1
2
3
4
s
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Meeting
July 12, 1999
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr 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
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I N D E X
July 12, 1999
Commissioners' Comments
1.1o~907Pay Bills
1 . 2 Budget Amendments dsYoB, atSga9, aS9/D, •rS9//, .?S9a5
1.3d3~/d Late Bills
1.4aS9i3 Read and Approve Minutes
1.5dS9/9~Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
2.1o1S9~ Kerr County Accident Prevention Program
2.2otSj!(. Preliminary replat of Lot 18, Box S Acres
2'3oRoua.Preliminary replat of Tract 47, Kerrville
South Ranches No. 2
2.40~9~7 Extend prelim. plat of Saddlewood Estates II
2.5,2Sq/QExtend preliminary plat of Los Encinos,
Section Two, and consider final plat
2.6 ~/gFinal plat of Dutch Farm
2.7~eJooR~reliminary plat of Privilege Creek Ranches
~~
2.11~0~ Request for tax exemption, 405 Water Street
2.12 p1tOtQ.911 program update
2.8dS9a~Variance for road grade, Hunt Valley View Rnch
2.9oZ.'S~d/Exchange of old Smith Ranch right-of-way for
right-of-way on Higbee Road
0
2.lOq(~~Road District for Cub Lane
2.13 o~iz0~2Commissioners Court tour of new facility
2.14a~~Letter to Phil Gramm re: Court Order 25874
2.15~,,9.uJoint Resolution with City of Kerrville,
support grant application for airport
2.16~9d3Renewal of County Risk Management insurance
2.18~~~c~;election of County Judge pro tem
2.17~R,P~'Application for Neighborhood Roads
PAGE
9
10
20
21
21
22
30
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
90
48
51
53
60
66
78
93
95
106
108
115
115
116
120

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, July 12, 1999, at 9:00 o'clock a.m. a regular
meeting of Commissioners Court was held in the Commissioners'
Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, and the following
proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 9 o'clock on Monday, July
12th, 1998 -- 1999, and we'll call to order this regular
Commissioners Court meeting. Commissioner Williams, I
believe you have the honors.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do. I do, Judge. It's my
privilege and pleasure to introduce to the Court Reverend
Neil Johnson, a retired Lutheran minister, who will offer the
invocation for us this morning. Pastor Johnson, will you
please?
{Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Pastor Neil.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: First item on the agenda is the
Visitors' Input. 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 and do so. Is
there anyone present who wishes to speak on an item that's
not on the agenda?
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Again, is there anyone present who
4
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
wishes to speak on an item item which is not on the agenda?
Seeing no one coming forward, we'll move to the
Commissioners' Comments. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, thank you. Judge,
I only have one comment, and this is regarding the Kerrville
Mountain Sun and their opinion last week. I just wanted to
let Ms. Davis know that this Commissioners Court is the one
that sets the holidays. And I'm sure it's the State law that
tells us to do that. It is not the employees that made the
decision to take an extra day off. Some of your comments in
here, "What exactly did they do over the weekend which would
make it necessary for them to need more time to readjust
before going back to work? Maybe everyone should be tested
before they're handed the County's budget to work on or
allowed to climb into a City vehicle." This is offensive to
our employees. And what I want to say to you is that if you
have a bone to pick with the County, you need come to this
Commissioners Gourt, as a whole or individually, but our
employees are off-limits.
I've been in the political arena a long time, and I've
always been taught not to do this right here, what I'm doing
right now, because the newspaper has gallons of ink. Well,
I'm really not interested in that or concerned about that in
any way, because what is right is right, and what is wrong is
wrong. And making comments like this about our County
5

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
employees is wrong, and I would appreciate, I think, if the
Mountain Sun would issue an apology to our employees.
MS. DAVIS: May I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not asking you any
questions or anything like that.
MS. DAVIS: No, but since this question is --
comment is directed at me --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's up to the Judge.
JUDGE HENNEKE: This is not an opportunity for
debate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. That's my comment,
Judge. Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Buster. Bill?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have no comments.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have two this morning. One
is I want to recognize one of the County's employees, Doug
Koennecke. Probably no one in this courtroom knows, unless
they happen to live in the far eastern portion of the county,
that we had a pretty severe flood Sunday morning, over 7 to 8
inches of rain. And, I don't know, usually these things do
happen on weekends and Sunday mornings where it's hard to get
hold of people. And Douglas was not the supervisor on duty,
but was -- he took it upon himself first thing Sunday morning
to start driving around in the eastern part of the county,
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1.7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and in his own personal vehicle, I might add, and then came
back to Kerrville, picked up some equipment, and then went
out and started fixing roads, on Hermann Sons and Lane
Valley, specifically. I think that, you know, Douglas is --
I think exemplifies that department. He does a real good
job. I think all the supervisors would have done that if
they had a flood in their area. I think I'd just like to
recognize the Road and Bridge Department for the initiative
that they have, their men and women.
Another comment is regarding Region J, the water
planning process. First, I'd like to invite everyone to our
next meeting, which will be in Leakey this Thursday at 2
o'clock. Everyone is certainly invited to attend that. The
other comment is there was a comment, again, in The Mountain
Sun -- not to pick on them today -- regarding the planning
process that came out of some meetings, and I think those
comments were wrong. They were statements about nothing
being done and quorums not being held, things of that nature.
There was one meeting we didn~t have a quorum, which was
changed at the last minute. But, as a process, it's going
very well. I guess three of the chapters are basically
complete at this point. And, anyway I just want to invite
everyone to the meeting so you can see how the process is
working.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Excellent. Larry?
7
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No comments.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. I have two or three
comments. First of all, I want to congratulate our
Commissioner Buster Baldwin for being elected First Vice
President of the South Texas Commissioners and Judges
Association at the convention held in Galveston the week
before last. It was an excellent convention, and we had a
good time, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Secondly, again, I want to gently
echo Commissioner Baldwin's comments about the remarks
regarding County employees. I saw many of the County
employees working at the Louise Hays Park fireworks
exhibition on the 4th of July, and I think that, rather than
casting aspersions upon their activities, they should be
commended fo.r their activities in celebration of our nation's
Independence Day.
Finally, I think it would be appropriate for this Court
to recognize the passing of J.R. Dye, who was a friend to
this Court and to many of us on this Court for a number of
years. J.R. passed away -- I believe it was on June 30th.
The funeral was held on July 3d. Many people in this room
were in attendance, but I think it's appropriate for us to
recognize J.R. for his years of service to this community,
and specifically to this Court and al.l the employees of Kerr
8
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
County. We will miss J.R. and we certainly wish Pat and her
family all of the best, and our sympathy goes out to them.
Without anything further, we'll move to the Approval Agenda.
Does anyone have any questions about the bills?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have one. It's kind of a
number of them. I noticed this time -- I think I've asked
the question before, but I always worry about it a little
bit. We paid over $2,500 to Office Depot this month, and I
just want to make sure that we're not in violation of any
bidding requirements by either office supplies -- if we spend
$2,500 in one month, I don't know, does that come under State
contract or something that we can -- I know we don't bid that
as a county contract.
MR. TOMLINSON: This particular vendor comes within
an agreement -- contractual agreement with the National
Association of Counties. And, as a member of that
organization, we -- we have the ability to purchase through
them under -- under a national arrangement, contractual
arrangement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That relieves any --
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- bidding requirement which --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which leads to another
question, I really think, Jonathan. I notice every time we
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
17_
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pay the bills, we have several vendors listed for office
supplies. If we get a decent break by reason of a national
contract with Office Depot, wouldn't it make sense for us to
purchase all of our materials there, if that's' possible to
do?
MR. TOMLINSON: I -- for the most part, County
officials -- my experience is that they shop around. And if
-- if there`s a better deal out there than they can get
through the contract, they do it. I think that's the reason
you see that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have one other
question, Judge. It has to do with -- on page 26, Tommy, it
has to do with the 216th Adult Probation. The sense of my
question is, I notice in this particular one, and I've
noticed throughout the bills, we lease a lot of copying
machines. However, on this one, what catches my eye is the
purchase of a copy machine. Now we have a situation where
we're purchasing one and we're continuing to lease others,
which tells me we don't have a unified policy on how we
handle these matters, do we?
MR. TOMLINSON: This budget does not fall under
County policy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good reason for
it. That's a good reason for it to be that way.
MR. TOMLINSON: This decision is a -- an Adult
10

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
Probation decision, and these are funds that are -- are
managed by -- by the Probation Department.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: And not the County. The only
reason these numbers are in here is just for information
purposes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So noted.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mind your own business.
(Laughter.?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else have any questions
about any of the bills presented? If not, I'd entertain a
motion to --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So move.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve the bills as
presented and recommended by the County Auditor. 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 amendments.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think all of the amendments I put
on your table this morning. You didn't have a chance to look
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
at them prior to this, but they all came in late. The first
one is a request from the District Clerk to transfer $3I9
from Photocopy Expense to Computer Hardware. She ran out the
hard drive on her computer and it crashed, and so she had to
do this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 1 from the District Clerk. Any further
discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MR. TOMLINSON: No. 2 is between Environmental
Health Department and Rabies and Animal Control. This is a
request from Glenn Holekamp to transfer $250 from Telephone
out of the Environmental Health budget and $900 out of --
also out of Environmental Health, Telephone line item, into
Rabies and Animal Control.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question. Is Glenn
Holekamp in here? The question I have is, is this going to
take -- the telephone budget is going to zero. I mean, it's
~_.
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$150 for the current budget. We're taking all that money out'
of telephone budget in Environmental Health. They don't use
the telephone or -- or have a telephone that they charge back'
to?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think that part -- that
expenditure is taken care of out of the Solid Waste grant.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Out of what, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: The Solid Waste grant.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wouldn't it still show up as a
telephone expenditure? I mean, the revenue might be the
grant, but wouldn't it still show up as --
MR. TOMLINSON: There's -- there's only five
categories -- I think, five or six categories in that budget
for -- for the grant, and we're expending those funds
according to the way the grant's set up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: And so I -- I can't absolutely say
for sure on that, but I -- that's what I think is happening.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The second part of that is why
are we so far off on the telephone budget for Animal Control?
MR. TOMLINSON: I can't answer that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I moved it, yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve Budget
13
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Amendment Request No. 2 for Rabies and Animal Control. 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. No. 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. No. 3 is for the County Law
Library. We have a bill to pay for $254. This budget is
totally expended. I'm recommending that we -- we take that
$254 from surplus monies in that fund.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 3 f.or the County Law Library. Any
further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right
hand.
(The motion was
JUDGE HENNEKE:
{No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE:
MR. TOMLINSON:
with the jail, but it's u
Buildings budget. And we
carried by unanimous vote.)
All opposed, same sign.
Motion carries. No. 4.
Okay. No. 9 actually has to do
nder the Courthouse and Related
are, at this point, out of funds in
14
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
Maintenance and Repair for the jail in the Courthouse and
Related Buildings budget, so I did not put a place on here to
take these funds from. I just wanted you to know that --
what our problem is. And I -- there's absolutely no funds in
-- in the Courthouse and Related Buildings budget to move
into this line item, so there's probably only two choices.
One is -- which I would recommend to do -- is to move the
maintenance -- Jail Repair and Maintenance budget back into
the jail budget. There are -- there is excess funds in the
jail budget to, I think, take care of this for the rest of
the year. I really -- my opinion is that's where it belongs,
anyway.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me ask a quick question,
Tommy. Why is it not in the jail budget? Was it moved out
for some reason at some time that we've forgotten or --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, to -- well, right after we
moved into the jail, there was a lot of -- of expenditures
for major repairs to the jail that -- that I think the Court
felt like was -- was unnecessary expense, and excessive.
And, so, my opinion is that they felt like it was the place
to move that expenditure. They made -- that made it under
control of the Court and the Maintenance Supervisor.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's correct. The
other part of that was the Sheriff was uncomfortable, 'cause
she didn't want to make the decisions on these major
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
expenditures 'cause there were a whole lot -- everything from
doors to travel. And it was an agreement that she didn't
want it and the Court didn't want it, so we kind of put it --
really, Maintenance is where it ended up.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, it's appropriate,
probably, now to put it back in with the jail budget, right?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds that way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that would be fine
with me. Do we need to do that in the budget process,
though?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think we can do that right now.
And my -- the reason I would like to see it go back is that
we -- if we keep federal prisoners in our jail, we have to
furnish, you know, the -- the feds with the information
necessary to tell them, you know, what our costs are. We
have to totally cost the operation of our jail on a daily
basis. And if this expenditure is not in that budget, then
it makes it difficult to -- to readily arrive at a daily
cost. So, for that reason alone, I would like to see it
moved back into the jail budget.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is there a problem in doing
that out of the budget cycle? I mean --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- you'd just like a Court
order to do that?
16
1
2.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: What we could do now would be a
temporary fix for the rest of this budget year. As we go
through the budget process in the next two weeks of the
month, that's when we would address where the funds would
probably go. Now, if the funding and the maintenance for the
funds for the jail go in the jail budget, as Tommy suggested,
we also have to discuss who controls those funds.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does the Sheriff control those
funds or does the head of Maintenance control those funds?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the longer you take
with this, the more careful you are with it, the more of
those kind of things you're going to find, so I think we need
to be real careful with this thing.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But the issue before us right now
is we need money for the maintenance and --
MR. TOMLINSON: We'll need, you know, much more
through the remainder of the year, too. So, I mean, this is
not the end.
COMMISSIONER
is not the end of it.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
on, so we need to come
finish out the budget
GRIFFIN: That's the issue, that this
WILLIAMS: No, it's not.
GRIFFIN: Because this is going to go
up with something in the short term to
year, but something to address this
17
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1Z
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
from now till the end of the year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This won't do that. This
won't take it through the end of the year.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I -- I mean, if we moved it
back into the jail budget, I think it will.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think that there's -- there's
enough excess funds in the jail budget today that will --
that will see us through this problem for the rest of the
year. That's not a guarantee, but -- but from my
projections, that's way it looks.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we transfer the money
out of there into this one like we do everything else?
MR. TOMLINSON: We can do that, but I would -- I
have not talked to the Sheriff about that and -- and I would
not want to transfer funds out of her budget without some
notification. That's -- but that's up to the Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not willing to --
personally, I'm not willing to change it today without
looking at it as close as we possibly can. If we can
transfer money from somewhere else into this line item, cool,
groovy, but I don't think we should jump -- make a hasty
decision like that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My problem with it is we
seem to be heading in the other direction in terms of next
18

