~-
Y
1
z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
September 27, 1999
6:30 p.m.
Commissioners Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge
H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 9
.-,
,~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-, 1 3
19
15
16
17
	18
	19
	20
	21
	22
	23
	24
	25
,--~	
aboag ~ A,~a.
oZ(o O X33 p`('~u aQe1E
a~o36 /yJ„~c~ ,~.
a6 a.~
a c oys
I N D E X
~J2
September 27, 1999 PAGE
~	
~
lamo Workforce Deveopment presentation
2.1 ~d'"' A	19
pp
2.2 07(oO3'Adopt Kerr County Budget for F.Y. 1999/2000	27
2.3a"KR39Set tax rate for F.Y. 1999/2000	38
2.4 N~Kexr Economic Development Foundation update	39
2.5 ~ Shadow Ridge Subdivision - road district	46
2.6 ~~/ Budget Amendment - tires for Constable Pct. 2	73
2.6p~b0'~DAuthorize expenditure for Flat Rock Lake Park	82
2.7 / Discuss Solid Waste Ordinance	89
2.8d6~y~Adopt Solid Waste Ordinance	92
2.90?~~~'Extension of City/County Firefighting Agreement	92
2.10ab~reliminary plat - Twin Springs Ranch	93
2.11,ILo`~~equest for increase in civil fees	98
2.12~G~"'Budget Amendment - reprinting election ballots	101
2.13~1~Part-time employee, District Clerk's office	104
2.19aY.~yContract for risk management services	111
2.15 ~1oo`~7Proposed agreement with VeriClaims, Inc.	112
ie~...J
a	
Interlocal Contract for KSH hearings, set fees
2.16~,a`~	116
2.1~~o'~9Resignation of Local Health Authority, Rabies	
and Animal Control	131
2.18gbp~ Appointment of new Local Health Authority,
Rabies and Animal Control 132
2.19a-rn9'~Tree removal and replacement - courthouse yard 133
2.20~5~Contract with Convention and Visitors Bureau 138
2.21a~ Proclamation declaring Sept. 19-25 Farm & Ranch
Safety and Health Week in Kerr County 139
3

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
1S
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, September 27, 1999, at 6:30 p.m., a special
evening 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 is 6:30 on Monday, September
27th, 1999. I'll call to order this special meeting of the
Kerr County Commissioners Court. It's good so see all of you
in attendance. We appreciate your time and your input. As
always, we will remind everyone that this is your government,
your Court. We appreciate you taking the time to come and
participate with us. At this time, I'll call upon
Commissioner Williams for the invocation and pledge of
allegiance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Please rise.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, we'll call upon any
citizen who wishes to address the court on an item not listed
on the regular agenda to come forward. is there anyone in
the audience who would like to address the Court on an item
which is not listed on the regular agenda?
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: One more time. Is there any
citizen who would like to address the Court on an item which
4
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is not on the regular agenda? If not, we'll proceed to
Commissioners' comments. So that we're not accused of being
in a rut, we'll start with Commissioner 9 tonight.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No comments tonight, Judge.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One comment regarding Region J
and our water planning. Chapter 1 of -- I guess we have
eight chapters -- seven chapters total -- has been completed
and is available. I'll have it out here if someone wants to
read it. It's pretty much an overview of the region, but
it's interesting. My other comment -- it's not an agenda
item, just kind of something -- I want to make sure it's the
correct thing, that I told the principal of Kerrville -- Tivy
High School -- they asked about the bonfire, and I said no,
we're in a burn ban and they cannot have a bonfire. And, i
presume that was the correct response. And, if -- some of
y'all will tell me if otherwise.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait, let's talk about that
for a second. If we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They were relieved. Principal
Chase was relieved not to have the bonfire. They're going to
reroute the parade.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we just need to pray
for rain.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That`s right.
5
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Either that, or seems like
to me if we had fine trucks positioned around there, it would
be all right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Center Point already canceled
theirs.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So did Ingram.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, but we're talking
about Tivy Antlers here.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Not on the agenda. Commissioner
~ Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know I'm the only golf
fan or golf player on this dais, but how about that Rider Cup
team yesterday? Was that pure sports drama at its best or
was it not?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Only comment I have is, Tivy
fight never dies.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Bonfire may not be lit, but the
fight never dies.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The bonfire's out.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I have just a couple of items.
First of all, I want to thank everyone who is associated with
the Hill Country Junior Livestock Show dinner Saturday night.
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
It was a great time. They raised some $63,000 Saturday night
for the scholarship fund, which is an incredible amount. As
I recall from last year, the actual livestock auction,
itself, is, I believe, the third largest in the state of
Texas, which I think is remarkable for a community our size.
I saw a number of County employees out there helping out and
participating. I know Commissioner Letz was there. Becky
Henderson, Nancy Smith, Diane Bolin and several others whose
names I can't recall off the top of my head, but I lust want
to say a good time was had by all, and a very worthy cause.
The second thing I'd mention is that we do have a
special Commissioners Court meeting Friday, October 1st, at
11 o'clock for the purpose of completing the procedural
requirements for Charlie Hicks to take the position of
Interim Sheriff. Very brief meeting. I think the only thing
on the agenda is to approve the bond and to authorize then
Sheriff Hicks to appoint deputies. So, 11 o'clock here
Friday morning, probably for 10 minutes at the most.
With that, we'll move into the approval agenda. Pay
bills. Anyone have any questions regarding the bills as
presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do, if we want to start
down here.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll start down there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. On Page 2, 216th
7
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
r.. 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
District Court. Grouse Mountain Lodge, partial payment.
What -- I don't understand what that -- I mean, I understand
what a partial payment is, but why are we just making a
partial payment? Is he not through staying there, or -- I'm
sorry, Tommy. I should have pulled it out for you.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 105909.
MR. TOMLINSON: No explanation on the bill. I can
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sure it's okay. It's
just the word "partial payment" kind of threw me a little
bit.
MR. TOMLINSON: I have a feeling that he paid the
rest of it from maybe the 6-region --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's a guess, but I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is Grouse Mountain
Lodge? That sounds intriguing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do they have a golf course?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course, that's really my
question. On Page 5, at the top section there, Item 105902,
Uvalde County Auditor, for 55,495.81, Prisoner Medical. I
did a little research on this today, and this -- Mr. Hicks,
are you back there? Just back me up if I need you. This is
a
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
•--
a resident -- this gentleman is a resident of Kerr County.
Uvalde had a warrant for his arrest. Our guys arrested him
and sent him to Uvalde to serve his warrant -- to do his deal
down there. He had all kind of medical problems, and --
quite extensive, actually, $9,500 worth. And, probably
indigent. I don't know that. And I talked to the Indigent
Health Care folks today, and anytime a person comes along
like that, you have three months to apply for Indigent Health
Care, and they did not do that in Kerr County. In my mind,
this fella, yes, is a resident of Kerr County, but he's
arrested in Uvalde -- he's a prisoner of Uvalde's. Why would
we have to pick up his medical bills for $5,495.81?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: While he's incarcerated
here?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: While he's incarcerated in
their jail as their prisoner. I mean, does anybody -- can
anybody explain that to me? I haven't found anybody yet
today that can explain that to me.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I think we've -- later today,
we decided that the Sheriff's office has -- has made a
commitment not to pay this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, great. I'll just shut
up on and go on, then.
MR. TOMLINSON: We had -- there was a communication
problem, really. When we got the bill from the Sheriff's
9
.-,
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
Department, we -- it came with all of their -- their bills.
We -- we thought that they had approved the bill, and, in
effect, they had not approved the bill. So, it's partially
our mistake that it got on there to start with. So, anyway,
the bill's -- the check's been pulled.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Uvalde has submitted a
bill to us to pay. I mean, they want to us reimburse their
county for this.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, they do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, I'm certainly not in
favor of it. I mean, we didn't incur any of this, and --
MR. TOMLINSON: I think Uvalde County thought that
-- that that person could go on our Indigent Health Care, and
I think that's what their thinking was.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And he probably could have.
The Indigent Health Care rules say that within a three-month
period, if you apply, then Kerr County Indigent Health Care
will pick up that tab.
MR. TOMLINSON: But, this is a '98 bill, I think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good try.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nice try. Thank you, Tommy.
That's all I have.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS
I had the same one noted.
We got the answer.
to
~_
1
2
3
9
5 this --
6
7 one.
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: With the exception, I presume, of
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: With the exception of that
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve the bills as
presented and recommend by the Auditor, except for Invoice ID
105402, under the heading of the County Jail. Any further
discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget amendments.
MR. TOMLINSON: I have -- the first one is between
the 216th and 198th District Court. They're requesting a
transfer of $14.38 from Miscellaneous in the 216th court and
$25.65 from Miscellaneous into the -- out of the 198th court,
$19.38 into Telephone in the 216th court, and $25.65 in
Telephones in the 198th court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
11
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
"~ 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 1 for the 216th and 198th District
Courts. 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.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is for the Courthouse and
Related Buildings. It's a transfer of $20.06 from
Miscellaneous to their Telephone line item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 2 for Courthouse and Related Buildings.
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 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is for the County Jail and
the Sheriff's Department. First part of it is to transfer
12
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
$20,010.27 from Jailer Salaries, $4,611.33 to Part-time
Salaries and 515,398.99 for Overtime for jailers. The second
part is to move $5,479.11 from Deputy Salaries, $9,809.53
into Overtime for deputies, and $679.58 for Secretary
Salaries.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams „
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve Budqet
Amendment Request No. 3 for the County Jail and 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. Numbex 9.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Actually, Number 9 and 5 go
together.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right.
MR. TOMLINSON: They're -- both of them axe for the
Law Library. We -- we have bills totaling $2,797.50
currently. We need $2,362.10 to pay -- to pay bills
currently. After talking with District Clerk, we're
requesting a transfer of cash from -- from the General Fund
to the Law Library Fund, and hope to -- anticipate
13
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
approximately 900 more dollars in bills for books for the
library for the remainder of the year.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request No. 9 for the Law Library General Fund.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 4 and 5.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And, concurrent with that, Number 5
for the Law Library. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Why is it coming out
of the General Fund, as opposed to the Surplus?
MR. TOMLINSON: There is no surplus.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no surplus left? We've
used it up?
MR. TOMLINSON: Used it up. This is a legislative
year, and the law books -- most all law books for Texas law
have changed. And, the expenditures for -- for books have
been -- are really quite amazing for the end of the year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If not,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
19
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.-.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Budget Amendment Request No. 9
carried. Any more?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have one more that I -- that you
don't have copies of. And, I've waited till late this
afternoon to try to get some cost information from The
Software Group. This is relative to changing the -- the data
processing system at the -- at the Sheriff's office and the
jail to The Software Group. I attempted to -- to get them to
give me an estimate of what -- what their charge would be for
the conversion. I was not successful in that; however, I do
have an amendment for the hardware part of this process.
That is an estimate from -- that Commissioner Griffin
supplied to me in the amount of $26,657. There's -- to date,
there's $98,000 remaining in the Jailer Salaries. What we've
planned is to transfer the $26,657 from the Jailer Salaries
to Capital Outlay to purchase the equipment for that change.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is for the fact, if
you'll recall, on the Y2K problem that we had with the old
computer system with the jail, with the server and all of the
workstations. What this will do is allow us to go ahead this
year and buy those, at least the hardware. We're hoping that
we get software conversions, as well. But, Tommy, I don't
know what you've got there. I think that's the spreadsheet
that I put together?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is.
is
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN:
-- that was -- it's 36, not 26.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN:
again.
amount.
That total amount should be
That's the net --
It's -- give us the number
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. It's $36,657 is the gross
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. And that's all of
the hardware and everything it would take to get us
Y2K-compliant, installed, ready to go, except for the
software conversion, which we'll have to now do after next
year's monies. There's monies in the budget for that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there money in the budget to
14 ~ do this?
	15
	16
	17
	18
	19
	20
	21
	22
	23
	29
	25
r	
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, there is, in this
year's budget.
JUDGE HENNEKE: This money has been transferred
from Jailer Salaries.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, but did we -- I
know we talked about it. Was there money in next year's
budget to do part of this?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. No, we didn't. We
didn't put that in there. We were going to have to do a
last-minute -- if we knew we could get it, because we had
these cast figures together for the hardware, but we were
16
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
trying to get the -- the software cost in there, too, if we
could have. We could have had an amendment that would have
all been in this year's money.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But we can't do that now,
because we can't --
MR. TOMLINSON: The $10,000 difference in the
numbers I gave you here is -- is in next year's budget. The
Sheriff had asked for $10,000 for -- for computers to be
purchased out of the '99/2000 budget. So, the first number I
gave you is net of -- of --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's next year's money.
That $10,000 is next year's money.
MR. TOMLINSON: So --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So we wouldn't have to have
that in the budget.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That $10,000. We can put it
all back into this year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, what was the figure?
I'm sorry.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's $36,657.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is hardware and
software?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, that's just hardware.
17
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: That's all the hardware.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Just hardware. That is something
we have no choice but to do before the end of the year.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Get a quick start, start
putting these computers together now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a motion on that?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve what would
be Budget Amendment No. 6 in the amount of $36,657
transferred from Jailer Salaries to Capital Outlay for the
County Jail. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to comment. The
only comment I want to make is that's $56,000 we've moved out
of Jailer Salaries in two motions here. That's an awful lot
of money to have left over at the end of the year. That's
all.
JUDGE HENNEKE:
If not, all in favor, rai
(The motion was
JUDGE HENNEKE:
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE:
So noted. Any further discussion?
se your right hand.
carried by unanimous vote.)
All opposed, same sign.
Motion carries. Any further
18
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
amendments?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, that's all.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: One.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: I have a late bill that I need a
hand check for. It's from Barbara Nemec, the County
Treasurer, for $321 for reimbursement of a conference expense
for San Angelo last week.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where's it coming from?
MR. TOMLINSON: Out of her budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a late bill.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, it's a late bill?
MR. TOMLINSON: Late bill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Motion.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve the late
bill in the amount of 5321 to Barbara Nemec, County
Treasurer, reimbursement for conference expenses. Any
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.)
19
,.~
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: Motion carries. Next on the
approval agenda is to approve and accept monthly reports. Do
I have a motion to approve and accept the monthly reports?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve and accept the
monthly reports. Any further discussion? If not, all in
favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. We'll now turn to
the consideration agenda. First item on the agenda is an
Alamo Workforce Development presentation on workforce
development issues. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. For the
last almost three years, I've been privileged to represent
Kerr County and three other northern tier counties on the
Alamo Workforce Development Board dealing with workforce
xetxaining issues and child care issues and school-to-work
programs and Welfare-to-work programs, and you name it. I
thought it might be appropriate if the Court had a brief
update on what the Alamo Workforce Development Board's all
zo
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
•~-
about, the programs that it is authorized to administer,
inasmuch as the A.W.D. Board just approved a S70.5 million
budget. Maybe somebody would like to know what that's all
about. I've invited Bill Thompson, who is the rural area
representative for A.W.D., and, Bill, if you'd be so good as
to give us a brief presentation on A.W.D., we might have some
questions after that.
MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, sir. Judge Henneke and
members of the Court, thank you. I'm Bill Thompson, Rural
Services Coordinator for Alamo Workforce Development, and I
appreciate the opportunity to give you a brief presentation.
About, I guess, a month ago or so, we visited the Kerx
County Advisory Council -- Advisory Committee meeting for the
Workforce Center. And, during that time, I think some things
were mentioned about some positions that were filled here at
the County through the Workforce Center, and also about the
opportunity to come up here and visit with you on that, and
so that's one of the reasons I'm here this evening. We do
want to take the opportunity to promote the Workforce Center
and the programs that are there, and we feel like this is one
of the best programs for employers and job-seekers that we
can find.
There's no charge to employers for any of the services
that they can take. There's no charge to job-seekers. And,
the primary purpose here tonight is to make you, as
zl
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
Commissioners, aware of the -- of the services there, if
you're not already aware of them. Also, hopefully, that you,
then, as leaders in the community, will make others aware,
whether they be other local elected officials through the --
your cities, your chambers of commerce, anybody who would
have contact with employers and/or job-seekers, so that they
could take advantage of these services.
I have provided you each with a packet, and those
packets have a fairly comprehensive list of the types of
activities that are in there. But, just briefly, I would
tell you that we focus heavily on employers. Some of you may
have -- may know of the Texas Employment Commission and think
of the Texas Workforce Center as the old T.E.C., which it
used to be, but it has since evolved. And, certainly,
Commissioner Williams could probably tell you that history
even better than I, 'cause I've been with Alamo Workforce for
about five months. But, it's no longer the T.E.C.; it's no
longer the place to be just fox unemployment. In fact, that
is done through a call center.
The services at the Texas Workforce Center, which are
here locally at 819 Water Street, include heavy services for
employers, to provide those employers with a wealth of
information, whether it be labor market information or job
pool or labor pool. We service anybody who can walk in the
door, who will come in the door. Anyone, even -- not even
,•-
zz
.-.
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
walking, but anybody who can come in certainly can receive
these services. They can be self-assisted, which is an
opportunity to get into the computer system and go through
any number of job banks. We have one called the Governor's
Job Bank, Higher Texas Monster Board, America's Job Bank.
There's just a world of opportunity there, and they can focus
in on northern counties, they can focus in on the 12-county
Alamo area region, or they can get all the way to the entire
state of Texas, if they're interested in moving or
relocating.
