~,"`' 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
r^
r^-

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
I N D E X
April 12, 1999
Commissioners' Comments
Comments by Commissioner Williams
l.las8/~Pay Bills
1.2 Budget Amendments ~~~~, ~sQiy 2Sd~S
1.3 ,uv~+s.. Late Bills
1.4.138/6 Read and Approve Minutes
1.5sni7Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
PAGE
3
11
19
14
15
16
19
46
56
60
69
2.1/do~~ Support of renaming V.A. Medical Center as
Roy P. Benavides Medical Center
2.2~~~QChild Care Initiative Letter of Agreement
2.3JS6i~Kerr 911 Naming and Addressing Guidelines
2.9~Sg~oAppoint Charles Wiedenfeld O.S.S.F. rep. &
Kerr County Floodplain Administrator
2.5~gi~Appeal of TWDB population/consumption estimates
2.6a3l~~Twin Springs Ranch Subdivision - concept plan
2.7.ts~aj Cypress Springs Estate, Phase I - Letter of
,~.rliy Credit ~ Final Plat
2.8.1fl~S Violation of Kerr County Subdivision Rules
2.14~~6Procedure for resale of trust property
2.9ZSP~7Transfer Commissioners Court van to Sherriff
2.107( Appoint Constable - Precinct 3, unexpired term
2.11iJoNC Personnel/Salary Study -- Kerr County employees
2.129SF}Y1999-2000 budget - proposed schedule
2.13,~loN£ County FY 2000 budget guidance, budget format
2.1~~9Resignation of Trusttee - Charles Schreiner
Road Fund - approval of successor trustee
2.16"`Task force w/ City of Kerrville-infrastructure
2.17asP.~a American Express Texas Ind. Agencies program
2.18w/~~E Solid Waste Grant
2.19 Update on House Hills 2012 & 662
2.20~/,u/Resolution opposing SB 143 ~ HB 1645
2.21aSQd,2Youth Alcohol Awareness Month - April
2.22as!!.lCamp Appreciation Day - May 4, 1999
* 3.1 ~~`/Action taken on Executive Session matters
Adjourned
73
79
87
89
90
102
116
125
136
147
159
167
168
179
179
176
178
~.
3
s~
!"~
L ._
(~
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
On Monday, April 12, 1999, at 9:00 o'clock a.m., a
Regular Session of Kerr County Commissioners Court was held
in the Commissioners Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE HENNEKE: The clock on the wall says it's
9 o'clock on Monday, April 12th, 1999, and I'll call to order
the regular Commissioners Court session scheduled for that
day. Commissioner Baldwin, I believe you have the honors
this morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do, sir. If y'all would
stand with me, and we'll have a word of prayer to open the
Commissioners Court.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.}
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. At this time, any
citizen wishing to speak on an item not listed on the regular
agenda who has filled out a form for consideration may do so.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak on an item not listed on
the regular agenda?
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Once again, is there anyone who
wishes to speak on an item not listed on the regular agenda?
(No response.)
4



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: Seeing no one interested in
speaking, we'll go to the Commissioners' Comments. Mr.
Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, I don't have any at
this time. We have a big agenda; I'd lust as soon as go
right into it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a couple quickies,
Judge. I just wanted to say congratulations to Kerrville's
Emily Crozier, who made the All-Regional Scholar -- Group of
Scholars, which was published in the San Antonio Express News
here a few days ago, and she certainly deserves our
commendation fox her achievements. And, secondly, thanks to
the L.C.R.A. for its grant of $18,900 to the Elm Pass Fire
Department so that they can buy a new brush truck, which they
are badly in need of.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Very good. Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have nothing today.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Nothing this morning.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. With that, we will move
right into the approval agenda. Bills. Does anyone have any
questions on any of the bills?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I do. I had several
questions. I came in early and, of course, being the working
Commissioner at this table, I went through the bills and got
__ _ T -
5
~^
r^
~_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Z1
22
23
29
25
most of them answered, but I wanted to point out a couple
things. If nothing else -- that was a joke, fellas. We can
be a little loose up here. I do want to point out something,
though, on the Commissioners Court set of bills, which are
paying the Attorney General to do the work for the State of
Texas. And I understand that we have asked them to come over
and do an investigation, and I understand all that; however,
that's their job. Somebody broke some State law, and they
come over and do these things and we have to pay for it
again. So, I just -- just want it here on the record of
disagreeing with that kind of -- the State pays their own
way.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right.

COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I -- on Page 9, the
last item there for the Sheriff's Department, toolbox for the
new Ford pickup, again, I disagree with that. I remember
when we bought the pickup, it was for -- because we were
doing the -- the program, a stray program, and doing some
other things. The Drug Intradiction Group, or whatever
they're called, needed a pickup to haul some stuff around,
and now we have a toolbox in the Sheriff's -- that's the
Sheriff's personal car, now. On page -- Page 11, Ag
Extension Service, Laurinda Boyd's stock show expenses, these
are for some of them in February. We're not in trouble. The
bills are -- we can still get them paid in time, but this
6
/'"~
~_
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
thing of holding bills -- and we've been through this a
million times, for you -- ox several hundred thousand times,
for you newer folks. She holds those bills fox months and
then turns them in. Sometimes we're late in paying them. No
more questions yet; just some concerns. Let's see. I think
that's all. That's it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's go in order here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under Commissioners Court,
there's an item, Kass Autobody Incorporated, for repairs to a
damaged vehicle. I'm curious to which one of the
Commissioners' vehicles -- or Commissioners Court vehicles
that is.
,,"`~
JUDGE HENNEKE: We only have one Commissioners
Court vehicle, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know that. We need --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not for long.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Not for long, just wait.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that be -- what is
the expense, Kass Autobody charge to Commissioners Court?
MR. TOMLINSON: There's -- I think there's --
that's Contingency line item. And what it is, it's to repair
damage to an employee's vehicle that was parked out at Road
7
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
,''`
and Bridge. We had a community service worker that was
trimming along the fence with -- with a gasoline-powered
weedeater and dinged the whole side of the car, I mean, from
the front to the back. And, our deductible on that kind of
damage is $500, so we -- it's -- Contingency is items that we
didn't expect, so we paid it out of that line item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess my second question
is, why isn't it Road and Bridge's Contingency instead of
Commissioners Court?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that's a good question. But
I -- they don't have a Contingency, either.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Another item -- is
Mr. Holekamp in here? I guess not. I know we approved
expenditure of the purchase of three washing machines for the
the Sheriff's Department, but I guess that prompts me to ask
whether or not Mr. Holekamp has investigated other ways -- or
the suggestion that was given him with regard to maybe
negotiating a contract with the V.A. for laundry services for
the jail. I'll ask him separately, since I don't see him
here. Under 571, Adult Probation -- I guess this is also a
question for Mr. Holekamp, because I'm curious as to why
we're spending money for outside janitorial services. I
thought we took care of all that. Guess we don't.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's for the leased building?
Which page are you on?
8
r
/^'~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
t`
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm on now -- Tommy, I'm
sorry, Page 10, under 571, Adult Probation.
COMMISSIONER LET2: That's their janitor?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's for -- probably.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just a quick question. I
noticed throughout that there were a lot of expenditures for
Software Group, and I assume that that was for -- was that
for bringing our stuff up to Y2K compliance in new software?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, those are quarterly payments.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Quarterly payments?
MR. TOMLINSON: For maintenance.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Larry, through the years --
we hooked up with Software, Inc., 10 or 12 years ago, and
this has been going on monthly almost since then.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mega-dollars.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's a contractual payment.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I understand.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's for maintenance to the
software, is basically what it is.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I just wondered when the Y2K
stuff is going to show up. I just wondered if this was it,
and that answered my question.
9

f^
~_
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we pay bills.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Just for me to learn, Tommy, on
Page 28 we've got lease copier payment for Kendall County,
216th Adult Probation.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It appears we're making payments
for leases to the copiers in Kendall County? Is that just
misleading, or --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, this is the 216th, the Adult
Probation budget. And -- and that budget pays for expenses
in those offices, as well as this one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They pay a proportionate part
of that budget, correct? Doesn't Kendall County pay --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, they do partially, just like
we do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: But the operating part of the
budget that -- that the State money pays for -- pays for the
operating expenses for each office.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. So, this basically just
applies to the State part of the budget?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, this is the State part.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The same thing -- Page 29, we're
talking about Community Service expense?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
r.-..
10
,~"~
~"`~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second, with one more
comment on the Indigent Health Care. I don't know if you all
had an opportunity to look that over or not, but there are
several -- several bills here from other towns, like South
Texas Cardiovascular Lab, Clinical Pathology Lab, Texas
Anesthesia, Southwest Methodist Hospital, Cancer Care Network
of South Texas. And, see, there's 13, 14 -- about $15,000
right there of our money going elsewhere. Now, I don't know
if it's part of the Indigent Health Care program that a
doctor says, "Okay, you need to go to San Antonio to Texas
Anesthesia," which I cannot imagine, but possibly that's
happened. And then that -- that bill -- I mean, our Indigent
Health Care follows that person down there to do that. Or,
in my mind, I've been asking this question for a number of
years, and I think their answer is that once a Kerr County
resident qualifies for Indigent Health Care, then Indigent
Health Care follows that person wherever they go. If they
move to Houston, that Indigent Health Care out of Kerr County
picks up their bills. Kind of a strange thing, but
regardless of which one of them it is, we're still sending a
lot of money this month to San Antonio. That's all..
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you want to tell the public
~^`
what the amount is this month, Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The total amount for
11
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
Indigent Health Care is over $53,000. Lots of bucks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, and that is included in
my motion.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by Commissioner
Letz that we pay the bills, including Indigent Health, and
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, I believe. 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. Budget amendments.
We have a couple-three.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, I have three today. First one
is a request from the County Clerk to move $471.65 from
Deputy Salary Iine item into Bonds and Insurance. What I
thought we have is a bill for $780 for a bond. They're
office bonds, basically, and we simply didn't budget enough
for that, so she needs to move that amount to pay that bill.
Another one is to move $189 from Office Supplies into Machine
Repairs. We do have a bill for that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
12
r--,

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
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve the budget
amendments for the County Clerk's office. 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. TOMLINSON: No. 2 is for the Traffic Safety
fund -- excuse me. This is a -- this fund is a self-funding
-- fund, is what it is. It's -- the traffic program is --
it's a DWI class that's mandated by the Court for persons
that are convicted of DWI's in Texas courts. But we -- this
year, the instructors went to a -- a recertification
training, and that was not budgeted for in this year's
budget. We do have surplus funds that we had at the
beginning of the year in this fund, and all what we're asking
the Court to do is approve this amendment to increase the
budget by these amounts, $273.34 for Conferences and $120.66
for Operating Supplies. The operating supplies are new
manuals for the course.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a required -- they've got
to be certified, I presume? It's a requirement?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
/'~
13
/^
._
~'"`,
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: Moved by Commissioner Letz, second
by Commissioner Baldwin, to approve the budget amendment
request for the Traffic Safety Program. Any further
discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hands.
{The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This Commissioner got the
second.
MS. BARBEE: I know, thank you.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. No. 3 is a request from the
County Treasurer to transfer $150 from the Employee Training
into Computer Supplies, and it's to pay an invoice from
Software Group for conversion of a 1998 W-2 form.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So move.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So move -- second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve the budget
amendment request for County Treasurer's office. 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. Any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
~r ___

14

L-
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
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's all I have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Tommy.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is approval of the
minutes. Do I have a motion to waive reading and approve the
minutes?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we waive reading and
approve the minutes. Any 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. Next item is
approve and accept monthly reports.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So move.
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve and accept
the monthly reports. Any discussion? If not, all in favor,
raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.


15

~`"`
'- -

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. We'll return now
to Agenda Item 1, first agenda item, which is to consider and
discuss supporting Hill Country Airborne Association, Alamo
Silver Wing Airborne Association, and Alamo Chapter 15
Special Forces Association in their effort in making
application to the Veterans Administration to rename the
Kerrville V. A. Medical Center as the Roy P. Benavidez
Medical Center. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I placed this on the
agenda at the request of Mr. Bennie Hyde, who called me late
last week and asked that we hold up on this, because he said
the -- the Hill Country Veterans Council was meeting this
morning, I believe even at this time, to discuss this
particular issue and how, maybe, to do better what they're
asking us to do, having received some instruction from the
Commissioners, from Congressman Smith's office. I do see Mr.
Richey in the audience. Gene, could you add anything do
that?
MR. RICHEY: No, sir. And I wasn't aware they were
having a meeting this morning; I've been out of town for a
couple of days.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, they are having a
meeting at the usual place, even as we speak. And, at this
point, they're asking us to withdraw this from the agenda for
16

~'`
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
consideration at a later date.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Without any objection, we'll table
this item and bring it back at an appropriate time. Turning
to the next agenda item, No. 2, approve the local Child Care
Initiative Letter Agreement for funds. You have the Letter
Agreement in your books; it relates to the County's
administration of $30,000 which the Kerr County Day Care
Center has received from the Hal and Charlie Peterson
Foundation. Does anyone have any questions or comments on
this item?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do. Is this something
different? Is this different from what we've been doing for
a number of years?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Let me make a
comment on that. This comes at the request of Sharon Wade
and Brenda Chapman, and it is the agreement that follows the
-- following agreement to the one that has already been
executed between Kerr County and A.W.D. for these particular
funds, and this has to do with the monies that are donated
locally. And, Brenda Chapman had brought a contract draft in
earlier, and I took a look at it and asked that she
incorporate one more item in there, which is No. 5, "Kerr
County Day Care Center and Sunshine Inn Day Care Center will
submit monthly billing statements to Kerr County for
!'"^.
17
f^
~^
.. _
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
reimbursement from this fund .for eligible child care
expenses." And, having done that, I would -- I would move it
for approval for the Judge to sign.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that motion.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve the
Initiative Letter Agreement with the Kerr County Day Care
Center and authorize County Judge to sign same. Any further
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One brief question. Do we need
to get our civil attorney to approve form on these? It's a
question -- I mean, I don't -- probably no problem with the
actual agreement. I don't know that we have a policy, from
the Court's standpoint, whether we do or don't or -- or how
we should -- you know.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's something we probably need
to take up. That's a policy matter, and also as a fiscal
matter.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But I'm not aware of any policy --
I mean, I think it's an appropriate document.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good. It's something we
want to look at here during budget, if we want to. We do get
a lot of agreements in to do with the Ag Barn and stuff.
It's more on my mind than in the past.

18

~°'

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Fair enough. Any further
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just that that's really
something that we've kind of been doing all along. Sort of.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think Jonathan's got an
overall point -- you're making a point that maybe all
agreements, in format, conform. We might want to have a
few --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I agree with you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'll make a general comment that
it's probably timely for us to do a fairly extensive review
of the form and/or substance of all of the contracts that we
have in the County. A lot of them have been in place for a
number of years and are just self-generating. There may be
changes that would be in our best interest. I know that I --
I looked at some contracts between the Kerr County Juvenile
Detention Center and outlying counties for services, and made
some revisions to those. But, at some point, we probably
need to collate and take a look at all of the contracts. I
mean, I think, Buster, one area that we definitely want to
look at things is what contracts do we have with health care
providers under the Indigent Health Care program, how current
are they, and so I think this is something we need to do on a
broad basis.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
- - rr-
19
~.
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: If there's no further discussion on
the Agenda Item No. 2, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: AlI opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. We'll turn to
Agenda Item No. 3, consider and discuss (a) the Kerr 911
Naming and Addressing Guidelines and set date for public
hearing on the guidelines, (b) the official approval of
street names and addresses, and (c} the Court's interface
with the 911 Board. Commissioner Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. Mr. Sandlin is here.
I saw him walk in. Where are you? There you are.
MR. SANDLIN: Hiding.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Now, I wanted to give Mr.
Sandlin an opportunity to formally present to the Court the
new 911 guidelines -- I'm sorry, I don't have my copy -- that
the 911 Board approved and is now getting out to all the
jurisdictions in the County. T., do you have anything to
say? I know that -- or perhaps you can answer any broad
questions. Because we need to set the public hearing date,
primarily, but I wanted to give T. the opportunity to
formally present it to us.
MR. SANDLIN: And I'll do just that. I believe
y'all have a copy of that? Also, hopefully, as a matter of
-- __ .,r
20

/^
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
convenience for you -- I finished these up this morning.
These are just -- there's two copies, a short and a long
version. Just a suggestion or a model for an order that
would adopt and enact these guidelines on behalf of the
County. The short version doesn't go into as much detail,
and probably doesn't give the enforcement or maintenance part
that's necessary for this thing to function, as does the long
version. The reason I did that is because, perhaps, if y'all
wanted to make two separate orders and make the enactment and
enforcement part a separate order -- I don't know that that's
necessary; that would be a decision for y'all. But, anyway,
I present those to you just as a model.
One other question that I've been asked the last couple
of weeks -- and I'm giving you this just an example; I know
you're going to -- I think you're going to see this on the
agenda a little bit later. I'm sorry. There's a copy -- not
to speak out of turn, but this was one of the addressing
projects we worked on for Cypress Estates. Voelkel
Engineering provided us with a DWG, the AutoCad drawing of
it, and I went in there and center-lined the road and
center-lined and numbered them, and you can see how we
derived those numbers for those lots.
One thing that we cover in the guidelines that's often a
breakdown in some of the addressing system is corner lots.
For instance, if you look at corner lots, that's No. 170, and
/'`
zl

L
t^
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
also No. 100 at the intersection of Glenn Lakes and Cypress
Estates Parkway. In this preaddressing stage, there's no way
of really telling where the house is going to be or which way
the house is going to face. It could face either of the two
streets. So, when we get to -- those corner lots are lots
that sometimes face sometimes three streets. We provide
addresses for each street that may be faced to perhaps
alleviate any problems later on, and that's all addressed in
the guidelines. One thing we've needed is a comprehensive
set of guidelines that specifically addresses how we handle
that and other issues.
For the sake of time, I'll answer any questions you
might have about the guidelines; then I have a couple of
brief statements. Also, Mr. Charles Chase, who's a member of
the GIS committee, is present.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any questions?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just one comment, because I
-- Buster and I have been delving in this for the last couple
weeks, so I -- for clarity, lust so the members of the Court
understand, you see -- let's take Lot 17 -- or where you see
the 170, right here. There's an asterisk there, and on the
plat it says that the final numbering for structurews that
would be there would depend on where they are situated in
relation to the little green numbers that you see. So,
actually, there's sort of a second step that you have to go
~_
zz

~^`~
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
through here. Once you have decided -- once a landowner has
decided where they want to put a structure, we would go in
and actually assign them an address -- 911 would -- based on
the green numbers that you see. And if you had more than one
structure on the same property -- and the bigger the
property, the more likely that is to happen -- if there are
two living sites for example, you may have two addresses on
the same lot. But -- but I think that's a good system. I
think -- I know that we're probably trying to play with some
ways where we don't have to put all of the numbers on all the
plats.
/'`_
MR. SANDLIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's a lot of --
MR. SANDLIN: When you get the final plat, the
little green numbers don't appear. I just wanted you to see
how we did them.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, at any rate, I think it
will work, and this is a good example of how it will work in
the guidelines. I would like to say -- oh, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question is more or less
kind of a big-picture question, and going back to who's doing
what under this policy. And, it appears to me that 911 is
taking on a tremendous amount of -- of work that, before now,
has really been done by our Road and Bridge Department when
it comes to a lot of the street naming and such like that,
23
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
and putting together, and -- I mean, it goes to the GIS
Committee. There's lust a lot of detail as to how names get
done and changed and things of this nature. Whereas, our
current, you know, procedure that we've been handling is it
comes to the Commissioners Court quarterly, any kind of name
change other than outside of the platting process. I'm
talking about road name changes, road signs, all of that
comes to us quarterly. It lust seems that -- you know, I
lust wanted to mainly point it out, that it appears to me
that the Commissioners Court is delegating a tremendous
amount of this to 911. Did I read it correctly?
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, sir, mainly regarding what we
define as private access roads. I think -- excuse me,
private restricted roads in the guidelines.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. SANDLIN: As far as public access roads, which
are -- I don't have a percentage, but I would say somewhere
around 80, 90 percent of the roads you deal with, other than
if you wish 911 to make a recommendation on a road name,
we're kind of taking a hands-off policy on that and, of
course, defer to the Commissioners Court. What we were

trying to do was lust streamline the process somewhat, and
hopefully take some of the burden off of the Commissioners
Court and the other entities that would adopt this. And, by
saying that we would not be responsible for the final naming,
24
~~
1"`
~__._
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
but the process of how we get from Point A to Point B on
private access road names, they're handled outside of the
normal subdivision process, and we're very careful to outline
the steps that 911 would take in that scenario. And, on the
agenda, we referred to it as the steps that a Commissioners
Court or City would take in handling the naming of public
access roads, and we did make a distinction; and the
definitions between public access and private, restricted
roads, that's a big issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, on public roads, any
renaming or naming of unnamed roads goes into basically the
same process as private restricted roads?
MR. SANDLIN: Other than coming to 911 just to
check, make sure that it's complying with the guidelines part
of that.
COMMISSIONER	GRIFFIN:	I just	want	to inject	that I
think one of the things	that we	-- the	Court	wants to	do is,
you know, try to get as much of this pushed through the
tunnel, through 911, as we can, because we're still going to
approve it. Commissioners Court is still going to approve
it. But, it doesn't make much sense to me for someone to be
coming directly to the Court saying, "I want my street name
changed" when we don't know that -- it may not fit in the 911
system. So, that's a screening, as I see it; it is a
screening process. Now, the Court -- 911 can come to us and
,d"..
25
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
say, Here's the name that the landowners want for the road.
It won't work in our system, for whatever reason. And we're
going to have to make the Solomon-like decision on whether or
not to go ahead and approve it or not. So, it's not taking
away any of our ultimate responsibility, but it's making sure
that -- that every input is rationalized through the 911
system, which I think is exactly what we want.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don`t have a problem with
that part of it. I guess my concern comes down to that the
Commissioners are the first line to the public, and we have
no control over 911 directly. And, so, we're -- I see a
situation where people submit these changes in to 911 or want
something done, and T.'s gone and someone else doesn't want
to do anything, and, all of a sudden, this -- it can get
bottlenecked, and it's out of our authority. To me, if we're
going to designate all this to 911, I think we probably have
to separate -- have a separate interlocal agreement or
something that we could hold them directly accountable for
it. Because, through 911, they're -- you know, report to
their board. And, it lust seems that a problem in the future
could develop and we could have a hard time solving it. We
could, I guess, undesignate -- you know, not designate it to
them any more.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I say we do that. I
mean, I think we do that in practice and in a legal sense
~^
26

