~.,, ,.,
_.
1
z
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMI:tSIONERS COURT
Special Session
October 25,. 1999
9:00 a.. m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kexr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HF.NNEKE, Kerr County Judge
H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4
~-.
~.
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
ago ? o	c~~:w .~ ,~.~-
a 60 7~	~u-~~,~wd.
	
	
a6o ~y ~ ~
a6 a 7s •~ ~~ ~Ppto .
I N D E X
Approval Agenda
2.1~f~"- Preliminary proposal, T-Hangar project
to
2.2a66~ R.C. D. presentation
2.3o?bo~ Policy for right-of-way obstructions
2
PAGE
~,
11
31
41
2.4,?(,p1S Final replat, Lot 2, Block One, Busch Estates
2.S,zbo19 Concept plan for Waugh Acres
2. 22,76og Burn Ban
2.6abo4~Open sealed bids for two :1-ton trucks
2.7,16op~ Accept Loss Analysis Report
2.8,~1eap3 Annually-determined contribution rate, TCDRS
2.10~bo1`~Payroll supplement fox J.P. 1 secretary
2.11~GagsReplace/appoint election judges, 202 & 211
2.9~f~ Discussion of Contempt Action procedures
2.17a G°~ Approve Kerr County Community Plan
2.15,?bog~Appoint two representatives to 911 Board
2.18x'" Consider amending 911 Guidelines
2.12,bo`QCancellation of City of Center Point lease
2.13,Zfe~g9Return of Center Point roads to County
2.14aip9 Purchase of computers, hardware & software
2.16a`o4~Develop Master Plan for Use and Development
of Hill Country Youth Exhibition Center
2.19.r~9°~Resolution - Solid Waste grant application
2.20dbo~Approve contract with KEDF
2.21abo4/Selection of Risk Manager Consultant
2.6a~btilBid evaluation for two trucks, Road & Bridge
42
49
96
49
53
54
55
59
61
71
79
81
93
96
98
100
106
108
109
119
3
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
On Monday, October 25, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., a Special.
Session of Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedi-ngs 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, October
25th. I'll call to order this Special Session of the Kerr
County Commissioners Court. Commissioner Griiiin, t oelieve
you have the honors this morning.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. I'd like to once again
introduce Pastor John Green of the Hunt United Methodist
Church.
(Prayer and pledge of ~sllegiance.)
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'd certainly like to thank
you again, Pastor Green. Appreciate it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, we'll call on any
citizens who wish to speak on an item not listed on the
regular agenda to come forward and do so. Is there anyone in
the audience who wo~ild like to address the Court on an item
not listed on the regular agenda?
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: One more time, is there any citizen
in the audience who would like to address the Court on an
item not listed on the regular agenda? If not, we'll move to
the Commissioners' comments. Let's start this morning with
9
.-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No comments this morning,
Judge.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Commissioner Griffin?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No comments.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Aaldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have one. It's just one
of the neatest things that I've heard of in many, many moons,
and that's our Sheriff and his wife, Mrs. Hicks, that runs
the jail, when the law enforcement killings happened down in
Atascosa County, the Kerr County Sheriff's Department sent
troops dawn there to man their jail and do other things so
that their law enforcement could go to the funeral and be
with the -- their family of law enforcement down there. And,
I think that that is just a picture of what this country's
all about, is that we help our neighbors, and it's a great,
great thing, and I commend -- we all -- every citizen in this
county should commend our Sheriff's Office for even thinking
of that. That's all.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I totally agree with that. I'm
going to jump in here and say that not only did they go down
there and -- and take care of their responsibilities at
Atascosa County so that those people could go to the funerals
of their coworkers; they took vacation to do it, so they gave
up their own time to go down and help others. That's just

-,
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
incredibly commendable
working for the County
COMMISSIONER
JUDGE HENNEK
COMMISSIONER
Judge, last week I had
official from Atascosa
and appreciative of --
and speaks well of the people we have
here in Kerr County.
BALDWIN: Right.
Bill, anything else?
WILLIAMS: Further on that topic,
an opportunity to meet an elected
County who was deeply, deeply moved
of that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'd like to congratulate Jerry
Griffin, our dear Commissioner's brother, who was named this
past week to the Texas Higher Edvacation Coordinating Board.
Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Which is the board appointed by the
governor of Texas which coordinates the subjects that are
offered at the various state universities, particularly at
the graduate level. Very significant appointment. Very
proud of Jerry for representing Kerr County and the State of
Texas in this important work. Without any further ado, let's
go to the agenda. Bills. Does anyone have any questions
about the bills as presented by the Auditor?
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. TOMLINSON: If you don't have a problem -- as
6
,^.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you're reviewing the bills, when you see the word "ENC"
before each one, those are the prior year's bills, just for
information purposes, that we encumber back to -- to 98/99.
If the invoices are -- are for the product or whatever
service was contracted for in that category from that fiscal
year, we can encumber the expense back to that. So, that's
what that's for.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Thank you for that
information. Does anyone have any questions about the bills?
If not, I would entertain a motion to approve the bills as
presented and recommended by the Auditor.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve the bills
as presented and recommended by the Auditor. Any further
discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All. opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget amendments.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The first one you already
had. It's a request from J.P. 2 to install security devices
on the doors on her office, and at the same time, a request
that it come from the security fees collected from her
7
r
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
]9
20
21
22
23
29
25
office. Total of that is -- is 51,531. That was not --
there was nothing budgeted in -- originally in that -- out of
that money for. this, but -- so it will have to come from
Surplus in -- in that fund, which there are ample -- ample
funds.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Surplus in that particular
fund?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is fees levied
against -- or on top of fines?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, fees levied for courthouse
security purposes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
MR. TOMLINSON: And, it's for all the J.P.'s and
the two County Court at Law and for the District Courts.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry, that's your
precinct. You go, Bill.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move the approval of
Budget Amendment No. 1 for security purposes of J.P. Court 2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve Budget
Amendment No. 1 regarding security at the J.P. 2 office. Any
e

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
further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right
hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2, I handed out earlier this
morning. This is for the payment of the bridge construction
on Fall Branch. We budgeted $33,800. The letter we have
from TexDOT is $39,026.93. This -- these funds were to come
from -- from the Schreiner Road Trust fund, and so we're
asking for an amendment plus a hand check for 200 -- well,
the amendment's for $226.93 and the hand check is for
$39,026.93.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One question. Why is the
department named "Loop 539" on this?
MR. TOMLINSON: That was the -- that was the name
attached to the fund when -- when the fund was initiated.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think, initially, the
right-of-ways for 539 were paid for with that fund.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve Budget
9
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21.
22
23
29
25
Amendment No. 2, Road and
Any further discussion?
right hand.
(The motion was
JUDGE HENNEKE:
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE:
MR. TOMLINSON:
Bridge, for the Fall Branch Bridge.
If not, all in favor, raise your
carried by unanimous vote.)
All opposed, same sign.
Motion carries. Number 3.
Number 3. This is to correct a
budget oversight. The -- the amount of salaries that the
County pays for the Extension Officers, Eddie Holland, were
-- were not given the 3.5 percent increase in the budget. It
amounts to $631.90, so we're asking for that -- that amount
to be taken from Contingency. There was not funds in that
budget for that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve Budget
Amendment No. 3 regarding the cost-of-living increase for the
Agricultural Extension Service. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Is there going to be
a like need to change the insurance and all the other --
MR. TOMLINSON: We have -- the insurance is already
taken care of, but we don't pay FICA or retirement for those
10
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
people. They -- they're on a separate --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: State system?
MR. TOMLINSON: -- retirement system.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions? If not, all
in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Do we have any
late bills, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have one. It's a bill from
TexDOT for the bridge construction on Riverside Drive, and
it's $24,879.33.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We budgeted --
MR. TOMLINSON: We budgeted that. That comes out
of -- out of Road and Bridge.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve a hand
bill in the amount of $24,000 and change to Texas Department
of Transportation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What was the budgeted amount
fox that?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- I don't recall the
11
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
]3
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
budgeted amount. Apparently -- actually, this -- this was
approved for 98/99, because we had funds available, so this
gets to come back to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Last year.
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.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's all I have.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, I'd entertain a
motion to approve and accept the monthly reports.
COMMISSIONER LET7.: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin --
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve and
accept the monthly reports. Any further discussion? If not,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. We'll go to
consideration agenda. First item on the consideration agenda
today is to consider and discuss a preliminary proposal for
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
the T-Hangar Project and the status of the Master Plan for
the Kerrville/Kerr County Airport. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIdNER WILLIAMS: Well, either Commissioner
Griffin or I could put this on. It was a letter, in fact,
written to you, Judge Henneke, from Megan Caffall, who is the
Manager of the -- of our airport, and she has some things
she'd like to bring to our attention, not the least of which
is the Master Plan. And, it's a discussion about the
potential of some T-hangars being constructed, so I'll let
Megan do the talking. Megan?
MS. CAFFALL: Morning. The Master Plan Committee
has selected an Airport Development Plan for the next 20
years. All this is based on the fact that our airport has
been reclassified -- or our main runway at the airport has
been reclassified from, basically, small aircraft to
small-to-medium business jets up to 30,000 pounds. All of
you that use the airport understand that 30,000 pounds
doesn't even cover everything that we get, but these numbers
come from our yearly Inspection and Activity Reports that we
submit to the F.A.A. and TexDot's Aviation Division.
What the larger aircraft means is that we're going to
have to have larger runway protection zones on both ends of
the runway. When we do this, it makes the Mooney end of the
airport look pretty populated. There's houses in the new
runway protection zone, and on the other end we've got
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
]. 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Highway 27 in the runway protection zone, and we also have
the Airport Loop entrance road. The Master Plan consultant
firm has requested an F.A.A. Modification of Standards for
the highway being in the R.P.Z. because it's not a structure.
It also would be very expensive to move.
On the Mooney end, the only solution we can do at that
end is to displace the runway; that's shorten the runway, and
by F.A.A. standards that would have to be 1,100 feet, which
initially leaves with us a short runway, less than 5,000
feet. So, the consultant has also requested a Modification
of Standards on that end, to only shorten the runway 700 feet
and -- initially, with an eventual 1,100-foot displacement,
because we can't afford to buy between 10 and 12 houses. I
mean, that's just not feasible. So, the 700-foot initial
displacement would still leave us with a long enough runway
to handle the aircraft that would -- that we're having now.
It would put off indefinitely or for the future extending the
runway to accommodate what we're already getting, and would
allow us to still maintain a Category 1 approach -- G.P.S.
approach on Runway 30, which is one of the goals of the
Master Plan also.
We would also have to increase our pavement strength
throughout the airport, and particularly on the main runway.
We would also have to, because of the larger aircraft that we
are now acknowledged as getting, separate our taxiway from
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the runway. And, there's a whole host of other just small
things, but that add up to money every year that we're going
to have to be looking at in the next 10 years. The Master
Plan covers 20 years, but the initial -- the initial.
improvements, just -- just to make what we have now safe, is
going to be fairly expensive.
The TexDOT Aviation Division recognizes our airport as
being a valuable asset to the general. aviation system in
Texas. They will aggressively pursue giving us grants to fix
these problems, but we still are left with a 10-percent
match, which this year we have a $35,000 match for what we're
doing the with the lighting on runway -- on our crosswind
runway. And, it's going to be, I would anticipate, yearly
grants. They've started splitting the larger projects into
the engineering design phase; one year they'll give you a
grant for that, and then anywhere from 18 months to two years
latex, they will give you a grant to do the actual
construction. Some of these projects are in excess of a
million dollars. The paving strength issue is going to have
to be addressed fairly quickly, whether we do some of these
other standards or not.
So, not to depress you, but all this is leading up to
the second issue that I wanted to talk to y'all about, which
is the airport needs more revenue. Our current revenues are
for field flowage fees and our leases that we have in effect.