Likewise, employers who list their jobs are not only
reaching people who are looking at the lobs here in
Kerrville, but they're going out all over the state of Texas.
So, someone who's interested in a position here -- and if
it's a difficult position to fill and they find that employee
in another part of the state, they can certainly find that
job and move over here. So, we encourage employers, and we
look at employers as one of our primary customers, as we do
the job-seeker.
The job-seekers, what we do for them is we include vet
services in there, child care, as you mentioned,
transportation, job training, customized training, food
stamps. If a person qualifies under certain economic
conditions, they can receive a number of benefits. They can
receive some or all of these benefits, to include child care,
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
23
transportation, training, which is at no cost. The
school-to-careers was mentioned in here. And, we've had a
recent submittal for a school-to-career grant, and I think
there's probably -- certainly, I know Kerrville High School
has been a participant in that for at least the past year,
maybe two years, and I anticipate that they will have
submitted a grant again this year. We hope they'll be funded
on that.
You mentioned the child care, and -- you know, in our
previous conversation, I will certainly go back -- and I
understand that they're waiting and that those are are being
reviewed as to getting the signatures on the agreements, and
I will certainly take that question back, Commissioner
Williams, and see if I can get you an answer as quickly as
possible to find the person that can answer that question for
you. The -- the services that are available simply are --
they're an asset to the community. They're an asset to any
employers that you have here, or potential employers. And, I
would encourage you that, as Commissioners, or perhaps in
being involved in your Chamber -- and I know the Chamber's
here this evening -- that if you have a potential employer
who wants to move into your community, that this becomes a
valuable resource for them. And, again, labor market
information, through the ERIS (sic) Program, as well as job
-- labor pool information. And, I'd be happy to try to
24
,.~.
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
answer any questions you might have in regards to that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions from the
Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one comment to
follow up on what you said about the child care contracts,
Bill. I have been told by members of staff and by the
chairperson of the Child Care Committee that there is no
problem with respect to the renewal of the contracts to our
particular vendors here in Kerrville and Kerr County who
operate with what we call "initiative dollars," dollars
raised in Kerr County to help needy families in terms of
child care so that they can work and be productive members of
society. I've been told that. So, what I really want from
you is not to go back and find out that's the case. I want
you to assure us that that is the case, and if there is any
change in that, that we know about it muy pronto, because I
don't think that's supposed to be the case. The contracts
have expired; we want to make certain that they go back to
their expiration date, as they did last year, even though
they were late in being negotiated.
MR. THOMPSON: And, Commissioner Williams, I don't
think I can stand here and -- in all honesty, and assure you
that that would be the case, but I can certainly tell you
that I will go back and, if there's any change that would be
to the contrary, I would let you know or I would have the
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
appropriate person let you know. But, I will certainly
convey your interest and the fact that you have been given
that assurance by others, that that's to be the case. i will
be there tomorrow and I will certainly get with my -- my
superior, which is the vice president of the organization, to
do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Appreciate it.
MR. THOMPSON: Okay. Any other questions I might
answer?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are those particular funds
-- are they still administered by our county, or it's all
funneled through San Antonio now?
MR. THOMPSON: I believe it all comes through the
Alamo Workforce Development Board.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The initiative dollars --
the claims of initiative dollars come through Kerr County.
MR. THOMPSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Presently.
MR. THOMPSON: Now, the initiative dollars, as I
understand, that's where they come directly from the State
through your local --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Initiative dollars are
dollars that are raised by those vendors in Kerr County to be
-- to augment --
MR. THOMPSON: Yes.
26
.-.
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 WILLIAMS: Or for scholarship dollars
for people would who do not get everything paid fox through
C.C.M.S., and this augments their situation. And, those are
dollars that were raised in Kerr County, and we insist are
spent in Kerr County on people who live in Kerr County.
JUDGE HENNEKE: As the County representative on the
AACOG Board -- and I'm sure Buster would reflect the same
experience -- we're constantly struggling to garner what we
consider to be our fair share of funding against the
metropolitan monster known as Bexar County. And, we need to
continue those efforts. On behalf of the Court and all of us
in Kerr County, I want to thank Commissioner Williams for his
faithful and very effective service on the A.W.D. Board for
the last several years. One of the things I think is very
important to us in this part of the country is that
Commissioner Williams be replaced by somebody who is familiar
with the issues in our part of the country and will work on
behalf of Kerr and the other northern tier counties. To the
extent that you have anything to do with that, I would
encourage you to work with us in obtaining a suitable
replacement for Commissioner Williams when his term expires
at the end of this year.
MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir. And, my understanding is
you've had several people who have been interviewed, or at
least sent out applications for positions on the Board, if
27
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 not mistaken. But -- and I'm pleased that -- I wish I
was, but I'm not in a position to make those selections, but
I do believe that there's been some interviews that have been
conducted, so hopefully there will be a position from your
County back on that Board. And, again, I do appreciate the
work that Commissioner Williams has done with it. I know
that -- again, I haven't had the opportunity to work with you
that long, but I've heard a lot of great things about the
work that you have done and interest for -- for the county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thorn in somebody's side
sometimes.
MR. THOMPSON: It gets the job done. Thank you.
County Judge Henneke, I appreciate the opportunity to be
here, and appreciate the opportunity to be in Kerrville.
It's always a good day to be out of Bexar County and into --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Amen.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Thank you for
coming.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you for coming, appreciate
it.
MR. THOMPSON: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item on the agenda is Item
2.2, which is to consider and discuss adopting the Kerr
County Budget for Fiscal Year 1999/2000. That is the budget
-- we need to adopt the budget with the budget amendment
za
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
which has been handed out by the County Auditor, which
reflects the minor revisions to the budget which were
occasioned by changes in circumstances or -- or
misinterpretations of what we did during the court hearings.
Does anyone have any questions regarding the budget
amendments? That would be -- I think it would be appropriate
to start with. Does anyone have any questions regarding the
budget? Do I hear a motion to approve the 1999/2000 -- you
want to say something first, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. There's -- there's an item
that -- that I did not include in this worksheet. I have a
-- I have a memo from the District Clerk concerning purchase
of a reader/printer for her office. I think she's here.
She's here tonight. And, so, I'm putting that on the table
for -- you know, for your consideration in her behalf.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What's the dollar amount?
MR. TOMLINSON: $9,000.
JUDGE HENNEKE: How much?
MR. TOMLINSON: $9,000.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. The reader/printer was
something that our District Clerk brought up during our
hearing. It was my feeling that this was not a priority
item. I did not include it in the priority items to be
funded. Linda has expressed --and I will give her a chance
to talk to us in a second -- that this is a priority item for
29
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
her, and has asked that it be included in the budget. Linda,
do you want to address us at this time?
MS. UECKER: Yes, I would.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The stage is yours.
MS. UECKER: Thank you. Well, at the time of our
budget hearings, when I brought this up, I was under the
understanding at the time that the Court had approved this,
or tentatively approved this. I didn't get any negative
response, so I just assumed that it was going to be approved.
And, it wasn't until I saw the final print of the budget that
I realized that it wasn't in there. I have two reader/
printers. One of them, the oldest one, is six years old.
It was new when I bought it. The other one is four years
old, and it was a reconditioned one, and I think it was,
like, a year and a half or a year old or something like that.
As the Court knows, all of the District Court records
are on microfilm. Everything. These are all permanent
records. I have one staff member that is on one of the
reader/printers for two hours every morning, so that ties
that one up. Abstracters use them all day long. We get
requests for copies by mail. We get requests for copies by
phone. Attorneys' staff. There's always somebody waiting in
line to use one of the printers. The one that is the oldest
is -- gets the most wear and tear, and it's starting to show
that wear and tear very seriously, and I think it needs to be
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
replaced. Maybe I can -- we're not going to get anything as
a trade-in for it, because those people just don't take those
things, but i -- I'd like to take it off of our maintenance
and just use it as long as we can and add one.
The other thing that's increasing the volume of the use
on these reader/printers is the tripling of the A.G. cases,
as y'all know, and I think I've discussed this with the Court
before. Because of the child support and Deadbeat Parents
Program and the Attorney General's office coming in and
enforcing child support arrearages, our child support cases
and family law cases have increased in the last couple of
years by, like, triple, and they tell us that they're going
to even go more than that. That also has caused us to go --
have to go back to the older records to pull up the older
decrees of divorces, modification orders, child support
orders. Even in cases where minor children are past the age
of 18, they're trying to get the arrearages.
So, these get a lot of hard use. And, I think it's
well-justified, because, having all of the court records on
microfilm, I have saved this County thousands and thousands
of dollars, as opposed to having them hard copy film, as
microfilm is still the most archival and the most economic
way to preserve records, not to mention the hundreds of
square yards of space that I've saved. And, in view of the
fact that we're getting ready to move anyway, I think that --
31
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
twice, maybe -- I think that this is a well-justified item,
and I'd like to see the Court reconsider it, if you would.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The $9,000, does that
include maintenance contracts and --
MS. UECKER: I don't buy a reader/printer unless I
get the first year of maintenance free.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So, that wouldn't be
included in there.
MS. UECKER: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hundreds of yards saved --
square yards? Hundreds of square yards saved, Linda?
MS. UECKER: I can prove it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I wouldn't challenge that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I wouldn't challenge it
either, Judge. That's a heck of a reduction of --
MS. UECKER: I can get about a yard and a half
square on one roll of microfilm, like this. Right now, I've
got almost 900 rolls of microfilm. I have 900 rolls of
microfilm. That's just District Court records.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The alternative -- if we
don't do this, you're going to take up hundreds of square
yards in the new building?
MS. UECKER: No. No, that's not the alternative.
I'm just saying that these reader/printers get a lot of use.
Abstracters use them, attorneys use them, the public uses
32
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
them. We have people that come in and do -- what do you call
the searches where they search their families and --
genealogy searches, and old criminal records and -- there's
-- you know, and we use one of them almost constantly, just
the office, for office purposes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me ask -- or let me make
a comment, I guess; it's really not a question. But, I can
see that probably the worst thing that could happen is if we
have a printer fail.
MS. UECKER: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Then we've got to start the
acquisition process. We're in a world of hurt, and that
probably -- because then you're down for several days, maybe
weeks.
MS. UECKER: Exactly. And, that just happened to
us last week. We had one that was down for, like, a week and
a half, and they go down very easily because the -- the
little pulleys in there that pull the film through, all it is
is a little rubber washer. And I've tried to get them to
show me how to do it, but I have to call the repairman to
come to replace the little rubber washer, but you can't use
it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If you had three machines,
they would all be in use? They would not retire one? They'd
33
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
still be using all three?
MS. UECKER: I'd keep the oldest one as long as I
could. I'd probably take it off of maintenance, 'cause
maintenance right now is pretty high on that machine, because
it's that machine --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How old is that?
MS. UECKER: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How old is that?
MS. UECKER: That -- that one is six years old, and
the other one is probably five. But, the oldest one is the
one with all the bells and whistles, and it -- there's more
things go wrong with it. And, some of the stuff doesn't even
work on it any more. I think -- well, it may be older than
that. I think Thea was working up there when we bought it,
so -- and I don't know how long that's been.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good lord.
MS. UECKER: So, it may be older than six years.
I'm estimating.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it's still up there?
MS. UECKER: It's still up there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a miracle.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It runs on electricity? No.
MS. UECKER: What I have done is I've had real good
luck finding reconditioned ones, and -- instead of buying new
ones, 'cause new ones are, like, between $15,000 and $20,000.
,--
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
And, I've kind of gone -- you know, I scale down to the
plainer models that are more public- and user-friendly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, did you say that out of
the computers for the jail, there's -- $10,000 out of that
was in next year's budget that we're not going to spend next
year?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we could just switch that
Capital Outlay item to this, from these computers to this,
'cause we're buying these computers this year, and not change
the budget.
13 agenda.
19
15 can --
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
total.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Except it's not on the
JUDGE HENNEKE: This is a budget amendment. We
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, a budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we wouldn't change the
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm inclined to say that
maybe Linda makes a good point, in that this -- this is one
of those areas where the public and everyone has a -- has a
lot of use and a lot of -- it's one of those things where
it's one of the services we should be providing.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let me ask this, though. Linda, do
you have a place to use it right now?
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
MS. UECKER: Well --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Physically, where would you put it?
MS. UECKER: Right now, I wouldn't. What I'm
saying is, hopefully, if -- if everything goes as scheduled,
I'll probably put that machine in as soon as we get a place
to put it, which -- but it would be in this budget year, and
that's why I'm asking now. It's an item that is a necessity
to the function of the office at this point.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make a motion that we
amend the budget to do that in the way that Jonathan
indicates. We can take that out of that -- make that $10,000
a $9,000 and move it out of --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's ask the Interim
Sheriff-designate Hicks. Do you understand what's being
proposed up here, Charlie?
MR. HICKS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you have a problem with the
proposal that's being made, which is essentially to take
$10,000, which was approved in your budget fox next year's
computers, give $9,000 of that to the District Clerk for this
purpose. Is that -- do you have a problem with that?
MR. HICKS: No, that's fine.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right.
MS. UECKER: Thank you. And, you know, I've made
this offer before, because I know this is expensive equipment
36
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 some of the offices can't justify cameras and
reader/printers. But, I have offered to, you know, let
people use my cameras to film their records, and then they
come use the readers if they need anything on them, too.
I've made that offer, and I -- that still stands.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We've had a motion --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, to transfer $10,000 from
Capital Outlay for the jail, I believe.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Nine thousand.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Transfer $9,000 from Capital Outlay
for the Jail to the District Clerk's office for purpose of
purchasing a new reader/printer, and adjust the budget
accordingly. This, then, is a revenue expense neutral item.
It's simply a bookkeeping line item exchange; is that
correct?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The extra thousand, we're just
going to --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Extra thousand stays with the
Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No designated purpose? I mean,
Capital Outlay?
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
,-.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Still Capital Outlay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They may have a printer go
down or something, you know, a computer printer or something.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's leave him $1,000. Any
further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE:
Motion carries.
MS. UECKER: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We then we qo back to the issue of
approving the budget, as amended by the budget amendments,
and as further amended by what we just did. I want everyone
to be aware of the fact that the budget includes the General
Provisions and the Position Schedule. Within the General
Provisions are the holidays for the coming year -- fiscal
year, which, again, are the same holidays as were approved at
this time last year, adjusted for the difference in days of
the week and/or dates.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we approve the 1999/2000
Kerr County budget, as amended.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve the
38
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Fiscal Year 1999/2000 budget, as amended. Any further
discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carriei9 by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. The next item on
the agenda, 2.3, is to consider and discuss adopting --
setting the tax rate for fiscal year 1999/2000. Again, for
the purpose of our guests and the general public, I will read
the proposed budget rate -- I mean the tax rates by specific
category. General Fund proposed tax rate is .2015. Jury tax
rate is .0016. Fire Protection, .0058. Public Library,
.0219. Indigent Health, .0175. 1998 Tax Anticipation Note,
.0291. 1994 Jail Bond, .0285. Permanent Improvement, .0132.
Total M & O proposed rate is .3141. Road and Bridge
Operating tax rate would be .0372. Total Road and Bridge
tax, then, would be .0372. Total County rate is .03513,
which is the same rate as last year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve the
proposed tax rate for Fiscal Year 1999/2000. Any further
discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
39
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to say that
in all the hundreds of votes that we take annually, these are
the two most important votes that we do, in my opinion.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I wholeheartedly agree. Next,
we'll go to Agenda Item 2.9, which is a presentation by
Sherry Cunningham on the activities is of the KEDF and other
Chamber of Commerce matters. Sherry?
MS. CUNNINGHAM: Good evening, Judge,
Commissioners. It's good to be here tonight. This is an
important night. This is -- I like these meetings; I'm glad
you're doing this every once in a while. It's great.
For the record, I am Sherry Cunningham, president of the
Kerr Economic Development Foundation, and also the Kerrville
Area Chamber of Commerce, and I live at 939 Bluebonnet here
in Kerrville. I came tonight to brief you on the work of the
Kerr Economic Development Foundation. This is something
that, you know, we've not been doing, but we decided a few
months ago that it was time that we do this, because you're a
very important part of our economic development work and we
want to do this -- probably a couple of times a year we'll do
that, unless there's something that you need us to do more
often, and then we'll come as you want that report done.
40
	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
We do appreciate the ongoing work of the Commissioners
Court and your support of the K.E.D.F. I think it's great
that -- I think it was back in 1992 that community leaders
put the Kerr Economic Development Foundation together, and
probably different people on the Court at that time, but the
City and County and different business leaders came together
to do that. And, they did that so we could be a little bit
proactive in our economic development work, because one of
the things that we found out is economic development never
goes away. About the time you think that you get one issue
taken care of -- as you very well know, Larry; you've been
in this business -- something else pops up, and so it seems
to be an ongoing challenge.
I know you have a full agenda tonight, and I'm not
going to take a lot of your time. I did bring you a written
report. We're just at the process of finishing up our --
our year. I don't have the annual report done, so I've
provided you one tonight; it's kind of a 10-month report
until we get all our numbers in. So, I'll get that to you
when I finish, and I would ask that you read that. And then,
if you have any questions, if you, certainly, give me a call,
I'd be mote than glad to answer those.