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
when we adopt the guidelines or we don't. And that's what
the public hearing would be about, is to raise the kind of
questions you're talking about. And, we'll adopt them as-is,
or we'll adopt them with modifications or whatever, and I
think that's just part of the process.
MR. SANDLIN: My point is, we're not trying to
usurp anyone's authority at all. We're just trying to --
we're trying to take some of the burden, a little bit of
burden so that we could, you know, streamline the process.
Like I said, we're just trying to act as intermediary to get
this thing going.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, initially there is
going to be a tremendous amount of work. We have -- I mean,
I'd hate to even guess how many roads -- probably hundreds in
my precinct alone that we're going to have to do these new
names, and they're talking about contacting every person on
every street, you know, about this. And that's -- all of a
sudden, I can just see a huge bottleneck and nothing
happening for a long time. I mean, 'cause trying to -- I
mean, just postage alone for 911 to do this -- I mean, I
don't know, it just seems to me that it's going to be a -- it
sounds good on paper. When I start thinking about my
precinct and the number of people that are going to be
affected -- Cypress Greek is a problem. You know, who knows?
Highway 27 -- I mean, how many people live on Highway 27? If
27
/"~
t^
~.
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
he -- does he have to notify every one of them?
MR. SANDLIN: No. No, that's y'all's
responsibility.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's a question I have, because
the order you've presented delegates the Address Coordinator
responsibility to 911.
MR. SANDLIN: Okay, we're talking about --
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Wait a minute. We've got
apples and oranges going here a little bit, because where we
have a road name or a highway name already named, the
numbering process is not something that you have to negotiate
with the landowner. The numbering process is going to lust
get cranked out of the computer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Naming process is what I'm
talking about.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The name processing on
subdivided roads, we probably -- they are probably -- 911 is
not going to be involved all that much. If -- that's
primarily a Court problem. But, anybody that comes forward
with a request for a number change, for example, would go
through 911, and then 911 is going to say to us, "That fits
in our system."
JUDGE HENNEKE: But, 911 is going to have to
recommend to us, if we decide to keep that responsibility,
~",
28


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
how to rename those roads.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would hope so.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't see us being the ones to
sit down with the County --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Absolutely. That's -- and
that's something that 911 can do for us is to, say, give us
some recommendations. "Here are 16 roads that need to be
renamed. What fits in the system?" Here's what the
landowners would like to have, here's what the developer
would like to have, but here's what fits in the system. And,
T. looks at it and says, "Hey, that list is fine."
JUDGE HENNEKE: The question I have for T. is, in
both of the orders he's presented, it delegates -- or appears
to want to delegate the function of address coordinating,
which is the entity that does all of those things --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- from the Court to 911.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, we don't have anybody
who is an address coordinator now. That's --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Address coordinator is more than
lust a coordinator. If you look at the definition, that's
the person who sets the names and sends out the notices,
everything.
MR. SANDLIN: No, the Address Coordinator in this
handles just addresses.

29
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 GRIFFIN: That's it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, look at your definition.
Address coordinator is defined as the entity -- legal entity
authorized and delegated to assign and reassign street
addresses furnished by County or Municipalities.
MR. SANDLIN: Right, street addresses.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That doesn't include names?
MR. SANDLIN: No, sir. And then there's another
section that actually spells out what the coordinator would
do, and that's on -- on Page 27 of 42, under Section 802.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 27?
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, sir, Page 27. We were hoping to
make it clear that whomever you would appoint as Address
Coordinator assigns numbers to buildings and lots and stuff.
That's the purpose of a coordinator, not to -- not to name
roads.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right.
MR. SANDLIN: And, in the order, it specifically
states that -- this is the suggested order, gentlemen: Kerr
County Commissioners Court reserves and maintains its
authority regarding your approval of road names, and then you
would appoint who you like as Address Coordinator to operate
within the guidelines.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's for the

30
~•
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
numbering of unnamed roads?
MR. SANDLIN: This just strictly has to do with the
-- assigning address numbers. As far as the Address
Coordinator, the Address Coordinator doesn't assign or
reassign road names. That's --
JUDGE HENNEKE: We would keep the name
responsibility. Once the names are satisfied, then you
would --
MR. SANDLIN: We'll go put the little green marks
on the street and -- I mean on the map, and --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Not on the street.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let me just push this a little bit
further. On a new subdivision --
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- how does that coordination work?
Do they come to the developer -- do the developers come to
you with the names they want to use and you then recommend to
us that these are appropriate names?
MR. SANDLIN: Yeah. We would say, Okay, they've
came to us with their primary and their alternate road name,
and either that primary or alternate road name meets with the
guidelines, and then it's up to y'all for final approval.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You would recommend to us
yes or no7
MR. SANDLIN: Strictly a recommendation process.

31
~"'~
/^
,.._
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One other comment. I mean, I
kind of look at these two parts in this packet. One is how
we do it, the administrative part, and one is the substance
of the naming and all that. That part I think is great. I
mean, I'd say very little needs to be changed. I mean, I
read through it, it makes sense to me. Looks like it's a
good system. My only concern is a little bit on the -- how
we implement it, basically, and whoever we designate as the
Address Coordinator, and also who's working with the plats.
Since the Court is going to be delegating a lot of
responsibility to someone, that affects a lot of our other
business. We need to, I think, get some more detail as to
timetable accountability, because we're under -- in our
Subdivision Rules, under a pretty tight timeframe; working
with developers, for example. So, we need to have that same
-- make sure that this works with our Subdivision Rules, and
also works from the standpoint of a timely response. And
there's a timetable of how long is it going to take.
That's one thing, actually, too; if you could kind of
look at some of this renaming and addressing, assuming that
you are going to be be designated the Address Coordinator,
and also a response as to -- as to how long it's going to
take -- to take on turnarounds on each individual's request
from a subdivision standpoint and for -- you know, lust ask
if you're going to get -- you know, whether it's one week,
/"'`
32

~"
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
29
25
two weeks, whatever.
MR. SANDLIN: Are you talking about an addressing
assignment now, assigning address numbers to a plat or
something?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both. If someone wants to
change a road name, you, I think, probably need to know what
the timetable is if it's going to be looked at. You can
bring it to us quarterly or monthly, how it's going to be
handled.
~''`
MR. SANDLIN: I hope that -- and maybe I wasn't
that -- wasn't clear in the guidelines. Part of that, on
anything that we would handle, it specifically gives some
timetables that, once we send out a letter, they've got 10
days to respond. You know, if there's a -- there is --
there's a request for a road name or renaming, once they're
given their their opportunity to respond, we'll notify them
when the next GIS Committee meeting will be that will
consider this -- consider their recommendation, by which time
they can appear -- or suggest in writing their approval, and
if everybody agrees, then boom. So, approximately --
approximately a 20-day process.
There is a clause in there, too, that says if we have 35
property owners on a road that needs to be renamed or named,
and they all agree to call it Bill's Lane, for instance, and
it's -- they all sign off on the paper saying we agree to it,
33
,~
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there's no need to go through all this other stuff, because
the property -- I'm talking about a private access road, or
private restricted road. They've all agreed to it. Then, if
this case is somewhat short-circuited and it meets with the
guidelines, we'll immediately bring that forward to y'all.
As far as what timetable y'all set, if you want me to
bring this to you quarterly or on an ad-hoc basis to be
included in regular meetings or whatever, we're certainly
workable on any situation like that. The one thing that I
found difficult, and that other people or other entities that
have engaged in this type stuff around the nation, is if we
get too concrete on our timetables, it tends -- that, in
itself, can tend to bog things down and get things confused.
So, we tried to leave as much flexibility as we could.
Generally speaking, once this thing gets into place for
individual addressing -- I'm talking about when we've got all
roads named and all the little tick marks on the streets --
on the maps -- on the maps, not on the streets -- it will be
simply a matter of looking up what road they're on, and let's
say that they were building another building on Lot 170,
which lined up with 162. That's a matter of them showing me
a site plan or showing me where the building is going to be.
And, we say that's 162, issue them a letter, and that's
usually a 29-, 48-hour turnaround time, but where we get
letters out to the post office, the phone companies and alI
/'`
34

,~"`
L -
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
that. So, it can go rather rapidly once the big bulk --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As I understand it, based on
this, anyone who owns property can get an address for that
property; you don't need a structure on it, correct? It may
change?
MR. SANDLIN: Well, that's one thing that we did
take into account in these guidelines, which was either not
clear or was not accounted for in previous guidelines. Like
I say, one of the basic tenets that came about in 911 is --
is you only address a building when you can see it on the
ground; slab, staked-out foundation or something. However,
that doesn't help the property owner who needs a power pole
put in on his lot so that he can start building something.
So, we had made a provision in there, and there's also
contained in the guidelines what happens if, say, for
instance, someone moves a driveway or they -- there's some
flexibility, and we're trying to be as flexible as we can
without busting the system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Final question. This is going
to cost a lot to implement. Is this coming out of your
budget, or is it going to have to come out of our budget?
I have no -- it's a question, 'cause it's going to be a lot
more -- I mean, more meetings of the GIS Committee. I
presume they're volunteers?
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, sir.
/^,
35
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're going to be meeting,
looks to me, like, probably 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week
for the next couple years. And I just -- anyway, there's a
lot of expenses going to be developed by this.
MR. SANDLIN: Right. As far as the paperwork
expenses, postage expenses and stuff that we handle, that's
built into my budget. As you recall -- or maybe not recall
-- some of you were here -- we did purchase that -- I'm
calling it a sign-making machine, the deal that you put the
vinyl tape in, you punch out the street name. And, we
supplied the vinyl, white reflective tape, enough to do -- at
the time, we figured around 8,000 signs. I don't know;
there's a big variable in there as to size of letters. So,
we have provided that at no cost to the County and the
Cities. It's available for the Cities to use, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have one and the County has
one?
MR. SANDLIN: The one we have we put out at the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That's yours out there?
Okay.
rr"`
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have another question,
Judge. This is not necessarily a question of T., but I'm
questioning the phraseology in the agenda item. We're being
-- we're talking about setting a public hearing date for the
guidelines; is that correct?
36
r
~'`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then the (b) part of this
agenda item says also we're considering and discussing
official approval of street names and addresses.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Typo on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Typo on the agenda. That's
a typographical error that you can disregard (b).
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Disregard (b)? Thank you.
That's what was confusing to me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to say something.
Actually, you're -- you're on a hot trail there. We're
having our public hearing two weeks early, which -- which is
fine, but I do want -- I want to make a comment.
Commissioner Griffin and I met with the GIS Committee, with
Mr. Chase and his group, and they adopted this document, and
we also went over to the full 911 Board and watched them
adopt this document. And, I think it's one of those -- those
documents that we need to -- we need to grab ahold of and
move with, and we're asking the City of Kerrville, the City
of Ingram, and the City of Center Point to do the same thing.
It's time. We're moving -- 911 is moving very fast now, in a
good direction. And we want to keep moving and we want all
of us to be doing the same thing. The more of us that will
be doing the same thing, the faster and better this program
f'"
37

/"`
ti
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
is going to be.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me add one --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to commend both of
your Boards for the hard work that they've done.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I want to do the same, and
also add that this -- this document is written on paper. It
is not cast in stone.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This will be a living
document. In fact, I would recommend putting it in a
three-ring binder -- I already have to T. -- so that
individual pages can be changed. We're going to not lust
change this at the public hearing, perhaps. We'll probably
find a few things that we may want to change at the public
hearing, but as we wade into this, we may find something that
is in the guidelines that doesn't work, and so we've got to
change it. It's like any tech order or any user's manual, so
we'll need to update it from time to time, anyway. And I
would not get, at this point, too hung up on any particular
phrase or sentence or whatever. We can hash that out before,
during, and after the public hearing, and then see if we can
come up with a firm document. But, it's going to change over
time. We can't lust cast this thing in concrete once and
chisel it in the courthouse wall and go on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When are you saying the
,~'~
38
!"'` .
L_
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
public hearing should be7
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two weeks? Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would suggest that we do
it as quickly as we -- probably in conjunction with our next
Court meeting. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that motion.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't see this as a large
-- I mean, this shouldn't take a whole lot of time. It's
going to take some time, but it won't take -- I think we can
do it at our next Court meeting.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We have a request from Mr. John
Gummert to addresses us on this issue. Mr. Gummert, if you
want to come forward at this time?
MR. GUMMERT: Thank you, Judge. Appreciate the
time. I represent -- speak on behalf of two groups. One is
a group of around 20 families that live on Cade Loop, hyphen,
and/or Cade Road, which is between Ingram and Hunt. For five
years, these people -- excuse me, these people have lived
there anywhere from 6 months to 25 years. For five years,
we've been trying get rural free-delivery mail on Cade Loop
and/or Road. The post office says they cannot issue
addresses; the 911 people issue addresses. The 911 people
tell us that, no, the post office issues addresses. In this
building, there are marks on the walls that identify this as
i^
39
,~
~_
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
Cade Loop and as Cade Road; there's one right out here. We
would like to resolve it, realizing it's a big job. That's
one group I represent.
I'm here basically because I also represent the American
Red Cross Disaster Services group. I head that group. We
respond to fires and floods and so forth, following the fire
department or the law enforcement people. Last Wednesday,
March 7th, we had a fire on Cedar. This was the address that
came in to both Ingram and Kerrville Fire Departments. And
there are 10 Cedar Streets in the County. We counted them up
after it was all over, 10 Cedars. The identification was,
"this is Cedar Street near Lime Creek." That was it.
Well, I'm not going to speak to the -- for the fire
departments and how quick they got there. I know we got
there after going to four other Cedars. There's an East
Cedar Drive and a West Cedar Drive, a North Cedar Drive and a
South Cedar Drive, all between Ingram and Kerrville. So,
this is the problem. We work in six other counties besides
Kerr County, and the other six counties are way ahead of us.
And, we would certainly encourage Kerr County to do it before
you get any bigger. We have a lot of population; people are
moving in. Just on Cade Loop-slash-Road, we have two new
subdivisions that have been approved in the last year, and
they're adding some more families.
And, I have a question. Mr. Sandlin says he's going to
40
~`,
~"`
/'`
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
mail notices to people about these addresses. How is he
going to mail the notices to us on Cade Loop? Some of us
have a mailbox up on Highway 39, some of us get our mail in
Ingram, some of us get our mail in Kerrville. So, there is
no way to mail things to us on Cade Loop. And I'm sure this
is the same for many other streets and areas in rural Kerr
County.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: To specifically answer your
question --
MR. GUMMERT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- I believe that -- did we
not -- did I not hear at one of the meetings that those
mail-outs will go to the holder, or on -- or to the entity
who is paying the taxes on that land? They will be notified
of what that lot number -- irrespective of a mailing address,
per se, for that property, if there is rural delivery. If
you -- am I confusing this worse?
MR. GUMMERT: No. It would come with our tax
notices, for example?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It would come to your tax
notice address. That's how you would be notified at this
property.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It could be a non-resident.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It could even be a
non-resident. This said that from here on, that particular
91

/'~`

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
taxable piece of property is going to have this lot number,
or be designated as such.
MR. 3ANDLIN: County tax rolls, whatever the owner
address is.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the specific answer
to how you'll be notified.
MR. GUMMERT: That's fine. Then, again, on behalf
of both these two entities that I'm speaking for, we
encourage the County to get on with it. We certainly stand
willing to help. We have a lot of volunteers with some
various degrees of expertise that would certainly, I think,
pitch in and help you in -- in our area with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was wondering, one of your
questions was about Cade Loop and Cade Road?
MR. GUMMERT: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That will be easy. We'll
just turn it over the Precinct 4 Commissioner. That's his
job. See how easy this is?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would go to the guidelines
that's approved, and that exact thing is addressed in the
guidelines.
MR. GUMMERT: Good.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: On how you resolve it.
MR. GUMMERT: I'm encouraged about this, because
the County Road people put up a sign in the last six months
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
calling it Cade Loop, so I assume the decision has been made
on that particular property.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
MR. GUMMERT: Now we need addresses. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're getting there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question. I am
heartily in favor of setting a public hearing, but this is a
lot to digest, and we're going to have a public hearing and
we're going to expect people to comment on -- those who may
be affected are going to have to comment on these rules and
proposed guidelines. How is the public going to -- the
public who's involved, concerned, how are they going to have
an opportunity to digest this prior to the public hearing?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There will be copies
available in the Clerk's office for perusal by anybody who
wants to come in and do that. If they would like to have a
copy for their own use, that can be produced at a cost yet to
be determined. I think we can establish a cost for that so
that it is not the formal page-by-page, dollar-a-page or
something like that. But, obviously, this one's big enough
that we can probably set a 5-buck price or something if
somebody wants a copy, the Clerk will provide them with one.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it would be appropriate to
have that as part of our motion on the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Post it on the Internet.
~^
43
~""`
~_
/^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is it posted on the
Internet.
MR. SANDLIN: www.kerr911.com.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It is posted on the Internet
for anybody that's got access to that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The earliest available time I would
have to have a public hearing on this matter would be 10
o'clock in the morning two weeks from now, which will be
April 26th. Do I have a motion on --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would so move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And will your motion include the
availability of copies of these --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Availability of copies, yes.
And, somebody help me here. What's a reasonable price that
we have set on these kind of --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $5. You can go down to the
Clerk's office, sit down there at a table and read one, just
like do you the budget.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right. So, it will
be available at no cost for anybody who wants to do it in the
Clerk's office. Five bucks -- $5 for the copy to be made for
you by the Clerk. And I would so move all of that, and that
we have a public hearing at 10 o'clock two weeks from today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment on the time of
44
/"`

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a public hearing, I have no idea what kind of response we're
going to have, if we're going to need an hour or two hours
for the public hearing. We'd better put it, like, 2 o'clock
in the afternoon so we don't get rushed and push --
bottleneck the rest of the agenda on that day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good suggestion.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll amend my motion to make
it 2 o'clock, rather than 10 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: That's awful.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We have a motion by Commissioner
Griffin that we set a public hearing on the 911 naming
guidelines for 2 o'clock on Monday, April 26th, with copies
of the guidelines being available for review at the County
Clerk's office, and that copies of the guidelines may be
purchased from the County Clerk's office for a fee of $5. Is
there a second?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Second by Commissioner Baldwin.
Any further discussion? If 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: Motion carries. I don't believe we
have anything else. I think you had another comment?

