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

	QJt.GL¢iV '/` o?G /35/ ~2a-~-,,:w ~ a.ce~a...	2
1	~-!, a x/39 I N D E X	
	fit``"' db/yo December 13, 1999	PAGE
		
	Consideration Agenda:	
3		
	2.1~o,,,s~ Informational Update - Kerrville State Park	14
9		
	2.2 ~76/'~a Change Order #2 - Courthouse renovation	20
5		
	2.3d(e/f~,3 Preliminary plat, Shonto Estates	37
6		
	2.19076/S~5/Open sealed bids for Animal Control truck	44
7		
	2.4 db/5tS Final plat, Dove Valley Subdivision	45
8		
	2.5 ~/~. Minor replat, 8.84 acres on Deer Park Lane	46
9		
	2.19 ~`~y/6 Bid recommendation, Animal Control truck	52
10		
	2.6o~L/`+~7 Preliminary plat, Cedar Stone Subdivision	53
11		
	2.7a 6/~fQ Engineering/expense for courthouse exit	65
12		
	2.8 ,z`/~ 9 Establish military service credit at 8 yrs.	76
13		
	2.17/urU Request by Steve Chapman for Texas Capital	
14	Fund application	79
15	2.16~b~cR--Award certificates, Kerrville Writers Assoc.	
	Student Short Story Contest	103
16		
	2.9/3/ Approval of Kerr Emergency 911 FY200 Budget	107
17		
	°~
2.11 q/j7~[~ Formation & operation of road districts	
113
18		
	2.14 afe,(~~Approve Child Care Local Initiative Agreemt	128
19		
	2.10a?6/S3vote for candidate, KCAD Board	133
20		
	2.12o?6/S5lPolicy for lowering flags to half-staff	134
21		
	2.13~,,(3,SFOrm of Volunteer Fire Department contracts	139
22		
	2.15ab/S(o Appoint representative to EMS Advisory Board	148
23		
	2.18 aG/37Approve out-of-county prisoner contract	150
24		
25	Reporter's Certificate	153
3
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
,^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, December 13, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in
the Commissioners Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning. It's 9 o'clock
Iron Monday, December 13th, and we'll call to order this
regular session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court.
Commissioner Williams, I believe you have the honors.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, I do. And, it's
my pleasure to introduce to the Court Reverend Douglas
McBride, pastor of Zion Lutheran Church. He'll offer the
invocation, and I will lead you in the pledge of allegiance.
(Please rise.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Pastor
McBride.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, any citizen
wishing to speak on an item not raised on the regular agenda
may do so. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on
an item which is not listed on the regular agenda?
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Again, is there anyone here
who'd like to speak on an item not listed on the regular
4
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
agenda? Not seeing anyone, we'll move to Commissioners'
Comments. Let's start this morning with Commissioner
Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. I'd just like to
say congratulations to the seven members of the Ingram Tom
Moore High School football team that made All-District
honors. I won't read their names, but there are seven, and
good job. Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Same thing.
Congratulations to the Comfort Bobcats, who unfortunately
lost to Mart in the semi-finals. Mart went on to win the
state championship, blasted -- Bartlett, I think, is the
school they beat; 45 to 7, I believe, something like that.
Anyway, Comfort, I believe, has 1~ members on their
All-District squad. Congratulations to them. That's the
most they've ever had on All-District squad.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, my thoughts are
congratulations to those of us who live within the Kerrville
Independent School District on the passage of the school
bond election to provide expanded and new, and hopefully
improved facilities for our youth. I think it's a momentous
step that's been taken, and the voters deserve a good bit of
praise for their accomplishment in that regard.
5
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
Secondly, just to inform the Court, because it's not on
the agenda, the vault that will be planted in the ground
with the material commemorating the millennium -- take us
into the next millennium, has now grown to 8 feet by 4 feet.
It is manufactured by Freed and Barker, and it is -- it is a
vault that is customarily used for a big guy like you, if
'he's buried. That's it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you Commissioner.
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, he took my
breath away; I have no comments. Tivy fight never dies.
JUDGE HENNEKE: On a housekeeping matter,
I'll remind everyone that our special session of
Commissioners Court this month will be next Wednesday,
December 22nd, starting at 9 o'clock. The deadline for
agenda items is going to be pretty absolute. It's Thursday
at noon. It will be a fairly full day. We have two
Executive Session items already, and we also have -- we'll
have scheduled at 1:30 to open and discuss and hopefully
accept bids for insurance coverage. The consultant we hired
is working diligently and has told us that he can be ready
by 1:30 on Wednesday, the 22nd, so that item will be posted
for 1:30. So, I bring this forward so everyone can plan
accordingly.
I'll also remind everybody that our traditional
6
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
Christmas luncheon will be on the 23rd starting at 11
o'clock, here in the courtroom, featuring chili from the Red
Baron's, noted chili factory from Hunt, Texas. Come one,
come all.
We'll now move into the approval agenda. We have some
bills to pay. Does anyone have any questions or comments
regarding any of the bills?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the
I bills.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's been moved and seconded
that we pay bills as approved and recommended by the
Auditor. Any further discussion? If there's no further
discussion, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget
amendments. It appears we have four.
MR. TOMLINSON:	Four,	that's	correct..
JUDGE HENNEKE:	First	one is	from Traffic
Safety Fund?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. This is to transfer $75
into Operating Supplies for some materials that were
necessary for that program. We opted to transfer that from
the Instructors' Salaries.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That salary item is --
there's an excess for the year?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we actually budgeted
more this year. As you know, that -- that fund is -- is
self-funded. I mean, it's funded by the -- by the students
that take this course, so it's -- the salary for that
depends on how many courses they teach. So, based on last
year and what we budgeted this year, I think that we can
spare the $75.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
discussion? If not, I'd entertain a motion to approve
Budget Amendment No. 1.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve
Budget Amendment No. 1 for the Traffic Safety Fund. 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: Number 2 is for the Ag Barn.
8
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
This is to establish a Postage line item from their travel,
so I'm recommending that we transfer the $100 from Travel to
Postage.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve Budget
Amendment No. 2 for the Ag Barn. 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: Okay. No. 3 is a request
from the Treasurer's Office to transfer $267.13 from Office
Supplies to Capital Outlay for the purchase of a paper
shredder.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second, with a
question. Did this cost more than we thought, or was this
something we didn't think we needed?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it's more than -- than
the $200 for Capital Outlay, so it's a normal purchase for
something like that, from -- from Office Supplies, but it's
9
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
just -- it was larger. I thought it needed to be --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Capital Outlay item
normally would have come out of Office Supplies; that would
have been okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve
Budget Amendment No. 3 for the County Treasurer. All in
favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Number 4, which was laid on
the desk, is also from the County Treasurer.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is a request for
transfer into Notices, $100 from Miscellaneous, $88 from
Postage, and $100 from Telephone.
COMM7SSTONRR WILLIAMS: I move approval of
the amendment.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve
Budget Amendment No. 4 for County Treasurer. Any questions
or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question as to why so
many notices, or what's -- why are we so far off on this
10
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in our budget?
MS. NEMEC: Well, the amount that we're
paying is $488. That was for one notice. There were just a
lot more names on the claim property report that was turned
in than what we thought was going to be on there. And, on
the bill, you'll see three charges on there. They're only
charging us for one. They made an error and ran it three
times, but they're only billing us for one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean -- I guess my
question is, $200 was in the budget for that originally.
Were you having any other notices for the year?
MS. NEMEC: We didn't think the ad was going
to have to have -- to be that big. We didn't realize that
there were going to be that many names to publish.
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. Do we have
any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, I have two. One is from
Linton Tomlin, the court reporter for the 198th District
Court, and it's a bill for $4,841.75, for Statement of Facts
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
for Cause B-99-1.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where does it come
from?
MR. TOMLINSON: There's a line item for --
for this purpose.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's just a late
bill?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's just a late bill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve the late
bill on behalf of Linton Tomlin, special court reporter for
the 198th District. 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: Okay, the -- the next bills
are -- are all from the same vendor. There's numerous
bills, but -- and they didn't ask to be -- for this to be
submitted as a late bill, but this is a substantial amount,
and it's for the -- it's a local vendor for -- it's for the
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Computer Service Center for these computers that they've put
together for us, and it totals $14,117.55. And, they are --
let's see. There's one for two computers for the District
Clerk's Office -- three for the District Clerk, one for the
198th District Judge, one for the Commissioners Court, one
for the County Judge's office, two -- three computers for
the -- for the County Clerk, and one computer for the
Treasurer's office, and two for the Tax Office.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's all part of the
package that we approved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And all of those are
hooked up and running and --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. No, they're
delivering those now, delivering all of them now. Should be
all delivered this week.
MR. TOMLINSON: You can hold them, but I
just wanted you to have an opportunity to decide if you want
to or not. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they should be
installed before we pay it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, that -- I don't
,see any -- I don't think they would expect otherwise.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Can we just include these in
the ones for next week, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: We can do that, sir.
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Anything further? Any
more late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right, thank you. At
this time, I'd entertain a motion to waive reading and
approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 9th,
1999, and the special session of November 22nd, 1999.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we waive
reading and approve the minutes of the November 9, 1999,
regular meeting and the November 22nd, 1999, special meeting
of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. Any further
discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JODGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.).
JUDGE HENNEKE: It doesn't appear that we
have any monthly reports. I guess we'll collect all of
those at the -- oh, you have it?
MS. BARBEE: Yes, I'm sorry.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. At this time, I'd
entertain a motion to approve and accept the monthly
reports.
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll so move.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we accept and
approve 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. Let's move
into the information -- the consideration agenda. Item 2.1
is an informational update from Tim Hufstedler regarding
activities at the Kerrville State Park. Good morning and
welcome, Mr. Hufstedler.
MR. HUFSTEDLER: Good morning.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We appreciate you taking
time to come in this morning.
MR. HUFSTEDLER: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are these free passes?
MR. HUFSTEDLER: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. Nice try.
MR. HUFSTEDLER: Also in attendance this
morning is my supervisor, Regional Director Roger Rosenbaum.
One of the things that I did want to update you on is some
15
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
of the more recent statistics for Kerrville-Schreiner State
Park. In the past year, we have hosted a little over 33,000
paid overnight attenders at Kerrville-Schreiner State Park,
and approximately 200,000 day use visits.
Kerrville-Schreiner State Park is still one of the top
state parks in the Texas state park system. We have eight
paid employees. One of those is a part-time, and about 32
volunteers that help us out there. We have a considerable
number of hiking trails, totaling about 7.7 miles, and we
have a number of overnight facilities ranging from the
primitive sites -- backpacking sites, some people call
them -- to regular camping sites, multi-use sites with water
and electricity, full hookups, screened shelters. Several
group facilities, including a recreation hall, group dining
hall, group picnicking areas, and then a number of day use
picnic sites.
Kerrville-Schreiner State Park is continuing to be one
of the leaders in the utilization of the State Park
Reservation System. The system in Austin, this past fiscal
year, took about 10,000 reservations through various
methods, whether through direct call, through
correspondence, or over the Internet, for people to obtain
reservations. One of the things that we still do is take
reservations in the Texas State Park System up to 11 months
in advance of the first date of occupancy. And, for a
16
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
number of the very popular Hill Country parks, those
reservations will really -- at 10 months out, we will
already be booked. It's typical for us to be already 100
percent booked, for ones like Easter, within one or two days
of that 11 months in advance.
We have had a number of improvements over this past
year. We were able to renovate several of our restroom
facilities. We have some ongoing projects. One of them is
to try to hook up the -- the river side of the park, as we
refer to it, to the City of Kerrville sewer system. That
project is in the final design phase at this time, and will
help us eliminate a number of the larger septic tank
operations there on the river side of the park. It still
will leave the large side, the Hill Country side of the park
on the south side of Bandera highway, as still being on
septic tanks. And, of all of those areas out there, we
wanted to start with the river side first, because of not --
not any problem that we are having, but we just don't want
to have a problem. And, we expect sometime early in 2000
for that project to -- to be complete.
Projects this fiscal year that we're currently in that
we're working on right now include continued renovation of
some of the older restrooms, installation of a new water
'heating system, a little bit more efficient, and also to
change out some of the older lighting fixtures in some of
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the -- some of the buildings and restrooms. One of the
problems that we continue to have out there is just an
overabundance of deer, and, of course, that's really
occurring most anywhere within Kerr County. It's a project
that we're trying to look at -- at many different possible
solutions. And, those are things that are kind of ongoing
within our division of the agency.
Kerrville-Schreiner State Park, this -- this following
year, we anticipate trying to convert some of our screened
shelters into what they refer to now as cottages, whereby we
insulate them, put in a small air-conditioner and heat pump,
and make them to where they're more easily utilized during
times of the year like this when it's -- a screened shelter
is -- is just too -- too harsh a -- an overnight stay.
We have, as the entire system does, some changes in --
in focus. One of them that really fit well with us that we
I, wanted to do was to increase the educational and
interpretive opportunities for our customers, which fits
very well with our new Director of Parks, Walt Dabney. And,
this summer, through our Friends of Kerrville-Schreiner
State Park organization, they funded and helped us with paid
staff to provide interpretive events for a little over 1,000
customers over the summer, ranging all the way from, you
know, water quality, birding activities, some of the -- we
had some people come in and -- and show us, especially a lot
18
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
of the -- of the younger kids, some of the wildlife that
they may not ordinarily see. So, that's one of the things
that we're extremely pleased with and hope to continue to
not only offer that, but to expand it in the coming years.
I guess I am prepared to answer any questions that you
might have. Roger is available, and anything that we can't
answer now, we'd be glad to do some research for you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None from me. Good
report.
JUDGE HENNEKE: There's a lot going on in
the statewide park system. Some parks are being cut back or
enclosed. What is the long-term future of our local state
park?
MR. HUFSTEDLER: We11, this state park, of
course, being part of the system, one of the problems that
we've always had is a -- excuse me -- is to have a
consistent funding base. And, every two years, we at this
point still have to wonder, how are we going to be funded
and to what extent? Most of the cuts have occurred for us
in -- in the fact that we continue to have the same budget
year after year, and therefore have to absorb any sort of
increases into that existing budget. We have, to some
extent, countered that with the increased use of volunteers,
the increased utilization of the Friends of
19
.-,
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
Kerrville-Schreiner State Park.
We have a thing called the Park Host Program, where we
allow people to come in and -- and set up camp there, and in
return for 30 hours of work per week, they get to stay for
free. That helps with a number of our activities, but it
certainly does not take the place of -- of the necessity of
having paid staff. In this particular region, I am not
aware of any really severe cutbacks as far as operations. A
few years ago, we did have some parks that had to go to a
five-day-a-week operation in order to maintain status within
the -- the funded budget. What we've had to do here is cut
back our late hours, particularly -- particularly in the
spring and summer, and supplement that with volunteers and
park hosts. With seven full-time and one part-time, that
only gives me an adequate staff to insure operation 8:00 to
5:00, seven days a week. And, of course, like most parks,
holidays are a big time for us, so those are the primary.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, thank you. I
appreciate your contacting me, and I appreciate your coming
in this morning and giving us this information. Keep up the
good work.
MR. HUFSTEDLER: Thanks.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Tim.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item on the agenda, Item
20
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
No. 2, consider and discuss Change Order No. 2 for the
courthouse renovation. Mr. Longnecker.
MR. LONGNECKER: Keith Longnecker,
representing the Commissioners Court for the renovations. I
believe you all have copies of the Change Order No. 2, which
does include the addition of these cast stone parapet caps
in lieu of an EFIS or plastic cap that we approved at the
last Commissioners Court session. If there's any questions
on the change order, I would like to have those directed to
Mike Walker, the architect, who can explain further any more
of those items on the -- on the change order. Is there
any -- if there's any questions for him.
DODGE HENNEKE: Any specific questions from
the Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, I guess
this is probably more directed to Mike Walker. I mean, I'd
like to go through each one as to have them -- I've read
them, but explain why.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's what we're here for.
I Mike?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So easy to get along
with, Mike.
MR. WALKER: Good morning. Yes, of course,
as always. I'd like to also introduce, from our office, the
person that you see on the site most of the time; Christina
21
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
Harris is here, and also Tricia Stoddard -- hold up your
hand -- is here from Stoddard Construction to elaborate
further on details I might leave out. Did you want to just
go through the list in order?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's probably easiest.
MR. WALKER: Just as sort of an overall view
of what goes on here, as we -- as things occur on the job
(that need some direction, we issue a directive. Sometimes
those directives -- we've issued nine at this point. At
some times those directives incur a cost that goes with
them. Sometimes they don't. So, you will see sort of a --
a hit-or-miss pattern here, but the -- the -- the items that
we show you off the directives are only those that deal with
that cost. Other than that, they're just an instruction to
the contractor to move along in a certain direction.
Okay. In -- just starting with the Directive No. 5,
the first item on that sheet, some -- almost $2,600 is --
those costs were driven by initially a direction that was
given to us from the City of Kerrville Building Inspection
Department. In the process of -- of doing that, more
details came out as we attempted to comply with that,
including Mr. Longnecker's desire to go ahead and keep this
totally compliant with the code, which was to put in an
additional door to a ramp and enclose that -- that Stair
Number 2, which is the one just before you get to the County
22
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
Treasurer's office there, as -- as totally compliant with
the code, with the two-hour fire enclosure and so forth.
And, there were some patching details that had to be done to
make that happen. We had to pull an additional panel off a
concrete panel out there. So, that's what drove that one.
Number 3 -- the reason they skip around, again, is 2
didn't cost anything. Three, in north bridge, detail. In
that particular instance, we -- the north bridge is the one
down by Jefferson the where they do the loading into the --
the back to the Tax Assessor's and County Clerk's office.
When we tore into that bridge, we found more rust and -- and
deterioration than we initially anticipated, so more work
was done to that bridge than -- than was initially
anticipated on the drawings. In -- there's some other
things that went with that, and I think we'll run into them
later, but -- for example, telephone company -- excuse me,
telephone company wanted more conduit going in there than
they have right now, and I think that's on a separate item,
but it's one of those things where you -- once you open that
can, it -- it's hard to contain those costs in there.
But, that one was a -- involved a major step, which was
to saw -- cut out part of that north retaining wall so that
we could, in fact, get the -- the -- and consolidate the --
the numerous sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and telephone
conduit that was involved in that. That also takes care of
23
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 roof drains and some other items. Over the years, some
-- a lot of that had been patched together, and so,
consequently, there was a lot of things that needed to be
cleaned up there. That's sort of a large item. I don't
know if you have any more questions about it. We can
certainly be as specific and show you all the drawings and
what had to be changed, but there was just a lot they found
once they got in though that bridge.
The -- some of the items were actually resulting in
minor credits; you can see the Item No. 47. This was a
situation, quite honestly -- I've got -- I've got to brag on
our guys a little bit there, because when we first -- what
happened there is we hit a -- a roof drain that was causing
us -- if we followed the plan we originally had, was causing
us some -- what, $3,500 or $4,000 worth of added cost? But,
by going in and revising the -- the layout in that Courtroom
C, then we were able to actually turn that into a credit.
There's a number of clarification drawings on Item No. 5,
which simply, again, we find things as we go into them, and
those things have to be fixed. The other problem is that
the -- again, we're dealing with a -- a post-tension
structure out there. We cannot drill a hole just anyplace
we want to drill a hole. So, once those -- once the X rays
determine where those giant tendons are that hold that floor
together, lots of times we have to move walls around. And
24
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
those, again, precipitated a few cost changes.
Item No. 6. There, again, ran into some piping with
this east wall that was poured just outside the -- the
window here. They ran into pipes that were in locations
that caused them to have to extend the beams down deeper so
that they could carry those pipes through the center of
those beams. Directive No. 6, Item No. 1, there's a -- $564
worth of changes that had to be made to the handicap ramps,
again based on -- on existing or found conditions.
Item No. 3 was a credit, again, where the contractors
-- the material was no longer available that was specified,
and so we actually wound up with a credit there, with no
harm done in terms of function.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that -- where is that
insulation?
MR. WALKER: It's behind those gyp-lap walls
that you see right there. It's that insulation.
MR. WALKER: Directive 7, the next sheet.
These were primarily driven by changes that the District
Court people made, and their refinement of what they wanted
in terms of control. So, we had to add conduit, both for
the sound system, the notification system that they wanted
installed, and so there was some extra conduit that had to
be put in there. Unfortunately, some of those decisions
came after the gyp board was up, and so some of them had to
25
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
be fished-in, and therefore that ran that cost up a little
bit. Item No. --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mike?
MR. WALKER: Yeah?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That seems like -- how
much -- that's a pretty big charge for conduit running.
MR. WALKER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, conduit is
pretty cheap and pretty easy to work with.
MR. WALKER: Well, I'm not --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we're talking about
running it from the Judge's panel to one of the benches
right around in the courtroom, it seems -- seems high.
MR. WALKER: Well, first off, there was a
lot of conduit, and a lot of it was added, you know, to what
was initially anticipated. We very carefully looked at the
estimates that the contractor gave us. We went over them in
minute detail to make sure that you're getting what -- what
you bargained for there. And, quite honestly, they could
justify everything that's in there, and I -- Tricia
Stoddard's here; she can explain more about it if you'd like
to hear the explanation. But, it was -- it was essentially
what was bid from her sub, which was Design Electric, and
verified by our electrical engineers. And, it was -- it was
extensive in what they wanted to do there. And, again, much
26
.-,
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
complicated by the fact that a lot of it had to be
fished-in. Other than that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who requested the
changes? 'Cause I talked to Steve Ables Saturday night, and
he said they had not made any changes. I told him, I said,
"We're having a big change order on Monday." He said, "We
didn't cause any of them by changes." I'm just wondering
who --
MR. WALKER: With all due respect to Judge
Ables, I -- we very carefully documented where those changes
have come from.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. WALKER: And that notification system
that they wanted wound up -- they sent us a consultant that
they wanted to work with and we talked with that person, and
he dealt directly with the Judges and they told him what
they wanted, and that's what it wound up being. And -- and
the Sheriff was also involved in that to a minor degree, but
that primarily came -- was driven by the District Courts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. WALKER: There are just a minor matter of
rebar changes, again, where they had to dive to miss some --
some storm sewers and so forth. Directive No. 8, Item 2, we
added a expansion joint. We became concerned about the
movement in the wall, And, quite honestly, we probably could
z~
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
have foreseen that a little bit better, but I think in terms
of value, the value is there. And what that is, is behind
the parapet walls, these new walls that we're building out
here are going to have a -- as much as a 1-inch differential
movement between that existing structure and these new
walls.
We want to make sure that that is -- is an extremely
flexible situation there, so we -- we went back and
rethought and -- and improved that -- that
expansion-contraction to make sure that we don't have a
shearing of that roofing material, and therefore, you know,
bring in a tremendous amount of moisture around the edge.
That -- the roof that we're getting ready to put on there is
extremely critical, and we do have planned movement in that.
And that was just a -- an effort to better insure that we
took care of it. In terms of value received from the
County, it's priceless. I don't -- I don't know any other
way to describe it. Because if we get -- if we get
movement, which we anticipate, and water leakage through
there, then we would have a tremendous problem.
This Item No. 4 is what I touched on awhile ago with
the bridge. Again, Kerrville Telephone, where they now have
one 2-inch conduit serving this building, they wanted two
3-inch conduits. But, a lot of that has to do with the fact
that they're going to have to temporarily cover it, and it
28
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
has to do with their entire procedure. And, they're
bringing a new service from down on Sidney Baker and
Jefferson Street to -- to, I guess, upgrade the service to
this building. And, so, again, this -- these costs were
primarily driven by what -- well, they were all driven by
what they wanted to do.
And, when we tore that bridge -- or that part of that
retaining wall out, there was some surface-mounted conduit
out there that serves those street lights, those antique
street lights, and so we had to reroute that. So, that was
the electrical that kind of went with the structural items
that you had on the previous directive.
Directive No. 9, Item 1, these were some doors that we
went through and were able to use some of the detention
doors from before. Others, we were not. And, this was
upgrading those doors to make sure that we had, you know,
fully secure hardware for those detention facilities so
there wouldn't be problems. Some of those -- that male
detention holding cell is designed for as many as 15 people,
and we just -- we need to make sure that that is a highly
secure operation.
There were some other doors that -- that were requiring
some refurbishing. We added some doors, primarily on the
first floor, that needed repairs. We put in a new pair of
-- we decided that the -- the double back doors on the
29

