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
KERB COUNTY COMMISS]ONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, May 13, 2002
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
0
nl
1
~.. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
i
~ 18
19
20
1
21
22
23
24
25
z
I N D E X
May 13, 2002
PAGE
--- Visitor's input 3
--- Commissioners comments q
1.1 Pay Bills g~753
1.2 Budget Amendments 2'153(, 537,534, S?fi , •~1 ~`~~-' ~ ~"15SCe 9
1.3 Late Bills 1g1"/541
1.4 Read and Approve Minutes 22+175`aD
1.5 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports 23'2', I`~'+3
2.1 Adoption of proclamation declaring May 2002 as
Mental Health Awareness Month
2.2 Status of Sheriff's Department radio project,
approval of remaining leases
2.3 Authorize Sheriff's Department to apply for
Tobacco Compliance Grant
2.4 Reallocation of leftover Sheriff's Department
Capital Outlay funds to purchase computer for
Personnel Office
2.5 Consider final plat/Development plan for Cedar
Ridge Mobile Home Park
2.6 Consider preliminary plat for Hidden Hills
2.7 Consider preliminary revision of plat for Hidden
Hills
2.8 Consider final plat of Cutoff Business Park with
variances for lot size, drainage, utilities
installation and driveway intervals
2.9 PUBLIC HEARING - abandonment of Pier 5 Drive
2.10 Consider changing status of Pier 5 Drive in
Pier 5 Subdivision from public to private
2.11 Approve road name changes for privately-maintained
roads in Pct. 2 in accordance with 911 guidelines
2.12 Consider request by Pipeline Group to reduce fees
for use of the Ag Barn to last year's cost
2.13 Consider bids received and a~aard construction
contract for 2002 TCDP Colonia Fund wastewater
project, Phase I, in Kerrville South
2.14 Consider amending Kerrville South construction
fund budget to provide not more than $6,200 for
attorney fees to develop documents
2.15 Consider authorizing Grantworks to submit 2001
TCDA Colonia Comprehensive Plan to the Office of
Rural Community ATfairs for their review
2.16 PUBLIC HEARING - Kerr County Subdivision Rules
2.17 Consider restructuring Courts Collections Dept.,
promote Brad Alford to Chief Collections Officer
--- Adjourned
29 'a~l~~
30 a-15y5
36 .1754/C
3 7 ~'~54~
4 5 }>>~cu
4 8 ~ 754
49 ~~5y9
52d'7~~G
5 6 ~~ut S~
60
63~~7s1
63 ~~~~'~
67 87553
;}7jS'/
69
70~ 1555"
89
10 6 x"755 ,
126
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, May 13, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., a regular meeting
of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D 1 N G S
JUDGE HENNEKE: Good morning, everyone. It's
i 9 o'clock in the morning on Monday, May the 13th, Year 2002.
We'll call to order this regular term -- regular meeting of
the Kerr County Commissioners Court. Commissioner Griffin,
I think you have the honors this morning.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, Judge. If you
will please rise and join me for a moment of silent prayer,
followed by the pledge of allegiance.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
DODGE HENNEKE: At this time, any citizen
wishing to address the Court on an item not listed on the
regular agenda may come forth and do so. Is there any
citizen who'd like to address the Court on an item not
listed on the regular agenda?
MR. NOLEN: I have a petition I'd like to
submit to the Court.
DODGE HENNEKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, Mr. Nolen. If
you would identify yourself, and then, while --
s-i3-o~
4

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
]2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2~
MR. NOLEN: I'm Robert Nolen from Mountain
Home. I live in Scenic Acres. I've been out there for 25
years, and I'm submitting a petition this morning for the
consideration of the Court to stop hunting in Scenic Acres
Subdivision. I do not know the powers of the Court, but we
have lawyers that can handle that. And the petition says
high-powered rifles; that is not big enough for low-powered
rifles, hopefully. Anyway, I hope the Court will consider
it and get to me later. Thank you much.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Mr. Nolen. We
will take your petition and refer it to the Kerr County
Attorney's office for his advice and counsel on this issue.
