,..
1
z
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
	12
--	13
	
-	14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a
2
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

I N D E X
October 12, 1999
1.1db~Pay Bills
1.2~,oSb Budget Amendments
1.9aboSy Read and Approve Minutes
1.5uosY Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
2.1,Ut+~-~- Variance to burn ban, Commanche Trace
2.2d~o~I Abolition of City of Center Point, Texas
2 6dboboAppt. replacement election judge, Pct. 905
2.10a6ob~Appt. Glenn Holekamp Facilities Use and
Maintenance Supervisor, effective 10/1/99
2.11~~,o"~Appt. Marc S. Allen, Animal Control Facility
Supervisor, effective 10/1/99
2.19~o63Use of Youth Barns well for monitoring by
Headwaters Underground Water Conservstion Dt.
2.15abo~Services agreement between County t Pressler,
Thompson & Company - general purpose audit
2.16^/rrs'~tesolution allowing County to participate in
State contract airline fares
PAGE
6
19
18
19
19
28
33
39
35
36
39
90
2.3 N~ Public Hearing - minimum infrastructure
standards, manufactured home rental communities 45
2.9~bOLu~Minimum infrastructure standards for
manufactured home rental communities 47
2.5d~o~fO Move Administrative Lieutenant up 2 steps 58
2.9~/e~~Problems in implementing 911 numbering 71
2.7,v/w~~Road & Bridge policy - obstructions in r.o.w. 85
2.So74Db~ Vehicle policy - Road & Bridge emergencies 99
2.12abp6,4~Resignation of Gloria Anderson, 911 Board 108
2.13~fp~w appoint two representatives to 911 Board 109
3.1 a6p69Status of Jail construction litigation 111
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
...
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
	12
^	13
	14
	15
	16
	17
	18
	19
	20
	21
	22
	23
	29

...	25
3
On Tuesday, October 12, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
meeting of Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 9 o'clock on Monday -- or
Tuesday, actually, October 12th. Should be Monday, but it's
not. We'll call to order this regular session of the Kerr
County Commissioners Court. Commissioner Letz, I believe you
have the honors this morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Please stand.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Jonathan.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, any citizen wishing
to speak on items not listed on the regular agenda may do so
at this time. Is there any citizen here who would like to
address the Court on an item not listed on the regular
agenda? Once again, is there any citizen that would like to
address the court on any item which is not listed on the
regular agenda? Hearing none, we will proceed to
Commissioners' comments. Today we'll start with Commissioner
Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I'd gust
like to extend thanks and appreciation to Sandra Yarbrough
9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
and the officers and the members of the Kerr County Fair
Association for the splendid iob they did in organizing this
year's Kerr County Fair. I didn't realize that there were
such a myriad of details and things they have to take into
consideration in putting on one of these, and I'm sure that
those ladies and gentlemen who worked in preparation and
during the fair, they deserve a hearty round of applause and
a big thank you for their efforts.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. Seventy-five
participants. Seventy-five, with the Air Force Band, parade.
It was great, great, great.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Parade route left a little
something to be desired, but the fair itself was great.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Couple comments. I echo what
Bill just said. I think the -- I went by the fair; I guess
it was Saturday night, I was coming back from somewhere about
10 o'clock, and it was packed. I could not believe the
number of cars out there and activities going on. It was
well-attended. Couple of other comments, just informational
items. For those that care, anyway. From Region J matters,
the Texas Water Development Board approved the revisions to
our population projection for Kerr County that we submitted a
month or so ago after some work, that they submitted them --
or approved them as we submitted them. I'd like to recognize
5
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
the Comfort High School football team for continuing to roll
on in the splendid fashion this year. I think they're
currently -- last week they were ninth in the state. I'm
sure that's going to go up after shellacking Jourdanton last
weekend. Those are the only comments I have.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No comments.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I have a couple comments. First of
all, congratulations to our Kerr County Extension Agent,
Eddie Holland, who was elected as National Vice President of
the National Association of County Agricultural Agents.
Eddie's the first Texas Agricultural Agent in 26 years to be
elected to serve on the National Association. Next year, if
all goes well, he will be the President of the National
Association of County Agricultural Agents. It's always
gratifying me to have organizations outside of Kerr County
recognize the excellent people we have serving the citizens
of Kerr County. Secondly, I want to thank N.A.S.A. and, in
particular, Sandy Griffin for the exhibit of space technology
which was in Kerr County last week. It's my understanding
that there were in excess of 900 individuals who went through
the exhibit, and I believe so far that's the single largest
day.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It was.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It was a wonderful exhibit, and I
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8

9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
6
want to thank N.A.S.A. and Sandy, in particular, for bringing
it to Kerrville. And, finally, I want to thank all of the
individuals, the department heads, the employees, members of
the Commissioners Court who assisted in the going-away
reception for Sheriff Kaiser on September 30th. It was a
very well-attended and a very successful event, and I want to
thank each and every one of you for pitching in to make that
successful, and particular thanks to Thea for coordinating
and organizing it. We had ample food. Reminds me of a
family reunion; I've never been to a family reunion where
people weren't concerned with how much food we have and there
wasn't a truckload left over. So, I think we did well. With
that, we'll move into the approval agenda and pay some bills.
Does anyone have any questions about the bills?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question on Page 9, Rabies and
Animal Control. This is something that we go back to every
once in a while. I notice there's a bill from Culligan Water
Conditioning, and I thought we were getting -- we had got out
of the habit of buying water for County employees. And, I
presume that's what that was for. It says "bottled water."
That was my only comment. It's about halfway down, 105759.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's my understanding that the
reason that item is on here was there's no potable water at
that facility. Is that -- that's the explanation that I
received. Marc?
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
7
MR. ALLEN: What comes out of the bathroom is the
only drinkable water, and we have to go to the bathroom and
get it out of the sink there. And, we've got all kind of
people washing their hands all the time in there, so -- but
that's where the potable water is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't guess -- we have
kitchens in other offices, but it's really not that much
different. Just one of those things. I think it's really
not the Court trying to be ogres; it's State law.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Maybe we need to get the
Maintenance Department to look into what it would cost to put
in a water fountain or something like that.
MR. ALLEN: We had discussed that with Maintenance
before.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't you take that up with
him, Marc, and get back to us at the next meeting or so,
okay?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last time I looked at that, it
was $3,000. We looked at it, I know, in Dawn Wright's
office. It was unbelievably expensive.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: For a water fountain?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I forgot how we resolved
that one. The other comment I have -- this is really a
question for Tommy and Larry. Has -- I know we had discussed
consolidating or figuring out how much we pay The Software
8
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
Group on a regular basis. I notice in this month -- this
group of bills it's about 58,000, roughly, that we are
paying. Have you ever come up with a total county-wide
expenditure to that or -- either one of you?
MR. TOMLINSON: I did, but I don't recall what it
was.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: About 565,000 a year or
something like that.
MR. TOMLINSON: Around 60.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And these were quarterly.
One of things that clarified it somewhat to me is a lot of
these are quarterly payments that are recurring, and we know
what -- we know what they are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's not that these came up
by surprise. That's what I first thought; that, all of a
sudden, we had maintenance that had to be done. As a matter
of fact, this is a recurring charge that's billed quarterly,
for the most part.
MR. TOMLINSON: Some of this -- some of this has
been paid fox by State funds also. I mean, Adult Probation
has a sizable amount for that, and it's -- of course, that's
State money, so if you see those bills occur throughout the
funding statement, then a lot of it is theirs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I saw a bunch of them; I
..-_
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
9
thought I'd ask the question
it. That's what I have.
I knew Larry had looked into
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Are you going to raise the
one on -- okay, I'll pass.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'll allow you to go ahead.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, it's one that I did
not -- I had missed it until the Judge pointed it out, and
it's on Page 13, and it's under Road and Bridge for the
Kiplinger Washington Newsletter for 76 bucks. Why do we need
to subscribe to the Kiplinger Washington Newsletter? Is
anybody here from Road and Bridge that might know?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Franklin?
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know the particulars. I
know we've received it for a while.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so.
JUDGE HENNEKE: No.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't either. I will take
an action at the first break to get in touch with somebody
and see if there's an explanation for this, and we can go
ahead and address everything, because that one sticks out
like a sore thumb to me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Unless there's some reason
that we we're lust totally not aware of, I would --
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, one reason that was
advanced to us in another discussion was that it was to
monitor oil prices, which I find kind of hard to grapple
with, because oil prices are on the internet. You can get
oil prices through the Texas Railroad Commission, which is
also on the Internet. So, you don't really need to go to the
Washington beltway to find out what oil is going for per
barrel. If that's the reason, that's not a very good reason.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Last time I remember reading the
Kiplinger Washington Newsletter, it had nothing do with oil
prices.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, even if that was the
reason back in time, it may have been the way they got
information, but now that is more easily accessible and
accurate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It has very little to do
with Kerr County in the issues I've read.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I would raise, on Page 9, the
Apollo Software, software and maintenance, under J.P.'s 2, 3,
and 9. We're having so much trouble with Apollo. I mean,
they never have delivered on the software. I think last year
or the year before there was funds allocated, about 59,000,
for each J.P. to buy this new software from Apollo, which,
when it was installed, never worked. Apollo came and got it,
never brought anything back. They've promised me on two
.-.
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
11
separate occasions that they would fix it, and we've never
heard from them. I'm not sure we want to continue down that
path with them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't we have -- the software
we're using is also from Apollo, isn't it7
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right, but it's a very antiquated
DOS-based system that I'm not sure how long it's going to
survive. I'm not sure if its Y2K-compliant.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It is not. And, I
understood that they sent us a Y2K-compliant version, and it
wouldn't run. So, I share the Judge's concern about this
one. And, I think -- and I believe that -- it's been some
months since I looked into this -- that we have that same
capability through our Software Group package, but that it
was the choice of the J.P.'s to go and stick with the Apollo
system. And, we know that the package that's in The Software
Group for this capability is Y2K-compliant, and I think
there's just a reluctance to change because it's a different
software package.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, but, again, I think what
they're using on Apollo won't carry us past the end of the
year.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Now, the last time I looked
into this, Apollo was supposedly scrambling to get the new
package where it would run, but we haven't heard from them.
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
lz
I haven't heard that they've gotten back to us.
MR. TOMLINSON: I haven't heard anything from them.
I know -- I know the reason that -- that those J.P.'s decided
to use that system. And that -- the communications between
our server at the courthouse and those remote sites, like the
-- at that particular time, J.P. 2 was still in Center Point,
and J.P. 9 is in Ingram. The cost of communications was very
-- you know, it's expensive, and for the -- for the volume of
-- of business that they had at that time, the Court decided
that they would be best to -- to use a stand-alone system for
those officers rather than -- than use our mainframe system.
Besides the -- you know, the communications cost, they`re
also -- the maintenance on the software -- The Software Group
package is also real expensive. So, that's -- that's bottom
line on why those three J.P.'s use Apollo.
COMMISSIONER LET2: Judge, why don't we just pull
those three -- or those payments -- that one payment until we
get it resolved, visit with the J.P.'s?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's what I'd like to do,
is just not -- not authorize those three at this time, and
communicate back to Apollo and say, "We're not prepared to
enter into a year-long maintenance contract when the software
you've currently provided to us is only good for another
three months, unless and until you provide a solution, which
you haven't done so far."
13
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~^ 13
_ _ 19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Until we have successfully
running Y2K-compliant software, we can't extend -- the
message should be, until we have up and running Y2K-compliant
software, we can't enter into a maintenance agreement.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions about any of
the bills?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Subject to the four that we
pulled.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we --
MS. NEMEC: Judge, how about that one that Mr.
Griffin was talking about? Are we holding that one?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's one of the four.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the fourth one.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That we approve the bills as
recommended by the Auditor, with the exception of the invoice
for the Kiplinger Washington Letter from Administrative Road
and Bridge, and the three Apollo Software maintenance
contracts for J.P.'s 2, 3, and 9. Any further discussion?
If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
.--
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
19
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Do we have any
late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. I do have an amendment that
I'd like to visit with the Court about. I don't -- I didn't
get it -- give you a copy of it, but it's -- it's an item
that -- that has to do with the Sheriff's office. Over the
years, individuals in the county have -- have donated monies
to the Sheriff's Office for particular purposes, whether for
the D.A.R.E. program or the dog program or for other special
purposes. This -- this amount has accumulated to $19,275.65.
That's the balance in the account as of 9/30.
The Interim Sheriff and I decided that that's -- that
kind of money is best tracked in our accounting system, and
for these -- for anything, any expenditures made out of those
donated funds comes to the Court first. And -- and then that
allows the -- gives the Treasurer authority to -- to write
checks. What it does is it increases the budget, the total
budget, by that amount, and will go -- what I envision is --
is that as funds do come in on a periodic basis, we will
change -- change the budget by -- by the amount of the
dollars that come in, you know, a year at a time. So, I --
that way -- that way, you know, the Sheriff's Office doesn't
have to be an accountant for those funds, and also, at the
same time, the Court knows what's being expended for those
donations.
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
15
JUDGE HENNEKE: What -- what line item do these
fall under? Would you set up a new line item?
MR. TOMLINSON: We're going to set up an
expenditure line item in the Sheriff's Office budget. I
haven't come up with an appropriate title, but -- and then
on the other side of the equation, we'll have a revenue
accounting and revenues to show the amount of donations that
come in over the period of a year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So -- so, when there's a
line item sitting there showing 519,000, and we come along
and want to spend 5200 on one of those dogs, then it comes
through this Court and it's like a budget amendment? Just
like --
MR. TOMLINSON: No, it's lust like a regular bill.
I mean, it will be approved lust like any other bill.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move it from one line item
to another?
MR. TOMLINSON: It will be up to the Sheriff to
determine if he wants to use this money for -- for a
particular purpose.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It lust puts it into the
budget where it can be spent like any other bill. That's
what we're doing.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right now it's not in --
~-.
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
16
it's not in there to do it that way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it should have been a
long time ago. I appreciate y'all doing that, Tommy.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved -- or I'll go ahead
and make the motion that we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- approve the amendment.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we amend the budget in
the amount of --
MR. TOMLINSON: It was $19,275.65.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- $19,275.65, to reflect donations
to the Sheriff's Department for the D.A.R.E. program and
other educational-related programs. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. There was a -- or I
believe there was a similar account set up, and I'm going to
call it Inmates-something, where there was purely a
discretionary fund of the Sheriff. Is that part of this?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. No that's not part of this.
That -- that account is -- is for the sole purpose of
personal items for inmates.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's the commissary
account.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. And, that account's
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
17
regulated by the Jail Commission. I do an audit on that --
on that account, and I do a report to the Jail Commission at
the end of the year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
MR. TOMLINSON: And, it's kind of -- the
regulations are -- are fairly gray. I mean, there's lots of
interpretation, as far as -- as what you can use that money
for. It just says that it has to be for the purpose -- for
the use of the inmate. We have --~ we have got the Jail
Commission to tell us that -- that we can use it for -- for
clothing, for uniforms, and for mattresses and -- and
bedding.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, we also needed one of
those -- didn't we buy one of those carts?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, a food warmer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's that money come from?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's profits generated from the
sale of commissary items.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissary items?
MR. TOMLINSON: What we've -- through that
Commissary account, we purchase that inventory wholesale,
just like through vendors that we buy food from. And, the
sales price of those items are -- are market price that you
can pay for that same item anywhere in town.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If not,
18
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~_ 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's all I have.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, I'd entertain a
motion to waive reading and and approve the minutes of the
September 1st special meeting with the 911 Hoard and the
September 13th and September 21st meetings --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: September 27th.
JUDGE HENNEKE: 27th meeting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we waive reading and
and approve the minutes of the September 1st, September 13th,
and September 27th meetings. Any further discussion? If
not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next agenda item is the monthly
reports. Do I have a motion that we approve and accept the
monthly reports?
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
19
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
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. First item on the
consideration agenda is Item 2.1, consider and discuss
request for variance to the burn ban to have a control burn
by the Commanche Trace Ranch and Golf Club. Commissioner
Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, last week, Paul
Simone called me with regard to Commanche Trace and its
request to have a variance to the burn ban. I told him he
was welcome to appear before the Court to present whatever
information he wished, but I had no idea where the issue was
going to go. And, with that, Mr. Simone, tell us what you'd
like to tell us.
MR. SIMONE: First, I'd like to hand you an
amendment to the first copy that I gave you.
COMMISSIONER HALDWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thanks, Paul.
20