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
budget year, consolidation of these expenses all into one
department. And this would send us off in the other
direction. It's kind of where --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a discussion I
think we really need to get into during the budget process,
because there's pros and cons to consolidating or leaving it
like it has been. I mean, it -- that's a long discussion,
possibly. But, I -- you know --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What's the alternative to
pay this, the current expense, then?
MR. TOMLINSON: The other alternative is to declare
an emergency and take -- take enough funds out of surplus in
the General Fund to add -- add to this budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have -- what about in our
Contingency in Commissioners Court for this?
MR. TOMLINSON: We have tapped that for -- for
court costs as far as Court-appointed attorneys.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That'1.1 be it on that one.
MR. TOMLINSON: I would be reluctant to totally
deplete that line item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a problem with taking
the funds -- I know we'd be doing this without talking --
visiting with the Sheriff on it, but from the Jail
Maintenance budget until we visit with her and see how to
handle the rest of the year? I mean, generally, I don't like
19
--
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
doing that without, you know, visiting --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'd be reluctant to take some money
out Hof anyone's budget without talking with them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're talking about -- we're
talking about paying a bill for jail maintenance. That just
happens to be under Mr. Holekamp. But there's money in Jail
Maintenance that we can pay it. Something's wrong with that
picture.
MR. TOMLINSON: No, not -- there isn't -- there is
no line item in the jail budget for maintenance, period.
But, there -- there are funds in other accounts.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see. Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There was in the jail
budget. Now, you can do a budget amendment between other
funds, and that's where Tommy was coming from to start with.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can you defer it until we
have an opportunity to talk to the Sheriff?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we need to pay this bill today?
Can we put this off a couple weeks, next meeting or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could put it off to
tomorrow. Aren't we having a budget workshop tomorrow?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We could recess today and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Recess until tomorrow.
MR. TOMLINSON: I can visit with her this morning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of what I was
20
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
suggesting.
MR. TOMLINSON: And hold it till the last -- until
the end of session today.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't we do that? Why don't we
table it, and we'll see where we are at the end of the day.
If necessary, we can readdress it tomorrow. Okay, No. 5.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. No. 5 is also for the jail,
and it's a request from the Sheriff to move $12,722.06 out of
Jailer Salaries, $11,190.68 to Part-time Salaries, and
$1,531.38 to Prisoner Transfer.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make -- the only part I don't
like about it is prisoner transfer with it. I don't have a
problem, but so moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 5 regarding the County Jail. 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. Do we have any
late bills?
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: I have one from Keith Longnecker.
It's a bill for $990 that I'm requesting a hand check for.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve the late
bill in favor of Mr. Longnecker. 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: Okay, thank you. Next item on the
agenda is read and approve the minutes. Is there a motion to
waive reading and approve the minutes as presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we waive reading and
approve the minutes as presented. Any further discussion?
If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is to
approve and accept monthly reports.
22

1
?.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve and accept
the monthly reports as presented. 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 move
into the Consideration Agenda. First item is Item Z.1,
consider and discuss Kerr County Accident Prevention Program.
Barbara Nemec.
MS. NEMEC: Well, I passed out a copy to all the
departments of the accident program and asked them to get
back to the County Judge with their recommendations. Did
anybody send you any recommendations? So it's just going to
be the ones that we did.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Apparently so.
MS. NEMEC: And I made another copy for each of you
to see what we had -- there were just some typos. And then
one page called for quarterly reports, and I think the Judge
and I agreed that this should be semi-annual, things like
that. So, do y'all have any questions on that?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No.
23
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: I have a few. These are
similar type comments. One was on Page 6, where -- where the
records are maintained. It says they're kept in the County
-- it says, under Injury and Illness Data, third line, it
says, "Such records will be kept at the County Attorney's
office."
MS. NEMEC: I think we're going to scratch that out
and put County Treasurer's office.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The other comment was on
Page 9, under Documentation, the last paragraph. And it's
that all training records become part of the employee's
permanent file. That implies to me that it all comes to your
office. There's a lot of paperwork under this whole thing.
MS. NEMEC: No, these records will be kept in each
department.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Each department, okay.
MS. NEMEC: Just so that they'll know that their
employees have gone through that training.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then on Page 13 through the end
of the -- I guess Page 13 through 40 or something, way back
in there, there's a bunch of questions, kind of like you go
through and ask your yourself these things, each department.
Who does that?
MS. NEMEC: These questions here, in a couple of
weeks we're going to have a representative from Texas
24

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Association of Counties; Ernesto Galindo is going to come and
he's going to walk through each facility, and these are the
questions that he's going to answer so that he can make
recommendations to us as to what needs to be done. So,
that's what this is. And some may not apply to us, and we'll
know at that time. And at that time, I was thinking, it may
be a good idea if we had a representative from the Court walk
the facilities with Ernesto and I so that you could kind of
more or less know what the comments -- it's easy to read
this, but I think it would be a good idea if someone on the
Court actually walked each building with us so that we could
know what he's recommending that we do. Because a lot of
things that he's going to recommend is going to take money to
do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, he does that. I guess my
final question or comment is, I think it's a good policy, but
I lust want to make sure we're not getting overloaded with a
lot of paperwork and busy work to do. I mean, it really
seems there's a lot of reporting, a lot of documentation.
And $6,000 is important, but more important than the money
probably would be safety of the employees. I know -- I think
Road and Bridge has some sort of program already. I think we
-- you know, in different departments. I think the Sheriff
does. I know the Sheriff is very -- you know, very much
aware in that department about accidents and things of that
25
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
nature. So, I just want to make sure -- sure that we're nut
creating a whole lot more work for the supervisor and other
elected officials.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Barbara and I met with Road and
Bridge, in particular, and they basically said they're
already doing this. I mean, it adds virtually nothing to
what they're already doing. So, I mean, from that point of
view, they're already way ahead of the game.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some of this can be
incorporated into -- okay. That's fine.
MS. NEMEC: I think the only -- I think they're
already doing it, things are already in place, and I'm sure
for the Sheriff's Department too. And Maintenance has been
wanting to do something like this, and those are the three
departments that this is really going to affect. I think one
of the big things that involve this, you know, is that when
an accident takes place, then we would have to go on-site and
do an investigation with the supervisor to see how we could
correct it, and I kind of thought maybe the Maintenance
Supervisor would be good for that, because he's around all
the buildings. But this is something that we can talk about
when Ernesto comes and just, you know, talk to him and really
see how this is going to work, and maybe we'll have more
corrections on this or more revisions to this when he's here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would recommend --
26

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- at that point that each
elected official or department head handle that
investigation. I really think -- I mean, if it's -- I think
it kind of gets into, really, meddling a little bit if we
send either Maintenance or you or anyone.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have a staff member here
at the courthouse that is a former loss coordinator -- what
do you call those guys?
MS. NEMEC: Risk prevention coordinator?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be -- I don't
know that he would do something like this, but he would
certainly be good to sit down and visit with about how to put
something in place and how to do what the Commissioner is
concerned about.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I -- just a couple
comments. You mentioned the Facilities Maintenance and Use
Department, and I think they're important to this, as well.
Not only Road and Bridge and Sheriff's Department, but they
come in contact with a great deal of toxic substances and all
sorts of things for which data safety sheets have to be
maintained -- put out and maintained, and I'm curious as to
who's going to do that. For example, who's going to prepare
those data sheets that are necessary under, I believe, OSHA
guidelines that indicate what toxic substances are, what the
27
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
uses are, so forth and so on? Who's going to be responsible
for that?
MS. NEMEC: Their department is, and it's -- it's
the Court's responsibility just to designate someone to go on
the premises to see that that's being done. And if it isn't,
then -- then the Court would send them a notice saying it has
to be done within a certain time. But that's already being
done; they're already doing all that. Who's doing it over
there, I'm not real sure, but that is being done.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Glenn was at the meeting that
Barbara and I had regarding the program, and he was very
enthusiastic about the program.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I have one other
question, Barbara. On Page 8, you talked about training
assessments and said it's to be performed by the
Commissioners Court. Are we talking about by the Treasurer
on behalf of the Commissioners Court, or are we talking about
Commissioners Gourt?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because it really --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just forget his question;
let me ask that one.
MS. NEMEC: I believe it's the -- well, this --
this kind of contradicts itself, too, because the very top of
-- well the one right before it, Orientation, that's more or
28
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
less the training part of it, also. And, the second sentence
is, "The orientation will consist of ..." and it's left
blank. And I talked to Ernesto last week, and he said the
reason they leave that blank is because each County
determines what kind of orientation and training is going to
take place in their own county and who's going to do it. So,
right there, I thought that each supervisor or each
department head would do their own training, so that would
take it out of our hands. And it would be their
responsibility to put a package together on how they're going
to to train, whether it be by video or booklet or, you know,
something like that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My two questions are kind of
in that same vein. It says here, "The Commissioners Court
will create and monitor a method for accomplishing the
objectives in this policy statement." Okay. And then, under
Authority and Accountability, "Commissioners Court has the
authority to delegate any or all portions of the plan to
subordinates, but will be held responsible for the
performance of the plan." That's us.
MS. NEMEC: That's why I feel it's very important
for one of you to be here when Ernesto comes, because it is
going to involve the Commissioners Court to a great deal.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we're going to be held
accountable, you can rest assured we're going to be a part of
29
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
it. Now, the final question: "It is also the Court's
responsibility to work with the various County departments to
allocate funds for the implementation of the safety program."
What funds?
MS. NEMEC: Well, just like for Maintenance, for
instance. There's a lot of electrical problems that -- that
are in here that he would need to get corrected. So, in
order to do that, he's going to need funds to do it. And --
and, in talking to him, that's talking about a lot of money,
I think.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But, it's also things that he's
already aware of and he's working to take care of through the
normal budget process.
MS. NEMEC: And another thing, these things don't
have to be done overnight; they don't have to be done within
this budget. The -- TAC just needs to see that we're aware
of it and that we have a plan to correct it on down the line.
COMMISSIONER BAI,DWIN: I move we approve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or accept or whatever it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve the Kerr
County Accident Prevention Program as presented by the County
Treasurer. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor,
30
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
raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MS. NEMEC: Judge, do you want to assign someone at
this time, or do you want me to just find out when he's
coming and then get back to you to see who would be available
at that time?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Find out when he's coming, then
we'll talk about it.
MS. NEMEC: Okay. Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item on our agenda is Item No.
2, consider the preliminary replat of Tract 18, Box S Acres
subdivision. Commissioner Baldwin, this your --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin, let me fire a shot
at this thing, see if we can't just -- you remember a month
or so ago, this item came up. Mr. Schiwetz was here before
us, and in our packets we have a copy of the minutes from
that meeting. And, if you remember, we went through the
bluffs and we went up the roads and down the curves and all
those things, and finally landed here at Judge Henneke's
saying, "What we need to to know is your legal right to use
that 40-foot road easement." And that was the question that
-- the final question that came out. And we felt like that
31
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
if we could get that question answered, then it looked like
it was a go.
So, if you flip back over here and look at Mr. Pollard's
-- which he's in the audience with us -- his letter to me
addressing that question, and the third paragraph down here
in his letter is, "My review of the information furnished by
Mr. Schiwetz satisfies me that Mr. Schiwetz opinion set
forth in Paragraph 3 of his affidavit of June 25th, '99, is
correct. I believe that if the issue was tested in court, a
court would likely agree with Mr. Schiwetz' opinion as to the
access of Tract 18 of Box S Acres subdivision." So, in my
opinion, that is a legal opinion that, yes, he has a legal
right to ingress/egress. And is there any more questions?
Did that answer the question?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that answered this
question, but I'm curious, does Franklin have anything else
to lend to the discussion?
MR. JOHNSTON: That answers that question. We have
a preliminary plat on the table. I think that the only
question that might come up is that it's a replat. I think
their deed restrictions allow for each lot out there to be
divided into three parts. That would seem to not require a
public hearing for a replat. Does that make sense?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not really.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does not require?
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. JOHNSTON: That's -- we have a Court Order on
file for amended plats that if it's in the deed restrictions,
a public hearing's not required.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: This is not really an amended plat,
similar situation. That's something that the
Court needs to take up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that all that you have?
MR. JOHNSTON: That's it. Everything else Looks
like -- oh, there's one other thing. The 1.9 acres in the
right-of-way on the -- what's the name of that road?
MR. VOELKEL: Box S.
MR. JOHNSTON: Box S Road, I think we requested
that to be dedicated, as opposed to just an easement. Which
is a normal thing, we do it in the Subdivision Rules. It's
not shown that way on the preliminary plat.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Schiwetz, would you have a
problem with a dedication as opposed to an easement?
MR. SCHIWETZ: No. I thought that was on there, to
be honest with you, down in the -- it's over there for me to
sign.
MR. JOHNSTON: It's usually drawn out separately.
MR. VOELKEL: To make it real clear.
MR. SCHIWETZ: There's a place over there on the
right for me to -- it essentially looks like it's deeding it,
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that 1.9 acre.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move we approve the
preliminary replat of Tract No. 18, Box S Acres subdivision.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve the
preliminary replat of Tract 18, Box S Acres subdivision. Any
further discussion?
MR. JOHNSTON: Do we waive the public hearing or do
we need to set that, as far as the --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan, you're our subdivision
guy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought you told us that
you didn't have to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think, based on what
Franklin said, that we could waive it. I mean, it would seem
to me -- I mean, if it's allowed in the deed restrictions, I
mean, the reason for it is to give notice to the other owners
of the subdivision, and that's part of the deed, that they
can do it. They can't object to it. So, we would have no
basis for turning it down, so I would see no reason for it.
That's looking through it logically without reading the
rules, I mean, right now, but --
JUDGE HENNEKE: May I presume that as part of your
motion?
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, it is.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Waive the public hearing?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Exactly what I meant, yes,
sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is everyone clear on what we're
doing now?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second -- still second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Still second. Any further
discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item on the
agenda is No. 2.3, which is to consider preliminary replat of
Tract 47, Kerrville South Ranches No. 2, Precinct 1. Again,
Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I really don't
know much about this. I've got a couple of questions, and --
I mean, all the lots look right, the right size and all of
that. My only question on this thing is the ingress/egress
in and out of these lots. And I see on here -- and I read in
here that they're going to use East Buffalo Drive, which
comes off of Mountain Drive. I've been down in there a
little bit, not a great deal. I know where Mountain Drive
is, but I don't have a clue where East Buffalo Drive is, if
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2a
21
22
23
24
25
that's a real road. Is that a goat trail? What are we --
what would we require this subdivision to have, as far as a
road? This -- where the road comes off of Mountain Drive
into the subdivision or up to the subdivision, who owns that
property? Is it an easement?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On East Buffalo Drive?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From Mountain Drive to -- I
guess that is East Buffalo Drive. Mountain Drive to here. I
mean, are we coming across private property? Are we going to
approve a subdivision that has a road coming across
somebody's private property? Or --
MR. JOHNSTON: There is an easement shown on
Kerrville South Ranches 2. Actually, about an hour ago, I
was out there driving that road, and you really can't call it
a road. It's just kind of a trail, like you mentioned.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Goat trail? Is that okay?
MR. JOHNSTON: It's not County-maintained. It's
just an easement, and apparently the road was never built.
It's just kind of whatever's there. And the question does
arise whether the Subdivision Rules cover on a replat if they
need to upgrade the road to get to the lots. That might be
the question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my question. How --
how are you going to -- how are these people going to get to
their lots now if there's not a road? And, that's -- to me,
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
Zl
22
23
24
25
that's one of the jobs of the Commissioners Court, is to
provide that kind of service, or provide ingress/egress to
property owners of Kerr County. I r_ould be off-base on that.
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think that's specifically
covered in the Subdivision Rules, which cover roads that are
in -- in a subdivision. This is a public easement that
serves these lots, but the road was never built.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the letter -- the
letter from Texas Land Boundaries to you dated June 18 makes
some reference to this.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's a little confusing, because
at the time he wrote that letter, that Tract A was -- was --
doesn't have that panhandle on it. It was -- he was trying
to serve that from Lot 6 of Mountain Ridge Estates. And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What confuses me about it
is the letter says just before that, "This proposal is an
attempt to avoid the expense of building Buffalo Drive,
allowing the fact that it would not be necessary for tract
access." Do you find that to be the case?
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, obviously, that -- all the
tracts seem to access Buffalo -- East Buffalo Drive. I think
Buffalo Drive is the other one, it goes up around the back.
And I think that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Back side?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. That wouldn't be necessary,
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
but East Buffalo would to access all those tracts. There are
people that live on the other side of that road also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I think we certainly
need to get the access to these lots worked out. I mean, I
don't know if we can approve it until that's done.
MR. JOHNSTON: There's people who live back there.
They can get through the road, but I wouldn't -- wouldn't use
the term "road." It's kind of a --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I would --
MR. JOHNSTON: It's something else.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the intent of the
Subdivision Rules is that if they're going to replat the
subdivision, they need to bring that road up into compliance
with the Subdivision Rules.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would think so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or, at a minimum -- and this
I've learned over the last several months -- there should be
a very strongly worded note on the plat that says this
right-of-way is not under County Maintenance, has not been,
will not be, until and unless the road is constructed, at
landowners' expense or developer's expense, to County
standards. That's where we've gotten in trouble in the past
in many of these kind of cases, because 10 years from now,
the owner of one of those lots would come and say, "It says
38
~-~
~_
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
right here on this plat it's a public road." Doesn't have
anything to do with County maintenance, but we won't go into
that now. But -- but we need some strong wording on plats,
anyway, that clearly delineates maintenance responsibility,
period.
MR. JOHNSTON: We have that verbiage in the
Subdivision Rules for roads in a subdivision. This is
similar.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- I agree with that, but
the problem is most people that buy the lots don't look at
the plat of it, I mean. So, if we're putting the people on
notice and they're on notice of it, but, I mean I think that
there's --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: At least we've got something
to go back to; you can see on this plat what this says. That
note ought to be, I think, on every deed plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Ought to be, but that's,
again, a separate issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Franklin, I guess what
concerns me about this letter are these questions that seem
to be unanswered. The man raises half a dozen questions in
his letter, and if we don't have some record of what the
answers are, you know, that's going to come back and slap us
as well, not the least of which is No. 4, "Being that East
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Buffalo Drive is currently in place and used in its current
condition, does it have to be rebuilt to County specs; and,
if so, because a new paved road is to be placed that would
benefit existing adjoining property owners, do they share in
the expense or does the burden rest with the developer?" I
think there ought to be an answer on record somewhere to all
these questions so they don't come back and haunt us.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right, I think that's what we need
to answer at this point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We should wait.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Put it off. We're not going
to make it here, I can see that. Next -- next Court meeting?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, they're looking at us for
some answers. What I'm hearing is that we'd like to table
this until the next Court meeting, and we can do some -- some
looking and some talking and then be in a position to take
action on these items, and as part of the preliminary
approval -- or this approval, answer these questions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that what I'm hearing?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. We'll just table this item,
and put it on the next agenda -- or we'll we'll let
Commissioner Baldwin put it on the agenda when it's --
90
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'll let the County Engineer
put it on the agenda.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You have to approve it, so --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When you get ready, come on
and I'll put it on there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When you have the answers
to all the questions.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is number 2.9, consider
extending the preliminary plat of Saddlewood Estates, Section
II, for a period of one year.
MR. JOHNSTON: Saddlewood Estates, Section II,
preliminary plat was approved on March 9th of 1998, Court
Order 25332.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: March 9th or March 6th?
MR. JOHNSTON: 9th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excuse me, yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: And he wants to -- the rules say
after one year, that we have to -- it says a year, but really
it's six months, according to Paragraph 602.E.5 at the end, a
6-month extension.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How long do you want it, how
long of an extension?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 6-month.
MR. JOHNSTON: Six months from March 9th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which puts him through
.-.
41