15
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 airport was developed with the idea that if we gave
people 20-year leases -- and some of our leases are now on
30- and 40-year leases -- at a ground rate which is
significantly less than what we would charge for the
improvements that are on there, people will come in and build
things, and then the City and County will have them after the
lease expires to get revenue from. And, this has worked in
some cases, but we still have the majority of our -- our
lease revenue is coming from ground leases.
We had a group that wanted 'to build T-hangars. We
offered them a very favorable ground lease rent. The project
was -- was proceeding along until, at the very end, they
needed assurance in the lease agreement that if they donated
the the improvements to the City and County right up front,
or as soon as they paid them off, which was going to be
within a couple years, that they would be guaranteed tax
abatement. Well, we can't do that, so that deal fell
through. And, this whole project caused me to kind of
examine the possibility of the City and County -- we don't
pay taxes; we don't pay a ground lease to ourselves. We
would have 100 percent revenue after these hangars are paid
off, and we would also have the ancillary revenues of having
more based aircraft at the airport.
So, at the September meeting of the Airport Board, they
recommended that the City and County pursue building these
16
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
hangars as a revenue source. I did some preliminary studies,
cost of money. They also suggested that we go to the E.I.C.
first to see if they would consider an economic development
project and just fund it, which, of course, would be the best
solution to this. I mean, that would be an immediate revenue
of over $30,000 a year, which wouldn't put a total bandaid on
our problem, but it would certainly help. We did get on the
agenda with this with the Economic Improvement Corporation,
and it's not a priority issue with them.
I have not given up yet, but the main reason I'm here
today is I would like to get some feedback from the
Commissioners Court as to whether you think this is a viable
opportunity for the airport to make more revenue. If we have
to borrow money to do this, I have on file letters from eight
individuals who are willing to sign leases for these hangars
before they're constructed. This has been just sort of a --
an unsolicited effort. I'm sure that I could get these
leases, and if we do borrow the money to build these hangars,
I definitely think it would be a smart thing to do to have
them leased before they're constructed, because it would
assist in getting financing and also would -- would indicate
that it is a needed project and that the airplanes axe there
to fill it.
There is a shortage of hangar space in the Hill Country.
When Austin-Mueller airport closed down, it set -- a lot of
17
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
people lost a place to keep their small aircraft. There
isn't a large provision made at their new airport to hand]e
it. Also, there's rumors that Georgetown is going to be
closing. We have people -- our hangars at the airport now
are full to capacity. If everyone is home, not everyone's
going to get the hangar space they're paying for; that's just
a fact of life, and people -- people understand it. But,
periodically, if you come into town late on a Friday night or
Saturday, your airplane's going to be out on the ramp till
somebody leaves. And, that's -- that's all the hangar space
offered by either Dugosh or Kerrville Aviation. Kerrville
Aviation has indicated they do not want to build T-hangars;
they have all that they need right now.
I think that -- I did a preliminary study based on money
costs ranging from 5 to 8 percent, which the City has
opportunity through several different ways of borrowing
money. Depending on the cost of money and whether they're
financed over 10 or 15 years, the hangar rentals -- we did a
survey back about six months ago on what local hangar rentals
are. The higher end of the range is $200 a month. Our
airport certainly qualifies for that, if not more. We have a
nicer airport than just about anybody else around here. If
-- in that price range, if we rented the hangars from either
$200 up to $250, being the high ranye, at the low end, the 5,
5 3/9 percent range, the hangars would pay out at the lower
18
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
rental range in 10 years. If you structured the debt over 15
years, you would pay out -- well, they would be r_reating
revenue while they'r.e paying out.
Either opportunity is more profitable or more
revenue-producing than letting someone else come in and pay
you roughly $2,000 a year in ground rental and having that
revenue source for 20 years. We offered this group a 25-year
lease, which that's a long time to wait for revenue. If --
if anything, this isn't a decision I'm asking to you make. I
would just like an indication of whether the County considers
this a viable revenue source for me to pursue. Anything that
would happen, of course, would be brought to the Airport
Board for review, and then to both Commissioners Court and
City Council for consideration. But, I just wanted a feeling
from the Commissioners Court as to whether you think this is
something I should pursue or not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Megan, let me ask you a
question. Is the area we're talking about for the T-hangars,
is it north of the Shelton -- or the privately-owned hangar
out there?
MS. CAFFALL: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That similar area?
MS. CAFFALL: It's on the secondary runway, what we
call the Mooney runway. And, it's -- that runway will stay
classified for small aircraft, and we -- we are not, in the
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
]5
16
17
18
19
20
Z1
22
23
24
25
Master Plan now, anticipating spending the money to bring
that paving strength up to the higher weights of the small
and medium-sized business jets. So, this -- the T-hangars
are for -- the largest airplane they would hold is probably,
like, a Bonanza or a small twin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The T-hangar area is --
would be in the same place that this other deal was -- was
offered for.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Which is a logical place to
put it. It's out of the main runway traffic area
considerably, and the -- there axe existing taxiways there
now. That would become a part of that complex. Of course,
you have to add some, as well. But, it makes a lot of sense
to me -- and I have discussed this, not recently, but in the
past, with Megan. It makes a lot of sense that the County
.and City own these assets and that we gain the revenue
therefrom. The question is, to do that, how do you pay fox
it. And, if there's some sort of revenue bond or something
of that sort that goes to pay off whatever -- whatever source
we use for borrowing the money, then you've got the users
paying for it, which is -- again, i like that in a -- as a
matter of principle, that the people who are using these
T-hangars are paying for that project. And, I think it's
something we certainly should pursue, and -- and ask Megan to
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
]3
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
continue to pursue. Bill and I have -- have tracked this
somewhat the last couple of months. I need to find out, by
the way, when the meetings are regularly scheduled, because
the last two meetings I've missed because I had other things
scheduled.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So have I.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, so, we need to get that
down -- that's a side issue. But, I think it's something we
definitely ought to pursue. It would be a great improvement
to the airport. If it's revenue-neutral, where we're not
having to cough up money out of the coffers to go do this, I
think it's the way to go. It will be a big asset to the
airport.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How many units are you
proposing?
MS. CAFFALL: It's 16 units.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sixteen. Will the site
handle more than that?
MS. CAFFALL: That first site is -- is 16 units,
and then I have submitted that -- that plan to our Master
Plan to have the site immediately north reserved for T-hangar
development, so it will be a total of 32 units eventually.
Now, this initial proposal is just for 16 units.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: By the way, I still haven't
got you that letter; you've got one more letter. I think if
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
we formally announce this, you would have -- you would have
so many people asking to be included and would sign -- I
would sign a lease today; if it was going to be constructed
two years from now, I would sign a lease today.
COMMISSIONER WILI,IAMS: That's kind of what I was
wondering. If the City and the County would go public on
their intent, wouldn't some of these folks who are in need,
who may be displaced from other .airports, wouldn't they he
filled up quickly, which might necessitate doing them all at
one time and maybe cutting the cost of the bonding a little
bit, cutting the positive cost of payback a little bit?
Maybe even generating some revenue for you, as opposed to all
of it going for debt service.
MS. CAFFALL: And that -- that is an issue for --
$300,000 is not enough money for a revenue bond.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $500,000 or $600,000 would
be.
MS. CAFFALL: Right, might well be. And, I
definitely agree; I think that the need is out there. And,
it would certainly make me feel better to have leases signed
in advance. I mean, that's someone signing a lease, saying
for 5 or 10 years, that -- and the term of the lease would
start when the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the
hangars. Now, whether it --
COMMISSIONER LF.TZ: The question I have is, if it's
22
1
7.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
1Fi
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
such a good deal, everyone's willing to sign these leases,
why won't a private enterprise do it? I mean, there -- I
don't understand. I mean, everything I'm hearing is that all
these things are going to be leased right away and we're
going to make money. If it's th,st clean a deal, why don't
private enterprise, which would be the preferable way, in my
mind, to do anything --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, they planned to do
that; that's what Megan was saying. They had a group come
forward to do just that, and they got it all the way up to
asking for a tax abatement, but the --
MS. CAFFALL: It's a marginally-profitable deal.
The other thing is, this $300,000 for these hangars -- these
are not -- these are good quality hangars. They're not --
you can get someone else to come in and put hangars on your
airport, but they are very unattractive and probably have a
life span of 10 to 15 years. These hangars are -- probably
none of y'all, except Larry, are familiar with the hangars
they have at Fredericksburg, but they're finished inside and
out; they're very solid. The life expectancy of these
T-hangars would be in excess of. 30 years, if they're cared
for properly. And --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Very -- about the only
people who ever privately finance T-hangars are fixed-base
operators, like Kerrville Aviation or like Dugosh, for
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
example. Sometimes they will do that, but you have to be
profitable to do that, and in the aviation business, the way
you make a small fortune is to start with a large one. You
know, the money is just not there. The money is just not
there to take on these kinds of -- of capital outlays in the
aviation business, and those are about the only people to do
it. It's not a big money-making business; however, it will
generate great -- it will generate great revenues for the
airport because of the funding mechanism and the fact that
the users are going to pay for it. The demand is there. I
suspect that there are at least -- I know that Kerrville
Aviation has a wait list that's longer than the number of
letters that you have on file.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aut, I mean, if it's marginally
profitable, how do we make so much money?
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's marginally profitable to
private individuals. If we compare it against what you would
get in a mutual fund or what the stock market rate is, you
can't come up with a 12- to 15-percent rate of return off of
T-hangars, but -- particularly because the typical person who
builds T-hangars uses one or two of them for himself. So,
that cuts down on your revenues, you know. Megan is talking
about a -- probably a 6- to 7-percent return.
MS. CAFFALI.~: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Over -- over the financing. And,
29
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that's just not attractive to a private investor today, when
they can make much more money of :F of their funds somewhere
else, without the rest of the management costs and --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: See, there are other -- and
from the City and County's point of view, there are other --
in a business sense, other synergistic things that happen,
and that is, if you have more aircraft based at Kerrville
Airport, you're going to flow more fnel., which is -- is
probably one of the things that sae do make money from, is the
flowage. And, so, those kind of things. And, what that --
that also has some economic impact, if -- if you've got that
kind of tax base represented here, there's everything from
hotels and motels that get used more often. They're just
some of those intangibles that a private company has great
difficulty dealing with, with a low rate of return.
MS. CAFFALL: The other thing I'd like to point
out, Jonathan, is that if we pay these off in 10 years, even
if we derive no interim revenue from them, after 10 years the
airport gets all of the revenue. The only thing they will
cost us is insurance. And that's opposed to ground lease,
getting someone else to build them. The standard ground
lease is for 20 years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that. But,
philosophically, government should not run business, in my
mind, and this is -- we are running a business; there's no
25
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
other way you can say it. We are doing something that
private enterprise can do. I'm not saying we shouldn't do
it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, you can privatize the
airport, for that matter, and they're very good -- good ones.
Most of the private airports are sorry airports.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Weill, I'm not saying that. I'm
just saying that -- you know, there's a value to having the
airport, clearly, to the community. But, in general, I have
to swallow real hard, think real hard, before I have
government going into business, which is what this is, you
know. And, it's -- it's, philosophically, not what I think
we should do. It's the same thing as the arena in San
Antonio. It's -- I don't think the government should do
stuff like that, you know. It's a hard decision for me to
say that we should do that if it's not economic for the
private sector to do it. There':~ got to be a reason for it,
which you all have explained. And, you know, then I've got
to weigh the balance of, well, is this helping the whole
community, or are we subsidizing the few people that have
airplanes? And, this is a compl<~int that this Court -- at
least I've heard since I've been on the Court the whole time,
is when we give the low rent leases we've given, you know,
Brinkmann and Shelton and everybody else, these, you know,
favorable deals out there, all we're doing is subsidizing
26
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
millionaires. And, you know, I need to be confident that
we're doing something that's going to help the community, not
help the few people that own airplanes. And, that's why I'm
asking the question. I'm not saying no; I'm just saying this
is something that is -- in my mind, is not government's
traditional role.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I share that philosophy. However,
in this instance, I've always felt that the airport was a
great asset to his community.
COMMI SIONER LETZ: It is.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And, if we don't preserve that
asset, ultimate y it will become a detriment. And, this is a
way to move for and and allow the people to use the airport
to help us fund some of the other things that Megan has
described to us, and cost of improvements, maintaining
infrastructure.
COMMI SIONER GRIFFIN: I would also point out that
the rental rate -- you know, we're not talking tax
abatements or a ything. The rental rates will be established
by the market, nd that's -- Megan has alluded to that, which
we'll want to make sure that we're at the market rate and
there is an -- I think in the old lease that's no longer --
the proposal, we had an adjustment thing?
MS. CAFFALL: Oh, right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There's an adjustment
27
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
mechanism so that, throughout the life of the lease, if
suddenly there's reason for those lease payments to go up,
it can be adjusted. Not downward, as I recall, but it can be
adjusted up. So, that's a market-driven thing, and it's not
a subsidy of any kind in this case, because we're not talking
tax abatements or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. The -- I forgot what I
was going to ask. Oh, maintenance nn the facility. In your
payout and, you know, projections, have you puT. in the
maintenance for such facilities?
MS. CAFFALL: No. Just --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And who is going to do this
maintenance and upkeep for the County? We don't have anyone
-- I don't think the City or County staff does this, other
than the standard maintenance staff.
MS. CAFFALL: Typically, on metal buildings like
this, there is very little maintenance. The doors are the
only thing that -- if they're damaged, it's usually because
of something that insurance covers. We could -- that's
something that could be factored in. It's not -- when this
T-hangar group first came forward, I went in and talked to
the gentleman who built the hangars in Fredericksburg, and he
outlined all -- all his expenses and what his project had
anticipated in repairs. And, if it's a -- if you build a
quality building to begin with, over a 10-year period, I
28
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
17.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
wouldn't anticipate any real maintenance with it, because
they're very simple. If anything happens, like hail damage
or the buildings are damaged, that's covered by the
insurance. These hangars would not be coming with electric
doors; they're manual, slide-to-the-side doors, just a track
door. Now, I could probably do some research in other areas
and iron out, you know, if anyone else has had expenses.
Hut, if you look at the condition of most -- most airports
have 30-, 90-year-old hangars that they're still renting.
They don't look wonderful after 30 years, because they start
to -- their finish starts to go. But --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Still low maintenance.
MS. CAFFALL: A metal building is a very low-
maintenance item.
COMMISSIONER I~ETZ: But, there's going -- still
going to be additional -- there's going to be -- trash has to
be picked up at the building. There's going to be
maintenance.
MS. CAFFALL: We don't perform that now; the
airport performs that. Our maintenance people don't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. But, I mean, you know,
if we -- we need to address who's going to do these things
out there. And, there is going to be maintenance on a
building; I don't care if we don't maintain it for 10 years.
We're going to have a big building in 10 years. You know, I
29
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
think it's something that we need to look at as, you know,
hidden costs.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a slightly different
view on it, Jonathan. I think it's a project that's worthy
of further examination to see if it really does make sense.
And, if it does -- and I think it's something we should
probably do, because 2 believe that it would be to the
County's commitment -- or partial commitment to economic
development. I can see economic development formed from
this, and I think that's important, so I would favor
examining it further.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's certainly a project we
need to look further at, but I agree with Jonathan that when
you factor in the economics of anything, you have to take
into consideration the hidden costs, such as maintenance,
such as replacement -- you know, what is our deductible, our
insurance? If we have a major hailstorm, the insurance picks
up its share. Do we have a $2,000 deductible? Do we have a
$3,000 deductible? Wheh we put a pencil to something like
this, you have to pencil in all the factors. I strongly
think it's a project we need to look at and go forward, at
least with the plan, but let's do it with a sharp pencil.
MS. CAFFALL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do we need a motion or
anything on this?
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKF,: I don't think so. This is just a
sense of the Court. Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to make a
comment. Last year I received a phone call from a family in
Dallas that wanted to relocate their company, a small
company, to Kerrville. And, one of the things they looked at
is where can they park their three family airplanes.
MS. CAFFALL: I get those calls all the time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, I can -- you know, if I
received one phone call -- and they ended up in Marble Falls,
by the way; we lost some revenue. If I received one, how
many -- how many small companies axe like that? And, so, I
-- I'm big in favor of pursuing this, yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree we need to pursue it.
I'm just, maybe, not as gung-ho as some of the others on the
Court as far as spending money on airplane hangars.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to look into the
potential. If the potential for really leasing a number of
these is out there, then I think you ought to look into a
little larger proposition than just the 16 that you're
talking about, to facilitate the issuance of revenue bonds
and maybe do both projects at the same time and cut the
construction costs down and so forth.
MS. CAFFALL: The only issue there, Bill, is that
31
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- that the site for 16 is prepared; we spent some grading
time out there. And, the second site would require some
earth-moving, which would add to the expense of building.
But, we'll just -- I can bring it all. back. It's just I want
an indication from Commissioners ~"ourt, which I think I've
got. Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Megan.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item on our agenda is a
presentation by Sue Dyke on the Resource Conservation and
Development Commission. Bill?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You just introduced her,
Judge. That's great.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning, Sue.
MS. DYKE: Good morning. I think I know most of
you here. I'm Sue Dyke, and I've been a resident of the Hill
Country since 1986, and have formerly been involved in the
nonprofit world. But, right now we're undertaking at Kerr
County R.C.& D. a project to develop R.C.& P. in Kerr County.
We've been underway with this since February. And, just to
give you a little bit of a brief background on R.C.& D.,
R.C.& D., even though we're new, is not new. It was actually
begun as a provision under the Food and Agricultural
Provision Act in 1962, and under the -- it was put under the
Secretary of Agriculture. And, then the Secretary of
32
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Agriculture put it under the National Resource Conservation
Service, and then each state formed its own R.C.& D.
organization.
In Texas today, we have 23 regions in R.C.& D., and Kerr
County is under the Alamo Region. "Alamo" does not mean it's
in San Antonio, but it does mean that it -- it actually has a
Hondo office, and so -- but it does mean that Bexar County is
part of the 10-county area of the Alamo Region. We started
here in -- in Kerr County back in 1990, but -- but, actually,
it has not taken off until recently, and the reason is
because we were looking for office space. And, fortunately,
we were able to come up with that in February, with
Commissioner Letz's help, and we're now officing at U.G.R.A.
with free office space.
And, since that time, we've been doing organizational
work and trying to get ourselves established with regard to
all the backgro~.ind information, and it was very significant,
because we're blazing a trail here. In other words, Kerr
County is the only county in the state of Texas which has ari
office outside of its regional office. As I said, our
regional office is in Hondo, and we are part of a 10-county
region. We found that there was certainly nothing wrong,
and there certainly is everything good with regard to what
R.C.& D. stands for, which is Resource Conservation and
Development.