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. SIMONE: The main changes being that we are
saying to "allow SEMA Golf construction at Commanche Trace
Ranch perform a control burn," and further down, "Please
consider the following:" Item No. 9 is "SEMA has experienced
personnel." Number 5 is "SEMA has solicited the assistance
of volunteer fire departments" and SEMA will compensate these
departments. Those are the only changes that I'd like to add
to that.
First of all, Judge Henneke, Commissioners, thank you
for the opportunity of appearing before you. Being
associated with Commanche Trace Ranch for the last 18 years,
we too are praying very hard for -- for rain. We'd like you
to consider the following: We have underway in the area of a
$10 million project owned by H.M.B. Properties of Denver,
Colorado. SEMA Golf has been awarded the contract to do the
golf course, and normal golf course construction naturally
requires burning a lot of brush and debris. The steps are
surveying, staking, clearing, cut and fill, shape, and
grow-in, and we are at the clearing stage right now.
Item 2, I'd like to bring up the fact that we have spent
over $20,000 in the last two years in an oak wilt program.
We have treated over 111 trees on Commanche Trace to try to
stop the wilt spread off of Commanche Trace, and what we have
now as one of the procedures is to burn trees that have oak
wilt or decline as soon as you cut them down. We have at the
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
zl
moment six burn piles, and four small brush piles located on
the -- on the ranch. If I can pass this around --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. SIMONE: -- this is Phase I of the project.
That only shows approximately 968 acres of the total 1,130
acres of the project. The red circles are the burn piles.
They're all well within the ranch. All of those areas that
you see there have several hundred yards of land cleared
around them, so there is no grass touching any burn pile. We
also have the option of burying stumps. We don't think
that's a very good option because of the magnitude of the
operation and the cost of the golf course. Those types of
things tend to come back at you in later years. So, we're
trying to stick to normal construction techniques, and asking
to burn this. We know that SEMA has the experienced
personnel. They are one of the largest golf course
constructors in the country. And, their parent company, SEMA
Highway, out of Englewood, Colorado, is fast becoming one of
the largest highway constructing contractors in the country.
The change on No. 5, we have contacted several volunteer
fire departments and solicited their help. Kerrville, of
course, cannot do that, but we have received some positive
comments from Turtle Creek, who is willing to assist us.
I've talked at some length with Mr. Gazaway from Ingram Fire
Department, and they may be interested at this time.
.~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12

13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
zz
Our procedures for doing this burn, we have already
cleared these areas. We have the capability of putting any
of the debris in holes and that type of thing. The equipment
on hand --I lust have to add to that. Sitting out there
right now and in use are four 631 CAT scrapers. We have two
Caterpillar D-9 bulldozers, two Caterpillar D-6's, a motor
grader/maintainer, CAT loader, and a loader/backhoe. We also
have on hand a water truck. We would propose doing this
early morning or late at night, depending on the humidity.
We'xe well aware of not doing anything during winds or
anything like that. And, certainly, a late evening or early
morning burn is well within our capability. With that, I
have also SEMA's proof of insurance. They are well -- they
are a well-insured company. And, I would entertain any
questions you may have.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone have any questions for Mr.
Simone?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When -- if it was approved,
when would you want to do this or how soon would you like to
do it, and what is a critical time when you really need to
get it done before it starts severely interfering with your
construction?
MR. SIMONE: The time to have done it has already
passed, so we're -- if approved, we would monitor the
weather. I think, as any burn -- all the control burns that
,.-,_
.-.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
	12
^	13
-	19
	15
	16
	17
	18
	19
	20
	21
	22
	23
	29

r"'	25
23
I have been on in the years with Shelton Ranch and also out
at the Kerr Wildlife Area, we have always waited for the the
right weather opportunities. We would do the same thing, and
probably wait till a high humidity, slight moisture type of
thing within the next couple of weeks, if possible.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't have any questions.
I have a comment. Paul, nice to see you again.
MR. SIMONE: Nice to see you, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I forgot you were around. I
am opposed to this for two reasons. One, I am not a fan of
granting variances on anything, unless it's just absolutely
completely necessary. And, I don't view this as a completely
necessary item. Number two -- or under number one, to me,
we'd be setting a precedent where -- I mean, there are
ranchers all over this county sitting and waiting who would
love to be burning, and if we allow one -- if we allow a
developer to start burning, then why couldn't we allow the
ranchers? Number two reason is last week, we -- the County
did not allow the high school to have their bonfire burning,
which we absolutely had zero authority to do. Nevertheless,
we stopped them from having it, and so if we can't have -- if
we can't have an age-old tradition to take place in our
county, I'm certainly not in favor of letting some
subdivision just have their way. So, I'm against.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think I would point out that,
,.~
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
29
under the Texas Forest Service rating system, Kerr County is
currently classified the second worst category as far as
drought is concerned, and I fully anticipate, if not this
week, next week, without any relief we'll go into the worst
category. Because every county that surrounds us, with the
exception of one, is in the worst category, red. We're in
the burnt orange. The worst is red. It is very dry, and
very dangerous.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm -- I'm probably the most
sympathetic Commissioner to burning. And, you know, I could
envision trying to develop a policy for variances. I think
it is doing this without us thinking about it, or
ramifications, because if we do grant a variance here, I
don't see that we can turn down other developers or ranchers
that have similar equipment. And, most -- or many ranchers,
you know, may not have two D-9's and a D-6, but certainly a
lot of them do have D-6's around and other equipment that we
have. So, you know, I think that now, at this time, I have
to not go along with the variance, though I'm certainly not
opposed to the idea of the Court developing a variance
procedure. I'd be glad to help work on that, because I think
-- you know, I think the Court knows my feelings on these
burn bans.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is there a way -- in
developing, if we would do that, is there a way we can get
.--,
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
25
some expert input into that process? Because I would feel
more comfortable. In fact, I think those folks have done a
good job of taking every precaution they can, and if we were
to develop a policy where we could grant a variance like
this, it sure would be good if we could have, for example --
and this is just an example -- if we could have one or more
fire chiefs' recommendation on what -- that this is a good
control burn or this one is not a good control burn. In
other words, something outside of just the person who wants
the variance coming forward, which I think you've done a
magnificent job of presenting the case; however, we don't
have any expert firefighting input. And, I think it would be
real important if we could do that, perhaps get some help out
of -- the City of Kerrville Fire Department has some of this
kind of expertise, and some of our volunteer fire departments
have that kind of expertise. And, on the recommendation --
and I'm looking ahead to a policy -- that, on the
recommendation of certain experts, that we would favorably
consider a variance, or something of that sort. We don't
have -- that's the piece we don't have, is that -- is that
expert input on whether this is a good thing to do or not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the policy, if we were
to go that direction, would be to develop -- you know,
whoever is going to do it, come up with a burn plan similar
to this, but would also have, probably, maps. I think -- and
.-.
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
26
part of the -- the guidance from the Court is -- or the
variance rules would be weather conditions and other things,
which you can get input from various sources; the Forest
Service and Soil Conservation Service, Parks and Wildlife, as
to when you burn, size of brush piles, if you're going to
have brush piles or debris burn, things of that nature.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How many to burn at once.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. How many to burn at
once, time of day -- best time of day. At least we do have
professional recommendations, and then maybe have the plan
then forwarded to the Fire Chief or someone like that, to say
-- and then also, I think, anyone who does undertake such a
thing, if we were to grant a variance, is still certainly
subject to civil liability.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. Could we perhaps
address this at the next -- that's about two weeks from now;
a little less than two weeks, as a matter of fact, we'll have
the next meeting, won't we? If we can address that then,
perhaps we can develop -- and maybe we we'll get lucky
between now and then and have a good four inches, but -- the
burn ban might go off anyway at that point. But -- because I
really like the package that you put together; you know, this
is the way it ought to be done, is spend some analysis, and
there's obviously precautions taken. And, I don't want to
turn off the -- I would like to see us not turn off the idea
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
"-' 13
-- 19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
z7
of having variances, but that we do need a good policy to go
by to do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we do need a policy.
Thank you, Paul, for putting together the packet. As I told
you on the phone, I wasn't sure whether it was a go.
MR. SIMONE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because everybody has
concerns, and once you start granting variances, sometimes
you have to not do it. But, you have done your homework, and
I would hope that, if there's some additional homework you
can do that makes some more sense to us -- as Commissioner
Griffin pointed out, more information from fire chiefs, maybe
more fire departments standing by, and hopefully we'll have
some rain in the interim. My only other question to you
would be, does your inability to burn now, does it totally
impede your work process or the things you can do, working
around this?
MR. SIMONE: It does not totally impede us. It
slows us down in certain areas, as the next step is going to
be cut and fill. And, during a cut and fill, you have to do
something with the brush that you lust took out during the
clearing phase, so it's going to be a shell game right now of
moving some of these trees out of our way and then moving
them again when they're in the way of the next phase. It's
not going to stop us, but it will slow certain parts of it
28

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
,.~.
down.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rather than put it to a
vote, I would suggest to do some more homework and keep
praying and do your rain dance, and we may be able to see in
a couple of weeks.
MR. SIMONE: Very good. Thank you very much.
Appreciate you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thanks, Paul.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: As part of that, and I think
since Commissioner Letz is -- certainly has interest in this
area, that maybe he can help us try to develop a policy and
that we can talk about it at the next meeting, perhaps, if
that's appropriate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Paul.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm learning how to do this.
You've got to mention the other guy's name first.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: The next item on the agenda is Item
2.2, which is consider and discuss the entry of certified
copy of the abolition of the City of Center Point, Texas, in
the minutes of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. Mr.
Danford, are you going to be presenting this morning?
MR. DANFORD: We have -- well, Your Honor, just by
by way of introduction, I will be, but Ms. Shults is going to
actually address the Court, and I would like to begin by
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
thanking the members of the Court and Your Honor and the
audience for giving us this opportunity. And, just by way of
introduction, as we all know what's been going on with the
City of Center Point, there was a petition that was presented
to the mayor pursuant to, I believe, 62.002 of the Texas
Local Government Code, whereby the citizens of Center Point
wanted to call an election to abolish the city. Upon
presenting that petition to the mayor, she did call an
election, which was duly held on May the 1st of this year.
As a result of that election, a majority of the citizens did
vote to abolish the city.
There was an election contest filed complaining about
the petition and some other matters, and a trial was held
before the Honorable Murray Jordan of the 198th District
Court of Kerr County, whereby it was found the petition was
valid and the election results would be upheld. There's been
an Order that's been signed by all the -- signed by all the
parties to that lawsuit, and the Judge has rendered a
Judgment Order, basically saying that the petition was valid
and the election should be upheld.
And, at this time, pursuant to Section 62.004 of the
Texas Local Government Code, I'm going to let Ms. Shults
address the Court ott her declaration to the Court pursuant to
the law about actually abolishing the City of Center Point.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mayor Shults, good morning.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
	12
"	13
-	14
	15
	16
	17
	16
	19
20
21
22
23
29
25
30
MS. SHULTS: Good morning, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Welcome.
MS. SHULTS: I have a letter here; it's a
Declaration of Abolition to Kerr County Commissioners Court.
Can you hear me?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's better.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pull the microphone down a
little closer, Mary, please.
MS. SHULTS: How about that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's better.
MS. SHULTS: Whereas, I, Mary Shults, being the
duly elected mayor of the City of Center Point, was presented
with a petition pursuant to 62.002 of the Texas Local
Government Code calling for an election to abolish the City
of Center Point, Texas; Whereas, such election calling for
the abolition of the City of Center Point, Texas, was called
and held on May the 1st. There was controversy over the
petition calling for the election and an election contest was
filed. The legal suit was heard by the Honorable Murray
Jordan of the 198th District Court, and his judgment was
rendered. The petition was legal and the results of the
election were upheld; Whereas, I, the mayor of City of Center
Point, canvassed the votes of the election and a majority of
said votes were in favor of abolishing the City of Center
Point; Therefore, as mayor, pursuant to 62.009 of the Texas
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
31
Local Government Code, I declare and certify to the Kerr
County Commissioners Court that the City of Center Point,
Texas, shall be abolished. I further request, as mayor, the
Kerr County Commissioners Court enter the Abolition Order
abolishing the City of Center Point in its minutes, at which
time the City will cease to exist.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, I would entertain a
motion to enter the certification of the abolition of the
City of Center Point into the the minutes of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved, Judge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the certification of
the abolition of the City of Center Point be entered into the
minutes of the Kerr County Commissioners Court at this place.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question -- two questions.
That means that the city -- the total city is abolished.
That includes the disbanding of the Commissioners -- City
Commissioners, et cetera, I mean the whole thing. Is that --
somebody do this. (nodding)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: City government is
abolished.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, number two. This is a
32
.-.
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
little bit different question, but the streets down there, do
they automatically come back and become County roads?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I think we'd have to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or is that a separate
action?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we, at a subsequent
date, would have to reverse the court order that gave those
streets to the City of Center Point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: By definitions and by
mileage.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Those were the only
questions I had.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mary, do you have the original of
that?
MS. SHULTS: Yes, sir, I do.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If you'd give it to us, we'll see
that it's documented. 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.
MS. SHULTS: Thank you.
MR. DANFORD: May I be excused, Your Honor?
-~___
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
33
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, you may. Thank you, Mr.
Danford. At this time, we'll -- we have a public hearing
scheduled at 10 o'clock. We'll take up two or three items
before that. I believe we'll take up, with the indulgence of
the Commissioners, Item 2.6, which is to consider and discuss
the appointment of Joyce Schupp as election judge for
Precinct 405 to replace Helen Morrow, who resigned. County
Clerk, Jannett Pieper.
MS. PIEPER: Yes, gentlemen. Mrs. Morrow has been
our election judge in this precinct for quite some time, and
she has called stating that, due to health, she would like to
resign. So, after doing numerous calling, then I did find a
lady that would be willing to take over as judge in this
precinct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And, she is qualified and she is --
MS. PIEPER: Yeah, she was previously a clerk prior
to taking on this position.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I move that we approve the
-- the appointment of Joyce Schupp as election judge for
Precinct 905 to replace Helen Morrow.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve the
appointment of Joyce Schupp as election judge for Precinct
905 to replace Helen Morrow, who has resigned. Any further
~._ _~
.-.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
S
9
10
11

