard Rees or Sheppard -- our
project?
76


t"`~
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. ODOM: Good question. It should not affect it.
There's in excess of $300,000 -- $350,000 is the number that
rings in my mind for the trust fund, so we're not going to be
tapping into any --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 375, I think.
MR. ODOM: Something like that, yes, sir. So,
we're -- we're safe there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. ODOM: The other -- in relation to the high
water bridge, and I -- and I hate to disclose something
without Bill and them here to talk about it, but in my
discussion with them -- and I hope the press will be easy on
it, because this is -- this is me speaking personally; it's
what I took from the conversation. There is a very good
possibility that we may not have to participate in the ii
high-water bridge because of the extra funding and all. I
think that they're close -- that that bridge is estimated at
3,5 and they felt it was very comfortable; that they had the
money for that high-water bridge, and so our participation
may not be needed in that. And, if that is the case, then I
would be coming to the Court, and in our reserves is the way
we plan to do this, anyway; not the Schreiner -- Schreiner
Trust Fund is a portion of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. ODOM: I'm thinking that we would not have --
77



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 may have less participation or no participation in the
high-water bridge because of this funding, that they feel
comfortable that they can build it, but they don't know about
their cost escalation, because it's up 15, 20 percent. But,
that is something y'all can address.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Larry, would you allow me to
second your motion?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to do that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would like to make the
motion that we utilize Schreiner Trust Fund monies to fund
our -- our portion of this project, and that we -- and I
would like to ask a question.
MR. ODOM: Yes?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The numbers that were
mentioned, the 375 or whatever it is, that is -- is that the
total trust fund, or is that -- that's not the corpus; that's
not the --
MR. TOMLINSON: No, that's monies --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's interest earned?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's monies that have been paid
down to the County from the trust fund.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: From the trust fund. So,
we're not talking about in that 375 --
MR. TOMLINSON: In my estimation, probably 80
_~__ __
78
~`.
/'°
~'`
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
percent of that is monies that we've earned.
MR. ODOM: Earned.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's not actually monies that came
directly from the trust.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, we're not tapping the --
MR. ODOM: We're not --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- close to tapping the
principal or corpus of this trust fund.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. I guess a question I
had --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You paused over there. I mean,
I think we have to go with all these bridges, whether
they're, you know, great projects or not. I mean, if it's
high-use or no-use, you know, we need to go through with
these. If the State wants to put up 90 percent of the money,
you really can't afford not to. The question is, what are
their criteria? I mean, the bridge I'm thinking of, it, of
course, is in my precinct, Hermann Sons bridge. I mean, how
can they not put that bridge on there?
MR. ODOM: That was my first -- may I speak to
that? And I'm sorry, I'm -- I espouse too much. That was my
first question. And the answer was that when those children
were in that flood, and that other bridge in -- in Kendall
County was built, they said that the closeness -- that, by
79
,~"'~
,~''~
I'~
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
federal standards, that Hermann Sons was one of those that
was on the lower criteria. That's the reason Lane Valley was
substituted. When I came here, we tried to get Hermann Sons
substituted, and they wouldn't do it, because they said
Kendall County gave them access. In other words, Lane Valley
had no access out, but you had two ways and you had a
100-year frequency bridge. Except they built the road under
the 100-year frequency, so the road floods and you can't get
across the bridge anyway, but that's neither here nor there.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's neither here nor there.
Motion's been made by Commissioner Griffin, seconded by
Commissioner Baldwin, that we use the Schreiner Trust Fund to
fund the County share of the Fall Branch Bridge project. Any
further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right
hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Let's now turn to
Item 2.9, which is consider modification of dedication of
Cade Loop and authorize County Judge to sign same. Mr.
Griffin?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The County Engineer will
address this one.
MR. JOHNSTON: This is basically a clarification of
17_ ___
80
~..,


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
the plat on River Valley Ranch. They had dedicated Cade
Loop, an existing road that cut through their property, a
60-foot-wide plus, in some places, right-of-way. Also
carried along with this property was a series of easements
that were attached to particular parcels of land. They
didn't exactly coincide with the right-of-way that they were
dedicating, that 60 foot, and so this document is -- lust
cleans that up.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This cleans all of that up,
makes -- makes the right-of-way and the road designation
clean.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the road.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And the road. And the road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: May I second your motion?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make a motion that we
approve this -- yeah, we approve the modification of
dedication.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by Commissioner
Griffin and seconded by Commissioner Baldwin that the Court
approve the modification of dedication for Cade Loop and
authorize County Judge to sign same. Any further questions
or discussions? If not, all in favor, raise your right
hands.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
81
.•~.


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next we go to item
2.10, which is the budget amendment request for increase for
Copier Lease line item for purpose of leasing new copier.
County Attorney, Mr. Motley.
MR. MOTLEY: That actually, I think, is a line item
transfer instead of a budget amendment. But, the copier we
have has over 250,000 copies, and we're having a maintenance
technician out no less frequently than monthly. The type of
copier proposed is a different sort. There's not as much
paper wrapping around and moving around different ways, and
not as much jamming and such as we're having. This copier
that we have now makes 10 sets of copies. We typically need
more than that. And, we have money in two line items, and
you all have more detailed information than I have as far as
where -- I know part of it came from a surplus of money in
the Professional Responsibility Insurance line item, and I
can't remember -- we've got, like, $130 from somewhere else,
but I can't remember. But, it's from two places in the
budget, so we just asked for the transfers to allow us to
make arrangements to have the new copier.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, is there just one? It
only shows here as coming out of Insurance Liability. The
$262.91 is the budget amendment we have, correct?
az
~^

r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't remember the amount.
MR. MOTLEY: It was around $900, I thought, was the
total.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $262 is the total increase.
You saved money and didn't even know it, David.
MR. MOTLEY: I was thinking it was a little more
than that. We had to pull from two places, but I could be
wrong about that. Well, if $262 is -- if that's not correct,
I would have to come back later. But Helena, I know, did the
math on it, so $262 looks like it will come out of that $307
balance. Anyway, yeah, it looks like it would all come out
of that one line item. I'm mistaken about that. I thought
we had to put two together. I was thinking it was a little
higher. I know what it was; we were thinking it was going to
be for a longer period of time than what was needed, and
that's what used it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is one of those things
that's unforseen in the budget process. I move that we make
the budget line item or budget amendment increase, transfer
the funds from Insurance Liability in the County Attorney's
office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we authorize the
budget amendment increase for copier lease for purpose of
I i
83
~~