Anyone else wishing to address the Court on an item not
listed on the regular agenda? Going once, going twice. Is
there any other citizen who'd Like to address the Court on
an item not listed on the regular agenda? Seeing none,
we'll turn to the Commissioners' comments. We'11 start with
Commissioner Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. I just wanted to
report that I spoke with Bill Tuckf=r at the Highway
Department last week, on Friday, a:> a matter of fact, and
the signs have been ordered for thc=_ names of the crossings
the on the North and South Fork. We should see those start
to pop up sometime in the next few -- few weeks. They won't
all come at once, so depending on what order they get them,
s is-n_
5

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
they'll start sticking them up as soon as they get them, and
glad to see that happen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Exciting.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have no comments
this morning, Judge. The only comment I would like to make
is, I hope Commissioner Letz will report on Tivy baseball.
I just don't have -- I can't remem'oer what happened. I know
they're still going, is all I know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIA]HS: They won.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAIKS: I cleared my e-mail
out this morning, and it was chock-full. One item of
interest that's not on the agenda I~as to do with the
County's application to the Texas Capital Fund on behalf of
the Frontier Gear. It appears that they were scored three
out of 14 applications, so it appears that that application
will be funded.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do you want to give us a
report on former Commissioner Lackey?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And on Butch Lackey,
our Precinct 2 Commissioner predecE=.ssor, when last I spoke
to those who knew or had heard from members of the family,
the Commissioner is resting well iri Methodist Hospital in
5-13 __
6
1
,-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I
11
1
1L
j 13
f ,•--
14
15
t
16
1
17
18
19
20
1
21
22
23
24
25
San Antonio, having been flown there with a severe heart
attack, one blocked artery, and subsequent testing revealed
seven ulcers. And one of his friends said that was one for
resting well, and hopefully on the road to recovery. That's
Butch Lackey we're talking about.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tivy baseball report.
They're very dominating in the playoffs so far this year.
They beat Uvalde two games straight, two out of three
series, and they did the same to Dripping Springs, won the
first two games. The first one was real close,
one-to-nothing. Second game was a bit of a blowout; the
final score was 14-4, I believe. 3ut, they're -- they're
doing very well, and they are playing this week again. I'm
not sure if it's going to be in San Marcos or Medina Valley,
whoever won that series on Saturday night; I'm not sure what
the outcome was. But, they're peaking again. They had a
little bit of a fast start, kind o:E a lull mid-season, like
they seem to have frequently, then they start peaking again
right at the right time. Hopefully, they will go on for
quite a while still.
Couple of other iterns. The City of
Kerrville's long-range comprehensive plan, that final Town
Hall Forum will be Tuesday, May 21st, at 6 o'clock at the
5-13-0~
7
1
.-.,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
..-.
14
1J
16
17
18
10
20
<<^1
22
2 J
24
,~-~
25
Notre name Social Center. A lot of people put a lot of time
into that long-range plan, and I think it will be worthwhile
for people who have an interest certainly to attend that and
get an idea as to where the City of Kerrville thinks the
Also, a couple of comments regarding water
gion J. Not going to take a lot of time, but
we're in the -- I guess just starting up our second planning
phase. The scopes of work are in Austin for -- or have been
completed by the regions and are pending approval by the
Water Development Board right now. I think a lot of people
were under the impression that once we got the plan done,
our work was kind of finished, and it really just means that
we just start over again. It's a 5-year, ongoing process.
Gove nroL Perry is very much behind the process, assuming
he's our next governor, or I guess re-elected as governor.
I think he's	certainly	very commit.ed.	I'm not sure
Mr. Sanchez'	position on the regional	-- but Governor Perry
is certainly	behind it,	wants to conti	nue funding it, as
does the Legislature.