12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
39
discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, before we move to the
next one, just a comment to the County Clerk. We possibly
will have a similar situation in Precinct 2. The assistant
election judge underwent eye surgery, and I think maybe we
should check to see whether her condition will enable her to
function properly or whether her sight is impaired to the
point that she cannot. And, maybe you and I need to get
together this week and work with the election judge over
there and determine that.
MS. PIEPER: Okay. I was not aware of that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can put it on the agenda
next time, if we need to do so.
MS. PIEPER: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything further? Let's go to Item
2.10, consider and discuss the appointment of Glenn Holekamp
as Facilities Use and Maintenance Supervisor, effective
October 1, 1999.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, all the work that we
have done up until this point in creating the Facilities Use
and Maintenance and revamping the supervision structure and

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
35
setting forth job descriptions and all that good stuff, we
did everything except effectively appoint Mr. Holekamp to
that position. And, this remains to be done, and I move that
we appoint Glenn Holekamp as Facilities Use Supezvisor,
effective 10/1/99.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we appoint Glenn K.
Holekamp as Facilities Use and Maintenance Supervisor,
effective 10/1/99. I presume that's without salary?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He gets no salary.
(Laughter.)
MR. HOLEKAMP: Again?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS
Except that which was
approved in the budget.
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. Let's do 2.11
while we're at it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, that is the same
situation, Judge. We went through all the hoops and dances
with respect to the Animal Control Facility supervision, and
~.
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
36
what remains to be done is to appoint Marc S. Allen to the
position of Animal Control Facility Supervisor, and I so
move, effective 10/1/99.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At the salary approved in
the budget.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we appoint Marc S. Allen
to the position of Animal Control Facility Supervisor,
effective 10/1/99. Any further discussion? If not, all in
favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. We'll next do 19,
which is consider and discuss access and use of the well,
Kerr County Youth Harns, for monitoring water level and water
quality by Headwaters Underground Water Conservation
District. Headwaters has a policy of monitoring wells
throughout the county for the water level and the water
quality. This is a well that they would like to be able to
use as a monitoring well. It's not used that much. It's a
well that's in an area of the county they don't have good
information from, and they've requested that we approve, at
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
3T
no expense to the County, the use of this well as a
monitoring well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I move we approve
the request of Headwaters Underground Water Conservation
District for the use of our well on the grounds of the Ag
facility as a monitoring well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second, with a comment.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Commissioners Court
approve use of the well at the Kerr County Youth Exhibition
Center for monitoring well by the Headwaters Underground
Water Conservation District.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My comment is lust a footnote
to the rest of the Court. I think it was probably about 18
months ago, Headwaters came to Commissioners Court requesting
that we plug this well. We declined, saying that it may be
of valuable use for a monitoring situation, 'cause it's not
used very much. And, they said, "No, we don't want that well
for monitoring ever; you can plug it." We said, "No, we're
not going to plug it."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What goes around comes
around, huh?
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have one more question,
____~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

13
19
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
.-.
38
Judge. You said that they want to do this at no expense to
the County?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do they charge people to do
this work?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No. I mean, I just want to make it
clear that there's no expense to the County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: They don't charge anyone else to go
out and do the monitoring. I just want to make that clear.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The only expense would be
installation of the PVC and so forth, the tube down the well,
I think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason that you brought
that up, this goes back to another. situation which Headwaters
-- Region J was involved with in a well at The Woods
subdivision. What if the well gets damaged? What's the
liability? The reason is, in the well at The Woods, a tool
got stuck and some controversy developed over that, 'cause it
was never even contemplated that something could get stuck,
which does happen with well work. We don't use that well.
It's not that big a deal, but I think, you know, it's
something that Headwaters needs to be aware of, that they
need to come up with some sort of agreement. I think that we
should probably have to sign it, as well, that if there's
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
39
damage, whose fault is it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because wells are pretty
expensive these days to drill.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would -- let's amend the
motion, then. That we agree to the use of it, providing that
we work out the details in a necessary agreement. We
authorize the County Judge to sign it, providing for these
points that you made.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is there a --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Already moved and seconded.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If not,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. 2.15, consider and
discuss approval of services agreement between Kerr County
and Pressler, Thompson and Company to provide an audit for
general purpose financial statements of Kerr County as of and
for the year ended September 30, 1999, and authorize County
Judge to sign same. This is a contract for the annual audit
^.
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
.-.
90
of the County finances that we are required to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- conduct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve the
services agreement between Kerr County and Pressler, Thompson
and Company far an audit for the general purpose financial
statements of Kerr County as of and for the year ending
September 30, 1999, 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.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One more? We're on a roll.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Item 2.16, consider and discuss
Resolution requesting the Texas General Services Commission
to approve Kerr County for participation in the State of
Texas contract airline fares. A little background. This is
a new program offered by the State whereby county government
can participate in the discounted air faxes that are
negotiated by the State. There is a fee involved, which in
Kerr County's instance would be 5702. I myself have some
.-.
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
41
questions about whether we'll get $702 out of discounted air
fare, since we don't fly that much, but it is a new program
that's available to the County, so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The department that would use
it is -- is the Sheriff's Department, and I don't know how
much they use. They'xe the only ones that I see regularly
going on trips to -- moving prisoners, and I don't know --
it's something maybe we can ask them.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would also point out,
yeah, that -- and just going along with that, the savings are
significant. Very significant. So, we need to really know
what is the volume that we would expect over the next year.
Is this a yearly fee? I think --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, it is. It's an annual fee.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's an annual fee. What
they're doing is paying for administration. But, the savings
are tremendous.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The savings are tremendous if it's
used.
COMMISSIONER
need to know, what is
pay for itself, is the
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
Department is the only
GRIFFIN: If it's used. So, we really
.he volume of -- will this more than
question. We don't know that.
WILLIAMS: If we use it.
LETZ: And that's -- and the Sheriff's
department that I can think of that
92

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.-~
would have the volume to make it, you know, work. The
problem with it -- and the other side of that is, it's very
specific; it's between Point A to Point B. It's not lust a
general reduction. You've got to fly from, like, San Antonio
to Seattle, or you have to be going to a destination city.
Otherwise --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The only -- the only recent
flight that I can think of, seemed like the Sheriff's Office
went out to E1 Paso, and that is the only one that I can
think of.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Could we get a -- a reading
on this from the Auditor on how much we have spent on air
fares in the past 12-month period?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We can certainly ask.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do we have a deadline? Is
there a deadline on this? I don't think there is.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't believe there is.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we can go in at any
time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thirty days from the date of this
letter, it says, but failure to do it within 30 days will
result in delay of your county's participation.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Not prohibition thereof.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, is this the complete list
93