/'`
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
leasing new copier. Before we take a vote, a question I have
is how many vendors did you ask to provide you with quotes on
this type of machinery?
MR. MOTLEY: The vendor that provided us this
machine we have, that's it. It's the same company that we're
dealing with currently.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, you didn't go to the local
Canon distributor or any of those to see what kind of a deal
you might be able to get?
MR. MOTLEY: No, we sure didn't. We went to Mr.
Gleason, who provided us this -- is providing us the one we
have now, and asked him -- talked about an upgrade. i
wouldn't even say upgrade, but a replacement-type. So, no,
we did not go for any sort of bid at all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Was a lease in place?
MR. MOTLEY: There's a lease in place, right, there
is. And, it -- it's a yearly thing, and we are -- you know,
that we have with the --
MR. TOMLINSON: That is a State of Texas contract.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If not,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: A11 opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
84


,•'`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next is item 2.11,
which is consider and discuss applying for a corporate credit
card for County officials. I put this on the agenda myself
because I heard a number of individuals wondering why we were
doing things as we were. Perhaps there's a better way to
handle credit card purchasing on behalf of the County. What
we have now is one card which has to get passed out to people
when they have need of it. I think it's appropriate -- we
probably should discuss this today, and not necessarily make
a decision, but get a consensus of Commissioners Court as to
how we want to address the credit card use by County
officials.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My feeling is that, I mean,
there's -- we should never ask any County employees to use
their personal money when they're doing County business. I
think we should have credit cards that we can have in place,
or however that works, you know. The Sheriff's here; she
does use credit cards, and the question has come up that we
couldn't use Visa. Do you -- you have Visa, do you not?
SHERIFF KAISER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are they filed as Sheriff's
Department or --
SHERIFF KAISER: Yes. It's listed in the
individual's name, like,	I have one	in	my name,	Kerr	County
Sheriff's Department. I	have one -	- I	have one,	Lee	has one,
85

~"'~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
with Warrants, and it stays with those different -- the
departments and it's used by those people in those
departments. We have, I think, five credit cards.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's no problem with
somebody other than an employee in his department using that
credit card?
SHERIFF KAISER: No. And Lee's name -- whoever
works under him uses his credit card when they transport.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I doesn't make any difference
to me if we use American Express or Visa or whoever. I just
think that each department should have -- that has a need
should have a -- you know, accessibility to a credit card
which they can give to their employees when they're driving,
you know. And I think that it's a -- you know, I -- maybe
there's some concern about abuse, maybe, or some abuse in the
past, I don't know, but some departments really need it a
lot. I know the Sheriff needs it. I know the Ag Extension
office certainly, I think, should have one. And I don't know
what other -- you know, what amount of travel that the other
departments use, but if they need it, I think they should get
one. I don't think it's right to ask our employees to use
their own personal money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that. I
think, like, the American Express corporate account, they set
that up in the name of Kerr County, and the Judge can

86


/"~
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
determine all the particulars about that use. Then each
month you get an itemized statement from them indicating who
has used his particular card -- he or she, and the amount and
where and the whole bit. It comes in that way. And, it
seems to me it's a lot easier to track and identify the ~,
charges as to valid or invalid, and it's just a very, very
good, businesslike way to handle travel and legitimate
expenses of many, many people who represent the County on
official business, and so I would favor that approach.
MR. TOMLINSON: I did some research on Visa just
recently for credit cards, and they would not issue a card
under the name of Kerr County unless -- unless it had an
individual's name on it. In other words, it had to say -- it
had to say "Tommy Tomlinson, Kerr County." Because they
don't want the exposure of having a credit -- a generic
credit card out there with no one's name on it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This wouldn't be generic,
on American Express; it would be specifically identified.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: By name.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "Larry Griffin" or whoever,
and Kerr County -- representing Kerr County, a Kerr County
account with a set list of -- of participants, and only those
people can use it. There's no generic card out there. And
when a statement comes back to you or to whomever for
checking whatever utilization there was, who made the charge,
87
~'`
/`~
r'`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those names are itemized, you know, exactly who used what for
what and where.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me address that for just
a second. This is -- the American Express system of
corporate card accounts is what the State of Texas uses,
statewide, under contract, and as a result, they get a --
they get a break on the cost of that. And, what you get --
and I, as an agency head, for example, got back a listing
every month that showed the total bill, but it showed a
breakdown of every person in the office who had a credit card
in their name that we authorized. Then, when we paid it, we
paid it as one bill, and I had a month-to-month track of
every expenditure that everybody had made on the credit card.
So, it's' great for the manager.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have a problem with -- with
paying the bill, but I don't want to keep up with the cards.
I mean, I don't want to be responsible for -- for changing
cards when people either leave or are not in office any more.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The way that's done at the
State level is that each entity -- in our case, it would be
the Court and the elected officials and department heads --
have that delegated to them, and you deal directly with --
that department head or whoever that wants a credit card or
needs a credit card for an employee or whatever deals
directly with American Express, and it's a special 800 number
I N.
88
~~

