1
~' L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-. 13
14
15
15
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
. ' 25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Friday, December 21, 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
2
1		I N D E X	
		December 21, 2001	
2			PAGE
	---	Commissioners Comments	3
3	1.1	Pay Bills	5 ~'~~
	1.2	Budget Amendments 3 ,~.-~~~,~ ~-~3t~5 .~-131atP	5 0273
4	1.3	Late Bills ~-134~i a13~e	9
	1.4	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	18~~3~~
5			
	2.1	Review Agreement Tracts 18, 19, 20, Twin Springs,	
6		set public hearing date for final plat	18~~7~~
7	2.2	Consider variance to platting requirements of	
		Kerr County Subdivision Rules & Regulations	25~13~~
8			
	2.3	Preliminary plat, Cutoff Business Park	32.'~13N~
9			
	2.4	Preliminary plat, Live Springs Ranch	47J~37~
10			
	2.12	Discuss revisions to Kerr County Subdivision	
11		Rules & Regulations ~,SC.~S ~\pC1	49
12 2.5 Invitation to County Judge and Commissioners re-
garding Regional Judges and Commissioners Court
13 conference on January 23, 2002 1~ ~ SC~ISSI ~`l ~ 58
19 2.6 Discuss possible collaboration between Kerr County
and owners of proposed hotel/conference center to
15 be located on Texas Lions Camp property {~~~~LSS~~n60
16	2.8	Budget amendments for purchase of unforeseen	
		election supplies due to redistricting	78`a737o
17			
	2.7	Law enforcement liability insurance renewal	86~~313
18			
	2.9	Salary classification for Jail Administrator	100"-~`~
19			
	2.10	Creating one additional Sergeant position in	
20		the jail; eliminating Corporal ranking of two	
		positions, reclassifying to jailer positions	126'~'13~y
21			
	2.11	Authorize Sheriff's Dept. to request funds for	
22		video equipment from TX Dept. of Public Safety	130 X73?S
23	2.13	Date for January joint meeting with City Council	132~~371c
24	2.14	Establish maximum amount of $2,400 per year for	
		employees' unreimbursed medical expenses account	
25		under new optional medical insurance benefit plan	136377

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
3
On Friday, December 21, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in
the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning, everybody.
It's 9 o'clock in the morning on Friday, December 21st, and
we'll call to order the meeting of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court. Commissioner Griffin?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. And in light of
the special time of the year, this holiday season, I've
invited our good friend, Pastor John Green of the Hunt
Methodist Church to offer the invocation, followed by the
pledge of allegiance.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thank you, John.
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 would like to address the
Court on an item not listed on the regular agenda? One more
time, is there any citizen who'd like to address the Court
on an item not listed on the regular agenda? Seeing none,
we'll go directly to the Commissioners' comments, starting
i
1
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
with Commissioner Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No comments this
morning, Judge.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Griffin
does have a comment to make. He and I met with the 911 and
the postal service folks a couple of days ago, and all I
want to say at this point is, we accomplished more than I
dreamed of accomplishing. My good friend may like to take
on that one.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, very much so.
Very productive meeting, and I think working directly with
Cindy Guerrero from the San Antonio Postmaster -- or postal
system is going to be a big help to us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Excellent. Very good.
Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll just take this
opportunity to wish everyone in Kerr County and all those
present today a very blessed Christmas and a happy new year,
and we'll see you in '02.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two -- or one comment,
actually. I'd just like to thank an individual, Gordon
Morriss, who we got to do the cooking today for the
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
5
briskets, and Bernhard's Meat Market for helping to
contribute to that brisket to be cooked. They've always
been very helpful to the County and Commissioners Court, and
I want to publicly thank both of them.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Very good. And I want to
give my thanks to Commissioner Letz for arranging for the
meat to be donated. Some people have better contacts in the
meat industry than others do. That's why we all work
together; it doesn't fall on any one person. I also want to
extend my best wishes to everyone for a Merry Christmas and
Happy Hanukkah and joyful new year. Brief reminder, that
the first Commissioners Court meeting in January will be
Monday, January the 19th. Hopefully we'll get back onto our
regular schedule at that time. And we have a full plate,
and we want to go to lunch, so let's get started. Anyone
have any questions or comments regarding the bills?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a comment.
JUDGE HENNEKE: A11 right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move we pay them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams, 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.
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Budget
amendments. Budget Amendment Number 1 is for the Tax
Assessor/Collector.
MR. TOMLINSON: I have -- this is a request
from the Tax Collector to transfer $322 from Office Supplies
to Bonds and Insurance, and it's -- it relates to a bill
that's -- that's actually a year old. We have -- there was
some confusion between us and the agency that issued the
bill, and so we need to transfer -- make this transfer to
pay that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1 for the Tax
Assessor/Collector. You need a hand check for that, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. I have the late bill
separate.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. All in favor of the
motion to approve the budget amendment, raise your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)


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:
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE:
have --
Opposed, same sign.
Motion carries. And you
MR. TOMLINSON: I have one on -- I handed out
one to you for -- for receipt of a grant that's from the
Office of Justice programs. It's a federal grant. It's
entitled Hill Country Sex Offender Management. It's --
actually, it's for two years, and it's for $99,931.20. In
my note, I note that Dwight Sadler with the Detention Center
is grant manager, and so I'm requesting that we increase the
budget by the $99,931.20, which -- and I listed the line
items that are related to that, related to this $49,000.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So we can take in the
money?
MR. TOMLINSON: We'll take in the money, and
then this allows to us spend it. It is in the name of Kerr
County, the grant is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's it for,
specifically? I mean, is it --
MR. TOMLINSON: This -- this portion of it is
actually for -- for training people to deal with -- with
this problem.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's a multi -- it's a
four-county grant for the purpose of surveying the sex
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
offender treatment and prevention programs and coming up
with some recommendations on how we can improve our
treatment of juveniles who are apprehended for sex offender,
which, regrettably, is probably in the fastest growing
category of juvenile crime that I deal with as Kerr County
juvenile judge, and I see the Sheriff shaking his head in
the audience. This is -- there were 12 grants granted
nationally. Kerr County was the only rural grant applicant
to be given a grant for this purpose.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And we don't have any
matching funds?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, no matching funds
required.
MR. TOMLINSON: And I think this is maybe a
stepping stone for -- for bigger and better in the future,
according to Dwight. That with this program, initially, we
can maybe work our way into a larger --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Grant.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- grant.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move we accept the
grant and disburse the proceeds as set forth in the budget
amendment.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
budget amendment and increase the budget by the amount of
$49,931.20, accept the grant to be disbursed according to
the line items contained in the budget amendment request
from the Auditor. Any further questions or comments? If
not, all in favor raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Do you have
late bills, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, I do. The first one is
to First Insurance Agency and it relates to the budget
amendment for -- for $322, so I need a hand check for that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve a
late bill and hand check in the amount of $322 payable to
First Insurance Agency. Any further questions or comments?
If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The next one is r_o the
10
~ ~-
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30th Annual County/District Clerk's Seminar for $170. It's
for registration for the clerk's seminar to be held on
January the 14th through the 17th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve a
late bill and authorize a hand check in the amount of $170
payable to the 30th Annual County Clerk's Seminar. 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.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The next one is also
related to that, and it's for the payment of lodging, to the
Hilton College Station for $615.85 for the same period of
time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve a
late bill and hand check in the amount of $615.85 payable to
the Hilton Hotel College Station for lodging for the 30th

1
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
Annual County Clerk's Seminar. 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.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. I have one from Paula
Richards Loetz for $250, and it's for court reporting
services from -- for the period of 11/29 through 12/6.
JUDGE HENNEKE: How much was that, again?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's $250.
DODGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
approve a late bill and hand check in the amount of $250
payable to Paula Richards Loetz for court reporting
services. 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.
MR. TOMLINSON: The last one -- no, I have
12
1
~---
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~4
25
two more. The other one is for -- for lodging expenses for
J.P. 1 to the Omni Bayfront Hotel. It's for $153.54, and
it's for the period of 1/15 through the 17th of January.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the
late bill and hand check in the amount of $153.54 payable to
the Omni Bay Hotel for lodging expenses for J.P. 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that an annual
conference?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or is he just going
down to go fishing?
MR. TOMLINSON: It says "training session."
I don't know --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that is --
MR. TOMLINSON: It says "Justice Court
Training Center."
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Training in fly
fishing.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
~ ^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
2~
21
~~
23
24
25
13
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. The last one is to
Stoddard Construction Company for $25,766.73, and it's the
interest due on the -- the retainage from -- from the
beginning of the contract through October the 31st. I've
recalculated the schedule of interest for that period, and
I'm in agreement with -- with the amount. And, according to
the contract, we do -- we do owe the interest to him on the
retainage. So, we weren't -- I just came to the Court to
see if you want to pay it now or let the interest run, or
what.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, according to the
contract, a lot of things have happened. You know, we're
supposed to do a lot of things, but I don't -- has -- has
our representatives -- or do they sign off on those things?
Or is this just something automatic, built in the contract?
Or --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I actually got this
from -- from Keith Longnecker. He forwarded it on to me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is for interest
on the retainage. Have we released the retainage?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No.
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
14

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my question is, I
mean, part of that is because of their delays that they
caused.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, you have to put -- you
have to make a distinction here. I mean, by state law,
they're entitled to interest on their retainage, which we've
retained until they complete the project. We're not
releasing any retainage. This is the interest.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That they are entitled to by
state law.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we haven't released
it, 'cause they haven't done their job under the contract.
If they would have done their job, the interest would have
been less, because we're having to keep it longer. I mean,
I don't -- I don't disagree that we need to pay the
retainage. I disagree with the fact -- the amount that we
keep on -- that interest keeps accruing, because it's their
fault. I mean, they're making money, you know, because
they're not doing the job.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it's interest that's
accruing because the money's in an interest-bearing account,
right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
r-.
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
15
JUDGE HENNEKE: So it's not money we're
taking out of our budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it's not --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's an
interest-bearing account. They just get the interest on
whatever retainage --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's true, too. But it
doesn't set well.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I totally agree with your
sentiment. I don't want to pay them a nickel until they
finish the job.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why would we pay the
interest in advance of releasing the retainage?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: State law.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. I mean, I think
Bill's got it -- I mean, they probably need the money.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's your decision. I
mean, that's why I brought it here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before I make this
decision, give me a little guidance here. Why would we
release the interest to them before we release the
retainage?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's not costing
us --
MR. TOMLINSON: There's over -- there's
1~
,'-
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
??
23
24
25
16
really no reason to. I mean, I just --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the answer I'm
looking for.
MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, I just know that the
interest is continuing to accrue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it doesn't cost us
anything, 'cause that money is set aside in an interest-
bearing account, so the only -- I mean, it's just more of an
incentive for them.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The law does require
that we zero the interest out every year?
MR. TOMLINSON: This is personal opinion, but
I thought that maybe if we paid it, it might -- might induce
him to finish his job.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I kind of think the
other way. Maybe if we don't pay him, it will induce him to
finish his job.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What does the law say?
That's what's I need to know.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we don't have our
County Attorney in here, and I'm not wearing my lawyer's
hat. I will say that there is a provision in state law
which requires the accrual of interest on retainage. I
mean, the County's required to put the retainage in an
interest-bearing account, and the contractor's entitled to


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
the interest on the retainage. Now, when he's entitled to
it and under what circumstances --
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think -- I don't
think the law says. I mean --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Why don't we ask for
an opinion from our County Attorney before -- but before we
do anything? Because if we don't have to pay it, then I
would agree that we don't pay it until we -- until he
finishes the job, we pay him the retainage and the interest.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be my
sentiment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm in agreement with
that. Of course, that will take a good six months.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's more money.
MR. TOMLINSON: The County Attorney does have
this bill, and I had a conversation with him about it, but I
don't have an answer.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would like to defer
it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I believe the consensus is to
defer it until we have more definitive legal advice.
(Discussion off the record.)
DODGE HENNEKE: Anything else, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, that's all I have.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, I would accept

1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
a motion to approve and accept the monthly reports as
presented.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve and
accept the monthly reports as presented. Any further
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Having
dispatched with the preliminaries, we move on to the main
event here. First item for consideration is Item Number 1,
review agreement for Tracts 18, 19, and 20 of Twin Springs
and set a public hearing date for final plat of same,
Precinct 2. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm going to defer to
the County Engineer, and only with one additional comment.
I just distributed to members of the Court and to the
engineer this morning some information from Mr. -- is that
-- Gene Suess and Mr. Ronald Canter, who are owners of
property in Twin Springs Ranch, and they raised some
questions which I think are relevant, and there are some
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
19
responses on -- from the developer or his representatives.
And, with that, let's get into it.
MR. JOHNSTON: Lee? Are you -- Lee Voelkel
put this on the agenda. I think he's the expert on this.
MR. VOELKEL: Good morning. Not the expert.
Lee Voelkel. I just now read the letter as y'all were
talking about another item, so this is the first time I've
seen it. I think those are some legal issues that I'm not
qualified to answer. I think the appropriate thing to do,
in my mind, would be to set a date for the public hearing,
have these people notified, which they have not been done
yet, which of course is part of the process, and have
Mr. Burgess' attorney -- Mr. Burgess being the owner of the
property and the one wishing to do the replat -- be prepared
at that meeting to answer these questions for you people.
And if there are other questions that people would have,
that maybe he can do that also. The document that I
delivered to Frank was the paper that was prepared by Rit
Jons; he's the attorney for Mr. Burgess. That, in my mind,
allowed -- I guess, in his mind, allowed all of this to be
legal and take place.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think it
raises some questions in and of itself, Lee.
MR. VOELKEL: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It didn't -- the
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
G L
23
24
25
20
letter that you provided -- or the copy of the Addendum to
Earm and Ranch Contract between Twin Springs and the
purchaser, Mr. Burgess, didn't really address the questions
that the Court raised at the last meeting. It only said
that the property owner and the seller agreed to make things
try to happen, but it didn't agree -- did not address the
specific questions with respect to the roads that were
raised the last time. I think those questions with regard
to the -- to the roads and the Twin Springs Ranch homeowners
group, property owners group, are very relevant. They need
to be addressed.
MR. VOELKEL: I agree with that. I just now
briefly read it. I don't know exactly what all is in there;
I haven't had time to review it. I thought the question
with the Court last time, Mr. Williams, was whether or not
it was legal to bring in property from another subdivision
into the Twin Springs Subdivisions, and that's what brought
about that letter that I brought for -- from Mr. Jons, which
I thought answered that question. I didn't -- I wasn't sure
that we were talking about roads until I read this this
morning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we did get into
roads a little bit last time, if you recall, because what
you're doing is carving up Twin Springs Ranch as we know it
today.
21
1
2
3
9
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. VOELKEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you're taking
Creekwood V, a piece of it, and you're creating a whole new
entity. Roads have to go from someplace to someplace, and
there's not a plan to bring them out on -- on Creekwood
Drive in the area coming out through Creekwood, so the plan
is to go out through Twin Springs Ranch, and that creates
another set of questions about the relevancy of that, the
number of -- the traffic, whether or not the property owners
have been advised, whether they've signed off on it, and a
whole raft of other questions that were raised today in this
letter.
MR. VOELKEL:	Yes.		
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	By this	gentleman
from Twin Springs.
MR. VOELKEL: Again, I think those are legal
questions that I'm just not qualified to answer. I wish Mr.
Jons would have been able to have been here this morning,
but we didn't know that this letter existed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My comment is -- I mean,
if the property -- and we discussed this last time, too. If
the route's going to be to revise Twin Springs, and that's
the route Mr. Burgess wants to take, then I think we should
go ahead and set the public hearing and get all this on the
table. There is another -- a different option of creating a
zz
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
new subdivision, or revising. I guess either way you would
have to revise Twin Springs, but you could cut it out and
start a new subdivision instead of adjoining a different
subdivision. But either way, I guess you can revise Twin
Springs. I think we ought to at least get that step done,
get that public hearing so we get all the parties to give us
the information, get the legal -- and there's no reason that
we need to make a decision immediately after that public
hearing. We would receive the information, and then we, you
know, tell Mr. Burgess or Twin Springs or everybody else,
okay, we have the information. This is what came out.
MR. JOHNSTON: During the public hearing,
they could answer these -- have their attorney --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That they get --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: All at once.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, it's a way to get
the whole process moving.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine.
MR. VOELKEL: Also, in case there are other
properties -- property owners that have concerns, if
notification has been sent, it will give them a chance to
come forward too, if they have concerns, and express those.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, meeting dates in
January are the --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 14th and 28th.
23
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 28th.
	JUDGE HENNEKE: 14th and --
	MS. SOVIL: 28th.
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd go with February.
	(Discussion off the record.)
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 28th would be good.
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a month away, but
that's a lot	for our staff -- or for Jannett's staff to get
done between	now and New Year's.
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. First meeting
in February	work for you guys?
	MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir, that would be fine.
	MS. SOVIL: 11th.
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move a public
hearing be s	et on final plat for Tracts 18, 19, and 20 of
Twin Springs	Ranch for February 14th.
	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 11th.
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 11th. February 11th.
Lost three days.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the reason I'm
number one.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Glad you're on top of
that this morning. February 11th. 10:00 a.m.?
MR. VOELKEL: Thank you, sir.
24
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: February 11th,
10 a.m. So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court set
a public hearing for the final plat of Tracts 18, 19, and 20
of Twin Springs Subdivision for February the 11th, Year
2002, at 10 o'clock in the morning here in the Kerr County
Commissioners' Courtroom.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, can I just make --
MS. PIEPER: Can the developer supply me with
the names and addresses of the landowners?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the
question?
JUDGE HENNEKE: The developers are required
to provide you with the names and addresses of the
landowners, and you'll need those by January the 4th.
MS. PIEPER: That will be fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I have --
and I don't know if Mr. Burgess is here, but if -- Lee?
MR. VOELKEL: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you could get it back
to Mr. Burgess that my gut feeling is -- that my personal
opinion is that, unless all these questions are resolved,
there's not going to be a final plat approval on that date.
25