33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It was organized primarily because rural communities
needed funding that -- and funding sources that were
traditionally unavailable to them, but were available more in
the urban areas. And, as we've just talked about here with
regard to airports, certainly, that points out a
characteristic, too, that's unique to the rural communities,
in that we have unique projects in rural communities that
urban areas don't have. So, that's the -- and there's great
potential for -- for R.C.& D. and what it can do, and I don't
think there's ever been any dispute over that. But, at the
same time, we've needed to get off the ground, and now we've
done that.
And, that's why I'm here today, because we've made some
progress and we're ready to move forward with our development
and actually get some projects under way. And, if you want
to translate the goals and objectives and the visions of
R.C.& D. and what it's doing, it translates into projects.
In other words, how can we aid and assist governmental
entities and also nonprofit groups in the county with the
development, and then also researching the sources of funding
that are available for these projects. And, the scope is
very wide.
I mean, like we talked about governmental entities. The
library is one that's probably needed here in Kerr County.
There's some things at the Auditorium, things in the Youth
34
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
Forum, perhaps in Parks and Recre>ation. You can just go on
and on and on as to whatever project might be needed in the
county. And, there are funds out there available for that
kind of thing. That's what we do. We have -- we've got a
small start-up grant to get ourselves underway, and that
meant that we purchased a computer, and we are also online
with all the Texas foundations. And then we've also
purchased a CD-ROM capability under the Foundation Center in
New York, and we can now research all 97,000 nonprofit
foundations across the United States right here in Kerrville.
It's no longer necessary for nonprofit groups or
governmental entities to go to San Antonio, where there is a
wonderful nonprofit resource library, but we partner with
them and we have their directory, a printed copy, but also
online, and we can do whatever they'd have over there right
here. We are also privy to their -- their printed library,
in that they will allow us to be a conduit and to check out
books for whatever might be needed. So, really, the goal to
Kerr County R.C.& D. is -- is to help Kerr County to move
forward with needed projects. Essentially, that's it.
And, what I'm here today for is to -- is to ask Kerr
County to join R.C.& D. We -- that is the way we're
maintaining -- part of the way that we're maintaining
ourselves, through memberships. And, governmental entities
cost $100 a year to join, but the benefit of that membership
35
„-.
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
is that you have access to all these capabilities that's
available in our office right now. But, we'll take -- also,
the span of our services, I think, is extremely important,
because we find that people who need projects done are not
always skilled at doing the gra m= writing or doing the --
going through the research process, and so we've got that
capability also in the office.
And -- but if you've got someone that can write a grant
and can do it, then we'll help you to find to whom the grant
should be sent. So, what we're trying to do is go from A to
Z, in other words, so that the process takes place, because
what we found out is that we can teach grant writing classes
and teach people to write grants, but when they actually get
underway with a process, well, it gets kind of bogged down,
and they don't have what it takes to actually -- so we're
trying to do a backup here to get that done.
So, what I'm requesting today is that Kerr County join
Kerr County R.C.& D., and that -- that also, that you put on
your agenda that you appoint someone to be on our Board of
Directors. We are -- as I said, have been very busy with
organizational work and trying to iron out a few of the why's
and wherefores with our regional office, and we've done that,
and so now it's time to develop our Board of Directors and
increase our membership, and we're out there trying to do
that right now. So, that's my request to you today. You
36
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
have -- yes?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry, go right ahead.
MS. DYKE: No, that's all right. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to say, as you
well know, I was on the original board of the R.C.& D. in
Kerr County, and then later on Commissioner Letz chaired that
committee, and we had both talked about it many, many times,
and it has -- to use your words, has some great potential.
It's a great organization, and great potential for our
county, and I am certainly in favor. This county's been a
member of it before, and I don't really recall how it dropped
off, but I agree, I think it's time to -- to renew our
membership and get this thing going.
MS. DYKE: Well, we just don't see anything but
great things ahead now, with that as a possibility for the
work that gets done, and -- yes?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sue, let me ask you a
question. You gave us two little brochures. One depicts the
activities and the jurisdiction of the Alamo R.C.S D. The
other apparently is Kerr County. On the gray one, in the
middle, you talk about the scope of services, which, among
other things, is Organize a Project, Develop a Funding
Source, and Write a Proposal to Your Prospective Donor. And
then, down in paragraphs -- or bullets number 3 and 9, you
talk about a fee structure. And, in Bullet 3, you say if you
.---
37
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
need further assistance with your. project and help writing
your proposal, there's a fee of $15 an hour. In Bullet 4,
you go on and talk about grant writing offered at $25 an
hour.
MS. DYKE: Right, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Explain to the Court, you
know, how we have two fees for two different paragraphs.
Wherein lies the difference and why?
MS. DYKE: Right. Well, in the process of writing
a proposal, there are two phases to it, and that's what that
is. The consultation phase is when you're actually gathering
data and -- and when you're talking about what the goals
should be for the project and how t.o develop the project, put
a plan in order, put the proposal together. But, the actual
writing time is -- is different fr.nm the consultation period,
so that's what that is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And those are funds that
R.C.& D. would earn and use as part of its --
MS. DYKE: Yes, that's part of the other way that
we are seeking resources for our office. Yeah, keep it
going.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further comments or questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment, I guess, I
certainly support this. I think it is a -- you know, I've
worked at least two or three years trying to get it to the
38
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
point where they are right now, and I'm no longer on the
board, but do I support what they're doing. And, I think
what we tried to do was figure out a way to make it a -- an
organization that could do something. And, I think one of
the things that I saw, from the r_ounty standpoint, a big need
was that there's a lot of funds available; everything there
from possibly helping with the T-hangar deal to Parks to the
Ag Barn. And, we don't have anyone in the county who is
knowledgeable and dedicated to doing this type of work, and I
think that it's an -- R.C.& D. provides an avenue for the
County to basically have a grant writer on staff, and on an
as-needed basis. And, I think it's, you know, a lot of
opportunity for the r_ounty. I certainly support joining it.
Actually, I don't -- you know, I apologize for not thinking
of this during the budget process, 'cause it should be one of
the things that you go through that, but I didn't at the
time. So, lapse in memory. I think it probably should come
out of Commissioners Court Contingency. I guess the fee's
$100 for the County, for a government entity?
MS. DYKE: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To join?
MS. DYKE: Annual fee, right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Annual fee.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's a significant effort
on the part of R.C.& D. There's a lot of money floating
39
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
around out there for projects.
MS. DYKE: Exactly.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That the County and the other
agencies and nonprofits within the county could tap into, if
anyone knew about it. And, having one source which has a
professional like Sue to help with the writing, but even more
than that, has the computerized resources to ferret out the
SOUrCes of funds, I think will be very significant for this
County, and so, do I have a motion to approve the source of
funds?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we join Kerr County
R.C.& D., and that the $100 membership fee comes from
Commissioners' Court Contingency.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that Kerr County join the
,Kerr County R.C.& D., and that the annual fee of $100 be
taken from the Commissioners Court Contingency fund.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nondepartmental?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nondepartmental.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Nondepartmental, Contingency.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, that a line item be set up
in our sponsored activities, where it should be, so it
continues to be tracked in future years.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion?
40
.-.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
...
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Want to remind the Sheriff's
Office and Road and Ari.dge and all of our agencies to get
involved in this thing, take a look at it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Absolutely. 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, Sue.
We'll put the appointment of a member of the Aoard of
Directors on a near future agenda.
MS. DYKE: Okay. Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I made it very clear in my
remarks that Commissioner Letz and I have already served
there.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You did such a good job,
there's no reason you can't go back.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll take note of your experience
and your enthusiasm.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Great experience and
knowledge.
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. DYKE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Sue.
41
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 HENNEKF.: The next item on the agenda is 2.3,
which is consider and discuss policy for obstructions in Kerr
Co~inty right-of-way. Franklin, you've brought this back to
us after our discussion a few weeks ago.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. I added a paragraph
-- I think it's Paragraph 2, we do an intermediate step.
Once the surveyor has identified the right-of-way, the
obstructions, and the ownership, the County Engineer will
send a letter to the landowners that impediments are within
the right-ot-way and request that they come by our office to
discuss what needs to be done. And, at the same time, a copy
of the letter will be sent to the appropriate Commissioner to
contact these landowners, working on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: books good.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Looks good.
COMMISSIONER	AALDWIN:	Looks	good.	
COMMISSIONER	GRIFFIN:	Do we	have to	do anything
with this?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we adopt this as the
policy fox removal of obstructions in Kerr County
right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve the
proposed policy for obstructions in Kerr County right-of-way.

42
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
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. 2.9, consider and
discuss final replat of Lot 2, Block One, Husch Estates,
Precinct No. 4. Commissioner Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Franklin, this is one we did
a preliminary on some time ago. We looked at -- or, no, this
was --
MR. JOHNSTON: Tt's a replat. We dial the
preliminary replat -- what was that, a month ago or so?
MR. DOMINGUES: Yes, a month ago.
MR. JOHNSTON: Dividing one lot of 5.28 acres into
two lots, being 2.23 and 3.05. The lots are both served by a
water system. We've included a letter that said they have
the capacity to serve these lots. Do you have anything,
Charles?
MR. DOMINGUES: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, you didn't provide
the letter, but -- or to me, you didn't. I see the letter
from T.N.R.C.C. to you.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right. They never really commit
themselves too much.
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They usually send out a
letter that says, yeah, pretty cool, groovy, or some of those
kind of terms.
MR. JOHNSTON: Is that as much we can get out of
them?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have a letter that
says --
MR. JOHNSTON: I have the same letter you have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The "groovy" letter.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Its a groovy, evasive
letter.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That number of -- I mean,
the low to max number for number of users.
MR. JOHNSTON: Wasn't the subdivision originally
five lots, then it was combined into two?
MR. DOMINGUES: It started out to be five lots, and
they cut it back to lust two lots.
MR. JOHNSTON: Oh, okay.
MR. DOMINGUES: When they filed the plats.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would make the motion that
we approve this final replat of subdivision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve the
49
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
final replat of hot 2, Block One, Busch Estates. 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. 2.5, consider and
discuss concept plan for Waugh Acres and replat of Lot 2 of
Clear Springs Ranch. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Johnston will give us
the details on Waugh Acres.
MR. JOHNSTON: I thought Lee was going to talk about
this. It's basically -- they want to replat a lot in a -- in
a subdivision that's not recorded, and it faces a newly
adopted County road; it's called Witt Road. It's on the
portion that was just recently paved. I think it's back here
where -- what the sizes are, I think it's a 10-acre lot.
They're dividing it -- or propose to divide it into three
lots, 3.9, 2.51, and 2.50. And, to access these lots, they
want to construct a county road -- a public road, 60-foot
right-of-way. I guess a paved country lane would be the type
of road they'd build.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paved?
MR. JOHNSTON: It would have to he, I think. The
unpaved has to have a 10-acre minimum lot size. I don't know
how the economics work out on that.
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not our problem.
MR. JOHNSTON: But they do meet bare minimum there
for well and septic on the lot. The lot's kind of
odd-shaped. But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only frontage is on the
They have -- Lot Number 3 has its own cul-de-sac.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that satisfy minimums?
MR. JOHNSTON: Looks like, having a cul-de-sac, it
would meet the requirement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, my only comment would
be to make sure they understand the type of road they have to
build, you know. I mean, we're not responsible for them
understanding that, but from a courtesy standpoint --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER WITLIAMS: i move approval of the plat
of Lot 2, Block One -- no, that's Waugh Acres. The replat of
Lot 2, Clear Springs Ranch, Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
MR. JOHNSTON: Just as a concept, not of a plat.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is a concept.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, as to concept. Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve the
concept plan for Waugh Acres, which is a replat of Lot 2 of
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
Clear Springs Ranch. 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: Judge, I have a question. I
see you -- keep seeing you moving this brightly-colored thing
around. If we're going to act on that, shoial.d we do it,
maybe, before -- sooner than later, so they can put it in the
paper? I don't know what we're going to do on it, but if we
are going to do a
JUDGE HENNEKE: We could take that up now if you
want to. Okay. With the concurrence of the Court, we'll
skip to Item 2.22, which is consider and discuss implementing
the burn ban if required by the Texas Forest Service, using
the Keech-Byrum Drought Index. The Administrative Assistant
to the Court, Ms. Sovil, has obtained the most recent map,
which is today's map, of the Keech-Byrum Drought Index.
According to this map, Kerr County is in the yellow, which is
a 500 to 600 index, and burn ban at this level is
discretionary. The actual index that they've given us is
557, which is higher, therefore worse, than it was when we
lifted the ban last week, but it's still not into the
recommended range, which starts with 600. So, what I'm
97
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^ 13
_ 19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
27.
23
24
25
interpreting from this map is that: the little rain that we
got helped, but it's still dry, and -- and it's getting
dryer. The question is whether the Court wants to consider
reimposing the burn ban at this time or -- or continue to
monitor this closely.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we reimpose the burn
ban.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we reimpose the burn
ban. Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'd point out that we had --
since Thursday, I think there have been seven fires in
Precinct 9 that have been responded to, and I know that there
are others throughout the county.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Had four in my precinct, and
lost one truck.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, it was -- those were
the result of -- of burnings that were going on that just got
out of hand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is, this is
just a -- you know, I think we need to put it in the bark of
our mind, using this index as the full basis for burn bans,
that it does not take into account the amount of fuel we have
on the ground right now. It talks about soil. moisture. And,
98
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you know, I'm -- I think during the -- certainly, in the
winter months, maybe, we need to t:o look at this. If this is
the only way we're doing it, maybe it would be better to go
to the the old system, emergency basis. Seems to me it gives
more flexibility to the County, because this is pretty --
from a variance standpoint and -- or some criteria they can
put in, because there's no room for variance and things under
this law. But, you know, at this point I don't have a real
problem with it. I continue to be amazed about the lack of
judgment of our public.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The way the law reads, I
mean, it gave the Commissioners Court the discretion to judge
the -- to make a subjective judgment, but I think -- and as
yoga get more sensors involved in this, where this is better
read by the Texas Forest Service, it will become more
meaningful. But, I think it's heading in the right
direction, but it still requires judgment on our part from
Kerr County, and I think this is one of those calls that we
have to make; that -- that there is some lag in getting the
data together for this at this point, and sometimes we've got
to step in and act.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it's a -- a lag.
I think it's efficiency of the figures. They're talking
about soil moisture. Soil moisture isn't always the problem.
I mean, that's -- you know, that is based on soil moisture,
49
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1$
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
and the problem is the amount of fuel we have on the surface,
which isn't affected by the soil moisture. But, you know,
either way, I mean, I think we ought to do it. I lust think
that we need to -- I mean, at our last meeting we discussed a
variance, that we can't do any kind of variance under this
law; therefore, our hands are pretty strictly tied once we've
passed the burn ban. It doesn't matter how we do it when
we're basing it on this particular regulation or rule.
Anyway --
COMMISSIONER WILI,IAMS: Well, the Judge can lift it
discretionarily if we get rain; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Correct, if the index is a
higher number.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? Motion's
been made and seconded. All. in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
J(1DGE HENNEKE:' Motion carries. It's 10 o'clock on
Monday, October 25th. At this time, we will open the sealed
bids that have been received by County for two 1-ton trucks
for use by the Road and Bridge Department.
(Opening bid.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: The first bid is from Southway Ford
on East Military Drive in San Antonio. Truck Number 1, the
~^.
50
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
base bid is $22,003, F-32 Ford. With the options, it's
$23,899. Truck Number 2, the base bid, which is a Ford
F-36CC, is $23,091, and with an extended warranty, the bid
for Truck Number 2 is $29,706. Again, that's from Southway
(Opening bid.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: The next bid is from Bill Utter
Ford, which is in Denton, Texas.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Bill Utter, U-t-t-e-r. The base
bid for Truck Number 1 is $22,022. The options for Truck 1
is an additional $1,171 -- I'm sorry, $1,175, plus extended
warranty for 5 years/98,000 miles, an additional $1,290;
5 years/60,000 miles, $1,270; 5 years/75,000 miles, $1,775.
For Truck Number 2, ther.e's no base bid indicated. The base
bid -- well, no, the base bid is $23,397. Extended
warranties are as indicated for Truck Number 1.
(Opening bid.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: The next bid is from Grande Ford
Truck Sales in San Antonio. They do not provide a base bid
for Truck Number 1, but the bid for Truck Number 1 with
optionals is $29,942. Similarly, they do not provide a base
bid for Truck Number 2 but the bid for Truck Number 2,
including the extended warranty, is $23,928.
(Opening bid.)
r
51
7
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: The next bid is from Jennings
Anderson Ford. The base bid for 'T'ruck Number 1 is $23,909.
The bid for Truck Number 1 with the options is 525,860.95.
The base truck bid for Truck Number 2 is 529,020. The bid
for Truck Number 2 with options is $29,985.
(Opening bid.)
,JUDGE HENNEKE: The next bi_d is from Avery Knapp
Fleet Department, Lawrence Marshall Chevrolet Olds,
Incorporated.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where are they from, Judge?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Hempstead, Texas. The base bid for
Truck Number 1 is $22,391. The bid for Truck Number 1 with
optionals is 525,519. The bid for Truck Number 2 is $23,387.
With the optional warranty option, the bid is 529,812.
(Opening bid.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: And, the mystery bid is from
Crenwelge Motors here in Kerrville. The base bid for Truck
Number 1 is 522,682.78. The bid for Truck Number 1 with the
optionals is 525,280.78. They declined to bid on Truck
..Number 2. Those are the bids.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we accept all the bids
and refer them to Road and Bridge for review.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we review all
52
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
the kids and -- we accept a]l the bids and refer them to Road
land Bridge Department for further evaluation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could they possibly get back
in today?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't know; that would be up to
I them.
MR. ODOM: I would like to try to get back to you
today.
JUDGE HENNEKE.: I presume they're going to compare
them with the H.B.A.G. information which was received today,
I believe.
MR. ODOM: I received ghat, but that's -- I don't.
know if they -- Ford does not -- they do not bid regular
cabs; they bid extended cabs.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, compare the --
MR. ODOM: The prices, ;you're talking about?
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- prices with what's available,
and then you'll --
MR. ODOM: Surely.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If. we're still in session today,
you'll bring us back a recommendation. 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.)
.-,
53
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
- 13
_ 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
r
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
(Bids handed to Leonard Odom.)
MR. ODOM: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is 2.7, consider and
discuss accepting the Loss Analysis Report. Our inestimable
Treasurer, Ms. Nemec.
MS. NEMEC: Morning. 'This report is submitted to
the Court in order to comply with our safety policy. And,
there will be a representative from TAC here November the 9th
to do a safety inspection. This will be one of the things
that they will be looking at, to see if this report was made
available to the Court. Normally, what we would do with this
report is probably go into Executive Session and discuss the
-- the injuries that have taken place, and make
recommendations on what we could do to correct those.
However, this report covers the injuries that were done
through July, which was before we had a Safety Committee
appointed, so we don't have any recommendations on -- on
these particular ones. 'But, I did have to present this to
the Court in order to comply with the safety policy. And,
then, the next report we could do that and come back with
some recommendations and discuss in more detail.. Unless
y'all want to go into Executive Session to discuss any
particular issue? We could do that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there any member of the Court
54
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
who wishes to defer this to Executive Session? Be careful.
We cannot comment on any specifics in open session.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move we accept the Loss
Analysis Report as submitted by i~he Treasurer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ser_ond.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz -- sorry, moved by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court
acr.ept the Loss Analysis Report as presented by the
Treasurer. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor,
raise your right hand.
(The motion was carrie~9 by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next we'll go to
Item 2.8, consider and discuss the annually determined
contribution for the T.C.D.R.S. and authorize County Judge to
sign same. Barbara?
MS. NEMEC: This is just a formality. This was
discussed during the budget sessions, and our rate is 7.71,
so we just need the Judge to sign those forms so we can
submit it to T.C.D.R.S.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
55
.-.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
7.1
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve the annually
determined contribution rate for T.C.D.R.S. and authorize
County Judge to sign same. Any i`_urther 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,
Barbara.
MS. NEMEC: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't: see the Assistant County
Attorney in the office right now,. so let's go to Item ?..10.
I don't see Mr. Elliott in the ot:fice.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The constable's here.
JIrDGE HENNEKE: Don's going to handle that.
Consider end discuss payroll supplement adjustment for J.P.
Precinct No. 1 secretary. Don, do you want to tell us about
this real quickly?
MR. McCLURE: Morning. At the budget hearing, we
discussed this supplement. I thought it was a supplement
salary for the J.P. 1 clerk for t:he reason of the work that
she does for the -- the constable that has a -- shares the
office there with the J.P. 1. She does a lot of
recordkeeping for the constable'<s business. And, I've asked
for, and I thought that it was approved that there was $900 a
56
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
year, which is $75 a month, for her to do the work that she
does over and above her J.P. work. I was under the
impression that this was a supplementary salary. However, as
it came o~zt, it was a step and grade salary, which didn't
work for some reason. I have some copies of Kari's check
stub to show that she i.s on the step and grade with what she
received, and I would appreciate -- appreciate to get it
changed back like I thought it was when we had the budget
hearings.
JUDGE HENNEKE: My strong recollection of this is
that J.P. Elliott, as part of the discretionary funds we had,
gave to Kari a two-step merit increase, which the Court
approved. Constable McClure, as part of his discretionary
funds, wanted to give her a supplement, additional salary
from his budget, which the Court also approved. And, this is
a -- a clerical error on the part of myself and the Auditor's
office in not giving Kari the supplement that the constable
offered her and was approved by the Court. It has no budget
impact. It's simply moving the funds from the Constable's
Contingency line item, I believe, to Salary Supplement. And,
there is a -- there's -- we understand there's sufficient
funds to cover the additional FICA and insurance, so it.'s a
budgetary neutral adjustment. Correct, Don?
MR. McCLURE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I seem to recall it that

