~.
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
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
May 10, ].999
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners Courtroom
Kerr Couttty Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, County Judge
H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4
Q
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
I N D E X
May 10, 1999 PAGE
Visitors' Input
Mr. Jack Keel
Commissioners' Comments
Commissioner Griffin
Judge Henneke
1.1,z5PYyPay Bi11s
1.2 Budget Amendments.dSdX~ 238K6,~Sgy7
1.3 NONE Late Bills
1.4,asgayRead and Approve Minutes
1.5,y~jyq Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
2.1~S850Underground utilities crossing County road
2.2,vnNg Petition to abandon roads & road easement in
Japonica Hills Subdivision
2. 3,~Q,;/ Purchase chair instead of work station -
County Treasurer
2. 9a25QS~,Processing/payment - Indigent Health claims
2.5~fs3 Upgraded job descriptions - Maintenance
Facilities ~ Use program
*2.6~sEU~Realignment of personnel per Court-approved plan
2.7~,sy/Flat Rock Lake Park - concept plan/construction
2.10~p~Authorize execution of Grant Agreement -
TexDOT's Routine Airport Maintenance Program
2.8~~3bChanging meeting date, 2nd meeting in June
2.9~~pParticipation in Tax Abatement Program with
City of Kerrville
9.1 Action taken on Executive Session matters
~'~psg Realignment of Personnel (Item 2.6)
Extend G. Holekamp's interim appointment
ASQSq Property acquisition
Commissioners Court adjourned
3
7
7
8
11
13
13
19
17
21
22
28
96
96
69
70
71
78
79
80,
80
3
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
On Monday, May 10, 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: Good morning. It's 9 o'clock on
Monday, May 10th, 1999, and we'll call to order this regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. Jonathan, I
believe you have the honors this morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Please stand.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. At this time, any
citizen wishing to speak on an item not listed on the regular
agenda who has completed a form for consideration may come
forward at this time and speak. I believe we have Mr. Jack
Keel, who has indicated he'd like to address us. Mr. Keel?
MR. KEEL: Thank you, Judge. Thank you, Mr.
Baldwin, for inviting me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
MR. KEEL: I -- regretfully, I have to talk about
bugs, and I know there are people in here who get crawly at
the sound of bugs. Specifically, pollinating insects. Now,
everybody's familiar with the news reports about how the
honey bee supplies are being devastated by the mites
worldwide. Of course, the superficiality of the news reports
9
....
._
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
doesn't touch the problem. And just one comment on that,
where we used to have 29 wild colonies of bees per square
mile in this country, we don't have any now, and the
commercial beehives are losing about 50 percent a year.
Enough on bees. What they're not telling you is that we're
also losing other pollinating insects at the same time, and
we don't know what's causing it. What you hear about is the
Monarch butterfly and -- but they think they know what that
is, but nobody really knows, either.
So, we can't do anything about all the other bugs, but
if we could do -- if the Court could find some way to
encourage beekeeping in Kerr County, it would be at least a
help to the bees here, and they could pull up some of the
slack for all the other bees. And I suggest the way to do it
is by encouraging amateur beekeepers, and suggested to Mr.
Baldwin the adoption of the Texas Model Beekeeper Ordinance,
but then I found out that the County can't enact an
ordinance. So, whatever -- whatever that comes to. But, we
might send a copy of the ordinance around to the J.P.'s, to
the Extension Agent, and just offer it to beekeepers as a
conflict resolution and guidelines for setting up. There's
nothing there that would inconvenience a real beekeeper.
And, since Mr. Baldwin invited me this -- to say a few words
here, I thought about a few ideas that you might consider.
Now, I don't know about your business. If you come
5
,~
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
sticking your nose in my beehives, I'll qet upset. So, to go
on with that, you might lend money to a beekeeping club, to
be sponsored by the County. The club would establish an
apiary -- demonstration apiary, use the profits from the club
to pay the County back. In other words, the County would be
out no money. Now, there's -- if that led to problems,
they'd have to be settled, but if you had such a place, then
it would give you a place to train young people, demonstrate
to the general public that bees are not going to jump out and
grab you and so forth and so on. And I think, without going
through any more of your time, that's about all of substance
that I can suggest. And again, i.t's just something for the
Court to think about. If we lose all our flowering plants,
we might lose our deer, but that's 5 miles down the road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Mr. Keel. Thank
you very much for coming.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I have one question. Could
you get us copies of that model ordinance so we can see what
kind of things are in there that are encouraged by the
ordinance? Just to know -- to ei9ucate us a little bit on
what the --
MR. KEEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Can we just get a copy?
MR. KEEL: Who do I bri-ng that to?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just bring it to our office
6
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
here, will be fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That lady sitting right
there. I may still have that. Mr. Keel was kind enough to
send that to me, and I started to pass it off to you, 'cause
he lives in your precinct. And I thought, no, I'll handle
this like a good, dear friend should.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If we just had a copy of it
to look at it, I think it would help educate us.
MR. KEEL: I'll see to it another copy gets up
here. And, needless to say, if you'll contact me if you have,
any questions that I can answer --- I'm just an amateur hobby
beekeeper; now, that's a lot different from commercial or
anything of the other kind, but I keep up with current
literature, so if you have some questions that I can answer,
I'll be glad to come in and answer the ones I can. I'm not
afraid to say I don't know when I don't.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thank you very much.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Mr. Keel.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir.
AUDIENCE: Excuse me, I wonder if Mr. Keel could
give a phone number?
MR. KEEL: I don't have a phone.
AUDIENCE: I'll give you mine later.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Seeing no one else who wishes to
speak to us, are there any Commissioners' comments? Mr.
7
~-
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
Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sir, I have nothing at this
time, thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Bill?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: None, Judge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: None.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: None at this time, other
than that we did have our meetings on -- our workshops on
budget and personnel. Budget forms, by the way, will be
coming out. I think they've already been redone, right, for
-- including the April financials, and we'll get those out
this week.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. I'm pleased to be able to
announce that the Tivy High School Mock Trial Team went to
St. Louis this past weekend and finished third in the nation
in the National Mock Trial competition. They -- they missed
the finals by one battle. They were undefeated in the four
rounds that they participated in, which means that this year
they went all the way through the Regional, the State, and
the National competition without losing a round, and
unfortunately, the judging system is such that you can win a
round without winning all the ballots. They won 10 out of 12
ballots, and they needed 11 out of 12 in order to go to the
finals. The two final teams were Georgia and Colorado, with
Georgia winning the National championship. Our kids
s
,..-.
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
informally challenged Georgia to a playoff: "We were
undefeated; we want a shot at you, too," and they declined.
So, that's a group of young people we can all be very, very
proud of.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Hear, hear. But we get --
will there be some coverage in the media? I mean, some --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we would certainly hope that
the local media would take the opportunity to highlight this
outstanding performance by a group of local
representatives. If there's nothing else, we'll move on to
the approval agenda, the bills. Does anyone have any
questions about the bills that have been presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, Mr.. Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, I don't know if you
can answer this or not. On Page 6 -- want you to know I had
a lot of questions, but I came in as early as I could to look
through them and got most of them answered, but I do have a
couple here. Page 6, Rabies and Animal Control, Zapata
Veterinary Clinic in Zapata, Texas.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm sorry, but I can't answer that
one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
some reason, I knew -- look here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
You cannot answer that? For
Here comes the man.
~.
9