1
2
3
9
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It's just to receive information and how to try to work out
these issues.
MR. VOELKEL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Customarily, we do one,
then the other. I want to be clear, I don't anticipate that
happening in this one unless it's resolved.
MR. VOELKEL: Okay, sure thing.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions or comments on
the motion to set the public hearing? All in favor, raise
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Item Number
2, consider a variance, platting requirements of Kerr County
Subdivision Rules and Regulations, Precinct 4. Commissioner
Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. There was
pending a later agenda item where we're going to talk
potential revision to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
This was a -- a good example of one of the things that that
potential rewrite will address. I've got a 10-acre tract
that's being divided in half to 5 acres, with access along
the existing county road to both tracts after being divided,
and the question is, what is required -- what does the owner
1
,-.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lb
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.-,
25
26
have to do? And, under our current rules, he would have to
that rewrite of the rule, because this is a clear-cut case,
I think, that it demonstrates the need for another look at
this particular rule. Jonathan and I have talked about
this. You may have some more comment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the comment is,
you know, the motion probably is a little bit more specific,
is that -- and I mean regarding the variance. The only --
if this tract is -- an example is, this tract would qualify
under a statewide exemption if it was 10 acres or more. The
reason that it doesn't is because it's 5 acres, but that
still -- and there's no roads involved. There's a -- it's
an acreage limitation put on by the County that's required
this to get platted. I personally think it's a good idea to
get it platted, from the standpoint that we keep a record of
what's going on in the county. But, since there are no
roads -- and this is kind of the logic that -- two reasons
why this would fall under the new provisions, if they're
adopted later on, is that there's no road construction at
27
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
LO
21
22
23
24
25
all on this subdivision. It's -- basically, a man is
dividinq his 10-acre tract in half, into two lots that both
meet our minimum requirements. So, there's no roads there,
and it's a very -- it's a very small subdivision.
And, under our current rules, you know, there
is no allowance for a small subdivision to be created, you
know, a couple-lot subdivision. And that's, I think -- and
that's been brought to our attention, I think, several times
before. So, I tried to, when we get to that later agenda
item, simplify that process. The timing is -- you know, I
talked to Mr. Brown about this one. I said his timing was
not real good, from the standpoint that if he would have
waited a couple weeks, he probably would have been able to
sail right through. It's a little bit more convoluted now,
but he needs to do it when he needs to do it, not our
schedule. So, I support the variance. I think the -- and
the variance is --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: To the platting
requirement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To the platting process.
I think we still need to have it platted. I recommend that
we handle it at one -- at one visit. I'm trying to think;
is this the visit?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, this is the
visit. That we approve the plat as presented in one visit,
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
28
and that we -- I think the new rule would -- would also
allow for, and so we are granting a variance to the platting
requirement as written in the -- currently in the rule.
It's still platted, but all of the loops don't have to be
gone through. That's the --
MR. JOHNSTON: Don't they have to bring the
plat, actually, in before you can approve it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will be approved
subject to them meeting certain requirements that need to be
met. What we're giving a variance to -- they're giving a
variance specifically to Headwaters signing off on the plat,
a variance to U.G.R.A. signing off, because it meets -- it
doesn't come under water availability. It's already -- it's
covered under that minimum requirement, and it meets our
minimum lot size, which U.G.R.A. -- and there is a way to
build a septic system here. It may be expensive, but
there's a way, so it's waiving those two certifications.
And then it would also be -- my recommendation would be to
lower the -- the County's fee to -- you know, what is it,
Jannett, on a subdivision now? $200? On a plat?
MS. PIEPER: For filing a plat?
COMMISSIONER. LETZ: Yeah.
MS. PIEPER: It's $50.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $50 for preliminary and
$50 for final?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1?
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
MS. PIEPER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lowering it to a final
plat, basically eliminating the preliminary platting process
and having a $50 platting fee for the County. It still
needs to have the mylar. They still need to go to 911 to
sign off on the name; all that is still required, but we're
only limiting --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: One-shot deal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we would --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The way I read your
later item dealing with that, it seems like to me that
that -- the later actually addresses almost everything that
you have just said. Is this one written in such a way that
we need -- I mean, it has to be dealt with today? We can't
wait until we change that rule and then it would just be
automatic? I mean --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. The problem
is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're granting a
variance against something here.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The rule change will
probably take a rather -- it may take a meeting or two.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: To get that finalized.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. But, I


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
~4
25
30
mean, I like what the later item -- I kind of like what it
is, and it seems like to me that -- well, I mean, that's
fine. If it needs -- this needs to move on, that's fine,
but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, Mr. Brown's here.
I mean, I don't know --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, and the real
issue, I think, is that you've got an er.isting contract on
the -- the other 5-acre tract. It's been there for some
time. We've already wrestled with this. It's going to be a
while longer, but this one clearly meets the intent of the
new rewrite.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There was a question
early on, and I gave him bad advice on the phone, Mr. Brown.
I thought it didn't need to be platted. Fart of the
reason -- I mean, I think Larry already -- I was on my
mobile phone, like I usually am, and I forgot about the
10-acre requirement. I was thinking through everything, and
that one exception -- you know.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So this -- the
variance would -- would solve the immediate problem, and I
think it's obvious that we're going to address the overall
issue for the rewrite of the rule, so I'll make a motion
that we -- that we do grant the variance, and that we
approve the plat as presented when we have a plat.


1
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
JUDGE HENNEKE: So -- is that a second?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The motion is to grant a
variance from the certification by Headwaters and the
U.G.R.A.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And eliminate the
preliminary platting process.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And eliminate the preliminary
platting process and approve the plat, subject to the
presentation of the appropriate mylar, so it doesn't have to
be put on the agenda again.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Does everyone
understand where we're headed with that? So, we have a
motion by Commissioner Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz,
that with respect to the 10-acre tract owned by Alan Brown,
located off Goat Creek Road, part of the Van Hoosier Ranch,
that the Commissioners Court grant a variance to the
certification by the Headwaters Groundwater Management
District, as well as the Upper Guadalupe River Authority,
and as well as the preliminary plat requirement, and approve
the plat, subject to presentation to the County Judge of the
appropriate mylar signed off by 911 and, I guess, TexDOT.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And utility companies.


1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
JUDGE HENNEKE: And the utility company. Got
that, Alan?
MR. BROWN: I believe so.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Any further questions
or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would apologize -- the
revision was talked about for some time -- not getting them
to court sooner. That would have eliminated this confusion.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll move along. Item
Number 3, consider approval of a preliminary plat for Cutoff
Business Park, Precinct 4. Commissioner Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. I'll refer this
one to Franklin. I think the checklist has been run. The
plat is in your package, the preliminary. There were some
other questions that were raised a little bit earlier. Did
you have a chance to get --
MR. JOHNSTON: The preliminary plat was put
on the agenda. I went out and checked the site, and also
went through the transcript of the discussion last time it
was here. There were a number of issues that hadn't been
resolved, so I kind of made a checklist here of some of the
33


1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
issues. The developer has a copy of this letter; maybe he'd
want to address those things, maybe see what they plan on.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I would suggest,
perhaps, that you -- you read the comment that you made in
your memo that you handed me this morning, and then let's
let -- let the owner respond on how that will be addressed.
MR. JOHNSTON: These are not in any necessary
order. I just put them down as I went through the
transcript. We talked last time about restricting this
property to be only commercial property and not, at some
future time, residential property. That's just a matter of
putting the note on the plat. That's not on the plat now.
Question about the road --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Before we go any
farther, any problem with getting that on the plat?
(Mr. Jenschke shook his head.)
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: Question about the road, since
it says public road -- it's not -- it never was -- it says
Business Drive, a public roadway, but it never was designed.
It's whether or not they want it to be a County-maintained
road or a private road.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's my understanding
that all the roads were to be private. Is that not true?
MR. JENSCHKE: We put them in to County
1
1
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
specifications. And they had -- you know, in fact, we had,
on the base --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Please identify
yourself for the court reporter.
MR. JENSCHKE: Stephen Jenschke. When we put
the base -- the subgrade in, we -- the County came out and
said it didn't -- the p.i. wasn't low enough, and so we had
to buy a truck of lime to mix in with the base material to
get it down to their -- what they wanted. And so, anyway,
it's put in to County specifications and everything, and
they should have had all the information over there. I
talked to the man over this morning after I found out about
this here, and he said that he at some point talked to you,
Franklin, and had faxed over the test results and all that
stuff. So, you know, he met --
MR. JOHNSTON: I wasn't -- I don't think we
have the final test results on the base.
MR. JENSCHKE: Okay. Well, he was going to
fax them back over to your office again this morning, and he
met with your assistant out there, who told us that we had
to -- to lower the p.i. -- the p.i. on the -- on the --
MR. JOHNSTON: I'll check that, but I didn't
get any other calls for inspection.
MR. JENSCHKE: Okay. Well, he -- I was not
aware of that until I read this this morning. And -- but he
1
~ ^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
23
24
~5
35
said he was faxing the information over to your office on
all the test results.
MR. JOHNSTON: So you're intending that to be
a County-maintained road?
MR. JENSCHKE: Yes. In that regard, there's
a photo, I think, in there. The road needs to have better
drainage. If we're going to maintain -- I think Photo 5 and
6 show that the road, as such, the plat with the shoulder --
with the rest of the right-of-way, and the water just sets
along the side of the asphalt. There's some ruts there now.
It needs to have better drainage, or the road would
deteriorate.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So I take it, then,
that that part is not to County standards?
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Any problem in solving
that to bring it to County standards?
MR. JENSCHKE: We have not completed the
final drainage ditch for the simple reason that we didn't
actually know what we were going to be required to do as it
wound up. We have an engineer's drawing. Vordenbaum did
that with -- and we have the engineer's drawing, but we have
not done any of the drainage work.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. So, the
drainage can be put in?
36


'~"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. JENSCHKE: Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: Ditch is on the side of the
road.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. Next item?
MR. JOHNSTON: That's just a technical thing
on the plat. The subdivision is not marked out on the
location map. It just needs to be outlined, a boundary, to
draw it out where it's located.
MR. JENSCHKE: Yes, no problem.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. Number 4.
MR. JOHNSTON: Its kind of what we were
talking about. The drainage easement channels are, you
know, not currently in place, not built. There's actually
some kind of alternate swales, I guess, that will eventually
run into those --
MR. JENSCHKE: We just left it natural, as it
was before, before it was cleared and everything. We just
left the drainage as it was, you know, so -- so wherever the
water flowed before we started anything, that's where it
still flows. Yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: The only concern I had is, at
the end of the cul-de-sac, they're showing a 20-foot-wide
drainage easement, which is actually 2 foot deep and some
distance wide on the bottom -- 5 foot wide.
MR. JENSCHKE: Correct.
37

1
1

i '-.
1
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
MR. JOHNSTON: But now there's a water meter,
telephone pole right in the middle of that.
MR. JENSCHKE: We just have to go around
that. I think it -- yeah. Yeah. And I think I just pour a
concrete deal around that to solve it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, okay. So that can
be solved, okay. What's the next one?
MR. JOHNSTON: Utility lines call for zero to
4 foot for the property line. I think your drawing shows 8
foot, the property line. Is that in the actual ditch area
of the road? Or I think they're placed on the road?
MR. JENSCHKE: Yes. KPUB completed those
last -- last week, and --
MR. JOHNSTON: I was talking about the water
line.
MR. JENSCHKE: Oh, the water line.
MR. JOHNSTON: Is that under the cul-de-sac,
under the road? Or is it --
MR. JENSCHKE: It runs -- no, it's not under
the road. No, it's not under the road. The -- other
than -- I'm trying to remember. They might have cut across
on the -- on the cul-de-sac there. I believe that's where
it --
MR. JOHNSTON: Is that going to have any
effect on proper ditching on the side of the road?

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
38
MR. JENSCHKE: No.
MR. JOHNSTON: Deep enough?
MR. JENSCHKE: Yeah. They -- it's at least
3 feet deep. At least.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. So, that can be
-- before a final plat would come forward, that could all be
fixed. I mean, that could be --
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I think it's in place.
I'd say leave it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, okay. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'd have to give a --
how -- what's our rule? I mean -- well, we have to give a
variance to get 8 feet?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, I think so. The reason
for it being 8 feet instead of 4 feet is --
MR. JENSCHKE: I don't know, Franklin. I
think that -- and I'll check with Jimmy Whelan, but I
believe that that's a -- we've got approximately -- what? I
think a 15 -- don't we have a 15-foot easement on each side?
Yeah. I was thinking -- you may be right. I'll have to
check.
MR. JOHNSTON: It shows --
MR. JENSCHKE: I was thinking it was 10 foot
on either side of the road base, but it's actually 15, so --
and I think they just went down the center of that, but let
39

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
me check on that and I'll let you know on that.
MR. JOHNSTON: Okay. And -- well, out there,
there's actually a new building, number one. I think our
rules say no building will be done until the final plat's
approved.
MR. JENSCHKE: We did that. That's my
personal building, and we started that about a year -- about
a year ago, and we've just been working on it, you know, as
we -- as we could and everything.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, that buildinq
would exist even if there were no subdivision.
MR. JENSCHKE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't think we can
say you can't do that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the rules say you
can't --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN:
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- put
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN:
it. What if you just had an "X"-acre
somebody wants to go out and build a
can do that.
That's right.
well, you can't --
a building on there.
You can't subdivide
tract there, and
ouilding on it? They
	JUDGE	HENNEKE:	If the	building was there --
the building	is there	before	it comes	to be subdivided,
40
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1~
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that's fine, but if the they construct a building after the
subdivision process has started, then that's a violation of
the rules.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think you're --
the Judqe is right, but if you said -- if it started a year
ago, that building was in construction when the subdivision
started.
MR. JOHNSTON: Did it start before you
started on this process?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's what I heard.
MR. JENSCHKE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If that started -- if
you started constructing the building on your property, then
said, "Hey, I'm going to have a subdivision," there's no way
we can say that you can't build on your property. That was
my point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If the building -- I
mean, if the building started first, you can't do anything,
but you can't start it afterwards, I would say, based on our
rule. I don't know when the building started or when the
subdivision process started.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The risk that a
property owner takes in that regard is the subdivision might
not be approved, so the plan you have for the building might
not work, you know, if -- but that's a risk -- if you start
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
building before you start the subdividing process, that's a
risk that the owner takes, but that's his right to do so, I
would think.
MR. JOHNSTON: I have a question about the
drainage study, itself. I think our rule number 5.06(b)
says that the water leaving the site post-construction is
less than what the preconstruction runoff figures are by a
number of percentages that are in that paragraph. The study
that we have in from Vordenbaum Engineering shows an actual
increase leaving post-construction. That probably would
require a variance. Their report says there's a negligible
effect downstream, but it's not really quantified.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, to me,
and going off memory, this has been the biggest holdup,
really, is the drainage issue, and I think it's just -- I
mean, the drainage issue has got to be resolved before the
final plat can get approved. You know -- you know, that's
just something -- I mean --
MR. JOHNSTON: I think we need to decide
whether or not to grant a variance or go by what's in the
Subdivision Rules, 'cause right now it's not according to
Subdivision Rules.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, if the drainage
study shows that you can't meet Subdivision Rules, you ask
for a variance. But we don't know that yet, I don't think,
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
42
because the drainage hasn't been finished. And if --
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, the study's -- the
theoretical -- the study says it doesn't -- it's not
designed right now for our rules.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not inclined to give
drainage variances very much. That -- you know.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Neither am I.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: See, I'm trying to
understand how you can increase the flow.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Velocity.
MR. JOHNSTON: Velocity.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The velocity. If the
drainage ditching and all is the way it was shown on the
proposal, that's what I --
MR. JOHNSTON: They say it increases it,
what, 15 percent or so?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, that was with the
design?
MR. JOHNSTON: That's with the design, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, that's -- you
know, you get into an area we have to rely on Vordenbaum.
If Vordenbaum says it's going to increase the velocity or
whatever, I mean --
MR. JOHNSTON: I think ours say it should be
75 percent of the preconstruction. This says it's

