r..
3
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
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, August 27, 2001
6:30 p.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge
H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4
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
T N (l F X
August 27, 2001
--- Visitor's Input ..................................
--- Commissioners Comments ...........................
.... .
1.1 Pay Bills ........~ 7~~'?4?..... .............
1.2 Budget Amendments ~.~.~.~J.~~.c~.~~~.~ .............
1 .3 Late Bills ........4?.~c~4~y. -. ~.7.~~~ ............ .
1.9 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports ..~.7;~1.o.......
PAGE
3
10
13
14
30
34
2.1	Approve form of volunteer fire contracts,	
	authorize County Judge to sign same .... ~.~.a~.~....	35
2.2	Letter of Credit, Falling Water Subdivision c~ 7s~~~	41
2.3	Final Revision of Plat, Lots 176, 177, 178,	
	& 179 of Spicer Ranch III .......~ ~~~~...........	44
2.4	Approve name changes for privatel maintained	
	roads in Precincts 1 & 4 .......~.~~~.~"...........	45
2.5	Advertisement for Notice of Public Hearing to	
	eliminate duplicate road names, set ublic
~	
	~~.........
hearing date for same ..........r~ 7.	46
2.6	Step and grade for first assistant auditor oZ7~l.la.	48
2.7	Reclassification of job title or increase in	
	step/grade for senior accounting clerk ..~7~1.~...	55
2.8	Request from J. P.4 to purchase capital outla
~
Q	
	~°?~
'.
item & transfer money to proper line item .	66
2.9	Discuss enforcement of Manufactured Home Rental	
	Community ordinance as it applies to Wayne Barney	
	property ..........................:~ 7 ~1~........	73
2.10	Approve resolution to make formal application	
	for membership in West Texas County Judges and	
	Commissioners Association .........??.~°t.`?0........	78
2.11	Establish Water Conservation Program as	
	outlined, incorporate Rainwater Harvesting	
	Incentive program as Phase I .... ~ts~.'a55~.~i~a......	80
2.12	Ratify request for contested case hearing in	
	San Marcos River Foundation application for	
	Guadalupe River water rights ...... ~7 dal........	92
2.13	Approve order authorizing publication of Notice	
	of Intention to Issue Kerr County, Texas,	
	
...............
Certificates of Obligation "~~°~~'~......	106
--- Adjourned ....................................... 118
--- Reporter's Certificate .......................... 119
3
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
On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 6:30 p.m., a special 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 evening, everyone. It's
6:30 on Monday, August 27th, Year 2001. We will call to
order this regular special session of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court. Commissioner Baldwin, I believe you
have the honors this evening.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do. If y'all would
stand and pray with me, please, and then when we finish,
we'll do the pledge of allegiance.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Commissioner. At
this time, any citizen wishing to address the Court on an
item not listed on the regular agenda may come forth and do
so. Any citizens who would like to address the Court on an
item not listed on the regular agenda? Yes, sir?
MR. LAFLAIR: Good evening. My name is IIrent
Laflair. This is addressed to Commissioner Griffin. Sir, I
live out on Voges Lane off of Blue Ridge. I've been out
there for three months now and have not been able to get any
mail delivered. I've gone to the Postmaster. He said he
4
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
has spoken to you on this matter, something to the effect
that the mailboxes out there aren't are on private property
and all the mailboxes have to be moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm not aware -- the
Post Office Department, you say?
MR. LAFLAIR: Yes, sir. Mr. Hanson told me
this himself.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN:
MR. LAFLAIR: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN:
the --
Is this on Blue Ridge?
Franklin, you met with
MR. JOHNSTON: I talked to someone. I think
the property owner was talking about --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think they worked
out an accommodation for the location of all those
mailboxes. I think that's been done.
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know if it's done, but
I think they worked out a deal to move them to the County
right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, they did.
MR. LAFLAIR: The problem is, nobody seems to
know where the right-of-way is there out there. I've been
out there going on four months now; I have not gotten any
mail. My mail is in limbo between the Ingram post office
and the Kerrville post office. And, basically, what I'm
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
being told in a roundabout manner is, if you really want
your mail, you'll rent a P.O. box so that you know you're
getting it. Well, as far as I'm concerned, that's federal
extortion. I should be able to get my mail.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we have an
accommodation on the -- on the positioning of all of those
mailboxes, have we not?
MR. JOHNSTON: That's what I've been told,
yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. And 911, I
think --
MR. SANDLIN: I had a conversation with him
on some other things -- with Mr. Hanson last Thursday, and
my understanding was one of the -- and I'm not -- I don't
know who all the property owners are, but one -- the
question where the mailbox was, he was going to move them to
accommodate the mail carrier.
MR. LAFLAIR: Nothing's been done yet.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
MR. LAFLAIR: Nothing has been done yet. And
in the meantime, I can't get my mail.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Probably need to close
the loop with the Yost Office Department, just make sure
that they know where your box is going to be.
MR. LAFLAIR: They won't even issue me a
6
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
rural route address out there. I talked to Mr. Hanson about
4:30 this afternoon on the phone and I asked him if he could
come in here himself tonight, with me, and he said no, that
he had other plans.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I'll talk to him
and see what we can work out.
MR. LAFLAIR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, sir. Is there
anyone else who would like to address the Commission on an
item not on the agenda? Yes, Ms. Pruneda?
MS. PRUNEDA: Thank you. Good evening.
Thank you for your service. I'm here to request some
clarification of the septic rules. I applied last week to
transfer a license, and received from U.G.R.A. the process
which I should go by, and paid my $150 fee. And, I had a
few questions, and U.G.R.A. faxed me a piece of paper. I
believe, Commissioner Griffin, you've read that now, or I
read part of it to you. They -- they explained to me that
you authorized -- that you authored this piece of
information, but I noticed that it was not signed by the
Judge, and I brought it up here to the Judge Friday morning.
He said he, I don't believe, was familiar with this. Is
that correct, Judge Henneke?
JUDGE HENNEKE: The piece of paper you showed

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
me, I'd never seen before.
MS. PRUNEDA: Correct, it had not been signed
by you. And, after further questioning U.G.R.A., they said,
well, this was their interpretation of an item that you
authored, and so we've been back and forth several times.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
MS. PRUNEDA: My question is, who has the
authority and what is the rule?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The rule, in the case
of the property that you're talking about, will be handled
as a licensed property, since it was licensed in '95. And
if Stuart Barron, the Designated Representative, has not
called you back yet, I'm sure he will --
MS. PRUNEDA: He did.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- call you back
tomorrow, 'cause I just talked to him.
MS. PRUNEDA: He was most accommodating. The
-- what I couldn't seem to get around was, I was told by
U.G.R.A. -- I mean, she was very helpful and very
informative, but I couldn't get -- she told me that the
septic was licensed in '85.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, licensed in '95,
apparently.
MS. PRUNEDA: Right. That's my system. And
that's what I told her, and she said no, the original
8

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
license was '85.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The original license
was, or the original installation or something.
MS. PRUNEDA: And if there was a significant
improvement to the system since that time... yada, yada,
yada, and if it had been pumped. And I have my manifest and
all of the paperwork that they required, but I still paid my
$150 fee, and then I had to schedule a pumper and pay his
service fee, which will happen at closing on Friday, to come
out. And Mr. Barron did not require that -- the system to
be pumped, so I'm still paying another fee on top of the
$150 fee.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I just talked
with Stuart Barron this afternoon.
MS. PRUNEDA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And I think we had
that all worked out, but I will close the loop again.
MS. PRUNEDA: I know you're going to follow
up on it. It's just, as a consumer --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
MS. PRUNEDA: -- it's confusing, and if
there's not a -- if there's not a definite rule that has
been signed or mandated --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There is.
MS. PRUNEDA: There is? Where is that rule?
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2_`
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That rule is in a
court order that -- we can get you a copy of that.
MS. PRUNEDA: Okay. So, then, this -- this
form --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's a further
interpretation of those orders.
MS. PRUNEDA: And that's what Stuart
explained to me. He said, you know, I think this is what it
says, but it's not been signed.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, it's not going
to be signed. And I explained that to him.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. This is not an agenda
item; we can't take any action on this.
MS. PRUNEDA: I understand.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What I need is -- is for you
all to work this out outside of here.
MS. PRUNEDA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I'll follow up
on it with Stuart again, but it should be taken care of now.
At least that's what I'm told.
M5. PRUNEDA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll have to find out
in the morning.
MS. PRUNEDA: I'll call Mr. --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But I talked to him
10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
l~
2C
21
2~
2;
2~
2`
about 4:30 this afternoon.
MS. PRUNEDA: And, like I said, it's not just
for myself. It's for anyone else that has to go through --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I understand.
MS. PRUNEDA: -- this. Thank you for your
time. I appreciate it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Anyone else who
-- any citizen who would like to address the Court on an
item not listed on the regular agenda? Do we have anyone
else who would like to address the Court on an item not
listed on the regular agenda? Seeing none, we'll turn to
the Commissioners' comments. Let's start with Commissioner
Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Tivy
Antlers. Tivy football had a big scrimmage last Saturday,
did real well against Cedar Park. This Thursday, we go to
Killeen, Texas. I don't know why they don't schedule
something up around Dallas so we can travel a little bit.
But, Thursday they'll go to Killeen, and Killeen's a
big-time school, high-ranked, so we'll find out this
Thursday what kind of Tivy Antlers we have. But, they
looked really good last Saturday, and we're real proud of
them. I wanted to remind everyone that September the lst,
most of the new legislative laws go into effect, and there's
all kinds; alcohol containers in a vehicle, kids under 12
11
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
riding in the rear of a pickup, and the fines quadruple on
some of those things. So, you know, if you're wondering
about some of it, you may want to get on the Internet and
find out about it, 'cause they go into effect September 1,
most of them do. How dedicated this Commissioners Court is.
The Dallas Cowboys are playing right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You call what they do
playing?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, which brings up
my next point. I'd heard on the way over here that the NFL
has offered Fort Worth a team, and they turned it down; said
no, if they got one, Dallas would want one.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all my comments
for tonight, Judge. Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's pretty hard to
top. I'm not going Lo even try to top it, except to say
we've been blessed with rain throughout Precinct 2, and the
burn ban's off, for those who didn't have their box of
matches in their hip pocket early this morning. And, before
we meet and see you again, we will have the traditional
Labor Day holiday. I wish each and every -- each of you a
safe and sane holiday.
12
1
2
3
4
5
~ 6
~ 7
` 8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I was going to say,
they looked like -- like smoke signals going out in Precinct
4 this morning. One thing I did -- would like to bring up
is that I was by the 911 office, and as a member of the 911
liaison of the Court, I was presented with some video tapes
for the Court, and will leave those here. This is of the
Sheppard Rees fire there that was put together. Also,
there's a couple copies here for the media, if you'd like to
have them. 'That's all.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okav. The burn ban has been
lifted, but I would remind everyone that it has been lifted
on a precinct-by-precinct basis, and I believe for a
definitive time. The burn ban is in effect county-wide
through September 25th; however, it has been lifted in each
precinct by the Commissioner, but it has not been lifted
totally, county-wide. So, if you're going to burn, be sure
you check on the web site or with the burn ban hotline to
make sure that the burn ban has not been reimposed in your
particular precinct. The other thing I'll note is that we
were blessed today with a visit from Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, Anthony Principi from Washington. He was in San
13
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
Antonio to address the American Legion National Convention,
came to Kerrville specifically for the purpose of getting a
briefing on the Kerrville V.A. facility, and also to tour
the facility. It was my pleasure to go out and be part of
the group that conducted a briefing, and I'm very hopeful
that, by virtue of his attention to Kerrville, that that
means we will continue to get the attention of Washington
and continue to enjoy the funding and support which we need
in order to keep that facility alive and a viable part of
our community. With that, let's pay some bills. Tommy?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Judge, if I might just
mention, I think in all four precincts, the burn ban expires
at 7 o'clock Wednesday morning, unless further extended, so
we might want to pass that word to everybody, too.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any
questions or comments about the bills as presented by the
Auditor?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
approve payment of the bills as recommended and presented by
the Auditor. Any further questions or comments? If not,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget
Amendment Number 1 relates to Maintenance.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is a request from Glenn
Holekamp to transfer $700 from Leasehold Improvements to the
Telephone line item in his department.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that we approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 1 for Maintenance. Any
further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 2
relates to J.Y. Number 4.
MR. TOMLINSON: This amendment is a result of
a need to pay utilities for Precinct 4 Justice of the Peace.
We're transferring $1,000 from Major Repairs in the
Maintenance Department to Utilities in the J.P. 4 office.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 2 for J.P. Number 4.
Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor,
raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 3 is
for Juvenile Probation.
MR. TOMLINSON: We have a -- we have a bill
for $578.48. No funds in Alternate Housing in the Juvenile
Probation budget. The last two amendments we've done, we've
taken that money from the Radio line item in the Sheriff's
Office.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tommy, is there any excess in
the salary line item under that budget, since we had a
vacancy for three months?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, not -- not enough to --
to amount to anything.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We don't have $578 in that
one?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we might have had $578,
but I didn't look at it that close.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. It seems to me like we
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
should have possibly enough to cover that, since we were
down a Juvenile Probation Officer for three months.
MR. TOMLINSON: We may have already used it,
but I'm not sure. I'll have to look.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: First choice would be to
take it out of that salary item. If not, take it out of the
Radio.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
DODGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 3 for Juvenile Probation,
with the funds to come first from any excess salary funds
for the Juvenile Probation Department, and second from the
Radio Project in the Sheriff's budget. Any further
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 4 is
also from J.P. Number 4.
MR. TOMLINSON: It's Number 1.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Excuse me, Number 1. Sorry,
17

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Bill.
MR. TOMLINSON: Vance Elliott. His request
is to transfer $10.10 from his Postage line item to
Part-Time Salaries.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Baldwin, that we approve Budget
Amendment Request Number 4 for J.P. Number 1. Any further
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 5 is
for the Ag Extension Service.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. We have a need to
transfer funds into the Extension Service line item for
utilities, and we're asking to transfer $1,280.83 from Major
Repairs from the Ag Barn to the Utilities line item in the
Extension Service.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner LeLz, that we approve
18

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
Budget Amendment Request Number 5 for the Agricultural
Extension Service. Tommy, is that enough money to go the
rest of the fiscal year?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
6 is for the 198th District Court.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This is for the Jury
Fund for the 198th court. We have -- we have a request to
transfer $50 from Miscellaneous to the Court Interpreter's
line item in that Jury Fund.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 6 for the 198th District
Court. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in
favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
19

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
7 is for the 216th District Court.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This is also for the
Jury Fund, and it's for the 216th court. The request is to
transfer $107.25 from Board for Jurors, $82.50 into the
Court Interpreters line item, and $22.75 into Operating
Supplies.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.	
	JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commis	sioner
Griffin	, second by Commissioner Letz, that the	Court approve
Budget	Amendment Request Number 7 for the 216th	District
Court.	Any further questions or comments? If	not, all in
favor,	raise your right hand.	
	(The motion carried by unanimous	vote.)
	JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, sam	e sign.
	(No response.)	
	JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.	Number 8 is
for the Law Library.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. I have a bill for
$880.50. It's for West -- West Group, West Law charges that
we need to pay out of surplus funds in the Law Library.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do we have to declare
an --
20

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: Emergency.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, I think we do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that come out of
that special fund of theirs?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's just that it's
not budgeted. Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 8 for the Law Library,
declare an emergency, and take the funds from the line item
specifically for County Law Library.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I know Linda isn't
here, but do we have any control over when they send these
things?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I agree with you,
Commissioner. We've had one of these every meeting for
about the last six meetings.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, when they come, I
can't really refuse them, but -- I guess I could refuse
them, but the -- it seems that there would be something from
West Publishing which could give us some kind of idea ahead
of time what they're going to send. But --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Frustration noted. Any
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
z1
further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
Motion carries. Item Number 9, again, is for the 216th
District Court.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is a -- a request from
the 216th court to transfer $6,547.50 from Court-Appointed
Attorneys in -- out of the 198th court into Court-Appointed
Attorneys line item in the 216th court. Also, there is a
need to transfer $40,230.89 into Special Trials in the 198th
court -- I mean in the 216th court. We have $25,741.23 in
Special Trials in the 198th court, leaving a balance of
$19,989.66 that needs to come from some other source. We --
we have the choice of declaring an emergency and increasing
the budget, or taking it out of -- also from the Radio line
item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Motion to take it from
the Radio line item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is this for the Reichenau
trial?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve

i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
22
Budget Amendment Request Number 9 for the 216th District
Court, and we transfer $25,741.23 from the Radio
Equipment -- Radio Project line item in the Sheriff's
Department to Special Trials --
MR. TOMLINSON: No, 14 thousand --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Fourteen thousand?
MR. TOMLINSON: $14,989.66.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Transfer $14,489.66 from the
Radio Project to Special Trials. Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question on that, Tommy.
Is that the -- kind of the final tally on that trial, what
it cost the County?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I know we have a bill
from Kendall County, for sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That we haven't received
yet?
MR. TOMLINSON: We have received. So, I -- I
hope that's it. I think that's it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is almost $50,000.
MR. TOMLINSON: Very expensive, a hung jury.

