1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-,	13
y	
	19
"' ` 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
,r
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
i ~	~;..,~ ~ .~~ ~`asy6 y
,. a		.i
y!	d69LS	s'`d~'97d
sF	aS9~6	#ds97/
~	JS9`7	~oZr971
~~59 Lg	si'dS47
i• y ~° Q~• ~as97s
~ydS9lo y 9 I N D E X
August 23, 1999
Commissioners' Comments
2
PAGE
3
Approval Agenda
Consideration Agenda:
2.1dJcxL Concept plan - Quinlan Creek Golf Resort
2.207.~976Final plat - Mountain Home Oaks
2.3.1S477preliminary plat extension - Saddlewood Estates
2.4aS97Y0ne-time funding for Courthouse Lighting Project
2.85979 Revision of Safety Policy
2.50"7 Workshop date - Third Party Administrator
2.6o2S9goRenewal of Law Enforcement Liability Insurance
2.7~Jn.~-- Selection process concerning Risk Manager
2.9~?,S`9Y/Designation of polling places for November 2
election, combine Precinct 910 & 909
2.1Od59P.1Appointment of Election Judges & alternates
2.11~9p3Appointing Central Counting Station personnel
2.12dS9PyBudget Amendment request - Engineering copier
2.13~~e..Technical/budget issues - S.O. computer network
2.14~96SResignation of Sheriff Kaiser s procedure for
~yg6appointment of interim acting Sheriff
2.16dS987Application by Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority
2.18}~,fv~equest for increase in civil fees
2.19a~yggMemorandum of Understanding w/Hill Country
Council onAlcohol and Drug Abuse, Inc.
2.20o~9~urn Ban
2.15~Status of 1999-2000 budget
5
22
25
26
39
60
62,
120
65
68
72
79
76
77
80
93
109
119
117
119
121
3
~--.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
On Monday, August 23, 1999, at approximately 9:00 a.m.,
a Special 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: It's 9 o'clock on Monday, August
23rd, 1999, and we'll call to order this Special
Commissioners Court session. If y'all will please stand,
join me in a word of prayer, followed by the pledge of
allegiance.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. At this time, we would
ask any citizen wishing to speak on an item not listed on the
regular agenda who has filled out a form for consideration to
come forward. Is there anyone in the audience who would wish
to speak to us on an item which is not on the agenda?
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Once again, are there any citizens
in the audience who'd like to speak to us on an item which is
not listed on today's agenda? Seeing none, we'll proceed
directly, then, into the Commissioners' comments.
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have no comments today,
sir, thank you.
9
1
2
3 Judge.
9
5
6 ~ today.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing at this point,
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't believe I have anything
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Griffin?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Nothing.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. I have one comment. I
was pleased to see in the press this past week where our own
T.A.B.C. agent, Agent Hall, was selected as the Agent of the
Year by the T.A.B.C. I'm always pleased when people outside
of our County, and particularly the peers of our employees
and the people who work with us, are recognized, people who
work in Kerr County, far their excellence and their
commitment to public service. So, congratulations to Mr.
Hall for hfs selection as the T.A.B.C. Agent of the Year.
Without any further comments --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I do have one
comment.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Vick walked in. Garrett
Vick, please stand up. Garrett's a Troop 111 scout that is
in observing his government and working on his merit badges,
and we're happy you're here, Mr. Vick. Thank you very much.
5
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. VICK: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good. Anything further? If not,
we'll move into the approval agenda. Does anyone have any
questions about the bills that have been presented for
payment?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do not.
COMMIS3IONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Before we do so, I have a question
or two. Almost skated through. Somebody must have a hot
lunch date. On Page 10, we have a bill for $90 from Hill
Country Car Wash for detailing a vehicle. Do we have any
information on that charge? It's about 10, 12 down.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That escaped me.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Also, No. 109967, $56 for ice.
MR. TOMLINSON: What number is that?
JUDGE HENNEKE: 967.
MR. TOMLINSON: 9677 Maybe ice for crews?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. You're probably right,
that's probably ice for crews.
MR. TOMLINSON: What it is, it's ready ice for --
they purchased 100 Number 8 bags.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we think that's probably ice
6
.-.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
for the crews to take with them?
MR. TOMLINSON: Uh-huh.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It appears that the one on the
detailing may be to remove oil and tar from a vehicle.
That's what the note says at the bottom. All right. We had
a motion by Commissioner Griffin „ second by Commissioner
Letz, that we pay the bills as recommended by the Auditor.
Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget amendments.
Do we have any budget amendments today, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Only 11.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Only 117
MR. TOMLINSON: It will get worse before the end of
the year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Budget Amendment No. 1
for the District Clerk.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. It's a transfer to Postage
of 5907.07, 5134 from Lease Copier and 5273.07 from Employee
Training.
COMMISSIONER LET2: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
7
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve Budget
Amendment No. 1 for the District Clerk. Any further
discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 2, J.P.
Precinct 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: That is for a notary bond for his
new clerk. Transferred 598.50 from Conferences to Bonds.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM3: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 2 for Justice of the Peace Precinct 3.
Any further questions or 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 3 for the
County Auditor.
.••.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This one is -- the first
part of it is for conferences. I have my annual conference
8

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
coming up in October that I have to pay for in September, so
-- and then the other thing is the $129.98 is for purchase of
a fax machine. Our fax machine cratered, and it's one of
those -- the old kind that's got the thermal paper in it.
And, we can buy one for $129, so I'm requesting a transfer of
$129.98 out of Office Supplies and $79.56 from Miscellaneous,
57 from Maintenance Contracts, and $141.41 from Employee
Training.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move the amendment.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 3 for the County Auditor. Any further
discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget Amendment

No. 9, Non-departmental.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is to transfer $3,670 from
Property Insurance to Autopsies and Inquest. Hopefully,
we'll make the remainder of the year.
COMMISSIONER LET2: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
9
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 4, Non-departmental. 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, Juvenile
Probation.
MR. TOMLINSON: Juvenile Probation is for -- one
part of it is to increase Attorney Ad Litem line item by
$3,000. The other one is to increase the Capital Outlay line
item by $5,318 for the -- for the purchase of computers in
the Juvenile Department out of this year's budget. They
ordered -- they -- the State of Texas, the T.J.P.C. has some
programming that they can use to monitor their -- their work
with, and so they -- they want to transfer $2,818 from
Computer Software, $3,000 from Alternate Housing, $400 from
Conferences, $400 from Training, $300 from Travel, $500 from
Diagnosis and Treatment, $900 from Machine Repair, and $500
from Medical to Capital Outlay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, is that State money
or is that --
MR. TOMLINSON: No. No, this is not --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's local money?
MR. TOMLINSON: This is local.
10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, we're going to change
the budget, in the middle of the year, $5,300 because the
State has a new computer program?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, it's not new, but they have not
-- the Department has not utilized that -- that software for
some time, and they -- they -- that's their plan, is to use
that to help the County Clerk's office as well as monitoring
their case load.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we approve this,
but I simply don't understand why they can't wait a dang
month and do -- and do a clean budget, instead of this kind
of nonsense. We're talking about a month and a half till new
budget.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think part of what they're trying
to do is to utilize the funds that are available now instead
of encumbering funds for next fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That brings me to my problem.
We have, evidently, a lot of items that they don't use --
didn't use this year. I mean, Medical, Machine Repair,
Diagnosis and Treatment, and Travel, they haven't used any of
their funds that we budgeted in any of those categories so
far this year, so why are we budgeting? I mean, if they're
not going to use the funds in the category, I want to take a
hard look at next year's budget, because there shouldn't be
excess in those categories in that amount. I mean, it's one
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
thing if you use half of it or a portion of it, but to not
use any of it, you know, we're doing something wrong or
they're doing something wrong.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that -- this budget is one
that you'll -- that's an issue that you'll have to take up
with the Juvenile Board, because the Board -- the Board
approves this budget, as well as the State budget, in their
-- they -- they're designed to complement each other as far
as the application of State monies and local monies, and so,
you know, that's the only answer I can give you.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, certainly, that is a
legitimate budget concern that we can address during the last
part of our budget process. I mean, we can look at those and
if there is something -- if they don't have a requirement for
it, then we won't budget for it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, this is the -- this is a
tricky budget, as Tommy's trying to tell you all. Under the
law, Commissioners Court only approves the amount of the
Juvenile Probation Department budget, and not a specific line
item. The line items are presented to the Court, really, as
a courtesy. I will also tell you that I've spoken to Kevin
about this very issue. What he has told me is that only
after -- having only been here for six months, he's not
comfortable in making any radical changes in the budget till
he has a longer history of running the department. But,
12
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
we've already identified two of the areas where we're going
to address, and that -- and not in this budget year, but the
next budget year, after he's had enough time to really have a
feel for what he needs and what he doesn't need.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we don't have any authority
of where the money gets spent, why is it brought to us for
approval -- for amendment? Why not just do it -- let the
Juvenile Board just do it?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, again, it's as much a
courtesy as anything else, but we do have to --
MR. TOMLINSON: There's been an A.G. opinion out
for some time that -- that speaks to what the Judge just
said, and part of that opinion says that -- that it's a
courtesy to -- for the Board to inform them of what they do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I appreciate the courtesy, but
I don't see a reason why we should vote on an amendment to
the budget.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, there is no need to, really.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We -- this amendment really has to
come before the Juvenile Board, so why don't we just pull
this one and proceed on to --
MR. TOMLINSON: All right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next Item is No. 6, a budget
amendment request from the County Treasurer.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is to transfer $300.86 from
13

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Part-Time Salary to Postage.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz. 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 No. 6 passes.
Number 7 is the Constable, Precinct 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This is for -- I think for
replacement of a tire on his vehicle, and he's requested
$193.20 moved from Postage to Miscellaneous. He does --
there's no line item in his budget for automotive repairs, so
that's what it's for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess we can assume we
won't be mailing out too many letters between now and the end
of the budget year. So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 7 for the Constable, Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment. To me --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any discussion?
14
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- this is a precedent. We
have never done this for any of the constables, taking on
their vehicular repairs. There's a reason there's not a line
item in the budget for automotive repairs, 'cause we don't do
it, or haven't. And it's not in the next year's budget,
either. I'm opposed to it. They're given a travel allowance
and a salary that is to make up, at this point, anyway, their
vehicle expenses.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Interesting point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's what the -- I
think that's what the travel in our budget is for, is we pay
them to use their own vehicle.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, I mean, I think Constable
Williams has voiced his displeasure with this policy, you
know, several times in court. But, currently, that's the way
it's been budgeted.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's voiced his displeasure
over the automobile factor. I'm not so sure I've heard him
talk about blown tires, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If that's what it's for, I'm
going to have to oppose it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what he told you,
Tommy? For a blown out tire?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it doesn't say -- it's for
four tire mounts and four tine balancings. So, for that
15

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
price, I'm assuming that part of it is a tire, too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then the line item in
his budget, the line item that deals with automotive
reimbursement, is there any money left, or can you tell at
this point?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, that's the part -- he gets that
per month.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's an allowance?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's an allowance, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll withdraw it until we
change the policy, but I think that's another illustration of
our need to take a look at some of these things with regard
to what happens to people who legitimately travel for
business on behalf of the County. And, if the funds are not
adequate in the line items where they belong, I think we
ought to -- it's our responsibility to make them adequate.
So, I'll withdraw it on the basis of this.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, hearing no motion in
favor of Budget Amendment No. 7, we'll consider that
disapproved and move on to Budget Amendment No. 8 for the
County Jail.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 8 is to move $7,105.02 into
Part-Time Salaries, $1,289.61 to Prisoner Transfer, $405.53
to Prisoner Supplies, $3.58 to Indigent Care, and $333.60 to
Overtime; to move from Jailers' Salaries $7,105.02, and the
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Cook line item for S2,027.38.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved, and I have a
question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 8. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a reason why there's a
fair amount of excess funds in the Cook budget? Is it -- do
you know?
MR. TOMLINSON: I can't answer that one. The
Treasurer's here. She might be able to --
MS. NEMEC: I think there was enough money in that
budget for two cooks, and there for a while she was working
with lust one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If not,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
No. 9 regarding the Sheriff's Department.
MR. TOMLIN3ON: Okay. This amendment is to move
56,000 into Vehicle Repairs and Maintenance, 51,500 to Radio
17

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
Repairs, $800 into Office Supplies, to be moved from
Insurance Liability for $3,271, Vehicle Insurance, $3,911.25,
and Maintenance Contracts for $1,117.75.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 9 from the Sheriff`s 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. Number 10, J.P.
Precinct 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is a request from Dawn Wright
to transfer $171.84 to Office Supplies from Books,
Publications, and Dues.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 10 from J.P. Precinct 2. All in favor,
raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
18
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 11,
regarding the County Jail.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay, County Jail. It's to move
$6,927 from the Cooks line item into Overtime.
COMMISSIONER LET2: Question. I don't have a
problem with the overall change, but it seems to me a better
spot to take this out of would be Jailers' Salaries. Is
there a reason they want to take it out of the Cooks instead
of Jailers' Salaries?
MR. TOMLINSON: There's just money there, and --
one or the other.
COMMISSIONER LET2: It just seems to me it tracks
better. Because, I mean, generally when there's a fairly
large overtime expense in the jail, it's because they're
understaffed, there are usually fewer salaries and the same
people are working more hours. But, I mean, it doesn't make
any difference, dollar-wise.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is Overtime --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I think there's -- we have a
better handle on what the actual expenses are going to be for
the Cook, as opposed to what they are going to be for the
Jail for the rest of the year, so that's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To your knowledge, Tommy,
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ZO
21
22
23
24
25
was the overtime in the kitchen or was it in the jail,
generally in the jail?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, it's in the jail.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the jail. I think I
tend to agree with Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on that other amendment
we did, there's about $195,000 unexpended balance in the
Jailers' Salaries. I mean -- but, like I say, it doesn't
make that much difference to me. I think it tracks better,
but it's the same money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Has anybody made a motion?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Not at this point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to make a motion we
approve it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As submitted?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As submitted by the County
Auditor.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 9 for the Sheriff's Department --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Number 11.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Number 11. Budget Amendment No. 11
for the Jail. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. There is a point,
20
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
though -- and I certainly agree with Commissioner Letz that
there is a big pot of money, it looks like -- or not a big
pot of money, but there is considerable overbudgeted money in
the Jailers' Salaries, and I think we need to look at that
very carefully during the next budget cycle.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure if it's
overbudgeted or underexpended -- underexpended because the
census is lower.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. And it's just
something I think we ought to look at, because that -- those
funds could have certainly been used somewhere else for other
pressing needs and radios and other things. Maybe we just
need to take a careful look.
JUDGE HENNEKE: As you may recall, in the budget
we're working on now, we had to leave the funding basically
at the same level, but the Sheriff is requesting that we take
enough dollars from the Jailers' Salaries to hire another
deputy.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We're addressing that situation to
a certain extent in the budget we're working on now.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If there's no further discussion,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
21

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Do we have any
late bills, Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have one from Judge Karl Prohl.
It's in the amount of 5872, for reimbursement of a conference
that he attended in Dallas, Texas.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve the late
bill in the amount of 5872 and reimburse Judge Karl Prohl for
attending a conference. 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: Next item on the approval agenda is
to approve and accept the monthly reports.
COMMISSIONER LET2: 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?
z2

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
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. Moving right along
to the consideration agenda. First item is consider and
discuss plan for Quinlan Creek Golf Resort, Limited.
Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is one I put on the
agenda, along with the County Engineer. We both met with the
developer on this plan and thought it would be a good idea to
bring it to the full Court. It's a very large development
plan. It's the old Camera Safari property and some of the
Whiskey Canyon property, and it's a fairly high-profile
project. I thought everyone would be interested in looking
at it. I think the developer would appreciate any comments
from the full Court before they get too far into the process.
Franklin, any comments?
MR. JOHNSTON: That's all I had, other than to
introduce Mr. Kerry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Kerry?
MR. KERRY: Would y'all care to look at the larger
color rendering? I think y'all have -- y'all did receive a
copy of it?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, a small one.
23

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: Small one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's probably big enough. He
has an even bigger one, but this is --
MR. KERRY: Is that okay? All right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tell us about it.
MR. KERRY: Well, our plan is to develop the
230-acre tract that was formerly the Kerrville Camera Safari
as an 18-hole golf course. Currently, it's 6,100 yards and
Par 70. We plan to extend it to 7,000 yards. On the hilltop
above, where you see the light blue color, that is currently
planned for 240 units of townhouse and patio homes, with an
18-hole putting green in the center of the patio home
section. And, beyond that in the back would be an estate
section that would have 2 1/2- to 15-acre estate lots. On
the corner next to the Exxon station, we propose a 300-room
hotel/conference center with approximately 20,000 square feet
of -- of conference area, and a destination restaurant and
health club and spa in the commercial area.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How big is the hotel?
MR. KERRY: Three hundred -- we're hoping 300
rooms. We have had numerous meetings with different hotel
groups that have an interest in coming in, and different
hotel management development groups -- I mean, golf course
management groups.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you established a
24
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
timeline for this proposal?
MR. KERRY: Well, we have not, because we've had a
little bit of a setback in that we've discovered that TexDOT
will probably not allow us to use the current entryway that
is there now, and we're going to have to relocate the entry
down on Highway 16 where there's better sight distance, that
would be a safer entryway to the project than what is
currently there. So, that's going to set us back some.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does your plan contemplate
the Exxon station staying in existence, or --
MR. KERRY: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- is that going to be part
of your acquisition?
MR. KERRY: No, six, we're not acquiring that, but
it will stay where it is.
COMMISSIONER LET?: This is a development that I
think about a third of it, I guess, is in the the E.T.J., and
then the balance of it is further back -- the hilltop area
and the estates area is in the county, so it's going to be a
joint effort from the -- from their standpoint of platting
between both entities.
MR. KERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think we're also talking
with the City regarding using wasterwater, potentially,
things of that nature.
25

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. KERRY: Yes, sir, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exciting. Thank you.
MR. KERRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you very much.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Jon. Next item on the
agenda, Item No. 2, is to consider the final plat of Mountain
Home Oaks Subdivision. Commissioner Griffin?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Franklin?
MR. JOHNSTON: Mountain Home Oaks is requesting a
final plat approval. The roads are not complete at this
time, and they have submitted a Letter of Credit to cover the
balance of the road construction to our specifications to be
a County road. They have had a -- a drainage study made and
they're placing their culverts in accordance with the
drainage, and they've placed that on the final plat, drainage
easement. So, I would recommend final approval.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve the final
plat of Mountain Home Oaks Subdivision. 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.)
26
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is Item
No. 3, which is consider the extension of preliminary plat of
Saddlewood Estates, Section II, Precinct 1. Commissioner
Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Johnston?
MR. JOHNSTON: I placed this on the agenda at the
request of -- as a result of a letter from Charles Domingues,
but it was, I assume, at the request of David Cummings, the
developer in that area. I have very little information on
that, other than that I think he wants to address the Court
about extending his preliminary plat another period of time.
I'll let him or his representative make the presentation.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We've had a request by David
Jackson, and David Cummings is here and Larry Reichenau, to
address us on this issue. So, David, do you want to come
forward?
MR. JACKSON: What we're here primarily to do --
and I guess the first question we should address is the
timing of this -- is to request a further extension on the
preliminary plat. At this present time, I believe it runs
out some time in September; I forget the exact day. What has
happened that the Court may or may not be aware of, although
some information has been furnished to you, is that the City
has said that the developer has until February of 2000 to
comply with all the requirements of the City. What has
z7

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
happened is that this developer began a long time ago, and
has continuously pursued all the requirements, not only of
the County, but of the City -- but, most specifically, the
City.
I spoke with the City Attorney, in addition to the
letter you already received from David, about the events that
led us to this point, and he confirmed that what had happened
was that the developer was delayed a long, long period of
time because of the City's decision-making process, to decide
what can and should be done in that subdivision. The bad
news, I guess, is we're not quite there. We need until at
least the end of the year, perhaps till February of 2000.
The good news is we've made good progress since the last
extension was granted.
Specifically -- and Mr. Reichenau and Mr. Cummings can
speak to these issues separately, but I thought the Court
would like to hear exactly what has been going on. They've
let contracts for everything, the work is ongoing for
everything, and the City is inspecting. And, that's another
issue I think we need to address, is whether or not you want
the County to inspect all of this work as well as the City,
or is the City inspecting? Since 1996, I understand that's
been kind of an ongoing issue.
So, the big question is, when a developer is faced with
a dilemma of an E.T.J. project, the City has its own
28

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
timeframes, you have your timeframes. What must the
developer do in terms of those timeframes? It appears a lot
of this the developer has no control over, and that's
understandable. You really want compliance with all of that,
and there's a specific statute that says that the developer
has to comply with both requirements. But, I think it also
makes it clear that if the City has more stringent
requirements -- longer timeframes would be my interpretation
-- then the County, I think, needs to go along with that.
And, that's why we`re here.
So, let me just stop here first and say, I know one
issue is do you apply for an extension before or after your
last extension expires? And, the answer is, i think you can
do it either way. I know the County Attorney has provided
you some information. I did not talk with him, although I
did glance very briefly at what he had provided to you this
morning, which Commissioner Baldwin gave me. If you want us
to apply for that extension after the present extension
expires, we'd be happy to do that. We're here because we
didn't want there to be an issue or an implication of that.
Second question is, can you grant an extension for more
than one year plus six months? I`ve concluded yes, you can,
and I think the County Attorney has done the same. And, the
third issue, then, is what do you do and what are the
circumstances under which you would or would not grant that?
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
I think the County Attorney has said that you can consider
all these circumstances, and I think the County Attorney has
left it up to the Court as to what they want to do.
The only thing I'd add to what the County Attorney's
already told you is that there is a specific law that tries
to address this overlap of responsibilities. I have some
additional information I can provide, but let me just stop on
that -- on timing. Maybe the Court could address any
questions to me or the other folks that are here. How do you
want to do this? I don't want to go through the next 5- or
10-minute presentation, or however much time you'd like to
allow me, if the Court is going to say, "Well, look, I hear
what you're saying; these are good issues, but why don't you
come back in September and why don't you tell us exactly
where you are then?"
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to make a comment.
In our previous meeting, when we granted the extension, I
said that I wasn't in favor of granting another extension
until we got a legal opinion. And, we have it here, and it
appears to me -- and I agree with your assessment of it --
that we can grant other extensions basically any time we want
to, kind of. And, so, I'm -- I am -- I don't know if the
timing of the -- of the extension -- it seems to me that the
proper way to do it is let this -- the extension that's in
place now run its course, and then come back for another
30
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
extension. Wasn't that your question?
MR. JACKSON: It is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. It just appears to me
that that's the proper way to do it.
COMMISSIONER
that. However, to me,
runs out, because that
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
let's don't grant three
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
then --
GRIFFIN:
it seems
way then
BALDWIN:
GRIFFIN:
BALDWIN:
or four
GRIFFIN:
BALDWIN:
I don't see any problem with
cleaner to do it before it
e is a continuity --
Well, I agree.
-- either way.
Before it runs out, yes, but
extensions today.
Oh, no.
Let it run its course, and
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If we know that -- if we
know, though, that an extension is going to be required, I
think it's prudent to consider it before the current
extension runs out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So that it would be
continuous. We'd say, "Okay, there's another six months," or
whatever it is. And, I think that when we review our
Subdivision Rules and Regulations, we can probably clarify
this issue based on what the -- Mr. Pollard has told us in
his opinion, and I think we can probably make this a little
31
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
bit more straightforward when a similar situation arises in
the future. But, for now, I would commend -- I would commend
you coming forward now so that we can decide whether we want
to let it run out or -- or whether to go ahead and do
something now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would agree with that.
And, I think Mr. Pollard was making a point in his conclusion
that the Court necessarily had to let the one year expire to
determine whether or not sufficient had taken place during
that one year period, but we're in the extension now. And,
he goes on to point out that it would be logical that the
application far extension would have had to be made
sufficiently early enough in the 6-month period. So, I would
concur with with that, that this would be an appropriate time
to do that. And, having read his -- his opinion several
times to make sure I understood it, I don't see that -- he
points out there is no prohibition, so I do think -- although
I think it is something we do need to address in the future
in the Subdivision Rules.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the run-out date?
JUDGE HENNEKE: September the 9th is what we
approved it to.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, it's --
MR. JACKSON: 9/9/99.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I think it should be
32