45
/"
/^
~~. _
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SANDLIN: If you'd like, I am making some more
copies of this for this Board and the GIS Committee. I'll
provide you with three bound copies. Would that be
sufficient for the County Clerk's office?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Jannett, is that --
MS. PIEPER: That will be fine.
MR. SANDLIN: And if you'd like, I'll also provide
it on disk where it would be easier to reproduce. Would that
be of help?
MS. PIEPER: That would be fine.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That way you won't have to
fax it -- or photocopy it; you could probably print it out.
MR. SANDLIN: Also, if you like, there's the disk
copy of the suggested orders.
JUDGE HENNEKE: One final question. Where are you
with regard to the other municipalities, other jurisdictions?
MR. SANDLIN: Let me consult my calendar so I don't
speak off the top of my head. Center Point -- it's been
delivered to all the other entities. Center Point City
Council is the only one that I know that's considering it
quickly. They will be considering this Thursday, April the
15th, at 7 p.m.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thanks very much, T.,
appreciate the -- appreciate the work.

46
!"~
/'`
4
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. SANDLIN: I'll get those copies to the County
Clerk.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Has the City of Kerrville been
discussing this with you as much as we have in the past
several months? Are they -- is this something that they're
very aware of that is coming, or ]ust kind of something --
this is the first time they've received it?
MR. SANDLIN: No, sir, they're aware of it. I have
spoken with the City Manager regarding it. And, plus, their
City Attorney had a lot of input on this initially when it
was decided that that needed to be formulated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they're --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, there's several of us
around that's been visiting.
MR. SANDLIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before you proceed, can I
tell Ms. Chapman, sitting in back, we have already enacted
your contract, but you're welcome to stay all morning, if you
like. But, if you want to go on, that we've done yours
already.
~~
MS. CHAPMAN: Okay. That's what I lust found out,
so that's good. Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. We'll now turn to
Agenda Item No. 4, which is consider and discuss appointing
Charles Wiedenfeld as the Kerr County O.S.S.F. designated
97
~'~`
~'`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
representative and the Kerz County Floodplain Administrator.
Mr. Brown, do you want to give us 30 seconds on what this is
all about?
MR. BROWN: Judge, members of the Court, for the
record, my name is Jim T. Brown, General Manager, Upper
Guadalupe River Authority, and I would like to ask for about
a 3-minute personal privilege to talk about some items
relative to the two items on the agenda, but -- and also
relative to your consideration. Also, if I might, I would
like to, at the proper time, make a comment on item 2.7 and
item 2.16. Let me start with the comments about the O.S.S.F.
program. We have asked the Court to officially designate
Charles Wiedenfeld as -- as the designated representative.
That name -- that program is still currently listed in the
name of Mr. Litke, who is no longer involved in the program.
The other -- the other issue I want to share with you
is, back on February the 15th, 1999, all of the O.S.S.F. --
T.N.R.C.C. called all of the on-site septic program
administrators, operators, designated representatives, into
Waco for a 9-day meeting. It appears -- and, with great
pride, I share this with you. It appears that now the
T.N.R.C.C. has changed their rules, and their new adopted
rules fairly well reflect the rules that Kerr County adopted
back in the late 80's and the early 90's. So, we're way out
of -- way out ahead.
~"~
48
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
The interesting part of the changes that T.N.R.C.C. are
looking at are those changes that relate to -- to water
quality issues and quality of life issues, more so than the
general nuts and bolts of the plan. It was during that 3-day
meeting that, when the other County officials would ask
about, "How do you implement this," the facilitators would
often refer to the Kerr County representative and would say
-- make a comment, such as, "Kerr County has practiced these
rules -- these programs for the last 7 to 10 years; they're
very familiar with it. I suggest that you get with them."
And these -- these kind of comments were made very often
during the 3 days that -- that the folks were there.
So, in reading the history of the adoption of our
program in Kerr County, we did it because we were concerned
about water quality. The State of Texas now, some eight
years later, has caught up with Kerr County. So, we should
be very proud that we've set the standards, we've set the bar
for the other counties to meet in their water quality
program.

The other comment I would like to make on the Floodplain
Administrator appointment, the State's very slow, but we
finally received the official copy of Charlie's Certified
Floodplain Manager's program. For the record, the
registration number is 0083-98. We will submit a copy of
this to the Court for proper recording.
99

~"~
~_
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 other couple of things I'd like to say about
floodplain, Charlie's lust returned from a week down in
Laredo, where, again, we're going through floodplain rules.
Our current order pretty well tracks and is in concert with
the State recommendation, so we don't anticipate a lot of
need for changes there. However, there -- there are some new
programs that we're going to have to discuss with the
Commissioners Court in the future, and that is the Flood
Event Reaction part of the program.
We -- the Floodplain Administrator, in the future, will
be responsible to assess all the damages in case of a
flooding event in the county. It's his -- it will be his
responsibility -- and let me back up and say all of this
comes back to the Court. But, it will be his -- he will be
the first-line person out there. It's his responsibility,
through the Court, if necessary, to employ the -- the
appropriate appraisers or professional engineers, whatever
the case requires, to assess the damages, not only of the
individual property owners, but also the damages of the local
units of government; i.e., your roads and bridges, City of
Kerrville's wastewater/water system, things of that nature.
The second item on the floodplain issue that I want to
discuss with you, we've requested funds from the U.G.R.A.
Board, special set-aside funds, to conduct a study. Let me
share with you, on October the 17th, there was an unusual
,^
50

r``
~_
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
storm that occured on the Guadalupe River below Canyon Dam,
and on the -- the Blanco River and San Marcos Rivers that was
an equivalent to a 500-year flood. The Lower Colorado River
Authority has asked the U.S. Weather Service and the Southern
Streamflow Monitoring System to simulate that same rainstorm
on the the Headwaters off the Llano River. Had that occurred
in our county ]ust north of us, the flow at the confluence ofl
the Llano River and the Colorado River would have been
700,000 cubic feet of water per second.
Now, the biggest flood that we've seen here in Kerrville
at the Kerrville Dam only relates to about 2.900 cubic feet
of water per second. So, had that occurred, the water would
have been 20 feet over the emergency spillway at Mansfield
Dam in Austin, and they estimate the water would -- would
have probably backed up to at least 8th Street in downtown
Austin. What we have asked -- U.G.R.A. has asked the -- the
U.S. Weather Service to take that same flood and simulate
that same flood on the north fork and the south fork of the
Guadalupe. We've received word this morning that they have
received funds, they're willing to do this.
Our next move will be to contact the City of Kerrville
and officially come back and contact this Court. We would
hope to coordinate this through the Kerr County Emergency
Operations Office. And, if not included in that emergency
team, we obviously need the -- the Kerr County Sheriff's
/'`
51

r``
L r
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
1B
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Office, the Kerrville Police Department, the City Marshal's
Office in Ingram, and other law enforcement officials, along
with TexDOT, the Red Cross, and the U.S. military. One of
the concerns expressed by the -- by the south -- the Southern
River Monitoring -- Streamflow Monitoring Group, out of
Mississippi, is that in the upper reaches or the west end of
Kerr County, most of our roadway systems are along --
parallel to the river. If we'd had a flood like that, most
of the roadways would be -- would have been inundated and we
possibly would not have been able to pass.
One of the things that we're going to be looking at in
this -- in this simulation would be other spots -- high spots
where -- where families -- where people could go, and we
would have a designated clearing agent for the area, it would
be mapped, there would be coordinates on it. Part of -- part
of the team would also include the U. S. military. So, we
need to be prepared. We don't know that it's going to ever
happen, we but we need to be prepared for it, and so we're
going to simulate that same flood and we'll determine how we
best evacuate our families if we have a situation like that,
worst case scenario. We're not going to -- we're not going
to take an optimal case; we're going to look at the worst
case. So, this is probably something that will occur over
the next year.
My presentation to you today is the first -- other than
r^
52


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
through Executive Committee at the U.G.R.A. Board. We will
be working on this, putting the plan together, developing the
scenario. At that point, we'll come back and visit with the
Court and get your input and your guidance. But, I think we
-- as many times as I've been out in west Kerr County along
the two roadways, I've never really, in my mind, imagined
what could happen if we had a 500-year flood event out there,
and -- and the logistics of getting people out to safety.
So, that's something new. It's something that we're going to
undertake.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before you leave that -- I
mean, I think the frequency is probably a lot higher than the
public thinks. I mean, there was a flood two years ago, and
that dust happened to hit on kind of the Guadalupe and the --
or it was Cherry Creek, Holiday Creek, Joshua Creek, and Pipe
Creek, basically. It was the same 20 inches in a day, right
in that area. The reason I know about it, it hit right on my
property. It was about what they had out there. And if that
one flood right there would have moved, you know, 10 miles to
the northwest, it would have been right over the South Fork.
So, I mean, these floods are pretty common. We've been, I
think, spared the bullet so far, because they've happened to
hit right on the perimiter where it would fall into two big
watersheds. I think it`s it's a real good idea. I would
really encourage U.G.R.A. in taking a lead on that, because,
~•
53
~^~-
~^",
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
you know, it will happen at some point. You know, who knows
when? It may be 500 years, but it could also be relatively
soon, because the frequency of floods like this are popping
up, it seems, more and more frequently.
MR. BROWN: Well, if this happens at night and we
have people evacuate their homes and climb up in the
mountains, we need to have -- people need to know where these
spots are, that we need to map them. And, as we bring in
military support to airlift people out, they need to know
where these points are. So, we've got some -- we've got some
mapping to do. I -- hopefully, we can work with 911, use
their base maps, but I think that the community -- I think
the community will be very responsive to this, because I
think we realize that, living here, there's a huge quality of
life issue, and I think we lust need to move on and be
prepared. Hopefully, we'll never use it but -- and,
Commissioner, I appreciate your -- your report the other day
on the -- how the volunteer rain monitoring groups are not
working. I had no idea that that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a mess.
MR. BROWN: Yes, it really is. Along that line,
let me, if I may -- and I'll finish at this point, Judge.
Without going into -- because we're in -- we're in contract
deliberations, we have found a purchaser for the system who
-- the R.O.S. system, as we call it, who is willing to take
/^•
54
s-~
~,"``
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 over, do long-term upkeep, maintenance of the system. The
problem we're having in expeditious transfer is that we can't
find an owner. No one out there vows to own this piece of
equipment. It was a lease in U.G.R.A. The people who we
were leasing it from did not go into bankruptcy, they simply
closed their door. They had one major creditor, transferred
all their assets to him. And, he is in the business of
manufacturing gauges and telemetry equipment, has no interest
in operating the system, but there is someone else who's
interested.
And a part of that will be a broad-based -- it will --
the system will be tied into the Edwards Aquifer Authority's
rain gauge system that starts out on the west end of the
county, and G.B.R.A.'s system, and L.C.R.A., I think, is
going to join. So, the Weather Service will have a
tremendous gauging operation that allows them to look at the
entire county. The down side of this --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jim, excuse me for
interrupting you. i want to ask you a question. There's
something kind of unique here about -- I want to ask a
question about the agenda item.
MR. BROWN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Wiedenfeld, you know --
the way I understand it, the State authorizes Kerr County to
be the agent -- agent?
r"'`
55
r"~

1
Z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. BROWN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then we contract with
U.G.R.A. to run the program. And, Mr. Litke's name has been
on there all these years, and we're simply removing Mr. Litke
and putting in Mr. Wiedenfeld's name. Is that the only
thing?
MR. BROWN: That is correct, sir. That is correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there's two things
there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay. It's on both on
O.S.S.F. and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: O.S.S.F. and Floodplain
Administrator.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is that your motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by Commissioner
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we appoint
Charles Wiedenfeld as the O.S.S.F. designated representative
and the Kerr County Floodplain Administrator. 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.

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
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Thank you, Mr.
Brown.
MR. BROWN: Thank you. And thank you for the
personal privilege.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item we'll take up is Item
No. 5, which is consider and discuss the appeal of T.W.D.B.
population estimates for Kerr County for regional water
planning purposes. Just a brief background, for those who
aren't familiar with this. As part of the Senate Bill 1
statewide -- regional-wide water planning process, the State
has provided each region and each county within each region
with population estimates running out through the year 2050.
There is a process for appealing those population estimates
if it's the opinion of a number of people in the county that
the population estimates for the county are inadequate. And,
the decision before us is whether or not to participate with
the U.G.R.A. and probably the Headwaters in an appeal of
those population estimates. Jonathan, do you want to say
anything?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not really. We had a meeting
last week. The Judge and myself attended, along with other
representatives in the county, and I guess Bandera County and
Real County, with the Water Development Board and the
individuals -- Mr. Bloodworth, who is kind of the head of
~,
57
r''^

~~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this department at T.W.D.B.. And, certainly, I agree with
the Judge that, you know, the numbers are not accurate. And
-- and if we don't think they're accurate, appeal them and
they'll probably modify them. I think we, you know, should
do so, to get them as close as possible.
From a Region J standpoint, the toughest part of this is
the timing of it, and I think there's a page in here -- we
need to have these numbers -- the way the process works,
anyone who wants to appeal them gets them to the Region J
Board, and then we have to compile it all into one package
and then send it off to Water Development Board and appeal it
as a region. We need to have this as a region in early May.
So, I think that what we're looking for today is basically
for the Court to say proceed with it, and I guess,
presumably, for the Judge to possibly work on the actual
appeal, and bring it back to the Court for approval at our
next Commissioners Court meeting with revised numbers.
That will be done, you know, by, say, the Judge -- he
and I have been working on it for some time with Jim Brown,
of course, and the City of Kerrville, Headwaters, all the
entities in Kerr County, as well as --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you not only say, "We
don't like your numbers," but, "Here is what we think the
correct numbers are"?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. And we will -- and
58

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
most of our -- I think the challenge will be based on -- all
of our challenge is based on data we currently have in place,
whether we've received it from the phone company -- Kerrville
Telephone has done quite a few studies. Their numbers are,
you know, pretty ambitious, I think, population-wise, but
certainly they are valid numbers. The Chamber has numbers.
The HDR study that KPUB, U.G.R.A., the City participated in
that, they've got numbers. The HDR study also has
consumption numbers, which we will appeal as well. We can
appeal both population and consumption per capita, and if
either one is off, it could have a big very impact,
potentially, in the future.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's funny how everybody
scrambles around rallying around the Water Development Board
numbers, all these things. You know, we love those things.
All of a sudden now, we're going to protest them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And a lot of it is, their
demographics don't fit Kerr County because of our population
make-up and number of retirees that continue to move into
this area. They show everyone dying, and that has not been
the historical record of Kerr County. If you go back 50
years, we've had a very -- look at every 10 years after that,
we've had a very consistent growth rate. And, Water
Development Hoard's growth rate is 30 percent lower than what
we actually have have seen in the last 50 years.
59

~.
~_

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We just need to make --
approve a motion to do something here? Or --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we need to take a formal
position on appealing the population estimates and
consumption estimates. The U.G.R.A. has offered to take the
lead in preparing a unified set of numbers, and I think the
idea is that each jurisdiction that's participating would
join in the appeal based on those consensus numbers. We do
have the advantage in that Headwaters Underground Water
Conservation District had to submit its Water Management Plan
on September 1st of last year, which was approved by the
T.W.D.B. using better numbers than what they're now proposing
to saddle us with. So, I think we have the opportunity to
improve our position on those numbers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, let me offer a
motion that Kerr County join the Upper Guadalupe River
Authority in challenging the population projections and
consumption projections that were put forward by the Texas
Water Development Soard and move that process forward.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that Kerr County join with
the U.G.R.A. in appealing the Texas Water Development Board
population and consumption estimates for Kerr County. Any
further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right
T

60
/'~
f"'
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
hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. We'll now go to
Item No. 6, which is the concept plan for Twin Springs Ranch
Subdivision at the end of Spur 100, Precinct 2 and Precinct
3. Franklin?
MR. JOHNSTON: I'll -- I'll turn it over in a
second to Michael Lindley and let him run through his --
and/or Don Voelkel, and let them run through the plan. The
one comment I had was about the access to the subdivision.
It has to traverse several hundred yards of an easement from
Spur 100 before it actually gets to the subdivision, and I
think probably the subdivision should continue all the way to
the County road to make a -- a deeded easement rather than --
or a deed access, rather than dust an easement.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Has anyone reviewed the easement to
insure that it is for the benefit of this entire subdivision
tract?
MR. JOHNSTON: Not at this point. The concept plan
-- we haven't really got into it, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I like the concept --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let Mr. Lindley speak.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to speak, if you
.i -
61
/"
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
don't mind. i like the concept
acres. I like the concept, I 1
But I don't like when you can't
that's the only -- that's my --
personally, but it's -- they're
helicopters or what?
of 25 acres and maximum 91
ike that line of thinking.
get in and out of it. So,
I approve the concept,
going to be coming in by
s^
L ._
MR. VOELKEL: That's what we're hoping.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. VOELKEL: I'm Don Voelkel, and Mike Lindley and
I are both here. This was lust a concept plan. That doesn't
really show -- like, the preliminary plan -- when we bring
the preliminary plan, it will show that stretch of road.
There's -- I think Mike said there's maybe quarter of a mile
from the entrance to this development over to Spur 100. It's
deeded easement, and we'll put all that information on the
plat. We don't own all that property, but we have access to
it. I mean, the entrance -- the access to our entrance is
through that, and I -- it's behind -- starts out -- Buster,
it starts out as a 60-foot-wide access, and then the current
owner bought an additional 90 feet, so at about 150 yards it
goes to a 100-foot access to the property. So, you know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not only helicopters, but
airplanes. That's good. I like the language in this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mike, is there a
possibility you can obtain -- purchase that instead of having)
/'•
r

62
;^`


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
just an easement?
it's been there since possibly
you know, 20-something years
the Court a copy of the
see that it's, you know, an
don't know if we can purchase
into that.
MR. LINDLEY: Well,
Shelton bought the property,
ago. And it's -- I can bring
easement documents so you can
open access to that ranch. I
it or not. We haven't looked
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would like to just stomp
on the point that the Judge made, and that is that we -- I
would look at those easement documents very carefully to make
sure that there is not some reason that, in the future,
somebody could say that the easement does not apply; it
applies for access to other properties, but not to this, for
whatever reason. That's for your protection, and certainly
for the Court's protection, if we're going to approve the --
the first and second plats.
MR. LINDLEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There is an area that -- I just
want to make one point, let Mike and, I guess, the public and
the Court know, we really don't have a formal Master Road
Plan, but at some point Spur 100 has been thought to be a
logical road to carry north to Cypress Creek Road. And
that's just out there, you know, as something to think about.
Because if -- you know, and I don't know where this goes --
as you go further up, how this ties in with that other
___ _ _T

63

/"'~
~.
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
property that's up in that area, and that was the subdivision
up there where the radio tower is, you know, how that all
fits. i know we're getting pretty close the further north we
go up Spur 100. And I think it's something that, you know,
as the Court, we need to be very conscious of, that we don't,
you know, start putting subdivisions in areas, as we've done
in other parts of the county, that we all of a sudden cut off
future road development. And there is one that I know that
the City of Kerrville has looked at and we've looked at
previously in the county, from the standpoint of Spur 100.
MR. LINDLEY: When I was at the road office the
other day, I was dropping this off for Mr. Johnston, and
Leonard Odom was there and we discussed that -- that idea.
And he said he had talked either with the Court, or had also
visited with the City, and that they talked about this
situation, and that since that road dead-ends about another
half a mile up there, that they had refocused on looking at
where that road ended and where the most logical place and
the closest place to hook into Cypress Creek Road would be.
And, because this butts up to two other private subdivisions
on the north and the east side of it, that they -- that, you
know, they had gone away from looking at this like they did,
you know, two, three years ago. It wasn't a logical position
or a logical place to even look at it.
COMMISSIONER LET2: You lust brought it up to us to
rte'!

