1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'~ 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
August 9, 1999 PAGE
Commissioners' Comment	3
2ri9`{~Pay Bills595/8 ~Y9o, ~P59S/, d39Sa~
l.l	5
a
1.2 Budget Amendments ~	8
1.9~9,SjRead and Approve Minutes	16
1.5~ysy Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	17
2.1,~Jaur~ Go out for proposals - Health Insurance	17
2.2,)S9.SSRaising Law Library Fee	29
2.3.!/is,.c~Applicants' appeal rights, processes and	
procedures on water & wastewater issues	30
2.8 idnwSpecial maintenance needs at Library	43
2.7a,f9,SLLibrary Board appointment	58
c
r,~.
8riefing on Holdsworth Drive project
2.9~	65
~
~
t
vr'+"'B
i
fi
Hi
h Water Brid
e
roject
2
10	81
ng on
g
g
p
.
/
r
e	
2.9~r-~--Request for County to accept maintenance	
on Bear Creek Road	93
,/
2.5~'~-County Atty's opinion - repairs to private rds.	95
2.16~~JOint meeting: 911 Board, Commissioners Court,	
Post Office & City of Kerrville representatives	105
./
~
..~-~TexDOT county road mileage survey
2.6Ni	117
,,
//	
2.11N~w(,Changes in law enacted by 76th Texas Legislature	123
2.12)59,~Ordinance prohibiting solid waste disposal	
in Kerr County	129
2.13d59~Service contract between Kerr County ~ CSCD	136
2.14o7;7~Change date for December 1999 Special Meeting	138
2.15~g6oP,uthority for County Judge to appoint master to	
preside over mental health proceedings	141
	
9.1 ~bYAction taken on Executive Session matters
s	
(Item 2.17 - new hires - Tax Assessor/Collector)
A	197
3
.~.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
On Monday, August 9, 1999, at 9 o'clock a.m., a regular
session of Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning, everyone. It's
9 o'clock on Monday, August 9th, 1999. We'll call to order
this regular Commissioners Court session. Who has the honors
this morning? Mr. Griffin?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And I would like to
introduce Pastor John Green from the Hunt United Methodist
Church to do our invocation this morning.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Mr. Green.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thank you very much, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: 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 speak. Is there
anyone who wishes to address us on an item not listed on the
agenda?
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Seeing none, we'll move to the
Commissioners' comments. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. The only
thing I have, I'd like to introduce a couple of distinguished
9
.^-
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
gentlemen that are guests of the Commissioners Court today.
They're members of Troop 111 of the Boy Scouts of America,
and they're here observing their government as part of their
-- help me.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Government merit badge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Government merit badge,
that's right. Thank you, Eagle Scout. We have an Eagle
Scout on the other end.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Failed this test, didn't
you?
COMMISSIONER HALllWIN: Yes, I did. That means I
don't get my badge, I guess. But I'd like to introduce
Montgomery and Herschel Self from Kerrville. Welcome to the
Commissioners Court, gentlemen.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all I have. And that
was enough.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That was good. Commissioner
Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a note here from one
of our good residents that lives in Pecan Valley. I'll read
it just for the record. I just want to compliment the County
crew we have mowing Pecan Valley and Elm Pass this week.
I've never seen such a beautiful job. Doug is the foreman,
and Steve and Louis also. I had to stop and thank them.
5
,...
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Remember, we still want a stripe down Elm Pass Road. Okay?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dream on.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have nothing this morning.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Griffin?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Nothing this morning.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The Judge has nothing this morning,
so we'll move straight into the agenda. Bills. Does anyone
have any questions regarding the bills that have been
presented for approval this morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a couple. On Page 1,
Department 909, Non-departmental. The bottom one, Invoice
No. 103671, to Pitney Bowes, the Pitney Bowes bill. That was
-- the way I understand, was in the back end of the Assessor/
Collector's office, and because of the construction, the
ceiling fell in on it and did some damage. We're paying the
bill. Will we be reimbursed by the -- the construction
company?
MR. TOMLINSON: I can't answer that one right now.
I don't -- I don't know of any contact with them about that,
but I think our Maintenance Supervisor knows about it. We'll
deal with that situation, if possible.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Well, I sure hope we
do.
MR. TOMLINSON: They have -- they have paid fox
6
,~
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
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, good. Page 2, close
to the the bottom, 198th District Court, Enterprise
Rent-a-Car. I looked the bill up here this morning, and I
still didn't -- generally, I come in early and look my
questions up in the bills, and most -- 90 percent of the
time, the explanation is there. But, this one just didn't --
I just wondered about it. 109026.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. It's for the 198th District
Court, special trials. It's for three days. It really
doesn't say what it's for, if it's for -- apparently, it's
for a special District Judge. I don't know the answer, but I
can -- I can find out. If you want to hold it until I can
find out, I'll --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, if it's for a special
District Judge, I don't have any problem with that, 'cause
they don't have -- they hardly ever charge us. But, what was
the name on there? Wasn't there a name?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, there's a name, but it's the
name of the trial.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Fernandez?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. So, it doesn't -- it's --
the renter is a Dunning, Cheryl Dunning.

i-,
~..
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. That's what kind of
I threw me.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know if that's the Judge or
a witness.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know.
MR. TOMLINSON: Probably one or the other.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I personally don't want to
pay it until we get an explanation. I don't know what y'all
think. That's all I had, Judge. Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else have any questions
about any bills as presented?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move for payment of
bills.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How do we do that when
there's a question -- when there's a question like this? Can
we approve everything but that one pending?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, we can hold that one.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Hold it for -- can we do
that? Okay, I'll second it.
MR. TOMLINSON: I can find out about it sometime
today before you adjourn.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay, I'll second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve payment of
the bills as approved or recommended by the County Auditor,
8
r
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
with the exception of Enterprise Rent-a-Car bill for $256.34,
Fund 436, 198th District Court. 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: Yes. Number 1 -- go ahead.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Go ahead.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for the Tax Collector.
It's to move 5370 from Contingency out of the Commissioners
Court budget to Lease Copier line item for the tax -- fox the
Tax Office substation. This is for the balance of the year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a new machine that goes
out to the new office?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So move.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 1 for the Tax Assessor/Collector's
office. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise
your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
9

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
i, JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Number 2?
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is for the County Court at
Law. It's a request from Judge Brown to transfer $112.73
from Computer Supplies to Office Supplies.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 2 for the County Court at Law. 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: Number 3?
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is for the 1998 Tax
Anticipation Note. In the budget, we budgeted every -- all
expenses, interest and principal, on one account. That was
-- the budget was done before we actually knew what those
amounts -- specific amounts were going to be. So, to pay the
service fee on that, I'm requesting that we move $530 out of
Principal line item to Service Fees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sa moved.

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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz, second
by Commissioner Williams, that we approve Budget Amendment
Request No. 3 regarding the 1998 Tax Anticipation Note.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the service fee?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's for the paying agent to make
-- to make payments to the owners or the purchasers of the --
of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
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: Budget Amendment Request No. 3 is
approved. Number 9, J. P. No. 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is a request from Judge
Elliott for the purpose of -- of replacing his computer in
his office. All these changes axe for that purpose. To move
$396 from Software Maintenance, $100 from Postage, $100 from
Photocopy Supplies, $7.02 from Miscellaneous, and $995.98
from Capital Outlay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's a different Capital
Outlay account, I notice.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. That's -- that is
11
.-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Commissioners Court. That account is -- there's a contingent
account for this purpose, for emergencies that we don't
anticipate at the beginning of the year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, what's the reason for
adding $100 to Conferences?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think we -- I think he has a
post-legislative conference for J.P.'s that are in Dallas --
that's in Dallas. I'm not sure about this, but I'm -- I
anticipate that's what it was for. I know the J.P.'s do have
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've got a little bit of a
problem with that. A conference is something you really
should budget for, all elected officials. And, you know,
that's -- if there's a reason -- you know, he is a newly
elected official, and in that area I think some leeway should
be granted to any newly elected official. But, going to a
post-legislative conference in Dallas, I'm not sure that
qualifies, in my mind.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That is the J.P.'s post-legislate
conference, just like the one we have in Austin for --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And the budget that J.P.'s operate)
on is not --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All of them basically give the
or conferences. I just -- you know, I have a
12
,..
L-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
problem with people that, you know, can't follow the budget
in that area. I mean, there's -- I don't know, maybe there's
some credits he has to get in his first year. If that's the
case, you know, it's a little bit different. But, just to go
because he wants to go to that conference -- he can get the
information elsewhere.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz, would you
feel better if I encouraged him to do a better job next year?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or not attend the
post-legislative conference.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, just don't go.
MR. TOMLINSON: They don't have to go, then, next
year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My question is the Capital
Outlay. What -- new computers? I mean, all the things that
we've been talking about in here --
MR. TOMLINSON: It's to replace a computer -- a
computer for his clerk. It crashed, and we -- he had zero,
and so the -- the purpose of this Capital Outlay line item in
Commissioners Court budget is for that purpose. It's to
replace items of that nature that go down during the year
that you can't anticipate.
13

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: So, that's the purpose of that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That was in the nature of an
Kari's computer lust died, and they had to
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the bill -- or
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'd like to second it, with
a comment, because I agree with Jonathan's evaluation that we
really do need to look at conference budget inputs more
carefully, because in legislative years we know it's going to
be there. We tend to sort of flatline it, but in legislative
years, we know it's going to be higher. In non-legislative
years, it's going to be a little bit lower. When you have
new -- or a potential of new elected officials, it's going to
be a little higher. So, we probably need to be a little more
rigorous about conference fees. And, I think we ran into a
little bit of this in the Commissioners Court office, also,
because we had new people and -- .snd it was a legislative
year. So, with that comment, I'd like to second it
wholeheartedly that we pay it, but we probably need to pay a
little closer attention in the budget process.
MR. TOMLINSON: I can a~9d a little bit to that, and
it's my -- from my memory of the prior Court's approach to
the conferences, in the past we've tried -- the Court has
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
tried to hold that line item to one amount for everybody, and
I know that that amount was sufficient at the time it
started. Hut, I know in my own budget, that for that amount,
the prices of rooms and travel, you know, increasing over
those years, was not enough. I mean, I'm -- I have to pay
for my legislative -- for my conference in September. That's
for October, or it actually doesn't happen until October.
And, based on the cost of rooms for the ones I've gone
through this year, I don't have enough money to make that
payment in September. So, I know that those costs have gone
up, and it's difficult to go based on that amount.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with Commissioner
Griffin, we just need to be real r_areful with that amount. I
think we try to, certainly, provide the funds necessary, and
I think we're fairly generous in that area across the board.
On this one, you know I'm not opposed to it, but if he's
planning to go to Dallas, $113 for three days, he's just -- I
don't think it's going to quite cover it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's going to stop off in
Waco.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's actually a one-day seminar.
Rather than spend the night in a hotel, he's flying up in the
morning and flying back in the afternoon.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, $113 is all he's got in his
budget to do that?
~--~
15
,...
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's all that's left.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We added $100, he's got $13,
so --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to make a comment
about Larry's comment, being careful with that line. It's
really the responsibility of the elected official to take
care of that. That's not something that this government body
needs to ride herd over. They need to budget their office.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: When I said "we," I meant
we, everybody, because it's the elected official or whoever's
going to have to do the conference attending that ought to
estimate those costs and come in c9uring the budget process
with that estimate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve Budget
Amendment No. 9. 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. Number 5?
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 5 is for the County
Treasurer to move $72.35 from FICA into Machine Repairs for
the repair of a printer.
16
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 5 from the County Treasurer's office.
Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Do we have any
late bills, Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. At this time, I'd entertain
a motion to waive reading and approve the minutes of the
previous meetings.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
second by Commissioner Griffin that we waive reading and
approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July 12th,
1999, and the special session held on July 26th, 1999. Any
further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right
hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
17

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. At this time, I'd
entertain a motion to approve and accept the monthly reports.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, 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 now proceed
into the consideration agenda. Item 2.1, consider and
discussing going out for proposals for health care insurance.
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Mr. Tomlinson is
going to handle this. He had called me and asked me to put
this on the agenda, so I present to you the Honorable Tommy
Tomlinson.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, actually, I'm here in the
absence of the Treasurer. She had surgery last week and --
and won't be be in till, I think, the 16th. So -- but this
is an item that she had -- that she asked me to take care of
18
.~
i
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
in her absence. I think -- I think last year at this time,
the Court had directed her to -- to remind the Court again to
go out for proposals for health insurance. So, I think you
have a handout that I gave you. It's -- I just -- since some
of the Court members are new, I wanted to make sure that
everybody understood, you know, what we're really doing if --
if we do propose to do this.
I'll start with -- with Item 4. That's the lion's share
of the cost, making up almost -- you know, a large percentage
of the $227, and that -- the 5227 represents the monthly cost
to the County far each employee -- or each qualified
employee. The $175 is the portion of that total that the
County agrees to pay on claims. In other words, that amount
times 12 times the number of qualified employees is the
maximum amount that the County will pay on claims for the
year. That's her aggregate stop loss. That $175 is a direct
result of -- of the benefits that we offer. So, what I'm --
my point is that the Court has total control over -- over
that $175. In other words, it's the Court's decision to --
to change or maintain the benefits.
So, I mean, we're not actually bidding on -- asking for
proposals on that part of it, because regardless of -- of who
our third-party administrator is, or if we go to a fully
insured plan, that amount stays the same, because -- because
that's what the County agrees or decides to pay. So, what's
19
.-~
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
left over is -- is the Item 1, which is the stop loss
coverage. That -- that $36 is what we pay an underwriter to
pay everything over that $175 -- or anything over $25,000 per
employee. In other words, we have -- if we have an employee
that has a claim over $25,000, we're paying the underwriter
to take up anything over that $25,000.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Question. So, that means,
then, that if we -- if we, the Court, were to raise the
claims amount, we probably would get a lower premium for that
-- I mean a higher premium far that, but the stop loss
coverage would probably go down some? In other words, you
can play with those numbers?
MR. TOMLINSON: You can play those numbers around,
that's correct. But -- and the way it works is that -- that
-- and Item 2 is what I call fixed costs, is the -- the
administration of the plan. And, typically, what happens is
that the proposer, which is the administrator, will bid out
the stop loss coverage. In other words, the County does not
have a direct link to -- to the people in Item 1. What
happens is that -- well, first of all, we as a County don't
have -- don't have the knowledge of the market to go out and
find those people, so that's the administrator's business,
and they know where that market is and they go out and find
the best -- the best coverage for the best price.
So, when you ask for proposals, that amount comes from
zo
,-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- from the administrator, the third-party administrator.
So, we don't -- we're not actually directly asking an
underwriter to make us a proposal. It's an indirect request
through -- through the administrator, so that -- so, really
-- you know, really, what we're asking for is a proposal on
-- on Item 2, which is a -- which is the third-party
.administrator. So, if you have any questions --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, bottom line is we go out
with a request for proposal that states the amount of the
claims per month, per employee, and we can change that if we
want to, and the rest of them sort of fall out of that?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Because the administrative
fee is going to be up to that -- and that's where they can
get a little competitive edge, by taking that administrative
fee. The group life insurance comes right out of the
actuarial tables, so that's sort of a fixed amount. And the
stop loss coverage is going to be based on the amount of. the
claims coverage and our experience in the past, so that's
fairly well fixed. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we change the coverage,
though, we change the claims amount.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. Yeah, we do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the option -- I mean, the
option we really have is to vary the coverage, which will
21
,.-.
~_
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
change all the numbers.
MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm -- well, it wouldn't -- it
wouldn't necessarily change the administrative cost.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
MR. TOMLINSON: It might change -- it would have a
direct effect on ttte -- on the stop loss coverage, for sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it may vary the -- the
claims that we're paying. I mean, we can adjust that up or
down to --
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. I'm telling you this to
make -- I think it's only fair that if -- if we do this and
we get proposals for different -- for different plans, I
think we need to make sure that -- that all bidders or
proposers have -- have the same playing field to arrive at --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Same claims level.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. I mean, I don't think we
can take a proposal from one vendor that's -- that has a plan
that's different from the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think we -- I think we have to do
that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The only way we can make an
apples-to-apples comparison is to have the claims number the
same on all the proposals.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. Not -- and my proposal, to
22
..--
.-.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
to start with, is -- you know, if we do this, is to -- is to
attach our current plan to the proposal, as-is. And -- and
then, if they -- you know, if a vendor decides to make a
different offer other than what we send out, then that's
okay. But, if we're -- if it turns out that -- you know,
that that -- see, if he does, then that different plan will
cause a different cost for claims, as well as the stop loss,
so we're going to have to be in a negotiating mode to be --
to be able to do that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me make a suggestion,
because I've had -- I've done this before in some federal
government contracts. That what we could do is do exactly as
you say, require that they respond to the package that's in
the R.F.P. They have to respond to that. If they have
something else they want to offer, they offer that in
addition. If they have a different package that they would
like to offer us, they can offer that as an addendum to their
proposal. In other words, it's an alternative proposal.
But, make them respond, because that's the only way you're
going to get an apples-to-apples comparison. Make them
respond to what you spec in the R.F.P., in the Request for
Proposal. They have to respond to that, but if they've got
something they think we would like better, they can propose
that also as an alternative, but not in place of.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I totally agree.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
._,
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we need to take a look at
the coverage, or lust do it the same thing we have right now?
I mean, keep the plan, itself? Is there any reason for to us
take a look at it and see if, you know, the employees are
happy with it or unhappy with it?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's ask Linda and Jannett and
Truby.
MS. PIEPER: I haven't heard any complaints about
it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Linda, do your people have any
complaints?
MS. UECKER: No, absolutely not.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Truby, in Road and Bridge, the
insurance coverage, are they satisfied with the benefits?
MS. HARDIN: I think most of them are pretty
satisfied. They'd like to have maybe a lower rate for their
families.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, there's something else to
consider, too. And, we -- we've been in this -- in this plan
-- not this specific plan, but we have been partially
self-insured since '99, I believe, and we have changed
third-party administrators three times. And, always, the
reason is that -- is the service that we get from the
third-party administrator. Our first two experiences were
not good at all. In fact, we had -- I think the first one,
~-
29