1
2 you need.
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. TOMLINSON: There he is right there, the man
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Holekamp, can you answer
that question? Zapata Veterinary Clinic?
MR. HOLEKAMP: That was on a dog that was reclaimed
and given a warning, and they were required to have rabies
shots, and the vet at Zapata agreed to do it for a price and
they had already paid us for it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see. I see what
you're saying.
MR. HOLEKAMP: It's like any other vet here, but
they lived in Zapata, and it was on an after-hours. And we
did not require them to stay in A;errville overnight to get
that dog vaccinated.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was the only question I
had, although I do have a comment under the Extension
Service. Mrs. Boyd, $278 for stock show expenses. When does
that end? The stock shows have been over for months, and
every month we pay one of these. Does she hold those out and
just turn them in as we go along when she -- when the mood
strikes her, or --
MR. TOMLINSON: She does accumulate those bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment on that. I
mean, she probably did it in April; I think the stock shows
went through April.
10
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, no, no. We went through
this last month, you know, the reason they were here last
month. Well, the stock shows ran. through March, or end of
March, and now San Angelo stock show -- here we are again
doing the same thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just to ease your mind,
Commissioner Baldwin, I have a schedule of when the stock
shows end. I would imagine they run through April. If you
put them on the credit card, you won't get it until April, so
I imagine they're still fairly timely.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think history shows that
she just holds onto them and turns them in whenever the mood
strikes her. I think she needs i~o turn them in timely like
everyone else for the bookkeepincl process to stay in tune.
That's all.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we pay the
bills as presented. Any further discussion? If not, all in
favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
J[JDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
11
.-.
.-..
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget amendments?
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for Constable, Precinct
3, and it's to pay for the bond for the new constable for
$92.50.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, to approve the budget
amendment No. 1 for the bond for Constable, Precinct 3. 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: No. 2?
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. No. 2 is a request from Bill
Ragsdale to -- it's an amendment to pay his clerk's bond for
550; move $50 from Miscellaneous into the Bond line item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just an oversight?
MR. TOMLINSON: Apparently it was.
MS. SOVIL: He has a new clerk.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, a new person.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
12
,-.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve budget
amendment No. 2, bond for the clerk at Justice of the Peace,
Precinct 4. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor,
raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
No. 3?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. 3 i.s to pay -- to pay the auto
insurance to Texas Association of. Counties for the -- for
Environmental Health. We're -- we have -- we need $553 in
that account. I think that's a result of -- of new vehicles
that came from the City, and we didn't budget that when --
during the budget process, so I'm recommending that we take
$260 from Vehicle Insurance out of the Rabies and Animal
Control, and $293 txom Professional Services out of Rabies
and Animal Control.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve budget
amendment request No. 3 for the Environmental Health and
Rabies and Animal Control. Any further discussion? If not,
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
all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Let's see. Do we
have any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, that's all I have.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. The minutes are before us.
Do I have a motion that we waive reading and approve the
minutes?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we waive reading and
approve the minutes. Any further discussion? If not, all in
favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. The next item is
to approve and accept the monthly and quarterly reports.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HF,NNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve and accept
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
the monthly and quarterly reports. Any further discussion?
If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. We'll next turn to
the consideration agenda. Item No. 1 is to consider
enforcement of underground utilities crossing County road.
Mr. Johnston.
MR. JOHNSTON: As of May of '98, when the new
Subdivision Rules came into effect, one of the provisions
were that utility companies woulcl get a permit from the
County to cut roads, that we would inspect to make certain
that they're installed and put back according to the drawing
on the back of that orange sheet.. We had a complaint in Wood
Trails concerning a water pipe installation that we were
never -- we were not notified. We went out and looked at it
afterward. Can't see much, but the cut was only 4 inches
wide instead of the 12 inches that it calls for on the
drawing, and subsequently I talked to the contractor that
installed the pipe, and it's only about a foot deep, as
opposed to 3 foot deep. So, we sent him a letter notifying
him it didn't meet our requirements; he needed to upgrade it.
And this went back and forth, and he finally told us that the
property owner was going to, you know, take care of that, and
15
L
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- and have it redone. And we got a letter back from the
property owner through his -- it's a new house -- through his
contractor that they didn't know what he was talking about.
So, apparently, we need to, you know, go through the
enforcement procedure for installing pipes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Franklin, I agree with
you. This is one -- when we were doing the rules and
regulations, this was one of the sore spots in there, 'cause
in my precinct I see this all the time, or had in the past,
where the particular water companies would come along and,
just without permission, without anything, brand-new, paved
road, just make a cut across there and lay it in there, and
they may repair it and they may not. And, so, now that we're
down to applying our rules to one of these things, I highly,
highly recommend that we enforce through the -- County
Attorney, is it?
MR. JOHNSTON: (Nodded.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm all for that.
MR. JOHNSTON: I might say that most utility
companies have cooperated and -- and called with any
inspections and -- and done a great job.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Which utility company is the one
that did this one? Do you know?
MR. JOHNSTON: This is -- it's the water system in
-- in Wood Trails, but I think this contractor's kind of a
16
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
part-time plumber or whatever, goes out and does this kind of
work. So, it's not really a water company, per se, doing it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with Commissioner
Baldwin. Let's enforce it, 'cause this has been a problem
county-wide; we're trying to get it cleaned up.
MR. JOHNSTON: We have a policy that if a road's
been three years -- if it's been paved within three years,
they need to bore under the road, or if it's later than that,
you know, they can cut it if they put it back in the proper
sequence I think we've shown.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In enforcing the rules
there, Mr. Johnston, I'm unclear as to who we're going after
in this case.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think the contractor that put it
in incorrectly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Was he working for the water
company?
MR. JOHNSTON: I think so, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think go after both of them.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because if he's doing work for
the other --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we don't need a Court

17
~_
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
order for Mr. Johnston to do his job? I mean, he can just go
do it? What do you think, Judge? We don't need a Court
order --
MR. JOHNSTON: I think it goes to the Court, and
they go to the County Attorney.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's going to go to us for
action, so what we need to do is to adopt a motion or pass a
motion authorizing the County Engineer to refer this to the
County Attorney for enforcement under the rule.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court authorize
the County Engineer, Franklin Johnston, to refer the
enforcement request to the County Attorney. 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.)
MR. JOHNSTON:
Attorney, correct?
JUDGE HENNEKE
This will be the County Civil
Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Franklin.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item, Item No. 2, consider and
discuss petition by landowners for abandonment of several
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
platted but undeveloped roads and one road easement in
Japonica Hills subdivision. Commissioner Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. I've been approached
by the Homeowners' Association in Japonica Hills subdivision
to take action -- for the Court to take action, as required
in our Subdivision Rules and Regulations -- on an
announcement is where our particular piece of this comes in,
but there are several undeveloped roads, private roads in
this subdivision that the homeowners would like to abandon;
they don't want any further possibility of development.
The question is -- and the question that I had earlier
was whether this is under 6.05 of our Subdivision Rules or
6.06 of our Subdivision Rules and Regs. I'm convinced now,
after discussion with -- with Commissioner Letz, who was
primary in the formation of these rules and regulations in
this section, that it is 6.06; that is a plat revision.
The homeowners believe that they can have -- get 100
percent of the owners to sign up to this. I don't think
there's any problem with it. We will give a -- they will
give a 30-day notification before we can take action. That
must be in the newspaper. And I think that you will have all
-- they will have all of the signed petitions at that point,
so I think we probably need to set it up that way, that as
soon as you've got the 100 percent, we'll put the 30-day
notice in -- or you'll put the 30-day notice in, and our
19
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
first meeting after that 30-day period we can take action for
that to happen.
Now, I think that -- in talking about this a little
earlier, I think it will be very smart to have that replatted
to show -- to show that there are -- and that's a different
action, so we need to do a little research on that one. But
I think what you may really want to do, for the homeowners'
protection, is that you may want to go for a replat that
would show those easements and --~ and all not on there any
more. But we can discuss that later. We need to get the
ball rolling by getting all of the signatures on the petition
100 percent, and then get the announcement in the newspaper.
That's what will happen. That's what will happen next, and
really, that's for your information, for the information of
the Court, that that notice will be forthcoming once they
have that. And do we need a motion to do that, to authorize
that?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think what we have to have -- I
think we have to have the petitions at the Court before the
notice can be posted.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How close are we to having
all -- I think think there was one or two that were still
left. Two? Two now.
JUDGE HENNEKE: 6.06 says that owners may petition
for revision, and then notice of such petition shall be
zo
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
published. So, I think the petitions have to be presented to
the Court or -- yes, to the Court before the notice can be
published.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. Then wnat would i
feed back to the Homeowners' Association? We'll try to
have those at the next court, have 100 percent. We will
at that time start the clock running; they could get that
in the paper, in fact, that day, so -- for the 30-day
notification, so we don't need to take any action at this
point. Everybody --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan is dux subdivision guru.
Is that --
COMMISSIONER
called a guru on this.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
the next Court session
taken care of.
LETZ: I c9on't know
I looked at these.
GRIFFIN: Does that
LETZ: Yeah, sounds
GRIFFIN: Okay. So
and try to have 100
if I want to be
That's --
sound reasonable?
reasonable to me.
we'll come back
percent of those
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right, good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Those roads have never been
developed.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's good, finally getting)
that thing cleaned up out there. That's great.
zl
~..

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: There's one out there --
there's one -- there's one section of one that I think is
used as a passageway, but there's no road there. But -- and
the homeowners would like to have this; there's no question
about it, so that we gust need to make sure we do it the
right way.
JUDGE NENNEKE: All right. Next item is Agenda
Item No. 3, which is from Barbara Nemec, to consider and
discuss purchasing a chair instead of a work station. I
spoke to Barbara this morning; she is home ill with the flu,
and also her daughter. She had put funds in her budget to
purchase a work station. There really isn't room in her
office arrangement for a work station, and they've rearranged
desks and got some desks from other sources, and she no
longer needs the work station, but what she does need is one
or two chairs. And she's asking the Court to authorize use
of the funds to purchase chairs as opposed to a work station.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No increase?
JUDGE NENNEKE: No, same dollars. Probably less
than what was -- certainly no increase. Moved by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we
authorize the County Treasurer to purchase chairs instead of
a work station with funds previously budgeted for the work
22
.-.
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
station. Any additional discussion? If not, all in favor,
raise your right hand.
(The motion was carrie~9 by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Agenda Item No. 9
is from the Auditor. Consider and discuss processing payment
of Indigent Health Care claims. Tammy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. I think, as y'all are aware,
at the present time we do not have the ability to make
payments to -- to providers for Indigent Health Care as a
result of the third-party administrator that closed its doors
some two or three weeks ago. I've invited Raquel Collazo
with Sid Peterson and Alice Simms in the audience today to be
able to answer any questions you might have about -- about
the process. Alice Simms I dealt with for a number of years,
and she was the person that was our agent in retrieving our
-- our documents or our records from the previous
administrator. I think we're -- I think we have a real
situation here and need to provide payment in some way to our
providers as soon as we can. I will tell you that -- that
in-house, we do not have the ability to do that, from not
having the technical knowledge to process the medical claims,
you know.
I know you all have had medical claims at various times
23
,~-~
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
in your life, and they're -- they're coded in such a way that
it takes someone to know what -- what they are to be able to
make -- to understand them. And we have so many people on
our rolls that I don't think we would ever be able to do that
in-house. And I think a minimum, even to get started, would
be one full person on benefits. Now, as it stands in the
current process, we're paying -- we were paying our
third-party administrator 4 1/2 percent of the eligible
expenses that we paid to providers, and I think on the
average per year, that ranged from $15,000 to $18,000 a year,
and so that's much less than -- than what -- than what it
would take for us to even begin to do it in-house.
We -- I have been -- the last time we had this
conversation, you did have some questions about whether or
not if I knew there were any other players in this market. I
have done some research, and I've called the company that
does our benefits -- administration for our health care,
which is Benefits Administrators in Boerne, and I talked to
those people there, and they do not do that and they did not
refer me to anyone that they knew that did it. And, I
visited with the person in Bandera County who does theirs.
They do theirs in-house because they only have, like, four or
five people on their roll, so they do it in-house, and that
person has -- has experience in this field for a number of
years. And I asked her the question about whether or not, in
24

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
her training or seminars that she's been through, if anyone
had ever approached her about this service, and -- and she
said that she had not, other than -- other than the people
that were doing ours already. So, I think that -- that this
service is very limited in the marketplace. So, we have the
-- Alice Simms has formed her own company now since leaving
A.S.O., and the name of her company is -- is VeriClaims, Inc.
VeriClaims, Inc.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What?
MR. TOMLINSON: VeriClaims, Inc., out of Houston.
I think we -- you know, we have the opportunity either to --
to enter into an interim agreement with this company from now
until -- until the end of our fiscal year, or -- or we can
enter into a 2-year agreement, which I have a copy of the
contract that she's furnished me. I haven't read it, but --
but that's -- I think that's our options today is to --
whether or not we want to continue an agreement with this
firm for that period of time or enter into a 2-year
agreement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, did you say that Mrs.
Simms or Ms. Simms worked for the company that -- the
third-party administrator?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, she did. Alice was my contact
person, or has been since, I guess, '93 -- '92 or '93, when
we first -- when Kerr County first did this. I remember that