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
for the State contract. I suspect we could even tie onto
that. And I know that's the way it would work, is that you
would want to delegate that to the person responsible for it,
and at the Auditor level, you wouldn't be issuing cards or
approving the issuance of cards. That's done by the
department -- would be done by the department.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But are we going to have -- how
many -- I'm confused now a little bit. Under the current
system, the credit card says "Kerr County" on it, does it
not?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Why couldn't we get one
that just says "Kerr County Tax Assessor's Office" and "Kerr
County Sheriff's Department" or -- I mean, why can't you
differentiate like that? Because --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Then you have no
accountability, except for the signed receipt. Then you've
got no accountability of who made the expenditure.
SHERIFF KAISER: And they wouldn't give us one like
that; we had to put names on it. And any time anybody
leaves, we have to discard those and add another one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have one right now that says
"Kerr County." There's no --
MR. TOMLINSON: It's an old card, too. It's been
with us a long time.

89
,,.~
/'`
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 GRIFFIN: That's that one card, you're
talking about, that we have that says "Kerr County"?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I guess the -- my only
-- I mean, it seems that we're saying what we need to get to
make it work is to get untold numbers of cards.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I don't think we'd have
untold -- the advantage is the accountability. If you see it
happening, you go to each department and say, "Give me the
names of people who you want to have a credit card in their
name under your direct supervision." So, you know, the
County Attorney may want the Assistant County Attorney to
have one; he may not. It's up to him, but he's responsible
in the supervision things, just the elected officials are,
for the management of their departments in every aspect.
And, so, they decide who gets one and who doesn't, and
they're responsible for changing the name if that person
leaves or if they go do a job responsibility where they don't
need a credit card, and they're also responsible for making
sure that that person processes the reimbursement forms and
the vouchers so that we can properly account for the
expenditure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Approve the expenditure.
JUDGE HENNEKE: David?
MR. MOTLEY: On the plan that Larry was talking
/^
-r-~- __ - -_ _ -___
9a
~--.
e"`
~^
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
lI
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
about, does the department head get the -- their department
expenses broken down, and then a master of everything goes to
the Auditor?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. You get -- you can
have copies sent to whoever you want them sent to; that's up
to the agency. But, the way that works is that you, as the
-- as the department head --
MR. MOTLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- will have a detailed
breakdown on every card, every expenditure, by name.
MR. MOTLEY: You know --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And the issuance of the
cards is all done very efficiently by American Express. They
have a huge setup to run the State contract, I know, that's
in Houston. You call the 800 number and you fill out the
paperwork for a new employee or the cancellation on one
that's leaving; the department head does that. You send that
in or fax it in, even, and they will cancel that card or get
the new process started. And when the new card comes in,
guess what? It comes to the department head for you to give
to the employee so that you know that -- you know that that
card came in and was given to the employee. You can have
them sign for it, if you like, or whatever so that you've got
an accountability on the cards, themselves, even. So, it's a
well thought out system.
92
~.

~"~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ZO
21
22
23
29
25
MR. MOTLEY: One of the comments I want to make, a
lot of times when you try to buy things over the phone, they
will want purchase orders, and we don't do business that way,
unless they will give us credit and send it on faith, or else
we use our own credit cards. We're not going to be able to
do certain business like that. I have a MasterCard that is
in my name and I'm responsible for, and I use it only for
County business, and that's the way I've been doing it for II
about five years. But, I think that the idea is certainly
one that's time has come.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Seems to me like we need to address
the situation, because having one card for all the
departments except the Sheriff's Department is cumbersome.
You know, when Laurinda Boyd has to come trucking in here the
night before she needs to go anywhere to see if she can
borrow the card, I feel like she's my older daughter; "Dad,
can I borrow the credit card?"
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you give it to her?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, yeah, I did.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With some restrictions.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It goes without saying that the
corporate credit cards, if we were to adopt such a system,
would only be used for County business. County employees
would not be permitted to charge personal items on the card
and then reimburse -- pay for them out of their own pocket.
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
This will only be used for County business, and it will be up
to the department heads to monitor that situation, make sure
that even though the employee .wrote a check at the end of the
month for any personal items, that's not permitted in any
way, shape, or form.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The State, by the way, has a
great policy manual on that whole program that we can
probably take as a model, because it says exactly what you
lust said. It has other restrictions that -- you know, how
the cards are handled, your responsibility for turning them
in when you leave the agency or whatever.
MS. NEMEC: I would think that the department heads
would probably want to -- even though they're under their
employee's name, would still want to keep it under their
posession until such time that their employee was going to
travel, and then they would check it out and bring it back.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's permissible.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be your
prerogative to do it that way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment, you know, is
that, after reading the fine print, which is normal on credit
cards, it's $55 per card.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is going through the
front door, though. I think that -- I think, though, that if
we tagged onto the State contract, which I think we can do, I
~".
93
,^
/^
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
think that's -- it's essentially zero with the up-front cost.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That'd be great.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm getting the feeling we have a
consensus that we ought to look into this type of program and
bring it back after we get a better handle on the fees and
the details.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And we will do that. Next item is
2.12, consider and discuss approval of Rules of Procedure,
Conduct, and Decorum at Meetings of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court. We had this on the agenda a month ago.
There was some discussion at the time about some
clarifications, which I believe I've addressed. In your
book, you'll find the enclosed Rules of Procedure with the
changes indicated. Does anyone have any questions or
comments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I noted -- I guess that the
changes axe the ones that are highlighted?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Since the last time we
talked about it, I find it to be very good and concise.
Couple typographical errors I found, but we can correct those
later.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, what page are your errors
on? Mine were on the first page.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1 and 2.
r-
99
~"`~
i''`
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: It looks fine to me; I have no
problem with it. The only question I had, I was confused on
No. 4, and it's the -- where does that sentence begin? It's
-- that's where it says "public participation" submitted
prior to the time the agenda item should be -- is addressed
by the Court. Well, I guess -- you know, reading it now, it
makes sense. This morning, when I read it earlier, it didn't
make sense.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How in the world would they
know what's going to be on the agenda?
JUDGE HENNEKE: There are copies back there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, that was -- I think
I'm reading -- that's all of the --
JUDGE HENNEKE: A good example is Mr. Benham this
morning had properly filled out the request form to
participate in the discussion on the V.A. Medical facility.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I make out what I thought
was confusing, I'll -- I'll mention it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to move that we
adopt these Rules of Procedure, Conduct, and Decorum. And if
you figure it out, Jon, you can enter it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could we add to that order
to rescind all previous orders?