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
actually, our third-party administrator was out of state. We
had -- we had major problems getting them to -- to tend to
business as far as the turnover of our -- of our employees'
claims. And, the second one was the same story. We -- we
had dissatisfaction among numerous people for late payment of
claims. And, I just -- that is ~-- that's one area that we're
going to -- we're going to be at risk if we decide to change
administrators. Barbara tells me that -- that the
administrator we have now, they -- they have done everything
that they're supposed to do. They're based in San Antonio.
That's -- she says if we change, she quits. But, I mean,
that's --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Idle threat.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's -- I mean, that's how she
feels about that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We have been very -- they
have been very responsive. She's mentioned that to me a
number of times.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, they have. So -- and, also, I',
mean, as far as the stop loss part of it, there are companies)
out there that -- that will try to buy your business in that
market. And, hopefully, you know, our third-party
administrator will not -- will not accept their bid from --
like that. But, it does happen. And, what happens in those
situations is that they low-ball the first year's premium in
25

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
order to get business, and then during the next year, it's
time to watch out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That happens often.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, how does this tie into
what we've talked about with our other insurance policies,
and what you talked about with bringing on a consultant to
kind of look at our overall package?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think it's a fit. I think we
have to get real busy, but -- to find someone to do it soon,
because this -- this changes November 1st, so we have two,
two and a half months. But, still, you know, to be fair to
proposers, it takes some time to -- to do that, especially in
the health business, because you have -- you have to have so
much knowledge of -- of what goes on in a county as far as,
you know, claims. And, if you don't -- you know, if the
bidder doesn't have that knowledge when he needs it, you
know, then he can't give you --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He has to do a lot of
employee -- he has to review the claims experience of every
employee in the group, the age and the whale nine yards. It
takes a lot of time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, this --
MR. TOMLINSON: Right, it does.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, this is going to be -- the
26
L-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
health insurance is going to be separate from all -- the
other package that we're getting on 12/31, or whatever that
date is?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, I -- I think -- I think it
I mean, it's so different from our other coverage.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: From our property and liability
and everything.
MR. TOMLINSON: And that market is so specialized.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we wouldn't get a crossover of
bidders? If we bid the whole thing, it's not likely we'd get
someone who would bid on everything?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Because health is so different than
casualty and property that it wouldn't -- it wouldn't cross
over?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- that's my opinion. But,
on the other hand, you know, if -- it might be of some value
to have an objective look at everything that -- that we have,
I mean, and hiring someone to massage the -- the proposals
that we get back.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Would the health care person, the
carrier currently now, agree to an extension to the end of
the year?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. I'd have to ask
z7
.•.
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
that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Which would bring it into sync with
everybody else and allow us to do this global lockdown that
we need to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hire one person to look at it.
We can still do it separately.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The consultant can go out in
September for the health, casualty, property, the liability,
the whole nine yards.
MR. TOMLINSON: That would be great.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Are you willing to contact them to
see if they'll --
MR. TOMLINSON: Sure.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- accept an extension until
December 31st?
MR. TOMLINSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a good idea.
And also, I guess, contact -- I don't know if you have the
name of the individual we talked to about looking at all of
our coverage. And we talked about, I guess, for next budget
year.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, we have talked about that. I
know -- I only know of one -- one firm right now that does
that. I've run across those people in some of our
conferences. And -- and there are people out there in the
2a

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
market that specialize in government entities, and I think
that would be of some value, to have -- to have someone on
our team that -- that knows that -- you know, knows
government.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
if you bring that back to us
hire that person or a person
have that, you know, relativ
would need to start working,
September 1st.
T
sa
to
'ly
as
gat would be interesting,
we could, you know, either
do that or not do it, and
soon, 'cause that person
the Judge said, about
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've got to be careful
that we don't find ourselves in the same boat that the City
of Kerrville found itself in when they hired a consultant to
review its insurance, only to find out that the consultant's
recommendation was higher premiums than they were paying
before. So, we have to be careful about that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I hear a consensus, I
believe, that we table this and bring it back at our next
meeting, and give the Auditor or the Treasurer, if she's back
on board, the opportunity to consult with our current health
insurance carrier, see if they'd accept an extension until
the end of the year, and also to perhaps make some
recommendation as to a consultant.
MR. TOMLINSON: Good.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay? All right. Thank you,
29
~-.
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
Tommy. The next item is 2.2, for the District Clerk.
Consider and discuss increasing the Law Library fee from
$20 up to $35, pursuant to House Bill 1977, effective
September 1, 1999. Good morning, Linda.
MS. UECKER: Good morning. How are y'all?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Fine.
MS. UECKER: I'm not sure that you really need me
for this. All of you are aware of House Bill 1477, and it
does allow the Commissioners Court to increase the Law
Library fee from -- from not to exceed $20 to not to exceed
535. And, I think this is probably just a matter of the
Court's consideration, maybe with the Auditor's input, as far
as what the library needs or as to how to raise that. My
suggestion would be to go to maximum on it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We're currently at $20, correct?
MS. UECKER: We're currently at $20, which is the
maximum also.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And this is -- that's added onto
what kind of files?
MS. UECKER: Every -- every civil case that's filed
in County Court, County Court at Law, and District Court,
except for tax cases. Delinquent tax suits do not -- that
fee does not apply to delinquent tax suits. But, this fee
funds the Law Library totally.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can it fund computers or
30
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
related software for the Law Library?
MS. UECKER: Yes, mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good idea.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would move that we go the
maximum.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we increase the Law
Library fee from S20 to 535, effective September 1, 1999.
Any additional 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 fiENNEKE: Thank you, Linda.
MS. UECKER: Thank you. Good-bye.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next Item, No. 2.3, consider and
discuss applicants' appeal rights, processes, and procedures
on water and wastewater issues. Commissioner Griffin?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. I put this on so that
we could have a discussion about the appeal process on water
and wastewater issues, in that since I took office in
January, I suspect that half of the constituent contact I've
had has been, in one way or another, related to water issues.
And -- and, by the way, I think that the U.G.R.A., in

31
.-+
4
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
particular, are just doing a great job on -- on getting a
handle on the enforcement and -- and carrying out the
responsibilities. And, Mr. Brown is here this morning.
Thanks for coming, Jim, because we may -- you may be able to
clarify some of my questions.
In dealing with water and wastewater issues, I've -- I
have found little understanding amongst the applicants of
what the appeal process is in any case involving water and
wastewater. Now, some understand that they can come to the
Court or they go to Mr. Brown, after the administrator has
made a decision; that perhaps they can come to the Court,
they can go to T.N.R.C.C., or they can go to the District
Court or whatever. I also understand that that appeal chain
is spelled out in writing somewhere, and it was perhaps on
the back of some of the applications, or was going to be.
Are they, Jim, as a matter of fact? And, come up, 'cause
I've probably got a number of questions for you.
MR. BROWN: Commissioner -- for the record, Jim
Brown, General Manager, Upper Guadalupe River Authority. I'm
not sure that it's -- it's in the current application. I've
been out of town for a week and just saw this item this
morning. I can give you the appeal process on the wastewater
side, if we're talking about the County's O.S.S.F. program.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me -- let me take --
give a little more background on why I put this on there. I
32
r~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
think there are three distinct water or wastewater potential
issues that I'm talking about. One is O.S.S.F., On-Site
Sewage Facility. Another is drilling a well, well permits
and so on. And, the other is floodplain administration.
Now, those all have different governing bodies that we all
answer to in one way or another.
And -- and my question is -- and perhaps we don't have
to take the time now to go through them all, but, for
example, someone makes an application for a well permit. For
whatever reason, the -- the permit is -- is disapproved, and
probably legitimately so. But, the applicant ought to know
the next step they can take if they don't agree with that is
to go to who? Is it to the Court? Is it to the
Commissioner? Because usually that's where they'd come
first. I'd like to be able to help them and say, Well, first
off, before coming to the Court, you really need to go talk
to Mr. Brown, or you need to go talk to whoever, and then
come to us and we can try to make some judgment.
If you don't like our decision, then you can go to -- in
the case of a well, would they go to T.N.R.C.C.? I don't
know; perhaps they would. And then, if they don't like
T.N.R.C.C.'s answer, they can go sue us all in district
court. So, whatever the procedure is for a well or for
O.S.S.F. or for floodplain administration -- they end up with
FEMA, I suspect, at some point with the floodplain issue.
.-,
33
.-.
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
And, all I'm trying to do is make it clear, and perhaps have
a -- a piece of paper we would hand an applicant with the
application that says, "Here's the application; here's how
you fill that out. And, if you don't like the answer you
get, here's the appeal process," so that we don't get the
wrong people involved at the wrong stage in the process.
That's what I'm trying to alleviate, and to streamline it so
that the applicant understands, "Here's what your rights
are." You can just step, ticky-boom, right up the line and
ultimately go to the Supreme Court if you want to.
Do you see what I'm getting at, Jim? It's just trying
to clarify --
MR. BROWN: I do.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- all of those water and
wastewater issue appeal chains. That's what I'm trying to
get.
MR. BROWN: And what makes this a little bit more
unique, in the broad-brush question that you just asked, is
that two of these issues are -- are Kerr County issues, and
that's O.S.S.F. and floodplain issues. Water well permits,
that's an issue of the Headwaters Underground Water
Conservation District, which is -- which is an autonomous
governmental entity that -- that has its own provisions, or
at least provisions set out in the Water Code to make its own
rules. And I'm not going to get too far into it; the General
,~-~
39
.~
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
Counsel for the Headwaters Underground Conservation District
is in this room. But, in the -- in the Headwaters -- in the
Headwaters rules, there is a pror_edure for appellant to
appeal the administrator's decision, and it's spelled out.
It goes from the administrator, then it goes to the General
Manager of the Upper Guadalupe River Authority, who is not a
part of the Headwaters program, but Headwaters has contracted
with me to sit as the Administrative Hearing Examiner, if you
will.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
MR. BROWN: In that process. And I hear -- I hear
both sides of the case, make a recommendation or make a
finding. Then the appeal process from -- from there is to
the Headwaters Board of Directors. And then the Headwaters
Board can act one way or the other. And then there's --
there is some -- there's some judicial remedies available
beyond the administrative remedies. In the O.S.S.F. issue --
and I'm going to go through rather -- rather quickly. And, I
think what you're asking for is that maybe we sit down and --,
and do a document. ~I
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Precisely.
MR. BROWN: That we can hand out.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That lists 1, 2, 3.
MR. BROWN: I think we can get there real quickly;
I don't think it's an issue at all. But, in the O.S.S.F.
s.
35
.-.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
situation, Charles Wiedenfeld is the designated agent by the
Texas Natural -- T.N.R.C.C. Kerr. County is the designated
representative of T.N.R.C.C. for the On-Site Sewage Facility
program in Kerr County. So, T.N.R.C.C. designates the County
as the entity. They turn around and designate Charles
Wiedenfeld as the -- the agent that represents them, so
there's a process there.
The way the process works at this point is that if -- if
a -- a permittee or an applicant has a problem with a
decision by the designated agent, which is Mr. Wiedenfeld,
then, in our contract with Kerr County, then I -- the General
Manager of the River Authority then steps in as the first
line in the administrative decision-making process. Then,
the -- the permittee or the applicant then has a right to
appeal my findings, my decisions on the matter, to the
Commissioners Court. And then, yes, T.N.R.C.C., beyond the
Commissioners Court, can get involved. Usually -- they
usually take the position that it's the County's program.
We've approved it; it's their responsibility to administer
it. So, that more or less pushes the -- the party then into
the -- over into the lease issue. So, that's the
administrative process.
The floodplain is even more complicated, because we have
the federal government and the State government involved in
that one. Again, the administrator of that program must be
.~-~.
36
.~.
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
certified by the federal government through some certifying
agent. The T.N.R.C.C. is the local representative for FEMA
in the State of Texas. However, T.N.R.C.C. has delegated the
permitting and licensing for certification of the Floodplain
administrator off to a third-party administrative group that
is non-governmental. It's -- I think it's an association
group. So, in that process, the -- the floodplain issue then
is -- is determined by the certified Floodplain
Administrator, and the appeal of that process then comes to
the Commissioners Court.
In the interim, there is an attempt by U.G.R.A. to --
from the General Manager, to bring those parties together
before the matter comes to the Court and see if we can reach
a settlement. If we're unable to do that, then it comes to
the Court, and the Court has very little leeway in -- in its
decisions. You have a floodplain order, and that order -- in
the government -- federal government's eyes, that order was
so written that there's very little gray area in there. If
you have a situation where someone, A, fails to get a permit,
constructed something in a floodplain, they either have to,
A, raise the structure to make it meet the guidelines, or
move the structure out of the floodplain.
And, their third option is they can come to the
Commissioners Court and say to this Court that, "We have a
noncompliant structure sitting in the floodplain," and at
37
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
that point they can say, "We release all claims to flood
insurance. We release all claims to loss or recovery from
loss from FEMA in case of a storm event." Then, the
Commissioners Court then applies for a Section 1316-F with
the federal government. That piece of property is red-lined,
never be insured, grid it's never eligible to -- to collect
any kind of compensation as a result of flood loss.
The -- the one issue that we have in Kerr County is that
we have people who build buildings in the floodplain and do
not come in for floodplain determination. Now, the County --
the Commissioners Court really does not have a lot of options
in that area, in that you have to administer the program in
accordance with the order which you have filed with the
federal government. And, a violation of -- of that order is
a typical violation of any County order and can be dealt with
punitively, if the Court so chooses. The big issue in not
enforcing your County floodplain order is that FEMA then has
two options. One, they can come back and penalize the County
by adding a $50 per year premium.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Per landowner, isn't it? Or
per --
MR. BROWN: Per landowner.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
MR. BROWN: To the flood insurance program. And
it's not gust the landowner who --
38
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
MR. BROWN: -- who violated. We all get stuck with
that. So, immediately, all of our flood insurance premiums
go up $50 a year.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Because one person violated.
MR. BROWN: Because one person violated.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And we let it happen.
MR. BROWN: Well, and the Court didn't take the
proper action.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
MR. BROWN: And then the -- and the last thing,
which is something that has occurred in some areas, but I
don't know that it's ever occurred in the State of Texas, is
FEMA can just simply say, "You have an order, you're not
enforcing it, and so your county is no longer eligible for
flood insurance."
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Either one of those.
MR. BROWN: So --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. Well, thanks fur the
rundown. What I would like to a:sk is if -- if we could
reduce those three sets of circumstances you just went
through to some sort of little written format, so that when
the constituent comes to me, or to any of the other
Commissioners, we can say, "Look, here's the appeal process.
How much of this have you done?" See, because in many cases,
39
.-~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
my getting involved too early, I think, has slowed things I
dawn rather than speeded them up. And I would like to know li
what those procedures are. I think it would be helpful to us
if we had that kind of information readily at hand. And, we
can try to publicize it, too, anti make sure that everybody
understands what they can do if they don't like what the --
what they hear.
MR. BROWN: Well, I think you and Commissioner
Baldwin probably have more experience with floodplain
violations, gust because of the boundaries of your precincts,
than maybe the other two Commissioners. We have -- we have
appealed to the Chamber of Commerce, who currently is
producing their "Welcome to Kerrville" brochure, to add into
that brochure -- and there is sort of a section, if you're
coming to Kerrville, these are the things you need to know.
And, they've got things in there about the library and EMS
service and all that.
The Chamber has agreed to add, if you're going to build
in Kerx County, if you're building near a tributary, you must
go get a floodplain determination. And, if there's a
determination that you're in the borderline, then you can't
build in the flood -- you can't build in the floodplain, but
if you're in the flood zone, then you can go get a permit to
-- to at least put the floor level of that structure above
the basic flood elevation level. And, so -- and we've also
40
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
-- they've also agreed to add in there that -- into that
brochure that if you're moving to Kerr County and you live
outside of a wastewater service area, you have to have a
wastewater licensed septic system.
That's not a hard -- that's not a hard issue to enforce,
because most of the septic tank installers in this county are
licensed by T.N.R.C.C., and if they're caught putting in a
bootleg system, they lose their :License. So, there's an
assistance with the enforcement of that one. The floodplain
is where we're really having some problems. And we're just
going to have to crack down on it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jim, I have a question. Is it
the same permit for floodplain? Is it still the same permit
that, if you're doing any work within the floodplain, if it's
not -- if you're not building a structure of some sort, but,
say, you're clearing land for building or doing something
like that --
MR. BROWN: Yes, you should -- you should get a
recommendation from -- from the administrator as to what
you're doing, whether it will change the hydrological feature
of the stream bed during a rainstorm. And, I think that's
only $15 in Kerr County; it's not an expensive project. But,
if you're in there cleaning out a gravel bar in the river
that -- that's a deposit, and it's been there for a number of
r
91
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
years, you can get a permit to do that. Now, if you start
moving gravel out of the river, there's another entity that
gets involved, and that's the Texas Department of -- of Fish
and Wildlife -- Parks and Wildlife, I'm sorry. So, if you're
doing anything at all in the floodplain, you should have some
sort of determination.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question. I don't
know if it's a topic that will take up too long, and we're
running a little bit late, but I'll ask it anyhow, because it
was asked of me recently by someone. Are soil tests still
required for septic tank permitting purposes?
MR. BROWN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was advised that the
State no longer requires that, but Kerr County still does.
MR. BROWN: Yes, it's in your Kerr County order.
And, your order will come back to you in the very near future
for revision because of some laws that were -- that were
changed this last legislative session.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That being one of them,
that the soil test by T.N.R.C.C. is no longer required; is
that correct?
MR. BROWN: I'm not sure that that happened in the
last Legislature. That's an option that -- that T.N.R.C.C.
allows some counties to use in their -- in their design
criteria.
42
~~
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
C0MMI33I0NER WILLIAMS: Was that at the County's
discretion?
MR. BROWN: That is the County's discretion, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. BROWN: And that is something that, real
quickly, we need to talk about, because if you're putting
septic systems in caliche, you have no biomat to react with
the treatment of the water, and all you're doing is running
-- you're running untreated wastewater out into the aquifer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can see the necessity,
but I lust -- that was asked as to whether or not our rules
differ from the State, and if so, why?
MR. BROWN: Yes. And there are two, and the other
is on -- the other rule -- since you've asked the question,
the other rule, the State does not require real estate
transfers as, you know, we do in Kerr County. And, because
we have that rule, that's where we find a lot of these
bootleg systems and we find a lot of these old cesspools that
are still in existence in this county. And, so, those are
two rules we'll have to talk about.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I, for one, would be
against making that rule more lenient.
MR. BROWN: We have some water quality issues.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The real estate transfers,
you have to have a septic approval before you can approve
43
1 I those.
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BROWN: Commissioner, we'll take this as an
assignment and come back.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thanks so much. You've
helped me a bunch.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question on soil testing.
Don't the current rules say that we don't do a soil test on
every system? Isn't it up to -- like, if -- for example, if
Charlie's in a subdivision, he knows the area, he doesn't --
if he did one on Lot A, then Lot B right next door, he
doesn't have to require another soil test, does he?
MR. BROWN: There is a site evaluation, and at the
site evaluation, then they determine if they need a soil
test.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, there's -- I mean, there's
some people -- one person may get a soil test and the next
person may not?
MR. BROWN: If you're down in the alluvials,
obviously, we don't need a soil test.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thanks again, Jim.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, we're going to skip
to Item 2.8, which is posted for 10 o'clock. Consider and
discuss special maintenance needs at the library for the
49
,.,.
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
ensuing budget year. Mr. Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I had a
piece of correspondence dated July 29 which I passed on to
you regarding the County's partir_ipation in the annual budget'
of the Butt-Holdsworth Library. The Library Administrator
has been attempting to make the two responsible parties, the
City and the County, aware since his arrival that there are ai
lot of things that are in need of major correction to the
facility, the library facility. The budget process is still
ongoing for both the City and the library, as well as the
County, but I asked Antonio Martinez, who is the new Director
of Butt-Holdsworth Library, to come and talk to us about
those items with regard to the facility that had been
neglected, what we need to be thinking about, and what is
going to be included in the new budget. Antonio, if you
will, please?
MR. MARTINEZ: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good morning.
MR. MARTINEZ: I'll facilitate our discussion with
this.
(Mr. Martinez handed documents to the Court.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
MR. MARTINEZ: You may have seen these documents.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Watch where you're stepping.)
45
._.
~_
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
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. MARTINEZ: The 2-page item that was addressed
to Commissioner Williams presents a summary of the library
budget. Page 2 is probably the most significant part,
highlights for the coming budget cycle, indicating that we
would address roof inspection and repair, part of the window
and ceiling problem, some increase in ability to purchase
books or other materials, and a r_ouple of computers, and then
some benefit package items that are City-wide. So, these are
the increases that are anticipated in our budget.
Down at the bottom, there's a percentage breakdown
showing the City contribution, and another part for the
County contribution. This would, in effect, have added
$50,000 to our current budget. Just late last week I
received notification that the Council had requested an
additional S15,000. So, the way our budget stands at the
moment, we're looking at a 565,000 addition to the library
budget over current year to address building problems,
primarily, and that would be the roof, the windows, and we
also currently have budgeted elevator work that we hope to
start sometime this week. We'll probably initiate a contract
with a consultant to look at all the requirements from state
regulatory agencies, A.D.A. compliance. There's quite a few
problems with that elevator that need to be looked at before
we can design what's going in place.
46