1
2
3
bridge were just -- were sort of beyond -- not beyond
repair, but they were in such bad shape, to fit them with
legal hardware and do them properly, they really just needed
to be replaced. So, we're leaving the frame, but replacing
the door. And, as you can see, there's quite a number of
doors that were affected by that one directive. And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the doors, is that
something that you made a mistake on earlier, or just
overlooked? Why are there so many changes? I know we're
trying to use what we have, but, at the same time, this was
part of the original deal.
MR. WALKER: Some of them -- excuse me. Some
of them were -- were -- I would say, were oversights, in
that we did not detail the hardware as much as, perhaps, we
could have, but I don't think it would have changed the
!cost. In other words, you're not getting cost simply
because we didn't double-check all the -- the operation of
all that -- that hardware. Some of it was dead; I mean, it
could not be reused, or it was the wrong kind or it just was
mechanically not reusable. So, what we did is salvaged the
best of what we had. We weren't able to do as well with
that as we had hoped for, but there's -- I mean, there are
an awful lot of doors involved in that operation. Some of
the doors -- let's see. Christina, were any of these doors
part of that -- that change order with the exit?
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
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
MS. HARRIS: I'm sorry?
MR. WALKER: The exit.
MS. HARRIS: No.
MR. WALKER: Those weren't part of that.
And, then, the rest of it was an increase in the -- as you
know, you have a hardware allowance in the project, and this
was just adding more to the hardware allowance, costing more
than -- than was anticipated. The detention doors are
pretty expensive items. They can add up quickly. And then
we had some miscellaneous items that weren't part of a
directive. Some of these were -- were requested to be
looked at by Mr. Longnecker. There is a minor savings
there. We cut back on some of the condenser pad and went
along the north wall.
That was -- the other two items on there were -- there
was an action taken by a previous court, when the bids came
in, to change the pre -- the cast stone to a phypon or
polymer material. And, in the process of doing that, it
became aware -- and Mr. Lonqnecker was certainly concerned
about the durability of the polymer materials, and we did
not disagree with him, And, that was that -- that the caps
that go on top of the walls, as people use and sometimes
abuse those, for whatever purposes, be they maintenance or
Christmas lights or whatever, over the years, we were
concerned that those exposed caps would -- would deteriorate
31
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
badly, and so it -- the decision was made there to get a
cost from the contractor to go back and put cast stone at
those critical places.
And, again, those are -- those are caps. The portion
that is -- that are surface-mounted down where all the --
oh, yeah, sure, somebody could lean a ladder up against
them, but probably not damage them as badly, and it can be
repaired fairly easily. There, again, it was felt it was
good to save the money. The magnitude of -- of the savings
was -- Tricia, what was it, really?
MRS. STODDARD: $160,000.
MR. WALKER: Alternate -- original alternate
was $160,000, so of that, we're putting
44-something-thousand back into it -- $43,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what's -- briefly,
what's going to be polymer and what's going to be cast
stone?
MR. WALKER: All the caps -- the parapet caps
and the caps on the bridge by the loading dock -- the north
bridge, we're talking about -- would be the cast stone, just
like the cast stone you see on the window sills out here.
And, the -- the rest of it, the cornice around the edge,
that's the part that protrudes out, and there's some
horizontal bands, and then there's some sort of rectangular
panels that go between the windows. Those would all stay
32
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
l~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
polymer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My question --
MR. WALKER: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With regard to an
item that has been on my mind -- it's not a part of any of
these directives, but I would like you to address where we
stand with the information that you were going to gather
with respect to the removal or relocation of that very
terrible looking generator out here, as you get ready to
destroy that ramp coming up. What's going to happen to
that? Can you address that issue?
MR. WALKER: Yes. We -- we're ready to go to
a workshop or however you want to go over that. There's a
number of issues to be discussed. And, what we told
Commissioner Williams was that we -- we designed around an
emergency system for the courthouse, and that generator or
whatever takes its place is part of that design, so that we
have isolated within the building the ability to -- to have
certain things that don't fail in case of power failure.
What can be done to that, aside from moving it or some
other way of trying to hide it, is to replace it with a
battery backup system, and we have some items to put
together to compare that for you. If we -- if we move the
generator, then it probably needs to go into this
contractor's contract, because there's a lot of things that
33
,~-,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
they're doing down there with that that would sort of make
sense; it would be logical for that to go with it. If
you're talking about a battery backup and removal of that
generator, that doesn't necessarily involve this contractor,
and could be done in a -- a post-construction, or maybe
aside from their contract.
The -- the critical thing to remember here, or one of
the critical things to remember here, is that once we get
rid of that generator, there's no need for gas service to
this facility any more. That's the last thing that's left
on the gas here. And, for obvious reasons, that doesn't go
down when the power goes down. So, the battery backup is a
way to do it. It is -- it's, you know, in excess of
$20,000. But, moving the generator is not going to be an
inexpensive move, either, and so we would be glad to seL out
and go over in detail those numbers whenever you want to.
I'm not prepared to give you all those numbers today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not part of
those directives today, but I wanted to ask you the
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question.
MR. WALKER: We are there, and we're ready to
talk about it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any specific
'questions about the directives, as presented?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- the cast stone,
39
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
didn't we discuss that and decide to do that already?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Basically, we already
approved the consent; just didn't arrive at the number.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Before we call for a vote, I
want to note that we had included in this year's budget an
additional $250,000 for construction costs. We've now used
up about $216,000 in construction costs.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: With the inclusion of
this?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, if we approve this
today. Which leaves us $34,000, and the well is dry. And,
it's going to be hard to find anything above that, at this
time, particularly. So, I remind everybody that we need to
stay the course and keep on with the project within the
numbers that we already have, if at all possible.
MR. WALKER: May I ask -- may I include one
other statement with that? From time to time, you hear
discussion concerning the fact that, sure, with every change
order, with every increase in the cost, there comes the
ability of -- of the architect, whose max number fee is
based upon a percentage of the contract, to -- to increase
',his fee. And, I would point out to you that -- and I think
the contractor could bear witness to this -- that much --
much planning has gone on with the numbers that they present
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to us, and we do not take lightly the fiduciary
responsibilities that we have to this Court to hold those
costs down. And, we have done everything -- beyond
everything that we know to do to watch those numbers and
make sure that they are all good numbers. And we don't
bother to show you where we started with these numbers. We
show you what we derived, not what they initially gave us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Longnecker?
MR. LONGNECKER: Yes?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you agree with all
those -- recommend we go through with everything outlined?
MR. LONGNECKER: Yes, I agree with them.
For the past three or four months, this second change order
has been developing, and we spent many hours in our
construction meetings going through these, as Tricia
Stoddard will verify, and we have sent -- time and time
again, we've sent back figures and directives to them to
revise those figures. And these are the final figures that
we can come up with, based on what they've been givinq --
what they've been getting from the subcontractors, and I
believe that the figures are justified in what we have in
this change order.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you anticipate
coming up beyond this of --
MR. LONGNECKER: Well, I anticipate at least
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
one more change order, because we have not opened up this
second floor of this building. And, I'm sure that when we
get into that, there's going to be -- and I'm in hopes that
they will be minor compared to what we've had today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, this should take
care of most of the major for the annex?
MR. LONGNECKER: Yes, this should pretty well
cover the annex part, or the part we're working on, 3-A,
Phase 3-A portion of the renovations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion we
approve Change Order No. 2.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
DODGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve
Change Order No. 2. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to
just reinforce your comments about the $250,000. When that
$250,000 is gone, which is soon, it's really going to be
difficult to get any more money out of this Commissioners'
Court. I can't speak for everyone else, but I kind of think
I know how this thing works. So, somebody has to --
actually, the previous court -- and I think this court has
',taken on the same attitude. When there are changes come
labout requested by County officials, we'd really like to see
them before they are implemented into the program. We've
37
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
said that on numerous occasions, and I just think it would
be good business that we have these discussions before
they're just brought here to be totally approved and spend
all of our money. So, anyway, that's all.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion or
comments? 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,
Keith. Thank you, Mike, Tricia.
MR. WALKER: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item on the agenda is
Item 2.3, which is consider the preliminary plat of Shonto
Estates. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, members of
the Court, I had an opportunity recently to visit with Chris
Childs and his father, Bill Childs, at Shonto Ranch with
regard to their plans for some subdivision of what I would
describe as one of Kerr County's more beautiful ranches and
pieces of property. With that, we'll introduce the County
Engineer and Chris Childs and Don Voelkel, who will discuss
the plans that are before you this morning for preliminary
plat approval, Shonto Estates.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think you probably have the
38
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
plan in front of you. I think this is, like, Phase I.
MR. VOELKEL: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: Possibly a future
subdivision. The area around where -- indicating Turtle
Creek, that very wide area coming up to a road is an
existing -- existing easement for another ranch. I think it
has a note on there discussing that. Then Shonto Road turns
off of that, so there's a -- that would actually be a
private road. And, the lots are at or above the minimum for
',off-site wells and septic systems.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the access --
i COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Access is the second
I dam.
MR. JOHNSTON: Access is across a -- a dam
across Turtle Creek.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That's the dam
I there?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not the main
entrance to the ranch, but the next dam.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: East of it -- south.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the width of that dam
(sufficient for --
MR. JOHNSTON: What is the width of that?
MR. CHILDS: Twenty foot.
39
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: Twenty foot? Will this
require a variance, or are they going to give us a -- what
would the -- I know we need more than 20 foot in our
Subdivision Rules for any road, so is it going to go across
the creek, some sort of an easement? How is that going to
handle -- to proceed just over the dam? How are they going
to handle the -- I guess, the easement, or dedication of the
I road?
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know. We haven't
Italked about that. Don?
MR. VOELKEL: The -- I'm Don Voelkel. And,
the way we've got this set up kind of came out of the way we
decided -- Chris Childs and Bill Childs and I decided that
they would put all of that property in the -- in an entity
that would maintain the road, maintain the park, and be for
all the users -- all the lot owners of that property and
some additional property. Instead of just putting a
60-foot-wide road entity or easement or whatever you want to
call it around that, we just put all that -- the creek and
the road going in, the same -- instead of just having a
60-foot strip, we put all that property into that, and the
maintenance agreement that the homeowners will pay for would
incur the road and the park and everything. If you'd
rather, we can -- and that's why we're having this as a
preliminary. If you'd rather, we can differentiate between
40
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the road and the park area, and make them two separate
entities, if you think it would be better.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The question has to
do with the width, right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, just the way --
the Subdivision Rules require a width for the road, and if
you're going across a dam, obviously, you can't get that
width.
MR. VOELKEL: Right. Well, what we can do is
we can put the 60-foot strip of land in and center it on
that dam and dedicate that as the road, as opposed to the
park and the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it would be
(cleaner.
MR. JOHNSTON: This road would need to be a
20-foot paved surface. The dam would be right at the --
MR. VOELKEL: And what you're saying is we
can -- if you'd rather satisfy that that way, we can center
up the 60 foot and differentiate from road and open space in
the park, and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems to me that would
be cleaner. I mean, that way you know where the road is and
where the park is, but I don't know that it makes a whole
lot of difference.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think, probably, there's
41
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
another easement here, too. That kind of shows easements on
there, how they merge together on this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The top surface of
the dam is 20 feet.
MR. VOELKEL: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: You can have guardrails.
MR. VOELKEL: we were talking about -- Chris
and his attorney, David Jackson, are probably going to come
up with something that -- and because of the liability of
the road and all, we're going to come up with some safety
feature for the dam so that it -- that it's a safe crossing
for everybody.
MR. JOHNS'TON: And which would be by FEMA
~regs and all?
MR. VOELKEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would I think it's
probably going to require a variance. I don't think there's
a problem getting a variance, in my mind, but I think
probably a variance for that road. That's not a normal way
we do roads, and it's not going to be that wide there; I
mean, shoulders and all the other stuff. So, I think it --
probably just to clean it up, to grant a variance for that
portion of the road crossing the dam.
MR. VOELKEL: Now? Or you mean at final
plat?
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At final plat, I think,
would be sufficient.
MR. VOELKEL: So, we can work with Frank and
come up with some way to address that, and then --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think so.
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, we can come up with
details, how you're going to put those guardrails on and all
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Other than that, is it
going to be individual wells or water system?
MR. VOELKEL: Individual wells and septics.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And septics.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did speak -- I did
speak with Chris about the possibility of them considering a
private water system as opposed to punching eight or ten
holes in the ground. I don't think they've arrived at any
conclusion about that, but we did talk about the
possibility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have -- the O.S.S.F.
regulations will allow septic tanks that close, right on the
creek bank?
MR. VOELKEL: The floodplain that's shown on
here is really well above the creek bank, and I've just
shown it the way it shows on the map. When we're going to
go out there and start actually surveying these lots, we're
93
.-
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
going to locate the top of that bank so that you'll see
where, you know, the usable land is up on top.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: There's a big cliff along
that area there that divides those lots.
MR. VOELKEL: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: I want --
MR. VOELKEL: Vertical, probably 30, 40 feet
in some places of the cliff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you had any
preliminary talks with U.G.R.A. about the type of septic
systems they're going to require here?
MR. CHILDS: 'They've notified us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move
preliminary -- we grant preliminary plat approval, with the
items that we discussed being taken into consideration, for
Shonto Estates.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we approve the
preliminary plat of Shonto 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.)
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. At this
time, we will take up the item which was on the amended
agenda, which is Item 2.19, open sealed bids for one-half
ton pickup truck for the Animal Control Department, and
consider and discuss accepting or rejecting same. Mike?
MR. ALLEN: Marc.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Marc.
(Bids handed to Judge.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: The first bid we have is from
Immel Motors for a Ford F-150 one-half ton pickup. The
price is $16,554. Second bid is from Crenwelge Motors, and
it brings a price tag of $16,034.30. And, the third bid is
from Jennings Anderson r'ord in Boerne, and it shows
$17,265.75. $17,265.75. At this time, I'd entertain a
motion to accept the bids and refer them for evaluation to
the Animal Control Department.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved-
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, that we accept the
three bids and refer them to the Animal Control Department
for evaluation and 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.
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. You think
you're going to be able to get back with us this morning?
MR. ALLEN: Yes, sir, I'll get back this
(morning.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right, thank you. Now
we'll go back to the regular agenda. Item 2.4, consider the
final plat of Dove Valley Subdivision. Commissioner
Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Once again, this is a
subdivision that's been before us before, Mr. Muller and
Mr. Johnston and I. We went out there to take a look at the
road a little -- the other day a little more closely, and
found the gate locked. We couldn't find Mr. Muller anywhere
to open the yate, buL I -- Franklin will address this in
terms of --
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. I've checked the roads,
I think, on three occasions, and it's a -- a country lane,
unpaved, meets the requirements of lot size and number of
lots, and I'd recommend approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I move that we
grant final plat approval for Dove Valley Subdivision in
Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
46
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
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we grant
final plat approval for Dove Valley Subdivision in Precinct
2. 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 No. 5,
consider and discuss variance to allow minor replat of
8.89-acre tract located on Deer Park Lane. Commissioner
Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is a request
that comes to the court by way of Mr. Burt, if you're in the
audience this morning -- yes, he's back there -- who owns
8.84 acres of land on Deer Park Lane in Precinct 2, and he
wishes to subdivide that and create a separate lot off of
the 8.84, which I guess there's at least 2.5 acres in it,
total. Do you want to come address the Court, Mr. Burt?
MR. BURT: Yes. I have -- I have two maps here
in case you'd like to look at it. I also have a
topographical map that shows the elevation of the property.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead.
MR. BURT: The reason that I would like to do
this, I've been -- I'm furnishing my mother-in-law a home
for several years, and she has Alzheimer's, and she just had
47
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
a stroke. And, it's imperative that I sell this, and I have
to go through the platting process. It's going to be a
long, drawn-out process, so I would like to go through just
a minor platting process or a metes and bounds, so that -- I
can't sell my property unless this is taken care of, so I
would like to get approval in order to do this without going
through a platting process.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I put this on the
agenda as a variance, actually, to allow a minor replat.
MR. BURT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unfortunately, the
County Engineer and one of my colleagues called my attention
this morning to the revision of -- of legislation
controlling these matters, which, by definition, was the
Legislature of Texas for the Elgin Bank case. And, that
law, which went into effect in September of this year, I
believe, unfortunately says you've got to do the plat. I
wasn't aware of that when you and I spoke. I thought we
could do it on the basis of a variance. But, Mr. Johnston,
do you want to address this a little bit more? Franklin?
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I think, as you -- as
you discussed, that law was changed. It used to -- it
probably would qualify as an Elgin Bank exception prior to
September, but they tightened that language up and said it
had to be a lot -- each lot had to be 10 acres or more. And
48
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: I think the -- I mean,
our hands are tied. We cannot go against State law. And,
State law says it has to be platted, so it's something
that's not -- we don't have the -- the ability to give a
variance based on the way the legislation changed the
subdivision -- or Local Government Code in the past
legislation.
MR. BURT: Well, don't y'all make exceptions
when you sell to a member of your own family, that it
doesn't have to go through the platting process?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think the Elgin
Bank case excludes --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Excludes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Selling to a member
of your own family? Well, if it does, then we're okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: If it's a member of your own
family, I think it is an exception. And it discusses what
relationship it has to be, also. Where --
MR. BURT: I'm not selling to my own family;
I didn't mean that, but it seems like we have two different
sets of standards that we go by. If you can sell to your
own family and not have to go through this platting process,
it seems like that if -- for health reasons because of your
49
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
family, you should be able to sell to someone else, since
it's just a minor --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand, but by
State law, we can't. I mean, it's the Legislature that sets
the law, and we can't vary from that. The -- the revision
-- and I think this was important -- the legislation was
intended to -- what they tried to -- the loophole they tried
to get around, I think most counties liked. But, with the
language, our hands are tied. We just can't do a variance.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. Having said
that, though, why would it be a long, drawn-out process to
replat this?
	COMMISSIONER W1LLlAMS:	I don't think it's
necessarily	a long, drawn-out process.	It's	just a costly
-- more cost	ly process. Is that corre	ct?	
	MR. BURT: Yes, and you	have	to get so many
people to si	gn it, all the different -	- 911,	U.G.R.A.
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:	Ever	ybody has to
sign off on	it, that's correct.		
	MR. BURT: Yes.		
	COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN:	So, we	're talking days
or a couple	of weeks to do that. We'r	e not	talking months
or anything,	are we?		
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:	What	-- what's your
time schedule?
50
.--.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. JOHNSTON: He'll have to go through a
preliminary and a final, so you're talking about -- probably
about a month and a half, at least, to probably --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't know of
anything under the law -- I don't think there's anything
'else we can do, because that is specific, that the -- it has
several exceptions, and that's -- lot size was one, and
subdividing for breaking up of larger tracts within a family
was excepted.
MR. JOHNSTON: There's agricultural and
Ithere's --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Agricultural.
MR. JOHNSTON: -- Veterans' Land Board, maybe
one or two others.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's one exception
-- I don't know to whom you intend to sell it, but there is
the Veterans' -- Veterans' Land Board program exception that
takes it away from this. I don't know what to tell you, Mr.
Burt, except this one jumped up kind of like a
rattlesnake. It kind of jumped up on us and --
MR. BURT: Okay. Y'a11 won't need those
plats, will you?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. I mean, I would
think that to get the preliminary plat -- could you possibly
get that by Friday -- I mean by Thursday this week,
51
.-.
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
Franklin? So we can get through it?
MR. JOHNSTON: I haven't seen those drawings,
I don't think, but if they're adequate, we can use those and
get them on --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, it looked like --
I was looking; we don't do preliminary today.
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, we can bring this back
on --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can do that at
the next Commissioners Court meeting.
MR. JOHNSTON: We can get on the next
meeting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 't'hat would help, and
that way it's pretty small. You know, trying to get the
signatures for the final plat would be the most
time-consuming thing.
MR. JOHNSTON: Probably be able to get on the
one in January.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The January meeting.
It's possible we can get this thing through, which would
release -- you know, be within 30 days.
MR. JOHN5TON: Want to do that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. If you do the
preliminary plat on the 22nd, maybe, using those drawings,
and then you could get the rest of it completed, we could do
52
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
it on January 10th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: January 10th we could do
final approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay?
MR. BURT: Okay. You need 10 copies of this
and get everyone to sign it?
MR. JOHNSTON: Get the checklist; it's on the
!checklist. You pick one up at our office.
i COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's a separate --
MR. JOHNSTON: Separate form.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Burt, do you see
that as a workable timetable? If you'll give me a call as
soon as you can, I'll put it on the agenda for the 22nd for
preliminary plat approval.
MR. IIURT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. BURT: All right, thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're welcome.
Sorry for the problem.
MR. BURT: That's okay.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. We'll go back to Item
2.19. I've been handed the bids. It's been evaluated by
Animal Control, and the recommendation is that we accept the
bid from Crenwelge Motors, which was, I believe, the low
53
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
bid?
MR. ALLEN: The lowest bid.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that correct? In the
'amount of $16,034.30, the low bid out of three.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Griffin, that we accept the bids
from Crenwelge Motors in the amount of $16,034.30 for the
one-half ton truck for the Animal Control Department. Any
further discussion? If not, all in favor, raise your right
I hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MR. ALLEN: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Okay, I think we
can do Item 6, consider the preliminary plat of Cedar Stone
Subdivision in Precinct 4. Commissioner Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. I'll defer to
Mr. Johnston on this one. It's the preliminary plat in
regards to some issues we'll address by the State and
perhaps others.
MR. JOHNSTON: This one will take a little
54
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
bit of explaining. It's a subdivision of four lots. Two of
the lots are separate paved road -- separate paved road.
There's Lot 1 and 1-A, 1-A being a nonbuildable lot that
gives access to the river. There's a Lot 2 and a Lot 2-A.
2-A's a nonbuildable lot that gives access to the river. It
would have to be so noted on the plan. And, Lots 3 and 9,
with mostly the floodplain, but that shows a shaded area
where the residence and a drain field could possibly be
located. There's an issue about access, driveway spacing.
I think Wayne Pehl from TexDOT would like to address that.
MR. PEHL: Our concern on this is the number
of driveways currently fronting State Highway 39. At this
time, on the river side of those four, I think there's just
one existing driveway. And, if this would be platted as it
is, there would be four. The site distance is definitely a
problem, and our number one concern is always safety. Each
driveway will cause problems with the level of service,
people stopping and turning, and also entering the highway.
So, we're asking that the access to 39 be curtailed to one
entrance, if at all possible.
DODGE HENNEKE: Where is this located
exactly, Larry? Or --
MR. VALICEK: May I? I'm the owner of the
project. It's -- we're about 6 1/3 miles south --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sir, would you give
55
~-,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
your name for the court reporter?
MR. VALICEK: John Valicek. If you know
where River Inn Resort is, we're the property just this side
of the river. It's the old John Jobes place, if you're
familiar with his property there. And, there are currently,
I guess, four gated entrances to that property at the
present time that are off the highway. So, I don't know if
they're legal or not, but there are four, like, 16- or
18-foot gates that gain access from Highway 39 on the
property.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wayne, you say that
there's -- there is one entrance into the river part now?
MR. DEHL: To my knowledge, there's one on
this lot -- Lot No. 4 that's a paved access.
MR. VALICEK: Yes, sir, there's a -- excuse
me. The paved access to Lot No. 2, that goes to the house
over this way. There's also an entrance in -- let me get
this thing -- right about -- right about here (indicating).
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's one there new?
MR. VALICEK: There's one there now.
There's one in here already that has a recessed gated area.
This one, the gate is along the fence line. The fence line
his set back about 10 feet off of the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which lot are you
pointing to?
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
MR. VALICEK: Three -- 4 -- number -- Number
13.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. VALICEK: There's a -- just about where
the 249 is, there's a gate onto the property. And then,
just about where the 123.1, where the ".1" is, there's a
recessed gated entrance there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:	And	then two	more
would be -- do you think this would	be an	entrance	into this
property here?
MR. VALICEK: No. On 2-A, there's just a
walkway entrance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not a driveway?
MR. VALICEK: It is not a driveway. There's
a driveway into the main house just. about where this one is
at the present time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You think there's
going to be two more on this?
MR. PEHL: Well, I mean, the potenY_ial
exists.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because of these
things?
MR. PEHL: If you want to get to that. To my
knowledge, we have only one paved driveway.
MR. VALICEK: Yeah.
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PEHL: And that one was the only -- a
number of years ago, we would go ahead and pave all access
driveways. And, to my knowledge, no additional driveway has
been permitted since that time.
MR. VALICEK: I don't know if the permits are
there, but, I mean, the -- it is gated where there is
traffic through there at the present time.
MR. PEHL: Well, to my knowledge, they're not
permitted.
MR. VALICEK: Right.
MR. PEHL: And, the access would be --
anybody can put in a gate, but as far as our issuing a
driveway permit for it, there's quite a bit more that we
need to do.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is there an entrance
to Lot 1?
MR. VALICEK: There's a proposed entrance to
Lot 1 that we've just -- I've discussed with Mr. Pehl, and
also with several other members of the State, and they have
tentatively granted approval for a driveway to Lot 1.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is Lot 1 one acre?
MR. VALICEK: It's one acre, yes, sir.
There's a house existing on it at the present time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's not long enough to
support a septic system.
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. VALICEK: One acre is, yes, sir,
according to U.G.R.A. There is a septic system in place on
that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I thought we had to have two
land a half acres.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We do.
MR. JOHNSTON: You have a well also? Or do
you have --
MR. VALICEK: No. Public -- there will be a
public water system --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
MR. VALICEK: -- to the property. There
won't be -- none of those will be supplied by wells.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can you refresh
again -- restate what you said about Lots 1-A and 2-A? They
are going to be sold or not sold, or what --
MR. VALICEK: Lot 1-A and Lot 1, they've
already been surveyed to be sold as one parcel.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As one parcel?
MR. VALICEK: Which would total 1.43 acres or
a little over that. The reason there being that there's a
State highway separating them; they're not contiguous. So,
the one-acre requirement also -- there's a 200-foot
requirement, I think, with the new rules for frontage, and
the -- recently that was platted out to be less than 200
59