95

,~'~
~"`
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
21
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, it's already in here?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That cleared up the biggest
problem I had last time. We had these other ones that were
floating around.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Roman numeral IX does that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we adopt the
Rules of Procedure, Conduct, and Decorum at Meetings of the
Kerr County Commissioners' Court, subject to correction of
any typographical errors. Is there any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. I found out my problem.
The way I read that -- Buster, humor me a little bit. What
if the person wants to just -- I guess my question is about a
general topic as opposed to an agenda item topic.
JUDGE HENNEKE: They are still supposed to fill out
the public participation form.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Prior to that citizens' forum.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, it -- it says on here,
submit same prior to the time the agenda item -- what if they
don't want to talk about an agenda item?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the citizens' participation
is an agenda item; it's on the agenda. It's -- you know, if
you look at the first page, it's --
1 M
96
/`,
~"~
r^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: It's an agenda item.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- Visitors' Input.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in there.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, what we're asking them to do,
if they want to talk to us about something that's not on the
agenda, they need to fill out a form and give it to us prior
to the time we take up the Visitors' Input.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That was my only
question, was it didn't -- seemed like it was only talking
about agenda items. That's fine.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If not,
ali in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign. ~'
{No response.}
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Anyone with
typographical errors, please provide them to our
Administrative Assistant. 2.13, consider and discuss
preparation of letter to 911 Board requesting periodic
face-to-face reports to Commissioners Court on program
status. Commissioner Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, 911. I think the Court
is familiar with the -- I would use the word "difficulties"
we've had in the past in getting the 911 initial
implementation done. That is, to correct whatever problems
4
97
i"~
i^-
.r"~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
we have to correct to get the procedures in and process into
the system, so that we can take care of things like
duplicate-named roads, roads that have many names, like
Highway 27, that have numerous names for what is actually the
same thoroughfare, and how do you get that into an automated
system where the 91I system could recognize it? This has
gone on for some years, as -- as I have followed it in the
press and by word of mouth.
We had a -- we had a workshop in January, at which time
the director of the 911 system told us that, sometime in
February, about the week of the 22nd or the 22nd meeting,
that we would have some of those, if not all of those issues
resolved after a meeting that he was going to have with his
advisory committee. We received no communication in the
month of February. There was an article in the paper last
week that indicated that -- that there may not be anything
immediately forthcoming that we're aware of, and I, for one,
am at the end of my patience on what it takes to get insight
into the program.
So, my proposal is that we draft a letter to the 911
Board requesting a monthly update briefing in this courtroom,
beginning at our next meeting, which is the special meeting
for March; that we get an update on the major milestones.
And this is not a long-winded recitation; I'm not asking for
that. I just want the major milestones that we need to do to
_~ _
u
98
/"`

/'`
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
have the system initially implemented, and if we want to talk
about downstream process, that's okay, too. But, mainly,
where are we today, where do we have to go, and when do we
think we're going to be there? Just the best management
guess.
And, if anybody wants to tell me that they can't do
that, then I would say they're not much of a program manager.
And, what we need to do is get some rigor into the management
of the program, and I don't care whether it takes 5 days, 5
months, or 5 years to get a sticky problem solved. What are
we doing to get that done now, and when do we estimate that
we can have it done? Those are the kinds of things that I
would like to see reported to this Court in public, because I
think it is a taxpayer concern. It is certainly a health,
safety, and welfare concern from a 911 point of view, and we
lust haven't had any real visibility into it. And I would be
interested in hearing the comments of the other members of
the Court, but I would think that one of the ways we can do
that is to have somebody in front of us here once a month to
dust tell us what's going on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I concur. You know, 10
years-plus is long enough to continue and not to receive any
reports back. Our constituents -- I'm sure yours, as well as
mine -- keep asking me, you know, What about this? What
about that? Where are we with 911? How come my road doesn't
99


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
show up? You know, What are we doing about duplicated names?
And it's the same old story. So, I agree with you 100
percent. Let's get on with it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree totally. I think my
feelings have been very well-known on this issue for years;
two years now, anyway. The only thing I would want to add in
there is that, at some point, I would like to -- in addition
to bringing up -- the person who makes the presentation will
be the Manager-Director, T. Sandlin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really want to call that
board into this courtroom, as well, and I would -- basically,
I want to tell them point-blank, if their manager cannot do
it, we want him replaced. If our representatives will not do
that, we'll replace them. I mean, it's absolutely ridiculous
that that board and that manager cannot get this done when
every County around here has done it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That was part of the reason
that my proposal is to send this letter to them. Who makes
the presentation is up to them. I would assume it would be
their manager. If somebody else wants to do it or they would
rather someone else in their -- on their board do it or
whatever, I don't care, but I think that we, legitimately, as
one of the major players in the 911 program, should be able
to have that done in our presence, and just us brought up to
f^`
~..___ .
f M
100