25
~.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
-- that Morgan was on the Court at that time and he was
instrumental in -- in the County doing this, and so she has
been my contact since then.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy, aside from the
qualifying process for Indigent Health Care what's so
different about coding medical bills for Indigent Health Care
versus other types of medical bills on the insurance carrier?
What's the big difference?
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm going to refer that question to
one of these two. Anyone?
MS. SIMMS: The Indigent -- hi, I'm Alice Simms.
The Indigent Health Care program has specific regulations
that the Texas Department of Health has put -- established,
and there are limitations to the amounts that you can pay for
certain services and stuff. And those do not coincide with
regular medical claims for group medical insurance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do other counties -- I
mean, I know you checked with Bandexa County, but obviously
we have a lot of counties in the state who have the same
problem that are fairly large counties. I mean, do they do
it in-house?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have not talked to them. I know
that there are a lot of large counties that have hospital
districts, and when you have a hospital district, then that's
26
^~-.
.-.
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
an entirely different ball game.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How far behind are we?
MS. C0LLAZ0: About a month, one month behind.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Procedural question. You
say it's $15,000 to $18,000 a year or so is what it's run in
the past. If that is about the value, are we required -- I'm
thinking of whether we might do it on an interim basis or a
2-year commitment. Are we required to put that out for a
formal bid?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think so.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm not sure that this would be a
contract for services or professional services.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. That -- I guess
that's my question.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'd have to get a ruling on that.
My feeling is it's probably going to be professional
services, but I'm just not sure. I think it's more in the
category of accountants than it would be the type of services
that we contract for, but it might be prudent for us to enter
into an interim agreement with Ms. Simms and her company,
with the understanding that we would clarify that and, by the
end of the budget year, we would be in a position to do what
we have to do. I mean, I think that would keep us all clean
as far as falling foul of any contracting or purchasing
requirements, but, at the same time, allows to you get back
27
~-.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with the vendors and catch up with them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, have either you or our
civil attorney looked at the coni:ract? Or did you just get
MR. TOMLINSON: No. No, she taxed it to me Friday,
and I wasn't here Friday and didn't see it, so I have not
read it, and the Judge has not seen it, nor has Mr. Pollard.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think what we might do is
authorize the Judge to sign the interim agreement running
through September 30th, subsequent to the approval of our
civil attorney.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll move. So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I kind of wanted to hear the
Judge do one.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that Kerr County enter into
an interim agreement with VeriClaims, Inc.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, that's correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Running through September 30 for
processing of Indigent Health Care claims subject to the
review and approval of the proposed agreement by our civil
attorney Mr. Pollard. Any further discussion? If not, all
in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
28
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--~ 1 3
~. _
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Ms. Simms. We
appreciate your coming in this morning.
MS. SIMMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Raquel.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, one other question. The
percentage is the same under this contract?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll next turn to Item No. 5,
which is consider and discuss upgraded job descriptions to
coincide with the Court-approved plan for the
Maintenance/Facilities Use program. Mr. Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gentlemen, this is a
continuation of what we began when we approved the
recommendations for reorganization of the Maintenance --
Facilities Use and Maintenance Department, and what this is
axe revised job descriptions to coincide with the action the
Court previously took. Now, I'll let Mr. Holekamp pick it up
at that point, with the exception to say that the Supervisor,
who is Mr. Holekamp, is to be supervisor in full, to be --
he's the interim now. You might note that the -- the job
description has been expanded to coincide with -- it directly
coincides with what's understood to be anticipated of his
29
.-.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
responsibility. Mr. Holekamp?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Glenn Holekamp. What we've -- what
I have attempted to do, based on some direction from
Commissioner Williams, was to restructure in a way that it
would probably make the operations of Maintenance,
Janitorial, Ag Barn, Animal Shelter, Animal Control or
whatever, have more flow and more of a direction from -- a
pecking order, if you will, of management level on down to a
structured -- I guess you would call it sublevels of -- of
supervision.
I tried to make these job descriptions more flexible
from the standpoint of allowing people to do -- have
responsibilities in more of a broader sense than specific
senses. The reason being, I think we -- we get short-handed
in one area, and we have a tendency to hear, "Well, that's
not my job" in maintenance, custodial, and all the other
different buildings and functions that we do provide. And
response time, it is absolutely imperative that we -- we
diversify our employees to be able to do different things.
So, these -- these job descriptions were, I think, a
combination of -- of efforts from Commissioner Williams and
myself, and I feel very comfortable with them from a
management standpoint, of trying to direct the employees in
the -- in the proper channels to accomplish the tasks. If
there's any questions about any of these, I would be glad to
30
,_,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
share those and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a couple.
MR. HOLEKAMP: -- try to answer them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excuse me. I have a couple
of questions, if I may. On the very first page, Facilities
Supervisor, that's Mr. Holekamp. I believe we need to tag a
name on it. Up in the Objective -- and I know we've covered
this, but just refresh me and make sure Buster understands
exactly where we are in this thing. Under the Objective,
second sentence, "to administer the County's Facilities Use
Policy." Now, that -- that's something new -- that's
something that someone else has been doing, correct?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I don't think so. That
ties back to what Glenn has in his hands. That was adopted
at the last Commissioners Court meeting. The County did not
have a detailed Facilities Use Policy, as such, so it now
means that somebody, now that we have one, needs to
administer it. If you're thinking in terms of scheduling, it
doesn't say scheduling in this. Down below it talks about
scheduling, and I think what we need to do is add one word
under Examples of Work, on the fourth one, where it talks
about "Administers County's Facilities Use Policy and
schedules...," we can add "coordinates the schedules." That
would be consistent with what we did in our previous action.
But, somebody has to administer the policy; somebody has to
31

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
make a decision in terms of what's going to be allowed on the
courthouse grounds, who's going to be able to use the
courthouse grounds, whether or not the qualified use of any
facility complies, so somebody has to coordinate all that.
That's what this envisions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that include the Ag
facility?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess that's what my
question is. We now have someone else out there scheduling
and coordinating, and the next line says, "Provides County
Auditor with such reports of fees received for facilities
use." We have someone out there doing that now, so that
person is no longer going to be doing that? Commissioner
Holekamp is going to be doing that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think it implies
that that's going to be an immediate switchover, but once you
establish that Facilities Use Policy, you create an
administrator of that or a coordinator of that, if you will.
It doesn't imply a change immediately.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I share a concern, Buster,
'cause what we're doing now -- those axe two different
departments that are being put together; you're having,
basically, if you put names to it, Laurinda and Susie under
Glenn Holekamp, and that is not the way I understand it to be
32
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
right now. And I don't think -- I mean, I don't -- it's just
a weird setup, because they're both employed by different
departments.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I'm seeing here,
and I just want to make it real clear. Is that what we're
doing? I never did understand that to begin with.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Can I answer the question? And
maybe this will address some of this. Currently, the way it
works -- and let's use names. Laurinda books the facility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I guess Susie keeps the books or
whatever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Records.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Records. But Laurinda has no
control over how the building is set up or what the people
out there do as far as setting it up. They have no control
over the funds, other than their -- I guess their paycheck.
I mean, yeah, they have control over that. But what I'm
saying is -- is that you have to have some kind of structure.
What's happening is that, for example, right now, I can tell
two of my staff, people that currently work at the Ag Barn,
to do something, you know, that they need to do. If we have
a coordinator, someone else telling them what to do, we have
a real problem -- and I'm not saying that happens very often.
In fact, lately it has not happened. But what I'm saying is
33
~-
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 that I think Commissioner Williams is trying to say
whatever we do, we need to structure it. I'm not -- I don't
mean to put words in your mouth, but we need to get
somewhere. As far as her doing the booking, that has nothing
to do with me, but I have to have the building ready.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. I think the -- the
problem may be here in -- in scheduling the use of the
facilities. That language is pretty straightforward. I
think that's the question that Commissioner Baldwin has.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why I said the word
"coordinates" needs to go into, as we talked about,
"Administers Facilities Use Policy and 'coordinates' the
scheduling of its use."
MR. HOLEKAMP: Laurinda and I have a good rapport
as far as working together getting scheduling done. The only
problem is sometimes I don't hear about it until it's too
late and we have to work from behind get caught up. So --
so, those are the things that need to be remedied or
repaired, I guess, is that part of it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's how I recall the discussion,
was that there would be separate scheduling of each facility,
but the schedules would be coordinated --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- through the Maintenance
39
..~.
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
Supervisor, because he's the one who has to put people out
there to sweep the floors and do everything necessary to
avoid a situation where, for instance, we have the political
party county-wide convention here at the courthouse, and at
the same time we have a major stuck show at the Ag Barn, and
Glenn doesn't have the people to make sure that both
facilities are ready. My understanding was that his role
would be more of coordinating, as opposed to scheduling.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree 100 percent with what
you're saying. I'm just trying to make sure that is what's
written here.
JUDGE IiENNEKE: Right. And I think that Bill makes
a good point; we need to substitute "coordinates the
scheduling of the facilities" for "schedules the use of the
facilities." Substitute "coordinates."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On No. 9, the word -- put
the word "coordinates" in front of "schedules," and I think
we'll accomplish what we intended.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When we go to -- under
Organizational Relationships, No. 2. "Directs all personnel
associated with Facilities Maintenance and Use. That, to me,
implies that he gives Suzie and Laurinda direction, that they
report to him.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was never intended to
imply that.
35
.^
i
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, am I reading it
wrong or does it not say that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think you'd have to
take a look at, for example, Laur_inda's job description. Her
job description essentially requires her to report to the Ag
Extension Agent, because the preponderance of her work is in
that department and for that purpose. And, certainly,
there's no impingement on that by reason of this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but the contract we have
on her scheduling -- she reports to the Court, not to the --
not to the Ag Extension Office.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, that's a separate --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a separate --
MR. HOLEKAMP: -- separate deal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, it's kind of a -- I
mean, I don't have a real problem with where we go with that;
I just want to make sure that we're saying exactly what we're
trying to do, you know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm open to any
suggestions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's written
properly here. I just wanted to make sure that we're all
seeing the same thing, and that Laurinda understands. You
know, that's important, that she understands where she is in
relationship to --
36
~.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we crossed that
bridge on the scheduling of Ag facilities last -- when we
adopted the policy. And what we're trying to do is set up
Glenn's job description so that there's no question about
what he is responsible for.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One final question, if you
don't mind. Under the Examples of Work, but on the next --
second page.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Prepares -- third from the
bottom: Prepares budgets for Maintenance Use, including Ag
facility, jail, courthouse, Animal Control, and others as
required. Do we have any plans of moving probation -- the
probation offices back to this facility, downstairs?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd have to reflect that
question back to you, since you guys were --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's not fair; I asked it
first, though.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to deflect it
back to you, since you made the grand plan aver there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll remove my question,
then.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the answer to that is
that there are some concerns -- or not concerns; there's some
issues relating to access and who is down there. Like, if
37