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
feet on our original plans. And then, when the new law came
into effect in September, that we do need to -- to comply
with the new rules, which would require a minimum of 200
feet of frontage and one acre, which was suggested by, I
guess, U.G.R.A. for a septic system.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the minimum?
MR. VALICEK: That's the minimum, yes, sir.
According to the --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The reason for my
question is, obviously, there's some entrance to get to that
residence that's in what would be Lot 1. There is an
entrance there now for that. How do you get to that house?
MR. PEHL: Okay. On Lot 1, there's only one
entrance going to Lots 1 and 2. You get to 1 from --
through 2.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. Well, where
I'm heading here is that if there is an entrance that -- and
you get to 1, you know, okay, that house that's in 1, then
it seems like, in the final plat, if this -- if there was an
easement to get to both -- to get to 1, it would also give
you access to 2. Would that -- would that work?
MR. VALICEK: It's a possibility. I guess
it would depend on who buys Lot 2, whether or not they would
want to continue granting an easement along that fence there
to -- to, you know, Lot 1. It would be cleaner.
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What I'm saying is,
plat it as an easement.
MR. VALICEK: I guess I could do that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: When it sells, that
easement sells with it.
MR. VALICEK: We had already tentatively
gained approval to put a driveway in there, and that's the
reason we --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, there would be
two on that site? Two entrances?
MR. PEHL: No driveway permit has been
issued, but Bill Tucker has said that we would issue a
permit --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PEHL: -- to that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's taken care of
for now. Now what we're talking about is the river side or
the other side.
MR. PEHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, 1-A and 2-A are
nonbuildable, so would they have to have -- necessarily have
their own access, from your point of view?
MR. VALICEK: Just a walk-in access off of
the gate, but no driveway or nothing. I don't know -- no
driveway for -- you know, no vehicular traffic.
61
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 GRIFFIN: So, the only thing
now we're down to is talking either Lot 3 or 4. Four
already has an access.
MR. VALICEK: Yes, sir, and 3 also has --
there's a gate there.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There's a gate?
MR. VALICEK: Not a permitted access.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. So, what we're
down to, then, is -- is can we -- can we permit an entrance
to Lot 3? Is that correct?
MR. PEHL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, we're talking
about one more --
MR. PEHL: But, we'd like to have it that no
driveways at any time could access 39 other than maybe
pedestrian to those Lots 1-A and 2-A.
MR. VALICEK: That's agreeable, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, you don't have a
problem with that, so it seems like it's just about --
MR. PEHL: The possibility exists that there
will need to be some revision made to the approach so that
you can get up to a high enough elevation in accessing the
highway. I think that --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You think that can be
done. So, if we can get an access to Lot 3 is the question,
62
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
right?
MR. PEHL: Yes.
MR. VALICEK: You need to define that gate
and just make it -- you know, apply for a permit.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Can that be done?
MR. PEHL: It can be worked out. Except I
haven't looked at it to it to see exactly where that --
where the best location would be for it to access the
highway.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then plat an
easement from 2 to 1?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. Because that has
already been considered, and tentatively -- though no permit
has been given yet, there has been tentative approval for a
separate access on Lot 1, is what I just heard Wayne say
awhile ago.
MR. PEHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, would it be
possible, then, for us to approve the plat -- this
preliminary plat based on access to Lots 1 and 3 being
worked out with the State? That would be acceptable to all
parties and to the owner?
MR. PEHL: Yes.
MR. VALICEK: Sounds good.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Then I would move
63
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
1J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that we approve the plat with that contingency, that we'd
have to work out those access -- accesses to Lots 1 and 3.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Those always have to be
worked out, because Commissioners Court obviously has no
control over whether TexDOT grants a driveway.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Before we vote, I would also
note that -- I would say we have major problems with your
septic location on Lot No. 3, because I don't think you're
going to have the setback from the State highway that would
be necessary. But, that would come out during final plat.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
MR. VALICEK: There's a -- there's a lot
more area there than -- Lhan is just -- you know, looking at
it, it looks a lot differently. If you actually walk the
site, those two areas there, I think U.G.R.A. requires a
primary and then a secondary drain field, or -- or an
alternate, and those should be -- I think we just drew them
in on the preliminary, and I -- Mr. Domingues, our surveyor,
could probably shed some light on that a bit more.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's a 75-foot
setback?
MR. VALICEK: Something like that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: 75-foot property line.
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. JOHNSTON: Looks like it's only about 100
foot there to the floodplain.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That would come out --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But that will come
out in the platting process.
MR. JOHNSTON: TexDot has to sign off on the
final plat, so that has to be looked at.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, I believe, that
we give preliminary plat approval for Cedar Stone
Subdivision of Precinct 4. 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. Before we
take our break, I believe Commissioner Griffin wants to
introduce someone.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, particularly for
the members of the Court. Particularly for the members of
the Court, but actually for all here and for the public, I'd
like to introduce Mr. Dave Walker, who's in the back of the
room. Dave is our most recent appointee to the 911 Board.
He's -- I've worked with Dave for years, and I think he's
65
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
going to be a great addition to the 911 Board. He is a
former shuttle astronaut with numerous flights, and he's an
all-around good guy and the world's second best pilot, since
I hold that position as number one.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But, welcome, Dave,
and we're looking forward to you representing the County
interests on the 911 Board. And, I think if you've got a
minute at the break, we'll meet you in the back over here
Ifor a cup of coffee or whatever.
MR. WALKER: Thank you, Larry, and I'm proud
to be on the Board. I hope to be able to help, and we'll
talk about who's the best pilot.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, David. At this
time, we'll take a 10-minute break. Let's be back at 20
minutes till 11:00.
(Recess taken from 10:30 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll now qo back into the
regular session of Kerr County Commissioners Court, It is 20
minutes to 11:00, The next item on the agenda is Item No. 7,
which is consider and discuss engineering and expense for
the exit from the Courthouse Circle to Earl Garrett Street.
In conjunction with the Traffic Management Team, we are
proposing to reopen the exit to Earl Garrett Street, which
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
was previously right here, do that in conjunction with
revamping of the parking along both Jefferson and Earl
Garrett as a result of the change. The existing exit would
be "right turn only," where this exit here would allow
people to go either left or right onto Earl Garrett Street.
The way the exit is today, it's actually quite dangerous.
Anybody who needs to turn left out of the courthouse is
immediately confronted with that stop sign on Earl Garrett,
and it creates a dangerous traffic pattern for everyone.
Mr. Odom -- Leonard, you've been looking into this.
Do you have anything to add? Do you have a figure for us as
to what it would cost to redo this?
MR. ODOM: Well, since I was low bid on the
project --
(Laughter.)
MR. ODOM: I think that they had asked us
for what our cost is. It's miniscule. T think I put down
13 tons of black base, the way we propose to do that. That
was -- I think the cost was $450, and that was for the
rental of the machine and the blade and 13 tons of black
base. There's a little bit more incidental cost, but that
may be a little cold mix, which I have in Maintenance
normally to put in there, and probably, you know, 50
gallons, 100 gallons of oil sometime during the summer, and
shoot the rock, which I have access. So, I never construed
67
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
it as a very major deal. It's only an 18- by 20-foot
opening.
The -- I did talk to the City about a curb return. I
didn't get an answer, other than if we wanted to do that.
And, I thought maybe when they did their concrete work, or
if they do concrete work, that that would be in addition to
that. And, I don't -- you know, we don't know until we take
it out, but I don't know what that cost would be for
concrete return. So, I would worry about that later on.
We'll take a look at it and put it into their bid.
I understand that there's no work to be done inside
the -- the parking area here. Nor does the City spend what
expenditures they're going to do, if they're going to do
anything to that road out there. So, we're being -- it's
probably a day, day and a half of work. We're just -- we've
got a sleeve that we want to put in. We have to dig a
trench probably 30-foot long and put a sleeve in there for
electrical for you. Should you, in the future, want to tie
into the electrical, there's some electrical plans that are
there.
So, you know, the cost may be $600 or something totally
out of my budget, but it is something that I normally do in
maintenance anyway; that I have black base, I have these
different things. So, I don't -- it's not like I'm going
out and I have all this excess money. We just make it work.
68
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
If we run out of money, I quit working in Precinct 2, that's
all.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whoa. You're going
to prompt me to ask another question, now that you rang my
bell.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Never wake up sleeping
Commissioners.
MR. ODOM: He was too quiet; I had to stir
him up. I'm always doing that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions of the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If he's taking -- while
Commissioner 2 is drinking coffee, I have a question about
the actual work of, I guess, blocking out, for lack of a
better word -- building that --
MR. ODOM: Taking that dirt out and some of
the concrete curbing that's underneath there. There is some
curbing returns there. Just taking that down, digging down
about 6 inches, putting black base. You'll have an
all-weather surface going out until they get through with
whatever they're going to do out there. And, they were
going to put some buttons in there to make an island and an
approach, so it really wouldn't take that much to do it.
It's very -- like I say, initially it was $450. $925 would
cover my costs rights now.
69
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 BALDWIN: Let me ask a question.
There's -- if we consider the dangerousness coming out where
we're coming out today --
MR. ODOM: Over here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry, over this
way. And we're going to open this up in the middle --
that's the way it used to be a long time ago.
MR. ODOM: Used to be curbing returns there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, if traffic is
parked all along here and all along here, I mean, you still
have that same problem of sight, do you not? Or is there
going to be some kind of --
MR. ODOM: Well, that island will bring you
on out probably around 18 to 20 foot, and the same thing
will happen down here on your corner that you're having
problems with now when they change those stop signs. Keep
in mind that it's going to look like H & R Block down there.
You're going to extend that curb out, so your line of sight
will progress out probably 18 foot, and you'll probably have
'.better visibility. The same will occur right there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is 18 feet out
here?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, to the back of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. ODOM: So you're going to pull all the
70
•~-
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
way out. The only thing -- if you looked at it and you say,
"Well, I'd like 30 foot," that's probably a turning radius
in there, a little bit better, but we were -- the City
thought if they widened it too much, people would try to
come in on you the wrong way. There is a "Do Not Enter"
sign, so the narrower you kept it, the probabilities are cut
down that people would turn in the wrong way on you. So,
they kept it narrow right there. That's the only constraint
that I see, is that turning radius is out 18 foot right
there, but it just had to be that way, apparently.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seventeen feet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But these islands or
whatever it is they're doing --
MR. ODOM: Just buttons. They're just
putting buttons in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. It allows a
car --
MR. ODOM: To move forward.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exiting from the
courthouse interior drive all the way out so that you get
past the parallel parked vehicles for line of sight.
MR. ODOM: Yes. So, that left-hand turn is
what you're worried about.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is the problem
over there on Jefferson.
71
,~-~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: That's right, and then the same
thing happens on the corner by Red Cross. You extend out.
Then you can start to see your left-hand. That's the
traffic that bothers you is the left-hand side. And, I
think it's probably a solution to it, the two islands there
and that island right there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Without taking any of
the money to do this out of the Precinct 2 budget -- I know
you're kidding.
MR. ODOM: I'm kidding.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a related
question that's not -- it's just a question; it's not part
of this consideration.
MR. ODOM: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But I know that you
have all of our roads on a cycle, in terms of rehabbing
them, 7-year cycle?
MR. ODOM: Seven-year at this point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Has it been seven
years since the inner drive was done?
MR. ODOM: Inner drive?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Around the courthouse.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Around the
(courthouse.
MR. ODOM: Sir, I don't know when that was
72
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
done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I suggest to you it
is in need of a little rehabilitation.
MR. ODOM: Well, I think -- I think General
Revenue could probably come up with the money. We can
probably force-account that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That come out of your
~ cycle.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I will note that we're going
to lose two interior parking places.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Two or one?
MR. OllOM: 1 think it's -- f think it's one,
and then two outside. I think he said there were three that
were proposed, just the way it was that they had in -- and I
think you lose one, but I'm -- it may be only two.
Remember, that discussion out there with Mike Boyd was that,
basically, we weren't going to change what they were
designing right there when we looked at everything.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How are you -- you
mean you're losing two on the inside?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We're losing one inside and
two on the street. well, it's --
MR. ODOM: Should be this right-hand side.
JUDGE HENNEKE: One just to the right of --
73
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
MR. ODOM: You catch that space, probably.
DODGE HENNEKE: You said when you make that
curve to go out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But if the curb situation is
unacceptable, we need to do something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the timetable
for the City to do its part? Do you know?
MR. ODOM: Sir, I don't know. They said that
they had grant money. They hadn't used it, and that they
wanted to go ahead and do that. We -- we were scheduled to
go in today, and we were waiting for the -- you know, the
discussion to proceed. And then, by the direction of the
Court, then I'll reschedule something. It we have pretty
weather this week, probably this week. If -- if we can get
in here and start on it, I'd like to do that before the
weather turns bad.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is still inner
curb in that?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, that's what I was
saying.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You call that inner
curb?
MR. ODOM: The inner curb would probably stay
79
,-,
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
there. It would have to be cut at a certain point, just
from the -- to keep that width. But, if the Court wanted
something, I -- you know, aesthetically, it may look better
for a curb return later on, but I think that that is
appropriate that at the time when the City does their bid
for sidewalks, that -- we're talking about replacing some
sidewalks -- that we make an addition to that and that we
would come up with -- I'll try to save a little money on
concrete. I don't have much left now. The projects I
wanted are already done. So, if I have a little money, I
thought we could -- by the direction of the Court today, we
could do that, or my own people would do it and we'd just
buy the concrete.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment or question
I have, this is really more of a City issue. It seems to me
if we're trying to eliminate left turns from the current
exit, if they would extend that island a little bit further
so you could make it obvious there not to turn left there,
make it more difficult the way they have it now.
MR. ODOM: Doesn't it have a sign that says
"Right-hand Turn"?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will, but I just --
just expand and make it more difficult.
MR. ODOM: More difficult.
75