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
be aware of it, that y'all were discussing it with Road and
Bridge?
MR. LINDLEY: Like I say, I hadn't talked about it,
either, since we did last time, but Mr. Odom brought it up
that they had focused more -- were looking more toward the
end of the road where it dead-ends to those two ranches and
going up to the adjacent property line where they adjoin, and
then coming down Cypress Creek.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a question, trying to
simplify your life a little bit in the future. Where is the
dividing line between 2 and 3 on this plat?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to ask that
question, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know basically it's the power
line. The power line.
MR. LINDLEY: It's the power line there, your power
line right here. So, all that is really in --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That corner?
MR. LINDLEY: It's that corner right there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I get this little corner right
here to build on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's all?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it. The rest of it's
here. And, I was saying that for -- from your standpoint,
rather than having to deal with two Commissioners, the


65

r^`
4
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
majority will be in Precinct 2, so you can deal with
Commissioner Williams, I would say.
MR. LINDLEY: I pretty much was aware of that.
That's the reason I wanted to meet with Mr. Williams, take
him on the property, so he would know what we were looking
at.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did that.
MR. LINDLEY: So you can bring that information to
the Court.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is it your intent that each of
these lots would have their own septic -- well and septic
system?
MR. LINDLEY: Yes, sir.
MR. VOELKEL: And the concept that Mike wants to
put in is similar in fashion to Whiskey Ganyon; not
necessarily at Spur 100, having an entrance with a private
gate, but that the entrance to this property -- where it
shows coming into this property right now, have a gated
community.
MR. LINDLEY: We couldn't build it on the public
road. I like that situation better here than I do the Hidden
Hills and the Whiskey Ridge and the River Valley and the
other large-tract developments out there I've been involved
with, for safety reasons. I mean, you've got some relief
coming off the county road where you turn back in there
/^
66
~^.
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
before you stop at the gate. And, of course, we've worked
with the Highway Department on our setbacks and done
everything, you know, to meet with their requirements and do
everything, you know, with their regulations and so on, and
do things right. But this makes it even nicer to have a, you
know, couple hundred yards to get off before you stop at a
gate and go into your development. So, I see this as an
asset instead of a --
MR. VOELKEL: You continue the road construction
all the way to the Spur 100; you wouldn't leave that
unimproved.
MR. LINDLEY: That would be paved from the County
road all the way to the development.
MR. JOHNSTON: When we talk about the type of road,
I think, under our rules, this would require local road specs
because of the number of lots, as opposed to the -- to the
country lane.
MR. VOELKEL: The type of road they was wanting to
put in was the country lane, which is 20-foot wide base and
I6-foot-wide pavement. And, with just -- there's only 22
tracts out there. That's -- that's not a large number of
homes going in, and that's why we'd like to use the country
lane. And, we didn't know if you'd rather us do it in
sections, or do it all at once and ask for a variance for the
country lane.
_i .._

67

`,
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Country lane, not if it's --
what did you say, 22 lots?
MR. LINDLEY: Well, what we were --
MR. JOHNSTON: Our rules have an arbitrary number
of 15, maximum.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. VOELKEL: So, we're at 22 right now.
MR. JOHNSTON: Seems an appropriate type of road
for this development.
MR. VOELKEL: That's why we brought the concept
plan, to let you know. We also have some in the E.T.J., so
we'll have to get this meeting done, then we'll have to go to
the City for another permanent concept.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much is in the E.T.J.?
MR. VOELKEL: I think about the front four or five
tracts.
MR. LINDLEY: About 120 acres, and all the access
road from the County road in.
MR. VOELKEL: We wanted to nail down what -- what
our concept was with y'all before we went to them so that
we're not like a tennis court, back and forth. But that's
what our preference would be, to do the same same type of
road for the full length of it, and put it in as a country
lane, like Mike was explaining.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like the concept, the size


68
r-~
l'"`
,~"~
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 lots and all that. I don't think -- I'm not going to
comment on the country Iane at this point. Probably the
preliminary plat would be a more appropriate time. But, I
like the concept, and -- and I think that's what this meeting
is all about, is whether we like the concept or not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I think it looks like
a good concept. The only road issue is just that front part
where that maybe this front section would be local road, the
rest country lane.
MR. JOHNSTON: It might require a different road
standard, anyway, the first section on it. That would
probably bring it down to the 15 lots in the rear, anyway.
How many lots in the front?
MR. LINDLEY: About four.
MR. VOELKEL: Four to six.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bring that front area up. You
probably could go within our rules to the back majority.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We need a motion to approve the
concept plan.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll move that the concept
plan be approved as submitted.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the concept plan for Twin
Springs Ranch Subdivision be approved. Any further
_ _.

69

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
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. Thank you,
gentlemen. At this time, we'll take up No. 7, and I believe
after we finish this one, we'll take a short beak. Agenda
Item No. 7, consider approval of Letter of Credit for Cypress
Springs Estate, Phase I, and the final plat of Cypress
Springs, Phase I. Let's take them in order. First, Letter
of Credit. I will say that the Letter of Credit has been
reviewed and approved by our civil attorney, Mr. Pollard.
Franklin, do you have anything else to add on that?
MR. JOHNSTON: No, I don't have anything to add on
that part.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you agree?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You want an order on each
one?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we approve the
Letter of Credit.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve the Letter
of Credit for Cypress Springs Estates, Phase 1. Any further


70
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
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: We'll now consider the final plat
of Cypress Springs Estate, Phase I.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think you have a copy of the final
plat there before you, and along with that, they've furnished
a performance bond from Aqua3ource to install the water
system. The Letter of Credit you lust approved, they have
the letter from T.N.R.C.C. approving the water system.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There is a letter from
T.N.R. -- I thought I read that -- read one that said it
didn't.
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, it's preliminary approval
until they actually get it in, and I think they get final
approval.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They have to inspect it.
MR. JOHNSTON: Have to inspect it first, but I
think it's tentative approval, whatever the wording is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All I see here in dark
letters, "The well in this project is ~ approved for use
as a public water supply..."
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, that's the letter.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Till they inspect it.

71
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
MR. JOHNSTON: It says "approved for construction"
on the front page.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: So, there will be an inspection
process. Then you have a copy of the U.G.R.A. preliminary
plat review, which says they meet the requirements checklist.
I recommend approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, it's going to be one
well and one water source, right? Is that correct?
MR. JOHNSTON: One well? One well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One well?
MR. JOHNSTON: For this phase.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Distribution system?
MR.JOHNSTON: Possibly other phases, there'll be
additional wells?
MR. WHIDBEE: Multiple wells.
MR. JOHNSTON: But for this one, just one.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Brown, do you have a comment on
this?
MR. BROWN: Very quickly, for the record, Jim
Brown, General Manager, Upper Guadalupe River Authority. My
comment on this, when the -- if you recall -- well, some of
you weren't on the Court then, but those of you who were on
the Court recall that when the preliminary plans for this
subdivision was submitted, U.G.R.A. had some -- some real

A
72
~,"`
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
concerns about sedimentation control and pollution of the
river. I want to -- for the record, I want to say that
working with Mr. Whidbee and his other partner, they have
done an exemplary job of -- of containing their siltation and
their storm water diversions into their settling ponds, which
will certainly enhance the quality of the water as a result
of this subdivision. So, I'm going on the record now that
they've worked with us, and we're extremely pleased with what
they've done, and we think they've set a model for the
County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Of course, you haven't had any
rain, Jim.
MR. BROWN: The devices are in place.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I may just add to that, that
I have really -- I really agree that this could be the model
of the way it works. The owners have really done a super job
of coming to me with questions when they had them. They've
gone to -- to the Engineer, they've done it the right way,
and that is to find out what's right and then go do it. And,
I would recommend that this procedure, from first to last, is
the way they all be done.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It would save us a lot of
problems.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I make a motion that we
~"~
1 I
73
~''`
/"
._
r'`
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
approve the final plat as presented.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by Commissioner
Griffin and seconded by Commissioner Letz that we approve the
final plat of Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I, as presented.
Any further discussion? Franklin any -- anything further?
MR. JOHNSTON: No.
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. It's 10:32, and
we're going to stand in recess until 10:45.
(Recess taken from 10:32 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioners Court will now return
to session. We'll take up Agenda Item No. 8, which is
consider action for violation of Kerr County Subdivision
Rules and Regulations. Mr. Johnston, I believe, and Bill?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's in -- it's in my
back yard. Let Franklin tell you about it.
MR. JOHNSTON: The 1869 Ranch, between Center Point
and Comfort, is apparently offering lots for sale without
filing subdivision plats. The owner of that land was in the
Court last fall, and we heard his comments -- I have a copy

74
/"
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
attached -- to the Court, where he said he was only selling
property that fronted on Highway 27 ox Stoneleigh Road.
Subsequently, sales literature came out, and there are lots
that have no access to any road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Franklin, I have a couple
questions about this. The material that you provided us --
MR. JOHNSTON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- let's go to the little
map drawing on the back of your --
MR. JOHNSTON: That's the only information I had.
Apparently, they lust chopped off four lots.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're saying that Lots
2 and 3 are, in effect, landlocked?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then the one that's
identified as Lot No. 1, that he's got some sort of an -- is
that an easement, that little piece that logs out through?
MR. JOHNSTON: I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you obtain this from
the realtor or what?
MR. JOHNSTON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if we don't do what the
realtor is saying with respect to ingress and egress for that
one Lot No. 1 --
MR. JOHNSTON: No, it is was -- Sherxon Property

75
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
apparently faxed this to the Court, and I received that.
That's where I got it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, this gentleman's
approach to Commissioners Court was one thing, and then his
desire to do something appears to be quite to the contrary.
I'm not going to bother the Court with all the things he
said; you can read it. But, some of statements he made, I
underlined here, are in direct contrast to what he now is
offering for sale, so I think -- let's not have a reprisal of
the Elgin Bank case. Let's just bite the bullet, the way I
see it. Let's get this man to tell us exactly what his plan
is. If he needs to have a subdivision plat, let's do it, get
it done.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Question. Is he aware of
this being on the agenda today? Do we know?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know if he is or
not.
MR. JOHNSTON: I didn't notify him. I just wanted
to bring it to the to the Court's attention.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's a resident of Kendall
County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWZN: He fussed about it last
time.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the reason I asked.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, is it in there?
/~
76
/~

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The procedure in the
Subdivision Rules is that the-- you know, the County
Engineer, whoever finds an apparent violation brings it to
the Court and they assign the County Attorney to look into
it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's what's
appropriate. We're not going to take any action on it today,
except to maybe -- maybe request the County civil attorney to
notify this man that, from all outward appearances, he's in
violation of Subdivision Rules and Regulations, and that he
should make some effort to bring us up to speed on what he
plans to do, and then we'll determine whether he's really in
violation or not. I would move that we do that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I would like to suggest that
we don't have our civil attorney notify Mr. Muller; that we
have Franklin notify Muller that this is on the agenda for
the next meeting, and forward this to Mr. Pollard to do a
record for us at the next meeting as to how this falls within
Elgin Sank. I mean, from the drawings, it seems to me --
it's quite clear that he is in violation of the platting
subdivision requirements, but I'm not really going to make
that call on my own. So, I think, perhaps, the better
procedure might be to send him a letter saying that we intend
to discuss the status of this subdivision at our April 26th
meeting; at the same time, ask Mr. Pollard to do a little

77


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
investigation and give us his opinion as to whether or not
this is a violation of the subdivision platting requirements.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM3: Sounds like a good approach
to me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only question is that --
do we use Mr. Pollard or Mr. Motley? I was thinking Mr.
Motley, but if y'all think Mr. Pollard --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, this -- you know, it raises
the whole question of whether this is a civil or criminal
matter, and also it raises the question of timeliness.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a different issue.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And I would like to have -- have a
response.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine. I just view it
as kind of a more -- in line with State law, you know, and
that's where my mind goes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't disagree with you, but I'm
not sure if a violation of the Subdivision Rules is a
criminal or a civil proceeding, and that's how you would hang
up on that one. So, my suggestion is we get Mr. Pollard to
-- to do a quick review and a report for us.
MR. JOHNSTON: Will the Court be in touch with Mr.
Pollard, or do you want me to --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'll be in touch with him. If
you'll write a letter to Mr. Muller --
r^
0
78
T
t'om`
!~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. JOHNSTON: Muller.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- Muller, that's what we want to
do, telling him that we intend to review the status of this
subdivision for compliance at our April 26th meeting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment on it is I
think, if you read through the questioning at our prior
meeting, that he was there because of his history in Kendall
County of not following Subdivision Rules. He is a former
County Judge down there. And, that's why I was, you know, a
little bit rough with him, you could say, in my questioning,
because I flat said in Court that, You didn't follow the
rules in Kendall County; we're not going to let you do that
in Kerr County. And he clearly assured the Court that he was
not going to violate our rules. And, just sending that
letter to him about violating the rules, I think, is one that
-- you know, I support what y'all are saying, but remember,
he's already had one chance with us, in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think there's a sense of
urgency in this, in that if we allow this gentleman to get
away with it, there are other developers who would be looking
at that, at our inaction.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I agree.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I moved it, yeah, in
accordance with the Judge's revised approach.
--- --T-
79

`_
v^.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
I2
13
14
15
16
17
28
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Great minds run together.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll second it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the County Engineer
write a letter to Mr. Muller notifying him that the status of
the subdivision will be reviewed by the Court at the April
26th agenda, and that the County Judge ask our civil
attorney, Mr. Pollard, to prepare a review and report for us
prior to that April 26th meeting. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is just that I
think you should send it certified, return receipt requested.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Absolutely.
JUDGE HENNEKE: 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: Thank you, Franklin. At this time,
with the Court's indulgence, I'd like to skip to Item No. 14.
I see our esteemed Tax Assessor/Collector is here with Mr.
Shiever, and I'd like to accommodate him. He's come over
from Austin to take up the item. So, without objection,
we'll take up Item 14, which is consider and discuss
procedure for approval and consent of bids for the resale of
trust property.
1
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
MR. SHIEVER: Morning, gentlemen.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Shiever, how are you?
MR. SHIEVER: Just tine. How are you a117 Let me
go ahead and distribute a couple handouts to you that are
really not pertinent for this morning, but this will kind of
outline what I do day-to-day.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
MR. SHIEVER: Hot off the presses.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. SHIEVER: They're, just like I said, outlines,
basically. One is the overall procedure for collection of
delinquent taxes, and the other one is talking mainly about
trust properties, which is the subject for consideration this
morning. I guess it was a month or so ago, it was brought to
our attention, in the sale of one of the trust properties,
that no one seemed to know exactly where or if there was a
prior order delegating the approval or consent of a sale of
trust property to the Tax Assessor. Of course, there's
always been the signature of the County Judge, so there's
never been any problem with the validity of any of the
conveyances.
Now, when i say "trust property," this is property that
the tax jurisdictions receive in trust. Whenever there's no
sufficient bid at a Sheriff's sale, the property can -- if
it's a school suit, then the property will be held in trust

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
by the school for resale. If it's one of the suits I filed
for the County and no one bids on it, then it comes to the
County in trust for us to resell it. And, we can sell it --
or either jurisdiction can sell it for the lesser of either
what is due against it or the last appraised value. Now, we
can sell it for less than that, but if we do, all of the
jurisdictions have to agree, and that's where you get into
consent.
Previously, what we've been doing is that -- that
responsibility was -- was delegated to Paula, and I believe
Doris even prior to that, wasn't it? Okay. Where, say, for
instance, it was County property, the County had to approve
the sale or not. And if, in the estimate of the Tax
Assessor, it was a reasonable offer, then they would approve
it and bring it to the County Judge, who would sign it. If
it was a sale of school property, then we didn't have to be
involved in it, unless it was for less than the amount due or
the just value, and then we would have to consent to it, and
she would either say yea or nay to the consent.
So, what brings us here is, do you want to make that
practice official, or do you want to get into the more common
practice of actually having to approve -- or the consent
being made by the whole Court, just like the school board, I
believe, does right now?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is the common practice

1
82
,~-
r^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
across -- in County government?
MR. SHIEVER: These days. We used to even have --
25 or 30 years ago, even have some jurisdictions that wanted
to appoint an actual sales agent, who not only would approve
or consent to the sale, but sign off on the deed. I haven't
researched that for so long, I'm not even sure if the rules
of agency would still allow us to do that. But, clearly, the
-- the majority of jurisdictions just follow the Tax Code;
they go ahead and consider it themselves, and then the
presiding officer of the governing body -- in this case,
Judge Henneke -- would sign the deed.
The only change that has been made recently is that the
Tax Code used to say that the -- the signature of the
presiding officer constituted evidence of consent. Now it
just says that it is evidence of consent. Hut, I would
certainly urge that we continue -- you know, even if you
wanted to delegate the approval and consent to the Tax
Assessor, I would still think that you would want to sign it,
'cause it's easier to find a deed with your signature on it
than it is in the minutes, which is where we are today. So,
simply, that's the subject.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have information ones
way or another -- I mean, what we've been doing with her
signing off on the thing, and it always ends up at your desk,l
anyway, I don't see what difference it makes. Other than if
,~``
83


I
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's just common practice for County government to have a
full Commissioners Court. I like -- I like Commissioners
Court orders for future reference.
JUDGE HENNEKE: To me, if we have a system that's
not broke, you don't necessarily break it by fixing it.
Paula, what are your thoughts?
MS. RECTOR: I think that's up to the Court. We
haven't had a problem in the past with the procedures that we
followed. The Judge ends up signing the final deed and is
fully aware of what I agree to as far as the sales price.
MR. SHIEVER: And, certainly, if we lust follow the
Code and the Court would consider each sale, it would be upon
a recommendation of Paula, so she wouldn't want to ]ust leave
you out there. We always go look at the value first, you
know, the -- the CAD value, and see if that appears to be
correct, and go from there. And, all the same kind of steps
would still be taken and she would just make the
recommendation to you all, and one of you all might have
particular knowledge if it was in your precinct, even.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many of these do we have?
MR. SHIEVER: Not many.
MS. RECTOR: Very few. We have very few in trust
accounting. We try not to --
MR. SHIEVER: We're talking about two or three a
year.
!'`

89
i"`
,i-4
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
MS. RECTOR: Yeah.
MR. SHIEVER: With contracts with Brazoria County,
we've probably got three or four hundred.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's more the frequency. If
it's two or three, I don't have a problem coming to the Court
at all. If it's good bunch, I'd want to delegate it to the
Judge. Sorry, Fred.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else have any questions?
Does anyone have any preferences? I mean, the choice before
us is to have the Commissioners Court, as a whole, approve
consent to the sale upon the recommendation of the Tax
Assessor/Collector, or to delegate that consent authority to
the Tax Assessor/Collector with the understanding that the
County Judge would then execute the actual deed from Kerr
County as the entity holding title, but pursuant to the tax
foreclosure to the ultimate purchaser.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way we've been
doing it for all these years without an actual Court order?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Apparently so.
MR. SHIEVER: Well, that's the problem, see. But,
Buster, we couldn't find where it was, 'cause it's so long
ago.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's do it again so, 20
years from now, when we have a new Court, we can always do
this again. And that happens; that's that's what concerns me
r''~

85

/"',
~..
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
about -- about not having court orders, is being able to
track these things later on. Like County roads; you know,
"How is this a County road?" "Hell, I don't know, but the
County maintained it for 25 years." You know, the good-
old-boy thing. There's no record of that stuff, and that's
-- anyway --
MR. SHIEVER: That's why I like to say we want to
have the Judge sign off, in any event, so we don't have to be
looking for those.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move for Option 2, that we
designate the Tax Assessor/Collector and the Judge to sign
the deed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Commissioners
Court delegate to the Tax Assessor/Collector the authority to
consent to the sale of any property taken pursuant to a tax
foreclosure sale for which Kerr County is the title-holding
jurisdiction, with the understanding that the Kerr County
Judge would be authorized to sign any deed as recommended by
the Tax Assessor/Collector.
MR. SHIEVER: Actually, Judge, we want to extend
this to not only when Kerr County holds title, but when the
school holds title, and we're consenting that we do the same
thing.