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
23
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So the public is aware
what these trials cost the County.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Absolutely. Budget Amendment
Request number 10 is for County Court at Law.
MR. TOMLINSON: I have a bill for $1,365 for
court-appointed attorneys for County Court at Law. The
balance in this fund is -- I mean, in that account is zero.
We're requesting a transfer of $1,365 from the
Court-Appointed Attorneys line item out of County Court to
transfer into County Court at Law.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 10 for County Court at Law.
Any further questions or comments? If not, all in favor,
raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
DODGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
DODGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 11 is
for the District Clerk.
MR. TOMLINSON: This request is from the
District Clerk to transfer enough funds out of Photocopy
Expense, which will be $500 for the remainder of the year
29
1
b
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for office supplies.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 11 for the District
Clerk. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in
favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget
Amendment Request Number 12 is for the Road and Bridge
Department.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is -- this amendment is
a request from Road and Bridge which anticipates the
utilities for the remainder of the year, and this request is
to transfer $1,424 from the Insurance line item for
vehicles, into Utilities.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 12 for Road and Bridge
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
zs
Department. Any further questions or comments? If not, all
in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
13 is Nondepartmental.
MR. TOMLINSON: This request is -- is from
the County Clerk to transfer $2,49s from Nondepartmental
Capital Outlay into Nondepartmental Computer Software, and
it's a bill from -- paying a bill for $2,495 to The Software
Group, and it's -- it was a budgeted item, but it was
budgeted in -- in the Capital Outlay, and really it's a
reclassification for -- to reclassify the expense. And,
what it is, it's a remote access license for -- for another
user to use our system, is what it's for.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 13 for Nondepartmental. Any
further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
26
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
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MS. ALFORD: Judge, it has a late bill. Do
you need to issue a hand check for it?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, I do have a hand check
that I need a -- I need a hand check for. It's a late bill,
and it's dated July the 2Sth.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I amend my motion to
include a hand check.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion is amended as to
include the issuance of a hand check in the amount of $2,495
to Software Group. Any further questions or comments? If
not, all iri favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 19 is
for Court Collections Department.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This request is to
transfer $176.83 from Conferences to Telephone line item for
Court Collections. This also anticipates the remainder of
the year.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
27
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: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 14 for the Court
Collections Department. Any further questions or comments?
If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Request
Number 15 comes from the County Jail.
MR. TOMLINSON: This request is from the
Sheriff's Office to transfer $2,792.94 from Radio Equipment
line item in the Sheriff's budget, $1,466.39 to Prisoner
Transfer in the jail, $218.79 for Prisoner Medical in the
jail, $118.75 into Jail Uniforms, $63.01 to Computer
Supplies in the Sheriff's Office, $180.24 into Lease Copier
in the Sheriff's Office, $745.81 into Vehicle Repairs and
Maintenance in the Sheriff's Office.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 15 for the County Jail. Any
further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise
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
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
16 is for Commissioners Court.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. This request is from
Commissioner Griffin to transfer $116.85 from Professional
Services into Conferences for the Commissioners Court. I
also -- I have attached to this a late bill that I want -- I
am requesting a hand check for.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 16 for Commissioners Court
and authorize issuance of a hand check in the amount of --
MR. TOMLINSON: $254.54.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- $254.54, payable to
Commissioner Griffin. Any further questions or comments?
If not --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Question on
just this overall line item. Did we -- and Thea can
probably answer. Did we go to more conferences this year?
I mean, Commissioner Baldwin's conference -- a lot of it was
29
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
paid by the state association, and we're over budget, and I
haven't submitted a bill for me going to the conference, so
we're going to be way over before long. I -- I'm just
wondering why we're so far over our budget in conferences
for Commissioners Court.
MS. SOVIL: Didn't budget the full 36.
MS. NEMEC: Y'all are spending too much when
you go.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, Barbara. Take
that -- take her name down.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think the answer really
would be the overall expenses have gone up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We might -- when we go
through our final budget, we might look at that and make
sure -- I know we adjusted it, but we're going to be --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't we get a
little bit less this time because we knew Commissioner
Baldwin's was picked up through the South Texas --
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. SOVIL: See? It's normally 36.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
30
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: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
17 is for the County Jail.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is a request to transfer
$555 from Capital Outlay in Nondepartmental to Computer
Hardware in the jail, and it's to replace a printer in the
jail.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 17 for the County Jail. Any
further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Do we have
any more late bills, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. The first one is
payable to Perry Cortese in the amount of $700. Its for an
ad litem attorney fee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
2]
2~
2;
2'
2'
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve a
late bill and hand check in the amount of $700 payable to
Perry Cortese for attorney ad litem fees. Any further
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MR. TOMLINSON: The next one is to Back 40
Supply. It's for $2,815 for a utility trailer for the Ag
Barn.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve a
late bill and hand check in the amount of $2,815 payable to
Back 40 Supply. Any further questions or comments? If not,
all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The next one is to The
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2`
Home Center. It's for $850. It's for materials for the
Juvenile Probation Department construction.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve a
late bill and hand check in the amount of $850 payable to
The Home Center. Any further questions or comments? If
not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The next one is to the
-- payable to the South Texas J.P. and Constables
Association. It's for $150. It's for the registration for
J.P. 1 and his clerk.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve
a late bill and hand check in the amount of $150 payable to
the order of South Texas J.Y. and Constables Association for
J.P. 1. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in
favor, raise your right hand.
33
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 motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The next one is to the
Holiday Inn Sunspree for $357.08 for lodging for two
individuals at the J.P. and Constables Association training.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Third.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
approve a late bill and hand check in the amount of $357.08
payable to Holiday Inn for J.P. 1 conference expenses. Any
further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carried.
MR. TOMLINSON: The last one is to Vance
Elliott for $35.75, and it's for reimbursement for travel to
the conference.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
approve a late bill and hand check in the amount of $35.75
payable to the order of Vance Elliott for reimbursement for
travel expenses. Any further questions or comments? If
not -- I guess not -- all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: We do not have any minutes to
approve. At this time, I would entertain a motion to
approve and accept the monthly reports as presented.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve
and accept the monthly reports as presented. Any further
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay.
35

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2F
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That must have set a
record.
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, we're a long way from a
record, I think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Up in the 20's.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Turning to the consideration
agenda, the first item for consideration is Item Number 1,
consider and discuss approval of the form of volunteer fire
department contracts and authorize the County Judge to sign
same when presented with a contract signed by a volunteer
fire department. Commissioner Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Actually, Mr. Lucas
will present the contract to us.
MR. LUCAS: Gentlemen, I believe that y'all
have looked over this contract. Out of my 13-month tenure,
I've never seen a contract negotiated to such a degree, and
suffice to it say, it's a good contract, legally and perhaps
even policy-wise. The second page contains the boilerplate
legal issues. We kept them to a minimum, as we did with
what I call the "policy provisions" on the first page. We
made the document as succinct as possible, and also readable
to all non-lawyers, so it was a plus with that. Like I
said, this went through extensive negotiations, and from
what I've understood -- what I understand, the Hunt
Volunteer Fire Department has -- their Board of Directors
36
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 checked off on it, as has their general counsel. That
was done through Commissioner Griffin, I believe, over the
last couple of weeks. There's nothing in here that, you
know, we can't do. In other words, everything's legal.
There's nothing onerous about the provisions, and I'll just
entertain any questions you may have.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone have any questions of
Mr. Lucas? Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One question, and I'm --
it jumped out at me. The primary fire response area, that's
defined in Chapter 352 as to what that actually is? The
primary response area?
MR. LUCAS: Well, no, that's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It isn't?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Not in 352.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, is it defined
somewhere?
MR. LUCAS: No, it's not at all. The -- all
352 authorizes us to do is to contract with a volunteer fire
department, period. And, those type -- the decisions that I
think you're referring to are solely up to that fire
department. Our authority ends once we contract, so --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think the question,
though, is who defines the primary area. I think that's
done in the charter, is it not, Dutch?
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
MR. HINTZE: Yes, sir. But there still is
the question about the statement that we submitted as a
result of the 31 July workshop, that when the contract was
drafted originally -- remember, it said that the fire
departments were responsible for Kerr County, and then we
discussed that at the workshop and said, you know, that
really wasn't workable because it wasn't the way the system
operated. And I sent in -- I acknowledged that during the
workshop, that I'd take a crack at submitting an input that
would cover that, and I sent it in. But, in going back
through the contracts all the way back to 1996, they all
have the same statement in there, the identical statement,
even through the contract of this year. And, it says the
department shall, considering the department's commitment to
its own area, provide backup emergency fire services to the
other areas of the county as requested. I think that says
it all, and I respectfully recommend that that statement be
included in this contract in Paragraph 2.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: However -- we took
your letter, Dutch, and I presented that to the County
Attorney's office, and in the scrubdown of all of what we
could do legally and -- illegally or whatever, the decision
was that we had no authority to say how one department
relates to another. Help me with that, Travis.
MR. LUCAS: That's right. No, it's that
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
2~
simple.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's how we were
advised, and that's the reason it's not in there. And, as
we said at the workshop, we'd take a look at it, and we did,
again, and it just didn't survive the scrutiny that, this
time, the County Attorney's office gave to the contract. It
probably should not have been in there before. That's --
that was the problem.
MR. LUCAS: Yeah, I think that's correct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It just shouldn't have
been in the contract before, because there's no authority
for the Court to enter into that kind of agreement. That's
where we stand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: With that said, then, if
it's not a defined definition legally, why just say within
the response area of Kerr County?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, the P.F.R.A. --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- is defined in
the -- in the fire department's charter, what their area is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand. In all of
them?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: In all of them, and
that's what we're doing, is we're -- in each case, we are
contracting with them to provide -- 'cause that's what the
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2`
statute allows you to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is to provide service
in that area.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. My last question,
and then I'll -- is that preposition correct after the
parentheses? Should it be "to" Kerr County or "of" Kerr
County?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fire protection
services "to" Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To Kerr County?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Provide fire
protection services to Kerr County. I think that's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
comments from the Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only comment is,
you said that you had written it where non-attorneys could
read it.
MR. LUCAS: I hope.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Back in the good old
days, there were more of us than y'all back then.
MR. LUCAS: Right.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No longer. So you can
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
21
2~
2.
2~
2`
write it any way you want to.
MR. LUCAS: Right, I guess so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good piece of work,
counselor. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Short and succinct.
Every draft got shorter.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right. Good work.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Any final discussion?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? Any other
comments?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make a motion
that we approve the form of the volunteer fire department
contracts and authorize County Judge to sign them as they
are presented, signed by the volunteer fire departments.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve
the form of volunteer fire department contracts as
presented, and authorize County Judge to sign same when
presented with contract executed by volunteer fire
department. Any further questions or comments? If not, all
in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
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
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
2, consider Letter of Credit issued for Falling Waters
Subdivision. Franklin?
MR. JGHNSTON: This came about as a result of
a phone call we received from, I guess, someone looking at
the property in Falling Water; they said that the road was
not complete and the Letter of Credit is about to expire, so
I went back and looked at it. That was one question I had.
And they said, "Why do you have a Letter of Credit for
maintenance and not for construction of the roads?" I said,
"Well, better go back and look." How it turned out, when we
approved that -- that plat revision, we received a -- a fax
as part of the backup; didn't have the actual Letter of
Credit. The fax stated the conditions and said for the
purpose of construction of additional roadways in Falling
Water Subdivision. Then, on the day we approved the plat
revision, we received the actual Letter of Credit, and it
says "for maintenance of roads, streets, and alleyways in
Falling Water Subdivision." So, somewhere there's a
miscommunication there. And, we looked in the Subdivision
Rules, and the term was also not correct. It says that the
term should be for a 3-year period, and this was only for a
1-year period. So, we're asking for a revision of the
Letter of Credit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it -- I mean, have we
92
.-.
1
2
3
9
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- has the developer -- I mean, is the Letter of Credit
ready? We just have to approve it? Or are we authorizing
you to tell him he needs to do it?
MR. JOHNSTON: I think the latter.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Latter. I'll make a
motion that we authorize Road and Bridge to contact Dale
Crenwelge, the developer, and work out the details of a
Letter of Credit.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think the actual language in
the Subdivision Rules says that Letters of Credit will be
approved by the County Attorney and then, you know,
submitted to the Court. And we've been relying on faxes and
such. I guess in the future, we need to actually get that
letter before we put the item on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Probably a good idea.
JUDGE HENNEKE: When is our first meeting in
October?
AUDIENCE: The 9th.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's the 9th.
MS. SOVIL: The 5th is on a Friday.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The 8th is a holiday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
MS. SOVIL: Right.
93
r
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. I certainly agree with
your motion. What I'm trying to do is set up a time frame
if, for some reason, we don't have the revised Letter of
Credit for approval on the 9th, that we still have time to
draw on the existing Letter of Credit before it expires at
close of business on the 10th.
MR. JOHNSTON: Expires on the 10th.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct.
MR. JOHNSTON: The next day.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm just checking the time
line here. We have time in order to let it run out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would certainly
encourage you to work it out before our second meeting in
September.
MR. JOHNSTON: Get it in the proper format.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have time to wait. If
we don't have it, I would tell Mr. Crenwelge we need to get
this in order by the second meeting of September, whatever
date that falls on.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court authorize
Franklin Johnston to notify Mr. Crenwelge of the need to
replace existing Letter of Credit Number 08005 for Falling
Water Subdivision with a Letter of Credit conforming to the
requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Any further
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
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
3, consider and approve final revision of plat for Lots 176,
177, 178, and 179 of Spicer Ranch. Commissioner Williams, I
believe this is yours, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's in my precinct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Sorry, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Go ahead, Franklin.
MR. JOHNSTON: This item, we had a couple
things that we wanted them to look at on the preliminary,
which they have completed. They put the lot numbers in
sequence with the old existing plat. He marked where all
the residences were; there's just one. And, they do not
have their own wells; they're on a public water system.
And, I believe it's to the satisfaction of U.G.R.A.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we approve
the final revision of plat for Lots 176, 177, 178, and 179
of Spicer Ranch III.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
45
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 by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court
approve the final revision of plat for Lots 176, 177, 178,
and 179 of Spicer Ranch, Roman numeral III. Any further
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Moving right
along, Item Number 4, consider and approve name changes for
privately maintained roads in Precinct 1 and 4 in accordance
in the 911 guidelines. Truby?
MS. HARDIN: We have a total of eight road
names, seven in Precinct 4 and one in Precinct 1. And, if
you'll notice on the new form, it shows the effective date
to be October the 11th.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll move that we
approve the name changes as submitted, privately maintained
roads in Precinct 1 and 4, in accordance with the 911
guidelines as presented.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin that the Court
approve the name changes for privately maintained roads in
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Precinct 1 and 4 as presented, in accordance with the 911
guidelines. Any further questions or comments? If not, all
in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is Number 5,
consider authorizing advertisement for Notice of Public
Hearings to eliminate duplicated names for County-maintained
roads in accordance with 911 guidelines, and set the public
hearing date for the same. Once again, Truby.
MS. HARDIN: We discussed this at the last
Commissioners Court date, and we changed the date to
October 9th, and we added a few roads. Precinct 2 has -- I
mean, Precinct 1 has two roads. Precinct 2, one. Precinct
3 has two, and Precinct 4 has 18. On this ad here, I'd like
to make two corrections. Down on Sleepy Hollow, the country
lane, it needs a geo-region of "West" on the end of those
two names. And I would like to add Belfield. It is the
official name for Rustic Hill, but is known by all the
citizens out there as Rustic Hills, so we'd like to do that
to clean up, and it would be to Rustic Hill Road Southwest.
JUDGE HENNEKE: From -- what is it now?
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
MS. HARDIN: Belfield, B-e-1-f-i-e-1-d.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: To Rustic Wills West?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rustic Hills is really
the real name, isn't it?
MS. HARDIN: No, sir. The official name is
Belfield, but it is commonly known as Rustic Hill.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. HARDIN: And it's also known by 911 as
Rustic Hill.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The road signs have
always said Rustic Hills, but on the plat done in 1864, it
says Belfield.
MS. HARDIN: And on the road list. Do we
need -- we don't need to read all these names off, do we?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No. Do I have a motion to
authorize publication of the names and set the public
hearing for October 9th, Year 2001, at 10 a.m.?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court
authorize advertisement of public hearing to eliminate
duplicated names for County-maintained roads in accordance
with 911 guidelines and set a public hearing for 10 o'clock
a.m. on Tuesday, October 9, Year 2001, in the Commissioners
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
Courtroom here in the Kerr County Courthouse. Any further
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. Next
item is Item Number 6, consider and discuss the step and
grade designation for the first assistant auditor.
Mr. Tomlinson.
MR. TOMLINSON: I didn't furnish any backup
to the Court, as the Treasurer or Personnel Director for the
County is actually going to furnish the backup. My request
is based on the fact that my first assistant essentially has
the same -- the same general duties as the chief deputy in
other departments in -- in the courthouse. I -- I have
discussed this situation with -- with my boss, and he -- he
joins me in -- in requesting that we make this -- that the
Court allow this change from -- in changing the grade from a
grade of 17 to a 19. And he emphasizes, and I also concur,
that since -- since I am part-time, and that it's -- it's
important that we -- we have a pay level that we can -- that
we can pay a very qualified individual. In most counties in
the state, in auditors' offices, the first assistant
auditor -- in a lot of cases, a degree in accounting is
99

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
required. And, this is especially -- this job becomes more
and more complex all the time. With GASB 34 down the line,
I'm -- I have to spend -- I'm going to have to spend almost
75, 80 percent of my time in making that happen, and I -- I
just -- that's just my request. And, if you have any
questions about -- about the -- from the Treasurer, she's
here to answer that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We talked -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, you go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much money are we
talking about between the 17 and 19?
MR. TOMLINSON: The difference is $3,325.
However, the net of that is -- is $1,825. Currently, my
first assistant is -- manages and operates the phone system.
That -- that job is being handed over to our communications
person effective October 1st. We have -- we have paid my
first assistant approximately $1,450 for that service, so
the net of that is one thousand -- approximately $1,850.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you're not asking
for it to happen until -- be effective until October 1?
MR. TOMLINSON: October 1.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Talking about the new
budget year?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Barbara?
50
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
MS. NEMEC: Really, this should have been
done last year. And, in case you're wondering why it wasn't
done last year when we had Nash and Associates -- Nash and
Company here doing the reclassifications, the survey job
descriptions, the two employees in the auditor's office --
he was running behind and they were out in the hall waiting
for him, to be seen. They waited 45 minutes and weren't
able to see him, so they never were interviewed. And I
truly believe that, had they been interviewed, they
certainly would have put an accounts payable and a first
assistant at the same level. The first assistant needs to
know all of our jobs; she audits all of our offices, so I
feel that she's real worthy of that salary.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Unless I misread the
packet we got from -- that had the Nash -- Mr. Nash's
comments, there was three of them that were submitted; this
was one of the ones, and he rejected all of them.
MS. NEMEC: He rejected all of them. Let me
say this; that he and I talked on the phone, to let him know
what was coming through his desk, and when we talked about
each individual position that was coming through his desk
for him to look at, he immediately agreed with me on this
one that we're discussing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought --
MS. NEMEC: It was not until -- then he asked
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
51
for backup. I just sent what I had, which was the job
description. We had done two different job descriptions,
because they only had one job description, which the -- you
know, accounts payable, audits, dah-dah-dah-dah. Well, the
employees in that office, not both of them audit, not both
of the do accounts payable, so we had to do two different
job descriptions. Well, he was in agreement that the first
assistant should be moved up. Once he got the information,
he called me back and he said, just so that I can have a
backup, make sure that I get a letter from your Auditor
requesting this. Well, Tommy was pretty aggravated about
the whole situation since last year, and his letter
indicated that, so it was after he received Tommy's letter
that he rejected that particular one.
MR. TOMLINSON: I made the man mad.
MS. NEMEC: He made him mad. And, I can not
honest and sends this honest letter, and it was after that
that he said no.
COMMISSIONER LETZ
the whole process, I heard a lot of complaints about
Mr. Nash and how that process went. And, by reading his
response and the sarcasm that I read in his e-mails, I would
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
52
never recommend hiring that man again for anything. It was
absolutely ridiculous.
MS. NEMEC: You don't make him mad, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He put in the e-mails
back to -- I guess they're addressed to you, but they're --
all three of them. And, I mean, I read through those
things. I was, like, "Where's this guy coming from?" I
mean --
MS. NEMEC: He does not like to be
questioned. He does not like to be questioned.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seemed to me that he
rejected some -- all three because someone in Kerr County
was challenging his decision.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's what I did; I
challenged his decision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway --
MS. NEMEC: Exactly. So, that's how that
happened.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And to add to that
just a little bit, just -- as I understand it, the Court has
the final authority, not Mr. Nash.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was my
understanding.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, I don't know; at

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
53
some point I think we'll quit calling him, right? I mean,
at some point --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. NEMEC: Our year is up. We had a year
contract with him, and so when these three came up, that
they wanted their titles to be looked at, their pay to be
looked at, we had to refer them to him because we had a year
contract.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: He's giving us a
recommendation.
MS. NEMEC: However -- right. As of August,
our year is up.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we can --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Certainly not follow his
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: In the future, yeah.
Okay.
JODGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments'?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm in agreement with
the Auditor.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Was that a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we approve
the -- whatever the step and grade is, 17 --
MS. NEMEC: 19/6.
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nineteen -- from 17
what?
MS. NEMEC: I'm sorry, from -- a 17/6 to a
19/6.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve
reclassification of the first assistant auditor's position
from a Grade 17 to a Grade 19 and authorize reclassification
of the existing assistant county auditor from a 17/6 to a
19/6. Any further questions --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Effective?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Effective October 1st, Year
2001. Thank you, Bill. Any further questions or comments?
JUDGE RAGSDALE: If they're talking about
Mindy here, this County would be in horrible, horrible,
horrible shape if we made that woman mad enough to quit.
She is much more qualified than probably what we deserve,
and sure has kept a lot of elected officials -- I won't
mention any names -- out of a lot of trouble.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is true.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other comments?
Franklin?
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
55
MR. JOHNSTON: There were three people, I
think, and one of them's not on the agenda this time, but if
there's some way we can address that also? The --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Not today. Can't be done
today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Put it back on the
agenda.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If there's no further
questions or comments, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is
Item Number 7, which is consider and discuss approval of
reclassification of job title or increase in step/grade for
the accounting clerk in the County Clerk's office. Jannett?
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, if y'all will
remember, I think I'm the very first one that upset Mr. Nash
extremely when I questioned him, so I'm here to try to get
my senior accounting clerk reclassified as an administrative
clerk. All of y'all know, just like Mindy does all of the
accounting, my senior accounting clerk does all of my
accounting for all 15 departments, and then some. In
addition to bookkeeping, she assists my chief deputy and
supervises personnel with required recordkeeping, and all
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
different kind of functions. I have, as backup, what
happened prior to the Nash study, and then what happened
after the Nash study with her. And, she's had to go through
a whole year being over one administrator, making less money
than that person now. At one point they were all 15's;
however, after the Nash study, the administrators -- of
course, their titles were changed to administrators, and
they got bumped up to 17's, except for her. And, in the
process of all the Nash study, I had to fight him
tremendously, because he wanted to take one of my deputy
clerks and bump her up to an administrative clerk on one of
them that didn't deserve it, so I had to fight two battles
with him. And, during the appeal process, I was more
worried about my probate deputy getting bumped up to a -- an
administrative clerk, that she did not deserve that
position, and in reading my bookkeeper's duties and job
descriptions, it has all of her bookkeeping skills in there
that she does, plus it also lists the administrative duties.
So, therefore, i failed to appeal that one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jannett, which -- who
among these ladies are in your supervisory hierarchy?
MS. PIEPER: It lists -- it goes down. My
first one is my chief deputy. My second-in-command is the
senior accounting clerk, and that's the one we're talking
about.
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
57
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Anyone else?
MS. PIEPER: And then after that, it just
goes straight down the list. I'm not listing names, because
we're not in Executive Session.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I, too, read
the Nash report on Ms. Tuck's response to Mr. Nash, which I
thought left a lot to be desired. The opening paragraph, he
concurred that there was -- there were deserving -- that
Ms. Tuck was deserving of this improvement, and then he went
on and argued himself out of it during the remainder of
his -- of his dissertation, over e-mail. I'm glad we're not
paying for that stuff any more. So, anything else we need
to know about, Barbara?
MS. NEMEC: No. The only thing is that I was
looking here through his study that he did last year. It
says to recognize more complexity on some desks, we also
recommend the designation "senior" in a few instances. So,
in here he does -- he does address that there is more
complexity in -- in her job.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- it doesn't
make sense to me -- I mean, and certainly every elected
official has the right and obligation to organize their
department. It doesn't make sense. If Jannett's choice is
to have this position -- or the person in that position be
basically the number three person, that person should be
58

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
15
20
21
22
23
24
25
paid accordingly, I mean, and -- you know, and as long as
they're doing the work, it just doesn't make sense to me,
the way it's set up.
MS. PIEPER: When my staff and I talked about
the titles, you know -- because I know within the counties
they all want to stay uniform. So, one of the quotes that
was made by my senior accounting clerk was, "I don't care
what I'm paid, as long as I get the money for doing the job
that I am doing." And, so, I understand that there's not an
administrative bookkeeper, per se, in the personnel records
for that title, so if we could at least get her salary up to
where it should be, I would be satisfied with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is your preference to
change the step -- change the grade or change the step and
grade'?
MS. PIEPER: The --
JUDGE HENNEKE: The step.
MS. PIEPER: The step. Well, no. No, sir.
No, the step and the grade.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Both?
MS. PIEPER: In order for her to be equal,
she needs to be raised to a 15/10, if we don't change her
title.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if we change the
title, then it goes to a 17/6?
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
MS. PIEPER: 17/6.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be your
first preference; is that correct?
MS. PIEPER: That would be my first
preference.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Total impact is $586?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the total
impact to the budget? $586?
JUDGE HENNEKE: The job description that the
Court approved last year, which I am looking at right now --
MS. PIEPER: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- does not have any
supervisory responsibilities in it.
MS. PIEPER: They should be there.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm talking about the one
that was approved last year and which is in effect right
now. I know you've marked up one which includes supervisory
responsibility, but her job description right now has no
supervisory responsibility in it.
MS. PIEPER: None of my job descriptions in
my office are accurate, and you and I spoke about that,
because I was under the impression from you that, because my
deputy clerk in the front of my office does not do anything
that the deputy in the back of my office does, you had
60

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
implied that the Nash Company was going to do them
individual.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't know whether I
implied that or thought that. That was a long time ago;
I've slept since then, so I don't remember that. The point
is, you're trying to base the increase to a 17 on
supervisory responsibility. It's not reflected in her job
description. Now, it may be that her job description is
inaccurate, but these job descriptions were negotiated and
adopted by the Court less than a year ago.
MS. PIEPER: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So how can they be so changed
from a year ago?
MS. PIEPER: Because none of them in my
office are accurate. But --
JODGE HENNEKE: Well, I mean, that's --
MS. PIEPER: Each deputy clerk, each
administrative assistant, each one of them do different
things in the office. So, I feel like I'm kind of losing
the battle on that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is there such a thing
as a senior administrative accounting clerk -- a senior
administrative clerk?
MS. PIEPER: Not that I'm aware of. Barbara?
MS. NEMEC: No.
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 LETZ: To raise it, you change
it to basically -- if we do change it to a 17, it becomes an
administrative accounting clerk?
MS. PIEPER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And -- couple
questions, Jannett. Did -- did Nash not look at any of your
job descriptions?
JUDGE HENNEKE: He prepared it, the ones that
we --
MS. PIEPER: I requested to speak to him five
different times.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What I'm getting
at -- I understand that, 'cause you and I spoke and you told
me that. But, in the process, did he not -- did he not --
MS. PIEPER: He did. I marked -- I marked --
we were sent our job descriptions. I marked them all up, I
sent them back to him, and I got basically the same thing he
had sent me the first time. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So he ignored them?
MS. PIEPER: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't want to
approve them, but you did mark them up and sent them?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, in effect, are
you asking us tonight, in addition to moving this particular
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
person up to an administrative accounting clerk or improving
the grade so that the --
MS. PIEPER: Or changing the step and the
grade to a 15/10.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The job description
be changed as well, or not?
MS. PIEPER: I would need to get my other job
description for y'all to approve that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But not tonight.
MS. PIEPER: No, because I don't have it with
me.
MS. NEMEC: The thing that y'all need to
think about, too, is that if you're going to make this a
15/10 rather than a 17/6, what you need to stop to think is,
when that -- when that job -- when that person is no longer
in that job, is that job going to be worth a 15/1 or a 17/1?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. NEMEC: So, when you --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I'm not sure it should
be. I mean, and Jannett does a good job, and I'm not
arguing with her to be obstreperous, but look at her whole
department. Counting Jannett, she has 15 people in her
department, and if we make this change, then there's going
to be five supervisors out of 15 people. Jannett --
actually, six; Jannett and her chief deputy and four
63
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
administrative clerks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, by the same token,
though, if Jannett chooses to have a senior accounting clerk
be the third most responsible person of that -- running that
office, there needs to be a way to get that person to a
salary level --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I --
MS. PIEPER: There are times that me and my
chief deputy are out of the office together; early voting,
schools, just taking care of the clerking business. So,
when she and I are out of the office, somebody else needs to
be in charge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've come across the
same situation as a result of the Nash review of all of our
jobs, most recently with the Sheriff. And, he upgraded the
department significantly, which it needed to be, and we
approved that, only to find out 10 months later the chief
deputy is making more money than the Sheriff. That doesn't
wash. I don't think it washes in any department. I think
there ought to be a clear, distinct disparity between those
in supervisory responsibility and those who are being
supervised. I've always believed that, and I'm not going to
stop believing it tonight.
MS. NEMEC: We didn't find out 10 months
later, though, in that case. The Sheriff knew when that
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
happened that he was making less money than his chief
deputy, and he chose not to ask for a higher salary at that
time. So, I do have to defend Nash in that way. It wasn't
-- we were aware of it. The Sheriff was aware of it, and he
chose to keep it that way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do agree with the Judge
on the point that I think it's -- at some point, we need --
do need to look at the number of employees in the department
and number of supervisors in the department. And, I mean,
you can't end up with all supervisors. I mean, that doesn't
work, either. I'm not sure where that line is. I think
that's one thing that -- but it's a little bit of a separate
issue, to me, on this particular case. I mean, if the
individual -- the senior accounting clerk is going to be the
number three person in the office, I think that person needs
to be raised to a 17. Now, there may be a few -- a second
part of this that says, Jannett, you have too many
supervisors. You need to relook at your overall
classification.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's a different
subject.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Different subject.
MS. PIEPER: But I have a lot more
departments than most --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not saying --
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
MS. PIEPER: -- than most offices here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a different issue
than we're talking about tonight.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Barbara, are the
dollars the same, 15/10 and 17/6?
MS. NEMEC: No, sir -- oh, I'm sorry. 15/10
and 17/6?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
MS. NEMEC: Okay, a 15/10 is $24,755. 17/6
is $24,754.
MS. PIEPER: One dollar more.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Close enough.
MS. NEMEC: And -- and there's two more steps
after a 10, so that's going to lock that individual into two
more steps and that's it. Because the Court last year chose
not to go further than a 12, so that's another thing to
consider.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I would like to
suggest that, Jannett, you come back with a -- a job
description that fits so that the Court can take a look at
that, but in the meantime I'm going to move that we do a
reclassification for this position to a 17/6.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
DODGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the position
66
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 senior accounting clerk in the County Clerk's office be
reclassified from a 15/6 to a 17/6.
MS. PIEPER: Thank you, gentlemen.
MS. NEMEC: I'm sorry, Commissioner Williams,
what was that statement you made about -- she should come
back with what?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Job description.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Revision of the job
description.
MS. NEMEC: Updated to a supervisory
position.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With her
responsibilities.
MS. NEMEC: Effective October 1?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Effective October 1.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay.
Number 8, Mr. Ragsdale, permission to purchase an item as
Capital Outlay and transfer the money necessary to the
proper line item.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Actually, two -- three items
67
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
within that, if you'll let me discuss them. One is the fact
that, since I prepared my budget, I've had another printer
bite the dust. These are -- these are the worst printers --
I bought Epson for a reason; I thought that they would be up
to the task, and they've not been. They're wide-carriage
printers, because 2 have a need for a wide-carriage printer,
so I bought two of them in case one of them died. I still
have a wide-carriage printer that I can still use for narrow
paper. But, what has happened is, apparently there's some
defect with this particular model. The mother board in them
has -- and one of them, while they were under warranty, died
four times. They told us this time -- the printer costs
$450 -- they'd charge us $325 to replace the mother board.
That's a waste of money. I would just rather -- I've been
working with the Auditor's office and -- what's the fellow's
name that does the computer -- the guru?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Shaun.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Shaun. My understanding
is -- is, for $900, we should be able to replace both of
those printers without me asking for an emergency
expenditure; just transfer from my Dockets and Forms line
item to Capital Outlay. I can't remember what number that
is. I think maybe --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's in here.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Is it on that sheet there?
68
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That's one item. Then the other item that I need to
address, since I have some funds in there, is all of the law
enforcement in this county now, or almost all of them, are
using video cameras now. I have no way to allow them to use
that evidence in my court, so I need a VC player and TV to
be mounted in my courtroom. It's about $500.
JUDGE HENNEKE: $550.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: $550. That might -- then
the last item would be a chair for my clerk. I don't want
to get him bucked out and -- and go through that thing
again. Actually, he's using a chair that belongs to me and
not to the County, but it's becoming fatigued, and I would
like about $400 to get a good, safe chair for him, and
replace my own personal item.
COMMISSIONER GRIE'FIN: Is all of that coming
out of Dockets and Forms?
JUDGE RAGSDALE: No, sir. Some of that is
coming out of Conference. I wasn't able to go to
legislative update and some other things that I needed to go
to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Everything was okay until
you hit the $400 chair. Seems like a lot for a chair. I
haven't bought chairs recently, but just like --
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Well, the last one I bought
was about $350. I mean, if I can find one that's safe
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
and -- and will be durable for less, I won't spend the
money, but I didn't want to ask -- you know, with freight
included, I didn't want to ask for less than what I would
need.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The problem we have, Bill, is
that the only item that's posted is the $550 transfer.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: That's the only one I gave
you backup for. Actually, I -- I don't mind delaying for a
couple weeks the -- the other two items. It's just that I
was appearing here today, and those things came up in the
interim. I -- I asked -- actually, I thought maybe that the
Auditor was going to bring up the -- the printers, but he
hadn't yet, and so I decided, since I was here anyway, and
the item -- line item was -- verbiage was loose enough that
I thought maybe I could go ahead and take care of all of it
at one time, rather than take up your time and my time
again.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, the posting --
other than the lack of the last word, "item" instead of
"items," plural. But, I mean, it is pretty broad.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It looks broad enough
to do it, to me.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. I'm not going to
argue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not sure this is
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
2]
2~
2;
2~
2'
English, but --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Can we phrase a budget
amendment or whatever to do all of that? I think that's the
only thing we don't have here. I think the -- if the -- the
agenda item is okay, we just need to get those numbers out
of where they're coming from and where they are they going.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't -- why don't we
take no action on this and let's handle it as a budget
amendment next time, and just do all of them?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it can't be just a
budget amendment, because the VCR and the TV were not listed
on the Capital Outlay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What we can do today is -- if
we want to, is amend Judge Ragsdale's Capital Outlay to
authorize purchase of a VCR and television, and do it all as
a budget amendment next -- and chair, and do it all as a
budget amendment next time, or we can go ahead and -- and do
whatever you want to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's do it all, be done
with it. I'd make a motion that we do it, but I don't know
if I can figure out how to say all that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we have good numbers? Is
71
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 $900 for the printers, Tommy? Do you know how much?
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm sorry?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we know how much the
printers are for the J.P.'s court?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know. Is Shaun here?
JUDGE RAGSDALE: He was. I thought he was
staying; all of a sudden I turned around, and he had
disappeared.
MR. TOMLINSON: I didn't check the printers,
so I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Didn't Shaun -- Shaun
said $900?
JUDGE RAGSDALE: That's what Mindy told me
last week.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is that that same kind
of printer you replaced in mine?
JUDGE HENNEKE: How much for a chair? $400?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Four.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Make the motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court authorize the
amendment to J.P. Ragsdale's Precinct 4 budget to authorize
72

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
purchase of a VCR and television and chair for his court,
and that the Court authorize a transfer of $550 from Dockets
and Forms, as well as $900 and $400 from a combination of
Dockets and Forms and Conference and Travel for the purchase
of the television, the VCR, a chair for the clerk, and two
printers.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN:
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS
that?
Hear, hear.
Where'd you get all
JUDGE HENNEKE: I made them up as I went
along.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: That's why he's the County
Judge.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If not, all in favor, raise
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
JUDGE RAGSDALE: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The time has come. Let's
take a break and return promptly at 8 o'clock.
(Recess taken from 7:52 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.)
73
1
.-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-..
25
DODGE HENNEKE: Okay. Let's resume this
property, and instruct the County Attorney to proceed to
enforce the ordinance. Commissioner Baldwin, I believe this
is in your precinct; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, it is. I'm just
going to make a comment and then turn it over to --
Franklin, I guess you're carrying the ball on this thing?
It says here in this letter from Franklin -- it says "Buster
and I meet with..." I mean, okay. Okay, we did. We did --
we did meet with Mr. Barney -- it's a mobile home park out
on Ranchero Road -- several months ago, and talked -- told
him specifically how this Manufactured Home Rental Community
program works, sent him a copy of it. And I met with him,
and then Franklin and I met with him, and his -- his deal at
that time was, he was getting a little financial problem
there and he wanted to know if he could park some of his
mobile homes on his property to satisfy some kind of bank
deal. And, I told him I didn't have any problem with that
at all; he can do whatever he wants to on his own property,
in my opinion, but when he got down to the roads and the
O.S.S.F. program, then he needs to start complying with
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rules and regulations. So, he has put in -- there's a
couple of -- two or three mobile homes out there that don't
even have windows in them. And, take it from there before I
get angry and start saying some things.
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I just know it's -- from
the road, it looks like the entire area is filled up with
mobile homes all of a sudden. We still don't have that
development plan, so I just -- that's why I brought it to
your attention.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there any indication that
he's renting these at this time? Or --
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I try not to look up
there. I don't know what he's doing, but he's put in roads
without authorization. I mean, just by the photographs, I
see at least one car which appears to be a resident-type
car. I mean, it's parked in the driveway.
MR. JOHNSTON: This was during the day. I
don't know if -- you know, people -- people could have been
gone or -- I don't know if they're -- you can tell if
they're hooked up or not.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's be clear. To me, he's
in violation, by the pictures. It's not just one or two.
We're talking about --
MR. JOHNSTON: Probably a dozen of them.
~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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's about 11, I
think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Eleven in this one
picture.
MR. BROWN: Is there a street address for
that piece of property?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thirteen --
MR. JOHNSTON: That may be his residence.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What is the location
on that? Or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's at the corner of
Ranchero and Machon. A new county road, Machon Road. It's
the old Baldwin Mobile Home Park. No, no relation.
MR. BROWN: I'll check and see if there's any
O.S.S.F. violations.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What can we do here?
Do we just authorize the County Attorney to take a look at
it? Or --
MR. LUCAS: Really, there's about three
things. You can enjoin them. We can sue for damages for
any kind of construction that we have to do to remedy the
situation. We can also file a Class B misdemeanor, criminal
case. What's interesting is that I have this guy as a chief
witness for the State in about three weeks, and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You'll be in a
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
position to have a heart-to-heart talk with him.
MR. LUCAS: -- my strategy is going to
somehow...
(Laughter.)
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: I suggest we instruct the
County Attorney's office to investigate the situation and
report back to us the appropriate action.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, this looks pretty
far along, so we need --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Report back to us at our next
meeting, which is September the 10th.
MR. LUCAS: You bet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I would think that
the rules and regulations clearly say that the County
Engineer needs to go and inspect construction of roads, et
cetera, et cetera. Yes or no?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, that's part of the
thing; I think we're supposed to do an inspection.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And some of it's been
paved -- I mean, he's a long ways along.
MR. JOHNSTON: Next time I write it, I'll try
to get the grammar correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd appreciate that.
Thank you.
77
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. We're done with that
one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we need a motion to
do that, or is he just going to go do it?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We might --
MR. LUCAS: Y'all may -- of course, you know,
it's a criminal action -- well, let me just give that to
you. The actual enforcement in the Subdivision Rules says,
at the request of the Commissioners Court, the County
Attorney for the county may file an action in a court of
competent jurisdiction to enjoin or recover damages, if we
need to undertake any construction. But, if we, you know,
decide to do a Class B misdemeanor, then, you know, of
course, we have that authority and prosecutorial discretion
ourselves.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't think a motion is
required to ask him to investigate and report back to us.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: All right. We're not
actually saying go charge at this moment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there any advantage to
having it on record that -- I mean, to get the trail or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of what I
was thinking, too. Sort of sets the stage, doesn't it?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Fire away.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
78

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2.
29
2_`
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are you moving?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Authorizing the County
Attorney to investigate the -- hold on -- investigate the
possible manufactured home rental community on Ranchero
Road. That's enough.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court
instruct the County Attorney's office to investigate the
possible manufactured home rental community on the Wayne
Barney property on Ranchero Road and report back to the
Commissioners Court with the recommendation at our next
regularly scheduled meeting, which is September 10th. Any
further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
10, consider and discuss approving the resolution to make
formal application for membership in the West Texas County
Judges and Commissioners Association. Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Judge. I
asked Commissioner Williams to please put together a
resolution requesting the West Texas Judges and
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1°.
2C
21
2L
2.
2~
2`
Commissioners Association to accept our County into their
membership, and he put together this resolution for us.
And, Commissioner Williams, thank you very much; a job well
done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It -- it's because of,
as he states here, communities of interest and similar
problems, we're more related to the west Texas people than
-- than we are the south Texas people. And, just like
Region J, when we put it together, it was just -- we just
had more things in common with those people west of us than
we did south of us. So, I'm requesting that you approve
this resolution requesting formal application for membership
to the West Texas Association. And, the court order in
here -- or in the -- somewhere, it says that the County
Judge is going to send it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The last "Resolved."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. County Judge is
authorized to forward a copy of this resolution. But if you
will allow me to do that, I will fax it to Judge Field out
in west Texas tomorrow. He's expecting it. So --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we approve
the resolution.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I enthusiastically --
80
enthusiastically second that motion.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Third.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, enthusiastically seconded by Commissioner Griffin,
and thirded by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve the
resolution to make formal application for membership in the
West Texas County Judges and Commissioners Association. Any
further questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It all happened because
we all went to Beaumont and Pappadeaux.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Find a Pappadeaux in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lE
li
lE
1~
2C
2:
2:
2:
2
2
San Antonio.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Next item is Item Number 11,
consider and discuss establishing a Kerr County Water
Conservation Program and incorporating a Rainwater
E Harvesting Incentive Program as Phase I of the new program.
i Commissioner Williams.
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
81
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is the second
iteration of this, as you know. And, the first one, we --
when we threw it out, we had a public hearing and it
attracted a goodly number of folks who gave us some pretty
good insight and asked some pretty good questions about it,
but particularly were enthusiastic about the concept.
Picked up on the question that was raised by Commissioner
Letz with regard to how K.C.A.D. might go about establishing
the -- and confirming the formula that we had in the prior
offering, and the response that we got back that day in the
public hearing from Mr. Coates was not encouraging. And,
after talking to each of you on other occasions about a
method and manner in which to do this, I decided to try it a
different way. First we would establish a Kerr County Water
Conservation Program, and that's sketched out on the first
page of the background material. And, it's -- you know,
it's not rocket science, as they say, Larry, but very
simple, straightforward, and talks about the types of -- of
water conservation programs the Court could enact if it
wished to do so at some later date, or take some away if
they wished to do so.
The second part, then, headed under
"Rainwater Harvesting Benefits and Qualification Criteria,"
changes completely the incentive that we had previously
talked about. In this proposal, what we would do would be
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
82
to encourage rainwater harvesting, and to do so, offer a $1
tax credit for every $10 invested in rainwater harvesting
equipment, up to a maximum of $1,000 or the limit of the
taxpayer's county tax obligation, whichever is lesser. So,
for example, if a -- a property owner decided to invest
$5,000 in a rainwater cachement system -- harvesting system,
that individual could qualify -- after the system is
inspected to meet our minimum criteria and certified by one
of the two agencies we're proposing do this for us, that
person would be eligible for a $500 tax credit in the
ensuing year after he -- the installation was installed and
certified. If that individual only owed the county $467 in
county taxes, that would be the limit of the credit that
that individual would get. So, it goes up to one-for-ten
all the way up to a potential of $10,000, or $1,000, but
it's capped really at the limit of the taxpayer's obligation
to the County. It cannot ever be greater than that.
The criteria for the system itself is
explained, and it's the same basic criteria we had before;
that it had to be a minimum of -- had to have an application
for the harvesting equipment be made through either the
U.G.R.A. or Headwaters, and you'll notice in my packet, I --
I provided you copies of correspondence I sent to both
Headwaters and the U.G.R.A. asking them to consider this.
And, there would be no fee for an application. The
1
.-. 2
3
9
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.--.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,..~
25
83
individual would simply make the application, and what we're
asking the agencies to do would be to handle that
application, and when the equipment is installed, be the
agency that inspects it and certifies it back to Kerr County
as having met the basic minimum criteria, which is 2,500
gallons minimum, sunlight-restrictive design and
construction to prevent algae growth, and inspect-proofing
of the storage system would be required. All the benefits
are the same as we outlined them before.
The two letters to the agencies are there,
and then there's an application blank, which gives all the
pertinent information, and the individual would fill it out
and submit it to either Headwaters or U.G.R.A. This leaves
room for other incentive programs to be developed and
designed. In talking with Commissioner Letz, we talked
about the potential for other things to happen, some as
simple as low-flow toilets being installed and replacing
some of the older models. We haven't put an incentive in
for that; I'm just starting with rainwater, but that's
another incentive program that can be added. Commissioner
Letz said to me that there may be possibilities in the
future for developing other incentive programs for cedar
eradication or perhaps other things as well, but we have not
designed those yet. This establishes a program and sets off
step one being the rainwater harvesting. So, it's before
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
84
you. I'd welcome any suggestions, any comments, any
additions or subtractions or -- or where we are here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A couple of comments that
I have, and I think it -- I'm still a little hesitant to be
100 percent -- you know, I think it's a good idea. I like
the idea of Kerr County having something to do with water
conservation. I'm just -- my, I guess, caution is what the
budget impact will be, and how we can determine what -- if
we get into cedar eradication and other things, the costs
get far more than we're talking about here, and then how do
you start saying, well, we're going to, you know, support
rainwater harvesting, but we're not going to support
something that doesn't do as much good for saving water.
And you get into a -- I just have a philosophical issue that
I'm wrestling with on that, so I'll leave that aside and
just make some more detailed comments.
On the page styled "Kerr County Water
Conservation Program," I think it's probably easier for me
to get with Commissioner Williams later. I would like the
justification for that. I don't like hinging it on prior --
I can't even say it -- Priority Groundwater Management Area,
PGMA. I think that the -- you know, that should be part of
the thing, of the -- to mention that we're in a PGMA, but
just to say that we're in it, therefore we need to do a
water conservation program to benefit the citizens, I -- I
85
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
just don't like the way that sounds. I'm not -- you know, I
think that water conservation makes sense. We're in an area
where we need to be cognizant of the amount of water we're
using, but that wording bothers me a little bit, that one
paragraph.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can play with
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the second page, I
believe the actual program, your second dot, it's a --
designate both U.G.R.A. and Headwaters as places where
people can pick up the applications -- or where the public
can pick up the applications for participation, kind of
using their agencies. To me, it would be a lot easier to
pick one or the other. I don't know -- I don't have any
preference on which one. I think it's confusing to the
public to have two. You know, I can just see someone
picking up one here, giving it to the other one, and just
the recordkeeping on where they are. To me, it should just
be at one or the other. Again, I don't have -- really have
any preference on which one that we go through.
And, the last comment that I have is on the
qualification part of it. I think we need to develop more
specific criteria. It's -- and I'm looking at this.
It's -- well, if we have homemade systems or we're talking
about actual cost or -- I mean, lots of things as to how we
1
,-. 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~
25
86
come up with the -- you know, the -- what the amount of the
credit's going to be. And, you have here do a firm bid
or -- I was looking at the application -- a firm bid or a
detailed cost estimate. Now, that may be fine to have that
on the application, but I think we're not going to do
anything until we get an actual expenditure, so that can be
hinged back to that. But, I think we need to be real, you
know, careful that we have -- are very specific in what the
-- you know, the criteria are. And, I said that was the
last thing, but I do have one other, and I forgot what it
was already. I'm getting old.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: When you say specific
criteria, for example, would you go as far as saying
Schedule 40 PVC must be used throughout, or -- because, you
know, really, if you're going to have a system that lasts
for a while, you may have to get into that kind of detail.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, I don't
know. I mean, I've never -- I don't know that much about
rainwater harvesting systems. I know a lot about irrigation
systems; I know a lot about ranch systems, but, you know, I
don't -- I've never installed one. I've never used one.
So -- but I would think that there are certain components
that you need to make sure are present, and some are listed
here, as in tank size. Now, I don't know if tank
construction needs to be designated. I don't know if
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
piping, if the delivery system of how it gets from the
storage tank to the house, how it's going to be utilized. I
just think that some of that needs to be specified. Those
are my -- oh, I know. My final concern, at some point it
needs to get to the County Attorney's office. I know there
is some authority in Senate Bill 2 for this. I think we
really need to make sure -- I haven't looked at that
language specifically; I looked at the summary. We need to
make sure what authority we have.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I asked the County
Attorney to take a look at it.
MR. LUCAS: Yeah, he did that a couple weeks
ago. It -- and it's just not completed yet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But it's
something we need to do before we get -- you know, those are
kind of the -- you know, I'm not -- I'm certainly not
against it. I'm trying to think of where we're going and
where it's going to lead down the road. And, when we look
at the budget concerns that we're currently going through
and worried about, this is a budget issue, even though it
won't have an impact in the 2001/2002 budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on the tax credits,
the way you're phasing it in. It's just -- there will be an
impact on the budget to some degree the following year, and
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
it's a -- some of these Certificates of Obligation that we
currently have and are looking at, we're going to be in a
very tight budget situation, I think, for probably the next
five to seven years, and it's just -- you know, I don't
think this is a huge impact, I don't think, but I'm
wondering, you know, is it wise to give credits when we're
having problems -- even having vague discussions of raising
taxes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which I understand
that. But, if we're -- if we are of a mind to encourage
water conservation, then I think we have to step up to the
plate and do it, one way or the other.
COMMISSIONER LETG: And I share that
sentiment. I'm just -- there are two sides of it. I just
haven't decided which side I'm coming down on yet. But --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Definitely. My question
about the qualifications are that we don't want to
over-engineer this so that the people who are out there
doing it themselves don't have the ability to access the
credit. I mean, someone who goes to the trouble to put in a
2,500-gallon concrete tank and just run the gutters from the
drainpipes down into the tank, if they have the appropriate
algae suppression and insect controls, do they have to put
PVC pipe between the gutter and the -- and the tank?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: My question -- because
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
you can run that to its logical conclusion; you can -- you
could spec it right out of the possibility of wanting to do
it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Rather than detail the
components, I think you'd have to have a -- perhaps a
tighter definition of what the result is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I agree,
'cause I think the -- I mean, I certainly don't want to be
in a position where we're making a career or a job for
someone, and the only way they can get the system is to hire
someone to -- you know, to develop a little business in the
county, which I'm not opposed to developing a business, but
I don't think we should be basically subsidizing it
indirectly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think there
are some things we have to guard against, in terms of
design. There are those, I'm sure, out there who would dig
a 4-foot hole at the end of a downspout and line it with a
piece of black plastic and tell you that's a water cachement
system. And probably, under the nuisance definition, that
would apply, but it certainly wouldn't qualify for any kind
of a tax credit consideration. So, I know we have to be
careful about that, and any safeguards that need to be built
in to be sure that we're not doing that. And then the other
issue, there are some out there that already exist. And, to
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
what extent is there a grandfathering? Should there be a
grandfathering? To what extent would we want to consider
that? So, that -- that's one aspect. I got it in front of
you again because I thought it deserved a second look.
we've retooled it considerably; we've gone away from where
we were before to where it is now, and if it needs some more
fine-tuning, we can certainly do that, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it certainly --
it's -- you know, it's going in the right direction from
the --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Great improvement over
the -- and I think once we get a legal reading on it and
maybe flesh out some of the ideas, I think we're -- I think
it's looking pretty good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I really -- I
like the fact that the Court is looking at water
conservation as an issue, something that we're promoting,
'cause I think water conservation is good in all scenarios.
I mean, either in a drought, not in a drought, whether
you're in Kerr County or east Texas, I think there's no
reason not to conserve water. So, I like that part of it.
I'm just trying to think of the long-term ramifications of a
program like this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think -- I
agree with almost everything that's been said here, and of
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
course, Letz -- once again, if I let him talk first, he
steals my only thunder. But, you know, I -- I agree with
everything that's been said, but I just -- I personally -- I
think that we're going at it a little bit backwards. I
think that -- I think that we need to establish those areas
that we might consider giving a tax break on, like cedar
eradication, ponds and rainwater harvesting and those kind
of things, and put together that list, those things that we
would consider for abatement, and go from -- go from Lhat
way. 'Cause I -- I really and truly think that we're going
to get in a storm if we adopt this program and we're going
to give this much abatement. And then the cedar eradication
program kind of -- that's what you were referring to a while
ago, Jon. I mean, I don't see how you're going to be able
to do that; I just really don't. But, I personally -- I
think that if we can come up with a list of those things
that we would consider and go from that direction, make the
list, and then those things that we can address. I find it
-- I find it humorous; I was digging through the minutes
that they provided from -- she provided from last Tuesday,
and we had this long discussion in Yiere about the
possibility of raising taxes, and six days later we're
talking about giving it away. And -- and I -- I know that's
funny. But, again, it was very -- very serious, too. We
got to be careful of what we're doing here. And I know
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
you're not talking about a great deal of money, and there's
not a great deal of people out there doing that. But,
again, the drops fill up the bucket. How many providers for
those kind of systems are in this county?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I know for
certain there's one, but there are several in other areas
like San Antonio; there's several -- there's some going up
toward Austin, Dripping Springs, and there's one I know
particularly in Kerrville. And, you know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could you tell me who
that is?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Golden Eagle.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Golden Eagle?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm, Landscape.
Okay, we'll retool it again.
DODGE HENNEKE: All right, very good. Next
item is Item Number 12, consider and discuss ratifying a
request for contested case hearing in the San Marcos River
Foundation application for Guadalupe River water rights. I
asked Mr. Brown to be here today to brief us a little more
fully on this issue. Because of the time constraints, I
went ahead and sent a letter on behalf of the County
requesting the contested hearing. So, Jim, if you would
step up and give us the impact of this request by San Marcos
River Foundation?
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
r-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.-.
25
MR. BROWN: For the record, my name is Jim
Brown; I'm General Manager of the Upper Guadalupe River
Authority. Just -- if I might take just a -- just a tiny
bit of personal privilege up front, Commissioner Baldwin,
you were talking about going up to Killeen and playing
football this weekend. I tell a story on Tommy Tomlinson's
Fighting Hamilton Bulldogs. In 1963, the Fighting Hornets,
of which I was somewhat a part of, was way out front in the
district, and the guys over at Killeen -- and Lampasas was
behind us. Killeen was number three, and Hamilton was on
the bottom that year. But, Killeen decided that they were
going to come after Lampasas, and reported that one of
their -- their quarterback, I believe, performed in a rodeo
that summer, and which he got paid an entry fee and got a
little money out of it. And our running back, our main
back, was in that same rodeo, and we thought we were going
to get by without getting caught, and then Lampasas then
turned on Gatesville, and we got kicked out. And then
Hamilton Bulldogs found that one of the Killeen linemen had
played in a tennis match that summer, which he had been paid
a fee and received a cash award, so Hamilton Bulldogs ended
up winning the district in 1963, and only won one ball game
in the entire year.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's our Auditor.
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
MR. BROWN: But I have to confess, when I was
a senior in high school, Tommy was in the -- in the 8th
grade. A little difference there. But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Those were the
Fighting Gatesville Hornets.
MR. BROWN: The Fighting Hornets, as you well
know. The -- the Waco News Tribune was about the only
newspaper that ever covered anything.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whoever covered it
was always late getting the story, too.
MR. BROWN: Well, we only had one phone line
between Gatesville and Waco. On the serious side of why I'm
in here tonight -- I don't know how much background, Judge,
you want me to go into on this.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think I provided each of
the Commissioners with a copy of the letter you provided
with the agenda backup. I think it would be useful to have
a quick overview for the benefit of the public, in
particular.
MR. BROWN: Okay. Well, let me break this
down, I think, into three parts. First we'll talk about the
history of this whole process. The San Marcos River
Foundation, which is a not-for-profit environmental group
located in/around San Marcos area, has applied for a permit
for 1.3 billion acre feet of water a year to maintain a
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
stream flow in the Guadalupe River near Gonzales, and again
down near Tivoli, in order to meet some -- some previous
ecosystem requirements. The 1.3 billion is based on a
60-year average monthly flow in the Guadalupe River in these
particular areas. Well, Lord knows, in the last 60 years,
there's been a lot of things changed on -- on the Guadalupe
and the San Marcos River. So, that -- that is an issue
that -- that I think most of us are concerned about. And
we're talking about -- we're talking about a flow through
the run of the river permit of 380 billion gallons of water
annually, just to maintain that -- that old, historic
60-year-old stream flow.
S.M.R.F. has indicated that if they're
granted this permit, that they will share with the Texas
Parks and Wildlife a SO percent interest in -- a 50 percent
undivided interest in that permit, which -- which allows
then for Parks and Wildlife and -- and S.M.R.F. to have
their hands on some additional water in the basin other
than -- than the water that -- that Parks and Wildlife would
commit, then, to the water bank. The water bank is -- is an
organization created by the Legislature in 1977 -- I mean
'97, I'm sorry, where -- where water rights can be held by
the Texas Water Development Board for future use. But,
within the Texas Water Bank, there's an organization called
the Texas Water Trust, and the Texas Water Trust is that
96
1
~.- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
r
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.-~
25
entity in the state of Texas where, if water is transferred
into that trust, it's pretty well there in perpetuity. We
would assume, although S.M.R.F. has not indicated this,
that -- that the 50 percent undivided interest in this
permit that's going into the water bank -- or would go into
Parks and Wildlife, will probably end up in the water bank.
The -- what this really does to -- to those
of us up in Kerr County and the Hill Country -- even the
president of the S.M.R. F. stated in a news release two weeks
ago that the Guadalupe River is overadjudicated. In other
words, there is more permits allocated for the waters in the
river than we actually have water in the river to satisfy
those permits. But, having said that, she goes on to say
that -- that it's S.M.R.F.'s intent to seal as much of that
water up as they can. What this -- what this does -- if
this permit is issued, it has a seniority date of June 2000.
That means that any future water permit granted in Kerr
County -- you have a reservation in for 5,000 acre feet of
water with -- with G.B.R.A. We have -- we have a permit
with G.B.R.A. which has an older date that would be senior
to this. But, we're also -- U.G.R.A.'s looking at two
additional allocations from G.B.R.A., at 2,000 acre feet
each, to meet our future growth needs in Kerr County. Those
permits will obviously not be issued until somewhere
around -- probably around 2015 or 2018, at least the first.
97
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
So, that means that the S.M.R.F. permit then would have
priority over our permit.
Now, if the flow of the river is such that
they can't maintain the 350 billion gallons of water
annually -- and, by the way, this is -- there's a real
complicated formula that says during certain months, the
releases must be X, and at other months it must be Y. But,
what happens is that -- that if there is a condition in the
river where canyon must be -- must release water in order
to -- to make up the delta in that permit, then -- then,
obviously, that permit would take seniority over -- over the
future permits for Kerrville and Kerr County and U.G.R.A.
But, that's a real concern for -- for U.G.R.A., as we plan
to develop our water systems on out in the public. It also
not only affects Kerr County, U.G.R.A., and the City of
Kerrville, but also affects the City of Blanco, the City of
Boerne, Fair Oaks, and other Hill Country communities who
have some reservation for water out of the Guadalupe Basin.
Those permits have yet to be issued, and they certainly
would be -- they certainly would be junior to the S.M.R.F.
permit.
At this point, it appears that there will be
several groups who will call for a contested hearing on this
permit. The reason for the contested hearing is that the
permittee, or the applicant, at that point then must put on
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
20
expert testimony to show and to satisfy that there is an
adequate supply in the river to meet their permit and any
other future permit that -- that might be issued. Part of
that argument is, well, the latter permits are for -- are
for human needs; the S.M.R.F. permit obviously is for the
flora and fauna needs of the Guadalupe basin. There are no
rules today that would establish which one of those permits
would receive any sort of priority consideration, other than
the fact the date of the permit. L'. G.R.A. believes that --
along with, I think, every other river authority in the
state of Texas, that S.M.R.F. is establishing a dangerous
precedent which could affect every river authority and its
available water in the state of Texas. So, I think the
river authorities, although they do not have -- I'm not sure
they could show that they have a stakeholder interest in
this fight, as with those of us who are -- are within the
Guadalupe Basin, they are at least interested in -- in
funding, I believe, a -- an all-out court press on the --
the application during the -- during the contested hearing.
To give you some idea of where S.M.R.F. is on
this, they have filed the permit; apparently borrowed
$25,000 from someone to pay the permit fee, because now
S.M.R.F. is out on the streets trying to raise 25 grand to
replace the -- the money that they used to apply for the
permit. Now, contested hearings -- you know, I'll put this
99
1
,^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2?
29
2`
in some perspective so that the local folks here can
understand this. Contested hearings can be extremely
expensive, or -- or if the request for evidence is not so
great, they -- they probably look maybe at $50,000 or maybe
$100,000. But, U.G.R.A.'s share of the court costs for the
contested hearing on the -- on the U.G.R.A. ASR well in
Kerrville was $895,000, just in legal fees, and T.N.R.C.C.
obviously had other legal fees that were involved in that
issue.
So, since I sent the letter to the Judge and
to the Court, to give you a brief update, the Texas water
Conservation Association has indicated that they will --
they will try to seek status -- party status in the hearing.
The City of Kerrville, I understand, last week joined the --
the Texas Water Conservation Association. The City of
Victoria has joined. There are going to be some other folks
who will line up behind the Texas Water Conservation
Association. The big -- all of the river authorities in the
state of Texas and the groundwater districts and irrigation
districts and other water districts, all are members of the
Texas Water Conservation Association, so it looks like that
the T.W.C.A. will be the -- the driving force to pull
together the funds that will be required to contest this
hearing. I would encourage Kerr County to join U.G.R.A. and
the City of Kerrville in making it known that -- that you
100
1
2
.~-,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
' 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1~
2C
2l
2~
2;
2'
~.
2.
have serious doubts about this permit and what this permit
The other issue that I want to touch on real
quickly is that -- that T.N.R.C.C. has already approved the
form of this permit, and without this -- without this
contested hearing, under the T.N.R.C.C. rules, the Executive
Director could, in the morning, sign this permit. So, the
thing that -- I think that concerns some of us, and we
discussed it in the Region J meeting the other day, is
that -- is that T.N.R.C.C. has not looked at Region J or
Region L's plans. And, both of our plans depend on future
water out of the Guadalupe River to meet the water balancing
that's required out of Senate Bill 1. So, there's a lot of
issues out there.
There's one other issue I want to share with
you that I forgot when I wrote the letter. Last year,
during the debate on Senate Bill 2, there was an effort to
put in in-stream use permits in -- in all the rivers in the
state of Texas, and both the House and the Senate Natural
Resources Committees took that out of Senate Bill 2, with
the agreement with the environmentalists that they would
hold -- in the interim between the two biannual sessions,
that they would hold public hearings and gather information
as to the benefit or lack of benefit from in-stream permits.
So, there's some political issues out there that -- that I
•^-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
101
think that will occur. I think that the first thing we have
to do now is we have to slow this permit down in order for
all of us to take a look at it, and for all of us to --
to -- those of us who can get standing to testify on behalf
of our communities and what this permit could do to our
water availability.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Couple questions, Jim.
MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did the Blancos and
Boernes join in the protest?
MR. BROWN: I don't know that they have or
not. I know that -- I know that Blanco and -- Blanco, Fair
Oaks Ranch, and Bulverde are all -- were seeking to get into
this process.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I'm sure that
they have. Is S.M.R.F.'s -- their primary issue is the
flora and the fauna protection?
MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. This is all based on a
report that the Texas Parks and Wildlife folks did about
three, four years ago about what they would like to see
occur in the -- in the estuaries down at the end of the
river, and these folks have picked that up, and I think that
they are carrying Lhe banner, if you will. Parks and
Wildlife can't get out front on a deal like this. So, I
think most of us -- a little paranoia may be involved, but I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
102
think most of us assume that what S.M.R.F. has done is
picked up the banner for Parks and Wildlife. And, the other
issue -- the other issue that we'll touch on very briefly,
and then I'll sit down, is that during the time when there's
extra water in the river, there's run of the river, and
these guys have sewed up the entire appropriations of the
river. That means that S.M.R.F, and Parks and Wildlife will
get in the business of selling water out of the river, yet
we wouldn't be eligible to take any of it. And -- and the
law is not clear as to what they could do with that water if
they had additional waters in the river over and above the
normal flows. And, so, I think several of us are concerned
that we've got some people who would be totally unregulated
by the two water entities in the state of Texas, would be
out in the water market business and be -- you know, it's
that kind of a situation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jim, who makes the
decision on granting status of the various towns or agencies
who are requesting standing in this proceeding'? Who makes
that decision?
MR. BROWN: That's the -- the office of the
Administrative Judge -- someone help me with that title.
State Office --
MR. LUCAS: State Office of Administrative
Hearings.
103

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. BROWN: State Office of Administrative
Hearings, S.O.L.A.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: In the normal flow of
things, how -- if a hearing is granted, a contested hearing,
about when would you think that might happen? Could happen?
MR. BROWN: I think -- I think the first step
would be for the Administrative Judge to decide who has
standing. And, I -- I think he's going to have to go
through all those hearings. Then, I think after he
determines that, then at that point they will then honor the
petitions or the requests for the hearings. I would say
we're looking at something -- probably late fall before we
actually -- before the Administrative Law Judge weeds
through all of the applications. I'm sure everybody that's
in the water business in the state of Texas went ahead with
this. This obviously is -- as I stated in my letter to you,
this -- this forces governmental entities to start looking
at groundwater resources again, as opposed to river surface
water resources, if they're not available.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no comment. I
deal enough with this. I've talked to Jim about it.
MR. BROWN: Well, I -- I burned out about 30
minutes of our Region J meeting the other day ranting and
raving about all this, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When I go to Austin, I'll
104

r
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
hear about it again. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm opposed to
anybody that thinks flowers and weeds are more important
than human beings, I can tell you that real quick.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What I'm seeking here tonight
with this agenda item is for the Court to ratify -- approve
the letter which I sent. And I sent the letter at
Mr. Brown's request, one, because I think it's important
that there be more time to study this issue, and second,
because the time deadline for a reply was Monday -- last
Monday. So --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make a motion
that we ratify the -- the sending of the letter by the
Judge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court
ratify and approve the letter sent by the County Judge to
the T.N.R.C.C. requesting the contested rate hearing on the
San Marcos River Foundation application.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rate hearing?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Contested hearing. Contested
hearing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is that
there's a -- it's scary because there's so many things like
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
that that are going on in Austin right now. There's this --
I mean, it's just mind-boggling what's going on. It's hard
to keep track of it all. I appreciate Jim and U.G.R.A., and
Cameron also -- he isn't involved in this one, but I get
e-mails from Jim and Cameron on a pretty regular basis about
things that --
MR. BROWN: If I might, real quickly, had it
not been for Commissioner Letz and his position as Chairman
of Region J -- T.W.D.B. was up there setting up the
stakeholders committees -- stakeholders group to look at
those -- the water in the state of Texas, and no one in
Region J was even a part of that. And, I understand there
were other regions that were totally overlooked. And these
guys are supposed to be sitting up there deciding what to do
with the future state water plan, and they left a lot of us
out. I think we're -- we're their planning groups; they
didn't even invite us to the party.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was handled.
MR. BROWN: I understand, sir. I take my hat
off to you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
comments on the motion? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
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
106
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: The last item for
consideration, Item Number 13, as amended, consider and
discuss an order authorizing County Judge and the County
staff and professional advisers to proceed with and take all
actions deemed necessary to issue public property financial
contractual obligations for the purpose of financing the new
radio communications system. Tom Spurgeon from the firm of
McCall, Parkhurst, and Horton is here to give us a real
quick rundown on what this is and why we need it. Tom?
MR. SPURGEON: Judge, this will be quick. A
couple weeks ago, Bob was here -- we were both here, and
talking about really a couple different ways that you could
finance the radio system, and we pretty much had settled on
looking at doing a Certificate of Obligation issue. There's
a real difficulty in using C.O.'s for counties -- well,
really, for either cities or counties. But, in order to
issue a C.O. that is solely for cash, you may have to have a
revenue pledge that we can pledge to that, even though we're
going to actually secure this with taxes. As a practical
matter, counties have very limited amounts of revenue
sources that you're able to pledge for debt. You do have a
couple sources that -- that you do collect taxes for or
collect revenues for, but they're not pledgeable for this
purpose, because this is a -- a system that is strictly
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
107
personal property.
There is a -- there's another financing
vehicle called public property finance contractual
obligations. In fact, it's essentially just like a
Certificate of Obligation. It's an ad valorem tax pledge
transaction that will trade the same way that a general
obligation bond would for the County. You're not losing
anything in terms of your security behind the transaction,
et cetera. It's just simply a different financing vehicle
that we are recommending that you look to at this point.
So, instead of doing Certificates of Obligation, we're
recommending that you all would be considering an issue of
what's called public property financing contractual
obligations. We would -- the order tonight would just be
authorizing, essentially, the County staff and Bob's firm
and my firm to bring forward all the other documentation,
put together the official statement, et cetera, to bring
forward to you on the 24th of September the actual sale of
the C.O.'s themselves, or the contractual obligations, and
that's really what the nature of all this is about. we
don't quite know a -- a firm amount that you're looking for
on the radio system. I think there have been some numbers
that have been bounced about a little bit, but we will need
to know that at some point, or very quickly, in order to
kind of finalize some of the documents that will go out in
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
the public market.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aren't we going to
need the number so we know what the payback is? It affects
the upcoming budget.
MR. SPURGEON: Yes. All those -- exactly.
And Bob, I know, talked about those things in general a
couple weeks ago on what that impact would be a little bit,
but we still do need to know the type of system you're on,
how much money you want to borrow to buy that system, et
cetera.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tom, if we approve
this tonight -- and I understood you to say September 24th
you will be back in here. For what? To do what?
MR. SPURGEON: Actually, the sale of the
contractual obligations. I mean, we would bring to you a
recommendation, final interest rates, final terms of the
C.0.'s. We use that same term just for -- but that's a
different animal. So, it will be final action in which the
Court then would be approving the sale of the -- of the
contractual obligations to -- I believe Bob is recommending
the First Southwest Company be the underwriter of the bonds,
but they would sell the bonds or the -- the contractual
obligations, and then you would receive your proceeds about
the middle part of October to be able to use to finance and
purchase the system.
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
109
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you're expecting
us, on September 24th, to actually vote for approval of
those bonds?
MR. SPURGEON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At what point are we
going to know what we're voting on? I mean, how much money
are we talking about? Is this going to be a secret up until
September 24th?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Sheriff, do you want to --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll address that as --
was to go ahead and start the negotiations for the best and
final offer from Dailey Wells. Our first meeting on that
will be Wednesday morning. In talking about some of the --
each of those bidders had some discrepancies -- or not
discrepancies. Deficiencies. And those negotiations start
first thing Wednesday morning. Travis is planning on being
present, along with the County Attorney and myself, so if it
goes on farther, that we can correct -- we can answer all
those and get into the actual contract negotiations that
Travis will be part of on the amounts and everything.
That's when we're going to have it. The other thing -- and,
hopefully -- Trott has told us, and Daily Wells is aware of
it, that we want to -- we are trying to get to a price
lockdown on everything that Trott's going to do to see if it
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
110
actually does end up being the best and final, or if we need
to go to one of the other vendors, you know, as the Court
had approved. But, definitely before -- originally, it was
even by almost the 1st of September, and I think that may be
pushed back just a little bit, but by -- for sure, I think
we had a date of the 17th of September for the final thing
to be all in place, as far as knowing what the cost was
going to be, to where it can come back to the Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff --
JUDGE HENNEKE: It has to be before that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think that's the date
you had given them originally.
JUDGE HENNEKE: 13th.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't remember, but it
was plenty of time to have everything figured in.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it was the 13th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sheriff, just playing
devil's advocate here for a second, what if, through
negotiations, you are unable to correct the deficiencies in
the bid that you're -- with the company that you're working
with in the direct negotiations now? And -- and/or the
correction of those deficiencies raises the bid price to
such an extent that we're not certain that's the way we want
to go, and we have to entertain these same negotiations with
Bidder Number 2 or Bidder Number 3 or Bidder Number A, B,
1
,~ 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~-~
25
111
and C, however you want to categorize them? I guess the
thrust of my question is, how are we going to get that done
by September 24th so we've nailed down a price, we nail down
the interest rate, we nail down what we know to be the
payback for the ensuing budget, and so we can act with some
modicum of intelligence?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The way we're getting
that done is by setting those meetings, with the first one
being Wednesday morning, with the County Attorney's office
being directly involved, and with a commitment from all
sides to get the best that we can do before then. If those
-- and with Trott being the consultants for the County, and
being hired, if they feel that that does not fit within, you
know, the guidelines of what the County had put out with the
RFP, with everything else, unfortunately, at that point,
okay -- and this is a serious risk because of the public
safety	factor	of it,	you	know -	- I would	have	to	come	back
to this	Court	myself	and	say we	need to	wait,	and	the	whole
thing gets put off another year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Which I wouldn't want to
do. Now, the other thing -- one thing that I would like to
also bring up, I have -- and I know that Tommy had planned,
in this next budget, some funds that we thought were going
to be needed for -- the maintenance and lease fees for the
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
first year. But one thing I'm wondering, before we take
those out, since we've -- we talked, and in talking with
Trott today, even figured out that's not needed until the
final price on this -- is for grants to also help pay for
the system. Now, whatever these obligation-type deals are,
I hope that if we can apply for a grant, you know, we can
put that to the paying back, if we receive those grants, of
this total cost. The other thing in that, with the funds,
before it gets totally cut out of the deal, any of these
type of grants that we have found so far have a matching
amount. So, I don't know -- you know, you've got to have
money to apply for money, just about the way it is. But no,
we definitely intend on having this thing done. It's just
way too -- too important. This Court, even before I became
Sheriff, started working on this project three years ago.
And -- and, you know, I can show y'all some -- some video
tapes of officers in situations where it's a miracle this
County hasn't had an officer killed because of it. And, it
is the type of situation where I think us, I think Trott, I
think the County Attorney's office, are going to do
everything we can do to get the best system that we can
possibly get at the best price we can get it, and meet all
the Court's deadlines that need to be met for this budget
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
zs
113
season.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I don't see --
if we don't have the final answer to -- the 24th, I don't
see how we can meet those deadlines.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We can't by the 24th, but the
24th is the deadline that we have to authorize the sale of
the obligation. We've got to have the final number by -- I
think it was the 13th, somewhere in the neighborhood of the
13th of September, in order to meet the time frame --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: For the budget.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- to have the budget
hearings, pass the tax rate, and approve the budget. And I
went over that in great detail with the Trott people, and I
am told that the Trott people have gone over that with Daily
Wells, and Daily Wells people have said no problem, we can
do that. We -- you know, we're in this time crunch; we
don't have any choice. You know, we -- and it's kind of an
interesting dilemma. We extended the time for the bids by
two months, which we knew at the time when we talked about
it, it was going to put us in a real budget time crunch.
But, in that two -- in that two-month period, Daily Wells
came in.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, had we not extended
the -- time frame, we would not be in a position to
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
T
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
negotiate with the preferred vendor, according to the three
bids that were -- that were received. So, it's kind of a
catch-22. So, now that we've done this exercise, we have
ourselves in a period where we are really scrambling to make
up for lost time, and pushing as hard as we can on all
fronts in order to get the information we need in order to
go forward.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And, according to Daily
after they walked out of the courtroom, Trott had told them
we really -- and that the Judge really wanted this done, and
we needed some final deals; get the deficiencies taken care
of, get a final price, get the contract pretty well where
the County Attorney can look at and County Judge can talk
about by the 1st of September. So, once this meeting starts
Wednesday morning, okay -- although we've got Commissioners
Court Wednesday afternoon, which I'll be back for and the
County Attorney himself, but Travis is staying up there to
work on that part of it. Now, it may go on through
Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday; I don't know. But, Daily
Wells and Trott and us have all agreed that this thing has
to be done immediately, but we have to have everybody's
attorneys involved to get the best that we can get.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, my only concern
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
115
or hesitancy right now is our language on the agenda, and
I'm sure that you're going to be able to explain it to me so
that I'll feel better about it, but it says to authorize the
Judge, staff, and professional advisers to proceed with and
take all action deemed necessary to issue those obligations
for the purpose -- and it just -- I don't know. Maybe I
just have a --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the -- you make a good
point, Commissioner. And what's really missing in this is
the last step, which is we have to raise our hands and say
yes.
MR. SPURGEON: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We issue it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that.
That's the reason I asked the question.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's what it says, and the
resolution actually says take all actions necessary to plan,
develop, and implement a program to issue a series --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That sounds a lot
better.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does not give anyone the
authority to actually issue them until we come back before
the Court for final approval. Is that right, Tom?
MR. SPURGEON: That's absolutely right, yes.
Comes back to you for final approval, certainly.
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
116
JUDGE HENNEKE: But in order to keep
ourselves in the game, we have to do this tonight.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I had the same concern.
That's the reason I read it again, until I found the "to
implement," that last paragraph.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On Page 2 of the
document, Judge, where it talks about that we passed and
approved by the Court, this date, in regular meeting, should
that not be "special meeting"?
MR. SPURGEON: It should be, right. That was
my error, that we'll change that to -- I guess, Judge,
I'm -- I've been hearing you refer to this as a special
regular meeting tonight.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's a regular special
meeting.
MR. SPURGEON: Regular special meeting. One
of those two ways I'm hearing that, so it's a -- and I
understand the distinction. I mean, this is a regular
meeting of your --
JUDGE HENNEKE: This -- it's a special
meeting. The regular meeting is the first one.
MR. SPURGEON: But you regularly meet.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, we meet regularly, but
it's a special meeting.
MR. SPURGEON: And part of the distinction
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
that's important for that is that, as you well know,
counties cannot levy a tax except at a regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right.
MR. SPURGEON: But there is an exception that
you are allowed to levy a tax, and you will be, quote,
levying a tax on the 24th in terms of obligating the County
to be levying a tax for these contractual obligations, but
you will be doing that at a meeting that is regularly
scheduled. And, there's a provision in the law that says so
long as you regularly meet, you're allowed to -- on a
particular day of the month, and you do apparently meet the
second and fourth Mondays, and you're allowed to do anything
at that meeting that you can do at a regular meeting. So,
there's a --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You two lawyers take
it outside.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wasn't confused
before; I'm confused now.
MR. SPURGEON: I'm sorry, didn't mean to do
that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Go for it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You need a motion?
JUDGE HENNEKE: We need a motion to adopt the
order.
118

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 moved. No, we --
I'll make a motion that we -- let me see that. What's the
other one?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's got that one.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll make a motion
that we -- that we authorize the County Judge and County
staff and professional advisers to proceed with all actions
required to issue public property finance contractual
obligations to finance the new radio communications system.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court
authorize the aforesaid order. Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. At long
last, we are adjourned. I'll remind every one of our
meeting at 1:30 Wednesday afternoon.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 9:04 p.m.)
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
119
STATE OF TEXAS
COONTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 31st day of August,
2001.
JANNETT~!PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: ___-~_ ~(~----
Kathy Banik Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
ORDER NO. 27186
Cl-AIMS AND AC:000hJTS
On this the 27th day of R~ag~ast, 2001 came to be considered by
the Ca~_irt var^io~as Commissioners' pr^ecincts, which said Claims
and Rcco~-rots are: 10--C,ener•al for• 387, 458.41, 11-J~_ir^y for^
$31.75, 1~,-Road R Bridge Additional Registration fee for 315,
480. 3c, 14--Fire Protection for- 35,'7'50.20, 15--Road and Rr•idge
for^ 317,3E-,7.86, 18-Cn~anty Law Li6r^ar•y for• 37~E.50, ;?7-J,-~venile
Intensive F'r•ogr•am-Sate Aid F~_ind for 3~0?,.00, 50-Indigent
Health Care for^ 312,303.62, 64-Lake Ingram Road District Bond
F'r•oceeds for^ 35,230.15, 70-F'er•manent Improvement for'
34,473.85, 76-S~-ivenile Detention Facility for^ 31.26,83-State
Funded - 216th District Rttorney for 31,039.21,86--State Funded
- 216t:h District Probation for 32,.;88.44, 87-State F~-ended -
Community Cor•r-ections for• 327,475.35, TOTAL CASH REG!UIRED FOR
ALL FURIDS IS: 3181,,.,:,1.32.
Upon motion made by Gommissioner• Gr^iffin, seconded by
Commissioners Baldwin, the Co.-ir^t unanimously approved by
a vote of 4-0-0, to pay said Claims and Rcco~ants.
ORDER N0. 271Ei7
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE
MAINTENRNCE DEF'RRTMENT
On this the 27th day of Ai_iyust 200i, ~_ipon motion made 6y
Commissioner Williams, seconded 6y Commissioner Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to tr•ansfer•
8700. ON from Line Item No. 1N-510-470 Leasehold Improvements
to Line Item No. 1~-S1Q~-420 Telephone in the Maintenance
Department.
ORDER NQ. '_7188
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN
JUSTICE QF THE F'ERCE #4 RND
THE MRINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Dn this the c7th day of A~ag~ast E~01, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded 6y Commissioner Baldwin, the
Co~_ir-t ~_inanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-Q~, to tr-ansfer•
51,00~.~0 from Line Item No. 14~--51~-550 Major Repairs to Line
Item No. 1~-458-44~ Utilities in J~_istice of the peace #4 and
the Maintenance Department.
DRDER ND. 27189
PUDGET RMENDMENT IN
JUVENILE F~RDPRTION
Dn this the 27th day of R~_ig~_ist 20VJ1, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner- Williams, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer
5578.48 first to come from Salaries Line Item No. 10-57~b-1?,k7
in J~_ivenile Probation, then to come from the Radio F'r-oject
Line Item in the F:err• County Sheriff's Department.
ORDER Nq. c719~
BUDGET RMENDMENT IN
JUSTICE OF THE F'ERCE GCT. #1
On this the c7th day of Rugust '.0~1, upon motion made 6y
Commissioner- Let z, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin,
the Cour-t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-0, to
tr-ansfer- 'b1~.1~ from Line Item No. 1~-455-3~9 Postage to 1_ine
Item No. 1Q~-455-1~8 F'ar-t-Time in the Justice of the F'eace Pct.
#i.
ORGER N0. ^c7191
RUDGF_T RMENDMENT IN THE
AG EXTENSION SERVICE AND THE
AG DARN FACILITIES
Cn this the 7th day of A~_ig~ast ~~~1, i_tpon motion made by
Commissianer^ Williams, seconded 6y Commissioner Letz, the
Co~_ir-t unanimously appr^oved by a vote of 4-0-0, to tr•ansfer-
$1,c80.8,5 from Line Item No. 1~-GE8-~5~ Major Repair^s to Line
Item No. is-6E5-44Q~ Utilities in the Ag Extension Ser-vice and
the Ag 8ar-n Facilities.
ORDER NO. c719~'
BUDGET RMENDMENT IN THE
198TH DISTRICT COURT - JURY FUND
On this the ~-7th day of Aiagiast~@@1, upon motion made by
Commissianer• Let<, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, to +.r•ansfer•
~5@.@@ from Line Item No. 11-4?,6-499 Misr_ellaneous to Line
Item No. 11-436-496 Coi_irt Inter•preter• in the 198th District
Court - Jury Hand.
ORDER N0. c'7i93
RUDOET AMENDMENT IN THE
~1ETH DISTRICT COURT - JURY FUND
1 On this the 7th day of A~agiast 54~~1, upon motion made by
r Commissioner- 6r•iffin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the
~ Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-~, to transfer
~ E106.c5 from Line Item No. li-4.;J-JJVj Roard of Jiar•or•s with
~ ~Ei2.5N to Line Item No. 11-435-496 Court Interpreter and with
X53.?C to Line Item No. 1~-435-331 Operating Supplies in the
16th District Court -- Jury Fund.
ORDER N0. 07194
PUDGET RMENDMENT IN
LAW LIPRRRY
On this the 07th day of Aiag~ast 0001, upon motion made 6y
Commissioner Lets, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Cour^t unanimously appr^oved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, to transfer
~880.5~ from Fiand 18 Surplus Funds to Line Item No. 10-ESO-59a
Rooks in Law Library.
ORDER NO. 07195
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE
016TH DISTRICT COURT
On this the 07th day of A~ag~-1st '001, capon motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin,
the Co.-{r•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q-0, to
tr•ansfer• $05,741.03 from Line Item N0. 10--436-417 Special
Trials to Line Item No. 10-435-417 Special Trials and to
transfer- $14,489.66 from Line Item No. 10-560-410 Radio
Eq~-iipment to Line Item Nn. 10-435-417 Special Trials in the
016th District Co~ar•t and to tr•ansfer• 86,547.50 fr•oin Line Item
No. 1~-436-400 Coy-irt Appointed Rttor•ney to Line Item No.
^ 10-435--400 Co~art Appointed Attorney in the '016th District
Coi_ir-t.
ORDER N0. 07196
BUDGET RMENDMENT IN 'iHE
COUNTY COURT RT LRW
RND THE COUNTY COURT
On this the 07th day of Rug~ast 00G1, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer
81,.;65.00 from Line Item No. iVJ-406--40'0 Court Rppointed
Rttor-neys to Line Item No. 10-407-400 to Co~ar-t Rppointed
Rttorneys in Coi..rnty Court at Law and the Coi_mty Coi.u^t.
ORDER N0. X7197
PUDGET pMENDNENT IN THE
DISTRICT CLERk:
On this the 7th day of August c~u~l, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Coiar~t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer
X500.00 from Line Item No. 10-45~-311 Rhotocopy Supplies to
Line Item No. 10--450-310 Office S~_ipplies in the District
Clerk's office.
DRDER N0. '7198
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN
THE ROAD AND RRID6E DEPARTMENT
Dn this the ^c7th day of Rug~_ist c001, upon motion made by
Commissioner l_etz, seconded by Commissioner^ 6r^iffin, the
Court ~_inanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer
S1,4c4.00 fr^om Line Stem No. 15-E11-480 Ins~_irance-Vehicles to
Line Item No. 15-E00-440 Utilities in the Road and Fridge
Depar^t ment.
ORDER N0. 27133
PUDGET AMENDMENT IN
NONDEF'ARTMENTRL. - CAp'ITRL OUTLAY
AND NONDEGARTMENTAL - COMGUTER SOFTWARE
AND LATE RILL
On this the 27th day of August 2001, upon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded 6y Commissioner Let z, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer
$2,435.00 from Line Item No. 10-403-562 Nondepar•tmental
-Computer- Software to Lirre Item No. 10-409-570
Nondepar•tinental Capital Outlay in Nondepartmental and
approval of late bill to The Software Group in the amount of
^ $2,495.00. The County Treasurer and County Auditor are hereby
author-iced to write a hand check in 'the amount of $2,435.00 to
The Software Group.
ORDER NO. c7c0fn

BUDGET RNENDNENT IN THE
COURT COLLECTIONS
On this the 27th day of A~agiast 2001, upon motion made by
Commissionc:r• Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Co~ar•t unanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-0-0, to transfer
~17E.8G from Line Item N0. 1Q~-4'29-485 Conferences and Search
pr•ogr•am to Line Item No. 10-425-420 Telephone in Coi_trt
Collections.
ORDER N0. ~_720i.
PUI)C~ET RMENDMENT IN THE
COUNTY JRIL RND
THE ,S'HERIFF'S DEF'RRTMENT
On this the 7th day of A~..tg~.ist c001, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Let z, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Co~_ir•t unanimo~_isly approved by a vote of 4-0-~, to transfer
Sc,79~.94 from Line Item No. 10-560--410 Radio Equipment to the
following Line Items, Line Item No. 10-560-454 Vehicle Repairs
and Maintenance in the amni_int of 8745.II1, Line Item No.
10-560-46i Lease Copier- in the amount of 8180.4, Line Item
No. 10'-560-565 Comp~ater• Supplies in the amo~_int of 86:).01, Line
^ Item No. 10-SiL-315 Jail Uniforms in the amo~_int of 8118.75,
Line Item No. 10-51'~-333 F'r•i:,oner• Medical in the amo~_int of
8:.18.74, Line Item No. 10-Sic-.:i.iJ F'r•isoner• Transfer- in the
amo~_int of 81, 466. 39 in the County Jail and the Sheri Pf' s
Department.

ORDER N0. G7~~c:
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN
COMMISSIONERS' COURT
RND LRTE BILL
On this the '7th day of Aiag~ast c:001, upon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to tr•ansfer•
~116.8.°i from Line Item No. 10-401-486 F'r-ofessional Services to
Line Item No. 10-401-48i Conferences in the Commissioners
Court and approve late bill in the amount of X254.54 to
Commissioners Richard L.. "Lar•r•y" Griffin. The County Auditor
^ and County Tr•eas~ar•er• ar•e hereby a~athor•i~e to write a hand
check in the amount of $254.54 made payable to Richard L.
"Lar•r•y" Griffin.
ORDER N0. 27'c~3
EIUDGF_T RMENDMENT IN THE=
COUNTY JRIL RND
NON DEF'RRTMENTAL
On this the :.7th day of R~ag~_ist c~01, ~.xpon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the
Co~ar•t unanimotasly approved by a vote of 4-@-Q~, to tr•ansfer•
ASSJ. ~Q~ from Line Item No. 10-409-570 Capital 0~_i L-lay to Lirie
Item No. 10-Sic-561 Computer Hardware in the Co~_inty Jail and
Non Depar•~tmen'tal.
ORDER N0. :7c@~r
RF'PRO'JAL OF LATE PILL
TO FERRY D. CORTESE
On this the 7th day o'F A~ag~ast ~@@l, capon motion made by
Commissioner Let:, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the Court
~ananimo~asly approved by a vote of 4-@-@, to pay late bill in
the amount of S7@@.@@ from Line Item No. 1@--435-4@c to F'ewry
D. Cortese for attorney ad litem fee. The Coi_mty Treasurer and
County A'aditor- are hereby authorized to write a hand check in
the amount of $70@.@@ made payable to Ferry D. Cortese.
ORDER N0. '57505
AP'P'ROVAL OF LATE PILL TO
PACK 40 SUP'P'LY
On this the .=:71:h day of A~..ig~_ist 5001, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Lets, seconded by Cammis.ioner• Williams, the
Co~ar•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, to pay late
bill in the amount of $5,8i5.0~D from Line Item No. 10-6E6-57~
to Rack 40 S~_ipply for• a 50~i Utility Trailer. The Co~_inty
Treasurer and County A~_tditor are hereby ai_itharized +.o write a
hand check in the amoi.int of $~:,815.~~ made payable to Rack 40
S'-~PP1. y.
ORDER N0. 27c06
RF'F'ROVRL OF LRTE RILL TO
'fHE HOME CENTER
On this the c7th day of Rug~_tst 'EO~D1, upon motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the Cnurt
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q-Q~, to pay CClate bill in
the amount of ~850.0G~ from Line Item NO. 7~-Ei7J-JVC to The
Flame Center for req~_tired deposit on materials for S~avenile
F'r•obation Department for• construction. The County Treasurer
and County Ruditor• ar-~e hereby authorized to write a hand check
in +,he amount of X850.00 made payable to The Home Center.
ORDER N0. c7~07
RpF'ROVRL OF LRTE PILL TO
SOUTH TEXRS JF' RND CONSTABLES RSSOCIATION
On this the :7th day of R~ag~ast 2OOi, upon motion made by
Cnmmissioner~ Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Ca~.irt
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, to pay late 6i11 i.n
the amount of $150.0 from I._ine Item No. 1~-455-4f35 to the
South Texas JF' and Constables Rssociation for Registration for
JF' and Clerk for Rnn~aal conference and training seminar-.

ORDER N0. ~7~08
AP'P'ROVAL OF LATE RILL TO
HOL.II)AY INN SLINSF'REE
On this the C7th day of August 20411, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-@, to pay late
bill in the amount of `6357.08 from Line Item No. 10-455-485 to
the Holiday Inn S~anspr-ee for' lodging costs For- two individuals
attending the South Texas ,IF' and Constable Assn. The Coi.mty
Auditor and County Treasurer are hereby authorize to wr-ite a
hand check in the amount of X357.08 made payable to Holiday
Inn Sunspress.
ORDER N0. 'c7c09
APF'ROVRL OF L_RTE RILL TO
VANCE ELLIOTT
On this the :.7th day of A~ag~_ist OOQ~1, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Paldwin, the
Co~.tr-t unanimously appr-oved by a vote of 4-0-Q~, to pay late
bill in the amount of ~.iJ.7J from Line Item No. 10-455-4d5 to
Vance Elliott far- r-eimb~_trsed travel expense to attend So~_ith
Texas JF' and Constable Assn. The County Auditor and County
Treas~_trer are hereby a~_ithori_e to write a hand check in the
amoi_int of ~.'rJ.7J made payable to Vance Elliott.
ORDER NQ. c7^cl@
RF~PROVE RND RCCEGT NONTHI_Y RF_pORTS
On this the c7tl-i day of Rugus+, ?Q~Wl, upon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the
Co~ar•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, to accept the
following r•epnr^ts and direct that they be filed with the
County Clerk for future audit:
W. R. Hier•hol~er•, Sher^iff
Civil July ~~Q1 Report
Linda Uecker^, District Cler^k
July ^cQ~01 Report
ORDER N0. c7i_11
APPROVAL OF FARM FOR
VOLLIN"PEER FIRE DEPARTMENT CC7NTRACT
On this the '7th day of August c001, upon motion made 6y
Commissioner Griffin, seconded 6y Commissioner Let z, the Court
unanimously appr-oved by a vote of 4-0-0, of the form 'For
Volunteer- Fire Department Contract and authorize the County
Judge to sign same when presented with a contract signed by a
Volunteer Fire Department.
ORDER N0. ~7c1c
RF'F'ROVRL ~F A NEW LF_TTER OF CREDIT
ISSUED FOR FRLL.ING WRTER SUPDIVISION
Cn this the :7th day of Ruyust cN~l, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner- Griffin, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, authorize Fr-ank
Johnston to notify NT•. Cr•enwelge of the need to replace
existing Letter of Credit Number X8005 for• Falling Water-
Subdivision with a Letter of Credit conforming to the
requirements of Subdivision Regulations .
ORDER N0. '7213
AP'P'ROVAL OF FINAL REVISION OF FLAT
FOR LOTS 176, 177, 178 8 179 SF'ICER RRNCH III
On this the ..7th day of August ,'_'001, ~_~pon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Co~_ir~t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-Q~, of the final
revision of plat for- Lots 176, 177, 178, R 179 Spicer Ranch
III.
ORDER N0. '07014
A1='F'ROVRL OF NAME CI-iAN6ES FOR PRIVATELY
MAIIUTAINED RORDS
IN F'RECT. #i R #4
On this the 07th day of Riag~_ist c:001, ~l.pon motion made by
Commissioner Gr-iffin, seconded 6y Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, of name
changes for• privately maintained roads in F'rect. #1 R #4 in
accordance with 9ii G~_iidelines, with effective date of October
il, 0001. The Ro<~ds are as follows:
Existing Road Name
089E W
Lower- Ree Caves Rd S
Main St. W
Moore Ln. W
F'ark Circle Rd W
Hollow Rd. W
Wren Ln N
0910
Name change
S~.immer Dreams Rd W	Pct.	#4
Ree Hive Rd SW	F'ct.	#4
Yo~_~th Ranch Rd tJ	Pct.	#4
Ingram Industrial Rlvd W	F'ct.	#4
Hideaway Cir• W	F'et.	#4
Chital Ridge W	F'r_t.	#4
Jack F'arks Ln N	F'ct.	#4
Rueb Rd S	F'ct.	#1
ORDER NO. c7ci5
RF'F'ROVRL OF RDVERTISEMENT FOR
NOTICE OF F'IJPLIC HEARING
TO ELIMINRTE DLIF'LICRTE NRMES FOR COUNTY MRINTRINED RORDS
On this the c7th day of Aug~.ist '@@1, upon motion made by
Commissioner ~r~iffin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Co~_irt
~.rnanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, authorize
~adver~tisement a p~_iblic hearing to eliminate d~_iplicated names
for Co~_inty-maintained r°oads in accordance with 911 gi_iidelines
and set a public hearing on October- 9, '~@@i at i@ R.M. in the
Kerr Coi_mty Commissioners' Courtroom .

~^".
ORDER N0. '~7c1E
AGF'ROVAI_ OF STEF' flND GRRDE OF
FIRST flSSISTRNT flUDITOR
On this the E7th day of fl~ag~ast '~~01, ~_~pon motion made by
Commissioner Aaldwin, seconcied by Comniissioner• Let z, the Co~ar•t
unanimously appr-oved 6y a vote of 4-0-tD, of reclassification
of first assistant ai!ditor• position fr-om a Grade 17 to a Grade
19 and a~_ithorie reclassification of the existing assistant
county auditor from a 17J6 to a 19/E effective October 1,
~0~1.
ORDER N0. 27'17
AGGROVRL OF RECLRSSIFICAI"ION
FOR ACCOUNTING CLERK IN THE
COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE
On this the c7th day of Augi_~st '~~Q~1, upon motion made by
Commissioner- Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Co~_ir-t unanimously appr-oved by a vote of 4-0-4~, of
position of senior- accounting Clerk in the County Clerk's
office be reclassified from 15/6 to a 17/6 effective October
1, X001.
DRDER N0. 27218
RF'F'RDVRL TO RMEND CAPITRL OUTLAY
IN JUSTICE OF THE F'ERCE F'CT. #4
On this the 27th day of A~ay~ast 2001, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the Court
unanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-Q~-0, to amend capital
o~_itlay in J~_istice of the F'eace F'ct. #/+, with the following:
a VCR, TV, 2 F'r~inters, and a chair, to transfer ~9~2.56 from
Line Item No. 10-458-485 Conference<.~ and to transfer- S'347.44
from Docket and Forms to Line Item No.10-458-570 Capital
Outlay.
.^
.r..~
ORDER N0. ~7c19
APPROVAL TO INSTRUCT COUNTY RTTORNEY
TO INVESTIGATE ENFORCEMENT DF MANUFACTURED
HOME RENTAL COMMUNITIES
On this the c7th day of Rug~_tst c001, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner- Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner- Lets, the Co~_ir•t
unanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-0-0, to instri_ict the
County Attorney's office to investigate the possible
man~_~fact~_ir•ed home rental comm~_inity on the Wayne Barney
property on Ranchero Road and r•epor•t back to the Commissioners
Court with the recommendation at our- next reg~_ilar-ly scheduled
meeting, which is September 00, 'EVJD1.
ORDER NO. ',_7'G~_'0
RGGROVE RESOLUTION TO MRF:E
FORMRL RP'P'LICRTION FOR MEMBERSHIP'
IN THE WEST TEXRS COUNTY JUDGES RND COMMISSIONERS RSSN.
On this the '7th day of R~ay~ast c0~1, upon motion made by
Commissioner Raldwi.n, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Co~_irt ~.~nanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-0-0, r-esol~ation to
make formal application for membership to the West Texas
Co~_inty Judges and Commissioners Rssoci.ation.
ORDER N0. c72'~1
RE'P'ROVE RRTIFYING REG!UEST FOR CONTESTED CRSE
HERRING IN SRN MRRCOS RIVER FOUNDRTION
RGF'LICRTION FOR GURDRL_UGE RIVER WRTER RIGHTS
On this the c7th day of R~ag~ast X001, upon motion made 6y
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the
Coui^i. ~_manimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, ratify
and approve the letter sent by the Co~_~nty Judye to the
T. N. R. C. C. requesting the contested rate hearing on San Marcos
River Fn~andation Replication.
ORDER N0. ^c 72~'c
RF'PROVRL OF ORDER RUTI-iORIZING F'UBLICRTION
OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TD ISSUE
N.ERR COUNTY, TEXRS, CERTIFICRTES ^F OBLIGRTION
On this the 'G7th day of Rugust :'0Q~1, capon motion made
by Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Cammissioner• Williams,
the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-a-0, to
author-ize the County Judge and the County's Staff and
professional advisers to proceed with all actions r•eyuired to
issue p~a6lic pr•oper•ty finance contractual obligations to
finance the new radio communications system.