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
15 percent more, so it's a little bit different there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, I mean --
MR. JOHNSTON: From, like, two -- each one is
different, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Variances, I'm -- you
know, I don't like them a lot. Drainage is an area that, to
me, there's got to be a very good reason, and it's going to
take an engineer to pretty much give a reason, to me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the best
solution to a velocity problem? Retention, basically?
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, retention is one. I
think putting things in the -- that drainage channel to slow
the water down is another. Velocity dissipaters.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But that's all doable?
MR. JOHNSTON: It's all doable, yes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can still approve
the preliminary plat based on the contingency that it has to
meet all the requirements of the Subdivision Rules before
the final. Okay. Next?
MR. JOHNSTON: We went over Part B of that,
is the road needs a ditch -- needs ditches. Part C we went
over already also.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: Number 9, I think we went over
that also. They didn't call for inspection, but we can
44
1
7
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
get -- if they have reports, they can send them to us. This
is also in the ETJ of Ingram, so these variances that we
might consider also need to be approved by them.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: At this point, though,
we're not considering any variances. There's no variances
on the table until --
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- we know that the --
MR. JOHNSTON: Except we haven't talked
about --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We figure out they
can't do what the Subdivision Rules say.
MR. JOHNSTON: I would think we need to get a
variance for lot size. All these are less than 5 acres.
This subdivision does not average 5 acres.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's residential.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We could --
MR. JOHNSTON: We talked about that last
time. I don't remember the result.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that would
require a variance, because it would be -- we acknowledged
earlier that -- and approved that -- I mean, we
intentionally, I think, did not try to address business
parks in our Subdivision Rules.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's where --
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
that's where we talked about the note has to be on the plat,
it can't be used for residential purposes. That was the
reason for that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Or the variance
-- whenever that comes back for final plat, that -- I mean,
any variances that are going to be requested needs to be
specifically set out in the agenda item.
MR. JOHNSTON: Mm-hmm. Would that be a --
would that need to have a variance?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. Yes. And maybe
later on we can address commercial stuff in the Subdivision
Rules. But I think we could grant that variance on the
preliminary plat, could we not, for lot size?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, you grant a variance on
final.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's when we actually
technically grant the variance, is the final one. If you
approve the preliminary plat with the lot sizes that are
shown, you're indicating that -- unless you make a caveat
that you have to change them, you're indicating that you are
accepting the lot sizes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I will make a motion,
then --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Larry, I've got a
46
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
question. Franklin, back to this Number 9, the base and
pavement and all that, that you had gone out and inspected
as the County Engineer, inspected on the base part of it.
MR. JOHNSTON: Sub-base.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sub-base. And the
rest of it we have not inspected?
MR. JOHNSTON: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so you're going to
rely on some report from somebody. Who is that somebody?
MR. JOHNSTON: Who did the report?
MR. JENSCHKE: I would assume that would be
Robert Kichner out of San Antonio.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good enough. I'm
sorry, Larry.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No problem. I'll make
a motion that we approve the preliminary plat for Cutoff
Business Park, with the proviso that all of the requirements
of the Subdivision Rules must be met before final plat
approval.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Or variances.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Or variances.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve
the preliminary plat for Cutoff Business Park in Precinct 4,
47
,~-
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~q
25
with the proviso that all requirements of the Kerr County
Subdivision Rules and Regulations must be satisfied prior to
the final plat, unless a specific variance is requested and
granted thereto. Any other 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. Next item,
Item Number 4, is to consider the approval of a preliminary
plat for Live Springs Ranch, Precinct 4. Commissioner
Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I defer to the County
Engineer on this one
MR. JOHNSTON: I went out and looked at the
site, drove up the preliminary road; it's not been built
yet, but there's kind of a road there. Only comment I had,
where the road crosses a little stream -- I guess that's the
live spring.
MR. VOELKEL: I think so.
MR. JOHNSTON: There needs to be a little
drainage study there to size culverts and all. The status
of the road, I talked with the developer and the contractor
when I was out there. I don't know if they're in court.
MR. VOELKEL: He's not here this morning, no,
48
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
sir.
MR. JOHNSTON: He said he wanted a
County-maintained road with a gate. I told him he couldn't
have one, had to have one or the other. Had to be either
private with a gate or County-maintained without a gate, and
so I'm -- do you know what he plans on that? He wanted to
keep his ag exemption, wanted livestock in there until he
sold the lots, so he wanted it fenced.
MR. VOELKEL: My understanding is that he
will build a public road, a County-maintained public road
built to the County standards without a gate.
MR. JOHNSTON: Without a gate, okay.
MR. VOELKEL: Public road.
MR. JOHNSTON: Then, where it says on the
plat "50-foot right-of-way," that's actually a typo. It's
60-foot right-of-way. Right?
MR. VOELKEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It is 60 foot?
MR. JOHNSTON: 60 foot.
MR. VOELKEL: It's 60 foot, yes, sir.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's the only comments I
have. I'd recommend approval.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. I move that we
approve the preliminary plat as presented, with the notation
that the proposed public road is EO foot wide, as opposed to
49
1
~-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
~--
25
what's shown on the preliminary plat -- draft at this point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve
the preliminary plat for Live Springs Ranch in Precinct 4,
as presented, with the correction that the right-of-way on
the proposed public road is 60 foot instead of 50 foot. 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: I'm going to suggest, since
we're talking about subdivisions, that we go ahead and do
Item Number 12, which is the proposed revisions to the Kerr
County Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we need to
spend a whole lot of time on this. I really -- I put it
down to cover the basic -- at least not today -- some basic
ideas and concepts of revising things, with the basic intent
being to make the process a lot simpler for very small
subdivisions, and also -- and this would also cover the
situation where we have combined lots. And I arbitrarily
picked -- I think if it's three lots or less. That's -- the
Commissioner would then have the ability to bring this to


1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~4
25
50
the Court just one time under a final plat; that wouldn't Le
a preliminary plat. If there is a situation where the
Commissioner thinks this needs to go through the full
process, it would still take two visits to the Court. But
whoever can convince the Commissioner that, you know, this
is just a minor situation, such as the one we had with Mr.
Brown earlier and the one we had several weeks ago in
Creekwood, where a guy was basically eliminating a lot line,
that can be handled at one time to the Court, and it would
also -- well, that's -- and also, it will be a cheaper
process for the individual.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Since, then, they only
have one final.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be one final fee for the
County; one $50 fee, as opposed to two $50 fees. And we're
also -- and I know we have -- that's probably why we have a
Headwaters board member and General Manager here in the
audience, possibly because of the language that -- which is
taking them off -- or recommending, anyway, that we take
Headwaters off of some situations, which will be these small
plats. And also U.G.R.A., we're taking off from the
O.S.S.F. standpoint, and also, I think, from a floodplain
standpoint. And my logic is that if a -- if these lots come
in under our minimum requirements, if you have a 5-acre lot
and no variance required, you can put a well on it. It
51
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
doesn't -- isn't subject to our water availability, 'cause
you have to have, I guess, five lots for water availability
to even kick in. And you can -- a septic system can be
devised.
So, I think we should distribute the final
plat to everyone that currently signs off on it, but I don't
see any reason to, one, burden Headwaters or U.G.R.A., or
for the developer to pay the fees related to that. And the
fees -- they get pretty expensive. When you add up all the
fees, you're probably, I imagine, close to $1,000, minimum
charge, and that doesn't even, you know, count what they --
what these surveyors are going to hold these people up for
trying to do these little things. But -- so, anyway, that's
another -- that's a second part of it. And I have here,
just to hand out so everyone can look at it, is the current
fee structure, and this is something I think we need to get
some feedback from -- you know --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Jonathan, let me
interject a question while you're handing that out. So,
there's nothing that says -- obviously, if someone's going
to put in a septic system, they still have to follow all the
rules. If they're going to put in a well, they still have
to follow Headwaters' rules and all that for the permitting
and so on. This only relates to the platting process, is
what you're talking about revising. And I think that's a
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1~
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
good idea, because in a very simple case where the lot sizes
are big enough and it fits under the state regs and our
rules, we can expedite the platting process. That does --
in no way does that reduce the responsibility of the land
owner and the developer and the septic installer and the
well driller to do exactly what they would have done under
the existing rule. Still got to follow the rules.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we specifically have
a provision in our Subdivision Rules which says,
specifically, Headwaters and U.G.R.A. -- you know, you're
subject to those, or to the O.S.S.F. rules, which are County
rules, and subject to Headwaters rules for drilling wells.
So, I mean, there's a provision in -- already there saying
that, hey, you know, this is just one of the governmental
entities you have to deal with. So we still have to deal
with, you know, O.S.S.F. program and the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Headwaters program. I
visited with Cameron a little bit about this; I think he
knew that I had something working up in my brain. He didn't
know the details ahead of time, and I think Headwaters has
some -- I'd actually like to see if either Doug or Cameron
have any comments. Cameron's comment to me was they're --
Headwaters has a little bit of a liability question, the way
the current certification reads. And also, I think if they
53
	1
	2
	3
1	9
	5
	
	6
	~
1	
	8
	
	9
	10
'	11

12
1	13
	14
	15
	16
	17
	18
	19
	20
	21
	22
	23
	24
	25
sign off on some of these, it's kind of a -- when you start
signing off on things, you're, I think, implied approving
it. And, you know, when they're meeting the minimum
guidelines, I'm not sure that they want to -- Cameron?
Doug? Do y'all have any comments? Is that why y'all are
MR. CORNETT: That's part of it. One of my
comments is, how will this affect lots less than 5 acres if
they don't have to come through the process?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do. This will -- if
it's -- if it doesn't meet our minimum requirements, which
is a 5-acre lot size right now, or if it's going to have any
kind of a water system, it won't meet the qualification or
the -- it will still have to go through the two-time process
and come to Headwaters. It's only the ones -- if they're --
and this what it's going to really cause, is Road and Bridge
and the Commissioners to look a little bit harder at it to
make sure what can come through the quick process in one
meeting, and at a much reduced fee structure, or which one
has to go under the current system, which will require
U.G.R.A. -- or, for example, if it's in a floodplain, it's
got to go to U.G.R.A. I don't care if you're -- what you're
doing. I mean, if you're doing anything on a plat and it's
in the floodplain, I know it goes there. But that's a
determination that the surveyor makes originally, anyway, on
54




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
their certification. There's a little box they check, in a
floodplain or not in a floodplain, or in the -- in the
floodplain, you know, on the insurance maps. Same thing
with -- on the water availability. If they're, you know,
under some sort of a water system, that kicks it over to
Headwaters to sign off under the water availability section.
If it's less than -- I believe so, 'cause it's -- they have
to either -- if they're under a water system, they have to
get certification from T.N.R.C.C., or if it's less -- if
it's not a public -- or one governed by T.N.R.C.C., we've
granted that authority to Headwaters to have to sign off on
the water availability side. So, the only ones that it's
going to kick off --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Roads. You might
mention, if there's a road issue, no matter what --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It has to come --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- the size is, how
big it is, if there's a road issue, you still have to go
through the two-time process, a preliminary and a final.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason for that
is 'cause there are inspections related to the roads.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, before you can
build it. So, what it's really intended for are very --
it's -- we used to call them minor replats. It's a little
55
1
~, 2
3
' 4
5
1