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We budgeted money for the
elevator repair last year.
MR. MARTINEZ: Right. That money is in the current
budget, and we will do the study probably in this fiscal
year. The money will carry over to do the actual
construction sometime in the next year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Antonio, I noticed in the
second document that you did before a list of cuts and
reductions. These are items that, obviously, you believe
were significant enough to include in your list to -- to both
the City and to us for budget purposes. I notice that in
this list there are some 15 different items that relate to
the building, its state of repair and so forth, that had been
deleted from the list. Do you care to address that issue at
all?
MR. MARTINEZ: Yes, sir. The list that I've given
you was produced by the City budget office and was presented
to City Council during the presentation we made to them a
couple of weeks ago. It's my understanding that we would
look at this list as a long-range plan of things that do need
to be addressed. You know, obviously, we couldn't do all of
them this year, but, yes, there are significant items in
there. To finish out the window ceiling project. To bring
restrooms into A.D.A. compliance- To remove rust from a lot
of the metal trim, a lot of the balcony railings, and to make
47

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
those a safer type of environment:.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I guess that's what I
wanted to hear, is that, as a result of this cut list, we are
developing, in fact, a long-range plan to address the needs
of the facility?
MR. MARTINEZ: One of the comments made at City
Council was that we should look at targeting this list and
perhaps dedicating a similar amount of money as we're doing
this year towards reducing all those building deficiencies.
So, it's my understanding that that's the feeling amongst
Council, that we will dedicate a similar amount each year in
the next three, four, however many years it takes to
eliminate all these building problems.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. In the letter of
July 29th, which is to Bill Williams, City Council is
requesting an additional $15,000 be allocated to the budget?
MR. MARTINEZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, you said that the number
that they're already increasing that is a $50,000 increase.
Did you not say it was $65,000?
MR. MARTINEZ: $65,000, if you include that last
$15,000 that you just referred to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the total budget is a
$130,000 increase over last year of $65,000 for the City,
48
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
zl
22
23
29
25
$65,000 for --
MR. MARTINEZ: No. No, it would be half of 565,000
per entity.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's a $3,250 increase --
or $32,500 increase over last year for each?
MR. MARTINEZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And last year's budget -- maybe
I'll ask Commissioner Baldwin; I think he may know -- a large
increase, a one-time increase over prior years for this
elevator, correct?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct. And he
just made the statement that they are going to get to that,
but he also said that that money will carry over to next
year's budget. I want to visit +~ little bit about that
later.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, the -- but how much -- do
you remember or recall how much that one-time increase was?
Really, we're increasing the budget a whole lot more than --
MR. MARTINEZ: The elevator, itself, was $38,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $38,000.
MR. MARTINEZ: There may have been other smaller
items that brought it up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't -- only thing we did
was the elevator.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, $19,000 for the -- between
99
.-.
~_
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 City and the County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I recall the year prior, I
think it was, that the emergency air conditioner system went
south on us, too.
MR. MARTINEZ: Right
I believe that was $27,000
or $37,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was significant,
whatever it was.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Has the -- the City, they tend
to be more involved with -- or are involved with the
day-to-day operation of the library. Have they developed a
long-term plan so we can, you know, get into a system of
knowing what the increases are going to be for these -- to
accomplish these things that nee~9 to be done for the next
three to five years? Because, I mean, it's difficult, in my
mind, when we don't know -- you know, can't plan for the
future at all, when we know there's a lot of things that need
to be done.
MR. MARTINEZ: In my opinion, they all need to be
done. With, you know, speed. They're all needing attention;
have been needing attention, you know, for quite a while.
Hut, you know, I don't know how we would break them down in
terms of which one gets done first. Certainly, we need to
address the access issues. We could have a problem with that',
if anybody filed a compliant on A.D.A. access. That would be
.-~
50

.~-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a legal issue. One of the things that happens if you start
working on A.D.A. compliance, if you spend more than $50,000,
you then get into a different level of oversight, much
stricter level of oversight from the regulatory agencies.
So, it's a -- you know, it's a Catch 22 situation. If you
don't do enough, you could be in trouble. If you do too
much, then you could again be in trouble.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure how my
colleagues feel, Antonio, but I think we have to defer to you
for a priority listing. And, I would assume that if you give
us a priority list of the ills that must be corrected, it
would be identical to the one that you give to the City of
Kerrville.
MR. MARTINEZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we can compare notes and
know how our funding is going to materialize in years ahead.
It's sad, I think, to learn in 1999 that we have a roof that
is leaking badly, we have windows all over the building
leaking badly, that every fluorescent fixture in the building
needs to be updated or replaced, and things of this nature,
because that is a showcase library, and it's a shame to know
that it does have those ills. But --
MR. MARTINEZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I still am uncertain about the
elevator money.

51

.-.
L -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What Buster says, I know it to be
true. Last year this Court allocated 519,000 for repair of
the elevator.
MR. MARTINEZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What happened to that money? Is it
still there?
MR. MARTINEZ: It's still in the budget, yes, sir.
When we attempted to do the fix Y_hat was proposed, we ran
into all sorts of inspection problems, code noncompliances,
which made it really -- I wouldn't think it would be smart to
spend the money the way it was projected, 'cause we'd be
coming right back to fix other things after that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, those funds haven't been spent?~
MR. MARTINEZ: No, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Those funds are still there?
MR. MARTINEZ: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, the funds in this request that
relate to the elevator will be added to those funds that are
already there, and that they will be adequate, in your
opinion, to get the elevator fixed?
MR. MARTINEZ: We're proposing to spend $1,500
initially to have somebody investigate for us that's an
expert on it what it is we need t_o do in this design work.
One of the things we're hearing is that possibly the shaft
52
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
structure needs to be extended deeper. Current requirements
would require that. Also, higher above the roof level for
rescue-type efforts. Hopefully, we won't have to expand the
size of the shaft. It that should come up, that would be a
major expenditure. We --
JUDGE HENNEKE: But you also said, I believe, you
don't think you'll get to the actual work until next budget
year?
MR. MARTINEZ: I don't see that it will be feasible
to get all this preliminary investigation done. One of the
things that the consultant will attempt to do for us is seek
out where we qualify for variances and exemptions, being a
municipal structure prior to '75 and all those type of
things.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Would you anticipate that if you're
standing before us a year from now, you'll be asking for
additional money for the elevators?
MR. MARTINEZ: I don't think so.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Or have we covered the elevator?
One of the things we have to do is that we must budget for a
specific purpose. And, if we put -- if we are asked to give
money for elevator work in the budget, just as if we're asked
to give money for computers for the County Clerk or road
graders for Road and Bridge Department, that money must be
used only for that purpose.
53
,.~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. MARTINEZ: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Unless this Court approves its use
for a different purpose.
MR. MARTINEZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, I'm glad to hear you say that
the money that we have allocated for the elevator is still
there for use by the elevator.
MR. MARTINEZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Because none of the elected
officials who receive money from this Court have the ability
to use that money for other than the purposes for which it is
designated, unless they come back to Court and say, "We need
a budget amendment." We had five of them this morning to
take money from this line item and use it in this other line
item.
MR. MARTINEZ: And the City budget operates the
same way. That money is dedicated to elevator and elevator
only, right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My last comment is probably
really more for Commissioner Williams, as the liaison, to get
with the -- you know, either the City Council or whoever --
maybe it's the Library Board -- and develop, you know, with
Mr. Martinez a long-term budget. Because we're looking at --
the sheet that was handed out says $353,000. Mr. Martinez
says everything on the list needs to be done. And, you know,
54
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
at 32 -- even the amount we increase it this year, if we were
to stay constant, we're looking at over 10 years, not
counting inflation, to get that done. So, we need, I think,
a plan, because we're talking about, I suspect, a significant
sum of money for the next five years to get the library
properly renovated and up to speed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, I do attend
those meetings. I have made that suggestion. Mr. Martinez
has heard me make that suggestion for prioritizing, giving us
some sense of the future. The Assistant City Manager, Dane
Tune, also attends those meetings. He, too, has heard of my
concerns. So, we'll wait to see how it develops.
MR. MARTINEZ: We do h;sve a Library Board meeting
scheduled for tomorrow, and that will be one of the items of
discussion, this list that I've got before you. And, where
we stand at this point in time, you know, the budget is not
finalized yet, so it's a little bit difficult to say which
items will not be funded completely, but we will certainly be
looking at which are very import,snt to present next year, and
then the -- consecutively, the years that follow.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. That's all I request,
really, is that we get a handle on where we're going in the
future with this, because it's going to have a big impact on
the County budget.
MR. MARTINEZ: I would say that next year --
55
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If I might interject, it's
really more than just a prioritized list. What it really is,
is a phased plan for 3 years or 5 years or 10 years or
whatever it takes. And, this is not cast in concrete. Zt's
a plan; you know, it can change From year to year. But, it
seems like we're sort of scrambling. And, I understand the
reason for most of that; we're scrambling to try to get the
worst things fixed, and that's okay, but that ought to be
part of a much broader -- not just priority plan, but a whole
renovation plan, for lack of a better term, that covers a
specific period, and here's what we plan to do in a phased
way. And, I don't see any reason that that couldn't be
developed, no matter how bad the problem is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with you. And also
accompanying that, not only the plan for taking care of the
matters -- the items that are needed to be taken care of, but
a phased ongoing maintenance plan.
MR. MARTINEZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which I've never heard
anybody mention exists, and I think that's a necessary thing,
that there is an ongoing maintenance plan. Please correct me
if not. We really ought to be talking seriously about how we
do that in the future, and budget maintenance monies into the
ongoing budget for that purpose. The County does that. We
56

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
have facilities all over this county, and we budget dollars
to maintain those facilities year. after year after year. And
I think that the major investment that this community has in
the library, we -- we would be well served to do the same
thing.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: There's -- I have a little concern,
too, about this -- this elevator money, in that if this is --
if the City carries that over for. next year, that will --
that expenditure will have to be added to their budget. I
want to make sure that -- that when we determine what our
share is that goes to the library, that that amount for the
purpose of the elevator is taken off the top before we decide
what our share is of the regular operating budget.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I understand. We've already funded
that; it should be included as an operating expense.
MR. TOMLINSON: We don't want to double-dip.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll take a close look at that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you have some
suggestions, Tommy, to pass on to Antonio, please do so.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I --
MR. MARTINEZ: Z would assume the City budget
office would do that, but certainly we'll monitor that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There's an overall --
there's a bigger question, perhaps, and it's something I
57
,.-.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
hadn't even thought about, and that is, do we have -- do we
authorize multi-year dollars? Because some government
entities, the money is one-year money and it must be
reauthorized if it's going to be spent in a later fiscal
year. Now, I don't know the legal and -- and what our
procedural policy has been, but we probably need to determine
whether or not we have multi-year dollars.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy can answer that.
MR. TOMLINSON: They already have our money.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. So we are no longer
looking at that money, so it's -- it was one-year money, and
it's gone.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. I just want to make sure we
don't do it again.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right, don't get asked for a second
time.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Antonio, thank you for
taking the time --
MR. MARTINEZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER L,ETZ: I have one more question,
probably to Tommy. Tommy, does the Library Fund, do you
know, carry a -- like, a fund balance in the City?
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm sure they do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, there's money --
58
r-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MARTINEZ: You mean a reserve fund?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, at the end of
the year, there's X dollars left in there which carries over.
If not, I think the money should come back -- if it's not, it
should come back to the County at the end of each year.
MR. MARTINEZ: There has been an attempt to build a
reserve fund in the library. I can tell you there has been
an attempt to have a reserve to handle emergencies, but since
it's been hit for so many emergencies, it's a very small
reserve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll bet.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I mean, this should -- I
mean, there should be one this year if --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should be at least $19,000 from',
the County.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
MR. MARTINEZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you very much.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's take up item 2.7 while Mr.
Martinez is here, which is consider and discuss Library Board',
appointment. Then we'll take a short break and we'll take up,
our scheduled 10:30 briefing on Holdsworth Drive and the highs,
water bridge. So, Mr. Williams? I,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At the last -- at the last
Library Board meeting I attended, Antonio made the Board
59

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
aware of a new appointment, Mr. Ralph Poth. Ralph James
Poth, 313 Erin Drive in Kerrville, to the Library Board.
Now, I asked, as a result of that, how many positions were
open and what is the County's process or involvement in these
appointments? Subsequent to that -- well, let's talk about
Mr. Poth. Mr. Poth has been approved by the City of i
Kerrville, I believe. Am I correct, Antonio?
MR. MARTINEZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Has been approved by the II
City Council. The rules governing the Library Advisory Board
indicate that the members of the Board shall be appointed by I
I
the City Council, with concurrence by Kerr County ~
Commissioners Court, which means that -- I guess, that, at
this point, although Mr. Poth has been approved, we need to
concur in that appointment, which brings me to the point.
We have some other -- we have some other positions
available on the Library Board. We had one resignation in
March of this year. We have a -- we have a vacancy on the
Board since 1997 in another position. We have a vacancy
since 1998 in a third position. We have one more term
expiring in October of this year, and so I think it behooves
us to have recommendations for persons to serve on the
Library Board. It just makes good sense that the
representation on the Library Board represents not only the I
City of Kerrville, but those of our constituents who live
60
~..
/~-
L-