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
September 9th, which is not much time to do whatever they're
III going to do out there.
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know what they're doing out
there.
MR. DOMINGUES: Frank?
MR. JOHNSTON: There he is. Do you want to talk to
that?
MR. DOMINGUES: This is one of those subdivisions
where there's totally private -- private roads, private water
system, but it is a water system for the complete
subdivision. And, they have completed the water system
pretty much at this time, and they're back in there now
working on the roads, trying to finalize the roads. But,
again, I'm not -- I can't say how long that's going to take,
to be absolutely sure. The weather is a factor, so I can't
-- can't be sure of how long it will be, but within the next
six months they will be completed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. This --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I -- the way I see it is
that if we extend it -- the rules here allow us to -- it says
extend the approval for six months. And if we extend it from
March 9th, that will give you until September 9th, and it
doesn't say anything in here about another six months. So,
I'm not going to -- I would vote yes on this one, but when
you come back in September 9th and say, "Well, we didn't get
42

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
it done," well, tough. I'm not voting for it any more,
because it doesn't allow that, in my opinion.
MR. DOMINGUES: This is one of those unusual cases
-- if this was a public subdivision, we could put a bond --
put it on -- you know, go ahead and put on it record. But
this has to be approved by the City, and the City is
requiring the subdivision be totally built before final plat
can be submitted. And the roads have to be approved, which
is a -- a lot different case than what we normally have.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to ask
Commissioner Letz, is there a prohibition to a second
extension, to your knowledge?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so. I don't, you
know, think it was discussed. We just --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's just not there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We didn't put one in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't prohibit it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You kind of got to my question.
You're working with the City on the -- well, with the City
and hopefully with Franklin, too, on quality of the roads and
water system and all of that. Everything is in compliance?
MR. DOMINGUES: Mm-hmm, yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: I haven't seen anything --
MR. DOMINGUES: And working with the City, we got
the preliminary plat here completed, and it took another six
21
22
23
24
25
43
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
months to get it through the City.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- you said yes and Franklin,
who has to inspect roads for the County, says no. That's my
question, 'cause if -- there was a road problem out there at
one point; I think it's been rectified. We need to be real
careful on the roads, that if there's road construction going
on, the County Engineer has to inspect that, or we're not
going to approve it.
MR. JOHNSTON: This one was kind of right before
the new rules came into effect, so I guess they're -- they
say they're grandfathered in, so we don't have to check these
roads under the old rules, what they are.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's another issue, and it's not
specific to this subdivision, but a philosophical one. If
someone's had a preliminary plat on file for a year and we
extend their preliminary plat for six months, that means they
only have to satisfy the subdivision or State requirements
that were in effect when the preliminary plat was approved.
They don't have to satisfy any subsequent requirements,
either of this Court or of the State, to get final plat
approval. So, I think when we are asked to do an extension,
we need to think long and hard about whether we want to
approve a final plat that may not meet the current
Subdivision Rules because the developer, for whatever reason,
has not managed to satisfy -- to complete the project within
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I agree.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Judge, one other question,
philosophically, too, and that's an ex post facto approval of
an extension. It doesn't talk about that, but, in other
words, it's already expired and now we're going back to --
for a 6-month -- and I don't know what the intent was,
either, but it's a -- it's an ex post facto extension, which
raises the issue that the Judge is talking about, which is
that unless someone comes in and asks for an extension before
the expiration of the preliminary plat approval, I'm not sure
that -- you know, what is the law? What is -- what should it
be? I'm not -- I'm not presupposing it, but if it expired,
it expired. So, it seems like you may be at the point where
you've got to essentially do it again; you've got to start
over, which means you would have to meet the current County
standards. I raise that -- I say that as a fact, but I'm
really asking the question, or raising the issue that there's
a philosophical point of that, too.
JUDGE HENNEKE: There's no question right now,
there is no preliminary approval for this project, because it
expired March the 8th of this year. So, we're being asked to
go back three months after the expiration and renew
preliminary plat approval and take it out another three
months.
95
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 LETZ: The question I have is, the
language Franklin submitted is the new rules. What are the
old rules that address preliminary plats and the terms --
MR. JOHNSTON: I didn't look those up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's under the old
terms. Since it was done under the old rules, it's under the
old rules, not what you submitted here.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: Do you know what they said?
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. DOMINGUES: One of the intentions of --
MR. JOHNSTON: One year.
MR. DOMINGUES: The original intention of that
one-year extension was really if a subdivision was not being
developed. This subdivision, we've been under development of
the subdivision even before the preliminary plat, because it
is quite a large subdivision. And it's been under
development for a couple of years, trying to get everything
done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, if what the Court did
ask you to go back and do a preliminary plat again? The road
-- I mean, the main difference is roads, and your roads are
being built to current specifications anyway, aren't they?
MR. DOMINGUE5: Current specifications? I don't
believe so. I think the difference -- I think the base is
96

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Z4
25
the difference. The base is the difference. They're using
-- they're using a base that is approved by the City and the
County under the old specifications, and not crushed rock
like the new specifications.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, would it be wise to
refer to this our attorney and get an opinion?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know, either.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think this is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that we need to
extend it six months and lust get on down the road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not uncomfortable with
extending it. Because -- even though it's ex post facto, as
Larry says, because it's going to expire in three months, and
the likelihood of it being extended beyond that point is
very --
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
opposed to it.
COMMISSIONER
also, to maybe ask for
BALDWIN:
WILLIAMS:
BALDWIN:
WILLIAMS:
GRIFFIN:
an opinio
Very unlikely.
Nebulous.
Nebulous.
Anyhow, well, I'm not
That will give us some time,
n on how this ought to work,
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1.
22
23
24
25
'cause this is a broad -- broader than this particular
incident or instance. It's a -- it's a big question, on how
we ought to handle these routinely.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think this is somewhat of an
unusual situation, since they've been trying to satisfy the
City requirements, which may or. may not have a bearing on
their inability to get final plat approval within a year.
But, I'd like to see us take a fairly strong position at some
point in the near future, that one year means one year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And, lust like going down to get
your driver's license renewed, if you show up the day after
your birthday, you don't get a renewal; you have to start all
over again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm not opposed to extending this
one, but I will strongly echo what Jonathan says; that if
Franklin can't certify those roads, we're not going to
approve this plat.
MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Period, end of statement. If you
guys are out there doing roads and he's not involved, if he's
not comfortable coming in here when the time is right and
saying, "They meet our requirements," we won't have much to
talk about. So --
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, have we got a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. I'm -- I move that
we extend preliminary plat of Saddlewood Estates, Section II
-- are you sure you want to say for a period of one year?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Extend for six months.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Approve to six months,
September 9th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve the
preliminary plat of Saddlewood Estates, Section II, until --
we approve the extension of the preliminary plat approval of
Saddlewood Estates, Section II, until September 9th, 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. Next item is very
comparable. Item No. 5, consider extending the preliminary
plat for Los Encinos, Section Two, and consider final plat
for same. Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Basically, the
same thing. The date on the extension, I think, is October
49
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
27th, 10-27-99. That would be a 6-month extension on this
particular subdivision.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From October?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. October 27 is the final
', date, the end of the extension.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's the end of the 6-month
extension.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. Isn't that correct,
Franklin?
MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct, and this one's
different. Doesn't have any interior roads, and the plat's
already ready to file.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, this is actually ready for
final plat approval?
MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: In addition to extending the
preliminary plat approval so they're still in good standing,
and then we'll approve the final plat?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any questions or
comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question is, how come Larry
and i didn't get these?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, I didn't get a copy of
that one.
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is privileged
information.
MR. DOMINGUES: Sorry about that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have to come in early
and work hard.
{Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. Franklin, I see you
signing it, so you're satisfied that this was --
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't see any problems.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just these five lots that
you see up front, and they all front on Upper Turtle Creek
Road.
MR. JOHNSTON: The 20-acre lots.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all there is to it.
On the recommendation of the County Engineer, I move that we
approve the final plat for Los Encinos, Section Two.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And extension --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Extension of the preliminary
plat, and approve the final plat.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court extend the
preliminary plat approval of Los Encinos subdivision, Section
Two, until October 27th, 1999, and that we approve the final
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
?_2
23
24
25
plat as presented. 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. Okay. At this
time, we have an item posted for 10 o'clock which we're going
to take up. It's 1 minute after 10:00, and we'll take up
Item 2.11, which is consider and discuss request for tax
exemption on a recorded Texas Historical Landmark at 405
Water Street. Mr. James B. Bethel. Are you here in the
courtroom, Mr. Bethel?
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is Mr. Bethel in the courtroom? He
doesn't appear to be. Once again, is Mr. Bethel in the
courtroom?
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. If he's not, we'll go back
to the regular items. 2.6, consider and discuss final plat
of the Dutch Farm. Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe we looked at -- I
believe at our last meeting we had a couple of comments, as I
recall, Franklin, on a road change. I didn't get a copy of
the --
MR. JOHNSTON: I think it was at the last meeting.
52
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
It was on the plat as a different name, that they changed the
name to East Cotton Drive. And he made a note on there
somewhere about the width of the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, 60 foot wide.
MR. JOHNSTON: 60-foot-wide right-of-way, that was
raised. And, as a result of a minor drainage study, they put
the 30-foot drainage easement across the property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: The metes and bounds of that is on
file here at the courthouse. So, it looks like everything's
been covered.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only -- no problem. We can
go ahead and approve this as-is, with the name East Cotton
Drive. I make a motion we approve final plat of Dutch Farm
as submitted.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve the final
plat of the Dutch Farm as submitted. Any further discussion?
If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MR. JOHNSTON: I've got the mylar signed by
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
everyone, but it's out at our office, so I~11 bring it over
this afternoon.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was probably the quickest
approval process I think I've ever seen. I heard about it,
had a preliminary and a final within a month.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pretty good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And a drainage easement and
study.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is Item No. 7, consider
the preliminary plat of Privilege Creek Ranches.
Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a tract -- I think Mr.
Baumann, who owns the tract, is in the audience. It's in the
far right on the Kendall County line. Access to the
subdivision is going to be, really, through Kendall County,
through Kuykendal Road, which goes in the old Seven-Eleven
Ranch. Some of you all know this borders my property, right?
I think that's probably why Commissioner Baldwin is laughing
over there. It's a very rugged tract. It's divided into
tracts that are very nice. I think it conforms to what's
going on in Champee Springs, just to the east. Private
roads. The only issue is if you look up, I guess the top
portion of it, there's a landing strip designated. And that
landing strip is going to be converted into a road to serve
one lot, being Lot 7, which it's a 109-acre tract. And, I
54
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
believe that Mr. Baumann would like to request a variance on
that. Basically, that long landing strip is going to be the
driveway to that -- access to that one lot. He would like a
variance so he does not have to bring that one section up to
a local road. All other roads would be a local road.
MR. JOHNSTON: Actually, I was out there Friday,
and he would like to divide, I think, this into Phase I and
Phase II, and not build Turkey Nob Road as shown at the
present time. Just build Privilege Creek Road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
MR. JOHNSTON: And that would omit Lots 8, 9, and
10, and possibly Lot 7, if they can show that easement ar_ross
Lot 6, and not actually build a road. Probably not include
-- not do Lot 7 also until it's sold or Phase II. ThP
landing strip is actually adjacent to the road. There's a
fairly substantial piece of property there. And, we talked
about that that might -- might be divided off as a separate
item, jointly used by all the lot owners, landing strip, just
on Lot 5.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Baumann, will you introduce
yourself for the record?
MR. BAUMANN: I'm McClean Baumann.
MR. JOHNSTON: This does show between Lot -- the
corner there of Lots 4, 5, and 6, there's a little cul de sac
shown. This road proceeds on through it.
,.-.
55
1
?_
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: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: You know, if that right-of-way's all
dedicated, and Lots 7, 8, 9, and 10 are omitted for Phase II,
you know, I wouldn't have any problem with that. I don't
think we should have a precedent where they should, you know,
just not build part of a road 'cause it's a long road or
something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which lots are going to be in
Phase II?
MR. JOHNSTON: 7, 8, 9, and 10. All the other ones
face Privilege Creek.
(Discussion off the record between Mr. Johnston and
Mr. Baumann.}
MR. JOHNSTON: He's saying if you put this in Phase
II, then when do you this part, then you need to upgrade that
road. Or you could even have Phase III.
MR. BAUMANN: Well, what I was talking to Mr. Letz
about earlier was -- was not -- that it would be an undue
hardship and expense to make -- you know, make this road up
to specifications just to get one landowner out there, 'cause
it's over 3,000 feet. We weren't going to subdivide Lot 7.
I was just saying it's undue hardship and expense to get --
to spend $15,000 or $20,000 from the cul-de-sac right here,
just to get one landowner out right here. My discussion with
Mr. Letz was you could condition it -- if we were to
subdivide 7, then we would have to bring it up to specs.
56