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
L6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
you put Adult Probation down there, I'm saying, they're
coming in either way. In Juvenile, you have to have separate
doors and there's certain things you have to look at. There
clearly is undesignated office space which will be available,
and there was no decision made that I'm aware of as to who
would go into that. Adult Probation was discussed. As you
know, they have space. Juvenile Probation, they've got
space. And there's other, maybe, you know, rented space
around. I think this idea was that, one, we'll probably need
at some point to grow into it, and, two, we are paying rent
right now, and if we can get rid of that rent and move them
into this building somewhere, all the better. But I think it
was something that no action was ever even -- was discussed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think what this
intends is anything that comes under the purview for
Maintenance and Use that we know of today and identify today,
or that which which we may acquire or use in the future. The
Union Church is a good example coming up online. Union
Church is going to be something for which Glenn and his
people are going to have to take -- be concerned with, and
there may be others in the years ahead.
COMMISSIONER LET2: Going back to the first page,
now, I think it's something that may -- maybe to just clarify
it, because under the general statement of duties or
objectives, in one of those areas, if we just put a sentence
38
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in there that the person in charge of scheduling works under
a contract with the Court at this time, separate -- put it as
a separate sentence or item somewhere, then if we change it
and put it under Maintenance down the road, we can, but that
way it's clear to -- as to who that person reports to.
Currently, anyway.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand where you're
coming from, Commissioner, but this is a job description for
an individual. A disclaimer about someone else I don't think
would properly go in the job description of a particular
individual. I understand what you're saying, and I don't
necessarily disagree with you. I'm just questioning as to
whether it's appropriate here or not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, then, under "Directs" under
No. 2, "All personnel associated with facilities maintenance
and use, except scheduling of the Ag Building."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That might be appropriate
in that location.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Basically, except scheduling
the Ag Building and records and -- you know, associated
recoxdkeeping. That's the only area that I'm aware of. I
just think it's confusing, you know, if you don't clarify it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What about changing that to
say, "All personnel associated with facilities maintenance
and support"? Because it's really not "use." Because that's
39
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
where the confusion is coming from; that's the problem we've
got, because it's not strictly in -- I mean, the whole thing
is Facilities Use and Maintenance and all that, but in that
context, the people that this person directs are those that
are associated with the Facilities Maintenance and support to
that facility, not the people who work in that facility,
itself.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've got you. I don't have
a problem with that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Does that clarify it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Support.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And my other comment, which is
going back to something I thought, actually, Commissioner
Baldwin was going to say when he referred to the sentence, to
"administer the County's Facilities Use Policy." What got
this whole thing kicked off was a birdhouse a year ago, and I
guess the question is, is Commissioner -- is Glenn Molekamp
going to develop a policy -- a general kind of policy as to
using, like, donated items and haw we handle them
procedurally? I think it came up that we were -- a lot of
trees are donated to the County, and this courthouse square
is where they all want them to be planted, and we're running
out of room. And then there's other things, you know,
monuments, birdbaths and birdhouses and the things of that
90
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
nature. And, is the intent to have a general policy
developed as to where we're going to -- what we're going to
do with things like that, or just handle them on a
case-by-case basis when they come into the Court?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was intended in the --
in the reform that we adopted last time that any requests to
put statuary or items on the trees or whatever have to be
approved by Commissioners Court. It's in the record.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I remember that, but that was
from the prior history, is that it puts this Court -- if we
don't have any definite ideas as to what we're -- you know,
the big, broad picture goals, it's real hard to go, you know,
case-by-case sometimes. That's just my personal idea. And
also, the other idea was how is the scheduling -- I guess, is
Glenn now going to keep a schedule as to broom sales and
Christmas lighting and all that, and then get a copy up to us
with the other schedules?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we have to have a
schedule of those to know what's going on in the County
facilities. The other -- back to the other point you made, I
guess the next example of what's going to take place is when
the ladies of the Women's Chamber come and request us to
designate a location where this time capsule is going to go,
I sort of envision that this request is going to be directed
to Mr. Holekamp, or probably -- I talked to Thea -- I'll put