I do want to cover a few points tonight. First, I would
like to tell you that when I did start going back to start
putting our report together, I noticed that, really and
91
	
	1
	2
	3
	9
	5
	6
	7
	8
	9
	10
	11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
truly, there's about three words that describe a lot of the
work we've been doing last year, and that's Veterans
Administration Hospital. We spent a ton of time on that.
And, it's very -- as you well know„ it's been about 19
months now that -- when we came together with some of the
hospital officials to start working on that, because we did
have the -- the fear that we were going to lose the hospital
and a lot of the health care services for veterans, as well
as about a $23 million operating budget and payroll out
there.
The Veteran's Hospital has been a part of this community
since -- for about 75 years, and so it's very important to
us. And, when we started working on that, we found out very
early that we needed to address that issue as a veteran's
issue, and not really as an economic development one. And,
thanks to Jonathan, who introduced us to General Bacon, we
were able to find some really fine people to come to our aid
in that, who -- who knew the Veterans' health Care needs, who
knew the way the politics worked with this, and who very much
have -- have led the way over the last 14 months. And, if it
had not been fox Generals Bacon, Schellhase, and Chesney,
along with Gene Richey, Bill Bowden, Bill Stacy, Benny Hyde,
Bill Williams -- Commissioner Williams, Judge Henneke, State
Representative Harvey Hilderbran, Ben Low, Joseph Benham,
Benny Guerrero, Joe Strange, Jack Letford, Bob Weinberg, and
42
,--
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
many others, we might not be standing before you tonight to
tell you that we're still fighting the battle. And, I think
that's good. You know, it could have been over a long time
ago. So -- so, we really appreciate your help on that.
The K.E.D.F. played a big role in this because they were
able to provide the financial backing for this group of
people to really qo to work. And, what I'm talking about
there is the monies to provide the many copies and a lot of
the printings done for the petition drive and a lot of those
different things like that, so printing and postage and all
that. And, probably, we spent about, not including staff
time, close to 57,000 this year on that. But, that's not too
big of an investment if were able to save about a S23 million
payroll; I think that's a good investment.
Second, I want to thank those of you who have been
serving or currently serve on the Mooney Task Force, another
industry in our community that's vitally important to our
area, about 900 jobs. And, I think one of the smartest
things I've done in a long time is put that task force
together, which is made up of not only business people from
the K.E.D.F., but also representatives from the County
Commissioners Court, as well as the City of Kerrville. Since
the airport is jointly owned by the City and County, I think
that's one good reason, and the other reason is because we
all play a role in economic development, and this is a major
93
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
employer for us and a major taxpayer. And, so, as you very
well know, our work is not complete in that area. What we're
striving to do is to access some funds through Texas
Department of Economic Development to be able to get that
plant ready, on their on-site wastewater treatment, to be
ready to hook onto the City's water and wastewater. And, so,
we've had some hills to climb there and we're not through
with that challenge, so we'll continue to work that through
the rest of this year.
Third, Bill mentioned it earlier when he got up and made
his report from Alamo Workforce Development. That's
something we've been working on probably four or five years
now. And, truly, if it had not been for us getting Bill
Williams on that Board, we would not, again, be as successful
as we have been. There's a 29-member board that guides the
work of the Alamo Workforce Development. There was one
member on that Board representing the four northern counties,
and that's our own Bill Williams, and so he's really carried
a big load in that. We've come a long way since the first
time we had that meeting back at Schreiner College. I don't
even know if you were there, Bill, but at that time the
challenge looked so huge that we didn't know if we'd be able
to save those services in our community, and we have been
able to do that. And, so, there's a lot of people that
worked this Kerr County Workforce Advisory Team that really

99
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
played a big role in that.
And, if you have not been to the Texas Workforce Center,
I would suggest that you go, because it really is an
exemplary center of helping employers as well as job-seekers.
That task is not finished, and there's a lot of things that
are on the horizon that we probably don't even realize yet,
as the Welfare reform clock ticks and -- and gets closer to
running down. I think there's probably a lot of employers in
this area that, you know, we're going to be having to work
with when all that happens, because I think there's some
other challenges out there, so we're going to continue to
monitor that. Child care is a big part of that. And, you
know, some of the things that we have to continually do is
watchdog these contracts, such as the one about the -- the
local initiative that some of our child care providers have
been trying to do and make sure that those things get taken
care of.
Last, I just want to tell you a little bit about a new
task force that's been appointed over the last couple of
months, and that's the Business Park Task Force. This is
something we've been talking about pretty strongly over the
last year, and I've been wanting to see happen for several
years. And, we do not have a designated multi-use business
park in this area. Quite often we get prospects which would
be wonderful businesses that are attracted to our area, but
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
•--
45
since we don't have anywhere to take them to show them,
without having to start through the maze of just raw sites,
it's really -- it puts us out of competition with some of the
others. And, we're not talking heavy industry; we're talking
types of industries that we have on our targeted industries
list, which are clean, which will enhance what we have, not
take away from that.
And, so, again, we've used the same formula in
developing this task force for the business park development
as we did for Mooney, where we have representatives from the
County and the City, as well as the business community.
They've had a couple of meetings. Where they are right now
is they're gathering information on various sites available.
We're also gathering information on other communities our
size that might have done this so we can -- no reason for us
to go out and recreate the wheel. We can steal a little bit
of ideas here and there. That's -- it's legal in chamber of
commerce work, you know. And, so, we're going to be working
on that over probably the next year or so, and we don't know
at this time how long it's going to take. When I say "year
or so," by the time we get one together and package it and
price it and market it, it takes little while. So, we're
excited about that.
Also, tonight, I've provided a copy of the goals and
objectives for 1999/2000. I brought that to you. I would
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
just ask that you take a look at these things. If you ever
have any questions, you certainly can ask them to me tonight
or you can take these and call me at your convenience. So,
let me give you these. Anybody have any questions?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any questions?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Good report.
MS. CUNNINGHAM: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Appreciate all you do, Sherry.
MS. CUNNINGHAM: Oh, you're welcome.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Many hours.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sherry, what did you say
your home address was? What was it?
MS. CUNNINGHAM: I used to be your neighbor.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're in Precinct number...
MS. CUNNINGHAM: I don't --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One.
MS. CUNNINGHAM: There you go. Well, thank you for
your time; I know you have a long agenda. And, thank you
also for your support. We appreciate it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Sherry.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good report. We need to keep doing
that, learn about all of our various activities. The next
item is Agenda Item No. 2.5, which is to consider and discuss
Shadow Ridge Subdivision residents' petition to conduct an
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
election for the purpose of forming a special road district.
Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, two weeks ago we had
this on the agenda, and the Commissioner raised some
questions as to whether or not the Court had the ability to
proceed on the basis that we were proposing to proceed. And,
to finish setting the stage, we asked, through you, the
County Attorney to provide us with some insight as to what
the laws of the State of Texas and the Government
Transportation Code say about this matter. I guess I'd like
to know what he has to say.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Motley?
MR. MOTLEY: I've provided it in a written form for
you. I think all of you have a copy of it. Do you want me
lust to comment generally? Is that what you're saying?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that would be useful.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: May I point out one sentence
in here, please? May I?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's let David give us his view,
and then we'll proceed from there. David?
MR. MOTLEY: I don't want to stand here and read it
to the Court, but the question that I recall Judge Henneke
having asked is whether it was a lawful expenditure for the
County to contribute toward the funding of a road district
for purposes of bringing Shadow Ridge Estate's roads up to a
48
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
certain standard so that they could then be taken into --
presumptively, into the County -- into County Maintenance
system.
And, I had earlier provided an opinion to Commissioner
Williams about it, and in that opinion expressed a -- or
restated Constitutional law that says the County may not
donate its money for a private purpose. So, the question
then becomes -- and I believe it's a policy question to
decide -- whether a use of money -- this use of money or any
use of County funds that the Commissioners keep safe for the
taxpayers may be used fox a purpose. In other words, it's a
legitimate or proper public purpose. There is no single case
that sets out any standards as to what is a proper public
purpose. There is no Attorney General's opinion squarely on
point; in other words, a case just exactly like this. And
so, in general, it becomes an inquiry which has to be
determined on a case-by-case basis.
And, I think different people may vary in their opinion
as to what is a proper public purpose. It's clear that with
the passage of time and with, you know, modernization, that
public purpose -- the public purpose doctrine has liberalized
to some degree. Certain things that would never be
considered a proper public purpose are now routinely
publicly-funded, such as day care centers, would be one
example. That's something that would not have been done some
49
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
time ago. So, there is no clear rule that says whether this
particular proposed expenditure is or is not a proper public
expenditure.
There were some guidelines that I found in some of the
cases and A.G. opinions I read, and in some of the source
material. And, generally speaking, if the fund or the
expenditure of funds is such that it generally benefits the
local populace, and the -- the object being performed is
similar to that which has been typically or historically
performed by a unit of government, then that would tend to
say that the expenditure would be proper. Another guideline,
I guess you would say, along those lines is that the larger
the group of citizens that are benefited by the expenditure,
the more likely it is to be a proper public expenditure.
There was one case -- it was a very old case, and I
think that's important in light of the fact that I have just
mentioned that the policy or the doctrine, I guess you would
say, has expanded over time, but there's a 1905 case which
determined that the expenditure of public funds to create a
water district which provided irrigation water to only 26
landowners was not unconstitutional. So, there are --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: David, could I interrupt you
at that point and ask a question?
MR. MOTLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Did that opinion say
,~-~
50
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
anything about how the funding for that water district was
done? In other words, was there a public grant involved in
that? Or was it -- did they raise bonds or the district paid
off principal and interest? I think you see where I'm going
with that. Because I don't think anybody, in any of the
cases that I've looked at, and certainly not in the case that
we're looking at tonight, thinks that there's anything wrong
with forming a road district.
MR. MOTLEY: Oh, no, not at all.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or a water district or
whatever else.
MR. MOTLEY: Not at all.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The question gets down to
granting the public funds to that district, rather than going
with funds that are covered purely by taxes or an assessment
or whatever.
MR. MOTLEY: Bonds.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or bonds. And that, to me,
is the issue.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I will tell you that I read a
lot of cases and a lot of A.G. opinions -- and I didn't bring
a copy. That is the Borden vs. Tresoalacios Rice and
Irrigation Comoanv case. And, I believe I did provide a
copy of the case to Judge Henneke along with the memo, but I
didn't bring it with me. I can go get it if you like.
51
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: I just wondered if you had,
because that would cut to the point for me.
MR. MOTLEY: Right. Well, I'll be happy to get it
for you. I can do that and bring it back before the meeting
is over. But, I don't really have a recollection of the
facts of all the different ones that I reviewed, but I was
looking -- you know, I was looking -- when I was looking at
this case, I was specifically looking at the idea of "proper
public purpose." And, this is kind of where this -- this
decision or this analysis went, when they started looking at
the -- you can look at the Government Cade and Transportation
Code and Local Government Code and civil statutes and you can
find a lot of different things about alternate ways to fund
these districts, and you can find out specifically how it is
that this district is supposed to be set up, noticed, you
know, hearings and all that stuff. But, it seems to me that
it evolves to the issue of what is a proper public purpose.
It is very clear that the County may not give its money
or County funds for a project which, in the main, benefits a
private organization, person, et cetera. If a project is
funded by the County and there's an incidental benefit to a
private entity, group, et cetera, that private -- that
incidental benefit would not stop the balance of the
expenditure or the expenditure in the whole from being a
proper funding. And, that is basically the state of the law
52
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
as I'm able to tell you.
Now, I can probably -- if you want supplementation, I
can probably go through and literally pull out, you know,
50 Attorney General's opinions. One might be on the use of
County funds to mail out Christmas cards. One might be on
the use of County funds to set aside a space for a private
concession stand. Different sort of things like that. I
found none of those that was very similar on facts to what we
were trying to determine here, so -- and I don't know that
you can compare apples and oranges like that. But, as I say,
those -- those principles of saying -- or the guidelines that
you'd have to, I would think, determine on a case-by-case
basis whether this is the sort of a function that
historically is performed by government, whether -- you know,
again, the more people benefited, the more likely to be
proper. It does benefit the local populace.
I know Commissioner Williams had sent a request over --
or I wouldn't say request, but he sent sort of a memo to
highlight some considerations that he thought pertinent in
the overall decision on this memo, and he was interested in
the concept -- or primarily in the concept of who was
benefited. County citizens -- does it have to be everybody
in the county? Does it have to be a subset of some -- some
group of people in the county? In the earlier opinion that I
had written for Commissioner Williams, I read the statute,
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
and I thought it was very plain that it said -- and this is a
different section. This is not the -- but, again, we're
talking about proper public purpose; we're not talking about
the road district. But, it did say that if it's for the
public health, safety, welfare, benefit of the citizens or
the residents of the County, then the Commissioners Court
could authorize it and assess the landowners or lot owners in
the subdivision. And it seemed, to me, clear that the
drafters of that statute were saying very clearly, benefit
the citizens of the county, assess the people in the
subdivision.
One of the rules of statutory instruction that I looked
at -- it's a very common-sense rule, but it says if it reads
plainly and it's clear what is meant, that I don't have to go
to secondary statutory construction aids to determine what is
in the statute. And, there was no -- "residents of the
county" was not a particularized term of art. No legal --
particular legal definition was attached to it, nor was "lot
owners" or "property owners" in a subdivision of any
particular legal definition. So, I know that's something
that Commissioner Williams had addressed.
But, I guess what I'm telling you, in short, is that the
decision about whether this is a proper public purpose has to
be made on a case-by-case basis. And, the -- and it very
well -- each member of the Court might have a different
54
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
lz
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
opinion about what is proper and what is not, but I was not
able to find any sort of case which said, "This is the law,"
or any Attorney General's opinion with very similar facts.
So, that's what my research yielded, and that's what I tried
to provide in my reply to Judge Henneke on the 21st.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If I may? Mr. Motley,
obviously, Commissioner Griffin and I have both written
you --
MR. MOTLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- memorandums outlining
some of our points of view.
MR. MOTLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whether good, bad, ox
indifferent, you know, is not for me to say. But, I would
really like to start -- because there's been so much written
and stated about private roads; the County cannot come to the
assistance of private roads. And, I don't like to put you on
the spot without your law books handy with you, but would you
start by distinct -- distincting for me, making a clear-cut
distinction for me, as to a legal definition of a private
road, versus a road in a subdivision which was dedicated to
the public for public use, but does not -- does not meet the
standards of the County for maintenance. Can we start with
that distinction?
MR. MOTLEY: Yeah. And, I will tell you,
55
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Commissioner Williams, I won't be put on the spot without my
books, because I'm not going to be able to go into the wide
world of, you know, transportation here tonight without
having reference material in front of me. But -- and I
wasn't aware that, actually, that was even on the agenda
tonight. But, let me say this. A public road is a road to
which the public has a right to come and go, whether or not
it's County-maintained. It can be made public by several
different mechanisms. It can be dedicated, it can be
purchased by the public, it can be set aside by reservation
in a deed or a plat, it can be acquired by an easement of
various different types. The issue of whether or not the
County maintains it is an entirely different issue. I would
submit to you that a road that is maintained by the County
with public funds is a public road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No question about that.
MR. MOTLEY: But, going back less than that, a
private road fs anything, I would think, to which the -- and,
again, this is -- you can probably find some cases defining
this. By just looking at the contravening argument of what a
public road is, a private road would be one to which the
public does not have a general right to come and go. And,
you can probably drive up and down any secondary road you
want in the county, and there are numerous houses which have
a driveway coming out onto the main access road. Those are
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
driveways.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No-trespassing sign --
MR. MOTLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- posted? I accept that.
I think that's absolutely on point.
MR. MOTLEY: And I believe that is the definition,
in a roundabout way, of private road, by saying what I think
a public road is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. MOTLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, then, you know, I think
we're on an even playing field here; that we're not talking,
in the case of Shadow Ridge, about private roads. We're
talking about roads that the public uses every single day.
There's no prohibition to the public using them every single
day. And, the only thing we're distinguishing here is the
fact that they were never built up to County standards and,
therefore, they were never accepted by the County for
forthcoming maintenance -- ongoing maintenance. And, the
reason I -- the reason I want to call that distinction to
your attention is because, in your memorandum to me of July
2, you make several references to Subdivision Rules and
Regulations as it applies to private roads. And, you said in
one paragraph, which I find very interesting -- "In short,"
it says -- and I'm reading from the last page of your
57
,~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
memorandum.
MR. MOTLEY: And, I'll tell you, you have an
advantage over me; I didn't briny it with me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll read it verbatim. "In
short, it seems that if the residents of Shadow Ridge Estates
Subdivision wish to have their private roads accepted for
County maintenance, it will be a matter for agreement between
the parties." Okay. So, I think we have to go back to the
-- to the real basic question here. These are not private
roads. They are roads dedicated for public use, but they
weren't built to County standards.
MR. MOTLEY: When I'm using "private" in that
context, I don't think I'm saying that people don't have a
right to come and go on the roads if the people live in that
subdivision. And, that is a subdivision where the roads have
not been accepted for County Maintenance, and they have
friends who don't live in the subdivision. Their friends are
going out there and visiting them. When I'm using that
context there, I think I'm basically talking about whether or
not those roads -- whether or not public funds, you know, are
going to be spent to bring them up to a particular standard.
Now, in light of the fact that whatever subdivision
regulations and rules were in effect at the time, which my
understanding is that the subdivision started in '82 and the
rules didn't kick in till January 1 of '84.