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
date. That's all we're asking for.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the problem may be that
we've never -- I mean, I've never, in two-plus years, met
with that board. Maybe -- I think we need to really
encourage that whole board to come, maybe at our next
meeting. This evening meeting may be a good time, Judge, to
invite that board, or -- you know, we can't really tell them
to come, but we can certainly invite them to come.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can't tell the board to
come, but we have a direct representative, at least one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two, that could be
requested to be here.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Who are our representatives?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Gloria Anderson and Tommy Hall.
MS. SOVIL: Travis.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Travis Hall.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I just think it's time that
we take a more active role in getting the information and
getting it out. And I think the way to do that, perhaps, is
to turn all of that over here in the courtroom.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What's your pleasure?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would make a motion to so
do that, to -- and I will draft a letter for your --
requesting that, and perhaps let everybody get a -- all the

r.~.-_. _ _ ._
101
~^
/^
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
other Commissioners qet a look at that and see if we're
requesting, really, what we think we are requesting, and ask
for your signature on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the County Judge, on
behalf of the Commissioners Court, send a letter to the 911
Board requesting monthly face-to-face reports on program
status. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Beginning when? I mean,
that's a --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: March 22.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: March 22 is our first -- is
that our nighttime meeting?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That happens to be a
nighttime meeting. But, I would -- the way I'm going to word
that request would be that it be done monthly at our special
meeting, which is the fourth Monday -- our fourth Monday
meeting each month. And, it can be -- if it -- if you get it
down to a good format, that's a 5-minute deal; bring us up to
date on where we are and what's happened since last month and
so on. So, it's not a big, long-winded deal, and I don't
think once a month is too often.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not.
r^

102


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just want to make one
comment; hopefully, that the word will get to Mr. Sandlin
that we're very, very serious about this. It's down to
serious -- we're up to the serious level now. That in
January, when he met with us, two or three of you guys
personally questioned him, personally questioned him on what
he intends to do. He said he will meet with his advisory
committee and his full board and be back over here at the end
of February for a full report and -- in March, ready to go,
and none of that's been done. And, to me, when he talks to
the Commissioners Court and says those things and misleads
us, he misleads the general public, the taxpayers of this
county, and then I don't -- I don't think that we can
tolerate that. So, not only do we want him over here giving
us a report; we want him over here saluting or going out the
door, either one. And I mean that. You know, I'm really
tired of it, and I -- the taxpayers of this County deserve
more than -- more than the treatment they're getting there.
That's all.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If not,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next we'll next
r'"
1 ,Y
103
~'`


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
turn to 2.14, which is consider and discuss approval of the
purchase of a computer and software to be used by the
Commissioners Court reporter. Mr. Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. As part of -- there
were two parts of my coming onto the Court where I became
aware of -- of a great deficiency that we have. One is I was
working on the Y2K problem, and the other is I was trying to
figure out how we do court business and that sort of thing.
And, it's come to my attention that our court reporter is
using a -- having to use a very antiquated computer, which is
not Y2K-compliant, by the way, so we have to do something
there to get that part of it solved. Also, the -- the old
software that she has in that machine to process the minutes
is a very time- and labor-intensive process. Because it is
so slow, it takes us about a week to get the minutes out, and
the state of the art in that software is way beyond that.
And, in fact, if you watch much Court TV or you watch
some of the national trials that have been on television of
late, you'll see that the Judge, in most cases, has a laptop
computer sitting in front of him that is running the
transcript of everything that's been said. It's
automatically translated and presented in a digitized form.
So, the technology has come a long way. We need to do that,
certainly, before the -- as quickly as we can to get Y2K
compliant and to get the capability. If not the laptop for
109
ir'^

~"
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
the Judge, at least we'll have the capability of turning out
the -- the minutes, perhaps, in one day and get those edited
and properly filed and on the record.
So, my proposal here is that we -- and I -- we don't
have firm prices yet for an all-up system. We have a couple
of quotes, and I want to work on those with the court
reporter and make sure that we're getting what we want and --I
and we're not getting more than we need, but that we're
adequately covering the requirement. I would come back to
the Court probably the next -- by the next meeting on the
22nd with a firm proposal for -- but we're talking probably
something in the range of $9,000 to $5,000, because the
software is so expensive, if not the machine. This would be
a new computer, by the way, along with that. And we do have
money in the Capital Outlay budget for the Court. That --
that's in the budget that we would use to cover this. So,
what I would like to do is get, again, not so much -- we
don't need a motion today, but I'd like to get a sense of the
Court that we definitely will replace this system and that we
will work the best deal we can to get the most capability we
can.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Seems to me like we really don't
have any alternative. Since its not Y2K-compliant, by the
end of the calendar year, we're going to have to do
something, anyway, or, you know, the purpose of having a
105

i'^
E"~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
court reporter won't -- will be defeated on its face. The
gap betwen the court session and the minutes is a problem.
Our court reporter is the official deputy clerk for. purposes
of taking minutes of the Court. Her minutes are relied upon
by the Clerk's office to prepare orders, which then, in turn
are relied upon by the Treasurer's office to pay bills. And
it filters through the courtroom, and a week is optimistic as
far as the minutes are concerned, you know, depending on the
length of the meeting. And our court reporter is working as
diligently as she can, but her technology simply doesn't
permit her to do the lob in anything less than that. So,
this is a problem we have to address, both on Y2K and on the
-- the level that this is an impediment in the efficient
function of the Court and the courthouse, in general.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My comments are that I
certainly -- I mean, it needs to be done.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And it doesn't include a laptop for
the Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It needs to be done. My
concern is, I guess, the budget process, and that -- you
know, we're going on a -- we get on a high horse, really,
with all this lecturing of other elected officials on budget
-- to follow the budget, especially on Capital Outlay. I
have a problem with us not following our own guidelines when
it comes to budgeting these items. The money is in Capital
106