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a City issue,
nothing to do with us.
MR. ODOM: I wouldn't take the tort; I'd let
them be responsible. If --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Len, are you going to
put signs up on the courthouse?
MR. ODOM: I will inside. Outside, I think
they said they would address anything inside the property
line that I had to address, and I have no problems doing
that. I'll just follow off whatever they're doing, what
they have drawn up there. And, sure, if there's something
else y'all think of, we'll just make a sign.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve the
exits from the Courthouse Circle to Earl Garrett Street.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Comment. I just thank
the Road and -- thank you guys for helping us in this.
MR. ODOM: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I think you always
need a Court Order to do these kind of things.
MR. ODOM: That's -- I know.
76
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 BALDWIN: It's up to you to
request it sometimes.
MR. ODOM: Well, sometimes I -- if I get what
is implied, I would assume -- I can't read minds too well
sometimes, and we don't mean to -- you know, we don't want
to be caught in the middle on anything.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's what I'm
saying.
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.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I did want to say to
Leonard, I had the opportunity to drive Eagle Ridge. It's a
beautiful job. Just congratulations on a well-done job.
MR. ODOM: Well, thank you. The men, you
know, would appreciate a letter to that, and I'll put it in
the men's file, so --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's in the minutes,
we can put it in the file.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item on the agenda is
Item No. 8, which is consider and discuss establishing

~~
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
credited service for qualified military service from 10
years to 8 years. Barbara? Welcome back.
MS. NEMEC: Thank you. Under our current
plan with T.C.D.R.S., an employee may apply for military
service credit after being employed for 10 years, and since
we are an 8-year vesting county, they are now giving us the
option to change that to eight years. So, that's what's
before you today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. Any questions? What
fiscal impact does this have on the County?
MS. NEMEC: Actually, the way the plan was
before, and whether we do this or not, it does -- it's going
to end up being better for us in the Year 2000. The way it
worked before was an employee who applied for military
service credit would have to pay $15 per month for each
month that they were requiring credit for, and the County
would have to match it. Starting in January 2000, whether
we approve this or not, the $15 per month goes away. They
are now eligible to apply for service credit time only, and
there will be no monetary involvement in that. But, of
course, it helps the employee, and since we're an 8-year
vesting, it would be in line with -- with our vesting period
~s
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
if we go to eight years.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None, other than I see
there's two forms here, one for Commissioners Court and one
for the County Clerk. If -- is that something that we sign?
DO we have an official looking one of these?
MS. NEMEC: You should have the original
(somewhere.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or is the Court Order
enough?
MS. NEMEC: No, we will need this signed.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So we need -- the
,motion needs to be amended to authorize the County Judge to
',sign same?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we all sign.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We all sign.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Once we do the approval, then
whoever will produce the form and we'll circulate it for
signature.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good.
MS. NEMEC: And I turned the original in, so
maybe Thea has it or somebody.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further discussion? If
not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
- ~.~
79
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MS. NEMEC: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Barbara. At this
time, with the Court's indulgence, we have people here to
talk about Item No. 17, and I can tell right now we're going
to go past lunch, so I'd like to take that up and extend
that courtesy. Any objection by anyone?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Item No. 17 pertains to a
request by Mr. Steve Chapman for Kerr County to participate
in a grant program to assist his company in relocating from
Dallas to Center Point, purchasing a building in Center
Point, and hiring approximately 40 people within the first
-- having a total employment of about 40 people within the
first three years after his relocation. Commissioner
Williams, do you want to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge.
Some time ago, I was made aware that Mr. Chapman, in
representing his company, which is Chapman Building Systems
of Dallas, had located -- and I'm not sure how, but had
located the manufacturing facility which is located on the
corner of 27 and 480 in Center Point, which I think at one

80
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
time was used by Mooney or a subcontractor of Mooney, if I'm
not mistaken, at one point in time. And, the purpose of
that was to find an ideal location to move their Chapman
Building Systems business from Dallas lock, stock, and
barrel. We had a meeting at the Chamber of Commerce office
convened by Sherry Cunningham about a week or 10 days ago,
and met with Mr. Chapman and his principals and
representatives of L.C.R.A., and a consultant to Mr. Chapman
who is familiar with the grant process for the State Capital
Funds -- I believe that's correct, right? State Capital?
MS. CUNNINGHAM: Texas Capital.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Texas Capital. Which
we talked about how Mr. Chapman would see this process
taking place, and what were the requirements of the Texas
Capital Funds, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I'm going
to let Sherry explain, to whatever length she wishes,
exactly what needs to be explained to the Court. The
process is, though, that the Commissioners Court would have
to, by resolution, sign in or weigh-in on this project, and
we, in effect, become what Mr. Chapman becomes, the grant
applicant. So, Sherry, why don't you enlighten us to some
greater extent?
MS. CUNNINGHAM: Well, I'm Sherry Cunningham,
President of the Kerr Economic Development Foundation and
the Chamber. Good morning. Thank you for putting this on
- - `_
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
the agenda. Mr. Williams told you that we did have a
meeting with the principals about 10 days to 14 days ago,
and this prospect came to us through our network of economic
development allies, which we try to keep information on file
through L.C.R.A. and through the State, and so when
someone's looking and they have an opportunity and they're
looking at different places, then we can keep our
information out in front of them. And, so, that's how we
got this project and did this.
Mr. Chapman has visited this community several times,
as well as he has visited other communities within the Hill
Country region. And -- and not trying to put words in his
mouth, and he can certainly stand up here and attest to
this, but he and his wife have stressed over and over again
that they truly would like to be in the Kerrville, Kerr
County area. They found this to be very attractive, and
think this would be a good place to put their business.
Just briefly, the product that they -- that they create
is a -- and I didn't bring a sample this morning, but
Mr. Williams has a flier. Yes, it's a -- it's a
preinsulated building panel that can be precut and then
taken to the job site, and it -- it cuts down a lot of labor
situations and things like that for the -- for the builders.
And, so, it's a nice, clean -- clean industry, and of course
we're always interested in that.
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The question today is Linda -- Linda Costley, who is
the consultant, could not be here today because she had a
conflict in Austin, but in our conversations, our meetings
with Mr. Williams and also Mr. With Judge Henneke, she
explained how the Texas Capital Fund process works. And --
and this is something that we have not done in this area.
We have talked about it several times. This is the first
time I believe we've talked to Commissioners Court about
doing this. But, basically, the Commissioners Court, the
County, would become the applicant on behalf of the
industry. That's the only way that you can access those
monies. And, those monies are set aside. Those are federal
monies that come into the state, and these are set aside for
industrial-slash-economic development. They are set aside
to be able to use -- be used for infrastructure needs or for
buying buildings or for rehabilitating buildings, whatever,
that you need in your community that can help you facilitate
the creation of new jobs.
And, you know, we think that this is a -- a prospect
that could easily qualify for these monies. We -- in our
conversations, we were kind of in a hurry-up, qet-up-and-qo
nature, because this is the end of this year's funding
cycle; December 31st is the final day you can apply for
funds. And, we do know that funds are still available, so
we thought that was the real attractive reason to -- to try

83
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
Ito go forward with this.
The other thing that we were -- were wanting to do and
to get this application in -- which is pretty quick, but
Linda is a consultant; this is what she does full-time, and
she feels comfortable she can do that. Each year in
January, the Texas Department of Economic Development sits
down and revises or reviews the rules, and some of those
might change, and so we thought, well, since we know what
can qualify right now with this company, it might be easier
to go ahead and get this in. On the flip side of that, we
also know that it's really hard to -- to decipher all of the
different needs and get those together in a matter of a few
weeks.
Just to give you some particulars on -- on what
Mr. Chapman needs, he -- the building in Center Point
already has about 20,000 square feet. He needs about
40,000. The attractiveness of this building is it's already
got some -- some things built into it that he could use in
his work. It also has a 19,000-square-foot concrete slab
that is already in place, which would make it very easy for
him to expand that existing facility to the approximate
40,000 square feet that they need.
Currently, they have around 20 jobs in Dallas. They
are actually are waiting to hire more people, because they
need to know if -- if this is going to go through, and we
84
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
don't want to hire until we see that. Because part of the
requirement for the Texas Capital Fund is the creation of
jobs. And, so, during the three-year period that this is an
active project, you -- he would be pledging to create an
additional 20 jobs, so that would get them up into 40 jobs,
and probably -- what they see in this company, it probably
could even be more than that.
There are several things that the County would have to
sign off on to be able to do this. I don't have an exact
list from Linda. I did a little recap from that meeting and
e-mailed it to everyone, and she did respond to me, Judge,
that -- on Item No. 5 on that recap, and I'll just read this
to you, that I did have a list of everything, so let me just
read -- read through this right now.
First of all, we -- we'd have to have a letter from the
County that they can -- that the County cannot do this
project without help from the Texas Capital Funds. We have
to have a resolution in support for the application, the
amount, and the purpose. We'd have to have a certificate
for the Judge to sign on all of this. The County would need
to place two public notices and hold one public hearing on
the project. Also, we would have to notify three local
organizations connected to the housing development that this
project is proposed to happen.
The explanation for that was because these are federal

85
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
dollars, and it really comes down through the T.D.H, I
guess, Texas Department of Housing, so that we have to say
that if we're not using those dollars for "X," we need to
use them for this, and which is another active use of these
monies. The County would also need to provide the most
recent audit and a budget. A Fair Housing Activity
Ordinance will be needed, and she would prepare that. And,
my office would prepare a survey of vacant buildings, which
virtually there are none, And then, also, we'd have to have
a site map, an area map, and a Community Needs Assessment
form.
So, I don't know what else maybe I could offer you
right now, or if you have questions, I can try to answer
those for you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sherry, I think it
might be beneficial if you introduce Mr. Chapman, and
Mr. Chapman give us some comments as to why he would like to
relocate his business.
MS. CONNINGHAM: Steve, would you like to
come up? You can do a show-and-tell.
MR. CHAPMAN: Well, thank you. Appreciate
you having the meeting and considering our request. About
approximately a year ago, we sent out 25, 30 letters to
various cities, small towns around Texas, and started a
search for a community in which to move our business.