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 LETZ: To solve the problem now, why
don't you put Lot 6 in Phase II as well, and that way just
end Privilege Creek road at that cul-de-sac, and then it can
be addressed, you know, down the road. Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, and
10.
MR. BAUMANN: The problem with 6 is we had a buyer
Look at it the other day, Lot 6, so it would be kind of -- I
don't know if that's --
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, they could show the -- they
could dedicate that right-of-way --
MR. BAUMANN: We could dedicate the right-of-way.
MR. JOHNSTON: -- without building a road. There's
no lot back there to serve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, a 60-foot right-of-way
through Lot 6.
MR. BAUMANN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be okay, then, if
it's built.
COMMISSIONER
cul-de-sac and stops.
MR. JOHNSTON
that out and just have
MR. BAUMANN:
COMMISSIONER
MR. BAUMANN:
GRIFFIN: Just goes up to the
That landing strip, they can divide
it jointly --
That's what we're going to do.
LETZ: It's not really shown that way,
Not right now, but we're going to
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
give adjacent landowners access to it.
MR. JOHNSTON: They wouldn't --
MR. BAUMANN: Then there'll be no sub -- we're not
planning on subdividing any of the -- allowing any of the
buyers to subdivide it again, any of the lots. So, this is a
-- this size here will stay here. That's our intent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no problem.
MR. JOHNSTON: There's a little item on Lots 2 and
3, where part of them are in Kendall County. That would
require a subdivision in Kendall County to finish that up, a
plat in Kendall County.
MR. BAUMANN: It's my understanding here that this
part is -- the Lot 1 and the part -- the part in Kendall
County adjacent to Lot 1 has already been submitted for
approval in Kendall County, but the part in Kendall County
adjacent to Lots 2 and 3 has not been submitted. So, I guess
that means you just couldn't build a house in that part of
Lot 2 and Lot 3. You couldn't get a house permit in Kendall
County for those lots.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think you have to file a
subdivision with --
MR. BAUMANN: Unless you file a subdivision.
MR. JOHNSTON: We didn't file them all together; we
had little pieces.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought they went to the
58
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
county line on Champee Springs, which would include that
tract. But, anyway --
MR. JOHNSTON: That -- yeah, the line shown here.
MR. BAUMANN: Maybe they do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought when we platted, they
actually went to the county line, but I could be wrong.
MR. JOHNSTON: According to Don -- he couldn't be
here today, but he said it was kind of -- that part was not
covered.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not covered?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz, I don't
know if you noticed this or not. You may want to show it to
your colleague down there.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, I noticed that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Great big letters.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I Like that,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because this is one that we
probably don't want to maintain; we couldn't get to it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good luck.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. I move we approve
the --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner, before we do that, I
mean, they've come with a different concept than is presented
to us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, it's a preliminary plat
59
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
and they're subject to the changes discussed. You know, I
don't have a problem with doing preliminary.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Do we understand what we're
preliminarily approving now is Phase I and Phase II?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Phase I and Phase II, and with
a -- a 60-foot easement going through Lot 6 to Lot 7.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Are they asking us for approval of
Phase I and Phase II, or just Phase I?
MR. JOHNSTON: Phase I. I guess you can approve
the concept.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem with
approving the concept; giving them a concept approval, and
then let Engineering redraw it for our next meeting.
JUDGE HENNEKE: My preference would be for to us
approve what's presented to us on the actual plat. I think
it's a good suggestion to consider for a concept approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right. We can --
you know, I don't know if we need a motion on that, 'cause
it's not -- but, just conceptually, I there's think there's a
consensus of the Court to have it redrawn as Phase I and
Phase II and bring it back at our next meeting.
MR. JOHNSTON: And Lots 7, 8, 9, and 10 would be
Phase II?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. It would be easement --
25
60
L_-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. JOHNSTON: And the easement's across 6 to serve
7?
COMMISSIONER LET2: Designate that as an easement.
The roads will be local roads. Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right, thank you.
MR. BAUMANN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. Nice to see
you. Judge, do you want to qo back to that 10 o'clock
matter?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is he here?
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is Mr. Bethel in the courtroom now?
MR. BETHEL: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Thank you, Buster.
We'll then go to Item 11, which is consider and discuss a tax
exemption on a recorded Texas Historical Landmark at 405
Water Street. Mr. Bethel has come to us requesting that we
consider his property for a tax exemption. Mr. Bethel?
MR. BETHEL: Yes. I've pretty well laid out the
details in the letter there and the request. If there's any
additional questions or any additional information I can
provide, I'd be happy to do that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Bethel, are you asking for a
total exemption or --
MR. BETHEL: Yes, sir, I am. Yes, sir.
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- an abatement? Questions?
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Unless there's something unique
about this, I'm opposed to it. I think -- I mean, I think
it's great that we have historical markers. I think they're
-- it's done at the owner's choice, though, and I think it's
-- it's a precedent I really don't want to get started of
taking properties off the tax roll because they have a
historical marker. I think that's a good program; I think
there's a number of residences throughout the County that
have historical markers. And I think that it's a -- you
start to have a real difficult time determining where you
draw the line. And, like I say, I'm very happy that you're
doing it, but I think it's just a piece of that -- piece of
property. To give a tax exemption, I'm not in favor of it.
MR. BETHEL: Well, over the last few years, we've
spent a heck of a lot of money conforming to the guidelines
established by the Historical Commission. Had it not been
for those guidelines and those restrictions, we probably
would have done a lot different things to the house. But,
due to those restrictions and limitations and guidelines set
up by the Commission, we have conformed to those, and we
think that it would be nice to have compensation for that, or
at least some assistance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, you know, my comment
62

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
]. 7
18
19
2Q
21
22
23
24
25
on that is, either you applied for it or you purchased the
property with that historical marker on it; you were aware of
the requirements when you bought the property.
MR. BETHEL: Yes, that's true. However, I was not
aware at the time that the Tax Code allows you the authority
to grant me an exemption. I have recently learned that, and
therefore I have applied for one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you applied to all
taxing authorities?
MR. BETHEL: I have applied to KISD, as well.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is there -- my first
question on this was, is there any grecedent in Kerr County
for doing this?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't recall ever doing
anything like this since I've been here.
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, not that I'm aware of.
MR. BETHEL: When I spoke to the president of the
Independent School District, he said, "You are the first
person who has ever, under this Tax Code, applied for such."
The Tax Code was revised a couple of years ago, which allowed
this. And, I probably -- I guess I probably am the only
person in Kerrville living in a building that's designated as
a State historical building. That may be true. Of the
entire County, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure about that --
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BETHEL: I'm not, either.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- the designation, but
just a couple doors down on Water Street is the old Schreiner
residence, which General Schellhase and his family have
MR. BETHEL: Yes, sir, but that is not a designated
historical site. And I might point out, too, that I know Mr.
Schellhase, and I know that he has applied for or is
considering applying for it. And I am aware that Historical
Commission has said to him, "Because you added something to
the side of the house, you no longer qualify for a historical
site." So, he is not living within the restrictions and the
limitations established by the Historical. Commission, which
is what we did. We limited the modifications to the building
and the renovations to the building to conform with those
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I've got one of my
boy-dummy questions here. I notice there's several lawyers
in the crowd here; maybe y'all can help me understand this
stuff. In the Tax Code copy that he has given us -- or
someone provided for us, probably Thea -- the Historic Sites,
under No. 2, "designated as a historically or
archaeologically significant site in need of tax relief to
encourage its preservation..." What that says to me is that
he should have come to us prior to his preservation.
69

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, he's asking for relief under
No. 1.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: "Designated as a Recorded Texas
Historic Landmark..."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: By the Texas Historical Commission.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm in agreement with
Commissioner Letz, that I just -- you know, I feel like it
would be setting a precedent here. We are not -- this body
historically has not been in a tax abatement mode, and, you
know, that's just something that we need to deal with as a
policy statement more than anything.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To answer his question, Buster
help me out on this. I believe -- didn't Bill Rector come to
us for some abatement on redoing the Main Street Project on
that property down there?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we turned him down for an
abatement, which is the closest that -- since I've been on
the Court, that we've came to anything along historical or --
you know, type issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We keep saying that we're
going to come up with a policy on that, but it just hasn't --
maybe we can do that this year.
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BETHEL: I'm really not asking for an
abatement; I'm asking for an exemption, and the Tax Code
allows exemption. The Tax Code does not necessarily allow an
abatement. And the building that he was referring to down
there is not a State historical site.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'm -- if I was in your
situation, I would come and ask for it, as well. But I'm
just not in favor of it.
MR. BETHEL: How would you react if it was denied?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How would I?
MR. BETHEL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if I bought the house, I
would have bought the house knowing the situation. And, in
my -- in Kendall County, which is a different county, there
is a Family Residency Historical Marker and it's not abated,
so --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion?
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, if there's no -- no
member of the Court who wishes to urge a motion in favor of
this item, then the item dies for Lack of action by the
Court. Mr. Bethel, we appreciate your. coming forward. Thank
you, sir. T., what's your time frame?
MR. SANDLIN: I need to be back in my office at
11:00, but I'm going to be brief this morning.
66

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Z1
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. My suggestion is that --
MR. BETHEL: Can I quickly verify one thing? It's
been denied because of lack of interest? Is that what you
said?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Lack of action. There was no --
MR. BETHEL: Lack of action.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, the Court's going to
take a 10-minute break. We'll be back in at 10:30 and we'll
take up Item 2.12, which is the update by 911 Director.
(Recess taken from 10:20 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 10:30 on Monday, July 12th,
and we'll reconvene this regular meeting of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court. The first item we're going to take up,
pursuant to the posted agenda, is Item 2.12, which is a
program update by the 911 Director. Mr. Sandlin.
MR. SANDLIN: Morning, gentlemen. I'm happy to
report things are going smooth and well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Swimmingly?
MR. SANDLIN: I don't -- I wouldn't say we're
swimming yet, but we're floating up towards the top. We've
engaged in several areas for address conversion. For
instance, one -- just to give you a quick update, The Woods
subdivision has been readdressed and brought into what we
call substantial conformance with the guidelines. Mr.
67
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
Charlie Hagemann, who so many of all you know, did about 95
percent of the footwork out there, and the letters, if they
didn't go out yesterday, will be going out today notifying
the entities. And y'all are familiar with the size of that
subdivision. That's a moderate size subdivision. We were
able to bring it in compliance by changing only nine address
numbers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So I can expect nine phone
calls, at least, right?
MR. SANDLIN: No, I don't think so. These people
are in agreement. They were -- unfortunately, in our
microwave society, they wanted it yesterday, like everyone
else. And that's been the main impetus, and I don't want to
lose the impetus. Something magic happened, I want y'all to
know. The approval of the guidelines, when that got
published, everybody had a chance to read them, and after a
lot of one-on-one in my office, the negative balance or
perception of 911 in our addressing and the positive balance
was like this, and now it's just suddenly shifted. Some of
the people that were literally making my life miserable have
been jumping through hoops to help us out in certain areas,
particularly some of these subdivisions. We're working on
several right now. I thought I would be bringing you some
more information on them, but due to some conflicts on some
people naming their roads and stuff, we'll be having that
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
shortly.
I am going to distribute to you -- excuse me for
stepping from the mike; I'll try to talk loud. Tierra Vista
subdivision -- well, let me stay over here so everybody can
hear me. Then I'll distribute them. Tierra Vista
subdivision, Mr. Jim Putnam and his wife again did a
tremendous amount of work for us out there. Came in, said,
"What do we need to do? We want to get our road names
straightened up and prepare this for addressing," providing
you with some very substantial information on the area out
there. And this is one of those areas that I'll be able to
do the address conversions to assign the addresses without
waiting on postal databases.
So, we'll hear more about that in a minute, and I will
distribute these to y'all now. These little maps I'm giving
to the Commissioners, one shows what the existing road names
are for that subdivision, and the other one shows what the
residents request that they be changed to. They're black and
white and color copies of the road names or road names with
modifications petitions that these people executed, and have
been approved by our office and are forwarded to y'all. And,
Mr. Baldwin, that's your area. If you want to give me a
signature here in a minute, I'll let y'all have those.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What did you just hand me?
Am I supposed to pass these around?
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SANDLIN: One's black and white; one's color.
It's part of a package, and there are several other big
subdivisions in the area that we're working on right now with
the people in those subdivisions, and probably with --
hopefully by the next Commissioners meeting, I'll be able to
bring you some more of this stuff for y'all to work on.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: T., let me interrupt you.
These are ready for the Court's approval?
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. And, so we need to
get those on the agenda?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, we -- and then the
process -- I'm just saying the process will have to be notify
us beforehand.
MR. SANDLIN: Right. I was just bringing it --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We'll have to put it on the
agenda to address that specific subdivision or group.
MR. SANDLIN: I wasn't requesting, I was just
bringing it to you today. That's the first one we've got
where everyone's --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is a good example of
what we're going to see.
MR. SANDLIN: Right, hopefully a lot more. We have
been receiving the postal databases, the rural route database
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
conversion formats from the Post Office in San Antonio. Of
course, I believe I told y'all before, we would work the
routes as they requested. Ingram, Hunt, and Mountain Home
announced ready first, and they sent us the databases for
those. I can't share those databases with y'all -- with the
public under all kind of confidentiality agreements with the
Post Office, but right now we're working on the routing on
Highway 39 west of Ingram, from Highway 27, Elk Creek west,
towards Mountain Home and on Highway 41 and some of the
ancillary roads out in that area.
They've also sent us the database for what I refer to as
16 North, north of the interstate; just received that. We're
starting the conversion process on that. I'm finally back up
to staff at my office as of last week. We're in a period of
training for one of our new employees, and I want to give
myself about a week to work with him a little better. And
then I think probably the middle of next week, towards the
end of next week, we'll actually be sending out the actual
conversion letters on some of these routes. But, again, the
public support and, I guess, opinion of us has just swayed
tremendously to the positive.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: One quick question.
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just for clarity, so I
understand it, and so -- you and I have talked about this
71
1
?.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1?_
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
several times. We have -- is there any reason that we --
that you have to wait for the postal -- for the Post Office
Department to come forth with some data before you rename and
number structures and all that? My point is this; is that we
have the defined area, as you and I have talked about before,
of a subdivision, it seems to me, irrespective of. what the
Postal Department says, because most of those on rural routes
are served by clustered mailboxes anyway. Why do we have to
necessarily wait for the Postal Department to say it's okay
to do that subdivision?
MR. SANDLIN: On some we don't. Some of these
subdivisions, we're in the position that we donut have to
wait on that; we are working on them. However, based on the
experience -- I mean, we're -- other counties in Texas have
been trying to straighten this mess out for quite a while.
One thing we've found with the Post Office, if they send us
their database -- and they literally send it to us in an
Excel spreadsheet -- and then we plug that data in there and
send it back to them, it gets in the process better than if I
send them a pile of letters saying --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure.
MR. SANDLIN: -- Mr. Letz, Mr. Griffin, Mr.
Henneke, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Baldwin are Rural Route
so-and-so. You know, they're -- those letters and stuff just
tend to get lost in the mail sometimes.
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, right, get lost in the
mail. Let me take a -- let me take an example that I'm
familiar with, Canyon Springs Subdivision. About half the
people -- or more than half the people there get their mail
at a post office box.
MR. SANDLIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, can the Postal
Department tell us any -- tell you anything that helps you?
MR. SANDLIN: Not off the -- not off the Post
Office database.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's what I mean.
MR. SANDLIN: They don't have a deal -- if I go in
there on a one-on-one and show them a plat and say, "I'm
trying to identify whose plat this is," if they have some
postal information to identify with it, like you had a P.O.
box and they know that's your place, they can say, "Yes, we
can confirm that's Larry Griffin," on a one-to-one. It's
kind of like getting a number.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, you can do -- the
answer, then, is that to do something like Canyon Springs,
which is serviced by a post office --
MR. SANDLIN; Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- local post office, you
could go ahead and work that one; you can go ahead and assign
-- get the road names straightened out and numbers
?3
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
structured. It's just getting to it, now, is the only
question?
MR. SANDLIN: Right. And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: T.?
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I want to bring up what I
talked to you about outside. I'm just -- I'm astounded on
the naming of the roads -- and I'm talking about prefixes or
adding to the names, I'll make it real clear. And I'm kind
of surprised the City of Kerrville does not object to having
the to change every street name in the City of Kerrville.
MR. SANDLIN: I don't have the answer. The City
hasn't -- they haven't approved or disapproved the
guidelines. But, speaking with their staff and them, part of
the reason we did this was that -- at their behest. And they
haven't indicated a problem with it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- I mean, what I'm
talking about is, you know, under the system that we've
adopted, every road was going to either have a -- every road
in the county, new and old, will have a prefix added to it,
which is going to require -- you know, while only nine
numbers change in The Woods, every resident in The Woods has
-- now has to have a new address, because that is now --
whatever it is -- South Oakwood going through there. So,
it's -- like you said, nine numbers changed, but every
79