91
.~
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
it on the Court agenda, and the Court will determine whether
the suggested location is ideal or less than ideal. That's
kind of the way I see it happening, whether it's a time
capsule or another birdhouse.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It may be something we just
have to do case-by case, but there's -- I think there was
another incident a year or two ago where we had added a name
to the war memorial, and after we did it there was a question
whether we did the right thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we did that because we
didn't have any procedures, basically, you know. And I'm
just -- you know, after the long history of two years on the
Court -- I say that facetiously -- I just -- this courthouse
square is -- it's difficult when people come in with great
ideas and they want to do something with the County, and we
get put on the spot to make a decision in a rush. I guess we
may just have to, say, step back and think about it or -- or
is it possible to develop a set of general rules?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You know, I think the
procedures -- it's just a procedural thing, is that if
somebody comes and wants to do anything with the courthouse
square or any of our other facilities, that it first go to
Facilties Use and Maintenance. They look at the
alternatives, they make a recommendation to the Court, and we
92
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 it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
Okay, I like that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We don't get stampeded.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we've added it to the
timeline of doing it this way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that's fine. That
answers the question. Really, it just goes through them, and
Glenn -- or the supervisor has to, you know, come up with a
recommendation to us. That's -- I like that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: See, we're putting another
party in front of it, and if he says, "Well, they're asking
for this position, but here are some things you may have
forgotten about, and take these into consideration" or
whatever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine. That solves my concern.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I move for the
adoption of the job descriptions as presented.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And amended.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And amended.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second, but I have another
question before you --
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by Commissioner
Williams that we approve the job descriptions as presented,
as amended, and seconded by Commissioner Letz. Any further
discussion?
93
.~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- the fourth one down,
which is an Assistant Supervisor, the job description is the
same. Hoth of them say Facilities Supervisor. Is that
something -- is the second one supposed to say Facilities
Assistant Supervisor?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It says it under job title,
Assistant, and it's intended to mirror the supervision or -- i
because, God forbid, if the Supervisor gets taken out of the
picture, we would anticipate and expect the Assistant to
immediately fulfill the responsibilities of the -- of the
person with whom he is reporting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I was just, you know,
unclear.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So I would add also,
whatever amendments we made to Mr. Holekamp's, likewise add
to this one as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The other question was,
under the -- comparing the first one to the second one,
Animal Control Facility Supervisor, that one is listed as a
Pay Group 18, whereas the Facility Supervisor is appointed.
Is there a reason where why we're tying one down to a
specific group, whereas the other is set by the Court?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Holekamp?
MR. HOLEKAMP: The reason I did it is because this
is totally different from in years past, except this
94
'- -
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
particular individual is -- you know, he's also Animal
Control Officer. It's -- he's doing a dual role, other than
Facility Manager or whatever you want to call it there. He
is -- he's is also the Animal Control Officer, which I felt
like we need to use a pay group if you're going to do both.
Now, if you wish to have him as strictly an administrator of
that facility and functions of that facility as his sole
duties, I would say it would be an appointed position.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is -- what is an Animal
Control Officer?
MR. HOLEKAMP: 16.1 for the lead Animal Control
Officer. It is a nonexempt position. The reason why is,
what's going to happen when you have an Animal Control
Officer, that poor guy is going to be working 8:00 to 5:00
every day, or 7:00 to 5:00 every day, and then every other
week he's going to be called out 8, 15 hours. Then you start
abusing that exempt status.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. HOLEKAMP: You cannot go with the intent,
knowing that that person is going to be working over hours.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Over hours. Okay.
MR. HOLEKAMP: So I felt like this would be the
best way to address it. You know, if y'all choose to change
it, you may.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine. You know, I just
95
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
-- my question was what the reasoning was, and you answered
that. The other -- on the job description here, this Animal
Control facility supervisor, I didn't look back at the -- in
ouz last decision on all this policy, didn't we combine
Animal Control with Solid Waste?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just the first -- the first
time I presented it, we did, and I untied them the second
time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who's doing Solid Waste now?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Holekamp is at the
moment.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I'm
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
description for Solid Waste?
MR. HOLEKAMP: No.
that I'm aware of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
still the --
Is there a separate job
No, there's never been one,
So you're working on one,
right?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's working on one.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. No more questions.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If not,
all in favor of the motion, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
96
.---
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
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: The motion carries. Next item is
Item No. 6, which is to consider and discuss realignment of
personnel as per the Court-approved plan, the job
descriptions we recently adopted. Is there anyone who would
request that we consider this in Executive Session, as
opposed to open session? All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, okay. Commissioner Letz
requested that we consider this personnel matter in Executive
Session, so we will take that up in our regularly scheduled
Executive Session.
MR. HOLEKAMP: What time?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'd say by 11:00 at the latest.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Do you want that job description
before then?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll next go to Item No. 7,
consider and discuss concept plan and construction for Flat
Rock Lake Park and authorization to go out for bids on
perimeter fencing, security fencing, and foot bridge.
Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, in the backup material, II
pretty much summarized two things. One, the first thing I
47
~_
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
think we need to look at is the general concept we're looking
at for the park as to what the -- should be included with it
or in it. And then the other thing is, then, what gets
started right now. First let's look at it as a general
concept, and the items listed -- there's a hike and bike
trail, picnic areas, sand volleyball courts, disc golf
course, improved swimming area, and open space playing
fields. This is a lot less than we originally put in when we
were applying to Parks and Wildlife, but this something that
I think we can afford.
And the area that you -- or the Court could probably
vary the most is going to be the hike and bike trail. I
think you can rough-in something with what we have, and if we
end up with excess funds, you increase -- improve the surface
of that. I think you can -- I mean, a trail is a trail. I
mean, you just use it to jog or for walking on. The area of
things that are -- you know, I see as the most important
components to get started with an are, I guess, on the second
page, the estimated budget, the top three items. Perimeter
fencing is 3,300 feet, approximately. This is the new tract
of land that the County bought at the eastern side of Third
Creek. It does not have any fencing around it, it is, you
know, unbounded.
There are private landowners both to the -- there's Mr.
Williamson here, and to the north there's two; I'm not sure
48
.-.
~_
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
what their names are. Anyway, I think that we absolutely
need to put up a fence to confine the boundary of that
property. I talked with Mr. Williamson at some length last
week, and he is concerned about people climbing over a fence
onto his property and things of that nature. We were talking
-- you know, I agree with him. I don't think we need to go
with something like a chain-link fence; I think that's a
little bit more than you would need, and more expensive. Hut
I'd like to go out -- he would like a no-climb net wire. You
can get that in a 6-foot height, which I think is adequate.
He's agreeable to go with a no-climb 6-foot fence; I think
that is a reasonable, good-quality fence to put up there.
When you get right next to the river, we may want to
look at a -- a lower -- you know, something that's going to
get knocked out by the floods on a pretty regular basis. If
you look at the property, that's kind of like a -- a first --
it takes a real big flood to get over a berm that's built
probably 50 yards back from the river, kind of a low area,
and it goes up from the top of that berm all the way around.
It's going to take a major, major flood to hurt that fence.
It's going to happen, we know that, at some point. But, you
know, I think we need to build a -- pretty much a permanent
fence. The rest of it down towards the river, there's
several. options, a breakaway-type fence that you can build.
The second item I listed -- and $13,000 is the estimated
99
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
cost, at S4 a foot. That number came from Len Odom. They do
a fair amount of contract fencing. It may be a little bit
more, little bit less; I'm not sure. The second item I
listed is guardrail along Riverside Drive. And, it doesn't
necessarily have to be a guardrail, but I think we need to be
able to secure the park along Riverside Drive to keep cars
out during closed hours. I think one of the big concerns
that I've heard from the public is that they don't -- they
don't want parties going on all night and things going on.
The Sheriff's Department cannot really patrol and lock up and
do things; that's an open park the way it is right now. And
I think the more facilities you add, the more, unfortunately,
abuse that we will have, attracting people we really don't
want down there in the middle of the night. I think we need
to look at putting up some kind of fencing along Riverside
Drive.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, you're talking
about, now, Riverside Drive down by the Ag Barn, the old park
area and all that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There is a -- you know, I'd say
about -- well, 2,230 feet is what was estimated along there.
A portion of that I didn't include, because it's basically a
drop-off. I don't think anyone's going -- I mean, in areas
that are -- you know, there's no reason to put a fence along
that little section there. But everywhere where you can
50
~_
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
drive a vehicle through it, I would recommend some sort of a
guardrail or a fence. You know, guardrail, the price is $13
a foot. It's the most expensive option. You can put, also,
guardrail past with a cable through it, or we could put a
regular fence. If you -- as you can see above it, a 6-foot
fence is going to -- or regular fence is going to be a lot
cheaper than a guardrail, but it's not going to be strong
structurally.
Then the next item is the foot bridge across Third
Creek. There are pre-engineered metal bridges that deal with
footing on both sides. They -- it's kind of a package deal;
you just purchase it and it's delivered and install it. The
price we got from Walter Heard was $18,000 for that foot
bridge. Leonard you know, thought that was a reasonable
amount, so I just put it at that same amount.
But, those are the three things I think we need to do
immediately. I don't see how that really affects the actual
park layout. I think we can still work on that and kind of
develop a plan and bring the actual layout plan back to the
Court and probably do a public hearing on that layout plan,
at least one, to get public input. But these three top
items, I'd recommend we go out for bid at this time on them.
We know what we need. And, turn over -- my recommendation is
to turn it over to the Road and Bridge Department. I talked
with Leonard. He's willing to coordinate part of this, at
51
.-~~
L-
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
least this construction phase of it out there. Let them go
out for bids. They know the people in these areas, probably,
more. If the Maintenance Department wants to do it, I have
no problem with them doing it either, but --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Did -- excuse me. Now, are you
talking about locking it up at night?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. HOLEKAMP: And unlocking it in the morning?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Those nighttime fishermen are going
to be -- you're going to have a little bit of a problem, so
you may want to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the other part of that --
and I skipped over that. The boat ramp currently is located
right where the foot bridge needs to go, and it's also in a
bad spot. If you're going to combine -- do it as an entire
unit, the park, I'd recommend we move the boat ramp, which I
think most fishermen would probably -- would be happy if we
did it anywhere else, basically, 'cause it's difficult --
from their standpoint, it's easier to get to the far west end
ox far east end. My initial thought would be to put it, you
know, wherever we can -- it's easier to get to the river
would be where you do it. But, if we got -- use the new
portion of the park, or Mr. Williamson's property -- I
brought the idea up to him just to see if he was going to
52

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
have a fit, and he -- he didn't seem to mind. He said, "Let
me think about it." So, I think we need to, perhaps, look at
the far west and far east to see if there is a good spot for
a boat ramp in one of those spots, and possibly move it. And
maybe -- I think your point is good. If -- I don't know if
that boat ramp is a requirement for the -- it probably would
be for the fishermen. We could move it off the perimeter,
give access to that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Put another interior fence
in there, if you wish.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, put a little cross
fence, let them get down to the river, especially if you move
it to the west side of the park where it's pretty narrow.
They could have, like, a long driveway with a parking lot
outside the park fencing. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I think Glenn may be
talking about more than just somebody getting in a boat and
fishing at night. Don't they -- I mean, I don't know; I
haven't gone down there since the '60's.
MR. HOLEKAMP: The real fishermen usually bring in
boats in the evenings and go out at night. I mean, those
serious ones. But I guess -- and here, again, if Road and
Bridge is willing to take this task on, seven days a week,
locking and unlocking, is time-consuming.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was -- on the locking and
53
~-
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
unlocking, I would -- Road and Bridge, I don't think -- I've
not talked about it, but I would not think that would be
really something they could do very easily. I would really
go with the Sheriff's Department is who I would ask to do
that. You know, I haven't talked to the Sheriff either,
so --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or Maintenance. I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or Facilities Use.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, you know,
Maintenance Department is out there at the Ag Barn right next
to it, so, I mean, I think that -- and I think down the road
we're going to need to -- we're going to look at if there is
going to -- ideally, I think the maintenance of this would go
into the Maintenance Department, of this park. I think there
are certain -- I mean, Road and Bridge currently mows it with
their mowers and things of that nature, and certainly they
will continue to do that down the road. But, the more
facilities we're getting into, the more maintenance, and I
think that should go in the Maintenance Department.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There were some
separations, however, and I guess one of the questions I was
going to ask, the interior roads -- are we anticipating those
are going to be rebuilt by contract or by Road and Bridge?
And, after you answer Part A of that question, Part B is,
~.
59
.~
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
who's going to maintain them over the longer haul?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we would use the
existing roads as much as we can. On the new area, I think
there's some -- it's really more eliminating some roads than
adding new ones on the current Flat Rock area. There's
probably as much road out there as there is park right now.
In the new area, we would need to, you know, bring in --
certainly upgrade the entrance road, and then some interior
roads. I think we would use -- or my thought would be to use
Road and Bridge equipment as much as we can. When you get
into, you know, like, asphalting the entrance road, we don't
have that type of equipment, so I think we'll need a
contract, you know, that through their -- hopefully Leonard
can find somebody in the contract for next year's budget. We
can budget some money for upgrading some of these roads. On
the long-term upkeep, I think it just goes in the County
roads, as all other County roads. I think it goes under Road
and Bridge Department. These are, you know, County roads, no
different than any other County road, in my mind.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would the same apply to the
hike and bike trail?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The hike and bike trail is
going to be a little different, because the maintenance is
going to vary based on flooding.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- Leonard has
55
.~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
A
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
certainly -- you know, he's gone out and given me some
numbers on that cost, very basic, of doing it. Whether you,
you know, put base material, river gravel, granite, sealcoat,
or asphalt, I mean, depends on how much money we have.
Asphalt would be the best and gravel being the -- or nothing
being the least best. But, certainly, the initial
construction I think they are more suited to help with,
either through contract or in-house, and I think the
statement would be -- long-term, would be the same answer,
that are they are in a better shape to maintain that than the
Maintenance Department is, 'cause they've got equipment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. I have a couple
more questions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jonathan, talking about
restrooms.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that permanent or
portable?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Permanent. And these are --
the idea is -- and it's not -- certainly, what was originally
hoped for when we were trying to get additional funds, the
idea would be to put it as close to the city sewer line on
Riverside Drive as possible. So, basically, just a
connection/tap charge. I would hope the City would waive the
56
,--~
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
tap charge; it's pretty substantial, and build it up on those
-- there's several, if you drive on Riverside Drive, areas
that are the same elevation, basically, as Riverside Drive
where there's enough room to add a little bit of fill to put
them up there. And that's what I would recommend at this
point, just because they need to be somewhat -- pretty much
out of the floodplain, and you've got to get them up real --
next to the road. There would be no restroom facilities in
the new park area.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would these be maintained
and locked at night, as well, so they're not destroyed or
vandalized?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, I would think so.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I notice on the current
layout and the immediate layout -- or immediate layout, there
are three rectangular or square boxes identified in the
current area. Can you identify those?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those are the Ag -- that piece
-- that line through the middle is Riverside Drive. Sorry,
it's not labeled. Those are -- the big one is the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's the Ag
facility now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, Ag Extension, the rodeo
arena, and then the covered area where the horse barns are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
57
,'--
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That is really -- I mean, you
know, it was drawn like this because it was -- we acquired
all of that piece of property to the west of Third Creek at
one time, and that's why I think the engineer did it that
way. The double line that goes through the middle, kind of
an S, is Riverside Drive.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. that leads to one
last question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The items that you list for
-- for placement in the park, in addition to the foot bridge,
the trail, the picnic tables, volleyball courts, and so forth
and so on, will those be identified later in sort of a
facility plan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. My thought would be that
if we're -- if everyone is in agreement that these are the
components that we should have in the park, to develop a plan
and then present that plan to the Court. Once the Court
approves it, present it to the community, put it on file, and
let -- wait for comment to come back. I really see that as
probably several months away before we can start on any of
that, maybe because these first three items are pretty large
and time-consuming. But, at the same time, you know, look at
the -- I actually -- on the hike and bike trail, I've looked
at quite a bit of that already, how you divide things up.
58