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
of the air fares?
MS. SOVIL: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's another page. It's
pretty important, I mean, as to what cities it's between.
It's, like, Houston -- San Antonio to Houston is, like, S19
or something, ox S25 or something.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I can tell you that this
thing is actually about three pages -- four pages long. It's
just about everywhere. It's online -- this was pulled
off-line, and these fares get updated every so often. It's
-- because they will rewrite a contract if somebody comes in
-- at various times as things expire, they'll rewrite
contracts, and they will match lower fares; that's another
thing. If somebody comes up with a fare that's lower than
these fares, the contractor is -- is bound to match them.
So, at any rate -- but, still, it's a relatively easy
question. Can we save the 700-and-something dollars by doing
this? Can we have a reasonable expectation of saving more
than that? Then we should do it. If not, then we shouldn't.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we need to bring this back
after we've had a chance to dive into it a little further.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, with -- yes, Barbara?
MS. NEMEC: I think maybe if you ask the rest of
the departments if they would take advantage of this -- I
....
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
^
99
know you said there was a fare from San Antonio to Houston
for S19?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm not sure if that's what
it is.
MS. NEMEC: There's a lot of times -- I mean, if
you go back to see how much, you know, air fare has been
spent, you're not going to find hardly anything, because it's
not worth it to us to do that. But, if -- if we have a
discount like this, then we may take advantage of something
like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cheaper than driving.
MS. NEMEC: Right.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: We will table this item and bring
it back after we've had a chance to do a little more
groundwork as to the potential financial benefits. At this
time, it being 10 o'clock, we will recess the Commissioners
Court meeting and open the posted public hearing on the
proposed order establishing minimum infrastructure standards
for manufactured home rental communities in the county
outside the city limits of a municipality.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open
court, as follows:)
PUBLIC HEARING
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, if there's any member
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
	12
"	13
` -	19
	I5
	16
	17
	IB
	19
	20
	21
	22
	23
	29
	25
95
of the public who'd like to address the Court on the issue of
establishing minimum infrastructure standards for
manufactured home rental communities, please come forward and
do so. Once again, is there any member of the public who
would like to address court on the issue of an order
establishing minimum infrastructure standards for
manufactured home rental communities? Yes, sir? Please come
forward and state your name.
MR. SHULTZ: I -- my apologies. I filled this out,
but I got in too late to turn it in. I am Albert E. Shultz.
I'm the second rookie pastor here in Kerrville now. I'm at
Motley Hills Baptist Church. I'm glad to be with you folks.
I had no idea what type of requirement you're going to
discuss about the mobile homes. That's basically what you're
talking about; is that correct?
JUDGE HENNEKE: These are minimum infrastructure
requirements for manufactured home rental communities, where
people put manufactured homes on a tract of land and rent
them out.
MR. SHULTZ: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's not ownership of the land and
the home. It is such things as water and sewer and roads and
drainage requirements.
MR. SHULTZ: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's a new authority given to
.-.
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
96
counties by the State of Texas.
MR. SHULTZ: May I just present two points from my
perspective as a pastor, plus as a mobile homeowner? First,
it's hard to buy into this area. We had to go a doublewide
mobile home; we just could not afford to buy a home in
Kerrville at this time. But, second, you already have a very
professional -- I say "already." You have a very
professional organization like the public utilities of
Kerrville, who insisted that -- or not insisted, showed us
when we bought that there are certain guidelines we have to
adhere to. It also made it safety and healthwise for us when
we established our mobile home. We're out here at Cedar Mill
Road with the Back Acres Mobile Home Park with Damon Willis.
The only thing I would ask -- the second point is this;
let me finish. I think sanitation and healthwise, you have
an excellent system already, because you have professional
organizations that's already presenting or -- or insisting
that we have this type of requirements just to move into an
area, whether it's owning or rental. The second area is, I
would ask, as a pastor, whatever you do, please always
consider that the person moving in that has to rent is a
person with a low income, and please do not cost them
additional money. And, thank you, sir, for your time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Mr. Shultz.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there anyone else who wishes to
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
97
address us on the issue of -- issue of minimum infrastructure
standards or manufactured home rental communities? If not, I
will declare the public hearing closed.
(The public hearing was closed at approximately
10:05 a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll turn to the next agenda item,
which is 2.9, which is fox the Court to consider and discuss
a proposed order establishing minimum infrastructure
standards fox manufactured home rental communities in the
county outside the city limits of a municipality. You all
have in your packets a redraft of the previous order, which
was done based on the comments from Franklin Johnston, as
well as from David Motley. Also, I was given this morning by
Franklin basically the infrastructure development plan from
Bexax County. Has this been adopted by them?
MR. JOHNSTON: I'm not sure. I think it has.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Which is a bit more specific than
what we have. What I've done in lieu of trying to set out
specific standards on streets and drainage, I incorporated
the comparable requirements from the Subdivision
Requirements. I did that for two reasons. One, I didn't see
any reason to reinvent the wheel. And, secondly, there is a
requirement that our standards be no more strict than we
already have for comparable subdivision developments, and so
my thinking was, rather than reinvent the wheel, I just put
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
	12
"'	13
-	14
15
16
17
18
98
what we already have in there so there'll be no question as
to the fact that we weren't discriminating. Is there any
comments or questions from the Court?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just a comment there -- I'm
sorry. Just a comment there. I think I couldn't agree more,
that they should be the same. And, even to the point that,
just for the record, I would say that any time we revise our
Subdivision Rules, we should automatically review these rules
to make sure that we haven't exceeded it and to try to keep
them exactly the same. I think that's real important.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Buster, you had something?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. On Page 3, the
Application Process. B (1), "The owner of land located
outside the limits of the municipality..." Is that the city
limits or is that the E.T.J.?
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's the city limits, and that's in
the second one, the one that's in the packet. It says "city
19 limits."
20
21 wrong one.
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I'm reading off the
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's one of the changes I made as
a result of the recommendations by Franklin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see, okay. Page 4, C (3),
that word "shall" always scared me. You lawyers qet a little
.-.
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
99
carried away with that. "... shall include approval by the
Executive Director..." He, himself? Do we expect he,
himself, to sign off on these things?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's the law. The law says the
Executive Director has to sign off. He can delegate someone.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If he gets someone else --
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's like the County Clerk.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, cool. And then this
part down here, number (4) about U.G.R.A.. If we adopt this,
I really and truly hope that we all, as a collective unit
here, really keep an eye on that, to make U.G.R.A. do what we
ask them to do in this instance. That was my only comments.
Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. I have, I guess, a simple
one. On Page 3 and B (3), the last sentence. If the County
Engineer determines that the infrastructure complies with the
County - or with the Development Plan, the Commissioners
Court shall issue a Certificate of Compliance not later than
the fifth business day after final inspection. I don't see
how we can do that. I don't see how we can meet -- I mean,
you know --
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's the law. But, my -- my
solution to that, if we adopt this, is to adopt a court order
delegating the authority to sign the Certificate of
.-.
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
50
Compliance on behalf of the Commissioners Court to the County
Judge, so that when the County Engineer says that the
infxastxucture complies with the Development Plan, then I
would be authorized on behalf of the Court to sign a
Certificate of Compliance. That's my solution to that,
because the law is very clear, it must be done within five
business days, and we all know that doesn't track with our
Court schedule, and Z don't want to be calling emergency or
special meetings in order to do that. That's my solution.
It's not in here because I didn't want to clutter this up
with that, but that's how I would handle it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, if he assumes -- and if
there's any question, the County Engineer will put it on the
agenda for us to resolve, I would guess?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, I'm sure he will, if there are
any questions.
MR. JOHNSTON: If they come in with their plan and
it doesn't pass inspection, then, you know, just -- it stops,
I guess, then and comes to the Court for clarification, or --
then we'll go into all this detail. It will go into those
details.
JUDGE HENNEKE: This is brand new. This is new
authority for counties, so it's going to get --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine on that. Under the
definitions, when I read the definition of the manufactured
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
51
home rental community -- I have no problem with the
definition, but my question comes up on addressing the
existing manufactured rental home communities, because, as I
understand the law, if they add even one additional space,
this law is triggered and they have to then abide -- then the
whole community has to abide by the infrastructure plans.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I'm --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let me back up on that. I'm not
sure that's accurate, because the hammer in this scheme, as
adopted by the Legislature, is that no utility can hook up a
manufactured home rental community or a new site in one of
those without an approved development plan, without a
Certificate of Compliance. So, I honestly believe that if it
went through a development plan exercise and got a
Certificate of Compliance for one home or a new section, it
would not encompass what may come before. So, if they
expand, if they add another section, if they bring in more
units, I don't think they have to qo back -- my thinking is
they don't have to go back and upgrade their whole facility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just the new part?
JUDGE HENNEKE: And, the reason I say that is
because the hammer is that they can't get any utility
hook-ups for the community or any new rental homes without a
Certificate of Compliance.
.-.
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
52
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I would -- I mean, I
have no problem with that. And, as a matter of fact, it
makes it almost easier to work with. I guess my question is,
does it say that clearly in here so that they -- I 3ust want
to make sure that the owners of these developments, when they
look at this, understand that they have to -- if they expand,
they're covered under this ordinance.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or whatever you call it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You know, this is a new -- a ttew
shot out of the box, and what I've just explained to you is
my interpretation of what the law says, because of the hammer
factor.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It doesn't say that if they add a
new section or a new home, then the utility company has to
cease service to the existing homes. All it says is they
can't get a hook-up. They can't get water, they can't get
electricity, they can't get telephone for a new community or
a new home unless and until they comply with this -- with
this order. And, that -- you know, that's an educational
process we have to go through.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have to read through it real
quick.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: While you're reading, let
.-.
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
53
me make a comment to refer back to Jonathan's time. I
recognize that this is an improvement over wheze we are
today. The Legislature's intent was to give us an
opportunity to improve and regulate this a little more
thoroughly, but it seems to me that there is -- as I
expressed before, there still is a gaping loophole. If a
developer wanted to avoid this, just -- all he has to do, I
think, is to come up with the same plot of ground, divide it
the same way he anticipated under this, and sell it off under
contracts for deed. Which, in effect, becomes nothing more
than a rental, because if they default, it goes back to the
developer, and he's found a loophole to avoid, to a great
extent, these regulations. But, I agree, this is an
improvement. I just wish we could close that loophole
somehow.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll have to go talk to Harvey
about that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Will do.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Did you find something?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I found -- I was going
back to the -- I guess Section 4, Prospective Effect. "This
order applies only to a manufactured home rental community
for which construction is commenced..." Is that appropriate,
or do we need add the words to read, "This order applies only
to a new or existing manufactured home rental community for
59


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
which construction is commenced..."?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page is that on?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 5.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's excellent.
COMMISSIONER LET2: That way it's clear that
existing ones that expand or new ones axe subject to this.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What was the wording change?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: "This order applies only to a
new or existing manufactured home rental community..."
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that clarifies it a lot.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It does.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, my final comment is, on --
and I don't want to be like the City of Kerrville, but when
we do these things -- I know you're an attorney, but I'm not.
Do we need to get -- should we get formal approval from our
attorney? I know he looked at it and gave comments, but is
that the same -- this is just a general question. We used to
have a lot of these things go to Tom Pollard, because that's
-- I don't know. Now should we -- as a policy, how should we
do these?
JUDGE HENNEKE: As a policy, I would agree that it
would be a wise thing to do to have some sort of sign-off
from the County Attorney or some other attorney that we
engage for that purpose.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For all our contracts. Not
I
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
	13
` -	19
	15
	16
	17
	18
	19
	20
	21
	22
	23
	29

.-~	25
55
just --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That way, it gets you off the
hook and us off the hook.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we want to take action on this,
subject to approval by the County Attorney? Do we want to
defer it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't care.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm pushing this, because once it
comes out, once we -- I don't want someone to start on
something before --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's true. Let's do it
subject to, but then, in the future, try to get them down
there for normal approval before we come up here so that we
don't have to be worrying about coming back to change it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I still have a question
here. I'm hung up on this city limit thing. Once -- once we
get outside the city limits and into the E.T.J., then who has
-- who has the authority there?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it would be the same as with
subdivisions. I mean, people --
MR. ODOM: One mile. Same thing as the one mile
that the Kerrville --
JUDGE HENNEKE: But, if it was within that one
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
56
mile, then they would have to meet this standard. They would
also have to meet any applicable standards of the City of
Kerrville -- or whatever city, Ingram, Kerrville. We don't
have Center Point any more. It's the same dichotomy that we
currently operate under on the subdivisions. Franklin?
MR. JOHNSTON: To follow up a little bit on what
Bill said, on definition A (1) of what this community is,
there's a term in there, "for a term less than 60 months."
If they just change that number to 61 or something, it
wouldn't be a community.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Change it to what, Frank?
Change it to what?
MR. JOHNSTON: 61 or 62. It has to be less than
60, so they could just change the number and it wouldn't
apply, right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Unfortunately, that's a gaping
loophole that's in the law; nothing we can do to wire around
that one. Any further discussion? Do I hear a motion, one
way or the other?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved that we approve it,
subject to review by the County Attorney. That we approve it
as written; otherwise, with the changes as amended.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
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
57
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve the order,
as amended, establishing minimum infrastructure standards for
manufactured home rental communities located in Kerr County
outside the city limits of an incorporated or chartered
municipality, subject to a review and concurrence by our
County Attorney. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One question, Judge. As
previously, when we adopted another ordinance of this type,
we can amend this later if we have reason to do so?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, we may.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For example, after having
read the submission that Franklin gave you from another
county, if you reviewed it carefully, if there are some
things pertinent to us or that would be beneficial to us, we
could amend it later?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Absolutely. It's actually my -- my
hope and understanding that, as part of the comprehensive
review of the Subdivision Rules, that that group will also
take a look at this and make sure that there are no
discrepancies between the two.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We -- on that, we're looking at
-- rather than change the format, this will be become either
an appendix or attached with that. Instead of binding, put
them in binders like this so pages can come out; we don't
have to qo to the expense of printing. And, the -- Truby and
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
58
I are, I guess, somewhat irregularly meeting on going over
this and getting a draft ready to go out. Last time she and
I were kind of working with -- through talking with Franklin
and Leonard.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Great.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We have a motion on the floor. 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.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The press wants a break.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Just hang on for another 10
minutes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, let's lump back and
take up, if we may, 2.5, consider and discuss approving
Administrative Lieutenant up two steps in salary schedule.
Mr. Hicks?
SHERIFF HICKS: Morning. I apologize for being
late; I got hung up in a staff meeting. What I'm requesting,
I've recently promoted Brad Alford into the Administrative
Lieutenant's lob, which is also a patrol lieutenant. Brad, I
think, was a 20.3, 20-point-3. What I'm asking is that he be
able to bring his step grade raises along with the promotion,
.-.,
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
59
because he's -- if he just moved back to a 21.1, the pay
would be the same as what he's making now. And then, of
course, it goes to 528,190, which would just be bringing that
20.3 to a 21.3.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question is, why do a 21.3
versus a 21.2?
SHERIFF HICKS: I lust wanted him to bring the step
grades that he already earned over the last 19 years with
him. it's my opinion that we shouldn't lose our step grade
raises; that's something you've earned over the years. And,
I'd just like to move that laterally.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Charlie, you have to
understand, I'm going to vote against it.
SHERIFF HICKS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because of the fact that
these things, in my opinion, need to be done in the budget
process. We are 12 days into the new budget, and we're
already amending it. And, I -- personally, I take -- I take
the budget process extremely serious, that we are making a
commitment to the taxpayers that this is the amount of money
that we intend -- of your money that we're going to spend.
And, to me, this is not the kind of thing that needs to be
done in the middle of the year. I voted against one recently
at the Sheriff's Office and got beat up over it. But, you
~,
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
60
know, it's a -- to me, it's a principle that we -- we build
these budgets, and we need to live by them to the best of our
ability. And, so, I just I want you to understand that.
SHERIFF HICKS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not a personal thing
with Brad Alford or you or anything else. It's just the way
I believe.
SHERIFF HICKS: I would not come forward to do this
now, but I didn't have the authority do this until October
1st, so that's one of the reasons --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was going to make that
point. I appreciate the Commissioner's concern about that,
but in this particular case, there are some circumstances
that precluded Sheriff Hicks from coming to the Court -- to
the Commissioners prior to this meeting, because he had no
authority until October 1. So, I guess this is part of your
basic reorganization?
SHERIFF HICKS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To assist you in
administration of the Sheriff's Department for the interim
period; is that correct?
SHERIFF HICKS: Yes, sir. And, along with that
comes a lot more responsibilities than he had before, too.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sheriff, one quick question.
Was -- was there an Administrative Lieutenant before? 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
61
this a new, created position, or was that slot there and not
filled?
SHERIFF HICKS: It was there originally, but what
we did is we created the Chief Deputy slot, and then the
Administrative Lieutenant became the old Administrative
Sergeant's position, with a lot more responsibilities
attached to it. That position is going to actually oversee
and participate in all patrol, civil, warrants and --
anything under that umbrella.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The question was this: It
seems to me that -- are those dollars for that position
already in the budget and lust not filled? Because I'm
trying -- is this a change, or is this -- are we --
SHERIFF HICKS: I have money, I know, in part-time
salaries, and there's also a 17.2 position that is -- that we
have budgeted to us now that is -- only has a 17.1 person in
that position, so there's some extra money there. It's only,
like, $1,300 year, I think, difference on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sounds like a new position.
The question is -- I mean, you know, because it's a -- if
it's lust filling the current position is one thing, but
creating a new position, that's a different thing.
SHERIFF HICKS: Mm-hmm. It's one that's always
been there; it lust has more responsibilities under what I've
restructured.
.~
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
62
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think if that's the case,
I think this position actually existed, but was not filled;
is that correct?
SHERIFF HICKS: I was the Administrative Lieutenant
for a while, and then I went to -- to the Chief
Investigator's slot, so it's always been there. Just the
responsibilities attached to it has changed.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. So, this is not a --
it is not a new position. But that, to me, makes a big
difference in the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: At least that there is a --
we're refilling a position that has previously been there,
but not filled.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, we're replacing -- so
that we're moving -- now, will there be somebody moved to
Administrative Sergeant?
SHERIFF HICKS: No, sir, we we've done away with
the Administrative Sergeant position.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The dollars are there.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, the dollars axe there.
That's -- you know, the question is -- it only comes down,
then, to whether or not there should be a change in step
grade.
~._
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

63
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's what we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's something we
traditionally have done whenever someone gets a -- I say
"whenever," but generally when someone gets increased
responsibilities, we don't ask them to take a pay cut.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or the same -- an increase.
Usually we decide whether it's a one- or a two-step increase.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, based on what I have
heard, then, I would agree that this is early in the process;
however, one of the things -- one of the charges we had which
we gave to Sheriff Hicks was to -- was to make things right,
get things organized correctly. This is moving somebody out
of a position which is going to be done away with into a
position that already existed, so I'm inclined to go along
with it, and our policy has been to take a step grade. I'm
inclined to go along with that, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, one thing I would
like, though, if we do this -- even if we don't do it, is to
-- I don't know, get maybe you and Barbara -- maybe Barbara
already has it, but a clear -- make sure that if we're
eliminating one of these positions, that we're eliminating --
get them out of the --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Get it off the books.