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
elsewhere in the county who do use the facility, who have a
vested interest in what takes place and how it's operated.
And, so, I'm only bringing this to the Board -- to the
Commissioners' attention this morning that we have one that
we are required to concur in. I don't know what would happen
if we didn't concur. But, we have one that we are supposed
to concur in. And, in terms of vacancies, Article 2-V-3 of
the Kerrville City Code says, among other things, "the mayor,
with the advice and consent of the city council, shall
appoint a successor as a member of the board, who shall hold
his membership for the unexpired term of the member..." and
so forth and so on. And it does say in an earlier section
that we have -- Commissioners Court has the right to concur.
So, I just bring it to the Court's attention.
I think we need to be diligent in it. I think we need i
to have some suggestions. If the process is one that
requires an applicant that we may suggest to go to the City
to make application for that particular position, then I
think we should encourage that to happen. ~I
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Williams, may I
make a comment on that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can make two.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can make two? I have been
fussing about this for a number of years, and I want to throw
it back out here again. This document right here, the
61
.-.
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
Library Advisory Board document --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "The members of such board
shall be appointed by the city council."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then, "with concurrence
by the ... Commissioners' Court." Those people -- and that's
not just the Library Board, but there's other boards that
that's got the same way. The people that represent this
Commissioners Court need to be generated from this body, not
from the City of Kerrville. And, that's -- and that's what
happens here on these boards, is that -- and there -- these
people are excellent; I'm not knocking that, but I think the
procedure of the appointments, where they're generated from,
I want our appointments to generate from this body. I want
us to go out and seek those people out to represent us on
those boards, and that's not what happens. That is not what
happens.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand, and I don't
disagree with you, with your comments. And, that's really
why I'm bringing to it to the Court's attention. I think we
need to be more diligent about it. If the process for
appointments needs to be looked Est, then I think it may be we
want the Judge to talk to the mayor about how we revise the
appointment process.
r
62
..-.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would wholeheartedly agree
with that. As long as we're throwing in half the money, we
ought to throw in about half the appointments to the board.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just bring the point to
your attention.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, we want more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll take half.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I have no hesitation whatsoever to
approach the mayor about that, I think, and I'm happy to do
it. The issue today is Mr. Poth, and the question I have is,
is he replacing someone? Is he --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Antonio, can you enlighten
us on Mr. Poth's appointment, in terms of how he got to be
where he is?
MR. MARTINEZ: He would be filling one of the spots
that's been vacant.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which spot? Do you know?
MR. MARTINEZ: No, I don't have those notes with
me. I didn't realize we were going to be discussing this.
I believe it would be the one th~st was vacant since '97.
That would be my guess.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be a systematic
way to approach it.
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MARTINEZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I would move the
concurrence of Commissioners Court with the appointment of
Mx. Poth, and then urging, also, the Judge to talk to the
mayor about the process by which we appoint the people to the
Library Board.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams. Do~
I have a second?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Commissioners Court
concur in the appointment of Ralph Poth to the Library
Advisory Board. And, 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: The motion carries.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, can I make one more
quick comment? Just a question to Mr. Martinez. How are
these names -- how is the City choosing these people? Do you
have any idea of the process?
MR. MARTINEZ: In the -- in the ten months that
I've been here, the way it has worked is that we have
received some unsolicited requests to be on the Board. In
64
,.-.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
other cases -- Mr. Poth, for instance, was recommended by the
current Library Board Chair; Margaret Brown recommended him
highly. And, I forward any -- any application that I receive
to the -- to City Hall, and those are reviewed by the City
Manager. Applications are available either from myself or
from the City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I think -- I was just
looking through the list. I know the eastern part of the
county has very slim representation.
MR. MARTINEZ: One of the things we attempt to do
is have geographic representation, so we try to cover north,
south, east, and west parts of the county and try to have a
balance of city residents and county residents. So, we do
attempt to address that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The western part of the county
isn't too well represented, either. Thank you.
MR. MARTINEZ: At the moment, we've got several
vacancies, so I do have one other person that's been
suggested, from Margaret Brown again. And, I believe she is
also considered more a county resident than a city resident.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Antonio.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, let's take a short
recess. Let's try to be back here at 10:35 so we don't keep
people waiting any longer than necessary.
(Recess taken from 10:27 a.m. to 10:35 a.m.)
65
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Court will now be back in session.
As we announced prior to our recess, we're going to take up
at this time Item 2.9, and subsequently Item 2.10, which is a
briefing of Commissioners Court on Holdsworth Drive project,
initially, and then also a briefing of Commissioners Court on
High Water Bridge project. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Thank you very
much. I -- we've been talking about -- and a lot of folks
around the county have been talking about the Holdsworth
Drive project, and somehow, fox some reason, it hasn't landed
in this courtroom. So, I thought I would extend my hand
across the waters to invite some folks in here, and Mr. Dower
from the City of Kerrville is here with us, Mike Coward with
TexDOT, and wild Bill Tucker from TexDOT, I have invited here
to kind of give -- to brief the Commissioners Court on what
the Holdsworth Drive project -- where we stand, what we're
doing, and where we're going with it. So, you gentlemen draw
straws and see who's first.
MR. DOWER: We had talked earlier. I said I'd go
ahead and start off. I'll just update you on where the City
is, and then Bill can kind of back me up as to what the
Highway Department or what TexDOT status is at this time.
So, to -- just a little bit of history, real quickly. You're
aware, the Commissioners, that this is being funded under
what's called -- the federal legislation called the Urban
66
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
Mobility and Rehabilitation Program, which is the T-21 bill.
And, that basically means that the the Federal Highway
Administration will fund 80 percent of the costs of that.
The other side of that means that the local sponsors need to
fund 20 percent of construction costs. In addition to that,
the local sponsor has to agree to acquire the necessary
right-of-way, to pay 100 percent of the design cost, and also
to pay a 1 percent administration fee to TexDOT, because
TexDOT administers those T-21 funds. So, that's the local
participation in order to make this project work.
Where we are right now is the City of Kerrville jumped
out and, even though we have not signed an agreement to be
local sponsor, the City of Kerrville has agreed to do the
Phase I portion of this project. That's about a $60,000
expense. That was funded by the E.I.C. The City of
Kerrville actually has contracted to do that. And Phase I
will identify the alignments -- in fact, we need to -- one
of the requirements is that we identify three alternate
alignments, and we're doing that. We have a consultant
that's in the process of doing that. They'll also prepare a
preliminary cost estimate and an environmental assessment,
and we will hold a public hearing. Those steps are necessary
in order to submit that information to TexDOT, and at that
point, we will receive a letter from them hopefully
authorizing us to proceed with plan specifications.

67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The point we're at right now is we're almost finished
with that Phase I study. We have those preliminary
alignments done. The cast estimates are near, and we have a
public hearing set for August 26th to receive comments. I
have those right-of-way maps in my office. We've had a
number of people come in and look at them and have copies of
them. I have some copies that I'll go ahead and give you on
8 1/2 by 11 this morning.
(Mr. Dower handed maps to the Court.)
MR. DOWER: They're a little hard to read, but,
again, I've got a larger scale map in my office, and I
brought one with me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Watch your step. Thank you.
MR. DOWER: And then I have a larger copy that I'll
leave with you if you want that, but that shows basically
those -- the alignment from Highway 16 almost to about 3,000
feet from Harper Road is pretty well established. But, that
western section to harper Road, we've identified four
different alignments, and those are the alignments that will
basically decide what the final cost of this thing is.
The last thing I'd like to say is that our cost
estimates now look like a low of about $5.5 million to a high
of about $6.5 million for this project. Now, that's based on
-- that compares to estimates that were done several years
ago of about $3 million, so it appears that the cost is much
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
'' 6 8
higher than the original, and that's going to be a big factor
in whether or not this project can go forward. I think Mr.
Tucker will discuss with you how that impacts the project.
But, again, our current cost estimates, while they're not
finished, they're looking like the cost is much higher than
that original estimate. I'd be happy to answer any
questions, or, Bill, is there anything you want to go ahead
and add?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions of Mr. Dower?
COMMISSIONER WILI,IAMS: I have one question -- did
you have some questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, but go ahead.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which of these four
alignments, Mr. Dower, puts us out on Harper Road next to the
huge L.C.R.A. facility?
MR. DOWER: Okay. The original alignment, and the
alignment which we have quite a bit of right-of-way already,
is the one that brings us out right there at Harper Road. If
you're looking at this map, it's the one that's next to that
3-D, and it's the one that kind of has a dogleg curve in it.
That's why you see those last -- that upper alignment or that
one that comes out by Morris Road is one that -- it's being
looked at as an alternate, but these two on the very bottom
are alternates on the south end that take that dogleg out of
it. One of them comes out at almost the same point, one of
69

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
them comes out a little closer to town. So, these are four
alignments that we will look at.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which of the four are more
costly or less costly than the others?
MR. DOWER: We don't have cost estimates yet, but
it's looking like that one that r_omes out on Morris Road will
probably be the most expensive.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jim, going back towards Sidney
Baker, where does the road go? Is -- is that a different -- I'
MR. DOWER: Back towards Sidney Baker, it is the
same as the original alignment which you may have seen over '~
the years. Let me give you this map, and that will show you
that half of it. But, it's the alignment that we've always
talked about that kind of goes between the two water tanks,
if that helps you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, it goes straight out
past the -- up by the stadium, pretty straight?
MR. DOWER: Yes, mm-hmm, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it goes straight and then
has a slight curve?
MR. DOWER: And that slight curve is obviously to
get around the topography there's there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: How much of this is in the E.T.J.
~-
70
.•~.
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
and how much is in the county --
MR. DOWER: I think all of it's in the E.T.J. Only
about one-half of it is in the current city limits.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would be the length of
the road from 16 to 783?
MR. DOWER: I'm not sure I have --
MR. COWARD: It's about 2 miles.
MR. DOWER: Two miles. Thank you, Mike.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two miles?
MR. DOWER: That's where we are at the present
time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I guess the only other
question I have is, is the City planning to annex the
property that is not in the city limits along Holdsworth? Is
there any plans that you know of, or --
MR. DOWER: Yes. The current -- as you know, a
large tract belongs to a developer who presently plans on
developing it. As he develops that, it will be annexed. The
remainder of it back towards the east, there's a large piece
of it that's outside the city limits. I understand that that
owner now is looking at developing that. When he does, he'll
probably request annexation. Other than that, we don't have
any plans.
COMMISSIONER LET7.: So, it will be as development
comes along to county property, the City -- if requested by
71

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
the developers, it would be?
MR. DOWER: There are no plans other than that at
the present time, other than as it's developed, that's
correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jim, will the major
utilities be placed on this -- on the right -- on this
course, whichever course we take? Water? Sewer?
MR. DOWER: Good question. I -- our current plan
to serve that area is to bring sewer up Town Creek Road, so
sewer wouldn't be in Holdsworth Drive, except for maybe some
local extensions. But, we do have a plan to put a 12-inch
water main in this entire right-of-way, beginning at -- at
those water tanks that you see there close to Sidney Baker
and terminating at our well, which we have there at the
L.C.R.A. site. So, with regard to water, there will be a
12-inch water line in the entirety of this extension. And,
yes, we do plan to do it as a part of construction. There's
a funding issue that goes along with that, but that's our
goal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One last question I have. On
the cost share, then, is the City -- I guess your plan right
now, the request is going to be to request the County to come
up with the right-of-way and the design fees and the
administrative fee and the -- I mean, the other 20 percent
and all the other costs related to it in all of the -- in the
7z
.-~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
county? Or is the City going to try to fund the entire Lt~ing
through E.I.C. or some other means?
MR. DOWER: Mr. Letz, ghat funding is still very
much up in the air. Again, keep in mind what the City said,
that somebody needs to jump out there and do that Phase I.
We need to determine where those alignments are, we need to
begin acquiring the right-of-way as it becomes available, and
we need to know what those costs are going to be before we
can decide haw it's going to be paid for. There is a local
agreement that we have in our hand which TexDOT has given us
that says the City of Kerrville will be the local sponsor.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. DOWER: Claiming the local sponsor is the one
that's responsible for all that funding. Now, whether the
City goes back to the Commissioners Court or E.I.C. Board or
to whatever sources, even local developers, and requests
funding, we just don't know the answer to that yet because,
again, it's -- it's come as somewhat of a surprise to all of
us to learn that the costs are virtually double what we had
been talking about over the previous years. So, we're
learning some things in this Phase I that we need to answer
those questions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only concern is kind of
generally in that same arena that Mr. Letz was just talking
73
.-.
L-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about. If this is -- if part of the road is in the county
and may or may not be annexed -- we don't know at this point.',
We have not -- the City has not at this time. So, in my
mind, this is a county road out in the -- out in the county.
And, if there's any condemnation proceedings or if we just
need to cough up some cash or anything like that, it's --
it's my opinion that we need to be -- or a representative of
the County needs to be in this process, in the entire
process.
Mow, if you guys had already annexed it and you're going
to pick up 100 percent of the tab, that's a different story;
you get to do what you want to do. But, I just feel like if
-- if there's a possibility, which there is a huge
possibility, that the County participates in some way or
another, that we -- we would like to be on the front end,
which we're kind of beyond the front end here already. I
lust think that we need to enter into the -- the negotiations
and -- and to watch this thing all the way through. And, I
-- I would think our County Engineer would be that person to
kind of watch for that, because -- that's all I had to say.
Just, I'd like to see the County more involved in the -- in
the project. Maybe I should yell at Bill Tucker, though,
huh?
MR. DOWER: Could be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm kind of turning it up
74

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
here, if you notice, you know, a little anger. So, I'll just
wait for Bill Tucker to get up here.
MR. DOWER: We do have a local sponsor's agreement
that will be on our next City Council meeting, and that may
be the point at which you say that you'd like to have some
participation in that local sponsor agreement. I'm not sure
what that would be. We haven't -- we haven't -- the City
hasn't acted un it yet. But, if that's the point, then maybe
we need to have some discussion with you about being part of
that agreement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
MR. DOWER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. DOWER: All right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else have any comments? I
have somewhat of a different point of view. This is a State
highway, and going to be built to State highway specs and
done the way TexDOT wants it done. And, it will benefit us,
but I'm not sure to what extent we need to have a large
degree of involvement. I don't think we need to be
necessarily involved in the planning and specifications for
the road if it's going to be done to highway specifications.
I think if the City has a need fur us to participate, that
they will involve us. And, given the dollars involved, I'm
not sure I want to buy into participation, but it is
75
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'~ 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
something that we need to be aware of, since it does involve
some of the county, even though it's county within the E.T.J.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you folks have anything
else to add? You're kind of hiding back there.
MR. TUCKER: Well, I need to respond to something
you just said. The road, Holdsworth Drive, will not be a
State highway.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Will not?
MR. TUCKER: No. This is -- this is a federal
program that essentially, a few years ago, opened up to urban
work, arterial-type work, regardless of whether it's a -- on
a State route or not. The difference is -- is that when it's
not a State route, then the local match has to be picked up
by the local government; it won't be picked up by TexDOT.
And, also, there is a finite amount of money in that federal
program, and highway projects and city street projects like
this kind of compete for that one piece of the pie. So,
that's kind of the funding picture on that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is it still, though, built to State
specs or -- and has to meet all the requirements of the -- of
TexDOT for --
MR. TUCKER: Yes, it has to be built to federal
specs. And, in some cases, those specs are a little bit
different. If it's on a State highway, we've got some --
some standards that, in many cases, are a little bit more
?6

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
strict than some of the federal regulations. So, there's a
little bit of difference. It kind of depends on the
classification of the road. This would be considered a major
arterial, so they're probably going to be close to about the II
same, as far as specs.
I don't have a whole lot of other comments. I think Jim
covered pretty much everything. I might comment on the
process a little bit. The -- as Jim said, the -- the local
government -- in this case, the City -- stepped up to the
plate and took sponsorship. The local government is
responsible to take the project through preliminary
engineering, which is what they're doing now, trying to do
route location studies, public involvement process, getting
input from the public, and -- and looking at environmental
issues and right-of-way issues. And, once a project or an
alignment for the project is -- is chosen, then construction
plans begin. And, again, the local government's responsible
for coming up with a set of construction plans and documents
for actually building the project.
Once those plans are -- are completed and they go
through the review process through TexDOT, then TexDOT signs
off on them, takes the set of plans, and puts the project
through our statewide letting process. And, we will open
bids, and then TexDOT will manage the construction. We will
oversee the contractor who's building the work. So, that's
77

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
kind of how the process goes. When we -- when we finish
completing the construction, we'll hand the keys to someone
and we'll walk away, and it will be a local road without a
highway number on it, and it will be maintained -- operated
and maintained by the local government. So, I guess I'm
available for -- for questions, if y'all have some. Buster,
if you want to yell -- I don't know, it's the only audible
level that I understand Buster in. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is really going
back to, I guess, something the Judge said and Buster said
earlier, and something that Jim said. I think it is critical
that the County be involved on every step of it, because the
City's not going to annex the property until it gets
developed, which means it's going to be platted, which means
the County has to be involved in the concept plan,
preliminary plat, and final plat for all those developments
out there, until -- you know, unless and until the point that
it is annexed. And, under our current Subdivision Rules, our
rules are equally, if not more, strict than the City rules
when it comes to platting. So, I think that it's real
important for us to be involved.
And, the other point is -- I mean, I don't know if it is
State highway or City or what, but -- until these roads are
-- this area is annexed, but what I'm hearing is that these
are going to be County roads; a good section of Holdsworth
78