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
There's some, you know, questions that we're probably going
to have to modify, or once I put a plan together, I guess.
But I talked with Huster about it not too long ago, and I was
-- I originally thought of limiting vehicular access in that
current road around the park, and Buster's first comment was,
"Boy, I used to love going out there and parking next to it,
looking at the river." That's a good point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many years ago was
that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't have to go through
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I think -- I think maybe
there's a way to let -- you know, if we're going to have a
bike trail, you don't want vehicles going on that trail, so
we need to be able to close that off. We may be able to
divide the old area of the park into half of it being where
you can get vehicles in and can drive around, the other part
a little parking lot and walk over there. Some -- some
things like that that will be, you know, a plan. I was
hoping to have it done by this meeting, but while I have the
CAD program in my computer and the file of this plat in my
computer, trying to make CAD work is not easy. So, I'm
probably going to go down there and ask Larry to help with
this design.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Moving in the right
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
direction.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. I have two things.
I guess -- well, first of all, if you keep piling work on Mr.
Holekamp, next thing you know he's going to want weekends
off, vacation time, stuff like that, so we need to slow down.
But I guess our debate would be -- or conversation would be
guardrails. Do we want guardrails or do we want the little
poles with cables or -- I'm sure there's a considerable
difference in the cost of those.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three dollars a foot is the
difference in cost.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Richie has a comment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Can I get back to my
question when he gets through?
MR. RICHEY: Gene Richey. I think that it's -- if
the Court would consider, we've got thousands of feet of good
guardrails piled up for years on the County property next to
the American Legion property, thousands of feet. It may save
a lot of money. Just consider it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'd looked at that, and a lot
of that is damaged. I talked with Leonard about it and, you
know, he said there certainly is some there. He said a lot
of it -- I don't even know -- he got it from the Highway
Department at some point. A lot of it is twisted. Some of
it certainly could be used, and it's certainly an idea, you
60

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
know; it certainly would save money. But --
JUDGE HENNEKE: But the question we have is
guardrails versus posts and cables.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or fence.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Which is more expensive?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Guardrail is the most
expensive, $13 a foot. Post and cable's about $10 a foot,
and fencing being anywhere from -- a regular barbed wire --
barbed wire-type fence is about $3 a foot, up to $8 a foot,
probably, for chain-link or something.
JUDGE HENNEKE: To me, a post and cable -- if we're
talking about keeping vehicles from going into the park, to
me, a post and cable is as effective as a guardrail.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, that's --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: My suggestion would be that we go
to post and cable, as opposed to fence and guardrail. I do
think, though, that we need -- I've had some conversations
with L.C.R.A. on this. They'd like to us spend their money.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I got a call Friday
from Mr. Cartwright, and I told him that we were looking at
it today and I would give him a report back; hopefully, we'd
be going out for bid on some of these items.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do you need a motion --
61
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- for these first three?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This first three, I think we
need a motion to go out for bid on.
JUDGE HENNEKE: My question is, why not bid the
restroom at the same time?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We certainly could. We need to
do it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It seems to be a major item, kind
of a major construction item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I think the only thing
on that, we need to know the exact location.
JUDGE HENNEKE: True, and that may be the reason
not to.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But that could be part of
the process. You could have a site element to that; you
won't put it out for bids until the site's determined. What
-- who's going to do that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I guess before we locate
the restroom, we need to locate everything else, and I think
within the next -- next meeting or meeting after that, I
think I'll have a park plan to the Court. And, at that
point, I think we, you know, go out for bid on that and
maybe, you know, also go out for bid at the same time on the
hike and bike trail.
62

.-.
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: I think you make a good point about
why we should delay that, so I think at this point what we
need is a motion to go out for bids on the first three items,
with -- with post and cable substituted for guardrails.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why not the hike and bike
trail? That's a permanent --
JUDGE HENNEKE: We don't know exactly where it's
going to be.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We don't know exactly where
it's going to be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And depending, also, on how
these bids come in, these are a little bit of a guess on the
numbers; that footage can change substantially based on --
you know.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's a good shock
absorber.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can add that in.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right. I'll move
that we go ahead and go out on bids on the first three.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. Do you want the
second?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can go ahead, Huster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to have that
second.
63
~-,.
~_
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Griffin,
second by Commissioner Baldwin that we request Road and
Bridge to solicit bids for the perimeter fencing, the post
and cable barrier along Riverside Drive, and the foot bridge
to cross Third Creek.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One other thing I left off the
list. The entrance into the park, the initial park road, I
-- actually, they have their own equipment. That would be
sufficient; they can use their own equipment to improve the
entrance into the new area. Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved and seconded. 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.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before you move on, Judge,
I do have one question now that we've done this. I see where
we're proposing to spend somewhat under the amount that
remains in what L.C.R.A. gave us. I probably have about
$20,000 worth of needs to fix up Lion's Park in Center Point.
Any chance we could dip into this pot?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No can do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nice try, Bill.
MS. SOVIL: Judge, a date when they should bring
back the bids?
r.
69
.-.
,.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LET2: Can they do it by our next
meeting? Probably that's too short. Say the first meeting
-- yeah, the first meeting in June.
JUDGE HENNEKE: First meeting in June.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second Monday is, I believe --
MS. SOVIL: Bring back the specs or the bids?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bids. They already know the --
Leonard knows about what we need to do.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: June 19th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: June 14th is fine.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let the record reflect that we're
asking for the bids to be submitted to the Court by June
19th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll get with Len and make sure
he's aware.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, with the
Commissioners' indulgence, I'd like to take up Item No. 10.
I see Ms. Caffall is in the audience. We can dispose of that
before our break. Larry, do you want to kick that one off?
The airport.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, well, I think -- I think
the paperwork here pretty well lays it out. And, Megan, you
might just quickly give us a thumbnail of where the money
situation stands, you know, how much, where it's coming from
and that kind of thing, and -- but the money's in the budget.