/"`
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
Outlay for the Commissioners Court. It's contingency money;
it's there in case there is a -- it's not designated for
anything. It's set up to be there in case a -- a computer
problem develops somewhere in the county and we need to do a
-- you know, fix something right away. That is -- and almost
every year we use part of it. I would really prefer if we
could hold off or for a couple of months on this, and towards
the end of the budget year, close to the end of the budget
year, if we have not used that contingency somewhere else,
certainly go ahead and, you know, do it at that point. I'm a
little uneasy about doing it right now, because if we do have
a breakdown, we'll have to declare an emergency, because that
is the reserve funds we have for -- like, the Court
Administrator's printer went down, and that's the type of
thing that that money is set up in our budget for.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What if we -- the problem I
would have with that is that if we -- let's say we do have
another incident come up where we had to spend monies out of
that Capital Outlay fund to pay for it. We still haven't
solved the court reporter problem. We still -- then we've
got to declare an emergency for that problem at the end of
the year. So, what difference does it -- I guess my question
is, what difference would it make?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're in a new budget year --
October 1, we're in a new budget. We can certainly put the
a
107

f^'r
/'~
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
order in and have it delivered October 1, pay it in next
year's budget as a budgeted item.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. So, I'm --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Six months down the line.
MS. SOVIL: Sir, it's budgeted. We have a
Contingency and a Capital Outlay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $7,500 in Contingency.
MS. SOVIL: No, that's Capital Outlay. But we also
have a Contingency of $25,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So we have two separate funds.
MS. SOVIL: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: When I looked -- went
through the budget and found the Capital Outlay, I didn't
find any caveats in there that that had to be held in reserve
to support other down -- you know, down outages, whatever, on
other computer systems. I just didn't see that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's not in there, but --
but it's the only item in Capital Outlay that's listed as
Contingency. I mean, it's a fund in there that we've put
in.
MS. NEMEC: I just want to mention one incident
that happened a couple of weeks ago, whenever I requested a
release for some securities held by Security State Bank.
They need that Court Order that day, and I was told I
c
108
/`'
r
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
couldn't get it 'cause it had to go through the proper
procedures or whatever. So -- so that's a problem. If that
-- if they didn't get that security -- that Court Order that
day, they were not able to release that security. So, in
turn, they lost money every day until they received that
Court order. So, there are --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the ripple effect
that Judge Henneke was talking about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm confused now as to how we
have changed in the two years I've been on the Court. Who's
the official writer of the minutes? We have a representative
of the Clerk's office now, the County Clerk, and a court
reporter. Previously, when I first came on the Court, you
know, we didn't have a court reporter; we had a tape machine,
and a representative from the County Clerk's office did the
orders, and the minutes were then on tape. I don't see why
this is -- should change. I mean, the Court Orders still
should be able to come out as soon as the County Clerk's
office can print them. I mean, the orders are separate from
the minutes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The issue is the accuracy of the
orders. And, you know, if the orders are based on the actual
minutes, then you have a system where the orders are either
-- are much more accurate and reflect what transpired during
the court proceeding. If you have the Clerk's office, who
i^
109

r"
r-..
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
does an excellent fob of doing the orders based upon their
notes, then there are occasions when you do have a
discrepancy between what the full minutes and what the order
reflects. Since the court reporter is a Deputy County Clerk,
the official minutes of the court proceedings are what she
actually transcribes, and not what the clerk keeps over here,
or not what's on the tape.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess why do we have both of
them here, then?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well --
MS. PIEPER: She's taking official minutes, but she
is -- if there are orders, she's putting the order number
with the -- with the order when they get done.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Plus she's handling the actual
resolutions.
MS. PIEPER: Right, the resolutions and any
correspondence, such as the bids and stuff that came in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just -- I mean --
MS. NEMEC: I know that in the past, I used to get
Court Orders, you know, the day that I needed them, but I
don't -- that's not happening now. And I don't know what --
what the reason is, but we were talking about a $1 million
security that was held up because of the way it is now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wasn't aware of that change.
I thought that the Court Orders were still prepared by the
110
~"`
1
Clerk's Office. I could leave here that afternoon, go get an

2 I order --
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: They are prepared by the Clerk's
office, and there are provision where we can get them on an
expedited basis, but what we're trying to do is to insure
accuracy on both ends of the process.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And timeliness.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And if we have the proper machinery
for the court reporter, her minutes will be done within a day
or two after the actual meeting. So -- I mean, any lag is --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If you need it in a hurry,
you could probably put it out the same afternoon. With the
technology that we're talking about, you can go directly to a
printout almost immediately, so that -- because it's the same
kind -- now, it wouldn't be edited, so that the court
reporter would want to look at that section and edit it, but
you could get the right -- the technology is there that you
could have it the same day.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no debate about doing
it. My question is I think we should follow the budget that
we adopted, and we're not -- and this does not do that.
That's the issue, to me. I mean, we're not doing it -- I
lust think we could wait, at the longest, six months to
purchase it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't I suggest that you go
..~
111
1	ahead, Commissioner Griffin, and find out some price or us,
2	and then then let's address that at such time as we have a
3	concrete proposal.
4	
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. We'll have that in
5	the next court meeting.
6	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I want to hear.
7	JUDGE HENNEKE: The next item is item 2.16.
$	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is the one I wanted to
9	do.
10	JUDGE HENNEKE: Request for police vehicle from
11	D.P.S. and police radio, security screen, and decals.
12	Precinct 2, Commissioner Williams.
13	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, this was put in by
~^.
lq	
Constable of Precinct 2, Caxl Williams, if he'd like to come
15	to the podium. But I can tell the Court that, as of this
16	morning, the constable has not extended to me the courtesy of
17	discussing this matter with me, so I don't know the
lg	particulars of it, and I'm not prepared to support. anything
19	at this juncture that I don't know the particulars of in
20	advance. But, having said that, we'll hear what the
21	constable says.
22	MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. The particulars, I believe,
23	are in front of you on that item that I --
29	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: May I ask you what the
25	bottom line is on here? What is the total price?
/r.
112
~^
1	
MR. WILLIAMS: On everything, or just the car.
2	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Everything.
3	MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't add everything together.
q	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where are you going to get
5	the money? Where is the money going to come from?
6	MR. WILLIAMS: That's what I'm here to ask y'all
7	for.
8	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't make the decision
9	about your office, of where you go and get money to move
10	around in your budget. We don't do that; that's your lob.
11	JUDGE HENNEKE: Let Constable Williams make his
12	presentation.