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
will be County-maintained roads, because if it's not in the
city and it's not State, I think it falls in our lap. So,
both from a dollar standpoint, if the City's ever going to
come to us, or even if they are really going to fund it
through E.I.C., which would be great, or some other means, I
think it's important to keep us advised every step of the
way.
My concern is that -- you know, and I think Commissioner
Baldwin, as well, since it goes to Precinct 3 and 1. That's
why we're a little more attuned to -- I think, to, you know,
trying to keep up to speed of what's going on exactly, you
know, in discussion of the road. And, just a general
comment; when something is going on outside the city and in
the county, you know, I think we should be advised and
invited to attend the meetings. Now the real fun one, the
bridge.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else on Holdsworth?
MR. COWARD: I was thinking, maybe it's worth
taking a minute just to talk about some of the estimates --
my name's Mike Coward, by the way -- some of the figures that
have been poked around. I did some of the original estimates
for Holdsworth back in, like, '88, and I guess I just want to
make it clear, some of the numbers that were thrown around,
$800,000, a million, we're not even talking about the same
project that we were talking about in '88 as we are in 1999.
,~^
79
r
L_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
At that time, we were envisioning a more rural project with,
you know, two lanes, some shoulders, and basically just
trying to connect Point A to Point B.
The project that we're talking about now is an entirely
different project. It's designed to arterial standards,
divided lanes with a median in between. It would be done to
a much higher standard. Kerrville is growing. I mean, it
probably exceeded all our expectations. I mean, I've watched
the traffic counts just continue to grow. The projections
are that this -- you know, this road could carry 10,000 to
15,000 cars a day. It would be a major relief for State
Highway 27 through town. So, we're used to, in this day and
age, hearing of, you know, just tremendous cost overruns, but
I think just a little bit of clarification; that we're not
talking about a project that was going to be $700,000 and now
it's $6 million. We're not even talking about the same
project. We're talking about two totally different projects.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mike?
MR. COWARD: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: First of all, we're not
opposing -- we don't oppose it. I agree with you 100 percent
that it's going to -- it's going to take some pressure off
this area down here and do all kinds of other things. Do you
have -- let's see, we're talking about a local match of 20
percent?
eo
..~~.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. COWARD: Yes, sir. On the -- for the -- the
City would be -- ox the local match would be 100 percent of
all the design costs, all the right-of-way costs, all the
utilities costs --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hold on just a second.
Let's do one at a time.
MR. COWARD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's a 20 percent local
match on the federal money?
MR. DOWER: Of construr_tion cost.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Construction cost. And then
100 percent of right-of-way?
MR. DOWER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And 100 percent of
engineering cost?
MR. DOWER: To specifications.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That TexDOT does -- TexDOT
does the engineering?
MR. DOWER: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: City of Kerrville does it?
MR. DOWER: Local sponsor.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. DOWER: And we get to pay TexDOT 1 percent more
to administer it for us.
MR. COWARD: That's for me.
~.
al
...
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all just rake that off
when it comes through?
MR. COWARD: They require them, I guess, to put
that up in advance, because you start a crew and these costs
very early in the process. And, we were lucky enough to work
with the City back in, I think, '90 or '91, and we acquired a
pretty good swap of the right-of--way needed for this project
through R.T.C. for no cost.
MR. DOWER: That's true.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. It appears there may
be a lol of money for the County, it looks to me, and we need
to sit down and visit about this pretty quick, I think.
MR. DOWER: At current estimates for the -- for the
construction costs, the local sponsor's share is going to be
close to $2 million.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Thank you very much.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Ioldsworth bridge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Holdsworth bridge?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I mean High Water Bridge. Maybe
Holdsworth has a bridge there, too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No wonder that thing is so
expensive.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Basically, the same thing,
gentlemen; that there has been some concern and some rumors
and one thing and another going on with the High Water Bridge
az
...~
~_
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
that we have -- that this Court has agreed to participate in,
and I understand the Road and Bridge Department is living up
to their agreement of setting aside a certain amount of
dollars every year to -- for the County's participation in
this, and so I think it's just kind of time now that we call
the big guns in so they can straighten us out and tell us --
tell us exactly what's going on out there, or -- or what it
looks like is going on out there, so that we can know better
how to budget our dollars and plan -- make plans for the
County roads, et cetera. So, again, I've asked Mr. Dower to
come in and tell us what the City is doing, and Mr. Coward
and Mr. Tucker from TexDOT. I guess we ought to reverse the
order this time.
MR. TUCKER: Yeah. Since I knew you were going
want big guns --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. TUCKER: We brought in --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So you brought in Mr.
Coward.
MR. TUCKER: No. We've brought in, all the way
from England, Mr. David Hanson, who we use on a regular basis
for these kind of things, and he is here prepared to talk
about the -- what we call the Spur 98 Extension project.
Spur 98 happens to be also Thompson drive. And, I'm going to
let Dave come up here and explain to you where we are with
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that project.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. HANSON: Just flew in.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Are your arms tired?
MR. HANSON: Yeah. Yeash, it was a long flight.
Spur 98 Bridge, we're looking at letting it for bids at about
this time next year, in the fall of 2000. Construction
should start spring of 2001. Currently, we've identified the
routes. We're working on the right-of-way maps. We have a
consultant on board that's evaluating various bridge options.
We should have something to look at on those in about two
months' time. We're looking at :Length of bridge, different
treatments for the bridge, making it a little bit more
aesthetic than, perhaps, the State Highway 16 bridge over
Louise Hays Park. Some treatments on the railings, some
treatments on the abutments, treatments on the -- on the
columns, make it a little bit better for Kerr County. We're
looking at, also, tying into Goat Creek Road, putting in a
traffic signal at State Highway 27.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is tying into Goat Creek part
of this? I mean --
MR. HANSON: Yes. Originally, we were just going
as far as 27, but now we're looking at extending that
corridor across to Goat Creek Road, and then up to I.H. 10.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where -- but it stops at Goat
84
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Creek, or does it gu all the way to I-10?
MR. HANSON: No, it stops at Goat Creek.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fui:ure project?
MR. HANSON: Future project, trying to identify a
corridor out towards I.H. 10.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would be the
construction timeline if you start construction in 2001, from
start to completion?
MR. t{ANSON: We're looking at about a 12-month
project. Obviously, the bulk of the work in is in the
bridge, as is the bulk of the money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Twelve months?
MR. HANSON: Twelve months.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we understand correctly,
this project has been funded in 'PexDOT's --
MR. HANSON: Yes, it has.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- realm?
MR. HANSON: It's been funded for that fiscal year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there any County funds required?
I mean, are we --
MR. HANSON: There is 10 percent of right-of-way
costs on the south side of the river. There's one tract out
there which is about 2.75 acres.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we know how much that is? We've
been setting aside money -- or we have set aside money, I
85
~-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
believe. In other words, are we adequately covered, or --
MR. TUCKER: Let me address that issue a little
bit. About three or four years ago, Judge Denson, wanting to
get this project off dead center, since it's been around --
well, since I've been here, and that's almost 15 years, put
together a little task force to try to see what it had --
what had happened in order to get this thing moving. And, at
that time, we identified the problem with the project is that
there just wasn't enough funding available through TexDOT at
that time to get it moving, and that any additional funds i
that could be generated locally could reduce the TexDOT share
and possibly accelerate the project. And, this -- this was
the case. And, we were operating under that -- that I
situation until, just about a year ago, Congress passed this
new -- what we call T-21 Act, Transportation Bill, and that
freed up a lot more money to the State of Texas, and we're
becoming somewhat of a beneficiary of that.
So, we feel like, unless this estimate gets way out of
hand -- and that's why we haven't come to you before about I
this, is that we may be able to fund this project completely
with State and federal monies, requiring only a 10-percent
share of right-of-way costs from the County. But, we were
hesitant to come in and -- and say, "The money you've been
setting aside, we won't need," because we still don't have II
that final, fairly firm estimate to determine what the bridge
86
~_
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
is going to cost.
Some of the things that -- if the bridge overruns
considerably, that would need to be cut out in order to bring
it into TexDot's budget might be things like the aesthetic
stuff that Dave is mentioning. There may be some other
things; we might have to make the bridge narrower. And, so,
what we're -- what we're hoping t_o do is find out what is the
final cost of the bridge that we believe we need, and then if
we're short somewhat, then we might be able to come to you
and say, "Well, we need half of what you've set aside," or
maybe we need all of what you've set aside, but we would
prefer you not release those funds until we can at least get
-- get a firm estimate, and that should come in -- how soon,
Dave, do you think, before we get a good estimate?
MR. HANSON: We're looking at bridge layouts in
about three months' time; about that, we'll have a better
idea of the costs.
MR. TUCKER: So, that's kind of where the -- the
funding picture resides right now. And, it's not extremely
clear, but we're so close, we -- we would rather not say that
we don't need the funds, but we're shooting for that, and
hoping that we can come to you and say thank you for
supporting us. And, that --- indeed, that was -- was the
catalyst that we needed to get this process going. And, so,
we're about two years closer in the project than had we not
s~
L-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
had that -- that little group gei: together and decide to try
to fund it partially with County funds. So, that -- the goal
of that committee has been realized. We're about two years
earlier than we would have been if we'd have had to wait till
the legislation came about. So, anyway, we -- we appreciate
that support we've had from you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything further?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, David.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank y'all very much for
coming down.
MR. TUCKER: I'll have a bigger gun for you next
time.
COMMISSIONER WILI.IAMS: Loaded?
MR. TUCKER: (Shook head negatively.) But we do
need to get together maybe some time fairly soon.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm sorry, before we leave that
item, we had a request from George West to address us on the
I{igh Water Bridge. George?
MR. WEST: I'm George West, County Commission
Number 1. I want to make a brief statement about the traffic
on Goat Creek Road. I'm a member of the Board of Wood Trails
Ranch Property Owners' Association. We have had discussions
and continue to have discussions with our neighboring
property owners' associations and with our neighbors up and
88
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
down Goat Creek Road, all the way from the city limits to
Interstate 10. We have understood up to this point that the
-- the route for the connection from the bridge to I-10 would
be up Wren Road. We now have been apprised of the fact that
the County has a grand plan for the development of Goat Creek
Road from the city limits to I-10, and I just want to say
that it is the general consensus of opinion of our neighbors
out there --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: George, it's not the County.
It doesn't have a plan -- the County doesn't have a plan.
MR. WEST: That's right, you don't. And, what I'm
telling you is you're about to get it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I see.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Who is about to give us --
MR. WEST: The County is going to be asked -- and
let me just finish my brief statement. We, as the
association of -- associations o:E neighbors, do not need for
Goat Creek Road to be widened, we do not need for Goat Creek
Road to be straightened out, we do not need for the traffic
on Goat Creek Road to be doubled, and we don't believe that
Kerr County needs to spend money for that extra right-of-way,
which you will be asked to do when that plan is made public.
Granted, you will have to buy right-of-way, probably, for the
Wren Road direction, since that's in the County, but it will
be at a lot less cost basis than going up and down Goat Creek
89
a ~
~-
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
Road. Those property owners are already getting together and
getting ready.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Who is going to -- who's
going to offer up this plan for Goat Creek Road?
MR. WEST: What?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Who's going to offer up this
plan for widening Goat Creek Roaci?
MR. WEST: TexDOT, I understand.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I haven't heard.
MR. HANSON: If I can just let -- we're looking at
how we can tie from Spur 98 to Interstate 10. Some of this,
we've had complaints on Goat Creek Road about the low water
crossings, we need to upgrade some of those. People are
coming to us saying they've been trapped on Goat Creek Road.
Obviously, it is a rural, two-lane highway. It has a lot of
curved areas in it. There have been some safety concerns
raised, and we're looking at that as an existing route to
I-10 right now. Obviously, we'd have to straighten it out
and rehab some of those low water crossings. There are
sections in there that probably :should be realigned. Again,
this is a long-range issue. It's not funded through any
I
construction project right now. We're just looking at a it
corridor, upgrading that corridor to I-10. That's all that'd
been discussed right now. People are coming into the office
and asking what are we going to do with the low-water II
90
.-~
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
crossings, what are we going to do with Goat Creek Road.
That's where that stands. Certain, I guess, colleagues of
Mr. West here are coming in and asking, what we are going to
do with the low water crossings on Goat Creek Road. That's
where it stands right now. There' is no cut and dried route.
There is no cut-and-dried plan. Obviously, if we did need to
widen it out or acquire a new alignment for sections of it at
those low water bridges, we would work with the County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you do me a favor?
When you get that thought in your mind that, yes, we're going
to take a look at that, would you please include us at that
time?
MR. HANSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. Our County
Engineer is the right guy to
MR. TUCKER: I need to also comment, too. The Wren
Road location, George, is not off the table. This is -- this
is a long-range plan or goal to ultimately bring this Spur 98
route, which will, we hope, temporarily terminate right at
Goat Creek Road. We would hope to extend it along Goat Creek
Road to Wren Road, and then go over to the interstate and
build a new interchange at the interstate for -- for this
extension of Spur 98. But, the Goat Creek Road -- the
existing Goat Creek Road route is an old farm-to-market, and
it's -- it's got some hazardous locations for the -- the kind
91
r
f
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
of traffic that it's now serving. With low water crossings
that flood, basically, with a heavy downpour, you've got --
we've got to close it. We've got -- we've got alignment
problems, and we've also got a much, much heavier demand for
traffic on that road now, and so we've got to look at it,
even along with Wren Road.
We need to also be looking ,st upgrading the corridor
along F.M. 1338, Goat Creek Road, all the way to the
interstate. That may be phased-in in a couple of projects,
one of which, the earliest, might be nothing more than --
than widening the road within the existing right-of-way,
adding some paved shoulders, and in a couple of spots we may
straighten a curve or two out. But, any major upgrade to --
to, like, an arterial road, that would require a
right-of-way. We would definitely be involving the County,
and we'd be having public meetings and it would be -- it
would be a much more major undertaking than just the earlier
phases. But, these are still things that we and the County
and the City need to sit down and talk about what are we
going to do with the growth that's occurring here, because it
-- a lot of things are being -- will be in the city limits,
but in the early part of this growth, it won't be, and we've
got to address it. We don't want to do like some of the
other cities and wake up behind the curve and not be able to
find any way to catch up. So, anyway, we -- we've got to
92
i--
'- -
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
talk.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I appreciate TexDot's, I mean,
looking at this, and I think they're aware of the problems
further out west on Highway 39, out towards Hunt, that
they're really hemmed in. And, I applaud y'all for looking
at other areas of rapid growth around the county and, you
know, working with -- out south to Sheppard Rees; I know
they're in contact with you on some things out there to try
to upgrade these roads before we get too far along on
development and it's even harder to make upgrades. At some
paint, I think it's pretty clear, somehow we need to get from
I-10 to Highway 173, Highway 16, without coming through the
middle of Kerrville. And, whether it's Wren Road, Goat
Creek, or some other road, somehow we need to figure out how
to get traffic around the city.
MR. WEST: That's right, and that's what we
believe. We just want to let you know what our associations
think about the two propositions; that we're for Wren Road,
we're for the bridge, think it's great. We just don't want
it coming up Goat Creek Road to I-10. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, George.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there anything else on the High
Water Bridge?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I hope not.
93
r-
1
?.
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Thank you all for coming.
We appreciate your time.
MR. TUCKER: Thank you. Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Hold on about 15 seconds,
Bill. I just wanted to thank you publicly for the great work
that the Department did at the low water crossing in Hunt
near the entrance to Camp La Junta. Beautiful job of
controlling -- keeping cars out of the river. It's working
very well. I mentioned it in Court a number of times, but
this is the first time you've been here. Thanks again.
MR. TUCKER: Well, thank you fur saying that. Your
-- your help and leadership in that has made it a smooth
undertaking, and I -- maybe we've qot some other places we
can get together. It was a real win-win.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, it was.
MR. TUCKER: We thank you.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Fantastic. Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. The Court will now move back
to Item No. 2.4 in the regular agenda, which is consider and
discuss request from property owners in the Staake Ranch
Subdivision for the maintenance of Hear Creek Road. Jonathan
Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is actually kind of a moot
point at this time -- at this point. It's kind of -- really,
we thought it was in my precinct, and it's actually in
....
94
,--.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Bill's. To cut to it in a hurry, that road was accepted for
County maintenance in 1985, which was a year after the
performance bond expired. Bond was -- $147,000 was put up,
and it's been accepted and signed off by this Court, so it
doesn't matter. The issue now i:s getting into the Road and
Bridge --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a caveat or two on
that, Judge. I've had -- Jonathan and I and members of the
Road and Bridge Department have been out there and have seen
the road, the current condition of it, and Mr. Odom has also
made a subsequent trip out to talk about the erosion around a
major culvert and on the road. And, we are corresponding --
he's corresponding with all the residents out there who wrote
us a letter, and I have a stack ~sbout that high of letters of
folks who are concerned about it. The issue is not whether
or nut we will maintain the road. The issue is how much we
can do in the ensuing budget year, and we will work out a
plan for that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the other comment, the
road's in pretty good shape. It's not -- the road was built
beyond County specifications when it was built originally.
It's got one washout area. The r_ulverts are pretty expensive
prospects to fix, but there's nothing, you know, imminently
going to destroy the road unless we get an another huge rain
in the headwaters. It was in very good shape to start with.
95
r--
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Anyway, no action is necessary on that item.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Nothing further on that
item? If not, let's go to 2.5, which is to consider and
discuss the County Attorney's opinion on repairs to private
roads. Commissioner Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This one I think we can
dispense with pretty quickly, too, because -- but I wanted to
put it on the agenda so that we can all agree that, after
reading the County Attorney's opinion, do we still agree that
the -- that the -- if a road is not accepted into the County
maintenance system -- to the County road system, that either
the developer or landowners must bring that road to County
standards through some means, an~9 there's several ways of
doing that, before we can accept it for County maintenance.
Do we agree to that? And -- because I'm still telling my
constituents that. I have several of those at work right
now. They're out either raising money, forming a tax
district, or whatever the case might be. And, I just want to
make sure we're all playing by the same rules.
COMMISSIONER WII,LIAMS: I don't disagree with that,
and the Court has been unanimous and often agrees on that
issue. This one particular one about which I wrote the
County Attorney has to do with a road built by a developer
prior to the establishment of qualifications, if you will, or
standards for a road. What the developer did or didn't do --
96
.~.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
7.3
29
25
you know, I don't know how good or how bad he did it. It's a
matter of conjecture. But ~-- it was none too good, but,
nonetheless, there were no standards by which to be judged.
And, so, 15, 20 years later, we have folks who live on these
roads, and they are not private by definition.
And, that's what was confusing about Mr. Motley's
dissertation here. They are not private by definition. They
are very much public. They were constructed to somebody's
standards, but not the County's, long before the County had
standards -- a couple years before the County published its
standards. And, so, the question comes, then, you know, what
do we ask of these folks? They weren't there when the roads
were built. They didn't know of the standards that were --
couldn't know them, because they didn't exist. And, so, what
do we do in a situation like this? And, so, I'm looking for
some guidance, because I think it's important, as we make
note of this, that we are consistent in how we apply the law
in these situations.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The problem that we have, I
think, is in the literature, that -- at least in the research
that I was able to find, is -- is that until and unless -- no
what matter what the standards are, until the road is brought
into the County road system, we i.annot legally maintain it.
So, if it hasn't been brought into the -- no matter what,
irrespective of standards, if it's not in the County road
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
system, and that is done by Court order, sometimes -- even in
19 -- whenever the -- when was the road built? 1980 --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: '2, I believe.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: '82. Even then, you still
had to take a road into the County road system, and it was
never done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, if it hasn't been, then
the first thing we've got to do is take it into the County
road system. To do that, according to our own rules, we have
to have the road brought to County standards, either by a
developer or by the current landowners, and then we can take
it into the system. Because once you start down the slippery
slope of saying, "Well, it's an emergency because there's
potential holes there," if we do that one, then we've got to
do everybody that has a pothole, no matter whether it's in
the County road system or not. There is provision in the
statute that if there is a public health, safety, and welfare
issue, there is a procedure by which you go through to bring
the road to County standards so that it can be accepted into
the County road system. It does involve some expense to the
landowners, but there's several ways of funding that.
And, all I'm saying is -- is that, unless we want to
change our rules and regulations, we -- we can't maintain a
road that hasn't been -- and that's in black-letter stuff
98
,.-.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
here. I've gotten -- that's the black-letter opinion done in
1989, public roads; "Therefore, only public roads which have
become part of the County road system can be legally
maintained by the County." So, that's the first test we've
got to get by. You've got to get a road into the County
system before we can maintain it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No argument. No question
about that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, I think my answer is to
-- when people keep coming to tell me, "We need our road
fixed," first off, I check with Roads and Bridges and say,
"Is it part of the road system?" If they say no, then I go
back to the landowners and I say, "Here's the ways you can"
-- "Here are the alternatives, the ways of getting this road
into the County road system. None of them are for free."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the only question I
have is to what standards they have to bring the road.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whether they bring it -- in
this case Bill's talking about, we didn't have any standards
at the time. If they were done, you know, say, in 1990, we
had standards, but they're different than today's standards.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It would be the standards the at
the time they applied.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that's -- that makes
99

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sense. Or maybe, to a lesser extent, did we have standards
of any kind in 1982?
MS. HARDIN: Yes. Yes, there's a one-sheet
standards. I don't know what they are, but yes. I think
they were done in, like, 1976.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. And I think it would
be fair enough to say that they brought it to the -- to the
standards that existed at that time.
MS. HARDIN: But, the current --
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's not legitimate --
MS. HARDIN: The current rules say --
JUDGE HENNEKE: The rules say you must bring it to
today's standards.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, that's right, because it
wasn't accepted into the County road system. I -- I'm
preaching my own case here. But, that's right, because it
was never a part of the County road system.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's just like a plat; if someone
owned a piece of property in 1985 and had the concept at that
time, that ultimately they were going to divide it and make
huge dollars, when they come in for plat approval today, they
have to meet today's standards. Not the standards in 1985.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Had the road met the County
standards that were written, say, in '76, and the road met
the standards in '81 or '82, or whenever the road was built,
100