58
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 WILLIAMS: Right.
MR. MOTLEY: So, when I'm saying
don't -- I don't think it's specifically -
actually -- again, not having that memo in
don't believe that that's really the point
talking about in the memo. I think what y
was --
"private" there, I
- and I don't
front of me, I
that we were
ou had asked fox
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, in my subsequent memo
I had asked you about 253.003.
MR. MOTLEY: I understand that, but you didn't ask
for a reply to that memo. You provided that to me for
information in answering Judge Henneke's memo, and I didn't
know that you had intended some sort of a reply to that. So,
I'm not -- in no way arguing with you. What I'm saying is
that I believe that that reference that you lust read there
is not -- I'm not intending by -- in other words, whether the
road is private or not, to me, is not key or germane to the
decision tonight. The fact of the matter is, is that the
subdivision is built. I believe representations were made to
the people who bought the road -- bought the lots in the
subdivision that the roads were County-maintained.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unfortunately, that's true.
In their contracts of deed, yes.
MR. MOTLEY: And, I also understand that the
representation was made by the developer, or whoever it is --
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
I don't even know who it is that said that these roads are
County-maintained roads. And, they're not County-maintained
roads, and they were not County-maintained roads. And --
and, you know, the question is now, should the County come in
and make right a representation that was made in the
conveyance to those different landowners?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think what I'm asking,
Mr. Motley, is not that.
MR. MOTLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because, obviously, if we
were to take that course of action, anybody who believed, by
contract of deed or deed or some other way, that they had
suffered an injustice, we'd be inundated with people in here
wanting us to take over their roads and fix their roads. I'm
not coming from that direction at all. What I'm really
asking is, does this Court, as it is constituted today in
1999, have the ability to do what it has done in the past
under Section 253.003 of the Transportation Code, which is to
allow a road district to be formed under the basis -- under
the basis of public health, safety, or welfare, and the
County pick up a portion of the reconstruction of the roads
as it has done before? That's what I'm asking.
MR. MOTLEY: You mind if I get the memo that I
wrote you back?

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which one do you want?
60
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. MOTLEY: The one back on June 22 or whatever.
That was --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Could I interrupt this
colloquy for lust a moment and say that -- that I was right
with you, Bill, up to the point where you said that the
County picks up a portion -- of course, under 253.003, you
can form a road district, you can issue bonds, you can
assess. You can be certain, ther_e's a lot of ways to raise
the money to bring the road -- road to County standards. The
question is, how do you pay for :it? And the problem that I
have with the law is that there's nothing that says we can
make a grant of public funds to a subdivision to bring their
substandard county public roads up to County standards.
I would also point out that the court order, which I
think I got a copy to everybody, 16776, which was done --
became effective on April the 9th of 1984, was the -- was the
solution that the Court came up with to those roads that were
created prior to 1989. And, they said in one fell swoop in
that order that all the roads that were constructed before
the '89 rules went into effect are covered by the '89 rules.
As a portion of that, even, they spelled out -- as an
attachment to that court order, they spelled out what those
standards were, and the most interesting thing I find in that
was in the bottom of it, where they put in big, capital
letters, "ALL COSTS TO BRING ANY ROAD TO THESE SPECIFICATIONS
61
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
SHALL BE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS." Now, I've
just tried to read this stuff, and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Me too.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- and it's complicated, and
I'll grant that. I would sure like to see everybody's road
get paved that needs it. We've got, like, 1,200 miles of --
help me here a little bit, Franklin.
MR. JOHNSTON. Approximately.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we've got maybe
1,200 -- we've got over 1,000 miles of these kind of roads in
the county. The cost, if we were to pay two-thirds of that,
if the County were to pick that up; that is, to make a public
grant, it would be somewhere in the order of $20 million,
conservatively, maybe 30. So, I don't think that we can get
into the business of making public grants to bring public
nonstandard roads up to County standards and take them in the
system. That has clearly, I think, been the intent of the
legislation. It's been the intent of the statutes, as
written. And, I know there's not a whole lot of case law on
it, because I tried find some of that too, but I think the
intent is that developers and landowners bring roads to
County standards, the County takes them over for maintenance
by court order.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand you.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, that's where we are.
62
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
The issue is not -- certainly, we can form a road district,
and maybe -- one of the things that came out of Mr. Motley's
last opinion, which I liked, was the idea, and it probably
could be pursued, of bonding. Form a road district, bonds
can be issued for 30 years, and that bonding district is
going to pay all -- through taxes, pay all of the principal
and interest, so we haven't gotten into a public grant
situation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand you.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So -- but, anyway, that's
the issue, as I see it. Not -- certainly, form a road
district. Certainly, pave roads for the people who want to
form that road district and do it. Only question is the
mechanism for funding.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're on, Mr. Motley.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I think what you had asked me is
if there -- if the -- I'd almost like you to repeat it, but I
recall you saying that -- could the Court, considering public
health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the County,
contribute towards a road district in the manner being
discussed tonight. Is that your question, in essence?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM3: Well, I pose that question,
David, not just to start a whole new practice here, but
because that had, in fact, been the practice of the Court in
the past.
63
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: Commissioner Williams, it has
been done, but it's not the practice. The Court -- while I
was on the Court the last two years, it was done one time in
Witt Road. It was turned down several other times.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I stand corrected. But, it
has been done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It has been done.
MR. MOTLEY: I understand. And, I was just about
to say that, just because something has been done before is
usually a pretty lousy reason to do it again. If --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Many times that's the case;
that's true.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, sometimes people ought to look
at what they're doing and maybe look at doing it the right
way, and -- but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In this case, we want to do
it the right way or not at all.
MR. MOTLEY: Yes, sir. And, I'm not -- my comment,
really, about that was a general comment and not directed
towards this particular inquiry. But, the concept of the,
you know, creation of the road district doesn't really --
just a moment, I'm sorry. The question that you had posed
earlier about public health, safety, welfare, et cetera,
64
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
really is not one considered in the establishment of road
district. That comes under another section, and it's
253.003. That is yet another means. There are several means
by which roads can be built and approved, et cetera.
253.003 says that if Commissioners Court determines
improvement of a road in a subdivision or of an access road
to a subdivision is necessary for the public health, safety,
or welfare of the residents of the County, the Commissioners
Court may propose to improve the road to comply with County
standards for roads, and assess all or part of the costs of
the improvement pro rata against the record owners of the
real property of the subdivision. That's the one I was
talking about earlier. That concept, in the interest of
public health, safety, and welfare, is in this section and
not in the section relating to creation or establishment of a
road district. And, so, I don't know whether your question
about establishing a road district -- whether public health,
safety, and welfare is an issue. And, I'm not sure where
that leaves us as fax as your inquiry, but --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I might add, in the study
that I did of this, I think what happened in the case last
year, where I think this sort of a thing we talked about here
was done, was that -- was that the health, safety, and
welfare statute -- the Chapter 253 sort of got mixed in
conceptually with Chapter 257, which has to do with road
65
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
districts, and was sort of mixed together. And, that is not
the way they're written. I mean, they're not written -- you
don't have a road district formed because of a health,
safety, and welfare problem. You go fix the road if there is
a health, safety, welfare problem, and you assess the costs
to the owners if they vote to do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which, in effect, is
creation of a road district.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, it's not. It's an
assessment. It's not a road district that has taxing and
bonding authority. That's the distinction. So, it's not a
body politic. And, if you read in 257 what I'm talking
about, road districts, it talks about the road district being
a body politic; it can be sued, it can be -- it can enter
into contracts and that kind of thing, where under this
assessment thing, you couldn't. So, it -- there was a
mixture, and it's probably very understandable. It's very
complicated. And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, I lust want the Court
to know that my view is that -- it's not that I would be
against forming a road district. It's lust that if it's
going to be funded, it has to be funded through taxes or
bonding. That's the only way you can do it. And, there's no
provision for making grant of public funds to that road
66
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
district. At least, I haven't been convinced otherwise yet.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I hear what Commissioner Griffin
is saying, and I just say that there is a general concept of
proper public purpose. The County may not expend money for a
private purpose. But, a proper public purpose, the County
may expend money. That said, now, the decision as to what is
a proper public purpose -- I'm saying too many P's, but it's
a policy matter.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think that that's the crux
of what we have to get to.
MR. MOTLEY: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm not sure that we can get to it
tonight.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably not. We're not
any closer.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The crux is, to what extent are we
willing to use County funds to contribute all or a part of
the cost of bringing the road up to standards for the purpose
of bringing it into the County maintenance system? Under
253.003, we clearly have the ability to contribute towards
that effort, because the statute clearly says that
Commissioners Court may assess all or a part of the costs of
the improvements against the landowners. It's my opinion, my
belief, that we create a road district. You could also, if
you so desired, use County funds for a portion of the cost of
67
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
bringing the road in, and then the district would tax the
landowners for the balance. I think the issue is, what is
our policy? And it needs to be a fairly uniform policy as to
how we contribute towards improving substandard roads for the
purpose of bringing them up to then bring them to County
maintenance.
It's a budget policy, it's an everything policy.
There's no way to slice it and dice it. I don't know if we
do it on a case-by-case basis. Previous Courts have said
landowners must contribute 100 percent of the costs of
bringing the roads up to standards for purposes of being
accepted into County maintenance. There have been exceptions
to that. Do we continue along the same route? How do we
determine what the exceptions are? I think that's what our
task is. I think that the fiscal implications of having a
lax policy of bringing roads up to County standards is
enormous.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And we have to be conscious of
that. It happens to come to us in the form of these good
people who have come to us for help, and I'm not sure how we
resolve it tonight, or -- or in this -- Jonathan, you had
something?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is that the --
I don't think it has worked very well doing it on a case-by-

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
case basis, as the Court has done in the past. I know -- you
know, there have been instances in the past -- that I'm aware
of, anyway -- when a flood washed out a road and we went and
fixed it. It was a private road, school bus needed to get
access, public safety. We went and fixed that road, and
probably it was the correct thing to do. I don't believe an
assessment was made to the property owners there. I don't
know.
Certainly, in other instances, we did Witt Road, where I
can't even remember -- you probably know the exact percentage
the County contributed. And, about a month after that, or
several months, there was a situation out in western Kerr
County where an individual had a son who was severely
handicapped, and it was going to really benefit just one --
or probably, actually, three people; as I recall, three
households by the long stretch of road that was in very bad
condition, and we said no, you know, it's not a proper use.
Looking at that, I think the prior Court kind of looked at
the numbers a little bit, but didn't have a policy. I think
it should have a policy -- or we should have a policy that is
uniformly adopted throughout the county. The only --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only thing that varies a
little bit on that, that you always have to remember, there
are occasions when the County wants the road to be a public
~_
69
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
road. We want a County road there and we want to connect
Point A to Point B, and that is a different situation. And,
the County should be -- then it's willing to pay, you know,
all or 100 percent, you know, of that cost.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don't disagree with
what you`re saying, Commissioner, and I think out of this
discussion, the very least we could hope to happen would be
a trail which we know we can follow with assurance that we're
not doing something improper.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, at the same time,
conveying to the people who -- who are either benefited or
injured by our position, that we are consistent in our
administration of policy. I think that should be one of our
goals. And, to the extent we can continue in the discussion,
but not tonight, I'd like to do that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think one -- there are
several areas we need look at. One is the time length on the
taxing. I think previous Courts have established -- what,
Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought it was 15 years.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Fifteen years. That's not
statutory; that's, again, a policy issue by this Court, which
is always capable of being revised. We have no ability to go
above 15 cents per hundred, but we do have the ability to
70
.,
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
,.,
adjust the time of that tax. The other thing which I think
Commissioner Griffin capably points out is that a road
district has the ability to issue bonds. Bonds are secured
by the property and paid back by taxes levied by the district
to retire the bonds. The bonds can be for 30 years.
As all of us homeowners know, the difference between a
15-year mortgage and a 30-year mortgage is substantial. So,
one thing that we may want to do in future instances is to
look towards a bonding payback, where the members of the
district go out and assess themselves and issue bonds, as
opposed to a taxing payback, which the County collects when
the members of the district approve it. And, that may be a
way in which to substantially lower the cost to the people
who reside within the district. Now, they also understand
that that stretches their obligation out another 15 years,
but if they're like me, I'm more interested in cash flow, and
I'm sure I'm not going to hold onto that sucker for 30 years,
anyway.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, the other thing, too,
is that that process gets the road built to County standards
up front. The County takes it in for maintenance in
perpetuity, forever and ever. And, the only thing that the
-- that that road district is left with then, of course, is
that 30-year obligation on the bonds. But, there's been no
grant of public funds to -- to do that. I think that's very
71
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
clean. That makes a lot of sense to me, if we -- I think we
really ought to look at the bonding capability that the
statutes give us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does the statute, under
that scenario, limit -- the limit is .15, fifteen cents per
100 --
COMMISSIONER	GRIFFIN: No.	
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: Amortization or --	
MR. MOTLEY:	No.	
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: How is it set?	
MR. MOTLEY:	The total amount of money that	can be
raised by bonds cannot	exceed one-fourth the assessed	value
of the properties in t	he --	
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: Okay.	
MR. MOTLEY:	-- proposed road district.	
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: Well, in this case,	that
wouldn't be -- that wo	uldn`t be a limiting factor.	
COMMISSIONER	GRIFFIN: And, the other --	
MR. MOTLEY:	I think around 90 to 49 homes.	And,
they look at the most	recent assessment of the distric	t or
the area, as recorded	by the Chief Appraiser in the --	
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: About $850,000.	
MR. MOTLEY:	That would be the total of --	
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: That's a current --	total
current aggregate of t	he -- of the subdivision, around	
7z
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
$850,000.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Bond's up to a quarter of
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Cost would not be a factor.
MR. MOTLEY: And those bonds can go for 30 years,
as well.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, I think that the
funding or the interest rate or the rate on the payback
against those is -- goes up to whatever that -- 80 cent per
hundred or something.
MR. MOTLEY: It -- it, I believe, calculates or
goes into the total 80 percent -- 80 cent per hundred.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Which is an overall --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is a max?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is everything.
MR. MOTLEY: That's max, everything, but there is
also another -- another road district tax that is not for
this purpose, but it is for maintaining already existing
County roads. One other thing about that is that the
Commissioners Court annually will look at the amount of money
that it would need to pay the bonds on that for that annual
period, and then assess and levy a tax on an annual basis to
pay off those bonds. So, that's how that would work.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. To the extent that
the folks in this area of Kerr County want me to continue
73
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
these discussions and find a solution, we'll try do that. I
think we've probably exhausted it for tonight.
MR. MOTLEY: I'm sorry there was not a more --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I -- I'm glad that that -- we
will work with them to find a solution. But, I think what we
need to do also is to, at an appropriate time, revise the
policy on any contribution and either confirm what we have
now, which is basically 100 percent from the property owners,
or -- or consider an adjustment. All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only comment I'd like to
make, I'd like to thank Commissioner Griffin and Commissioner
Williams and David Motley for the amount of time they spent
on researching this. I think this Court and future Courts
are going to benefit from having a paper trail to go to when
these issues come before us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, David.
MR. MOTLEY: Sure. Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, the Court's going to
call a 10-minute recess. We'll reconvene at 8:15.
(Recess taken from 8:05 p.m. to 8:15 p.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 8:15. This Special Session of
the Commissioners Court will now reconvene. Next item on the
agenda is Item 2.6, consider and discuss budget amendment for
Constable, Precinct 2, for replacement of a tire on his
74
,~
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
vehicle.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is my night.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Williams. We'd be
done by now if it weren't for you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. The Constable,
Precinct 2, brought the bill back to me, and he brought
some other information supporting his request. And, again,
I guess we harken back to Mr. Motley's statement, just
because it's been done before doesn't mean we should do it
again.
But, he cited a similar situation, I believe a year ago
or so, where the Court approved the payment of a bill
for the repair of a radar unit in his automobile, which was
not a -- the radar unit was not owned by the County, it was
owned by him. So, I told the Constable of Precinct 2, who
is here, if he wishes to address the Court, I would bring
the issue back. I brought it back. We have done it before.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to make clear that
it was December of 1996. It wasn't a year ago. It was --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Time flies when you're
having fun.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is true. It was prior
to Commissioner Letz and myself.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Constable Williams?
.-.
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
75
MR. WILLIAMS: I believe that it's real -- I'll
take just a very few minutes here. Okay. A bill was
presented to y'all from the Goodyear Company in
Fredericksburg; it's a government-type situation on tires.
The tires are bad on my car. I contacted these people. They
quoted me a price of $201.64, which for four tires -- that's
mounting, balance, and everything, ready to go out the door.
I contacted the Auditor's office to go through my budget with
Mindy, and we found where I had 5150 in postage and I had $60
in Miscellaneous, and I requested to have the $143.20 moved
over to Miscellaneous with the $60, which would have been
$203.20 to pay for the tires. And, that's basically it. The
money was in the budget, and that's why I went ahead and got
tires.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Anybody have any questions?
You had indicated, Commissioner, it wasn't a valid expense
last time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I still believe that it's
covered under the travel allowance. That's the way I feel.
That's just my feeling.