86

T
~"`.
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: It includes that. 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: And motion carries.
MR. SHIEVER: Thank you, gents. And if y'all end
up having any questions on the outlines, well, ask Paula or
ask me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jerry, I just had a kind of
personal question. How long have you been hanging around
Kerr County? You can be honest with us.
MR. SHIEVER: Early '80's, I think.
MS. RECTOR: Twenty years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Twenty years. I've seen you
around here forever.
MR. SHIEVER: Well, Doris hired me to defend a
lawsuit back in the early '80's, and then after that, we
started the delinquent tax collection work, so I think it was
in the early '80's sometime or another. But, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Part of the family.
MR. SHIEVER: Yeah. Well, that's right, I feel
like I'm at home here. I'm a little grayer than I was then,
too. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: Thank you.
- ~---
87
,~
~^
~_
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
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. We'll now take up
Agenda Item No. 9, which is consider and discuss transfer of
Commissioners Court van to Sheriff's Department. I consider
this basically to be a housekeeping matter. One of my first
Commissioners Court meetings, I questioned why we were doing
maintenance on a van for the Commissioners Court, and it was
explained to me at that time that this was a vehicle we owned
which was used by Adult Probation Services to transport
Community Service workers, and also by the Sheriff's
Department to transport prisoners. Adult Probation has now
got their own van.
To my knowledge, no one from the Commissioners Court has
ever utilized this van and, to me, it doesn't make sense for
it to be in the Commissioners Court budget or under our
supervision. So, I went to the Sheriff and asked the
Sheriff, would you accept this van? And she graciously said
yes, she would. And, so, at this time I'd like to simply
complete the formal process of transferring it on our roll
from the Commissioners Court to the Sheriff's Department. It
would be my understanding that if there was any maintenance
necessary during the rest of the year, that it would come
under the funds which we have budgeted in our Commissioners
Court budget for maintenance on that vehicle.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then, at the end of this
budget year, then the -- it will be --
~'`
88
r"'~
/"'~,
L.-
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: It could include the approval of an
amendment to transfer the balance of those funds to the
Sheriff's budget. We could do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Can we do that now, or take it up
at the next meeting?
MR. TOMLINSON: You can include it in this motion.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And just transfer it into
their maintenance line item?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any discussion? Any questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only question I have is,
can the Adult Probation still use the van if they need it at
some point, if theirs breaks down or some problem?
SHERIFF KAISER: Sure, or if y'all need it. We use
it to also transport jurors for the -- upstairs and whatever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Makes sense to me. So move.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, second
by Commissioner Baldwin, that we transfer the Commissioners
Court van -- I mean Commissioner Williams, I'm sorry. I don't
know why I'm doing that.
COMMISSIONER WZLLIAMS: Do we look alike?
n
-r--
89
.'",

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
COMMI3SIONER GRIFFIN: An awful lot alike, facial
hair.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, this is the hairy side of the
table. Moved by Commissioner Letz, second by Commissioner
Williams, that we transfer title -- or transfer the
Commissioners Court van to the Sheriff's Department, and also
transfer the funds which are currently budgeted for
maintenance of that van from the Commissioners Court to the
Sheriff's Department maintenance budget. 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. Agenda Item No.
10, consider and discuss approving a constable, Precinct No.
3, to fill the unexpired term of former Constable Precinct 3,
Mr. Mark Shaw. Do you have a recommendation for us, or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One --
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- do you think we should do it in
Executive Session?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One comment. In the packet, it
shows one of the names, Johnny Benavides. He was not
eligible, 'cause he did not live actually in the precinct.
The address we checked earlier was his office address, so he
was not considered, so the other four. I'd be willing to
n
90
~``
~_
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
make a recommendation at this point, or if we want to discuss
the applicants, I think it should be done in Executive
Session. It's whatever the Court --
JUDGE HENNEKE: What's the pleasure of the Court?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that -- let's take
it into Executive Session, just to give us an opportunity to
have a discussion about it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. We will consider this agenda
item under Executive Session, which means that, of course, we
will bring it back out into open session for any votes, if
necessary.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not Executive Session, but
closed session.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Closed meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Closed meeting, excuse me.
We're have going to have to fight with Thea.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: For the benefit of others,
we've got a little nitpicking going on with the proper
terminology for closed meetings under the Open Meetings Act.
So --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Open minds, closed meetings.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Open minds, closed meetings.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll take that up in Executive
Session. Next will be Item No. 11, consider and discuss
1'•
91


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
procedures to continue personnel and salary study for Kerr
County employees. Mx. Griffin and Mx. Letz?
COMMI33IONER LET2: I'll start with this and then
turn it over to Larry. Let me hand out something while I'm
talking. Several months ago, we requested that all the
elected officials and department heads update their job
descriptions for all their employees, and they've done that
and turned them back in. And, I think we're at the next step
now. We need to decide what we're going to do in reviewing
those formally, the job description, and also looking for
salary structure.
I asked Barbara to contact some consulting companies,
and she has two that have responded in the public sector:
Personnel Consultants, and then the Waters Consulting Group.
And, both of them -- I handed out brief memos. As you can
see from the second to last page, which is the Waters Group,
this can be a very expensive process, depending on how much
we ask them to do. And I think that they probably -- with
the amount of this, $22,000, probably did not understand how
much we've already done and really what we're asking them to
do. I don't think we've really decided, as a Court, what
we're going to ask them to do yet.
My view is that one component needs to be a salary
survey. I think we can probably do that mostly in-house. I
think we can look at surrounding counties, geographically,

~,__
92
~,

/"~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
like-size counties across the state. And I think we, last
year, contacted all the elected officials; we have a group of
those counties that I think everyone agrees were comparable,
size and population-wise. And then we should probably look
at the City of Kerrville, what other entities are paying,
both private and public. I think most of that information is
probably available on the Internet, probably, except for the
private areas in Kerrville. I think that can probably be
done in-house.
I do think there's a benefit to having an outside
consultant go through the job descriptions and then make sure
that they're the kind of -- maybe some spot interviews and
making sure things are in line, that they all, you know, kind
of make sense. We need somebody thats's familiar with County
government to do that, make sure that we're not, you know,
biased one way or another in having, you know, too many
clerks in one department or too many supervisors in another
department and things of that nature. That they really just
kind of look at them overall, make sure that, in their
opinion, we're basically on board. And, Larry has
information from his knowledge of the State government,
things we may be able to do to, I think, minimize this
process in the future.
COMMISSIONER	GRIFFIN: Yeah.	The	State government
has the Department of	Human Resources.	That	-- and that
T_-
93
t"
.._
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
department, which has a lot of people with the State in
Austin, are required, during every legislative session, to
review the salary structure for all the State jobs, the
classifications; that is, the job titles and job descriptions
that go with that. And they have to report that to the
Legislature each year, and that gets worked into Title IX of
the General Appropriations Act, which then outlines all the
pay for the next two years, the whole program.
It's a very comprehensive system. It gets updated not
only in that every-two-year update, but it also --
occasionally, there will be a particular job description
where there's a recognized deficiency, either in the way the
State lob description is written, or that something else has
been added to it or subtracted from it. They even put those
out during the year on specific jobs. It's all online, the
whole system. The pay structure, the -- that is, the grade
and step structure. Every job description that you can
imagine. It applies County -- or it applies statewide, and i
think it's a very good system.
What I would think that we ought to look at is
proceeding down the road where we could tie ourselves to the
State system. Not necessarily for every aspect of it, but
for most of it. That is, we would have a few hundred experts
every year going through this, rather than us doing this sort
of one time every five years or six years, when things get
/"~
99
r"~
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
out of whack and we want to start looking at it, we have to
essentially almost go back and start over again. So, that's
a wordy way of saying I think we can tie ourselves to the
State system and save ourselves a lot of money, time, and
trouble, in that everybody's going to know how the process
works and how we do that.
I -- because of the size of it, I have not downloaded
every -- I mean, I have not printed out everything I've
downloaded. But, for example, there's all of the lob titles
in the State and, I mean, there's -- you can see that if you
can't find something in here that would fit a description, I
don't know what it would be. There is everything in here
that you can imagine, from groundskeepers to -- to legal
secretaries and attorneys and architects and a lot of things
that we don't have to have. But, there is also everything
that I think we do have, and there's generally four or five
levels of each one of those, in essence, like we do Clerk 1,
2, 3, 4, et cetera. I believe we could take this, and the
job description, which is also online -- and I'll pass these
around so that members of the Court can see it. I think we
could take that and this, and the pay scales that go with it,
and I think we could rationalize what we have -- here's the
pay scales. We could rationalize what we have now to this
system, and then tie it to them -- to that for here and ever
more.
/^
95
/`~
~^
`_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Now, that may be a little ambitious to do in the first
year, totally, but I think we could take the first steps
towards that. For example, some minor changes in fob titles
and some things like that that we'll have to work out. What
I would propose we do -- and before we bring -- we would
propose we do this before we bring anybody else into it, and
we can do this rather quickly, is that, -- that I would like
to get this information in a form where I can present it to
the department heads and elected officials a little bit
easier and have a quick get-together to run through it to see
what the pitfalls may be and what some of the ideas are that
some of the other people here in the courthouse and elsewhere
may have that we want to integrate into that.
Now, for example, if you look at the pay scale and the
pay, they've got it outlined here, and we say, Gosh, we don't
want to have to hire in at anything other than the entry
level, and we would like to adjust those, we can say we we're
going to do 90 percent of what the State says we can do, and
in a keystroke we can adjust all of those pay scales to
anything we want. I don't think we have to do that,
personally. I think we can tie into the State's pay scales,
and that that would be what we would hope we could do. If we
can't, we'll have to try something else. But, we need to get
some ideas on this and then decide if we want to do that at
all. If not, maybe we can reject that and to, perhaps, go to
,r'-.
96
,~-~
{~,
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
-- to consultants or others to try to figure out a better way
to do it. But I think we ought to give this a shot, but I
wouldn't want to do that today. I would want to get some
ideas and input from the department heads and elected
officials. So I think that's sort of where we stand.
M3. UECKER: I might suggest one comparison --
Jonathan was mentioning some of the comparisons that we could
make -- is even within the County, compare the salaries to
the other taxing entities. For instance, the City
government, the school system, anything that's funded by
taxes needs to be looked at, you know, 'cause the County
compares right in that, too.
COMMIS3IONER LETZ: Right.
MS. UECKER: And I don't think that that's anything
that we've ever done before, but it should be done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
SHERIFF KAISER: I would like to say something in
this line, also. I've lost about 35 officers to the City
because they start about $1,500 a more a year than what we're
paying. I just lost another one this month. And, I think it
would be very important, as Linda said, to compare that right
here, locally.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's probably the
most -- or certainly one of the most important criteria, is
what the other local ones and the -- you know, are paying. I
~.
97
;^
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
think we have to understand that there's certain things we
can't compete with. Obviously, we can't compete with some
things in Bexar County, certainly, although we're not far
from Bexar County.
M3. UECKER: And we wouldn't want to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think Larry's approach is
good. We have -- kind of working from a time standpoint on
two approaches. If we could tie in with the State's system,
I think it would probably solve a lot of problems long-term,
and it's something that I think, you know, Larry's getting so
that it's more understandable to everyone. And then, like he
says, have a meeting.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: One of the things I like
about their fob descriptions is that they are understandable.
I mean, they are -- this is what -- to the -- to the State,
this is what a Groundskeeper 1 does, or this is what a Clerk
3 does, and so we can rationalize our lob descriptions
against these and see, are we -- you know, how do we match
up? Are we requiring the right things, is what's I'm saying.
MS. UECKER: That's kind of the way the feds do it,
too.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we're not redoing anything.
The work that -- you know, we have these updated Sob
descriptions already; we're just looking at that, reading
r'`
98


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that, reading this, and making them fit. It's just picking
and choosing, and then we should tie -- once you tie them
together, it's done.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I might also mention,
Sheriff, in the State system on law enforcement, there is a
separate schedule that they have devised. I don't know how
familiar you are with it.
SHERIFF KAISER: I was just going to say something
about that. Because I've got people, too, that have been
with me -- started out as patrolmen, and they are still on
patrol and they will not go to an advanced -- or to an
administrative position because they'd have to go back to a 1
and lose all the money they've got. I mean, I've got a
patrolman now who's -- a sergeant that's making more than my
-- or right at the same amount as my administrative
lieutenant. It's not fair. He doesn't want to go into that
because he's not going to get a raise. So, that's something
we need to consider, also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's an area that I think
we're probably the most aware of, is that one discrepancy
between patrol deputies' and your administrative staff or
deputies' --
SHERIFF KAISER: Responsibilities.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- responsibilities.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You seem to think that

99

L
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
every job that we have here is probably covered in the
State's --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- summary of jobs and so
forth. Is it possible that we would have something unique
that's not there that we'd have to write one for?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, yes. And, by the way,
the State does not -- this is what the State calls the State
Job Description for that position, for groundskeeper, clerk,
whatever it is. There is nothing that says that the agencies
can't write their own can job descriptions, but they depart
from this. If it's -- if it's a Secretary 2 position, they
start with this, and then they may fill in some other things,
and if it gets to be too much, they say, "Hey, that's not
Secretary 2, that's Secretary 3."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, each year the agency
compares their particular job description to this job
description, because the Human Resources Department and the
Legislature has said that's what that position ought to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM3: That really has answered my
question. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Larry and I are -- what
we're doing today, really, is bringing this to the Court to
make sure we're going in the right direction before we start
f"~
100
~"'
,,.-..
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
doing a lot of work and things.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And spending $22,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're heading in the right
direction.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'd like to hone it a little more.
What is your next step? You've talked about getting the
department heads together, you're going to ask for a
committee of two or three people to get together and review
all the classification descriptions.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would like to do it, I
guess, as a workshop. And, this is not anything that would
take a long time to put together. I lust need to download
and print some more stuff to have available from the State's
point of view. And we really need to kick it around. I
would think that a 2- or 3-hour workshop, maximum, would be
easy enough to do. We can set a date for it now, as far as
I'm concerned.
JUDGE HENNEKE: When you say "workshop," do you
mean a Commissioners Court workshop, or are you talking about
having a meeting, asking the department heads, elected
officials to either come or send a -- send --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: A representative.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, you're really not talking about
a workshop, so it's matter of --

101
/-~
~_
~.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: A meeting.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- of coordinating with the
department heads and elected officials as to when they're
available?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could also discuss other
options in this area.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure, and how might -- and
if -- because there is a chunk -- what I've talked about is a
chunk out of it, what Jonathan's talked about is a chunk of
it, and there may be other chunks out there that some of the
other supervisory positions hold near and dear.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Sounds good to me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Timetable? Could we have it
done in two weeks? Or --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure, we could do that. We
could do that almost any time, but we probably need to get
the maximum number participation that we can. I mean,
there's not a -- my schedule's -- I will make myself
available for it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's don't -- I'd prefer not to
put a particular timetable on it right now, just other than
you all will --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, why don't you and I
get together and we'll come up with a schedule, talk with
-- _7_
102

r"
fi
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
officials?
MS. UECKER: I'd just make sure that every
department head or elected official has the opportunity to be
here. I know there -- I've a got some dates in the next
month that --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the reason --
M3. UECKER: -- I'm going to be tied up, and I
think every -- every department should be represented by the
department head, if they so choose.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But you might want to do just a
discussion between you and Jonathan, and decide a minimum
number of three dates and circulate them, and then allow
people to --
MS. UECKER: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- say I'm available on this date
and I'm not available on that one. And people will -- I'm
sure, will try their best to clear at least one of them to --
you might even consider having two meetings, if everyone
can't get together. Anything else on that item? Okay.
We'll move along, then. Item No. 12, consider and discuss
proposed schedule for the 1999-2000 year budget. All I've
attempted to do in this -- this is my item -- is simply set
forth, as much for my own purposes as anyone else, what are
the timelines, what are the timeframes in which we have to
have completed certain steps in order to adopt a budget.

103
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
These aren't set in stone. These are simply my ruminations
on what will be an appropriate timetable, generically, for us
to prepare the revenue estimates and get the budget requests
back from the elected officials, department heads, discuss
those with them, do any revisions necessary, have workshops,
and have the hearings and everything else. It is really
presented as much just to remind all of us, and me in
particular, since it's my fizst go-through on this budget, as
to what the timing is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I just have a quick
question on the June 14-June 30 review of budget, and then
July, departmental workshops. What are the differences that
you see between those two items?
JUDGE NENNEKE: Well, the idea -- the difference,
in my mind, was that it would give the Court a chance to talk
among itself, perhaps, about the overall budget before we ask
the department heads to come in, and give us the details as
to their particular requests. Now, it may be a distinction
that doesn't need to be there, and I'll look to you and
Buster and Tommy, in particular, and other elected officials
for their wisdom on this, since I haven't done this before.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I don't know;
I'12 just toss this out from my perspective. And, you know,
the problem that I've seen in our budget process in the past,
if there has been one, is that we go through all the elected
~'`
104

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
officials and workshops, and then it comes time -- and we
have always held out salaries till the end, because -- until
we get final tax numbers, 'cause that is something that is so
hard for us to do anything with. And then, when it comes
time to cut something out, we kind of go through -- we've
gone through the budget and kind of asked for priorities as
we go through it from each department head.
When it comes time to actually make the cuts, it's up to
-- the Court's been doing it, and I don't think we should do
that. I think we should ask the elected officials to come
back to us again and say, We can't do this. I mean, this --
we can't work -- I mean, here's kind of a revised thing, and
get input a second time from the elected officials. I don't
know if time will allow us to do it that way or not, but I --
you know, I think I've heard complaints from those elected
officials about that part of the process, and it's something
that I'm not real comfortable with, because I don't know what
they need more. I mean, they can prioritize it, but when we
approve it, certain parts of it, they might say, "Well, it
doesn't make sense to approve that and not this, because the
two pieces of machinery go together," or something like that.
You know, the Sheriff is very frequently in the same
situation, that -- you know, I don't want to be the one to
make the call as to whether or not we get one more deputy or
one more car. I mean, it's -- 'cause I don't know what we
-- ~
105
~.
/"`
L .-

I
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
need more.
MS. DECKER: I have a comment on that, too. In the
past, what I have noticed -- and I don't know if I speak for
the other elected officials or not. I kind of feel like
maybe I do. In the past, like Jonathan said, we have set
aside salaries, and we don't -- we're not even allowed to
discuss those until the final figures come in. Now, I feel I,
like the elected officials should be given an opportunity to
discuss the salaries of their department -- I mean, of their
employees, because maybe a merit increase for someone might
be more important than one of the other budget items. But
we're not allowed to make that comparison.
And, I know -- and I know the Sheriff has -- has had
this, too -- if I had been able to give a merit increase,
even if it was a small one, I wouldn't -- you know, the only
people I ever lose is people that can make more money
somewhere else. And, had I been able to give them -- you
know, I can tell my people all year long, "Man, you're doing
a great job," and when it comes time to do evaluations and I
do my evaluations, what I tell my people is, Okay, you've got
-- I do it on a number system, and those, you know, one or
two people with the highest score are going to be recommended
for a merit increase. Doesn't mean squat if the
Commissioners Court says, Sorry, it doesn't matter; nobody
gets a merit increase.
_. ~.T_-- - _ __ _~ -. _ .,
106

r'`
tr

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
So, maybe I want the opportunity to come in and say
Okay, this person is more important to me than a typewriter,
and I'll give up the typewriter if I can give the merit
increase.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What you're saying is you'd like
the salary part of it to be equally as --
MS. UECKER: Exactly.
JUDGE HENNEKE: - in play as the technology, the
number of people, the capital improvements?
MR. UECKER: Because it's important. It's very
important that we are able to maintain some means of keeping
excellent employees, and that's something that we haven't
been able to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I support that. I think
that's not our role, to affix the priorities within your
department. It's your role to do that.
MS. UECKER: But we haven't been allowed to do
that, that's what I'm saying.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. I don't see
myself as qualified to set priorities for anybody's
department. I'm qualified to listen to your rationale, but
not to make those decisions. So, I support that concept
totally.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Believe me, I'm not trying
to impose the way the State does it on the County, but one of
~ _-
107
~^-
~ .._
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
22
23
24
25
the possible solutions is the way the State does that. And
in their budget guidance they've put out to the agencies how
much money you have for merit raises in the budget process.
MS. UECKER: And that's something all of us have
been trying to say, and this is what needs to be done.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And it doesn't say -- you
don't have to come in and say, "So-and-so's doing such a good
job." It's assumed. You make the assumption that somebody
there is doing a good job, and that there is a little pot of
money, and then the State -- the way they do it is a
percentage, a percentage of the salaries, so that those with
more employees get little bigger chunk of money that they can
hand out for merit raises. It's not a large number, but it's
in the budget. I think, in fact, between Budget Years '98
and '99, all the State agencies had 1.7 percent of their
salary budget that they could use for raises. It's strictly,
then, up to the agencies. It's -- there is money set aside
for merit raises, and it's up to the supervisor, the
department head, elected official, agency head or whatever to
figure out how that's going to get divvied up. You could
give it across-the-board, you could give it all to one person
-- or you probably couldn't do that, 'cause there's some
restrictions on that. But --
MS. UECKER: There needs to be a limit.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What Linda's saying, if I hear her,)