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
had it met those standards, then it could have been accepted
as part of the road system at that time and it would still be
a part of the road system and we would still have to maintain
it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Understood. And, I -- and
no debate on that, and no debate on the course of action with
regard to this one. A couple things come to mind, however.
First of all, the Court, in the past, has on several
occasions declared an "emergency," quote, unquote, for the
purpose of taking care of failed roads and situations where,
by definition, the individuals who reside in a particular
area have difficulty getting to market, getting to the
hospital, fire wagons getting there or whatever. The Court
has done that. And, so, when we come up to this current
situation, we have to take it -- have to step back and take a
look, based on the comments you made, which I fully agree
with.
And, so, in asking the County Attorney for an opinion, I
really wanted to -- wanted him to address specifically what
constitutes an emergency, and on what basis can the Court act
and do so with -- with the knowledge and understanding it is
in accordance with the law, and apply that consistently,
moving forward, so that we don't have any deviation. We
don't say to one group, "Well, ynu don't meet the standards,"I
and to another, "Okay, we'll take care of you, 'cause today
lol
r
L_
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
l2
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
looks like a nice day to have an emergency." I don't think
that's the way to do business.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we need to apply
those standards fairly, equitably, and consistently. That's
-- that was the purpose for which I wrote him and asked for
an opinion. In this particular instance, we are going to
have a meeting in this courtroom of all the residents of the
Shadow Ridge Estates area, and we're going to talk about the
formation of a road district. We've asked the County
Engineer and the Road Department to give us some cost
estimates to bring these roads up to standards, up to 1999
standards, notwithstanding the fact that in 1982 there were
no standards by which to be judged.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. And, the last thing I
would just point out to you, that in the case of -- I would
refer to Section 253.003 of the Transportation Code, that the
recommendation on whether or not there is an emergency is up
to us. It's up to the Commissioners Court. That's not the
issue. But, because the same statute says that we can --
number one, if we determine that there is a -- "for the
public health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the
county, the Commissioners Court may propose to: (1) improve
the road to comply with County standards for roads; and (2)
assess all or part of the costs cif the improvement pro rata

...
. _
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
102
against the record owners of the real property of the
subdivision."
So, it tells you what we -- we make the determination
whether we can make that judgment on whether or not there's
an emergency. But, it says when we say okay, then what we
have to do is we have to let those residents vote on it; the
statute goes on to say that. So, what we have to do is we
have to -- we have to say, "okay, we agree you've got a
problem. Here's the vote you can take, here's how much it's
going to cost, here's how you're going to be assessed."
There's -- you hold a public hearing; there's all kind of
things. It's a cookbook approach. I mean, it tells us what
to do. So, there can be legitimate -- it just says that you
can't -- we can't go fix it for free. That's what it says.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it a -- and I know you've
read it more than I have, certainly; you have it in front of
you. Can you declare an emergency, fix it, and not assess
it?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. The law doesn't allow
-- I mean, the statute doesn't allow you to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: In fact, it goes on to say
in the some of the opinions that you can't do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because I was wondering -- I
know there was one that was a school bus route. It was
103
~..
L__
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
washed out in a flood and it was fixed, you know, under an
emergency. This was before I was on the Court.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Was it a County road?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was a private public road.
The school bus used it, but it was not a County-maintained
road. And it was fixed because the school buses couldn't get
to the kids.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. Yeah. Well, and it
seems like there ought to be some reasonable way of doing
that. But -- but it's not in the -- it just ain't there. It
says you can't.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think one thing that
would help us in the future on these matters is if we
properly define what these roads are, and Commissioner
Griffin and I have had this discussion. And, the memorandum
from the County Attorney talks about private roads versus
public roads. In my mind, a private road is a road I may
have that meanders through my back forty that I use
exclusively for myself, and there's a sign on my gate that
says you can't come into that, that's my private road. And,
obviously, the County's not going to be involved in the
maintenance of that road. Roads that, however, are not
accepted into -- for the County to maintain, they are still
public roads, they're public access roads. The public has
every right to be there, to go anywhere they want to go.
109

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
No, I think we have to get away from this public/private
designation and talk about, as you have suggested on many
occasions, roads either are accepted by the County for
maintenance or roads are not accepted by the County for
maintenance, and that's the distinction. Period.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They're either
County-maintained roads or they .sre not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you're on to
something here, Bill.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Really?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with you.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, it has -- it is
confusing, because you're talking about public roads, and
people say, "Well, gosh, it was dedicated to the County on
the plat. it says right here, in 1942 it was dedicated to
the County." I can go out and dedicate anything to the
County. That doesn't make it a County-maintained road.
That's the issue.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else on this item? Have
we got this pretty well figured out? At this point, I see
Mr. Sandlin in the audience, and I know that he's here
probably on 2.16, which is cons icier and discuss having a
joint meeting with the 911 Board, Commissioners Court, area
Post Office representatives, and Kerrville City Council.
105
Ls
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
Again, we'll have to jump to that one if there are no
objections. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda after
I received a phone call from the Comfort Post Office
regarding addressing and what we were doing with 911
addressing. And, I talked to Commissioner Griffin about
this, and Commissioner Williams a little bit, and, you know,
I -- and I've also talked to Glenn Brown at the City a little
bit about their -- mainly, I got to think about 911 again and
call them up, find out what they were doing with their rules.
And, it seems to me that the -- it would be very helpful to
make sure everyone's on the same page, especially with the
Post Office addressing and that issue, and then, still, on
the street names as well, which I don't have a problem with,
but that's another issue a little bit.
But, let's get everyone who's really part of this
together and have a joint meeting. We want to get the City
moving again, somewhere. The Post Office is very concerned
about -- you know, and I know addressing and 911 are not tied
together, necessarily, but in reality they're very, very
closely linked. And, people are -- you know, and I just have
questions continually come up as to -- you know, like, people
are telling me in the public that they're going to want to
use -- they're happy we're doing it, they're happy we're
getting rid of --- or putting streets signs everywhere and
106
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,~ 13
19
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
naming everything. They're going to have a 911 address, and
they want to use that same address for their post office
address. And, I'm trying -- and that's where a big problem,
I think, is coming in, because mailboxes are not necessarily
where people's houses are, so their street names are going to
be kind of weird on mailboxes, it seems to me. And, for that
reason, the Post Office is concerned.
The reason Comfort called is because we're -- already,
an individual put their mailbox on a private road, and the
Post Office refused to deliver because they said, "We're not
going on private roads." If it's not a public road, they're
not going, yet we're giving addresses because we're giving
locations on private residences. So, anyway, some of these
issues I think we need to discuss, and it's probably easier
in a workshop format where we can get everyone involved at
the same time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What day would you want to
do it, Jon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Makes no difference.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do you have some reaction -~
Mr. T. Sandlin --
MR. SANDLIN: If I may.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- from 911, do you have
some reaction as far as --
MR. SANDLIN: I have some reaction to the earlier
107
.-.
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
-- I mean, to the earlier discus:>ion on public and private
roads. I think -- I won't go into that. When you talked to
Comfort, was it before or after i:hey recently obtained their
new Postmaster?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was after.
MR. SANDI,IN: Okay. WE> have discussed with them,
and I've discussed with Mr. Bohnert down there, who is more
or less handling the addressing coordination down there. I
don't know if we're talking about the same one who -- one to
address this specific issue, but we've had problems with some
folks out there where we have told them and gone out there
with them and said, "You have to put your mailbox up here on
the public road or the Post Office doesn't deliver," but
they've insisted on it.
One thing we have done is, :last week I was talking to
ohnert. They may be one of the few rural post offices
that's acquired a computer, and they asked if -- and I told
them I would -- very similar to the disk I distributed to
y'all a while back, is give them -- I've got the software --
give them the viewing software to see the stuff, and put the
county map on there, and that may alleviate it. Also, from
A.M.S. in San Antonio -- that's the big 911 coordinator in
this area -- Post Office sent us same letters that they used
in Bastrop and another county; I lust received them last
week. That just -- the very wor~9ing of the letter may help
108
.-.
~_
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 situation. That explains it succinctly, and also
including the mail-in survey form. You check off if
everything's right and mail it back to 911, so we're
progressing on that. However, I think a joint meeting -- any
way we can have a joint meeting and everyone can hear what
everyone else is saying to everyone without all this
third-party inflection, it might be a little smoother ground.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can cut right to the
chase on this. I think the answer is yes, we ought to have a
meeting, and the issue is --
MR. SANDLIN: Where and when.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, before we go to a date, I
think I need a volunteer from the left portion of the dais to
coordinate among the four or fivi=_ -- to coordinate among the
four or five entities that are going to have to post this and
come together --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- as a governmental entity. So,
do I hear a volunteer?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, I'll be glad to
volunteer. I'll volunteer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I've been wanting to
to tell you how good a job you'ze doing.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me just say that the
first -- the first thing we need -- the first domino we need
109
...
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
to knock over in that group is the 911 Board, a date that's
good for them, because we need the Board participation with
us and with these other entities, particularly the Post
Office. But, I say the first domino is the Board.
JUDGE HENNEKE: 1 would suggest, Commissioner
Griffin, the most difficulty is going to be the City Council.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, yeah. Yeah. But, that
may even be a different game; that may not even be dominoes.
Thal may --
MR. SANDLIN: Are we going to try to do, like, the I~
whole Board or representatives from the Board, kind of like
we did when we were finishing up the guidelines? it
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I -- no, I think we want to
do it as a joint meeting of all hands. And, we'll find a --
I'll work that. We'll find a good place to do it where we've
got enough room. But, I certainly -- we certainly need the
911 Board there, the Post Office, and the Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can probably use that
classroom at U.G.R.A., which is ,ss big as an auditorium.
MR. SANDLIN: City too?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, and the City, too.
That's very important. What I'm saying is, if the City
chooses not to come, no matter what the date, that may --
that may happen anyway. All I'm saying is -- is that we need
to get some understanding on how we move forward with the
110
...,
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
guidelines we've already approved. That involves primarily
us, the 911 Board, and the Post Office. At the same time, we
ought to address all of those issues for the benefit of the
City so that they can see how we are proceeding, because
we're going to proceed. That's my view, anyway. We're going
to proceed. And -- but those three that I mentioned first
are the ones that have to be there for us to be able to
proceed in a timely fashion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the agenda item, the two
things that, you know, I think we need on there is -- the one
that comes to -- I just have a problem with is the -- the
prefixes in front of all the street names. That's something
that I want to discuss it one moire time, because I think that
is the reason we're driving the cost of the signage to
approach $200,000 or whatever th;st astronomical number was.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 237.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $236,000. Those are very much
related. And, even aside from that, how we're going to pay
for this, whether 911 has funds or the County -- I mean,
we're --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Certainly, there are funding
issues and there are procedural issues, but I think if we had
the groups assembled, we can press on. And it would be good
to have the City there, because they're going to -- they
ought to want to play by the same rules that we discuss.
111
.~
L-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. SANDLIN: There's so much intermixing with
services that we share that are based on addressing.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right.
MR. SANDLIN: That needs to get resolved. It's --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can -- we are going to
proceed.
MR. SANDLIN: We're going to, one way or the other.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the City -- the
emphasis, when I talked to Glenn Brown, was they certainly
had a willingness to do it; they're not trying to drag their
feet. It's just lost somewhere in the staff. I -- as a
matter of fact, I think it's in their attorney's office.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: T., what I'm asking from you
is to get me a date your Board can meet with this Court, and
check with the Post Office folks, if you would.
MR. SANDLIN: I will.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And I will work the date,
then, with the Court and get us a place. I just need to know
if the Board -- the 911 Board will support the meeting.
MR. SANDLIN: And by "Post Office," I assume we
mean the district personnel out of San Antonio and the local
Postmasters or whomever they designate?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Whoever has the say-so on us
going out and starting assigning numbers to houses for 911
purposes and doing street renamings, or whatever we have --
112
.-~.
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
road renamings, if we have to, commensurate with the
discussions we may have involving that. But, we want the
decision-maker there that says, "Okay, tomorrow, here's how
we're going to move out and start assigning wholesale numbers
in wholesale lots." We're going to start assigning numbers
to houses and we're going to get people notified. We're
going to foot-stomp the idea that because you have a 911
number assigned to your house on a particular road does not
mean that that's where you're going to get your mail; those
are two separate issues.
MR. SANDLIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I, for example, am going to
have a number on River Road in Hunt, Texas, but I'm still
going to have to go to the post office --
MR. SANDLIN: Keep your post office box.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- 'cause nobody's going to
deliver mail to me, under the current plan, to my house. So,
it has nothing do with -- in a way, mail and 911 are only
vaguely connected in most of the county. Most of the County.
Now, there are places where they have -- you know, mail
service comes right to the door ;and you've got your own
mailbox. Most of them are in clusters, in clustered
mailboxes out in the county. It has nothing to do with
putting the number on that house over there so if old Joe hasl
a heart attack, 911 knows where to go; it has nothing to do

113
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
with the mail system. But, we need to get people out and
around to talk about that. I see --
MR. RECTOR: I would like to comment on that
statement that you just made about how the 911 addressing has
nothing to do with your actual mailing address. We're
finding that to be a problem in my office already in voter
registration, where people are using their 911 address as
their mailing address for voter registration purposes. We're
having to reject those applications, but we don't know where
to reject them to, because they have used their 911 address
as their mailing address.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Great point. And, that's
the point --
MS. RECTOR: It's already a problem. Unless
there's some type of clarification between the two made
publicly, these people out in the rural areas are thinking --
and my mother-in-law is very guilty of that. She used her
911 address for mailing purposes, and --
MR. SANDLIN: Some of the confusion -- maybe this
will -- I don't know if this will clarify it or not. People
going to renew their driver's license, people going to get a
utility hook-up, people going to extend their utility
hook-ups, they come to me. KPUB, Central Electric, whomever
they're going to, won't accept Rural Route 2, Box 29, as
their address any more; they want a physical address.
119
•~--
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MS. RECTOR: And they're using that as a physical
address.
MR. SANDLIN: And we explain when we put the
letters out, and we tell them in our office that this is your
physical address. Then they go to the post office. Some of
them are -- come from counties where this -- and this letter
that we've received from the Post Office, we'll modify it to
our terms and send it out. It more or less states -- and I'm
not quoting this, but it more or less states you've been
assigned a 911 address, a physical address for shipping,
mailing, utilities, whatever. But, until the rural route
converts -- and being on a rural route, you will have two
addresses: Rural Route so-and-so and your physical address.
MS. RECTOR: That's too confusing.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: T., that's too confusing. I
think that's too confusing. What we say is, look, this --
you're assigned a 911 address foz emergency services. It has
nothing to do with your mailing .address, necessarily. If it
does, we'll tell you it does. Don't -- I mean, I wouldn't
confuse them by saying you're going to have two addresses.
I'd just say, Hey, look, guys, you know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where do you want the
ambulance to come?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- where do you want the
ambulance to come? That's your physical address. Your
115
r~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
mailing address is whatever your mailing address is.
MR. SANDLIN: When we've done that to them, then
they have assumed -- and in this situation, that's a -- we're
just trying to clarify it. It's not an easy issue.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I know it's not easy. What
I'm saying is we need to get publicity on this; "Look, 911
addressing is for 911 services."
MR. SANDLIN: But, to 'the vast majority of people
coming in, 911 is the furthest thing from their mind. They
need a power pole or this or that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's why you need to tell
them -- that's the reason why I :say we need to tell them 911
addressing is for 911 services. If you live out in the
county, it's very likely that that will have nothing to do
with your mailing address, until such time as you are
notified, period. That's all you've got to tell them. I
mean, I can understand that. I mean, if you sent me a letter
and said, "You're now 181 River Road, Hunt, Texas, for 911
services," I'd say great, 'cause now I can tell U.P.S. that's
where I am; I'll have a number up these. You know, it will
be good for some other reasons. But, I -- I would not assume
that, all of a sudden, I can stick a post office mailbox out
in front of my house and have mail show up there. So, I'm
just saying that we need to keep it as simple as possible.
And the first step in -- I ~spplaud your efforts on this,
116
,.-
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 I know -- having heard some of the complaints that you've
heard or the interpretations you've heard from the people who
have been asking you questions, i:here's no -- I'm -- there's
no doubt that it's confusing. But, I think a good start
would be this meeting where we go through some of this with
the Post Office people, we go through it with the 911 Board
folks, and us on this Court, and I think that will be a --
and the City, hopefully. Then I think we can start to get
the word out that, "Here's the way it's going to work, guys,"
and go do it. And, I think we can do that. I didn't mean to
filibuster, but I've spent a lot of mental hours on thi~~ one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just a little bit
concerned about you wantiny your own post office out in front
of your house.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. SANDLIN: Anyway, to be short, I think it would
be wonderful if we could get everybody together in one --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You get me a date we can do
it from the Board, and we'll start there, and I'll try to
knock over the other dominoes, including the City of
Kerrville.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. All right, thank you, T.
MR. SANDLIN: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Before we adjourn, let's take up
No. 2.6, which is consider and discuss recent findings of the
117
.~
L-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
TexDOT County road mileage survey and issues relating to the
conduct of the survey. Again, Mr. Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. I think everybody gut
a copy, and there's a copy in your book, of the memo from
Road and Bridge regarding this road survey that was conducted
back on -- well, it was in July. At any rate, there were
several issues in that thing that really concerned me in the
memo, and then after doing some research with -- or going
back into what actually happened with Truby, I got a little
more of the information about what happened in Incident No. 1
here on Hunt-Priour Road out in my precinct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hurt.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Hurt, I'm sorry.
Hurt-Priour Road out in my precinct, and I thought we ought
to take some action on this. Not -- not hard action, but we
need to remind landowners in the different -- and this is a
public/private issue on roads, Bill, what a public road is.
There was an incident here involving the TexDOT crew that
could have turned really bad, violent; somebody could have
gotten hurt. The crew was accosted on the road by -- by a
ranch foreman or an overseer who wanted to know what they
were doing there. They were on 'the county -- they were on
the right-of-way for this County-maintained road -- in this
case, public road -- and blocked the passage of the TexDOT
vehicle. They said that wanted to know what they were doing
118
.-.
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
there. As it turns out, the suspicion was that there was
somebody out there in TexDOT trur_ks and uniforms and hard
hats that were doing some drug running, was what the
suspicion was.
Didn't make any difference what the -- what the
suspicions were; it was totally inappropriate to accost
someone on a public road. And, :[ talked to David Motley, the
County Attorney, about this, and I think that maybe what we
should ask to do -- and David, by the way, said that we could
work this out, this particular incident, between the two of
us, but I wanted to bring it to the Court for a sense of the
Court's feeling on whether this is the proper thing to do. I
think just a -- a general reminder letter from his office to
the landowners that were involvec9 in this particular incident
-- or any other incident, for that matter, that occurs --
reminding them of public access to public roads, what the
statutes are.
If they would like to have 'the road abandoned so that
they can maintain it and make it a private road, we can
consider that, too, and there's .s procedure we could cite for
abandonment of a County road, which is also in the
Transportation Code. But, that we -- having knowledge of
this through the memo, I think it is incumbent upon us to
take some proactive steps to prevent a violent confrontation
because of road vigilantes, rather than just letting it go.
119
r--
L_
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
And, I wanted to get a sense of the Court that this is the
proper thing to do. I'll be gla<9 to work with David, but I
think we ought to at least send these owners a -- a letter
just reminding them of what the :law is and that those crews,
or anyone else that's a law-abiding citizen, has the right to
be on that road. And that if they suspect illegal activity
is taking place on a public road, that they should call the
Sheriff's Department. That's the action to take, not to
accost somebody on the road themselves.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with you, what
you're saying. We should do that. We should let them know
their activity or actions were just not acceptable. I have a
question that's sort of correlary to that, based on the note
that Truby wrote us. In this particular instance, they gave
it -- "they" meaning the State -- gave us credit for the
distance of this road, but attached a permanent note to that
road to never return to the road. Which prompts me to ask,
does that mean that we can or cannot get future credit?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, it's in the database
now. we've gotten credit for it, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Future --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- there's a note on there
for their crews, Don't go down -- if you're a TexDOT guy,
don't go down that road, because there are people down there
there that are going to --
120
•^
L -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Blow your brains out.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or whatever. It's just ---
it's just something we ought to take minimal steps, at least,
to see if we can preclude that fi=_eling that there is -- it's
the landowner's right to restrict -- and the landowner, by
the way, in this case called me. And, guess what his
statement was? He said, "There ~sre only three ranches on
this road." He says, "We check everybody that comes down
here." It's a County-maintained public road. He says, "We
check everybody that comes down here." So, that -- you know,
that's -- that could lead to something much more serious than
this confrontation was, if that's the genuine feeling that
that person has. So, shall I proceed with David and do that?
I mean, I'm not asking for a vote. It's just -- I'd like a
sense of the Court that -- that this is the right thing to
do, because we may have other instances of it in the future.
I don't know.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It appears to be the sense of the
Court that you and Mr. Motley should work out an acceptable
letter. Now, my caution to you would be, keep it simple.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Don't go into all the procedures
about abandoning a road. Simply point out to them that it's
a public, County-maintained road, and they do not have the
right to stop and question anyone who's on the public road,
121
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
particularly when they're in a TexDOT truck.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one question of
Truby with regard to two instances you noted in your memo in
Precinct 2, Saw Mill Road and Albrecht Road. Have those "no
trespassing" signs been taken care of, or in the process of
being rectified?
MS. HARDIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There's a question here I
had also had on the agenda item. I wasn't aware of this
until this happened, or this -- this survey was done. But,
you can put "no trespassing" signs all over your lot.
Apparently, there are some "no trespassing" signs that are in
the county road -- right-of-way for the the county road.
Those should be removed, but I understand we're doing that
with each of the landowners involved?
MS. HARDIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Probably haven't had too
much of a problem with that.
MS. HARDIN: I do have one question. On the that
ranch -- that Staake Ranch Road coming out of Bandera --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
MS. HARDIN: We have to come through Bandera County
to get into Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
MS. HARDIN: I understand there's a "no
122