13
/"~
~- lq	
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. I think I'm wasting my time,
but I'm going to go ahead. Number one is -- I had the
15	Sheriff here this morning; she took about two hours of her
16	time to discuss this with y'all in reference to the assisting
17	her agency, which I do. I serve warrants out of J.P. 2
lg	court. I have a deputy here today that works with me serving
19	warrants, civil process warrants, when I'm not able to get
20	there. Okay, I have civil process I serve, which is recorded
21	in a card file that I have at the office, a lot of things I
22	do. I drive an '87 Dodge Diplomat that's worn out, needs
23	front-end work on it right now. I'm a patrol officer; I'm
2q	not a home person that just serves civil process and bailiffs
25	court, which legally is a constable's position; that's all I

113
r-.
~^
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
27
2:
2:
2
2
really have to do. Okay. I apologize for not getting with
you, Mr. Williams, but I figured if you read this and you had
any questions, you know where I'm at; you can get ahold of
me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the process works
the other way.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I've tried this before, Mr.
/^
Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not with me, you haven't.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, that's fine. I need the
vehicle, okay? The radio that's in my car -- my deputy needs
a radio in his vehicle. I want to get a new radio for my
vehicle and give him mine so he'll have something to
communicate with me besides a pager and a cellphone, or
leaving something on his answering machine at the house that
I need to get ahold of him. He's out and about every day
doing his personal business. He's in business for himself,
okay? I'm not here to get beaten and battered. I'm just
asking you for a safe vehicle that I can transport prisoners
in for warrants. And if I get called out, like today -- last
night, to back up a deputy for a 1050 out on 480, and I've
got to run code, that I can stop; that I don't run into
t somebody and kill them when the whole front end comes out of
E the car and I get killed. You're going to be sitting up
i there talking to somebody else and not me, okay? I've been
119
/^
C`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
2]
2:
2:
2
2
in this lob about 10 years. We're the only county out of the
counties that adjoin this county that does not furnish either
enough money each month for a car, or furnish a car to that
person. And you gentlemen can very easily look at that by
calling Gillespie County, Kendall County, Kimble County --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bandera.
MR. WILLIAMS: -- and Bandera County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does Kerr County furnish
any of its constables an automobile?
MR. WILLIAMS: Only thing it furnishes is $1,800 a
year, and out of that immediately, on liability insurance,
comes $1,070 a year for me, $85 a month. I furnish the car,
the equipment. The only thing that the County owns is the
radio inside of that vehicle, period. Everything else is
mine. The uniform, everything. You know, I don't have to do
this, but I think those people out there in Precinct 2 expect
me to do something for the money they're paying me. And I
did this for five or six years for less than $4,000 a year,
and you know that for a fact.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is true.
MR. WILLIAMS: You've been here a long time. I'm
r-~
not here to play games, I'm not here to beg and plead. I
just need a car. The days that I work, the nights that I'm
called out -- the Sheriff lust told me she couldn't stay.
You're all welcome to call her on the phone, and she'll back
lI5


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
this up. She'll talk to you any time that you need to talk
to her about it. I've got a deputy sitting here that works
with me. If you've got five minutes for him to talk to you,
he can tell you what we do, what he does when I'm not
available.
i"`
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the car you operate a
County car or your car?
MR. WILLIAMS: My car.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a comment. I mean, I
can lust repeat what I said in the last one. This is a
budget item. It is not going to be done by me mid-year.
We're not going to go over there and start purchasing mayor
capital items out of budget. I lust don't think it's
appropriate.
MR. WILLIAMS: I understand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other side of that is that
two years ago -- or, I guess, ending two years ago, I think,
while we didn't provide cars, we did equalize constables'
salaries. You lust said you were at $4,000 several years
ago, up to $18,000 now, or whatever your actual salary is.
So, we did do quite a bit, I think, to try to equalize and --
throughout the four constables, and provide additional
compensation to you to have some additional funds -- to you
and the other constables to have additional funds to help
offset your expenses. But, anyway, to me, this is a budget
116
~'"`
r-~
,~"~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
item and I don't see a reason to discuss it further.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that. Carl, my
point was that when anybody -- any of these elected officials
come in here and they're short in some line item, they come
in -- we ask them to come in with a recommendation that
they're going to move it, and we lust got through doing one
of those.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's going to be a little hard,
Mr. Baldwin, to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me finish here. You
know, you can sit down with the Auditor and, you know, do we
need -- if you suggest that we go into the Commissioners
Court Contingency fund, or do you want us to go outside the
budget, break the budget to do it or, you know, make some
kind of decision. That was my only point, is that when you
-- when you come with a question like that, you should be
providing a solution to it at the same time.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, my thing today is to see if
y'all are anywhere agreeable to this, where I can look into 'i
it a little more.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with Mr. Letz.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Letz mentioned a few minutes ago
about using personal money for County business, and I use
personal money every day for County business.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So do I, sir.
117