108

~'`

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
is she'd like to have that -- that in the budget guidelines.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So that she knows that she could
budget, without it being guaranteed, for 2 percent of the
previous year's total salary cost in the category of
potential merit increases. But, what she'd like to be able
to do, from what I'm hearing, is to take that money and apply
it somewhere else, if that's what she thinks she needs to do.
Because she doesn't want to have the money restricted only to
salaries. She wants to have the money there --
M3. UECKER: Or vica-versa.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, either way.
MS. UECKER: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That you could take money from --
from another category.
MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm
JUDGE HENNEKE: To benefit personnel. But if you
have this, for argument purposes, 2 percent availability for
merit increases, and you really need that new typewriter --
M3. UECKER: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- you could take that and put it
over here.
MS. UECKER: Well, more so the other direction.
JUDGE HENNEKE: More so the other. But what I was
hearing you say, and I think I see the other officials
T---
109
~~
~"~
~._
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
nodding their heads, is what you want is the maximum
flexibility --
MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- of the dollars that are in your
budget.
MS. UECKER: Exactly.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So that when you to go plan your
budget here in the next couple of months, you've got it
there, but as you look at it, you may -- you don't want that
2 percent, again, lust for talking purposes, set out there as
potential merit raises; you want to be able to come back to
us and say, I took a half of that percent and put it over
here for training, because the Legislature did this to us
again and we've got to go figure out what they did.
MS. UECKER: Right. Yeah, exactly. And to give
you a good example of that, say Employee A this year has been
an exceptional employee -- and merit means lust that, going
over and above -- so Employee A gets the highest score, and I
recommend -- and, you know, pat them on the back and say,
"Okay, you get recommended for a merit increase this year."
The Commissioners Court doesn't give me any opportunity for
rebuttal on this; they're lust saying flat no, no merit
raises, no nothing. So, Employee A says, "What good did my
high score do for me7 Why did I go over and above?" So,
next year Employee A stops. Employees B gets the high score,
~.
110
,,.,
,,"`~
L._
/"'.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and the Commissioners Court says, "Okay, this year we're
giving merit raises." So, Employee B gets a merit increase,
when A didn't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only thing -- I mean,
long-term thing I think we need to be careful of is that we
stay within the step and grade when we do this.
MS. UECKER: Exactly. Sure.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that's right. I
mean, I'd like to hear what the -- do y'all agree with me?
Or no?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On your -- I guess what we're
really talking about -- I'd like to see some workshops put in
here after we accept the certified appraisal roll so we can
get back with elected officials a second time, so between
completing the budget at the end of August and receiving the
certified roll at the end of July, that we have opportunities
scheduled for another round of workshops.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can just move this one
line, Departmental Workshops for July, move it down below the
Receive Certified Appraisal Roll. That gets us meeting with
department heads once before and gets us one after.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, yeah, but I think what
Jonathan is saying is let's just add --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
~T

111

~^
~. ,
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- it between the July Receive
Certified Appraisal Roll and August Complete Proposed Budget,
another potential round of departmental workshops.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Because my understanding is that
there's really not -- sometimes not a whole lot of time
between the certified appraisal roll and the need to -- to
move along, is there, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we really don't want to take
all of our workshops and make them after the certified
appraisal.
MR. TOMLINSON: What I'd like to see is the
security of agreeing on some guidelines as far as maximum
amount of dollars. And then I -- then I think we could -- i
think the hangup in the past is that -- is the Court,
necessarily -- the Court's worried about the tax rate, and we
-- you really can't get to that until you know or you have a
feel for what -- what your expenditures are going to be.
What I'd like to see is -- is the Court give some guidance to
each department as -- let's, for an example, give them 2 1/2
percent or 4 percent, or whatever you decide. All right.
Then -- then we -- then just pure calculation, we can add
those numbers in the accounting system, and then, you know,
immediately we know what the total effect of all that is.
r"`

112
r'"`

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
zl
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's our next agenda
item.
MR. TOMLINSON: And -- and then -- and then, up
front, we already know what our -- what our total needs are,
as far as revenues.
COMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're saying -- like, say
we're projecting -- you know, a guess would be, like, a
5 percent budget increase, total budget increase, based on
what we think our best guess is going into this process.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's excluding anything
extraordinary in anyone's individual budget. I mean, it's
just kind of a --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's in the guidelines.
As we would do it as we have discussed, that would be in the
guidelines; assume some growth factor, you know, and -- and
we can base that by looking at what the CPI's done in the
last year and some other things. But, there needs to be
guidance. And this is a planning guidance, now; this is not
what you're going to get. This is --
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We've assumed this for
putting your first set of numbers together to come back to
the Court, and then we're going to have a further scrub of

113

~_
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 in the second review.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's deal with the schedule,
because we're really sliding into the next agenda item. So,
I mean, an excellent suggestion of what we'll do is we'll add
what I have here in may notes, July-slash-August,
Departmental Workshops with Commissioners Court. And that's
after we receive the appraisal roll, and before we move to
complete the proposed budgets.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only other comment I'd have
that may be helpful -- and this is something that really --
if all the elected officials and department heads know of any
kind of extraordinary type expenditures, something larger
than, you know, you would normally expect, if you could get
that, probably, dust to the County Judge early on, even
before the workshops started, it would probably be a help.
He can get it to us. I don't think we need to sit around the
workshop to discuss it. But even, like, if, you know -- I
know cars in the Sheriff's Department have been an issue for
a number of years, and we've been, you know, really up to
getting the bare minimum. If that's something that may
require, you know, more than the normal growth rate we
calculated for, I think we need to be aware of those things
early on, and not make a decision on, but just be aware that
the Sheriff thinks she needs, you know, five cars more than
normally we would buy, that type of thing. I think that
--- ---
119

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
probably can be handed in to the Judge.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What I'm hearing is that we'll
address that workshop here, and I think what I'd like to have
is for us to adopt this as a proposed planning schedule, and
what I will do is I will circulate it to all the department
heads so that you all can have it up there. And, please keep
in mind that this is a guideline, an outline, something that
will be a work-in-progress.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What about the first line
item, April 12th?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we'll just take the 12th off
that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'd like to add one that
says April 20th, a meeting -- again, this is a meeting of
department heads and elected officials or -- or their
representatives to go through the new budget, what I would
propose at that time to be the new budget form. And I need
to get with you, Tommy, on some of this, the new budget input
form, and the way the notes would work that go with that and
some other things. On next Tuesday, if we can find a meeting
room.
MS. UECKER: That's one of the days that I'm going
to be tied up.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, then -- let's see,
Wednesday I can't, but I could Thursday. We need to find a
/"`
115

/^.
L. ,
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
date that -- like, next week to do that. And that's so
everybody understands, and it's sort of an instructional
thing on how the -- how the process, as far as filling out
the paperwork, will go.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That doesn't need to qo on our
schedule, just so long as we have April for the budget --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right, okay. Now, another
thing is that that schedule becomes part of the budget
guidelines, also.
JUDGE HENNEKE: This schedule.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And it can change, but it
becomes part of our budget guidelines. It's all in the same
package, so that when you get that package, as soon as we've
determined that we got the forms right and all that sort of
thing, one of the things that will be in there is this
schedule, which can be updated as often as we need to update.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's move on this, and then we can
really --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Did we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
second by Commissioner Letz, that we adopt the proposed
1999-2000 budget schedule, as amended. Any further


116


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
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: Now we'll take up the next item,
which is consider and discuss the County's Fiscal Year 2000
budget guidance, the format for the departments' budget
requests, and the budget approval process, which to a large
extent we've done. Is there anyone else who -- is there
anything else we need to talk about on this specific agenda
item?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I just wanted to point out
that there is -- in the backup material here for the other
Commissioners, there are some examples of sort of what that
will look like. Is it not done; we needed to have this
meeting first to really firm that up, and I need to get with
Tommy on the ability to generate some of these formats. But,
I don't think that there'd be any problem with that, but you
can get an idea of the way it works by tracking through.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As an example.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Those numbers, by the way,
don't mean anything; they're made up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did -- on your note column?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Will there be a separate


117
~^
~"',
~-
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
sheet that just lists all the notes?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Look at the next page.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see that. That's your --
what you're talking about.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's what those are, so
there's a reference on the budget sheet. You then go to the
next page, and it will have all the notes listed. You look
at those -- Note B-2, and then say, This is the reason that
this number is going to draw your attention, and here's why.
If the number -- if it doesn't have anything there, it lust
means that this is probably a continuation of our current
budget in this line item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Larry, I have a question. Is
there a -- are you going to plan to give everyone software so
that everyone can do it on their computer? Is there a way to
do it, since we --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's a technical question.
I need to ask Tommy -- for example, can you pull into the
mainframe Excel files that would come off of a spreadsheet?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, they're not compatible.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They're not compatible. So,
you would have to -- if we, say, put in in D-base or
something like that, is there any format that you can pull
into the mainframe?
MR. TOMLINSON: I can't answer that right now.
~`
118

f"•
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 GRIFFIN: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: There is a -- there is something
that, in this process, we need think about, too; that there
are statutory requirements for budget preparation, as to what
-- what specifically has to qo in the budget.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, right. But, what I'm
talking about is, once we have it, instead of working with
handwritten sheets, if we had the ability for those preparing
their budget inputs to put it in some kind of software, is
there any software that you can -- that you can use to pull
it into -- that would be compatible to pull it into your
mainframe?
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can -- however, I believe
if it's not, I would still propose that we give it to them in
electronic format, so in case they would rather do it on an
Excel spreadsheet, it sure is a lot faster for your own
premises. I would do that before I would write it down with
my quill pen. Besides that, if you gave it back to anybody
on a diskette -- I mean, I can do the whole County's budget
on probably one of these, maybe two. At least you'd be able
to play games with the numbers then, to put in new limits and
say, Hey, take an across-the-board cut; what does it do, what
does it make it look like? And it's a couple of keystrokes
/'~-

119
~.
/"~
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
instead of having to go through and hand-calculate every one
of these things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couple keystrokes for you,
Larry.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. But, anyway, the
reason i say that is that, yeah, we'll play with that, and
that's part of the thing that we'll discuss at the meeting
next week.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What I hear happening is that there
will be a meeting between now and the 26th to go over the
budget form and the budget guidelines, because we need to
adopt those at the 26th meeting in order to give the elected
officials a fair chance at -- at doing, you know, their
budgets. So, Larry will coordinate the meeting. It will be
sometime in the next two weeks, subject to people's
schedules. I mean, you may have to look at some early
morning or late afternoon meetings in order to accommodate
people, whatever it takes. I'm sure that we'll find a strong
willingness on the part of people to cooperate with this.
So, then we'll bring this back on the 26th, with the
expectation that we'll have some actual formal budget forms
and guidelines to adopt.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: To distribute at that time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: By the Court. And, of course,
Tommy will have to be involved in that for the purpose of
n
120
~.
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
statutory requirements and what type of technology assistance
we can -- we can give to the elected officials. Does anyone
have any questions? Does that accurately state what we're
doing?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's fine.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Brenda? Barbara? Linda? Jannett?
Sheriff?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: By the way, this will
address next year, which is Budget Year 2001, 2002 -- or,
yeah, 2001, 2002 budget, this one does.
MS. UECKER: The only other comment that I have,
and I've seen it happen for years and years and years, and
when we start talking about salary policies -- and, Larry,
maybe you might have some suggestions on this -- and I know
some of the private companies have adopted a policy, and I
would like the County to do the same thing, is to -- for
employees within a department or within the entity to -- that
it's not proper to discuss salaries, because a lot of times
-- and I've seen it in every office that I've worked in, and
-- you know, people I've talked with, they start comparing
salaries. "Well, did you get a raise? Well, I didn't." You
know, that's not property -- proper. Because I know, like,
even at Avery's, that's a no-no; you can get dismissed for
discussing your salary with another department, making a
comparison. And, I'd like to see the County talk about some
~~"•
121
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
kind of a policy that might give the elected officials some
leeway on that. Because I've seen it happen where the
employee that got the merit increase maybe was ridiculed or
not treated properly by the other ones. "Well, you got the
raise, you do the work." You see what I'm saying?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That particularly happens
when you dole out merit raises. The potential is greater
when -- for people who get merit raises.
MS. UECKER: Of course. But, you know, I'm willing
-- I'm willing to deal with that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, as I recall, Barbara's in the
process of working on a revision to personnel policies, and I
think that would be the principal place that that -- that
should go. So, it's something we certainly should consider.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, there's some Privacy
Act things that requize some of that. However, it's a matter
of public record for, you know, step and grade tables and job
descriptions; those have to be public record. But you don't
have to put a name on it when -- you certainly don't have to
say how much they get paid. That's Privacy Act protection.
MS. NEMEC: The only thing, also -- I was going to
bring this up later, but I may as well just do it now.
If you give a percentage to the departments to give raises,
of course, the -- the departments that have more employees
are going to get a larger percent. That creates a problem


122

/"`
r"~
1 I with --
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Not larger percent. They
would get the same percent, but --
MS. NEMEC: But they would get more -- a larger sum
of money. And that creates a problem with the departments
that have, like, one employee, because you would only be able
to give your employee, for instance, one step merit increase,
to where departments with other employees may not give three
of their employees an increase, and give their one employee
three merit increases. So, that -- that is a problem. And
that happened a couple of years ago and it was brought up
that the departments with one employee or two employees have
a disadvantage.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Generally speaking, the way
that works is -- is that if you give a merit increase, it can
not be more than one step for any one employee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just do it one a year, I mean,
and you can advance them one -- one grade step.
MS. NEMEC: Well, if you say that, it will be okay.
But, a couple of years ago, you have a certain percent to
give merit raises, so some of the larger departments didn't
give some of their employees a merit raise, but gave that
same merit raise to another employee, which one employee
ended up with two or three merit increases. So, whereas,
the, you know, department with one employee can only give
123
r^
~_
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
one.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right, and that should be in~
the budget.
MS. UECKER: That can go the other way around, too.
In another instance, the department with one employee has an
advantage, because that one person will always get the
increase.
COMMISSIONER
supervisor. You don't
COMMISSIONER
you can't advance more
JUDGE HENNEK
COMMISSIONER
GRIFFIN: It's still up to the
have to give it.
WILLIAMS: Establishing a cap, that
than one grade, is the answer.
E: Well --
WILLIAMS: In either set of
circumstances.
M3. NEMEC: Or give the opportunity to the
department that lust has the one employee, Okay, if you feel
that that employee is worthy of more than one step because
the other departments are going to be able to do that, then
come in and -- and justify.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we might do something like --
a broad analogy is the U.S. Congress. Regardless of how
populous your state is, you have the right to one
representative. So, we might establish a minimum number of a
pool that will be equivalent to a two-step increase, which
would allow the department head flexibility to give a
,.-..
124
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
24
25
two-step increase -- you know, a comparable, you might say.
A maximum, but also a minimum. So that the small departments
that you're talking about have the flexibility, if they want
to do that, to reward the excellent performance -- the goal
is to reward the excellent performance.
MS. UECKER: I would hate to see us limit it to one
step. Maybe two.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah.
MS. UECKER: And then, you know, make some
adjustments.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Your other point, you can
have the -- the department head or elected official will
always have the prerogative of giving no raises.
MS. UECKER: Right, which we've done.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't want to have to go
deal with your employees the next day, but if you did -- you
know, if you say, Hey, this year I don't feel like that I
ought to give it to anybody, that's your prerogative. You
don't have to spend it. You have the authority to spend it,
but --
JUDGE HENNEKE: And if we give you the flexibility
to take those dollars and use them somewhere else, you may
put a finer pencil to who gets what.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Larry, y'all may want to
address that in your workshop, because they have been down

125
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
almost every one of those roads before.
MS. NEMEC: Instead of a percentage, set a limit as
far as, like, two merit raises for each employee.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's a lot of knowledge
here.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You need to get a percentage so
that the department head has the flexibility to move things
around within their department, but I think the answer to
your question is -- is to set a minimum dollar pool for each
department, which might be equal to a two-step increase, so
that if you have only one employee or two employees, you can
give each one, you can give one two, or you can give none and
go buy yourself a new computer.
MS. DECKER: And I understand what you're saying,
too, Larry, the one-employee department doesn't have to.
But, you know, in the real world, that's not going to happen.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right. That's
exactly right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Anything further on this
item? All right. Next item is Item No. 15. I think after
this item, we'll probably recess for lunch. Consider and
discuss the resignation of NationsBank as Trustee of Charles
Schreiner Road Fund and approval Security State Bank and
Trust as Successor Trustee. I believe this is fairly
self-explanatory. Charles Schreiner -- I mean NationsBank,

126
/"`
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
as successor to Charles Schreiner, was the Trustee of the
Charles Schreiner Road Trust. They no longer have a trust
department here. They've moved administzation of that trust
to Dallas in their Special Trust Department; is that right,
Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And they want to charge us the
basic arm and a leg to administer this. Security State Bank,
which is our current depository --
MR. TOMLINSON: Correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- is willing to do it for what I
think is a competitive fee.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: In order to accomplish this, we
have to bring an actual suit, which was done in 1978, I want
to say, when they actually made the Schreiner Bank the
Trustee, as opposed to the original trustee. So, basically,
what we need to do is just get formal approval for it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have some
questions --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- if you don't mind,
please. The agreed judgment, right on page 1, please spell
my name correctly.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'll tell Mr. Pollard.

127
,~^

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Number 2, Page 2,
when it talks about the Court, the Court will make these
decisions, is that a District Court? Or is that a County
Court at Law? Or --
JUDGE HENNEKE: This is the District Court. This
"The Court further finds from the evidence...," that's the
District Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Let's see. I had a
couple more things. Page 9, in the second paragraph, let's
see, "... shall be paid a fee equal to and in accordance
with its published fee schedule..." Now, who has that
published fee schedule?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The bank. They are to use
that -- I mean, by law, they have to have a fee schedule.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you look at that and --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, they represented that they
would charge us the same fee based on the same fee structure
that they use for -- for other trust agreements of similar
size and -- and workload, or whatever it takes to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- to do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would it be like -- I mean,
would they charge the same thing as NationsBank has always
charged us?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. No, they've agreed to do this

128

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
at their very minimum cost.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. All right, I'm happy
with it. Just drop down to this next "therefore ordered,
adjudged and decreed thing. To retain in its possession at
the end of the accounting year a sum of money equal to
one-half of one percent of all principal funds of this trust
in the sum of $175,000. Where did this $175,000 come from?
MR. TOMLINSON: The original trust agreement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, in actuality, today
there's, like, $300,000 or $400,000 in this --
MR. TOMLINSON: No. No, there's -- I think the
last time the amount was, like, $182,000. The last account I
got, the statement I received from -- from NationsBank was
approximately $182,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can only spend the
earnings, correct?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I'd probably disagree
with you on what the figure is, but that's fine.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think what you're thinking about
is the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Total bottom line.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- is the amount of money that we
show as the cash balance in our fund.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
r"

129

~_
r'`
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. TOMLINSON: Okay. That -- that is totally
different from --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- What the principal is of the
trust.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: The amount that we show as what our
cash balances are is the accumulation of all the earnings
that we've received from that trust to-date.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see that. I understand
that. Thank you very much. Page 5, about halfway down the
page, it starts talking about this Court to appoint the
County Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, to include
the County Judge and all the Commissioners of Kerr County,
Texas, as an advisory trustee. Is that something new?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, it's not. That was in the
original trust agreement. And, what it called for in the
original trust agreement and in the prior agreed judgment was
that this body would advise the trustee at the first of each
year as to how they want the funds spent. So, what we've
done this time is we've gone back and made it "from time to
time" because we don't know when those projects will come up,
like the bridges that we just used it for recently. But,
this is not something new. This is the original trust
agreement.