57
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
way, too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make a motion that we
approve it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And -- and the
Auditor will figure out exactly what lines it moves around in
and all that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right, 'cause I think it was
actually in our deliberations.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it was.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're really approving
making the adjustment back to October 1, correct?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner. Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we, retroactively to
October lst, grant to the secretary of J.P. 1 a salary
supplement in the amount of $900, less the required amounts
for FICA and retirement:
MS. NEMEC: $900 less the FICA and retirement? Is
that what you said?
JUDGF. HENNEKE: Yes. In other words, the $900 is
supposed to cover the whole r_ost. It's not $900 salary, plus
FICA and then insurance from somewhere else. It's $900 --
the whole thing is $900.

58
....
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
l--
MS. NEMEC: And then Tommy will do a budget
amendment, 'cause that will have to come from Surplus, 'cause
it wasn't --
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, it's in his budget; it's in his
Contingency, I believe. No?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Some of it was.
MS. NEMEC: Not once the budget was adopted. It
was before, but then when it was adopted, that amount was
left out; is that correct?
MR. McCLURE: Yeah. The $900 was part o~ the --
part of that was the $500 that the County, through Judge
Henneke, awarded everyone, of each department -- every
elected person that had that deal. And, I trimmed quite a
bit off of my last year's budget down to zero to make up the
biggest part of the difference from the $500 to the $900. we
can disr_uss it later. I'd be willing to trim a little more
if I have to, 'cause I -- the girl --
JUDGE HENNEKE: We need to know exactly where the
money's going to come from, so let's -- the sense of the
Court clearly is that you wanted to give her that; she's
entitled to that, but --
MS. NEMEC: It really just needs to come from
Surplus, 'cause it just wasn't included in his budget when it
was adopted.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll amend my motion to say

59
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
that it has to come from the Surplus; we'll do that.
Nondepartmental, including that, and that we ask the Auditor
and the Treasurer to review that and make sure we've got the
money accounted for correctly.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that okay with you?
COMMISSIONER BAI,DWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion made and seconded. Al] in
favor, raise your right hand-
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Don.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aoy, you're tough. You're
tough.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Let's do 2.11, and then
we'll take a break. Consider and discuss replacement for an
election judge in Voting Precinct 211, and appointment of
Rola Seyler as alternate election judge in Voting Precinct
202.
MS. PIEPER: Aasically, you just said it. We need
to replace the election judge in 211 and an alternate judge
in 202.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we have a nomination fox 211?
MS. PIEPER: To replace the election judge in 211,
that will be with Maggie Barbee. The election judge -- the
. _
50
.-.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1?.
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
alternate judge in 202 would be Rola Seyler.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maggie or Margaret?
MS. PIEPER: Margaret, a/k/a Maggie.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One of your employees.
MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir. She's going to take a
vacation that today to be our judge, since she lives in 211.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move we replace the
election judge in 211, which is Billie Meeker, with Margaret
Barbee, and replace the alternate judge in Precinct 202, who
is Nell Sevey, with Rola Seyler.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we appoint Maggie
Barbee as election judge in Voting Precinct 211, in
replacement of Billie Meeker, and we appoint Rola Seyler as
alternate election judge in Voting Precinct 202, in
replacement of Nell Sevey. Any i:urther discussion? If not,
all in favor, raise your right haind.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(Nn r.esponse.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Let's take a break
and reconvene at 10:35.
(Recess from 10:23 a.m. to 10:35 a.m.)

61
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's 10:35. We'll reconvene this
Special Session of Kerr County Commissioners Court. We'll go
to Item No. 2.9, consider and discuss procedures to be
followed in contempt action heard before Commissioners Court
pursuant to the Kerr County Flood Damage Prevention Order.
Ilse Bailey, Assistant County Attorney.
MS. BAII~F.Y: Good morning. I asked this to be put
on the agenda. I don't know if you can actually -- or want
to actually make a final decision today on our approach to
these issues, but just in summary,, we have -- tI.G.R.A. and
our Floodplain Administrator is b.=_coming more active, and we
have become more active in the County Attorney's office, in
helping them to enforce a lot of 'the environmental
regulations that the County has passed and had in effect, but
haven't really gone to a whole lot of litigation over. One
of those issues is Section E of the Flood Damage Prevention
Order, which, in summary, says if our Floodplain
Administrator says -- makes a ruling that someone needs to do
certain -- take certain action to comply with the floodplain
regulations, and they fail to do so, there's this procedure
whereby the Commissioners Court is the decision-making body
to determine whether or not that individual or entity should
be held in contempt.
There are so many different ways that that kind of.
contempt action could be heard that I thought it would be

62
1
7.
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
76
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
appropriate for the Court to make some decisions about the
procedure to be employed before we actually file a case in
the Court. I have one that I think -- and perhaps two cases
pending, where Mr. Wiedenfeld, as the Floodplain
Administrator, has asked me to file contempt actions before
the Court. You've got a memo that: I wrote back on October
4th setting out some of the quest'.ions that I had about how
you wanted to go about addressing those procedures. And, as
I say, I have no recommendations. I just think that it needs
to be clarified so that we don't end up with a case before
the Court, and then be in disagreement about how -- how
things should proceed. If anyone has any questions or any
discussion, I'd be happy to address them.
~ JUDGE HENNEKE: Without any recommendations, how
are we going to decide these issues you've put before us?
MS. BAILEY: Well, since it's all -- it's all
within the Court's discretion, you all. have to make the
decisions. I mean, I have the questions, and then we can --
we can go down those questions -- for instance, do we want to
have these set at a regular Commissioners Court meeting, or
do you want to set them as a special docket? They're a
little -- they're quite a bit different than the regular
Commissioners' Court docket type of actions. You might want
to take that into consideration. If it's going to be a full,
formal hearing -- and that's one of the questions I have

63
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
ZO
21
22
7.3
24
25
later on -- it could end up just like a regular trial. It
could take -- depending on how contested the issues are and
how vociferously each party wants to fight about it, it could
be a lengthy process. Given that: fact, it would occur to me
that it might not be best to set it at. a regular
Commissioners Court meeting; hut, again, that's within the
Court's discretion.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, your recommendation is that it
not be a regular Commissioners Court meeting?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I can interject here a
second, as to -- this is the only area that I'm aware of
where we would act as a judicial body. I mean, I don't know
that -- certainly, we've never done stuff like this nn the
Court, and I'm wondering if that was thought out when they
passed this order. My first question is, do we have to do it:
this way, or could we just have an appeal come to us and
refer it, from -- from a judicial standpoint, to County Cnurt
at Law? Which, to me, is a better plar_e to handle something
like this, because I think we're kind of reinventing the
wheel, it seems to me, 'cause we generally don't do this.
MS. BAILEY: Well, it's -- this is a rule passed by
the Commissioners Court, and my guess is that probably not a
lot of thought was given to the process. It's within the
Commissioners Court jurisdiction to amend that provision.
You might want to amend it any number of ways. But -- for

69
.-.
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
instance, amend it to allow this process to he done at the
U.G.R.A. level and then appealed to either the County Court
-- Commissioners Court as a whole, or to -- to Judge Henneke
individually. That's certainly an alternative that would
make the whole process a lot more streamlined.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The appeal process starts
at the U.G.R.A. level.
MS. BAILEY: Yes. And -- and, as I believe I've
discussed with Commissioner Grif:Ein before, there is a lot of
confusion in the County processes for appealing different
aspects of things over which the County has jurisdiction, and
it would be probably preferable in the big picture to have
appeal processes in all these different areas fairly similar,
so -- so that people don't -- don't have a well problem over
here and have to appeal it one direction, and a septic
problem over there and have to appeal it a different way, and
then a floodplain problem over here, and then a third
different way to appeal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I certainly agree with
that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The County has nothing to do with
wells.
MS. BAILEY: But -- 7 mean, but from the
landowner's point of view, these are all things that have to
do with ground and water, and they're being told, "well, this
r-
55
_~
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
one, you've got to go to T.N.R.C.C.; this one, you go to
U.G.R.A.; this one, you go to Commissioners Court." And, the
simpler we can make all that, it would just seem to me, the
better.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
JUDGE HENNEKE: To answer your question, though, I
do not think that we can refer this to County Court at Law.
COMMISSIONER LET7.: Or some other --
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, this has to be decided at this
-- at this body, either by us co:Llectively, or -- I presume
there's a mechanism, if you want to refer to it to the County
Judge, whoever that unfortunate individual might be, you
probably could.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I i9idn't know if this was -- a
lot of the FEMA things, we pretty much rubber-stamp what the
federal government tells us to do with FEMA, and do -- and
kind of go along with them. I didn't know whether we had any
flexibility in changing the violations and penalties portion
or not. I'm not that familiar with FEMA, and Charlie may
know, you know, whether what we currently have is mandated by
the federal government, or i.f it was just something that was
drafted by the Commissioners Court at the time it was passed.
MR. WIEDENFELD: That -- I don't know if that was
the recommendation, that it be a contempt procedure, from
FEMA.
66
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would seem to me, Ilse,
that for my purposes it would be helpful, in coming back to
what Judge Henneke said, if, on these nine points or nine
topics where you are trying to set a uniform set of rules for
appeal, that you give us some guidance as to what you think
is an appropriate way to go, and your reasons for that, as
opposed to letting us debate all nine of these and trying to
determine what's the best way to go.
MS. BAILEY: I'd be happy to do that. I just felt
if -- if the the members of the Court had some opinions ahead
Iof time, it would -- you know, for instance, if you felt that
the whole process needed to be revamped, then I didn't want
to spend months making a courtroom procedure, and then go,
well, we're not even going to do it that way. So, a little
bit of direction on that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There is one thing that
you've already raised a question about; it's in the list, and
that is, I definitely think these should not be considered as
a regular. court agenda item. I think it should be handled
separately. We're not -- I hope we don't have that many of
them, but if we do have any of them, then we've got -- then
we need to address that separately, because that obviously is
a different kind of procedure than what we do in our regular
meetings.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. Actually, I -- you
67
.-.
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
.-,.
have judicial duties. This is the only area that I've seen
where it would apply, but I think that -- I think that we do,
and definitely a separate meeting. But, I see all of these
points that you've brought up -- and they're great, great
questions and they need to be addressed, but I see it in a --
more of a workshop-type setting, where we can sit down and
hammer this thing out. And, unless --
MS. BAILEY: That's probably a good idea.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry?
MS. BAILEY: That's probably the -- exactly the
right sort of a situation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Unless we are going to put
our duties off on U.G.R.A. If we're going to do that, then
somebody can just sit down and rewrite this thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sooner or later --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If we're going to do our
jobs here and hear this thing, I would -- I would like to get
into a workshop session to hammer out these particular
points.
MS. BAILEY: One of the primary considerations that
I need some guidance from you on before I can make any
recommendations is whether or not you want this to be a
formal proceeding or an informal proceeding. The difference
being, if you have it at a formal proceeding, it will follow
_~~
68
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2.5
pretty much the Texas Rules of Court. You're going to have a
presentation by the State, presentation by the Respondent,
some response, and a real back and forth. Makes it more
complex, a little bit more formal, probably more lengthy. It
has its advantages and disadvantages. And, it will make for
a whole different approach to developing the procedure than
if you want it to be an informal. process, where perhaps a --
the State comes in and -- and says, "On behalf of U.G.R.A.,
here's what our complaint is. Now, what do you have to say?"
And, then the Commissioners simply make some question/answer,
and a decision is reached. And, on that issue, T don't
really have any recommendations. But, whatever we're goiny
to do, we need to do it the same way every time and have a
real clear understanding, because if we don't, then if you
decide on an informal process and someone gets a lawyer,
comes in here and starts making objections as to the form of
the question and irrelevancy, it will make that person's
burden of proving their case different from another person
who just came in and was allowed to say whatever they wanted.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I can give you some quick
ideas from off the top -- I think it ought to be a formal --
we're talking contempt here of a -- of a body, of a
governmental body. I think that's very serious. It should
be formal. It should follow rules of law. I see -- and my
personal opinion would be that this Court would act somewhat

59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
like an appellate level court does; that is, we all question,
but on questions of procedure, the Chief Justice, if you
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh my god.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- would make those kind of
rulings on -- you know, if there were -- most of the time,
the appellate court -- I do not attend all that many
appellate courts, but there usually is good give and take,
and I think that part of it is important to the process.
But, that in the final analysis, we take a -- and it is,
again, like an appellate court; is it a voting kind of a --
after deliberation, some kind of a voting decision that's
jdone by the members of this Court.
MS. BAILEY: And, with respect to the voting, I may
be mistaken, but it was my view, from looking at the Open
Meetings Act, that all that decision-making process would
have to be made in open court. Unless any of you disagree?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's fine. I think that's
great.
MS. BAILEY: Given those kind of directions --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Now, I'm just stating my
pinion. I'm not sure that everybody --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm in agreement with you,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think it's got to be
. _~~_ -
70

I
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
somewhat formal, because we're talking about a very serious
alleged breach.
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:	With each day	being a
separate	offense.		
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
MS. BAILEY: Which could be pretty astronomical.
COMMISSIONER WII,LTAMS: Right.
MS. BAILEY: I can -- based on this kind of
direction, T can proceed to try to make up a -- either a set
of proposed procedures, or maybe alternative sets of
procedures, if I come up with two different ways. Then maybe
we could set a workshop at a later date. I want to do it
fairly soon, because, as I say, there are some people who are
sitting out there in a potential position of having been in
contempt for quite some time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds good to me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm the only one that has
said anything about a workshop, but I just think that that is
the proper -- proper way to do it so we can sit down and
hammer the thing out and we don't have to come back and forth
with questions and answers and --
JUDGE HENNEKE: It might be that after such time as
the County Attorney's office makes a recommendation, then we
can schedule a workshop and fine-tune it.
COMMISSIONER LET2: Okay.