COMMIS3IONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'll tell you what,
Constable. I'll put a motion out and we'll see where it
goes. I move the bill be paid.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm trying to read through
76
.-.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
~,
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
the -- there's one thing that I just did not read through,
and that's this portion out of our minutes. Seems like it
had been --
MR. WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Griffin. I'll give
-- so you'll know what's going on here, the reason I put that
in here is -- is last go-around, Commissioner Williams did
what he just did and you seconded it, which I appreciate very
much. Of course, it wasn't one tine that was blown out; it
was four tires, okay? Obviously, the cost for the 193 -- the
$193.20 was that moving up of that money up to Miscellaneous.
That's -- y'all were kind of misinformed on that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: Down here, Mr. Letz -- or the Judge
asked for comments. Commissioner Letz said he had a comment
and he said that, basically, that, "To me, this is a
precedent. We have never done this for any of the
constables, taking on their vehicular repairs." Okay, I can
understand that. But, I feel like if you're going to repair
my equipment, and I need some tires for my car, which I use
for County business, I don't see a problem with paying the
$201.63. It's not $900 -- ox better than $400 that I paid
out of my pocket last time for the tires. That's why I did
this; I found out about this program, and I felt like, since
I do use the car for County business, that the Commissioners
Court wouldn't mind transferring the money to pay for the
77
1 I tires.
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you not use -- the program
you're referring to is a cheaper price on the tires?
MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct, it's a government --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you use it whether or not
the County pays for it?
MR. WILLIAMS: I can. Yes, sir, sure can. But,
like I said before, the money's in the budget for it. And
there's other things in the past that have been paid for by
the County that belongs to me, and I felt like that -- like I
said before, since I use the car for company business -- or
County business, which pertains to a lot, that I felt like
the new tires would be of benefit to the County, especially
during a liability. Okay, that's one of the reasons this was
done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just so you know, Constable, I
just feel that the money's already -- you're already being
paid fox that through the travel allowance.
MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. You have to understand, Mx.
Letz, $1,800 doesn't go very fax when you own your own
vehicle, okay? So, that's what I'm telling you, that it's
not -- it's not that I don't -- you know, I don't appreciate
the $1,800. It's just it doesn't go very far when you are
driving a 1987 Dodge Diplomat, okay?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just think -- and the
7a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
precedent issue, I'll go back to. It's no different for a
Constable, other than he's law enforcement, than if I'm going
to go out and put tires on my truck. I get a travel
allowance. I use it extensively for County business.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the same issue. To me, we
get -- most elected officials get a travel allowance for
using their personal vehicles in the County, and that travel
allowance should cover automobile expenses, including
repairs.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. For the record, just to
make people in the room understand, you use your pickup truck
to go back and forth to the courthouse, and you probably go
out in your precinct and travel around. I use mine to serve
civil process. I use to it transport prisoners. I use it to
arrest people and put them in jail. I transport juveniles.
I also back up the Sheriff's Department when they call me on
different calls, so there are some times that my speeds are
in excess of 80 or 85 miles an hour, so I wanted something
underneath me that would not only protect me, but whoever's
in the vehicle with me. That's why this was done. And, at
that point in time, I did not have the finances to pay for
those tires. That's why I found this program, came up here
and went to the Auditor's office, where I found the money,
and I went ahead and did what I needed to do.
79

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: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me ask a question -- or
not a question; let me make comment there. And, I don't want
us to get into the thing of putting everything off for a
policy decision, but this really is a policy matter, because
if we -- if we were to approve something like this, I can
certainly see Jonathan's point, that then any sort of step
over the edge and we are now -- lust like we would be if we
were fixing everybody's road, now we're going to get into the
area of repairing cars and tires and whatever. I think
that's worth a policy look to come up with something that is
consistent.
Now, maybe we have that now, and that is that we don't
do any of that. And, maybe that's the way it's been in the
past, but I wouldn't be against reviewing that to see -- and
not lust look at tires, necessarily, but what is the total
thing that we look at with all of our Constables? And --
and, realizing that that role is a little different than --
than most of us do with our vehicles; that we drive around
the county, and -- I mean, because we always have to go by
the speed limits, so, of course, we always do. But, you see
what I'm -- I'm ]ust thinking, it may be worth looking at
from the top down and say, Are we really doing the right
thing, and do we want to look in a way that might lust insure
that we're being fair and equitable and that this money is
ao
~-.
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
right, and -- for the allowances, I'm talking about. Maybe
that's all it is. Maybe it's an adjustment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would agree with that. And,
I think that, you know, I -- well, the in three years I've
been working on the budget in the Court, we've never spent a
whole lot of time on travel allowances. We've just kind of
-- whatever was there was just continued. And, there are
some positions in the County, some elected officials, that do
rely on their cars more heavily than others. I think it's
very reasonable to adjust the travel allowance accordingly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz is exactly
right. The -- the travel allowance, that's the reason it's
there, and historically, we've always understood that it's
for maintenance of vehicles. I would probably say if -- if,
you know, we allowed new tires here, that tomorrow, I'm going
to have to have some new tires on my car. So, you know, if
we do it for one, we're going to have to do it for everybody,
and that -- that travel. allowance, that's what that's for.
So, I use -- I use it for maintaining my own vehicle as I
travel around my precinct. That's what it's for.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If it -- and any -- and I
would agree with that. All I'm saying is -- is that the one
thing that we probably could look at is, Do we have the right
emphasis and right area as far -- particularly as far as --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably not.
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
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Probably not. We can
probably -- do you think you can put them off? Could you put
them off for a while while we toy with this one? Because I'm
not sure that -- I mean, we've gone through this before, and
I think we'll go through it again. And, what I'm saying is
I'd like to see us get a better handle on the policy side
about how we do these kind of things. And, if -- and, I
suspect I would come down agreeing with what the previous
Courts have come down; that is, it's in the allowance. But,
you know, let's go, but maybe we need to look at the
allowance. That's what I'm saying.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think that's a
valid point, and the allowance that we -- we are extending --
I'm kind of like Commissioner Letz. If I blow a tine out,
I'm going to replace that tire, and that's part of the
allowance.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: While I'm driving the
roads. By the same token, I don't abuse that car in the line
of duty that -- that others who receive allowances do. So,
maybe the allowance is short; I don't know. The question is,
there's a motion I've offered, Judge, and it appears to -- I
don't think there's been a second. The Constable is
out-of-pocket for tires to make his constable car xun, and
that's the truth.
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
JUDGE HENNEKE: There's been a motion made by
Commissioner Williams to approve the budget amendment. Is
there a second?
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'll call again. Is there a
second? Hearing none, motion fails for lack of a second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item for consideration is Item
2.7, which is consider and discuss authorizing expenditure of
$30,000 for a hike and bike trail, relocating and updating
boat ramp, roads, and parking at Flat Rock Lake Park.
Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is coming to Court for
the, I guess, beginning of the next phase of work out there,
which is working on the roads, moving the boat ramp, and
getting the hike and bike trails upgraded. It will be done
under the direction of Road and Bridge under a contract, one
of the contractors. I'm not sure which one they're going to
plan on using. I went over the overall plan out there with
Curt Cowan and Ken Cartwright from L.C.R.A. several weeks ago
and just showed them what we were doing. They agreed -- they
had some ideas in some areas that we'll incorporate. It
really won't cost any more to do it that way, but they're
just items that were originally in the budget that was put

83
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
forward in, I think, May of this year. And, we, you know,
cleared up the copies of that during our budget as backup.
It's no departure from that original budget. And, Road and
Bridge is ready to oversee this work and get it done.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, I'll ask the question,
lust so it goes on the record. This is all grant money from
the L.C.R.A., right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one question. In
your last paragraph, Commissioner, you said that you reviewed
the park plan with L.C.R.A. representatives and they
suggested the plan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They supported the plan.
That's a typo.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll move that we approve
this expenditure out of .those grant funds fox 530,000 for the
hike and bike trail --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- relocating the boat ramp,
roads, and parking for Flat Rock Lake Park.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we authorize
expenditure of 530,000 from the L.C.R.A. grant for funding

84
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
for hike and bike trail, relocating and updating boat ramp,
roads, and parking at the Flat Rock Lake Park. Any further
discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is Item
2.8, consider and discuss adoption of the Ordinance
Prohibiting Solid Waste Disposal in Kerr County. We have
presented to you all a revision of the ordinance based upon
the discussion at the last Commissioners Court meeting. Are
there any comments or questions from the Commissioners? Are
there any comments or questions from the Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a comment.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm surprised.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know it's a shock to
everybody. I have some modifications to this ordinance.
And, actually, Judge, I made my comments on the original one,
not the new one that you gave, because I don't know that -- I
don't know how it's going to be easier to go through it, but
I guess, again, my comment -- or I guess, as I understand,
the basic reason for this is to prevent future landfills from
coming to Kerr County without the Commissioners Court having
some say in where it goes.
85
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Z2
23
24
25
When I read that, and read through the ordinance again,
under the definitions it defines "solid waste facility."
But, solid waste -- and that's a good definition; I like that
one. I found something I liked in this ordinance. But, the
term is never used anywhere. And I thought that it would
solve a lot of my concerns if, on the second page, where it
says, "IT IS FURTHER ORDAINED AND ORDERED that the disposal
of solid waste is PROHIBITED in all other areas of Kerr
County," that if we would add "solid waste facility" in that,
so it would read, "IT IS FURTHER ORDAINED AND ORDERED that
the disposal of solid waste in the solid waste facility is
PROHIBITED in all other areas of Kerr County," I think that
accomplishes what we're trying to do and gets me -- basically
says that landfills are no longer permitted, but doesn't get
into all this other detail and things about household trash
and stuff like that. I think that would solve all -- or mast
of my concerns.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about in a "licensed
solid waste facility"?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't have a problem with
that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. You know, as the
presumptive author of this ordinance, I certainly have no
problem with adding at the bottom of Page 2, B, after solid
waste, "in a licensed solid waste facility." Correct?
.-
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
That's what you're suggesting?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It should say that the disposal
of solid waste in a licensed solid waste facility is
prohibited in all other areas of Kerr County. And, to me,
you know, that focus -- focus is only on solid waste
facilities. And, the rest of it, then, I have to go over my
next page of changes.
JUDGR HENNEKE: No, I would certainly accept that
as an amendment to the proposed ordinance. Does anyone else
have any --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will make one other -- while
I'm on my second page, on my last page.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other thing that I came --
I was reading that concerned me, and I don't know -- I think
we really need to exclude it, 'cause it was -- what we do is
exclude some things. Vegetation is not excluded anywhere.
It does not include a section -- under solid waste, it
doesn't exempt vegetation. In fact, it implies -- I would
say it would fall under -- under where it says "other
discarded material," probably. And, I think there is a
problem with that, in that when we go to -- our County crew
goes and cleans road right-of-ways, all that brush would have
to go somewhere if we didn't have an exclusion for it. And,
also, I think whenever you look at the County road, the dead
8~
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
deer and other animals that are found by TexDOT or the County
on county roads and state highways, you know, they're not
excluded. And, I don't -- I'm not going ask where all those
animals go right now, but I don't think they go into the city
dump.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't think we want to ask that
question, because we might not like the answer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think they do.
JUDGE HENNEKE: They should.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do they go to the dump?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think they do. Mr.
Holekamp can tell us.
MR. HOLEKAMP: All? You said "all"?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about most?
MR. HOLEKAMP: I won't answer "all."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, I think the rest of
them are -- well, I will say one other comment. Under (2),
"does not include," (A) (ii), it says, "soil, dirt, rock,
sand, and other natural or man-made inert solid material used
to fill land..." That part is fine. The second part of that
sentence, "...if the object of the fill is to make the land
suitable for construction of surface improvements." I would
recommend you delete everything after "land," because it's
saying that you can only dispose of dirt and rock if the

88
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
purpose of where you're going to put it is to build a
building. You can't just get rid of it for the sake of
getting rid of it. You have to -- you know, so I would
delete everything after --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: After the word "land"?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. Delete "if the object of
the fill is to make the land suitable for construction or
surface improvements." And, after that, I don't have any
more changes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Again, I mean, I don't have any
objection to that deletion of that phrase.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we get that in writing?
Are you through, Jon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I had some more, but I'll
be quiet, because I got the main one on the first page.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or comments? I
mean, I like what we're doing. We've had a request from
Kevin Laughlin of the City to address us on this issue. Mr.
Laughlin, do you have anything you want to add?
MR. LAUGHLIN: Thank you, Your Honor. With respect
to the Court, I appreciate the -- I do appreciate the changes
that the Court has addressed and the Judge has -- has
requested -- or has made at the request of the City staff.
I just want to -- again, I do want to thank you for those
changes. A couple of additional things that I -- if I might
~^
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
point out, though, some of the things in the packet that I
had suggested. One in particular that you may want to
correct in your draft is the reference to -- statutory
reference that needs to be corrected. It's under the
definitions, under solid waste, under (A), Roman numeral
(iii), there's a typo. It needs to be 42 U.S.C., Section
6901, six-nine-zero-one. That's the -- that is the citation
reference.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
MR. LAUGHLIN: The -- some of the discussion you've
lust had, I think -- you know, in trying to change these
definitions, the comment that Judge Henneke made at the last
meeting was somewhat -- was actually accurate. These
definitions axe stated out of the Health and Safety Code,
Chapter 361, which Chapter 364 requires this Court to follow
in adopting this ordinance. So, you know, when you start
playing around with that definition, I would caution you, you
know, and defer you to the County Attorney regarding playing
around with that definition, because it -- you know, I think,
as a matter of -- you know, Council has to discuss this.
We're going to discuss this tomorrow night if we -- depending
on how short or long the meeting is, and how quickly we can
get to the Chamber dinner, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kevin, what definition are
you talking about?
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
MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, the definitions of solid
waste, definition of -- of solid waste facility, municipal
solid waste, industrial solid waste. They all follow, as the
Judge appropriately pointed out at the last meeting, the
Chapter 361 definitions. The comments Mr. Letz was making
with respect to some of the changes in some of these items,
deleting some of them, changing them, modifying them, may at
some point cause you a problem because of the fact that
Chapter 369 requires to you follow the Chapter 361
definitions. So, it's a --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If we change any
definitions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, just now?
MR. LAUGHLIN: So, I would just mention that to
you, just so you'll have that. With that, obviously, as far
as City staff goes, there was an additional provision that we
had requested with respect to the review period that was in
your packet that I delivered -- hand-delivered to you on
September 21st. Obviously, that is a provision we would
prefer to be in there, as opposed to leaving it out, but --
you know, but, of course, it's the Court's prerogative to not
-- to adopt this ordinance without it. So, I will just make
my, you know, staff position known. And, again, we
appreciate the changes that you have made. Thank you.
91
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, what is our timeframe
on this thing? Through this week?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Basically, yeah. Anybody have any
questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the time period, I mean, it
can be changed after this week; you dust have to have an
ordinance -- or an ordinance, I guess, of record by the 30th
of September?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can amend it later?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, that's my understanding, that
we can announce our intention by October 1st. We have to
have something in place by the end of September.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that in the -- this is as a
result of new legislation?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we can adopt this
document and ask Motley. about these deletions that we've
made, and come back and add them back in later on if he says
it's necessary?
JUDGE HENNEKE: If necessary. I mean, we have the
ability to amend anything.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, in that same light, if
the City Council has a -- really has a strong desire for us
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
to make a change, we can consider that at that same time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We can always consider the desires
of the City Council, tardy though they may be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we adopt the
Ordinance Prohibiting Solid Waste Disposal in Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I assume that`s as amended this
evening?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As amended.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It`s been moved by Commissioner
Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we adopt the
Ordinance Prohibiting Solid Waste Disposal in Kerr County, as
amended. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which includes these two
typos that he brought out, adding a zero and changing the 2
to 3 and that kind of thing.
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. Okay, next item
for consideration is Item 2.9, consider and discuss extension
of the City/County Firefighting Agreement.
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 LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve the Tenth
Amendment and Extension of City/County Firefighting Agreement
and authorize County Judge to sign same. Any further
discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 2.10, consider the
preliminary plat of Twin Springs Ranch, Precinct 2.
Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Johnston?
MR. JOHNSTON: Twin Springs Ranch is partly in the
E.T.J. and partly all in -- partly in the county, totally. I
think it's in Precinct 2, and part's in Precinct 3. It's
large acreage tracts, from 25 to 90-some-odd acres, single-
family -- single-house lots. The road that will be
constructed is country lane, paved. The developer and the
surveyor are here if you have any questions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're going to tie this --
where's the access going to come in from? I mean, I think
this is North Twin Springs Boulevard, but --
MR. JOHNSTON: It's -- in the upper left-hand
94
~-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
corner, it says "Spur 100." It comes in on a 60-foot
easement, private road easement, and then it -- halfway down,
it becomes 120 foot wide, and then it comes into the
subdivision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Wasn't there some
question on that access earlier? I mean, didn't this come
before us once before? These was a question on -- on that
access?
MR. JOHNSTON: Someone brought up a question on
that. I don't know if it was --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the Judge brought up a
question.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mike is back there.
MR. LINDLEY: David Jackson had looked at that
easement, and I think he talked to the City Attorney, as
well, and they've both agreed it was good access.
MR. LAUGHLIN: There's an issue about the ability
to expand -- widen that access or the minimum width purposes
and expand the use, and Mr. Jackson and I worked through
that, and I was satisfied that that's -- that would be an
allowable thing for that easement, the way it was dedicated.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And a third of this,
including that easement, is in the E.T.J.; is that correct?
MR. JOHNSTON: Where that line is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're going to be a private
95
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. LINDLEY: Yes, six
MR. JOHNSTON: Gated.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN:
from the Spur?