' `_
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2^
21
22
23
24
L S
bit broader than that. I tried to leave it fairly general,
and just said if the number of lots is less than three, it
can qualify, and it's up to the Commissioner to say yes or
no, it does qualify. That's just the basic intent. My
intent is to bring this back first meeting in January for us
to adopt it. I don't think that we need a public hearing on
this; it's not a major change to our rule. Or maybe we can
do it. Fred's nodding yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, I think we have to get
a ruling on that, ber_ause it is a change to the Subdivision
Rules. We have to go through a public hearing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Certainly, I would want
to hear from -- comments from U.G.R.A. and Headwaters,
'cause they are going to be taken off of some of these, and
I'm -- I want to make sure that we're not cutting something
out that needs to be in the process, so I don't want to rush
into it. That's why I was in favor of giving the variance
this morning, because of what Larry said; this isn't going
to be changed real quick. It's going to -- we need to go
slow. We need to make sure we're doing it properly, need to
run it by the County Attorney. I'm pretty certain, by my
knowledge of Section 232, that this can -- we can do it this
way. We r_an have different criteria for different types of
subdivisions. And the only -- and we're meeting a
requirement that it does come to the full court for
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
56
approval. So, I think we're within Section 232. Just
trying to come up with the process that really helps the
real small developers. And most of them aren't really
developers; they're home owners that are trying to make a
correction, and I think we should encourage that process and
not make it more difficult. So, it will be back in January,
and then we -- at that time, we can set the publi~~ hearing
if we need to.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My question,
Commissioner Letz, is Cameron through commenting?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know.
MR. CORNETT: I just wanted to go ahead and
reserve the right to review it. Headwaters applauds your
intent, because we hear many of the same complaints.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thanks.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's a worthwhile
exercise; it really is, as we go through this, because we
don't want to burden the Alan Browns and the small people
with everything. If there's a streamlined process, then
we'll offer it to the citizens. I think it's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The man -- the
gentleman came in about four to six weeks ago and wanted to
know why we had to go through the cumbersome, costly
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To do a minor change.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I notice Stuart Barron
from U.G.R.A. just walked in. We're on the topic right now,
Stuart, on the Subdivision Rule modification, and also the
certification change. We're going to postpone it until
January 14th. Isn't that the date? January 14th, we're
going to look at it again. Everyone's going to kind of
think about it. I think I provided everyone with some
language that U.G.R.A. would like to have on their
certification. I haven't really spent a lot of time talking
to Stuart about that, but we'll come on the 14th -- or
between now and the 14th, I'll get with Stuart and
Headwaters and we'll make sure that the certification that
stays on the -- where it is still required, that we're
both -- you know, everyone's happy with that certification
language. And then we'll also have a recommendation as to
if we can eliminate their even having to look at some of the
plats.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, very good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Someday I'll be done with
the Subdivision Rules.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, you won't.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll go back to the regular
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
58
order now. Item Number 5 is an invitation. to the County
Judge and Commissioners regarding the Regional Judges and
Commissioners Court Conference be to be hosted here in Kerr
County on January 23rd, 2002. Ms. Chapman? Morning, Amy.
MS. CHAPMAN: Good morning. How are you
guys? I just wanted to personally invite you all to the
Southwest Texas Judges and Commissioners Conference that
will be held here in town on January 23rd. It will be in
the U.G.R.A. building just down the street, and it looks
like a pretty neat agenda, because it's -- it deals a lot
with regional issues, and also because a lot of things are
here in Kerr County. We get to highlight a lot of things
out of our county in this agenda, which is pretty neat. And
the cost for the conference is $30, which I know when I --
personally, my registration CEU's for Registered Dietitian,
30 bucks for 6 CEU's is quite a deal, and that's what this
is. And, you know, the other benefit is you don't have to
travel far and pay $160 a night at a hotel somewhere. You
can stay right here, and then our neighbors can just drive
in and things like that. So, if I could, I'd just like to
go ahead and pass these out to you all. And --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This was the one that
you worked?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN
Yes, sir.
That was going to be
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
59
on the 24th, and now it's -- I think the 24th was the first
day I had --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN
day.
That's right, yeah.
-- on the calendar.
We had to bump it a
MS. CHAPMAN: Buster's been very helpful on
securing a lot of the speakers.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I want to applaud
Commissioner Baldwin for doing this and for getting us our
six hours or whatever we get, I think, too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Southwest
conference. See, it's a blend between south and west; this
is wonderful.
MS. CHAPMAN: And a steak lunch.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nice ring to it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And for your 30 bucks,
you not only get all those hours and some good fellowship;
you get a meal.
MS. CHAPMAN: That's right. That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Meal's included.
MS. CHAPMAN: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Heck of a deal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, I'm even on the
agenda; didn't even know it.
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
60
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Didn't even know it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: By the way, thank you,
Commissioner Letz.
(Laughter.)
MS. CHAPMAN: Well, thank you all, and if you
have any questions, don't hesitate to call the Extension
office.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Amy.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thanks, Amy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Amy.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Great idea.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The next item for
consideration is to consider and disr_uss possible
collaboration between Kerr County and owners of proposed
hotel/conference center to be located on property owned by
the Texas Lion's Camp. Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Mr. Romano?
This is Mr. Romano. And you're Mr. Mabry?
MR. MABRY: My name's Stephen Mabry, that's
correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Welcome to Kerr
County.
MR. MABRY: Thank you very much. Good to be
1
~-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
here. I appreciate the audience this morning. I'm the
Executive Director of the Texas Lions League for Crippled
Children, Incorporated, and as y'all may know, we're located
out there on Highway 27. The organization's mission is to
provide camping experiences to children with physical
handicaps and diabetes, and we've been doing that for
50-plus years now. Our organization is currently in a
strategic planning mode, and we're beginning to evaluate
options for our future, particularly over the next ten
years, and that's led us to several different avenues. And
so, at this time, if it please the Court, I'm going to
invite David Romano, who represents PKF and represents the
Texas Lions Camp, to present some proposals for you. So,
thank you for your audience, gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. ROMANO: Morning, gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Morning.
MR. ROMANO: Please excuse my hoarse voice; I
it of a cold. As Stephen had stated, we were
engaged by Lions Camp to look at the highest and best use
for their facility. They were entrusted by one of the Lions
members that had given them a large donation, and part of
that donation were stipulations that it had to be used for
the betterment of the camp. It had to be a building that
was constructed that had to generate some revenue, because
62
1
.-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what's happening is the donations from -- the fees from
few years, and 10-year projections out will show that it's
going to be difficult to fund this camp, so they need to
invest this money into some project that is going to make
financial sense for the future of the camp. So, we have
come into Kerrville and Kerr County looking at what would be
the highest and best use for the funding, and in our
studies, we had come across a hotel project. And we do a
lot of hotel projects across the country; usually, most of
the major hotel deals, we have a hand in it.
And, in looking at this property, we came
across the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center Site Plan
proposal, and in doing that -- I guess the easiest way to
explain things is to kind of look at what the project would
be for this. They're looking at developing a 60-unit
project, Holiday Inn Express-type quality, Hampton Inn-type
Express -- or Hampton Inn-type quality, with a significant
amount of meeting space that would target not only members
of the Kerrville community for lodging, but it would target
affinity groups, as in the American Cancer Society, other
groups that would use the facility for what is deemed uses
of the camp, in terms of ropes courses for the handicapped
children and so forth. The Kerrville market, over the last
five years, has exhibited very, very slow growth in
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,^„ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-,
25
63
occupancies. We've qot it at about a 50 to 51 percent
occupancy right now for most of the hotel properties in
Kerrville, which is not stellar by any means in any city.
We have done some preliminary studies and
looking at other camps in the state of Texas; Camp for All,
which is in Argyle, Texas, and also -- I'm sorry, Camp John
Marr_, which is in Argyle, and Camp for All, which is located
83 miles south of Austin, and it's actually 82 miles from
Houston, that do projects of this scope that are very, very
successful. So, in doing that preliminary analysis, we have
projected that this hotel property here in the Kerrville
market would do approximately 20 percent better than any
property -- hotel property that is here. And it would do
the average daily rates that are with the market, if not
more than the highest rated property on the market, and the
average rate, which would be the Y.O. Ranch.
So, what we decided might be a good idea, in
speaking with a few of you gentlemen on the phone, is that I
know that there is a proposal to do some site improvements
to the Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center, and I know there
is a -- on that plan, a large amount of un -- what we would
consider undedicated meeting space, which would be meeting
space that's not going to be reserved for horse stalls and
so on and so forth on that project. And when you look at
projects like this, you would be hard-pressed to find
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
probably five different projects across the country that are
true convention centers that turn a profit or make money for
any of the cities. So, what a lot of cities are doing now,
a lot of counties, they're partners with private developers,
and what they will do is -- is sometimes the cities will --
will donate that meeting space to the developer. They'll
either put it on their land or let the developer put their
hotel property on that land, will split some form of the --
either 50 percent of meeting revenues or some part of the
food and beverage revenues, and this private developer will
assume responsibilities for running it, they'll staff it,
they'll market it, manage it, they'll do everything.
Or sometimes they do exclusive agreements
where the City builds it, they own it, but that development
company -- the hotel company will have the right to use --
they have exclusive rights to use the facilities and
anything that is within a two-year scope. They can book it,
they can reserve it, and they can use it, anything two years
out, The CVB takes care of it, books it, uses it, reserves
it. There's some form of revenue-sharing agreement with
that. Or sometimes they just assign management contracts
with these private developers. They will go in, manage the
facility, staff the facility, and the City itself will pay
that, or the County themselves will pay that private
developer to manage the facility.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
23
29
25
65
I don't know what would suit the needs of
Kerr County. I don't know if -- if you gentlemen would be
interested in exploring it further, but we thought that it
would be prudent to first approach the County and say,
"We're in town. This is what we plan on doing," because we
think it's only prudent to do that. And, secondly, to open
up discussions further down the line, that if there's any
options available, that we're more than willing to discuss
that with the County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- I mean, the
intent -- well, I guess right now the property close to
Highway 27 is probably where the hotel would go?
MR. ROMANO: Correct, on the outside of the
gate, so it's not going to be directly on the Lions -- it's
on the Lions Camp land, but it would not be part of the camp
itself.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, okay. And then --
I mean, does the -- in projects generally, does the -- I
mean, could it be worked out where the meeting space is
across the street, basically at the Youth Exhibition Center,
and the hotel is on the other side of the street? Or, from
y'all's standpoint, do they need to be next to each other?
MR. ROMANO: We11, it can be done several
different ways. If it's a right to exclusive use, it could
be called the Kerrville Texas Lion's Camp Hotel and
66
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
Conference Center, and the conference center could be
located across the street. There's many cities that do
that. Oklahoma City is a prime example. They have about a
million square feet of meeting space. It's a very large
facility, and the Renaissance Hotel is directly across the
street, connected by a skywalk, which you're obviously not
going to put a skywalk in, but they control that space, but
the City owns it. So, there's a lot of deals that do that.
I mean, it would be nice to have a contiguous property that
they're attached, but is that necessary? Not -- not
particularly. I mean, they're a stone's throw away. All
you need to do is shuttle people back and forth.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And in the -- I mean, one
of the, I guess, options is that, with y'all's funding or
Lion's Camp funding, that you may be able to help the
construction costs of the facility? I mean, if we could
jointly agree on a facility, is that part of it, or is it
more a -- generally that you would like the County to build
it and you will use it?
MR. ROMANO: Well, I would assume that the
County would like us to build it and share revenues, and I
would assume that Mr. Mabry and the members would like the
County to build it and they use it for free. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've heard that
before.
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~1
22
23
24
25
MR. ROMANO: I think any discussions would be
open, but it's done in so many different ways and there's so
many different negotiation pieces, that what it would pan
out to at the end I couldn't tell you at this point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But everything's on the
table?
MR. ROMANO: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ROMANO: But I'm sure everybody wants it
for free.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Couple questions come
to mind. You talk about the hotel being on the Texas Lions
Camp property.
MR. ROMANO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I assume that that
would be a long-term ground lease between your
organization -- some organization and the Texas Lions Camp.
Would that be correct, Steve or somebody?
MR. MABRY: Well, it ultimately depends on
what we negotiate. Just assuming that we're on our own, it
would be owned by the Texas Lions Camp, which is a
charitable organization. But -- and it would be housed on
that property there on Highway 27.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you talked about
an exclusive agreement in terms of the use of the exhibit
68
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
space or convention space.
MR. ROMANO: Correct. I'll tell you why.
And usually, when you allow an exclusive agreement with
far_ilities, it's because it's to the better -- it's to the
betterment of your facility, and there would be no reason to
do that unless we were to prove that. And, in saying that
we -- we think that this property could bring in a
20 percent improved performance over other hotels, that's
why. And the reason that we had figured that is, I had
visited these other camps -- and, quite frankly, I'd like to
speak openly. When Stephen had engaged us, we had come to
Kerrville, and like I said, we do every major hotel deal
across the country, and we thought in the beginning, let's
just tell Stephen and the Lions Camp this isn't going to
work, and let's save everybody's time and money, because it
doesn't make a lot of sense when you look at the Kerrville
market. It's a 50 percent market; very, very slow. There's
no growth. Let's just not even do it. So I said, let's
give it the benefit of the doubt.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I really question your
statement about no growth, since we've had about three new
hotels built here in the last two or three years.
MR. ROMANO: Well, what it shows is there's
been a 6 percent growth in our competitive set, which is
Motel 6 and the Hampton Inn, so on, so forth, those type

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
23
24
25
69
facilities with that growth. There's been 6 percent growth
in demand, so when you take the supply and demand, you even
it out, the occupancy growth is -- it goes from 50.5 percent
up to maybe 50 -- 51.2 percent. So, I could restate it a
different way, that the occupancy has remained pretty flat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The percentage has stayed
flat?
MR. ROMANO: Correct, I'm sorry. But there
has been growth in demand with the supply, but the occupancy
has remained pretty consistent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are times of
the year when the occupancy is zero.
MR. ROMANO: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A hundred percent --
not zero, 100 percent. And part of the reason why exhibit
space, whether it's our facility or somewhere else, is good
is because it helps level that playing field in terms of
occupancy. It spreads it over months where occupancy is
low.
MR. ROMANO: Absolutely.
MR. MABRY: We hope to take that to the next
level by what we're planning on doing.
MR. ROMANO: There -- there was a facility
that is outside the one that's in between Austin and Houston
that is -- they facilitate affinity groups that come in, and

1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~o
they utilize what would be considered bungalow-type condos,
which could facilitate 50 guests, that they book this thing
with 15 different events a month, yearlong, and there's a
wait list to get. people in there, and they are willing to
drive 80 miles from ether town to get there and do it. Aced
when I had spoken to the camp director there, she said, "I
am begging you that that facility does get pitched, because
we can just send all the people that are on our wait list
down to Kerrville, and they can use this facility. Ared I've
contacted many facilities in San Antonio, all these
hospitals and the American Cancer Society. They said, "IL
you build it, we will come."
And I'm telling you, in the beginning -- and
I'm being honest as I can be -- I didn't think that this
would ever make sense, but after talking to these people and
after finding out what these camps do, it does. And what
this camp can do in Kerrville is bring in what we would call
induced demand, which is demand that has never come here
before, and they can use ropes courses, equestrian centers.
They can use the pool facilities, they can use, you know,
the fishing facilities. I mean, there's a lot that this
camp can offer that no one in Kerrville can.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A 6U-room facility
would be similar in nature to maybe the new Hampton Inn out
here?
71
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~3
24
25
MR. ROMANO: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be about
60 rooms.
MR. ROMANO: That quality, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the question is,
where do we go from here?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to talk more
about it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, but how does the
Court want to -- how do you -- what do y'all want to do?
And y'all's timeline is probably, I guess, the --
MR. MABRY: Want me to address this, David?
MR. ROMANO: Yeah, that's fine.
MR. MABRY: One of the things we hoped to do
this morning was, first of all, just to tell you of our
plans and to start some dialogue. Our next board meeting
will be at the first weekend in February, and this plan will
be disclosed to the full board at that time. It would help
us to be able to report to the board whether or not there's
any interest in continuing dialogue with the County, and so
perhaps this morning y'all would like to consider now if
this is an idea that you would like to discuss further, and
give us some kind of indication of what your interest might
be so that we can, you know, move into the next part of the
process, if possible.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
29
25
72
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think it's easy to
say that there's interest, but until we have more specifics,
it's hard to say how much interest. We're engaged in
discussions now, finalizing the plan, which will require
some significant outlays, and then I think the Court is of
the mind that if we decide to qo forward with this
substantial renovation, it will have to be approved by the
voters in a bond issue, and the first opportunity for a bond
issue really is the first weekend in May. Now, if we can
get with you all and make you all a part of that mix, in the
sense that we can say, "Here's additional support, financial
or whatever else," then that becomes a part of the process
of -- of going forward with the -- with the project. So, I
think it's timely for us to sit down, after the first of the
year, and have some -- have some detailed discussions as to
what you all are willing -- what you all bring to the table
as far as how we can collaborate and bring about the two
projects for everybody's good.
MR. ROMANO: Sure. My question to you is,
how detailed would you like this information? I can provide
what our projections are for occupancy rates and so on, so
forth for the years --
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's really not what we're
interested in. We're interested in how does your hotel mesh
with our --
73
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
MR. F.OMANO: Sure.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- proposed renovations to
the Exhibition Center.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or their need for
exhibit space or convention space and that type of thing.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And what kind of
arrangements could be made. There are many.
MR. ROMANO: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But what are the ones
that sort of make sense, that --
MR. ROMANO: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- you could outline
for us that could do this.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If you're willing to take the
dollars you would have spent on convention/exhibit space at
your hotel site and perhaps contribute them to the County's
project down the road, what kind of a tie would you require
in order to --
MR. ROMANO: Absolutely.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- to make the contribution?
MR. ROMANO: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you want an exclusive
management agreement? Do you want -- do you want to lease
it on a -- on a fee basis? You know, or a -- do you want
exclusive right to food and beverage? Those are the kinds
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
L 'J
21
22
23
29
25
74
of details that I think are useful for us to know, and for
us to work out an agreement in principle with you all, that
if we go forward with the project here, what your
contribution would be, and here's what the arrangements
would be with regard to that contribution. 'Cause I, quite
frankly, see that, just diddling here in front of everyone,
as the most logical avenue for to us proceed down this way.
MR. ROMANO: Absolutely, sure. Sure, be more
than glad to.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one other
question. Have you discussed -- either you or -- David or
Stephen, have you discussed this with the Convention and
Visitors Bureau, Sudie Burditt?
MR. ROMANO: I've been in contact with Sudie
to get a lot of my information over the last couple months,
and I spoke to her briefly yesterday and I asked her a
couple of the different scenarios. I said, what would you
say to -- if the County decided to build a meeting space on
Lion's Camp property and you were able to sell it as a whole
package with the use of the Lion's Camp facility? She said
there's no doubt I'd be able to sell that better than any
project in the city. I think she understands the
ramifications of it, and she is certainly on a positive note
of trying to get this meeting space built in this market,
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
75
'cause she does realize that to grow this market, that this
would be something that would really help. And I agree with
her. I definitely agree with her.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, my suggestion to the
Court and to you is that you get in touch with me right
after the first of the year and we'll set up a meeting, one
of the -- at least have one other member of the Court
participate. I'd prefer not to have to schedule meetings
until we get further down the road. Then we can provide
information.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Baldwin
hasn't been doing much. I recommend Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It needs to be one of
the guys that's been dealing with the facility out there all
along.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to get
new people involved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz,
what if I'm a drinking man? You're riling me up.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I tell you the point
I'd like to make, is that I think one of the first things
that we also need to look at is the legal standpoint. What
can we do and what we can't do. And this is the third issue
today that we should have had an attorney in -- in this
76
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
room, and we -- I don't know what the problem is with our
County Attorney, but I'm going to tell you, this is not
right. We're trying to conduct the people's business here,
and we need some help on occasions. And, if he's busy --
I'm sorry. I'm taking up your time.
MR. ROMANO: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If he's busy down in
the County Court at Law, County Court at Law needs to recess
for a while. I'm to that point. And I mean that. If he's
off at the golf course, we need to close the damn golf
course down. We need some legal representation in this
room. We've authorized it. We paid for it, and the public
demands it, and so do I.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We would have to get very
good legal advice, because if we go to a bond issue, there's
all sort of tie-ins to that. But I'm sure that you all have
-- y'all probably have more experience in the tie between
the Lion's Camp, as a nonprofit, and a municipality or a
county than we do. So -- so, we can tap into that and then
have it verified and -- and signed off on by our own side.
MR. ROMANO: Sure. The only other question I
have for you is, are we going to be able to receive access
to more in-depth master plans or site plans on the property,
and if you have any estimated project costs? 'Cause I
understand --
~~