71
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
MS. BAILEY: All right. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: With that, Charles, we would
ask you to -- you know, I guess find out the FEMA --
I~ MR. WIEDENFELD: If that's spelled out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, what's spelled out; what
our latitude is based on FEMA. I'm sure they give us some
direction in that area.
MR. WIEDENFELD: Yeah. Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, I'm going to skip to
Item 2.17, consider and discuss approval of the Kerr County
Community Plan. I'll introduce Mr. Bob Christy here in a
minute, who's from Alamo Area Council of Governments, in
charge of the Criminal --
MR. CHRISTY: Criminal Justice and Public Safety,
,sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The Community Plan which you have
in your packets is the plan which was created by the
individuals who have concerns or work in the area of
violence, law enforcement, narcotics, and juveniles, and they
have each prepared a plan of attack for the problems they've
identified in Kerr County. This plan is the basis for many
grant applications, both through AACOG and to private
foundations. It was the strong feeling of the group that

~z
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
prepared this plan -- and it was a very wide group -- that
formal adoption of this plan by the Commissioners Court would
lend weight and gravity to their grant requests. So, with
that introduction, Bab?
MR. CHRISTY: Yes. And, this covered a lot of
issues. This whole process started about four or five years
ago, when Jerry Smith -- I'm sure you remember this -- was at
AACOG when we started this process. We sent out letters to a
lot of people in the community, brought them together. And,
within the AACOG region, as the Judge has said, one of the
primary issues is that in order for any organization or
community to submit a grant, at least within the criminal
justice system then, they had to have a Community Plan, so we
made sure that that happened, and we kind of developed a
format for that, if you will. And, then we reached out and
tried to bring as many people as would come to the meetings,
if you will, to discuss, you know, those issues.
I can assure you that you can look at the plan and you
can find something, or you can look at somebody else's plan
and say, "Well, geez, I think this ought to be in there,
too," and our comment back to that is, "That's a good point,
and when we revise the plan every year and take another look
at it, we'll bring that into the plan." And, we've had an
opportunity now to start seeing how some of the grant
programs that have been funded, not only by criminal justice,
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
but by other parts of the State, have had -- started to have
had an impact on the services that are being provided within
the community. And, unfortunately, I would tell you that
most of the time, what we're seeing is that once they start
providing service, it kind of is the tip of the iceberg.
They see more services that need to be provided, particularly
in the area of juvenile justice programs or juvenile
delinquency issues, if you will, as well as in the victim
services area.
For now, I guess, at this point, I would entertain any
questions that you have. It was .s cross-section of the
community. We've done this in -- like I said, in every
community in the AACOG region, so we all have have a plan, if
you will. And, nobody's really got, I don't feel, any real
pride of authorship. It's, you know, been a very
give-and-take process throughout the process, but this is one
of the first communities that said, "Geez, maybe we ought to
take this to Commissioners Court and have them, you know,
take a look at it and review it and approve it, as far as the
Community Plan. I can tell you that probably that wi71 add
to the weight of the plan, not only in the criminal justice
arena, but also when they're looking at other agencies
outside, like T.C.A.D.A. and some of those other places that
have grant funds to give away, if you will, that endorses the
need within the community.
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
And, it's not fixed in concrete, you know. I'm -- I
know you're always concerned, particularly in Commissioners
Court, when you lay out some issues that, geez, this is going
to make it concrete. Well, this is not concrete. You know,
,next year it could change dramatir_ally, because some of the
funds could come in there and make a big impact on juvenile
issues, and that could all change, as well as victims'
services. I'll entertain any questions you might have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mx. Christy, I know that,
just right off the top of my head, one of the grants that
hinges on this is the -- we used to call it the Governor's
Task Force, the 216th Drug Task Force.
MR. CHRISTY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, I'm happy about that.
But, I noticed a couple things in here. The 216th Judicial
District teaches a weekly Life Skills Education class to
juveniles. Is that -- is that a mandatory --
MR. CHRISTY: No, sir. And, part of the plan was
to say what -- what kind of coordination, if you will, and
what are agencies doing within the community? So, that was,
you know, one of those things to identify something that
somebody is doing that's a positive thing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And, the same with
the Conflict Resolution through K'Star. Same thing, huh?
MR. CHRISTY: Yes, sir.

75
,.~
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
,..,
COMMTSSTONF.R RALDWIN: Good. Those are great --
both great programs.
MR. CHRISTY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like to see them here.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What do we have, probably 90 people
here that worked on the plan --
MR. CHRISTY: Yes, sir.
JiJDGE HENNEKE: --
MR. CHRISTY: Yes,
JUDGE HENNEKE: We
representative, K.P.D., K'St
systems were here in force.
MR. CHRISTY: This
would you say, Bob?
sir.
had a Sheriff's Department
ar, C_ASA, Any Baby Can. School
has been one of the -- you know,
the better -- I guess if I had -- if you asked me to line up
all 12 counties, this
or three, you know, in
in the community. So,
like I say, nothing is
could change, based on
programs have.
~rould be somewhere up around one, two,
the actual involvement, if you will,
it's been a very positive thing. And,
in concrete, so the priorities to this
the impact that some of these grant
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On Page 5, Subparagraph a.,
you refer to a need for Juvenile Law Enforcement Officers,
and particularly School Resource Officers in local schools.
My question, I guess, is if we placed -- if there were to be
placed Juvenile Law Enforcement Officers and School Resource

76
.-.
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
	
Officers, is that a function of law enforcement, and are they
responsible, or are the school districts themselves
responsible for placement of these people? How's that work?
JUDGE HENNEKE: That would he law enforcement --
MR. CHRISTY: Let me say, "Yes, sir."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of the above?
MR. CHRISTY: All of the above. It could be either
way. Predominantly, what we're seeing here in Texas is that
most school districts are kind of forming their own police
departments or hiring their own police officers, but there
are some communities -- in Comal County, for example, they're
out of the Sheriff's Department, and the Sheriff's Department
has the officers in the school. A little more rural
environment where -- where they have them, so it just -- it
could be either way. Some of that comes down to, I guess,
who wants to take the lead, if you will, in -- you know, at
least the grant application, if you will, and say, "Hey,
we're going to do this." That there is a need and we're
going to do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do you deal with a
situation where a school official might look you right in the
eye and say, "We don't have a problem in my school," when the
law enforcement people say, "Yes, you do have a problem"?
How do you deal with that situation?
MR. CHRISTY: That -- that's a tough one, and most


77
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of. the time it comes down to, you know, really having a
meeting of the mind -- or the minds, if you will, and being
able to lay out this -- the stats, if you will, that come
into play. And, finally, the school superintendent or the
school official saying, "Yeah, you're right." And, that's
mostly what I've seen, is that it finally comes to that,
because we all know that schools, you know, predominantly,
you know, like to keep a very high image of what's going on
in the school; they don't like to really air out a lot of
problem areas that may occur.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's called the ostrich
approach, isn't it?
MR. CHRISTY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. It looks really good
on press, whoever y'all had put it together. The one comment
I have, under Community Resources -- I don't know if it makes
that much difference or not -- Page 8. Comfort School
District is probably the second largest school district in
the county, but because their administrative offices are in
Kendall County, they get left out of things a lot of times.
But, I don't know if it's appropriate to include them in with
a lot of these and with some of the programs ox not. I
presume Kendall County is doing a similar plan, or I hope
they are.
MR. CHRISTY: Yes, sir.

78
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
71
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONFR LETZ: But i.t's just because of where
their administrative offices are. Actually, the city limits
of the City of Comfort is right on the county line; that
Comfort usually gets left off of things like this. And,
we're pretty much a good portion of the eastern part of the
county.
MR. CHRISTY: Just a simple thing to add them.
And, that's the benefit of bringing a plan like this out
where a lot of people can look at it, talk about it, and say,
"Hey, what about ...," so thank you, sir. We'll make sure
they get added to the list, because that -- that could simply
be one of those that everybody's assuming -- we're assuming
here that Kendall County's taking care of them and, you know,
they're probably assuming, well, it's in Kerr County, so
Kerr's probably taking care of them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Commissioner Letz will
put them on both lists if you don't watch him.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Certainly. It should be on
both lists.
C'OMMISSiONER BALDWIN: See?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions for Aob? If
not, I'd entertain a motion to approve the Community Action
P]an as presented and amended.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER AALDWIN: Second.
79
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: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Commissioners
Court approve the 2000/2001 Criminal Justice and Public
Safety Community Plan for Kerr County, Texas.
MR. CHRISTY: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If not,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Thank you, Bob.
MR. CHRISTY: Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll next take up Item No. 2.15,
which is consider and discuss appointing two representatives
to the Kerr County 911 Board, one to fill an unexpired term,
and one for a full two-year term. Mr. Sandlin, I see you
hiding back in the back of the room there. It's my
underst,snding it's your recommendation that we reappoint
Travis Hall for another two-year term; is that correct?
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, sir, it is.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And, we have a vacancy. T believe
Commissioner Griffin has suggested David Walker from the Hunt
area to fill the unexpired term. Do we have any comments or
questions or suggestions?

80
1
2 ready.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They're both great. I'm
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fine.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I hear a motion to appoint
Travis Hall and to appoint David Walker to fill the unexpired
term of Gloria Anderson?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'd like to make that
motion, and -- and indicate that I think both of these, the
renomination and the new one, will very greatly strengthen
the County's representation on the 911 Hoard.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court reappoint
Travis Hall for a two-year term on the 911 Board, and that
the Court appoint David Walker to fulfill the term expiring
September 30th, Year 2000. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I have, I'd
appreciate it if Commissioner Griffin will have Mr. Walker
come in so we can meet him at some point.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure. He's out of the
country right now; he'll be back on Friday, and I've already
offered up that invitation. He said he would look forward to
doing so.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All in favor, raise your right
81

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
hand.

(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. While we're doing
911 stuff, let's go to Item 2.18, consider and discuss
amending 911 guidelines to delete the street/road name prefix
from street/road name, except for duplicate road names.
Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is just something that
I've mentioned to the Court a number of times, and at several
'public meetings that, basically, we've had about adding the
prefix to all the road names in the county. We've certainly
discussed this in public meetings. And, the reasons that
I've heard from 911, in my mind, don't justify what I think
is confusion and the cost to do it, which is in excess of
x$200,000.
And, I've asked -- or talked with Ron Derrick about this
briefly, and also talked with Charlie Hicks about it, and I
know that -- I'll let Ron speak for himself, and Charlie was
somewhat indifferent as to whether it was a great need or not
a great need. They don't have a problem with doing it, but
he said he didn't think it was that necessary, either. And,
I guess, you know, where I come down on this, it just -- you
know, it's just that it doesn't seem the benefit justifies