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ZO
21
22
23
29
25
done prior to its running out; I think it's cleaner that way.
The question, to me, comes more back into a -- this
subdivision was approved before our current rules were in
effect, and that was an issue earlier as to, I guess, some of
the inspection issues when this thing first came up for final
plat approval.
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, rather than -- I guess I'd
be more comfortable if the County Engineer had -- and from
what he said earlier, I presume he hasn't -- would get with
either the City or the developer or Mr. Reichenau and make
sure that he's comfortable with the status of the drainage in
the roads, which was the issue that I recall the first time
around which came to us, where it was, you know, brought up
over who was doing the inspecting on this and how they're
doing it. I think the -- if we are going to grant
extensions, we have an opportunity to make sure that things
are done properly. I think it's a great development; I don`t
have any problem with that. I think it needs to be cleared
up who's going to do what. And I don't know if Franklin had
time to do that yet. He said he was not real familiar with
this coming in today.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Maybe at this point, what we need
to do is ask Franklin what his comfort level is with the
status of the improvements, as far as our requirements are
33

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
concerned.
MR. JOHNSTON: At the present time, I have not been
inspecting it. I think -- I think the P and 2 specifically
asked the City -- the City Director of Public Works, City
Engineer, and their Inspection Department --
MR. JACKSON: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: -- to actually do the inspections,
and that be would fine with me, if they'd lust give us copies
of what they -- what they find so we'd have them on tile.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's make sure we all understand.
We're going to ask our County Engineer --
MR. JACKSON: That's fine.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- to come sign for the final plat
approval, "Has everything been done by the County
requirements?"
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And, if he's unable to tell us,
"Yes, they have," then final plat approval is going to be in
question. So, it's incumbent, in my opinion, upon the
developer --
MR. JACKSON: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- to make sure that the proper
County inspections are performed, or that there is an
agreement that the County's going to accept the City
inspections, which probably would need to come to us.
34
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. JACKSON: I think there is such --
JUDGE HENNEKE: There is nothing before this Court
that says we're going to sign off based on the City
inspection, because we don't have the authority to do that.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. That is the issue I'm raising
today, so that we are clear on this point, at this early
juncture. Where we axe in the process is, as I say, is the
engineers are now in the process of doing this, now that KPUB
and all these entities have finally approved all the plans.
My understanding is that Franklin had talked to the City
staff and generally was going to rely upon the City
inspections. In fact, I've got minutes that the City's done
that -- I appreciate the fact that the Court's different from
the City, but let's do reach an agreement: A, Do we need
today to ask the Court to accept that agreement on this
subdivision for this E.T.J. in this situation? Or, B, we'd
be happy to involve the County Engineer at every stage, but
there'll be two inspections. And, that's fine. I just -- I
agree with the Court and I agree with you, Judge, that we
don't want to get to this stage and go, "Well, we didn't have
a clear plan." Absolutely true, and that's where we stand
here.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That has to come from our County
Engineer. He's got to make the decision, "i want to
inspect," or "I'm going to accept the City inspections."
35
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, if he's willing to accept the City inspections, then he
needs to bring that to us and there needs to be, in my
opinion, an interlocal agreement or something.
MR. JOHNSTON: It's in the E.T.J. Traditionally,
the City would do the inspecting in the E.T.J. subdivisions,
but if they would just share all their -- their reports with
us, I think, you know, we'd have a chance to look at them,
see if that would satisfy us. We won't know till we see
them. If not, I'll be glad to qo out and look at it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that we need an
interlocal agreement. I think that -- I mean, because in the
past we've -- I think the City and the County Engineering
Department have worked together.
MR. JOHNSTON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just think -- you know, I
just -- you know, I agree with you that it's up to the County
Engineer, in my opinion, if he's comfortable using the
City's, you know, reports or meeting with them, however he
wants to handle it, because we are -- I am going to look to
the County Engineer to sign off on it as the ultimate -- you
know, before the County --
MR. JOHNSTON: If they periodically, as they make
inspections, you know, put us on their mailing list and get
us copies of their reports, I'm sure we'll 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
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would probably be cleanest
if -- you know, probably, Franklin, if you could just write a
letter to the City, tell them how you want to handle it.
MR. JOHNSTON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That way, there's no question.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's important that we settle this.
We've discussed the Quinlan Creek project; that's certainly
going to come up, same issues are going to come up on that
project. So, I think, bottom line, if I can "bottom line"
it, is Franklin signs off on the final plat. He's our man.
If he's not comfortable and he stands up here and says he
hasn't been properly kept informed or whatever, then --
MR. JOHNSTON: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- we have a major train wreck.
MR. JACKSON: We'll make sure that he's informed
and a train wreck's avoided. The rest of what I was going to
present was legal argument and further presentation of what's
happened over all these months, to show the Court that,
unlike what may happen in some situations where you get a
preliminary plat and you don't do anything, this developer
and all of these people, even the City, as confirmed, the
City Engineer, Mr. Dower, and the City Attorney have been
working hard at what we're doing, based upon the vesting
statute. That's what delayed us a long time, as to whether
it did or didn't apply. The City concluded that it did
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
apply. That meant you were vested at the time you applied,
with the rules and regulations that were in effect then. I
don't want to take the Court through a 15-minute presentation
unless you're interested in that issue. So, with respect, I
would ask, do you want me to go through all of that history?
You've already received some information.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say no.
MR. JACKSON: If it's not an issue, I don't want to
bother the Court with all of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
heard the story.
MR. JACKSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
I had sat down with them and
4uite sad.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do have, I guess, one other,
I guess, question to make sure we're not -- nothing falls
through the cracks. This is regarding Section II. Is the
entirety of Section II in the E.T.J. or --
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're asking for six
months?
MR. JACKSON: Yes. My suggestion, frankly, would
be to lust make it February 2000. That's not exactly six
38
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
months, but that's when the City's runs out, and I think that
would be exactly appropriate. I mean, you could ask for six
months, and that's a little longer than that. Why don't you
just make it straight February 2000?
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: That's fine.
MR. JACKSON: To coincide with the City.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'd like to keep it at the rate of
six months and to go March 9th.
MR. JACKSON: Either way is fine.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Hut, I'll make a comment, and the
comment is only mine, that we do intend to make some fairly
substantial revisions to the Subdivision Rules, and I think
anything that comes before us after those are adopted will
have to meet the new rules. So --
MR. JACKSON: And --
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- on February 9th, 2000, if y'all
come in for another extension, I think you're going to find a
situation where there may be some tweaking to be done.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. The only other thing that I
would observe in that platting process -- again, not with
this specific proposal -- is to try to address in some way in
that revision what does happen in the E.T.J. It's a little
awkward. I know I've represented several clients, and it's
no one's fault. It's just -- it gets a little back and
forth, in that you don't want anybody to get stuck in the
39
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
middle of the regulatory process between two entities. Quite
frankly, you want them to comply with everybody and to figure
out how that all works, so that may be one area to address.
Mr. Cummings, Mr. Reichenau, anything to add? We thank you
for your time.
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: I move that we extend the
preliminary plat of Saddlewood Estates, Section II, to March
9th, 2000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we extend the
preliminary plat approval of Saddlewood Estates, Section II,
until March the 9th, Year 2000. 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. Thank you, David.
MR. JACKSON: Have a good day.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is Item No. 4, consider
and discuss one-time funding of $5,000 for Courthouse Square
holiday lighting project and other related items.
Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With the temperature on the
thermometer hanging upward to 100 degrees-plus and hurricanes
90
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
blowing in on the coast, it almost seems a little
inappropriate to be talking about this, but we are in the
latter part of August, coming up on September, and the
installation date for the project would be in the latter part
of the month of October. So, with that in mind, I've asked
Mr. Donaubauer, who is acting as our fundraising chairman for
this project, to give the Court an updated report on the
monies that have been solicited from businesses and the
community at large, and General Schellhase, if he will, to
step us through the courthouse lighting design so that the
Court can see exactly what is in store for the lighting
project for this year. Mr. Donabauer7
MR. DONAUBAUER: Thank you very much, Commissioner
Williams. Your Honor, mast worthy Commissioners, we thank
you for the privilege of being back on the agenda, and trust
that this brief updating of where we stand will excite you in
the same manner that it is exciting to members of the
committee, who are going to be further exposed through the
charts that have been developed by General Schellhase. I
think you'll be pleased that we do have a community response
to the project.
How much have we raised from individuals from the
private sector? About $10,000 has come in, and another
$9,500-plus has been committed, so we're approaching the
halfway mark of our goal. And, keep in mind that most of the
91

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
money will be spent on the proposed courthouse lighting plan,
which we think is going to be outstanding. I have in my
possession a breakdown of what it was last Wednesday, about
four and a half pages of contributions from individuals.
Tomorrow we make a special plea to the City of Kerrville.
Now, you can give us a big boost, a big push, a thrust,
if you please, and lift us up with the support from the
Commissioners Court. It's great, public relations-wise. It
will help make this the best-illuminated, most attractive,
most appealing, magnetic courthouse in the state of Texas.
And that's our aim, is to do something that will cause the
community to sparkle and be proud of its contributions and of
the work of others. Jim Murphy had to leave. You may wonder
what happens to former judges. Well we're delighted that
Judge Bob Denson there is one of our monitors, and he has a
keen interest in this. If nothing else, just to see how to
do it, to keep from climbing. And, I mentioned General
Schellhase. Ne shared his talents; exceptional,
extraordinary man, and I'm going to ask him quickly to
reflect on the work that he did on these charts and then pass
them around to you. And, oh yes, Commissioner Baldwin, I do
have little pledge forms for individuals who might be
interested.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I appreciate that.
MR. DONAUBAUER: So --
92
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 WILLIAMS: I'd like to add -- and you
don't have to give me one; I'll give you my check now.
MR. DONAUBAUER: Oh, thank you. May I come
forward?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would like to add that
former Judge Denson has picked up part of the project and has
made the arrangements with Hill Country Telephone Co-op for
the insertion of this flier in their telephone bill,
following up on what happened with Kerrville Telephone
Company. So, we do anticipate another infusion of cash via
the telephone payment, these people paying their telephone
bills, similar to what we got at the outset, and that will go
a long way toward getting this project done. General
Schellhase, do you want to step us through all that?
MR. SCHELLHASE: What we have here is the
organizational committee that was set up to carry out this
function. We have each of the areas that address
fundraising, the volunteers to do the work, the property as
to what we're going to do physically at the site, the public
-- the community relations. We have people that are going
out and addressing the community to get donations and support
that. The logistics of trying to put all this together, the
lighting design which was physically put on the building, and
the administration of putting all this together. We have the
people that do the mailings and keep track of all that. So,
43

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
we had quite a few individuals involved as we went along.
This is a general layout of the courthouse. There`s
intended to be nothing done on the annex at this time. We
would like to do all the trees where we have power, and all
that's planned at this time axe the four major, large trees
at the corners, and it's dependent upon how the funds come in
as to how much we will spend on that. And then the
courthouse, itself, the 3ai1 cell up on the top perimeter,
and the perimeter all around the outside edge. This involves
-- the courthouse is roughly 110 feet long, and intends to
outline the top, as I mentioned, through the horizon, and
Mark is following the design of the building, and then doing
a vertical permanent installation that we can anchor
permanently to the bottom at the flower bed edge, as opposed
to dust tying them down, making no attachments to the
building at all. There are some hooks in the building, but
our plan was not to use any of those.
And, of course, put the main entrance to the courthouse
back like we had it last year. This involves roughly 85
strings of lights that run around 35 feet long, from top to
bottom. And, this is generally the photograph of the
building and what it will look like in the decorated stage.
The intent on the -- on the outside edge is to put permanent
anchors into the flower bed with steel rods with a hook on
them, driven down flush with the flower bed so that they can
94
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
be used from year to year. Those will be roughly 18 inches
from center all through the flower bed.
The intent on the roof is to not anchor or anything to
the roof, but use a weight system up on the roof, itself, so
these lights can be removed at the end of the season. But,
the lights in the trees will remain, except for the trunks,
which they would be moved up higher and just left stored in
the trees. The plan is to use a C-7 1/2 light this year, as
opposed to the twinkly lights. They tell us we have between
a 5- and a 7-year life on those, so they thought that the
tree lights will be left in place.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Walter, the -- this thing
here where you're anchoring it by weight at the top and it
just kind of drapes down?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that how they do it in
Johnson City?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, how do you anchor it at
the bottom to keep it --
MR. SCHELLHASE: This will be, like, a rebar --
5-inch rebar with a hook on it 3 feet long that we'll drive
into the ground and use a bungee strap. Put a loop in the
wire, itself, and put a bungee strap on the two hooks so it
will keep it taut. And we've been over all this with Glenn,
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and the only question we have is if we had some high wind,
what would happen in the horizontal direction? And what we
talked about was to put an intermediate tie from one wire to
the other and just put them all together, so if they did
move, the whole system would have to move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good. That's excellent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In addition to that
presentation, do you guys want to have that passed around so
you can see it?
MR. DONAUBAUER: Would you like to see it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I can see it fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The agenda item
contemplates asking L.C.R.A. for assistance in funding the
lighting of the courthouse, itself. We have been led to
believe that L.C.R.A. might look favorably upon this, and so
what the agenda item does is ask the Court for permission to
file a grant application with L.C.R.A., which would take care
of a large measure of the courthouse installation and
hopefully fund the annex next year when that is completed.
And, it is contemplated that the annex will be lighted
similarly to what the courthouse has been lighted this year.
That's the nature of the agenda item.
MR. DONAUBAUER: Finally, Mr. Williams and members
of the Court, Commissioner Williams' assistance in organizing
this committee and steering it into a -- a permanent working
96

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
body has been invaluable. We're grateful to you for paving
the way and inspiring people to respond. It takes people to
do things, and you certainly have been a vital factor. Thank
you for the privilege of being with you. If there are no
further questions, I'll sit down and yield to the
continuation of the agenda.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any questions?
Further questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a couple.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know if they're
questions or comments or what that I have. I guess -- well,
I'll defer to Commissioner Baldwin; he's Number 1.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You want me to go first,
huh? I see. Okay, that's fine; I can do it. My questions
are actually simple. The $5,000 -- in your notes here, it
says one-time $5,000 funding for courthouse lighting is to
purchase and install, and then down in Number 3 it says the
$5,000 is for a match for a grant. I hope we can do this.
This would be great. If we go out and spend $5,000 on lights
and install them, then that will be our match for the grant?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't kttow about match,
but I was led to believe, Commissioner, that L.C.R.A. would
-- would wish for us to have some participation monetarily,
and the $5,000 contribution on our part would be for two
reasons. One, I think the Court ought to participate in the
97

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
lighting of its own courthouse to some extent. And it could
be utilized or considered by L.C.R.A. as our participation in
the grant; not necessarily a match.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If I could interject here, the
L.C.R.A. grant program requires a 20 percent match of
anything that that's over $5,000. So, for instance, if we
ask for $25,000 from the L.C.R.A., they would require us to
have $5,000 to continue to meet the matching requirement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't -- on the match
requirement, wouldn't the amount the community is raising or
the project people are raising go towards that? In addition,
wouldn't the time of our Maintenance Department also be --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't -- I'm not sure the time of
the Maintenance Department would, but certainly the funds
that are -- any funds that are raised, any kind of
contribution would be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, are you going to let
me ask my questions or are you just going to -- let me -- I
have one more question. Continue Kerr County's in-kind
participation as in the previous four years. I assume that's
-- we're talking about using our Maintenance people to go and
help string the lights up and those kind of things. There
has been -- there has been some conflict there in the past,
pulling our Maintenance people off of -- off their normal
98

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
day-to-day duties to go out and change some light bulbs and
those kind of things; I'm kind of simplifying here. And, I'm
-- I ask your forgiveness for that, but I really would like
to get really clear on what you expect Kerr County -- see, I
kind of differ from your comment that you feel like that it's
Kerr County's duty to -- to put lights on the courthouse. I
disagree with that just a little bit.
But, in providing the help out there, Mr. Holekamp's
staff, I'd just like to have it clear of what you expect them
to do, so that they are not in the middle of a project and
one of your people says, "Oh, we've got to run out here and
change these light bulbs," or whatever the project might be.
I'd like it defined a little more clearly than what we've had
it in the past.
MR. DONAUBAUER: If you don't mind, I will yield to
two principals, if the Commissioner doesn't mind and if the
General doesn't mind. I would say that there is a
professional man that we want to engage, and would you like
to elaborate?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me see if I can
elaborate a little bit for the Commissioner. We don't
anticipate doing what you fear, that we would pull our
Maintenance people off of other tasks and interrupt things
that are of importance. In the past, the Court has allowed
an in-kind contribution that amounted to utilization of
99

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
Maintenance people to the extent possible, to the extent
they're available. And, second, this Court has paid the
electric bill for the lights, and that's really what we're
saying. And, if I'm the liaison to Maintenance, I'm not
going to allow people to be pulled off their lobs
unnecessarily, and to the extent that it causes problems
elsewhere.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. And then one
final point I'd like to make is that i am so excited that you
guys are going to drape those things off and not drill any
more holes in the side of this courthouse.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's important.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is big important to me,
and I'm excited about that. That's going to look good.
MR. DONAUBAUER: Commissioner, I said I wouldn't
raise a nickel if they drill holes in that building, which
would make the architect unhappy, too. The architect is more
emphatic than I was.
COMMI3SIONER LETZ: The question I have -- and I'm
going back, I guess, to Commissioner Baldwin's second to last
comment regarding Maintenance. I think it is real critical
that we get a real exact idea. I know the last two years,
there has been complaints from the last -- actually, Mr.
Holekamp regarding the lack of coordination in that effort.
It was like it was a lot to be done, and we were glad to do
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ZO
21
22
23
29
25
it -- he was certainly glad to da it, glad to use his staff,
but I think it -- he needs to be given a timetable in advance
as to what's going to be done so he can get it into his
schedule. That has not been done in the prior years very
well. It's kind of been, you know, a little unorganized. I
think that really would help, probably.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good point.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It was almost an emergency
when it had to be done.
MR. DONAUBAUER: A little fumbling and fooling goes
along with a project like this, but I guarantee you, they
have learned a lot. And, if this was put in place the way
you've heard the description this morning, you're going to
find a vast change in the requirements for maintaining those
stringers and the permanency, as opposed to the little lights
which were made in Yagaboodoo; you wondered where it is.
These are going to be made, put together in Waco.
American-made, Texas-made.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other comment is -- it
goes back to, I guess, the timing of it a little bit. I
understand it's a -- this wasn't really contemplated when we
did the budget last year, but I have a, I guess, intuitive
problem when we go into a budget, basically, amendment at
this point in the year, when last year when we were doing
51
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
budgets we had a lot of things we had to cut out that I
really view as more important than lighting: cars for the
Sheriff and, you know, very -- more law enforcement-type
issues. I mean, I -- I wish there was a way that we could
push this off until next budget year first, you know, and I
know that may not be possible.
And, I guess the second part of that is to Tommy, and I
-- for me to go along with something, basically, I have to
have a sense that we're not going to have to use any --
declare an emergency anywhere in our budget to get through
this year. Because, you know, it's -- you know, if we, in
some category, need additional funds -- we do so many of
these budget amendments at this point in the year -- I could
not go along with this if we're going to have to declare an
emergency, essentially, to do courthouse lighting; I can't go
that far. I have a real hard time going as far as we are,
committing tax dollars to a project that I really think
should be more community-based.
MR. DONAUBAUER: May I respond, Commissioner?
Judge, is this in order?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Sure.
MR. DONABAUER: Fine, thank you. Were it not for
the fact that there are contractual arrangements that have to
be made with the supplier, the provider or manufacturer, and
also the installer of the lights, the stringers on the
52
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
courthouse, itself -- that's why we're trying to raise enough
money to do it -- there would not be the emergency factor.
But, there is in order to do it for this year and to not fall
down on the aims and desires of the people in the community
who are saying, "Gee, wouldn't it be a shame?" Well, folks,
the stringers that we have are not going to do it. That's
one of the reasons why we have this awkwardness in terms of
maintenance. The light goes out and they crawl and they
probe and they try to find out where are the bulbs that
aren't burning. So, I can share your feelings and your
thoughts, from the standpoint of making the proper
professional arrangements to do this right, so that every
year we don't come before you and the community.
I'm reminded that there's seven campaigns going on in
the community right now, including two that are trying to
meet challenge gifts, and so that's why we have come to you,
and for this big lift that we trust you'll give us. Thank
you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just one thing. I -- I see
that the $5,000 would go for purchasing and installation, and
I don't see anything mentioned about future maintenance and
upgrades. And, we've had several one-time requests on this
project over the years. In fact, I suspect it's up to at
least three one-time requests so far. Is there going to be
53
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
another shoe to drop next year for another $5,000, or perhaps
the year following? Because if we can see that now, we ought
to get it in the program. If -- if this is really not a
one-time request, then we ought to acknowledge that. And,
that's -- that's the only comment I have. I'm very much in
favor of the project.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to piggyback; I
have the same concerns, is this budget issue. See, I think
-- I agree with you two down there. I think that this thing
needs to be a budget issue, not a Commissioners Court agenda
item. But, if -- if it's a legal -- first of all, if it's
legal for the County to expend funds to do things like this
-- and it's three years, I think that you're correct on that,
three years of one-time -- I think this thing needs to go
into the budget process and create a line item. And, maybe
not $5,000 every year, but some money for -- for Maintenance,
just like we do many other things here in the County. We
have a line item and we budget for it every year. If we're
going to participate in it, if it's legal to do that, I think
it needs to be an ongoing situation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good point,
Commissioner. We had not contemplated it in this agenda
item. It's a good point and ought to be considered when we
have those discussions yet to come, and certainly at that --
at that time. It is a good point.
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
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: One other point -- and the
motion will come soon here, but on the way we pay this, maybe
there's not a problem, but it sort of jarred me a little bit
when I saw that we would pay it to the Kerrville Convention
and Visitors Bureau. I'm not real sure we can -- or can we
do that legally? I'm just not sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM3: I'll let the Judge address
that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If we have a contract and it falls
within the type of services that we can contract for, we have
the ability to fund this money, just like we do to KEDF and
K-Star. We'll have to have an agreement and it will have to
fall within the purview of economic development, something
like that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reason, Commissioner,
it was set up that way was because the ad hoc group that's
spearheading it this year did not and would not have had time
to get 501(c)(6) or anything like that -- or (c)(3), and to
qualify --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I understand.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Donations coming from the
public at large. C.V.B. offered its facilities, its banking,
its accounting, its administration to us, and we accepted
that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm speaking strictly of the
55