65

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MS. CAFFALL: Yes, sir. Excuse me, I have to break
my voice out of the box here. This is the second year that
we've done the RAMP program with the TexDOT Aviation Division'
RAMP-funded funds. That's coming from the F.A.A.; these are
F.A.A. dollars. They match up to $20,000 worth of routine
airport maintenance. That's our paving, the lights, or any
of the routine -- I can talk into this a little closer if
that would make it better. This year we're looking at
resurfacing the taxiways. We have three taxiways in Mooney
that are kind of overgrown and crumbling. This will be an
inch and-a-half overlay, which is almost like new paving. We
want to crack-seal the taxiway to the main runway, which is a
little over a mile -- excuse me, my voice is gone -- and
that's the two paving items on there.
And then we have some drainage work where all our
interior drainage of the airport drains into Silver Creek.
This basically is a 50-percent discount on our routine
airport maintenance that we are obligated to do by accepting
F.A.A. grant funds. Last year we spent almost a million
dollars on resurfacing our main runway, putting a slurry seal
on the crosswind runway, and installing new lights. And so,
with a total airport operating budget of about $130,000, this
is a 50-percent discount on $90,000. So, like I say, this is
the second year we've done this, and it's a good program.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone have any questions? If not,
66
..~.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7'd entertain a motion to authorize the County Judge to
execute the Grant Agreement pursuant to the Texas Department
of Transportation Routine Airport Maintenance Program.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So move.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the County Judge be
authorized to execute the Joint Resolution regarding the
Grant Agreement. 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.
MS. CAFFALL: Could y'all suffer through just a
little bit more? Commissioner Williams and Griffin were
present at the last Airport Board meeting and we probably,
hopefully, knock on wood, at your next meeting will have --
well, it might not be at the next meeting, but we're getting
our lease agreement through our City Attorney's office for
the hangar lease site out at the airport. And I would just
ask if any of y'all have any questions about that, we have a
group of individuals who are building, not for rental, but
for their own use, 16 T-hangar units at the airport, and so
67
n
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
so it's an important project. It's the first building we've
done out at the airport in probably ten years, maybe longer.
And, we have a standard lease agreement that we've used since
I've been involved with the airport. It was done by our City
Attorney. It is under the standard lease agreement, and
that's what will be coming before you. And we may have an
Airport Board meeting there next month. I don't think we
will if we can get everything lined up and ready to go to
City Council and Commissioners Court. So, if any of y'all
have any questions about that or need to know anything about
the process -- actually, it's -- it's your meeting here --
I'd welcome any questions or comments you might have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Megan, y'all are putting
together a lease and you're going to run it through us and
then we're going to provide it to those private -- the
private sector?
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. CAFFALL: Right. The Airport Board has
approved the terms of the lease. It's a land lease where
we're renting them two acres of land. They're going to build
two 8-unit T-hangar buildings on that two acres of land. The
City and County are going to give them access to the taxiway.
In this year's operating budget, we have funds to provide
utilities to the back of the lot, but these individuals will
be building the T-hangar units and all the associated paving.
And I think their budget is about $350,000 for these
68
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
improvements, and it will be, I would estimate, between that
and 5900,000 worth of improvements. It's a 25-year lease at
$167 a month, representing about $2,000 of income to the City
and County over a year. And then in 25 years, those
improvements become ours.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's the microphone; it's
not you.
MS. CAFFALL: We had the hazardous waste collection
on Saturday we had 350 cars, and 90 percent of them were from
the county, so that was a good showing. I snuffed up too
many volatiles at the --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Megan, on the lease, we would have
to have time to have that reviewed by our attorney, as well.
MS. CAFFALL: Yes, six.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Don't bring that to us without
sufficient time to refer it to our legal people to look at,
as well.
MS. CAFFALL: Is two weeks sufficient?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Two weeks is plenty.
MS. CAFFALL: That's -- hopefully, that's our best
scenario, 'cause we have to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Megan, on the -- is there -- I
mean, I've heard other discussion about more T-hangars than
16. Is there room at the same location or near it, or is
this just going to be a stand-alone project or --
69
.-,
~-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MS. CAFFALL: Hopefully, this is Phase I. We've
reserved the 2-acre site just north of this for another two
-- two building units, another 16 units. And, if they're
done in conjunction with each other, they'll be able to use
some of the paving on the north side of this development, and
that's about all we can fit in on -- on that side. There's
room for a smaller, more individual-type hangar at the most
-- northernmost end of that Lot 5 that we've subdivided for
this development. But then you get into the -- there's a
rock formation that starts crowding in there. We won't be
able to clear that any further back. So, we hope to get a
total of 32 units. Right now we have 88 upper-based aircraft
at the airport. This is upper-based aircraft, and hopefully
we'll sell more fuel.
So -- and next week, I will be meeting with TexDOT about
our lighting grant for the crosswind runway. That will be a
$350,000 grant, unless they've increased it since I talked to
them last. We will be making a 10 percent match on that, so
in our -- when I come back to you with our current budget,
that's a $35,000 match, which is a bit more this -- excuse
me. In this year's budget, we had $26,000 for matches, which
included the RAMP program and another grant we had. So, next
year's budget will be a little bigger than this year's.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Megan, one quick question.
Has there been any further development on the AWOS contract,
70
-.
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 Automatic Weather Observation System?
MS. CAFFALL: That was an $80,000 grant we got last
year. I'm in the process of getting underground electric put
out to the site. The equipment -- they're starting to call
and ask where we want it delivered. I'm hoping that we have
this in by the end of June.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Great.
MS. CAFFALL: That will be -- we'll have a
ground-breaking associated with that. We had some local
members of our aviation community who have been very vocal
about this, and I think it will be well-received, so I'll be
sure and let y'all know, because it will be a -- it will be a
real step forward for the airport.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good. Thank you very much.
MS. CAFFALL: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, we're going to take a
break. Let's reconvene at 10:95.
(Recess taken from 10:30 a.m. to 10:95 a.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. It's 10:95 on Monday,
May 10th. We'll go back into session. The next item is Item
No. 2.8, consider and discuss changing meeting date for the
second meeting in June. This is necessitated by a conflict
with the South Texas Commissioners and Judges annual meeting,
which is being held in Galveston, which will be going on on
the date of our regularly scheduled meeting. I had put in
71
.~
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
here that my recommendation would be that we do it on Friday;
however, I'm reminded that is our evening -- regularly
scheduled evening meeting, so I think my recommendation will
be that we reschedule the meeting for Thursday, June 29th, at
6:30 in the evening.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I'll go for that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anybody have any comments or
suggestions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to suggest the
29th, Judge, because some of us are going to go down and meet
with family here a little in advance of the Commissioners'
meeting, so the 29th will work beautifully for me.
MS. PIEPER: At 6:30?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we have a motion to that effect?I
C0MMI33I0NER LET2: So move.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we change the date for
oux second meeting in June until 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, June
24th. Any other 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: Item No. 9, consider and discuss
72
..-~
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
participation in Tax Abatement Program with the City of
Kerrville. I`ve included in everyone's packet the Resolution
adopted by the City, along with a cover letter from Mindy
Wendele. I don`t know how the Court is disposed towards the
Tax Abatement Program. I bring this to our attention because
we've been requested by the City, and I throw it out for open
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Question. Are they asking
fox us to do a resolution similar to this one, or how would
we -- how -- what would be the mechanism for playing with
them in this?
JUDGE HENNEKE: If we want to participate in the
Tax Abatement Program, we must pass a resolution adopting
guidelines, and what they're asking us to do is adopt the
guidelines they've adopted so that we have a common Tax
Abatement Program. I don`t know how everyone feels about the
benefits and detriments of tax abatement programs. I really
don't have -- I didn't put this on the agenda with the idea
of having it necessarily adopted. That's something that we
have to consider. I think we need to have some discussion.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me give you just a quick
viewpoint from my perspective, since I used to run an
economic development foundation down in Houston. And back in
the '80's, tax abatements were really big deals, and
everybody was using it in their economic development work to
r--
73

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
try to attract businesses. And, in fact, were very
successful at it. Along about 1990 -- '89-'90, people began
to realize in the economic development business that, yes,
you can attract businesses oftentimes, but that the piper has
to be paid, in that at some point, particularly if you've
gotten -- if you've used that mechanism often, you can really
end up behind the eight ball financially. And since that
time, tax abatements have fallen a little bit down in the
hierarchy of things to do to attract businesses, though they
are still used; don't get me wrong.
I personally wouldn't have any -- any problem with us
going along with the plan and coming up with guidelines, as
long as we have some real strong input on what really gets
approved in a proposed abatement. In other words, that we
don't give up that ability for this Court to say, "We'll play
on that one; we're not going to play on this one because we
don't think it's financially prudent to do so."
So, I -- and I haven't read through in enough detail to
see -- I don't think we would be giving that up. But I -- I
am real cautious, because I know in 1986 I was involved in an
abatement process -- in fact, it ended up as a moratorium,
because that's how far you can go. We gave a 5-year
moratorium to get a manufacturing facility, and they paid no
taxes for five years. Turns out the company went bust after
about two years, and then we had a problem with the facility
74
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
and we had lawsuits and -- I mean, it's -- we've just got to
be careful. But tax abatements can be a good tool. It just
needs to be -- needs to be looked at.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My comment is that if we
voted today to join with the City in dealing with the
Resolution here, I would have to abstain. I apologize. I
just haven't looked at all this close enough to understand
it. I think -- I think that a tax abatement is very serious
business. We're dealing with the people's money out there.
I'd like to -- I'll tell you one thing I'd like to look at --
and there's a name for this, but I just can't remember what
it is. Like, a company comes along and says, "I'm going to
bring in 150 employees in this business. There's got to be
some way that, when they get half of those people in and
working, that a certain percentage of an abatement would come
into play, and when they completed -- when they got all 150
in place, then a full abatement, or whatever the deal was
made. You know, tie it to the success of their business.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I don't know how you do
that exactly, but I've seen it and I've heard people talk
about it. And I'm in favor of something like that, but I
don't -- and what I'm saying is, I'm not sure what this says,
so I couldn't vote.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure what it says,
7s
L_-
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
either, in terms of the criteria that went into this chart.
You know, on first blush you would look at it and, if a
person brought in five new jobs, you could analyze that as
being a 5100,000 value to the community, and it gets 75
percent tax abatement for five jobs on the basis of $20,000 a
job. I'd like to know what criteria goes into this scale,
how it came about. You know, how did they arrive at these
numbers? What's behind it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I think that it's
probably -- the reason the City pushed this is probably -- or
actually pushed KEDF, I would suspect, is that the problem in
the past has been it was always done on a case-by-case
situation, and it's very hard to promote if you don't have a
policy. So, I think we need a policy, certainly, and -- you
know, I think we need to look -- I've not read through it in
detail, either. I think we need to get started, so at maybe
the next meeting or two meetings, put it back on the agenda,
after we've had time to really look at it, and maybe have a
workshop with the City if, maybe, that's appropriate, if we
have a lot of questions, or just one-on-one visit with the
City or whoever drafted it. I guess it was --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Probably KEDF.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't we table this until one
of the next two meetings, and I'll put it back on the agenda.
I'll coordinate it with Mindy Wendele and have someone here
76
..-.
~_
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 can answer questions. I'd be real curious, also, to
know what the independent school districts are going to do on
the same subject.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it will -- my gut
feeling is, from this -- being pretty close with some of this
recent accounting, that they're very gun-shy of tax
abatements, 'cause they don't feel -- and voters tend not to
feel that it's the school district's business to promote
economic development. And I think it's different -- I think
the Counties and Cities, it is a part of our -- closer to our
purpose to improve economic development. But, you know, I
think it's important to know what the school district is
going to do, but I think we don't need necessarily to hang
what we do and the City does based on what the school
districts do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's a vested
interest and their concerns are different than ours.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: When the bloom started to
come off the rose on tax abatements, it was the school
districts that first started saying, "Wait, man, whoa," you
know, "we don't have that income, and population is not going
down and the kids are still coming through the door."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I agree with the Judge's
approach. Put it back on --
~.
77
.~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just want to say, in my
short history here, I think we've been approached one time by
a company, and --
MS. SOVIL: We have a Court order on file.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That we denied.
MS. SOVIL: It was the first year y'all were on the
Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pace?
MS. SOVIL: No. Remember when they came, the
downtown --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, the downtown deal.
MS. SOVIL: And there's a Court order on file that
says how y'all are going to handle all the abatement stuff,
and it's basically based on what Buster said.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I knew I heard that
somewhere.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll have to pull that out, take a~
look at it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You knew you heard it
somewhere; you said it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what KEDF would like is
something like a resolution so they can promote it, as
opposed to an order.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some of this -- they go to a
78
~. _
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
business and say, "This is the policy they have." It's still
case-by-case, but this is their general philosophy.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. We'll put it back on the
agenda at an appropriate time. That concludes the regular
agenda items. We'll now go into closed meeting, Executive
Session. We'll take up Item 2.6, which is consider and
discuss realignment of personnel, as well as the other items
listed for Executive Session.
{Discussion off the record.)
(The open session was closed at 11:00 a.m., and an
Executive Session of Commissioners Court was held,
the transcript of which is contained in a separate
document.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 12:05 on Monday, May 10th,
1999. Commissioners Court has met in closed session and we
now return to open session. We'll turn to Item No. 2.6,
which is consider and discuss realignment of personnel as per'
Court-approved plan. Do I have any motions on that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I move that the
realignment plan, as presented to the Court, which embodies
the Custodian, Senior Custodian/Janitorial Assistant,
Supervisor of Maintenance, and Animal Control Officer, be
approved effective October 1.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve the
79
.~-.
~_
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
realignment of Custodian to Senior Custodian/Janitorial,
Senior Maintenance to Assistant Supervisor, and Animal
Control Officer to Supervisor/Animal Control Officer
effective October 1, 1999. 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.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Corrollary to that, Judge,
I'd like to offer a motion to extend the interim appointment
of Mr. Holekamp as Facilities Supervisor, in addition to his
responsibilities of Animal Control, Maintenance, Solid Waste
Manager, until September 30, 1999 -- through.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Through.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Through September 30, 1999.
COMMISSIONER LET2: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we extend Mr. Holekamp's
interim status as Maintenance Supervisor through September
30th, 1999.
MS. SOVIL: Effective May 1.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Effective May 1 through September
30, 1999, thank you. Any further discussion? If not, all in
favor, raise your right hand.
80
~-,.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. The Court also met
in Executive Session to discuss property acquisition. Do I
have any motion with regard to that discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would move that we
approve an action for the Court to pursue grant monies for
the possibility of acquiring a 33,000-square-foot arena and
having that facility, as required, moved to Agricultural
Extension.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court pursue grant
monies for the purpose of acquiring a 33,000-square-foot
riding arena, and relocating the same to the Agricultural
complex. 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: If there's nothing further to come
before the Court, we stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:07 p.m.)
81
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
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF KERR ~
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 at Kerrville, Texas, this 13th day of May, 1999.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY : I~LI~,~.i _ Gam' -~ ~..~ ~C
Kathy Ban}, Deputy County Clerk
Certified horthand Reporter
ORDER NO. 25844
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
On this the 10th day of May 1999, came 'to be consider-ed b}~
the Court the various claims and accounts against Kerr County
and the various Commissioners' precincts, which said Claims
and Accounts are 10-General Fund for $49,c26.83; ii-Jury Fund
for- $1,240.'34; 13-Road ~ Pr-idge Add'1 Registration Fee Fund
for $14,722.54; 14-Fire F'r otection Fund for- $12, 128. 15;
15-Road & Fridge Fund for' $32,904.74; 19-Public Library Fund
for $'6,802.17; 23-Juvenile State Rid Fiand for $586.12;
70-permanent Improvement Fund for• $13,318.14; 76-1~avenile
Detention Facility Fund for $243.41; 8.3-State Funded-216th
District Rttorney for $1,478.72; 86-State Funded
-:16th District Probation for $914.45; and 87-State F~_tnded
-Comm~an ity Cor^r ections for $5, 135. J5.
(TOTAL RLL FUNDS-$158,701.76
Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by
Commissioner Griffin, the Cour^t unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, payment of said Claims and Accounts.