sz
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 I see as the negative side of doing it. I'll let Ron
speak for himself. He may have a comment as to, you know,
how much of a benefit or how critical it is, and, you know, I
know T.'s here; let him explain again why he thinks it is so
important.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Sandlin, you want to respond?
MR. SANDLIN: Gentlemen, and public, we discussed
-- and I know y'all have heard the many ways we looked at
trying to cure our problem. When this all started, one of
the big issues was duplicate roads names, which I explained
there's about 1,200 in the county that we know of to he
resolved which could be considered public access roads. And,
almost two years ago, we sat down with a representative from
the County, representative from the City -- Tom Pollard was
representing y'all, Kevin Laughlin representing Kerrville,
and Danny Edwards representing both Ingram and Center Point.
And, one thing that they came up with was they wanted 911 to
develop these guidelines that entities could adopt. And, one
thing very specific was,-Can we preserve what we refer to as
"primary road name"?
We know that different areas in different towns have
First through Fifth and all that. There's -- and there's
something we can do, like develop zip codes, some type of
prefix or something. Well, zip codes are out, because we
don't have specific zip codes here. Telephone prefixes don't
83
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
work; I've explained that numerous times. They don't have
any geographic connotation on these new assignments. So, we
looked at various ways of doing this. A 9-member G.I.S.
Committee was formed of independent volunteers. They came
and looked at this situation. They reviewed it with various
members of these entities, and we came up with the
geo-regions.
And, also, in planning for the future -- and maybe the
nomenclature confuses some folks. A lot of places use
quadrants. Well, I was cautioned many times by a couple
people on my committee about using quadrants, 'cause quadrant
means "four." But, many areas have the luxury of being laid
out on grids. The streets were actually laid out on grids;
they can form some type of grid system to make it simpler,
and they usually use just four -- north, east, south, and
west, and most of them use it as a suffix rather than a
prefix. But, studies have shown, and -- and common sense,
that often that gets dropped in directions for service.
So, it was developed; the G.I.S. Committee developed
this. They promulgated it to 911 Board. 911 Board adopted
these guidelines, whir_h Ingram and Center Point -- which is,
I understand, a moot point now -- and the Commissioners Court
adopted. Part of that was that all roads within the
geo-regions bear the proper prefix for the immediate concern
of eliminating the duplicate roads as we could, and as we
84
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
progress, allowing for to us progress with future naming and
stuff.
I personally -- under these guidelines, I personally
believe that it's very important that, if we're going to do
it, that we do it -- that we complete the picture. We've got
a lot of other things we're dealing with on some of these
road names to clear up, but I think it's very important --
and in talking to a lot of people -- I'm talking about I went
out and talked to field people; people who drive the fire
trucks, ambulances, and the polir_e cars and that kind of
sniff. And, one thing that's very helpful is what we call
"visual clues." If they get out there and they think they
need to be on Northwest Cookie Road, then it's assigned
Northwest Cookie Road as validation or verification of where
they are. I think it's an essential part of the system. I
understand it's costly. I've outlined to y'all my thoughts
on how we should attack the problem and work down from the
most important to least, and I understand that it's something
that doesn't happen overnight. It takes a while, anything we
do.
Our other option, without using the geo-regions and
proper signage, would have been what we tried to do for years
and couldn't get off first base with, was renaming somewhere
between 1,200 and 2,000 roads.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll ask, I guess, two
85
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
questions. One, you know, I don't see -- in everything, I've
always said the geo-regions are great; I think it.'s the best
way to solve duplicate road names. My objection is adding
the prefix for all road names. You've mentioned the example
of visual clues. I just -- maybe I'm just dense in this
area. I don't see how it is any easier for someone trying to
find an address if they -- if it says Northwest Cookie Drive
or Cookie Drive. I mean, if there's only one in the county,
I don't see how that adds anything to a person calling in a
call to a dispatcher, or anywhere. The only thing I c.an see
is that it gives a -- I guess, a geographic area clue.
MR. SANDLIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Early on. But, I don't even
see how that helps that much, mainly because, you know, the
dispatcher's going to have in the computer, if it's in their
computer for dispatch, the geo-region, anyway, if it's that
much of a concern. But, to me, it is an additional thing;
it's additional information, and it's going to be likely
messed up by the person calling in an emergency. If they
just say -- for example, say, you know, City of Kerrville
doesn't adopt this as part of their guidelines, if they do
anything. If someone calls in out on Lane Valley, well, if
there's no geo-region put before that, the dispatcher may
assume that's Kerr County -- I mean, in the city limits of
Kerrville, then, because everybody else has a geo-region on
86
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
(their sign. I can see that there's confusion that can be
Madded to it if someone says --
MR. SANDLIN: Let me take it one step farther.
And, I'm not -- I hate to yet into this, 'cause it's -- you
know, I'm not trying to be a politician or dazzle you or
anything, but I've brought y'all up to date before on the
P.U.C. Rule 19203. Most people in the state realize we'll be
going to regional databases, and our street names and
everything will have to fit in a certain data format.
For instance, let's use Lane Valley. Lane Valley, the
primary name -- I assume the primary name is Lane Valley. If
that's the case, it's made up of two recognized, entrenched,
U. S. Postal parsed suffixes, "Lane" and "Valley." One thing
we need to do to cure up Lane Valley, because it's -- as it's
named, some databases, you know, it will fall. into -- the
primary road name will be "Lane," with the suffix, "Valley."
And, if its primary name is "Lane Valley," we need to add a
suffix to that to clarify. Otherwise, when it gets parsed
through the databases, we will submit it as Lane Valley; it
will be parsed back, delivered to us. That might: be East
Lane, West Lane, North Lane, and Lane Valley because of the
parsing of the databases.
This goes beyond just initially what -- my primary
concern is getting the First Responder to the right location.
And, there's some other things going to be affecting us very
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
soon. I don't want to get into that, but we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What you're saying is that
every county's going to have to do this? I mean, every
county is going to be under the same system, and --
MR. SANDLIN: No. I think --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not what -- not what I'm
hearing around the state, when I talk to anyone. Most people
-- I think you said that Lubbock County does the system the
way you're proposing it, hut, yoga know, it's -- to my
knowledge, there's certainly no county that I found that does
use it. I trust, you know, Lubbock does do it.
MR. SANDLIN: There are some -- like I say, maybe
it's confusing. Some of them put it on the end of the road.
Some of them have gone to the fact that -- and 7 only know --
only know of two; they're in smaller counties, that the
suffix actually designates something, like in the little town
-- I won't mention the name of the town where I came from.
Anything that says "Street" or "Road" means it's in that town
-- I'm sorry, "Street" or "Avenue," it's within the city
limits. And, if it says "Road" or something else, you know
it's out in the county.
Well, they've gone to counties -- the one-town deal with
counties that are not very big, they've also laid out a grid
system with, if I remember right, numbered streets going east
and west and alpha streets going north and south. I may have
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
l6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
said that backwards, but First, Second, Third, Fourth Streets
progressing up off of the grid. And, now that they've grown,
what they've done is they've used an east, west, north, south
yrid in applying the suffix at the end, so that if you had --
let's say on this side of Main Street, you refer to it as
95th Street West, and this side is 95th Street East. So,
they are trying to catch up and get into that situation. I'm
just trying to get us ahead of the game.
But, one thing I -- remember where my background has
been, out there driving the fire trucks, ambulances, and
police cars, all three. And, especially at night, you're out
there looking for any visual clue. We don't want to put any
more demand on the dispatchers than we have to right now.
The ideal situation is that they get the correct information,
relay it out, and you're able to respond to it. If you know
your region -- like, San Antonio and Houston have the luxury
of dealing with zip codes which don't change, and they don't
have duplications within their zip codes. And, San Antonio,
in the city, has done a very good job of. correcting that. We
don't have that geographic luxury, so we have to look for
another avenue, and we did. And, that's one reason we
defined the geo-regions the way that we did, because we used
the highways. You can actually go out there and physically
to~ar_h them; you don't have to refer to a map, refer to a
dispatcher.
89
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two questions, you know, I
guess related. You say that the highway's the dividing line?
MR. SANDLIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We:Ll, does that mean that a
road's going to have -- or people that live on that road are
going to have an address -- on the north side of the road,
you're going to be, you know, Hiyhway 27 North, and on the
south side, you're Highway 27 South? From -- I mean, from a
straight visual standpoint?
MR. SANDLIN: You mean like if Highway 27 bisects
-- bisects Hooker Road?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Boundary line. Highway 16 is a
boundary between two geo-regions, as I recall.
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you live on the east side,
you're in one geo-region. If you're on the west side, you're
in another --
MR. SANDLIN: In a different geo-region.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How do you address a road that
has two addresses? I mean, it's got the street name. The
geo-region has to be on the street sign. Highway 16 is going
to be Highway 16 West and Highway 16 East.
MR. SANDLIN: No. No, the -- along highways -- and
that was addressed. The major dividing lines do not -- and
we just used State highways; we didn't use any local
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
highways. State highways. We will address it --
(Mr. Sandlin's beeper sounded.)
MR. SANDLIN: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Take your time, T.
MR. SANDLIN: It's been like this all day. We --
Ingram schools are out, and I've got kids at home, and I hope
the house isn't on fire.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which geo-region do you
live in?
(Laughter.)
MR. SANDLIN: Anyway, I'm sorry; losing my train of
thought there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: State highway.
MR. SANDLIN: State highways. There's no
geographic connotation of them, other than at the major
dividing lines. Highway 27, from where the City divided it,
the bridge by Gibsons, we refer to that as Highway 27 West,
and coming this way, Highway 27 East. So, if you front
Highway 27, you'll be addressed as Highway 27. Now, if
you're on the road that Highway 27 splits along the road --
and there's really not that many of them. There are a few,
but not many; I was surprised. Let's say this is Tom's
Drive, and on this side of it, it's in the northwest
geo-region, and this one is in the southwest geo-region.
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
Well, it's now Southwest Tom's Drive over here, and it would
be from the 100 to the however many block. And, from
northwest over here, from 100 to the however many block.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That helps, then. I still
don't think -- I mean, in my mind, to me, I just -- you know,
I hear what you're saying; I think it's a -- what I'm hearing
from the residents, it is a confusion. It's something that
they don't want. Those that I've asked, most of them don't
understand that it's happening, and most of them that have
been even readdressed or -- like, The Woods, they don't --
they were never told this. They don't remember hearing it,
anyway, that they're going to have to change their street
signs to a -- you know, whatever their geo-region is,
Oakwood. I mean, they -- I'm sure you told them, but they
didn't -- it didn't register that they're getting a new
address, 'cause all the people that I've talked to out there,
which is several families --
MR. SANDLIN: That was one thing that prompted that
meeting where we wanted the Postal Service here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway --
JUDGE HENNEKE: You can lead a horse to water, but
you can't make him think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a cost that -- I
don't see the benefit to it, necessarily. I don't -- you
know, and I think it's confusing to the public and I think it
92
~-.,~
1
2
3
9
5
5
7
8
9
10
].1
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
just adds -- you know, I just don't see the need for it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further comments or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All I want to say is that
this money -- I'd like -- you know, we've kind of agreed that
it would be spread out over several years; that we're not
going to just run out there and change all the signs in the
first year. As -- as an example, when a county sign goes
down and we replace it, it will. :be replaced with the proper
prefix on it at that time, and that we need to keep focused
-- and I know you guys do, but we all need to keep focused on
emergency services; fire trucks, police and ambulances. And,
to me, mail is secondary. I know that is the most important
thing to a lot of people. I couldn't care less, personally.
But, when somebody is having a heart attack out there, I
really want to make sure that ambulance gets there. That's
the -- that's the priority item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't think it will go
anywhere, but I make a motion that we delete the prefix from
the road names to 911 guidelines for the county.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a second?
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Once again, do I have a second?
Hearing none, the motion fails for lack of a second. Thank
you, T.
MR. SANDLIN: Thank you, gentlemen.
93
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
JCIDGE HENNEKE: Do you know that you're on the
agenda Tuesday, City Council?
MR. SANDLIN: I'm -- tomorrow night?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tomorrow night.
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGF. HENNEKE: You anc9 Commissioner Griffin will
be covering that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And anyone else who'd like
to come.
JUDGE HENNEKE:
COMMISSIONER LE
it's made clear that this
because it's going to add
the city and going to the
thing.
Anyone else.
PZ: If I'm not there, I hope that
isn't. just a thing for the County,
more confusion on roads starting in
county if they don't do the same
MR. SANDLIN: That's -- yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the message.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, it's -- you know, I just
think that -- I think I'd like --
MR. SANDLIN: Fortunately, that will solve of a lot
of problems in the city, too, on some duplicate issues, if
they see that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Thank you, T.
MR. SANDLIN: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll go back to 2.12 now, consider
,~-
94

	1
1	
	2
	
	3
	9
~	5
	6
	7
	8
	9
	10
~	
	17
	12
^	13
-	19
	15
	16
	17
	18
	19
	20
	21
	22
	23
	24
	25
.~-	
and discuss cancellation of the Tease between Kerr County and
the City of Center Point for rental of office space on West
Kelly street. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Some time ago, while the
City of Center Point was incorporated, representatives of
that small government asked the Court to consider leasing the
small building -- you'll see the map attached to this
submission -- to be used as municipal offices. What this
agenda item proposes to do is to cancel. that lease, since the
City of Center Point is now abolished, and reassign, if you
will, for lack of a better word, for use of the Commissioner
of Precinct 2 and Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, to
establish some extension offices and such, and provide an
office in which they would be present to take care of
problems that need to be taken care of.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Questions? Comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only question is, "and
furnish same appropriately."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess we've yot some used
desks around here someplace?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're not talking a about
great, big exec~.itive suite over there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, fine. I'm happy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move the agenda

95
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Commissioners Court
cancel the lease between Kerr County and City of Center Point
for the office premises on West I{elly street, and assign use
of that space to the Commissioners of Precinct 2 and the
Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, as an extension of their
respective offices, and furnish the same sparsely.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have a question about how -- how
we pay the utilities and telephone and those -- those items
that were not in the budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He doesn't need any.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a a good question.
Can I assume that that building was metered before it was
changed to City of Center Point? There was a Road and Bridge
meter? Franklin, do you know?
MR. JOHNSTON: We always paid the utilities on
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So, that would get
us down to the telephone. We can do a wax string and two
cans.
v
96
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't I suggest that you get
with Tommy and bring back to us the source of funds --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- for the utilities and the
telephone, and what that would be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is a telephone needed, really?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It might not be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I ~9on't know if it's needed
back there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It may not be.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You can use Judge Wright's
cellphone or whatever.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can use my own.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. We have a motion before us.
Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is 2.13,
consider and discuss returning 5.785 miles of Center Point
streets to County-maintained roads.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've had lots of folks that
have inquired of me, what would be the disposition of their
_ ~_-

e
F
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
~-
97
roads now that the City of Center Point is no longer a city?
And, on the 11th of May of 1998, after every County road and
bridge had been brought up to real quick standards, or
brought them up to specs, the roads were turned over to the
City of Center Point in Court Order No. 25309. What I'm
asking today is that they be returned to the County
maintenance system, and I asked the County Engineer to go out
and take a look at them and tell us if they were in a really,
really bad state of disrepair. You see his response to me,
which is part of the packet. The only question is, there's a
-- on the agenda item, Franklin, I put 5.785, and in your
letter it's 5.735. Which is correct, in terms of mileage?
MR. JOHNSTON: There's an error on that Court
Order. Zt should be 5.73_°~.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: The discrepancy was Willow Bend,
which is .OS mile.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: And it's been County-maintained the
whole time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we would change that to
5.735 miles of Center Point streets. I would move the County
reaccept those roads, as defined in Court Order 25309,
totaling 5.735 miles of Center Point roads to County
maintenance.