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
technical aspects of us giving money to the -- Convention and
Visitors Bureau.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sure it can be done.
There's got to be some mechanism to do that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy, do you have a comment on
that issue?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, not other than I think -- I
think you're right, and that we do have an agreement with
them, so if that's -- if that's who we're paying it to, I
don't see a problem.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Judge Denson, you've been real
quiet back there. Do you have anything you want to offer?
MR. DENSON: Well, I would like to see y'all make a
decision whether you're going to fund this before you get
bogged down with some of the details on who you pay it to and
all that. I think all the Commissioners have raised good
points, and you also, Judge. Tax dollars have to be spent on
public purposes. Courthouse improvements or economic
development would fall within that, I think, personally. I
think Commissioner Letz and maybe Commissioner Baldwin, while
it's a good point to concern yourselves with Maintenance
Department involvement with this project, it's not going to
be like it has been in the previous years. There's been a
real organized effort to put this together, to bring in some
professionals, to actually string some of the lighting and
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
56

12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
all.
And, if you look in the past, just the people that were
in charge -- not that they didn't. make a real serious effort,
but they had to have help and they had to rely on the
Maintenance Department to assist them all the way through.
That's not going to happen. We won't have that again. I
don't know what your money situation is. I think it would
be, you know, illegal, to declare an emergency for something
like this, or if this would lead to you later declaring an
emergency. So, Commissioner Letz, I think you're right on
there with your concern. If the Court feels like they want
to put this in the budget for next year, because of the
timing that Mr. Donabauer's already mentioned, we have to
make these payments -- make these agreements to get these
lights -- I don't know, we'd have to sit down and work with
the County Attorney or whomever, but I'll put in the $5,000
myself today, and then be reimbursed on October the 1st, if
that's a major stumbling block.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like the first half of your
20 sentence.
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: Moved and seconded.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The point that I've made to
Commissioner Williams and some of the other members of this
committee, who I really commend for their efforts, is that I
intend for this truly to be to be a one-time contribution.
57

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
We're buying lights that have a long, 5- to 7-year term, and
I think that the ongoing contribution of the County to the
lighting of the courthouse is the electricity we pay for and
the services of the Maintenance Department. But, I think, in
order to get this thing in the proper structure, get the
proper equipment as outlined by General Schellhase and by Mr.
Donaubauer as to the lights, I think it's worth our while to
participate on this basis, for this time, and in the future
it's my expectation that our contribution to the protect
would be paying for the electricity and also the assistance
of the Maintenance Department in keeping the wiring intact
and things like that, as appropriate. Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move the agenda item, as
presented.
COMMIS3IONER LET2: I'll second, but I do have one
other comment.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You'll get a chance in a minute.
Moved by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner
Letz, that the Court approve the amount of $5,000 as one-time
funding for Courthouse Square Holiday Lighting Protect. Any
further discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, do you feel we do have
the funds without going into the emergency area in this
budget?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't really have that kind of
58
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
crystal ball, but -- but, yeah, I think we do. I think we
probably do.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One more. On the -- I know we
have a hodgepodge of electrical wires that go around the yard
right now. One of the, I guess, reasons to do this, in my
mind, is also a safety issue. I have some safety concerns
with what's been done in the past, you know. I don't know
that we even have a plan. I hope that either the Maintenance
Department or General Schellhase -- we get a good idea where
the electrical conduits are, and anything we do put in, we
get a good record of it so we know in the future what we have
out on this lawn. I know we have a lot of pipes right now,
and I don't think we know where most of them are. We need to
start at some point trying keep track of irrigation lines and
electrical lines and everything else.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good point. Anything further?
MR. DENSON: May I make one last comment? I really
believe -- and I don't think it's a fantasy. I've attended a
number of the meetings with the committee on Thursdays and
watched these various individuals involved, headed up by
Commissioner Williams, I might add. But, I think a
reasonable mind could conclude that a real serious,
organized, professional effort is being made to do this and
do it right, and it's something that I think all of us, not
59
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
only involved in County government, but proud of our
community, will be really, really impressed this Christmas
season. This is going to be really impressive. It's really
going to make Kerr County stand out among those other
counties that do this. And, i think you have to be
applauded, gentlemen, for demonstrating your support for this
project. Thank you very, very much.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Judge Denson.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Footnote. That we -- if we
approve this, that it be a challenge to the City to do the
same.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We would certainly expect them to
step up to the plate. All in favor of the motion, raise your
right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanamous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Thank you,
gentlemen. At this time, with the indulgence of the Court,
I'd like to skip to Item No. 8. Five, 6, and 7 are all
insurance items, which can be adequately addressed after our
break. I think I'd like to lump to No. 8 from the County
Treasurer, and then after our break we`ll come back and take
up the issues from the Auditor on insurance. Is that all
right with everybody?
60
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Barbara?
MS. NEMEC: There's --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Item No. S, consider and discuss
the revision of the safety policy. We're glad to see you
back, Barbara.
MS. NEMEC: Thank you. Thank you for all the cards
I received and the beautiful plant. That was very nice of
y'all. We had a meeting with Ernesto Galindo from TAC. It
was -- Commissioner Williams was there, and Glenn Holekamp,
Maintenance Supervisor, and myself. And, it was a mid-summer
inspection, is what that was. And, out of that, we reviewed
the safety policy and we just came up with one
recommendation, to revise the accident reporting
investigation. In the safety policy, it had the first line
supervisor would be the one to do the investigating of the
accident, and we felt that it would be more effective if we
had an investigating committee, which would consist of a
representative from the Sheriff's Department, a
representative from Road and Bridge, and then the Maintenance
Supervisor, so that we would -- it wouldn't be the -- the one
person from that same department investigating their own
accident by themselves, and maybe not reporting it as
somebody else would -- would see it. So, that's the revision
of the policy that -- that we're recommending. And, Ernest
61
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
would also like to come this Thursday at 8:30 and have a
meeting with all the elected officials and department heads
to explain what their role in the safety policy would be, and
then they would do an inspection in November and see if we're
complying with everything.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions? Any discussion?
MS. NEMEC: So, the revision is up there at the
top, the accident investigation committee, where it used to
say the first line supervisor. That's the only change.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And, this is something that you
have the concurrence of from Road and Bridge and the
Sheriff's Department and the Maintenance Supervisor?
MS. NEMEC: Yes. Yes, they were all in agreement
with it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'd entertain a motion to approve
the revision of the safety policy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move we approve the
revision of the Accident Investigation Safety Policy.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve the
requested revision to the Accident Investigation Safety
Policy. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise
your right hand.
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
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MS. NEMEC: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, let's take a
10-minute break and reconvene at 10:30.
(Recess taken from 10:20 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's reconvene the meeting of the
Commissioners Court. It's 10:30 on Monday, August 23rd. The
next item we'll take up is Item No. 5, which is to consider
and discuss a workshop and date with our Third Party
Administrator concerning our group health insurance plan.
Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think it was at the last Court
meeting, we discussed asking for proposals for our health
insurance, and I think we agreed to defer that until January.
(Judge Henneke left the courtroom.)
MR. TOMLINSON: I had a discussion -- I visited
about this with Barbara, our County Treasurer, and I -- I've
also discussed this with Ray Rothwell, who is our Third-Party
Administrator, and I thought it may be of some value in the
budget process to have those people come in and tell us and
educate everybody about where our money goes, as far as
63

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
benefits go. And, that -- you know, that will be a budget
consideration, and -- or it could be. Depends on what he
feels like our costs will be for the coming year. So, we'll
know if we need to plan for any increases in -- in health
insurance or not. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge Pro Tem Williams, may
I ask a question?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You certainly may.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, do you have a date
and time and all that in mind?
MR. TOMLINSON: He said he would agree to come when
-- you know, when the Court wanted.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Somebody -- you come up with
a date. I certainly think I'd love to do that. I think it
would be great. But, come up with a date; throw a date out
here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we tie this in with
one of our other meetings, rather than have -- I know we're
going to have another budget workshop.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, we have a -- what,
September 1 date for the 911? Isn't that September 1?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right, September 1. But, we
don't want to do this on that date, probably, but that -- any
date other than the 1st.
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I notice, Tommy, in a
later agenda item you talk about -- or you want us to talk
about the selection process concerning a risk manager. This
is a discussion that you would rather have well in advance of
the discussion on a risk manager; is that correct?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that's kind of a -- this is
kind of a different issue. I lust thought for budget reasons
that, you know, the Court needs to know -- to be educated on
-- on the plan, itself. And, for -- for instance, what
percent of our money goes towards prescription drugs, those
kind of issues, because that -- I mean, if you -- you know,
if the Court feels like that it's necessary to -- to do
something about the costs of our health insurance, in my
mind, that's the place to -- to deal with it, is with the
plan, more so than -- than an administrator. I think that
the dollars -- we have more chance to deal with -- with the
change in the dollars there than we do anywhere.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have a suggested
date?
Judge --
MR. TOMLINSON: No. No, I don't. I think the
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Judge Pro Tem, if I might
make a suggestion, we're later going to talk on item 2.15,
the status of the '99-2000 budget and schedule for adoption
of the budget and setting of the tax rate, which I think
65
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Judge Henneke is going to go through some projected dates for
some further workshops and other things. If we could defer
the setting of the date until we address that issue, and
let's lust don't forget it, we could probably work it in
where we would ask him to come at -- at a specific time that
fits in with one of our workshops that we're already going to
do.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think that's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good idea.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the item number?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's 2.15.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 2.15.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: When we get to that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you have any problem
with that, Tommy? We'll defer it till we can talk about
2.15.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think that's good.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, we'll lust defer that
one for now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 2.6 is consider and
discuss renewal of law enforcement liability insurance.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. We -- we've written
short-term coverage for everything, all of our risk coverage
to coincide with our worker's comp renewal of January 1st.
This particular one, we've run into a stumbling block. It
66

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
renews October 1, and the underwriter will not write a
3-month policy, so we can either -- the options are -- is to
renew for 15 months, or renew it for a year, and then at --
on January 1st, either -- well, if the -- if the bid were to
go to the same underwriter, there wouldn't be any penalty,
but if we -- if we bid it out on that date and this
underwriter does not get the business, then there would be a
-- a penalty for cancellation.
COMMISSIONER LET2: I5 this --
MR. TOMLINSON: I can't tell you what. I don't
know what that would be. But, the -- that's a standard thing
in insurance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this very -- I mean, a real
specialized policy? I mean, I would think --
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is. It's for events that
happen -- that could happen in conjunction with law
enforcement and operation of the jail.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just wondering if this is
going to fit with all the rest of our coverage that we're
trying put together.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it will, because there --
there are some underwriters that may -- may include or
exclude some events in their general liability that -- that
we want to make sure that -- that the liability coverage for
public officials, property, and -- and law enforcement mesh
67

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
together to where we don't have any gaps.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: And, so, I think when -- when we --
you know, you're making decisions on -- on what liability our
underwriter would want, we need to make sure that -- that we
don't have that -- that doesn't happen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy, if you said it, I
missed it. What's the term of renewal? For how long?
MR. TOMLINSON: If we renew, we can renew it for 15
months.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: Where it will come due --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At the end of next budget
year?
MR. TOMLINSON: At the next of the next renewal
period, which will be January.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the reason that they
want -- wouldn't do the three months is lust because it's
short-term?
(Judge Henneke returned to the courtroom.)
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Doesn`t have anything to do
with October and January?
68
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. TOMLINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, if we go for 15 months, we
could still cancel for a penalty?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. Yes, sir, we can.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd be be in favor of doing it
that way. That way, we could either -- you know, a year from
now -- or a year from January, have that -- that date
coincide with our other policy, or we could lust take a
penalty and, if it's worthwhile, cancel it this January.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's fine. I think that's a good
plan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd make a motion to renew our
law enforcement liability insurance policy for 15 months,
with the current underwriter.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz that we
-- second by Commissioner Griffin, that we renew our existing
law enforcement liability insurance for 3 to 15 months. 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. 2.7, consider and
discuss selection process concerning a risk manager.
69
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. This -- we've talked about
this over the last year, And this -- this person needs to
start to work --
JUDGE HENNEKE: This is --
MR. TOMLINSON: -- mid-September, if we -- to be
able to -- to go out in the marketplace and -- and do the
background work that's necessary to give us the best -- the
best he can do. So, I -- to give that -- to give whoever
that is sufficient time, I think we need to, right now,
decide on how we're going to obtain that -- that service.
JUDGE HENNEKE: By "risk manager," in my opinion,
you're talking about a consultant who will help us structure
the insurance bids and evaluate the bids and --
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- advise us as to insurance
matters.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we talking about a risk
manager who helps us do what the Judge just said, based on
the structure of the current benefit package or policy? Or
are we talking about looking at the structure?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, what I envision is -- is
someone that will -- that will advise the Court in all the
insurance matters, whether it be evaluation of properties,
70

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
search markets for underwriters, help -- help make those --
those kinds of decisions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: In other words, this would be an
all-year endeavor. I mean, it's not a one-time thing where
they go out and -- and bid our coverage. It would -- it
would be an ongoing relationship.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we need to do a request for
proposals? I mean, how do we find this person or company?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it's -- for sure, it's a
personal service contract, and I know that -- that some do it
just for the commission from the underwriters.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mm-hmm.
MR. TOMLINSON: There could be -- you know, there
could be a fee. So, what I would propose is to -- is for a
member of the Court, and maybe the Treasurer and myself,
invite some -- any interested party and get their resume,
so-to-speak, their qualifications, what they offer for -- for
the price, and make a recommendation based on, you know, what
-- what we feel that they can do for us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's a great idea,
and Commissioner Letz was telling me this morning how
committed he would be to serve on that committee, didn't have
anything else to do.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz, we'll give you a
71
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
chance to defend yourself here.
COMMI3SIONER LETZ: I'll be glad to do that. I
have no problem with that. I think it's a --
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- I don't look for there
to be an expenditure that will require any kind of bid or
proposal. I look for it to be -- maybe none. I mean, you
know, no expenditure for -- at all. I mean, they would
probably be satisfied with -- with the commission that they
get from the underwriter.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this going -- is this the
same person or company that we're talking about that would
lust kind of review our overall policy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought the point there was
to go to someone who would not be an underwriter, so --
MR. TOMLINSON: No, they wouldn't be an
underwriter.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They would not?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't bid on it.
MR. TOMLINSON: But, those people do get commission
from -- from the underwriter.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay, I see what you're
saying. So, they're independent, but they get a commission
from whoever they end up going with?
7z

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. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Whoever we select, they assist us
in the selection process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz appears to have
volunteered.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, he's a great guy.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we'll lust leave it to your
timetable. You -- I think you have a sense of urgency.
Someone has to deal with the problem, so you'll --
MR. TOMLINSON: I'll start --
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- get with Jonathan and Barbara
and, I presume, do up a description of the duties and
responsibilities and circulate it however you know how, and
bring us back a recommendation at the earliest possible
opportunity.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay, that's what we'll do.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right, thank you. We've done
S, so we'll go to 9, which is approval of designation of
polling places for November 2, 1999, Special Amendment
Election and combine Precinct 410 with 909. Jannett Pieper,
County Clerk.
73
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. PIEPER: Yes. I have submitted the polling
places that we normally have, with the exception of Precinct
202, which would be at the Methodist Church in Center Point.
All the other polling places have stayed the same.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And, you're recommending that we
MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir. That's due to the fact that
Midway Store has closed down, which used to be the polling
place there.
JUDGE HENNEKE:
combination in the past?
Okay. Have we done that
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Griffin, you don't
have any problem with that?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, that's fine.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Early voting will be at the Kerr
County Extension Service meeting room.
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve the
designation of polling places for the November 2, 1999
Special Amendment Election, including early voting at the
79

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
Kerr County Extension Service meeting room, and further, that
we combine Precinct 410 with Precinct 909 as far as the
polling place is concerned. Any further questions or
discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item 2.10, again
from Ms. Pieper, appointment of election judges and alternate
judges.
MS. PIEPER: This is a recommendation for our
judges, with the same combining of 410 and 409. We have no
party chairs right now to confer with on this, so basically
what we always do in the past, as far as the Clerk's Office,
is we just use the same judges and alternate judges as
submitted through our precinct chairs. However, since we
have none at this point, I took it upon myself and called
each of these persons to make sure that they would be willing
to serve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one proposed
amendment to the list. I've spoken with County Clerk Pieper
about this. It would be in 202. The alternate judge was
proposed by Ms. Pieper to be Joe Armistead. In the past it
has been Nell Sevey, and -- or Sevey, however you pronounce
it. And, there was some question as to Nell's ability to
75
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
function due to health problems. I've spoken with Margaret
Higgens, the judge, I've spoken with Mr. Armistead, and I've
spoken repeatedly with Ms. Sevey, and she assures me that she
is capable of fulfilling her responsibilities. And if, for
any reason, her eyesight is not corrected in time, she would
relinquish the position. So, I would substitute the name of
Nell Sevey for Joe Armistead.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Jannett?
MS. PIEPER: I don't have a problem with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only comment I have is to
clear up this typo. I think --
MS. PIEPER: Oh, yes, there is. I'm sorry. On
916, that should be Dawn Shaw.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good.
MS. PIEPER:
so I don't have spell-
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
I'm typin
check.
BALDWIN:
GRIFFIN:
WILLIAMS:
BALDWIN:
g on the manual typewriter,
I move we approve it.
Second.
As amended?
As amended.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve the list of
election judges and alternate judges, as amended.
MS. PIEPER: And this would be for a term of one
year?
76
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:
recommended by the County
not, all in favor, raise
(The motion was
JUDGE HENNEKE;
(No response.)
Yes, for a term of one year, as
Clerk. Any further discussion? If
tour right hand.
carried by unanimous vote.)
All opposed, same sign.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item 2.11,
appointments to serve as Central Counting Station personnel.
Jannett?
MS. PIEPER: That would be appointing me as the
Central Counting Statfon Presiding Judge and Manager. The
Tabulation Supervisor would be my Chief Deputy, which is
Nadene Alford. The Assistant Tabulators to basically run our
ballot machines would be Mindy Williams and Brenda Craig, and
then our Station Clerks would be Sheila Brand, Cheryl
Thompson, Thea Sovil, and Val Medrano.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve the central
counting station personnel as recommended by the County
Clerk. 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.
77

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
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carried. Next item is Item
No. 12, which is actually a budget amendment, an amendment to
request funds for the purchase of an engineering copier to
replace the blue line machine. Jannett7
MS. PIEPER: As you will recall, I was requested,
as were the other elected officials, to look in our budget to
see if we had any money that could possibly be used for
courthouse lighting. I did find some due to the
restructuring of the employees that I had done in the past.
However, as you also recall during our budget workshop, I had
mentioned that I'm having a problem with our blue line
machine, and it is continuously getting worse and I'm not
sure that just repairing it is going to take care of our
problem. The machine is old, and as fax as the age of it, I
don't know. It's been there as long as I've been there. So,
I think that this money can -- most of this money can be
better utilized if we just replace the machine altogether.
And, I have submitted several backups where I have done price
checking on the different styles and quantities of the
machines. I think I have found one that would suit our
needs, and it's a little over $5,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one is that?
MS. PIEPER: This would be from the Xerox company
that's here locally in Kerrville.
7a
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 WILLIAMS: Xerox 3001?
MS. PIEPER: Yes. And I tried to get ahold of our
salesman to come in and ask -- answer any questions you might
have; however, I wasn't able to get ahold of him this
weekend.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is like a regular copy
machine, just a larger size that you can use frequently?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's what you use to copy basically
plats, correct?
MS. PIEPER: Mm-hmm. Also, from July the 20th,
I've asked the girls to keep track of how many plats they've
had to produce, and there has been 139 since July 20th. I
did not realize that we were making that many, so that's the
reason our machine is wearing out even quicker than I thought
it was going to.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You do charge for those, do
you not?
MS. PIEPER: Some we charge, when we can, but there
are some that -- when final plats come in, that we cannot
charge for.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's something we
certainly need. That machine's worn-out, outdated. It'll
probably pay for itself, so --
JUDGE HENNEKE: The $7,000 you're requesting, does
79

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
that include the first year's maintenance contract?
MS. PIEPER: Yes. And, with the first year's
maintenance, they'll charge us S32 a month plus the .071 per
linear foot, and I have not had time to add up, you know, how
many linear feet that might be, so that's why I went ahead
and requested the full 57,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the maintenance contract
-- it's provided for in the first year, and then -- or do you
have to include that in the budget coming up?
MS. PIEPER: That would have to be included in the
budget coming up. I have not figured that in the budget.
The only thing I figured in the new budget was repairs on the
other machine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. I move the
budget amendment request by the County Clerk for Capital
Outlay for purchase of an engineering copier to replace the
blue line machine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second it, with a
question.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams and
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin that we approve the budget
amendment request from the County Clerk to move funds to
Capital Outlay for the purchase of an engineering copier.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. It didn't make it
80