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: You can have everything
we have.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You'll get everything we
have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you have.
MR. ROMANO: I have your Master Plan and I
understand the layout of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's revised. I have
a copy I'll give you.
MR. ROMANO: Okay. If you'll give me the
proposed costs, and I don't know if there were any studies
done by the County or the City in what they thought the
demand would be for this facility. That would be great to
be able to get ahold of that also.
JUDGE HENNEKE: There was a study done with
the -- the elaborate Master Plan. Since we're in the
process of scaling it back, we have not redone the study on
the scaled-back version, but I think it's probably still
generically applicable.
MR. ROMANO: Sure. If I could get copies of
that, that would be great. I'm also going to leave myself
open to any phone calls. I think everyone has a copy of my
business card. Anything -- or any dialogue you'd like to
have in between any of our meetings, we're more than open
for anything, and we can provide you with any kind of data
~s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that you'd like also.
JUDGE HENNEKE: If you'll contact me again
right after the first of the year --
MR. ROMANO: Sure.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- we'll set up times, and we
can get together and see how we can all help each other.
MR. ROMANO: When would I expect to get the
data that you have on the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll put it together,
give to it Stephen. He can see that you get it.
MR. ROMANO: Great, okay. Thank you very
much for your time. I appreciate it. Y'all have a good
holiday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, David.
Thank you, Stephen.
MR. MABRY: Thank y'all.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's push on, if we can. We
have our luncheon at 11 o'clock.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The insurance guy just
stepped out.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we'll just do you,
then.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay, fine.
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, we'll do Jannett. She's
ahead of you. Let's do Item Number 8, consider and discuss
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
budget amendments for the purchase of unforeseen election
supplies due to redistricting.
MS. PIEPER: Yes, gentlemen. This entails
more ballot boxes and more supply boxes, that I know of for
now. I can't really think of any more things that I'm going
to have to have for the upcoming elections, but this is
going to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 to
$3,500. And, considering that it was not put in my budget,
I'm coming to you to ask how are we going to fund this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How are we going to
fund this?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the question
you wanted?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir. I mean, I need a
budget increase, or possibly taking it out of the
Redistricting line item, or --
DODGE HENNEKE: My suggestion would be to
take part out of the Redistricting, since it looks like
we're not going to need that, and the rest out of
Contingency.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would agree. My
only -- I guess probably -- probably a stupid question.
Does all of the new precincts, all that -- when do they
become effective? Is that, like, with our -- the primary,
80
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
do we go fund the new system?
MS. PIEPER: Yes. My deadline for the
submission on this is December the 27th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, everything --
we're under our new system starting the first of the year,
essentially?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under new precincts, all
that, all the new districts. Do you have money in here
for -- or a little bit of extra money for education? Are we
just going to rely on the press to get this out? It's a
pretty big change to a lot of the public.
MS. PIEPER: Well, the Republican and
Democratic parties are required to publish one notice.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But I think we have to -- I'm
going to piggyback on what Jonathan's question is. I think
we need to include some money somewhere to get some good new
precinct maps done.
MS. PIEPER: I have also talked with Shaun,
our computer gentleman, and he is going to scan the -- our
precinct maps in the computer, so hopefully we can get that
web site out, and that will help people to identify what
precinct they live in and where to vote at.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- I mean,
that needs to be set -- I know Shaun has a lot to do. That
81
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is a priority. I mean --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's already being
worked.
MS. PIEPER: Right. He's going to start
that --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Going to be several --
on the web site, there will be several sites or several
pages that will show the total -- the total picture, and
then you'll be able to zoom on some of that and get it down
to more detail, and then there will be some individual scans
that -- that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- showing precise
boundaries.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there an ability to --
or a legal way to put in everyone who's a registered voter,
their election number, and then we could put a little voting
location for it to make it as simple as possible?
DODGE HENNEKE: On the card?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, not on the card, in
the computer. If Shaun can -- if Paula could come up --
Paula would have to do it, I guess, come up with, "Here's
your voting number," and it should be keyed into their
computer as to what precinct that equates to. That's on
your voting cards. If you could then say, "Here's the
82
1
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
voting location," and assuming it would be --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That will all be --
DODGE HENNEKE: I think you could do it by
number, but I think you could certainly devise a key by
voting precincts. "If you're in voting Precinct 312, you
vote at ...
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's true.
MS. PIEPER: And that will be on the web
site.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Preliminary to that,
there are -- there are a good number of folks who are being
taken out of the existing precinct and incorporated into
another precinct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And they'll get --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They need to know
that their number has changed and where their proper voting
location is going to be.
MS. PIEPER: They will have -- once the Voter
Registrar's office gets through reprecincting everybody, new
voter registration cards will be going out, which will be
very shortly, and then that is going to have not only their
-- it will have their -- their voting district, their school
district -- there's, like, eight different district places
on their voter card this year that they will be --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They've added.
83
1
L
3
9
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-. 1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's all well and
And I
A
huge block of people who, at this moment, are 215 are going
to become 211. Now, where they vote is going to be the same
place, but people don't always look at the card with any --
with any specificity and know exactly what's going to
happen. I think it's our obligation to promote that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And we will get
that -- we can do that on the web site without any problem
whatsoever. And I think that's a case where you could ask
for local media support. Just show a picture of the new
voter cards. Say, "Check this number to see which precinct
you're in." And here's the list of -- and here's the list
of voting precincts and the polling places for each one of
those.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're -- we're
wandering a little bit far from the agenda item. My main
point is -- was make sure she has enough money to start on
this process, and also I think maybe you can get with Paula
and come back to the Court with a -- I think we're just real
concerned about a plan to make sure the public's aware of it
sometime in January, early February -- probably January,
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
come back with a plan. If we need additional funds, I think
the Court -- I'm willing to spend it, within reason, to make
sure we get this change to the public, because this will
probably be the -- for the next 10 years, the most -- or one
of the most confusing voting periods coming up in March.
DODGE HENNEKE: As far as your specific
budget, your agenda item, I think when you have a dollar
figure, you need to put --
MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir. I would like to -- to
see -- to have a motion that maybe I'm capped at, like,
$3,500, and then --
DODGE HENNEKE: Well --
MS. PIEPER: And my -- my reasoning for that
is, eight ballot boxes are going to run somewhere in the
neighborhood of $100 each. Then I have to get 24 supply
boxes, and that's going to be somewhere in the neighborhood
of $100 each.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's $3,200.
MS. PIEPER: That's why --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who does the maps?
Is it the Judge?
MS. PIEPER: I did.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem,
you know, with going ahead and approving up to $3,500 to
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
come out of -- well, Tommy, how much money do we have left
in Redistricting? Do you know, offhand?
JUDGE HENNEKE: $500, I think.
MR. TOMLINSON: I didn't bring my --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would make a motion to
authorize --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who did this?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the budget amendment
in the amount of $3,500 go into -- where's it go for
Jannett?
JUDGE HENNEKE: What's your line item,
Jannett? Do you know? What line item would it go into?
Election Supplies, or --
MS. PIE PER: Let me check and see. It would
go into 10-402-330.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The funds to come from
any left funds in Redistricting and Commissioners Court
Contingency -- or Nondepartmental Contingency.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In other words, get
all of that out of the Redistricting?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Zero it out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Zero it out, and then
the remainder --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Out of Contingency.
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- out of Contingency.
Is that specific enough?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court authorize up
to $3,500 in expenditures by the County Clerk for additional
voting supplies, such funds to come out of the Redistricting
line item and Commissioners Court Contingency, and be placed
in Line Item 10-402-330. Okay. 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.
MS. PIEPER: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thanks, Jannett. Let's go
back to Item Number 7, consider and discuss law enforcement
liability insurance renewal, and renewal of public
officials, auto, property, and general liability with TAC.
Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: I'd like to address the auto,
public officials, and property first. We -- I have the
renewal from Texas Association of Counties. This would be
87
	1
,-.	2
	3
	4
	5
	