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
.~-.
64
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get it off the books.
MS. NEMEC: I've got it right here in front of me.
I'd like to make a comment, too, though. Whether this is
done now, or let's say that this happened in six months, and
because the budget -- you've already funded X amount of
dollars for the budget, I don't think that should have a
bearing on this decision, lust because you've already set a
certain amount of dollars for a particular budget. It makes
it very difficult for someone to promote from within in the
middle of the year. So, what we're hearing is that we can
only promote when the budget is going on. That makes it very
difficult -- you never know when you're going to have an open
position and where you're going to have to move your people
around and give them more responsibilities, so, you know,
this comes back to what we've discussed a year ago and two
years ago. The decision shouldn't be made whether there's
money in the budget, but the decision is, does this person
have more responsibility? And, if they do, then he needs to
be paid for that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I couldn't disagree more.
SHERIFF HICKS: I would ask that, at some point in
the next few years, for us to look at the structure and
program the way we've got it set up now.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's one of the -- the only thing

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
65
that concerns me about this request is that it's, to a
certain extent, an ad hoc request. And, I understand that we
don't set our feet in stone, but one of the things we've
committed to do in this -- in this coming fiscal year is to
totally redo the job classifications and categories of all
County employees, including the Sheriff's Department. And, I
just don't want to launch into an ad hoc revamping of the
system without the overall look at it that we've committed to
do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Understanding all of that,
I would move that the Administrative Lieutenant position
which already exists be increased two steps in salary, as
recommended by the Sheriff.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Two-step increase for Mr. Alford,
who has been promoted to Administrative Lieutenant?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, I'll second that, with
a comment.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Just a minute. Moved by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that
we approve the two-step increase in the Administrative
Lieutenant's salary for Brad Alford.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, I agree with the Judge
that that needs to be -- this, as all positions, needs to be
looked at in our review. However, in this case, the move has
_ -
.-.
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
66
already been made, and that's certainly within the Sheriff's
ability to do that, to move somebody from one open slot -- or
one slot to another open slot, which he's done. So, the
question, again, becomes -- and I like the way the agenda
item was written. It's to move the Administrative Lieutenant
up two steps in salary schedule. Because of increased
responsibility, I would add. And, so, that's what we're
doing. we're not creating a new position, and we're not --
and the Sheriff has acted, certainly, within his
responsibilities fox putting people where they belong, and we
hope that he continues to -- to do that. And -- and we stand
behind you on that. And, I see this as the right thing to
do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The only thing I can see
that -- to make it even cleaner would be to -- to show that
position that we're doing away with, the dollars and cents,
and how --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To really see, down to the
pennies, what is really going on.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have another question.
You know, now that you -- in the agenda item you talk about a
position here, but in your backup you talk -- you gave an
actual name, Mr. Alford, so it makes it kind of personal
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
67
there. What is his status? I understand he's having some
pretty intensive surgery of some sort.
SHERIFF HICKS: Yes, sir, he's having a hip
replacement today. In fact, he's probably in surgery right
now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, how long do you think
he will be out of service?
SHERIFF HICKS: He thinks he'll be back full-time
in six weeks, but he's going to come back part-time before
that, spend some time at the office. He's still going to be
doing scheduling and several other things while he's at the
house. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have is -- I
think I asked it, but I'm not sure we ever resolved why 21.3
versus -- oh, you did say it was because of his -- to a 21.3
versus a 21.2 because of his years of experience. I guess my
comment to that is -- goes back to our policy, and maybe this
is something we should look at. That's not part of our
policy, to keep those years. Our policy says when you go to
a new level, you go to 1. Correct, Barbara?
MS. NEMEC: It says that, but it also says that the
elected official or department head is allowed to come to
Court and ask the Court that they keep those steps because of
-- because if you -- if they have -- if they're at 20.3 or
. -+ -
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
68
20.5 and then they get promoted to a 21.1, they're losing
money. They're either going to lose money by a promotion
with added responsibilities, or they're going to end up
making the same amount of money, so what kind of a promotion
is that? So, that's why they're allowed to come to Court,
like the Sheriff is doing, and try to explain to the Court or
try to get the Court to grant that extra step -- those extra
steps.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question, then, is -- I
don't know if you were here -- I guess you were -- when that
policy was written?
MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, why was it done that
way? I mean, was it just not thought about in the -- on the
Court?
MS. NEMEC: Because the Court wanted the control to
be able to do that. They would not allow me and the other
departments to make that decision, to whether there was money
in there or to move them around that way. The Court wanted
that control to be able to do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you make a good
point, Commissioner. Because, you know, we may want to do a
look at it when we revise the personnel, because, you know,
it becomes arbitrary to the department head. Somebody may
have -- may be able to take the years with them and somebody
_ - _.~
.-.
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
69
else may be denied that. So, I think it's something we need
to take a look at sometime down in the future.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause I think I agree, right
now it's arbitrary. It's kind of -- you know, it doesn't
make --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Good point the Judge was
making about the ad hoc aspect of that. And, I think that in
our review, that's one of the things we need to set, at least
in squishy concrete, you know, so we know what -- so you know
where -- what the policy is. And, right now we don't.
MS. NEMEC: And maybe that needs -- maybe if you
still want to come to Court, it needs to be put in there that
they will be allowed to do that, because if not, you're
picking and choosing when you are going to allow that to
happen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. NEMEC: And it makes it very difficult for the
department head or an elected official to be table to even
speak to someone about a promotion.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we need to look at this
from several aspects. One, new hires need to come in at 1,
unless there's a demonstrated need for more than that. In my
own opinion, no one should lose money by transferring into a
position of increased responsibility. Having said that,
though, it may be that the proper time to address the new
- ---~
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
70
responsibility is at the end of the budget year instead of in
the middle of the budget year, because after they -- they
aren't losing money. And, with additional responsibility at
least comes the potential for additional -- for additional
compensation. But, I think it's something we need to look at
as a Court and -- and provide some guidelines and flexibility
in this situation.
We have a motion on the floor. Is there any further
discussion regarding the agenda item?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have one further comment.
If I could see clearly the numbers -- the dollars and cents
of the position that's no longer there and the new position
-- I mean, I want to see exactly how much money that is going
to be coming out of thin air to create this thing. If I
could see that, and if I knew that the employee -- if I knew
the employee was back at full-time today, when we approve
this, then I would approve it, but I --
MS. NEMEC: We should not be discussing that. We
should not be discussing an employee's operation in open
COUrt.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that might be. That
might be. However, I've got it in the minutes and it's done.
And, I apologize if I stepped out-of-bounds and I'm sorry
about that. But, we have an employee here that is not at
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
71
work, and so lust -- lust the way I think. I have a hard
time paying people when they're not working -- or raising
people when they're not working. I don't mind him getting
his regular salary.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If not,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
(Commissioners Williams, Letz, and Griffin
indicated by raised hand that they were in
favor of the motion.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Baldwin indicated by raised hand that
he was against the motion.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
SHERIFF HICKS: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, let's take a 9-minute
break and reconvene at a quarter to 11:00.
(Discussion off the record.)
(Recess taken from 10:36 a.m. to 10:95 a.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 10:95 on Tuesday, October
12th. We'll reconvene the regular session of Kerr County
Commissioners Court. I see in the audience the distinguished
T. Sandlin, the Executive Director of the 911 Board. So,
with the indulgence of the Court, we'll take up Item 2.9,
which is to consider and discuss problems in implementing the
911 numbering system in unincorporated areas of the county on
certain major highways passing through the city of Kerrville.
-~ -
~.
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
72
Mr. Sandlin?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me introduce this, if I
may. You -- go ahead and step up, T. You may remember that
we -- we have hit on this problem before, but now that we're
getting close to assigning numbers and doing some name
changing along the major highways that pass through the city
of Kerrville and then go out into the unincorporated areas,
we need to be thinking about and perhaps working with the
City of Kerrville on how we resolve some inaccuracies in the
current numbering system within the city limits. And, before
-- before 911 can go ahead and work those unincorporated
areas, we're going to have to address these inconsistencies
that already exist currently inside the city limits, because
that will affect our numbering system beyond --
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's only on the major highways?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We can -- anything that's not a
major highway that passes through the city of Kerrville we
can -- can proceed with all due haste?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. Yes, and -- well, we
should probably let T. talk to that one, but -- but the big
one is Highway 27, particularly to the east side of town
here, I think, which is probably the example. And, perhaps
we need to contact the City and say something like, "If
you're not going to sign up to the guidelines, we need to
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
73
work with you to at least solve this numbering problem
within the city limits with you so that it doesn't affect,
downstream, our ability to number on out into the
unincorporated areas." So, with that, T.?
MR. SANDLIN: Let me concentrate on Highway 27,
Memorial Boulevard, Old San Antonio Highway, whatever, for a
moment. This came to -- as y'all know, we're working west of
that area, but there's still lots of folks that we've been
trying to help, particularly on the major roads, provide them
with addressing. One thing that the guidelines call for is
to pick up the City of Kerrville's addressing in most of the
incorporated areas of Kerrville, because it's already the
postally schemed area --it's already set up in walking
routes, it's in multiple databases -- and extend their
numbering system out, just fox consistency.
We solved that somewhat on the west end by being able to
determine where the 3000 block ends and where -- which just
happens to be Goat Creek Cutoff, and we're addressing west of
there starting with the 3100 block. However this particular
problem that cropped up for us -- I don't know who it cropped
up for; probably fox Mr. Holekamp, probably more than anyone.
The Ag Haxn -- and I'm not real sure how this came to be, but
the Ag Barn, we're all familiar with, at some point was
assigned the address of 5001, I guess, San Antonio Highway or
Highway 27 East, whatever it was called at the particular
.-.
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
79
time. And, with the addition of the additional buildings out
there, the need for additional addresses for those individual
buildings arose.
Mr. Holekamp -- I realize I'm speaking on his behalf --
went to the City of Kerrville, because that's in their area
to address. And, I believe they offered for those other
buildings to be something like 5011 or something like that,
which concerned me, because...
(Mx. Sandlin held up a map.)
MR. SANDLIN: I had to throw this together kind of
quickly last night, so excuse me if it doesn't --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Why don't I just hold it?
MR. SANDLIN: Here's the Ag Barn. (indicating)
I'll try to get where everybody can see. This little dot
right here is the Ag Barn, and at some point it was assigned
the address of 5001; I'm not real sure how. That's beside
the point; that's what happened. Back before that, one block
in front of it is apparently the 3700 block in the City's
addressing. The next address after the Ag Barn is 3801, and
then we go down to 3935. The Lion's Camp for many years has
been known as 9100 San Antonio Highway. That's been known as
that long before 911 came in existence. Past that road
there, which has been identified as 9100 for the Lion's Camp,
we skipped to 4090 and 9094, and the -- then we're somehow
getting into the 4200 block. Well, as you can see, we've got
.-.
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
75
the 5000 block -- or a 5000 number between what I assume to
be the 3700 block and the 3800 block. So, already --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Where is -- can you point
out where the city limit is on this map?
MR. SANDLIN: It's farther on down this way.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Off this map.
MR. SANDLIN: I'll show you that on the second one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Traveling along Highway 27. It
pulls in 27 because of the airport.
MR. SANDLIN: Out past the airport. Being an old
city employee, EMS person, ex-city policeman, that flagged
me, because we've always considered the airport section of
Highway 27 as the 5000 block. And, as you can see, there's
a house that's been assigned 5105 quite a ways down, and the
block numbering is somewhat in the range between this 5000
and this 5000. This is causing problems for us, 'cause we
have a lot of people out past the airport, particularly down
towards Comfort, where there's been a lot of land sales down
around King Salvage and stuff, that are fronting the highway
that need an address for -- not only for 911, but various
other reasons.
My question, and what's hard for us is, from where do we
extend? Where do I pick up the addressing? The City of
Kerrville apparently doesn't have a map that shows, "Here's
the 100 block, the 200 block, 300 block." They do for the
,.-„
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
,~.	
76
central part of Kerrville, which, on the old Clarkson maps,
', which I know we've all seen, have the blocks identified.
But, once you get past Loop 539 going east, it gets a little
jumbled up. There's odd and even mixed on different sides of
the road and that kind of stuff. So, where do I extend?
What number do I extend from out there?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, here's the dilemma we're
faced with. We have said we're going to press on; we're
going to do the unincorporated areas of the county. But, if
we're not careful about where we start that numbering system
at the city limits, going beyond there, we could end up with
a duplicate system if the City later comes back and
rearranges their numbering system for 911.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where would it be if -- under
your proposed system, where would the numbers -- where would
the airport be?
MR. SANDLIN: Just -- I'm having to assume some
stuff here. It's always been assumed in the past -- like, if
you dispatch an ambulance, for anyone that's been around here
for a while, or firetruck to the 5000 block of Highway 27
East, or whatever you're calling it at the moment, most of us
that have been around for a while understand that that's out
by the airport. At least, that's been our understanding.
This 5001 that I showed you on the other map --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You misunderstand my question.
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
77
Where -- under your system, where is the 5000 block? You can
start wherever you start.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Where do you go out -- where
do you make it 5000? If you started from the center point
and did your system, if -- if Kerrville were signed up to the
-- to the guidelines as written --
MR. SANDLIN: Right.
COMMI3SIONER GRIFFIN: -- where would the city
limit -- what would the address be?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the question.
MR. SANDLIN: Somewhere in 5000 block range, I'm
assuming. That's if they don't come back in here and change
anything --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. No, by your guidelines.
MR. SANDLIN: By our guidelines, we pick up with
the last known good city address and go out. That's my
problem. What's the last known good city address?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if you set aside the
existing Ag Barn 5000 --
MR. SANDLIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- and pick up at the
address before the Ag Barn, which you said was 3700, 3800,
whatever?
MR. SANDLIN: Yes.
78
.-.
1
2 5000?