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
address changed. And, under the guidelines, every address in
the county or every individual business that gets mail at a
street address will have to get it -- would get a new
address, because the prefix is going to be added. And, you
know, I've had a lot of complaints about that, that they
think its unnecessary for people to have to add those or, you
know, change the road names just to add a prefix to it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They do have a year, right?
They've got a year to use up their old letterhead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I understand there's a real
good reason to do it. I just wanted to bring it up again to
make sure that the Court -- you know, we're talking about a
-- a pretty good expenditure from our standpoint in next
year's budget year to redo every road sign in the county.
And, like, the City --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the -- the City of
Kerrville is going to have a monumental expenditure for every
street sign in the city.
MR. SANDLIN: What we looked at, as far as a cost
basis -- and what has happened in some other cities in Texas,
they've adopted some measures to save on costs, and it's been
fairly cost-effective. Now, I don't have any dollar-and-cent
figures on this, but there are some little deals that some of
them use, like on all the framed signs like over in San
75
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
Antonio -- and I don't think we use them around here. I'm
not suggesting; I'm just saying that there's that, and there
are some -- they make some little clips that you can -- like,
if you need to put a "W" on the front of Smith Road, it's
going to be West Smith Road, you get your little blue sign
plate, put the "W" on there, and they make a little deal that
you go up there and rivet it on. That's one way to do it.
And, not to make light of that situation at all, but
that's kind of like some of the arguments that we still hear,
and it's greatly diminished, I assure you. I'm very pleased
about that. I mean, I'm somewhat -- I'm flabbergasted by it,
but I was out in the far west end of the county the other day
working on 41, and a gentleman -- you know, "What's wrong
with me being Rural Route so-and-so? I've been that for 40
years," et cetera et cetera. "And that's where I get my
mail, continue to get my mail that way." And, you know, "If
I have a heart attack or something, I'm 40 minutes from the
nearest ambulance," and that kind of stuff. I said, "Okay.
Well, remember not two months ago you called in a fire?"
"Mm-hmm." "And you were very angry when we couldn't exactly
find that fire." It turned out to be little brush fire,
wasn't a big deal. He was very angry we weren't Johnny-on-
the-spot.
I said, you know, "Had you been able to give those
people an address -- it just happens I happened to be in Hunt
76

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
at the time and intercepted the call. I'd been working this
area and knew where you lived, only no one else in Hunt with
the fire department really knew.'t But, of course, by the
time we got out there, somebody had stomped it out; it wasn't
that big a deal. But, once I said that, he said, "Oh, well,
now I understand." And it was just putting it in that
perspective, it was that simple. The thought of getting an
ambulance to his house -- you know, he knew he was too far
away, but he wants that Hunt Fire Department there yesterday.
So, we're -- it's working itself out very well, I'm pleased
to announce.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was my comment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: T., I just wondered if you
could maybe forward to me a list of those address changes
that are taking place in The Woods?
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, sir, I can.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd appreciate it.
MR. SANDLIN: I'll do that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: T., is Kerrville the only political
entity that hasn't signed on?
MR. SANDLIN: They~re the only ones, yes, sir. My
indications from staff is that they haven't encountered any
problems with it; it's just getting it through the mill. One
other thing -- two other things that I want to highlight with
y'all real quick, as far as our office goes. We're finally
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
situated, and last week we went through a -- what they call a
Risk 88 assessment, and passed us off on that. I forgot to
do one thing; I'll get that done. And, also, I've had to
backtrack a little bit, get back on the Y2K issue. As far as
the PSAT, our administrative office checks out Y2K-
compatible, and the TCI engineering firm out of Huntsville
that manufactures and maintains our -- the computers that run
the database for the 911 have come forward with the
recommendations. And, at our last board meeting, the board
said to go forward, so we're progressing in that area. I
want to make sure that our 911 system, the electronic part,
is Y2K-compatible before we -- I don't want to be sitting
here in December worrying about it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We wholeheartedly concur in that.
Anyone else have any questions?
MR. SANDLIN: I was under 15 minutes, gentlemen.
If y'all will excuse me, I've got to get to a teleconference.
Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, T. Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Sandlin, do you want
these documents?
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, sir, I do. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have not signed that, and
won't until --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about this pretty
78
,~
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
colored one?
MR. SANDLIN: I'll get somebody to sign a copy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we want to officially
approve it.
MR. SANDLIN: This is just showing that y'all
received this; this is just routing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leave that here.
MR. SANDLIN: In fact, if you'll sign your three
copies saying you got those, they're yours.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, no, I'm not going to
sign anything sitting here right now. If you'd leave it with
me for a couple hours, I'll be happy to look it over.
MR. SANDLIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll next go back to the regular
order and take up Item 2.8, which is consider a variance for
grade of road in Hunt Valley View Ranch subdivision and
consider final plat for same. Before I turn it over to
Commissioner Griffin, I wanted to announce that we've had
three individuals sign up to speak against this particular
item. What we're going to do is we're going to walk through
the item, and then when we've finished the discussion with
the County Engineer and the developer, then we'll allow the
people who've signed up an opportunity to speak. So, Mr.
Griffin?
79

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay, Franklin.
MR. JOHNSTON: This is a two-part variance. One,
the grade of the hill in the subdivision, which exceeds 12
percent. And the other is the clearing of the entire
right-of way, as opposed to, you know, leaving some trees on,
since it's a private road. First, the grade. I think you
have a cross-sectional map that shoes the area in question.
That varies from 12, I think, to 15, to -- in one place, I
think it's more than 15, 18 or whatever for a short distance.
The drive -- you know, the drive's easy. It's not like some
we've had in the past which exceeded 20 perr_ent. I'd
recommend that that be approved. And, also, the trees that
are left on the right-of-way, that's -- since the County
doesn't have to mow or maintain the right-of-way, we'd
recommend approval on that also.
JUDGE HENNEKE: On the trees, is that a safety
issue?
MR. JOHNSTON: Safety and maintenance.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Since we're not going to maintain
it, let's set that aside. But, if we approve the variance,
what -- are there any true safety concerns about having the
trees --
MR. JOHNSTON: I think there was only one that was
very close to the actual road surface, and they put guardrail
and reflectors around it. They're trying to keep the rural
80

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
ambience, as opposed to just cleared road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Franklin, I don't think we need
a variance on that. I mean, I looked through it and looked
through it again. As I recall, our rules said you have to
clear the roadway of -- everything has to be cleared out of
the whole roadway, but the right-of-way is up to -- it's
cleared up to your discretion, whether you want to change it.
It doesn't take a court variance to do that. It just says
you -- you know, and that was made, you know, to give that
latitude to developers to not clear the entire right-of-way.
Frequently trees are around, and I don't think it requires
it.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's probably why it's not on
there. So, the road grade's the issue.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Is there anything else
you want to announce before we let the people speak?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we need -- yeah?
Lee's got something.
MR. VOELKEL: Excuse me, Franklin. I'm Lee
Voelkel. I have been working with the Keys on development of
this property. Also, with Commissioner Griffin and with
Frank Johnston very closely. We've been on the site very --
quite a few times. I just wanted to report this morning that
we were on the agenda for final plat approval. We feel kind
of comfortable with that this morning. There's a couple of
al
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
small items on the list that -- the last one that Frank
produced for us to do that we have not done. Our intent, of
course, is to qet these things done. We feel like another
two weeks would probably allow us to do these things and
then, when we come back to Commissioners Court for final
plat, we will have everything in order. So, in talking with
the Keys this morning, we feel like the best thing for the
final plat consideration would be to ask you to table this
until the next meeting, which would give us enough time to
take care of all of those items.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Lee, thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Appreciate that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time we have three
individuals who signed up to speak against this particular
item. Lucy Cavazos, Mary -- I'm sorry I can't read that.
And, Nancy Cavazos. So, we'll just take them in order.
Lucy, do you want to speak to us at this time on this item?
MS. CAVAZOS: Yes, Judge. Our -- our legal
representative, Craig Leslie, is here. We did not fill out a
form for him. Will he be able to speak? If not, I will
defer my time to him.
JUDGE HENNEKE: He can speak in your behalf, if
that's what you'd like.
MR. LESLIE: If -- we would just as soon defer our
comments until the final plat is before the Court. Does it
82

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
have to be heard again? Is that what I'm understanding,
they've agreed to withdraw it? I don't see any sense in us
appearing and speaking now. We'll just appear at the time
the final plat comes up for approval.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's fine. And that might give
y'all an opportunity to sit down with the Keys further and
find out what further revisions they're making. But,
there'll be a posted agenda item. I think they're
contemplating two weeks. Is that right, Lee?
MR. VOEKLEL: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, it would be two weeks from
today, Lucy.
MS. CAVAZOS: Judge Henneke, I'd like to take my
mother-in-law's position now, since she filled out a form;
she's going to let me go ahead. I would like to speak to the
Court regarding the grade. I believe that's what's before
the Court today.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Come forward.
MS. CAVAZOS: Thank you. I appreciate this
opportunity to address you this morning. What I want --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Would you identify yourself for the
record.
MS. GAVAZOS: I'm sorry. Lucy Cavazos. It's
C-a-v-a-z-o-s. And, what I had to say about the grade and
our concern about that variance on that 12 percent grade is
83
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
that I'm not an engineer, but it just takes common sense to
know that the steeper the grade, when you put water on it,
the faster it's going to travel. Especially if it's paved,
and as I understand it, the developers here intend to pave
this road. And the reason the water's going to go faster is
because the steeper, of course, the grade is, just the faster
the water's going to go, but there's going -- also going to
be more water traveling down that road because -- because
it's traveling faster, it has less time to absorb, which
means there's going to be, one, more water, and two, it's
going to be traveling faster than if the grade is not as
steep. And, for that reason, I would request that this
variance not be granted.
Under the rules and regulations, variances can be
granted only under certain circumstances, and I don't believe
those circumstances have been met here today. For one, it
specifically says in the rules and regulations that variances
should not be granted if to grant a variance would cause
damage to other adjacent property. And, I don't know how
many of you are aware of the damage to our property. I know
Mr. Griffin is. He's -- and I would extend an invitation to
all of you to come out and look at the damage. And I don't
think that 12 percent grade's going to take care of the
damage, make it all go away, but, a greater than 12 percent
variance is going to exacerbate the problem, and that's our
84

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
concern. So, for that reason, we would request that you not
grant the variance.
Going back to variances, under the rules and
regulations, the rules and regulations specifically state
that variances should not be granted for economic reasons
alone. And, based on what I've read, all those memos, all I
see is it's going to be more difficult, and I think we all
know that more difficult translates to more expensive. So,
for that reason, I'm requesting that the Court not grant that
variance. Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Are there any questions?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there anyone else who wishes to
speak?
MS. BOLDUC: Yes. I'm Mary Bolduc, with the
impossible name. I'm the property downhill across Highway 39
from both this development and the Cavazos', and I can
guarantee you, and this is 60 years' experience, if there is
a heavy runoff, it ends up on the highway and then it ends up
in my field. And, I'd just like to say I'm really against
any variance that would increase the runoff there. And,
incidentally, it runs right into the river, too, through my
property. And I thank you very much.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
85
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: I have a question. Franklin,
is the -- the grade going to increase the runoff? I mean, I
don't see how that -- I don't see how that happens. How the
grade -- you know, the water's going to -- you can't, under
the State law, change the flow of the water. And, if the --
I mean, the water's going to fall on that spot. Having --
channeling the flow, that's a simple matter. I don't see how
the grade of that road is going to increase the runoff.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The hill is steeper than the
road is, so you've actually taken some grade off of the
watershed. I mean, I've looked at this, so I'm -- I'm just
-- I know that sounds confusing. The -- the ground, itself,
in that area is steeper than the road is. And for that
portion of the road that has been built, the grade is less.
That would tend to -- that portion of it would tend to
decrease the amount or rate of flow. Now, the fact that it's
paved -- the fact that it's paved would also increase the
flow a little bit, because it's not absorbing into the ground
as it goes down the paved surface.
MR. JOHNSTON: Instead of a general sheet flow,
it's a channelized flow.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: There's a little difference.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they're cutting into the
hill and they're changing or rediverting the -- the road's
86