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
in here, your memo to us about you finding the $9,000 for
Christmas lighting.
MS. PIEPER: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, if I remember
correctly, it said that you had found $9,000 and some few
dollars for Christmas lighting, but this thing popped up,
which is $7,000. Are you going to kick in the extra $2,000
to the Christmas lights?
MS. PIEPER: That's y'all's call.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you see that it gets
put on the table, so that way we can cut ours down somewhat?
(Laughter.)
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: Thank you.
MS. PIEPER: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Item No. 13 is consider and discuss
technical and budgetary issues regarding computer network in
the Sheriff's Department. Commissioner Griffin?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Would you pass that down the
table? Okay. Where we stand on the -- on the computer
network for the Sheriff's Department is as as follows: It
81
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
appears that we can -- through the budget process, we can
upgrade all of the computer workstations, the computer
server, the computer software -- the server software, and the
Law Enforcement Management System software, all be
Y2K-compliant, so it would be a permanent fix. It would not
be be an interim fix of any sort. It would be what the
Sheriff's Department could live with in the foreseeable
future. It would require that we separate the inmate phone
system from the computer network, which I think we should do
anyway, and I strongly recommend that we do that in the -- in
both the budget process and in our management philosophy for
the next year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Separate what? I'm --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The inmate phone system --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- and the computer network,
which is now under one contract.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Evercom. If we go down this
road, we will -- this will be what separates the computer
system from whatever we do in the future with the inmate
phone system.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: As you see here, there are
29 workstations that are currently on that network. The
82
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
Sheriff also has a budget request that was in the $20,000
allocation exercise for spending $10,000 of that on five
additional new computers. By folding -- by folding that
request in with this package to upgrade, we can take -- that
$10,000 would no longer have to be spent on five new
computers. They would all be of the same configuration, for
a total of 30, which is actually giving us one more extra
that they needed, anyway.
To make a long story short, what -- what you see here on
the spreadsheet is total cost that we would pay to have an
upgraded system, completely to Y2K compliance. Now, there's
one soft number in there. You will notice about halfway down
on the spreadsheet, that there is LEMS 2 software that would
come from Security Telecom. That $5,000 that you see there
is a guess on my part. It may be less than that; it
certainly wouldn't be any more. My recommendation would be
that we look very carefully at the same time that we do this
-- this would be October 1st or thereabouts in the new budget
year. That we would look closely at perhaps dropping the
LEMS 2 software package in favor of the Software Group
package, which we already own, I found out this morning. We
already have the rights to that software.
I think we need that lever as a possibility, anyway,
when we start to negotiate the LEMS 2 software license with
-- with Security Telecom. If worse comes to worst, we'll
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
bail out of that entirely, is my point, and that we would end
up going back to Software Group. Tommy is getting -- going
to get a feel for what it will take to migrate the data
that"s in this old LEMS package now, to get it into the new
software. If we were to go with The Software Group, what it
would take to get that data all transferred into the Software
Group package. There is some concern on the part of the
Sheriff's Department that we could lose data in that process,
migrating from one package to another. If it's done right we
shouldn't, but there is always that possibility.
Another note here would be that we would be doing this
with a local company to do these upgrades. We would also
have them on call at two-thirds of their normal hourly rate
for any maintenance of that system in the future; hardware,
software, whatever. I like that idea because it's very
responsive. We should have a responsive maintenance, and we
would have a system that we control. If you'll notice on the
spreadsheet, the Novell software for the server, for example,
we would have the license. We, Kerr County, would have the
license; it would not be through a third party. So, that --
and this is the way it normally is done in business, where
the licenses are granted to the user, not to some third-party
that then charges you for that, as we are doing now with
Evercom. So, I would propose this, not as a -- not as an
amendment or any kind of a budget thing. This should be in
89
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
our budget deliberations. But, I present it now for your
consideration and discussion, requiring no motion or anything
at this point, and I'll be glad to try and answer whatever
technical questions on how this would work in the long run if
you -- if you would like.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's important for us all
to understand that what -- what is driving this process is
the fact that the computers at the Sheriff's Department are
not Y2K-compliant.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's what is -- what has driven
the whale process. As Larry's gone through the county during
Y2K review, this came out as one that we had to have a
permanent fix to. So, this really -- this is not something
that we the take dollars from this year's budget for. It's
something we add dollars to next year's budget for. Any
questions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a couple questions.
Larry, the 30 computers you're talking about here, is that
the sum total of all the Sheriff's Department computers?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or are there some that
aren't -- every one out there is not Y2K --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: All -- well, no. The 29
that they have are not.
85

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 WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And they have five
stand-alone computers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That aren't?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That are not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That are not.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. Hut, what this would
do is put all of those in the same configuration for a lot
less than we would replace those five as a separate process.
I mean, that just popped up during putting this together. If
we're going to have a new computer network, why couldn't
those other machines be the same configuration, easier to
maintain, easier to upgrade right along with the network
computers? For example, the Sheriff's office, itself, has
one of those five extra computers that are not Y2K-compliant.
Now, we could do some kludging with those; we could do some
patching and that sort of thing, but then we end up with
nonstandard configuration computers. This way, we would end
up with all the computers in the Sheriff's Department in one
configuration. If we upgrade, they're easier to upgrade from
there on; they're easier to maintain. We have -- and we can
interchange computers. If we have a failure we can take one
that's underutilized at some point, put it right in place of
the other, and just transfer the data. So, this gives you a
lot of flexibility.
86

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: My second question is based
on the size of this proposal. Does this not have to be bid?
And, if so, there's no assurance that this company will win
the bid, is there?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. The short answer to the
question is no. We -- my judgment is, at this point, we
would not have to bid it, because the total we would pay to
Computer Services Center would be less than the new limit
which goes into effect on September the 1st of $25,000. It
would be less than $25,000. We may have to do some
manipulating -- realize that the software -- see, we would --
we would pay Novell or we would pay Evercom or Software
Group. That does not go to Computer Service Center; they're
only the hardware.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you're removing them
from the total?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So -- that's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For bid purposes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It would be the top --
actually, I think it's -- when I looked at it, it's about
$900, $500 over $25,000, so we'll probably -- we would have
to negotiate that price down if we wanted to do that. I
think we can by about 400 bucks, but that's obviously a
consideration we have to consider very carefully. But --
JUDGE HENNEKE: With what we're looking at now, the
87

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
dollars, the magnitude of dollars to do a permanent fix to
the Sheriff's Department.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- if it's over $25,000,
it will have to be bid, though. I mean, is this something --
I mean, I guess if it's -- right, I know that. But, I mean,
if we're that close, I'd rather bid it. It's something we
should bid anyway, lust from the standpoint of property, but
I'm -- my question is --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm not a hundred percent sure it's
something we'd have to bid, because there's a large loophole
for technical --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, there is.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- stuff in the bidding laws, and
plus --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: For information systems.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- we're combining a number of
different services here. We're combining the technical
services, the configuration with the hardware, with the
software. So, I mean, you could -- I think you could
legitimately cut this up into three different packages.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, easily.
JUDGE HENNEKE: When we get to that point, we'll
sit down and we'll get an opinion. as to whether or not, you
know, in this scope of services, do we have to bid it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's correct. And --
ea

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: This is not a decision to bid or
not to bid today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Exercise here is as a budget
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question was really in
response to Bill's comment. I didn't think it did, but I was
kind of -- if we're that close, it would be better to bid, in
my mind. On the software portion of it, there's the Novell
-- you mentioned there's Novell, Security Telecom, the one
that does the phone system that the inmates use.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And then Evercom. What
-- how are they tied in?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Evercom. is -- Security Telecom is
now Evercom.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Through a series of mergers --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They sold out and merged and
acquired or whatever. But, we wrote the contract with
Security Telecom. Since then, Security Telecom has been
subsumed by Evercom.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And -- okay. So, all
that -- their software runs the inmate phone --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, it has nothing to do
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with that. What we signed up to do in this contract was a
deal where they put in the phone system and gave us that
computer system, but they're not really making any money on
the computers. They're making money off the phone system.
There's no connection between those two except by contract,
so what we're doing is severing that connection, which was
artificial anyway.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two questions. Who owns the
29 computers?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Until the contract runs out,
Evercom now -- used to be security Telecom -- owns all of the
equipment. When this contract runs out in the next year, the
title to that equipment will be reverting to the County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And, so, at that time
we'll probably be buying new -- new hardware, too?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. No, that's what I'm
saying. We're buying new hardware now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: To replace the black boxes,
the innards of the computers. We're going to go ahead and
buy those. We're going to take these from Security Telecom
and we're still going to be using them as doorstops and
whatever, but we've already paid for -- all those are going
to be paid for. So, we're going to go ahead and replace
those, though we'll still be using the monitors, the
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
keyboards, and the mouse -- mice -- mices? The mouse, and
all of those -- those kinds of things. The other peripherals
we'll continue to use of theirs. And, that's fine. We
haven't changed anything contractually in that regard, but
we're getting Y2K-compliant.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just one quick question,
moving into the software side of it. If we were to change to
Software, Inc., would that -- would that help this problem of
communicating between the courthouse --
COMMI33IONER GRIFFIN: I suspect so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, Linda, you use
Software, Inc., don't you? So, I don't know why -- why we
don't --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If we want to take a close
look at that, we need -- see, we've already got -- we've
already qot the rights to that software.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. As much money as
this County spent there, we should own part of the company.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right now we are -- we are
-- I can't see any reason why we couldn't convert to that as
part of this process.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Convert to Software Group's
software.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I certainly hope we strongly
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
consider that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, we should. But, there
would be the outside -- what I tried to do here in this
spreadsheet was to show the outside budget impact that we
need to consider in our budget deliberations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM3: My curiosity's getting the
best of me. How old are these noncompliant computers that
we're going to replace?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How old are they?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just on average, on
balance.
~--
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't know how old they
were when we got them. We got them from Security Telecom in
a package. They are 986D-50's, which were certainly not
state-of-the-art in 1995 when we got them. So, they may have
come from somewhere else, I don't know, but they are not
Y2K-compliant. And, it's cheaper -- we can buy a new CPU, a
new guts of the computer, if you will, for 690 bucks a copy.
It would cost us almost $500 to kludge them where we could
just get past Y2K, so it doesn't make much sense to do that,
and that's how we ended up with this alternative to go ahead
and make a permanent fix.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy, do you have any comments?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My final question is, how does
92
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this all interact with our contract with Evercom? I mean,
when is that contract up, and how does -- do they have to
agree to us doing this or --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. My judgment on that is
no, they don't have to agree to it. They have given us --
they have given us a price for what they would charge us to
make the equipment Y2K-compatible. If we separate -- if we
were to separate the telephone piece of the contract from the
computer network end of it, their price to accomplish
essentially what we're doing is just a little short of
$75,000. So, I don't think there's even a -- it's not even
worth asking the question about it any amore.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And their fix was also part of the
request for a 5-year extension to the telephone contract.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: See, they want to push the
extension of the telephone contract through offering us
low-cost computers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've been down that road once
before.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We've been down that road
once and got 986D-50's.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? There's no
action taken on this; it's something we'll take up as part of
93

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 GRIFFIN: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Number 19, consider and discuss
resignation of Sheriff Kaiser and procedure for appointment
of interim acting Sheriff. I believe we all received a copy
of the Sheriff's resignation, effective September 30. I
think the Court, in the two previous occasions, has kind of
given us the roadmap for how we go about these appointments,
both in the instance of Billie Meeker, when she was appointed
to serve out Pat Dye's term, and also, to a certain extent,
when Angel Garza was appointed to serve the remainder of Mark
Shaw's term.
It's my suggestion at this time that we make -- we
request anyone interested in applying for the interim job to
file an either an application with my office, or the
applications will be available for anyone to review, and that
at our first meeting in September, that we take action on
appointing an interim Sheriff. Sheriff Kaiser has asked me
to accelerate the process as much as possible, because she
would like to have at least a couple of weeks with the
interim in order to familiarize that individual with the
Sheriff's Department issues, make sure that there's the
smoothest transition as possible, and I think that's a very
rational and appropriate request.
It`s my recommendation to the Court that, as you all did
94
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with Pat Dye's replacement, that we make a statement that
anyone who is a candidate for an office of Sheriff will not
be considered for the interim Sheriff's position, which could
be anywhere from 7 months to 15 months. I just throw that
out for discussion. Any comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I do have a comment.
I've -- I have voted many times in this Court on interim
positions and have always taken that exact same view, because
of the reason that, if you appoint a candidate, then it's an
endorsement -- that it looks -- it looks like an endorsement.
But, I think -- I thought about this quite a bit. And, I've
always felt that way, but I've had a change of heart on that,
because I think that at some point, you know, what we do Ss
we get tangled up in our own personal agendas and our own
friendships. We qet -- start focusing on who likes who and
who doesn't like who and who doesn't get along with this
person and all those -- all that stuff, which is -- just
seems to me so hollow thinking.
I just really believe that we need to -- we need to
refocus; we need to have a paradigm shift in our thinking,
and that is to focus on -- to include the candidates, those
folks that have filed for office, to include them in our
look, and really focus on what is best fox Kerr County. You
know, lay down those personalities, lay down those agendas,
lay down all those things that -- you know, if so-and-so
95
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
doesn't like so-and-so, lay all that stuff aside and let's
just focus on the best person for Kerr County's future.
And, I have selected four criteria to -- that we need to
look at, and we need to look at, number one, their classroom
education. Number two, their law enforcement service record.
Three, their knowledge of our county. And, number four,
their stewardship of taxpayers' money. And, I think that if
we look at those things and look at everybody and lay down
our personal agendas, then I think that we -- we'd come out
with the very best person for this county. That's all I had
to -- have to say.
MR. SUTTON: May I be heard?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Just a moment, Mr. Sutton. Any
comments from the Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only part of my agenda --
or I only have one piece of an agenda, and that is that I
believe it's important that the Court select a good law
enforcement person. We have a good Sheriff's Department, we
have good law enforcement, and our aim and our purpose should
be to keep it that way during this interim, because we now
are the stewards of that department. We are charged with the
responsibility of selecting that individual to carry law
enforcement forward until the people decide who the Sheriff
of this county will be. So, I think it's incumbent on us to
make certain that we select an individual who possesses the
96
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
qualifications to do the lob.
a goal.
That's not an agenda. That's
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything further?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would like to see the
resumes. Frankly, I think -- I think the qualifications have
more to do with it than anything else, obviously. And,
that's going to depend on the -- what we see in the resumes
and, perhaps, interviews and so on. But -- but, there is a
policy issue that we need to address, that -- and that has to
do with how do you -- how do you treat the candidates? And,
I think that the only yardstick we have is what's been done
in the past, and I don't know that -- that that -- I mean, I
think it's worked well. That is, we have -- we have excluded
candidates, but that's not to say we can't revisit it. I'd
lust like to hear the arguments, but it's going to be
determined by what the resumes have in them. That's the --
that's the bottom line.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my comment is, you
know, it's very -- this is a little bit different than the
other two that I've been involved with. This is a longer
period of time we're talking about; really, 15 months,
potentially.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, possibly, because if there is
no general election opponent --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
97
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: There's nothing to say that the
interim person won't resign as soon as the primaries are
over, and we can appoint the person who will be elected in
November to fill the lob until they take their regular term,
much as we did with -- as you all did with J.P. 1, Vance
Elliott.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we don't know. We don't know
whether, quite frankly, the Democratic party will have a
candidate for Sheriff, which would involve a November
election, or whether --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- it will be over in March --
April, when the primaries axe over. My best guess would be
the latter, but we don't know that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think my -- you know, at
this point, I don't know that we have to exclude the
candidates, but I think it may be something we want to
discuss at that time. If the candidates want to go ahead and
submit a resume at this point, I don't really have a problem
with that. And, since the Sheriff has requested, I think for
good reason, that we act in a hurry on this, I don't have a
problem with going ahead and letting those come in right now.
On that -- that's, I guess, what I have to say on that issue.
On the selection process, I'd like to get a little bit more
9a
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
into that as to I think certain think resumes would need to
come in to the Judge. But, beyond -- how are we going to --
to go through the review process? Are any people outside,
like district judges, involved at all, or do you have
anything on how are we going to, I guess, review it, and when
are we going to make the decision?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I thittk the decision -- the
decision, we should shoot for the first meeting in September,
which I believe is the 13th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Which gives us three weeks from
today. I'm not sure I want to involve the district judges on
a formal basis as selecting the Sheriff. I think anyone's
free to consult with them or anyone else they want, but I
think the decision lies with us. You know, we can have a
committee of two. If we have any more than that, we fall
under the Open Meetings Act; we have to post meetings and all
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that probably the best
thing to do is that, when the applications come in, the
resumes, simply make them available to everyone. You know,
we can discuss them among ourselves so long as we don't have
a quorum. Anyone's free to consult anyone as to how they
feel this election process -- I mean selection process -- I
99

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
mean, how the candidates stack up. I mean, I certainly
intend to talk to people around the community as to the
qualities of the people that are -- that are interested in
the interim job.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I highly recommend
that we go and visit with either the district judges or the
D.A.'s or whoever might be -- particularly as non-attorney
people. That just -- it has just cleared up so many things
for me, just in my --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, you're welcome to do that.
The question is, will we make it a formal process?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely not.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If we make it a formal process,
then we have to have open meetings and we have to consider --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, I would encourage everyone to
talk to whoever you feel comfortable with as far as the
merits of the -- of the people who come forward. As far as
the candidates issue is concerned, I think that we ought to
stay with our positioning procedure. If we select someone
who is an announced candidate, there is no way you can get
around the fact that the perception is going to be you're
making an endorsement, and that person is going to have a
6-, 7-month head start on everybody else because they're
going to be out in the community as the Sheriff.
100
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And, while I'm sure that no one would ever do this,
there is going to be a perception, regardless of who we
appoint, if they're a candidate, that at least one decision
they make during the interim process, during the time they're
interim, is going to be based on political evaluations and
not law enforcement evaluations. I know it's not true; we'd
never appoint anybody who'd do that, but I guarantee you that
they're going to make at least one decision in this 6-,
7-month period where somebody's going to say they did that
because of X, Y, or Z. And, I don't think, when you get into
law enforcement in particular, that you want to set yourself
up for that kind of second-guessing. When the person is
elected, they get enough of that the way it is. So, I think
that, unless we have no candidates who are not -- have no
applicants who are not candidates that we're willing to
appoint, that we should not open the pzocess up to
candidates.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would agree with that,
Judge. I think voters are entitled to a level playing field
when it comes to making a decision for a permanent
replacement for Sheriff Kaiser. And, one way that you make
the playing field unlevel is to give someone a distinct
advantage. And, I -- I concur with your thoughts.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, we have the chief law
enforcement officer of this County sitting here. I wonder if
101
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
-- do you mind if he --
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, I don't mind at all. Mr.
Sutton, do you have something to offer? One of the chief law
enforcement officers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One of the two, that's
right.
MR. SUTTON: One of them. I'd like to remind this
Court that each of you promised your constituents that you
would do the best lob when you took office as Commissioners
and County Judge, and I've heard you this morning wrangle
over machines for the Sheriff's Office and for the Clerk's
office. Well, what we're talking about here is one of the
most important governmental positions of a county, and that's
a sheriff. It's not lust administrative duties of filing
deeds or filing divorce suits. It is something that is a
very integral part of this community, law enforcement. And,
to simply say that you may refuse -- tell the public that
you're going to refuse to consider a person who may be the
best qualified simply because they're a candidate doesn't
make any sense, and that's the public perspective. You're
going to get into politics on this thing. If you don't
choose the best, then it's politics because you didn't.
You're going to have it both ways -- politics both ways.
But, I urge you to do what's best for Kerr County and what's
best for law enforcement. Pick out the best person that
102
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
applies fox the lob. If you pick out someone who is a
declared non-candidate today, once they take the oath of
office, they can run; there's no way you can stop it. It is
illegal to even consider that, because it's a violation of
their oath, whether it's appointed or elected, to promise
anything as a result of the appointment.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right, Mr. Sutton, but
there's nothing to stop us from unappointing them as soon as
they become a candidate, and I guarantee you I would bring
that to this Court in a New York minute.
MR. SUTTON: Well --
JUDGE HENNEKE: If someone stands in front of me
and tells me they're not going to be a candidate, and as soon
as they're appointed, or at any time in the process, they
become a candidate, I will put -- I will call a special
meeting to unappoint this person.
MR. SUTTON: Judge, I don't know the procedure for
unappointments; I have not looked that up.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sir, with the pleasure of
the Court, in the interim appointment --
MR. SUTTON: Well, I don't know how that works, to
be quite honest with you. But, also, there's no such thing
an a caretaker Pope, and there should not be a caretaker
Sheriff. We need to get someone actively involved in that
office, whether they be a candidate or not. I urge you,
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
please, do not make that a maior part of your consideration.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
MR. SUTTON: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER LET2: My comment is, I think I prefer
to leave it open to everybody. But, it's hard -- until you
know who's applying, it's hard to say one way or the other.
If we -- you know, if there's candidate or a -- a person
applies for the position that is very well-qualified, you
know, that -- that kind of -- that sways me one way a little
bit. But, if there's something that I -- if I think the best
person is one of the candidates, you know, that kind of sways
me a different way, and I hate -- if we're going to be on a
rushed schedule, I hate to preclude or make that decision
now. I'd rather open it up and see who applies, and then
make that decision based on the applicants. And, I think it
should be a consideration, but I don't know that I want to
say that they can't be.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What are you suggesting? That we
take -- we allow anyone who wants to apply to apply, but that
we consider first the applications of people who are not
candidates, and if we find them lacking, then we consider the
applications of people who are candidates?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think you should put a
precondition one way or the other. I think it should lust be
109
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
legitimate -- it should be part of our decision process if
they are a candidate or not and just, you know, bring that up
at that time. I mean, in our own minds, if we think it's --
you know, it's an issue to me or to you or to someone else,
it's part of the decision for that individual.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that would -- that would
work in that -- and we may not all agree, but it would still
affect who you would be in favor of -- of selecting. It
wouldn't hurt anything taking the applications, is what
you're saying.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. And then -- you know,
but I'm -- I'm not saying there is going going to be a
preference or a nonpreference for those individuals. They're
just applicants. And, in my mind, it's probably a little bit
of a negative on the candidates, you know. Hut, if -- you
know, that may be -- that may be enough -- or the individual
may be enough to outweigh that decision. I mean, I may say,
"Well, I'd rather not, but this person is a good applicant,"
or the best applicant, in my opinion, and based on that, you
know, be behind that individual.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I just will repeat that I think
it's a mistake, and I'm not in favor of opening up the
application process to candidates, because I think that,
105