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
trespassing" private road sign somewhere in Bandera County on
that road?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Truby, I think you're
correct. I can't tell you exactly where it is, but I do
believe I did see one.
MS. HARDIN: Do you have a suggestion on how we
might get it removed? I mean, if we can.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that -- whoever put
it up, we'll talk to them about getting it down. We need to
get it down, right. I think it':s in Bandera County, though.
MR. MOTLEY: I can call the County Attorney over
there and talk to her about it, or the Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for making that
offer.
MR. MOTLEY: Sure.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Nothing further on this item?
Let's stand adjourned until 1:30.
MS. SOVIL: Recessed.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Recessed until 1:30. Recessed
until 1:30.
(Recess taken from 11:50 a.m. until 1:30 p.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE,: It's 1:30 in the afternoon on
Monday, August 9th, and we'll resume this regular session of
Kerr County Commissioners Court. The next item on the agenda
r--
123
i-~-
.-.

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
is Item 2.11, which is consider and discuss the procedures
for implementation of changes in law enacted by the 76th
Texas Legislature which affect Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This will just take a
second, Judge. What I wanted to do was draw attention to and
ask a couple of little questions about -- I know there's a
post-legislative conference that the Commissioners -- at
least two of our Commissioners are attending, and post-
legislative conferences for othez folks. There will be a lot
of information that comes out of that that they will be able
to bring back and tell us a little bit more about what we
need to do because of this last legislative session. But, I
also wanted to point out that there -- there's a lot of
information already available and that, in some cases, we
probably already ought to be thinking about it.
Perhaps the best rundown is in the Legislative
Newsletter, and I would hope that all of our County officials
would look at it. There are -- there are several things in
here. There's all the way from very broad subjects, like the
Elgin Bank case, which we'll have to work on next year --
it doesn't require an immediate response, but there are a
few, like one I found -- let's see if I've got it here --
that actually -- oh, and I suppose we've already done this,
but it's relating to the time at which the Commissioners
Court of a County may -- must hold a hearing on a proposed
129
.-~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
budget, how many days. It went :From 7 days to 10 days, and
that's retroactive back to the 6th -- or to June 17th.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's after --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's after it's been filed.
MR. TOMLINSON: After it's been filed.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right, and it went
from 7 days to 10 days, so we ought to be aware of that.
There's a few little -- little nits and picks like that that
are in some of these, but some of them can be fairly -- can
take a little thinking on our part. For example, the new
burn ban law that came out of the House has some stipulations
for using what's called a Keech-Byrum Index for how dry
things are, and that's going to be transmitted to the
counties from the Texas Forest Service. But, how is that
going to work? Who's going to do that? We could probably --
and I -- I know I'm probably volunteering for some of this,
but we ought to be checking on how that's going to work after
the 1st of -- in this case, after the -- after the 1st of
September.
Another one is a Wentworth bill requiring certain plats
for the subdivision of land to include proof of ground water
supply. That's something we want to think about that may
fold into our Subdivision Rules. But, we -- the Courts are
going to have the ability to set the rules for that; that we
can require that the developer have a statement on the plat
125

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
that's certified to by a qualified professional engineer that
there is adequate ground water available. Just -- so, all
I'm saying is that there are a lot of things that we County
officials ought to be looking at. The County magazine has a
good article, the last one, and even the Controller's -- the
last thing has a pretty good runclown on property tax law, for
example, on all the changes that are going to happen. And, I
just think we need to be looking at some of that now. I just
raise that as an issue. Any comments? Questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On'Ly comment that I have is
more related to the Subdivision Rules, 'cause I kind of gat
involved with that two years ago. I was planning on going
through and, at the end of the year, or as I can -- some of
it I can sort of start now, figure out where we need
revisions, and come through later this year, probably fourth
quarter, with a revised -- some other things that are just
mistakes, typos, and then, you know, clean up the current
ones and then implement all these new rules or laws. We have
one thing about a 200-foot driveway which our civil attorney
has said it's illegal, in his opinion, you know, so just --
that ruled that out, I guess. But, anyway, there's things
like that. We need to clean up other things beyond just the
legislative matters that we addressed, especially Elgin
Bank and such, so that one I'm kind of -- we have to work
on that one, and assistance on others.
126
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: The Subdivision Rules are one thiny~
we need to get as quickly as possible, because there are
additional powers that we can exercise, but we can't delay
work on plats as they come before us until we get those
powers in place. I mean, the one that really jumps out at me
is the manufactured home rental rules. We now have the
ability to make them come and ba:>ically get plat approval
with all the other bells and whistles, which we don't have
anything in place now. And, so, the -- some of those, we
need -- at the very earliest time, we need to get those in
place.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that -- I'm sorry, Tommy.
MR. TOMLINSON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that -- the mobile home
law, is that in effect today? Or is that one of those
September 1 deals?
JUDGE HENNEKE: September 1. But, it's something
we have to take -- we have to adopt through the ordinance.
It's not something that's self-actuating. And, the water
availability is the same way, and some of the Elain Bank
stuff is the same way.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Reading through a couple of
these things, I noticed that the Commissioners Court has to
take some action for us to qet the benefit of something; we
can't -- it won't just happen. We're going to have to
r
127
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
understand what has to be done. There's one -- I don't think
we -- I'm not sure this one requires action or not, but our
own Harvey Hilderbran authored the bill relating to
assessment of administrative cosies from certain transactions
relating to collection of court costs. What it did was his
bill removed the 2.8 million population requirement that was
in that bill. Now any county, in collecting fees, fines, et
cetera, can attach a $2 administrative fee to that, so we
need to have a mechanism set up to do that. Those kind of
things.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's one of Duncan's
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Russ Duncan that works for
us.
MS. PIEPER: But, the Commissioners Court does not
have to --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We don't have to do anything
on that one. That's -- that one's not -- that's why I said
that. But, there are a number of them that are -- there's
courthouse preservation money around, by the way.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Up to a million bucks. But
we have to -- we have to file an application for the grant.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We have to adopt a master plan.
128
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. My experience with the --
with the legislative conference is that, a lot of times --
you know, none of these laws have been tried yet. I mean,
they're not -- they haven't been in existence. And, you get
a lot of insight from the confer<ance from professionals that
understand --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Absolutely.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- understand the "why" and the
reason the Legislature passed these laws. I mean, you know,
their interpretation of what the purpose was. So, a lot of
times it helps, in implementing these laws, to not go too far
until you really understand what the intent is. Some of them
are cut-and-dried, but -- I know that, but sometimes they're
not. And, it helps to have some -- some information from
some people that have actually been there in the process and
understand, you know, the reason. So, it does help.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think with the --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Subdivision Rules, that's
one of the ones, you know, I'll sort of look at quickly, and
I'll probably start working on a draft. And, I know a lot of
the surveyors -- some of the surveyors in the community also
have -- unrelated to Legislative issues, they're unhappy with
the way the paper flows. I mean, they think it could be done

129
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
easier; it was done easier several years ago. Anyway, it's
just some of those things. I thought -- you know, I don't
want to give any specifics, but I thought I'd work on one
copy, and then we can get that out and then do some sort of a
-- you know, put it on file for gat least two weeks before
making any changes so we can get input from the public like
we did in the last one, 'cause ii= affects so many people and
so many developers and engineers, that they have a lot of
good insight on verbiage changes and things of that nature,
as well.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, I agree. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Next item is 2.12, consider
and discuss adopting ordinance prohibiting solid waste
disposal in Kerr County and providing civil and criminal
penalties. I placed this on the agenda. We talked about it
briefly about a month ago, and I've actually proposed an
ordinance now. Essentially, what this does is recognizes the',
existing landfill, grandfathers it, and prohibits any further
solid or municipal waste disposal in Kerr County. Katie
Lowe, a high school senior, helped me with this, and she
gathered some research, talked to the City, got some i~
information on how much longer that landfill will be in ~,
operation. Right now, under the current usage, I think it li
I
has about a 10-year life expectancy, which means that
130
~-.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
probably within three to five ye<~rs they would start the
process for trying to permit or find another site for
disposal of this waste.
My opinion is that passage of this ordinance gives us a
very strong seat at the table to propose any conditions on
siting or use of any future landfills, and that's one of the
reasons I bring it to the Court for consideration. If we're
going to adopt it, we have to publish it in the paper for two
consecutive weeks, set a time for_ hearing, have a hearing on
it. My proposal would be to have the hearing the first
meetiny in September. I think this --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What I found interesting,
Judge, is the synopsis of Senate Bill 986, the last paragraph
particularly. If we do not adopt this ordinance designating
areas -- or designating -- yeah, areas of the County where
solid waste disposal sites will be prohibited, that means,
then, that one or more than one could pop up anyplace, as I
read it, if am I reading it correctly. And, if it did, we
would be hard-pressed to intervene after the fact.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's basically correct. I mean,
if we don't have an ordinance like this in effect, then an
applicant for a landfill simply goes to T.N.R.C.C. and they
put -- they have to have a public hearing and all that, but
they don't have to get our approval. The issue may never
come up, but I think prudence dictates that we put this
131

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
protection in place.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, what you are -- what
you are saying, by reason of the ordinance, is that any place
in Kerr County other than the location as defined or out --
depicted here by metes and bound:> is prohibited?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Correcl=.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: An<9 the metes and bounds is the
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. We got that directly from
Jannett, in its own file. Correct, Jannett?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I had is on the
first page of -- probably two thirds of the way down. The
sentence reads, "The Court finds that the transportation of
additional solid waste into and through the county..." I'm
just wondering about the "through the county" portion of
that. Does that mean that a garbage truck can't go down the
interstate?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that -- you know, that's a
good point. We could easily deli=_te the "through" portion of
that. I mean, you've raised a good point there; I see what
you're talking about. I don't think we need to really worry
too much about hazardous materials coming down 16, and 10 we
probably can't do anything about anyway, so --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've tried.
132
~_
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, I don't have any problem with
-- with deleting the "through" from that provision there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anc9, the question I have -- and
I think it's probably addressed :>omewhere; I just didn't see
it -- is how does -- are private landowners protected from
leaving a tine on their own property or -- or having a -- you
know, digging a hole on their ranch and throwing their --
what I would term, based on the definition, as municipal
waste, municipal solid waste, in that? 'Cause that includes
ashes, street cleanings, garbage -- you know, household
garbage. That's something that ~-- ashes out of a fireplace
are commonly put on my ranch, anc9 on most ranches I think
they're thrown somewheze --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Where is that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's on the third page. It's
under the definition of Municipal Solid Waste. It includes
garbage, rubbish, ashes, street r_leanings, dead animals --
you know, as I read that, unless there's a -- a dead animal
that dies on a ranch has to be taken to the County landfill.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think --
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's what happens now.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It says it means solid waste
resulting from or incidental to municipal, community,
commercial, institutional, or recreational activities. I
think that -- to me, that means normal garbage, you know.
133
r.
L-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Not -- that doesn't restrict the private landowners' rights,
because it's municipal, community, commercial, institutional,
and recreational. That means you couldn't go -- ~,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Recreational is hunting. If I~
you're out there hunting, you know, I'm just wondering -- you
know, I want to make sure that we're protecting property
owners' rights, I mean, and at the same time protecting the
County. And I'm not sure how to do it, or -- you know, am I
reading too much into that?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we can add it. You know, we
can add a section which says solid waste does not include
household items, things like that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Property disposal.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Which are disposed of by the
landowner on their own property, or --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Something like that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- something like that. You know,
we can do that. I mean, we can't exempt them from the E.P.A.
requirements. You can't take your --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Batteries --
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- you:c batteries and your PCB
converters and throw them out there and be protected, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- we can add something like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be something of a
,~^
139
`-
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
concern, because I think that -- you know, certainly, a lot
of my constituents would have a problem with it if they think
that they can't do that. And I i:hink -- you know, certainly,
it's not oux understanding, it is>n't taking away from doing
that. It's just --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we can add something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Something like you just said
right there, I think, would cover it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We can add a -- under sub (A) we
can add a (iv).
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Waste material resulting from
normal household use, nonhazardous agricultural waste,
something like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We can throw something in there
which makes it clear that we're not trying to keep someone
from taking care of their own garbage on their own property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. I'm in favor of --
strongly in favor of this. Just a question, because I had
heard that in county government, the word "ordinance" was a
no-no, and how are we able to use that word in this case?
JUDGE HENNEKE: This is a specific provision in they
.i+
135
~--.
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
Health and Safety Code.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, State law.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Gives us the authority to do that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There are two or three
areas, I think, that you can use -- I'
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Use the word "ordinance"?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Use the word "ordinance."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I move we adopt the
ordinance prohibiting solid waste disposal in Kerr County,
which provides civil and criminal penalties, as amended.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And set a public hearing for the
first meeting in September at 10 o'clock?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fine. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we adopt the proposed
solid waste ordinance, as amended, and set a public hearing
for same at 10 o'clock a.m. on the morning of the regular
session in September, whatever that date is. And,
furthermore, that the County Judge be directed to -- the
notice of the meeting and the ordinance be published in a
newspaper for two consecutive weeks. Any further discussion?
If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
136
,,....
~_
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE fiENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item 2.13,
consider and discuss approving service contract between Kerr
County and Community Supervision and Correction Department
and authorize County Judye to sign same. This is a renewal
of an existing contract which we bring to the Court fox its
approval. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you say, "Any
questions"?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Front page of the
service contract -- well, the on:1y page of the service
contract, Item 3, C.S.C.D. will reimburse the County for
expenses of the program on a monthly basis; provided,
however, that C.S.C.D. shall not be liable to pay more than
$29,011 per year. What happens if it goes over 529,000?
Then the County picks up the --
JUDGE HENNEKE: The County would pick that up,
then. However, we would also have the ability to see the
program didn't get that far.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I wanted to
hear.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy, do you have anything?
MR. TOMLINSON: The only -- I guess the only thing
137
L~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
that would -- would protect us on that is the budget. I
mean, we -- we budget the expenditures for that program.
It's -- in fact, it's in Adult Probation's budget -- County
budget, and it's -- it's entitlec9 D.O.E.P. program.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
MR. TOMLINSON: Drug Offenders Education Program.
And, we budget what the County will expend on that program.
So, I mean, if it went over -- it goes over what we budget,
we wouldn't have to fund.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, let's budget 529,011.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we budgeted less than that.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, :I think we budgeted
20-something.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
MR. TOMLINSON: But, I -- when we did that, I
remembered what -- what the State allowed for that program,
and that's what the State allows the Probation Department for
that program.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I see.
MR. TOMLINSON: And, that -- there's not a lot of
danger in that, I don't think, because the -- the defendants
pay $65 per course for that. So, we're -- we're reimbursed
from the State, as well as receiving those funds from -- from
the participants in that course-
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Superb.
~^'~
138
~- -
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do we have a motion?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Not yet.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll move it, that we
approve the service contract and authorize the Judge to sign
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ser_ond.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve the service
contract between Kerr County and Community Supervision and
Correction Department and 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. 2.19, consider and
discuss changing the date for the December 1999 special
meeting.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Actually --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- this is one that we had
discussed in the office earlier. I had discussed it with the
Judge, and I put this item in, just as a placeholder, to make
sure we didn't forget it. And -- and it's on the agenda now,
r
139
s~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and I don't see any reason not to go ahead and do it. And,
that is our second meeting in December falls on the 27th,
which would fall on -- the 27th is between Christmas and New
Years, and I would propose that we -- we move that meeting up
a week into the week before, perhaps the 20 -- I think I've
gat the date --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 20th?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Like, the 22nd or 23rd. And
make it a morning meeting, rather than a night meetiny, so
that we'll get some participation. 'Cause I think -- I'm not
sure --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 22nd or 23rd?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's a Wednesday or
Thursday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wednesday or Thursday.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We'll get off Friday before
-- that weekend before Christmas, and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: At 9 o'clock in the morning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If I had my druthers, I'd
rather have it on Wednesday, the 22nd, and get it further
away.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, that was my feeling,
too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How does that affect us