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
lI
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
going to become like a drainage ditch.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, the rain -- the road
becomes like a dam. And then there'll be a couple of
culverts to relieve that water to go down the old watershed.
That's, in essence, what happens. This road runs across the
primary watershed. It's about 90 degrees to the primary
watershed. And the -- where the road has been built up, it's
going to act as a dam. There'll be two culverts, then, to
relieve that water to go on down the old natural watershed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And where is that? Where is
that natural watershed?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It goes down -- it's a dry
-- in essence, it's a dry creek, and it goes off of the --
flowing toward Highway 39, and it doesn't make it to Highway
39. I mean, it doesn't make it in a defined way to Highway
39, because by the time it gets to the highway, as this lady
points out, all of that goes in sheets down across Highway 39
and ends up down in the river at some point. That's not
changing this, the fact that the ground is carrying -- in
effect, carries the sediment that's in the water, and that's
a separate issue. That's a different issue, but the water
flow, itself, is not being added to by the fact that the road
is there. The sediment is being affected, that's true. And,
so, you take -- you have to take necessary means to try to
minimize -- as our rules say, minimize the impact of -- of
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that runoff. But, that has nothing to do with the amount of
water that's flowing -- amount of water that's flowing down
that watershed has not been increased, because, I mean, that
comes out of the sky, goes to the ground, and it all goes
down to drainage. What's happened is that it's being
rechanneled in some fashion, and also there's sediment in
some cases.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What happens to the water after
it's collected in the culvert? It comes down, hits the road.
Does it just -- does it come out at the end and go down -- I
mean, does it just come out of the culvert and end up going
across the road or what?
MR. JOHNSTON: Goes to the Cavazos property and
then into the highway.
MS. BOLDUC: Into my property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not being --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Remember, we're talking
about the variance for the road grade. That's --
MR. JOHNSTON: This is a final plat.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is apples and
pomegranates; it's not even apples and oranges. Variance to
the road grade is one issue. Runoff is another issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But the point that Ms.
Cavazos is making --
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The point I'm making is --
is that we haven't increased that. We don't increase the
amount of water by putting a road in there, in any kind of --
on any subdivision in any watershed. I am enough of an
engineer to know that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, variance in the grade is
really not related to the runoff. That's the point you're
making?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we ought to be considering only
the effect of --
MR. JOHNSTON: This issue came to us because they
hit a solid rock layer and had to dynamite, do some things
that could do more damage to the neighbors than -- leaving
collapsing wells, that type of thing. That's a concern.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This -- a little history on the
Subdivision Rules, since we've talked about our rules a
little bit today. The reason we put in the 12 percent grade
-- and there was a number of developers and engineers that
thought that was too restrictive, and we knew going in that
we would have to do variances. There are -- in this county,
the topography is such that variances are going to be
required. The City of Kerrville gives variances on a regular
basis, and I think they are up to a 20 percent grade on them.
To get up on these hills, we're just going to have more than
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12 percent. We put 18 percent in there as, you know,
feasible, you know, to do it, knowing that if you're going to
get on top of any of these ridges, you're going to probably
have to go above 12 percent. So, it's not like we're
breaking any precedents with giving a variance here. It was
certainly contemplated when we did this.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think the approval before was
almost 25 percent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner? You're
putting off the vote on the final plat. Would it be feasible
to put off this variance also to give the -- give those
citizens out there an opportunity to work out their problems
amongst themselves, instead of bringing it to a government
body?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think they'd still --
they'd still request a variance anyway, 'cause our -- the
reason I -- and I didn't mean to interrupt you, but our
Subdivision Rules say 12 percent. This has some variances
that are greater than 12 percent, but it still would require
a variance from the Court. We can go ahead and do that, but
even more important, as soon as we grant this variance,
they'll start paving operations, and that will decrease the
runoff, or the sediment from the runoff. So, it's -- it's
important -- they've got the base down, and Franklin has
inspected that; it's ready to go. But, if we get a rain,
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
just like we did in the last couple of weeks, then it washes
the base away, which ends up in the watershed, and perhaps on
the Cavazos' property. So, we need -- they need to get that
road under paving as soon as they can. So, by granting the
variance, that's all we're asking -- that's all we're asking
for at this point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Larry, how do we know what
percentage the variance is taking? It is from 12 to what?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's -- look on the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A max of 18.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Eighteen?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: A little short. It says 18.
There's --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Leslie?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Looks like we're going to do
this today after all.
MR. LESLIE: I was going to go home. The only
thing -- observation I have on the variance -- and I don't
disagree with what you're saying, Jonathan, but -- but the
regs that -- you know, that's what's going to be thrown at
everybody on this side of the table, so let me kind of chunk
them back at you. It says you can authorize a variance when,
in your opinion, an undue hardship will result. Clear
enough. Now they're saying there's an undue hardship.
They're saying, why is there an undue hardship? Because we
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
lI
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can't build up the road at the bottom because it will make it
too steep and it will be dangerous. And we agree with that.
And it will be also more unsightly, from my point of view,
too. But, you can knock off some of the rock at the top and
lower the grade. That's -- I noticed that in Lee's letter.
And, the problem with not doing that is it's going to cost
too much money. Anybody that's ever dug a septic tank in
this county knows you can work through solid rock. But the
reason they don't want to do it is 'cause it's going to cost
too much money, and the regs that we're dealing with here say
monetary hardship to the subdivider, standing alone, shall
not be deemed to constitute undue hardship. So, you're
saying we want to make an exception to this, and the only
reason for that exception is because we don't want to spend
the money to knock out the rock off the top. And that's --
it can be done. They just don't want to do it because it's
an undue hardship, but that's a monetary reason. That's my
point.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Any other speakers? I'd
like to make a motion that we grant the variance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve the
variance on grade up to a max number of -- 18 percent? Is
that correct?
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: According to this profile.
I'd like to amend that to say, "according to the profile," as
Lee had surveyed. And that says -- it looks like the
steepest is 18.07.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the motion, then, as I
understand it, is to approve the variance in the grade
requirements up to a max of 18.07 percent, as reflected in
the profile presented to the Court.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's the motion made by
Commissioner Griffin and seconded by Commissioner Williams.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Couple of comments. I'm
going to vote along with you guys, but I -- I think with
these comments that just came out, that we probably need to
take a closer look at our Subdivision Rules and the verbiage
that's in there. It just puts a -- puts a check in me to
make me start wondering a little bit, should we -- are we
doing the right thing here. And, obviously, there's a
conflict with some neighbors out there, and I would really
rather see them get together and build them a little campfire
under an oak tree and work this thing out, as opposed to
coming to a government entity, but it's not going to to
happen, obviously. So, I just wanted to make those comments.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If not,
93
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
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 BALDWIN: When does the final plat
JUDGE HENNEKE: I believe it was the discussion
that they would be back in two weeks. But it'll have to be
scheduled through Franklin and Commissioner Griffin so it can
be on the agenda in time. Next item is 2.9, which is
consider exchange of old road right-of-way through the Smith
Ranch property for additional right-of-way off Higbee Road.
MR. JOHNSTON: This item was brought to our
attention -- apparently, the County owns a piece of
right-of-way in that general area off of Johnson Creek around
-- between Mountain Home and Ingram. It was purchased by
deed in 1910, and someone wants to buy that property and have
the County deed that right-of-way to them, in favor of them
deeding us a right-of-way on Higbee Road.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. And some of the
background here is that what this will do is the Roads and
Bridges Department are very interested in getting additional
right-of-way on Higbee, because it's less than 60 feet. By
doing this swap with this easement, which is not being used
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
at the present time as a public road -- in fact, it's fenced
-- what this will do is allow Roads and Bridges to gain that
additional right-of-way, or gain -- the County to gain the
additional right-of-way, which will make their maintenance
and all that a lot easier. And they've wanted that for some
time.
MR. JOHNSTON: David Jackson is here to discuss the
owner's part of the agreement.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is this easement necessary fir
access for any other property? It affects only the tract
that's being purchased?
MR. JACKSON: David Jackson here in support of the
trade. The land owner is in favor of it. The way it was
discovered is that some document goes way, way, way back
before the beginning of time. Mr. Domingues is not even
really sure where it's located. So, it's to his advantage --
their advantage to eliminate that as a crossing easement.
They've got a little schematic that they did to show where it
is. So, we're happy to give the extra right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'd like to make a motion
that we approve of the exchange of the old right-of-way, as
laid out in the documents presented to the Court, for the
additional right -- in exchange for the additional
right-of-way along Higbee, which is also laid out in the --
in the documents given to the Court.
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
MR. JOHNSTON: Allow Road and Bridge to go ahead
and do the documentation?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, and allow Roads and
Bridges to take care of the documentation, which will be at a
small cost to us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second that motion.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by Commissioner
Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve
the exchange of old road right-of-way through Smith Ranch
property for additional right-of-way on Higbee Road.
Furthermore, that the Road and Bridge Department be
authorized to have the necessary documents prepared and
signed by the County Judge and survey the right-of-way along
Higbee Road. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor,
raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.}
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you very much.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is Item No. 10, which is
consider and discuss a road district for Cub Lane.
Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes. Mr. Michalak?
96
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MICHALAK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could you come to the
microphone and please identify yourself for the record.
MR. MICHALAK: Mike Michalak, M-i-c-h-a-l-a-k. And
I represent the folks on Cub Lane, or lack of.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If y'all remember, a year or.
so ago, Mr. Michalak was before this Court, I don't know -- I
don't remember when, some time back, about his evaluation out
there and what -- what it was going to bid, what they had to
do to actually bring the road up to standards. And the
evaluation -- it seemed like, to me, it was a 200-year payoff
or something.
MR. MICHALAK: It was way out
were considering was a road district.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's
MR. MICHALAK: Which is kind
think, to everyone. But, nevertheless,
-- I think Mr. Baldwin would be able to
than I would.
of range. What we
correct.
of a gray area, I
it's there. It's a
explain that better
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm not going to,
because you've changed -- you've changed horses here just a
little bit. Tell us what you want to do with your new bid
here.
MR. MICHALAK: Well, just based on the whole
proceedings of a year ago, what we had gone through was the
97

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
process of this hearing, and then moving on to a bid as to
what it would cost to do this road, to upgrade it to County
standards, as how the road district suggests. And, for the
folks in the community to bid on it, we we had gotten
preliminary bids -- or, I'm sorry, for the folks to be able
to pay it back, what we had got was we've got preliminary
votes from the people in the subdivision, over 51 percent, or
just to show interest, which there obviously is. And, the
way this road district is supposed to work is, the community
or people in the subdivision pay it back, they're reassessed
back, which there's also ballots -- they will get ballots as
to whether they accept paying back a certain amount for over
a certain period of time. And, so, based on the last hearing
and the bid of -- just my verbal understanding was around
$85,000 to do this road. The current bid that I've gotten
from Faulkner Excavation is $26,040, I believe, which is
substantial -- $26,390, which is substantially --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I just have a question.
MR. MICHALAK: Sir?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is a double
penetration, I see. It's a two-shot deal. Is that -- is
that what this would be?
MR. MICHALAK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN:
less than -- it's how long?
Okay. And, it's a little
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MICHALAK: It's exactly .5, a half mile long.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Half mile. That sounds like
a reasonable amount to do that. 'Cause --
MR. MICHALAK: Yes, I believe it is, which kind of
got everybody up and down the road excited, because it was
kind of disappointing a year ago to find out that it would
take us 200 years to repay with the assessment to what the
road district worked out. This makes it a lot more
reasonable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what's on the table is to
proceed with the road district, or to just raise the money
from the property owners and then once the money is raised,
do it?
MR. MICHALAK: I believe what the next step is, is
to -- to approve the road district based on -- well, the
following -- Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You want to do a road
district?
MR. MICHALAK: Right.
COMMISSIONER. BALDWIN: Okay. I think, if we're
going to do a road district, our policy for time of payout
has been, like, a 20-year --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Fifteen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 15-year period. We've done
a couple of them 20. And this one -- this particular one is
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
7.0
21
22
23
?. 9
25
$26,390. The way I have it figured, if -- if they could do
something like -- you know, come up with $10,000, put it in
an escrow account, you would have $16,000 Ieft. You're
talking about -- you're talking about a 21-year payout.
COMMISSIONER C,RIFFIN: Fifteen -- 15 cents per
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct, the max.
MR. JOHNSTON: The evaluation, they only raise
about $770 a year.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me point out -- because
I had to do some research in this area, is the reason I
happen to know this -- that 15-year limit is the result of a
Court order, which Commissioner Baldwin made the motion, and
-- and Commissioner Lackey seconded in 1988, I think it was,
to put that 15-year limit on. And I think that it may be a
good idea for us to look at in cases like this one, or any
number of potential cases, for some relief in that area.
There's nothing magical. The Court, in its wisdom, put a
15-year limit in there so it wouldn't just qo forever, but I
think as long as we're in that vicinity, and if the payout
shows that it would take 16 as opposed to 15, then I think we
ought to look at that carefully, because that's -- I don't
know that 16 years is any worse than 15. And, so, I'm citing
what the -- the point of view that says we probably need a
little flexibility in this area, as long as it's fairly close
loo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and stays within that guidance. We'd have to amend that or
change that Court order to do that, but I think it's
something we should do. And I've handled three or four of
these potentially in my precinct, and I know that if we had
just a little bit of flexibility, it would help.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the most recent one
the Court did was Witt Road in Precinct 2. The Court did set
that up last year, I believe. I see see the Tax Assessor
here. Paula, do you recall what the particulars were of Witt
Road in terms of length of payback?
MS. RECTOR: I can't hear you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can hardly see you.
MS. RECTOR: Let me get up here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Po you recall the
particulars the Court set up for payback on Witt Road, the
down payment and the payback?
MS. RECTOR: I don't recall the particulars. I
understand there was a down payment, because it was going to
be considerably more than what this amount is. There was
money to be placed in escrow, and then the largest amount
that can be charged is 15 cents on $100 evaluation. And that
depends upon the value within that area. And then, depending
on whether there's 100 percent collections also will depend
on how many years are paid out. If we have some delinquent
taxpayers in those areas, then that payout time will be
101

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
extended.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We also have to go through
the formality of an election among those people on who --
this will not just be a straw vote.
MS. RECTOR: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The formal one, Paula has to
run, correct? You have to -- don't you handle that election?
MS. RECTOR: No, sir, Jannett will -- I think you
have to send letters out to the property owners telling them
of the intent of the election for the road district. And
then they can vote yes or no, and it's a majority.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You have to have a majority.
It's interesting that in a road district, you have to have a
majority of the registered voters.
MS. RECTOR: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If you do -- there's some
other things in State law that allow to you have a majority
vote of the owners of record, which means you could have
absentee owners that don't vote in Kerr County. But, for a
road district, you have to have 50 percent of the registered
voters who live in that subdivision.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who live in that
subdivision, right.
MS. RECTOR: Voters in Kerr County, correct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, it's a little different
102
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
kind of deal.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, our policy says that
there's a limit of a 15-year pay out. This little plan that
we've had here -- because you only -- we only get, like, $770
a year. Wasn't that the number, $770 a year? So, if you --
if you put $10,000 in an escrow account, set it aside, that
will still put us at a 21-year payout.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Payout to pay it back.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we need to think about
that. We need to talk about how we're going to bend the
policy.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's just a Court order.
We could change that. That's my point, we could.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you need --
JUDGE HENNEKE: But the policy is articulated for a
reason.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right, and that's a
good reason.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So you dan't take it lightly. The
fact that we have 15 years means there's a good reason for
having 15 years, which is that anything beyond that is
actually burdening the rest of the County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The administration of the
103