86
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
Quite honestly, I'm a native Dallas-ite, lived there all my
life, and it's getting oppressive; the traffic, just
everything about it is beginning to wear on me.
So, some -- a lot of it has to do with my personal
desire to get into to a smaller community, but also, about
40 percent of our business comes from the Austin-San Antonio
corridor. This particular corridor of this state happens to
be what we call the "green center" of Texas, and in the
building trade there's a lot more interest in energy
efficiency and sustainable energy, green building products,
recycling, rainwater collection, you name it. Our product
lends itself to that particular clientele, because it is a
very energy-efficient building. The natural envelopes are
very tight, and therefore, utility bills on residences are
typically cut in half. On commercial buildings, there's
also a considerable amount of savings. A little bit harder
to quantify, because you have so much internal BTU
generation in a commercial building.
Therefore, we are in the process of looking. We
contacted the L.C.R.A., and they sent us a list of, oh,
probably 50, 60 buildings located in their service area. We
reviewed those, narrowed it down to ones that would be
feasible. We eliminated some of them because they were in
areas we didn't want to go in. We liked the proximity to
Interstate 10. We do have -- everything we ship out is on

87
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
truck, and most everything we ship in is on either
18-wheelers or on something like Air Freight. We like --
and for all the reasons I already mentioned, our management
team is very much interested in locating in a smaller
community. Kerr County has also -- it's not so small that
you're living way out in the country. Quite honestly, my
wife said no to Mason right off the bat.
(Laughter.)
MR. CHAPMAN: So, we didn't make that trip.
Anyway, we feel like there's a good match, both for our
product, our business, where our business is coming from,
and -- and just a general interest in -- in being in this
area. Now, are there any questions regarding the business,
itself, the product, or anything else you'd like --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me ask you a few
questions with regard to your employee group and how many of
your existing employees might relocate. How many would you
hire in the area, how many would be -- would you be required
to add over the -- over the term of the grant, and so forth?
MR. CHAPMAN: Right now in our plant, we
have eight, what we call our manufacturing unit. We have
two in our field installation group, and we have four in
management. Out of that group, all four in management would
relocate. Of the installation crew, those two would
relocate. Of the plant group, I really don't know. We

88
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
would like to -- there are about -- well we'd like for all
of them to come, because they're experienced in what they
do. But, as a practical matter, there's only two that are
really key, we really definitely want to keep. We will
offer all of them an opportunity to join us.
As far as the Texas Capital Fund requirements for
employment, it's all a function of how much money we ask
them for. Right now, I think that it works out to somewhere
between 13 and 15 new positions. We're real short right now
on our field crew. We're actually -- two is not enough
to -- to do the work, but we're picking up people at the
sites that we go to. There in Lubbock -- not Lubbock, but
Plainview this last week, we just picked up three local
workers in Plainview, as opposed to hiring three more in
Dallas and -- and shipping them out there. We'll likely do
the same thing in -- we did the same thing in Uvalde on our
job we had down there.
It becomes problematic when you go to places like
Austin and you can't pick up local workers in Austin. You
have to -- you have to bring them in. I think we'd be
looking at somewhere -- conservatively, it would
be somewhere in the 15 range. I wouldn't want to make a
commitment or promises to more than that, because it's --
it's going to be a function of business growth, and there's
too many things that can affect that that we don't have

88
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
would like to -- there are about -- well we'd like for all
of them to come, because they're experienced in what they
do. But, as a practical matter, there's only two that are
really key, we really definitely want to keep. We will
offer all of them an opportunity to join us.
As far as the Texas Capital Fund requirements for
employment, it's all a function of how much money we ask
them for. Right now, I think that it works out to somewhere
between 13 and 15 new positions. We're real short right now
on our field crew. We're actually -- two is not enough
to -- to do the work, but we're picking up people at the
sites that we go to. There in Lubbock -- not Lubbock, but
Plainview this last week, we just picked up three local
workers in Plainview, as opposed to hiring three more in
Dallas and -- and shipping them out LYiere. We'll likely do
the same thing in -- we did the same thing in Uvalde on our
job we had down there.
It becomes problematic when you go to places like
Austin and you can't pick up local workers in Austin. You
have to -- you have to bring them in. I think we'd be
looking at somewhere -- conservatively, it would
be somewhere in the 15 range. I wouldn't want to make a
commitment or promises to more than that, because it's --
it's going to be a function of business growth, and there's
too many things that can affect that that we don't have
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
anything to do with. Every time there's an Allen Greenspan
meeting, he can turn it upside down. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The amount of the
grant application you would want Kerr County to sponsor is
the $375,000; is that correct?
MR. CHAPMAN: Well, since our -- since we
talked about that, that would be the maximum. I think we're
really looking something more like $250,000, We've gone back
and -- and started narrowing our numbers down to what we
really need and have to have. We don't want to ask the
County to do any more than is absolutely necessary to get
the -- get the building up and functioning, and we don't
want to commit ourselves to more money than we think we can
comfortably afford. So, we've -- we've kind of taken a few
things off the table. Our initial budget that we started a
long time ago showed that it was going to take around 375,
but when you start going through the -- the Texas Capital
Fund formulas and match funds requirements and point
requirements, it gets a little -- little strong, and that
was the ideal building. So, we don't have to have that, and
it would probably be wise if we didn't initially. Probably
be better to start that a little bit tight and expand as the
business grows.
MS.	CUNNINGHAM:	If	I could add, the Texas
Capital Fund is a	-- when it's	an	active project, and that's
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the application, it's like a three-year period, and that's
where you -- the application that you go through and all the
things that the -- that the business, as well as the
counties, say they're going to do. And then, once -- once
all that is finished, then it becomes -- the project closes.
The money can be -- it used to be called grants. Basically,
it's a grant-slash-loan, and it's a -- it can be, like, a
20-year payback. And, basically, the company would pay that
back; it would just be run through the County as the
vehicle. But, it's a long-term loan with no interest, so
it's a really good deal.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We need to understand as a
Court that if we do this, the County will actually own the
facility and the County will be the grant recipient of the
money, which will then be funneled through to Mr. Chapman
and his business. And they, in turn, will, I guess, lease
the facilities back from us, and that will be the source of
repayment of the funds. And, at the end of the three years,
or such time as the project closes -- and by closing the
project, that means that the -- the business has satisfied
all the requirements of the Texas Capital Fund as far as any
renovation and employment and all the benchmarks that
they've set forth in their plan. Any time after the project
closes, then Mr. Chapman basically can pay off the loan and
take full title to the property. As the applicant for the
91
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
grant, the County is obligated to pay the money back.
It's a very generous payback, as Sherry says, 20 years.
And, you know, $250,000 is really not a whole lot with no
interest. We all have to be cognisant of worst-case
scenarios, which would be the things we'd work out. We'd
.end up owning the building, but we're assured by everyone
that we've talked to that the Statf=_ understands the position
that the nonprofit -- the government entities are placed in
by being the applicant, and -- and they will give us a
generous grace period within which to either sell the
building and pay off the grant, or to find another user for
the facility and resume the payment stream. But, I don't
want anyone to misconstrue that the= County is obligated to
return the money to the Texas Capital Fund under the terms
and conditions of the grant. But, to make us feel better
about that, we own the building, and in Center Point that
would be valued probably at three times what the -- the
amount of the loan is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAP9S: Also, Mr. Chapman
has an equity factor in that building. I'm not sure what
that is going to boil down to on the new scenario of
numbers, but he does have an equity factor. If there were a
default, we would end up gaining his equity factor, as well.
MR. CHAPMAN: Yeah, there's a couple of --
if I might expand a little bit, there's a minimum

92
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
requirement of a one-to-one match. It doesn't have to
necessarily be in the real estate. The only thing the Texas
Capital Fund will -- can apply their funds to is real estate
or infrastructure. Our match can be -- can come in a lot of
forms. It can come in working capital, equipment, other
things, but we have to match those dollars one-for-one. We
,actually don't get points for this until we get to
1.25-to-1. And, of course, since phis is awarded -- or the
point structure, we're trying to g<srner as many points as we
can.
There are -- there are a few other safeguards in the
Texas Capital Fund for the governm~=_ntal entities that apply.
One is that there's a requirement that the underlying lender
notify all the parties, including whether it be the County,
the T.D.H.C.A., and there's one ot:~er entity; I can't
remember what it is. Probably Linda's firm. Any default,
there's a requirement that -- that the underlying lender,
the first lienholder, will give the County a minimum of
90-day grace period before any foreclosure proceedings.
There's a requirement that, should foreclosure on a building
take place and then the owner subsequently sell that
building in excess of the foreclosure price, that they have
to share that -- the upside pro rata with the County. So,
it's not a total -- those things have to be agreed to or the
Texas Capital Fund will not be -- won't be funded. And,
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
those are safeguards.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we brought this to the
Court today to see, one, if the Court was interested in
proceeding. I was hopeful that we could possibly even be in
'a position to get in line for the this funding, but to be
very candid about it, we didn't ge' the assistance -- I
didn't get the assistance I needed in order to have things
ready to actually move on that. I think the threshold
decision is, do we want to proceed with -- with looking at
the situation and doing this application for Mr. Chapman?
If it's the sense that we do, and we want to try to help him
by having the application, even by the end of the month,
what we would have to do today is ~~all the public hearing.
I don't see how we can do that. W~= don't have an
application to fill out, which would have to be on file; we
don't have many of the -- of the assessments or things like
that. And, I don't know if we could turn those out in that
short a time period or not.
MS. CONNINGHAM: Only thing I can say, Judge,
I know that in that -- that meeting we had that day, that
Ms. Costley -- you know, this is how she -- I mean, this is
her business, is putting these projects together, and she
has all this stuff on file. She could not be here today,
and I don't know the reason for that. I know she had a
conflict in scheduling. But, you know, if -- if the Court
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is certainly interested, I'm sure that she could -- could
get that information for you to consider. It might -- it
might mean that you'd have to call a special meeting to
'.actually -- just to look at those -- those papers and to
make that decision. Other than that, I don't know what to
ask you. But, that's what would h<sve to happen, probably
before the end of the year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I want the Court to be
comfortable with going forward. I mean, I'm -- I'm
interested. I think it's something that we'd also be
involved in. We all need to be comfortable with the
numbers. Mr. Chapman has done everything he can; he
provided us with three years of financial statements, we
have his tax returns, we have a very, very comprehensive
financial package on his business, and he and his wife. So,
so far as getting comfortable with the risk from a business
standpoint, we have all that information. But, the Court
needs to be comfortable with the concept of doing this
application and of being the sponsor of -- of promoting this
business, promoting the business in an area of the county
which could use some economic stimulus. Not that we all
couldn't, but -- so --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Judge, may I say, I'm
familiar with the Texas Capital Fund. It's a good program.
It's well administered. I don't have any problem at all
95
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
signing up to do these, particularly based on the
information that you've already received on this particular
business. It's the kind of thing I think we ought to do, in
'general, and so I think the question is, is what do we do --
what do we need to do and how quic:{ly can we do it? And,
obviously, others are going to havf=_ to answer that for us,
because we've got to have something to base a public hearing
on, as you pointed out. So, from my view, yes, let's pursue
it. The question is, is how can we time it to meet the
deadlines that we're looking at here for this year? Is
there a way to do it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I basically agree
with what Larry says. You know, f don't have enough
information to know much about the Capital Fund Program.
I'd like a little bit more about that, which I'm sure I can
get.
MS. CUNNINGHAM: I can get that for you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, kind of what the
obligations to the County are. But, this is the type of
thing, in general, I support. But, you know, it just seems
very optimistic to be able to get everything we need, you
know, before the end of the year. I'm not really in favor
of trying to do a special meeting, just because I believe
you and Larry are gone the last week of the month.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If we were going to try to
96
•--
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
have a public hearing, we would have to -- I think my
thinking is we would schedule on i~ on the 22nd, which is --
we're all going to be here anyway. We have to give at least
72 hours notice of that, which means we would have to have
all of the paperwork --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: By Thursday.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- ready in the Clerk's
Office basically by -- by Friday.
MS. CUNNINGHAM: By this Friday?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CUNNINGHAM: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And that's -- I mean, I'm not
-- I'm not talking about -- I'm talking about the actual --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. CUNNINGHAM: Talking the full documents.
~~ COMMISSIONER wILLIAMS: That are ready to
(fill in the blanks.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Everything that would be
submitted to the State would have to be here on file in the
Clerk's Office by Friday, because the notice -- we have to
put the notice in the paper for Saturday to allow people to
see that the application is on file at the Clerk's Office
and can be reviewed, and that would have to be two hours
prior to the hearing, which we would probably schedule for
4 o'clock in the afternoon the 22nd. That's a very
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ambitious timeframe, but that's the only way I see that it
'can happen this year.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Possibility of doing
I that?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Buster, you haven't had a
chance to comment.
MS. CUNNINGHAM: She says there is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have none, other
than I would like to see the finan~~ials on him.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'd be happy -- we didn't
copy them for everybody.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's good. I just
made the comment, I'd like to see them. Texas Capital
Fund's a good fund; I've been around them a little bit. The
concept is wonderful. I understand the County needs a
letter, a resolution, and a public hearing, and we need to
-- we need to ask our Auditor if he would do that. He
doesn't work for us, so we need to include him in -- in a
kind of gentle way so this can be as smooth as possible. I
don't mean that to be funny, either.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We1.L, you're absolutely
right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For audit and budget,
so we budget -- we audit everything and we budget
everything. It's just kind of -- we're a flow-through, like
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we do a couple of other things. So, that's all I have. The
concept's wonderful. I've seen it work.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAh1S: So, what are you
looking for, Judge, the concept approval this morning?
JODGE HENNEKE: I think we need to -- we need
to decide amongst ourselves. I think I definitely hear a
consensus in favor of the concept. I mean, nothing there.
The only issue is do we want to try for December 31st
funding cycle? The next funding cycle is the end of April,
and I'm sure that if we got it -- 'the sooner you get an
application, probably, the better you are. But, the
decision wouldn't be made until sometime in --
MR. CHAPMAN: Probably, with all the -- all
of the applicants that come in in December, you're going to
have a period of where this would be being reviewed, and the
other -- so, you know, you probably would know by -- I'm
going to say by the end of February, in case you needed to
apply again in April. But, the key part of that is we
know -- we know what points we can get through the rules
that are in place right now, which probably gives us a
better opportunity of getting funded at this time. We don't
know how the rules might change in January, and -- I mean,
they might be for the better.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAP9S: Well, that's the
point; I'm glad you brought that up, because that deals with
99