	6
`	7
	8
	9
	10
	11
'	12
	13
~
.-~.	
	14
	15
	16
	17
	18
	19
	20
	21
	22
	Z3
	24
	25
our beginning of our third year since -- with -- with them
since our last bid. The total premium for -- on the quote
for all those coverages together is $109,208. We have --
and our budget for that is $103,973. Now, that's, like,
to our property coverage, and -- and I went through the
budget. I could see where we did that, but I don't --
there's some places -- I don't think we took into
consideration the new purchases for -- for this budget year.
Like, there's some -- three vehicles, I believe, at Road and
Bridge, and six vehicles in the Sheriff's Department, and
then also we -- we did not have coverage on -- on the new
addition, or the -- in the annex for one full year last
year. So, the -- the addition of new property, plus -- plus
the -- plus the 10 percent has caused this $5,200 shortfall.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: The rest -- the other
premiums are -- did have an increase, but we anticipated
from what TAC told us during budget time, and that's worked
out so that we're okay with -- with those premiums.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we need $5,200?
	MR.	TOMLINSON:	Well,	we don't	need	to pay
the bill right	now.	I just --	I just	want to	bring	this to
88
1
1 ,--,
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
the Court to approve the renewal, is what I'm doing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need a budget
amendment, correct, at some point?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, we will, but I'll come
up with that when we actually pay the -- actually pay the
bill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: And this -- this premium does
include the liability, and probably covers for the Detention
Facility, and so that -- the revenue coming from -- from the
Detention Facility to offset this will help with this $5,200
also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, you need a
motion to authorize --
MR. TOMLINSON: Just the approval to renew.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion to renew the -- the
public officials, auto, property, and general liability?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court renew the
public officials, auto, property, and general liability
insurance coverage with the Texas Association of Counties.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about the law
89
1
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~3
24
25
enforcement?
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm ready for that when you
vote on this.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any questions or comments on
that? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MR. TOMLINSON: I guess, you know, we all
know that there's been somewhat of an upheaval in the
insurance industry for two reasons. One is 9/11, and the
other is -- is the economy. The interest rates have -- you
know, continue to drop and drop and drop, and -- and, you
know, insurance companies are crippled with two problems.
One is heavy losses, and the other is -- is not being able
to earn what they have in the past because of investments.
So, there -- there have been major changes in -- in
underwriting costs over the last four or five months, and
they may continue to do so, you know, within the next couple
of years. So, in anticipation of that, I -- I asked Texas
Association of Counties to give us a quote on law
enforcement. Our law enforcement currently is through the
National Sheriff's Association, and it's underwritten by --
by a company called -- by the name of Continental Casualty
90
	1
..,	2
	3
1	9
`	5
	6
	7
	8
	9
	10
~	11
	12
	13
`	
	14
	15
	16
	17
	18
	19
	20
	21
	22
	23
	24
	25
Company. And, with -- with a history of the problems in the
-- in the industry, I anticipated quite a change in the
the quote just ten minutes ago from -- from Jack Furman from
Continental Casualty. I did find out that, you know, this
-- this coverage is what's called an "occurrence" policy,
and what that means is that you're covered when the
occurrence happens. If there's a claim, there can be a
claim against the coverage for -- for the period from
January 1 through the end of the year, any time in the
future, and as long as you have an occurrence policy, then
if it occurred during that year, you're covered; then you
have coverage. That's what we have. Texas Association of
Counties has a "claims made" policy, and what that means is
that -- that the occurrence can happen any time, but if the
claim is not made until a year later or two years later,
then -- then they pick up the coverage when the claim is
made and not when it happens. The -- the problem -- or the
down side to changing from an occurrence policy to a claims
made is that if you -- if, in the future, if you ever want
to change from a claims made back to an occurrence, you have
to buy back years prior, and so you could really be hit
with -- with, you know, major expense if and when you
91
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
changed.
So -- and I also -- he told me just a while
ago that -- that he included in this coverage -- well, not
included in this coverage is the -- is the Detention
Facility. Now, Texas Association of Counties did include
them. So, they -- they told me that -- he told me that the
only way that this company would write the Detention
Facility is for the Sheriff to be the administrator of the
Detention Facility.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No way.
MR. TOMLINSON: So, we -- I mean, this is a
major problem. So -- and I don't have a quote for the
Detention Center by itself. Now, he -- Jack says -- Jack
Furman tells me he'd get one by sometime next week, and I
can tell you what the -- what's been quoted in the Texas --
Texas Association of Counties proposal. It's $99,114. Now,
that does -- that does include the coverage for -- for the
Detention Facility. Now, the only -- the only -- I'm
skeptical somewhat of that premium, and I haven't had a
chance to visit with TAC about it, but in the private
sector, when you -- the first year you have a claims made
policy, sometimes the premium is not 100 percent, because
they don't have the risk the first year. So, I want to -- I
want to be able to visit with TAC one more time to -- to
determine whether or not the premium that they've quoted is
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
92
100 percent. I don't want to go with -- with a $49,000
premium and get a 30 percent jump next year. That's what I
want to guard against. Now, the premium quote for -- from
Continental Casualty is $53,819.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Without Detention
Facility?
MR. TOMLINSON: Without Detention Facility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Without Detention?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $53,000?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. Let me -- one thing
that you have to remember, too -- also that's not included
in the $99,000 that I quoted you for -- from TAC is that
with -- with this additional coverage, we get an additional
2 1/2 to 3 percent discount on our worker's comp, so the net
of that is -- is probably an additional, you know, $3,000 or
$4,000.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It sounds like if --
if the $99,000 is 100 percent, that TAC is the better way to
go, obviously.
COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Well -	-	
COMMISSIONER	GRIFFIN: It	would not	be --
COMMISSIONER	LETZ: I don'	t know.	I don't --
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
93
that was my question. It comes into the current -- you said
under the claims policy, your coverage starts when the claim
is filed?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What happens in the
period -- I mean, I'm trying to figure out when -- between
the occurrence and the claim, can there be some liability to
the County, or some cost to the County during the period
when there's no coverage?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, in the end -- when I
switch from occurrence to claims made, there's no gap,
because -- because you've been under an occurrence policy,
and if something happened two years ago, then the coverage
in effect at the time of the occurrence would take care of
it, so you don't have to -- you don't have to rely on -- you
don't have to rely on your present coverage for that. It's
the other direction where you have a problem, is that if you
have --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm trying to think --
I've been trying to think, if you switch to the time of
claim, why would you ever want to switch back? I mean, I
don't --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't know. I mean,
the only reason to switch would be if there was --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Don't do that.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
99
MR. TOMLINSON: -- economically, there was
some advantage. I mean, if you -- you know, if we go out
for bid, for instance, for -- you know, next year, which I
think it's due, because we typically have done this every
third year. Then -- then, if there was some tremendous
economic advantage to change, then we might -- you know, you
might change.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Are the limits of
coverage the same?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, the coverage is
basically -- is almost identical. So --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What would we need to
do, then?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, if you want to -- is
there any way we can -- the Court can meet next Wednesday or
Thursday or Friday?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's up to you guys.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we need to meet, we'll
meet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wednesday is not
good, but Thursday or Friday is okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Got prayer meeting on
Wednesday?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I'm traveling
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
back from Christmas on Wednesday.
MR. TOMLINSON: And I'm not sure I'll have
the answer about the detention -- the cost of the Detention
Facility. I don't know. He said he'd try.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think Friday,
because, I mean, nothing's going to be done between now and
Wednesday. We're not going to have any new information by
Wednesday, and so you're -- essentially, your request is
going to go out Wednesday morning to get any clarification,
so I think it's important to meet before Friday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a smart son of
a gun.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think we can -- we
can meet even the following --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Monday.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- Monday. We could
meet on the 31st if --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, you could. Could be
the 31st if you want to give --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Gives us the maximum amount
of time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: New Year's Eve.
MR. TOMLINSON: I apologize for this, but
I --
(Discussion off the record.)
96
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If we do it early in
the day, you may be --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's going to provide
hats and toot horns.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sounds like, really,
Tommy needs a little more information, so I think we need to
meet, 'cause this is too important a policy. We can't
let -- we have to make a decision before the end of the
year. We just have to meet either Friday or Monday.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Monday gives him the most
amount of time. Do you want to meet on Monday?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather meet Monday,
personally.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Me too.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 9:00?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 31st.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9:00 or 10:00.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll provide the hats.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. A11 right, we'll post
a meeting for Monday, the 31st, at --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9:00.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- 9 o'clock.
MR. TOMLINSON: I apologize for this, but I
just -- you know, I've been after them for months to get
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That will give us an
early start.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, Tommy, at
first glance, looks like maybe TAC might -- I mean, we
really need to consider TAC there.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, the only -- the only --
there is one more reason that -- that changing to Texas
Association of Counties might be a good move, and that is
that if -- if that were to happen, all of our coverage would
be with one underwriter. And when -- when you have that
situation, and you have -- have the same underwriter writing
this coverage for the entire operation of the County, then
there's less chance of any -- of any gaps or uncovered items
in your total coverage.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's true.
MR. TOMLINSON: Because -- I mean, because
when you have -- you know, you have public officials'
liability and you have general liability and you have law
enforcement, and so they're -- if you have the same -- you
have the same rider of those coverages, then you -- it's
likely that you won't have any gaps.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy, what would the
-- an additional discount on workman's comp, what would that
net to us?
98
1
.., 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
~-
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I don't know exactly
historically, TAC has given us from 2 1/2 to 4 percent
discount on our worker's comp for -- for every coverage that
we have. In other words, with this, we would get a 20 -- if
it were 4 percent, we would have a 20 percent discount on
our worker's comp, because we have law -- we have -- we
would have four liability policies plus a property, so that
would give us five different coverages, which would -- would
equate to 20 percent max. It may not be that much; I don't
know. I don't know what it is this year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only thing that I
would also like to find out when Tommy's checking, if he
doesn't mind, in our -- under our current coverage, we
haven't had any recent lawsuits filed, any new ones against
the Sheriff's Office or law enforcement -- yeah, knock on
wood. I haven't had any filed since I took office yet.
We've got one claim against insurance for one slipping in
the shower, but that was a design deal, and I think that's
getting taken care of. But, under the old ones, where we
actually had one go all the way to a federal jury trial last
month or month before, I know that the law firm that the
current insurance company uses did a fantastic job in
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
?~
23
24
25
representing this county and -- and the jail in that
lawsuit, and ended up getting -- even though it was a jury
in place, went all the way through a jury trial, they came
back from lunch and the federal judge threw it out, gave an
instructed verdict, said there's no way. And that's the
quality of the law firm we're getting, and I would just hope
that TAC or some of them do have these type quality law
firms, you know, that would represent us in that, and that
would be my only real concern in changing.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good point. Okay. We'll set
a meeting for the 31st. Gentlemen, our Christmas luncheon
starts in five minutes.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can get 13 out of
the way in one minute.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we want to try to push
through, come back at 1:15?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we ought to come
back.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I was just going to
say, we could probably do 13 before we -- as we were
standing up. That's the date for the --
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll just come back at 1:15.
(Discussion off the record.)
(Recess taken from 10:56 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
100
1
L
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: It's 1:30 in the afternoon on
Friday, February -- December 21st. We'll call to order this
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. The next
item for consideration is Item Number 9, consider and
discuss salary classification for Jail Administrator.
Sheriff Hierholzer.
(Discussion off the record.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. First thing is
that it does not -- from what I can tell, what I'm going to
ask you to do does not change the bottom line in the budget,
doesn't change what we're doing. What it is, our current
Jail Administrator is classified as a 21-6, putting her
salary at $31,679 a year. In going back -- and some of it I
attached in there. What I was talking -- you can see that a
lot of the raises that she has gotten over the years she's
been there, since '97, were not in line with step and grade.
They were just -- that's her salary, okay? And it ended up
coming in, when we look at it now, as a 21-6. What I'm
asking the Court to do is redo that to where the starting
Jail Administrator's salary, as far as going back to where
we can get it to a 1, would be a 23-1, which is thirty
thousand --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 907.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Sheriff, is that because you
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think that's what the Jail Administrator's salary should be,
or that's what you want to give Mr. Newton?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, that's because
that's where I think the Jail Administrator's starting
salary in the jail should be. The reason I say that -- and
it's really not where I think it should be; I think it
should be higher than that. It's dropping it some trom what
Pam was making, but we have a nurse in that jail that's
still making $32,000-something. $31,000 -- or $30,000, if
you even look at it, is equivalent to what a starting city
patrolman here makes. Okay. And if you look at the job
duties of that Jail Administrator, I think that being
equivalent and trying to keep it in line with mine and the
Chief Deputy's and just going along, it should be classified
as a 23-1, to where if we have a change later or whatever,
it ran go back to that 1 without going all the way back down
to $28,000. 'Cause I don't think, currently, if we -- if we
followed the County's guidelines and put it back down to a
21-1, which is where it would go from Pam's 21-6, it would
put the Jail Administrator's salary at $28,000, and I don't
think anybody would say that that's appropriate for the Jail
Administrator at the jail we're running.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is it? 21-1,
as you have in your memo, or 21-6?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 21-6 is what Pam is at
102
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
now. If Pam leaves, which she's doing on the 15th of
January, with the County's guidelines, whoever starts in
that position would go back down to a 1.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, got you.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what I'm saying.
That would put it at $28,000, which I don't think is
appropriate for a Jail Administrator.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And 21-6 and 23-1 is
the same amount of money?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. Actually, a 23-1 is
about $1,000 less than the 21-6 that Pam's at now. A 23-1
is $30,907, where a 21-6 that Pam is at now is $31,579. And
so --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I move to approve it
as submitted.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
approve reclassification -- reclassifying the starting
salary for the Jail Administrator at the Kerr County Jail to
be a Grade 23, Step 1, currently $30,907 per year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Comment. I guess my
problem is, why do -- I mean, I know the situation from the
103
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
change of employees right now makes it a time deal, but why
isn't it brought up in budget? I mean, if the position
needs to be a 23, this should have been brought up four or
five months ago.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That probably is -- I
would have to take the blame on that. To be honest, we were
looking at a lot of other things in the budget. The
Commissioners took care of the salaries with our employees
who -- through the Nash study. I was not thinking of -- if
we were to lose Pam and what the actual starting salary of
that position would go back to, by the County's guidelines,
dropping it back down to a 1.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just seems that every
time we come up with this, all we do we bump people up,
whether it's your department or Jannett's department -- I
mean, we always bump up, bump up, and it's never done in
budget cycle when we're supposed to be doing it. If we
don't do it in budget cycle, I'm probably less inclined to
bump up a lot of these that we bump up. I just have a
problem doing these things out of sync, 'cause I think we
get in trouble.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I can try and do
that. The thing is, it gets difficult to actually, during
the budget cycle, look back and say, well, if I lose this
employee -- 'cause you never want to, okay -- what would one
109
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
taking his place end up going back to? And that's just
something you have to look at and I have to look at.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think there's
another factor here, too, that affects my thinking on it,
and that is that the Jail Administrator's job has changed.
We're running that sucker -- how many? What's our average?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Average inmates in the
jail right now is in the -- monthly average is 157.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Which is way above
anything we've done in the past, and it's a big job. That
is a -- the Jail Administrator is a very important function
for our law enforcement community.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It is. And you can get
into that -- you know, like I had mentioned to you, just
during a conversation, talking with TDC officials and the
gang officials and everything out of Bexar County, now
they're saying, because Bexar County's cracked down on them
so bad, that even the higher-ups in your -- in your gangs
are telling their members to move out to the rural areas.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't disagree
with --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- what -- I mean, what
we're doing. I disagree with the time that we're doing it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I disagree with losing
105


1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
my Jail Administrator, but I didn't have a choice in the
matter.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty? It's none	of
-- none of our business at all who that person is, and I	
understand that clearly, but I thought you could tell us	a
little bit about Mr. Newton.	
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. Grady Newton	--
I'll bring him in to the Commissioners Court. Today --	I'll
be honest; I didn't want to bring him today for y'all to	get
to know him, because I didn't want to -- for it to look	like
I've got somebody else in here trying to bid for his own	
salary. Grady is the Assistant Jail Administrator	
currently. He has been for a number of months, since I	
hired him. He has 30 -- 32 years law enforcement	
experience. He was an administrator over a drug officer	
operation, kind of like a special operation deal with	
Dallas -- in the Dallas area and that, up in there. He'	s
been an administrator for years and years. He's got a	
little bit more to learn on the jail side of it, but as	far
as -- as law enforcement and an officer and that, I don'	t
think I could find any better.	
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And you said he's	got
his --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Master's. A Master
Peace Officer.
106
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Certificate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only other comment
that I want to make on this topic is that we're doing this
out of cycle, and I suspect we're going to have another one
come up pretty soon from the County Attorney's -- we already
did one, I think, saying that our salary level in the
budget's not what it takes to hire these people, which is
essentially what Rusty's telling us right now.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Except my difference is
I don't believe it's in there because of that salary level,
you know, where -- where it's even -- mine currently is a
21-6. I'm still starting the new Jail Administrator at a
lower level of almost $1,000 than the current one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just saying, though,
that the --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Didn't we approve -- I
thought we approved for the County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: A slot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought we did,
too.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And an amount.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He came and asked --
JUDGE HENNEKE: We -- he has a slot and
amount. What he -- he has come and --
107