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1?_
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
policy should be consistent wherever you put it in place.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And most of our -- recently, we
are requiring a pretty substantial up-front contribution from
the owners. We've done it in my precinct last year.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The other way of doing it --
the way I've helped some people in my precinct who are
looking at this was I went strictly by the the 15 cents per
hundred based on the total valuation, 15-year payback, and
said, "How much money will you raise?" Okay. Take the
estimate and subtract that from it, and that's what you got
to put up front.
MR. MICHALAK: That's fine, I have a clear layout
as to what I have to do. But, right now we've got a road
that's just a nightmare, that's been there for 20 years that
I know of, eight years that I've lived there. And I don't
know if you -- if any of you gentlemen had have back problems
or sciatic problems. Go down this road; you'll know you have
it. That's just a little something that I happen to notice
every day I go home. Somebody else -- some of the folks that
live down that road have more serious problems than I do.
But, after 20 years, this is one of those typical situations
that Mr. Griffin had brought up earlier. A subdivision was
bought, sold out, all the lots were sold out. A piece of
paper was signed and submitted to the -- to the County or
whoever, "I hereby dedicate this road to whoever wants
104
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
anything to do with it," and it's a done deal and there's no
subdivision as to -- as far as an organized committee or
group. There's really not too many folks down that road
that, you know, have substantial access to -- to bucks where
they can just put --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I know that works within the
law, the way I just outlined, where you say, "Here's what it
takes to fix the road; here's what the -- at the current
valuation, which KCAD will help you out, here's what it is,
15 cents a hundred. That's what it will generate. Subtract
that from what it costs to do the road, come up with that up
front. That's within our existing law and our policy.
MR. MICHALAK: If I can get that kind of a clear
outline, I'll do whatever the next step is, whatever it
takes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: May I suggest that you and
the County Engineer, sitting next to you there, sit down, and
then I will sit down with y'all and we'll hammer this thing
out. Then we'll come back to this Court with a plan. Bless
you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one more question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I almost had it over.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. MICHALAK: Bear Creek is just a neglected
little place. Everybody's got a couple acres on there. It's
105
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
large acreage, but one road accesses about 12 dozen -- or
about 12 families, 12 pieces of property. And I'd say it's
about a half a mile long, and it's just -- after these last
couple rains we've had, the maintenance crew comes out, I get
on my tractor and Mr. Williams on the end of the road gets on
his tractor, and that's it, whatever that's worth. But it's
sad. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, Mike. Can we handle
it that way?
MR. MICHALAK: Absolutely. As long as we --
someone lets me know. I know just the place to meet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't want to be on that
one.
MR. MICHALAK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah, I know the place
to meet, too. Yes, excuse me.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What I'm hearing is that
Commissioner Baldwin, Franklin, and Mr. Michalak will get
together and come up with a bottom line number that the
homeowners would have to put in escrow in order for us to
consider a road district, to send out the necessary
notifications, and once we get all those details ironed out,
then we'll bring it back to the Court.
(Discussion off the record.)
(Commissioner Baldwin briefly left the courtroom.)
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
lI
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: WeII, let's skip over, then, to
Item 2.15 -- oh, he's back, okay -- and take up Item 2.13,
which is consider and discuss setting date for Commissioners
Court tour of the new courtroom facility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, a personal tour. I
had a -- did you turn it over to me?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I have a note here
from Keith: "Judge Henneke suggested I contact you about a
tour of the second floor annex construction. I would be
happy to take the Commissioners through at 4 o'clock Monday,
the 12th." That's today. We -- y'all can do that if yau'd
like to stick around here until 4:00 and take the tour.
Actually, I think it probably needs to be an agenda item, or
that's -- at least that's what we've always done in the past
when we go outside of this courtroom and go do something,
it's always been an agenda item, so we can just --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Why don't we go two at a
time?
COMMISSIONER
skirt the law.
COMMISSIONER
that that's -- there's
COMMISSIONER
by myself, I guess. W
BALDWIN: We can go two at a time and
GRIFFIN: Just so there's no question
not a quorum.
BALDWIN: Or I could go up there just
e can do it that way.
107
1
2 go.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Make it an agenda item and
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just thought it was bad --
it would be best that we could out be there, the clerk could
be there, the press can be there, and where we can all hear
the same thing at the same time. We can do it any way we
want to do it. We just -- that's just my way of thinking.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we -- I mean, I agree
with Buster, but why don't we do it -- tack it on to one of
our budget workshops, 30 minutes before?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be great.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rather than coming in for a
special trip just to go on tour.
JiJDGE HENNEKE: Let me say that I've had couple
lengthy discussions with Keith in the last couple weeks --
Keith Longnecker, our construction consultant -- and he is
going to request a lengthy on-the-record discussion as to
what's going on with the construction. And, it's my thinking
we may want to have a special meeting to do that, ber_ause it
may take a while. And we might want to do this tour as part
of that discussion. And, my -- my thinking and discussion
with Keith is that we might have this special meeting -- do
it the first week in August.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And, so, I don't want to steal your
108
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
suggestion, Buster, 'cause I think it's a good one, but we
might --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's fine.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We might make that all part of a
package.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Certainly.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Have a special meeting to consider
and discuss the status of the renovation, and the second item
would be a tour of the facility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a great idea. Let's
do it. The second week in August?
JUDGE HENNEKE: First week in August.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: First week in August.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll work out a date.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, cool.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Great.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is No. 14, consider and
discuss letter to Phil Gramm regarding Court Order No. 25874.
Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Gentlemen, you
had -- if you remember, the previous time when we were here,
we had -- we approved the concept of writing the letter to
our elected officials. And, as you see in the Court Order
here, that -- which letter is to be approved by the
Commissioners. Actually, that's not the way that really
109
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
happened. Y'all just requested that, as kind of a courtesy,
that I bring it back for your review because it was a letter
to the federal government. And now I've brought this letter
back and it's on the agenda, and you've had the opportunity
over the weekend to look it over. And, I don't even really
-- it's my opinion that we don't need a Court Order to mail
the thing out. I just -- you know, let's sign the doggone
thing and mail it, or change it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, as I recall
this, bringing it back was because of the -- you know, it's a
sensitive issue. And I -- you know, personally, I don't -- I
don't know if you want to go through line by line or, you
know, pass around the letter to us until we get it worked
out, but the sentence that I have a problem with, the first
one -- let me say what I have -- the motion to do this is
basically to allow the Bible to be used in school. I
certainly stand by that, but also equally to allow any other
religious material, I think, should be allowed to be used in
school. And on the -- I guess it's the third sentence, the
second paragraph, "Therefore, we believe that public schools
should be allowed to return to the Christian principles..."
I don't know -- I don't really personally have a problem with
that, but I think that's pushing too much one religion, and I
think that, you know, I would rather just say, you know,
maybe return to, you know, religious values.
110
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lb
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Religious freedoms in our
schools.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I would agree with that.
"Therefore, we believe that public schools should be allowed
to return to" -- or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Free exercise of religious
freedom.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, free exercise of
religious freedom. And, on the second to last sentence of
that photograph --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Slow down. Slow down.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The second to the last
paragraph -- or sentence in that paragraph, "While returning
prayer and the Bible to the classroom will not solve ...", I
don't think we are -- we're not returning it. We are
allowing it to be used in the classroom. I don't think we
are returning to it. We're not, certainly, mandating that
prayer and the Bible be used. We're allowing it to be used.
So, "While allowing prayer and the Bible" --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the thing is, though,
Jon, this is something that has been removed that was -- that
used to be in the classrooms. And, in all the wisdom of the
federal government, they removed it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
111
~_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, and that's what I'm
talking about here, is we want to bring it back. And in no
way -- in no way are we talking about this being a
curriculum.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Any part of a curriculum.
Just the freedom of a Bible to be laid out on a desk, or on
the teacher's desk. See, that's kind of a no-no these days.
The teachers are scared to death to do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I think -- you
know, I just think the word, while -- it says, "While
returning prayer and the Bible." I would rather say, "While
allowing prayer and the Bible to be returned."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or "encouraging."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right, let's nail it
down here.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me ask a practical
question. Let's just say that there -- that Phil Gramm or
whoever picks this up and runs with this. Would we -- are we
eschewing other forms of religious expression, like the
Koran, for example? I'm talking about just --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not "chewing" anybody.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And what I'm -- as long as
we keep it generic, you know, I mean from a government side,
112
~_
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
I think it -- you know, the idea of prayer in public schools
has been bandied around a lot. And I think there's --
there's good support for that in the Congress and elsewhere
if we -- if we put in the same phrase with that -- for
purposes of this letter, if we put the Bible in there, then
we've almost -- we're either excluding other forms of
religious documents or we are inferring that we want only the
Bible. It's just a thing that I think the anti's would jump
O I1 .
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Oh, there's -- no,
we --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Which, you know, maybe if we
could figure out something to say there for the purposes of
this letter, it might be more palatable to Phil Gramm, is
what I'm saying, if he's going to take it forward, or
somebody else is going to take it forward. That if we -- if
we make it a -- a hot-button issue item coming out of the
block, this may not get any further than his mailroom.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would say, "While returning
religion to the classroom," 'cause it's -- you know, or
"returning religion to the classroom will not solve all our
problems, it will begin to reaffirm the importance ..." --
you know, just leave the word "Christian" out, "morality to
our young people." Take the word "Christian" out and add the
word "religion."
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: While we're wordsmithing
this, too, the first sentence has nothing to do with it. I
don't think we passed a resolution.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, we did not.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So it could say "recently
expressed support of efforts."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Picking up where you left
off, Jonathan, talking about that sentence, "While returning
prayer and the Bible to the classroom," my thought or
preference is to express it as, "While returning or
encouraging the free exercise of religious freedom."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we -- Buster, we
probably don't have to have a motion for the specific version
of this letter. I think it's something that everybody feels
comfortable with, and particularly, Judge Henneke's going to
have to feel comfortable signing it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it probably ought to be
signed by all of us.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think the proper way for it to be
done is to be redrafted and circulated, and once everyone's
signed off on it, I'll sign it and forward it, if that's
acceptable, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Do we need any more
discussion on the concept?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't believe we ought to spend
much more time on this.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is this going to go to
Senator Hutchinson as well?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, yeah, that was the
original -- the original thinking. I don't remember how --
exactly how I had that, but it was something -- oh, here it
is. The order is right here. You know, just Phil Gramm,
because he's the senior representative from our state. And
then, of course, Ms. Hutchison and Lamar would be the three
in federal government.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the language in the
order is -- is pretty good by itself, "This amendment
permitting religion to be freely used."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what is going to happen
here? Do you want me to rewrite this?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Someone needs to.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, redraft it and we'll
pass it around, and we'll all sign it when it's finished.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Shall we move along? Next item is
115

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2.15, consider and discuss Joint Resolution for City of
Kerrville to support application for $350,000 grant for
installation of runway lights and approach aid for Runway
02/20 and authorize County Judge to sign same. We have here
the terms of the Resolution, as well as the letter from Megan
Caffall regarding the need for this Resolution in order to
apply for TexDOT Aviation Capital Improvement grant funds.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve the Joint
Resolution with the City of Kerrville to support application
for a grant for installation of runway lights and approach
aid for Runway 02/20 ar,d authorize County Judge to sign same.
Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is 2.16,
which is consider and discuss renewal until 12/31/99 of
County Risk Management insurance. This was brought to our
attention by the County Auditor and is part of our policy
that we've adopted to try to have all of our insurance expire
at the end of this calendar year so that we can more
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
appropriately go out for bids on an insurance package.
Tommy, is there anything you need to tell us about this?
Just an extension?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's an extension, and I -- I need
-- you need to sign the application.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we renew County Risk
Management insurance until 12/31/99 and authorize County
Judge to sign application for same. 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: This train is on a downhill pull.
The next item, ?_.17, is scheduled for 2 o'clock this
afternoon. We won't go into that until then. 2.18, consider
and discuss election of County Judge Pro Tem to preside over
Commissioners Court in County Judge's absence. I put this
on. Under the current schedule, I will not be here for the
second meeting in July. This is the only week that I can
spend with my two sons, so I'm going to be on vacation. I
thought it would be appropriate for us to -- as a body, to
elect someone to preside over the meeting in my absence. And
117
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
I think, probably, the most appropriate person to do that
would be the one with the most experience and seniority. So,
do I have any nominations for County Judge Pro Tem?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I nominate Commissioner of
Precinct 1, the Honorable Buster Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, before you do --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You're not going to be here?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a right here, now, to
speak. Judge, we went through this same thing the previous
time I was on the Court, and what we did then was pass the
duty around the table, like we do the prayer. And, it was
kind of fun; it was kind of neat when it came your turn. It
was kind of a learning experience, because it's different in
that chair than it is from over here, and it's a good
experience for all of us to go through to conduct a meeting.
And, I think it would be -- I think that that is the route to
go for the benefit of all of us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no problem with that.
We can start with you. Buster Baldwin is the first one.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I nominate Buster Baldwin.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What I'm hearing, the proposal is
to rotate the County Judge Pro Tem in numerical order,
beginning with the Commissioner of Precinct 1.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What have I ever done?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that the motion that I hear
118
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
before the Court?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That is the motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we rotate the duties of
County Judge Pro Tem in the the absence of the County Judge
among the Commissioners, beginning with the Commissioner of
Precinr_t 1 and continuing numerically thereafter.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. It's an
honor.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If not,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
{The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Have you had a
chance to talk to the Sheriff at all about that?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. That's the reason I came back
in.
JUDGE HENNEKE:
MR. TOMLINSON:
JUDGE HENNEKE:
Amendment -- I believe it
MR. TOMLINSON:
JUDGE HENNEKE:
Do you want to take that up now?
Sure.
We're going back to Budget
was No. 4?
That's correct.
Which we tabled earlier. Okay.
119
L__
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 ?.
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: I did visit with the Sheriff, and
in reviewing the jail budget, if things go according to the
way they've been the last -- the prior months of this year,
we'll have about $40,000 left in -- in the food line item for
the jail. So, I asked her if she -- if she would okay the
transfer of enough funds out of that line item to the
Maintenance budget to finish the year for -- for jail
maintenance, and she said that will be fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we transfer --
$40,000?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I would think that we could
do it as we needed it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Transfer how much now?
MR. TOMLINSON: Let's transfer $5,000.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Transfer $5,000 from the food
budget of the County Jail into the Maintenance Department
budget for purposes of maintenance at the County jail only.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If not,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
120