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the sense of urgency, which had not been spoken to before,
as to why we need to try to accommodate the December 31st
timeframe.
MS. CUNNINGHAM: I think -- and I don't want
to speak for you, Steve, but, I mean, you might be willing
to go either way.
MR. CHAPMAN: Well, let me explain the reason
we're -- 'cause I know that the December 31 timeframe is a
difficult proposition for everybody. The -- there are two
reasons why we're pursuing it. Ong=_, we know the current
rules. Quite honestly, under the current rules, working off
the 1999 census, there are some areas in Kerr County and --
and Kerrville and anyplace around here, you just can't get
any points. So, that's -- from that standpoint, it's
detrimental. However, the one thing that we do know is
we've calculated how many points w~= can get, and we also
know that both of -- that the first two funding cycles on
the Texas Capital Fund during this -- this year did not
fully fund. So, all of those funds have fallen over to this
final cycle, so there's more money available in this cycle,
and we know the rules, so we think our chances of getting
funded are good.
For the April cycle, we don't know the rules. If they
change them to the point to where it's very attractive and
makes it easier for people to apply, to garner points, then
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
we've got more applications and more competition, but we
have a shot at both periods. If we miss this one, we just
keep going. Quite honestly, if we miss this one for any
reason, if we just can't get the thing done for Friday,
we'll continue the process. We'll just have to wait till
!January to find out what the new rules are going to be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me try this on
for size, Judge, see how it fits. That we approve, in
concept, the Chapman application to the Texas Capital Fund,
with a view toward attempting to do all the necessary items,
including public hearing, to facilitate a December 31
deadline.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There we go.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And we call a public hearing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's including a
public hearing.
JUDGE HENNEKE: December 22nd at 4 o'clock?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 4 o'clock?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Riqht. We have the insurance
at 1:30. Tommy's already told me that that's when the
insurance bid package -- the discussion of that needs to be.
So, he anticipates that it will take two hours, so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- 4 o'clock on Wednesday,
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the 22nd, will be the timeframe I would propose.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cool.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that a second?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I already seconded.
But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: "Cool" is clearly a
little different here at the county level.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams that we approve the application by the County on
behalf of the Chapman business -- Building Services in the
amount of two -- approximately $275,000 through the --
$250,000 through the Texas Capital Fund, and that the Court
schedule a public hearing, as required, on Wednesday,
December 22nd, at 4 o'clock p.m., contingent upon having all
the necessary documentation on file with the Kerr County
Clerk not later than 5 o'clock nn --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Friday.
MS. SOVIL: They have to have things to the
newspaper by 10 o'clock Friday.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we'll just have to put
the notice --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the Monday paper; 72
hours can be in the Monday paper.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAP9S: Sure.
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As long as we're in the
Monday paper, we'll have it 72 hours.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it's a Wednesday
meeting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wednesday? I was
thinking Thursday. 10 o'clock on Friday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can structure a
public notice.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we'll put the public
notice in, and if we don't get the documents, then we will
simply make the announcement that there will be no public
hearing.
	MS'. CUNNINGHAM:	Okay.
	JUDGE HENNEKE:	And -- because that will have
to be on the	agenda.	
	MS. CUNNINGHAM:	Okay.
	JUDGE HENNEKE:	So, it will be on the agenda.
Okay, that was the motion, sec	onded by Commissioner Griffin,
and "cooled"	by Commissioner B	aldwin. Any further
discussion?	If not, all in fa	vor, raise your right hand.
	(The motion was	carried by unanimous vote.)
	JUDGE HENNEKE:	All opposed, same sign.
	(No response.)	
	JUDGE HENNEKE:	Motion carries.
	MS. CUNNINGHAM:	Thank you very much.
103
,,'.~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Sherry. Thank
you, Mr. Chapman. We appreciate it.
MS. CUNNINGHAM: We'll get in touch with
Linda on this and make sure you have those things.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Item No. 16, which is present
certificates to the Kerrville Writer's Association's Fifth
Annual Student Short Story Contest. Anne Schneider, are you
here?
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. SCHNEIDER: Yes, I am.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tell us a little bit about
the program, and then if you'll introduce the winners.
MS. SCHNEIDER: 1'd love to. I'll let you
call them up with the certificates.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'1.1 call them up -- I'm
going to come down there; then they can come through and
receive their congratulations from the Commissioners.
MS. SCHNEIDER: I'd like to thank you, first,
Ifor inviting us to be here, continuing the tradition that
I~'we've now celebrated for five years in the Commissioners
meeting in December. Back at the beginning of the school
year, the Kerrville Writer's Association sent out contest
guidelines to the Kerr County schools. And, prior to the
October deadline, the really fortunate students received
class time and support, morally, at least, from their
104
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
teachers and their friends.
The Kerrville Writer's Association then judged the
entries, based solely on creative content. We felt like
that gave students that weren't particularly the -- the A
students or the B students, who knew how to spell and did
their grammar real well, but still had something to offer
with their creativity, we wanted to recognize that. And,
besides, we invite them, then, to an editing session with
our writers' group and, one-on-one, we sit with the students
and edit their short stories, because we're very fortunate
that both newspapers print all of the stories for us each
year.
In its short history, the Kerrville Writer's
Association has grown from barely 100 entries to over 150.
Equally as exciting is the growth in the number of sponsors.
And, we went from one sponsor for $100 that first year, to
$500, and I'd like to recognize briefly the sponsors this
year. The Mountain Sun, the Kerrville Daily Times, Norwest
Bank, Bank of the Hills, and James Avery. And, it's their
generosity that allows each of the two first-place students
to receive $100 gift certificates to the Main Book Shop.
The Kerrville Writer's Association also donates a copy of
the Market Guide for Young Writers to each of the top two
students.
Second-place winners are awarded $75, and additionally,
105
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
compliments of the Dove's Nest and Glenn McGinnis, each of
those winners receives two books. And, third-place winners
receive $50 gift certificates, and the two runners-up or
honorable mentions receive $20 certificates. So, we would
like to, again, thank you for publicly recognizing these
winners, and they are here today to receive their
certificates. Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. On behalf of the
Court, it's a distinct pleasure to be able to present these
certificates to the winners. We may need to enlist their
services in creating the resolutions for that item we just
took up; we may need some creative writing on behalf of the
County for that.
As I call your names, if you'll come forward, I'll
present you with your certificate, and then iL you'd proceed
back up behind the dais and shake hands with the
Commissioners, we'd like to honor you in that way. We'll
start off with the fifth and sixth grade division, and the
first-place winner in the fifth and sixth grade division is
Christa Gober.
(Applause.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Congratulations.
Second-place winner is Megan Nidever.
(Applause.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Third-place winner is Eric
106

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
(Hargrove.
(Applause.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: And the Honorable Mention is
(Matthew Jackson.
(Applause.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Then the seventh and eighth
grade division, the first-place winner is Alex Schroeder.
(Applause.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Second-place winner is Morgan
~Chesky.
(Applause.)
JUDGE HENNEKE
Thr:id-place winner is Eva
(Graham.
(Applause.)
JUDGE IIENNEKE
And Honorable Mention is
(Michael Lopez.
(Applause.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Again, lets have a big round
~of applause for all the winners.
(Applause.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Our thanks again to the
Kerrville Writer's Association for sponsoring the
competition and doing the judging. And, to all the
participants, everyone benefits from participating, and we
thank y'all for coming, and it's a pleasure to have honored
107

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
you today.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Thank you very much.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you all.
(Applause.)
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next we'll take up Item 2.9,
which is consider and discuss approval of the Kerr Emergency
911 Network FY 2000 budget. Mr. Sandlin, it's always a
pleasure to see your smiling face.
MR. SANDLIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIIV: That's a comment from
the Judge only.
(Laughter.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: In our packet we have the
budget, as well as an explanation as to some of the items
that I raised questions about. Does anyone have any
specific questions about the 911 Fiscal Year 2000 budget?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I had --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think -- well, qo
ahead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just had one specific
question. Just, I presume you do this "sundry" under
miscellaneous, just like a catch-all? What are sundry
items? We don't have that in our County budget.
MR. SANDLIN: That was something that was

108

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
introduced in our budget before I was here, and if there's
something unplanned or doesn't fit in one of the other
categories for accounting purposes, then we have the -- the
sundry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was the only comment
I had, other than, you know, salaries; I think there's
justification for, you know, why you want to increase those,
you know, some of the relatively high-percentage increases.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I just wanted to say
that I appreciate the -- the work that was done by both T.
and by Judge Henneke, because Judge Henneke asked very good
questions, and the answers were to the point and -- and
satisfied me that this is a good package.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else have any
questions or comments regarding the Kerr Emergency 911
Network FY 2000 budget?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In the general
comments about the operational expenditures, you make the
comment the G.I.S. technician's position has been filled,
and G.I.S. manager's position has been filled.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you fully staffed?
MR. SANDLIN: I'm fully staffed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Everything's fine and
you're blowing and going and doing everything you're
109
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
supposed to do?
MR. SANDLIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWII9: All right.
MR. SANDLIN: We became fully staffed this
summer. There was a -- a gap there in the earlier part of
Fiscal Year '99.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other question I had
goes to the -- have you looked at how your salary levels
equate to County or Appraisal District positions? I mean,
are they --
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you looked at the --
some of them are very difficult, because they're very. You
know, specialized, but other -- like, secretary/bookkeeper
type, just some of the --
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, and we're trying -- and we
also get -- annually, we get a packet of surveys for 911
districts and for -- certain appraisal districts participate
in it. It's an optional deal; it's not a law or anything,
so that we have an idea of -- at l~=_ast on a population base
or a service base, how we compare to other districts or
other -- as close as we can, similar job descriptions. And,
that's one thing we've been conscious about the last two
years, is trying to get our salary levels up, equatable to,
say, accounting of our same position in our same service

110
.-.
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
area and everything. We don't try to compare ourselves to
-- to Bexar County or Harris County or something like that,
where we have a totally different economic base.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know whether
the law requires to you do this or not, but it certainly
would be helpful to me to know what your sources are and
total amount of revenue and whether or not your budget is
revenue-neutral or whether you -- you know, whether you have
an excess of revenue over expenses or what. You don't show
that. You don't show expenses.
MR. SANDLIN: I usually do that, and I'm
sorry I didn't. I was in a time -- shortened timeframe. We
try to operate neutral, but usually we have a little bit
left -- what I'm talking about, $1,000, $2,000, if we watch
and -- you know, wherever we can. My biggest deal, I don'L
go out and buy $2 pencils; I go down and catch the 39-cent
Bics on sale when I can and buy them like that. I try to
catch copy paper on sale, and so we do manage to save a
little bit from time to time. We have not been in a deficit
spending mode. I don't know that we ever were, but since I
took over, we have not been in a deficit spending mode, and
have come up neutral every year, or maybe a -- a little bit
more to contribute to our capital fund.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not, you know,
alluding to the fact that you may have overspent your
111
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
revenues. I just think it's public information and --
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- the public is
entitled to know where your revenues come from and to what
extent.
MR. SANDLIN: And our revenues still come
from same source they always have. That's the local 911
service fee.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is that the only
source?
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, sir. We don't -- we don't
receive anything from that ad valorem tax base. When I
first came in, we did receive some grant source funding for
the new PSAP equipment, but that's been our only outside
source of funding since inception of the district.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
discussion? If not, I'd entertain a --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make a motion
that we approve the budget as submitted.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Court
approve the Kerr Emergency 911 Network FY 2000 budget as
presented. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor,
(raise your right hand.
~ u.
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
DODGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MR. SANDLIN: Can I make one brief comment?
JUDGE HENNEKE: You may make one brief
comment.
MR. SANDLIN: It's just more of an
announcement. We just, at 4 o'clock Sunday morning,
finished all of our Y2K and other necessary upgrades for all
the new telephone stuff, and I want to assure the public
'your local 911 system is Y2K-compliant and Y2K ready, as of
4 o'clock this Sunday morning.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Very good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sunday morning?
MR. SANDLIN: That's when we finished our
(testing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So we can now scratch
that from our worry list.
MR. SANDLIN: We can scratch that from our
(worry list.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIIJ: We're going to be up
anyway, so why not?
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, we will have people --
extra people manning the 911 center just in case. Thank
- _ ~~ `~
113
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
you, gentlemen.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Mr. 5andlin. At
this time, would the Court like to take up the issue of the
road districts, since Ms. Bailey's in the courtroom?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right, let's do Number
11, which is consider and discuss procedures and processes
',under current statute for the formation operation of road
districts with bonding authority. Commissioner Griffin, you
initiated this item.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. And I think
everybody has received a copy of the memo that we've gotten
from the County Attorney's office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just got it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Which is -- and I have
-- did have a chance to go through this, and I think it
answers all of the questions on what we have to do and what
can be done. I think I understand the process now. There
is one question that I still have, and it has to do -- I'm
sure it's -- it's buried in one -- the answer to this is --
is here, but it's in one of the references, one of the cites
where it talks about the election. I'm talking about for
the bonding authority, or for the issuance of bonds. Does--
does it say -- and maybe, Ilse, you can help me with this.
Does it say in one of these references that it will be on
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Uniform Election Day, or can we do it by -- can we do it
by certified letter? That's the only question I didn't find
in the memo that's a little bit in my mind.
MS. BAILEY: I don't know directly the answer
to that, but I can find that out specifically and report
back to the Court this afternoon, if -- sometime if you'd
like to table this item.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the only
question that I don't find answered in here that is still in
my mind. There may be others that the other Commissioners
have. But, I think everything else is pretty well outlined
about how we establish the district, and that we can ask for
some show of interest from the landowners in a particular
proposed district. We don't have to call it a petition. In
fact --
MS. BAILEY: Probably better not to.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- it would probably
be better not to call it a petition. It would be a letter
of intent or letter of interest, signed by as many of the
registered landowners in a proposed district that -- we can
require that before we take the first step, which is to
declare the road district.
MS. BAILEY: As Commissioner Griffin and I
discussed last week, it's not necessary that there be any
triggering limit of people, but we felt that in order for
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the County to have a uniform policy, you might want to adopt
an internal policy of, we will not act until we have a
certain percentage or certain number of indications, written
indications of interest from --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Here's what we want to
-- what here's what we want to avoid, if we can, is going
through the process of a public hearing, and a -- and the
Court considering declaring the district, when we don't have
any feel for what the feelings of the landowners in that
proposed district are. It's not required that we have a
petition, but before we go through that process -- in fact,
if one person, for example, came forward and says, "Gosh,
Commissioners, I think you ought to have A-B-C Subdivision
declared a road district," then we say, "Fine. Then, you
know, give us the list of signatures of registered owners
who are in favor it." If it -- if he couldn't get another
signature, then we probably would not pursue it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: As I read your -- the memo
from Mr. Motley, it appears that two-thirds of the owners of
the property have to vote in order to --
MS. BAILEY: Well, the --
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- :issue bonds; is that
correct?
MS. BAILEY:	Yes.	Yes	there's	a two-third
requirement for that. And	then	there'	s a --	a two-thirds
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sort of triggering incident for a petition for the road
district also. Isn't that right, Larry?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that's right.
MS. BAILEY: But, yes, there's a -- that
triggering number for the bond vote.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two-thirds vote of
property owners? Or two-thirds of those voting?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Two-thirds of those
voting. It's just like any -- I think it's -- but, wait a
minute, that's not -- I'm not sure --
MS. BAILEY: Well, Commissioners Courts may
issue bonds on the faith and credit of the applicable
subdivision if two-thirds of the voters voting in the
election approve the issuance of bonds --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you reading
from?
MS. BAILEY: These are not numbered pages,
but it's the third page, the beginning paragraph -- of this
paragraph.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see, it's --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Beginning of the last
paragraph on the page.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It seems to me if that's
the voting hurdle that has to be reached in order for the --
the political subdivision to issue bonds, that we ought to
~- ~_ ~_
117
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
have that level of interest from people in that area before
we form a road district. I think it would be uncomfortable
if the Court were to create a road district and then have
the bonds defeated by voters in that road district, so we
were left with a road district and no funding mechanism.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Except that they,
being a road district, can also apply for grant funds from
the State, can they not? I think they can.
MS. BAILEY: I think that's correct, but also
the lower triggering number that -- that we were discussing,
as far as -- as even calling a public hearing has to do with
level of interest to discuss it. And then, once you get to
that point, you -- you could internally determine how
many -- some number less than that, but if you get that
two-thirds interest after you've held the public hearing and
so forth, then I think that you're-- you're mandated to go
forward with the election, at which point in time, then, the
two-thirds decision has to do with whether or not they can
issue bonds. So, there are two or three different levels of
triggers for different types of events, the different
aspects.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bonds are issued in
the name of the road district?
MS. BAILEY: I think that's correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
118
r-1
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 GRIFFIN: But the County
actually -- I think in any bond issue like that, it's -- the
full faith and credit of the County is behind it?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was aoina to be
my next question.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's what I'm trying
to --
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's based on the property
value of the district, and the County, per se, has no
liability for the repayment of the bonds.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They cannot be issued
for more than one-fourth of the total properties' valuation.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
MS. BAILEY: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there another -- I
just got this before the meeting, so I haven't read it all
the way through. Is there another way to fund them, other
than issuinq bonds?
MS. BAILEY: Well, there's the taxing
districts that we had discussed, and it was in relation to
your subdivision. I can't remember which one.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There are ways that
road districts can -- can vote to be assessed --
MS. BAILEY: Taxing entity.
119
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 GRIFFIN: -- or to -- or to be
taxed. But, there are different limits on that. It's not
the one-quarter of the valuation. It's --
MS. BAILEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Then you get into some
of the special road district tax issues, like we've talked
about before. That 15 cents per hundred valuation is -- is
the max you can do, but you can do that as well.
MS. BAILEY: Sometimes that's not going to be
a sufficient amount to complete the roads that need to be
completed in the subdivision, if you've got low property
ivalues and a substantial amount of road work that needs to
be done.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's how we got
into this, because we couldn't generate enough monies out of
the special road tax, which you also have to form a district
for.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The Court --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You couldn't generate
enough, so we said, "Okay, can they issue bonds?" And the
answer is yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The Court currently has a
policy that any road tax has to be not more than 15 years.
That's the Court's policy. It's not a State law.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: If you -- if you take a lot
of these districts and try to tax them at the 15-cent
'maximum, you're going to go out 32, 35 years before you get
paid, which is --
MS. BAILEY: Exactly.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- has been unacceptable in
previous courts. That's why you go to a bonding mechanism.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There is an aspect of
it, too, and that is that in the 15 cents per hundred
road -- special road district tax, that is a -- that's a
negative cash flow for the County. In other words, the
County has to put up the money, do whatever's going to be
done, and then that tax pays it back, over time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The bonding issue, you
get the money up front, and then they pay off the bonds plus
the interest, the principal and the interest, and the cost
of issuing the bonds can be included in that.
MS. BAILEY: It's a much more attractive
funding --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Much more attractive
from the County's standpoint to have it done as a bond issue
rather than as a special road tax.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We have raised the issue with
the County's financial adviser. He informs us that they can
121

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sell bonds in the $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 range. It would
be necessary to fund the roads in the size of the road
districts we're talking about. So, it is a feasible funding
mechanism.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's feasible. Let
me ask another question in that regard. Could we -- can we
combine two or more potential road districts at the same
time so as to reduce the bonding costs?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think the -- I think
the answer to that is -- is that it's possible, but that it
would not be the thing to do, in my view. And, here's why.
If we cross boundaries and we're having a vote on issuing of
bonds, you know, we're going to have -- I think the issue is
not as clear-cut to the voters. The voters will say, "Why
am I going to have my taxes raised for property in another
district?"
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. No, I'm just
talking about a -- a road district here votes yes --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- within these
boundaries. Another one votes yes within its boundaries.
At that point, then they each know what the limit of their
borrowing would be and what the potential payback would be
in terms of assessment for bond. Can we combine the two at
that point in time for underwriting and issuance cost to
122