Gated community.
Private road all the way
MR. LINDLEY: Yes, six -- no, the gate will be at
the -- at the property line. The access from Spur 100 to the
property would be open.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That will be paved, Mike?
MR. LINDLEY: Sorry?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will it be paved?
MR. LINDLEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The access coming in?
MR. LINDLEY: Yes, six.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Are we talking about individual
wells, individual septic systems?
MR. LINDLEY: Yes, sir, minimum 25 acres.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have, where
North Springs Boulevard at Lots 5 and 6 makes the corner
right there, it appears that at that point it's up on top of
the ridge. Is that a possible way or a connection over to
Cypress -- Cypress Creek Road in some way? This is an area
that we looked at for trying to figure out long-term access
to get over from Highway 27 up to Cypress Creek Road. And,
there was also that -- trying to figure out how to get up a
96
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
ridge. I mean, it's out of --
MR. LINDLEY: Well, my understanding, the last time
I talked to people at the Road and Bridge, was that Spur 100
goes to two ranches at the end of the road there, and it made
more sense just to go on up the property line to Cypress
Creek at that point. You've got private property behind here
and another private development behind that. Creek wood --
well, no, this is private road and -- what's the name of that
development?
MR. JOHNSTON: Creekwood's over here.
MR. LINDLEY: East of there in Cypress Creek.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Creekwood IV?
MR. LINDLEY: No, that's to the south of it. But,
yeah, there is more property, individually owned and
developed property.
MR. LINDLEY: I think that ranch is what I'm
thinking about. No, my understanding was the logical place
to do it was to go Spur 100 up between those two ranches and
over the hill. We looked, at one time, at coming up that --
that power line access, but they weren't interested in doing
that, the power company wasn't.
MR. JOHNSTON: Once you get to the top, it's real
rough country from there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I mean, where does that
power line come through?
97
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. LINDLEY: On the plat?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MR. LINDLEY: It's on the north property line.
Just takes in the north corner of it -- of the development.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, I see it.
MR. LINDLEY: It comes across Lot 3 and Lot 2 at
the -- at the corner, then across Second Creek.
COMMI3SIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I'll move the
approval of the preliminary plat of Twin Springs Ranch,
Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve the
preliminary plat of Twin Springs Ranch. I would like to
request from the developer that we get a letter from Mr.
Jackson as to the access, that this is good access for the
people who are going to be using and buying the lots.
MR. LINDLEY: .Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Can you do that?
MR. LINDLEY: You bet.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If not,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. Next item
98
	
	1
	2
	3
	4
	5
	6
	7
	8
	9
	10
	11
	12
~..
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.-.
is Item 2.11, which is to consider and discuss increase in
civil fees by the Sheriff's Department. Interim Sheriff-
designate Hicks.
MR. HICKS: Good evening.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Charlie, is this on page -- the
second page, is that what you want us to go to?
MR. HICKS: The proposed one -- no, it says
bringing most of it up to $60, and then writs up to $200.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Are those the maximums permitted by
law, or are they still
MR. HICKS: No, sir. We did some research and
found that -- out of the Comptroller's Office, that 12
counties are charging over $100, and with a maximum of $200
on writs. And, the average of 179 counties was $50 to $75,
and we're asking for $60 on the notices and subpoenas and
citations. And, being that writs take so much longer and so
much more manpower, we're asking that that be raised to 5200,
to justify some of the money.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions on --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So move.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- the proposed fees?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just -- second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we appzove the
proposed increase in civil fees for the Sheriff's Department.
99
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
Any further discussion? Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. The question is,
the last time these fees were raised was in January of 1998.
MR. HICKS: Okay. I was under the impression it
was 7 to 8 years ago. That may be a possible --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What am I looking at here,
the Court Order in the back of our packet, then? January 1,
'98.
MR. HICKS: I'm not familiar with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Isn't that an increase?
MR. HICKS: It's been $95, most of it, for a long
time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not that I disagree with it,
but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it was `97. September
of '97. First line.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: '97, okay. I just don't
want to get in the habit of this County having the reputation
of bumping fees up every year, and -- but I see this is all
right.
MR. HICKS: I would think that would be a
substantial raise for quite a while.
JUDGE HENNEKE: These fees are effective January 1,
2000. Correct, Jannett?
MS. PIEPER: It's my understanding as soon as
100
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're approved. Linda?
MS. UECKER: I think that's right.
MS. PIEPER: As soon as they're approved, or 20007
MR. MOTLEY: It says 1/1/2000 in the --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I believe --
MR. MOTLEY: -- in the statute.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I believe these are effective
January 1, 2000. And, these axe as a result of an increase
in the permitted fees by recent legislation, correct?
MR. HICKS: That's what I understand.
MS. UECKER: I have a question as to what -- what's
the -- which type of writs the $200 -- that seems a little
high for --
JUDGE HENNEKE: They're spelled out in here.
MS. UECKER: Are they? Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
MR. HICKS: Do you want a copy of this, Linda? Our
last Writ of Execution took us over three days. They're just
-- it was terrible. Lots of man hours tied up in that.
MS. UECKER: The averaye -- I would say that the
average fee throughout the state is $50 on serving citations,
and $100 -- it's a hundred or so on writs.
MR. HICKS: It's over $100, according to standard,
and $50 to S75 --
JUDGE HENNEKE: What we need is the new allowable
101
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
increases, so I don't think we're out of line. Now, we're
perhaps in the upper part of the line, but were not out of
line. It's been moved and seconded that we approve the
requested increases. Any further discussion? If not, all in
favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MR. HICKS: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Charlie.
MS. UECKER: That's January 1, 2000?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. Next item is Item 2.12,
consider and discuss request far budget amendment to cover
the cost of reprinting ballots for the November election, and
the cost of programming the computer chips for the ballot
scanners. Jannett?
MS. PIEPER: As most of you are aware, we did have
to shred our other ballots that came in due to the language
on Proposition 15; the translation of the Spanish was
incorrect. So, I reordered ballots, and it's my
understanding from the Secretary of State that we will be
reimbursed, but I would like to go ahead and pay the printer
bill when it comes in, lust to keep our printers happy.
Also, when Ms. Meeker was in office, she and I were working
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
on the budget together. We did not figure in the programming
of the chips. I thought it was -- when you ordered your
ballots, they automatically did the chips, but I was wrong,
and I don't know how she had -- was thinking it -- if she was
thinking on that; I don't know. But, anyway, between the two
of us, we did not include the cost of our chips for the
ballot scanners, so I am asking that we move $4,000 from my
Filming Supplies into the Ballot Expense. And, then, I'm
also estimating somewhere around $50 for the shipping of the
ballots and the chips.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of which is to be
reimbursed by the State?
MS. PIEPER: No. The only portion that will be
reimbursed by the State is just the actual printing cost,
which is going to be 51,953.18.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not the shipping costs?
MS. PIEPER: Probably the shipping costs, as well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would think so.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just hope that -- I mean,
I'd feel so much better if we knew without a doubt that the
State's going to reimburse us in this thing.
MS. PIEPER: I have a couple of --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is their -- simply, their
mistake, and I would -- I guarantee you gentlemen, I'll be
103
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
standing on my head out here on the table fighting against
paying for the State's mistake. But, if the Clerk --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Me too. A number of places
-- I was lust going to say, 'cause I had a little bit of the
same thought, you know, why in the world would they not pick
up the tab for that? But, they have said publicly --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- in several newspaper
articles I've read, or magazine articles, that they are going
to reimburse.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Jannett, what communication do you
have from the Secretary of State's office on that?
MS. PIEPER: I have their faxes. I have several
faxes, and they've even designated their line item that
they're going to pay for that out of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When does early voting
begin?
MS. PIEPER: October the 18th. But I've already
qot applications by mail, that as soon as they get here, then
I've got to start sending those out. We were lucky that they
notified us in time before we mailed any of them out.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I move that we approve the
budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: As submitted.
104
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: Motion by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve the budget
amendment in the amount of $9,000 to cover the cost of
reprinting the ballots for the November election and cost of
programming the computer chips for the ballot scanners. Any
further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right
hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MS. PIEPER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Griffin, would
you rather stand on your head out here on the table with me?
We'll do that sometime, okay?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is Item 2.13, which is --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want a picture of that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- consider and discuss request
from the District Clerk fox a part-time employee, funded from
the Record Preservation fund. Ms. Uecker.
MS. UECKER: Yeah. Thank you. I have this
part-time employee now that's being paid out of my part-time
salary. What she does is -- or this person does is two hours
a day. All she does is looks at the microfilm to make sure
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
that it's copyable. If any of you have been out to the
Sheriff's Department, you know what a mess all the boxes
of papers and files -- and, Buster, most of those are mine.
And it's yards, square yards. What I'm trying to do,
anticipating the move and trying to clean up some of this,
is to destroy the paper files. But, before I can do that --
and what I have is, I have all the records on microfilm.
The copies of the microfilm that I have here are duplicates.
They're silver duplicates. The masters are at a facility in
Austin that is, by statute, temperature-controlled, humidity-
controlled, 9-hour fire doors, and we can go on and on and
on.
So, that makes microfilm archival, which means these
permanent records can be destroyed after a certain period of
time. What I have to do to preserve the integrity of the
records of the Kerr County District Court is to make sure
that all of those -- that microfilm can be duplicated. So,
what she's doing is she's reading or checking all of it to
make sure that it's readable, it's printable. If not, we'll
have to go back and pull those hard files, refilm it, or do
something else. Those that do not have to be pulled can be
destroyed, which would clear up a lot of space out there.
This is a very tedious job and, of course, I have to
bring a baseball bat to work to -- after two hours of looking
at film go by, I have to hit her in the head just to uncross
106
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
hex eyes. So, two hours is about all you can take of that.
But, I do collect a $20 records preservation fee on criminal
cases and on civil. It goes into a special fund, and I think
the Auditor told me there was $19,000 in that fund?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't remember what it was.
MS. DECKER: I think that's what he told me. I'm
not even sure that any of it's ever been used. And, there --
the fee that I collect goes into that special fund to be used
for records preservation only for County offices. And, I'd
like for this person to be paid for out of that fund. This
is, of course, a temporary. This would not be permanent;
only until we could see that all those records are disposed
of properly. Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much did you think that
was in that fund? I didn't catch the number.
MS. DECKER: $19,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $19,000. And, when --
MS. DECKER: There's another fund; it's also a
records preservation fund, but that's for County Clerk's use
only. The one that I collect the fees for is for all County
offices, and that's the $19,000.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- in other words, the
-- let's see. I've never heard of the Records Preservation
Fund, so actually these are real questions. Could -- could
you send some of that money down here so we can preserve
107
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
records?
MS. UECKER: You can use it, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
MS. UECKER: You can.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, it can be used for
personnel as well as --
MS. UECKER: As long as it falls under the category
of records preservation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Reader/printers and things
like that?
MS. UECKER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
MS. UECKER: Certainly could, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hit a hot-button?
MS. UECKER: And -- you know, and that goes back --
and I didn't think of it at the time, but, you know, if we
didn't have -- reader/printers can be bought out of that
fund, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We could have done that
earlier tonight?
MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you gaining on -- on
getting rid of your yards of paper? Only two hours a day,
seems like you're probably losing ground.
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
MS. UECKER: Well, no, it's just the type of a job
that you can't expect someone to sit there and go -- you
know, and watch these little, bitty images go by in black and
white.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: For new records, do we do it
as we go now, or --
MS. UECKER: Yes, mm-hmm. These are some of the
older microfilm. And, to make sure that I am performing the
duties of my office properly, if someday Larry Griffin comes
in there and says, "I want to look up this case," and it's on
microfilm and I've already destroyed the original, and it
happens to be the judgment in a very important case and you
see that it's not reproducible, sue me, you know. And,
that's what I'm trying to prevent. And, he would, yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I move that we pass this --
what is it?
MR. TOMLINSON: I'd like to ask a question. For
what year are we talking about?
MS. UECKER: Just for this budget year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: For next budget year or the one
we're in today?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN
starting October 1st.
Next budget year, October --
MS. UECKER: Well, for the next -- yeah, for the
next budget year, because I've got enough money in my
109
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
part-time to October the 1st to pay her, so this would be for
the next budget year, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can't do that. We already did
the budget.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, but it's an
expenditure --
MS. UECKER: It's out of a dedicated fund.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's still got to be a
budget --
MR. TOMLINSON: Still has to be an amendment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nas to be what?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Has to be in the form of a
budget amendment.
MR. TOMLINSON: It still should be part of the
budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we already did that.
MR. TOMLINSON: I know.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think --- what do we do?
Bring it back the first meeting in October as a budget
amendment to that budget which we're in then?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think that's all we can do.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And I get a sense, then, that no
one objects to this, but, procedurally, we have to bring 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
back the first meeting in October.
MS. UECKER: I understand.
JUDGE HENNEKE: When we'xe in the budget year, and
then we can do a budget amendment, which takes money out of
that Records Preservation Fund and puts it for this purpose.
MS. UECKER: That's kind of why it brought it up
now, because the budget was going to be approved tonight, but
I guess we got the cart before the horse, didn't we?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll take --
MS. UECKER: That's fine.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll take care of it.
MS. UECKER: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, you keep saying that
"she" stands there and reads, or "her" and all. Have you
already -- is somebody already there?
MS. UECKER: That person has been doing it. I
changed my statement earlier to "that person," but it does
happen to be a female, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. But, you don't -- I
mean, you don't have anything against males?
MS. UECKER: Absolutely not. I've had a male
working for me. I'd love to have another male.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. That's the end of my
question.
(Discussion off the record.)
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
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Linda.
MS. UECKER: Thank you. I'm going home.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is Item 2.14, which is
consider and discuss contract for risk management services
with the firm of McGriff, Seibels and Williams of Texas.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No relation.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: This is a result of many
conversations we've had about using professional people to
handle our risk management for the county. I think you have
some -- a letter from them in your packet. They've proposed
to do this on a commission basis, where there would be no
direct fee to the County, and their commission would come
from the underwriters, from whoever they -- or the Court
chooses to purchase coverage from. So, there'd be no direct
fee. I have done some research on this firm. They -- they
have been here personally to visit with me, and -- and the
Judge met the people that represent the firm. In my
research, I've talked to three different municipalities that
use them. They come highly recommended. I think they're
highly qualified, so I would recommend that we -- that we use
them on this basis.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
112
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
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we enter into a
contract with the firm of McGriff, Seibels and Williams of
Texas, Inc., to act as consultant on risk management
services, and authorize County Judge to execute such
contract. Before we vote, I'll say that I did meet with
these individuals. They're very experienced and they did --
it's something we have to do in order to navigate the
troubled waters of insurance coverage in the coming years.
MR. TGMLINSGN: The head -- the gentleman that's
head of this division does nothing but municipalities.
That's his expertise, and they have a division devoted solely
for this purpose, so I feel real comfortable with using them.
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. Thank you, Tommy.
The next item is Item 2.15, consider and discuss contract --
extension of existing contract with VeriClaims, Inc., for
administration of indigent health/third-party claims,
correct?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right, that's correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: As the Court will undoubtedly
recall, last spring we had a situation where our then risk
113
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
management company folded and went out of business. And,
VeriClaims stepped in and has been performing services since
then. And, Tommy, what's been your experience?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's fine, no problems at all. I
would -- I would recommend that we extend the contract.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The same personnel?
MR. TOMLINSON: Same personnel, yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Buster, you had a question?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. The only question I
have is this letter from Alice to you, and she says, "The
difference, of course, is the term of the agreement, Item
9(k)," and that's that if we at any point discontinue the
contract with them, then we pay them for the remainder of the
year or whatever. Is that something brand-new? I mean, why
is it referenced here? Is it something new?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I think we talked -- I think
we spoke to that in the interim agreement. I don't -- I
don't have it in front of me, so I don't recall what was in
the interim agreement. But, that's a different --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "The difference, of course,
is the term of the agreement." I mean, I don't have any
problem with it. I wanted to know if this is something
brand-new, since we talked, or what. What does that mean?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, probably, that is --
it's a two-year term.
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
119
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. What she's trying to say is
it's a two-year term agreement for 2000 till 2001.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I'm happy with that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We had an information --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there -- I mean, on that --
I mean, without going through it, is there a process that if
they're not providing the service, we can get out of the
contract without paying them? I'm sure, certainly, there's a
way -- there's an out-clause for us if they're not --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, read k.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I read k.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. That's the only one
I saw.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: J gives you an out.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Really, there should be the
word there. if it's terminated "without cause." There should
be a -- some kind of a statement, if you want to terminate
without cause, we'd have to pay off the contract, but if --
if it's for a cause that we can justify, then we'll --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think if they quit doing
their job for some reason, if they went bankrupt, they went
out of business --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
115
1
2
3 them.
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. TOMLINSON: I agree.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- we wouldn't have to pay
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, what do we want to do? Do we
want to bring this back again after we talk about that? Do
you want to give me the ability to sign it with necessary
changes to make sure that our liability is limited to that --
those services they've provided prior to any termination? I
think what they're trying to say in that is that, because
we're always billing -- what, probably two or three months in
arrears?
MR. TOMLINSON: Something like that, yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That we would have to pay them for
services they had provided up until date of termination.