140
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
paying our bills and that kind of thing? That's the only
thing to be concerned about.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I -- I can't -- the next
meeting would be when?
JUDGE HENNEKE: It would be, like, the 11th --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Next century.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- of ,January, 11th or 12th of
January, something like that.
MR. TOMLINSON: What we might do the meeting -- the
first meeting in December, if we had a feel for what bills
might be -- that we would have to pay, if they're utilities
or something that we know about, you might -- we might get
prior approval.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: After the service is
rendered and all that?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right, to pay those. Other than
that, most -- you know, we get bills every day of the week,
you know. So, I mean, it's hard to say when -- you know, if
there's one time that they come in that's more -- we get more
than we do at others. We just take them as they come. So --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make a motion we move
it to the 22nd at 9 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin and
seconded by Commissioner Williams that we reschedule the

191
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
special Commissioners Court_ meeting in December to December
22nd at 9 o'clock a.m. 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 2.15,
consider and discuss granting authority for the County Judge
to appoint a full-time or part-t.ime master to preside over
the proceedings for court-ordered mental health services, and l'
ratify the appointment of Robert A. Denson for serving on
July 27th, 1999. I put that on the agenda. The situation we ',
ran into last week, while I was on vacation, was that there
was no one else available to do the mental patient hearings.
Our only alternative was to pay dearly for a sitting judge --
a special judge to come from San Antonio for purposes of
hearing the mental patient hearings. There is a provision in
the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Code which allows
the Court to give me the authority to appoint someone to hear
those hearings. Bob Denson was willing to do them last time.
We just need this authority in the event we get caught in a
pickle again.
COMMISSIONER BAI~DWIN: Well, I've got a couple of
questions -- just questions. Heee where it talks about
masters in the M.H.M.R. portion of the law, it says you may

142
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
appoint a full-time or a part-time. So, what are you
proposing we do?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Part-time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A part-time person there.
And then you drop down, let's see, to (b}, to he has to
practice in the state for four years or be a retired County
Judge. Somebody like Bob has been practicing law for four
years or more in the State of Te:{as, so that covers him
there.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then (c) is the one that
bothered me just a little. "A master shall be paid..."
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, how do we -- what are we
proposing? Are we paying Bob for what he's already dune?
What are we talking about? How are we going to pay someone
in the future?
JUDGE HENNEKE: He's asked to be paid at the rate
we would pay a court-appointed attorney, which is $50 an
hour.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So, we're --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I believe it was an hour and a half
last week.
COMMISSIONER AALDW7N: We owe him 75 bur_ks right
now?
143
,.--.
L_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, what is -- where does
something -- I mean, do we have <~ line item that that just
automatically comes out of?
JUDGE HENNEKE: There is a Professional Services
line item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Professional Services?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We could take it out of.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, we'd only pay him in
those cases where you're not available and --
JUDGE HENNEKE: We -- we looked real hard. Usually,
we can find Judge Sherill, or one of the sitting judges will
do it. It does allow for other County Judges in the
cachement area to do it, but since the Kerr County Judge does
all the hearings for the cachement area, there wasn't another
Judge --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- within about a four-county area
who was willing to come in and do it, because they'd never
done it before. Dick Evans in Bandera does want to come in
and sit in on hearings so that, in the event he ever has to
do any, he would feel comfortable in doing them. So, he
wasn't in on that because he'd never done it before.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to me it's a good idea
to do. I mean, instead of -- maybe it's a rare thing, but if
194

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
you need it, from the budget standpoint, you put in $100,
$200 or something just to cover, I mean, 'cause, it's a --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. I agree, you should.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The Judge might actually get
sick one day or something and not be here one day, may need
somebody.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you know, it's probably
an hour and a half average for a day over there?
JUDGE HENNEKE: What we do, when -- it really
averages about three hours a day when I go out there, but
what we do when I'm not going to be there is we call the
State Hospital and we say, Only put those cases on that have
a time crunch and have to be heard this week. And,
otherwise, they'll push them back. Tomorrow's going to be a
long day, I think; they pushed them all back. So --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make a motion that we
grant the authority for the County Judge to appoint a
part-time master to preside over proceedings for
court-ordered mental health services, and ratify that
appointment for Robert A. Denson for serving on July 27th,
1999.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Set the rate of pay?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, at the rate of $50 per
hour.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
195
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Secund.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court grant the
County Judge authority to appoint a part-time master to
preside over proceedings for court-ordered mental health
services at the rate of $50 an hour, and further ratify the
appointment of Robert A. Denson to serve on July 27th, 1999.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is Bob going to be the -- tiie
full part-time?
JUDGE HENNEKE: He'll be the -- he'll be the one
we'll fall back on if -- if a sitting judge is not available.
A sitting judge doesn't come out of our budget, so we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason I say that, 'cause
it says -- you said it's "a part-time." Does that mean we
could employ two individuals or one individual? When you
said "a" --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or am I being too picky on
wording?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, he's a lawyer. What
are you talking about?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't have my lawyer hat on down
here.
196
r.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Iie can do any damn thing he
wants to.
JUDGE HENNEKE: "A" implies anyone, more than one.
One at a time.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Told you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions? If not, all
in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: We have already disposed of 2.16
and 2.17. Consider and discuss ;appropriate step and grade
for new hire in Tax Assessor/Collector's office. I believe
that we have a request to discuss this in Executive Session.
MS. RECTOR: That's correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's a personnel matter. So, at
this time, Commissioners Court will go into Executive
Session. Yes, Tommy? Do you have a --
MR. TOMLINSON: Could I get you to dispose of this
bill before that, so I can --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Go back to the bill that we held.
The County Auditor has determined that the bill was f:or a
rental car for a witness which the District Attorney, Ron
197
r-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Sutton, had to fly in in order to testify at a murder trial.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay Invoice No.
109026.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved that we pay Invoice
No. 109026, in the amount of --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorry.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- what?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $256.39.
JUDGE HENNEKE: $256.39. Moved by Commissioner
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. Any further
discussion? In not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Tommy, for
looking that up.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Tommy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ridiculous as it is.
(The open session was closed at 2:05 p.m., and an
Executive Session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: The Court will now go back into
open session. It's 2:20 on Monday afternoon, August the 9th.
We are considering Agenda Item 2.17, which is consider and
198
,---
,.-~
~-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
discuss appropriate step and grade for new hire -- new hires
in Tax Assessor/Collector's office. In Executive Session,
we've been discussing personnel issues in the Tax Assessor/
Collector's office. Does anyone have a motion to make i
regarding the agenda item before us today?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let's see. I'll be glad to
do it if I can phrase it correct'Ly. What is it? What number
is that?
JUDGE HENNEKE: 2.17.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 17.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Not -- it doesn't have any --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh. Well, I'd like to make
a motion that we -- that we authorize the the Tax
Assessor/Collector to have -- to have two new hires for the
-- what do we call it? What's the term?
MS. RECTOR: Motor Vehicle Title and Registration.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Motor Vehicle Title and
Registration Department, one of those individuals to be hired
at a 12, Step 4 level; the other at a 12, Step 2 level.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Tax Assessor/
Collector be authorized to exten~9 an offer of employment to
one individual in the Motor Vehicle Registration Department
at a 12-9 level, and another individual at 12-2 level, based
149
r~
L-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
upon the experience these indivic9uals have in the unique work
of that department. Any further discussion? If not, all in
favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MS. RECTOR: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there anything else to come
before this Court today? If not --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Baldwin needs a
nap.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If not, we stand -- we are
adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 2:22 p.m.)
150
~-.
~_
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
7.5
STATE OF TEXAS I
COUNTY OF KERR I
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 13th day of August,
1999.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certi ied Shorthand Reporter
ORDER Na. '~s9f~r
CLRIMS RNU RCC:OUNTS
On this the 9th day of Rugust 199`3, came to be considered by
the Court the various claims and accai_mts <ayainst Kerr• County
and the various Commissioner-s' precincts, which said Claims
and Rccaants are 1~--General Fr.md for S6S, 374. ~3; i i-Jury Fund
fur b73t~. 11; 13-Road R 8ridye Rdd' 1 Registration F=ee f=und 'For'
ffi13,863. 7~; 14-Fire F'rot;ection Fund for `C•iN,639.93; 15-Road R
Bridge Fund fior S'~8,945.60; 18-County Law Library Fund for
~E6c.6k1; 19-Public Library Fund for 'Sr6,80~.16; ~4-Traftic
Safety Fund for- $c 7. 83; cl-Juvenile Intensive F'rogr•am-State
Raid F~.md for $3i4.cc]; S~-Indigent Health Care F=~_md for
'bc`_,,689.04; 61-1998 l"ax Rnticipation Note Fund tor• ~53~.5~0;
70-G'ermanent ]Improvement Fund for 468, 4G`i1.3@; 76-Juvenile
Detention Facility Fund for Sc40.46; 81-District
Rdministrai:ion Fund fur 528E.~3; 83-State Fi_mded-16th
District Rttor•ney Fund for 8763.~~; 86--State F=landed-16th
District F'r•obation Fund fur Bi,Q~4~.38; and 8'7-State Funded
-L'ommunity Corrections Fund for ~3, 1°;~:~.~0~5.
(TUTRL RLL FUNDS-$c50,7`i3. 13)
Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by
Commissioner Griffin, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, payment of said Claims and Recounts as
recommended by the County Ruditor, with the exception of
Enterprise Rent-a--car bill f-'or S~:i6.34, F~_md 436, 198th
r-. District Court.
,-,
UFiDER NG. X5948
BUDGET UMENDMEIV I-
lRX R5S'ESSOR-DULLEDTUR
On this the 9th day of Rugust 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Co~_irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~D-~, transFer-ring
~a'IO.t~U from Line Item No. 1~-401-571 Contingency to Line Item
No. 14i-499--461 Lease Dopier. (lo cover expenses for copiers
located in Tax Uffice-Co~_rr-thoi_~se and Tax Uff'ice
Si_ibstatioei-Ingram thro~_igh September 1999. )
URli~R NU. c5949
IlUI7GEl RMENllMEN-I..
CUUNIY COURT R7 LHW
Un tl-iis the 5tti day of Fa~_~gust 15999 upon motion made 6y
Commis>sioner• Urififin9 seconded by Commiss:ioner• Let<9 the
Co~_ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-V~-~, transferr•iny
bilc'..73 from Line Item No. iN-4c/-JE~J Comp~_iter 5i_~pplies to
Line ]:tem No. 1U-Gc7-3141 Office Supplies .
URUtR NU. G..19J~
Nl1DGE"f RMENDMEN"1"
i998 THX RIVTICIF'R'T1UN NO"I"E
On this the 9th day of Hug~_~st 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Co~_irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, transferring
5530.00 from Line ]:tem No. 61-647-6iN Pri.nci.pal to Line Item
No. 61-647-665 Service Fees.
URDER NU. c5951
Bl1DGET AMENUMEN'I`
JUSTICE Uf~ l HE p'ERCE ~# 1
COMMISSIONERS' COUR7
i.ln this the 9th day of R~_ig~_ist 1399, upon motion made by
Commissioner Haldwin, seconded by Commissioner- Griffin, the
Co~_rr-t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, tr-ansfer-ring
8391;.00 from Line item No. 10-455-SE~3 Software t*laintenance
87. 0c i'rom Line Item No. 10-~F.lS'-4`~3 Miscellaneous
8935.9!3 from Line Item No. 10-401-570 C'ommissioners' Court
Capital. Out lay
totaling 81,353.00 to Line item No. 10-4`iFi-5.70 :Justice of the
peace #1 Capital O~_itlay; and
Transferring 81Q~0.00 from Line item No. 10-455-309 Postage to
Line Item No. 10-455-485 Conferences, and L-ransfer 8100.00
from Line Item No. 10-455--311 Photocopy 5~_rpplies to Line item
PJo. 10-455-`..=i6c Computer Software,
URllER NU. ~J ~J~
BUDGET HMENUMENT
CUUN`fY TRER:iURER
Un this the 9th day of-' A~_ig~ast 1999, ~_ipori motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin' seconded 6y Commissioner Let:, the Coi_irt
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-0, transferring 57.35
from L...:i.ne 7:tenilVo. 1~-497-'~Q~1 FICA Expense to Line item No.
i0-49'7-456 Machine Repairs.
ORDER NO. GJ9J:5
aGF'ROVE TO RCCEPI' MINUI E5
aNi) Wa1VE RERUING
Cin this the 9th clay of august 199'3, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin,
the Co~_~r•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-~, to
accept and waive readi.ny of the following Minutesg Reg~_ilar-
Session h:err County Commissioners' Co~_~rt, Ji_ily 1c, 1999,
9:00 R.M., Special Session Kerr Co~_inty Commissioners' Co~_irt,
July '~6, 1999, 9:00 a. M.
ORDER Nfl. c59:`4
RE'P'ROVE RNll RCCEPI' NONTHLY RLF'OR"FS
On this the 9th day of Ri_iyust 1999, came to be considered by
the [:o~.irt the vat-io~_is monthly repot-ts of Ker-r- County and
E'r-ecinct Officials for Kerr County. Upnn motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the Coi_irt
unanimo~.~sly approved by a vote of 4-~-~, that said r-epor•ts be
accepted and filed with the Ca.tnty Clerk i'or f~_it~_ire a~_iditc
Kerr Co~_uity Sheriff" s Department - Frances R. t:aiser
Civil Report for Montl-i of July 1999
Kerr County Sheriff's Department - Frances R. Kaiser
Monthly Repot-t for' Ji_tne 199'3
Kerr Co~_~nty Gler~k - Jannett Pieper-
F~_inds Collected by the Probation Office
From O6-iv-99 ttir~~_i 07-cQ~-99
ORDER NU. c:i955
^ INCREGSE: LGW LiHRRRY FEE F'ER HN1477
WHILH GIhENDS LUCflL GUVERIVIhEIVT CURE 3E;.N~3(Ri
EFFEC~~I-IVE SEF~''T'EMPER i, 199J
Un this the 3th day of R~_igust 19`9, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Griffin, seconded by Commissioner- Let z, the Co~ar't
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-0, increasing the Law
Library Fee from Bc~.NU to ~CC.O~, effective September 1,
1999.
.-~
oRVER Na. ~s~~r,
CONCURRING WIfH THE GIIY OF KERRVILLE:
ON THE LIBRHRY BORRD HF'F'OINiEE,
MR. RHLF'H J'. F'UTH
Un this the 9th day of Rugust 199'i3, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Lets, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, concur•r•ing the
appointment of Ivh°. Ralph J. Froth to the l_ibrar•y (advisory
Poard.
URllER NU. c59,`:~7
HliUpl' URDINRNCL
F'RUHI~II-ING SOLiD WRSTF: D1SF'USHL
IN KERR COUN"fY
(F'RUVIliIN~ CT'JIL RND CRIIhINf-1L F'ENRLI IE57
On this the 9th day of August 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner GrifFin, the
Co~_~rt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the proposed
solid waste ordinance, as amended, and set a public hearing
for same at iW o'clock a. m, orr the morning oP the Regular
Session, 13 Sep'tember' 1'399, with the notice of the meeting
and tl-ie ordinance being p~_iblished fur two consec~.itive
weeks prior to S41C7f'1 hearing.
ar~u~k NU. t_J•~..;H
F~F'GRGVE SERVICE: CONTRRCf ~~E"fWEEN I{GRIZ COUN"fY
ANll C:UNIrIUNI l'Y SUF'ERVSSION RNll C:CIRREC'rIUN DEF'RRI"MENI
Un this the 9th day of Ri.ryust :L999, ~.ipon motion made by
Commissiatrer ~riffirr, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the
Coi_rrt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-~, the Service
Contract between Kerr Co~_~nty and Community Si_tper°vision and
Correction 1)epar•tmcnt, and ai.,rthor~ized the Co~_~nty J~_rdye to
sign same.
U12DER NU. GJ9.13
SETTING DRTE FUR fHE DECEMBER 1999 SF'ECIRL MEETING
(SECUND MEETING) OF CUMMISSIUNERS' COURT
Un this the 9th day of Ruyust 1999 ~_~pon motion made by
Commissioner Gr•iffirr9 seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Co~_~rt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~D-~~ r•esched~_~liny
the Special Commissioners' Court Meeting in December to
December ~Snd at 9:~~ R.M.
oRDtR NO. ~536m
E~UfF-IORILING COUNfY J'UUGE 'TO i=1PGDlIV-f (1 PRRI-DIME MRSfER
TO F'RF=SIDE OVER F'FtOCEEllIN6S
FOR COURT-ORDERED MEN'fF~L HEREIN SERVICES
On this the 9th day of q~_ry~_rst 1993, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner L_etz, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-0, authorizing the
Co~_mty J~_rdye to appoint a E'art-f"ime Master to preside over the
proceedings for° county-ordered mental health services at ttie
rate ofi Stiff an hour, and i`~_rrtf~ier• ratify the appointment of
Robert H. Denson to serve on July c7th, 1999, at The Kerrville
State Hospital for a total time of 1 and 1/'~ hoi_irs at the rate
of SSQi.~k7 per ho~_rr for services, totaling 575.00 taken o~_it of
Line Item Nv. 10-401-486 Commissioner's' Co~ar•t professional
Services.
ORDER NO.~:~:i9E.-,i
F'NY RSL_L_ NO. i~4~26
REN'1'RL Cf~R
On this the 9th day of R~_~gust 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Haldwin, seconded by Commissioner L_etz, the Co~_int
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-~D, to pay bill No.
iN40c6 in the amo~_int of S.'EiF.34.
ORDLR N0. c:i9~c
AF~p~ROVE: STEP RN1) (~R(iUE:: FUR IVEW HIRES
IN THE TRX RSSESS'[IR/COI_LECTUR UEFIL'E
Un this the 9th day of H~_igi_tst 1993, "_ipon motion made by
Commissioner- liriffin, seconded by Commissioner- Williams, the
Co~_~r•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-~, that the lax
Gssessor/Collector be a~_~thor-i~ed to extend an offer of
employment to one individ~_ial in the Motor Vehicle Registration
Department at a lc/4 level, ancJ another individual at 1c1
levea, based ~_tpon the experience these individuals have in the
unique work of that department.
,~'~