ORDER N0. X5845
BUDGET AMENDMENT
CONSTAPLE PRECINCT #.~,
~n this the 10th day of May 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Let z, seconded by ~em:-:is~_~-.~,- ~, _•_-_ _,•~
~~~rt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, transfer•r•ing
-- __ _ _
Item No. 10-553-~0E Ponds in the Constable Precinct #3 Piadget.

ORDER N0. 25846
PUD6ET AMENDMENT
BOND FOR THE CLERF{
JUSTICE OF THE F'ERCE, PRECINCT #4
On this the 10th day of May 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Gr^iffin, seconded by Commissioner Paldwin,
the Co~_ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0,
tr•ansfer•r•ing 850.00 from Line Item No. 10-458-499
Miscellaneous to Line Item No. iQ~-458-^ca6 Ponds, Justice of
the F'eace, Precinct #4.
ORDER N0, c5847
BUDGET RMENDMENT
ENVIRONMENTRL HERLTH
RABIES AND ANIMAL CONTROL
On this the 10th day of May 1999, upon motion made by
C'ommissianer Lets, seconded by Commissioner Griffin,
t~:e C;; u: = unanimously appt•mutd ~y a Ve~@ e# §-r~-®;
transfers-ing S2E,~.~O from Line Item h?c. i~~+-c4~~-':8:~ :-~-::=_e
Insi-prance to Line Item No. 10-E4c-48Q~ Insi-trance and
tr-ansfer-ring 8093.Q~iD from Line Item No. 10--64~-48E
Professional Services to Line Item No. 10-E4'~-480
Insurance.
ORDER N0. c58=t8
AF~F~ROVE TO RCCEF'T MINUTES RND WAIVE READING
On this the i~ith day of May 1999, upon motion made 6y
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Paldwin, the
Co~_ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to accept and
waive reading of said Mini_~tes. (Regular Commissior~ers° Count
Rgenda, Rpr•il ic, 1999 at 9:~~ a.m.g Special Commissioners'
Coi_irt Agenda, Apr-i 1 'E, 1999 at 9:~DQ~ a. m.) .

ORDER N0, c58=r9
RPPROVE AND ACCEPT MONTHLY RND OURRTERLY REPORTS
On this the 10th day of May 19'g'~; came to b= c~-~~__.__ .
t:e Caurt the various monthly and quarterly r•epor•ts of Kerr
iC ii'a ;% a'._ ."___ .__ - ___~..c a}' 'r.nF}~ L;u iii:%. S!F:ui: n, u?;lui,
:awe by Conimissioner^ Let z, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin,
the Cour^t unanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-0-0, that said
r•epor•ts be accepted and filed with the Coi-~nty Cler-k for-
f:.it,_ire audit e
N,err• County Treasurer-Barbara Nemec
Q,-,arter-ly Financial/Investment Report - as of March 31, 1999
Ker•r• Coi_inty Sheriff's Department-Frances A. Kaiser, Sheriff
Civil Report - April 1999
Justice of the F'eace-Dawn Wright
Month of April 1999
Ker•r• County Sh
Monthly Report
Justice of the
Monthly Report
Justice of the
Monthly Report
er•iff's Department
for March 1999
Peace-Vance Elliott
for• April 1999
Peace-Robert L. Tench
for• Apr-i 1 1999
ORDER N0. c585~
ENFORCEMENT OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
CR05SING COUNTY RORD (RRTICLE 5.05A?
(KERR COUNTY SUBDIVISION RULES AND REGULATIONS
AS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE 3.a~ OF SRME REGULATIONS?
On this the 1~th day of May 19'39, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams,
the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-a, author-r ing
the Co~_inty Engineer, Franklin Johnston, to refer the
enforcement regi_iest to the Coi_inty Civil Attorney.
ORDER NO. GJOJ1
RE'P'ROVE pURCHRSE OF CHRIR(S>
FOR THE COUNTY TRERSURER°5 OFFICE
On this the 10th day of May 1S'3'3, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Williams, seconded by Co:r.r::i>s_~-~~:• _e_ ti-:=
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, authorising the
-_.. • =_a._: _: __ . _..~~~ ~..:._: (si instead of a works*_atio-.
with fi_~nds pr•evio~_isly b~_idgeted for- the wor•kstatiar~.
.-~
ORDER NO. GJBJG
GROCESSING AND PAYMENT OF INDIfiENT HEALTH CRRE CLRIMS
On this the 10th day of May 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Gr^iffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-a-0; t-at :.e:,:,
County enter' into an interim agr^eement with Very Claims, Inc.
thr^o~agh September' 30, 1999, for processing of Indigent
Health Care claims subject to the r^eview and approval of the
proposed agr^eement by the County Civil Rttor-ney, Mr^. F'ollar^d.
ORDER NO. X5853
APPROVE JOB DESCRIPTIONS THRT COINCIDE WITH
THE COURT RPPROVED PLAN FOR THE
MRINTENANCE RND FRCILITIES USE PROGRAM
On this the i~th day of May 1995, Li p:: r: moti:,n ::-ade by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the
C~_. t unanimously appr^avid ~y a Ve€e of ~c-@-~~ x~:a „~~
descriptions as presented and amended.
ORDER N0. c5854
CONCEPT FLAN AND CONSTRUCTION
FOR FLRT ROCK LAKE PORK
On this the ifith day of May 1999, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner- 6r•iffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, r^equesting
P.oad R Br^idge to solicit bids for• the per^imeter• fencing, the
post and cable bar^r-ier• along Riverside Drive, and the foot
br^idge to cross Third Creek, s~_ich bids to be submitted
to the Court by June 14th.
r"~
ORDER NO. c58~5
JOINT RESOLUTION RUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT
PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSGORTATIOi'J'S
~..T.NE AIRPORT MAINTENRNCE PROGRAM
FOR DRAINAGE WORK AND F~AVItJG MAI~TE~aA`_CE
:.~-: t..:s t:^.e 13th day of May 1999, upon motion made by
...:.: ...:::.SSi::-cr'v^'r'i ~~:- :. .... .....:...^ G~.` G-:H 111 lift c, c,i prttni. __._
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, that the Coi_tnty
Judge be a~_Ithor•ized to execute the joint resoll_ttion regarding
the Grant Agreement.
i"'~
ORDER N0. 25856
RE'P'ROVE CHRNGING THE DRTE OF THE SECONDED MEETING OF
THE COMMISSIONERS' COURT IN JUNE
TO 6:30 F'. M. ON THURSDRY, JUNE 24TH
On this the i0th day of May 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Co:art unanimously approved by a vote of 4-a-0, cha::ging 'the
date for the second meeting in J:_ine :antil 6:30 p. m. on
Th:_trsday, June 24th.

ORDER N0. 25857
APGROVE PERSONNEL RERLIGNMENT FLAN
(AS pER COURT AP'P'ROVED FLAN)
On this the i~ith day of May 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, se~e::ded ~~ ~c:~:::,is~it:-~er• Letz, _..e
~o:~:t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the realignment
itT S: ii,T ~•_~.ar. __ __ __. -_~____._-.. .. .:.-iL G•r'ia~ ~e%i0'r•
Maintenance to Assistant Siaper•visor, and Rnimal Con*_r•ol
Officer to Supervisor/Rnimal Control Officer effective October
1, 1999.