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
having been a candidate, their focus is on being a candidate,
'cause they want the job for four years. They don't want the
job for 7 months, they don't want the job for 15 months; they
want the job for four years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we supposed to accept
the resignation of the Sheriff today?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, we'll accept the resignation
of the Sheriff today, effective September 30th.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That we do have to do that
as a --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we just have to acknowledge
it. I don't think we have to do it formally. The Sheriff
has resigned effectively September 30th. That is legitimate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to move we accept
the resignation of Sheriff Kaiser, effective September 30,
with regret.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And I will second that, and
say that -- I'm sure we'll have other opportunities to repeat
this, but she's done a great job, and -- and the citizens of
the county owe a lot to her, and we want to express that
gratitude the best we can.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I third the motion. Echoing
what has been said here, I'm just -- I'm sorry that she's not
here so that we can say thank you to her. I don't know that
there will be another opportunity. I would hope so, but --
106
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
gentlemen, take to your boss "thank you," from me, anyway.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we accept the
resignation of Sheriff Kaiser effective September 30th, with
regret. 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: We will -- we need to deal with
this issue of candidates or not.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How we accept applications.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, whether we accept applications
from candidates or whether we exclude candidates.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to accept
applications from candidates.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that a motion? You move that we
open up the process to candidates?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that we need a
Court Order, but if that's what it takes, it certainly is.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm -- you had a Court Order with
the County Clerk.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we open up --
JUDGE HENNEKE: You had a process.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- the selection process and
107

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
include candidates.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved and seconded that the process
of selection of interim Sheriff include persons who are
announced candidates. Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. I would want to
clarify in that, that there is nothing -- if we accept
applications of candidates -- if we were to accept
applications of candidates, there is nothing that implies
that -- that candidates would have any better chance than
anyone else.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely not. No, sir, I
just want them on the table so we can evaluate them along
with everyone else, in case this is the best thing for this
county's future. That -- if that person is in there, I can
lay my ego down and select that person.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I don't have any
qualms about that. I just want -- I just want to make sure
that if we do that, that there is no -- there is no implied
advantage to being a candidate or a non-candidate.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the -- you better take your
phone off the hook between now and September 13th, then,
'cause if you don't think that the political drums are going
to be beating on behalf of one individual or another --
108
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
COMMI3SIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Already are.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- then you're --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Too late to take the phone
off the hook.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, that's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At my house.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: At my house, too. But I
would also hasten to add that I don't know how much good
that's going to do anybody, in my mind. So, you can save
yourself a phone call. I'm going to look at the resumes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. Good. Good
point.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If not,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Letz, and Griffin
indicated by raised hand that they were in
favor of the motion.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed?
(Commissioner Williams and Judge Henneke
indicated by raised hand that they were opposed
to the motion.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries, 3 to 2. Okay, the
next item is 2.15, which is on the budget. I'd like to ask
that we defer this until the end, if we can. It's going to
be a rather lengthy discussion.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, Judge, while you were
109
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
out, we had folded 2.5 in with that same discussion.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, Commissioner Williams passed
me that note. Next item is 2.16, which is consider and
discuss application by Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority to
sell water from Canyon Lake anywhere outside G.B.R.A.'s
10-county statutory district. This was brought to my
attention by several holders of water rights in Kerr County.
They are concerned about this portion of G.B.R.A.'s Water
Rights Amendment Application which gives them the authority
to sell water from Canyon Lake outside of G.B.R.A.'s
10-county statutory territory, which would encompass Bexar
County. This fs the kind of a public policy issue that I
think the Court needs to be aware of and discuss and
appropriately take a position on, which is why I bring it
before us for your thoughts and consideration. Anyone have
any questions?
COMMI3SIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Judge, is this what
we would consider an inter-basin transfer?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it's not an inter-basin
transfer because, technically, an inter-basin transfer is
where you take the water right from, say, the Guadalupe River
and you transfer that water right to the San Antonio River.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Then, this is
different from that?
JUDGE HENNEKE: This is different from that, but it
110

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
accomplishes the same thing without having to go through all
the hearings and the hoops and the rigamarole. I don't know
what Region J has -- whether they've considered this or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is the first I've, you
know, seen it. I was not aware that this was present. We
haven't -- and part of it is probably through the S.B. 1
process; we're really more working within our region, as
opposed to inter-region. You know, that's an item to be
discussed later this week as to that. We need to get those
discussions going. I was not really aware of this, I guess.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The offending paragraph is
Paragraph 4 on Page 2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Has -- I mean, I don't know if
it's relevant or not, but has U.G.R.A. had any position on
this that you're aware of?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Not that I'm aware of. I visited
with Jim Brown, and he wasn't sure what they were going to do
about this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, regardless of what
their position is, my position would be I think they need to
keep their water in the basin, because that increases our
chance of getting some in Kerr County.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I agree. I mean, we all understand
that the only source For additional surface water is
basically to get a subordination agreement from G.B.R.A. to
111
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
use more of the water which rolls through Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And if they have the ability to
encumber that water for San Antonio -- and let's make no
bones about it, that's what they had in mind -- we don't have
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which leads me to ask the
question, Judge, if this contemplates a sale of acre feet of
water, how do we distinguish this? It seems to me to be
something that we don't want to do because it works against
the ultimate -- our ultimate purposes of maybe adding to our
diversion rights out of this river before it gets to Canyon
Lake and depletes any possible diversion rights we might
have. How do we offset -- how do we balance these two
things?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, ultimately
there is going to -- this issue will have to be addressed in
the regional -- the water plan. And, Canyon Lake is
designated as a special resource for Region J, so, I mean, I
know -- I have a hard time seeing how the Water Development
Board -- other than the fact it's not got a whole lot more
power than we do. But, I mean, I think it's, you know,
contemplated that the water in this basin should stay in the
basin, and I think that the Water Board or Development Board
112
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
realize that this was the only option we had was Canyon Lake,
and I think that we just definitely need to oppose this, and
-- you know, G.B.R.A. giving the water, basically, to the
highest bidder. That's what we're trying to do. This will
be, you know, brought up at some point, and probably as a --
you know, through arbitrators between Region J and Region L.
It's going to be one of the fundamental issues. I think we
need to do everything we can as a county to weigh in on the
side that we do not want G.B.R.A. selling water outside of
our basin to San Antonio.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Of course, we're already
doing it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Any more.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, any more.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what this is. This
is in addition to what? To what they already have there
involved with S.A.W.S. and all that?
JUDGE HENNEKE: They're coming in the back door of
the contract with S.A.W.S. They sell the water in Kendall
County, who then turns around and sells it to S.A.W.S. This
takes away the middleman.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Flat down the pike.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I'm against it. What
113

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
else do we need to decide?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: My question is, what can we
do -- what can we do that most forceably gets us on record as
being against it?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think what we should do is
-- is if the Court is so disposed, is adopt an order opposing
this request and direct the County to file a protest -- a
request for a contested hearing opposition with the
T.N.R.C.C.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, let me see if we can
throw in a little amendment here. An opposition in
conjunction with U.G.R.A., and we can go to them and do the
same thing.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's do our thing. We'll give it
to U.G.R.A. and see what they want done.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, let them be in
conjunction with us.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion has been made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that
the Kerr County Commissioners Court oppose the application by
the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority to sell water from
Canyon Lake outside of the G.B.R.A.'s 10-county statutory
district and direct the County Judge to file a protest and
119
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
request a hearing with the Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission. Any further discussion? If not,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried. by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. Item No. 17
is -- we're not ready for that yet. I'm going to pull that
one off the agenda. Item No. 18 is from the Sheriff's
Department, consider and discuss request for increase in
civil fees. The Sheriff wasn't able to be here. I don't
know if you want to consider this without a recommendation
from her or whether we want to table this and get a schedule
from her.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She's making a
recommendation, Judge.
JUDGE HENNEKE: She's making a recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see. In '98, we
increased it from -- I think a S35 jump or something like
that. Tommy, do you remember?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then this request is --
well, no. $100?
JUDGE HENNEKE: What she's asking, I think, is to
take the fee for executions, Writ of Executions and Order of
115
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Sale to $200, and Writs of Attachment, Garnishment,
Sequestration, and Possession to $100, I guess.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From $95 to $100?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mm-hmm. And fees for service of
subpoenas, citations, and summons to anywhere from $50 to
$75, depending on what you're sending. Basically, everything
that's $95 she wants to raise up to a maximum of $75. The
first one through 7, 8, 9, and 10, she'd like to take up to
$200. And, Writs of Attachment, Garnishment, Sequestration,
and Possession, which would be 11, 12, and 13, take up to
$100, I guess. Is that the way everyone else sees it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Notice of Citation --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm having a hard time
figuring it out.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Would we have time to ask
for a less -- what we think the fees -- what the Sheriff
would like to recommend that the fees for each of these be?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Riqht.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That was kind of where I was
heading. Can we ask her, as opposed kind of the generic
request, that she redo her schedule with the dollar figures
inserted that she thinks are appropriate.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Shall we we do that and bring it
back?
116
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: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, can I quickly go back to
2.17, regarding the manufactured homes? Under the law, we
have to set a public hearing for that one. Is it possible to
set the hearing, do you think, at our next Commissioners
Court meeting?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. I think it will be -- I think
at our next Commissioner Court meeting, we'll have something
we can --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But., I mean, do we have to have
a Court order to set that as a public hearing, as opposed to
an agenda item? It says -- I was reading the law -- after --
public hearing after notice was published in the newspaper,
which is more than we do for a Commissioners Court meeting.
So, can we, I mean, set the public hearing today?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the problem with setting a
public hearing is you have to publish what you're going to
have a hearing on, the actual ordinance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But we could have a
proposal before we go out to the public on them.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. But I think the way you do
that is the Court adapts the proposal, then --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then you do the hearing.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And then you adopt the ordinance,
so --
117
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You can do that next time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is Item No. 19, consider
and discuss approving Memorandum of Understanding between
Kerr County and Hill Country Council on Alcohol and Drug
Abuse, Inc., and authorize County Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve the Memorandum
of Understanding between Kerr County and Hill Country Council
on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Inc., and authorize County Judge
to sign same. 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.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. We have one more
agenda item which we could take up before lunch. Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: This is back to the -- to the fees
on the Sheriff.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Uh-huh.
MR. TOMLINSON: And this is lust a thought. I
wonder if there's any -- anything that might require the
118
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
Court	to make that change	before September	the 1st.
	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, I was	thinking the same
thing.	Seemed like there	was something the	re.
MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, this is probably brought
about by some legislative change.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, but it's effective September
1, so if we don't make them before September 1st, it just
means they're effective later -- no, they're effective
January 1st, according to the Sheriff's write-up.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Fees are effective --
COMMISSIONER LET2: January 1.
JUDGE HENNEKE: January 18.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says '99, though.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. The court -- the old
'98 court order was to the --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Oh, but, the first paragraph says
requesting the Commissioners Court to increase these fees
effective January 1, 2000.
MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, okay. I just remembered that
sometimes that does happen.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, sometimes that happens. I
don't think this case is one of those.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The other item which we could take
119
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
ZO
21
22
23
29
25
up is the extension of the burn ban. My recommendation is
that we extend the burn ban for two weeks, if we can. If we
don't get any rain in those two weeks, it's probably going to
necessitate a special meeting, but at that time we should be
able to go under the new law and extend it for a greater
period than two weeks. I don't think -- there's be been no
rain that I'm aware of, Buster.
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: No, there's not, but it's
coming, though.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. Extend it for two
weeks.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we extend the current
burn ban for a period of 19 days from today's date. 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. At this time,
let's stand in recess until 1:30, at which time we'll take up
2.15 as well as 2.05.
(Discussion off the record.)
(Recess taken from 11:50 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
lzo

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 1:30 on Monday, August 23rd,
and we'll reconvene this Special. Session of Commissioners
Court. I do want to backtrack on one issue, which is the
appointment of the interim Sheriff. It was pointed out to me
by a member of the audience that we actually failed to give a
deadline and to describe what we would like to have
submitted, so I don't know if we need a formal order on that
or not, but I would like to suggest September the 3rd, and
have a letter indicating their willingness to serve as
interim, along with a resume. Does that meet with everyone's
approval?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it our intention to take
the issue up on the 13th?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: How does that timeframe work out?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good. That gives us --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 5 o'clock?
JUDGE HENNEKE: 5 o'clock on September the 3rd. A
letter addressed to me indicating their willingness to serve
in an interim capacity.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And a resume outlining their
qualifications.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And anything else they want to
121
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
submit.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. Then I'll have those copied
and they'll be available for everyone Tuesday, since Monday's
a holiday. Okay?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Very good.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. With that cleanup,
let's move onto Agenda Item 2.15, which is to consider and
discuss status of the budget and schedule for adoption of the
budget and set a tax rate -- setting of tax rate. I think
Paula's going to join us shortly; I think she said she would.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, she told me she was.
JUDGE HENNEKE: To give us some indication as to
what is required. While we're waiting on her, does anyone
have any comments on the July 23rd memo that I distributed to
the members of the Court?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have another
question outside of that, lust real quick. I have obviously
been in a coma again for a while, but what did we do with the
Appraisal District budget? What did we do? Did we approve
it7 Did we --
JUDGE HENNEKE: We haven`t approved it yet, because
I just got it, too late to put on this agenda.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we -- if we don't do
anything, it's automatically approved?
122

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: Well, if a majority of the taxing
jurisdictions approve the budget, it's approved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's approved. And, if we
don't do anything, that's an affirmative vote?
JUDGE HENNEKE: If we cion't do anything, we don't
do anything. It's not counted as as an affirmative vote, the
way I understand it, but if the majority of taxing
jurisdictions approve the budget, it's approved. We can
disapprove it, and if a majority approve it, it still goes
into effect.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was the increase:
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's minor. It's, like, 52,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They took away -- they added
to it and took away from other places. Pretty good budget.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They stay very consistent.
It's interesting that Kendall County thinks that Kerr
County's on the wrong -- does not follow the statute on when
they do their budget.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Really? How's that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They think -- it's very clear
to Kendall County that that budget should be done in March.
JUDGE HENNEKE: One of us is real wrong, and I'm
not sure which one it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They say that the Property Tax
123

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
Code spells out the process, and that that is not what
they're doing in Kerr County. I've never -- I don't have a
position --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Those people are obviously
adversely affected by being too close to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To San Antonio.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- to San Antonio.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: One thing we might talk
about in a minute, Judge, is that -- do we have some -- do we
have a date for sort of our next workshop, budget workshop,
that we might -- I mean, irrespective of all the steps we
have to qo through?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's part of what we need to talk
about. Do we need to have a workshop?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or are we lust ready to go
ahead --
JUDGE HENNEKE: The way I understand the process is
-- and I'm sure Tommy will lump in here -- is we have to
approve -- we have to approve a budget, set a public hearing,
and have a public hearing on the budget, public hearing on
any elected officials' salaries that we adjust, adopt the
budget, and then have a public hearing on the tax rate, set
the tax rate, file the budget. Is that --
MR. TOMLINSON: That's pretty much it.
129

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that pretty much it7
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I was thinking of folding in
this 2.5 issue that we discussed this morning, that we
deferred.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Probably ought to do that at
whatever our first -- about the group health insurance. We
probably ought to do that at our first budget -- our next
budget get-together, whether that's a workshop or an official
Court session or whatever.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, I don't know whether we need to
have another workshop, per se. I mean, that's up to us. We
can talk about anything we want to today. We're not limited
to anything.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My -- I guess the first part, I
guess, to go through your memo on the twenty -- this is
August -- it says August 12th. I'm confused on a point.
And, some of the -- if some of this stuff can get cleared up,
I may say if we do, we don't need a workshop. Under Item 3.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where it says, Tommy protects
Fund Balance of such-and-such, and gives us a surplus of
$691,957. And, then, in the item -- in 4.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mm-hmm.
125
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that -- you refer to that, I
guess, as "excess" fund balance.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my -- my question comes
in that we're -- or what you're talking about is spending
$462,000 of our excess fund balance?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Of the $641,000, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we would add to the fund
balance if we only spent what I'm suggesting, an additional
$180,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But is -- my question, which
goes to Tommy, is that a deficit budget or a surplus budget
over what we are doing -- I mean, I thought -- what is our
current fund balance, I guess, is the question.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it would -- I'm projecting it
to be -- well, for the General Fund, is it's $289,000, on the
fourth page. It's hard to compare, because there's 181 -- a
million-eight fund balance that's related to the bond
proceeds or the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To what, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: To the proceeds of the tax note for
the remodel job. So, you'd have to -- you have to take that
out to -- so, if you look at the top line where most of the
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
expenditures are --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- that's where the majority of the
fund balance is. So, that's what we're going to start with,
I think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was our beginning balance
last year? I guess what I'm looking at, if we spend that
much of the surplus, are we essentially doing deficit
spending?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on expenditures?
MR. TOMLINSON: On this budget, yes, we would be,
by about -- I don't know. Well, again, I'd have to take out
the expenditures for the remodel to tell you -- to say that
for sure, but you look at the revenues for the General Fund,
you have about S10 million in revenue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: And if you take out that 52,125,000
of permanent improvements, then you get to nine --
S9 million-eight. So, in round numbers, if you -- if you
spent more than S200,000 of the -- of the surplus figures,
you'd be close to a deficit spending, yeah. But, I don't --
the way I look at it, you don't want to tax for -- for -- to
obtain surplus if you don't need it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
127

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. TOMLINSON: So, the column on the right, I
think, in my opinion, is the minimum we could go to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But, as we talked about, it's the
minimum you're comfortable with.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It meets all the standards of
your --
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- your profession and --
MR. TOMLINSON: So, that's kind of a benchmark, I
would call it, as to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This 2.984?
MR. TOMLIN3ON: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. What I suggest in my memo
would actually take that up to 3.16.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I guess what's I'm trying
to find out is, if we -- although a lot of yours are one-time
items, I guess, or --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah.

	COMMISSIONER LETZ:	I want to	make sure we don't
get in a	position where we're	spending	more -- where our
balance -	- our fund balance is	going in	a downward --
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: No. No, that's not the case, for
sure. We're -- we were lower at the beginning of this year
than -- than we are now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That's --
MR. TOMLINSON: I can't -- I don't remember exactly
what it was. I don't have that with me right here, but I --
I'm sure of that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the additional money that
we, I guess, set aside from the tobacco settlement, that
$400,000, that's in that surplus number?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that included in there?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, essentially, if we're going
to end up with $200,000 surplus above the minimum, we're
using up about half of that money, then?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On this --
JUDGE HENNEKE: And, basically, if you wanted to,
you could say we're using that for that.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll make that equation, because
we are taking about $225,000 to use for courthouse --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But this -- yeah. I guess, you
129
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
know, it's -- if we were going to, at some point, spend this
out at the airport and try to reserve some money, we're
spending that money. You know, maybe it's the right thing to
do. I'm just saying if we're talking about doing golf course
renovation or helping with the sewage line to the airport,
that money is being used for this stuff, then, instead of
keeping it aside for that permanent structure.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right. We're making a
decision to go ahead and tap into that at this time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To use that now, as opposed to
-- okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What do we need to do first?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, Paula's here now. If we want
to, we can let her talk to us about requirements and timing.
So --
MS. RECTOR: Okay. Y'all been talking about the
budget?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Just kind of starting to get into
it.
MS. RECTOR: Okay. Okay, the first step in getting
the tax rate adopted is that, if you're planning on adopting
a rate that's going to raise more revenue than the preceding
year -- which, even if we stay at the current rate, it's
going to generate more revenue; the only rate that won't will
be the effective rate that's published -- you'll need to
130

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
schedule a meeting and take a vote on the proposed rate.
And, I'm assuming that the next Commissioners Court date, I
think, which is September the 13th, that that should probably
be on the agenda at that time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mm-hmm.
M3. RECTOR: And, after you take your record vote,
then I need to know immediately who's voting for, against,
abstaining, who's present, who's not present. Then I publish
the first quarter-page ad in the newspaper, which is the
Notice of Public Hearing on the tax increase. Okay. Then
you have to hold your public hearing, and I need to have at
least 7 days before the public hearing to get that notice
published. And then we're looking at a kind of a tight
timeframe where the Court probably will need to have some
additional meetings in order to get this accomplished because
of the timeframe involved.
After your public hearing on the tax increase, then you
will announce at that hearing the meeting to adopt the tax
rate, which is no less than 3 and no more than 19 days from
that date, and then I go into publishing my second
quarter-page ad. And, then you will meet to adopt the tax
rate. You can adopt the budget and the tax rate on the same
day, but it has to be done in two separate meetings. You'll
have to open your meeting for adoption of the budget, close
your meeting, and then open your meeting for adoption of the
131
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
tax rate, but it can be done on the same day. But, the
budget will need to be placed on file, I'm sure y'all know,
in the County Clerk's office for a certain period of time
before you can can adopt the budget. And then, if there's
any increase in elected officials' salaries, that will also
have to go to a public hearing on elected officials'
salaries, so that all of that needs to be taken into
consideration in planning the dates. But, I have to comply
with the Truth in Taxation calendar, as far as getting my
notices published and the meetings -- the public hearings and
then the meeting to adopt the tax rate.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Step 1 was adopt a proposed
rate?
MS. RECTOR: No. You discuss the proposed rate in
a Commissioners Court meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On September the 13th.
MS. RECTOR: You vote on that proposed rate. It's
not the adoption; it's a vote on ff you're going to consider
adopting that rate. Okay? If you're going to consider
adopting the current rate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MS. RECTOR: Then, whoever is voting for it, I need
to know who's voting for the proposed rate, who's voting
against it. And, you're not adopting the rate; you're just
132
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
voting for or against the proposed rate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, that's fine. And then
Step 2 is hold a public hearing?
MS. RECTOR: Right. At the time that you take your
vote on the proposed rate, you will set your date and time at
that meeting -- at the Commissioners Court meeting, will set
your date and time for your public hearing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-huh.
MS. RECTOR: Okay. I need to have at least seven
days before that public hearing to publish the first
quarter-page ad.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. And, this public
hearing is to hear the public on this rate that we --
MS. RECTOR: On the proposed rate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- agree with or not agree
with?
MS. RECTOR: It's just a discussion of the proposed
rate, but it has to be done in a public hearing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- okay. You used the
word, though, tax increase. Public hearing on tax increase.
MS. RECTOR: That's the -- that's what the notice
is called.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, it may not be an
increase, but that's what we call it anyway.
133
.~