130
~.
!'"`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know that when the money
has been used prior to now, I mean, this Court -- it has not
come before this Court.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It came before us just recently on
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It did just recently, but
I'm talking about years past. Don't -- I think, Tommy, that
the policy has been that Road and Bridge just uses it?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Has there been a trustee to
approve it?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the -- we're talking about
two different things here. Because --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, the way -- I mean, this is
my opinion, but the way I see it is that the Court has the --
the ability to spend the earnings that it's -- that the
County has generated without any approval from the Trustee.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. We're talking about
two different animals here.
MR. TOMLINSON: In other words, the almost
$3,900 -- $34,000 balance that we show as -- as what the
balance is in that fund.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think the Commissioners Court has
,~"~
131


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
2I
22
23
24
25
sole discretion of those funds. I mean, I think the trust --
the instrument is talking about the funds that are available
for one year at a time. In other words, there's an interest
that will accrue from the beginning of -- of one period to
another. And, in past years, it's been about $10,000 to
$12,000 a year. So, I think -- I think that it says that --
that the Court has to recommend to the Trustee that we use
that amount of money for a specific thing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's just not what
I'm reading here, but
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, actually, I tend to agree
with you. I think what we may need to do is to get Mr.
Pollard to give us an A-H-C as to who does what to whom.
MR. TOMLINSON: A lot -- see, a lot of the money in
that fund the County has invested. Whereas, if we had
expended funds, the funds that we didn't use, then -- then
we've invested those funds and earned -- earned interest on
the interest, is what we've done.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And we can spend that,
right?
MR. TOMLINSON: And, I mean, that's -- I mean,
that's certainly my opinion, but that's the way that I think
we've treated that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the history -- I
mean, that's the way we've been spending it. I just --


132

/'`
L_
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. TOMLINSON: But I think, though, that in the
past, that the Court has -- has included the expenditure of
those funds in the budget. In other words, when the County
purchased the right-of-way for the Loop -- 539, I believe it
is -- you know, the County consciously said, you know, we
want to budget this much to do that. And, we've done --
we've done that in the past on different things.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to have Mr. Pollard
tell -- I mean, I ]ust want to clear it up in my mind that
that's what I'm reading here. One more question. On Page 6,
halfway down, there's a number 4 there. Y'all see the number
9?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What in the world does that
mean, exactly?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's called a typo.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay. Well, I mean,
this is out of Mr. Pollard's office there.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't think they made
mistakes over there. Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to go back to Page
5, and I -- maybe one of the historians on the Court can tell
me a little bit about the history, as to why Captain
Schreiner decided that only Precincts 1 and 9 had roads
~r---,
4
133

~,
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
worthy of consideration. I guess, Jonathan, you and I had
Indian territory or something?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's just true. You have
to accept it and go on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's an ambiguity on
Page 5 that needs to be addressed. It does talk about 1 and
4, and that I guess is what he really had in mind when he set
up this trust, but if you read down at the bottom of that
paragraph, right after Security State Bank, one, two, three,
four lines from the top, it talks about " ...each year and
from time to time as to which of the public roads in Kerr
County, Texas, most urgently need the assistance and the fund
which may be earned..." blah, blah, blah Now, he's
broadened it out in that sense. We're talking about Kerr
County, as opposed to just Precincts 1 and 9, which I guess
were his beloved precincts. Now he's got us kind of humped
in there a little bit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I like the second part
of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I appreciate you bringing
that up, Jon. It is not good.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think what we need to do is
clarify the language, because, having read the trust
instrument, it's very clear that it's only for Precinct 1 and
Precinct 4.
~"~

139
/^`
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
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Nice try, Bill.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nice try, but no bananas.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Should have left it alone,
come back later and see.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Quick question relative to that.
Glenn Holekamp. How did they purchase property for Loop 534
if those criteria were in place?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's past history. If you want
to go delve into that, good luck.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought that; I just wasn't
going to ask, Glenn. Trying to figure out what part of that
was in Precincts 1 and 4.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's precedent-setting,
however.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Is it the precinct lines prior to --I
what year?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Whenever the -- whenever the --
yeah, good question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That is a good question.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion on the
agenda item?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We've got to get a legal
opinion on this, right?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We're going to ask Mr. Pollard to
r^
135
.~
~"`
L -_
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
define for us exactly what we can use and what circumstances,
but what we need to do is to go forward and move this process
along so we can --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is he coming over here today
for Executive Session?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, not that I'm aware of. I'll
make a request of him.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we approve part and not
all? Or do we need to approve this and ask questions latex?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We need to approve the -- not
necessarily the specific document, because that can be
cleaned up, as far as typos are concerned, but we need to
approve the resignation of NationsBank and approval of
Security State Bank as Successor Trustee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, second
by Commissioner Baldwin, that we accept the resignation of
NationsBank as Trustee of Charles Schreiner Road Fund and
designate Security State Bank and Trust as Successor Trustee
and institute the necessary proceedings to accomplish that.
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.

136

/'`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: We will stand in recess until 1:15.
(Recess taken from 12:05 p.m. to 1:15 p.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll call back to order this
regular session of Kerr County Commissioners Court. It's
1:15. The next item on our agenda is Item No. 16, which is
consider and discuss forming a task force with the City of
Kerrville to review and coordinate longterm infrastructure
planning. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda after
several years of trying to get this off the ground. First I
tried to include this with the Subdivision Rules, and it
never happened then. Then, at the current meetings that are
being held on water -- Headwaters coordinating, I brought it
up at that first meeting, said it may be a good time to
include it, and I was voted down then. They thought it was a
separate issue. So, I just thought we'd just try one-on-one
with the City.
And, my idea is -- I've talked to the City. I've talked
to Glenn Brown on a number of occasions and several
councilmen, and the idea is that there are things that come
up that really affect Kerr County and City of Kerrville more
than anyone else from an infrastructure standpoint. You
commented -- Jim Brown made a comment this morning that -- hey
f"'~
137
r^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
had a comment on this, and his comment was they hope we do
it. And they don't want U.G.R.A. to be included
specifically, but they'd ask that ff we do do it, they be
invited to meetings from a sewage line standpoint, which they
probably will get in the business of doing.
And, I just see there's a need from a -- as my memo
says, on roads, Master Road Plan. I think we really need
one. We need to know about proposed subdivisions, where
e^~
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
roads are going to be. We talked about something like that
briefly, Spur 100, this morning. There's a lot of others
around the county that -- we're getting locked in areas, and
we just need to make sure that we -- you know, if we need to
do something, it's not really to develop a plan as to how to
deal with these master roads, whatever you want to call them;
it's just where they're going to be, and then deal with them
on a case-by-case basis.
Earlier, I guess last month, we talked about
participation with the golf course renovation. That's
something that, you know, possibly would come to this kind of
a group. And if it has merit, maybe then it could go to the
City Council and Commissioners Court for discussion. Things
of that nature that come up. I view this as quarterly
meetings, probably. I don't think we'd want to -- you know,
it's more of a general overview, and if something comes up
that's important, identify it, and it should be reviewed by
/'~
138

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
both bodies for action and decision. It's just more to keep
the contact between the two entities. That's my comments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Has the City indicated an
interest in doing this?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Through what, the
Engineer's Department or what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Glenn Brown thinks it's needed;
I've talked with him. And, as to who they wanted, I've
mentioned I think I talked with Councilman Fine about it; he
thought it was good idea. I think Councilman Morris, as
well; he thought it was good. And, beyond "good idea," they
didn't bring up anything. My recommendation today, if we
agree -- and Glenn Brown asked me, he said, "Do you want me
to put it on the next agenda?" I said, "No, let the
Commissioners Court" -- if the Commissioners Court wants to
do it, then I or one of us will go over there and propose it
to them, and then if they want to do it, we'll do it.
Obviously, you know, you can't dance alone. If they
don't want to appoint some people, there's no need for us to
appoint any. Hut I think that it should be from a standpoint
-- if we're going to have Commissioners on it, I think we
should have City Councilmen on it. I think it should be at
that level. And I think, from an advisory standpoint, we
probably would want an engineer to be -- maybe the County
,•^
139
P"
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
Engineer, 'cause that's the closest we have, and either their
City Manager or Jim Dye or whoever they want, someone in more
of an engineering/longterm planning capacity.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In our previous talks with
the City about this, we've talked with Mr. Vetter; I think he
probably had on his City Planner hat at that time, and he's
-- we've had long talks with him about that. So, it's not
something brand-new about it. To give you an example of some
of the things that we've kind of tinkered with, the -- out in
my precinct, the Horizon, the big subdivision out past the
State Hospital that curls around Kerrville South, when we
approved that plat, we asked them to include three easements
out just -- at this point, they're out to nowhere. They're
out in -- they go up to the fence line to private property.
But, trying to look into the future of that being developed,
then there would be -- you'd have access from one subdivision
to another. That type of thing is what we're talking about,
like -- like Jon referred to, the -- the Spur 100?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Spur 100.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tying in, and we've been
talking about that since Jon and I have been here, trying to
connect that thing over there to whatever that road is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cypress Creek. The important
part of the county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have a problem
140
~-"

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
conceptually, because I think we should engage in these
discussions with them. And, you know, the -- we cite the
Horizon as an illustration, and that's a good illustration of
trying to coordinate roads, and ingress and egress between
subdivisions also. It might be an opportunity -- and, again,
with Horizon -- to work out how you handle things in the
E.T.J. that do not conform to our regulations versus theirs,
and that's a good example of that. You've got a piece of
that Horizon coming in the front gate that doesn't conform,
and you've got a developer hanging tough, because he didn't
want to do what the City wants him to do. I just was
curious, Jonathan, because you put in here golf course
renovations. And, while I'm in favor of that, I wondered how
!~ they fit within the true definition of infrastructure. But,
I'm not opposed to it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put that in there just
because it came before the Court, it came once before.
And I'm personally, probably, opposed to it, just from a
standpoint of, you know, they don't participate, other than
for the first time this year, sales tax -- or the hotel tax
on the Ag facility -- I mean the Hill Country Youth
Exhibition Center. In my mind, there's certain things that
are the City and certain things that are the County, even
though they may benefit both parties. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Your reference to

141

,~"`
~_
~^
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the golf course renovation would leave us open -- and, again,
another opportunity to talk to the City with respect to
perhaps an interlocal service agreement with Parks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM3: The Parks and Recreation.
And why can't we maybe get our heads together about
recreational facilities and park facilities and come up with
something that matches that?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We need to be careful here where
we're going. We're talking about just discussions with the
City.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. Well, I mean, I think --
JUDGE HENNEKE: And, you know, what -- what does
the City have to do with roads out in Mountain Home?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think you would --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I mean, if we're talking about a
county-wide infrastructure committee, then I think we need to
broaden it, perhaps.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Include Ingram, Hunt, and
Center Point and whomever.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, perhaps. I think the
one thing that -- I mean, the concept -- and I agree, too,
it's probably something we all look at. How do we deal with
the other jurisdictions when it comes to common goals and
192


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
needs fn the area of infrastructure? That's a good thing.
I'm not sure that having sort of a -- not a charter list, but
a -- an unpowered additional task force might not buy us very
much. And I'm just saying -- I think my view is that if
we're going to do something here, it's got to be something
that's got some oomph to it, something that can make
something happen. And -- and just getting together to talk
about it, I don't know -- I just am not sure it's going to
pay off very well. Of course, it couldn't hurt to converse;
I'm not against that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think the reason I jumped in
there is because, if you start talking about using a common
Parks Department, you know, that really does involve Ingram
and Center Point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And -- but it also gets much more
specific, because it's between the County and the City.
COMMISSIONER LET2: I guess --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we need to be careful about
the charter -- if you're talking about a Master Road Plan for
the County, then i think that's a clear goal. And I'd like
-- you know, on something like that, I would like to see us
consider making it fairly broad, and perhaps giving each
Commissioner the right to appoint someone to the committee.
So, instead of ending up with a 5-person committee, we end up
~'`
143
~^.
..
/'`
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
with a 9- or 11-person committee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the first thing that I
see that needs to be worked is the Master Road Plan; that is
something that we need. There is a draft that the City has
prepared. When it gets out into the, you know, reality of --
I guess it's needed all over, but the area that it's really
more important is just around the City of Kerrville, and we
all -- it affects all of our precincts to some degree. Other
things could be -- you know, as far as broadening it too
much, I don't have any problem with that. My feeling has
been, generally, when we get into a lot of things things with
Ingram and Center Point, the two other municipalities, they
never come and participate. And I didn't, you know, exclude
them; it wasn't -- you know, it was kind of with this.
Maybe if we get a draft put together just for the City
of Kerrville, then we can put it out to the public or bring
in the broader group, and, you know, try to get something
going. i just have seen this thing as kind of being shelved.
And, you know, it kind of comes off the shelf, people look at
it, it goes back on the shelf for two years. I think it's
something that would be helpful to the County as whole,
especially right around the City of Kerrville to do. And
there are other issues that, you know, it will affect, like
U.G.R.A., if they do get into the sewage business. I mean,
those right-of-ways will be where they put their sewer lines,
199

~^
r^`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
in all likelihood. They don't necessarily have to, but
there's a good chance.
There's gust other infrastructure things around Loop 34.
We talked for over -- I guess probably a year and a half now,
about gray water around the golf course and then sewer around
there and an industrial park. There's things of that nature
with the City that are infrastructure things, really, just
more with the City, and that's, you know, why I limited it to
that right now. But, it could -- I don't have a problem with
broadening it, if people will participate.
JUDGE NENNEKE: Maybe you're talking about two
separate committees. Maybe you're talking about a county-
wide infrastructure committee, which could include a
representative from each precinct, and then maybe you're
talking about a committee with the City, which talks about,
you know, broadening the already good base we have of
cooperating with the City on specific projects.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE NENNEKE: I think both of them have merit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't -- I think they
have merit.
JUDGE NENNEKE: If you combine the two, I'm
struggling with putting something on a county-wide basis with
something that looks fairly narrowly focused.
~_- _
145
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe you should start with
a Kerr County Master Road Plan Committee and see where that
leads us.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would -- I mean, more
infrastructure -- to me, if you call it a Master Road Plan, I
think that maybe brings on other connotations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it does, and sewers
is one of them. And we don't have any in terms of sewers
outside of our jurisdiction.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, take the Master Road
Plan and run with it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You can call it the Infrastructure
Committee, and that will do -- you know, could encompass the
sewage as well, if there's a role for us to play in that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Would you see this -- would
you see this, you know, as appointed -- I mean, let me tell
you where my question is coming from. I think we really
ought to look at, when we can, using many of the good,
well-qualified citizens that are involved and always want to
volunteer to do something. And there are people who are not
just wanting to be on committees; they are, oftentimes,
people who are now at a time in their lives that they can do
things, and they're expert at it. And I think, rather than
146

L-
tying up all of our time sitting on too many of these kind of
task forces, that we ought to look at using the brainpower of
our citizenry when we can. i mean, I can think of five or
six people in my precinct that I would feel very comfortable
with serving on such a -- an infrastructure committee. Not
to be the -- I mean, all of us could be members ex-officio
and be there with our representative, but I would really like
to see us get away from having to tie up our time when we're
probably going to go have to go to other people for answers
anyway. And it gives our citizens a chance to participate.
Would you see that working in this in any way, as the Judge
has indicated?
COMMISSIONER LET2: I see all of these working.
That's why I put it on the agenda. Maybe the thing to do,
before we make a decision, is to go to the City and see how
they feel. I mean, because it's -- like I say, it's not a
~ unilateral thing; that we can do either of these, really.
~ JUDGE HENNEKE: I will say that I've been having
~ fairly regular, but not scheduled, meetings with the mayor.
And he was over here last Tuesday for an hour and a half, and
1 it was his suggestion that, at the next meeting, I bring a
2 Commissioner and he bring a City Councilperson. And I think
3 that's kind of the basis for the County/City cooperation.
4 30, what I'm saying, really, in support of you is to go to
5 the City and say, Let's not hidebound this, but let's make it
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
1~
lE
1'
lr
1
Z
2
2
2
i
~''`
147
,,^-~
~,
~_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
1F
15
2f
2'
2
2
2
2
a little more structured, little more formal than perhaps it
has been in the past, and see where it leads us. 'Cause I
think there are a lot of opportunities for cooperation with
the City, in particular, that are going to come up over the
next couple years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And some big projects
that we're going to want help on and they're going to want
help on, and we need a way to get it -- you know, lust to
keep communication going.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Keep things coordinated,
you're right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree conceptually,
mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you just want the Judge and
one of us to go to the next City Council and, you know, get
their idea on how they want to proceed?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, sounds good.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right, good.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Item No. 17, consider and discuss
the American Express Texas Independent Agencies program. Mr.
~'^~
Griffin?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If you'll recall from the
last couple of meetings we've had, we have discussed a little
148
,'^,
.^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2(
2]
2:
2:
2
2

bit about credit cards specifically for travel by employees
of the County, including the Commissioners Court. I did some
research with American Express. They have -- American
Express has a contract with the State of Texas; they do all
of the credit card billing for travel, official travel and et
cetera, for the State. And, the way their system works is --
and the way this system that was spun off of that works is
that they issue credit cards with absolutely no cost to the
agency. Each individual who has a credit card under the
program is responsible for paying the credit card when it's
billed to them personally. They are in turn reimbursed, of
course, by, in our case, the County.
There is a monthly statement that goes to the
administrator of the program that lists all the charges of
all the cards that are issued under the program, so that, for
example -- he wouldn't be the administrator, but on Judge
Henneke's desk, once a month he gets a statement that shows
every charge that's been made by every individual. There are
-- there's a good policy guidance on this about how it works,
in that employees are restricted from using it for anything
other than official business travel. It will -- if the
Legislature passes a bill before them this session, it would
allow you to use that card to travel on the State airline
contract fares, which are fixed with Southwest and American
and Continental and others. No matter where you travel, you
149
r^
i"'~
._
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2:
2:
2~
2!
/~.
travel at a very reduced rate, because they're negotiated
contracts. You just get a list of those, you take the city
pair that you're traveling between, and you get that low, low
rate. So, this would tie into that.
I would repeat, there is no cost involved with this
whatsoever. And it's a tightly controlled -- very tightly
controlled system. Some of the backup there that you see,
each individual actually is personally liable for the charges
that are made to the card. That's all spelled out in here.
The administrator -- for example, if you have a card issued
to an employee who terminates, the administrator contacts the
program administrator for American Express and cancels that
card immediately. Or any account can be canceled. I mean,
if somebody misuses the card, it's zapped. It's -- you know,
either by not paying what's due on it or by charging
something that's not authorized, that wasn't business travel.
This is why -- it worked so well for the State that a
lot of counties started asking for -- you know, "Can we" --
as I did, "Can we tie onto the system?" And they said, "No,
you can't, but we now have a program -- a separate program
called Texas Independent Agencies program, which is exactly
the same as the State's." It's just administered at American
Express -- it's administered separately, because the
legislative -- easy for you to say -- the Legislature did not
allow the Counties and other entities, Cities to tie into it.
150
~"~

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2i
2.
2~
2!
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In practice, the employees get
the personal bill?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it also -- the bill or the
amount of the bill goes to the administrator in the County?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Auditor. So, the --
,rr'`
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. No, let me explain. It
makes the charge -- the employee buys an airline ticket or
whatever, pays for his hotel bill. He'll get the bill at the
end of the month, and the administrator, whoever that is --
we designate who that person is who is authorized to receive
it -- gets a statement of everybody who had a charge. It
doesn't say whether it's been paid yet or not at that point.
The person is still responsible for paying for it themselves.
I just wanted to clarify that. It doesn't indicate whether
it's been paid or not. It's just like you're getting a
duplicate copy of a bill, except it's all on one list and
broken down by employee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I'm getting at, though, is
to keep the employees from having to go out-of-pocket with
their money, which was my original intent. With the billing
with American Express, you have basically one debt; you have
30 days to pay it. The bill comes in, they can turn it in,
the employee could get a reimbursement check and pay it?
151

~._
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well within the 30-day period.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Before -- yeah. And, in
fact, the way that works in the State is that, the way it's
set up, that that always happens. I mean, the State's got a
very quick system, and I think that we could do the same
thing. We can just say that, as soon as the employee will --
if the employee will submit their travel information when
they get back, and not delay turning it in, we should never
be more than two weeks or three weeks away, at the maximum,
say, from getting the reimbursement. Because it just takes
time to process it through Auditor's office. That's really
all that's required.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's something wrong with
that. They'd reimburse me for something that I haven't paid
16 I for?
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, but you'd present a
bill. You go to -- you go to the Motel 6, 'cause I know
you're a frugal person. You go to the Motel 6 in San Antonio
for a conference, and you'll get a bill when you come back
from Motel 6. You get reimbursed on the basis of that bill,
which you're signing your name, under penalty of $10,000 and
10 years or whatever, that says, yes, I incurred this
expense. You're going to do that even if you paid cash.
You've just -- you've just got the receipt; you're going to
~~
152
r"`
~^
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
get the money back. When the American Express bill comes to
you, you've got to pay it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 'Cause --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What they do in this monthly
thing, after it gets rolling along, is that the administrator
-- and in the report it will have a thing that says, Joe
Dokes is 30 days behind or 60 days behind. They're not going
to -- the way the program works is they don't immediately
come after you. They give you a chance to go and take care
of your wayward employee.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a good system. An
advantage to us is that -- that if you have multiple County
employees traveling, you're not fighting over a single
MasterCard to get charges taken care of.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Which has no control,
ultimately, when you put it into the -- there are chances for
-- if you have a credit card that you pass around, there's a
lot of chance for either it being lost or misplaced or
misused, a lot more so than this. This is dust like it's a
personal credit card; it's just that it's set aside for
business only.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In this case -- on the
reimbursement side of it, in many cases, if the person uses
this card in the first half of the month, you've really got
95 days to pay the bill.
~^'~