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He requested more, and we
said no.
JUDGE HENNEKE: They requested that -- that
the salary level is not sufficient to hire people. My
response to him, then, is how have you be been able to hire
three people in the last two years at that level, then?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, the same
argument, just from a consistency standpoint -- I mean, it's
totally different departments and things like that, but it's
just -- we get into this trouble, in my opinion, when we do
this out of budget cycle. It's a different topic.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The Sheriff's request is not
a -- is not going to cost us money. He's not coming in and
asking for more money for the Jail Administrator. He's
actually asking for less money for the current -- than the
current Jail Administrator is making. What he's saying is,
he's saying that the -- the grade for the position of Jail
Administrator is not where it should be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, as far as a direct money
impact on the budget, it's actually positive from the
County's point of view.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Except it won't cost the
County money even at the end of this year, okay? But the
108
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
thing where it does is his educational -- his Master's
certificate, with the County's educational step deals, okay,
does add more to that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But that kicks in
later. That kicks in the following year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, it kicks in
immediately, and so -- that's the policy that the County
has. We went through it and I read it.
DODGE HENNEKE: I think it kicked in when he
was hired, but you're talking about just a job change, not a
hiring. He got credit for his Master's certificate when he
was hired or when we put the policy into place, correct?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: They don't get credit for it
again when they change jobs.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Then does he take a pay
reduction in the job?
DODGE HENNEKE: We11, I don't know what he's
making now.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I mean, that can happen,
because if you don't give him credit for those educational
raises at the same time he promotes up, you know, those
educational raises bump you up above what the starting
salary is, then, for that position he's promoting to.
109
1
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L S
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you don't keep
giving the same credits over and over again.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, he doesn't get more,
okay. With his educational incentives, he would -- under
the 23, he would go to a 23-5, okay, because of his
educational incentives. Now, it bumps it by intermediate,
advanced, and master, same thing, which bumps him up. Now,
if he had it in his current position, okay, I don't know
what his classification is right now, but it may, in
equivalence, be more than what that pay raise is going to
be, 'cause he's got them now, but he's going to lose them
then.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go ahead; it's your
story.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you carry them
with you. You don't get them again, but you -- whatever he
is -- whatever his new job is, he still gets those credits
added to it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Well, then, that's in
essence what the Sheriff's saying, is he won't start at the
26-1; he'll start at a 26-5.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Or 23-1. He'll start at
the --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Whatever.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- the 23-5, because of
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~2
23
24
25
his education. But any jail -- and that's why I wasn't
talking about a specific Jail Administrator. Anybody I
would put in that position would start at a 23-1, depending
on his education.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Have you done any survey of
Jail Administrators?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The one closest. And
the reason I'm saying this is, where Pam's moving to, San
Marcos, has a 242-bed jail, okay? Ours is a 192-bed jail.
The person that Pam's going over there with is a captain --
what they consider a captain in their jail, 242-bed jail.
His salary is $52,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She's going over
there as assistant?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. She -- that's where
she's moving to. She's not going in as an employee in the
jail. I'm talking about his, okay, as an employee -- as a
captain in the jail of Hays County, his salary.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But he's the Administrator of
the Hays County Jail?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. He's a captain, not
even the Administrator, and his salary is $52,000.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: But he administers the
jail?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, there is a Jail
111
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
Administrator. He's just a captain in that jail.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh.
JUDGE HENNEKE: See, the problem is you're --
you're asking us to adjust the grade of the Jail
Administrator based on the salary for a patrol deputy at
K.P.D.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I'm just -- I just
mentioned that. What I'm saying is, the Jail Administrator
in the Kerr County Jail, okay? I don't -- I would hope none
of us would think that the Jail Administrator's job in the
Kerr County Jail should be $28,000 a year.
JUDGE HENNEKE: None of us think that many of
our people get paid enough anyway, but --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I know. I mean, it
hasn't been that in years.
JUDGE HENNEKE: As I recall, the Nash study
said that Pam's grade -- the Jail Administrator's grade was
competitive with Jail Administrator positions that they
studied.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't believe it said
that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, as I remember, we
didn't adjust her -- did we adjust her salary as part of the
Nash study? I don't remember.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because y'all had
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
already given her one when Charlie Hicks was interim
Sheriff. It went in under the budget, of him just asking.
It said present salary $25,878, and him asking for $27,172,
okay? That was outside any line item or any -- any steps.
It's just where they set the salary for the Jail
Administrator.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But when the Nash study
looked at the Jail Administrator's position, did they make
any recommendation about adjusting the grade for that
position? That's what I'm asking.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think at that point is
where it went to the 26-1, where she's at now.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 21-6.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 'Cause that was one year
difference in there.
JUDGE HENNEKE: 21-6.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I mean 21-6, where she
is now, which is the $31,000.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It seems like what you're
saying, though, is that the Nash study set the 21 as the
appropriate grade for the Jail Administrator.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't -- I don't
believe so, Judge. What I'm saying --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Because it --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- is with her
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
percentage change and with what the Nash study, her salary
ended up at $31,000 -- or $30,000 last year, before the
2 percent raise this year. And I'm saying the equivalent of
that would be a 23-1 of a starting Jail Administrator.
JUDGE HENNEKE: See, the problem that I'm
wrestling with is, two years ago we paid Nash to go and
study the grades of all the County employees, and if we're
going to adjust the grades of all the County employees, we
need to have some basis for that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What I saw from the Nash
study was the deputies which we had talked about, and was
the longevity-type increases. They recommended the
educational increases in that. I did not see that they ever
adjusted or addressed the Jail Administrator.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, they looked at every
job in the county.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I have no record,
and none of that that I ever got from Nash study ever set
the Jail Administrator's at a step and grade.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, my dim memory is that
they -- this is just going by memory -- is that they thought
that the grade was -- was adequate for the Jail
Administrator. I don't remember -- now, I'd have to pull it
out, and God only knows where it is after this period of
time, but again, the issue is on what basis do we adjust the
114
1
2
3
4
5
ti
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
grade of any employee? It's not just your Jail
Administrator, it's any employee. I mean, what kind of data
does the Court want to have before we adjust the grade? You
know, if we just talk about the salary for Mr. Benson,
that's a different issue. I mean, you're presenting a
legitimate issue. I like the way you're doing it; you're
doing it right. The problem I have is, what do we hang our
hats on making that kind of a change? And I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I mean, that's
kind of my problem, what the Judge says. It's not more -- I
mean, there needs to be justification to change the step and
grade. Otherwise, we're going to end up in the same mess we
just tried to undo a few years ago. But he wouldn't go in
as a 21-1. I mean, a new employee, if he has certifications
-- you said he's a 21-6 or a 21-5?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mm-hmm. But if I have
somebody else that I put in as Jail Administrator and not
him, that doesn't have those -- I'm trying to leave those
educational issues out of where -- where we're trying to get
the, you know, Jail Administrator's starting salary for the
Sheriff's Office at. Because I think the educational issue
should -- in fact, shouldn't factor into making where that
starting salary is. That's why I'm saying what would be
equivalent is that 23-1.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I would suggest
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
let's -- let's put this off a meeting, pull out what Nash
did, take a look at his comments, if any -- and there may
not have been any about the Jail Administrator -- and see
what he has to say. I mean, when does Benson take over?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Newton.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Newton, I'm sorry.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Be the 16th of January.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, he'll start under the
current guidelines. He'd start at the 21 --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One. And then his
education.
JUDGE HENNEKE: 21-1 plus his education
credits, which is what, a four-step bump?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It would be a 21-5.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What would that number
be? I was thinking of another --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Hmm?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The way I work this --
just for thought, if we're going to pull the -- pull the
Nash study, one of the things we may do, based on his
qualifications -- we have made -- we can make exceptions at
what step level we hire. So, what if we hired him at --
because of his educational credits and the fact that he's
well qualified, maybe hire him in at the 21-6 level, where
our current administrator -- Jail Administrator was paid at
116
1
,--. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that level. We hire him in at 21-6, then we adjust -- we
take a look during the budget cycle at reclassifying that
position and adjusting his salary, by the way, as a result
of that, to a 23-1, and then set him at -- at the 20 -- I
guess that would be a 23-5? And look at that as a budget
issue rather than -- which sort of -- it's a proper
compromise	to get	him	hired	at a	-- at	the same	rate that
Pam was at,	and at	the	same	time,	meets	the --	the concern
about addressing the reclassification as a budget issue. I
think he'd come out with the same money, right? Isn't that
right?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the only thing is
the philosophy issue on that point, with me, is that Pam has
dedicated several years with the County, okay? And it's
just one of those -- I don't actually think -- it's true,
his edur_ation is a lot higher than Pam, which should move
him up. You know, 30 years law enforcement. The problem I
have with hiring him at a straight 21-6, at exactly where
Pam is now, I don't think that's really fair, either, to --
you know, we've had a valued employee for several years,
okay, that's done an excellent job, and now we're going to
put somebody else in that position and he's going to start,
without those educational or whatever, at the same salary
she's leaving at.
DODGE HENNEKE: I think --
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOL'GEH: Do you see what I'm
getting at? That's why I dropped it to a 23-1, which would
mean he's starting at $1,000 less than what she was at.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, then hire him at
21-3.
JUDGE HENNEKE: 21-5.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, it just --
I mean, I like -- I don't have as much of a problem
adjusting qualifications of someone's salary, like Larry
said, but I do have a problem with going in out of budget
and adjusting step and grade.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. Then if I hire
him at a 21-5, okay, which is what you asked a while ago, do
I then give him, because of this other educational, those
steps?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that is giving him
those other steps.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 21-5 includes the
step.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, in other words --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 21, plus the bump for
education.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: So, in other words, it
would put the starting Kerr County Jail Administrator's
salary, if it wasn't him, if he doesn't last through the
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
year or something happens or whatever, back down to $28,000.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Unless you came to the Court
and got it adjusted, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The next budget year --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just like we'll do it
in this case. And what I'm saying is, then we can adjust --
also look, in the budget process, at changing -- changing it
to a 23 from a 21, as a budget process. Has nothing to do
with the money. The money comes out as a push, and we
don't -- we don't end up compromising the system, so to
speak. That we adjust -- we do grade adjustments at budget
time, but we can hire at different steps to get to the right
number for the particular employee. And that's what we're
trying to do in this case.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: As I hear it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If I hire him at a 21-5,
what that is is that $30,907, same as a 23-1.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, the other thing,
I'm just a little bit more --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But then my problem I
still have, and this is a problem we had talked about last
budget year; it just didn't get -- get changed that much.
We took care of one, but then the problem I have is, I have
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a nurse, okay, making over $2,000 more in the jail than the
Jail Administrator.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But, Rusty, we can't adjust
people's salaries based on a mistake that was made on the
nurse under two Sheriffs ago. I mean --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I have to -- I have
to try and get it corrected, because it is -- you know, it
is not equal or fair in any way, shape, or form. I think
all of us can agree with that. Somehow, I have to get it
corrected, okay. I've tried for over a year to try and find
a way to do that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But the way to do that,
really, is not to bring everybody up past the nurse, quite
frankly. It's to find some way to get rid of that nurse.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Which I'm trying to do,
but I think the Jail Administrator in that jail, especially
what with the duties on that person -- you know, no matter
what should be -- and that 23-1, before you give the
educational increases, is still not above the nurse. It's
trying to get it, you know, up there without trying to take
it all in one bite, and that's what I'm trying to do. The
nurse is $33,000. The 23-1 is $30,000. And then I give him
the educational, which gives him a little bit above the
nurse and helps equal out what we're trying to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand all that,
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
but I would rather have you come during the budget for -- we
need to do a special time before we -- maybe in May
sometime, have -- make sure you look through all your -- the
jail or the Sheriff's Department, whatever, and do them all
at one time, because the problem comes in if we look at --
in your department probably more than anybody else's, at any
position, singled out, they should get more money. I mean,
it's that simple, and we can't look at it like that. We
have to look at the big picture. To me, I'd rather adjust
the salary now and then come back with an actual date. If
you want to move things around and get rid of a position,
add positions, you know, let's do that at one time for the
whole department.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I was trying to.
It's just kind of -- like, the nurse, when we lost the one
nurse that was at 22, I took it on -- on my own to drop that
from that 29, whatever that was, and to drop that back down
to a 24-1 position, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I didn't have any
problem doing that. What I'm trying to do now is not look
at who the person is, but I'm trying to still get it equal.
My time to get that equal, okay, is -- the best time for me,
as an administrator, is when I do lose one and I have to
replace that person with someone else. To me -- I know it's
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
best if we could always do it at budget time. I have no --
no qualms with you about that, Jon. But my problem is, when
I try and get it equaled out to where it's fair for
everybody, unfortunately, a lot of times that's when you
have that opening is when it's time to get that straight and
get it worked out to where I don't have that problem.
DODGE HENNEKE: But that's not a good time
for us.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What if --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The bottom line is -- I
agree it may not be a perfect time for y'all, but the reason
I'm coming to it -- to you with it now is that it will not
change the bottom line of this year's employee salaries
already budgeted for the Sheriff's Office, because I've had
several positions since October that have not been filled
yet, and that money is in our salary line item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it will impact next
year's budget.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It also won't change the
budget if you put him at a 23-5 -- 21-5. 21-5 is the same
as the 23-1.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Except what I'm also
figuring in there in not changing the -- true, it won't, but
I'm also figuring in there the educational, and it still
won't change the budget.
122
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 L
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How much does 21-7
make? What's the --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $31,471.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What if -- question.
What if -- what if we hire -- because of his qualifications,
we hire Newton at 21-7 for now, period. We address the
issue that Rusty's talking about, that the Sheriff's talking
about on the reclassification of that grade as a budget
item.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Why would we put him at a
21-7?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: 'Cause that
straightens out -- that straightens out the thing with the
nurse. It also puts him at about the same level --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My only problem --
DODGE HENNEKE: I'm not willing to play off
of the nurse.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mr. Griffin, my only
problem with that -- and I'm kind of against that, because
it's going bark to what I'm definitely trying to avoid. I
don't want to -- to come in here and ask for a certain step
and grade, you know, as a salary for somebody just because
of the person and because of his education. That's why I'm
asking that the starting salary for the Jail Administrator
be at that 23-1, and then whatever education that person
123
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
has, okay -- if it's Grady, I put in there -- if I wake up
tomorrow morning and decide Grady's not who I want in there
or whatever, then the education says where that ends up.
But the starting salary is -- is what I -- I don't want to
look and don't want to come to y'all with an employee and
say, "This is the most perfect person we've ever had. His
education is this; I want his salary at this level." I
don't want -- I want to avoid that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sheriff, may I say
something? You do not have three votes here at this table.
Judge, I'd like to withdraw my second to that motion,
please. Let's move on.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Your second is withdrawn.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I'll withdraw
the motion. If there's a better way to do it -- that's what
I was trying to do is get some kind of compromise here so
that we can move on.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I -- what I'm hearing,
Sheriff, is if you think that the position needs to be
reclassified, you need to bring it back during the budget
discussion. And you -- Mr. Newton sounds like a wonderful
candidate, and according to our current guidelines, he would
get the job at a 21-5, which is the equivalent of a 23-1.
And don't we have something in the guidelines about an
employee doesn't get a reduction in salary if they change
124
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
jobs?
MS. PIEPER: I don't know for sure.
MS. SOVIL: It's just been a practice.
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, I think we put something
in about that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think it's just a
practice.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What's he make now? What's
he make now? I mean, that's the --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: He won't get a
reduction.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if you hire him
at a 23-1 and give him credit for education, he will be
receiving the dollars that you are talking about here in
your backup.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think it's a good
time --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't take Court
approval to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And at budget, we'll look
at that classification. If we need to change it, we'll
change it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sounds like he may
very well need to be changed.
125
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right now, it works for
this one employee because of his education. Okay?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's the whole
thing I was trying to avoid, to be honest. I didn't want it
to work for an employee because of their education. I
wanted it at a level.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And we appreciate the
honesty, the way you present it, but we're reluctant to
address classification issues other than as part of the
budget cycle, 'cause we really need to look at them all, not
piecemeal. You know, if we're going to open up
reclassifications, then we're going to have to devise, as a
court, a mechanism for what has to be presented in order to
justify that reclassification.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And we've reclassified
several in the last budget.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But we went through the --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Went through a process
to do that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We went through Nash to do
that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
<3
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's move on to the next
one.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll withdraw my
motion.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Let's see if this one
will go.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The next one is Number 10,
consider and discuss creating one additional sergeant's
position in the jail, eliminating corporal ranking of two
positions, and reclassifying them as jailer positions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, absolutely not,
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Wait.
(Discussion off the record.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This one's a little bit
different. Under the -- the structure and kind of the
hierarchy, or however you say it, which the Sheriff's Office
has had for years, we've always had the sergeants and then
corporals in the jail, okay? Corporals, to me, in the jail,
and by their job duties in the jail, do the exact same thing
that a regular corrections officer does, okay? The prior
administration had corporals making a little bit more,
because the prior administration felt that corporals should
be in charge of doing the booking part, and it kind of
selected them out that they're booking officers. Well, a
127
1
,-. 2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
booking officer is a booking officer. A jailer --
corrections officer is a corrections officer. They still
have to do each other's duties. There's not one that just
does that. So, I personally am gradually doing away with
the corporal position in the jail. I don't think we need
them. I don't think it's fair to all the employees, because
you have four corporals that do the same thing as the four
officers, but yet they're getting paid more because they
have this rank.
We have done away with, over the -- the last
year, two of those positions, and so I don't have -- only
currently have two corporals -- considered corporals on the
payroll. So, I've had two corporal openings ever since this
budget year took into effect. What I am trying to do is
turn one person into a training officer that can train on
our computer system, that I can send to training on the
computer system, that can work all the different hours that
they need to work, and fill in as a supervisor at the same
time while they're doing training if a supervisor is on
vacation or whatever; that we use this person in that, and
that person has the rank and the authority to actually train
the jailers and get them done. So, the salary difference
between the corporal positions I'm doing away with, and the
supervisor position is what I'm asking to turn those
nonexistent corporal positions anymore into a supervisor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~5
128
position.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Anybody occupying a
corporal's position now?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have two corporals
now. I have two open corporal positions that I am not
filling with corporals; they're coming in as jailers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it fair to assume
that one of the corporals will become a sergeant?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not fair to
assume that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So they're just going
to eventually go away? Or --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. That`s -- that's
all I can do, okay. Now, I don't -- they're good employees;
I have no problem with them. In fact, one of them just
finished peace officer's academy and everything else, but
not the one who is going to be the trainer and to fill in as
a supervisor. So, at this point, they are in that position
as a corporal, because it was already there. I don't feel
it's fair to say tomorrow morning, "You're no longer a
corporal," or -- or try and come up with some way to take
that rank away from them, They are good employees, so I
just have to -- to bear with those two.
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~4
~5
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It and when they move
on, you would replace those with jailer positions?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'd hate -- it sounds
like I'm trying to get them to move on.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But -- I don't want to
lose these -- these two employees, but yes, if -- it they
move up to a supervisor position later --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- or things like that,
then I will not replace them with corporals, because the
corporal position will go bye-bye.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second -- third.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve
creating one additional sergeant position in the jail and
eliminating corporal ranking of two positions and
reclassifying them as jailer positions. 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.)
130
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
I
' 8
9
~ 10
11
12
_ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 11,
consider and discuss authorizing Kerr County Sheriff's
Department to request funds for video equipment from the
D.P.S.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Under the new
legislation that -- in the last election, where the State of
Texas passed the bond issues for the entire state, and
because of the new legislation requiring all departments to
start keeping records on racial profiling -- and, in fact,
we have to submit them to y'all by March of each year. One
of the other things is, this is trying to recommend that
departments go to video cameras in all their vehicles so
that they can record all these stops. It lessens the
requirements on the actual documentation they have to keep,
because they have video cameras. D.P.S. is the one that was
put in charge by the Legislature, that if that bond issue
passed, which it did, then they would offer grants to the
rural areas and the smaller departments and everybody, and
to try and help them fund video cameras in all their cars.
Now, we were very fortunate; we got a grant last year that
did fund video cameras in most of our cars. I still have
six cars that do not have video cameras in them, and we are
wishing to apply to D.P.S. for grant funding to fund those
six video cameras so that we can have them in every one of
our cars. This is not a matching fund grant or anything
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
131
else. it's just, we're applying for it. Every agency in
the state's probably applying for it, and hopefully we'll
get some of them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIUNEK LE'1'Z: Second.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is the form that
the Judge would have to sign.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin -- Williams, second by Commissioner Letz, that the
Court authorize Kerr County Sheriff's Department to request
funds for video equipment from the 'Texas Department of
Public Safety, and authorize County Judge to sign same. Any
questions or comments? If not --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Comment. Actually,
this is our tax dollars. It's not like they're doing us a
favor; it's our money. And, number two, it's funny that we
buy them radars and they buy us cameras.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They're not buying us
cameras yet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We said we weren't
going to buy them any radars.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Historically.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They're not buying us
cameras yet. There's some unfunded mandates that came out
through that legislative session that's going to cost us
1
3
9
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
132
more in the end.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sure.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any additional 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. Are you
done?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm done.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Praise God.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Took 30 minutes to get
through with you, Rusty.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 13, consider and
discuss day for joint meeting in January with the Kerrville
City Council. The dates that have been proposed are
January 29th, 30th, and/or 31st. Does anyone have any
preference or any comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're talking about a
nighttime meeting --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- over there? Let me
ask a question. I don't have a preference, to answer your
question.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Go ahead with your question.
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
133
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Our last
meeting over there, the City was very -- was nice enough to
provide a lunch for us. Do we have any way to do that,
other than coming out of our own pockets? I mean, it would
be our turn, kind of.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Not that I'm aware of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would this be a
meeting -- what are the days, 29, 30, 31? What days of the
week are they?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Tuesday, Wednesday, and
Thursday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tuesday happens to be
their regular meeting?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I kind of agree with
Commissioner Baldwin, we ought to figure out a way --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there any of that
barbecue left over today? Let's put it in the freezer.
JUDGE HENNEKE: The 31st has been suggested,
which is a Thursday night, as the best night.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good night.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Now, we can put our heads
together and see if we can come together with some funds to
buy some refreshments. I mean, there is no money. There's
no statutory -- statutory authorized money for entertainment
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
cG
23
24
25
134
of that kind, so --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What time of night
would we be meeting?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I would -- I guess we'd start
at 6:30. Part of the discussion is not to have it during
the day so that it can be more open-ended in the event we
really want to get into some things. When we had it before,
we actually ran out of time, when we had it at lunchtime
from -- I believe it was from 11:30 to 1:30 p.m.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They normally have
their meetings at 6:00, don't they?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I thought their
evening meetings were at 6:00.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the idea would be --
perhaps we can have it at 6:00 -- we can bump it back a
little bit so people can have an opportunity to eat dinner
and get back in if they want to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who -- we can probably
figure out a way to get food over there, I imagine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's -- see, that's
a big item here, isn't it? We're not worried about the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Turn it over to the
food guru.
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN
matter.
With meat connections.
31st is fine.
31st at 6:00? Doesn't
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Why don't we authorize
the County Judge to negotiate the time?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6:00, 6:30.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And make it on the
31st, and let us know.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that we request the
joint meeting on January 31st in the evening, 6:00 or 6:30,
and authorize County Judge to set the exact date and time --
exact time. Any further questions or comments? If not, all
in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. If anyone
has any specific agenda items they want, I mean, Ron
Patterson and I are working up a list that includes the
136
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
airport, the Youth Exhibition Center and things like that,
ETJ. But, if anyone has any specific items they want to
make sure that get on, please let me know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Am I going to have the
opportunity to tell them how goofy it is to take over the
state park?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Hopefully that won't be on
the agenda, since it's not a joint concern.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to do it
anyway.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Exercise your freedom of
speech. Item number 14, consider and discuss establishing a
maximum amount of $2,400 per year that can be deposited in
each employee's unreimbursed medical expenses account under
the new optional medical insurance benefit plan. This is a
request from Bryan Finley. He said we need to establish a
maximum, and he recommends $2,400, or $200 a month.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court
establish a maximum amount of $2,900 per year that can be
deposited in each employee's unreimbursed medical expenses
account. Any questions or comments?
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
137
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Question. And I'm in
favor of it, but -- if that's what Brian recommends. My
question is, what is the reason for having a maximum? Not
that it makes any difference to --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's an I.R.S. reg
that you have to establish a maximum.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: A maximum.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What happens -- since
the employees have already been through that and already had
to sign up and return their deal and that commits them for a
full year, what's going to happen if some of those employees
did elect already to go with more than that? Since that
maximum wasn't in there before?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Then we'd bring it back and
adjust it. But I am told that no one has come to that
level.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I didn't -- I don't
know, but I --
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's a pretty big -- pretty
big bite. I don't know what level of participation we got
in the plan. What -- how was it received out at the
department?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, we made it
mandatory that everybody go through it.
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~-.
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, everybody had to go
through the meeting, because they had to do a new form.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One of the biggest
issues that came up, which I was not even aware of over all
the years, is on the -- on the current plan that we're on,
if you had spouse or -- or kids on it, you could actually
have that -- that amount that the employee is paying. Like,
for me, with my child, it's $81 every two weeks that I --
that comes out of my -- I could have, for all these years,
been having that $81 come out pre-tax, that I never knew
that, okay? So I paid it post-tax, where it would have
actually only been costing me about $60 every two weeks
instead of $81 if I'd known that it was -- could have -- we
had had the option to have it pre-tax. Evidently, that
option's been there for -- but employees didn't know it.
That was -- I think a lot of them showed a lot of other
interest in possibly the -- the savings-type deal, the
medical part y'all are setting a cap on. I don't know how
many elected to go through it. The session I sat through
with them, there was a lot of questions asked of Mr. Finley,
a lot of good input, and a lot of good feedback. It went
real well, and even though employees went in there at first
saying, "I ain't going to change nothing; I'll just leave
it," you know, "They're always offering us this junk and
everything." By the time they left the meeting, I think he
139
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
really had some people's attention, and it got a good
reception. Whether they elected to take whatever, I don't
know.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that happened
in all the sessions.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I personally think this is
the kind of thing we won't get a great deal of participation
this year, but after a year or two, if we continue with the
program, people will see the potential and be more involved.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And then there's the
deal with the dental -- actual dental insurance, which is
available now that -- that nobody knew. I think that got a
lot of people's attention. And I just see one of the
biggest -- and I planned on getting with Barbara later, that
if I can get educated myself on what all the different plans
and options are for -- for employees, that we can -- the
department heads can possibly, when you hire an employee or
have a new one, actually educate them to what all the
options are. They're not getting that anywhere. Okay? On
the different -- like, the pre-tax and that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's vote on the motion.
Anybody have any questions? If not, all in favor, raise
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Gentlemen, I
don't think we have anything else.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do the snowman.
DODGE HENNEKE: I'd remind us of the --
snowman one more time -- we have a meeting the 31st at
9 o'clock. I'll remind everyone also that we've asked that
your evaluations of the department heads be in, in sealed
envelopes, by the end of the year. Okay? That's it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Merry Christmas.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Merry Christmas. Ho,
ho, ho.
(Discussion off the record.)
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 2:15 p.m.)
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
STATE OF TEXAS
COONTY OF KERR ~
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 31st day of December,
X001.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: __ _ __ plc _ _____ _
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
ORDER NO., c'/,~~i `~
CLRTMS RtdD ACC;OUhIfS
On 'l'.hi=~ tl-re c'ist dz;y ~:rf Dec ember 2~~1, came 'L-o be r_onsid~red
by the Co~~rL- v:_3rio~_rs Commissioners' precinct, which said
Claims and flcco~-{nts are:
1~2--General for 37N, 549. k3VJg 15-Road ~ Bridge for R7~Z, ~+9C. 1t3g
1Ei--County Law Lit,r<ary for $:'Ec.`.i~~ `SQi-Indigent Health Care
'Far 31c,9Cl.icg '?~-f='erm:~nent Improvement for $SN~.NO~ 03--State
F~-coded--clEth Dist flttorney 'Far ~~94.34g B6-State Funded '16th
Dist F'rob for ~,446.6;~g 8?-Stated F~-mc'ied-Comm~.Anity Corrections
for' 1, 768.58,
TOTflI_ CASFI REQUIRED FOR flLl_ FUNDS IS: 5iS9,~41.37
~--
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by
Coinniissioner- Williams, the Co~ar't unanimously approved by a
vote of 4-0-a, to pay said accounts.
ORDER NO. c7.:,6~
BUDGET RMENDI*iF_NT
TRX RSSESSOR-COLLECTOR
On this the 'moist day of December E001, ~_rpon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by C;ommissioner• Griffin, ttre
Co~.rr't irnanimo~_rsly approved by a vote of 4-0-rD, to transfer•
3,C~.NO from Line :[t em No.1N-499-31N O'Ffice Supplies to Line
Item IVo. iS-499-~06 Bonds R Ins~_rrance.
ORDER NO.c/361
RUD6ET AMENDMENT
SEX OFFENDER FEDERAL GRANT
On this ~lst day of December X001, ~.ipon motion made by
Commissioner L.etz, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
Coiar•t unanimously approve by a vote of 4-0-0, to increase the
bi_idget by the amount of 349,~31.C0, to accept the grant to be
disb~.irsed according to the line items contained in the b~_~dget
amendment r•eq~_~est from the Ai.iditor-.
Line Item Na.10-573-7.04 Salaries 310,000
Line Item No.10-573-~01 FICR 3765.00
Line Item No.10-51:3-4c6 Travel ~ Training 3~?7,4i6
Line Item NO. 10"'J I3-5~~ Capital O~_it lay 31,~5~
Line Item No. 10-57~-SJ.i Contract Services 310,500
ORDER N0. c7 3E~_
LATE RILL
FIRST INSURANCE AGENCY
On this 21st day of December 2001, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded 6y Commissioner Griffin, the
Co~_ir•t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to pay the
following late bill to First Ins~_u-ante Rgency in the amo~_int of
5322.00 from Line Item No. 10-4`~9-20E. Tax Collector- Official
bond for- 12/31/00-1'2/31/01. The County Ruditor• and the County
Treasi_irer are her•e6y a~.ithorized to write a hand check in the
amount of 5322.00 made payable to First Ins~_ir•ance Agency.
ORDER N0. c'73E,3
LRTE RILL
30TH RNNUAL COUNTY R DISTRICT CLERKS SEMINAR
On this Cist day of December c001, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded 6y Commissioner Williams, the
Cn~_ir•t unanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-0-0, to pay the
following late bill to the 30th Rnniaal Co~.inty ~ Di<str•ict
Clerks Seminar in the amount of X85.00 from Line Item
No.10-430-485 Conferences; X85.00 'From Line Item No.10-403-'~1E
Employee Training. The Co~_inty R~_iditor and the County
Tr•eas~_tr•er• ar•e hereby ai_ithor•i~ed 'to write a hand check in the
amo~_mt of X170.00 made payable to the 30th Rnnual Co~_mty R
^ District Clerks Seminar.
ORDER IJO.c_t364
LRl"E PILL
IiILTON COLLEGE: STRTION
On this the clst day of December c001, upon motion made by
Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the Cour^t
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to pay the following
late bill to Hilton College Station in 'the amount of 8307.Sc
fr-om Line Item No.i~-403-485 Confer^ences; in the amount
S3G7.93 from tine Item No. 10-4Q~3-O1E Employee 1"r^aining.
The County Ruditor and the County Treasurer are hereby
author^ized to write a hand check in the amount of X615.85 made
payable to Hilton College Station.
ORDER N0. c7365
LRTE RILL
pRULR RICHRRDS LOETZ
On this 'the moist day of December c001, upon motion made by
Commissioner^ Williams, seconded by Commissioner 6r^iffin, Court
unanimously appr^oved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, to pay the following
late bill to Ga~ala Richar^ds Loetz in the amount of $cS~.VNO
from Line Item No.10-435-4'34 Special Court Reporter. The
County R~aditor^ and the County Tr^easur'er^ ar^e hereby author^i~ed
to write a hand check in the amount of 4'65N.Q~0 made payable
to F'aula Richar^ds Loet~.
C7F2DE.F2 NU. c'7~66
LRTE BILL
OMNI BRYFRONT HOTEL
On this the clst day of December 201, upon motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded 6y Commissioner Griffin, the Ca~.irt
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q-0, 'to pay the Following
late bill to Omni Bayfront Hotel in the amount of ~15~.54
from Line Ttem No.1~-45`..5--4E15 Ladginy expense for training
session (1/15-1?/V~c Jp'#1). The (vo~_uity R~.iditor and the Ca~_nrty
Tr-eas~.irer are heT'Eby a~_~thor•ized to write a hand check in
the amount of ~1J~.~-,4 made payable to Omni Bayfront Hotel.