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MS. RECTOR: Right. It -- well, in essence, it is.
Even if we adopt the same rate, it's going to be an increase
in revenue. It's a tax increase. It's not a tax rate
increase, but it is a tax increase.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because evaluations --
MS. RECTOR: Because evaluations are up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that. I
understand that, but I'm not sure who -- if Mr. Jones down on
West Water Street is going to understand that whenever he
reads it in the paper, that we're going to adopt --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Tax increase.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- a tax increase.
MS. RECTOR: Well, in the notice that I publish, it
has -- and I don't know how many people really pay attention
to these notices in the paper.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are one or two out
there that do.
MS. RECTOR: There are some people out there. What
I -- I have to do a comparison of taxes from last year to
this year, even with the same tax rate, because the valuation
is up. What that rate generated this year versus what that
same rate's going to generate on the increased value of this
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't you just do that?
MS. RECTOR: No. What I published was the
next year.
139
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
effective and rollback rate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got you.
MS. RECTOR: But this is what the first
quarter-page ad looks like here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now, do you run it just one
time?
MS. RECTOR: I run it one time, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It has to run one time
seven days before the public hearing?
MS. RECTOR: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MS. RECTOR: And then at that public hearing, then
you set your date and time to adopt your tax rate, and then I
publish no less than 3, no more than 14 days from that date,
this notice to the public.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, on the 13th of
September, you actually -- you could print the first one as
early as the 19th, right? If you had it really together?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MS. RECTOR: Depending on when you set your public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
MS. RECTOR: Yeah, as long as I have seven days to
publish.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if we set a public
135
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
hearing for the 21st and you had it in on the 14th --
MS. RECTOR: Yeah. As soon as the meeting's over
and I get the vote in, I'll just plug it in, and then I can
have that ad ready. The only things that -- that we need to
keep in mind is that the newspaper sometimes has a hard time
getting these notices in on a particular day. They may be
Eull.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can reserve space in
advance, though.
MS. RECTOR: That doesn't always work, I've learned
in the past.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If we did it on the 13th and
we had the space reserved, there's no reason we couldn't go
ahead and publish on the 19th and start that clock running.
MS. RECTOR: I can get the notice to the paper on
the 13th as soon as the meeting's over and I have the
information. I can go ahead and get it prepared and take it
to the newspaper, and then -- I can call them in advance and
tell them that this is coming, and we would like to reserve a
space for a quarter-page ad in their paper. I can do that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And we could have the public
hearings, one on the elected officials' increases, if that's
where we go, and on the tax increase on the 21st.
MS. RECTOR: Mm-hmm. Now, the sooner we get
this --
136

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: And then have a meeting to adopt
the tax rate.
MS. RECTOR: No less than 3, no more than 14 days
from that day.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
MS. RECTOR: Because then my -- my clock starts
ticking, as far as what I need to do on my end to get the tax
statements prepared, and it usually takes me -- if I don't
have a problem, it usually takes me about three to four weeks
from start to finish.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mm-hmm.
MS. RECTOR: 'Cause it's -- we have to load all
that into the computer. It takes several days for all of
that information to be loaded and have my statement tapes
printed and then send those off to the printer.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we conceivably could then adopt
the tax rate at our regular scheduled meeting on the 26th if
all that fell into place?
MS. RECTOR: Right. Just have your public hearing
in between there, in between the 13th --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Have the public hearing on the 21st
or 22nd.
MR. T0MLIN30N: You could have the public hearing
on the budget.
MS. RECTOR: Yeah, you've got to have your public
137

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
hearing on the budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 27th. It will be the 27th.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What's that, our next regular
meeting?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. You're meeting on
the 13th. Fourteen days later is the 27th. First meeting's
the 13th.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right, 27th. Right, okay.
MS. RECTOR: To adopt on the 27th?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
MS. RECTOR: Is that what you're saying?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We adopt the budget first.
MS. RECTOR: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Then we adopt the tax rate at that
meeting. We have to have the budget on file for 15 days at
the County Clerk's office before we can adopt ft, which backs
us up to the 12th, which means we'd have to have a meeting
sometime between now and the 12th in order to approve the
budget.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right, the proposed budget.
JUDGE HENNEKE: File it at the Clerk's Office for
at least 15 days before we can actually adopt it. Okay. How
does that sound for everyone so far?
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: Sounds pretty good to me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Those dates are okay. I'm
138

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not sure about this meeting that you're just now talking
about so we can get the budget to the Clerk. I've got a few
days out of town that week.
JUDGE HENNEKE: To vote on the rate, 9/13;
publishing hearings, 9/21, and vote on adopting the rate --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Budget.
MS. RECTOR: Need to adopt the budget first before
you --
	JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm	doing this	one first. Then we
back up	-- from 9/26,	we have	to go back	15 days, which would
be 9/11,	so sometime	before 9/	11 we have	to meet to adopt the
budget --	approve the	budget,	so that it	can be with the
County Clerk's Office	15 days.	Okay. So, that's the
timetable we need to work on now, is approving the budget
before 9/11 -- on or before 9/11. So, the issue I bring is,
do we need to meet in a workshop or another forum next week,
and then have another meeting to adopt the budget? Or, what
would be everybody's --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I think we can -- I
think we can go straight to a meeting to adopt the budget. I
think we know where the issues are. If we can get the -- you
know, get all of these last things worked into a budget that
we can all look at.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We have the rest of this afternoon,
till 3 o'clock, to hash out any budget issues we want to.
139
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
I'm -- I'm open to suggestions at this time, whether we feel
like we need another workshop meeting in order to go over
more fully budget issues, and then -- doesn't have to be a
workshop; we could just schedule another meeting, the intent
being to hash out issues and adopt the budget. But, I think
Tommy has to have the ability to print whatever we hash out,
don't you, before we adopt it? Or --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I just need probably a day
and a half to -- to load all the numbers and print out a
budget that we can file.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: And, so, probably two -- you know,
two full days to allow us to -- to load the budget and print
before we can actually --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about next Monday?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'll be here. What is that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 30th.
JUDGE HENNEKE: 30th.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Could the process be that --
that you, Fred, would take what we had before, your budget
numbers, and redo those sheets? Is that how we would
physically work that?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm open to -- are you talking
.~.^
department by department, or --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
140

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- simply overall? I don't know if
Tommy's got all those loaded in or not.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm just trying to think it
out.
MR. TOMLINSON: I have the budget loaded as was
recommended at the last budget workshop. I don't -- I don't
have anything in it that's --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Off of the wish list?
MR. TOMLINSON: -- that's on the wish list.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Basically -- basically, if you look
at my memo dated August 12th, Tommy's loaded everything into
the budget except what starts with --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Item 4?
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- Number 9, and the additional
$20,000 give-back money to the Sheriff, which was
inadvertently left out. So, he's got everything else in II
there. All of what I called, in my July 23rd memo, required
stuff is loaded into the budget.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my only question is --
and I'm -- I don't know, really, how I do -- maybe,
hopefully, the Judge has a better list than I kept on the
wish list. You know, as to what was not included on your
wish list. I mean, what items --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Every request for funding is in
191
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
this memo, the July 23rd. Do you have a copy of that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've got one in my office.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Everything that was -- all the
money was that requested by anyt~ody for anything, to the best
of my ability, is on this piece of paper.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A1.1 right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And, everything under what is
called Required Increases is already loaded in the budget, so
we have -- then we have other costs -- then we have
Additional Costs and Not Prioritized.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And, what I attempted to do in the
-- my memo of August 12th was to go back and fund the things
under Additional Costs that I prioritized. In other words,
my priorities.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, everything in the far right
column, for the most part, has not been addressed. I did
go back and add the Region J administrative money, because
that -- you and I talked about that after I did this. So,
that's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, there --
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- that's on here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This was that $5,000 that we
put in the budget. This -- this is not in addition to that.
142
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 NENNEKE: No, no, no. It's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's redundant.
JUDGE NENNEKE: The number that's in here, the
August 12th memo, is the real number that you gave the me,
the 39 --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $3,910.
JUDGE NENNEKE: Whatever it is. We would have to
address the hard core -- the fix for the Y2K problem at the
Sheriff's Department, and this -- the suggestion was raised
during our break that -- and I have a call to the Sheriff,
that if she's comfortable enough with having enough surplus
in her jailers' salaries, you might go ahead and fund that
this year, with the understanding that we'd have to spend the
money. We can't 3ust earmark it; we've got to actually spend
it. But, that's -- that's an issue that we can look at.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If we -- I'm trying to think
of the fastest way to get us something that we can judge on,
as far as the budget is concerned. If -- if you took this
memo and -- and we can certainly scrub on this now, as Fred
says, if we want to. But if we took this memo, accounted for
the Sheriff's computer impact and anything else we might need
to hash out, and Tommy could get that loaded, then -- on top
of what he's already done, then you should have a budget,
right? That we can --
JUDGE NENNEKE: Yeah. If we can -- if we can come
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
to any agreement on -- on numbers or dollars that are at
issue today, then Tommy can go turn it around; he could have
new budgets in time, probably, for a discussion a week from
today. And --
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. The only -- the only slow
part of this is going to be the salaries.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: 'Cause we'll have to calculate the
benefits based on the salaries, so we'll have to get the
salary of the new rate structure from your office.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: And then we'll go in and calculate
the social, FICA, and retirement, and apply that to all the
salaries, county-wide. So, that -- that takes some time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you think it's reasonable,
though, that if -- if we -- when we finish today, we have a
pretty good idea where we want the numbers to be, that you
could have something to us by a week from today?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think so. If we -- if we can get
those salary numbers -- Thea's not here today, is she?
JUDGE HENNEKE: She's not here this week or next
week. But, these -- the instructions were, for people who
gave merit increases, they were supposed to include the FICA
and the benefits in their recalculations, so they should be
in here.
194

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm talking about the COLA.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The COLA, that's an
across-the-board?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was the percentage on the
COLA?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Two and a half.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two and a half percentage?
MR. TOMLINSON: That is -- that is something I'd
like to have clarified on the -- on the COLA and the merit.
If we want -- if we want to do the COLA first, and then --
and then put the merit on top of the -- of the new rate
structure, is that the way we work it7
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's the appropriate way
to do it, to give everyone the across-the-board, and then,
for the people who are being awarded merit, then they get the
merit.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that everyone's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I'm okay with that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You don't want to give a
COLA on the raise they lust got.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know how anybody
195
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
else feels about the merit -- I mean, about the COLA, itself,
but I'd like to have a little discussion on the 2.5 versus 3
percent.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's hold --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Given what -- you don't
want to talk about that?
~~
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, let's hold off for just a few
minutes. Let's do process before we do numbers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, the process.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What I'm get getting the sense of
-- and I don't want anybody to walk away scratching their
head -- is we're going to come back again a week from today.
Do you want to come back a week from today in a workshop
setting, with the understanding that sometime later next
week, we would have a special meeting to actually adopt --
approve the budget? I keep getting "approve" and "adopt"
mixed up. Approve the budget. Or, do we want to set a week
from today for the -- for when we're actually going to
approve the budget, which will then be printed and filed with
the Clerk and will be the basis for all that follows after,
the tax rate, the -- all those things.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Can we -- could we just
schedule a meeting for a week from today, review the budget
numbers we have at that point, and make changes if required?
I mean, this -- in a regular session, just like we are now,
196
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
make changes as required, 'cause I think those will be small,
nothing big, and then adopt that budget?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have the ability to adopt
the budget?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Have the ability to adopt
the budget at the same time. We can start at 9 o'clock or
some good hour where we can spend the day, if necessary.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 9:30.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We post for that just like it's
posted today. If we want to do that today, we can do that
today. I just want to get a sense of the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- whether we ought to have another
meeting to really massage the numbers and think about it and
come back, or whether we're ready, a week from today, to
approve the budget, which is to set it in -- pretty much in
stone, because it's going to be printed, filed with the
County Clerk for anybody to get, and becomes the basis for
the tax.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If we do that a week from
today, based on the fact that we rework -- figure some
numbers, get them to Tommy so he can give us some --
JUDGE HENNEKE: We have to do that today?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
147

1
2 today.
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: We pretty much have to do that
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. All right. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before we get -- now, on Monday
-- next Monday, though, we can still make some adjustments.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, but they're adjustments;
they're not major decisions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We can't put off till then COLA
or --
MR. TOMLINSON: Keep in mind, too, that you can --
you can still change it till the very last minute.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
MR. TOMLIN3ON: Even though -- even the day that
you come in here to adopt the budget, you could change it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: Even after it's been published.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
MR. TOMLINSON: So, you're not absolutely locked in
to -- to what you're going to approve on -- on the next
meeting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And I think we can do that
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
-- if we do our job today, we can do that in one meeting next
week and be ready to print a budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I agree.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Are y'all comfortable with
that? All right, then. At that -- I just want to be sure
that I'm clear. We're going to meet a week from today at --
9 o'clock? What's the consensus?
COMMISSIONER SALDWIN: 9 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 9 o'clock.
JUDGE HENNEKE: With the goal of approving the
budget on that date. We'll then meet on September 13th to
vote on the tax rate, and Paula will take the results of that
vote, publish it as soon as possible, and at that meeting
we'll vote on the tax rate, we'll set a public hearing on the
tax rate and on elected officials' increases for September
21st. September 21st we'll have a public hearing on elected
officials and -- on the elected officials and the tax
increase. Then, on September 26th, at our regularly
scheduled meeting, we will vote to adopt a budget -- 27th.
On the 27th we will vote to adopt the budget, and we will
vote to adopt the tax rate. Are we okay, Paula, as far as
you're concerned?

MS. RECTOR: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Mm-hmm.
149
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
MS. RECTOR: I only have one -- one thing to say.
The proposed rate, once it's voted on and I publish this
first quarter-page ad, we're pretty much locked into that
rate, so if y'all decide that that's not what you're going to
go with, we have to start all over again. Just -- lust a
little warning. That happened to me with another taxing
jurisdiction. They came down to the very end where they went
to adopt their tax rate and decided that they didn't need
that rate, that they would lower it. So, we had to start the
process all over again.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would make a suggestion;
that on the meeting on the 13th, that we put this proposed
rate vote number one on the agenda so that she -- so that
Paula can make the deadline to the papers.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It will be the first crack out of
the box, absolutely.
MS. RECTOR: Good. Good.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Works for me.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Do we put that in the
form of a motion? Schedule?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Or do we need to?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So long as it's in the
minutes, do we have to?
150
1
2
3
4 Judge.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't think we do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can set the set schedule,
JUDGE HENNEKE: We set the schedule. All right.
Tommy, why don't you discuss the insurance with us. Do you
want to do that right now before we start playing with the
numbers? Or do you want to --
MR. TOMLINSON: Do what?
JUDGE HENNEKE: You had wanted to talk about the --
the insurance.
MR. TOMLINSON: Oh. I -- as we discussed this
morning, I -- I recommended that we have -- that part of this
meeting, maybe Monday or sometime, was a visit with our
third-party administrator about health insurance costs, but
we don't know what -- you know, right now, what -- what
that's going to be. And, we don't have any -- it's not an
absolute necessity, but I thought that, to educate the Court
about health insurance, that in -- you know, it might be good
to just hear from our administrator to know where the dollars
are going.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Are they anticipating an increase?
MR. TOMLINSON: I -- I think that there may be --
they think that there is, maybe from 5 to 8 percent.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Which affects the budget.
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Which affects the budget.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we want to bring them in Monday
at 9:00, and then have our budget then immediately after
that?
COMMISSIONER LET2: Yes, I think so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy, can you see if they can be
here Monday at 9:007
MR. TOMLINSON: Sure.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tell them about a half an hour,
max.
MR. TOMLINSON: They agreed to do it and they want
to do it, because they want to -- to tell the Court, you
know, where our money's being spent as far as different
aspects of the plan.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think that's a valuable --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Would we expect enough
change there to affect the proposed tax rate that we're going
to talk about next Monday?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We're not going to talk about the
tax rate next Monday.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, that's not till the
13th, I'm sorry. Well, it just affects the budget.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. Well, yeah, it would -- it
152

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
would only affect the budget.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Which we'll do as quickly
thereafter as we can.
MR. TOMLINSON: It might have some effect on what
you might decide to do with the rest of the wish list.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, let's ask them to come at
9:00 on Monday, if they could. We'd like them here first so
we can listen and then follow up on what we hear into the
rest of our discussion. Okay? All right. Now we're down to
numbers.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Now that the easy part's
done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just have a comment, and we
really didn't talk about it at any period of time, but we
did with regard to that one bill from Carl Williams this
morning. We have not adjusted the travel allowance for any
elected official in a long time, and I think that's something
that -- that is -- a travel allowance, I think, you know, a
number of elected officials get that. Those costs have gone
up, and we're really -- if we're trying to make that really al
travel allowance and expect these elected officials or
department heads to use that money and budget internally for
their car expenses and things, I think at some point we
probably need to look at those travel allowances to make sure
that they are adequate. I just -- just a comment that I
153
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
thought of after a discussion this morning regarding the
blown or flat tine that Constable Williams had.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with that.
I think we've talked kind of around the issue also about
constable cars. I'm not going to propose constable cars, but
what I am going to suggest is somehow or another, we figure
out how to adopt a policy that would enable constables who
desire to acquire a car that may come out of the Sheriff's
fleet to do so at a very low price. Nothing mandatory about
them doing it, but making it available at a decent price once
it comes out of the Sheriff's fleet, if there's anything left
there in the car. If they want to do it, they can figure out
how to do it out of their pocket. Not out of the budget, out
of their pocket.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, but they could use the
money --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, they could take their
travel allowance, if they wish to do so, and and buy a car
for 500 bucks or 350 bucks or whatever, but I just think
there needs to be some kind of policy that's not mandatory
that they do that, but making it available if they desire to
d0 50.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I certainly don't disagree with
what you're saying, Jonathan. We're going to undertake the
position reclassification fn this coming fiscal year. I
154
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
think while we're at it, we ought to do the same -- take the
same broad look at elected officials' compensation, so that
this time next year, a year from now, we're folding it all in
together. I think that would be a good -- a good timeframe
within which to look at that. Now, at least one of the
constables took the give-back money and put it in his travel
allowance. So, they all had the opportunity to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And one of them did.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. Just -- I don't have a
problem with doing it that way. It's nothing urgent, but I
think it's -- when we're doing compensation, we really --
that's part of compensation for those that do use their
personal vehicles.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It is. Anything else? Bill, do
you want to talk about COLA's?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to mention the
COLA factor. I see you've got 2 1/2 percent plugged into it,
and that breaks down to about $22,800 for each half
percentage point. I noticed recently in the paper -- this
was reported on June 30th -- where the cost-of-living
Consumer Price Index for the previous 12 months, ending in
May, for all items is 3.7 percent. When you give an employee
a cost-of-living adjustment that's anything less than the
published index, you, in effect, are perpetuating a decrease
155
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
in their purchasing power. You really are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's true, I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I just -- you know, I
think that 3 percent is not -- is something that we really
ought to consider, as opposed to 2.5. Three gets us closer
to the C.P.I.; 2.5 leaves you 1.2 off the published Consumer
Price Index, and that's an erosion of their salary and their
purchasing power. And, that's the point I wish to make.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You think about another $22,000?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Another $22,800 would get
you 3, and it's not as bad an erosion as 1.2 is. It's half a
point out -- or 7/10 of a point off.
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: It's still an erosion,
though.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is an erosion. If you
want to make it 3.7, I'll certainly back that thought, too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, my priority is -- my
number one priority is the employees and their salary and
their take-home money and all that, and so I -- i had seen
those numbers before, but I am certainly willing to rework
those numbers. I'm going to tell you, I'm for the COLA going
up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's another
point to consider. And, following up on what Buster is
saying, you know, when we adjust these things fn terms of
156
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
cost of living, we would be naive to believe that the County
employees don't look at other taxing authorities in terms of
what they do for their employees. I realize that we're not
letting -- we shouldn't be guided by or allow someone else to
set our policy in terms of salary. But, again, as I say,
they all look and they wonder why, if KCAD can do 5 and
somebody else can do 9 or somebody else can do whatever,
would it not be reasonable for this Court to consider the
same approach. So, just add that onto my other argument.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In that area, I tend to agree,
and I would be -- you know, we're lucky this year in that we
do have funds. You know, we're probably luckier than we've
ever been since I've been on the Court. The problem is, if
we do COLA's, it impacts from now on. But, I gree with what
Bill -- Bill and Buster are saying. You know, if we can get
the 3.5, that would be good. That's still not gaining
anything. And I think, also, it would -- probably, that is
part of the reason we have -- a lot of the merit or give-back
money or whatever you call it went to merit increases,
because they're trying to catch -- some elected officials are
probably trying to catch some of their people up, trying not
to lose them. I think our employees, overall, have been
probably underpaid, and are underpaid.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That would be an initial $95,600,
mas or menos, to take it from 2 1/2 to 3 1/2.
157

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. And that's a good
point, Jonathan, about retention, helping department heads
and elected officials retain their employees.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Add how much?
JUDGE HENNEKE: $95,600.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $45,600.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Based on what Bill said. That's
not a precise calculation, because the $119,000 in there is
not absolute. It's actually $113,790 or something.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But it's in the neighborhood
of 45?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, just looking back, that's
not to say we can't find some of that money somewhere else in
this. I mean --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Everything's open.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- a question I had is
on the Purchasing Department, $50,000 allocated.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we really know, is that just
a wild guess number, or do we have a pretty good idea what
it's going to cost?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's what I would consider an
educated wild guess as to start-up costs. The idea being, asl
we've discussed, is to try to find that person and hire him
158

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
sometime in the April/May timeframe so they can be on board,
they can go through the budget process with us, we can get
their department set up and be ready to operate on October 1,
2000, instead of hiring somebody on October 1, 2000, and
having that three- or four-month lag time. 550,000, in my
mind, is probably adequate to hire somebody for that part of
the year, plus get them a secretary for half a year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you had any thoughts on
how we're going to go about doing this?
JUDGE HENNEKE: My good friend, Mr. Williams, has
some thoughts on that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I -- at the recent
Post-Legislative Conference, I visited with the purchasing
agents in their session. You stuck your head in. And then,
after that session, while I didn't get a lot of light shed on
anything except the law changes in that particular session, I
asked -- I asked a couple speakers to provide me with all the
information they could, essentially, which is being put into
a manual that they're preparing on how to do -- how to set up
a purchasing department. So, I -- I anticipate that's
forthcoming. More importantly than that, I took the
opportunity to qo to lunch with two or three of those
purchasing agents that same day, and a couple good things
came out of it. You know, I got a little feel for where the
dollar bills might be, and I think if we appropriate the
159
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
$50,000 the Judge has plugged in here for half of a budget
year, that would be sufficient to get us started.
But, I thought one suggestion that came across the
luncheon table was good, in that one of the purchasing agents
said, Look for two things in terms of your search for people.
Certainly, there would be some number two or number three
people in larger departments that might interest you. But,
he said, as you're getting started, you might want to look
around and find -- he said, In your part of the country you
might find this person -- a retired military person who was
in procurement. And, that person, with the kind of
experience that they would have had procuring for the
military, would be an Ideal person to come in and help you
set up, with all the rules and regs and so forth and so on.
I thought that was a suggestion worthy of sharing with you.
And, as soon as I get the packet of information from the -- I
think it's Rita Holmes out of Ector County, I'll share that
with you, as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess one of the things I was
thinking of, it seems to me that we're -- I haven't heard
from anybody, other than on this Court, that's really gung ho
about this. I mean, I think we're pretty gung ho, but at
some point we really need to go out to, certainly, Tommy and
the Auditor's group, Road and Bridge, and some of the other
departments to -- to make sure we're not creating something
160
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
that they don't want. You know, that's going to be overly
cumbersome. It's -- I think it's important, whenever you do
something like this, that you make the people that are going
to be affected part of the solution so that they agree with
it, and I just think we need to develop a procedure --
probably now is not the time to go into that, but, I mean
start looking towards getting input and -- on how this whole
thing is going to work, especially for helping it to be a
success. Just a general comment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We certainly need to be
players, because a Purchasing Department would be purchasing
for law enforcement as well as R, and B and everything else.
So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Inform everyone about it, just
how it's all going to work. I believe the person has to work
real closely with Tommy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy and I have had some
discussions about it going on. And, I'm not speaking for you
or trying to put words in your mouth, but I think Tommy's
having his -- he's not interested in expanding his
department's role in that facet. Am I correct?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. You're right.
MS. RECTOR: When you're talking of purchasing, are
you talking about purchasing key items? Or purchasing
anything that any of the offices may be needing, office
161