3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS
Will you get to the same
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: At the airport?
MR. SANDLIN: Pretty much. It will be close. But,
what I'm worried about, if that was just a -- just a typo,
maybe that -- they meant for that to be 9011 somewhere down
the line, and it was just a typo to be corrected. That's not
a big problem. But, we also have some other numbers that are
a little mixed on here, and we can -- we can work with that,
but what I need to know from the City is, when you get to the
city limits, what's that last block?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, they have to commit to
that so that we don't have to go back and change numbers
afterwards.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do we need to do? How do
we get there?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Has the City done anything on 911?
MR. SANDLIN: Not to my knowledge. They have -- no
one, on the City staff ox otherwise, has said anything
negative to this point; no one's said, "We're not going to do
this." It's just, "It's still in review."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that means it's on
the City Attorney's desk.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Glenn?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir?
^
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
79
MR. HOLEKAMP: Road and Bridge is directly across
the street -- the highway from the Extension Office. They're
4000, and Road -- I mean, and Extension is 5001. So, that's
where one of the discrepancies -- the major one is.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Obviously, the Ag Barn is
not addressed correctly.
MR. ODOM: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We know that for sure.
MR. ODOM: And, if you need to change it -- I mean,
we'll just change our stationery or mark through it, and
we'll still get through. I mean, it's no big deal.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The problem that he's seeing now is
not an issue of addressing, per se, but how do we get the
City to sign -- or at least commit, "Okay, the city limits is
going to be the 5900 block"?
MR. SANDLIN: If I know that, I go on.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Have you asked them to do
that?
MR. SANDLIN: Yes. Now, I haven't got to talk to
the new Planner; he's been very busy. The one -- Charles
Fenner, that was there for a while, was working steadfastly
with me on this, and we were about to come up with a plan to
bring to them, and then that changed. And, like I say, as I
understand, it's still sitting on the City Attorney's desk
for review. It's not that we're -- I just wanted y'all to
~.
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
so
understand, so that if people start hollering back at y'all,
what's going on.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This was an information
thing to say that this is a problem, not unlike some other
problems we have in working around the City of Kerrville.
But, this is probably the worst one we have, in that we
really can't start numbering -- these people, T.'s folks,
can't start numbering outside of the city limits and
notifying people because there's this unsurety about what
the City's going to do.
MR. SANDLIN: What if the City comes back in and,
under some magic, says, We're going to go with 10-mile blocks
ox 336-foot standard city blocks, and says, We're going to
start at Loop 539 and straighten all that up, and it winds up
that that area out by the airport might be the 8500 block?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. See, that's what --
MR. SANDLIN: I'm not saying they're going to do
that, but other things have happened.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Would it benefit you for myself or
one of the Commissioners to try get onto the City Council
agenda for the next meeting and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- perhaps any -- I don't want to
-- the reason I'm asking you is because I don't want to
torpedo or jeopardize anything else you have going on, but I
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
sl
don't see any problem with asking them on the agenda to ask
them to --
MR. SANDLIN: I think that would be helpful on
those two levels for communication.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- you know, when I
visited with Kevin about this, his response to me when I
brought this up when we were -- when I had his captive
attention for a minute -- few minutes when we were talking
the other day on Region J matters, he said the City Council
has not put a priority on this. He says if they tell him to
get it out, he'll do it, but up until now, Holdsworth and
other projects have been a higher priority for them. And,
until, you know, they -- he gets his rear kicked to get it
out, he isn't going to do it. And, the only person that can
do that is going to be the City Council, so I think it needs
to be some -- I think someone from this Court needs to go to
them and say, "Make a decision. Tell us if you're going to
do it or not do it, what you're going to do," and work out
the details later.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We could either do that by
asking for an agenda slot, or we could do it at this meeting
tonight under comments not associated with the agenda.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it should be an agenda
item.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'll be happy to write to the mayor
,...
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
..-_	
82
and ask him to put 911 guidelines and addressing on the
agenda for the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause I doubt the -- I
personally don't think the City Council understands the
problem that they're causing by not acting. I think they
just think it's something that needs to be done, from what
staff has told them, and the staff -- they haven't ever seen
the other side of that, and they need to be told.
MR. SANDLIN: This is the same old foot-dragging
we've encountered for years. "If we do this, we're going to
have to change some addresses; we're going to have to change
the things -- oh, oh." And it's like, you know --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know, but you get -- talking
to staff, you get foot-dragging. If you get -- the only way
staff's going to quit the foot-dragging is if City Council
tells them they want it done. If they don't tell them they
want it done, they'll --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Griffin, are
you going to go to the City Council? You're our liaison.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll follow the Judge's lead
on that, but I'll be glad to do what I can, sure.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We may both go.
MR. SANDLIN: And, if I -- one other tidbit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's all go.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why not?
..,.
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
.-,
83
MR. SANDLIN: Y'all remember at our P.U.C.
rule-making meeting where they were really fixing to hammer
everybody on valid addresses and street ranges and all that,
we were up in the wee hours of the night in communique with
Austin, with our attorneys over there, and what they're
presenting today that we think the P.U.C. will adopt or put
in the rule-making this afternoon is a modification of that.
P.U.C. insists, probably rightfully so, that in each entity,
that -- I mean, in each area, there is going to be only one
entity responsible for the MSAG, the Master Street Address
Guide, which you can't have a Master Street Address Guide
without a map, and addressing is derivative of that; thereby,
this P.U.C. rule-making put the onus of that on the 911
entities on a county-by-county basis, and that will give us a
little more teeth to work with. Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, T. Any -- anybody else
have any questions of T. right quick?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have the same problem
going west?
MR. SANDLIN: Not as much, because of -- what I
did, I just -- I conceded at Goat Creek Cutoff -- the last
address issued out going west before Goat Creek Cutoff is
3056, so we just cut it off at Goat Creek Cutoff and made
that the 3100 block going west. Because there's some stuff
that needs to be arranged far as block numbers and stuff in
.~.
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
89
between there and the 1700 block, but it's merely -- it will
merely be a means of notifying some people of some address
changes. We don't have to physically move any buildings or
anything.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: When you go west, there's --
the numbering system inside the city limits is a little bit
chopped up.
MR. SANDLIN: Jumbled, but not as bad.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But consistent until you get
to the city limits, at least when you consider the whole
thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, T.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thank you, T.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
MR. SANDLIN: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, six?
AUDIENCE: Am I out of order to make comment on the
numbering system?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We're -- we really don't have that
before us today.
AUDIENCE: All I'm suggesting is that they need to
have the numbers on the place. I'll bet you that half the
places in town don't have numbers on them. It's very
difficult to find where we're going a lot of times. Several
times I've tried to find places; you go for several blocks
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
85
before there's a number.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't disagree with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Next we'll to go 2.7,
consider and discuss Road and Bridge policy for obstructions
in County right-of-way. Franklin?
MR. JOHNSTON: In the past, we've always addressed
these on a case-by-case basis, because we think the Court's
probably established a policy where we rehabilitate County-
maintained roads; we've run into fences and utilities and
buildings and wells and other items in the right-of-way, and
how to deal with that and how to go on with road maintenance.
We've -- obviously, it's a very abbreviated list here, but
Road and Bridge would have the surveying completed, would
have a drawing made of the road right-of-way, what -- what's
in it that might possibly interfere with our road maintenance
or reconstruction, and then the question is, how do we get
them to move it? People usually don't. Do we just go ahead
and remove it? Or -- I guess that's the policy we need to
come up with.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My first comment on this; to
me, there's a distinction if it's deeded right-of-way or if
it's by prescription, because if it's by prescription, it's a
lot -- I mean, statute gives us a boundary to do what's
necessary, but generally most roads are not -- that would
,.-.
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
86
mean all the fences are obstructions, and I don't think that
y'all are intending to --
MR. JONNSTON: Goes by prescription, just goes from
fence to fence, no matter how wide it would be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or whatever is necessary to
maintain the roads. And, a lot of them, they're so close you
can't maintain the roads at all, because they're on the
shoulders, basically. So, I think there's a little bit of a
differentiation there. And, then we get into a right-of-way
issue, and there's only one that I'm -- I can think of in my
precinct where the right-of-way goes right through the guy's
house; Mr. Spenxath, I believe. And, we've just kind of
worked around his house. In those issues -- instances, to
me, it's pretty much clear where -- where the right-of-way
is, anyway, the boundaries of it are. And, in instances
where it doesn't make sense to leave them where they are, we
ought to try to some kind of cross -- get a deeded
right-of-way, or we need to clean it up as we're going
through. We certainly won't look for those --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's almost a separate
issue, because what we should do in this case is a quid pro
quo.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: As we've done out in
Precinct 9, where you -- you give a little, you take a
e7

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
little.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Move the road, move the
right-of-way to reflect where the road really is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, and we come up with
those. I think we ought to try to do this, even at some
expense to the County. I think it's worthwhile to clean up
these situations.
MR. JOHNSTON: We've done that numerous times in
the past.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. But, frankly, what
you're discussing here, though, is a clear-cut -- where
somebody has put something in the right-of-way, primarily,
right?
MR. JOHNSTON: Typically a fence, but there's other
items.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Could be something else
where you've had a right-of-way established for some time,
somebody puts something in it, and then you say, "Hey, you
need to remove this."
MR. JOHNSTON: They'll build a fence without having
a survey.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think this proposed letter
is -- is about the only thing you can do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But, if it's -- I'm
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
88
saying if it's a deeded right-of-way, then you know where it
is, but if it's by prescription, then it's different, because
almost always the expense is going to be in the right-of-way.
And, I think it needs to be handled a little bit more
carefully there, because it's not as clear-cut where the
actual right-of-way boundaries are, because we have -- by
law, as I understand, or whatever, we need really to maintain
roads.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think what we're talking about
here is a deeded right-of-way, to have a survey done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's true.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well -- well, Franklin,
tell me, how would you handle -- I think the one on the
unpaved portion of McDonald Loop was a big water tank right
there on the edge of the road. Am I right, Leonard?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How would No. 2 fit into
that on there?
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, in that particular case, we
have written authority from the owner of that water tank to
remove it already.
MR. ODOM: I worked that several years ago to get
written authority to move that out of the way when we got to
where we're at now. Part of our problem in there is that
these fences run in and out on McDonald Loop. And --
...
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
89
MR. JOHNSTON: They're all over the place.
MR. ODOM: Substantially, almost the center line on
some of them, and long stretches, and it's going to be -- you
know, I told you it's going to be -- that's probably going to
be the most difficult part; not building the road, just
clearing the easements.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. I was just
curious about how the practical application of Point No. 2
here is in a situation like that. And, the second part of my
question is, if we -- if the owner. of the impediment does not
remove it within the the 30 days or make other arrangements,
then you say we would go on and tell our contractor to remove
and dispose of it. Who pays in that case? We pay? He pays?
MR. ODOM: Well --
MR. JOHNSTON: I -- we would remove it. But, what
do we do if he has livestock in there and that type of thing?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's the issue that I wanted to
raise, is if someone -- we have a deeded right-of-way --
let's take the most obvious. We have a deeded right-of-way,
and someone builds an obstruction in it, knowing that it's
our right-of-way, or even without knowing, a fence or a barn
or anything. Why should the County pay to remove that
obstruction?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can remove it. We can
send them a bill, too, can't we?
_.-.
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
90
MR. ODOM: Send it to the County Attorney to
collect, I guess.
MR. JOHNSTON: I guess we can take them all to
court, trying to get them to move it. Long delays there.
MR. ODOM: Taking down old fence is not so much the
problem if there's livestock in there. Where do we draw the
line? Thirty days, by statute, is enough time, and then we
can roll it up and put it on their property, but then we also
have a responsibility of tort liability, as well as being
good citizens, trying to -- trying to work with everybody.
Some people are out of state. Some people are out of the --
you know, maybe in the state of Texas, and it's very
difficult. I -- and one corner of a building is in my
right-of-way on McDonald Loop. I'm not going to make them
tear it down where we can move the road. We'll try to make
it as safe as we can, but -- and I've got one on Keith
Boulevard right there. What do I do there? You know, I --
they're there. There's widow lady there; she doesn't have
the money. And there's moral issues. Not only legal, you
know, but there's some -- we still have to be good citizens.
Just common sense.
MR. JOHNSTON: In the past, we've removed buildings
that are partially in the right-of-way, have them take the
buildings down, in Precinct 4.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, I think the answer is
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
you need to try to work with the people. I mean, I don't
want to get to the -- you know, my concern with the letter is
it seemed a little bit strong-arm to me when I read it, you
know. And, I just think that -- you know, I don't want this
Court, or certainly in my precinct, to get a reputation for
going out there and sending out letters like the E.P.A. does,
you know, because that's the worst public relations, and I
think it hurts everyone. It hurts county government and
everything else. Most of these people are very willing to
work with you, as I say, most of i:he time and try -- I know
y'all do a great job of working with them. To me, as a first
step, even before you send out a letter, I want to know
before the letter goes out so I can talk to the people, you
know, 'cause I know a lot of people in my area, and each
precinct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's probably the way to
do it, is get Letz to go talk to them first. Or --
(laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm serious here. Let us
attempt it first, and this -- this would be a secondary-type
thing. 'Cause I -- I agree 100 percent, we need to work with
our neighbors.
MR. ODOM: You know, we work for the people, and --
and in some ways it makes it very difficult. We just got the
gist of the Court, that you didn't want us to do anything,
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
and we were trying to find an answer -- what's a reasonable
answer to our predicament out there, and still get the
project done.
MR. JOHNSTON: This letter, by the way, was taken
out of the the old style files that we used to have before we
came here. That was an actual letter; we just changed the
name.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the -- you know, to answer
the Judge's question about why we should pay for it, I think
you have to look at those on a case-by-case -- like, McDonald
Loop. We are making a great improvement to that road, making
it bigger, wider, paving it. It will benefit the whole
community. It's a County road. To me, that's saying that we
should bear a lot of the costs of doing that and
straightening out and -- just like the State would. If the
State expands Highway 27, the State's going to acquire that
additional right-of-way and do what's necessary, and I don't
think this is any different. It's a smaller road.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I don't -- I'm not objecting
to acquiring the right-of-way, but I doubt very seriously
that the State's going to pay for somebody to move an
obstruction that a private individual has put in the
right-of-way the State already has.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The right-of-way is
established.
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
JUDGE HENNEKE: Which is the point I was making.
	MR. ODOM: It would come out	--	
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.		
	COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They	would	just take it out.
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I	think	most of what -- I
don't	think most of these that you're	talki	ng about are --
they'r	e existing now; they're not bein	g put	in later, are
they?	I mean, on McDonald Loop, that	road	is an old cattle
trail.			
MR. JOHNSTON: We have a right-of-way -- 50-foot
right-of-way all the way through.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask this question.
What if we come along and we take down the fence and cows get
out and Ms. Johnson comes along and hits one of those cows?
MR. ODOM: We're liable. We're 51 percent -- the
Judge is a lawyer, but I would say we're 51 percent
negligent, probably, and how much would be up to a jury. The
Judge can correct me, but I'm assuming that there would be
enough that the Judge would rule that we would go to court.
Now, how much, I don't know. If we've done everything and
we've bent over backwards to do it -- I even go past that,
send two letters, to try to get some kind of response. Sut,
if I know there's something in there and it gets out and it
hurts someone, I would say we're liable.
MR. JOHNSTON: In some of these other areas, we've
99