98
~-.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved -- or second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the County accept 5.735
miles of Centex Point streets to the list of County-
maintained roads, as defined in Court Order No. 25309, dated
May 11, 1998. Any discussion? Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was looking at the second
paragraph in Franklin's' letter, you know, where we just
rushed and did budget amendments several years ago to get all
the roads up so we could turn them over in good shape. Now
we've got to fix them, and Center Point never paid for
anything additional, other than normal tax dollars. That's
the way it goes. That's fine.
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. Item 2.19,
consider and discuss purchase of computers and associated
hardware and software authorized in current budget for County
offices. Commissioner Griffin?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. This item is two-fold.
One's to bring the Court up-to-date on where we stand on
this, and then, two, I'll have a motion to make at the end of
r"
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
it. But, we have polled all of the departments and offices
to give us their requirements for. computers. Of course,
we've worked hard on the Sheriff's Department, because we
know that those computers that are hooked to the system out
there are -- are non-Y2K-compliant, so they will be -- in
order of priority, those computers will be the first to be
replaced.
But, this -- what we have done is, Tommy and I will
aggregate all of the -- of the computer requirements, and we
will put together a package for those computers to all be
billed nn one package. Without tagging into all the
technical detail, I think we've talking probably in the
neighborhood of 95, max, computers, P.C.'s. It's a large
buy, so we -- and this is all in the budget. But, we've got
to -- we will end up having to put this out for bid, so we
will aggregate that package, come up with as standardized a
buy as we can so that we can get the condiments of sale on
the bids.
And, what I would like to ask the Court to do today, and
I would so make this motion, is to approve our putting out
that computer request for -- or package as soon as we can get
it together. we need to move it along. So, we'll. -- we
don't have all that aggregated yet, but we will in the next
few days. And, I would like to go ahead and get the Court's
approval, then, when we have that, to put it out for bid.
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve the
request for bids on authorized computers for the current
budget year. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor,
raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. The next item is
Item 2.16. This is to consider and discuss creation of a
Community Development Master Plan for the use and development
of Hill Country Youth Exhibition Center. This is an idea
I've discussed with both Commissioner Williams and
Commissioner Letz, as well as Eddie Holland out at the Ag
Barn. We have a wonderful facility out there that we use
extensively. We lust need to -- to all get together and plan
for the future use and development of that facility. I've
laid out a proposal in the packet to form an 11-person
committee chaired by -- co-chaired by Commissioner Letz and
Commissioner Williams. Staff people would be Eddie Holland
and Glenn Holekamp. And, it involves each of us having an
appointment to the committee, as well as getting
representatives from the City of Kerrville, Convention and
Visitors' Bureau, Junior Livestock Show Association, and
lol
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
i 8
9
~ 10
11
12
''^ 13
_- 19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
various horse representatives in the county. Any questions
or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have, the horse
interests has two names mentioned. Is the intent for us to
pick one of those representatives from -- because they're --
I mean, there's a number of organizations that kind of fall
in that group.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we need to have -- the idea
is to get someone who represents the Court's interests.
These are two names that were provided to me -- I've
forgotten whether from you or Edc9ie Holland -- who are very
active out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We may wish to ask a group, like
we're asking the Junior Livestock Show Association to appoint
someone. That's something we need to -- you know, we need to
come to some consensus on how do we acquire a person who
represents the Court's interests or the County's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're looking at one
person?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, one person. And, I'm open to
suggestions. The reason there's not an organization listed
there is 'cause I didn't know of one that would serve as an
umbrella for everyone.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
102
..~
~-.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
i $
9
~ 10
11
12
^ 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, if anyone has any suggestions,
I mean, that's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know how you go about
going to a number of entities and asking them to get
together, and that axe very loose entities to start with, and
get them together and come up with one name. I mean, and it
may be, from a practical standpoint, easier for the Court
just to, you know, try to identify who some of the people are
and choose a person that we feel represents the group. I
just don't see how you, you know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Th;st's just my view on this,
because it's -- the Hill Country Junior Livestock, they're a
lot different, and I think they certainly need to have a
repxesent.ative from their board, that if they -- the only
other one I have is -- and it's just -- I don't know if it's
really Eddie's call ox our call or whose, but 4-H is such a
big part of that. The 4-H is sort of under Eddie, but it
sort of isn't under Eddie, either. I don't really -- I've
never been totally clear on, you know, how the little system
is over there and who's in charge. I know Eddie's the County
Agent and Laurinda's the 9-H Coordinator. I don't know
exactly how -- the relation between the two of them. T think
it's real important that either the 4-H Coordinator, who is
Lauxinda, be included, or that Eddie be -- let him know that
103
.-.
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
.--
we really want to have that 4-H person present at the meeting
and maybe have Eddie and Laurinda both present, you know.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We can certainly add Laurinda to
the staff.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Somebody's got to take up
fox Hill Country Junior Livestock. That would be her,
wouldn't it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, she's not part of them any
more. I mean, she works with them, but she's' pretty much
not on their board, and she's -- all ties have been severed
between her and that association. So, she is -- has scaled
back hex duties to 4-H Coordinator, and that's it, I think.
And, she's -- in talking to her, she's very glad that she did
that, from the standpoint she has a lot more time to start
getting some more things going, kind of put it on the back
burner, but that group is probably the largest user of that
facility.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The issue becomes, I guess, do we
want to add her as a staff person, which means she would be
involved in the planning, or do we want to consider a
representative from that group, from the 9-H Aoard? And, if
so, do we then have an even number of committee members, or
do we -- or do we --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about we put them on
staff?
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My preference is probably to
add her now and have Eddie and her. bath listed so that they
both are included, because they represent slightly different
interests, in my mind.
J[1DGE HENNEKE: Works for me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Other Than that, I think it
looks really good. I hope you're not asking for our
appointees list today, though, because I don't have one.
JUDGE HENNEKE: No. What I'd like to do is, if the
concept is acceptable to the Court, let's set up the
committee, and then ask the Court to -- ask the member
Commissioners to bring their appointees to the next meeting,
at which time we will announce them formally, and perhaps you
and Commissioner Williams will then have the date for the
first organizational meeting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be helpful -- to me,
anyway -- if -- you know, I presume you'll write, you know,
and request the nominations from some of these other entities
prior to -- you know, ar at least when the agenda comes out
after our next meeting, that those nominations be included,
because who I would go to is going to be somewhat depending
on who those boards represent or, you know, appoint.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I notice Mindy Wendele is with us
today, and she's been at least appointed interim
representative by the City of Kerrville to this committee.
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Clarify for me, if you
will, Judge, Point B. You're talking about public hearings
in March and April. Public hearings on the plan that we've
developed in March and April, or public hearings on the plan
to be developed in March and April?
JUDGE HENNEKE: My concept is that would be -- and
you guys are going to run the committee. This is just my --
my take on it. You would have the plan in -- in the shape
that you like it, and then you'd invite the public to come in
and talk about it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, the planning sessions
could get underway as soon as we approve the makeup of the
committee.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The real goal here is to have the
plan in effect before we do next year's budget so that we can
put money behind the plan over a period of time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need a motion?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That we approve the formation
of the committee to develop the Master Plan for tYie use and
development of the Hill Country Youth Exhibition Center, as
amended.
106
r
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
1`
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve the
plan to create Master Plan Committee for the Hill Country
Youth Exhibition Center, as amended. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. I'm very much in favor
of this, but I can't let it pass without noting that we have
and will continue, I hope, to spend considerable government
money to subsidize people's interests in horses and
livestock, and -- not unlike we should do at the airport to
subsidize peoples interests in aviation.
(Laughter.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: And people's -- and that's another
one, the library; people's interest in books and knowledge.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And people's interest in
books and, yes, a number of other things that we do like
that. But, I'm very mur_h in favor of it.
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. Excellent. Next
item is 2.19, which is consider and discuss Resolution in
support of a Solid waste Grant Application. Mr. Holekamp.
__ ~ _..
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
1]
12
^ 13
- 19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.9
25
,.-
107
MR. HOLEKAMP: Glenn Holekamp. I brought this -- I
just received this last Thursday, and the deadline is this
Friday to have the grant application submitted to AACOG, so
what I need from the Court, if they so wish to proceed with
the grant application -- which pretty much will be mirrored
to what we did last year, but dollars will be different,
since we currently have the equipment that we got funded. I
wish to go out to ask for funding of the officer and some of
the support material this year, unless the Court has
something specifically that they wish the Solid Waste
Department to enhance the proyram or expand the program.
And, if you do, I would be glad to incorporate that into the
grant application, which I am going to be working on between
now and Thursday.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the deadline for
submission?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Friday morning at 11 a.m., hand-
delivered.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sort of waiting till the
last minute?
MR. HOLF.KAMP: I got it last Thursday, and that's
the best I could do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve the
Resolution.
l08

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
7.2
13
19
15
16
17
1.8
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the
Resolution authorizing the filing of a grant application with
AACOG for Regional Solid Waste Grant. Any further
discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is Item
20, which is consider and discuss approving a contract
between Kerr County and K.E.D.F. and authorize County Judge
to sign same.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve the
contract between Kerr County and Kerrville Economic
Development Foundation 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.)
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
73
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. The final item is
Item 21, consider and discuss a selection of Risk Manager
Consultant to assist with eval~.iating insurance and insurance
bids. Tommy, you want to bring us up-to-date on what this is
al.l about, since this is a rebid?
MR. TOMLINSON: This is -- this issue is kind of.
like the take Tivy Antlers; it never dies.
(Laughter.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the fight never dies.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The fight, yeah.
MR. TOMLTNSON: But, I think you -- I think you all
are aware of the issue. But, since -- since our -- our
previous meeting, where we approved the signing of an
agreement with a -- with a firm on a commission basis, Texas
Association of Counties has -- has an issue with that -- with
that arrangement. And, Sarah Wirt, our representative from
TAC, has asked to address the Court to explain their
viewpoint of the situation. So, Sarah?
MS. WIRT: I thought you were going to do that
part. Good morning. I'm Sarah Wirt with Texas Association
of Counties. We certainly don't have an issue with -- with
-- if you feel the need, that you need to go out for bid,
that's not the issue. It's your. county; you do what you need
to do. Our issue is that we cannot pay commissions to
anyone. I work for TAC, and I don't get a commission, so --

110
.-.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
" 13
- 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
.-.
and we also feel like if you -- if you hire a consultant on
this basis, would that consultant be acting in your best
interests as to looking at the insurance that's best for the
County, or who might end up paying them the most money?
Since, apparently -- and I'm not aware of what kind of offer
that they made, but -- you know, they may have set a fee of
3 percent, 10 percent, I don't know. But, I do know that we,
as Texas Association of Counties, cannot operate in that
manner, so basically you would preclude us from bidding.
I've talked to some other agents that represent some
other companies, and they said they wouldn't want to give up
their 10 percent commission to a consultant for awarding
their company the insurance. So, I hope y'all revisit this,
because we definitely -- y'all have been a great r_ounty. We
don't have your law enforcement coverage. I understand that
y'all renewed that insurance until next year to make it come
due at January 1, 2001. So, anyway, I would just appreciate
y'all revisiting this, and make some sort of, an arrangement
that doesn't eliminate us from the bid process.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Are you saying that if we go with
this consultant, TAC won't bid?
MS. WIRT: We cannot pay them a commission.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that's not the question. The
question is, will you bid or. not?
MS. WIRT: It's a renewal, so we would be

111

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
7.1
22
23
29
25
obligated, yes, to give you a renewal on -- on this. But, I
can't see that firm considering u:>, even though we bid,
because they would know that they were not going to get a
commission from us.
JUDGE HF,NNEKE: Well, this Court makes the decision
as to who gets the bid. Our consultant advises us ---
MS. WIRT: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- as to the parameters, but we
make the decision. And, I can guarantee you that if the TAC
bid is the lowest bid, it will be extremely difficult for
this Court not to accept the lowest bid.
MS. WIRT: But then who is going to pay that
consultant? Because they're not 7oing to do the work for
free.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's between us and the
consultant, I believe.
MR. TOMLINSON: I wanted to ask one question, and
I've never known this. But, in my experience in the past
with -- with the bid process with -- with TAC and other
companies or underwriters, there -- there's -- there does not
seem to be a mountain of difference in premiums or in cost to
the County. I mean, there are some differences. And -- and,
in fact, there has been times that -- that the private
sector's been actually lower-priced than -- than the
Association. My question is, if -- if you don't -- I mean,
_ ~.
112
.-~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~' 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and I know that -- that TAC does not pay a commissinn, but
apparently ther.e's -- there's something built into the
premium that TAC quotes above the actual cost of the risk.
But -- otherwise, there would not -- otherwise, there would
not be -- you would not be that c:Lose. I know the private
sector would build in overhead and commission on -- on their
-- on top of their cost of risk. So, my question to TAC is,
do you all do the same thing?
MS. WIRT: There's cert:sinly nothing built in for
commission. We arrive at a base price based on your risk,
your expenditures, the number of law enforcement officers --
of course, we're not involved in :your law enforcement
coverage. But, again, you have to consider all the services
that -- that when you have your coverages with TAC, that are
given to you. And, I understand you're going to bid workers'
comp also, so our safety services, our personnel services,
all of the things that go along with the coverage. And, when
you get into the fact of -- and I know this is a new Court
and you haven't gone through the insurance process, probably,
before, so when you get into looking at the difference in
coverages, you could have a company out there that -- that
may be $2,000 or $3,000 cheaper than we are, but they may not
be awarding you or offering you the coverage that we do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only comment I think I'd
make is that TAC has kind of caused us to do this in the way

113
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
- 19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
they do their insurance. I thin4: we've told you this before,
is that if TAC -- the problem has been that TAC gives
discounts for the more insurance -- different types of
coverage you get. They have all the expiration dates at odd
times during the year, so no one can effectively bid against
them, and I think the nature of doing that, of kind of, you
know, getting one time and then rnaking it very difficult for
someone else to compete with them, is the reason we've had to
go this route. So, you should t<ske it back to Austin and
explain to them that, you know, 'f AC has caused us to do this,
in my mind.
MS. WIRT: Well, I would like to say that we're not
the ones that chose those expiration dates for you; that's
the County that did that. And, we offered this type -- when
Tommy asked -- when the coverages started coming up for
renewal, we offered to go ahead and prorate the dates for
you, and we would have done that in years prior had we been
asked. That was at the Court's discretion, so we don't set
those dates. We do have a date of January 1 workers' comp,
which most any company does have.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can prorate them, get
them all to October or January, one or the other?
MS. WIRT: Yes, sir, we have done that. Your law
enforcement carrier did not, so that -- that excluded us from
bidding your law enforcement this year. So, anyway, that --
114
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^ 13
_ 19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
^
you know, that was my concern, because I have dealt with
consultants long enough -- and this is the only arrangement I
have seen like that. They may do that with schools and
stuff, but in my experience in county government, and I've
been with TAC 10 years, this is the only arrangement like
this that I have seen, that whoever it is awarded to would
pay the commission to that consultant.
COMMISSIONER LET7: Nett question is probably for
Tommy.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would -- let me just add,
I would say that all of those things that you mentioned
earlier about the coverages and all the other services, the
ancillary services that come withh it are the kind of things
that need to be in the proposal. You need to spell that out,
because that all gets evaluated.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I kind of thought we got those
services for being a member, and not for buying insurance.
Maybe I ought ought to talk to Sam about whether or not I'm
still going to get services if I don't buy his insurance.
MS. WIRT: You do, as a member, get a certain
amount of -- of services. But, the ones that participate in
-- in the pools get services first.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: In those areas. That, I
think, was your extension for insurance --
115
1
2.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^ 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MS. WIRT: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- coverages.
MS. WIRT: We're always there for people that need
to call and ask questions. But, for having, like, a hands-on
personnel expert come into the county and give the seminars
and spend the time that -- our people are having to spend
months with some counties, it goes to the people that
participate in those pools first.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, what is the -- I mean,
with the agreement we have with {the consultant, I mean, do
you see this as being a problem?
MR. TOMLINSON: We have not signed an agreement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We haven't?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's on the table to sign, but we
-- we have not signed an agreement. I would add that there
-- there is another option. I mean, we -- we could go on a
fee basis to -- to a person that -- that has no interest in
obtaining a bid. In other words, there would be a pure --
pure consultant. I mean, that would -- that wouldn't have
any -- any motivation to take one bid or the other. So, I
mean, that is an option. But, you know, on the other hand,
you -- you are looking at a fee. And, you know, that -- that
fee, from what I understand, could range from $9,000 to maybe
$6,000 or $7,000. I -- I do know that Gillespie County does
do that.
116
,..
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
_ 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.-.
COMMISSIONER WILLTAMS: Does do what?
MR. TOMLINSON: Just -- they do ask exactly just
what I described.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pay a fee?
MR. TOMLINSON: They're on a fee basis.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's a more
appropriate way to go. I think by -- by empowering a
consultant to gain a fee for his services from an insurance
company that might be awarded the bid renders the playing
field very unlevel.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, that's the reason I brought
it back to the Court, is I -- I wanted -- I mean, the Judge
and I have discussed it, and -- and thought it proper that,
you know, the Court be aware of it.
JUDGE NENNEKE: Would those people work on the same
fee basis, do you think?
MR. TOMLINSON: They would, yes.
JUDGE NENNEKE: We've got to move on this,
because if we're going to bid this stuff and have it in
place by January 1, we've got to get the bids out, toot
sweet. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would tend to agree with
Bill. I think that, you know it makes it a little bit more,
you know, level playing field by paying someone a fee for
their expertise, and it's just something that, you know, the
Ili
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
]7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
r-
County will pay for if we think iit's worth, you know, that
service.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I thins; if that's the sense of the
Court, that what we need to do i:s to probably suggest we
authorize the County Auditor and the Judge to negotiate a fee
contract with either these people or the person, perhaps, who
represents Gillespie County, not to exceed a certain number
of dollars. Now, where we're going to find those dollars is
another issue.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We're going to get that cost
passed along to us in -- in most of the bids, all but TAC's.
we were going to have the costs passed along to us for sure,
so --
MR. TOMLINSON: That's true.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, it should be in the
budget.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it's not in the budget. At
one point we had $5,000 for insurance consultant. I don't
know --
MR. TOMLINSON: I think it's still there.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We can probably find another couple
-- that's my suggestion, is that if it's the sense of the
Court that we go the fee route, that in order to expedite the
matter and prevent us from having to bring it back to the
Court, that you authorize the Auditor and the Judge to
118
,-,
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
negotiate a contract not to exceed "X" number of dollars.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Si>: thousand?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy, is that --
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't: know if that would get it
or not.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Why don't we leave that --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'd rather have a number.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What I'm saying is that if
it's less than some figure, I me<~n, it's a done deal. What's
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Noi~ to exceed $7,500? That
gives you a little bit of room and --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy, what's your sense?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think that might -- might do.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make that motion, that
we do authorize the Auditor and the County Judge to negotiate
that, to -- to sign same if negotiated, and not to exceed
$7,500.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the County Auditor
and County Judge be authorized to negotiate a fee contract
fox insurance risk management servir:es in an amount not to
exceed $7,500. Any further discussion? If not, all in
119
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--- 1 3
_ 19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
,^-
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: Thank you.
MS. WIRT: T appreciate Tommy, and I appreciate the
Court revisiting this. And, I would like to explain to you
where Tommy had the opinion that we could do that. It's
because of the arrangement with Blue Cross/Blue Shield, but
that is totally different than our -- in our other pools.
And, yes, if the County chooses to have a local agent
involved, there is a commission paid, but the County pays it,
because it's added into their fee and it's done by Blue
Cross/Blue Shield, not TAC.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank :you. Leonard, do you have
some bid evaluations?
MR. ODOM: Sir?
JUDGE HENNEKE:- Do you have a bid evaluation?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Before I get totally in
trouble, I do have the -- the bid packet fox you, too. May I
pass these out? We tried to do this as expeditiously as we
can. And, there'll be -- excuse me just a second. May I
pass that to her? Some information, Judge, on what you're
asking to do with this Houston -- I'm sorry, the H. --
120
.-~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
17.
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
whatever, H.G.C. A. or whatever it is.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
MR. ODOM: We did call them, and that's what we've
been trying to do, is get responses back. May I say that
we've been a member of that association since 1993. We
didn't know that. That was never passed along to us. So,
anybody that wishes to do that. 4Je tried to find apples and
apples, is what I was saying when I left. And, if you look
'to the back sheet that I gave you,, what the -- the closest I
could come, there is a -- an F-350 one-ton; it's a single
rear wheel diesel. But, basically, what we have is
comparable, is a crew cab over here. Northside Ford in San
Antonio had that.
We were trying to find apples and apples, and we even
got on the web site. It would not let us enter it into the
web site, so we could not get the data on that at all. We
,,called the gentleman for this, in -- with that number that
Mr. Griffin gave us, and it wasn't just a whole lot. He said
to contact Northside. Northside said there was no specs, so
we're trying to see if we could even get something faxed.
So, we don't have a lot of comparison, other than when we
look at everything, you will notice it's cab and chassis.
So, that means there's no bed on it. So, even if I took both
of them, you're looking at another $1,500 on top of that just
for the bed.