153

/"`_
~.._
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
a
9
IO
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM3: You've got plenty of time
to be reimbursed so you can pay the bill.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Now, what we need to do is
-- we don't need to do that today. They're going to send us
this package, and we can use it or not use it, as we choose.
That's all the paperwork -- this is an example of what each
individual has to accomplish. But, we need to decide who we
would want to administer the program, and by our next
meeting, we need to -- if we're going to do this, we just
need to figure out who that's going to be.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The administrator doesn't do
anything except receive the monthly invoices?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That we're contemplating, except
they have no enforcement. Now, what enforcement does the
department head have over an employee? If Jannett decides
that she wants Linda Mendoza to have her own card --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: She can do that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- does Jannett get a copy of the
monthly bill automatically?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: She could go to the
administrator and get that. That's the way a lot of
administrators do that. They will break that down and give
r'^-
159

r
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
each individual supervisor who has the authority to allow an
employee to have a card or not have it, they give them the
breakdown of that bill so that the supervisor knows what's
been charged. That's the reason -- you can look on there and
say, "Hey, what's this 65 bucks to Fiesta, Texas?" you know.
That's the reason that the supervisor gets a copy of that, so
that they -- they can stop any abuse of the card.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Plus they can keep an eye on
their line item.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And they know what's being
spent. It gives you a good record of that, and it's all
documented in the name of the person who has the card, which
is what I like. I like that essence of control. Unlike a
system where you're passing a card around that just says
"Courthouse." Who really made that charge? If I had the
card in my possession and somebody made -- there's a wierd
charge that shows up, then does the Judge stand for that or
what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some 900-number.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Some 900-number, yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You make the motion, I'll
second it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, anyway, I would make
the motion that we adopt this system, and at about our next
r^
155

~..
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
meeting, we'll have all the paperwork that would be required.
And, between now and then, we need to decide who we think
ought to be the, quote, administrator.
COMMISSIONER LET2: Go back to the case of -- I
didn't answer your question. Jannett wants one of her
employees to have a card. She goes to the administrator --
Jannett does, goes to the administrator and says, "I want
so-and-so to have a card." She is okaying that, or the
administrator won't complete this paperwork to send into the
American Express to have a card issued. That's the way that
that has always worked. In other words, your issuing
authority is always involved. The issuing authority is
always involved in who gets issued cards, or if one gets
canceled. She can come and say, "I've decided I don't want
her to have a card any more," and -- or him to have a card,
and, bam, that's it. Administrator notifies American Express
to cancel. It's done by fax; they haven't gotten an a-mail
yet, but it can be canceled in minutes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The mo
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thea, you have
MS. SOVIL: Well, what he said
personal liability. Are you saying that
personal liability to repay that card?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
COMMI3SIONER WILLIAMS: That's
Lion --
a comment?
in the beginning,
an employee has the
right.
~'`
156
/^
/"~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
29
25
MS. SOVIL: Well, aren't you putting the burden of
the County expense on the employee, then?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, because the County's
going to reimburse that person for that.
MS. SOVIL: But what guarantee do we have that that
employee is going to pay that bill with the money he got
back?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the employee's
problem.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's the supervisor's problem.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's the reason that
the employee is personally responsible, is because you
wouldn't want to dump that on the County. The County's out
of it when they repay the -- when they reimburse the
employee. The County is out of it.
MS. SOVIL: But, theoretically, the -- the employee
is out their own money until they get reimbursed?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't have to happen,
though.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But they always can be
reimbursed before that American Express bill gets there.
MS. SOVIL: Well, there are times when we do go
three weeks.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay, that's still no


157
r^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
problem. Three weeks is never a problem with American
Express. And, that's exactly the way it works with the
State program and the -- where they have instituted this
with the --
MS. SOVIL: I could see a card per department, but
I can't see a bunch of employees running around with cards.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But then who controls it7
MS. SOVIL: The department head.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the problem which
~,"'`
L_,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
19
20
2I
22
23
29
25
we've got right now.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's up to the department head,
though. I mean, if Jannett decides that -- Jannett decides
that she only wants one card in her department -- and we're
picking on her cause she's here.
MS. PIEPER: That's fine.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Whenever she sends one of her
employees to be trained, that she's going to allow her card
to be used, say, to guarantee the hotel.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Or to pay the registration fee.
That's her decision. Cause the bill's going to come to her,
and she's going to have to go to the employee and make sure
that the employee has the necessary receipts and puts in for
the reimbursement so the employee can then --
MS. SOVIL: That's if the card is in Jannett's

i
158
r
!''`
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
name.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right, but that's the
decision of the department head. If Jannett decides she
really doesn't want to have more than one card for her
department, understanding it can only be used for travel,
that's her decision. But then she understands, she has to
make the rest of the decisions about whether she wants to
allow an employee to use their personal credit card to secure
a seminar room, or whether she's going to allow them to use
her credit card, or whether, in the long run, it might be
easier -- I think you'll find that a lot of the departments
probably won't pass out too many employee cards, because
they're not used but maybe once a year to go to a seminar.
And that's on -- but what we're trying to get away from is
where we have one card for the entire County, and it's
constantly in motion.
MS. SOVIL: Well, that one card was originally
gotten for Commissioners Court. 1t lust has gone -- they
wanted to use it. I mean, it wasn't -- it wasn't gotten for
the ability for everyone to use it. It was gotten for the
County Judge to carry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But the way people travel
today, the rules of travel today are such that one card in
his pocket doesn't benefit me when I check in a hotel six
hours after or before he arrives.
r"~
159
~"'`
~_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. SONIC: You had that experience?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good idea.
JUDGE HENNEKE: A motion has been made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that
we participate in the American Express travel-related company
program for independent agencies. 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. Okay, Item No. 18,
consider and discuss Solid Waste Grant. Mr. Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. As you know, the
Solid Waste program fs finally up and running. Chuck Brecher
is our employee, and I understand that he -- he's lust been
working, like, on weekends up to this point, and I understand
that he retires from the Sheriff's Office -- tomorrow?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tomorrow's the day, his
final day with the Sheriff's office, and then he will come on
with us at our full-time -- not necessarily the County's
full-time employee, but because of the grant, the full-time
on the grant. For the grant next year, it's time to start
the process again. You see on this T.N.R.C.C. cover letter
here, the cover page, the tentative schedule. So, as you can


160

/"
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
see, it's time for us to start looking at it, talking about
it, and Mr. Holekamp has asked me to get this on the agenda
to kind of get a feel of what the Commissioners Court wants
to do, if we want to pursue this thing, so that he can move
on out, get with Ms. Huddleston to start writing the grant
and all those things. And I think Glenn even has some -- has
been, maybe, thinking to possibly broaden the scope of the
thing. So, Mr. Holekamp, please come forward.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank you, Commissioner. First of
all, did everybody get a copy of the regional Solid Waste
grant program with the tentative schedule on it? That was
forwarded to me from Meg Huddleston, who is the Kerr County
representative to the AACOG Solid Waste Task Force, which
meets in San Antonio, I guess, every two or three months.
And, as she indicated, there's some asterisks involved here.
A lot of it depends on our Legislature, what they approve
this year, but it looks very positive that there -- they are
going to set the grants up for a two-year period instead of
one year at a time, which will give Counties and other
entities a little bit more opportunity to -- to look at
programs little bit further in the future.
I think one of the things that -- you know, if we --
this is one of the better grant programs, as far as I'm
concerned. It's a grant that you apply for; it's not a
matching situation. We've been able to fund some capital

161

r'"~
L -
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
equipment that should last us quite some time. In -- into
the new program, on Page 6, I think this is probably the area
that I would really -- and listening to Commissioner Letz'
comments about the task force with the City --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have a Page 6.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Page 6 at the very bottom -- well,
it's No. 5, Implementation Project Funding Standards.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We go from 5 to 7, we're
missing a page.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have the odd-numbered
pages.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Here, just pass this around. Quite
briefly, what it says -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We've got the odd-numbered
pages, not the even-numbered.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That explains why we're
having troubling reading this thing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The back of the page.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, it's printed on both
sides.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. What -- the grant has
some possibilities as to we can take in by contract to do
other -- other entities, whether they be cities or -- who do
not, in my opinion, have an active Solid Waste program,
i!
162

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
whether it be the City of Kerrville, Center Point, Ingram.
It can even extend to other government entities: U.G.R.A.,
Headwaters, school districts, if they wish to participate.
And, of course, it would be by contract; I realize that we
have to do it that way. But, the City has -- I don't know if
they call them Code Enforcement Officers or what they do with
their -- you know, when they have a trashed-out yard and the
Health Department or -- I don't know who does it -- inspector
goes over there and says, "Hey ,you need to mow your grass,"
or whatever it is.
But, this program -- if the Court so chooses, we could
expand our program to include these other entities, in
contract with them, and have it funded by AACOG. Which I'm
not saying there's money out there to grab, but it's been
very good, and this is going to be an excellent program.
We're getting some Sunk off the streets that's needed to come
off for a long time, and with our officer that's going from
part-time to full-time next week, we are going to see an
immediate reaction, positive.
So, I would really like to look at the funding as to
expanding the scope of Code Enforcement. And if there's some
other area in here that you feel like is an area that we need
to look at, we can plug it in. Megan Caulfield at the City
is very, very good about helping us put our grant together,
and so is Meg Huddleston. So the City is involved. They're

163

.~'~
~, _

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
already involved in -- in helping us with the the
application. So, I would really like to look at this grant
application positively, and be a little more aggressive this
year in trying to get some grant funding, and maybe at a
higher rate and do more than what we're doing right now.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we certainly want to go
forward with the grant. And, I mean, the -- it's a good
program, what you want to cover. I mean, I -- Commissioner
Baldwin's been working with it, but, you know, we're -- get
with Glenn Holekamp and put together what you'd like and
bring it back to us, within reason.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I would think so. Bring us a
proposal.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. As to how much you feel like
Kerr County can do or is willing to do? Or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Both.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Both?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How much money we can go
after.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What do you see the need
being expanded to?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sky's the limit.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir, it is. The sky's the

164
n

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
limit, because there's a lot of trash out there, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right.
MR. HOLEKAMP: The only thing is -- and you'll need
to keep in mind, no grant funds can be used for collection of
trash. We cannot haul it. We will not. That is against the
rules. That's in competition with the -- with business. But
I --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is the enforcement
side.
MR. HOLEKAMP: It is enforcement or programs. One
of the programs that y'all might find very attractive is
collection sites in rural areas. That is something, too,
that grant money can be used for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM3: To establish a collection
site?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's something you don't
necessarily do permanently, but you do periodically. You
might do it semiannually, you might set up a collection site
in Center Point and one in --
MR. HOLEKAMP: As part of your program.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Where people could bring to the
collection site used oil, used paint --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Batteries, chemicals.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All those things.
/"',
i
165

1"'`
~_

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
COMMIS3IONER HOLEKAMP: And we can even -- there's
a possibility that you can do a quarterly deal with funding
to get big old trailer dumpsters where people can bring their
trash in once every month, but BFZ still would reap the
benefit of the -- of the weight and all of that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd be very much in favor of
anything we could do through the grant where we could have a
mobile collection point for hazardous chemicals and items,
because that's something that BFI won't take.
MR. HOLEKAMP: How hazardous?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hazardous being paints,
chemicals.
MR. HOLEKAMP: We have to be real careful on that
one. That's regulated by a different outfit. Before I could
make a statement, I would have to read the rules, 'cause
they're under a different arm.
COMMI3SIONER WILLIAMS: We have a hazardous waste
pick-up down here.
MR. HOLEKAMP: That fs directly by T.N.R.C.C. That
is not --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's done in Kerr County
already.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I'm saying that the -- that
166

/"`
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 County people use it, but if you had one out in Hunt,
you'd get a lot more people from the western part of the
county taking in their old paint and chemicals, batteries;
and have another one in Center Point.
COMMIS3IONER BALDWIN: We might want to look into
that.
MR. HOLEKAMP: But the parameters of the grant is
-- is pretty open from the standpoint that there's a lot of
things we can do once we find out whether, yes, let's go for
it, or we'll be willing to apply for it. And then, not only
apply for it, but once it does get here, are we willing to
implement them.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think what I'm hearing is
you bring us back what you think we can handle, and be
expansive, and we'll take a look at it, run with it from
there.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. Is there a particular person
on the Court you want me to -- to keep working with on this?
I see three fingers pointing your way, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which finger?
MR. HOLEKAMP: But --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I was going to do it verbally.
Commissioner Baldwin has been the Solid Waste liaison.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. And he's very well up on what
we'xe doing, and I would appreciate it very much if y'all
r^"`
167

L -

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
would appoint him. And he knows what we did last year, and I
think we can expand on it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a deadline for the
grant application?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to rock and roll.
Here, this is yours.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I'm sorry that v'all did not qet the
complete pages.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got the even pages.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Looks like it's due July 15th, so
we've got a little while to work on it. But --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah, right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to get to work on
it. Thank you, Glenn.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Glenn. Next item is
Item No. 19, which is update on House Bill 2012 and House
Bill 662. Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. These are the two
bills that you remember that Mr. Duncan put together and sent
over to the State Legislature. One of those bills is out of
committee, being considered on the floor of the House. The
other is hung up in the committee. We've put both of these
bills and a brief explanation in your packet, and I hope you
have an opportunity to read them. If you -- you know, that's
all the information that I'm going to provide, other than if

168
/'`
t"
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
you have further questions, Mr. Duncan is here, and has been
here all day -- thank you, Mr. Duncan -- to answer any
further questions.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any questions?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Which one is hung up?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which one is hung up7
MR. DUNCAN: 2012, sir. It will be in committee
this week. I just heard from Ross Fisher, and he just hasn't
qot a date for you yet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: County Government Committee,
our representative is a member of that committee. So --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. County Affairs,
right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: County Affairs, that's
correct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Good.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions? Any further
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Really good.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
MR. DUNCAN: Good, I've got money to collect.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is Item No. 20, which is
consider and discuss approving a resolution opposing passage
of Senate Bill 143 and its companion bill, House Bill 1645,

169
f
r^
P"`
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
or any legislation that would eliminte protections like those
found in Section 11.085, subsection (s) of the Water Code. I
put this on the agenda. This was a -- this is a major
concern for the Texas Rural Judges' Association. And we are,
however, optimistic that they can get this thing stopped.
Basically, what the proposed bills that we're being asked to
oppose do are to eliminate the restrictions on inter-basin
water right transfers, which were included in Senate Bill 1.
I think it's certainly something that we need to be opposed
to, because the way it stands now, San Antonio Water System
could practically come up and buy all the remaining water
rights in the Guadalupe River if this legislation passed.
There's really nothing between them and all of our water
except money.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What was -- do we know what
my good friend, Buster Brown, was trying to solve when he put
this bill in? What was he trying to solve?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, this was a very highly
controversial part of Senate Bill 1, the last remaining
hurdle. It was the only way they could get the rural
counties to go along with it, including a man by the name of
Laney. And what they're trying to say is that the free
market should dictate what water rights are, without taking
into consideration the disparity in markets. The Senate Bill
has passed the Senate, but Representative Counts is the
t

170

/^
~. _
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
chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, or whatever it's
called in the House. That's the one who authored the
amendment in 1997, then put the restriction on it. So, I
think with enough show of support, that they can effectively
get along.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I had the same question
about Senator Brown. This is not like him. It is not like
him at all. Exact same question.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I can't figure out what he
was trying to do with it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ne's got some pressure down
in Port Arthur or something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What they don't want is to
have to ask permission. They don't want to have to ask
permission for an inter-basin transfer, the larger counties.
I think its one of the most important things on our agenda
today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. One of the --
and in Judge Griffith's letter here, on Page 2, something
that lust kind of pumps out at you -- when I read the thing,
it lust lumped out at me. In that first paragraph, I guess
the second sentence -- or third sentence excuse me. "You
might be surprised to learn that many of the river
authorities in Texas are headed by appointees from other
areas of the state," --
~'`
171
F'",

/'"`
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 WILLIAMS: I saw that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- "people with no stake in
the area where the river is located. In some cases, they may
have an interest in paving the way for the transfers." I'm
not quite following that. I mean, where -- where is the --
where is Judge Griffith coming from with that?
JUDGE HENNEKE: It must have something to do with
down in his neck of the woods. I know the two river
authorities I'm familiar with, U.G.R.A. and L.C.R.A., you
must reside in the territory serviced by the district in
order to be appointed to the board. So, I don't know where
he's coming from.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Trinity River and the
Hrazos River are probably two good examples where boards may
be comprised of people up and down that basin. And the ones
from up on top of the basin may not have the same pressures
or the same understandings and needs as the guy down on the
lower end. This Judge is from Beaumont, and he's talking
about probably what's happening in the Sabine Basin and the
Trinity Basin, and these things may have some controlling
factors in places other than Jefferson County. I think he
makes a very good point.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: He's probably also pointing
out that you could have -- you could have somebody --
technically, you could have a member of the L.C.R.A. We
172

r^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don't, as they are required -- but, by State law, unless the
authority requires it themselves -- correct me if I'm wrong,
Judge, but unless the authority requires it under State law,
you could have someone from San Antonio, for example, serving
on the Trinity River Authority, or vice-versa. Somebody from
Dallas could be serving on the L.C.R.A., except for the fact
that the L.C.R.A. authority requires that you reside. I
don't think there's anything in State law that requires it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The L.C.R.A. enabling legislation
would require that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's in enabling.
JUDGE HENNEKE: U.G.R.A., same way.
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: Could you have a -- could
you --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just -- just our local people,
'cause that's where my mind first goes to, could Jim Brown
head up G.B.R.A.?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, cause he's a hired
hand.
JUDGE HENNEKE: He's not a member of the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM3: He's not a director.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we saying "director"
here?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, you're right. It says "headed
F^
i!
173
~.
,~ -
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
by appointees." And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was my point.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Jim came from what, Eagle Pass?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. But doesn't
"appointee" -- in the context he's using appointee, I would
say is appointed to the board, correct?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that was my first assumption,
but I'm not sure that that has to be read that way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I did not read it that way,
sorry.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Because the people running the
river authorities are really not the boards.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree, this is an important
bill, and I make a motion to adopt the resolution.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, second
by Commissioner Baldwin, that we adopt the resolution
opposing Senate Bill I93 and House Bill 1645. 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.}

I~ I
179
~^-~
r,.,,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is No.
21, consider and discuss proclaiming the month of April as
Youth Alcohol Awareness Month. This is pursuant to the
request from Tommy Hall, our local Alcohol Control person.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there anybody fn the
audience that would like to speak to this?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thea?
MS. SOVIL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we adopt the
proclamation proclaiming the month of April as Youth Alcohol
Awareness Month. 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. Item No. 22 is
similar, in that we've been asked by the Chamber of Commerce
to proclaim May 4th, 1999, as Camp Appreciation Day.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
~~
to
175

~- -
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
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we adopt the
proclamation --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Excuse me. Discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You go ahead and finish your
sentence, but I have a question before you vote.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That we adopt the proclamation
proclaiming May 4, 1999, as Camp Appreciation Day. Any
further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. The letter from
the West Kerr County Chamber of Commerce to the Honorable
Fred Henneke. "Dear Judge Henneke," and then in the last
paragraph it says, "Please accept our invitation as a guest
to the banquet that evening." It doesn't say a damn thing
about Commissioners. All right, somebody?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You want to go?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Heck, no. But the party is
in my precinct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At Camp Chrysalis, Upper
Turtle Creek.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is a Lutheran camp;
I'm helping support that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's two of us.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, if we all go that will be a

176
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
majority; we would have to post.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will you at least report
back on whether it was a good dinner?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's all right. I'll have a
margarita for you and a beer for you, how's that? 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. That concludes our
regular session. We will now go into Executive Session, as
authorized by Title 5, Chapter 551, Government Code, and
Title 5, Chapter 552 of the Government Code.
(The open session was closed at approximately
2:15 p.m., and an Executive Session was held,
the transcript of which is contained in a separate
document.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: We will now return to open session.
We have discussed matters relating to real estate, and no
action -- no action is required. We've also discussed in
Executive Session, as was announced in open session, Agenda
Item No. 10, consider and discuss approving a constable for
Precinct 3. Do I have a motion regarding Agenda Item 10?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I make a motion that we
appoint Angel Garza Constable of Precinct 3, to fill the
r''~
N I .
177
,•'`
I'~.
L. _
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
unexpired term of former Constable Mark Shaw.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
approve Angel Garza as the Constable of Precinct 3 to fill
the unexpired term of former Constable for Precinct 3, Mr.
Mark Shaw. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Effective?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: May 1st.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Effective May 1st.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I have a question. When
does that term expire?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Year 2000, correct?
COMMISIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: December 31, 2000.
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. We have done
reports from Commissioners. We've also approved the Road and
Bridge monthly report and Maintenance monthly report, so,
without objection, we stand adjourned.
,~'~
u
178
/^
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
(Commissioners Court was adjourned at 2:43 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS I
COUNTY OF KERR I
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED this the 16th day of April, 1999.
JAN,N/ET~T.. PIQEPER, County Clerk
BY : NAB-~M~ FYQ~~
Kathy B nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
~^.