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
ended up having to do all the fence-building ourselves. Is
that right? In the past, generally people just drag their
feet until we just have to do it ourselves, or we wouldn't
get any work done.
MR. ODOM: So, we're asking for --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: In cases where there is a
quid pro quo involved, we did that, because to maintain the
road you've got to --
JUDGE HENNEKE: But that's not --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But that's a different deal.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's not what we're talking
about.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I know, but I agree with the
Judge also; if we have an existing right-of-way, somebody
goes and builds something, puts some obstruction in it, and
we say remove it and they don't remove it, we end up having
to do it, it ought to be done at their expense, not the
County's expense.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of the point I
was trying to get to. But, there are many examples of where
we've moved the fence. In Witt Road there, we were stopped
at Witt Road until we moved that big huge corner that moved
into the right-of-way, moved it over, and there we go, that's
fine.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, again, we moved -- we,
95

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in essence, adjusted the right-of-way.
MR. ODOM: You know, and it gets ticklish because,
like the Judge is saying and you were saying, Larry, you
know, we make them move it and we move down there, and
there's some type of -- on the gray area of -- of quid pro
quo, if we do it for someone else dawn there and we haven't
done it for the other people, then you have a lot of problems
there and friction there, and you even have problems down the
road, because people pick up on it. And, you know, it's --
it's a catch-22 situation.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I like Commissioner
Baldwin's' idea of when one of these arises, probably the
first thing to do is to get -- and Jonathan mentioned this,
too -- to get the Commissioner involved, see what we can do.
And, if we can't do anything, then we talk about sending a
letter or series of letters, and then we take whatever action
we have to take after all that's been exhausted.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd probably recommend that you
do a letter prior to this, just to get it all of record,
saying, "We were doing work out here. We've surveyed it.
There is an obstruction in the right-of-way. Please contact
our office immediately to resolve it." And, send us a copy
of that first letter -- notification letter. That way we're
aware of it, and it's one step fox y'all, and then it's kind
of a nice letter go out.
96


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I like that, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then they -- if they don't
do it, I don't have any problem with saying, "In 30 days,
we're tearing it down."
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The beauty of that, too, is
that you've got a paper trail that you have sent notice that
says. Hey, come in and talk to us or give us a call and we'll
talk about it, see what we can do to resolve this. If that's
the first step, then everybody's on notice that the clock is
ticking.
MR. ODOM: We've had Tom Pollard give us a legal
opinion, so --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who?
MR. ODOM: Tom Pollard. Very good attorney here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's handsome too, huh?
MR. ODOM: He's a T-set; that's the only problem.
And, his opinion was that this letter that we had is -- is
essentially enough. This -- that's our problem, and that if
we wish to do that, it was discretionary at that point after
your 30 days, that you would -- you know, you could remove it
or you --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we'll all agree
that, legally, the letter is fine, but that it probably just
shouldn't be the first step. The first step should be just a
notification, with a copy to the Commissioners, "Come in and
.~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
B
9
10
11

12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
97
talk to us; let's get together," that kind of thing. And,
then the next thing you do is give them official notice that
says, "Thirty days from now, something's going to happen."
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Pollard, do you have something
to add, sir?
MR. POLLARD: There's always the other problem,
too, of -- surveying is supposed to be an exact science, but
when you get two different surveyors checking something, why,
sometimes things don't turn out that way and they don't
agree. And, there's always the risk -- on the one we had on
Mountain Drive, I believe, where you -- y'all got me to write
a letter -- I think that's the name of it -- where there was
a fence encroachment and we wrote a letter to the guy to move
it, I was concerned about making sure that the property owner
had had it surveyed and said that it wasn't -- the fence was
on his property and was not on the right-of-way. So, in that
case, we had two surveyors. And, in this kind of a
situation, in an extreme situation, you really don't have any
choice but to go to court over it and establish that, and
then get an injunction to remove that kind of a fence. So,
you know, there are other issues that could come up, too.
But, you -- just because you think your right-of-way is
there, you may not be right about that. It's what -- it's
what the Judge says it is in that judgment down the line.
MR. ODOM: And, may I say that our policy is that
,-,
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
98
when we have that discretion, or if that -- normally, that
individual would contact us, that we could go back again and
have the surveyor check his field notes again to make sure,
and then leave it to that individual whether they want to
hire someone to survey it. Because we're going to give them
a second letter and, you know, that's what -- what courts are
for.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's --
MR. ODOM: We've done what reasonable --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's very appropriate that
we have a policy on this for the community. I commend you
guys for bringing it to our attention. I think, from what
I'm hearing, we need to go back and massage it a little bit.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Incorporate the notion of the first
nice letter with the copy to the Commissioners, and then
bring it back to us at such time. We might run it by the
Commissioners first, and then we'll certainly adopt it, but I
think the Road and Bridge Department does need to have the --
the authority of the Court behind it in the actions you take
in these matters. So, if that meets with the approval of the
Court, we'll table this one and bring it back.
MR. ODOM: All right, sir. Thank you.
JllDGE HENNEKE: At the next opportunity. The next
item is the -- the vehicle policy for Road and Bridge
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
emergency, which is 2.8.
MR. JOHNSTON: In the past, foremen and
Administrator and assigned people, I think, took the vehicles
home with them. In November of '96, the Court changed that
policy, and so everyone except the Administrator parks their
vehicles at the -- at the shop at night and locks them in.
During the last budget process, the Court asked us to outline
the policy for the foremen who take their trucks home to
increase their response time in emergencies, and so we've
come up with some ideas here on notification; who has pagers,
foremen and Administrator and myself; who has trucks, which
would be the foreman and the assigned truck, and then
Administrator. And, they all have communication equipment
involved so they can communicate with fire and Sheriff and
other folks. And, then we have come up with a statement on
using County vehicles to commute to meetings or -- basically,
that.
MR. ODOM: Basically, give some guidelines so no
one --
MR. JOHNSTON: Try to come up with, somewhat, in
here, you know, what happens if there's a family emergency.
We have a little form that we propose to authorize the
special use of vehicles for a specific amount of time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any comments? Any questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it looks good. I like
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
it a lot. I think it's -- I mean, the personal use seems a
little strict, from the standpoint you can't go to the Stop
and Go on the way home, but, you know, that's what you'll
need to do to keep it -- so you can enforce it, whatever
y'all need.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I like it.
MR. ODOM: You have -- we sort of set it in there
that, you know, there axe emergencies; people have families
and that type deal, but we want people -- and the way we have
done it in the past, before we changed this, is that you'd
call the office and they would note it, say, if someone
should call. And, there were instances where someone would
call, but it was purposely orchestrated, you know. So --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think it's an excellent
policy, and I move that we accept it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: As presented.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we adopt the policy
regarding vehicle use for Road and Aridge employees. I've
got some comments. On No. 6 -- 3 to 6 on the second page,
it says, "Should the need arise for him to stop in route or
for" -- what did you have in mind with that "need arise for
him to stop in route"?
MR. ODOM: Let me see.

101

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. JOHNSTON: Number 6?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
MR. ODOM: "... in route or for a family emergency,
he will notify" -- there might be something that they have to
-- they get a call and they have to, you know, stop by and --
and for something of a personal nature that the wife couldn't
do something. Maybe it's a chi1~9 at the day care center or
something. And, that's --
JUDGE HENNEKE: But you've already prohibited that
under the one before that.
MR. ODOM: Well, it's -- that's true, but we were
trying --
MR. JOHNSTON: That's a general policy.
MR. ODOM: That was a general policy, and we were
trying -- an emergency or a situation of a personal nature,
if they got a call and they had to go somewhere -- I mean, to
the doctor or something like that; they had no appointment.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that -- what I'm trying to
get at is I think you need to have that if there's a family
emergency, certainly, we're not going to quibble over them
taking our County vehicle to the hospital or something like
that.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think that's what you're trying to
say.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But if they get a phone call from
__ ~ ~
102


1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
the wife saying, "Oh, I forgot to get milk" --
MR. ODOM: No, that's ---
JUDGE HENNEKE: Or if they get a phone call --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We word that sentence --
MR. ODOM: We were trying to do -- but I'll tell
you, Judge, in the past, this came down that individuals
would call, their child was sick or something; they had to
go, and then -- and it was sort of an orchestrated-type deal.
They would call --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that's --
MR. ODOM: So --
JUDGE HENNEKE: That falls within an emergency.
MR. ODOM: And that's the way we felt.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It just says "should the need arise
for him to stop in route." Well, what does "the need" mean?
That, you know, the kid needs construction paper for his
school project? Well, I mean, that -- I do that all the
time. I spend more time running to Walmart in the fall than
I do anything else. That's not an appropriate use of a
County vehicle.
MR. ODOM: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, I think you would cover
yourself if you simply said, "Should a family emergency
arise," because I think we're all flexible enough to realize
that includes a sick child.
103

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. ODOM: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That includes, you know, anything
like that. It does not include the need for construction
paper or for groceries. Also, I think I would suggest that
you add to that provision a statement to the effect that, at
the earliest possible opportunity, employee will substitute
his personal vehicle for the County vehicle.
MR. ODOM: Say again, now.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At the earliest possible
opportunity, the employee will substitute his private vehicle
for the County vehicle. In other words, we recognize the
emergency; go and deal with your emergency.
MR. ODOM: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But, as soon as the emergency's
over --
MR. ODOM: Come on.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- you know, get into your private
pickup or your car or whatever it is, and --
MR. ODOM: And we tried to address that, too. Even
when they're out of town, you know, some things are
inappropriate.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The other question I want to raise
is really the one about use of County vehicles to go out of
county for seminars and official travel.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
109

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: I mean, I don't know. I want the
feedback from the Court as to whether, you know, we want to
use County vehicles -- mileage on County vehicles to go to
Austin for seminars or, I mean, to go to Bastrop. I don't
know if you took your car or whether the County car -- that
certainly was authorized, or whether we want them to use
their private vehicles and get reimbursed. And, I don't
know. I mean, I'm raising that as an issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the significant
difference in reimbursing them for driving their own private
vehicle and allowing the use of the County vehicle in pursuit
of County business?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the difference is you don't
put the miles on the County vehicle.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I understand that.
MR. ODOM: I understand.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I mean, that's really the issue.
MR. ODOM: You're paying 28 cents a mile on
personal use. I mean, it doesn't make us any difference. We
just use this as force accounting there; you've already got
that, and if the fuel's there to go to Austin on a tank of
gas or something and run back, that's all -- I can use that
running around one end of the county, back down to Comfort
and back.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I just raise it as an issue to see
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
what people think about it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem with
using County vehicles. I think it's easier from the
accounting standpoint as to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As long as it's official
business.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. I went to one in
Uvalde last year -- or earlier this year. I think my
automobile was the only private vehicle in the parking lot.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The other issue is -- and I'll put
this one out, too. If a County employee takes a County
vehicle to Austin for a seminar, then that County vehicle is
not here to be utilized when they -- say it's one of the
supervisors' vehicles which has the radio in it. If he's in
Austin and an emergency arises here, that vehicle is not
available for someone else to use.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's valid.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Including that communication
equipment.
MR. ODOM: But, that -- not being argumentative,
but that would be very unique. I only have $500, so we don't
go out just a whole lot, Judge. We go to Comfort, to the Ag
Extension for herbiciding, and I might send them to Austin,
you know, but I still have that coverage in here. I have Ray


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
106
Lynch, I have Danny, and I have Tommy in here. So -- and,
you know, those three; I still have the same -- and Danny's
in there inside, so I still have it covered. And, we just
don't take the trucks and I just give that truck to anyone,
even if it was sitting there. It's sort of like a dump truck
or a piece of heavy equipment. Those supervisors don't want
someone to have the key to get into their tools or anything
else. So, it's -- you know, I have enough coverage and and I
have a backup there at the office, so I don't see that as a
problem. Like I said, 5500, we don't do just a whole lot,
sir. I show films a lot down there. That's the reason I
have that VCR, so we show a lot of films and go over things,
but most of it's herbiciding.
JUDGE HENNEKE: When an employee takes a County
vehicle to a seminar like that, it's logged out, it's
approved in advance?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that needs to be part of
the policy, that -- that even if it's the Road
Administrator's vehicle, he needs to log it out as going to a
seminar.
MR. ODOM: Well, that --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Which is not part of his --
MR. ODOM: That's a personal use; that's that form
right there --
107