r"~
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. WILLIAMS: Okay, yeah, but I believe that your
hours are a little bit different than mine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably little bit more.
MR. WILLIAMS: I doubt that very seriously, okay?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let me make a
comment, constable. I'm not opposed to the constable for
Precinct 2, 1, 3, or 4 being adequately equipped and having
the ability to do the best possible lob for the people in
that precinct. I do believe that if I'm going to support it,
I need to have some information ahead of time, talk it out.
And if I'm going to carry the water for it here, it might be
helpful if I knew all the ins and outs of the issue
beforehand. If it's something we need to consider for you,
we'll probably need to consider it for the other constables,
as well, and that's where I'm coming from.
MR. WILLIAMS: I agree. The only thing that I'm
doing here today is -- what I'm trying do is trying to stop a
liability to this County and to the people out there that pay
my salary, okay? I do respond to calls.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Liability falls right back
here to this desk.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And stops here.
MR. WILLIAMS: With all five of you. Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What is the Court's pleasure?
I18
~`,


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. MYERS: Can I say just something minor? I just
wanted to tell Mr. Williams, I agree with him that this is --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Identify yourself, please, for the
court reporter.
MR. MYERS: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Mark Myers, Deputy
Constable with Precinct 2. I agree with you, though, that if
we're going to consider a vehicle for Precinct 2, we need to
consider it for all four precincts. Because, you know, you
can't -- you can't single out one constable and show
favoritism to one constable and -- and not to the rest. But,
we went to a school just recently in San Antonio, put on by
the Constables and Justices of the Peace Association. And,
questioning and taking a little survey of our own amongst the
constables there, the average pay of a constable in the State
of Texas -- we're talking about low-population counties; we
didn't even bother to poll these constables that were in
Harris County and the larger counties.
The smaller counties, the average pay is 540,000 a year.
And that shocked us, okay? Because our Sheriff doesn't even
get $40,000 a year. They had a vehicle allowance, they had a
nice -- a good salary, they had deputies that they could --
or reserve deputies that they had working full-time. But,
you know, I can assure you alI that a new vehicle will do
nothing but benefit Precinct 2, but we also serve papers
outside of our precinct. If they are in regard to a Precinct
119

A

i^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2 situation, we may have to go to Precinct 4 to serve a
paper. But, the other thing is, we were talking earlier --
or y'all were talking earlier about some "what-if's." One
what-if to consider is that, what if the Sheriff's Department
calls Carl and we've got a deputy that's in dire need of
backup out in the county? He's in a life-threatening
situation. What if Carl can't get there because our vehicle
-- because our equipment is obsolete? You know, what
happens? Somebody may die or get injured. And, you know,
it's lust -- I don't want to see that happen. II
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think anybody wants
to see that happen.
MR. MYERS: No, huh-uh. And the most important
thing -- most important issue to us is the safety of our
I
citizens in the county and the safety of our police officers.
So, that's -- that's all I have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question.
Would you do me a favor? Do you hang out with the
Fredericksburg-Bandera-Boerne folks?
MR. MYERS: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was wondering, how did
they do that? Did they get some grant money?
MR. MYERS: Well, there are some now that have gone
into grants, and I was talking to some of those departments
at the conference that we were at. Now, what they do with
120
~.
r^

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
vehicles, I believe, in Gillespie County is the Sheriff's
Department does a rental; they lease their vehicles. Well,
when the Sheriff's Department is done with them, then they
turn them over to the constables. The constables get first
bid at each one. When the Sheriff's Department gets, I
think, 80,000 miles on their vehicles, they turn them in and
then the constables can either have -- they basically can
take their pick of those vehicles.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not a bad plan.
That's not a bad plan, even though we purchase our vehicles.
MR. MYERS: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That if they get to a
certain point, they can be turned down to the constables.
That's not a bad idea.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What I'm hearing is that this is an
item that we need to address in the overall budget and
overall constable context, and bring back to the Court at
some later date.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. And I just want
to just finish this. I think you'll find in Boerne and
Handera, for sure, that they went through AACOG and got
grants for that, Mr. AACOG man.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are a lot of places
to get money. For example, the Elm Pass Fire Department just
got an L.C.R.A. grant to buy a new truck.
121
~^

~"'`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. WILLIAMS: One thing, Judge, and I'm through.
I did have this on my last budget. That's the only thing I
asked for this year in my budget. And it went zero, nowhere,
except for a few laughs, okay? I appreciate it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
MR. MYERS: Thank you, gentlemen.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I am not aware of any Executive
Session items. So, at this point, we can --
MR. GARZA: Your Honor?
JUDGE HENNEKE: State your name.
MR. GARZA: Oh, Angel Garza. May I approach the
bench?
JUDGE HENNEKE: This is not the citizens' open
time.
MR. GARZA: Oh, okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You can approach us after the
meeting.
MR. GARZA: Okay, that'll be fine.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We have the information agenda.
Does anyone have any questions on the information agenda?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If not, we stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:00 noon.)
122


/""`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C E R T I F I C A T E
STATE OF TEXAS I
COUNTY OF KERR I
The above and foregoing is a true and correct
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my cagacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
I
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 12th day of March, 1999.',
JANNETT PIEPER, County Clerk
B Y : 1 / ~QAbt~
Kathy nik, Deputy County Glerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter