a
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
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Tuesday, October 9, 2001
9:00 a.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 I N D E X
October 9, 2001
2 PAGE
3	2.1 Accept Letter of Credit for construction of	
	roads in Falling Water, Precinct 3	13 'Z~~'7.
4	2.2 Preliminary revision of plat for Lots 15 & 16,	
	Whiskey Ridge Ranches, Precinct 3	19 oZ7oZ7•
5	2.3 Release Letter of Credit NTS368031 for final	
	plat of Village West Industrial Park	198-7'-~~
6	2.4 Preliminary plat, Cutoff Business Park, &	
	request for variance for drainage structure	
7	and lot size	20J77~.u~
	2.7 Approve name changes for privately maintained	
8	roads in Precincts 2 & 4	36 a7 a7
	2.9 Approve County Clerk acquiring cell phone and	
a"1 a7
9	service with local compnay	37
	2.10 Supporting printing costs for WET Water	
10	Conservation Brochure	41 d7o'Z7'
	2.15 Adoption of Resolution authorizing signatory to	
11	TCDP Contract # /21075	44 ~.7?.9~
	2.16 Nomination of Paula Rector for Kerr Central	
12	Appraisal District Board of Directors	95~~°~~C
	2.17 Approval of contract with Office of Court	
13	Administration	46a7a79
	2.5 PUBLIC HEARING for road name changes in various	
14	locations in accordance with 911 guidelines	47D~~uS
	2.6 Approve road name changes above	58~,'7~
15	2.8 Present commendation from Hill Country Chapter,	
	National Society of the Sons of the American	
16	Revolution, for patriotic display of flag	62~;iaWCS
	2.11 Adoption of amendment to order redrawing	
17	precinct boundaries	699A1X1
	2.12 Order adopting changes to election precincts	
18	as a result of changes in Commissioner precincts	65~-77-x'
	2.13 Approval of First Amendment to UGRA OSSF contract	75`•1-'73$~
19	2.14 Approval of interlocal agreement with UGRA for	
	Kerrville South Wastewater project	78`~Z~ti
20	2.18 Request from Jerry Swafford for declaration of	
	local agricultural emergency	82~5~-u~
21	2.19 Approval of joint resolution supporting TexDOT	
	Aviation capital improvement funding for airport	83d~o~°
22	improvements at municipal airport	
	2.20 Approval of airport T-hangar fee schedule	85`o~7'oZ$~
23	2.21 Revised plans, cost estimates, and bonding	
	timelines for proposed building project at Hill	
29	Country Youth Exhibition Center	90~5C~
Ors
on
25 ~ --- Adjourned 136
3
1
2
3
9
S
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On 'Tuesday, October 9, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in
the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning, everyone. It's
9 o'clock in the morning on Tuesday, October 9th, Year 2001.
We'll call to order this regular meeting of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court. Commissioner Griffin, I believe you're
up this morning.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. Let me
introduce -- reintroduce my good friend, Pastor John Green,
from the Hunt United Methodist Church. He will offer the
invocation, followed by the pledge of allegiance, which I'll
lead.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Pastor Green. At
this time, any citizen wishing to address the Court on an
item not listed on the regular agenda may come forward and
do so. Is there any citizen who wishes to address the Court
on an item not listed on the regular agenda? Seeing none,
we'll turn to the Commissioners' comments. Commissioner
Griffin?
1
2
3
4
S
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No comments this
morning.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tivy High School
football had a rough time Friday night. It was only 52 to
nothing. But, it was a -- it was a lot of fun. This week
we travel to Comal County, to New Braunfels Canyon, which
opens our district play, so it's time to -- then the
following week, we're at home again against one of our
rivals, the Boerne Greyhounds. So, that would be a good
time -- if anybody wants to see some good, Texas Hill
Country football, which there is none better, it would be a
good time to come. That's the only thing I know, basically.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Fair enough. Commissioner
Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No comments.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a couple of
things. First, regarding the comment that Commissioner
Baldwin made a few minutes ago about an accident in Center
Point, I'd like to commend First Responders. The program
was operated at the absolute best. There was two Responders
that responded to -- it was a pedestrian accident in Center
Point -- within five minutes. I happened to be there, as
was Jannett in the area at the time, and very impressed 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
5
the quick response. And I also commend the Kerrville Fire
Two other items I have, just really -- I
bring them up because I don't know enough about them, and I
really don't know how we -- what we ought to do, so it's
kind of food for thought for the rest of the Court, is some
sort of an update may be a good idea on the bankruptcy at
Mooney and how it affects the County/City leases and what --
I mean how it affects the county, actually. I mean, people
ask me and I just don't know anything about that, as to what
the legal ramifications are of that whole thing, and the --
if a new buyer buys it, does the County have anything to do
with that whole transaction because of the situation with
those leases? And the other thing, something I get asked
about a fair amount, is the industrial park out by the
airport, about the location. It's going to be in Precinct
2, but I haven't seen anything about a concept plan, or that
I am aware of. I don't know if Commissioner Williams has
talked with Franklin about that, but it's County property.
I would presume it's going to have some sort of plat. But,
anyway, I get a lot of questions about that, and I don't
know that much about it. I don't know if KEDF is pushing it
or the City or just private development.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Some of all of the
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
6
above.
DODGE HENNEKE: The reason it hasn't come --
the reason the industrial park hasn't come to the County and
the Court is because the property has been annexed by the
City, or will be annexed as part of the development process,
so it will be within the city limits. That's the reason why
that hasn't come to -- I'm sure Dick Colvin and Sherry will
be happy to come -- I'll extend an invitation for them. As
far as the Mooney bankruptcy, I can respond to that quickly.
We are a creditor in the bankruptcy because there are two
unpaid items; one, taxes, and second, lease payment. Since
we're a co-owner of the airport, it comes to us. As far as
the leases are concerned, under the Bankruptcy Code, the
debtor in possession has a certain period of time within
which to accept or reject those leases. One lease on the
empty -- on an empty hangar, they're going to reject, so
they will no longer be obligated beyond the rejection period
for that lease. The other, they've extended the time period
to accept or reject the leases. If someone buys Mooney,
then they will buy those leases as well. If they want to
adjust the leases in any way, they'll have to come to the
City and the County jointly as landowners in order to
negotiate any modifications to those leases.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- I guess the
term of the lease isn't affected at all by the bankruptcy.
L JUDGE HENNEKE: No. No, the term of the
lease stays the same, or the term -- none of the terms are
3 affected.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: None of the terms are
1
E
c
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2J
affected.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Probably a good six months
before we know anything.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, as part of a buy,
one of the things that could be on the table -- you know,
it's neyotiable -- is to redo those leases with a new owner.
That's always possible, but that would require City/County
concurrence, of course.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I -- what brought
it up in my mind was the article, I believe in Kerrville
Daily Times, that the -- someone was quoted as saying the
biyyest asset Mooney has is the leases. Which, you know, I
don't know if it's -- maybe -- I think actually it was a
Mooney representative said it -- someone said it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A lot of equipment
leases, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. But they they felt
that the property -- or the -- I mean, the leases on the
property had value, but we own part of that. People ask me
and I don't know that much about it.
R
1
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One other footnote on
the industrial park. I read recently E.I.C. is going to
fund tkie extension of the utilities. The City has a
longstanding policy, they don't extend utilities unless it's
annexed property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe you or I can get
Dick or Sherry to explain it.
JCIDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. They're getting
excited about the fact that it's finally almost done after
two years working on it. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. That's all I have.
DODGE HENNEKE: I want to say that I
thoroughly enjoyed the picture that went in the paper
recently of our esteemed colleague, Commissioner Baldwin,
and his son, and the other father/son combinations from this
year's Antler football. I thought that was really neat,
there were so many -- five or six?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Five, I think.
JUllGE HENNEKE: -- kids playing on the team
whose fathers played on the team in the not too distant
past. I think that's kind of a nice thing. That's part of
the reason we live in small town U.S.A, in Texas, is those
things happen. So, I thought that was certainly a
worthwhile endeavor, and I enjoyed seeing the picture, and I
just wondered how many sprints you'd run that day, Buster.
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
i7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We11, a few. I had a
hard time getting that jersey on, I tell you that. I really
had a hard time getting it off.
(Laughter.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Without any further
ado, let's move into the business at hand. Do we have any
bills to pay, Tommy'? Anyone have any questions or comments
about the bills as presented?
MR. TOMLINSON: I will remind you that --
that the -- on the funds requirement report, where there's
an "ENC" on the line item, that means that that's encumbered
back to the 2000/2001 budget. I think probably 90 percent
of these bills are -- are from last year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I had a question on Page 14,
Tommy. The payments to Leo Jenschke Construction for
$26,650, road work on Bear Creek Scout Camp Road. I presume
that's the county road that leads up to the scout camp, not
the actual road into the scout camp?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. Bear -- Bear
Creek Scout Camp Road goes from 1340 all the way up into the
top oY that subdivision. It goes by the scout camp. It
just takes the name.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Does anyone else have
any questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move we pay the
in
~'-
d
G
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE' HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
approve payment of the bills as presented and recommended by
the Auditor. 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.)
JUD(;E HENNEKE: Motion carries. We have one
budget amendment to come before us today from the Law
Library.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. It's for $155.58. It's
for books, and it's -- it's going to require an increase in
last year's budget by that amount. So, it's to come from
Surplus Funds. It will -- will require an emergency,
declare an emergency for this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court declare
an emergency and authorize transfer of $155.58 from Fund 18,
Surplus Reserves, to pay for books for the Law Library, such
funds relating to the prior fiscal year. Any further
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
i2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
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: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Any further
late bills or amendments, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have a -- a bill that I
need a hand check for, and it's -- in the Animal Control
budget, we budgeted the purchase of some kennels, and the
manufacturer has requested a 25 percent down payment on
those. That is for $1,600 payable to Shor-Line, which is
the company that we're buying those from.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
authorize a late bill and hand check in the amount of $1,600
payable to Shor-Line for kennels at the Animal Control
Shelter. 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.
12
i-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
lE
17
I~
L
2C
2:
2:
2
2
2
MR. TOMLINSON: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Tommy. At this
time, I would entertain a motion to waive reading and
approve the minutes of the September 5, September 10,
September 17, and September 24 meetings of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner LeLz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court waive reading
and approve the minutes of the September S, September 10,
September 17, and September 24 meetings of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court. Any 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. At this time
I would also entertain a motion to approve and accept the
monthly reports as presented.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
k Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve
~ and accept the monthly reports as presented. Any further
13
1
r-. 2
3
4
i 5
6
7
g
9
10
11
12
13
,-.
14
15
16
17
lE
l~
2C
2:
2:
2
2
2
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. Let's
go into the consideration agenda. First item is Item Number
1, consider and accept a Letter of Credit for construction
of roads at Falling Water, Precinct 3. Jonathan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Franklin?
MR. JOHNSTON: That -- the old Letter of
Credit expires tomorrow, I think, and they cleaned up the
language on this one from "maintenance" to "construction."
Apparently, the bank's going to issue it for a year. I
guess we have to do them a year at a time till the job's
finished.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we accept.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court accept the
replacement Letter of Credit for construction of roads in
Falling Water Subdivision, Precinct 3. Any further
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
~I (The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
i4


DODGE HENNEKE: A11 opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
DODGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is
Item Number 2, consider for approval the preliminary
revision of plat for Lots 15 and 16 of Whiskey Ridge Ranches
in Precinct 3.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lE
li
lE
1~
2(
2.
2:
2
2
2
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Franklin? Pretty easy
one.
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. 'Phis is a combination
of two lots, and one lot's 45 acres and one's 97 acres,
making a total of a 142.3-acre lot. And, since it's
combining, it doesn't need to have the notification, public
hearing and all that, so it's just -- we need the
preliminary and final. On that size of lot, I think
everything looks fine. There's no new roads or anything.
It's just taking that -- taking out a lot line.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We have one citizen who has
asked to address us on this matter, Mr. Kenneth Swanson.
Mr. Swanson, if you'd come forward and do so at this time?
Thank you.
MR. SWANSON: Yes. Good morning, gentlemen.
I'd like to comment on the procedure I've been going through
3 to -- to eliminate this 24-inch line on a piece of mylar. I
1 recently retired July lst, after 36 years in the private
~ sector, and one of the things that was hammered into me when
15
2
3
4
5
6
I 7
8
I 9
10
11
12
,-. 13
i4
15
16
17
18
i9
20
21
22
2~
2~
~.
2`
I was a young engineer, and -- and at the end of my career,
I was hammering into my engineers, is that whenever you do
something, if it's expending manpower, if it's expending
capital, always ask yourself, what is the value added for
your action? In 1997, as you can see on this first piece of
property, we eliminated another line on the 95-acre piece,
and it was quite simple. It was called a minor replat.
There was a few fees involved and a few signatures I had to
get. This time, that procedure has been eliminated for some
reason, and I have to go through this twice. I have to go
around and get signatures from people to review it, and then
come back again and get final signatures, and the fees have
gone up considerably. And, not only the fees. A couple
places I have to pay it twice, once for the preliminary and
once again for the final. Being retired, I'm -- I'm
concerned about spending my money, and I -- I'd just like to
make a comment that I don't really see the value added Ior
all these extra steps I'm having to take for this exercise.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Swanson, if I can
respond a little bit -- and I agree with you totally. The
problem is, we looked at the state law very closely when we
redid our Subdivision Rules. The last time you did the
revision, while it was easy, it was also illegal from the
standpoint it didn't follow state law. It was in our rules,
and that's the way it was done. The current way it is done
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
16
is state law. We don't have a choice, actually, and you
should -- we should have done it the previous time as well.
The law hasn't changed in this particular instance very
much. I agree, it is cumbersome, you know, but we don't
have any latitude in that area. On the fee issue, I think
you have a good point. I think that on this -- you know, we
need to possibly look at the fee structure for minor -- what
we used to call minor replats, because they are -- and it
shouldn't take the -- you know, I guess some of the time is
still involved, but it's pretty simple when you're basically
doing something that the County philosophically encourages,
which is larger lot sizes. So, I, you know, agree with
that, but or. the first point, our hands are tied by state
law.
MR. SWANSON: It almost seems to me I should
be subsidized, because I'm saving the County money.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- I don't know
if I'd go that far.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Nice try.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I agree --
MR. SWANSON: It is a real irritation to have
to pay the same fee twice to the same entity. And -- and
the amount of the fees, I'm saying, jeez -- you know, we've
owned our house in Crestwood, which we've been there for
five years, and our house taxes have gone up the maximum
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
17
amcunt every year, and I'm saying, "Jeez, I'm paying taxes.
I'm paying fees. What's the value added for this?" I mean,
i feel like Don Quixote; I just want to vent, but I do think
that -- that our public sector personnel should -- should
adopt a little bit of what the private sector does in
saying, what's the value added for what I'm doing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, like I said, I
agree. It's just that we don't have a whole lot of latitude
on the procedure part of it. On the fee structure, we
certainly do. I think you have a very valid point that -- I
mean, we have not in the past differentiated our fee
structure between the size of the development. The concept
is that the developer should pay, you know, for a lot of the
-- of the costs of developing. This is a situation, I mean,
obviously, where this is a lot different than a large
subdivision plat, and the fee structure doesn't vary.
MR. SWANSON: What's the opposite of a
subdivision? That's what I'm doing. I'm a reverse
subdivision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're revising a
subdivision.
MR. SWANSON: I don't want to take up your
time; I know it's valuable, but if this is a state
requirement, what do we do to try to get the State to maybe
look at saying, what's the value added for making minor
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
replats into a big deal now?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, as I say, the --
nothing changes; it's just that we weren't following the
state law previously. The procedure would be to go through
the -- either our State Senator or State Representative.
That would be the easiest way, and -- or both. And I think
that the -- certainly, our State Representative I know very
well. He would probably, you know -- or may be agreeable to
this. I mean, it's something that, to me, would benefit the
public, and Harvey's usually very, you know, interested in
doing these types of things.
MR. SWANSON: I think I'll pursue it. It
won't help me, but maybe it will help the next poor guy. Or
maybe if I buy the next lot, maybe in five years --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll be glad to get with
you also and give you part of the state law so you can show
what needs to be changed.
MR. SWANSON: Okay. Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Mr. Swanson. At
this time, we need a motion for approval of the preliminary
revision of plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court grant the
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
19
preliminary approval for the preliminary revision of plat
for Lots 15 and 16 of Whiskey Ridge Ranches in Precinct 3.
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
3, consider releasing Letter of Credit Number NTS368031 for
the final plat of Village West Industrial Park. Franklin?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. This -- I think this
subdivision was approved pending them building a cul-de-sac
at the end of one of the roads and improving the drainage
through the system, and they have rebuilt the ditch and have
built a cul-de-sac. I checked them last week. So, the
project's complete, so we need to release the Letter of
Credit.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court
authorize release of Letter of Credit Number NTS368031 for
the final plat of Village West Industrial Park. Any further
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
zo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: A11 opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
4, consider the preliminary plat of Cutoff Business Park and
the request for a variance of -- for drainage structure and
lot size in Precinct 4. Betore we start the discussion on
this, I received this morning and had copied for each of the
Commissioners -- it should be in your box -- correspondence
from the Headwaters Underground Water Conservation District
regarding this issue. So, Larry?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. Franklin, you
probably need to go through this. We'll discuss, obviously,
this correspondence from Headwaters. It appears that there
are several issues that need to be resolved prior to
approval of a -- even the preliminary plat. Is that where
we are?
MR. JOHNSTON: Is that a new letter, or is
that the one that was in our packet?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, this was the one
we got this morning. It's just -- it's Headwaters
recommending not approving the preliminary until they have a
response from Aquasource that they have the water capability
to supply this -- this proposed subdivision.
MR. JOHNSTON: The -- Aquasource apparently
zl
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
sent them a letter, but I think our rules say that
T.N.R.C.C. has to send us a letter saying they have enough
connections. We -- I haven't seen that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Whether they have
sufficient groundwater rights is the issue, and I just --
like the Judge said, we just got this this morning, but I
think there are some other issues as well on drainage and
a11. But, how about hitting those one at a time, and --
MR. JOHNSTON: Okay, we can go through that.
The -- the developers had Vordenbaum Engineering do a
drainage plan on this site. However, the plan doesn't seem
to follow along with our Subdivision Rules. Our rules call
for a reduced flow from the input to the output as a result
of construction by a percentage 50 to 80 percent, and this
one increases the flow about four-fold going through the
site. Apparently, it speeds it up as it's going through,
the problem being that it could affect development down --
between that and the river by increasing the flow four
times. That's Section, I think, 506(b) of our Subdivision
Rules. That's one issue.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What would it take --
is there anything in the study that shows what it would take
to fix that? That would indicate what it would take?
MR. JOHNSTON: I think some kind of retainage
system is what it would take, and they -- they apparently
22
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
didn't think that was necessary. It has Nichols Creek, plus
it has drainage from around the entire perimeter almost of
the subdivision draining into that, so it kind of
concentrates all the flow when it leaves the site. That's
probably why it increases so much. You have a little
drawing that shows that what they're proposing to do is put
a big channel around the bottom end of the site, divert all
the water across the highway. And one thing, also, on their
plat, they're showing a -- a FEMA map -- a floodplain map,
1979 issue, where there's a 2000 issue available.
Apparently, there's a -- I haven't heard back from U.G.R.A.
on this. I guess they -- they hadn't -- they were supposed
to review it, but I haven't got a letter from them on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Franklin, on the issue of
the increase in the runoff -- in the runoff four-fold,
that's not increasing the -- the creek increasing off this
property, correct? I mean, certainly, this little tract
can't increase the flow in Nichols Creek four-fold.
MR. JOHNSTON: It's increasing the cubic feet
per second of velocity.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Of the entire creek?
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, through -- from where it
enters the subdivision to where it exits, you know, taking
the water that enters and speeds it -- I guess they're
cleaning out, so it speeds it on through. So, that would
23
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
have an effect downstream.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So it's a velocity
issue.
MR. JOHNSTON: There's a little chart in
there on the right-hand side.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it doesn't
increase the --
MR. JOHNSTON: No, it doesn't increase the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the volume.
MR. JOHNSTON: -- amount of water. Just
increases the speed that it's going through there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It seems -- I mean, they
may be going to an extreme point, but in other areas, I know
that FEMA, or U.G.R.A. through FEMA, has encouraged cleaning
creek bottoms, river bottoms where there's a whole bunch of
trees, to get the water to flow through, as opposed to being
all backed up and stopped up. I mean, what is the -- like,
I know along Third Creek, they were very happy when Little
League went in and cleaned Third Creek on the whole section
where it was causing a huge backup of water, 'cause all of
that debris and drift piles that were built up along that
creek, they literally went in there and cleaned it out, and
FEMA was -- approved it, and glad we did it. And there were
some issues on siltation and stuff until it got, you know,
taken care of. But, I mean, I guess at what point does the
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
velocity -- do you want to increase it some to get the water
to flow through it, versus getting it too fast so that
you're causing damage downstream? Or do you -- I mean --
MR. JOHNSTON: I'm sure there's something on
that, but I know in our rules, we have it where they need to
slow it down, actually, so it doesn't -- I think we've had
subdivisions where's they're cascading.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: The one built on the upper end
actually affects flooding on the ones downstream, just by --
by developing, basically. It concentrates the water. I
think that's what this is doing. We haven't done an entire
study to see if that's a problem downstream, but that's not
part of the normal --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: -- routine on this. But -- do
a region study.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just -- I'm looking --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Isn't -- do the
Subdivision Rules address the velocity-flow percentages? Or
the velocity --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Velocity. But, I mean,
you know, the other -- I'm looking at this, and what they're
designing may not be very -- to me, very aesthetically
pleasing; I may not like it from that standpoint. This is
25
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
exactly what cities do. I mean, you know, city -- I mean,
you go in a city, they concrete these creeks to get the
water, and obviously you're increasing the velocity, but
that's what they're doing. And, I mean, I'm -- I don't know
enough about F'EMA and velocity issues as to if there is -- I
know our Subdivision Rules say this is not good, but I see
it being done a lot, and maybe our Subdivision Rules need to
be tweaked in this area, and I don't know. That's -- I see
Jim Brown is saying no. We don't want to increase velocity?
MR. BROWN: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you explain it, Jim?
Can you help me?
MR. BROWN: Well -- Jim Brown. For the
record, Jim Brown, Upper Guadalupe River Authority. And,
I'm wearing two hats. One is a 21-year veteran as a city
manager, and also U.G.R.A. What we're trying to do now with
the reduction of velocity as it flows off of improved land
is two things. One is to keep that -- that increase in the
velocity from creating a flooding event and an erosion event
downstream from where it enters the current stream. Yet we
do channel -- you see channelization in those streams, but
that's only after there's been an extensive HEC1 or HEC2
model done by the governmental entity, and we've not done
any of that in Kerr County. That's extremely expensive.
So, we can talk about it, but I'm not sure we want to do
26
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
zs
that out of our unincorporated Kerr County Subdivision Rules
at this time.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Franklin, did you
indicate that there was a way to look at this to see if
there is really an effect downstream? You said we haven't
done that?
MR. JOHNSTON: I think if they extend the
study downstream and see what the potential is for
development and see what -- what's going on down there.
They haven't done that. They just stayed on the site. So
it's about, what, a mile from the river or so. So -- so
there's potential. I think there is a development across
the road. There's a mobile home park across the road.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Did they -- did they
indicate to you why they used the old floodplain?
MR. JOHNSTON: I haven't beer. able to get
them on the phone. I was calling -- I was calling their
office, but Cameron was busy over there. I had to call him
back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think where you're
going, Larry -- I mean, if we're going to give any kind of
variance to this issue, if we need one, Vordenbaum would
have to recommend that it not hurt anything downstream, I
think.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. Your request --
~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
15
if you're going to have a variance, that's possible, but --
MR. JOHNSTON: He said apparently it stayed
in the banks of the creek on the site, but he didn't do
anything to study downstream to see what it would do beyond
the site.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, it just sounds
to me like --
MR. JOHNSTON: But they're using the old
maps.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- we need to get a
floodplain study involved, we need to make a downstream
determination, and we've got to get a water availability
certification from somebody that says there is water
available.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: T.N.R.C.C.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: From Aquasource, and
'1'.N.R.C.C. has to do that, it sounds like. So, those three
things need to be addressed, I think, before we can approve
this. Does that sound --
MR. JOHNSTON: I pulled the -- the record on
our preliminary conference we did, concept plan. It's
concerning lot size, and there's a lot of pages of talk
about it, but I don't think a decision was ever made. So --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, that was -- the
thing there was, where you have a commercial, we really
7R

S
E
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
IS
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2~
didn't -- the rule didn't really look at it. And, again, we
said that for the short-term, that we would look at a
variance, as I recall. That was -- we would look at a
variance on-site for a commercial.
MR. JOHNSTON: Something -- you said you'd
look at it, but there's apparently some disagreement.
There's a loL of pages talking about it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But I think until we
get those three things done, we really can't go much farther
with it. At the same time, Jonathan, perhaps I can get with
you and take a look at the Subdivision Rules and maybe
consider a tweak in the commercial area.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, right now we're
silent in the commercial area.
COMMIS510NER GRIFFIN: That's right. That's
what I mean. We don't say anything about it.
MR. JUHNSTON: There's one issue also that --
there's a couple minor things I had in my memo, but the
issue -- in the transcript of the preliminary conference,
they talked about having the road accessible to the public,
but it would be a private road. In this plat, I don't think
it specifies either way whether it's public or private.
Arrd, we -- I think we talked a little bit about it, but we
never did decide on the actual width and design of the road
for a commercial subdivision, since it could have more truck
~a


9
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
traffic and heavy traffic than a normal automobile traffic
residential subdivision would have. So, possibly the road
would be -- instead of a country lane, might have to be a
wider standard local road. Might have to even have
additional base material for this type of application.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This plat does not
propose either.
MR. JOHNSTON: No, it doesn't address that at
all, as I recall.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there a septic issue as
well? We have a letter from Stuart Barron indicating that
they can only -- can't have more than -- the largest on-site
sewage facility that can be installed under the subchapter
is 5,000 gallons per day or less.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You may not have seen that
yet.
MR. JOHNSTON: No, I haven't seen that
letter. That's what I was waiting to get, apparently.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Franklin?
MR. JOHNSTON: Do they propose putting a
collective system or individual --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm not sure.
MR. JOHNSTON: I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That is the letter we
received this morning.
2n


L
E
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me make sure I gave
him the right thing.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I just -- I don't
think we have any choice but to defer this. We're going to
have to get some answers to some of these questions before
we can move on it, really, either way. So, I think this
needs --
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, they have to -- like, on
residences sometimes, on lots, they show the area where they
would develop, an area where they put a septic system. On
commercial, they can cover up the majority of the lot with
parking and buildings. They have to designate a certain
area for septics and that they actually make work on each
lot, 'cause some of the lots are half-acre lots.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think that you
would --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, we've got to
have something --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have to know there's
space on each Sot for --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: For a septic system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, for a septic
system. And I think it needs to be noted -- you know,
somehow noted that out of each lot, so much square feet have



e
E
c
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to be reserved for the septic somewhere, or pretty uniform.
MR. JOHNSTON: .59 lot size is pretty small.
Even in the old days, when we had water systems, we only
allowed 1 acre for septic. This is half that size.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I think, you know,
Stuart -- if he could give us some sort of determination as
to how many square feet are going to be required for some of
the generic systems, and that needs to be noted.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And is it a simple
system? Is it a --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Septic.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is it an individual
lot? We've got to know some of that, I think.
MR. JOHNSTON: They don't show a lot on this
for disposal, so it must be one on each side.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone from the developer
here?
MR. JOHNSTON: Do you have some answers?
MR. BRANDENBURG: Yes, sir. Your Honor,
Commissioners, my name is Gary Brandenburg. I'm a land
surveyor here in Kerrville, and was asked to stand in for
Steve Jenschke and Larry Richter, the developer and realtor
of ttie project. 1 guess the comments that I have are in
regards to the engineering of Nichols Creek there. I'm a
iiLtle confused. Well, I'm a land surveyor; I won't even


8
c
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
attempt to interpret the engineering plans Vordenbaum have
'. produced, but I can comment why -- why he was involved in
the project, and it basically was to challenge the
floodplain width in that vicinity according to the FEMA map.
We went in and performed a series of cross-sections,
starting on the downstream side of the Highway 27 bridge,
and went all ttie way through the development and on into the
Windmill Communities property a little bit. That
information was turned over to Vordenbaum. He ran a HEC1
and HEC2 study on that information, and determined that the
floodplain for the 100-year duration was somewhat reduced in
width through there, and that is represented by a line on
that plat. To my knowledge, there are no plans to modify
the creek in any manner, or even the removal of any brush
along its banks. What happens to that brush after people,
you know, were -- develop these lots -- you know, I'm not
certain what, you know, they might do, but I guess I'm
surprised that the flows increase by four times, and I'm not
sure what -- what event has created that. I know that some
engineering was done to address the storm water runoff, you
know, from the streets and parking lots and drainage
easements, and a drainage channel has been provided for
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What could have caused
the flow?
~I MR. BRANDENBURG: We11, I'm not an engineer,
	
	
	E
	
	
	
	`
1	-
	1C
	11
	12
--
I	13
	14
	15
	16
	I7
	18
	19
	20
	21
	22
	23
24
25
so I can't even speculate, you know, what would create that
or -- nothing at this point has really changed. As far as
the storm water runoff, there will be some impervious
structures, you know, rooftops, concrete parking lots, et
cetera, that will decrease the natural ground's ability to
absorb water, and that rainwater will run off through the
drainage easements. I can't imagine the velocity of that
creek changing four-fold, but those are not my numbers.
Those are Stuart Vordenbaum's numbers.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't know either,
but	it -	- intuitively,	I	don't	think the	velocity increase
in	flow	is as much of	an	issue	as water	availability,
septic, and use of the right floodplain map. Those three
things -- I come back to that again. Those three things, to
me, are the real drivers. And if we can get a good analysis
on Lhe increase in velocity and what that does downstream, I
don't think that will turn out -- and this is intuitive now,
but I don't think that would be as big a problem as getting
these other issues settled.
COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	I	agree.
COMMISSIONER	GRIFFIN:	So	I recommend that we
defer this until --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, you know,
Vordenbaum needs to either have a representative here or
34
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
send a letter explaining -- or maybe the developer or
someone explaining. Those numbers, I presume, came off a
summary of flows which is on the plat for this that Stuart
Vordenbaum prepared. And, you know, some kind of
determination as to what that means downstream.
MR. BRANDENBURG: Yes, I agree with that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll defer this until such
time as Franklin and the developer have resolved some of the
issues we've discussed today, as well as some of the other
issues that are raised in Franklin's memo to the Court and
Headwaters' correspondence, which has been handed over to
Franklin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does Gary have any
specific questions? Septic? Are you handling all that?
MR. BRANDENBURG: For the most part, I'm
handling the survey aspects and the platting process of this
development. Stuart Vordenbaum would be the engineer for
the project. Larry Richter and I are kind of working
side-by-side, and, you know, just basically addressing the
issues that are presented, you know, in regards to this
development. And I stand before you as -- basically, as an
informant in both directions. I will convey to
Mr. Jenschke, you know, what the Court has suggested today,
acknowledged, and then I also will visit with Franklin
Johnston in regards to, you know, what process he wishes to
z~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
see as far as re-presenting this to you at a later date.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Gary, one other comment.
You mentioned when you first got up about that Vordenbaum
did some cross-sections and is recommending, I guess,
modifying the floodplain. Jim, there's a procedure, I
presume, for that to actually take place? I mean, if
they're -- I mean, the floodplain maps clearly are drawn
with a broad pen, essentially, so once it's defined exactly
wkiex~e that floodplain is, there's a procedure to get that
into the FEMA system; is that correct?
MR. BROWN: That is correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, Vordenbaum or you or
Mr. Jenschke or someone needs to get with U.G.R.A., and if
they're recommending or think there should be a change in
the actual floodplain location, that needs to be done
presumably through U.G.R.A.
MR. BRANDENBURG: Yes, sir, that process is
actually underway. Part of Vordenbaum's flood study
process, in addition to the cross-sections and the computer
analysis, is to apply to FEMA for a -- what they call a
LOMA, or Letter of Map Amendment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. BRANDENBURG: And it typically can be a
6- to 8-week process to receive that information back. As
far as 1 know, that information has not been returned.
3h

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: All right. And that will
involve one of the questions that Larry had regarding
floodplain map -- correct map being used.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Thank you, Mr.
Brandenburg.
MR. BRANDENBURG: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Appreciate it. The next two
items, 5 and 6, relate to a public hearing which is posted
for 10 o'clock, so we'll go ahead and skip ahead and come
back to those. Let's take up Item Number 7, which is to
consider and approve name changes for privately maintained
roads in Precinct 2 and 4 in accordance with the 911
guidelines. Commissioner Griffin, this is mostly yours.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. These -- these
name changes, by the way, are privately maintained roads,
not county-maintained. They were coordinated through the
Road and Bridge Department with the appropriate folks. Is
there any discussion of it? If not, I'll make a motion that
we approve the name changes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court
approve the name changes for privately maintained roads in
Precincts 2 and 9 as presented. Any further questions or
37

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
comments? If not, ali 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
Baldwin, are your folks here? Number 8? If not, we can
go --
ii COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, they're not.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, we'll come back. It's
listed for 10:30. Let's go to Item Number 9, consider and
discuss approval of an acquisition of a cell phone and
service from local company. Jannett Pieper, County Clerk.
MS. PIE PER: Thank you, gentlemen. As you
know, I have been before you once before, and you had asked
our technology person, Shaun, to check on this. It's my
understanding that he checked on it and he said that as it
stands right now, there is no great savings if we do it
county. Therefore -- and he was not going to recommend a
company as a result of that. Therefore, I'm back on the
agenda again. My early voting is coming up; I need a phone.
My preference is Sprint, only because I have had experience
with Sprint and with Verizon, and I think Sprint is a better
service. There's too much patchy area with the Verizon. If
you have any questions about that service and what we can
get, I have bought Michelle from Sprint that could answer
38
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
questions.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions? What's it
going to cost?
MS. WALDROP: I can give them these. This is
just the phone part of it, but the technology -- the U.S.
government originally developed it, so it's not phonable
like the other companies will be phonable, like, in a matter
of weeks, but this is strictly digital. Did you get one,
Jannett?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, I have one. Sprint is
going to waive the activation fee, no deposit, $50 mail-in
phone rebate, $10 off in-store purchase of any select Sprint
PCS phones, free accessories, which is a $50 value, and then
refer-a-friend program. I think that is their standard
feature there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the monthly
fee?
	MS. PIEPER:	Excuse me?	
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: Monthly fee?	
	MS. WALDROP:	$34.99.	
	MS. PIEPER:	$34.99. $34.99 monthly	fee.
	MS. WALDROP:	But right off you get a	n extra
6,000 minutes	a year on the	refer-a-friend program.	It's
like Nextel.	Nextel has the	radio-to-radio feature.	This
is PCS-to-PCS.			
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
29
zs
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does this system -- is
that a full coverage through the county?
MS. PIEPER: I have not really experienced
many -- the only dead spot I have -- that I have experienced
is in my house. But, you know, if we compare that to
Verizon, my son has that service. He has to go a couple
blocks down. Me, I can walk out on my front porch. But, I
mean, I don't need this service at my house. But they do
have towers up in Center Point, Comfort, Ingram, two in
Fredericksburg. They're putting a repeater on Southway.
They have several in the Kerrville area. They just recently
put one up in Mountain Home. In Harper, they're going to be
up by December, and then I believe you said Junction as well
would have one?
MS. WALDROP: We're working on Junction.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only reason I ask --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's essentially
county-wide.
MS. PIEPER: It's my understanding that the
other phone companies work off of the L.C.R.A. tower.
MS. WALDROP: No, the Five Star, just the
local. But with our technology, with CDMA, it gives you
1900 megahertz where you can get not just local information,
but federal also. And you can -- it's -- all the phones are
Internet capability, so you can just plug in your PC
40
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
wherever you are. You can pull up any federal information.
The San. Antonio Police Department is using Sprint because of
the -- the cloneable -- it's not cloneable.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the home area
generally before you start having a roaming charge?
MS. WALDROP: It's 95 percent covered. The
only part that's not covered is about 16 miles out toward
Junction.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that include San
Antonio?
MS. WALDROP: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: In fact, it covers
most of the metropolitan areas of the state. If you're on
network -- on Sprint PCS, you can call anywhere in the
country that has Sprint network.
MS. PIEPER: My son that has the Verizon, you
can go down the road, and his phone beeps continuously in
and out between roaming and digital, so it's very
distracting. The other phone from -- from Sprint doesn't do
that. If it rings, you answer it, and that's it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
authorize the County Clerk to acquire a cell phone and
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lE
17
lE
1~
2(
2:
2:
2
2
2
service with local company. 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.
MS. PIEPER: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Jannett. Item
Number 10, consider and discuss supporting the printing
costs for WET water conservation brochure. Commissioner
Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is the brochure that
I brought to the Court, I guess about a month ago, and they
approved the form of it. The County's name is on it; it's
kind of water conservation for Kerr County. The -- WET is a
group of -- loosely-knit group of representatives that
represent, you know, pretty basically every -- well, they
list them all on the front, all the governmental entities
and some individuals as well. Anyway, the printiny cost,
they're having to go to the entities to cover the printing
cost, and they have asked that I bring it to the County to
-- for our contribution to be one of two ways. One, either
3 a 5500 contribution towards the printing cost. They plan on
} doing, like, 10,000 copies initially, and probably a second
5 printing will be required at some point. Either a 5500
42
contribution from the County, or I brought up, in lieu of
that, if they'd be willing to use the services of Shaun to
create a -- a spot on the County's web page and upkeep it
with the same -- with the same information that would be
available. It would seem to be -- to me, it would be a
way -- something that would not be a -- even though you do
have some money in the budget for purposes like this in this
year's budget, I'd recommend really that we try to take the
second approach and have Shaun work on a web page with the
WET group to put up a number of water conservation issues,
including this pamphlet on the County's web page, and have
links to O.G.R.A. and City of Kerrville and other --
Headwaters and other entities that deal with water issues.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sounds like a good
5 idea. We could also keep it updated and with additions and
6 changes and that kind of thing, too.
~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the idea would be
8 to go directly to -- as we get into drought periods, have
9 the -- you know, the City's basically got kind of one
0 location where we would keep track of water issues, of, you
1 know, flows of the Guadalupe and well levels and things like
2 that, as they try to get people more aware of water
3 conservation throughout the county.
q COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They still intend on
5 printing it?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lE
li
lE
l~
2(
2.
2:
2
2
2
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, they would still
intend -- intent on printing this. They would go to other
people to give them money, as opposed to the County
contributing $500. I think U.G.R.A. is looking at a $500
contribution. City of Kerrville, $500 contribution.
Headwaters, either $500 or $250, something like that.
They're going to -- and I think, to my knowledge, everyone
has agreed to contribute so far that they've asked. But
nobody came up with a way to do the web page fox them, and I
brought that up and thought we could do that. Shaun -- that
would be a good use of his abilities. So, I'll make a
motion that the County's contribution to the WET brochure
will be to have Shaun work on a web page for WET that will
be part of the Kerr County web page.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second that motion.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court authorize the
computer guru to work on a WET -- a web page presentation of
the WET water conservation brochure and other water
conservation issues as our contribution to the WET brochure
dissemination. Any 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.)
94
i-^
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Let's take a
couple more before our 10 o'clock hearing. Let's go to
Number 15, consider and discuss adoption of a resolution
authorizing signatories to T.C.D.P. Contract Number 721075.
This is one of the grants that we received for the
wastewater project out in Kerrville South, and we have to do
a resolution authorizing the specific signatories on the
various documents. Does anyone have any questions or
comments?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
1`
1F
1"
l
1
2
2
2
2
C
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This rs the renal u~
all these, is it not, Judge?
DODGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move it for
approval and signature.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
adopt the resolution authorizing designated signatories for
3 Texas Community Development Program Contract /21075. Any
further questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise
L your right hand.
~ (The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
3 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
4 (No response.)
5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
45
1
,~
16, consider and discuss the nomination oI Paula Rec*_or
and/or others for Kerr Central Appraisal District Board of
Directors. Paula has served ably as our nominee on the
Appraisal District Board of Directors, and is willing to do
so. Y'all remember, this is kind of a weighted voting
thing. We have the ability to nominate other individuals if
we'd like to. Then we can vote specifically for one or
divide our votes. I guess the first question would be, is
there anyone else who has any other nominees for the
position of member of the Board of Directors of Kerr Central
Appraisal District?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we reappoint Paula
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1C
11
1~
l:
I
1
1
1
1
1
L
Rector.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
~ COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second -- third.
~ JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
7 second by Commissioner Williams, that the Conunissioners
8 Court reappoint or renominate Paula Rector to serve as a
g member of the Board of Directors of the Kerr Central
0 Appraisal District. Any further questions or comments? If
1 not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
2 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
,3 JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
,4 (NO response.)
~5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
46
.-.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17, consider and discuss approval of contract with Office of
Court Administration. This is a contract between Kerr
County and the Office of Court Administration at the State
for partial reimbursement of salary expenses for the
Administrative Assistant for the Sixth Administrative
Judicial Region.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved. I'm sorry,
go ahead.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I was just going to ask for
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move we approve.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And authorize County
Judge to sign same?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If it requires
signature, yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
approve the contract between the Office of Court
Administration and Kerr County, and authorize County Judge
to sign same. 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.)
47


I
,~--
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2i
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Okay. The
hour draws nigh for our public hearing, which is listed in
our books as Item Number 5. So, at this time we will recess
the Kerr County Commissioners Court meeting and open a
public hearing.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 10:00 a.m., and a public hearing
was held in open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE HENNEKE: The public hearing is for
road name changes in various locations in Kerr County, in
accordance with 911 guidelines. I believe these are public,
county-maintained roads. The name changes have been
published in the local newspaper, and I believe we have a
number of individuals who have indicated their desire to
speak on this matter, so we will start at the top and work
our way down. Joe Esquell.
MR. ESQUELL: Yes, sir. Good morning, Judge
and Commissioners. I'm Joe Esquell, and we would like --
the people of the reservation community would like to have
the road changed from Tatsch Road to Reservation Road West.
Our schoolhouse was built there in 1920, and it's been the
center of the community ever since. And it's real
confusing, with the Reservation Road coming out of Harper,
the sign shows that it crosses 979, and that's a dead-end
road, and people go up there to my nephew to find out where
48
1
1
1
1
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1a
19
20
21
22
2?
29
2_`
the Reservation Road is. Well, you tell them, "Well, it's
Tatsch Road." "Well, we don't know where Tatsch Road's at."
You tell them where the schoolhouse was. Oh, yeah, they all
remember that, but they don't know where Tatsch Road's at.
And, being the center of the community since 1920, we feel
it ought to be Reservation Road West. And, we have highways
and farm-to-market roads, and they're all named south and
west -- or I mean. north and south and east and west. And
why can't this road be named Reservation Road West?
DODGE HENNEKE: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me address that
for just a little bit, if I may, Judge. I talked to your
nephew Les yesterday. He called me, we discussed this.
That particular name change is not on this list for, you
know, any kind of name change at this point. There is a
procedure, and I outlined that with -- with your nephew, and
I'll be glad to do that later with you as well. There is a
procedure we can go through to try to effect the kind of
name change you're talking about, but it will have to be
done separately from this hearing. But, I -- we know what
the issues are, and we can now do that. Now, we'll have to
end up -- and it involves some petitioning of landowners
that live on what is currently Tatsch Road.
AUDIENCE: Not to interrupt you -- I
apologize. I've got some more signatures.
49



1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, that will have
to be done with the tax roll list and that kind of thing,
but we can address that as a separate issue. We just can't
address it at this time, because it's not on this list. But
that doesn't mean that we can't address it as a separate
issue, and we will do that.
MR. ESQUELL: Well, we got four pages of
signatures.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It will -- it will
require that we do another -- what is now Reservation Road
West, that is the piece that you're talking that comes out
of Gillespie County. That piece will have to -- would have
to be renamed if we were to rename Tatsch Road. So, it's
more than just renaming Tatsch Road. But we can do that.
There's a process and a procedure by which we can approach
that.
MR. ESQUELL: But, what -- oo you mean the
other road has to be renamed?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
MR. ESQUELL: Why not make it "East" then?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 'Cause that doesn't
conform to the 911 guidelines. So, it doesn't say that --
there's no reason we couldn't change -- if we go through the
process, we could change what is now Reservation Road to
something else, and you can change what is now Tatsch Road
50



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.'
to Reservation Road. That's possible. So, we'll just have
to go through that -- that entire process, but we can't just
name -- we can't have two Reservation Roads, particularly a
Reservation Road East, because that's not the right
geographical region for a suffix like "East." You can't
have an East suffix out there. But, we could -- there are
other solutions, and we'll just have to go through those.
MR. ESQUELL: Well, what will it take?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I will be glad to get
with you after this meeting today, and I can outline that
for you. I did outline it for your nephew yesterday. In
general, what it would -- he said he couldn't be here, but I
did go through that with him. It's a little lengthy, but we
can address that as a separate issue.
MR. ESQUELL: Well, that is -- that's the one
that people come up and ask him, where does the Reservation
Road go.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I understand.
MR. ESQUELL: Well, the road that they --
people travel is a dead-end road. They pulled a trailer
house in there; couldn't turn around, hardly.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. It's obvious
that that -- there is a signage problem, at least, at that
point. But we can address that issue, too.
MR. ESQUELL: Well, I don't know if any of
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
51
the other people concerned about it want to say anything,
or --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Thank you, Mr.
Esquell.
MR. ESQUELL: Thank y'all.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Oehler? T.J. Oehler?
Did you want to say anything, sir? Again, Tatsch Road is
not on this list. We're not going to -- we'll take that up
at a separate day, so -- just so everybody understands.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It will be an issue
all by itself, too, which will make it much easier to
address.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Tom Bryant?
MR. BRYANT: I was here for Tatsch Road, too.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Mr. James Murphy?
MR. MURPHY: Right here.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Same thing? Okay. We have
Mr. Grace?
MS. GRACE: We have -- good morning. We have
a petition signed by all but five residences in the Bivouac
Estates area protesting renaming of our streets. With the
modern technology that we have, we don't understand why they
need to be changed, since there are maps available that give
directions to any location. But, if you are adamant that
they must be changed, since they are, for all practical
52
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
purposes, two contiguous blocks, why can they not be changed
to West Oak and West Cedar? This would be very much less
confusing for most of the people. But, of course, we would
prefer that they be left as they are.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Which names are we
talking about?
MS. GRACE: Oak Drive North and South and
Cedar Drive East and West.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think there is --
T.? Could I --
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- maybe ask for your
help a little bit on the guidelines? I think the reason for
these particular name changes in the -- on those four was
due to the fact that they have prefixes that are directions.
MR. SANDLIN: And the other thing, we have so
many Cedars and so many Oaks.
MS. GRACE: They do not have prefixes. It's
Oak Drive North -- they were changed for some reason; we
have no idea why. They've always been Oak Drive North, Oak
Drive South, Cedar Drive East, and Cedar Drive West. Why
they were changed, nobody knows.
AUDIENCE: And when were they changed.
MS. GRACE: It's only been recently that they
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
were designated as that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And so, obviously,
even if they retained -- even if they retained the Cedar or
Oak designation, which would -- might be a difficulty
because of duplication --
MR. SANDLIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- they'd still
require a suffix -- a dropping of any suffix other than
west.
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, sir, because they're in
the west. As people know, the county was divided into the
six geo-regions, and the suffix will be the geo-region in
which this street lies, that being the west geo-region.
MS. GRACE: Then why couldn't Oak Drive North
and South become Oak Urive West, and Cedar Drive East and
West become Cedar Drive West?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We11, the only thing
would be is if we ran through the guidelines, and by what --
by the formula determination for resolving duplicates.
MR. SANDLIN: Which Cedar? Which Oak?
Which -- which Deer Run? Which Park? It's one of those
things.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would recommend,
Judge, in the -- in the interest of time, that we -- that we
table these four and go back and review those again, since
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
the -- since the idea of a prefix is not correct, as it's
shown on this list. So, I'd like to take another look at
that.
MR. SANDLIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And I can do that with
Truby.
MR. SANDLIN: And then we can -- I don't know
which -- which Cedar got weighted against which Cedar out in
that area, as far as population and density.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would recommend that
we defer these.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We can do that.
MS. GRACE: Thanks very much.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thanks. Mr. W.A. Collins?
MR. COLLINS: I'm here to support Mrs. Grace
and what she had to say, but also I want to narrow this down
to my street, Oak Drive South. There are seven residences
and houses on that street, and six of them them are in town,
and they do not want it changed. The seventh, I have not
been able to get ahold of. If it is changed -- I think
simplicity is what you're looking for, isn't it? All right.
West Cedar Drive is shown to be changed to Kallie Drive
West. South Oak Drive is Kayla, K-a-y-1-a, Drive West. How
are you going to like -- how would you like to be given
instructions for Kayla or Kallie? And those two streets run
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
right together; they join right in the middle. So, I think
that needs some consideration there. And, it's already been
mentioned that these -- the suffixes, "W," do they go on the
address? 'Cause that's what goes on our letter in the mail.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If that's where you
get your mail, yes.
MR. COLLINS: In other words, I'd be
something number, Kayla Drive West?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's correct.
MR. COLLINS: We11, in essence, that's what's
I got now. 1 got Oak Drive South.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. But the new
one would conform to the guidelines, where the old one
doesn't. That's the only reason for that change.
MR. COLLINS: Well, I'd like to be in on this
conference you have on this subject.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure.
MR. COLLINS: On this subject, because it's
confusing to me. You've transposed Oak Drive South and put
it South Oak Drive in this newspaper item, and I don't
understand why.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We11, that's the
reason we're going to go back and review all of those.
MR. COLLINS: A11 right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Be happy to do that.
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUCGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Mr. Collins.
Belinda Pruneda?
MS. PRUNEDA: Thank you. I'm here to support
Mr. Collins and Ms. Grace. To the issue that we've
previously discussed, Commissioner Griffin, I believe that
when I spoke with 911, that Oak Drive is not a duplication.
We went through the book. So, I just wanted to bring that
to your attention. And then, as Mr. Sandlin mentioned,
there are so many duplications on the Cedars. I was -- I
got the criteria from the 911 office that, I guess, rates
whose -- which names get changed and which don't. The only
information that I -- I could pull up as a private citizen
was the Appraisal District office, and I went through and
just looked at numbers of addresses on the Cedar Cliff and
the Cedar Springs, Cedar Mill, and Cedar Drive. It appears
that the Cedar Drive of which we speak serves, number one,
the most addresses, and number two, has been named that for
a longer period of time than any of the other three Cedars.
So, I -- I have had no way of determining which of the four
Cedar Drives had more historical value or not. I had no way
of doing that. But -- but the two -- what appeared to be
the most important criteria for changing the names of the
streets, from my research, shows our Cedar Drive has been
there longer and serves more addresses. Thank you for
hearing me.
57
•-.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
zs
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you. Is there anyone
else who'd like to address the Court on the name changes
proposed for public roads in Kerr County? This is the
public hearing portion of this proceeding. Is there anyone
else who'd like to address the Court and the public on the
name changes? Yes, ma'am, come forward. If you'll give us
your name?
MS. KING: Evelyn King, and I live at One Oak
Drive North. We have lived there since 1963. We were given
at that time this One Oak Drive North for our address, and
at the time that we moved there, there was no street signs
or no nothing, because that part of the Kerrville area was
not in the city limits. Since it has been in the city
limits -- and I will take credit for this. I asked -- I
called, because there had been several accidents. I had
called and asked them to put a sign down on the highway
after it became Oak Drive North, and after it became in the
city limits. They did that, but they failed to put -- they
just have Oak Drive. It is not Oak Drive North there. And,
in '63, when we moved there, this is what they gave us, One
Oak Drive North. And, I am like these others. When it was
changed to what it is now, we have no idea. I -- we were
not aware of it. So, I would like to be in on this
conference that is to be later.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, thank you. Would
58
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
anyone else like to address the Court on the changes in the
public roads? If not, we'll close the public hearing and
reconvene the regular meeting of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:16
a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
DODGE HENNEKE: Next item for consideration
is Item Number 6, consider and approve name changes for Kerr
County roads in various locations, in accordance 911
guidelines.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I can just make kind
of a general comment kind of relating to the public hearing,
exactly what happened is what we want to happen when we --
when we're changing lots of road names to get 911 in
compliance. And, the purpose of all this is for safety, and
so that 911, in their system and through the emergency
services, whether it be fire or police, can find the
residences. And, right now there's a real problem in that
area. You know, you all did exactly what you need to do,
come to these public hearings and let us know that, hey,
there's a road here that is -- a lot of the public is
disagreeing with. I think what Commissioner Griffin did is
what all the Commissioners will do, is recommend those names
be pulled out. We'll go back and take another look at them.
SQ
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
zs
So, I mean, I applaud all of y'al1 for coming and makinq the
system work the way it's intended to work.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Absolutely.
MS. GRACE: May I say something?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, ma'am.
MS. GRACE: Regarding the emergency vehicles
having difficulty finding the roads, there's one lady whose
cahose husband had heart problems. She had to call 911, I
don't know how many times, more than once, and they never,
ever had a difficult -- a difficult problem finding the
place. There is one house that, unfortunately, burned, and
the owner said that the firemen from Kerrville and Ingram
were there within a matter of minutes with no difficulty
whatsoever. And, as I said previously, with the modern
technology, with the maps that are already in the computer
systems, it would seem that plugging in the addresses with
the map that gives you directions to get to anyplace would
certainly be sufficient.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's a different --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- but where there's
duplicates, all of a sudden, it comes up with two names in
the same -- same name, and there's confusion. That's where
we're trying to go through and get rid of the duplicate
names.
MS. GRACE: But the phone numbers that show
li
1.
l~
1~
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bU
1 up, the 895 numbers are all west of Harper Road.
2 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's not true.
3 MS. GRACE: Well, then they were supposed to
4 be. I don't know when they changed our phone numbers.
5 JUDGE HENNEKE: 'That's lon
g gone by the
6 board.
~ MS. PRUNEDA: But I believe that, too, when
3 you turn in our subdivision, the signs clearly say Cedar
~ Drive East, Cedar Drive West.
~ JUDGE HENNEKE: We need to move on. We
can -- y'all can take Ghat up afterwards.
MS. PRUNEDA: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Griffin, do you
want to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, I'll make a
motion that we accept the name changes as presented, with
the exception of those roads that we've discussed, four
roads, what is listed for the public hearing purposes as
East Cedar Drive, West Cedar Drive, North Oak Drive, and
South Oak Drive. Pull those out of the list for
reconsideration, and that we go ahead and approve the rest
of them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
y
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approve the name changes for Kerr County roads in various
locations as published in the newspaper,~ir, accordance with
the yll guidelines, except for East Cedar Drive West, West
Cedar Drive West, North Oak Drive West, and South Oak Drive
West. Any further questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to make a
comment, dovetail on Commissioner Letz' comments of you're
doing the right thing by coming in. I recently had a group
out south of town here that obviously refused to read the
newspaper, and we had changed -- we -- there wasn't anyone
to come into public hearings, so we went through the process
that we're going through right now of approving the name
changes, and suddenly there are 35 or 40 really, really
angry people out there. So, you're doing the right thing.
You're going about it the right way, and I appreciate y'all
coming in and doing this. And Commissioner Griffin, I'm
sure, is going to meet your needs.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We11, we've already
discussed this with several of the citizens and they've
communicated very well to me, and by coming to the public
hearing, I think exactly what you say is true, and that this
is the way the process works.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And if we don't get
these kind of inputs, it makes it very difficult to know if
h2
I
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the -- if anybody is upset. But, there were upset people,
anal they made it known.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a lot more fun
this way than the way I did it, believe me.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right, T.?
MR. SANDLIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is a lot of fun.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hard.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: A11 opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Let's take up Item
Number 8, which is present a commendation to Kerr County for
their patriotic display of the flag. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. W.J. Scott
from the Sons of the American Revolution, Hill Country
Chapter, has something good and nice to say to us, I think.
MR. SCOTT: Gentlemen, the Sons of the
American Revolution is a patriotic organization composed of
those men who can trace their ancestry back to participants
in the American Revolution. As such, we promote patriotism
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
i4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and the display of the flag as part of our major agenda.
Since the County of Kerr displays the flag proudly and
properly, we feel that it's right and proper that we should
present this commendation to the County of Kerr, and our
only request is that this commendation be displayed as
prominently as the flag.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Mr. Scott.
This is my good neighbor. Thank you.
MS. LAVENDER: Buster, can I get a picture,
maybe?
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Mr. Scott. We
appreciate it.
(Applause.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. At this time, we're
going to take our morning break. We will resume at 10:35.
I want to tell the Commissioners that we're going to take up
the Items Number 11 and 12, which is to amend the order
redrawing the Commissioners and Justice precincts, and to
adopt an order making changes to the election precincts.
And I just received this morning the new maps on the
election precincts, which I'm going to leave here. Jannett
and Paula have had a chance to look at them, and they agree
with them, subject to a numbering change.
MS. PIEPER: Correct.
64

2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: But I'm going to leave these
two packets here, and if you all want to take a look at
those before we reconvene -- unfortunately, like I say, I
just got these this morning, and all we have are the two
maps that go with the order, but these will be here for your
review, and we'll be back at 10:35.
(Recess taken from 10:25 a.m. to 10:35 a.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. We'll reconvene this
regular meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. The
next item for consideration is Item Number 11, which is
consider and discuss adoption of an amendment to order
redrawing Commissioners and J.P, precinct boundaries. As
y'all may recall, we adopted the order redrawing the
boundaries back in August. At that time, despite our making
this known to our consultants, that portion of the
courthouse which has the Justice of the Peace Precinct 1
office was not included in Precinct 1. So, what this
proposed amendment does is go back and redraws that border
in order to include Justice E1liott's office and his
precinct. If we don't do that, then we have to go find him
another office in his precinct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: we can't just eliminate
the -- no.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It takes a Constitutional
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
65
amendment. Don't tempt me. Sc, does anyone have aay
questions? If not, I'd entertain a motion to adopt the
amendment to order redrawing Kerr County Commissioners and
Justice precinct boundaries based on 2000 census.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
approve the amendment to order redrawing Kerr County
Commissioner and Justice precinct boundaries based on the
Year 2000 census. 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
12, then, is to consider and discuss an order adopting
changes to certain of the Kerr County election precincts as
a result of the changes in Commissioner precincts based on
the Year 2000 census. This exercise became a little more
complicated in the last few weeks -- last couple of weeks,
when our consultants discovered that voting election
precincts could not be in both the incorporated and the
unincorporated areas of the county, so they had to go back
and redraw and rename and reconfigure certain of the voting
~--~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
i9
20
21
22
23
24
25
66
and election precincts to make them all completely within
the City of Kerrville or all completely outside of the City
of Kerrville. And, they've done that. The map they propose
has been reviewed by Paula Rector, as well as Jannett Pieper
this morning. Paula's indicated to me she doesn't have any
problems with that, the redrawn map. I'll let Jannett --
I'll ask her if she has any -- any concerns about the voting
election precincts as presented.
MS. PIEPER: No, I don't. After a total of
three trips to Austin, I think we have it all worked out.
We do have a total of 20 voting precincts now, which means
I'm going to have to get more voting booths, and we have to
find more voting polling locations and stuff, and I'm in the
process of working on that. And, Bickerstaff firm would
like me to have that done within a week so we can get that
preclearance in on that, so we're working on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jannett, is there a way
to reduce that? I mean, I know you have to have -- there's
a --
MS. PIEPER: No. The reason that came about
is that Section 92.007, I believe, in the Election Code,
that states that once a city population reaches 10,000, we
can't have a voting precinct that takes in some of the city
limits and then some of the unincorporated area. Therefore,
most of our changes came within the city limits. We've had
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
67
to break up precincts into two different precincts also
because of, like, the voting age population within that
census block.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, some of the rural
precincts, is it possible to combine some of them?
MS. PIEPER: We did combine 409 and 410.
That is now one area. That is about the only area that --
between me and the Voter Registrar's office, that we felt
that we could combine without -- without having an
overpopulated area. This is a new copy of the map. Of
course, you have one in your book, as well. The numbers
that are on here is just numbers that is assigned by the
computer that the Bickerstaff firm uses.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it possible -- and I'm
looking at -- I'm -- you know, I haven't talked to any of
the residents in the area, but in 303 and 308, which is our
two areas in Precinct 3, to get --
MS. RIEPER: It depends on population, as
well, because we can't have over 5,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. PIEPER: And, trying not to go back next
year and redo this again. That's one of the reasons that we
broke down 113, is because it had 4,999 people, and the
first person that gives birth or something was going to put
us over the edge, so we want to keep it down to where the
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
population is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000 to
3,000 in order to keep us from having to go back and -- and
retain this firm again and have it go back through.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. We11, I mean, we
could -- and I know time's a little bit of an issue on
getting this through now, but if we wanted to combine some
of these next year, what's the procedure? Or in a year or
so, if we could, from a population standpoint, 'cause I
would think that some of these --
MS. PIEPER: We could combine -- what -- what
they're showing on this map is, excuse me, 14 and 15 because
of the population. But then we would have to consider,
where is the voting polling location going to be? Because,
I mean, if you have it in the -- the northern part of Kerr
County, then the people that's down way south is going to
have so far to drive. So, we're trying to take that into
account also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. PIEPER: We want it easy access for the
voters.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a juggling act,
really, trying to figure out where to put the voting -- how
you draw it, where you put the voting locations.
MS. PIEPER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know it's getting
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
69
increasingly hard, with early voting, to get ;edges and
alternates --
MS. YIEYER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- in all those
locations. We're adding more instead of going the other
direction. Just trying to find out if there's any way we
can make the problem better in the future, rather than
worse.
JUllGE HENNEKE: We can't. You can go through
the exercise of combining voting precincts; it just takes a
preclearance from the Justice Department. So, if we wanted
to combine --
MS. PIEPER: Right, just like we did this
year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: In two years, we could do
that. We just have to do it with -- the Court would have to
go out and do a survey and send it to the Justice Department
in order for them to sign off on it in time to have the
election and consolidation.
MS. PIEPER: Right. If we we find they're
not -- there's not very much of a voter turnout in these
areas, then we can come to court and inform you of that, and
then request that they be consolidated, like I did with the
Constitutional amendment this year, where we're only having
four voting locations.
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~o
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Paula?
MS. RECTOR: One thing I wanted to mention --
and y'all were talking about coming in in a year or two down
the road and combining some of those precincts. If we're
thinking about doing it, we need to probably do it now,
because we have our mass mailout of voter registration cards
in December. All these changes need to be made prior to
that. It would be a whole lot more work on our part to go
back in another year or two and remail precincts, remail all
those voter registration cards. Where are the polling
places for 308 and 303? Are they --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 303, Cypress Creek. 308,
Calvary Temple Church.
MS. PIEPER: Calvary Temple Church.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could combine, in
individual races, the voting locations, correct? As we're
doing for this next Constitutional election. We can leave
the 303 and 308 as separate entities, but if we choose to
combine the voting locations --
MS. PIEPER: Yes, that's correct.
MS. RECTOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- that's an easier way
to --
JUDGE HENNEKE: It just still takes us --
~1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: From an administrative
standpoint, this is the way to do it, then, do what you're
talking about.
JDDGE HENNEKE: It still takes the same
process, just to run it through the Justice Department
first. But, it's --
MS. PIEPER: I'm getting really good with
those preclearances, too, so that's okay.
MS. RECTOR: The reason why we combined 409
and 410 so easily was because they were all voting at Sunset
anyway, so it wasn't going to change any of the polling
places there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jannett or Paula,
whomever, explain, please, if you will for the record the
changes in 215 versus 202. And --
MS. PIEPER: I'm sorry, what did you say?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The changes that
appear to be between 215 and 202.
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. RECTOR: One of the reasons why we had to
break that precinct was because it was so heavily populated.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MS. RECTOR: We followed the city limits
boundaries, which in the end we found that that was what we
needed to be doing all along, and we just took those people
7z
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
within the city limits and moved them up. 'Cause we were,
on that precinct, very, very close to being over.
MS. PIEPER: We have a -- I have a fax from
Bickerstaff and firm that talks about the changes and why.
215 area was within the city limits. It remains in the
precinct because it contains minimal population. City
territory appears noncontiguous. It absorbs the area west
of the San Antonio Highway and east of the Bandera Highway
from Precinct 211.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm unclear as to
whether there's a change coming off of 173 -- I'm looking at
this color map of revised Plan B.
MS. PIEPER: I don't know if I have a map
that's going to be big enough.
MS. RECTOR: We don't have that map.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me show you what
I'm asking about. If this piece right here represents a
change --
MS. RECTOR: No, there was no changes made
here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No change there.
MS. RECTOR: Only changes were made up in the
city part.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MS. PIEPER: Basically, that's where most of
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
73
our changes are, is in the city limits, other than the
exception of 409 and 410.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I need to go back to
where I was a minute ago, also, on the number of locations
in Precinct 3. Do you feel comfortable we can find that
many judges in, like, 302 and 303?
MS. PIE PER: Well, as far as Republican
judges, I have no problem with that. When it comes to the
other party, I may have problems.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, we can
combine them if we need to.
MS. PIEPER: But with it -- with primaries,
that's basically going to fall back on the county chair, so
I'm going to ask for their assistance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you.
DODGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
comments? Larry?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. Just ready to
make a motion.
JDDGE HENNEKE: All right, fire away.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I move that we adopt
the changes -- the amended changes to the Kerr County
election precincts as shown.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to second
74
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that motion.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
approve the order adopting changes to certain of the Kerr
County election precincts as a result of changes in
Commissioner precincts based on the 2000 census.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One more comment, Judge,
if I may. This -- does this plan take into account the
conflict between Precinct 1 and 4, Upper Turtle Creek, that
we had to go through last time? Is that incorporated in
this plan?
MS. RECTOR: The census block prevented us
from bringing those people in 107 that were in 6 or 5,
whatever they were in, to bring them into 7.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they're going to have
to drive back around --
MS. RECTOR: Wasn't even a possibility.
MS. PIEPER: That was discussed when we went
down to Austin.
MS. RECTOR: We tried.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I appreciate you
bringing that up, though, Commissioner Letz. Good watchdog.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor raise your right hand.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
ly
20
zl
22
23
24
25
~s
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
DODGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is
Item Number 13, consider and discuss approval of the first
amendment to the U.G.R.A. - O.S.S.F. contract. The proposed
amendment is in your packet. Essentially, all it does is to
amend the contract we were operating under last year to
extend the term, and also to authorize the payment of the
$30,000 in administrative support that was approved by the
Court in this year's budget. Anyone have any questions or
comments?
CUMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I do. I have a
question that's kind of a sideline question here in regards
to the -- our agreement with U.G.R.A. And, I was just going
over this all through the weekend and just came up with a
question, and I'm sure it's going to be easy to answer. In
our Intergovernmental Agreement for Operation, under
Contracted Services, Article III -- 3.3, "ten copies of the
program audit will be submitted to the County within 10 days
following acceptance of the audit by the O.G.R.A. Board of
Directors." I have never seen that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you speaking to
the next item, which has to do with the Kerrville South
project?
"1 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
1~
1~
1.
1~
1'
1
1
2
2
L
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well --
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, he's looking at the
existing --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, looking at the
existing --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't see it in my
packet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- Intergovernmental
Agreement. No, I went out and dug it up myself.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're welcome to have
this as soon as we get -- as soon as I get my question
answered.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Mr. Brown, do you have any
comment on that? Or can we ask you to look at that and get
back to us at your earliest convenience?
r MR. BROWN: I'll be happy to. We file Lhat
3 audit with the County Clerk's office. I wouldn't think we
~ file 10 copies, but we do file the audit.
~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
I JUDGE HENNEKE: All right.
2 MR. BROWN: As a matter of fact, I'm almost
3 positive we don't file 10 copies, not at the expense of our
4 audit report.
5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, I could go down to
~~

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_`
the Clerk's office and get my very own copy. When does this
happen? Ten days following when your Board accepts the
audit?
MR. BROWN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whenever that is.
MR. BROWN: That usually is in the last week
of January, because we have to have that audit on file at
T.N.R.C.C. on -- by February the 14th, I think. So, we're
somewhere close to St. Valentine's Day, as in Chicago's
massacre.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Any other
questions or comments? Do I have a motion to approve the
first amendment?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move the approval
of the first amendment to the U.G.R.A. - O.S.S.F. contract,
and authorize County Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court
approve the First Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement
for Operation of Kerr County O.S.S.F. Program, and authorize
County Judge to sign same. Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
78

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: A11 opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: I believe it's Mr. Brown's
and my common concurrence that we need to redo this
agreement and will be doing so shortly, in time for the next
year's exercise, if not before. Next item for consideration
is Item Number 14, consider and discuss approval of the
interlocal agreement with U.G.R.A. for Kerrville South
Wastewater Program. In your packet, you have the proposed
intergovernmental agreement. I will point out to the -- for
the Court's benefit that this agreement was negotiated with
the U.G.R.A. by our former County Attorney -- Assistant
County Attorney, Travis Lucas. And, before he left, he
concurred in its suitability for this purpose. Anyone have
any questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The comment I have is
that, with this in, this gets us moving, I think, a little
closer to reality on the Kerrville South Wastewater Project.
And, happy to see that happen.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would move
the approval of the interlocal agreement with U.G.R.A. for
Kerrville South Wastewater Project and authorize County
Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
79



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
JUllGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
approve the Intergovernmental Agreement for 2001 Texas
Community Development Program with the U.G.R.A., and
authorize County Judge to sign same. Any further questions
or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: A11 opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
DODGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MR. BROWN: Thank you, gentlemen.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you want to take this
opportunity and give a little -- Jim'?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe not.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you want to take -- give
us about three minutes, an update on the program? 'Cause I
think this is one of the most significant things that we've
done here in a long time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before you do, let me
just say that I did provide the Commissioners with these
maps that were provided to me through -- by Groves
Engineering. My -- as the Judge indicated, it might be
helpful if you shed a little light on it.
MR. BROWN: Okay. Let me just quickly bring
you an update. I have a meeting scheduled with the City
80
	1
	2
	3
	4
	5
1	6


7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Manager at 3 o'clock today to go through the particulars on
intercepter points and things of this nature. That meeting
maybe pushed off, I believe, till Thursday, but we have a
couple of key issues. We had a couple of key issues in the
very beginning, and that was whether the City's wastewater
treatment plant would be able to handle loading beyond just
that of the original target grant area. The City Council,
in approval of their bond issue, will consider as one of the
those eligible expenses the -- the upgrading of the head
works at that plant. They built a new plant. When they
built the new plant, they did not build the new head works,
and so the capacity of that plant is -- was restricted to
only what they could pass through the head works. So,
that's been -- has been taken care of. It will be corrected
by the City, and that's an expense that -- that we're not
going to have to look at.
The other issue I want to share with you is
that we now have six different landowners, property owners
in Kerrville South who have come in and signed an interest
letter to explore the expansion of the wastewater project
beyond the project -- the government-funded project area.
The other issue is -- is -- and we will deal with those
after we get the project initiated. We have talked with
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. They
will allow us to fund a -- an over-capacity in the main
81
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
outflow lines or the main intercepter line in order to
accommodate a much larger portion of Kerrville South, and
the State will absorb that within the grant. So -- so, that
gets us into a situation where we can be able to look at
expanding the project beyond the project area. Also, there
is some additional neighborhoods in Kerrville South that
apparently, according to Grantworks, will qualify for maybe
a second grant next year to extend into that -- to extend
the service into that area.
So, we've got the grant and the engineering
development of this program online, and the immediate focus,
we're looking at an additional grant for next year to expand
it into additional areas where folks would qualify for the
program. And then the third area is the service of the area
where people would not qualify for a grant, and O.G.R.A.
Board has talked about this. If -- when it's necessary and
the people want it, I think we're prepared to issue revenue
bonds, which would be supported by the fees collected in
the -- from the surface. And then the other area is -- that
we have on the horizon is, we're looking at -- we're in
communication with the folks down at Center Point and
Commissioner Williams. They are very interested in seeing
the program that they had going a while back picked back up
again, and so we're beginning to look at that as -- as the
next target area.
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just quickly, the
meeting that you're going to have with the City Manager and
his utilities person, I assume, or engineer has to do with
these four questions that were outlined --
MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- in the Groves
memo?
MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Thank you, Jim.
Appreciate it. The next item is Item Number 18, which is
consider and discuss a request from Jerry Swafford for
declaration of local agricultural emergency. Mr. Swafford
is from Mason, and he contacted me regarding some action
that some of our brother Commissioners Courts in Yoakum
and -- I believe it was Dawson County have taken regarding
declaring local agricultural emergencies. He asked if we
would consider a similar declaration. I have invited
Mr. Swafford to be with us today. Unfortunately, he called
this morning and said he was not going to be able to be
here. I don't have any particular opinion on the request by
Mr. Swafford. I put it on the agenda as a courtesy to him,
and do not -- I would ask the Court to take whatever action
we feel necessary.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it would be
wise for Mr. Swafford to come back again at a point when
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
he's ready to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. We need
some explanation.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm lost on what part
of the swamp we're draining with this, and sort of why is it
being pushed by certain people? And, that's -- I mean, it's
fine. I mean, it's probably straight up and okay, but I
just -- I don't get enough out of the write-up to be able
to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see a purpose.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think it -- you know,
in fairness to Mr. Swafford, I think it may be something
that's real important in his neck of the woods, but since we
don't have as many dry land farmers and grain farmers in
this part of the country, it may not have the same impact
down here. So, I'll be happy to contact Mr. Swafford and
say that, while the Court was interested in the issue, we
needed a little bit better explanation as to the substance
before we were prepared to make a decision. Is that
generally everyone's consensus on this issue?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I will do that. We'll see
what he wants to do. The next item is Item Number 19,
consider and discuss approval of Joint Resolution supporting
the Texas Department of Transportation Aviation Capital
89
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
Improvement Funding for Airport Improvements at the
Kerrville/Kerr County Municipal Airport. This is a
resolution that we do basically every year in order to
qualify and seek grants for the continued improvement of the
Kerrville/Kerr County Municipal Airport. Megan, is there
anything you want to say to us on this issue?
MS. CAFFALL: I'm just here to answer any
questions, if anyone has any questions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Total cost to the
County would be somewhere in the vicinity of $173,000 when?
MS. CAFFALL: Well, the grant is split up
over two budget years. This budget year we have two grant
matches, one for the engineering and design, and one Tor the
property acquisition. The total grant match there is
$95,800. That's included in this year's airport budget,
which we've submitted and the City Council has adopted, and
I assume the County did the same. The following year, the
grant match is $247,000, and we haven't projected -- at the
most, it would be half of that. Half of that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This year is already
taken care of.
MS. CAFFALL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Budget-wise.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
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
comments? If not, 1'd entertain a motion to approve the
resolution.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court
approve the joint resolution supporting the Texas Department
of Transportation Aviation Capital Improvement Funding for
Airport Improvements at the Kerrville/Kerr County Municipal
Airport. Any further questions or comments? If not, all in
favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: H11 opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
DODGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Next item is
Item Number 20, which is consider and discuss approval of
the fee schedule for the airport '1'-hangars. Once again,
Megan, do you have anything you want to say on this one?
MS. CAFFALL: If there's any questions, or
would you like me to outline the provisions of the
interlocal agreement between the City of Kerrville and Kerr
County to construct the hangars? Also included are
provisions for the City to lease the hangars according to a
fee schedule agreed upon by both City and County. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Megan, where -- my
8h
1
•-, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,... 2 4
25
question is, where do you get these kind of numbers? I
mean, do you talk to other airports around the community --
other communities'? Or do you do like us, just start pulling
numbers out of the air, and --
MS. CAFFALL: No, we have to -- we have to be
fair and not discriminatory by our grant assurances. We
can't charge significantly more or less than comparable
airports. We have an airport survey that comes out every
year, and we picked 2S comparable airports to arrive at the
figure almost two years ago when we started budgeting for
this project, and the figure that we budgeted for and used
to figure all	our	revenues	and	expenses	was $250 a	month	for
each hangar.	That	-- that	fee	is still	relative.	Tt was	n„
the high side when we started. It's closer to the middle
high side now. And, one of the advantages to doing the fee
schedule is that the lease is tied to the fee schedule, so
every year we'll reexamine our rates. Are our rates
other alternative, but there is an opportunity there every
year to look at the fee schedule, and then the leases are
tied to it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Megan, what's your
87
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
now, and I have a waiting list again. When the fee schedule
is adopted by both City and County, I'm anticipating that
the hangars should be ready to occupy November lst. As soon
as I say that, we'll have rain for the next three weeks, but
the big buildings are completed. The paving work is
started. The base material's all in, and the grades are
set. The drainage structures are in, so rain shouldn't
cause real problems. The concrete work will be starting
this weekend, and the paving will follow right after, so I'm
assuming that they're going to be available November lst.
And, about -- with this adopted fee schedule, I can go ahead
and send the lease agreements out. I'd like to point out
that some of these hangars are being leased by people who
are either out of the state or out of Kerr County at this
point, so there's going to be a small amount of time in
turnaround, getting these leases back. I'd like to get them
all spoken for, and then if anyone falls out, we'll move to
the waiting list. So, I'm hoping and planning for 100
percent occupancy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Megan, how does this fee
structure relate to the payout that was anticipated on the
T-hangar --
MS. CAFFALL: It will take about, at 100
percent occupancy and at this rate, eight years to pay them
off completely. They generate $40,000 a year in revenue.
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
COMM15SlONER LETZ: Is that about where we
were when we entered the project? Or -- I don't remember
what the payout anticipated was.
MS. CAFFALL: Well, the hangars have come in
almost 52,000 under budget, so figuring on the $320,000
expense at $40,000, you're looking at --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was out at the
airport last week at a party, and I came within a slingshot
of the hangars, and 1 kind of wanted to go up there, but I
thought I better -- I want to go look at them, is what I'm
trying to say.
MS. CAFFALL: I want to have a -- a
"thank-God-this-is-over" party. A --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank-God-this-is-over
party?
MS. CAFFALL: I'm looking forward to, you
know, getting these open for business, and -- and I'm
planning on having a --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're all going to be
together out there --
MS. CAFFALL: -- ribbon-cutting, appreciation
ceremony. It's been a lot of efforts by a lot of people to
get these done, so --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN
thank you very much.
Especially you, and
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
zs
MS. CAFFALL: You're welcome, but there's --
if it weren't for the -- for Kerr County, I don't know that
I think we'd be here right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's probably true,
too.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Aw, shucks.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments? If not, I'd entertain a motion to approve the fee
schedule as presented.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Judge, I'm going to
recuse myself on this, since I'm one of the applicants
for --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- one of those
T-hangars. My name has been on the list since 1992, way
before I became a Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I will recuse myself
on that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll note Commissioner
Griffin's recusal. Motion by Commissioner Letz, second by
Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve the fee
schedule for the Kerrville/Kerr County Airport T-hangars as
presented. Any further questions or comments? If not, all
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
in favor, raise your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz
voted in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Thank you,
Megan. Appreciate it.
MS. CAFFALL: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: This concludes the business
of this morning. Before everyone leaves, each of us have to
sign tkie orders on the election boundaries. I have them
laid out here on the table. Please don't leave before you
sign -- there are five of them, and then we will reconvene
at 1:30 to take up the issue of the expansion or renovation
of the Hill Country Youth Exhibition Center. Thank you very
much. See you at 1:30.
(Recess from 11:12 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. It's 1:30 in the
afternoon on Tuesday, October 9th. We'll call to order the
recessed meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court.
The item for consideration is Item Number 21, consider and
discuss revised plan cost estimates and bonded timelines for
the proposed building project at Hill Country Youth
Exhibition Center, sponsored this afternoon by Commissioners
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
Williams and Letz. One of you guys take it and run with it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, I'll start it and
let Bill give all the details.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Before you take off, I
want to clarify, make sure that the topic here -- it doesn't
look like there's any decision making.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It can be decision making if
we want it to. It's posted "consider and discuss," so if we
want to make a decision on plans or timelines or anything
like that, we can.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Consider and discuss
revised plan.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know if we'll
get there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that we're
going to get that far.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's really on the
agenda -- the reason it's posted that way is to get
something in motion as to where we're going. I mean, we're
not -- I mean, it's not specific enough to say, "Let's do a
bond issue on this date," I don't think, but it's -- maybe
to start the motion in that direction, if that's, you know,
what the Court wants to do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
~~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill and I put this on
the agenda after we met with the Executive Board of the
Livestock Show Association last week, with the idea being
that a plan -- this is basically the same plan that the
Court looked at last time. We wanted their full board to
look at it, and if everyone is in agreement that this is the
plan that we're going to go forward with for our renovating
that facility, the next question is a timeline to try to
implement it. The -- there are two -- or there are a number
of election possible dates, but one that was kind of -- Bill
and I had talked about a little bit was a February 2nd date
as the date of the -- and the other date would be a May
date, logically, that we're going to do some sort of a bond
issue. And it was just really to try to pinpoint, one, is
the -- is the Court happy with this plan? And two, if they
are, where are we going to go with it? That's -- I mean,
they're two very basic questions. The stock -- the
Executive Board of the Livestock Show Association reviewed
it. They had, I believe, almost all of their membership
there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nine there, I
believe.
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or nine	members	. The --
the Stock Show	Association liked the plan,	and the	reason
for making that	statement is there were som	e other	-- or
93
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some oL the members of the Executive Board liked the plan,
but they had some concerns. I turn around, I see
Ms. Henderson. And, theconcern was not that they didn't
like this plan. They were concerned that there -- that
somewhere in the County's long-range plan, that we didn't
overlook the small users' needs out there, and that we were
accommodating, either through a fee structure or on rentals
of the new configuration or redoing another facility out
Lhere, being the -- the barn where the horse stalls is an
example of something else. But, just basically, they wanted
to be very certain that the Court was obligated, or was -- I
guess, the Court wanted to make sure -- or they wanted to
make sure that the Court looked after the small interests,
as well as the Stock Show Association, which is one of the
largest users of the Yacility. And I think, you know -- and
we -- that never had been discussed, really.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Could you just quickly
give me an example of what a small user might be? Cr --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sort of?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say a member of the -- of
the community wanted to have a -- a bore goat sale, and
maybe have --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- you know, I don't
T
nn


E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know, a hundred people may attend and there may be 20
exhibitors.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Something that would --
certainly, you could never afford to rent the new arena as
configured here for that type of a show. It would never --
I mean, the economics wouldn't work. They need something
that they can have a fairly small -- you know, usually
they're ag-related, but not all. Most of the ones I'm aware
of, ag use that facility more than anybody else. But,
they're -- I guess price range is probably something in the
$300 to $400 and $500 price range for a rental of a building
where they care, you know, have 100, 200 people maybe in a
sale or show or something of that nature.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Some of the events
that Becky's husband Rusty puts on might fall into that
category, Loo.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Some small roping
events, cutting events, some of those things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the only reason I
really went off on a tangent on that is because that's
something we never have really discussed a great deal,
about, you know, that -- you know, the facility would
certainly accommodate that, but I think some of the members

f
c
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
L of the community or, you know, Becky and some others that
were there -- Donald Gray was another one on the Executive
3 Board that said they were really a lot more Bung-ho to
support it if they knew that their other interests were also
being protected, that there was a way that they could still
rent part of the facility for a very reasonable sum.
Because everyone clearly understands that if a new
facility -- or facility is renovated to accommodate what
we're planning here, the fees are going to up. I mean, it's
not going to be the same fee structure that we currently
have. And, I think most people that use the facility are
aware that a fee structure increase is probably going to
happen anyway, even just under the current facilities out
there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And, in reviewing all
this with -- with those members of Executive Board, some of
whom are smaller users, one of the things we tried to point
out was one of the advantages of leaving the existing arena
essentially the way it is would provide a venue for small
events at a lesser cost than trying to put one of them in
the bigger one.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, that existing
arena, more or less as-is, with some repairs perhaps or
whatever, would accommodate most of those small users?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so.
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It would, or the --
the existing barn, which currently has, what, 78 or 80
stalls that the County now owns. That facility also could
accommodate smaller users or smaller events.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what -- as I --
the impression that -- Becky, correct me if this isn't
correct. It's not as much that the existing facility could
accommodate it, that we would -- it's more that we would
leave the fee structure --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- as it is right now for
that facility, as-is. That, you know, even though we're not
doing anything to it, they wouldn't want us to triple the
rates for that facility as it is right now to help pay for
everything else, essentially.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That should always be
a primary concern of taking care or allowing those -- those
people that have -- especially those families that have
built this operation, to allow them to -- you know, some way
and fee structure, is what you're talking about, to allow
them to continue to use it, for sure. I mean, that should
be a priority, in my opinion.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's true. We have
to recognize some economic realities. You know, if -- if
Eddie Holland wants to have his private goat sale out there
97
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
29
2`
on Memorial Day weekend and pay $100 a day to use the
facility for three days, that's probably not going to work,
when someone else wanted to come in there and pay $5,000 or
$6,000 to use the facility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, that's where you
and I are going to differ, though, on this whole thing. It
should be -- it should be primarily -- this whole thing
should be primarily for our local people.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The ones that have
been using it all these years. I respect what you're
saying. I just --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I agree, Buster. The point
I'm trying to make is, we set out a fee structure -- and
I've always been in favor of a fee structure that would
accommodate the users. My approach from -- from renovation
is we take care of our own first, and if we get any
increment out of that, that's fine. But we also expect from
them a certain amount of -- of realization of what the
economic realities are. Eddie would never expect to use the
facility on the prime weekend for the lower rate. But, both
sides have to recognize that. Maybe that has to be written
into the policy, that, you know, certain weekends or certain
weeks are blocked out for blockbusters.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For blockbusters?
98

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
2~
2`
JUDGE HENNEKE: For blockbuster events. That
would pay a large portion of the freight out there, and the
rest of the time they'd be available for -- for the local
users. And, those are people we have to take care of, the
people we will take care of.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We could probably do
that somewhat with the fee structure, because you would set
it up beforehand that certain weekends or certain periods on
holidays, or perhaps -- I don't know what it is, but we'll
have a certain fee structure for certain parts of the
facility, and the rest of the time it would have a lower use
rate. I mean, that's a market-driven --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, it is.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- thing. And I would
think that there would be a lot more of the latter than the
former, because how many blockbuster -- if you take a
52-week year, how many blockbuster weeks are there? 'There's
certainly not half. I mean, it's something less.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Several.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: See, that's one of
the points we tried to make to the Executive Board, that --
when they kept asking Jon and I if we could tell them what
the rate structure was going to be for the new arena or for
the exhibit hall or whatever, and the answer is obviously
no, we can't, not now. 'Cause we don't know what the
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`
operational costs are going to be upon which you base that
type of thing. But that brings out, then, the point that,
well, you know, you can't design or build a facility that
totally cuts these folks out, and that's not our intention.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the other -- just
to put a few other things out on the table that we talked
about with the Executive Board, their support is contingent
on one thing that is in the works right now, which is a -- a
Memorandum of Understanding with the County as to the use of
the facility and protecting their interests, and that's been
brought up before the Court in a draft form probably nine
months ago. We discussed a few details of that the other
evening, and that will be on our agenda for the 24th meeting
to formally approve that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: With the stock show?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The stock show. That
agreement, which sets -- you know, which basically protects
the stock show and their use of that facility, and also
recognizes those that built the facility. And the other
thing is -- and, based on that happening, the Executive
Board is going to take it to the full board of the -- of the
Stock Show Association towards the end of the month, after
the 24th, and, you know, get their full support. And, one
of the Executive Board members felt that this issue on
protecting the smaller user was going to be much more of a
100

i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- an issue to the full Stock Show Association than the
Executive Board, so I think we need to have some kind of
a -- or be prepared to have some statement out at our 24th
meeting as to what our intent is on fee structure. I don't
think we can go any further than that at this point, but I
think a statement, just a -- you know, we are trying to --
or recognize the importance of protecting the smaller users
and giving them a venue. And it may be, like Bi11 said,
where the horse stalls currently are, upgrading that a
little bit and giving a facility that's economical to rent.
Doesn't have to be a climate-controlled facility.
That's kind of where we left that meeting,
and I think they were all -- you know, they liked the plan.
I mean, there were some comments on whether you should
switch some things or do some tweaking and whether we
should -- you know, but they were more architectural design
things, such as should the breakout rooms be on the side of
the building and leave the back of the building open for
receiving and stuff like that. But those are issues that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Moving cattle or
stock from one building to another.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How you move animals
around. And, a lot of those issues don't affect square
footage or cost. It's just a matter of how they're actually
drawn up. And, I think that if we ever do get to the point
101
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
of going forward with a bond issue and it passes, we
certainly would want the input of the Stock Show Association
into the design elements as to how to configure certain
aspects of the facility. And, you know, that's getting back
to the purpose of putting this on the agenda. Is the Court
happy with the design? That's the first issue. And, if
they are, then where -- what we do about that and where we
go. And, just to go over the -- I guess everyone on the
Court has a copy of it, but as I mentioned, anyway, what the
design actually is, is that you leave the existing arena
where it is; you build a new arena which is larger, with
about 3,500 seats, on the east side of the existing arena,
and then on the west side, you would tear down the current
exhibit hall and build a new exhibit hall which would have
approximately 20,000 square feet. That would be the exhibit
hall and the new arena. Each is recommended to be
climate-controlled, but that's an issue of what it would
cost. The currently -- current existing arena would not be
climate-controlled, as I understand the plans.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, I can't
remember -- I know we discussed this earlier, but what --
where are the existing hog pens?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Behind the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're behind -- on this
plan? They're behind the building labeled the Exhibit Hall.
102
i
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: They're just not drawn
in?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, 'cause they will be
gone. They be will be torn out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They'll be removed,
and hogs will be repositioned somewhere in the new
configuration. The existing pens will go.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Existing hog pens would
go.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, that area will
just be cleaned out --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- and they will be
moved to another location here somewhere?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They will be -- temporary
pens would be used to replace them for stock show events,
and the temporary pens would either be in the existing arena
or in the new arena. And the Stock Show Association, they
went through and calculated square foot -- square footage
and amount of pens they have now and animal numbers, and
they are satisfied that they are getting a fairly
substantial increase in area for livestock during a stock
show situation. And, those -- these plans do not have any
animals during the stock show in the exhibit hall. That may
be used, you know, -- you know, may or may not be used for
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
part of the event, but animals will not be housed in there.
And, it -- you know, it has the actual design aspects of it
wYiere you can put the show ring and some of that -- I mean
the auction ring and things of that nature, whether it's in
the exhibit hall or in the arena. We'll decide that, you
know, at a future date.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two elements -- two
elements of this design I don't think we came to grips with
-- and I don't know if everybody's all on the same page with
respect to this basic design on Phase I that you have in
your book, but two things we didn't totally agree upon
before had to do with two major elements, and they both
really are in the big arena, the new arena. Whether or not
to have a concrete floor over which you put dirt, and move
dirt in and out as needed, and/or whether or not to
climate-control the big arena. And, those two elements we
have to agree upon, or not agree upon.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I would like to see the area
behind the exhibit hall covered.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Covered?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Covered. A concrete flnnr
and a roof, pole roof.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a possibility.
DODGE HENNEKE: Because I think, then, that
adds space. If you need more pen space, then you've got
1~4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
covered space where you could put pens. If you have an
event in the exhibit hall that needs exhibit space, you
don't encumber the other two arenas for exhibit space. I'm
talking very simple. A concrete floor with a roof over it.
COMMISSIONER LE'i'Z: Coming from the existing
arena, I mean, just over and up on the side, kind of?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Just kind of squared off.
Just kind of squared off like that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That could certainly
be done.
JUDGE HENNEKE: To me, that adds capability,
because you put more under a roof. I'm not talking about
climate control. I'm talking about just a concrete floor,
run some electrical work in there so you can have some
electrical outlets throughout the facility, and a roof.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sized --
JUDGE HENNEKE: And that's it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sized to accommodate
what? Maybe the same size as the area that the existing
pens cover?
JUllGE HENNEKE: I'd just -- I'd just square
it off, is what I would do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not sized to any
particular needs?
JUllGE HENNEKE: Not sized to any particular
los
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
need. Just square it off. 'Cause I think that --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Is this a walled
building that you're envisioning?
DODGE HENNEKE: No, just a roof and a
concrete floor. Basically a pole barn with a concrete
floor. Because I think then you can use it for -- for many,
many, many different things. It has the capability for a
livestock show, it has the capability for a trade show or
anything else like that. You could have an outdoor dance in
there if you wanted to on the concrete floor.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would probably
be less costly than one of those 200-stall barns that were
in some of our earlier drawings.
DODGE HENNEKE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it shouldn't add
that much cost, and it's, you know, a good idea.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Basically, this design --
I mean, it's -- in my opinion, we're not -- not a luxurious
design. It's a basic design. It meets their needs of the
Stock Show Association and the County. It doesn't -- you
know, in reality, we're adding, square footage-wise, an
arena; we're tearing down an old exhibit hall and building a
new exhibit hall. Square footage-wise, we're adding some
mass, but it's basically the same function, and we're adding
106
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
an arena which is needed for a lot of different events and
everything. And -- and that arena provides the additional
square footage for the stock show.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What did the stock show
people think about climate control in the new arena? Did
they have an opinion on --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They thought -- their
view was climate control it, and dirt floor. Those were
their -- to prioritize those, to them, that was far more
important to have the climate control.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That seems to be what
I'm hearing from people when we ask the question. Climate
control, but don't put the concrete floor in.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Bill and I made a trip up to
Glen Rose to look at their facility, which is very
comparable in design and use to what ours is, and I was real
reluctant on the climate control, but I think I've come to
the opinion that it probably adds value. Concrete floor, to
me, adds cost. They were telling us that they probably had
one event a year that they had to have just a concrete floor
for, but they had to take all the dirt out at least once
every two years and change it over. So, I mean, you add an
expense with the concrete floor, and essentially you have to
have equipment and personnel to move the -- the dirt in and
out, but you didn't necessarily add any flexibility to your
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
facility use. So, I think, you know, as far as that issue
is concerned, I'd go with exactly what Jonathan has laid
oat, with climate control as the priority, and a dirt floor,
and if we ever decide we want a concrete floor, we can go
back in and lay it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other issue that we
talked about --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Excuse me just a
second. On that point, before we go beyond that, is there
anything -- I don't know what the state of the art is in
exhibit arenas, but is there any way to put -- maybe not the
whole thing, but to put any kind of temporary flooring over
dirt'?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
DODGE HENNEKE: Yes, you can buy a temporary
floor that goes down in sections.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: In case you want to
have an event in there where you were going to have people
actually walking on stage, graduating or something of that
sort.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When Fred and I went
to Glen Rose, I posed the question to the gentleman who's
been involved in a lot of arenas, but has run that one since
its inception, and ran the facility up in Hill County, I
believe, the actual center they have up on I-35. I said,
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
108
"If you were in our shoes and you had to make a decision and
could only have one item of two, climate control in the big
arena or a concrete floor over which you put dirt for
events, which would you select?" And he said -- without
hesitation, he said, I'd select the climate control, because
otherwise you limit your utilization, whereas if you have
just a dirt floor without any concrete underneath it, there
are ways to utilize that for many events that you can't even
think about right now. You can -- you can stabilize it and
use it for a lot of things without the necessity of having
concrete underneath it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other comments were
the dirt in the current hog pens, as to the status of it,
and I -- there are two veterinarians on the Executive Board,
Dr. Leifeste and Dr. Dittmar. And, I asked -- we brought up
that question, because I get asked it, and their answer is,
it's better than it was 15 years ago when they figured out a
way to get most of the dirt out and replace it. It is
contaminated, in their opinion, but it's not been tested to
the state that it's contaminated. But, they know from
their -- just from their professions that there are problems
with animals that stay back in that area, and they think a
lot of the problems are really related to molds and mildews
that are inherent in the soils, as opposed to pathogens.
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So, anyway, that's kind of, you know, where that story is.
You know, their professional opinion is it's contaminated,
but they don't have proof that it's ever been tested, per
se. But, there are -- it's more of a mold problem, which
could be -- and that could just be the nature of that
building, and -- and a lot of that comes with the nature of
those pens. We never thought, I guess, when they built it
that that would be a problem, but these are permanent pens.
Witl_1 Lemporary pens, you can move the dirt around and take
better care of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know why they
don't have the dirt tested and let's gets over this
conversation. Why -- why have they not?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They say what they do is,
lhey spray a -- a chemical down every year which gets it
okay. It says it's okay, so it tests okay after they put
the chemical down.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Maybe it's one of those
questions you don't want to know the answer to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably so.
DODGE HENNEKE: The answer may dictate what
you have to do and what you can't do.
COMM1551ONER LETZ: That could be true, also.
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMM15SlONER BALDWIN: Can I take you to the
-- your number page, please? It just -- I'm not -- I don't
think I'm understanding everything I'm reading here. The
top set of numbers, proposed probable cost reduction, delete
Arena Number 2. Now, is that out of -- is that talking
about deleting it out of the original plan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And that's --
and that's the same, I guess, with --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- all these items?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From the original
master plan.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's kind of confusing,
but I guess the only way I can explain the way it was done
is that the -- we hired Quorum and Associates to do a set
function for us, you know, which was a master plan, and they
did it. And we've come back and asked them to do several
other reiterations of that, and they're doing it without any
pay, so they're doing it the easiest way for them, which may
not be the easiest way to read for us, but i.t's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand it now.
I see.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Puts and takes from
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1~
l~
1`
1f
1'
1'
1
2
2
2
c
L
L
the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Off the original plan.
We're reducing the original plan by $Z.5 million.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I personally --
personally, I think it is an absolutely fantastic plan. I
like the -- I'm not a real big fan of this 3,500-seat arena;
I don't -- I don't see that ever being used. But, you know,
I'm kind of a nearsighted guy sometimes. I understand that.
But I do like the new exhibit hall and dressing up the
existing arena some and those kinds of things. But, the big
question, again, is -- is the funding of the whole
operation. And I -- again, the way I see it, what we're
doing here is creating some economic development, which is
wonderful and great, although we should not be in that
business, in my opinion. But, I -- I still think that the
City -- you know, we've talked about -- we've talked about
bringing in big venues and different kinds of venues, and
3 everybody in town's talking about it's a great thing because
~ we'll fill up our hotel rooms and restaurants and everybody
goes to H.E.B. and all that, and the money changes hands
L seven times before it leaves our community and all that
2 talk.
3 The thing is, all those hotels and motel
4 rooms are -- are inside the city of Kerrville, and most of
5 the restaurants are inside the city of Kerrville. So, ttie
112
beneficiary of the economic development of the whole thing
is the city of Kerrville. So, in my nearsightedness, I
can't see why the City of Kerrville doesn't participate in
the cost of it. And I know you guys have talked to the
economic development -- what's -- E.I.C. -- the S.I.C.
group, and they don't seem to want to participate, but I
don't see -- I just don't understand, and I can't get my
mind around the thought of them not participating. I don't
get it, and you're never going to convince me that they
should not participate in it. And, personally, I think that
we should invite the City over here to have one of our
pow-wows, and them say to the Commissioners Court and all
the public of Kerr County, "We don't want to participate
because of this, this, and this and this." You know, we
call that accountability where I come from. That's number
one.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
li
12
13
14
lE
1E
1",
lE
1`.
2i
2
2
2
2
2
And, number two, a bond issue so close on the
tail of the tax increase, I would -- I don't know what to
say to you. I'm risking here offending someone, but that
i just -- I see that it's foolishness, because, you know, I
predict that your bond will be defeated, and then -- then it
is really going to be difficult to get it back up on the
3 table for another go. You're going to turn -- you'll -- the
~ attitude of the people will be, "Uh-oh, here comes another
5 independent school district action." You know, we told them
113
one time, and we're bringing it back again. I mean, I just
have those kind of fears, and this being this close -- we
raised taxes a month ago for the first time in many years,
and there are some folks out there angry about that. I
don't know if y'all run into them or not. I do. And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me take a whack
at what you said, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you're not alone
on that page about city participation. You're really not.
There are a lot of folks who really believe that if there's
ever a project that emanated from one source or the other,
this is a project that both governmental bodies should and
could buy into, so you're not alone on that page. That was
directed to us the other night, as well. And, the only
response that Jonathan and I had the other night at
executive committee was that we'll keep trying. They --
that we weren't turned down by the Economic Improvement
Corporation for its one-half cent sales tax funding. We
i were told to get our ducks lined up with a plan that we all
bought into and were willing to support, and then come back
? and see them. I think we can -- we can make -- and they
3 should understand the strong argument that the economic
~ impact that is generated by a new facility, just as it is
5 generated by the current facility, but in a lot -- lot
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1c
lE
1-
1F
1!
2i
2
2
2
2
2
114
smaller scale, benefits, for the most part, the inkecpers
and the shopkeepers and the restaurateurs inside the city of
Kerrville. I don't -- I don't know anybody in his right
mind could argue that it's true.
And, if we build this facility and it lives
up to its potential, even half up to its potential, that
economic impact stands to be eight-fold over what it is now,
if it only gains half of its potential. So, I think, you
know, if -- if it's Commissioner Letz or I or you or
whomever of us makes a second appearance before the E.I.C.,
I think we have strong arguments to say, you know, if
your -- if your ball game is economic impact or economic
development, then let us tell you about this one more time,
and listen to us carefully because it truly is something
that generates business for Kerrville and Kerr County, but
Kerrville more directly than Kerr County as a whole.
The second part of your -- your comments are
also well received because, for a lot of reasons, not the
3 least of which is what's happening in America today, if we
go to a bond issue in February -- I'm not convinced that's
1 the right date, number one. I'm convinced Lhat next year,
2 maybe the second available election date would give us a
3 better opportunity to evaluate the sense of America right
4 now, which Kerr County very much is a part. And people
5 right now are a tad uneasy about what's happening, 'cause we
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.
l~
1`
if
1'
1'
1
2
2
2
2
L
115
1
don't know. We don't know what's happening. The President
and all of his cabinet and all the financial gurus in
America say, you know, let's get back to business as usual
and make -- make our economy blossom again, and it may very
well do that. Christmas holidays coming up may be a
catalyst for that; we don't know. But, I think we have to
look at this very carefully. 1 really do. I agree with
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1E
17
if
l~
2(
2:
2:
2
2
2
you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I appreciate
your openness and honesty, and we are saying exactly the
same thing, except for one -- one little issue in there.
Instead of us going over and making a pitch to E.I.C., I
think that we need to invite them to this room, or them and
the City Council, or the City Council itself to come to our
place and have a discussion in front of the general public.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no objection at
all to what Commissioner Baldwin or Commissioner Williams is
saying. I mean, I think the -- the sense that I got from
E.I.C. and from all the City Council members that I visited
with wasn't as much that they are saying no, they're not
going to participate. It's that they want the CouuCy to get
a plan. And, it sounds like we have a plan for the first
3 time. Before, we had a concept of going out there for some
1 sort of a large construction project. This is a specific
~ plan, and I think once we get a specific plan, we need to go
i
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
back to the City Council. We need to go -- and I agree with
Buster. I think we go to them first, and if they think we
should go to E.I.C., we go to the E.I.C. But, E.I.C. I look
at as being under City Council, which they are; they're
appointed by them. So, we do invite the City over to look
at this and see what their impact is, and then also, you
know, that we have -- if there is a plan that the Court --
whole Court is behind, you also can go out for grants. It
gives us a vehicle.
Up until now, it's just been talk, and that's
what the -- really, the purpose of today's meeting is, is to
say, "IS everybody happy with this plan?" And, if it is,
then we talk to the City, you know, if that's what we think
we should do. We go out for grants if that's what we think
we should do, and we set a rough timetable. I said -- when
I brought up the February election date, that was a --
that's the next election date, and the timing of it was good
from the standpoint of stock show. It could be a year from
February. I mean, I'm not married to any specific date. I
think the longer we wait --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The higher the cost.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the costs go up and
everything else, but at the same time, I also agree with
Commissioner Baldwin. we do not want to put up a plan that
fails for any reason, 'cause if it does fail, you do run the
117
1
2
3
4
S
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
risk of -- of a much higher hurdle the next time you put
something similar up. So, whether we do it, you know, in
February, May, November, or next February, a year from
February, doesn't make that much difference to me. My main
goal is to get a plan and get moving towards that plan.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Part of having a
plan, I think, by definition of those who listen to us when
we make these various presentations, is knowing in our minds
how we would fund this absent any other revenue sources.
And, up until very recently, we haven't said directly we
would entertain a bond issue. We've played around with bed
tax and we played around with this, we played around with
that, and finally we got around to saying, well, if it's
going to happen, it's going to happen 'cause the people of
Kerr County voted it to happen. And that's part of a plan,
and that's one of the elements we didn't have to be able to
present to them the last time we went.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the -- you
know, if -- you know, if the Court agrees and votes that the
way that it will be funded would be through a bond issue,
you reduce whatever that bond issue is by the amount of
other money you get. Like, if we -- if it's a $5.5 million
project and we can get a million. dollars in grants and a
million dollars from E.I.C., well, then it becomes a
$3.5 million bond issue.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ly
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
COMMISSIONER BALUWIN: So, you're saying
right there -- you're saying that we need to move forward
with a bond election, not knowing what everybody else is
going to --
COMMISSIONEk GRIFFIN: After.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: After. I think you --
CUMM1S51ONER GRlr'FIN: Do the bond issue
last.
CUMM1SSlUNER LETZ: You do the bond issue
last. You can adjust the amount last, but you have to have
a defined enough plan that you can go forward and say, "Here
it is," and, "We think it's going to cost $5.5 million with
the, you know, inflation adjustments," based on how long in
the future you have to push it. And you go to them and they
say, "How are you going to pay for it'?" Well, it will be a
bond issue, but we hope to have grants to make -- to
minimize the amount of the bond issue, or we do everything
we can to do that. And, if we get the City to come on board
independent of the E.I.C., well, then, you know, you work
that part of the plan. But everyone always asks what the
funding plan is, and the funding plan is a bond issue that
we have, 'cause that's the only thing we control.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, the -- I guess the
sense, from that I'm hearing, on the Court is the earliest
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ly
20
21
22
23
24
25
119
bond date to really push would be a May date.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think we have
more time to analyze the events -- the current events and
the impact of those events by May. I guess the issue before
us is, is the Court willing to schedule a bond issue at a
date to be determined? You know, that's really the issue.
I think it could be any date you want to set it, as long as
it's a uniform election date.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me ask a couple
questions. One is, how much confidence at this point do we
have in these figures?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much what, Larry?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How much confidence do
we have in these cost numbers? Before we could go as far as
a bond issue, and perhaps even before going for some grants,
we would really need a number that we can sign up to, and
that seems like probably the next step after -- after a
master plan approach. Somebody's going to have to really
set down and do a design and cost it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That -- it would seem
to me that that's sort of a -- no matter what the funding
mechanism is, that's sort of the next step, would be to --
if we -- if we like the design, irrespective of cost, if we
say, okay, that's it, Phase I, and we say, you know, we've
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
120
got to go cost that plan to the next level of granularity so
that we can really have a number that we can feel confident
that we can go build it with, okay? So, it would seem that,
as you and Jonathan both have said, that if -- today, if we
could agree that this is what we would like to go for, not
addressing the costing and the funding sources at this
point, but if that's what we want to go for, we need to get
real cost numbers on that. Then I think we can all agree,
or at least i don't know of another funding mechanism in
the -- that the County has other than a bonding issue.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I would say that the numbers
we have are pretty good numbers, without somebody actually
going --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- and rooting out costs.
Bill Blankenship did the plan, did the numbers. He has a
lot of experience in exactly this type of construction,
knows what he's doing, and he has -- I would say that those
costs for -- you know, for when they were put forward, were
probably plus or minus 10 percent. We can count on those.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's good enough
for now. I'm just saying that it seems, before we could
commit to a bond number, though, we'd have to know --
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'd need a much tighter
number before we go with a bond, just like with the radio
121
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
project. We started with half a million, we went to a
million and a half. We hit upon a million as the budgeting
vehicle, and they were bringing it in at a little less.
But, once we got up on that million, we had a number we
could -- we could hang our hat on, and that's the same
process we'll have to go through with this exercise.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, for today's
discussion, I would think this is about where we can
realistically go as far as the time, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And this is way less
than what we talked about in the master plan.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If all the phases had
been executed. I think that's really realistic. The other
question about how do we fund it, I don't know of any other
mechanism, as far as the County is concerned. We obviously
would go for maximum grant money, participation by the City,
anybody else that we can think of to tap, but I don't know
of any way we could raise the kind of money we're talking
about other than a bond issue. So, I think those two
things, the design and the fact that at some point there
would be a bond election -- and I think that's just T.B.D.
I wouldn't say next -- in my mind, I wouldn't say it would
be next February or May, but as soon as we can, as soon as
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
122
it's reasonable to do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree. To be
determined.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, if we get into it
and find out that, hey, there's no way we -- the tea leaves
say that a bond election wouldn't pass, then we regroup
again and say, what do we do? But, I think that's about the
only path we can go down right now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should we, on the cost
issue, go back to Bill Blankenship -- and I really don't
think that it's appropriate for us to ask him to do any more
work without compensating him for it --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't, either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- at this point, but to
give us a cost -- I guess a price breakdown of this
facility, and in a format that's more understandable than
starting at 7 and a half million and start to deduct things
to get to this?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Instead of the puts
and takes, a real cost.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to see that,
and adding this component that Fred mentioned, which is a
concrete slab.
COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	Fred's	Dance Hall.
COMMISSIONER	GRIFFIN:	That's	it.
123
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
JUUGE HENNEKE: 't'hat sounds good. Can I have
a concession?
COMM15510NER W1LLlAMS: Sure. And, we can
get him to do that. What it might take, I'm not sure -- the
Judge can correct me if I'm wrong -- would be for us to take
a look at his contract and revisit it, and -- and put in an
addendum for just a modest amount of additional work. We
already have one with him to do what he's done, but he has
gone well and above and beyond that, pro bono. So, if the
Court's of a mind to do that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we could also ask him
to relook at the cost figures to make sure he's confident.
I mean, a lot of time has passed.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we ought to ask him
to go just a little step further, which is not just the
cost, but also to do us some drawings, or whatever we need
to take to the City, or to show the City when they come over
here. I'm not talking about construction drawings. I'm not
talking about elaborate models. I'm just talking about
something that we feel comfortable in using as a basis for
the presentation. Might as well get that done at the same
time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So then we could -- I
guess where we go from here, then, we will -- Bill, who's
been talking to Mr. Blankenship the most, will get with him
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1l
12
13
14
1S
16
1/
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
129
and get an idea what that fee would be, get the paperwork
done, bring it back on the 24th to authorize that, and as
soon as we receive that, invite the City over.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Sounds good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds like a plan to
me.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think a bond election is
the only way to do this, because we have to get the
citizens' write-off on this; it's a big piece of change.
And, to me, it's not economic development. To me, it's
enhancing what we do here in Kerr County, and the ability of
our citizens to do what they do here. To me, that's --
that's what we're doing. lt's not economic development.
It's not something that's grounded in wishful thinking, that
somehow it will result in megabucks for anybody. That may
have been where we started out with the master plan, but
I've ground myself back down to reality. What I'm doing is
taking care of the people of Kerr County who built this
facility and have come to rely upon it, so I'm ready to go
to the voters. I'll work my tail off to explain it to them
and give them the information they need to make a decision.
If the voters would happen to turn down a
bond election, then the problem we would have would be, what
do we do next? Do we spend the quarter of a million dollars
to renovate? Not to bring it -- make it nicer, but just to
125
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
renovate it to where it is now, anal continue to lose
$200,000 to $300,000 a year, or where do we go from that?
'Cause we're really at a crossroads, and what brought this
to our attention was the work that Glenn and Mike Smart did
out at the Ag Barn and bringing to our attention the state
of the facility out there, which we all kind of intuitively
knew from being out there, but we never really knew exactly
the extent of the problems. So, we are at a crossroads here
where we have to decide what we're going to do with that
facility. And, to me, the only logical thing is to invest
the time and energy to enhance it for its current and future
use.
make is a very
or something v
don't have the
falling apart,
have an option
We've got --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN:
good one, is that the
=_ry close to it is not
option to do nothing,
so we've got to do sc
of doing something or
I think the point you
options to do this plan
to do nothing. We
because the place is
nething. So, we don't
not doing something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's what do we do?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- we have to keep in
mind -- I was just going to add a thought to what Fred was
saying, too. One of our prime concerns is the Hill Country
Junior District Livestock Show. It's maxed out. It has
126
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
plenty of room to grow, but it's coaxed out. It's been coaxed
out for the last two or three years, in terms of number of
animals and entries that it can handle, so that's another
limiting factor in terms of doing nothing. We're limiting
them, as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we want to vote to
formally adopt this as the plan? Do we need to do that? Do
you want to wait till the 22nd? I know you've been saying
24th, but we're all screwed up because we're meeting today;
it's Tuesday and not Monday, so the next meeting is actually
the 22nd.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I'd probably
rather wait till we get the new drawings from
Mr. Blankenship, have that be the plan with the numbers and
that. Otherwise, we're going to be --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 'Cause it's going to
change.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going to change some.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Some.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A few adjustments. And I
think that at that point we would adopt it as a Court, and
then, you know, get with the City.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think I'll get in
127
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
touch with him this afternoon.
JUDGE HENNEKE: A11 right. Anyone have
anything else they want to offer on this? It's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Becky, did I correctly
state the opinion of the Executive Board?
MS. HENDERSON: Yeah. The Executive Board,
yes. But, you have to -- I have three hats; I'm a Kerr
County taxpayer, I'm on the Executive Board, plus I have an
interest in small -- you know, renting it out there. So, I
have a lot of, you know, pros and cons against it, and it
would probably be better if I didn't -- if I waited until I
have more time to think about it and then present to you,
you know, what I'd like to talk to y'all about.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'd like to hear from you,
but I think what you need to remember, in talking to the
other Executive Board members, is the facility as it
currently exists is barely functional.
MS. HENDERSON: Oh, I agree. And --
JUDGE HENNEKE: And so --
MS. HENDERSON: -- I have a problem with
that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We're trying to make the
decision, what do we do with that? We can bandaid it for a
quarter of a million dollars, but that doesn't add capacity
to the Junior District Livestock Show. That doesn't make it
128
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
prettier, doesn't get us a decent kitchen, and we'll only
continue to slide if we take that route. If we take that
route, we will eventually start to shut it down, because we
can't afford to lose the kind of money we're losing now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Executive Board was
unanimous, including Becky --
MS. HENDERSON: If you remember, they voted
while I was downstairs, Jonathan. If you'll remember, I
went down to make a phone call, and when I came up, they'd
already voted, so that's a sore subject right now. But --
and you're right. I mean, the Executive Board mainly was
all for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're all -- the
Executive Board was all for the plan, wearing their
Executive Board hat. The questions came --
MS. HENDERSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- when they were wearing
their other hats, I think. Right, Becky? With the --
MS. HENDERSON: Exactly. It's right for
stock show, but as a Kerr County taxpayer and as a -- using
it -- you know, we rent it 13 -- 12 to 14 times a year, and
do you realize how much it will cost to rent that big arena
with climate control? I mean, do you know what Glen Rose
charges a day to rent that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do know, but I don't
129
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
know it oif the top of my -- I've got it in my office.
MS. HENDERSON: I don't know what Glen Rose
does, but I know what Amarillo does. It's 2,500 --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They have a smaller
arena also, so they don't have to put a small user in the
big arena and turn the --
MS. HENDERSON: And you're right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much?
MS. HENDERSON: Well, Amarillo charges $2,500
a day. All I'm saying is, the big arena is mainly going to
be for an arena. If it's all going to be dirt, you're going
to have to have four things in there, and you're going to
have to rent that an awful lot to pay for it, and that's my
main concern. We're going to try -- we're going to stay in
the small one; there's no way we could go to the big one.
And I don't know about the other people, but you're going to
have to rent that an awful lot to pay for -- for the
building. And you may be able to rent it for a lot cheaper
than that, I don't know, but that -- that's my main concern,
mainly as a taxpayer and mainly as -- as far as on the
Executive Board, it's great. I mean, for the -- for the
livestock show, but you've got to remember, they're only out
there one week a year. And, it's great for them, but my
other concern is for -- you know, we rent it 14 times a
year, and we could never rent the big one, especially with
130
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
i9
20
21
22
23
24
25
climate control. And you might -- and you might want to
think of another way to be able to take the dirt out,
because you're going to have to be able to have other things
in there besides horse -- you've got to be able to have
conferences or whatever, because I'm telling you, horse
people will not fill it up. They cannot pay that amount of
money to do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's designed to
accommodate most any kind of event you want to put in it.
MS. HENDERSON: Well, if you just have a dirt
floor, though, are you going to be able --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From what we're told,
yes. You can use it for many things. There may be some
things you can't use it for.
MS. HENDERSON: I mean, you might. 1 don't
know. I just know they kept saying arena, arena, arena.
And, as an arena, I don't know -- there's other people that
have horse things out there, too, and they may be able to
afford it, I don't know. But I know that we take up l4
weekends a year, and hopefully we'll be able to keep doing
that in the smaller one. As a -- you know, as a Kerr County
taxpayer, I don't want to have to take my business to
Fredericksburg and rent theirs because I can't afford to
rent the one here.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But is it -- you know, just
131
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_`
to pursue this just a little bit, how much of a deficit, as
a Kerr County taxpayer, are you willing to pay for the
facility? Right now, we lose about a quarter of a million
dollars a year on the facility when you compare the expenses
versus the revenue. How much of that are you willing to
support?
MS. HENDERSON: I -- first, I have a rough
time -- how do you lose all that money on the facility? I
mean, I don't understand that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it's just the
numbers -- we budgeted $32,000 in revenue this year from the
facility. It costs us about $230,000 to $250,000 a year in
maintenance and expense and personnel to operate the
facility, so you're losing somewhere in the neighborhood of
$225,000 to $250,000 a year to have it open year-round.
MS. HENDERSON: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And that's a number that a
lot of taxpayers don't realize. That's already happening.
MS. HENDERSON: No, and we don't. I mean,
it's hard for me to imagine losing that much.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't make --
MS. HENDERSON: Something just doesn't
seem --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't cover utilities
out there.
132
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'
JUDGE HENNEKE: And part of the reason for
that is that the condition of the facility is such you can't
charge somebody --
MS. HENDERSON: But if you build this big
arena, it's going to -- do you realize how much it's going
to -- how often you're going to have to fill it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think one of the things
is, you know -- and this is -- we need to get this from
Bill. If you look at the square footage of that arena, it
is not that much more to make it in arena form versus pole
barn form. So, I mean, you're paying -- you know, it's not
a substantial -- you know, if you're going to add the square
footage, it doesn't cost too much more to go to an arena
format, where you have much more versatility. If you
don't -- I mean, we need the square footage, so I mean --
MS. HENDERSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whether you build an
arena or not, you know, you need to -- at 25,000 or 30,000,
40,000 square feet or whatever that arena is, you need to
add that much square footage, so then the difference is
between what a pole barn would be that no one could use for
ar.y kind of show, other than the exhibit space, versus from
there to the arena, 'cause you have to have the square
footage.
MS. HENDERSON: Right, and I understand that.
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that's really the
issue, is that increment, because it's not -- it's either
that or the stock show has to be cut back.
MS. HENDERSON: And I agree, there needs to
be more. I just -- you know, I'm trying to -- there's three
different ways I'm trying to look at it. One way says it's
great, one way says forget it, and, you know, the other one
says, well, I like the existing, but it needs lots of
improvements. Which, you're right, it is falling down and
it needs a lot of improvements, but I'm just not sure that
the answer is this full-fledged, climate-controlled,
3,500-seat arena, that we're calling an arena. You've got
to fill it with events. And I'm just not sure that there's
enough horse events out there, or even other things. If
it's just a dirt floor, there's not a whole lot you can have
with just a dirt floor.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That was the reason
for my question, because I understand the state of the art
is that there are -- there's now things you can put on top
of dirt.
MS. HENDERSON: Yes, there -- and there are,
and you'd have to be able to -- you'd have to be able to do
something to fill it. I mean, I personally -- and I'm just
speaking from being out -- you know, I'm out there a whole
lot, just from -- from leasing it.
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2:
2~
2`
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You think mud
wrestling might draw a crowd?
MS. HENDERSON: It might, you know. Might be
something.
JDDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner mud wrestling.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In Fred's barn.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason I asked
Becky, I knew she would -- I was pretty certain she was
going to say what she just said.
MS. HENDERSON: He knew I was just waiting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- and the reason
for that is what -- and we received it from other members of
the Executive Board; Donald Gray basically said the exact
same thing, 'cause he uses the facility and -- you know.
But that is the -- those are the types of questions that
we're going to be hit with, and I think we need to be aware
of that and need to be able to answer them.
MS. HENDERSON: And you're right, people are
asking us those questions now. One question that they're
asking us is if -- if they build that, are you going to be
able to move all your stuff over to that other arena, 'cause
you rent it so often. My answer is no, we can't. Well,
then who is, if you can't? See, that's the question they're
asking me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's something I
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
2C
21
2~
2~
2~
2`
think we can get from Bill, is, you know, based -- what
would this arena, you know, based on other facilities around
the state, rent for? What could we expect that rate to be?
'Cause a lot of people have asked that. And, that -- if
it's climate-controlled and if it's not climate-controlled.
I mean, I think we need to be able to answer as many of
these questions that come up, and as to what the different
incremental cost between the pole barn versus the arena is.
We need --
MS. HENDERSON: I think most people
understand that y'a11 can't answer that, you know, with a
set figure, if it's going to cost you $1,500 to rent that
one, if it's going to cost you $500. They know you can't
answer that, but we just need to know a little -- you know,
we know what we're paying now. If that big arena's not
filled, are you going to triple what we're paying for the
small one? That's what we need to know, personally.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Speaking of venues, I
think the -- the fanciest -- the most elite that I ever see
out there are the cutting horse people. I mean, those guys
are driving up, you know, in their tandem trailer things
with bedrooms in their trucks.
MS. HENDERSON: They're houses.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am not exaggerating.
Those guys are -- it's unbelievable what I'm seeing out
136
there now. But they don't put 3,500 people in the stands to
watch them perform. They don't put five. They're all on
their horses, you know. So, you're going to have to yet
into rock concerts, Bill. That's all there is to it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1 reckon so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's another issue.
You look at incremental costs, maybe, of 2,500 versus 3,500.
I mean, I think what -- when I've talked with Bill, you end
up not saving much by cutting some of these things back a
little bit, so why not go the other -- you know, but if you
cut enough out, maybe you do save 5500,000, which is
significant. But those are some things I think we can
get -- you know, ask Bi11 Blankenship to, you know, give us
some of these numbers, and I think he'll be able to do that
and give us good direction. We're one step closer after
today.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
1_
lE
1-
1£
1'
2
2
2
2
2
2
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. We'll, if there's
nothing else, we're adjourned. Thank you a11.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 2:28 p.m.)
~~
3
4
5
137
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
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 15th day of October,
2001.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY : ___ urYSd/-G -- -------
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
ODDER IVO. rI'~67
CLAii~1S HIVD HCCOUr~I-fS
On this the 9th day of llctober 2~k'~1, came to be considered i:~y
the Court the various claims wind ac_ca~-mts against I-:err Co~_inty
ami the various C:ammissianers' precincts, which said Claims
anti Hcca~-rnt;s are 1~--uener•al F'~-md for 9153, 7F,8.87; 1i.-Jrary Fund
for ~i3'-l.4"c'; 13-F2oad ~F Pridye Ri1ii' 1 Registr~atinn Fee F=~_rnd For
93,4i5.Qi0; 14--F=ire F'r-ntectian F~_md for 9].7,f°iB.E:=,; 15-Road it
Bridge Fund far- 985, 535. 8c=; 13-1='~ab1 is Library Hand far
931,~r.:;1.;:,4; c -Juvenile State Hid Fund far 937.50; i_-7-Juv
lPlteelsive f='rog-S+.at-e Hid Fund for '.51c'4.00; 50--:[ndigent Health
,--- Care F'~and for 97c.45; 70-Permanent Improvement F~..uid 'For
93, 8i.~_.F-i; 8:~--5'tate F=ended--~_l8th District Httorney I"=~-md fnr
934'3. i2; 88~-State F~-coded-cleith llistrict Probation Fund far•
98,080.06; 87-St,~te Funded-Community Corrections Fund 'f''or'
9v, .t03. 0~; l-OTHL.. CASH RE(~L1I f1ED FOR ALL FUNDS IS: ?+3c6, c:5c:. ~'r0.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by
Commiissioner Baldwin, tare Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, payment of said Claims and Hccaunts as recommended
by the Ca~anty Audi tar.
OI~iiFR N0. ci~:68
BUAOET Rh1ENpMEN'T' IN t_RW LIBRRRY
On 'this the 9th day of October ;.001, upon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Let's, the
Co~ar~t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-~, 'to tr•aarisFer•
41E;5.`:;8 from E=~_md 1E3 Surplus Reserves to Line Item Na.
18-650--:i9Q~ Books, such funds relating to the prior fiscal
year.
ORDI'=R NC. ~_7~69
RNIMRL CONTROL
LR"fE RILL - SHOR-LINE
On 'this; the 9t1~ day of October c_V~07., ~apnn motion made 6y
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Co~_sr~t ~.~nanimo~_isly appr^oved by a vote of 4-0-0, late bill i.n
the amuurrt of L1,6~N.0N from Line Item No. lki-64E-57N 't-o
Shor-Line. The Coy-irity R~_iditor and t-he L'o~_mty Treasurer are
hereby autl'iorized to Hirite a hand check in the amount of
~1,6~Zi0.0~ made Payable to Shor--Line for kennels at the Rniinal
Control Shelter.
ORDER N0. ~_~~:~¢~
RE'P'ROVE RND RCCEF'T MTNIJ"CES
RND WRIVE RERDING
On thi~a the 9L-h day of October 2N~1, upon motion maiJe by
Commissioner L.et, seconded 6y Commissioner Griffin,
the Co~ar•t unanimously approve by a vote of 4-Q-~, 'Lo Rppr•ove
and Rccept and Waive Reading of the Following Minutes: Kerr
Co~.tnty Commissioners Court Special Session, Wednesday,
September ~i, .i~~1-'i3:1J0 R.M.; Kerr County Commissioners Court
Special Session, Monday, September i~, 2V~~1-9:0~ R.M.; Kerr
Co~.mty Commissioners Court Special Session, Monday, September
1'7, 2001--1:00 R.M.; Kerr County Commissioners Court: Speci.aa
Session, Monday, September 24, 2001--`.~:~~ R.M.
OF2DER NO. ~7~_'71
RE'P'ROVE AND ACCEPT MONTHLY REF'CIRI"S
On 'this the 9th day of October :.001, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner, Let z, the
Co~ar^t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to accept tine
following reports and direct that they be filed with the
Coi_inty Clerk for f~.it~_~re a~_idit:
Jannett E'ieper•, County Clerk
Gencr^al - 5e ptember• 'c'001
Tr~_ist - September c001
--^ W. R. Heirhal-zer, Sheriff
Civil Report - September c001
Robert Tench - J.P. #3
September- X001
oRrf=R N~. ;_ r~: r~_~
~_
LETI"ER OF CREL>Il" FDR
Ci]NSTRUCI"IC)N QF RORUS
IN FFaI._.LING WF~"fEFt, F'CT #~
On this the 9th day of CcL"aber 2~~1, ~"ipon a motion made by
Commissiioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, tl-re Coy"rrt
~.rnanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to accept r•eplacenient
Letter• of Credit for cntastr•~"rction of roads in Falling Water•
S~_rbdiv:ision, Precinct ~.
,--•
ORDER NO. ~7~73
WHI.S'I;EY' RIDGE 12RNCHES
AF'F'ROVRL OF F'REL_IMINRF{Y
REVISION OF F'LRT (k..U"FS 1~ R 16)
On this the 9tk'~ day of Or_tober c_V.~G1, japan a mntion made 6y
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Coy"irt
~.~nanimotxsly approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the pr•eliminar•y
revision of Flat for Lots 1~ 8 16 of Whiskey Ridge Ranches,
Precinct #k3.
~-

VILL_A(:iE WEST IN[)U'TRIAI_ F'ARN
L_ET'TER OF L;REDIT' #NTS~E~EI~?,1
0n this tF~e 9'I,h day of October crZ~V71, ~.ipon a motion made by
Commissioner Crif~Fin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the Co~_n-t
~_manimously approved by a vote of 4-0-~, to authorize release
of L.etter• of (:r-ed:it #NTS3F(3~31 for' the Final Flat of Village
West Incl~_~stri.al F'ar•k.
ORDER NO. ~7~_75
F'RECINT #c ft #4 F'VT RORD NRNE CHRNGES
IN RCCORDANCE WITH 9-1--1 GUIDELINES
On this the 9th day of October•','_001, ~_rpon a motion made by
Commissinner• Griffin, seconded by C:ommissioner^ Williams, the
Co~ar•t unanimously appr^oved by a vote of 4-0-0, the name
change±a for- pr^ivat'ely maintained roads in Rr•ecinct #2 ft
Precinct #4 in accordance with 9-1-1 guidelines. The road
name changes ar•e as follows:
(Effective Date: November c_'?;, 251)
Existing Rd Name New Rd Name F'r^ecinct #
Un-named Rr•oken Rrrow Tr^1 S 4
1875 Hughes Rd S 4
c911 Wee P Way SW 4
X914 Docs Ln W 4
Spanish Oaks St W P~_rr'r^ Oaks Dr W 4
~4F34 S Lacey Oaks Rdg S 4
Robin Hond Ln E Legend Ln E c
ORDER N0. c7c76
AP'P'ROVE CEL_t_ PHONE FOR COUNTY CLERK
On this the 9'th day of October ~c~k~1r upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams9 seconded by Cnnimissioner- Griffin, the
Court ~ananimo~asly approved 6y a vote of 4-0-4~~ to acquire a
cell phone and service with a local company (5pr•int? for the
County Clerk.
ORDER NO. c7c7r
WET WRTER CONSERVRI"ION RI~OCHURE
On I:hi<.; tt-~e 9tM day of October 'c001~ i.(pon moi.-,ion made by
Commi.ssior,er L.etz~ seconded by Commissioner Paldwin9 the Court
unanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-Q~-0, a~.atnnr-i-~al;i.or, for• tl-,e
Comp~.(ter• Spe(.~ialist tShaun L~r-anham) to work nn a web page
presentation of the WET' water conservation brochure and other
water conservation iss~.(es as o~.(r• contrib~.,tion to the WET
br•och~ar•e dissemination.
DRD[cR ND. "r''7c77R
" RDDI='"I" RESDI_UTIDPd RUl"HDRTZING S1GNRl"DIES
FDR 'f GDP CDNTRFiCT #7c:1075
Dn this the 9th day o~F Dc_tober 20k'~1, ~_~pon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, tl-ie
Co~ar•t ~_inanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to adopt a
Resul~_ition authori-piny designated siynatur•ies 7=or Texas
Comm~_uiity Development Program Contrar_t 7c 107 .
ORDER N0. c'_7.78
KERB CENTI~RI_ ~F='p IiF~ISt~L I7TSTRICT
RORRI7 L"lF DIRECTORS
I~ERF'F'O.T.N"fNEPJ"I' OF= E'F~UI._p I~ELTOFt
Ors this the 91:h day oi' October '0~1, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner I_et_, seconded by Commissioner Williams, ttie
Co~.~r•t unanimo~.~sly approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to re~appoi.nt or•
renominate F'aula Rector to serve as a member of the Poar•d of
Directors of the N.er•r• Central Rppraisal District.
,--~
Or~nr_:r~ ran. ~.'~~:~
OFFICE OF COU12T RDMINISl-I'~RTION CONI'I'~ACT
On this the 9L-h day of October ~kV~1, upon motion made I:~y
Commissioner E~aldwin, seconded by C:ammissioner Griffin, the
Co~.Art unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the Corrtrac{;
between the O'F'Fice of Court Rdministratiu~n and Kerr Co~_uity,
and a~_ithorie Cotmty J~_idge to sign same.

DRDER N0. 278@
KERB COUNTY ROAD NAME CHANGES
On this the 9th day of October 2@@1, ~.ipon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, name changes
for Kerr County Roads in var-ions locations as published in
the newspaper-, in accordance with 9-i-1 guidelines, with the
exception of East Cedar^ Dr• W, West Cedar^ Dr W, North Oak Dr W
& South Oak Dr W.
Road name changes that were approved are as follows:
(Effective Date: November ~3, 2@@1>
Existing Rd Name	New Rd Name		Grecinct #
Lakeview Dr S	Marymeade Dr	S	4
Si_~mmit Rd S	Skylar Rd S		4
Valley View Dr S	Keagan Dr S		4
Cedar^ Cliff Dr^ W	Cedar Cliff	Lp W	4
Dowdy W	Dowling Rd W		4
East Hi Top W	Caitlin Rd W		4
West Hi Top W	Clayton Rd W		4
West Hi Line W	Looker Dr W		4
East Hi Line W	Hi Line Rd W		4
So~_ith F'ark Rd SW	G~_~lch Ranch	Rd SW	4
North F'ark Rd SW	Cougar F'ark	Rd SW	4
Tur^key Run Rd SW	R~_in Rd SW		4
Nor-th St E	Keliy St E		2
Sandra Kay Ln N	Drew Ln N		1
Cook Rd E	Lange Ln E		:,
Nicks Cove N	Nikki Ln N		3
North & South Vine Dr S	Vine Dr 5		1
Sleepy Hollow Cir N (portion)	Country Ln N		4
Sleepy Mountain N	Country Ln N		4
Belfield	Rustic Hill	Rd SW	4
ORncR No. o;~:~:t
AMENDMENT TO ORDER REDRAWING
COMMISSIONf..RS RNP. ,JUSTICE OF l"FiE PEACE
"' PRECINCT AOUNDARIES
i7n this the 9th day of October "r'001~ ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner E~aldwin9 sectonded by Commissioner Griffin, th-~e
Co~_trt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the (amendment
or' Order I~ecJrawing Commissioners and .J~_istice of the Peace
F'r-ecinet bo~_indaries based on the Year cO+Z« census.
ORDER NO. ~7c'H'c'
ORDER ADOPTING CHANGES
TO KERR COON"fY ELECTION PRECINC"fS
On this the 9th day of Octnl?er '~~0].r
Commis..=.ioner Griffin, seconded by Co
Coy"irt" ~_~nanimously approved by a vote
adopting changes to certain areas of
Precincts as a res~"ilt of the changes
based on the E0N0 census.
~"iEaon motion made by
nniissioner~ Raldwin9 the
of 4-0-~, the order
the I:err Coy"inty Election
i.n Commissioner- F'r•ecincts
-~
ORDEF? N0. c'.7c_8;3
FIRST RMENDMENT TO IJGRA/OSSF COIVI'RRCT
On this the 9'th rJay of Ocl;ober '871, upon motion made by
Cammiss:ioner Williams, seconded by Comrtiissioner Let z, the
Coui^t unanimo!asly approved by a vote of 4-!~-0, the F'ir'st
Rmendrnent to Inter•yovermental Agreement for Operation of F;err
Co~.uity OSSF Program, and authorize C;oi.mty Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 1_71_b4
"' INTER-LOCRL RGREEMENI" WI"fl-I UGRR
F=OR f;ERRVII_t_E 50llTH WRE3TWRTE.R PROJECT
On this 'the 9'tl'~i day of Oai,ot~er^ 001, ~"ipon motion made 6y
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
C:oiar•t unanimously zppr•oved by a vote of 4-a-0, the
Intergovernmental Rgreement for 'r'4~G1 "texas Gomm"inity
Development F?royram with the UGRR and a~"ithor•i~e the Coi"mty
Judge 'to sign.
URnEFt NU. ~_7~~es
'"" SUINT RESUI.UI"ION SUF~F'UR'I"ING
TEXAS DEG'ART'hIENT UF' TRAPJSf='UR"fA"fICIN
AVIATIUN CRF'ITA~ IIl1F='RUVEMEIVT F=UNDIIVG
Un this the 9th day of Uctnber ~_U~1, upon motion made by
Commissioner [ir~iffin, seconded by Commissioner Wil7.iams, tl-ie
Co~ar•t unanimo~.~sly approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, a .joint
Re>ol~_ition S~.ippar•tiny the l"exas Department of Transl:aort:~tion
Aviation Capital Improvement F~.inding for Airport Improvements
at Kerrville/i:err C.OIAYIty M~_mii=ipal Airport.
c~r~DEk raa. ~~,_eE
AP'P'ROVAL OF f=iIRF~nRT r-I~iHNCAI.. ~=E_E_ sctlrDULf:=
On tt-: :i.=. tl-re 9th day of October ~cN~i, ~_,pon motion made by
Connn.=~.sioner Letz, seconded by C'ommi.=~sioner Williams, the
Coi_n~-L; approved 6y a vote of 3-0-~, the fire s,_tn=d~~.1e for tare
H.errvillelKerr Co~_rnty Airport T-h anyar•s as pr•esr.=nte~i, with
Commissioner Griffin r•ec:~.~sing himself from t;he vote.
Fees are: :3tar~dar•d T~.I-IaY-yar•
~~:iS.l~k per- ~rantrr for month tc; montl-, agreement
$2`a~. k'~k'~ per monttr 'For• 12 month <ayreeaier~rt
~~
~i'E~_.4h~ per incmth f-'ar• ~;6 month ayreemerrt for
y~-rar•anteec; rate
$c.992.`S4~ per ye:,r paid in advance fer• yBar
agreement i;:,'!• disco,.inti
See~_~rity Deposit;:
t15k~.N0 per unit