121
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
So, we just think that the bids that we received on the
front of this, and the options -- we had a P.T.O. option on
one of the trucks. One of them was automatic, versus
6-speed. Since we cannot get anything from these people at
this moment, to tell you my recommendation is that we go with
Southway Ford for Truck Number 1, and Utter Ford for Truck
Number 2. That's our recommendation. And, we have tried --
I did try.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? I really
think you guys did a good job checking with H.B.A.G.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. We're checking right now on a
medium truck. We still have one we're trying to get. We're
going to send them our specs. Like they say, they didn't
have any specs, so we want to make sure we get a two-speed
and we get the right size tires and everything else, so we
will be using that on that medium-sized dump truck that we've
got.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Get them to put you on the
list for distribution for all the -- 'cause they send out a
lot of stuff.
MR. ODOM: Yes, I need to be on that. But, we were
totally -- when they told us '93, we said we didn't even
know; no one ever passed that down to us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move we approve, as
per the recommendation of Road and Bridge.
122
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 LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we accept the
recommendations from the Road anc9 Bridge Department that
Truck Number 1 be purchased from Southway Ford at
approximately $23,899, and that 'Pruck Number 2 be purchased
from Utter Ford for a price of $'Z9,947. Any further
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those are delivered to us? Ox
how do you get that Utter Ford --
MR. ODOM: I believe m;y spec says f.o.b. here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If not,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MR. ODOM: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Leonard. Unless anyone
has any further business for this august body, we stand
adjourned.
(Commissioners Court was adjourned at 11:59 a.m.)
123
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
I.1
lz
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
STATE OF TEXAS I
COUNTY OF KERR I
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype noises 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 28th day of October,
1999.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY : /~t~-~~G
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
ORDER N0. 26V170
CLRINS RND RCCOUNTS
On this the 25th day of Dctober• 1999, came to be considered
by the Court the various claims and accounts ayai.nst F:er•r
County and the various Cammissioner•s' pr^ecincts, which said
Claims and Recounts ar^e 1~-General Fund for 591,592.98;
11-J~ar~y Hand for^ 5353.75; 15-Road & Bridge Hand for
5106,689.66; 18-County Law Libr•ar•y Fund for^ 5343.54;
23-Juvenile State Rid Fund for^ 54, 406.D~; 27-Juvenile
Intensive F'rogr•am-State Rid Fund for• 514,049.00; 31-F'ar^ks Fund
for Si, 349. 54; 54~-Indigent Health Car^e Fund for 5449.93;
83-State F~andeci-216th Distr^ict Attorney Hand far• 5935.29;
86-State F~_mded-'16th District Probation Fund for 514,402.65;
and 87-State F~.mded-Comm~_mity Corrections Fund for 5',324.57.
!TOTRL RLL FUNDS-5236,896.91)
Upon motion made by Cnmmissioner• Paldwin, seconded by
Commissioner Gr^iffin, the Court unanimously appr^oved by a
vote of 4-fP-0, payment of said Claims and Acco~_mts as
recommended by the County R~aditor
ORDER N0. E6G71
PUDGET AMENDMENT
COURTHOUSE SECURITY
Dn this the '~Sth day of October 1999, ~_~pon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner- Let z,
the Co~_irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-2,
transferring b1,5S1.~0 from SURPLUS Fi_inds to Line Item No.
~9-E36-450 Security Improvements.
ORDER NO. c6~7c
PUDGET RMENDNENT
LOOP 534
(SCHREINER TRUST FUND/FREE PRfaNCH BRIDGE)
On this the c5th day of October i999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Cortim:issioner• Griffin,
the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0,
transferring ~^c26.93 from SURPLUS Funds to Line Item No.
71-610--500 Fall Rr-anch Bridge and i<.;s~_iing a handcheck for
LATE RILL/INVOICE #0915-ii-Q~16 to Texas Department of
Transportation in the amo~_mt of 834,0c6.93.
ORDER ND. 26073
HUDGET RMENDMENT
RGRICULTURE F_XTENSIUN SE=RVICE
NUN DEPRRTMENTRL
Dn this the :.5th day of Uctober• 199':3, upon motion made 6y
Commissioner Paldwin9 seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-0-0, tr•ansfer•r•ing
X631.40 from Line Item No. 10--409-571 Contingency to Line Item
No. 10-665-102 Extension Agents Salearies.
.,,'^~

ORDER NO. ~E074
LRTE PILL/ISSUE HRNDCHECK
TEXAS DEF'RRTMENT DF TRRNSF='DRTRTIDN
(INVOICE #091J-11-Q~.~J~
On this the cSth day of October- 199`:3, ~_tpon motion made by
Commissioner^ 6r^iffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams,
the Coi_tr-t unanimously appr^oved 6y a vote of 4-0-0, iss~_ting
a handcheck in the amo~_tnt of ~E4, 07':3. ~3 to the Texas
Department of Transpor-tation.
ORDER N0. 2675
APGROVE AND RCCEPT IhONTHLK REF~ORTS
On this the 25th day of October 199`:3, came to be considered
by the Co~_irt the vario~_is monthly reports of Ker^r County and
F'r^ecinct Officials for- i:err^ Coi_tnty. Upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Letz, seconded by Commi.ssioner^ Griffin, the
Co~_ir^t unanimously appr^oved by a vote of 4-~-0, that said
reports be accepted and filed with t:he Co~_mty Clerk for future
a ~_i d i t
District Cler^k - Linda Uecker
Fees for' September- 1999
JF'#4 - William E. Ragsdale
State Fees for month ending
September 1999
.-- Extension Rctivity Report
Selected Major Rctivities
Month of September
Extension Rctivity Repor^t
September 1999
ORDER N0. CEf~7E
RF'PROVE RELTUEST FOR f:ERR COUNTYS
MEMPERSHIF' IN
RES[]URCE CDNSERVRT'ION RND DE=VELOF'MENT
[]n this the 2`ith day of October 19`:3, i_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Lets, seconded by Cnmmiissioner Paldwin, the Court
~ananimo~_~sly approved by a vote of 4--Q-Qi, that I;er•r County join
the F:err County R.C. R D., and that the ~10~ membership fee
come from Commissioners' Co~_irt Contingency.
ORDER N0. c6@77
GOLICY FOR OPSTRUCTIOtUS
IN KERR COUNTY RIGHT-OF~-WRY
On this the :.5th 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-@-@, the proposed
policy fur obstr~_ictions in Kerr Coi_inty right-of-way.
ORDER N0. 2E078
APPROVE FINRL REPEAT
LOT 2, RLOCK ONE
R•USCH ESTATES
On this the ESth day of October 193, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the Co~_irt
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~D-0, the Final Replat of
Lot c, Rlock One, R~asr_h Estates.
ORDER NO. 2EQ~7S
RPF'ROVE CONCEGT PLAN FOR WRUGH ACRES
(REF'LRT, LOT c, CLEAR SPRINGS RANCHg UNRECORDED F'LRT)
On this the 'ESth day of October 19S'~, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, ser_onded by Commissioner Let<, the
Co~ar•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-Q~, the Concept
Flan for Wa~_igh Acres, which is a r•eplat of L_ot ~ of Clear
Springs Ranch.
ORDER N0. EEQ~Pa
IMF'~EMENT BURN PAN
(PER KEETCH-PYRRM DROIJGHT INDEX)
On this the ~Sth day of October 1999, ~_ipon motion made 6y
Commissioner Paldwin, seconded 6y Commissioner Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-Q~, reinstating
the Pur•n Ran, effective immediately.
ORDER ND. cE~0E~1
(10:00 A. M.)
OPEN RND READ SEALED P:[DS
FOR (4) 1-TON TRUCN.S - R R P
On this the cSth day of October- 1'395, ~_~pon motion made 6y
Commissioner Lets., seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, accepting all the
bids and r'eferr'ing them to Road R Fridge Department for'
further eval~.tation.
ORDER NO, c62~Bc
RCCEpT LOSS RNRLYSIS REF~ORT'
On this the c5th day of October- 1`39'x, i_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, the Loss
Rnalysis Report as presented by the Co~_inty Treas~ar-er-.
ORDER N0. 2608
ANNURL CONTRIBUTION RATE FOR TCDRS
On this the c5th day of October i'3'39, upon motion made 6y
Commissioner Gr^iffin, seconded by Commissioner- Letz, the Co~_~rt
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the annually
determined contr^ib~_ition rate for 'f. C. D. R. S. and author^ized
County J~.idge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 26~E~4
PAYROLL SUP'P'LEMENT ADJUSTMENT
FROM CONSTRPLE PCT.#1'S PUDGET
FOR JF'#1 CLERK.
On this the 25th day of October- 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Gr-iffin, seconded by Commissioner- Baldwin, the
Co~ar-t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q-0, gr-anting the
secretor-y of J. F'. #]. a total salary s~_ipplement in the amount
of X900, r-etrooctive to October- 1, 1999, less the requir-ed
amounts for- FICA and retirement, from Constable PCT#i Hudget.
ORDER NO. E6~85
RE'P'ROVE REF'1__ACING ELECTION JUDGE IN c 11
RND REF'LRCE RLTERNRTE JUDGE IN cQ~:'_
On this the ~Sth day of October 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Williams, seconded by Commissioner Paldwin, the
Co~..ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, appointing
Maggie Barbee as election judge in Voting F'reci.nct x'11,
replacing Ri.llie Meeker-, and appointing Rola Seyler as
alternate election .judge in Voting F'r•ecinct ~_~'~, replacing
Mell Sevey.
ORDER NO. '~E08E
FORMRL RF'F'ROVAL OF THE I:ERR COMMUNITY F'LRN
On this the c5th day of October 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner- Baldwin, the
Co~_ir^t i_~nanimoi_isly appr^oved by a vote of 4-0-Q, the E000/'001
Cr^iminal S~_~stice and F'i_iblic Safety Community Flan for^ E;err^
Co~.mty, Texas.
ORDER N0. cE,4~H7
RPPDINT ('~) REF'RESENTRTIVES
TO THE tfERR COUNTY 9-1-1 BORRD
LONE TO FILL. UNEXPIRED TERM-SEF' 3~, ~OQ~O RND
ONE FOR R TWO YERR TERM BEGINNING OCT i, 1999)
On this the ~Sth day of October 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Coi_irt ~.xnanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-0-0, reappointing
Travis Hall for• a two-year teem on the 9-1--1. Board, and
appointing David Walker to f+_iifil the term expiring
September 30th, Year OQ~Q~O.
ORDER N0. 2E088
CANCEL LEASE BETWEEN KERR COUNTY
AND CITY OF CENTER F'OINT (ABOLISHED)
FOR RENTAL OF PREMISES ON WEST KELLY STREET, CENTER F'OINT
(RERSSIGNMEN'T OF SAME TO
7F?#2 RND COMMISSIONER F'CT#~)
On this the 2~th day of October 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Lets, the
Cour^t unanimously apps^oved by a vote of 4-a-Q~, cancelling the
lease between K.er^r^ County and City of Center F'oint (abolished)
for the office premises on West Kelly Str^eet, and assign use
of that space to the Commissioner of Precinct #~ and the
J~_tstice of the F'eace, F'recinet #~, as an extension of their
respective offices.
ORDER N0. ~6~D89
RETURN 5.735 MILES OF CENTER POINT STREETS/ROADS
TO THE LIST OF COUNTY MAINTRINED ROADS
On this the c5th day of October
Commissioner^ Williams, seconded
Co~_ir-t unanimously approved by a
by the Co~_~nty of 5.735 miles of
County-maintained roads, as def
dated May 11, 1998.
1999, upon motion made by
by Commissioner• Let z, the
vote of 4-0-0, acceptance
Center Point streets as
fined in Co~_ir•t Order• No. c53fL~9,
ORDER N0. 2609
F~URCHASE COMF~UTERS HARDWRREl50FTWARE
FDR COUNTY OFFICES
Dn this the ~Sth day of October 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Lets, the Co~ar~t
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-~D, sol.icting bids
on a~.athori'~ed computers for the c~_tr~r•ent budget year.
ORDER N0. c6~91
CREATE COMMITTEE TO DF_VELOF'
CONCEPT FLAN/MASTER F'LRN FOR USE/DEVELOPMENT
OF THE NILL COUNTRY YOUTH EXHIRITTON CENTER
(ORDER AS AMENDED)
On this the cSth day of October 19'~'~, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Let-<, seconded by Commissioner- Williams, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-@, creation of
a Master Flan Committee for the Hill Co~_~ntry Youth
Exhihition Center-, as amended.
ORDER N0. 2E@92
RESOLUTION OF I:ERR COUNTY
RUTHORIZING FILING GRANT RF'~'LICRTTON
WITH RLRMO RRER COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
(REGIONRL SOLID WRSTE GRRNTS F'ROGRRM GRRNT?
On this the c5th day of October 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner- Gr-iffin, the
Cour^t unanimously appr^oved 6y a vote of 4-@-@, authorizing the
County J~_~dge to sign a resol~_~tion on behalf of N,er^r- County in
s~_~ppor^t of the grant application.
ORDER NO. E,~93
RRPROVE CONTRRCT BETWEEN N.ERR COUNTY
RND KERB ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOUNDRTION
On this the 5th day of October 1999, ~_~pon motion made by
Commissioner- Let z, seconded 6y Commissioner Williams, the
Co~_~rt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the contract
between N.err Cn~_~nty and Kerr Economic Development Fo~_indation
and authorized the County J~_idge to sign same.
ORDER N0. cE~94
SELECTION OF RISE; NANRGER CONSULTRNT
TO RSSIST WITH EVALUATING INSURANCF_
AND INSURANCF_ BIDS
On this the cSth day of October^ 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Gr^iffin~ seconded by Commissioner Williamsr the
Co~_ir^t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, that the Co~_inty
Auditor^ and County J~_idge be author^i zed to negotiate a fee
contract f•~r ins~ar^ance r^isk management ser^v ices in an amount
not to exceed 87,500.
ORDER N0. 2E0~5
RWRRD RID TO 50UTHWAY FORD
RWRRD PID l"0 UTTER FORD
On this the c5th day of October i~`39, ~"upon motion made 6y
Commissioner Paldwin, seconded by Commissioner°I_et~, the Court
unanimo~.xsly approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the recommendations
from the Road & Fridge Depar•tnient that Try"ick
No. 1 be purchased from Soy"ithway Ford at a price of Sc3,844,
and that Truck No. '~ 6e purchased from Utter Ford for- a
price of bc:4, 447.