That's what I think they're trying to say in that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. Oh. Oh, that's
different than what I was thinking.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's what I think they're trying
to say in that, but we can -- whatever the Court's --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: With that clarification, I
make a motion that we approve it and authorize the Judge to
sign same, with that clarification.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I think what we're
talking about is sub-e, subparagraph e.
116
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: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On Page 7.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by Commissioner
Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve
the Administrative Services Agreement with VeriClaims, Inc.,
for indigent health care claims, subject to a clarification
of section 9 k on Page 7, and authorize County Judge to sign
same at such time as he is satisfied as to the clarification.
Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is Item
No. 16, which is consider and discuss approval of Interlocal
Contract for Kerrville State Hospital hearings and setting of
fees therein provided. Mr. Motley?
MR. MOTLEY: We contract through the Interlocal
Agreement statute with the different counties in our
cachement area. It's more advantageous for them to contract
with Kerr County to hold their mental health and related
hearings here at our hospital rather than to be taking the
patient back to, say, Mason County or wherever it is, and
have their hearings. We've been doing that over the years
through an interlocal agreement, and I don't know why I did
117
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
it, but I volunteered to redraft that agreement this year.
And, I don't know how many hours I have in it, but it's a
lot. And, it is an updated agreement and it takes into
consideration the ruling and the Attorney General opinion
JC-0088, and also takes into consideration that we are now
conducting hearings other than strictly mental health
hearings at the State Hospital. So, it's an attempt to
update it.
The reason it should come before the Court is that the
hearing -- I mean the agreement in its entirety should be
approved by the Court, and then it's going to be distributed
out to all these counties, that contract with us. And, so,
the agreement itself needs to be approved, but in particular,
there are component fees which go up -- go to make up the
proper fees we should be charging in each case. And, in some
cases we've undercharged; that's typically the rule. And, in
other cases we have charged where we may not have been able
to, and the Court actually needs to rule.
And, you already have -- Charlie's gone, but Charlie and
I talked about an update in the Sheriff's fee. And, there
are a number of fees that just need to be set by the Court,
and let me go through them with you real quickly. There is a
fee -- I have called it the Judicial Service Fee, and it is a
fee to be paid to the fund from which a County Judge is paid
for hearings that he conducts at the State Hospital. That

118
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
fee is up to a $50 maximum. That needs to be set by the
Commissioners Court. There is another fee called the
Judicial Salary Supplement Fee. There are certain judges in
the state that, because they dedicate more than 40 percent of
their time to judicial matters -- and I'm talking about
county judges -- they receive a supplement from the State.
This fee is assessed to reimburse the State for that
supplement.
In the past, the Court had always set a flat fee, and it
was an odd number, 7,000-something dollars. That fee can be
set on a case-by-case basis, and I got with Ms. Thompson and
we looked and figured out the number of cases we had per
year, and divided that into the approximate fee that the
Court had set last year for the fee, and it seemed about a
S10 per case supplement would generate at least the same
amount as last year, if not more. So, that one, I propose
that 510.
The Sheriff's Fee is up to $95 -- excuse me. It had
been set at S45 in the past, and I think Charlie had
recommended, actually, that this -- and I spoke with him
briefly about it. He had recommended a S200 fee on service
of mental health papers, and he said he was going to look at
that again, because technically that's -- he was saying 5200
for writs, and that's technically not a writ. So, I suspect
that the fee, once he looks at that again, is probably going

119
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 be more in the area of $60; we're currently charging $45.
Bexar County charges $160; that's what we pay them for the
same fee. So, that fee would would need to be set.
The Records Management Preservation Fee is a fee that's
actually set by the Clerk. Maximum can be $5, and that's
what the fee is -- has always been. Courthouse security fee
is set by the Commissioners Court. It can be a maximum of
$5, and we're at the maximum right now. Well, that's not
bad. That's $5, you know, we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, but for courthouse
security over at the Kerrville State Hospital?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, it's actually not just assessed
on mental health cases. It's all civil cases that are filed.
It's -- and criminal cases, in fact. Civil and criminal.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, not just mental?
MR. MOTLEY: No. I'm just trying for that fee to
be assessed in the mental health cases. It's any case that's
filed. The Alternate Dispute Resolution Fee can be set by
the Commissioners Court at a maximum of $10. The Court
Reporter's Service Fee is a flat fee of $15 for every case
filed. The Fourth Court of Appeals Fee is a maximum of $5,
to be set by the Commissioners Court. The Court right now --
the current fees that we're operating under on Alternate
Dispute Resolution is $10, which is the the maximum, and the
Fourth Court of Appeals Fee is $5, which is is the maximum.

120
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
The Law Library Fee, the copy I gave you here was wrong;
that's a typo. It can be up to $20, as set by the
Commissioners Court, and we are currently at $20. The
Indigent Fee -- the fee that helps fund indigent legal
services by Senate Bill 1534 is $5. And, there's another fee
called a Prosecutorial Service Fee, which is, again, to pay
for the services of prosecutor in these mental health cases
at a fee of up to $50.
So, the only thing, really, that I'm looking at for the
Court to consider tonight -- if you want to stay with the
current scheme that we've used in the past, the only thing
different would be the increase of Judicial Service Fee and
Prosecutorial Service Fee up to $50. I think currently we
are at $35 and $25, $35 for the Judicial Fee and $25 for the
Prosecutor. Those fees, by the way, go into the budget line
item from which those salaries are paid, is my understanding.
It's not something that the person would personally -- it
would offset salary, in other words.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Prosecutorial Service Fee?
MR. MOTLEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Goes into a line that --
MR. MOTLEY: Into the line item out of which the
prosecutor is paid.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why does it go -- then where
is it spent?
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. MOTLEY: It just offsets the salary.
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: Okay.
MR. MOTLEY: In this case, actually, if it were set
at $50 per hearing, the number of hearings we have out there,
it would probably more than pay my entire salary.
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: That's a great idea.
MR. MOTLEY: So, that's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the Judicial
Salary Supplement Fee?
MR. MOTLEY: That's one that would need to be set
by the Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is -- has this always
been there?
MR. MOTLEY: They've been there. Yes, they have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Has it always been $10?
MR. MOTLEY: No. It was set in the past at a flat
fee -- I mean a flat amount in the budget. It was -- I want
to say 7,800 and some-odd dollars in the last budget year.
The court can set it -- rather than a lump sum, can set it on
a per-case basis. We have heard, I will say, around -- I
think last year, about 780 hearings. That fee, $10 a pop
would raise just about the 37,800, is where we divide that
out. We are hearing more cases and we will hear more cases,
in that we have two -- well, three new specialized units at
the hospital; an M.I.M.R. unit, Mental Illness/Mental
122
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
~-
Retardation Unit, or an M.D.U. Then we have two new units
out there called forensic units, which are people who have
been sent to the State Hospital who are declared incompetent
to stand trial for mental illness, or found not guilty for
reasons of mental illness, or who are being assessed for
mental illness prior to trial. Those are low risk people
that have been sent out here, so we will be conducting
hearings that we haven't in the past.
In addition, now that we have this M.D.U., we have a new
group of people we're going to be conducting hearings on,
that are persons who are mentally retarded, who also have
mental illness. And, so, when they're treated out here for
mental illness, once their illness receives maximum benefit
of treatment, the hospital then will commit them to a State
School on the mental retardation side, and so that is a
hearing that's never been provided for by our agreement
before, but it's new because it's -- this is something that
we're just doing new out there this year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: David, would you stop just a
second?
MR. MOTLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judicial Salary Supplement
Fee. I thought that the Legislature sent you another five --
no, 510,000 this round; S5,000 the first time, 510,000 this
time.
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
JUDGE HENNEKE: Another five.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To do those things outside
of this Commissioners Court, those things like these things
here. Isn't that what that was? And then we turn around and
charge another fee?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, there's -- my salary has a
number of components. I get paid for this, for being the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- chairperson of Commissioners
Court. I also get paid for doing the State Hospital, and I
-- then i also get a supplement on top of those with two
increments if I -- if more than 90 percent of my duties are
judicial duties.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That part of my salary that's for
conducting the State Hospital hearings has always been
reimbursed, to a certain extent, by the counties we provide
services for.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE HENNEKE: This is lust another way of
collecting that fee.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: As opposed to having it on the
defined basis, it's on a per-case basis.
MR. MOTLEY: Specifically, what Judge Henneke is
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
....
129
speaking of, if you have your copy of this contract, there's
a House Bill 3211 Judicial Fund Fee of $90 per civil case.
That specifically goes to pay the State for --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Pay me.
MR. MOTLEY: -- the salary supplement. That's how
the salary supplement to the Judge is funded.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Makes sense.
MR. MOTLEY: Yeah, that's how that's funded.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I see.
MR. MOTLEY: The only thing unusual in here that, I
guess, deserves mention is that the Court would need to set
Judicial Service Fee, Prosecutorial Service Fee, and, of
course, I think you've already talked about the Sheriff's
Fee. Hut, those fees would need to be set, and those are
different or higher or -- or being charged on a different
basis. In other words, on a case-by-case basis, rather than
a yearly estimate.
I will also tell you that I tried to get a number to be
charged -- on the Judicial Salary Supplement Fee, I tried to
get a number which would approximate what y'all had budgeted
for that in the past, but make it instead on a case-by-case
basis. And, I'll tell you that with the effect of this
contract that I've drawn up, we will be collecting fees for
cases that we have never collected for in the past. We have
never, for example, collected a fee when we have a patient in
125
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 hospital and they're inpatient and we have a hearing to
change his inpatient status to an outpatient status. That's
a hearing we've done in the past for free. That's a hearing
-- an event which could generate approximately $150, $160
worth of fees, and that everybody else charges.
So, there's no -- there's no intent to gouge on this,
but only to properly source each fee and be sure that we have
the proper fees for each type of hearing, and be sure the
work out there that's being done. We've had already a couple
of mental retardation commitment hearings, which is something
we had not done before approximately three months ago, on any
regular basis, at least. And, that's going to become -- I
know we're going to be doing at least two to three a month
out there now, which -- so, I guess the -- the items that I
would ask you all about would be the these fees that -- the
ones the Commissioners Court has an option to set at this
point are the Judicial Service Fee, the Prosecutorial Service
Fee, and to decide whether or not it's acceptable to change
from a flat assessment on that, you know, to the $10 per
case. So, I mean, I'm trying to point out, I guess,
highlights to you of the thing, but I --
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: That's great, David. I'm
all in favor of doing that. What about the second page? Are
we going to get to that? The --
MR. MOTLEY: Well, no.
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's essentially the same fee.
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: All right. I've got a
question, then. I've got a question -- another one of my
silly questions. Down at the bottom of the second -- Page 2,
chemical dependency hearings. It's my understanding that
M.H.M.R. no longer treats chemical dependency unless it's a
dual diagnosis.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, that's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, do we charge them a fee
on the chemical dependency?
MR. MOTLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And some other --
MR. MOTLEY: There are patients who have a dual
diagnosis. In other words, they have a diagnosis of a
recognized mental illness, and they're also chemically
dependent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
MR. MOTLEY: They're committed on the mental
illness and are given chemical dependency treatment by the
State Hospital.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. MOTLEY: They bill for their services either
the U.S. government, the State government, the family, or
whatever the insurance company -- whatever is in the offing.
There is work afoot to have yet another specialized unit out
127
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
there, which will be treating chemical dependency as a
separate diagnosed problem, and I wanted to provide for that
respectively, and that's why I put that in there. We've had
it in the -- there in the past. I sort of updated the fees.
I don't know if it's there -- the reason we're doing the
-- or I say "we." The reason they're doing the multi-
disciplinary unit for the mentally retarded people, the
forensic units, and the chemical dependency, is that these
are populations that can be out here, use the facilities,
support the staff, the doctors and such out there at the
hospital, yet they don't count against us on our bed day
allocation that we're working with. These -- these patients
will be treated here and not be charged against our bed day
allocation. So, that is one of the ways that the State
Hospital is seeking to keep open -- you know, keep the doors
open.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure, I understand that.
That's great.
MR. MOTLEY: These are all real good things, as far
as the future existence of our hospital out here. But, I --
the chemical dependency had been provided for, but Judge
Henneke can tell you, we've done -- I don't recall doing one
in maybe five or six years, because we were only treating
people that were chemically dependent and mentally ill. But,
I think that may change maybe this fiscal year.
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I know it's supposed
to with the new center and all that.
MR. MOTLEY: So, again, I -- I think the only thing
really worthy of note in here is the -- y'all can read this
whole thing and I"11 answer every question you have, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, thank you. Well, I
guess my question would be -- to change the salary
supplements, my question would be to Tommy about an
accounting procedure. I mean, which is the best way to go?
The per-case? Or flat-line item, or --
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm a little confused, because I
didn't know we'd ever charged other counties for that -- for
that fee.
MR. MOTLEY: Well --
MR. TOMLINSON: To start with.
MR. MOTLEY: It's allowable. And, I'll tell you
right now that I do have the actual section copied off where
it can be done. It is done at the time of filing if a case
will be heard. A Judge who holds hearings at locations other
than the county courthouse is entitled to compensation as
listed in these other two sections.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that include a Justice
of the Peace?
MR. MOTLEY: No, not -- no, because the type of
hearings that are provided for in this only start at the
129
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
temporary commitment level, which which would be a Judge or a
Master, and that does not -- but there are fees, certainly,
that can be assessed -- I want to try to give you that exact
language. But, in any event, it does allow -- here it is.
MR. TOMLINSON: It wasn't -- I mean, there's no
accounting consequences to it. It's just --
MS. PIEPER: No, everything's been set up.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's just a fee that goes to the
Clerk's Office that's --
MR. MOTLEY: Here it is.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- part of any other fees that we
collect.
MR. MOTLEY: Right. It says a Judge who holds
hearings at locations other than the county courthouse also
may receive a reasonable salary supplement in an amount set
by the Commissioners Court. Currently -- and it's on our
budget, and I had to dig around to find it -- it's 7,000 and
some-odd dollars. And we, as I said, approximated the number
of hearings at 700 and something, and thought a more rational
way to do it would be to assess it on a case-by-case basis,
because right now we're at -- we're -- the County is making a
supplement, but we're not charging back for it.
See, we've never charged the other -- and it says right
here it's a collectible court cost, and we've never done
that, so we can collect that 10 bucks a pop back. And --
130
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
and saying a Judge who holds a hearing under the section --
under the section may assess, for Judge's Service Fee, an
amount not to exceed $50 as a court cost. And, that's --
that's, you know, basically it. But, I'm asking the County
to approve the amount as fax as per -- the Judicial Service
Fee and the Prosecutorial Service Fee is set by the Judge of
the Court, but I want the County basically to approve the
change in the salary supplement fee to a per-case basis,
rather than --
JUDGE HENNEKE: The issue before us is whether we
approve the form of the contract and the fees as set forth.
MR. MOTLEY: Bingo.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, that was easy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Third.
MR. MOTLEY: I knew y'all were going to go to sleep
on me.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved that we approve the
form of the contract, the fees pz'ovided in the addendum, and
authorize County Judge to sign contracts with the counties in
our cachement area.
MR. MOTLEY: Let me also say I do have some minor
typos to change in here, such as the 5 to the 20 and all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're going to get this in and
.-~.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-. 1 3
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
131
out of Hexar County?
MR. MOTLEY: I would -- boy, I don't know what
Bexar County's going to do, but but let me tell you right
now --
JUDGE HENNEKE: They don't have any choice, really,
unless they want to come and do it themselves.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know, but they never -- they
don't pay for it promptly.
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.)
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, David.
MR. MOTLEY: Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is Item 17, consider and
discuss resignation of Glenn Holekamp as Local Health
Authority for Rabies and Animal Control.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're history.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we accept the resignation
of Glenn K. Holekamp as Local Health Authority for Rabies and
132
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Animal Control. Any further discussion? Commissioner
Williams, you have some discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think that the
obvious question is, who's going to replace him? And that's
in the next item.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If there's no further discussion,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carried. Item 18, consider
and discuss appointment of Mark S. Allen as the Local Health
Authority for Rabies and Animal Control. Mr. Holekamp?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll let him talk on that one.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We'll let him say something.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yeah. Mark Allen is going to be, on
October 1, the Facilities -- the Animal Control Shelter
Manager -- Animal Control Director, Manager, whatever. And,
it was -- it was very appropriate for him to be appointed the
Local Health Authority for Rabies and Animal Control, and
effective October 1, I'd prefer, because it will coincide
with his responsibilities which commence on that day. If we
do not fill this position, it -- the law would require it to
fall back on the last one that had it, so I would prefer we
133
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
go ahead and make that change.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When axe you going to do
I it?
MR. HOLEKAMP: October 1.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMI3SIONER BALDWIN: Second. Mr. Holekamp -- or,
go ahead.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve the
appointment of Mark S. Allen as the Local Health Authority
for Rabies and Animal Control, effective October the 1st.
Any further discussion?
COMMIS3IONER BALDWIN: Is there some reason he's
not here right now?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, sir. He had a call about two
hours ago, a bite case.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's working for the County?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Never mind. I'd like -- I
think it would be wise for him to come through here once in a
while, just touch base with us.
MR. HOLEKAMP: I would like to -- possibly, the
first meeting in October would be a good opportunity for
y'all to meet him. I'll bring him in and do an introduction.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll consider that. Any further
134
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
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 carried. Thank you, Glenn.