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.}
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.}
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. We are adjourned
until 2 o'clock.
MS. S~VIL: Recess.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Recessed until 2 o~clock, thank
you. A voice in the wilderness crying out.
(Recess from 11:40 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 2 o'clock on Monday, July
12th, 1999. At this time, we'll reconvene this regular
session of Kerr County Commissioners Court. We have posted
for 2 o'clock Agenda Item 2.17, which is to consider and
discuss status of Application for Neighborhood Roads and
schedule for further consideration of same. The purpose of
this agenda item is to accept from any affected property
owner, regarding the Application for Neighborhood Roads filed
by Vernon Harrison regarding River Bend Ranch, any objections
to said Application.
We have -- I have received, and it's in the file, a
letter from John and Jeanie Capehart expressing their
objection to the Application. However, it should also be
noted that the Applicants have never come in and provided the
County Clerk's office with the names and addresses of all of
121
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 landowners in Sections 2 and 3 of River Bend Ranches, and
accordingly, summons have not been issued for all of those
landowners. Because of that, it's probably necessary for us
to have another date on which people who are affected who
wish to oppose the Application may come before us and
indicate their opposition. Is there anyone in the audience
who wishes to announce their opposition to the Application
for Neighborhood Roads?
MR. JOSEPHS: Mr. -- or Judge, I believe in the
interest of Conrad Pyle and Teresa Pyle, it's our
understanding that the petition asks that the road that
crosses their property be made into a neighborhood road, and
we believe that aside from all the legal questions involved,
the road itself has a 25 percent grade, and the maximum that
the County can accept as a road is a 12 and a half percent
grade. It's so steep that if you didn}t slow down, your car
would crash into --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Excuse me, Mr. Josephs. The
purpose today is here to accept announcements or opposition
by anyone to the Application.
MR. JOSEPHS: We would oppose.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We're not here to hear testimony.
We're not here to argue the issue.
MR. JOHNSTON: We would oppose this part of the
Application as it tends to make the road that crosses the
122
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
Conrad Pyle property a neighborhood road.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Pyle,
you're announcing that they are opposed to the Application?
MR. JOHNSTON: Only as to part of it, sir, and
that's the part -- there's two of them that they're asking be
made neighborhood roads.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there anyone else who is
opposed? Yes, sir? Come forward and let us know your name.
MR. HILL: My name is W.C. Hill. I own Tract 20 in
Section 3 of River Bend Ranch. I am opposed to making that
road a neighborhood road.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Mr. Kelly?
MR. KELLY: Yes. And I apologize, I forgot my
coat. I've gotten casual moving up here. But we object to
making a public road across Joanne Smith's property.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And you're representing whom?
MR. KELLY: Joanne Smith.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Is there anyone else? Yes,
ma'am?
MS. PENA: I have brought some letters. Karen
Pena, for my husband Richard and myself. We certainly would
oppose the Application. We're a little confused as to what
the Application really is, because we're seeing and hearing
certain things out of the Association that imply that you're
only going to be concerned with condemning the Pyle easement.
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
The way I read the notification that I received is you're
looking at both the Pyle and the Smith easements.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The Application clearly requests
that both easements be declared neighborhood roads.
MS. PENA: And I'm concerned that you're going to
look at it in that light, in that package, and either do both
7 or none.
8
9 before L
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: We're only concerned about what's
MS. PENA: Okay. Then I want to make sure -- the
Capeharts have e-mailed me a copy of their letter.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We have their letter, and we've
noted for the record their opposition.
MRS. PENA: Okay. I have a letter here from a Jim
and Barbara Evans. They are owners of Tract 7-C in Section
3. And then I have an e-mailed letter sent to me to deliver
to Judge Henneke from Ralph Conner, who is the owner -- well,
and his wife -- of Tract 13 in Section 3. So, I'll turn over.
the Evans' letter. You have the Capeharts'. And Ralph
Conner's letter.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Is there anyone else
who wishes to state their opposition at this time? Again,
for those who weren't here when we started, the Applicant has
never brought in to us the names and addresses of all of the
affected owners, so summons have not been issued to all the
124
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
affected owners. At such time as the Applicant complies with
that, the Court will schedule another regular session, which
is the first session of the month, which is the second Monday
of the month, for people who are opposed to the Application
to come forward and make their opposition known. Once that's
complied with, then we will discuss and set a hearing, at
which time the merits of the Application will be considered
by the Court.
MR. HARRISON: Judge, I'm Vernon Harrison. May I
ask for clarification on the service? We attempted to get
and have gotten some of the service by a waiver of -- of
notice. Sorne people have filed appearances. Are we required
to serve everyone, whether or not they waived service, or
whether or not they appear?
JUDGE HENNEKE: First of all, we don't know who
everyone is.
MR. HARRISON: I understand.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And without an updated list of who
owns property in River Bend Ranch, we're unable to determine
whether or not everyone has been served. The statute says
that after an Application is filed, the County Clerk shall
issue notice to the Sheriff or Constable commanding that
officer to summon each property owner affected by the
Application. Now, I will take the position, which it's up to
the Court, that if someone files with this -- with the Clerk
125
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 original Waiver of Summons for Citation, then we won't be
forced to go through the exercise of serving them. But,
until we have an accurate list that we can compare with
people who've filed answers -- or not answers, who have --
who have filed opposition or who have filed waivers, we're
unable to determine whether or not the statute has been
complied with.
MS. HARRIS: We can furnish triat list. 1 was not
aware we needed to do that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Are there any other questions? Any
of the Commissioners have any questions or anything like --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, the thing is -- waiver
of service can be done as long as we have an accurate list to
compare that against to make sure they've either been served
or they've waived service?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I mean, in the interest of
expedience and to save money on the part of the Applicant,
I'm willing to accept a waiver if someone brings an original
waiver in.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And they're confirmed to be on the
list. If there's nothing else to come before us, that
concludes this agenda item. Thank you all. Does anyone have
-- any of the other Commissioner have anything we need to
take up today?
126
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
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: If there's nothing else to come
before this Court, we stand adjourned.
(commissioners Court adjourned at 2:10 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS I
COUNTY OF KERR I
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court ofKerr County, Texas,
at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 20th day of July, 1999.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : , ~ r~-
Kathy B nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certi~ied Shorthand Reporter
ORDER NO. ~:59~7
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
On this the 1;~'th day of J~_ily 1999, came to be considered by
the Co~_~rt the vario~_~s claims and acco~_~nts against F',err Co~_inty
and the various Cammissioner~s' pr-e~incts, which said Claims
and Acco~_~nts are 1~-Gener~ai Fund for X84; b11. _-, ii- Jam. ~---
for ~~, X19. ~5; 13-Road 4 Bridge Add' 1 Registration Fee F~_~nd
for X19, 159.68; 14-Fire Pratectian F~_~nd far ~9,7.:~~.88; 15-Road
R Bridge F~_md far X51, E37. 56; 18-Co~_mty Law Library F~_md for
~1,5~5.3~; 19-F'~_~blic Library F~_~nd for $~6,8Q~~. 16; `3-J~_ivenile
State Aid F~_ind for ~59.9E; `4-Tr^affic Safety Fund for X834.68;
~'7-J~_~venile Intensive Program-State Aid Fund for $675.~~;
31-F'arks Fund for ~3, ~~~fi; 5~-Indigent Health Care F~_~nd for
~8,7~~.91; 7~-Permanent Improvement Fund for ~153,6`3.4~;
76-J~_~venile Detention Facility F~.and far ~~4~.55; 81-District
Administration F~_~nd for X168.75; 83-State Funded -`16th
District Attorney F~_ind for X616.93; 86-State F~_~nded
District ~'robatian F~_ind for $13,835.39; and 87-State
F~_tnded-Comm~_tnity Carr°ections Fund for X3,356.34.
(TOTAL ALL FUNDS-~38~. EBB. 45l
Upon motion made by Commissioner Griffin, seconded by
Commissioner Lets, the Co~_~r°t unanimously approved by a vote of
4-tD-~, payment of said Claims and Accn~_~nts as recnmmended by
the County A~_~ditnr.
ORDER ISO. `5~~-8
BUDGET AMEIVDMEhIT
DISTRICT CLERK.
On this the i~th of J~_~ly 199, ~_~pon motion made by
Commissioner, Lets, secanded by Commissioner, Baldwin, the
Co~_~rt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, transferring
X319.00 from Line It7~em Na. iQ~-450-311 F~hata Copy Expense to
Line Item No. 10-450-5E1 Comp~_iter Hardware.
ORDER No. ~~~~~
PUDGET AMENDMENT
RALIES & ANIMAL CONTROL
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
On this the 1Eth day of July i'~99, ~_~pon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Paldwin, the
Co~_trt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-~, transferring
~~~~.~~ from Line Item No. 10-64~--~:,J~ Operating Expense to
Line Item No. 10-54~-4'0 and transferring ~'~~. ~~ from Line
Ttem No. 10-540-4c0 Telephone to Line Item No, 10-54L-4~0
Telephone.
ORDER NO. ~591~
PUDGET AI'~IENDMENT
COUNTY LAW LIPRARY
On this the i~:th day of J~_-ly 1`~`~9, ~_tpon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Haldwin, the Co~-rt
~nanimo~~sly approved by a vote of 4-0-0, transferring
~`~4. ~~ from FUND #18 S~_~r°pl~_is F~_tnds to Line Item No.
18-6J~-J~~ Paoks.
ORDER NO. L5`311
BUDGET AMEhIDMENT
COUNTY JAIL
On this the l~:th day of J~_t1y iG`39, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the
Co~_irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-Q~, transferring a
total of X12, 7`~:. ~~ from Line Item hia. 1~-~1~:-1~-4 Jailer
Salaries, with ~1, 5~1. ~8 going to Line Item IVo. 1~-51E-~.?,5
F~risoner Transfer and Ali, 1~+~.EB going to Line Ttem No.
iQ~-51~-1~8 F{art-time Salary.
ORDER N0. L591E
LATE RILL
ISSUE HAND CHECK
FOR L I A I SON WORK TO R. 1'.E I7H LONGNECF'.ER
On this the 1~th day of July 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Lets, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the Co~_~rt
unanimo~.~sly approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, the late bill from R.
N.eith Longnecker presented by the A~_iditor. (FOR LIAISON WORF'.
FROM JUNE i - 30, 1999)
ORDER NO. E5S 1
AP'P'ROVE TO ACCEPT MINUTES
AND WAIVE READ 1 NG
On this the lath day of J~_~ly 1'3S'3, ~_~pon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner, Griffin, the
Co~_~rt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to accept and
waive reading of the following Min~_~tes; Reg~_ilar Session Kerr
Co~_mty Commissioners' Co~_trt, June 14, 1'~9~, 5:0~ A. M. ; Special
Session F'.err County Commissioners' Co~_~rt, J~_~ne ~'4, 199, B:G~
F'. M.
ORDER NO. `5914
AP'P'ROVE AND ACCEPT MONTHLY REPORTS
On this the i~:th day of J~_-ly 1999, came to be considered by
the Co~_-rt the vario~_~s monthly reports of f,err Co~_mty and
Precinct Officials for^ I'.err Ca~_-nty. Upon motion made by
Commissioner Haldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Co~_-rt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-0, that said
reports be accepted and filed with the Co~_-nty Clerk for
future audit:
!',err Co~_mty Clerk - Jannett Pieper
Tr°ust F~_-nd Report - Monies and Fees Collected or Received
Month Ending 3~ June 1999
}'.err County Clerk - Jannet Pieper
Tr~_-st F~_-nd Report
J ~_-n e 3~, 1999
-- Kerr County Clerk - Jannett Pieper
Fines Imposed/Collected/J~_-dgments Rendered in
Ca~_-nty Ca~_-rt of Herr Co~_inty
J~_-ry Fees Collected
J ~_-n e 3-~, 1999
J~_-stice of the Peace, PCT #1 - Vance Elliott
Fines, J~_-dgments and J~_~ry Fees
Month of June 19'39
J~_istice of the F'eace, PCT #c - Dawn Wright
Fines, J~_-dgments and J~_-ry Fees
Month of J~.ane 1999
Just ice of the Peace, P'CT #3 - Robert L. Tench
Fines, J+_idgments and J~_-ry Fees
Month of Ja_-ne 1999
Kerr, Co~_inty Sheriff's Department - Frances A. Kaiser, Sheriff
Civil Report far Month of J~_-ne 1999
Kerr, Co~_-nty Sheriff's Department - Frances A. I'.aiser, Sher^iff
Monthly Report for May 1999
ORDER N0. `J~~J
IiERR COUNTY ACCIDENT PREVENTION PROGRAM
On this the 1~th day of ,7~_ily 199G, ~_~pon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Co~_~rt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-Q~, the Herr Ca~_inty
Accident Prevention Pr^ogr^am as presented by the Co~_inty
Treasurer.
ORDER NO. E5S1E
PRELIMINARY REF'LAT OF TRACT NO. i8, LOX S ACRES
On this the 1~th day of July 1999, ~_tpon motion made by
Commissioner Paldwin, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Co~_trt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-~, F'r°eliminary
Replat of Tr^act No. 18, Box S Acres and waived the p~_iblic
hearing.
ORDER NO. ~~917
EXTEI~IDING THE F'RELIMIIVARY FLAT
OF SADDLEWOOD ESTATES, SEGTIOhI IT
On this the 12th day of J~_~ly 1999, ~_~pon motion made by
Commissioner Paldwin, seconded by Cammissioner Williams, the
Co~_~r~t ~.tnanimo~_~sly approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the extensian
of the F'r,eliminar,y Rlat of Saddlewood Estates, Sectian II,
~_tnt i 1 September, 9th, 1999.
ORDER NO. L5918
EXTEND PRELIMINARY FLAT
FDR LDS ENCINDS, SECTION TWO
AND APPROVE THE FINAL FLAT
On this the i~th day of J~_~ly 1`399, upon motion made by
Commissioner Paldwin, seconded by Commissioner, Gr^iffin, the
Co~_~r,t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-~, extending the
Preliminary Flat for Los Encinos Subdivision, Section II,
until October :7th, 1999, and the Co~_trt approved the final
plat as presented.
ORDER IVO. ::591
RE'P'ROVE F I IVAL FLAT OF THE DUTCH FARM
On this the 1`th day of J~_ily 1999, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Lets, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Co~_trt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the final plat
of The Dutch Farm as s~_~bmitted.
ORDER NO. ~59E0
RE'P'ROVE VARIAhICE FOR GRADE OF ROAD
TN HUI~IT VALLEY VIEW RANCH SUPDIVISIOhI
On this the 1`th day of July 199, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-0, the variance
in the grade req~_~irements ~_-p to a max of 18. Q~7 percent, as
reflected in the profile presented to the Co~_trt.
ORDER N0. ~'59~'1
EKGHANGE DF OLD ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
THROUGH S~1ITH RANCH p~ROF'ERTY
FDR ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ON HIGBEE ROAD
On this the i~th day of July 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Co~_ir^t ~_tnanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-~, the exchange of
old road right-of-way thr^o~_igh Smith Ranch property for
additional right-of-way on Higbee Rnad. F~_Erther^more, the
Road and Bridge Department was a~_~thor^ized to have the
necessary documents pr^epar^ed and signed by the Co~_~nty J~_tdge
and to s,_ir^vey the right-of-way along Higbee Road.
ORDER NO. `59~:'c
AP'P'ROVE JOINT RE50LUTIOhI WITH 7HE CITY OF IiERRVILLE
TO 5UP'P'ORT AP'P'LICATION FOR ~;r~Q1, O~Q~ GRAINY
Dn this the iEth day of J~_~ly 1959, ~_tpon motion made by
Commissioner Lets, seconded by Commissioner Haldwin, the Co~_~rt
unanimo~~sly approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the Joint Resol~_~tion
with the City of l'.errville to s~_~ppor,t application for a grant
grant for installation of r~_~nway lights and approach aid for
Runway ~E/L~ and a~_~thori e the Co~_~nty J~_~dge to sign same.
ORDER ND. `59~.~
RENEWAL DF COUNTY RISI; MANAGEMENT INSURANCE
UNTIL 12/1/99
Dn this the 12th day of J~_tly 1999, ~_~pon motion made by
Cammissioner Lets, seconded by Commissioner, Baldwin, the Co~_trt
~ananimo~.tsly approved by a vote of 4-0-0, renewing the Co~_tnty
Risk Management Ins~_trance ~.tntil 12/31/99 and attthori~e Co~_tnty
J~_tdge to sign application far same.
ORDER NO. 25~~4
SELECTION OF COUNTY JUDGE PRO TEh'I
TO PRESIDE OVER COMMISSIDNERS' COURT
hJ ~.:OUh3TY JUDGE'S ABSENCE
On this the i`th day of J~_ily 1~~9, ~_~pon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Lets, the Co~_~rt
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-V1, that the d~_~t ies
of Co~_inty J~_idge Pro Tem be r-otated in the absence of the
County J~_idge among the Commissioners, beginning with the
Commissioner of Precinct #1 and continuring n~_~merically
thereafter.
ORDER ND. ~59~5
BUDGET AMENDMENT
CDURTHOUSE AND RELATED BUILDINGS
Dn this the loth day of J~_ily 199, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Lets, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Co~_irt
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-~, transferring
X5,000.00 from Line Item Na. 10-5i~-3uE Prisoner Meals to Line
Item No. 10-510-451 Jail Repair and Maintenance.