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
supplies?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Purchasing Department
purchases everything.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Kind of a requisition system.
MS. RECTOR: I may not have a problem with key
items, but just your day-to-day supplies might be a little
cumbersome, like you say, having to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They'll stockppile that
kind of stuff.
MS. RECTOR: I don't believe in stockpiling.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's a question of purchasing
power, you know. We think we can get a better price on paper
clips if we buy them in bulk rather than if we buy them, each
department, individually.
MS. RECTOR: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's the Purchasing Department's
responsibility to have them available for you when you need
them, so the only change might be a simplified version of
things. Instead of picking up the phone and calling Shamrock
or Office Depot and saying, "I need a box of paper clips,"
you pick up the phone and call the Purchasing Agent and say,
"I need a box of paper clips."
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Your account gets -- you
know --
MS. RECTOR: Just like we do on the paper products.
162

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
COMMI3SIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is --
MS. RECTOR: They're purchased in quantity.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When I say "stockpiling,"
I mean a Purchasing Department usually maintains a lot of
those items that you're going to use frequently.
MS. RECTOR: Right, like going to the store and
buying it in the store. It will be our own personal store.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The purchasing -- the part of
the lecture I listened to, their big push was using Office
Depot, which we're using without a Purchasing Department, I
mean, so -- I mean, there's an area there that -- they're
pretty much saying --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, if you'll look
carefully at that little thing that comes out every so often,
you'll also find that there are office supplies charged to
Walmart --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, we buy them elsewhere.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- Shamrock, you know,
Eckerd Drug.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Half a dozen different ones
listed.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, the centralized
procurement of that kind of stuff just means that you have a
place where you warehouse common-use items, and you just go
163
9
c
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
in, get it when you need it, and you -- your account is
charged for it. That's exactly what all of Austin -- if you
can believe it, all of Austin, all of the State agencies, all
of the offices in Austin are served out of one office supply
centralized thing, and in a room that's probably as big as
from that wall to the other side of the courthouse here, and
they keep stuff stockpiled.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You may have missed part of
the discussion when you left, and I don't think -- if they --
I don`t know if they got to the discussion while you were
there or if they came back to it, but part of that discussion
had to do with whether or not it was legal for -- for them to
piggyback that Office Depot bid off of Dallas -- Dallas' bid
structure. They were piggybacking on top of Dallas, and
there was a question as to whether or not that was kosher.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Anyway, I just think in
this whole area, we need probably a workshop or something to
go over and explain to everyone what we're talking about,
just so we get everyone going in the same direction.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What I think the elected officials
will find is it will free up some staff time.
MS. RECTOR: `Cause we shop around. We --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
MS. RECTOR: -- use all the sale catalogs and order
from the one that has the best price.
169
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: But you won't have to do that with
a Purchasing Department because that's the Purchasing
Department's responsibility, so you won't have to have
someone who keeps all those catalogs, and, "I saw something
about widgets in this one."
MS. RECTOR: Right. Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's another factor,
too. We talked about this one day in my early days on this
Court. I thought that maybe there was a way around the Judge
having to sit -- sit here and open all those bids. There is
another way; the Purchasing Department can do that. Bids can
be -- they're going to write the specs, they're going to put
them out for bid, they're going to have the bids come back,
they're going to open them, certify to the Court what the
results of that is. That's another factor to look at.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think the $50,000 in the
budget for an educated wild guess is good. I think that's
right where it ought to be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going down, on G, was the -- I
think this was something I probably, I think, brought up
during the budget process. Additional lease of two cars per
fiscal year to try to jump-start --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. That goes from the four that
were in her --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
165

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: -- her request to six, which would
be a third of the basic fleet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Knowing that this probably is a
one-time deal, because of the way the leases work, you know,
once we -- it's not six every year. This is one-time, going
to six the first year; then probably four in the future
years.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, if we -- that was the policy.
If we're going to do three years on the road and then out,
yeah, we'll do six every year, because that's basically 18
patrol vehicles.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we do six every year, you
end up with -- after three years, you're paying for three
cars or -- you know, 'cause it's a 3-year term, so your third
time, you wind up paying for 18 cars.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Third year you're paying
for --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For 18
payments from then on.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
You're paying for 18
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's what you want to do,
is level out the cost instead of having big peaks.
COMMI3SIONER WILLIAMS: And three come out
166
e
F
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
serviced.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If you start with basic policy, we
need to roll our cars over three years. Either we'll be
paying 18 lease payments or we're going to be paying six full
payments.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My problem -- the concept was,
since we're going to start this new policy, the first two
years of it we're not going to be up to the full speed that
we're going to be paying from the third year forward. So, we
can pick a few more up in the early phases of it --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- to balance it out. Start
from year one, as opposed to going up and then leveling off
at year three. That's -- you know, but anyway -- but, I
mean, I don't have a problem with staying with the six for
this year. We can also relook at next year if we need to.
We need six this year.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, we need six this year,
no matter what.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On L, I don't know if that's a
-- it's not an educated wild guess number any more, I don't
think. I don't know what kind of number that is.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's a number that we were
presented for these chutes.
167

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: I know. By me, I believe.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They don't want to sell the
chutes, which is a problem right now. They want to sell the
tables and chairs only.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The tables and chairs were in
Glenn's budget --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- already, so these are already
factored into Tommy's numbers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The -- Bill and I tried
to persuade them that they need to sell us the chutes, but
I'm not sure we sold them on that. I guess we can leave that
amount in there for the time being, but I'm not sure how good
that number is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Coupled to that. also. tha
number for Ag Barn chutes, we -- you're right, we don't know
if that's valid or invalid. We also talked about acquiring
the tables and chairs.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's already in -- that's already
in Glenn's budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's in Glenn's budget?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's already accounted for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Capital budget. I think that was
168
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the number one item for $5,000.
MR. TOMLINSON: I kind of believe that the paving
was in his budget, too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The what?
MR. TOMLINSON: Paving.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Paving? No, it wasn't.
MR. TOMLINSON: No7
JUDGE HENNEKE: That was in the Extension part.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: I thought I remembered seeing it
somewhere.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Extension had it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Extension Service.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's not in -- it was on their wish
list.
MR. TOMLINSON: I see, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go to Elected Officials'
Salaries.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before we do that, can I
ask one question about -- going back to your memo of earlier
-- whatever it was, we had talked at great length about
increasing the contributions to the volunteer fire
departments. I see it didn't make the list.
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, it's over here. It's on the
non -- it's on the far right.
169
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: Well, it says, "Not
Prioritized." I look at your new list here and it's not on
the new list.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right, because the new list
-- the memo you have here, the one I dated, was the
Prioritized list. It's not for the Not Prioritized list.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which means it's up for
grabs.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why I brought it up.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, right. We'll get there,
we'll just go the long way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. The additional funding
for the volunteer fire department fs not included in the
$462,000. Again, if that's something we want to contemplate,
then we can stand up and do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, that's important.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is to me, too.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Hefore we do that, though,
since we're -- in trying to keep the running, sort of, total
on what we're doing to things here, we still haven't
addressed the COLA.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we did. We said we were
going to add $95,600 to it.
170

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. So, that number goes
up by $95,600, so now we're a little bit over half a million
on this number. Okay, that's where we are now. Now we're
talking about another addition for --
JUDGE HENNEKE: An additional seven.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Volunteer fire departments,
okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was the $7,000 item.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mm-hmm. Is there a consensus that
we want to do that?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Question. Tommy, we talked
a little bit about the insurance consultant. Is that this
Item J --
MR. TOMLINSON: That's the $5,000, yes. Item J,
yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We may not need that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We may not need it, but I think we
have to leave it in in case we do need it. We've got to have
that expertise.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If we, you know, didn't have
it, I would be more prone to lust say throw in the seven
grand for the volunteer fire departments. But, I mean, as
long as we -- if we've got the money, I'm not against $7,000 i
for the fire departments, either.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If the Ag people aren't willing to
171

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
sell us the chutes, we can take that ten out.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's one of those
things I think we need to try to acquire. But, we could --
they'd probably agree, if we could even convince them to do
it, to do it next year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we could knock it out this
year and add it in fox next year, and come up with plus three
out of this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's true.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Want to do that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don`t have it budgeted, but
we also --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: See, you're going to take
the tables and chairs off their hands now. That's not
debated. That's part of the equation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We also don't have horse stalls
on here, which I think the agreement is we need to try to get
some, but certainly not all.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What if Item L became
volunteer fire departments at $7,000?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it can become volunteer
fire departments at $7,000 and horse stalls for 53,000, and
we end up at the same place. I don't know how many horse
172
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
stalls we can get for three, but I don't think we need all
100 of them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, I think everyone agrees we
don't need a hundred, except the people that want to sell
them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The question would be, do
they want to sell part of them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They said they would.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they haven't made a
decision on the chutes -- I mean, on the pens, remember?
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: We could go volunteer fire for
seven and put five in there for stalls, and maybe they'd sell
us 25 percent of them, 25 for $5,000. That raises the ante
by two.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Ag Barn stalls, $5,000.
Volunteer fire departments, 57,000.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Take out Ag Sarn --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Chutes. Then we'll try to
negotiate that for next year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Before we leave that list,
what is -- refresh my memory on what Lions Park is. Is it
the Center Point --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Center Point park, and it's
named Lions Park. It is our park, and it's in desperate need
173

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
of some improvements. I'd ask for that to be considered.
JUDGE HENNEKE: There's a lot of sentiment that
we're spending 5180,000 on Flat Rock Lake. We've got to do
something to the only other county park we have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, on that, is part of that
-- any of that going to be, like, road barriers or
fencing-type stuff?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it could be,
Jonathan. I wanted to -- if we approve this, I want to have
a little public meeting over there, an open meeting, and let
folks give me some input as to how they'd like to see us
improve that, to the tune of S2,500; what's important to
them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason I ask is, we're
getting ready to go out for -- Road and Bridge is going to
acquire all the materials we need for Flat Rock and then go
out for contractor -- bid for contractors. We're going to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Include it in that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we knew what we needed.
It's going to be the same type items, cable, you know,
guardrail-type deal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Personally, I'd like to see
that, because that's part the of the problem over there, is
cars lust come ripping in there from outside, off the road,
and -- you know, and if we're going to put some tables in for
179
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
camping, barbecue pits or whatever, if we don't have those
kind of barriers like we're talking about at Flat Rock, we're
going to lose them quick. So, yeah, I think so.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: ¢uestion on the radio
system, Item C.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mm-hmm?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The 150, can that pretty
well solve our problem, the short-term --
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, that would be the first
installment on the 3-year --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, the 3-year deal.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The way I had it explained, we
originally had 5200,000 when we talked about it originally.
But, given the way the process is going, I think 150 would be
plenty adequate for --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Hut, this gets our problem
-- our immediate problem sort of --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think what this --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- in hand for the first
year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What I think this does is it gets
us a new system, designed and installed. But, we have to
understand, we've got another couple years, probably, at the
same lick in order to pay for it, you know. We've got good
indications of support from -- of the cooperation from the
175
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
City, which I think would lower our unit cost, and I feel
very confident we could get some local grant money to defray
part of that, but you can't count on that.
COMMI3SIONER LET2: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that cooperation that
you're talking about, Judge -- is that in the form of their
participating in the capital purchase or leasing space on the
system from us?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's assisting in the
capital purchase. In other words, we can get a better deal
if we buy 180 units, as opposed to 70 units or 90 units.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that cut our number
down?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it will.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: While we're backing up, can
we back up a little bit further to Number 2? "Tommy believes
there is sufficient surplus in the Road and Bridge Special
Projects Fund to fund $50,000 of road signs." That's 911
road signs?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's what we're talking about,
yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And, how far will
$50,000 go in that project?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it would go a fourth of the
176
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
way. Isn't that what they told us?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, it will go about 25 percent
of the way, but it depends on how we cut the project.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: On our joint meeting on
September the 1st that we're going to have with the 911
Board, I would hope that we can discuss same of this, and
perhaps figure out alternatives, maybe, to changing all the
road signs. It's something that Jonathan and I have talked
about, and I don't know technically, in my recollection,
exactly what it is, but that's one of the reasons we're going
to ask, is that there may be some way that we can -- that we
can get around this requirement for changing every sign.
Now, it -- I'm not holding out a lot of hope; I think this is
the way -- we leave it this way for now, but I'm hoping that
we can come up with something that -- that is a little better
than the current plan. I don't know that we'll get any
satisfaction on that September 1st meeting, but maybe we
will.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I had two questions in this
particular item. One was exactly that, and I'm not so
totally convinced that we need to be funding that, anyway.
But --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's another item for
diSCU55iOn.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, absolutely. I think we
177

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
should have that discussion again. I really and truly do.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Good, maybe somebody can
help me on that. I understand that at one time in a court
session here, like, a year or two ago, that there was -- on
the record, there was something said about 911 doing the
positive assignments. Do either of you remember that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember that discussion
happening more than one time, but I don't remember what
finally came out of it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would sure hope that we
can maybe do some research and find out what was said.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I know that they
purchased the sign machine and that kind of thing, and that
may be all there was to that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They purchased the sign machine
and bought the initial amount of tape and metal pieces.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we should leave this
the way it is for now, but I'm hoping we can make it better.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you look at just one more
point, that how long and how much has 911 been taxing the
community? A long time, a lot of money. A hell of a lot
more money than we have. Okay, that's all I'm going to say !,
about that. But, this -- this Special Projects Fund is -- to
me, see, my problem with this is that Road and Bridge is --
until just recently, is the only department in county
178
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
government that has any kind of plan, long-term plan down the
road. And, just off the top of my head, I can think of two
large protects that they have planned; one -- two of them
next year. One is Sheppazd Rees Road, and one's somewhere
out -- out west, they've got a big protect to do. And, I'm
wondering, tapping into this much money out of that fund, how
does it affect their long-term plan? Have we even talked to
them about it? I have. They're not real happy.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I lust think -- I Lust
think, not only as a courtesy, but we need to rethink that
just a little bit, of just automatically going in and pulling
it out of the only department that has actually planned for
the future. I mean, that Lust doesn't make sense to me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To muddy up the water a
little bit more, while we're on that subject --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
~--
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- I'm looking at the
memorandum from the early -- first memorandum or whatever in
July, and LL under Road and Bridge, $139,000 for signs. Now,
how does that $50,000 square with $134,000, or vica-versa?
JUDGE HENNEKE: The 139 was half of what they said
it was going to take, the cost to do it, if we did it in two
equal years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's the end of the
179
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
budget --
JUDGE HENNEKE: But I got to the 50 because, given
the state of the discussions about the 911 project renaming,
I don't think we're going to be anywhere near to starting
redoing road signs for a long time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, then, my question is,
is the $139,025 in the budget enough?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because it's under the
Required Increases column.
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, it's not. That's why I
highlighted it on this memo, that that's what it was.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. You took out the
139?

JUDGE HENNEKE: Took out the 139, reduced it to 50.
Tommy said he thought there was sufficient excess in Special
Projects; they could be funded out of that. Now, if there's
not, we need to move it or we need to decide whether we even
want to budget for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would probably budget it.
Now, where it comes from, I share Buster's view to a point,
because I think that that Special Projects -- I don't know if
there's any legal requirement where that money gets spent,
but if, you know, it's -- I think the intent of it is that it
should go on road projects, and I -- it's kind of stretching
180

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
it for signage. But, there may be funds somewhere else, or
where we could -- you know, it needs to be done. It needs to
be in there where it comes from.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I just happen to know
-- you know, like the Sheppard Rees project, we've been
working on it for about a year and a half now, and, I mean,
we're down to -- we're communicating with M.H.M.R. in Austin
about them giving us some property; we're that far into this
thing, with engineers that have been on the project, and -- I
mean, we've done -- we've actually -- we already have expense
involved in it.
r
JUDGE HENNEKE: You came up with that suggestion.
Do you need funds for Sheppard Rees and all those other ones?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, those projects are already in
the budget; I mean, two -- like, 5270,000 for next year.
But, what I was looking at was the fact that we -- that four
years ago -- five years ago, the Court decided to accumulate
a substantial amount, I'll put it that way, for this High
Water Bridge project, thinking that -- that there would be a
-- would be maybe a half a million dollars expenditure in
relation to that project. From what we're hearing from --
from TexDOT, it won't be close to that. I'm projecting that
we'll have 5649,000 surplus in that account at the end of
2000. So, my idea was that, if we're looking for a place to
take that amount, that would be the only place I would see to
181
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
take it. I mean, the operating -- Road and Bridge operating
budget does not have -- does not have enough surplus to take
money from.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we want to say that we're
taking it from the High Water Bridge project, I don't have
any problem with that whatsoever.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's what this $699,000 is for.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree with that, and
I had forgotten about that. We started building it years
ago.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we don't know what that
thing is going to be; it changes every time they come in
here.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does that allay some of your
concern?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it does. I feel a lot
better.

JUDGE HENNEKE: That's why we ask.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, we're not going
to do the western end of the project. You fight for your own
down there.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, they'll call you.
182
,~-
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'll call you, anyway.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? Anything else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Salaries.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Salaries.
COMMIS3IONER LETZ: Where do you come up with these
3ust arbitrary -- just curiosity.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it's -- again, it's educated
arbitrariness. One of my philosophies is that the salary
structure of an organization needs to reflect that the top
people get paid the most, and so I -- you know, we've given
merit raises, we've given cost-of-living increases. We need
to keep an elected official, basically, where they make at
least as much as their deputies, if not a little bit more.
And, so, I did some adjustments based on that, and probably
to maintain roughly the same difference between the clerk
category, Paula and Jannett and Barbara and Linda and the
Sheriff, and then the J.P.'s had asked for a $600 increase
each for their work doing the probable cause hearings at the
hospital. So, rather than giving them just that $600, I went
ahead and gave them $827, whatever it is, to bring them up --
this $727 to bring them up to $25,000, and then I gave -- I
offered -- I suggested a raise for myself, again, because I
think that the County Judge really ought to make as much as
any of the other elected officials, if not a little more,
State supplements to the contrary. And that's -- you know,
183

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
that's lust my winging it. And,
challenge by anybody.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
proposing for you, does that inc
510,000 State supplement?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, it
anybody -- that's open to
That 538,000 that you're
Jude the State's -- the
does not include State

9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
supplement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It would go to 98?
JUDGE HENNEKE: It would be 48 in my pocket, yeah.
One thing you've got to remember about the State is the State
giveth and the State taketh way, praise be the State.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sometimes the State
mandates and the State doesn't totally pay, as the school
boards can tell you right now.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Another thing about that ten is
it's paid from fees. There are fees that that are levied to
court costs -- to cases that are filed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I don't oppose those.
You know, it went up five the time before -- the year before,
and ten this time. I don't oppose that at all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If our plan is to look at
all elected officials' salaries in terms of a global study,
or at least a statewide study, and be prepared to address the
issue next year -- is that what I'm hearing you suggest?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Then why these little adjustments
la4

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
now?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, no, I wasn't going to
ask it that way. I was going to say -- okay. But, I am
curious as to the percentage -- how you arrived at some of
the percentages.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I didn't do percentages on the
elected officials. I just -- I eyeballed them and I said,
you know, the Sheriff has been making about $3,000 more than
Paula has. She needs to be making at least this much in
order to be the -- the leader of her department, which she is
anyway. But, by rights, she deserves that, and so I moved
the Sheriff up in order to maintain, roughly, approximately
the same decision which obviously had been made by the
previous Court, that the Sheriff should make that rough
increment more than anyone else does. And, it's not rocket
science. It's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I know. I worked the
percentage up; I can see it wasn't.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But, what I think it is, I think
it's a fair interim step.

COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any problem with
it. I'm -- not that I don't want you to get paid anything,
Fred, but it's -- you know, to me, you have to look at your
State supplement as part of your salary. I think it ought to
be reflected more clearly as such, anyway.
185
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
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I -- this is what the County
pays me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we can probably drop the
County's portion back to 28.
(Laughter.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: That you can't do. You can't not
give the increase.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nice try, huh?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Nice try.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Listen, that would look good
in the paper.
MS. LAVENDER: I think so, too.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I like the idea of trying to
get this tidied up. You know, how many steps we need to get
all this done right, I don't know, but -- but there has been
sort of a high-five over years past just thrown up, 'cause
that's way the system gets done. There's been some raises
and there have been some -- and then we put the COLA's on it
and across-the-board raises and a few merit raises. But, I
-- I don't have any problem with anything of these numbers.
None of these people are overpaid at the rate that's in the
right-hand column.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. They're
all underpaid.
186
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 GRIFFIN: They're all underpaid, even
if we gave them all the raises that are reflected. So, I
don't have any discomfort at all, or -- and if somebody wants
to pick on me politically, they can do that, 'cause it won't
bother me, 'cause these people still aren't getting paid
enough. The question is, how do we -- this is part of the
solution, and then there ought to be some more solutions
downstream, as we've talked about, next year, to look at a
reclassification and look at elected officials at the same
time and say -- you know, because there should be a hierarchy
in the salary structure in any business or government entity
or whatever. So, I think this is a step in the right
direction, myself.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Again, my idea is that this is --
this coming budget will really be a personnel budget year.
We want to classify it as that, where we're going to
reclassify all the positions, we're going to set the salaries
accordingly, and we're going to do -- I'd like to do the same
thing for the elected officials, go out and do the study. I
know you did a study two years ago. We need to go back and
do that. We need to do it right, come in with all the data
and comparisons so that everybody's comfortable with where we
end up, to the extent they can be comfortable. Everybody is
always going to feel they're underpaid. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does this -- the new number in
187

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
the right-hand column, what about the COLA? Is that coming
-- elected officials that are getting adjustments don't get a
COLA, or they get that plus a COLA? Or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I say everybody gets a
COLA.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What's happened in the past? I
mean --
MS. RECTOR: Elected officials got the
across-the-board plus -- if the increase was for elected
officials.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't know. I'm going on
historical experience; I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Elected officials have always
gotten a -- whenever you make an adjustment upwards, a lot of
times that takes the place of the COLA, and I -- just so that
Tommy knows when he's calculating. You know, it doesn't make
any difference to me.
MS. RECTOR: Then, again, it goes to the same thing
of it getting out of balance, where you're giving this group
this and that group that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, the numbers
won't look all nice and neat after we do a COLA.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Only thing the COLA --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What you have to do is give
everyone the COLA, and then give them the same dollar raises,
laa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
which won't end up at the same neat little --
COMMISSIONER LET2: Right, zeros.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Zeros. I kind of like zeros. I
guess I can't get there from here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's -- I mean, I think it
would -- what you've done is what needs to be done to keep --
keep the elected officials grouped as they have been.
Whereas, the Tax Assessor, the District Clerk, the County
Clerk are all at one level and, for whatever reason, the
Sheriff's at a different level and Commissioners are at a
different level. Judge and J.P.'s, I think, were pretty much
good -- I guess the way it's laid out, I don't have a problem
with it, so -- I agree, most of the salaries are probably a
little bit low. But, I don't have any problem with what you
recommended here in doing a COLA and, again, give that dollar
increase on top of the COLA.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions about that or
anything else? Did we beat this horse to death?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think maybe, on that one,
you might want to apply those COLA's and then see what it
does to those numbers in the left-hand column when you make
that --
JUDGE HENNEKE: See those numbers a week from
today.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
189
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: With the --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Maybe you want to punch
those around a little bit by the same methods that you did
before, which is sort of what -- what looks right and makes
sense.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only other question is,
we're giving an elected official a raise. We don't even know
who that elected official is. We're giving the Sheriff a
raise and we don't even have one.
JUDGE HENNEKE: When we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is the position?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm sure that increment will bring
more people out of the woodwork.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other thing, I think, that,
you know, to me, we need to look at next year, the
Commissioners are not getting an increase this year, which I
think Commissioners are really paid fine; it's a part-time
position. Hut, we need to -- I think, to just remember for
our study in the future that they need to be included in
this.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Included in the study, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the process. Through that
whole process. But, you know, I think the COLA is an
adequate adjustment at this time.
MS. RECTOR: Are you all going to go back and do
190
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
another study on salaries like was done in the past, where
they went out and looked at counties of comparable size
and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's, I guess, expanding on
what Larry started in the spring. And I got a lot of
information from two years ago, when I worked on it, these
comparable counties and looking at the salary levels.
MS. RECTOR: Something I would be interested in --
this is just for my own information -- is in the Tax
Assessor/Collectors' salaries, as to how many taxing
jurisdictions that tax collector collects for, if they have
consolidated collection. Some tax collectors in larger
cities don't have near the amount of jurisdictions that I do,
and they're being paid a lot more. They just collect for the
County or they collect for the County and City.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, a lot --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we should try to compare
apples to apples, to the extent we can.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think --
MS. RECTOR: 'Cause I'm not compensated for being
the City of Kerrville's tax collector. I don't get
compensated from the City for that. I don't get compensated
from the City of of Ingram or the school districts, either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kendall County's getting ready
to not even do the County's.
191

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MS. RECTOR: I heard that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Appraisal District's going to
collect for the County.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy, did you have a question,
sir?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, on the radio system.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah.
MR. TOMLINSON: We ought to actually have a line
item, too, where we can --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Probably should.
MR. TOMLINSON: To make it reflect --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's do that, if you could.
That's a good suggestion, putting it in the Sheriff's
Department budget, not the jail.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything further? You guys are
welcome to stay for my detention hearing, if you like.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll pass.
(Commissioners Couxt adjourned at 2:55 p.m.)
192

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
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF KERR ~
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 2nd day of September,
1999.
JAN~~NE,T//T PIEPER, Ke~rJr County Clerk
BY: TV~~--~N/Ycty`,
Kathy ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
ORDER NO. 5964
CLAIMS AND RCCOUNTS
On this the 23rd day of August 1999, came to be considered by
the Court the various claims and accounts against Kerr County
and the various Commissioner^s' precincts, which said Claims
and Accounts ar•e 10-General Fund for S 76,403.38; it-Jury Fund
for 51,242.50; 14-Fire Protection Fund for 54,928.00; i5-Road
& Bridge Fund for 547,726.62; 21-C J D Fund for 52 ,48.00;
23-Juvenile State Rid Fund for• 5862.88; 50-Indigent Health
Care Fund for^ 5449.45; 70-Permanent Improvement Fund for
534,727.10; 83-State Funded-216th District Rttor•ney F~_ind for
51,27488; 86-State F~.inded-216th District Probation Fund for-
53,417.56; and 87-State F~.inded Comm~.inity Corrections Fund for
51, 356.89.
(TOTRL RLL FUNDS-5174,637.26)
Upon motion made by Commissioner Griffin, seconded by
Commissioner Lets, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, payment of said Claims and Recounts as
recommended by the Coi_inty Ruditor.
ORDER N0. 25965
BUDGET RMENDMENT
DISTRICT CLERK,
On this the 23rd of Rugust 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Let z, seconded by Commissioner^ Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, tr-ansferring
$273,07 from Line Item No. 10-450-216 Employee Training to
Line Item No. 10-450-309 postage and transfers^ing X134.00 from
Line Item No. 10-450-461 Lease Copier to Line Item No.
10-450-309 postage.
ORDER N0. X5966
PUDGET AMENDMENT
JUSTICE OF THE F'ERCE F'CT #~
On this the 3rd of August 1999, ~.ipon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Co~_irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, tr^ansferring
848.50 from Line Item No. i0-457-485 Conferences to Line Item
No. 10-457-SiD6 Ponds.
ORDER N0, 259E.7
BUDGET RMENDMENT
COUNTY RUDITOR
0n this the 23rd of R~.tg~_ist 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Williams, seconded 6y Commissioner Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, transferring
4129.98 from Line Item No. i0-495-310 to Line Item No.
10-495-570 Capital D~xtlay and transferring:
479.5E from Line Item No. 10-495-499 Miscellaneous
47.00 from Line Item No. 10-495-457 Maintenance Contracts
4141. 4i from Line Item No. 10-495-2iE, Employee Training
totaling 4227.97 to Line Item No, i0-495-485 Conferences.
ORDER N0. x.°,968
BUDGET AMENDMENT
NON-DEF'RRTMENTAL
On this the "?,r^d of August 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Let z, seconded by Commissioner- Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, transfer^r^ing
33,67@.@0 from Line Item No. 1@-4@9-48@ F'r•operty Insurance to
Line Item No. 1@-4@9-4@1 Rutopsies and Inquest.
ORDER N0. 259E9
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY TREASURER
On this the 23rd of Rugust 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner- Let z, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, transferring
L300.86 from Line Item No. 10-497-1~B Par^t-time Salary to Line
Item No. ifD-497-3~9 Postage and ISSUE HANDCHECK for- LATE BILL
to Kerrville Postmaster^ #497, in the amount of ~330.0~D.
ORDER N0. 25970
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY JAIL
On this the 23rd of Rugust 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, transfer-ring
57, 105.2 from Line Item No. i~D-512-104 Jailer- Salaries to
Line Item No. 10-512-108 F'ar^t-time Salary and transferring a
TOTAL of 52,027.38 from Line Item No. 10-512-103 Cooks to
these Line Item Number^s/Descr^iptions:
5333.66 to Line Item No. 1m-512-112 Overtime
53.58 to Line Item No. 10-512-336 Indigent Care
5405.5,:, to Line Item No. 10-5i2-334 prisoner- Supplies
51,284.61 to Line Item No. 10-Si2-335 Prisoner Transfer
ORDER N0. G5971
BUDGET RMENDMENT
SHERIFF'S DEF'RRTMENT
On this the '3rd day of Rugust 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Let z, seconded by Commissioner^ Gr^iffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, tr^ansferringg
51,117.75 fr^om Line Item No. 1a-560-457 Maintenance
Contracts
53,911.5 from Line Item No. 10-560-480 Vehicle Insur^ance
$3,~71.G0 from Line Item No. 1~-560-~07 Insur^ance-
Liability
totaling 58,300.00 transferred to these Line Items in these
amounts,
5800.00 to Line Item No. 10-56G-31G Office Supplies
51, 500. 0a to Line Item No. iG-560-453 Radio Repairs
56,00G.00 to Line Item No. 10-560-454 Vehicle Repair^s and
Maintenance
;~~~iCR hiU. c5'= c
BUDGET RMENDMENT
JUSTICE OF THE GERCE GCT#'
On this the E3rd of Rugust 1959, upon motion made 6y
Commissioner Lets, seconded by Commissioner^ Williams, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, transferring
$171.84 from Line Item No. 10-45E,-315 Books-Publications-Dues
to Line Item No. 10-45E-310 Office Supplies.
ORDER N0. 25973
BUDGET RMENDMENT
COUNTY JRIL
On this the 23r^d of August 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner- Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, transferr^ing
~6,927.G0 fr^om Line Item No. 10-512-103 Cooks to Line Item
No. 10-012-112 Overtime.
ORDER N0. 25974
LATE HILL
RDVANCED FAMILY LAW CONFERENCE (8-15-19/99)
EMIL KARL pROHL
On this the 23rd of August 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Let z, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Coi_ir^t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, reimbur^sing
expenses for the Rdvanced Family Law Conference, totaling
$872.041 (hotel-8/15/99-$564.04, meals-4 days @ $35.04=$i44~.410
and mileage-60m miles x $. 28 per mile=$168.00>.
ORDER NO. 25975
APGROVE AND ACCEPT MONTHLY REPORTS
On this the 23rd of Rugust 1999, came to be considered by
the Cour^t the various monthly r•epor•ts of Y.er•r County and
Precinct Officials for• N.er•r County. Upon motion made by
Commissioner Lets, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-0, that said
reports be accepted and filed with the Co~.inty Clerk for future
audit:
District Clerk - Linda Uecker•
Fees for July 1999
Kerr Coi.mty Clerk - Jannett Pieper
Trust Fund Report/Fees - Month of July 30, 1999
Kerr County Clerk - Jannett p'ieper-
Fees/General Fund
JP #3 - Robert L. Tench
~ State Fees Report - Month of July 1999
JG #i - Vance R. Elliott
State Fees Report - Month of July 1999
JG #2 - Dawn Weight
State Fees Report - Month of July 1999
JG #4 - William E. Ragsdale
State Fees Report - Month of July 1999
Kerr• Co~.inty Clerk - Jannett Pieper
Fees Collected and Judgements Rendered
Month Ending July 1999
Kerr County Clerk - Jannett Gieper
Trust Fiend Monthly Report
R11 Monies and Fees - Month Ending July 1999
ORDER N0. 2.°i97E
gpGROVE FINAL F'LRT
OF MOUNTAIN HOME OAI:S SUBDIVISION
On this the 23rd day of Rug~_ist 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the Final plat
of Mountain Home Oaks Subdivision.
ORDER N0. E5S77
EXTENSION OF THE pRELIMINARY PLAT
OF SgDDLEWOOD ESTgTES, SECTION II
On this the ^c3rd day of Gug~_ist i9S9, upon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner- Williams, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the extension
of the preliminary Flat of Saddlewood Estates, Section II.
(Extension to run thru March 9, 0~0~.)
ORDER NO. 5978
ONE-TIME FUNDING OF ~5, Q100. Q~Q~
TO THE COURTHOUSE SQUARE HOLIDRY LIGHTING PR0,7ECT
On this the ~~rd day of Rugust 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner- Lets, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-Q1, the one-time
funding of SS,Q~00.Otn to the Courthouse Sq~_iar•e Holiday Lighting
Project.
DRDER ND. "°,979
REVISION OF SAFETY POLICY
On this the "'~r^d day of q~.igust 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner- 6r^iffin, the
Cour^t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, appr^oving the
revision of the safety policy.
ORDER N0. 25980
.-~
RENEWAL OF LRW ENFORCEMENT LIABILITY INSURANCE
On this the 23r^d day of August 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Cour^t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, renewal of the
Law Enforcement Liability Insurance for^ another^ three to 15
months.
ORDER N0. 5981
AP'P'ROVAL OF DESIGNA"PION OF LOLLING PLRCES
FOR NDVEMBER ~, 1999, SPECIAL RMENDMENT ELECTION
(AND ANY AND ALL FUTURE ELECTIONS)
On this the card of August 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Coy"irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, designating the
following places for^ the General Election and combining 410 in
with 404. Designation covers any and all futur^e elections:
10i Riverhills Mall, X00 Sidney Baker^ South, Ker^r•ville
2NE Methodist Church, Church Street, Center- Point
30J3 Cypress Creek Community Center, Stoneleigh Road,
Center Point
4@4 Sunset Baptist Church, Hwy 41, Mountain Nome
4Q~5 Hunt School, #i Hunt School Road, Mountain Home
406 Hill Country Arts Foy"indation, Ingram
107 Turtle Creek Community Center, Upper Turtle Creek
3Qi8 Lane Valley School, Off Highway E7 East, Center Point
409 Divide Pr•esbyter-ian Church, Hwy 41
410 COMBINED with 4Z~4
S11 Motley Hills Baptist Chi_irch, cG01 Singing Wind,
Kerrville
31c Zion Lutheran Chi"irch, 6c4 Parnett, Kerrville
113 Trinity Baptist Church, 800 Jackson Road, Kerrville
314 N,errville Municipal R~"~ditorium, 910 Main Street,
Kerrville
c15 Kerr County Extension Service Meeting Room, Hwy E7 East,
Ker•rv i 11 e
416 Western Hills Baptist Church, X010 Goat Creek Road
ERRLY VDTING: Ker-r• County Extension Service Meeting Room,
Hwy ~7 East, I',errville
ORDER N0. 25982
RF'F'OINTING ELECTION JUDGES
RND RLTERNRTE JUDGES FDR ONE YEAR TERM
PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.001 R 32.~D02 ELECTION CODE
On this the 23rd day of Rugust 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-~d, appointing the
following as Judges and Rlter^n ate Judges for^ the term of one
year:
PCT #	JUDGE	RLTERNRTE JUDGE
101	Margaret Moorman	Maria Whitley
202	Margaret Higgins	Nell Sevey
343	Lydia Rlbr^echt	Margaret Mor•r•ies
4Q~4	Don Casteel	Elaine Cast eel
405	Helen Morrow	Richard Bar•ner-
406	Molly Blaisdell	Richar^d Gore
107	Betty Str•ohacker	F'atr•icia N.ing
~'` 308	LeRoy Pressler	Diana Cushman
409	Lucy Dubuison	Raynell Tomlin
410	***Consolidated with	F'ct #4iD4~**
211	Billie Meeker^	Lila Silva
312	Marie Weinbr•echt	Raul Rr•r•eola
113	Jennie Mother•al	Joan Evans
314	Deloris Posey	Lila Castillo
215	Madeline Uecker•	Cathy Ritter
416	Robert Rver•y	Dawn Shaw
Early Voting Ballot Board Stan Kubenka - Judge
Rose St~.arges - Rlter•nate
ORDER N0. e598~
APPOINTING COUNTING STRTION PERSONNEL
F'URSURNT TO SECTION X7.001
On this the card day of Rugust 1'39'3, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner^ Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner- Let z, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, appointing the
following:
Counting Station Gresiding Judge - Jannett Pieper
and Manager
Tabulation Supervisor - Nadene Rlfor^d
Assistant Tabulation Super^visor•s - Mindy Williams
(r•~.in machines) - Brenda Craig
Counting Station Clerks - Shelia Hr•and
- Cheryl Thompson
- Thea Sovil
- Val Medr•ano

ORDER N0. 25984
BUDGET RMENDMENT
COUNTY CLERF:
On this the 2~rd day of Rug~.~st 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Cour^t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, transferring
8E,000.00 from Line Item No. 10-40~-•104 Deputy Salary and
transferring 81,000.00 from Line Item No. 10-403-108 part-Time
Salary totaling 87,000.00 to Line Item No. 10-403-570 Capital
Outlay. (Purchase of engineer^ing copier^ to replace the
blue-line machine.)

ORDER N0. X5985
RCCEF'TED RESIGNATION OF SHERIFF KRISER
On this the 3rd day of August 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Williams, seconded by Commissioner Gr^iffin, the
Court unanimously accepted by a vote of 4-0-0, the
resignation of Sher^iff Kaiser-, effective 30 September 1999.
ORDER N0. ~59BE
AGGOINTING INTERIM ACTING SHERIFF
On this the 2~r^d day of August 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the Coi_~r^t
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to accept resumes
from individuals who ar^e candidates for the sheriff position
and for consideration for appointment as the interim sheriff.
ORDER N0. 25087
OPPOSITION TO GUADRLUF'E-BLRNCO RIVER RUTHORITY AOF'LICRTION
TO SELL WRTER FROM CANYON LRt;E
(ANYWHERE OUTSIDE GBRR'S TEN-COUNTY STATUTORY DISTRICT)
On this the 23rd day of Aiag~.ist 1000, upon motion made 6y
Commissioner- Griffin, seconded by Commissioner- Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, opposing the
application by Guadalupe-Blanco River- Ruthor•ity to sell water-
from Canyon Lake to anywhere outside GBRA's ten-county
statutory district.

ORDER NO, 25988
AGF'ROVE MEMORRNDUM OF UNDERSTRNDING
BETWEEN f'.ERR COUNTY RND HILL COUNTRY COUNCIL
DN RLCOHOL RND DRUG RBUSE, INC.
On this the 23r^d day of August 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Paldwin, seconded by Commissioner Lets, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, appr-oving the
Memorandum of Under-standing between N.er^r County and Hill
Country Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Inc. and author-ized
County J~.~dge sign same.
ORDER N0. 25989
ApG~ROVAL TO EXTEND HNRN HRN
On this the 23rd day of Rugust 1999, upon motion made 6y
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to extend burn ban
for another- 14 days.
,~
~~
SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA
MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 1999, 9:00 A.M.
COUNTY COURTROOM
KERR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
KERRVILLE, TEXAS 78028
THIS NOTICE IS POSTED PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS OPEN
MEETINGS ACT. (TITLE 5, CHAPTER 551, GOVERNMENT CODE AND
TITLE 5, CHAPTER 552, GOVERNMENT CODE.)
This Commissioners' Court will hold a meeting at 9:00 A.M., Monday,
August 23, 1999, at the Kerr County Courthouse in the Commissioners' Courtroom.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
VISITORS INPUT
• Citizens wishing to speak on items NOT listed on the regular agenda, please fill
out form for consideration at this time. Citizens wishing to speak on items
LISTED on the regular agenda, please fill out request form for consideration
during discussion on that specific item. In order to expedite the flow of business
and to provide all citizens the opportunity to speak, the Judge may impose a
three (3) minute limitation on any person addressing the court.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
• Commissioners and/or the County Judge may use this time to recognize
achievements of persons in their Precinct or to make comments on matters not
listed on the regulaz agenda.
I APPROVAL AGENDA:
1.1 Pay bills.
1.2 Budget Amendments. (County Auditor)
1.3 Late Bills. (County Auditor)
1.4 Approve and accept Monthly Reports.
rwarS:.S:.+:~c~~1'V~ A_.D.ti
,iA~Yt)IElE&KENR~. TMIE~u,'ia7
~ .a ~
GARE7A. BARBEE, DAputy
II CONSIDERATION AGENDA: (Action may be taken on Items
listed below)
2.1 Consider and discuss concept plan for Quinlan Creek Golf
Resort, LTD, Precinct 3. (Commissioner Pct. #3/R.W.
Carey/County Engineer)
2.2 Consider and discuss final plat of Mountain Home Oaks
Subdivision, Precinct 4. (Commissioner Pct. #4/County
Engineer/Rick Peny/Robert Blankenship)
2.3 Consider and discuss extension of the preliminary plat of
Saddlewood Estates, Section II, Precinct #1. (Commissioner
Pct. #1/County Engineer/Chazles Domingues/David Cummings,
Jr.)
2.4 Consider and discuss cone-time funding of $5,000 to the
Courthouse Squaze Holiday Lighting Project and other related
items. (Commissioner Pct. #2/Al Donabauer)
2.5 Consider and discuss a workshop and date with our Third Party
Administrator concerning our Group Health Insurance Plan.
(Auditor)
2.6 Consider and discuss renewal of law enforcement liability
insurance. (Auditor)
2.7 Consider and discuss selection process concerning a risk
manager. (Auditor)
2.8 Consider and discuss revision of safety policy. (Treasurer)
2.9 Consider and discuss approval of designation of polling places
for November 2, 1999 Special Amendment Election and
Combine Precinct 410 with 404. (County Clerk)
2.10 Consider and discuss appointment of Election Judges and
Alternate Judges. (County Clerk)
z
2.11 Consider and discuss appoint Central Counting Station
Personnel pursuant to Section 127.001, Texas Election Code.
County Clerk)
2.12 Consider and discuss budget amendment request to move funds
to Capital Outlay for the purchase of an Engineering Copier to
replace the blue-line machine. (County Clerk)
2.13 Consider and discuss technical and budgetary issues regarding
the computer network in the Sherili's department.
(Commissioner Pct. #4)
2.14 Consider and discuss resignation of Sheriff Kaiser and procedure
for appointment of interim acting SheriiT (County Judge)
2.15 Consider and discuss status of 1999-2000 budget and schedule
for adoption of budget and setting tax rate. (County Judge)
2.16 Consider and discuss application by Guadalupe-Blanco River
Authority to sell water from Canyon Lake anywhere outside
GBRA's ten-county district. (County Judge)
2.17 Consider and discuss adoption of rules and/or regulations
regarding manufactured housing rental projects. (County Judge)
2.18 Consider and discuss request for increase in civil fees. (Sheriff
2.19 Consider and discuss approving Memorandum of Understanding
between Kerr County and Hill Country Council on Alcohol and
Drug Abuse, Inc. and authorize the County Judge to sign same.
(County Judge)
3
CLOSED MEETING
A closed meeting will be held concerning the following subject(s):
III. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
This meeting is authorized by Title 5, Chapter 551, Government Code and
Title 5, Chapter 552, Government Code.
3.1 (551.071(1)(A)) Consultations with Attorney (County and
Civil Attorney)
OPEN MEETING
An open meeting will be held concerning the following subject(s):
IV ACTION AGENDA:
4.1 Action as may be required on matters discussed in Executive
Session.
V INFORMATION AGENDA:
5.1 Reports from Commissioners.
a

ADDENDUM
SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA
MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 1999, 9:00 A.M.
COUNTY COURTROOM
KERR COUNTY COURTHOUSE
KERRVILLE, TEXAS 78028
II
2.20
CONSIDERATION AGENDA: (Action may be taken on Items
listed below)
Consider and discuss extending the Burn Bad. (County Judge)
~-~9EF~o. ~o~
JMNE7rVIEDEN,K CO Tp1E1~0,~~1)j
Bl'• ~.~~r./poD~'
Ma aREra s,4Ret~ t~prty