Next item is Item No. 19, which is consider and discuss tree
removal and replacement for courthouse yard.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes. This is a -- a subject that I
would -- that's been a pet project of mine for the last three
months, I've been trying to accomplish, is that we have
numerous trees in the outside perimeter of the courthouse
yard that I feel like have -- are an eyesore. They -- they
don't provide any shade, they're not very attractive.
They're very difficult -- you can't really trim them; there's
no tops in them. And, those are a form of juniper, which Mr.
Holland indicated to me today -- I went and asked him, "What
kind of trees are those?" And, he said, "Those are
junipers." They`re -- they belong to the cedar family, but
they're not like the cedars we know in the pasture; that`s a
different kind. He indicated these trees are probably rather
old, they will not change. They will look like this forever.
They -- they get to a point and just stay like that.
The other kind of trees that are of interest to me to
eliminate are some of the hackberries that are rotting from
the inside and starting to fall and deteriorate, fall in the
135
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
yard. There's no foliage to speak of on them. And, not only
-- not only those trees needing elimination. I would really
like to -- and I've heard this from this Court numerous
times, is we need to have a plan of tree replacement, a tree
placement program to where it's organized, have some input
into what kind of trees that is planted. And, I think this
will give us an opportunity -- and it does not have to be
replaced immediately. This space could be reserved for a
long period of time to place some trees, and of the Court's
choosing or the County's choosing. But, I feel like we have
an opportunity to possibly make our courthouse yard a little
bit more attractive, and I would like to have a panel of
Court members or whatever to walk the grounds and have a
consensus of which trees. I have my choices, but maybe mine
are rather radical.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think so at all,
Glenn. I think --
MR. HOLEKAMP: But, I would really like to have
some input into that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to give you some.
I think God made cedar trees and hackberry trees so that we
can cut them down. That's what they're for, is to cut down
and get rid of all of them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where do you find that in
I the --
136
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's just -- divine
intervention came in here, and it's just something I know.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I think it's a great
idea. The replacement idea is a very good one, too, because
you can sort of get it on a programmed plan. And, in fact, I
know in some public grounds, one of the things they do that
I've seen done rather successfully is let people dedicate
trees. They pay for the trees, even on public grounds, put a
little plaque on it that it's for so-and-so, and you could
end up with some very nice trees at very little cost. Just
have to plant them and look after them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have offers of that from
time to time, but we also need trees -- Jonathan and I have
talked about this -- we need them at out at landmarks, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would -- yeah. Yeah, I think
it's a good idea. The hackberries definitely need to go,
just 'cause they're falling over. Not that I think every
hackberry tree should go, necessarily, Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, these are not your typical
cedar trees. They are in bad shape, but they're not normal
cedars, so a different type of -- well, I guess, technically,
our cedar trees are really in the cypress family, and so
we're in the cypress family.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What do you want to do? Do we want
137
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
to authorize Glenn to go ahead and remove the cypress and
hackberry, or do we want him to bring back a specific plan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let us look at them. We can go
out there as we want, and then maybe number them, and if
anyone objects to any one of them, we can say -- I don't
think we should get rid of all of the cypress cedar trees.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You haven't identified them
on this?
MR. HOLEKAMP: The ones I wish to remove?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, no, I did not identify them.
Those are just the trees identified. I was going to wait at
the pleasure of the Court. If they so choose or so wish, I
can go out there, possibly tomorrow morning, with some green
or red tape and tie it around the tree, and if --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Go out there a with a chain
saw --
MR. HOLEKAMP: No, sir. Mark them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- and mark them.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What I'm hearing is, what we'd like
you to do is identify the trees that you'd like to remove,
and let us look at them, and then we'll put this on our
agenda and we'll let you present a plan for removal. And,
then, perhaps in conjunction with Eddie Holland, give us some
suggestions for what we might replace and where it would be
138
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
appropriate to replace them.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, you can just
identify them on this, have some people, like --
JUDGE HENNEKE: You can identify them on the map,
but we need to give us some method of going out --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: After we do that.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Right. But, I chose to do it this
way first, to at least get a consensus of the Court if they
choose to -- to cut some trees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It will make the other trees
healthier, too.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's true.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I guarantee it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is Item No. 20, which is
consider and discuss approving a contract between Kerr County
and the Kerrville Convention Visitors Bureau regarding the
fund we've already agreed to provide for courthouse lighting,
and authorize County Judge to sign the same.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve the
contract between Kerr County and the Kerrville Convention and
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Visitors Bureau, and authorize County Judge to sign same.
Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. The final item is
No. 21, consider and discuss ratification of Proclamation by
the County Judge declaring the week of September 19th through
25th, 1999, as Farm and Ranch Safety and Health Week in Kerr
County. At the request of the Farm Bureau, I executed a
Proclamation, and it needs to be ratified.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we ratify the
execution of the Proclamation by the County Judge to declare
the week of September 19th through 25th of the year 1999 as
Farm and Ranch Safety and Health Week in Kerr County. We had
scheduled an Executive Session on the --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We didn't vote.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Oh. All in favor, raise your right
hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
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
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: I thought you were moving to
adjourn already. I was going to say, we had scheduled an
Executive Session with Mr. Pollard, our civil attorney, on
the suit regarding the construction of the County Jail. I
have pulled that back; it doesn't have to be tonight. We
will take that up, hopefully, at our October 12th meeting.
If there's nothing else to come before this honorable Court,
we stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 9:90 p.m.)
141
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
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 9th day of October,
1999.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: ~
~~~
Kathy BL~nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
ORDER N0. 26028
CLRIMS RND RCCOUNTS
(]n this the 27th day of September 1999, came to be considered
by the Court the var^ious claims and accounts against Kerr
County and the various Commissioner^s° preCi:o_ts; :...__.. say=
=:=_~s and Accounts ar•e 10-General Fund for 573,396.19;
11-Jury Fund for• 5400.02; 14-Fire Protection Fs-: f..
51,898.19; 15-Road ~ 8ridge F~_ind for• 548,393.02; 23-Juvenile
State Aid F~.ind for 516, 196.75; 27-Jt.ivenile Intensive
F'r•ogram-State Aid F~_~nd for^ 5915.00; 31-F~arks Fund for
53,318.60; 70-permanent Improvement Fund for 587,956.13;
81-Distr^ict Administration Fund for 588.88; 83-State
Funded-216th Distr^ict Rttorney Fund for• 51,764.12; 86-State
Funded-216th District Probation Fund for 51,292.37; and
87-State Funded-Community Corr^ections Fund for• 54,026.39.
tT~TRL RLL FUNDS-5240,385.66)
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 Accounts as recommended by
the County Auditor, with the exception of Invoice #10540
for 55, 495. 81.
ORDER N0. 26@29
BUDGET AMENDMENT
^c1ETH DISTRICT COURT
198TH DISTRICT COURT
On this the 27th day of September' 10'3'3, upon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the Cour^t
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, tr•ansferr•ing 8c5.65
from Line Item No. 1@-436-499 to Line Item No. 1@-43E-42@
Telephone and tr^ansfer^r^ing ~14.3B from Line Item No.
i@-435-499 Miscellaneous to Line Item No. 1@-435-42@.
DRDER ND. cE~030
COURTHOUSE & RELRTED BUILDINGS
Dn this the 7th day of September 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Baldwin, seconded by Commi=_si=-.=: ..__:_.:.--, ~-.E
~~urt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, tr•ansferr•ing
'~"~~. ~3a T':~~u: ''•= T'- •'•:- ~'~; ":'_. --~~ hii eCEliaiiEUU~ tC ~.1nE
Item No. 10-510-420 Telephone.
f~^
ORDER N0. 26031
RUD6ET AMENDNENT
COUNTY JRIL
SHERIFF'S DEF'RRTMENT
On this the 27th day of September- 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner- Letz, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, tr-ansfer-ring a
TOTRL of 85,479.11 fr-om Line Item No. 10-560-1~D4 to TWO Line
Items, 84,804.53 to Line Item No. 10-560-112 Overtime and
8674.58 to Line Item No. 10-56Q~-1fD5. Also transferr-ing a
TOTRL of 820,Q~1~.27 from Line Item No. 10-Sit-1Q~4 Jailer-
Salaries to TWO Line Items; 815,398.94 to Line Item No.
iQ1-512-112 and 84,611.33 to Line Item No. 10-512-108 F'art-
time Salary.
ORDER N0. 26032
PUDGET AMENDMENT
LAW LIPRARY
GENERRL FUND
On this the 27th day of September 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0: =:s===-= _ -==-
Line Item No. 18-390-015 Law Library-Tr-ar~sfer-• In.
Transferring 42,800.00 from Line Item No. 10-700-015 General
Fund-Transfer- Out to Line Item No. 18-390-015 Law
Li6rar-y-Transfer In.

ORDER N0. 26a~3
BUDGET RMENDMENT
LRW LIBRRRY
On this the 27th day of September^ 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded 6y Commissioner Williams, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, transferring
FUNDS fr-om SURGLUS reserves to Line Item No. 18-E50-590 Books.
ORDER N0. 26034
BUDGET AMENDMENT
SHERIFF'S DEGRRTMENT
On this the 27th day of September- 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Letz, seconded by ~Cor-i>sic:-ar^ _. _='_-. .-s =__.
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q1-0, transfer-ring
$n4.:, k:a .'.4':: ;__ _ __ ._ __e' fdC. lE.^.-~1c-1L'J=fi .iaiiei^ ~alar"•l e5 tC
Line Item No. 10-562-570 Sher^iff's Department Capital Outlay.
(1998-1999 Budget)
ORDER N0. 26035
LRTE RILL
PRRPRRA NEMEC
ISSUE HRNDCHECY. FOR INVOICE: #'390927
On this the 27th day of September- 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Let z, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the Co~_irt
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to issuing a
handcheck in the amount of ~3'~1.00 to Par^bara Nemec for^
reimbursement of conference expenses incurr^e d. (9/21-9/24/99
San Rngelo)

ORDER NO. ~6~36
APPROVE AND RCCEPT MONTHLY REPORTS
On this the E7th day of September^ 1999, came to be consider^ed
-;~ the Court the various monthly reports of Ker^r^ County and
Precinct Officials for Ker-r• Count;:. !~c•oT -~ti~-, -._.~~ _
-=--=ss-~-e. griffin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, that s~_~ a.=:=_ __
accepted and filed with the County Clerk far future audits
District Clerk - Linda Uecker•
Month of Rugust 1999
County Extension Rgent-AG Kerr County
-Eddie Holland
Month of August 1999
Extension Rctivity Report
County Extension Activity Report
-Eddie Holland
Major Rctivities - AUGUST
r.nr.rn ~=n -----
PLIDGET AMENDMENT
DISTRICT CLERK
On this the 7th day of September
Commissioner^ Griffin, seconded by
unanimously approved by a vote of
S9,0a~.~0 from Capital Outlay for
Clerk's Dff ice f=. _.._ .-- . =e :.:
r•eader•lprinter, and adjusting the
1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Letz, the Court
4-0-0, transfer^r^ing
the Jail to the District
~:u.~~r~~a,~~a ~ ~,p_
budget accordingly.
ORDER N0. ~E@38
RDOPT KERR COUNTY BUDGET
FISCAL YEAR 1999/@@@
On this the v7th day of September^ 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, the Fiscal Year^
1999/0@@@ Budget, as amended.
r-~
ORDER N0. 26039
^ SETTING TAX RATES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000
On this the 27th day of 5eptember• 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Co~ar•t
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the pr^oposed tax rate
for Fiscal Year 1999/2000.
Tax rates by specific category:
General Fund Tax Rate .2015
Jury Tax Rate .0016
Fire Protection .0058
Public Library .0219
Indigent Health .0175
1998 Tax Anticipation Note .0241
1994 Jail Bond .0285
F'er^manent Improvement .0132
N & O Rate .3141
Road R Pr•idge Operating Tax Rate .0372
Total Road 8 Bridge Tax would be .0372
Total County Rate .03513 (same rate as last year)
ORDER NO. c6iD40
AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF $30,00Q~
,~., FOR FLRT ROCK LAKE PARK PROJECT
(LCRA GRRNT)
On this the c7th day of September 1'399, upon motion made by
Commissioner Gr^iffin, seconded by Commissioner- Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, authorizing
expendit~_~re of ~~Q~,000.~T0 for Hike/Bike Trail, relocation and
updating Boat Ramp, Roads and Parking at the Flat Rock Lake
F'ark.
ORDER N0. c6~t41
RF'PROVE ORDINANCE
PROHIBITING SOLID WRSTE DISPOSAL
IN N,ERR COUNTY
RND PROVIDING CIVIL RND CRIMINAL. PENALTIES
On this the S7th day of September 10'3'3, upon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
~N~+tx i+nan~mei+~ly Approved by A vote of 4-Q1-0, adoeting the
C'rdinance Prohibiting Solid Waste Disposal in Ker•r• County and
Providing Civil and Criminal Penalties.
ORDER NO. ::6~4c
,+--
TENTH AMENDMENT
AND EXTENSION OF CITY/COUNTY
FIRE FIGHTING AGREEMENT
On this the 7th day of September^ 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner^ Haldwin, the Co~_irt
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, amending and
extending the Fire Fighting Rgr-eement Between the City of
Kerrville and Kerr Co~_mty and authorizing the County Sudge to
sign same.
ORDER N0. X6043
AP'P'ROVE PRELIMINARY PLpT OF TWIN SPRINGS RRNCH
On this the 27th day of September^ 1999, upon motion made by
C::mmissior~er^ Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-®-0, th= -.~__-_-a .
Plat of Twin Spr-~ir~gs Ranct-:_
ORDER N0. cE~44
RGGROVE THE pROGOSED INCRERSE IN CIVIL FEES
On this the 27th day of September SS99, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, increasing Civil
Fees for the Sheriff's Department.
ORDER N0. 26045
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY CLERK
On this the 27th day of Septem6er• 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by ~'c:-s-z=_si~-:et Le_=, ~-.e =~_.
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, transfer•r-ing
~"'T9 S~Y~~. ~x t>'- ~-.'s'=1-iL=? Eiiiming Salary to
Line Item No. 10-412-210 Ballot Expense. (includes shot^t age
an first ballots, progr^am chips, second printing on ballots,
shipping/handling and miscellaneous)
ORDER NO. 26046
AGF'ROVE CONTRRCT FOR RISK, MANAGEMENT SERVICES
(WITH FIRM OF MCGRIFF, SEIBELS & WILLIRMS OF TEXRS, INC.)
(pUSLIC ENTITY DIVISION)
On this the 27th day of September- 1'39'3, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Williams, seconded by Commissioner- Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the contract
between McGriff, Seibels R Williams of Texas, Inc. (as Pr-oker-
of Record/Consultant for N.err County's pr-operty and casualty
insur-ance program) and Kerr County and author^i~ed County Judge
to sign same.
ORDER N0. 26047
RDMINISTRRTI'JE SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH VERICLRIMS, INC.
On this the :-:7th day of September 1999, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner E~aldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the
Rdministrative Services Ryreement with VeriClaims, Inc., for
administration of indigent health care claims, s~_rb.ject to a
clarification of <.~ection 9 1'. on Page 7, and author•i~ed
Co~.inty Judye to sign same.

ORDER N0. ~'6~"34P,
RF'F'ROVE ]:NTERLOCRL CONTRRCT FORM
FOR KERRV:[LLE STRTE HOST'ITRL HERI~ING5
RND SE=TYING OF FEES
On this the 7th day of September 199`:3, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Let:_, the
Court ~.inanimously approved by a vote of 4-a-~, the form of the
contract, the fees provided for in the addend~_un, and
a~.ithorized Co~.inty J~.idge to sign r_ontracts with the co~_inties
in oar cachement area.
ORDER N0. 2604'3
ACCEGT RESIGNRTION OF GLENN t:. HOLEKRMF'
AS LOCAL HERLTH AUTHORITY FOR RRHIES AND ANIMRL CONTROL
On this the 27th day of September 195, upon motion made by
Commissioner Gr^iffin, seconded by Cormissi::-=t ~a_...._-, ~-.a
C'C Ui^t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q1-0, accepting the
:~nci-a=;_- _' ___-.-. ... H::lekamp as Locai Health Authority fer^
Rabies and Animal Control.
ORDER N0. 26050
APPROVE RPPOINTMENT OF MARC S. RLLEN
RS THE LOCAL HERLTH AUTHORITY
FOR RR9IES RND RNIMRL CONTROL
On this the 27th day of September 159, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Paldwin, the
Coi_ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-~, appointing
Mar^c S. Allen as the Local Health Ruthor^ity for- Rabies and
Rnimal Control.
ORDER N0. X6051
APPROVE CONTRRCT BETWEEN IiERR CDl1NTY ("COUNTY")
AND N.ERR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION
("KEDF") A TEXAS NON-GROFIT CORPORRTION
On this the c7th day of September 1999, upon motion made by
:.'ommissinner^ Let z, seconded by Commissioner' Williams, the
Cour^t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, -.a =_-_. ___
between tier^r• County and Ker^r• Economic Development Four~datior~
ar~d authorized County Judge to sign same.
ORDER N0. 0650
F'ROCLRNRTION RY THE
COUNTY JUDGE OF KERR COUNTY
0n this the 07th day of September 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner' Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to r-atify the
execution of the Proclamation by the Co~_tnty Judge to declare
the week of September- 19th through OSth of the year 199'3 as
Farm and Ranch Safety and Health Week in Kerr- County.