URI?ER NU. tc7 E7
AF'f='RUVE AND ACCEPT- MONTHLY REF'UIiTS
Un this the moist day of December cS~~l, upon motion made by
Commissioner Lets, seconded by Commissioner Uriffin, the
Coy-n•t unanimo~_~sly approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to accept: the.
following reports and direr_i; that they loe filed wii;h the
Coy-inty Clerk for fut~-tr-e audiba
Linda Decker-, District Cler-k
November ~~01
Sannett Pieper, C:n~_tnty Cler-k
6ener-al-November- c04~1
"-' Try-tst-November c'+Z~01
Williams Ragsclale--J.P.#k
November `001
Ruben Tench --J. f-'. #3
November 2001
Vance Elliott--J.G.#i
November c0¢~1
ORDER NU.~7368
REVIEW AGREEMENT OF TWIN SPRINGS
AND SET PUBLIC HEARING
Un this the Ulst day of December x:001, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to set public
hearing for the final plat of Tracts 18, 19, and ~0 of Twin
Springs Subdivision for' February the 11th, Year c00~, at 10
o'clock in the Kerr County Commissioners Cour^t room.

[3RDER NU. c r 3E;9
CONSIDER VARIANCE TC] KERR CCIUNTY
SUPDTVI5IUN RULES 8 RE6ULRTIUNS
On this the :.1st day of December E~01, upon motion made by
Commissioner Grif'Fi.n, seconded by Commissioner Let x:, the Co~_u~t
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, with respect to tl-ie
10--acre tract owned by Rllen Brown, located of Goat Cr•c-~ek
Road, part of the Van Hoosier Ranch, to grant variance to the
certification by the I•~eadwater 6roruuiwater Management
District, as well as the Upper G~aadali.tpe River A~.~thority, and
as well as the pr•c=liminary plat requirement, and approve the
plat, s~_tb.ject to presentation to the Co~_mty .7~_tdge of the
appropriate mylar signed off by 911 and TexDot,
ORDER N0.27C'7
~" RRFLIMINHRY FLAT FOR CU'TCII=F RUSI:NESS 1='RRI: F'C1" 4
Cln this the moist day of pecember• ~?001, upon motion made try
Commissioner 6r-iffin9 ser_onded by Commissioner Letz9 the Court
unanimously appr^oved 6y a vote of 4-0-0, the pr•eliminar-y pl.a~.
for Cutoff Business Park in Precinct 4} with the provision
that all requirements of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations must be satisfied prior to the final platy finless
a specific: variance is requested and granted thereto.
ORUEh NC], X737].
1='RELIMINAI~Y FLAT FCIR L_TVf" SF'I~INCiS RAIVCFi F'C"f 4
On this the clst day o'F December ~'00:L, ~_rpon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Leta, the Ca_irt
unanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-0-0, the preliminary plst
for Live Spring Ranch in Precinct 4, as presented, with the
correction that the right-of-way on the proposed p~.rL-lic road
is E0 foot instead of 5N foot,
ORDER NO.c737c
BUDGET RNENDNENT
UNFDRESE:EN ELECTION SUP'P'LIES
On this the clst day of December :'001, ~-ipon motion made by
Commissioner Letzr seconded by Commissianer• Gr•iffinr the (;ourt
unanimously approved by a vote 4-0-0, to a~_ithorize ~-ip to
39500 in expenditures by the Coi.inty Clerk for additional
voting s~-ipplies9 349:.45 from Line Item No. 10-401-475
Redistricting, $39007.55 from Line Item No.10--409-571
Contingency and be placed in Line Item No. 10-40c-330.

ORDER NU. ci37::~
LRW ENF01?CEIhENT
LIRBILITY IN:iURRNCE RENEWRI_
Un this the Gist day o'F December EO~ir ~_~pon motion made t;y
Commissioner Let z, seconded 6y Commissioner Griffin, the Co~_trt
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0~ to renew ttie p~_tbli.c
officials, a~_ito} property, and general liability ins~_tr•ance
coverage with the 'texas Rssaciation of Co~_mties.
~.
ORDER N0.'~'"1374
.--.
rRF_R"PING SER6ERNT F-'OSI1"ION IN THE JRIL
EL.IMINRTiON CORF'OF2RL RRNKING OF ^c pOSITION
0n t"his the ~='1<.~t day of DE~cem~er• c0~lr ~"ipnri motion made Fey
Coirnnissioner Letz~ seconded by Commissioner's Naldwinr the Ca"irt
unanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-0-Q~~ crezatiny one
additional sergeant position in the .jail and eliminating
corporal ranking of two positions and reclassifying them as
jailer- positions.
~--.
ORDER NO.~T3?
IiERR CQUNTY SHERIFF'S UEF='RF2TMENT
FUNDS FOR VIDEQ EG!UIF'h1ENT
Qn thi:a the '1st day of December c001, upon motion made t:~y
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Let:, the
Court unanimously appr^oved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, authorizing
Kerr County 5her•iff's Department to request- funds for video
equipment from the Te><as Department of F'~ablic Safety, and
authorize Co~_tnty Judge to sign same.

ORDER NU.737f~
DRTE FOR JRNLJRRY JOINT MEETING
WITH KERRVILLE CITY COUNCIL
On this the clst day of December- ~0G1, upon motion made by
Commissioner Gr•iffin~ seconded by Commissioner- Let~~ the
Co~_irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, requesting the
.joint meeting with Ker•r•ville City Council on Jan~aar•y 31st
in the evening, at E:O~ pm or E:30 pm and a~_ithorize Co~_mty
J~.~dge to set the exact date and time.
rte.
URDEI~ N0. c'7;~'77
.-, ESTRRL_TSNiMG R MRXIMUt4 RMOUNI" F'ER YERR
IU PE DEF'CISITED IN ERCH EMPLOYEES
"UMRE=IM)3URSED MEDICRI_ EXPEN:~IS RCCOUNT"
On this the clst day of December c~~Tl, ~.rpon motion made by
Commissioner° Williams, seconded by C;ommissiorrer• Let z, the
Cn~ar~t rananimo~asly approved by a vote of 4-0-a, to establish a
maxim~.rm amo~_uit of 5~,4~~ per'• year that; can be deposited in
eacl-r employee's ~-mreimbursed medical expenses acca~.mt.