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right.
MR. ODOM: -- that we got, and that way if there
was any questions, we could go back and it's -- not only do
we have that verbally, but we also have it on computer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One final comment, kind of a
nitpicky one.
MR. ODOM: If it's grammar, I blame it --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not grammar. You might go
through and make it a little more gender-neutral.
MR. ODOM: Sir? Say again?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: More gender --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Gender-neutral.
MR. ODOM: Which one?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, throughout.
MR. ODOM: Throughout?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I guess Aggies don't recognize
gender, do they?
MR. ODOM: I came from the old school.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know, but just --
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe you can have Truby go
through it and clean up that part.
MR. ODOM: We'll clean that up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's going to be a policy.
MR. ODOM: We're not prejudiced over there.
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
JUDGE HENNEKE: How do you want to proceed? Do you
want to approve this today or --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think --
JUDGE HENNEKE: There's a motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ser_ond.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'd suggest a couple amendments.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: As amended.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Did you guys accept those? Okay.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other comment, I don't
know if you caught what the Judge said. Your numbering --
you missed 9 and 5 in your numbering.
MR. ODOM: That was Frank -- that was from Kansas
State right there.
(Laughter.)
MR. JOHNSTON: Jumped from 3 to 6, yeah. We like
to get to the big numbers in a hurry.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All in favor, raise your right
hand.
(The motion was
JUDGE HENNEKE:
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE:
Next, well go to 2.12, wh
accepting the resignation
carried by unanimous vote.)
All opposed, same sign.
Motion carries. Thank you all.
ich is consider and discuss
of Gloria Anderson as Kerr County
109

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
911 representative.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we accept the
resignation of Gloria Anderson as the Kerr County
representative on the Kerr County 911 Board, effective
immediately. 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: 2.13, consider and discuss
appointing two representatives to the Kerr County 911 Board,
one to fill the unexpired term of Ms. Anderson, and one for a
two-year term beginning October 1st, 1999. Mr. Sandlin has
recommended that we reappoint Mr. Travis Hall for the
two-year term. Anyone have any questions or suggestions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to table this until
our next meeting. I have not really thought enough about who
the new appointee should be, and -- and, personally, I'd
rather have -- Larry and I talked about having a meeting with
T. I really want to wait till after that meeting, because I
think that our representative should reflect the Court's
interests, and I'm, you know, pretty -- I lust think that
110

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
should be the case. And, I want to make sure that if we
appoint Mr. Hall, that he does --- I've never talked to him
about this. I've not been overly happy with that Board's
relationship with this Court in the past.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's put it off.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't have any problem
with that. I would like to let the Court know that I have a
nomination to fill the other position. And, I just talked
with him yesterday, and this gentleman has agreed to serve;
said he would be glad to. His name is David Walker. He is a
former shuttle astronaut; flew five missions, four as
commander. He lives in Commanche Caves now. He has just
left the employ of a communications company dealing in
wireless and wire community, so he understands the technology
very well, and has a strong computer background, which plays
right into the -- to the 911 issues that we face in many
cases. And, I think he would make an excellent -- an
excellent Court appointee, because he is a doer and does not
-- cuts right to the core of the issues, as you have to in
the shuttle flying business. So, he's used to that. He's
not one to dilly-dally, and I think he'd be a good
representative for us and would respond often and frequently
to the Court on what's happening on the Board, and that's one
of the things we need.
111

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you suggesting him to
replace Gloria?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't we do this? Why don't we
table this until our next meeting and request anyone who's
interested in applying to submit a letter of interest, to
include a resume if they are so inclined, and we'll circulate
those and act on these two vacancies at our next meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I certainly hope that we can
appoint someone on that Board that probably has a small cabin
in Idaho, which --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Which Dave happens to have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh my god, look here.
Relationship made in heaven.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only question is, is
N.A.S.A. going to start using Kerrville as a -- you know, one
of their office locations? There's a number of employees or
ex-employees moving up here.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right, getting quite
a few of them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: N.A.S.A. West.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: N.A.S.A. West out here.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. The final item on the
agenda is to consider and discuss the status of the jail
construction litigation. I will announce that we're going to
112

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
27.
23
24
25
take this up in Executive Session. At the conclusion of the
Executive Session, if there's any action to be taken, we
will, of course, come back into open session and take any
votes or -- or action that has to be taken. So, at this
time, the Commissioners Court will go into Executive Session
to consider the status of the jail construction litigation.
Will you change the sign, Thea?
(The open session was closed at 11:35 a.m., and an
Executive Session was held, the transcript of
which is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 11:52 on Tuesday, October
12th. Commissioners Court has met in Executive Session and
has now returned to open session. We've been discussing the
status of the jail construction litigation. Do I have a
motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make motion to authorize Tom
Pollard to proceed with settlement, or towards settlement of
the jail construction lawsuit.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we authorize Tom
Pollard, working through our retained counsel, to pursue a
settlement of the jail construction litigation. Any further
discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
113
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
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Thank you, Tom.
MR. POLLARD: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Unless there's any further business
to come before this honorable Court, we stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court was adjourned at 11:59 a.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS I
COUNTY OF KERR I
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity
as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 18th day of October,
1999.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
ORDER NO. 26055
CLRIMS RND ACCOUNTS
On this the 12th day of October 1999, came to be consider^ed
by the Court the various claims and accounts against Kerr
County and the various Commissioners' precincts, which said
Claims and Accounts are 10-General Fund for 8170,742.00;
11-Ji_tr•y Fund for 82,711.00; 14-Fire F'r•otection F~_ind for^
816,378.12; 15-Road R Bridge Fund for• 8101,971.77; 18-County
Law Library Fund for• 83,393.16; 24-Traffic Safety Fund for•
825.18; 31-F'arks Fund for 83,400.00; 50-Indigent Health Care
Fund for• 847,259.84; 70-F'er^manent Improvement Fund for
87,350.,:,1; 76-Juvenile Detention Facility Fund for- 8185.41;
r- 81-District Rdministration F~_~nd for 8419.3^c 83-State
F~_inded-216th Distr^ict Rttorney Fund for• 81,831.17; 86-State
Funded-216th District probation Fund for• $5,875.74; and
87-State Funded-Community Corrections Fund for 88,847.43.
(TOTAL ALL FUNDS-8370,390.45)
Upon motion made by Commissioner Let z, seconded by
Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, payment of said Claims and Recounts as
recommended by the County Ruditor, with the exceptions of
Apollo Software, Inc. Invoice #105589 for three (3) entr•ies-
JG#2 for 8360.00, JF'#3 for 8360.00 and JF'#4 for• 8360.00
TOTALING 8i, 080. 00, and Invoice #105968 for• one year
renewal of "The Kiplinger• Washington Letter", in the amount
of 876.00.
ORDER N0. 2605E
PUDGET RNENDMENT
SHERIFF'S OFFICE
On this the 12th day of October 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Griffin, seconded by Commissioner- Let z, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-@, creation of a New
Line Item iQ-SE,0-49Q~ Donation Expenditures and amending the
budget in the amount of 519,275. E5, reflecting receipt of
donations to the 5her•iff's Department for the D. R. R. E. Program
and other edi_icational-related programs.
ORDER N0. 2607
RE'P'ROVE TO RCCEF'T MINUTES
AND WAIVE READING
On this the 12th day of October 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Court unanimo~.~sly by a vote of 4-0-0, accepted and
waived reading of the following minutes; Kerr County
Commissioners' Co~_irt and 9-1-1 Roard of Manager^s - Joint
Meeting, September 1, 1999 - 6:30 p. m., Regular Session
Commissioners' Court, September 13, 1999 - 9:00 a. m.;
Special Session Commissioner^s' Court, September- 21, 1999 -
1:30 p. m.; and Special Session Commissioners' Court, September
27, 1999 - 6:30 p. m.
ORDER NO.6058
APPROVE RND ACCEPT MONTHLY REPORTS
On this the i~th day of October 1999, came to be consider^ed
by the Court the various monthly reports of Kerr County and
Grecinct Officials for^ FCer•r• County. Upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the
Co~_ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, that said
reports 6e accepted and filed with the County Clerk for f~_~t~_ire
audit:
JF'#2 - Dawn Wright
State Fees Report - Month of September 1999
JG#~ - Robert L. Tench
State Fees Repor^t - Month of September 1999
Kerr County Sheriff's Department
~ Charlie Hicks
Civil Report - September 1999
Kerr' County Sheriff's Department
Charlie Hicks
Monthly Report - Rugust 1999
County Cier-k - Jannett Pieper
Fees - General Fund Report
Month of September 1999
County Clerk - Jannett Pieper
Semi-Ann~.ial Report - Fines Imposed R Collected
Judgments rendered in favor of County
and Jury Fees Collected - Month ending September ~0, 1999
Co~.inty Clerk - Jannett Pieper
Quarterly Report of Fines
Judgments r'ender•ed in favor of County
and Jury Fees Collected - period ending September 30, 1999
County Clerk - Jannett Pieper
Monthly Report - Fines Imposed and Collected
and Judgments Rendered - County Court
and Jury Fees - Month ending September 1999
.-- County Clerk - Jannett F'ieper•
Tr•i_ist Fund - Monthly Report
Month ending September 1999
County Clerk - Jannett Pieper
Trust Fund Report
September 1999
JF'#1 - Vance Elliott
Fees collected for September 1999
Upper Guadalupe River Ruthority
Monthly Reports
August 1999
Road & Fridge - Monthly Report
September 1999
ORDER N0. :~E059
DECLARATION OF ABOLITION
OF CITY OF CENTER F'OINT
On this the i~th day of October
Commissioner- Williams, seconded
Court unanimously approved by a
certification of the abolition
entered into the minutes of the
Coi_ir•t at this place.
1999, upon motion made by
by Commissioner- Paldwin, the
vote of 4-0-0, that the
of the City of Center- F'oint be
i:err County Commissioners'
ORDER N0. 2E060
APPOINT JDYCE SCHUPP AS ELECTIDN JUDGE
FOR PRECINCT 405
On this the 12th day of October 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Lets, the Court
unanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-0-0, appointment of Joyce
Schupp as Election J~_~dge for Precinct 405 to replace Helen
Morrow who resigned.
ORDER N0. 26061
RF'F'OINT GLENN Y.. HOLEKRMp
FACILITIES USE 8• MAINTENANCE SURERVISOR
EFFECTIVE 10/Q~1/99
On this the 12th day of October 1959, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz
the Co~_ir~t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, appointment
of Glenn K. Holekamp as Facilities Use R Maintenance
Supervisor, effective iQ~/01/99.
ORDER NO. 26062
APPOINT MARC S. RLLEN
RNIMRL CONTROL FACILITY SUPERVISOR
EFFECTIVE 10/01/99
On this the 12th day of October- 1999, upon motion made 6y
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Lets, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, appointment of
Mark S. Rllen as Animal Control Faclity Supervisor, effective
10/01/99.
ORDER N0. 26063
RCCESS/USE OF WELL
N,ERR COUNTY YOUTH PRRNS
FOR MONITORING WATER LEVELS RND WATER GURLITY
RY HERDWRTERS UNDERGROUND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
On this the 12th day of October 1999, ~.ipon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner- Let z, the
Co~.irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, use of the well
at the Kerr Co~_tnty Youth Exhibition Center for monitor^ing
by the Headwaters Undergr^ound Water^ Conser^vation District.
ORDER N0. 06Q~E4
RGPROVE SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN KERR COUNTY
AND PRESSLER, THOMGSON AND COMPANY
On this the i~th day of October^ 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Co~_ir^t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the services
agreement between N.err• Co~.inty and F'ressler•, Thompson and
Company to pr^ovide an audit for^ the general purpose financial
statements of Kerr County as of and for the year' ending
September 30, 1999 and authorized County Judge to sign same.
ORDER N0. EEOES
RE'P'ROVE ESTABLISHING MINIMUM INFRASTRUCTURE STRNDRRDS
FOR MANUFRCTURED NOME RENTRL COMMUNITIES
tIN COUNTY, OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS OF A MUNICIF'RLITY)
On this the i~th day of October 1'399, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner- Williams, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the or•der• as
amended, establishing minimum infractructure standards for•
manufactured home rental communities located in Kerr• Co~.~nty
outside the city limits of an incorporated or• chartered
municipality, subject to a review and concur•r•ence 6y our
County Attorney.
ORDER N0. c6066
MOVE ADMINISTRATIVE LIEUTENRNT UF' TWO STEPS
IN SALARY SCHEDULE
On this the 1^cth day of October^ 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner^ Gr^iffin, the
Court approved by a majority vote of 3-i-0, the request by
Sheriff Hicks for a two (2) step salary increase for
Administrative Lie~.itenant (from 806,784 annual to 408,140
annual.)
(Commissioners Williams, Lets, and Griffin voted in favor of
the motion. Commissioner• Baldwin voted against the motion.)
ORDER NO. ~E,067
RDOF'TING VEHICLE pOLICY
FOR ROAD ~ BRIDGE EMERGENCY RESPONSE
On this the 12th day of October 1999, upon motion made 6y
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the Court
unanimously adopted by a vote of 4-0-0, the vehicle policy
for Road & Bridge employees as amended and the Road R Bridge
Special Use Authorization Form as presented.
ORDER N0. 2E,068
RCCEF'T RESIGNRTION OF GLORIR RNDER50N
KERR COUNTY REpRESENTRTIVE
KERR COUNTY 9-1-1 RORRD
On this the 12th day of October^ 19'x'3, upon motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner^ Baldwin, the Court
unanimo~.isly accepted by a vote of 4-0-0, Glor^ia Rnderson's
resignation as the I{err Co~_inty Representative on the Kerr^
County 9-1-1 Roard, effective immediately.
ORDER NO. 260E'3
STRTUS OF JAIL CONSTRUCTION LITIGRTION
On this the 12th day of October iS99, upon motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the Co~_irt
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, a~_ithorizing Tom
Pollard, working through o~.ir retained co~_insel, to p~.ir•sue a
settlement of the jail construction litigation.