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
reduce necessary --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, probably.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my question.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You could get some economies
if you had the same law firm, same underwriters, did more
than one issue at the same time, but they are separate and
distinct issues.
MS. BAILEY: We couldn't put them together as
one road district, but, yeah, I think could you do --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: One could go bust and
the other one still viable and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMM15S1ONER GRIFFIN: -- all that, so --
MS. BAILEY: You'd also have the question
I about --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If you could combine
them for just the business aspect of it, you probably could
I save a --
MS. BAILEY: I don't think there's a problem
with that. I don't anticipate that there would be a problem
with that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, yeah. The
point is, if it costs -- for example, if it costs $9,000 or
$10,000 underwriting costs for Shadow Ridge, which is
about -- equals about 20 percent of the amount of the cost
123
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
to do the project, and it was going to cost another $9,000
or $10,000 to do Ingram --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Ingram Lake.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We could do the whole
thing for one, put them both together, and there's a
substantial savings. Both groups of people benefit.
MS. BAILEY: I think, of course, it will
depend on the people who are giving us the assistance in
issuing the bonds, too. It probably has to do with their
own policies.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's permissible -- possible.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just allocate the
costs equally to -- or in a --
MS. BAILEY: Proportionally.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Larry, are you working
on a handbook of how to do road districts for us?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well --
MS. BAILEY: He's got it all memorized.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think it's pretty
straightforward. This summarizes it rather well. It says
what you have to do and gives you the cites on where the law
is. It says what we're doing. And I would feel
comfortable -- I think what we need to do now is probably --
particularly Commissioner Williams and myself, who have
subdivisions that want to do this right now, is we probably
124
l
1
2
3
4
5
need to come up with a way to approach this. Do we go in
and take a Letter of Interest and that sort of thing, and
then try to bring that back for the next meeting?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't you and I
get together and do that?
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, I would like to suggest
you guys come back before us and basically have a policy for
the Court, and the level of interest that is needed at the
various steps in order to -- before we do the road district.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This gives us the
information, but, I mean, I think you need to have -- all
the funding options need to be in one policy so we know --
you know, this tells you how do it, who does it. But, if
they want to go with a -- the taxing way, or if we want Lo
do it that way, how that's done, just to have it all in one
document, so that we can have something to hand out to
people that want to do it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we pretty well
know -- we've done some -- the County has done some of the
15 cent per hundred, 15 to pay back special road district
taxes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We've got some
experience there. What we haven't got is the bonding issue.
125
I ~^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
And the question really is, how do we form the district?
And I think we've got that answer now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And we can come back
with some policies of how much -- what percentage of
interest do we want to see before the Court would pursue it.
And, that's the kind of things we need to discuss when we
come back, and we could include this in that special road
tax as well, and grants, 'cause I think road districts can
go for State grant money.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Separate political entity.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, probably should be
a division of the -- I guess if the homeowners want to
contribute "X" dollars, as well, a portion of it --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That much could be
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I done .
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But this way, it's all
there.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that would actually
come into play, talking about a road tax, because if we
decide to keep the 15-year maximum, which is really kind of
a fiscal responsibility, we would be beyond that. We
really -- there's a lot of money in a road tax. Do we
require that the owners come up with the balance between
what we get on a 15-year payback and the actual cost of
126
l .-~'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
repairing the roads? Those things are the -- do we leave
that to you two to bring back?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one other
question. I haven't had a chance to digest this, either,
Ilse, but is there administrative authority created between
road districts? Does that fall back to Commissioners
(Courts?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. BAILEY: I'm not sure. I might -- if my
understanding was --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Because I had the same
question and couldn't find anything, and we chatted about
it. I don't think there's any administrative function for
the road district, per se. I think they work through the --
if any member of -- for example, do they have a board?
Can't find anything where it says that. I think they do
operate through the -- the Clerk and the Treasurer,
depending on what the -- you know, depending on what the
legal issues are that they have to satisfy for forming the
district and that sort of thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, take the issue
of going out for grants for some special purpose within the
road district.
MS. BAILEY: Who will do that and how would
they be compensated and so forth?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
127
~ ~~
.--.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
14
MS. BAILEY: If you would like, since you're
going to bring this back at some point to the Commissioners
Court anyway, I can look into the answers of the two
questions that you've posed, and then -- and then send that
to the entire Court --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
MS. BAILEY: -- in a memo form, and then you
can incorporate that in -- if that's -- that way you don't
have to table this.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We need this pretty
quick, because we'd like to get that in in time to consider
when the next -- the uniform election date is the only time
that we can do that. When is the next uniform election
date?
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	March	14.
COMMISSIONER	GRIFFIN:	Wonder	why you know
I that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was reading
(something this morning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MS. BAILEY: We'll get it back to you right
away.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. So, we just
need answers.
MS. BAILEY: Are there any other specific
128
f .^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
questions that you'd like for me to address?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I may have after I
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
digest this.
MS. BAILEY:	All	right. Just let	David or	me
know and we'll include that	as	something that we	get back	to
I You on.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? Thank you.
MS. BAILEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thanks.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: We've had a request to take
up 2.19, which is approve the Child Care Initiative
Agreement, before we break for lunch. lt's fairly
straightforward. This has been negotiated at great effort
by our local vendors, Brenda Chapman, Sharon Wade, and
Commissioner Williams, representing the Court on the Alamo
Workforce Develnpment Board, and myself through AACOG.
Brenda, do you have anything to say about this initiative
(contract?
MS. CHAPMAN: No, sir, I think we've got it
Ii, all. We're happy with the way it turned out. We've got it
to the point where it will work for us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move we approve the
local initiative agreement between Kerr County, Alamo
Workforce Development Board, and Texas Workforce Commission,
129
~ ~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
and authorize County Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner
Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve
the 2000 Child Care Local Initiative Agreement between Kerr
County, Alamo Workforce Development Board, and Texas
Workforce Commission, 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.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Let's break
for lunch and come back at 1:30.
(Recess taken from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. It's 1:30 in the afternoon
on Monday, December 13th. This regular session of Kerr
County Commissioners Court will be in session. Before we
take up the next agenda item, I would announce that,
according to the Texas Forest Service Index, which is what
the Court has elected to use for purposes of determining
whether or not a burn ban is required, Kerr County is still
in the danger/required burn ban category. The index, as of
today, is 616, which is in the orange, which is in the range
130
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
that a burn ban is recommended. Accordingly, under the
procedures the Court has adopted, we are not in a position
to lift the burn ban at this time, based on the Texas Forest
Service determination of conditions in Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, in this area --
and I -- at this point, I don't have a concern, but as soon
as -- right at the first of the year, from the January
through March timeframe, which is when coastal fields need
to be burned for our coastal purposes, and a lot of
grasslands -- what's left of it, it's not very much -- are
burned for agricultural purposes, as well. I visited with
Parks and Wildlife. They're very concerned with this burn
ban, the way we're doing it. I've not visited with the
Forest Service, but how do we go about -- or how do I go
about setting up a -- a way to assist ag -- and I would
presume the Forest Service is one of the biggest proponents
of controlled burns throughout the state, so how do we do
that if we stay in this relatively dry framework for, you
know, the next couple months?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think the law
specifically excludes controlled agricultural burns. Let me
go grab the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I hope so. If it did,
that would be great, but I don't recall that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I believe there is an exemption
131
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
for agricultural?
MS. LAVENDER: Yeah, agricultural and fire
department training, and there's another one; there's three
in there. But, agricultural is in there.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What we might want to do if --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is define --
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- if that's true, is define
agricultural burning and set up a procedure whereby someone
who has an agricultural burn -- we're not talking about some
guy's 2 1/2-acre vacation spot. Somewhere where the
property is used for ag.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there needs to
be -- a burn plan should be filed, and notify the -- you
know, the various entities, but it's -- certainly Charlie
Schreiner.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDCE HENNEKE: You have a point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I'm already getting
questions regarding coastal fields; along the river there's
a lot. But, they -- you know, they need to be done
properly, as well, but --
JUDGE HENNEKE: We1.1, I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's something just to --
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's something we need to look
into, and I agree with Commissioner Griffin and Ms. Lavender
132
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
that there is an exemption under the statute for
agricultural burning. We just need to look at that, and --
MS. SOVIL: But it's very specific.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You have --
MS. SOVIL: It has sugar -- it's mostly sugar
(cane and stuff.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We11 --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If it says "and
stuff," we're okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'11 have to look into that in
order -- so we can help people out. Another alternative is
to take us out of the Forest Service. That puts us back
into subjective, and, you know, we're in every two months --
every two weeks or 90 days --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think they need to
be a part of the -- of the picture as to what we do. Maybe
they can say, "No, I don't think we should do any kind of
burning." But --
MS. SOVIL: The law's on the back.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's real -- I think
it's very specific.
MS. SOVIL: It's the last page.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This section does not
apply to outdoor burning activities related to public health
133

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and safety that are authorized by the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission for: Number one, firefighter
training; number two, public utility/natural gas pipeline or
,mining operations; and, three, harvesting of agricultural
crops.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That has to do more
with burning sugar cane.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is more -- I mean,
it's really stretching to call burning the coastal fields
for harvesting purposes. I mean, it's for the next year's
harvest. It helps, but it doesn't --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see it clearly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: lt's just -- like I said,
it's just --
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's an issue we need to look
into, and we'll try to address that and come back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll be glad to try and
work with the Parks and Wildlife and Forest Service to try
to get that -- you know, see what they think. They're the
ones that --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's a good idea.
The next item on the regular agenda is 2.10, consider and
discuss voting for candidate to be seated as a director on
the Kerr Central Appraisal District Board. We have
nominated Paula Rector, the Tax Assessor/Collector, to be a
134
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
voting member of the Kerr Central Appraisal District Board.
We have 932 votes that we can cast in favor of whomever we
please for our five nominations for the five vacancies.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that we
cast all 932 votes for Paula Rector.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Letz,
seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Commissioners
iCourt cast all 932 votes for Paula Rector as a director of
Ithe Kerr Central Appraisal District. Any discussion? If
not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. The next
item is Item No. 12, which is consider and discuss the
policy for lowering of flags at all County facilities to
half-mast. This actually is an issue that's been brought to
us by Commissioner Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And -- well, after the
A & M bonfire accident, and I discussed this with the Judge,
come to find out we do not have an established policy for
when the flags are to be flown at half-mast on the
courthouse flagpoles -- or County flagpoles; I assume that
would apply to all of our facilities. And, it would
135
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
probably be a good idea to have one.
Now, this letter which is in your packets there came
out from Lieutenant Governor Perry. This was done a little
different, because Governor Bush was out of state. It was
not done by Executive Order. It came out -- normally, I
understand that it's done by Executive Order at the state
level. And, I think we should probably have a policy that
when State flags are ordered by the Governor or Lieutenant
Governor to be lowered to half-staff, that we would go along
with that, unless the Court decides to do something
different.
In other words, turn -- turn it around. That normally,
because most of the time those statewide orders go out on
something that involves the State of Texas, whether or not
it's the passing of a -- of a legislator, like Bob
Bullock -- I think the State flags were lowered at that
point to half-mast. And I don't see any reason not to go
along with that, unless there's some reason that this Court
says we don't want to do that. So -- and, again, I am open
to ideas. I just think we need a policy, because I got a
number of phone calls -- I think the Judge did, too -- from
people wondering why we didn't lower the flags after the--
after the bonfire accident at A & M.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we did, didn't
we?
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, did not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there -- there
are different jurisdictions governing the lowering of flags.
Certainly, the State -- Governor's Office or the State
Legislature can designate times -- or by Executive Order,
times to do so, but, by the same token, even --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We don't have to go
along with it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. But, by the same
token, you can get them out of Congress, as well. The
American flag, Congress may set resolutions at certain times
or certain events. That's even by Executive Order. And
we've got one coming up tomorrow, so I'm glad that you
raised the issue. The Judge and I talked about this, but it
has to do with the American flag, not necessarily the Texas
flag. And, it's a George Washington thing, 200th
anniversary of George Washington's death, right?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's tomorrow. And,
there's a Congressional Resolution which came in to us with
a request for them to have a little ceremony at the
(flagpole. Congress resolved to lower the flags.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What would you think
of a -- of a policy that says either the national or
state -- obviously, we can do it any time we want to on our
own.
137
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 WILLIAMS: Locally, sure.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Locally. But, I think
we can perhaps have a policy where we go along with national
and state orders, unless -- and I can't perceive why we ever
would, but unless for some reason, the Court said we're not
going to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I mean, I think
that that's logical.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That way, when it
comes up, then we won't have to do anything about it except
put the flags at half-staff, and at the appropriate time
we'll put them back up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How do we know'? How
are we alerted to --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The Executive Orders
from the Governor's Office we normally get, don't we? Or
don't we?
MS. SOVIL: Sometimes they call us, sometimes
they don't. We don't always get them, no.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Like in this case,
before we got the letter, it was in the newspaper that the
Governor -- that the Lieutenant Governor had -- had ordered
MS. SOVIL: We never got the letter. We had
to call and ask for it.
138
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 GRIFFIN: We had to call and ask
for it; we didn't get it. So, it's not going to be a
perfect system. I'm just saying that when we are notified
is -- is the point where the policy I'm talking about would
kick in. It's just if we are notified at the national or
the state level that flags are being lowered on the basis of
the order of the President or the Congress -- Congressional
Resolution, or the Governor or the Lieutenant Governor, by
Executive Order or letter. Once we are aware of it, that we
would follow that guidance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to put a
period after that, because if you start getting into
unless-es, then you get into all sorts of things; you start
unraveling it based on personal bias.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm. Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Subjective bias.
COMMISSIONER LET7,: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I put that in the form
of a motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the flags on Kerr
County facility flagpoles be lowered to half staff at any
time as there is a directive from the Office of the Governor
of the State of Texas or the Legislature, or from the Office
139
.-.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-. 2 S
of the President of the United States or the Congress that
such flags be flown at half-staff. Any further discussion?
If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay, the
next item is Item 2.13, which is consider and discuss the
approval of the form for the volunteer fire department
contracts and authorize the County Judge to sign same. What
we have before us is actually the current volunteer fire
department contract as an example of what the County
Attorney has proposed we use for all of the volunteer fire
department contracts.
One issue which we need to discuss is on Page 3,
Provision No. 18, which essentially requires that the
volunteer fire department keep insurance on behalf of not
only the volunteer fire department, but the County, for
liability purposes. I don't know to what extent our
volunteer fire departments already do this. This provision
was inserted by Mr. Motley based on some case law he
'reviewed, which is kind of explained in the bold text above
the provision. Does anyone know whether the volunteer fire
departments currently carry such insurance or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that,
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Judge, but I do know that a long tame ago, the County
basically just kind of picked up the tab for tires and hoses
and, you know, the -- billed the County. The County picked
up those tabs, and yet in later years, and I can't remember
when, is when we started the present-day budgeting process.
And, what that -- what that was is we just kind of send them
money out there, and it's just kind of an understood thing
that, "Hey, here's your bucks; take care of your insurance."
It's always just kind of been a gentlemen's understanding.
And, Thea, do you know how long that's been going on?
MS. SOVIL: Those contracts have been going
lout since '92.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1992.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would seem, for
their own protection, they'd have insurance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. But, to answer
your question, I don't know how much and what insurance they
carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm pretty sure they have
insurance. I don't know if they carry it $1 million per
occurrence; I don't know if that's what's their limits are,
and I wouldn't want to -- I mean, even if I know what their
limits are, I think they should be required to that limit.
I don't think it's appropriate for us to require additional
insurance, really.
141

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 GRIFFIN: What about, since this
is for a form, the amount could be a blank? I think we
should have in there that they will carry insurance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. I agree.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Leave the -- and make
the amount a blank, and that can either be negotiated or
rationalized or whatever when they come forward with a --
with a new contract.
DODGE HENNEKE: I disagree with that, because
you're going to -- how many do we have, 14? Twelve, 14
contracts. Do you really want to sit down and negotiate 14
different insurance amounts? I mean, if it's -- I think the
amount may be high, myself. I mean, I think half a million
dollars is probably more -- perhaps more appropriate, given
what we're talking about. But, I think if you leave it
blank, then you open yourself up -- you know, if -- I'm
going to take the position if we leave it blank, I'm going
to bring everyone back to the Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I don't think
it ought to be blank, either. But $1 million seems like, to
me, kind of strong. I mean, they're having a -- having a
hard time buying a tank of gas out there.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. When I say
leave it blank, I mean as far as the contract form goes. I
mean, we can determine what that amount ought to be from
142
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
year to year, but I don't think that should stop us from
approving the form of the contract.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I agree.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's what I'm
saying, not that -- yeah, and we can determine what amount
of insurance we want them all to h~sve.
MS. SOVIL: Well, that arose from the fact
that -- the scenario was that a volunteer fire department
was racing to a fire; they ran over a carload of kids and
killed four of them. Those parents turned around and sued
the County. And, because they represented the County, then
the County was held liable. That's why the insurance --
COMM15S1ONER W1LLlAMS: 'That's exactly the
point I was going to bring out. If you don't establish
something like a million, then deep pockets is behind them
and we supply them the money, so then we have an ultimate --
a final potential liability for exposure. And, that's
exactly the point that she's bringing up. I don't know
where that happened, where the reference is, the possibility
of going after the County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How does -- just because
we provide some funding, we get liability?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, there's a question
about -- about that. It's not -- it's not altogether that
clear. But, there is at least the potential. Once you get
143
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
-- if you get four little kids run over by a volunteer fire
department and get them in front of a jury, then the chances
of them finding that somebody's li;sble are pretty good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my -- my question
goes a lot further. I mean, whatever we require here, we
need to require of every other contract we have, and we
don't require it for -- for this level in --
DODGE HENNEKE: We're working on those, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because, I mean --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I will tell you that most of
the County-sponsored contracts already had an insurance
provision in them. They weren't uniformly at $1 million,
but some of them don't carry the same degree of risk. 1
mean, we don't -- you know, say, Dietert Claim. They're not
racing down the highway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they could still run
a stoplight and kill the same four little kids.
JUDGE HENNEKE: True. But, I'm saying that
the other contracts already have the concept of insurance in
them. The level's different, and that's something we will
probably address when we have that form of contract ready to
bring to the -- to the Commissioners Court. These
volunteer fire departments didn't have any insurance
requirement in them, and Mr. Motley felt that it was
something that he was not comfortable in not putting in
144

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
there, so he sent it to us to decide about.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Now, $1 million is not a lot
to cover if you've got four little kids run over by a
volunteer fire department, but it is a lot to carry if
you're talking about the same volunteer fire department
truck running over someone's garbage can.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, this deals with
a million per individual and per occurrence, so, you know,
if -- if four were killed -- wiped out, you'd have four
separate occurrences.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is there any -- do we
have any idea of what this kind of insurance costs?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I would think it would noL be
too significant.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't know what
they carry today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we don't.
M5. SOVIL: Some of them may already carry
that, because I know Mountain Home always carries a lot of
insurance, 'cause that's what they use their money for, is
to pay their insurance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what it's for.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They may all have it;
145
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I don't know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWICd: I just want to know,
these four little kids, are they brothers and sisters?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Two of them are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIPd: How far can we go with
this thing?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Two of them are. One brother,
one sister, and one cousin and a stray.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Could we, perhaps,
handle this by -- would you entertain a motion that we
approve the form of the contract, and for the County Judge,
based on information that we get in, to insert a reasonable
amount of insurance to be covered in that paragraph?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I would prefer not to do that,
'cause, I mean, you know --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because this is liability
,for the County. We need to all make that decision in here,
Inot just one of us.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, okay. What I'm
thinking is we could maybe run a survey of what the
departments are carrying now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we're running
I into --
JUDGE HENNEKE: When I sent these contracts
around to everybody about three weeks ago, I was hoping that
146
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
would be done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're going to have
to, in fact, do that. We're going to have to tell them,
when they're getting the contracts in, that this is
something new.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What we might do is the flip
side. Let's go ahead and approve it with an amount -- I'm
saying a minimum of half a million, maybe the million David
is suggesting, so that way we can go ahead and get them
rolling. The ones that object, then we can see if -- what
the deal is, but I do think we're going to have to treat all
of these people equally.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If someone comes in and -- and
says, "There's no way we can afford a million; best we can
do is half a million," and we buy that, then what we ought
to do is retroactively go back to everyone else and say,
"Okay, you can escape with half a million," because the
liability is the same for all of them. Doesn't make any
difference how much territory they're covering, how many
engines they've got. It's the same for all of them, so they
need to be uniform.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I'll bet we
can get a handle on the cost just by a couple phone calls
real quick.
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I had is on
-- switch away from insurance just to Item 10, and which is
a provision similar, not the same ;ss -- basically, it's the
Use of Funds. Is that the same language we had previously?
"No monies paid to the department shall be expended for any
purpose other than the provision of fire protection services
and equipment," and for the residents of the county.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it is. My memory tells
me that that's basically identical to what was there before.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's just because I
Iknow probably Comfort is the biggest of the fire --
volunteer fire departments. They have their office out of
Kerr County; they're in Kendall County, but they provide
fire protection for a large portion of Kerr County. And,
you know, they're certainly -- they expend funds
substantially in Kerr County.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think all the money we give
them is expended in Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just want to make --
it's always felt by them and by us that that language was
sufficient as to, when we changed it, we didn't change that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's the same, Jonat
MS. SOVIL: It's identical.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
148
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 GRIFFICd: I think if we're going
to have an amount in there, it ought to be a million, and I
would so move that we accept the form with the provision as
written.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Griffin,
seconded by Commissioner Williams, that we approve the form
of the volunteer fire department contract; Provision 18 in
there at a required level of $1 million. Any further
discussion?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I was going to say if
we get a little squeal afterwards, we can go back and
revisit this before the next cycle of renewals coming up.
But, nobody's going to sue you for less than a million
.bucks; they're going to sue you for several million, as it
leis these days. So, if we're going to have a minimum
coverage, it probably ought to be $1 million per occurrence.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAP9S: Right.
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: The motion carries. Okay, we
did 14. 15, consider and discuss appointment of County
149
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
representative for the EMS Advisory Board. Commissioner
Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. This is
a -- this is something that should have been done several
months ago. The City has already taken care of their side
of it, and it was an oversight on their part. When they --
when they make these appointments, they always just send
them straight over to us for us to approve on this end, and
it was an oversight on their part, so we need to do that
today. And, as y'all know, Mr. Murray is the -- the new
Administrator at the Sid Peterson Hospital. Pretty neat
guy, and he and I serve on this committee together, these
doctor-type folks, and pretty interesting group. So, at
this time, I would like to move that we appoint Pat Murray
as the County's appointment to the EMS Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Commissioners Court
appoint Pat Murray as the Kerr County representative for the
EMS Advisory Board. Any further discussion? If not, all
in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
DODGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. We did 16,
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we did 17. 18 is consider and discuss approval of the
Interlocal Cooperative Agreement for County Jail Functions
with Guadalupe County. This is the -- the contract that
will ratify and cover the new prisoners for our County Jail,
which Sheriff Hicks informed us of at the last meeting. I
will tell you that the County Attorney, David Motley, is
working on a form of contract for County Jail Services.
He's not ready with that. We need to move on this contract
so that we can cover the County and Sheriff Hicks in
accepting the prisoners that he's already accepted.
Mr. Motley has signed off on this contract that's presented
to us today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is the same contract
we have with the other -- that we've used? Or did they
modify it, or do you --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't know. I don't think
this is the same contract we've used with the other counties
before.
MS. SOVIL: This one's modified.
JUDGE HENNEKE: This one was modified by the
Guadalupe County --
MS. SOVIL: No, Motley.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Oh, the County Attorney did
this and sent it out to Guadalupe County.
MS. SOVIL: No, they told the jail how -- or
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Sheriff's Office how to modify it, and the Sheriff's
Office modified it and then they sent it on.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyway, it's got the blessing
of the County Attorney, so --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve the
Interlocal Cooperative Agreement between Guadalupe County
and Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Moved by Commissioner Baldwin,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve the
Interlocal Cooperative Agreement for County Jail Functions
between Kerr County and Guadalupe County. Any further
discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I have is
that whoever deals with Motley -- or I can call him -- to
me, should be a slight conflict between Section -- or
Article II and Article XIV.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two and fourteen?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Regarding the
reimbursement for medical expenditures. Article XIV says
Guadalupe County will reimburse all of it, and Article II
says Kerr County will provide reasonable, necessary. To me,
I just want to make sure they're -- I'm not sure they're in
total agreement, the way I read them, but --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we'll convey that comment)

ORDER N0. 26134
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
On this the 13th day of December 1999, came to be considered
by the Court the various claims and accounts against Kerr
County and the various Commissioner^s' precincts, which said
Claims and Recounts are i0-Gener^al Fund for- $151,995.41;
it-Jury Fund for^ $234.03; 13-road 8 Bridge Add'1 Registration
Fee Fund for $15,408.85; 14-Fire Protection Fund for
$6,357.00; 15-Road & Fridge Fund for• $134,706.53; '3-Juvenile
State Rid Fund for $46.00; 24-Traffic Safety Fund for $905.18;
27-Juvenile Intensive Program-State Rid Hand fnr- $2,134.92;
29-Courthouse Security Fund for $1,643. 3i; 31-F'arks Fund for
$9,059.01; 50-Indigent Health Care Fund for• $31,243.04;
^ 70-Permanent Impr^ovement Fund for• $10,221.30; 81-District
Rdministration Fund for $245.13; 83-State Funded-216th
District Attorney Fund for $1,237.23; 86-State Funded-216th
District Probation Fund for- $3,758.56; and 87-State
Funded-Community Corrections Fund for^ $6,669.41.
(TOTAL ALL FUNDS-$375,864.91)
Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by
Commissioner- Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-0, payment of said Claims and Accounts as
recommended by the County Ruditor.
ORDER N0. ~E135
BUDGET RMENDMENT
TRAFFIC SRFETY FUND
On this the 13th day of December 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, transferring
~75.Q0 from Line No. 54-58.x,-10~ Instri_ictor• Salary to Line Item
No. ~4-585-330 Operating S~_ipplies.

ORDER N0. 2E136
BUDGET AMENDMENT
RG BRRN FACILITIES
Dn this the i3th day of December^ 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-Q1, cr^eating NEW LINE
ITEM NO. 10-E6E-~09 POSTAGE and transferring BiN~.Q~~ fr^om
Line Item No. 10-EEE-001 Travel to Line Item No. 10-6EE-3G9
Postage.
ORDER N0. X6137
BUDGET RNENDMENT
COUNTY TRERSURER
On this the 13th day of December^ 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Cammissioner^ Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, transfer^r^ing 8~E7.13
from Line Item No. 10-497-31@ Office Supplies to Line Item No.
10-497-57m Capital Outlay.
,--
ORDER N0. 2E138
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY TREASURER
On this the 13th day of December 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, transferring
51@@.@@ fr-om Line Item No. 1@-497-42@ Telephone,
51@@.@@ form Line Item No. 1@-497-499 Miscellaneous, and
588.@@ from Line Item No. 1@-497-3@9 postage
TOTALING 5288.@@ to Line Item No. 1@-497-43@ Notices.
ORDER N0. ~E139
LATE RILL
LINTON TOMLIN
(198TH DISTRICT COURT/5-99-1)
STRTEMENT OF FRCTS
On this the 13th day of December 1999, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, paying Invoice No.
991c@9/Statement of Facts.
,--
ORDER NO. 26140
AGpROVE TO ACCEGT MINUTES
AND WRIVE RERDING
On this the lath day of December^ 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin,
the Co~_~rt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, accepted
and waived reading of the following min~_ites; Kerr County
Commissioners' Co~_irt Reg~_ilar• Meeting, November B, 1999 - 9:00
a.m and Kerr County Commissioner^s' Court Special Session
Meeting, November 22, 1999 - 9:00 a. m.
ORDER NO. 2E141
APPROVE AND RCCEPT MONTHLY REPORTS
On this the 13th day of December 1999, came to be consider^ed
by the Court the vario~_is monthly repot^ts of Kerr Co~_inty and
precinct Officials for Ker^r^ Co~_inty. Upon motion made by
Commissioner Gr^iffin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the Co~_trt
unanimously by a vote of 4-@-@, accepted the fallowing r^e ports
and directed that they be filed with the County Clerk for
future audit:
J~_ist ice of the F'eace #4 - Wi 11 iam E. Ragsdal e
Fines, j~_idgements, and j~_ir^y fees for
November- 1999
Justice of the F'eace #i - Vance R. Elliott
Fines, judgements, and .ji_ir^y fees for^
November 1999
J~_~stice of the Peace #E - Dawn Wright
Fines, ,j~_~dgements, and jury fees for
November 1999
Sheriff - James R. Hicks
Civil Report for
November- 1999
Justice of the Peace #3 - Robert L. Tench
Fines, j~_idgements, and j~_iry fees for
November 1999
County Cler^k - Jannett Pieper
Trust F~.ind Report
Month ending November 3@, 1999
County Cler^k - Jannett Pieper
Trust Fund Monthly Report
All monies and fees collected or r^eceived
month ending 3@ November 1999
County Cler^k - Jannett Pieper
General Fund Repot^t
November ?,@, 1999
Co~_inty Clerk - Jannett Pieper
Fines, judgements, .jury fees for
November 1999
Sheriff's Department - James R. Hicks
Monthly Report for•
October 199'3
Development Coor•dinator• - La~_irinda Poyd
4-H and Youth Retivity Report
November 1999
County Extension Agent - Janie Sq~.iier•
Extension Retivity Report
November 1999
Co~.~nty Extension Agent - Eddie Holland
Extension Retivity Report
November 1999
Road & Bridge Monthly Report
November- 1999

ORDER N0. ~614c
COURTHOUSE RENOVATION
CHANGE ORDER #~
On this the i3th day of December 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, Change Order No. ~,
Kerr County Courthouse and Annex Renovations - F~hase 3.
ORDER ND. 26143
AF'PRDVE PRELIMINRRY FLAT
SHDNTD ESTATES (PHASE I>
Dn this the 13th day of December 1999, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner- Let z, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the
Preliminary Flat of Shonto Estates.
.-
ORDER N0. 26144
PUBLIC HERRING
OPEN BIDS - 1/2 TON PICK-UP TRUCK
RNIMAL CONTROL DEGRRTMEN"f
On this the 13th day of December- 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Gr-iffin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the
Coy"irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, accepting
bids for eval~.~ation by the Rnimal Control Depar-tment.

ORDER NO. 6145
RE'P'ROVE FINRL F'LRT
DOVE VRLLEY SUBDIVISION
On this the lath day of December^ 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, Final Flat of
Dove Valley Si_ibdivison.

ORDER ND. 6146
RID SELECTIDN - i/2 TON F'ICK-UF' TRUCK
ANIMRL CONTROL DEF'RRTMENT
Dn this the 13th day of December 1999, i_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Lets, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, accepted low bid of
816,Q34,3N from Crenwelge Motor^s, 3@1 Main Street, Ker^r^ville,
Texas 78228 for Rnimal Control Department 1/c ton pick-~_tp
truck.

ORDER N0. 2E1~F7
RF'PROVE F'RELIMINRRY F'LRT
CEDRR STONE SUBDIVISION
On this the 13th day of December 1999, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner^ Williams, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the F'r-eliminary
Flat of Cedar^ Stone Subdivision.
/`
ORDER ND. 26148
RF'PROVE THE EXIT FROM C~URTH~USE CIRCLE
TO ERRL GARRETT STREET
On this the lath day of December 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Let z, seconded by Commissioner Paldwin, the Co~.ir-t
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the plan for an exit
from Courthouse Circle to Ear^1 Garr^ett Str^e et.
ORDER ND. 6149
APPROVING TCDRS MILITRRY SERVICE CREDIT
FRDM TEN YEARS TO EIGHT YEARS
On this the 13th day of December 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Let z, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Cour^t
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, changing the TCDRS
Military Service Credit from 1@ years to eight years.
ORDER N0. 06150
TEXAS CAPITAL FUND RE'P'LICATION
FOR STEVE CHRPMAN
On this the 13th day of December 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, a grant
application by the County on behalf of Chapman's building
services in the amount of ~05~,0Q~0.00 to the Texas Capital
Fund and the Court scheduled a public hearing, as required,
on Wednesday, December 00nd, at 4:00 p. m., contingent upon
having all the necessary documentation on file with the N.er•r
County Clerk not later- than 5:00 p. m. on Friday,
17th December 1999.
i"`
ORDER NO. ."_'E151
RE'P'ROVE KERR EMERGENCY 9-1-1 NETWORF~
FY-2000 BUDGET
On this the i3th day of December 19'39, upon motion made 6y
Commissioner Gr^iffin, seconded by Commissioner- Williams, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the F:er-r•
Emergency 9-1-1 Network FY-2000 B~_idget.
ORDER N0. 2E15
APPROVAL OF 2N00 CHILD CARE
LOCAL INITIATIVE RGREEMENTS
(BETWEEN KERB COUNTY,
ALAMO WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT POARD
RND TEXRS WORKFORCE COMMISSION)
On this the 13th day of December- 1'399, ~_ipon motion made 6y
Commissioner- Williams, seconded 6y Commissioner Baldwin, the
Co~_irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the '~0~D0 Child
Care Local Initiative Rgreements between Kerr Co~_inty, Rlamo
Wor•kfor•ce Development Board and the Texas Workforce
Commission and authorized Co~.inty Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 2613
VOTE/RE'P'ROVE CRNDIDATE A5 A DIRECTOR
ON THE KERR CENTRRL AF'F'RAISRL DISTRICT RORRD
(PAULA RECTOR)
On this the 13th day of December i'399, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner^ Lets, seconded by Commissioner^ Baldwin, the
Co~.ir-t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-0, casting all
932 votes for• Paula Rector, as a Director^ of the Kerr Central
Appraisal Distr^ict Boar^d.
ORDER NO. ~E154
POLICY FOR LOWERING FLAGS
AT COUNTY FACILITIES TO HALF-MAST
On this the 13th day of December 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Griffin, seconded 6y Commissioner- Williams, the
Co~_irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-Q~, that flags on
Ker•r• County facility flagpoles be lowered to half-staff
anytime there is a directive to that effect from the Office of
the Governor of Texas, the Legislature, or the Office of the
President of the United States, or• Congr^ess.
!„'
ORDER N0. 26155
AP'P'ROVE FORM
FOR THE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEP'RRTMENT CONTRRCTS
On this the 13th day of December 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the form for
the Voli_~nteer Fire Department Contracts and County Sudge
to sign same.
ORDER NO. ~61~6
AP'P'OINT/AF'pROVE COUNTY RERRESENTATIVE
FOR THE EMS ADVISORY PORRD
(F'RT HURRAY)
On this the 13th day of December 1999, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner- Let z, the Co~_irt
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, the appointment of
F'at Mur•r•ay to the EMS Advisory Board, whose term will expire
1/1/51.
,r-~
ORDER NO. 2E157
RPPRDVE INTERLOCRL CDDF'ERRTION RGREEMENT
FOR CDUNTY JAIL FUNCTIONS
(CDNTRRCT PETWEEN N.ERR CDUNTY
AND GURDRLUF'E COUNTY)
On this the 13th day of December 1999, upon motion made by
Commissioner Paldwin, seconded by Commissioner^ Letz, the Coi.~r^t
unanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-0-0, the Inter^local
Cooper^ation Rgreement for^ Cai_tnty Jail Fi_inetions between FGerr
Coi_inty and G~_~adal~_~pe Coi_mty to hoi_tae out-af-county prisoners
and authorized the County J~_idge to sign same.