Kerr County has a couple of items in our --
that we'll be working on in the ne~ct couple of weeks. One
we're currently working with Headwaters on is locating some
new monitoring wells; they got some funds in from Peterson
Foundation to get drilled. We`re also looking at a study on
5-13-_~
8
1
^„ 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
' 12
13
14
15
1
16
1
17
i
18
19
20
1
21
22
23
24
2J
spring flow, exactly trying to monitor and do some spring
flow evaluations up on the western part of the county, and
try to look at what pumping and various aquifers will do to
the spring flow, as well as what cedar and brush control
does to that spring flow. So, it's a pretty comprehensive
spring flow analysis in western Kerr County, and also
northern Bandera County. Another project, they're going to
do some more extensive work on the Lower Trinity and
updating the Middle Trinity model, which has a lot of
deficiencies, in most people's opinion. So, anyway, we're
working on a lot of science in those two areas, working
closely with Headwaters and some other groups in that area.
That's all I have.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, good. I would remind
everyone that our next meeting will be Tuesday, May 2Sth,
because of the Memorial Day holiday on Monday, May 27th.
Also, that is our regular scheduled evening meeting, so the
next meeting will be at 6:30 in the evening on Tuesday, May
the 28th, so mark your calendars accordingly. With that,
let's get into the approval agenda and pay some bills.
Mindy, do we have some bills to pay today?
MS. WILLIAMS: Oh, we got a bunch to pay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone have any questions or
comments regarding the bills as presented by the Auditor?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIPI: Judge, I have a
5-13-0
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comment -- not a comment, a correction on Page 1, under
Commissioners Court. The second and third item, exact same
thing, but different numbers on them. And -- and the
correct number should be 39.95 for both of them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You've got gold leaf
on yours?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't go into that;
I didn't read any names. 39.95 is the correct number. Thea
called the printing company and got that, I think.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
comments regarding the bills?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
authorize payment of the bills as corrected and recommended
by the Auditor. 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. Budget
amendments. Budget Amendment NumbE=r 1 is for Commissioners
Court.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. What we have is a
-19- _
10
t
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
couple of bills, and they are basically deductibles. We
haven't met our deductibles on these particular cases yet.
We do not have the money in the budget in this particular
line item at this time, and I don't believe there is
anyplace in the budget that we can find to move the money
from. Mr. Tomlinson might be able to find that. I wasn't
able to. I'm not sure where he's got areas. The only other
option we would have would be to declare an emergency and
move the money out of the surplus fund.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This is for our
professional services for legal?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For what?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Legal matters, right?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And it's where we have
ongoing suits and --
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- we haven't met the
deductible for the insurance minimum?
MS. WILLIAMS: Correct, mm-hmm. On the first
two bills, the one from Continenta:L Casualty and the one
from Columbia Casualty, we do have a $6,000 deductible on
each of those, and these are the first bills that we have
gotten on each of these suits, and they fall under that
$6,000 deductible.
-13-02

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
11
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the nature of the
lawsuits, Mindy?
MS. WILLIAMS: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know the nature of
those lawsuits?
MS. WILLIAMS: Regarding the Kerr County
Sheriff's Department. It's an inmate. One of the loss
dates was from March of '99. The other one was from June of
'98.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I guess the question
is, how do we want to do it? What are the options? We can
either --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we need to identify a
source for the funds.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Both of those -- just
for your information, those were two very old lawsuits. And
I know that one --
MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah, they were both --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, both those
lawsuits have been thrown out of court. But you still have
to meet the deductible.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What you're saying is,
prior to you?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, yeah. Y'all will
get mine later, don't worry about it.
s 13-nz
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
12
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our contingency is about
out, too, as I recall.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, it's pretty well
tapped.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do we have a
professional services line item anywhere else that --
MS. WILLIAMS: No, sir, I don't believe so.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's -- I'm sure
that's what you looked for.
MS. WILLIAMS: Right, yeah. I'd be glad, if
the Court would like, to set this one aside for the time
being. I'll be glad to go back to the office later and go
through the budget and see if I can find these funds
anywhere else.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Look closely at the
Sheriff's Department budget.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, wait a minute.
MS. WILLIAMS: I'm not so sure there's
surplus there, either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think there's
much surplus anywhere.
MS. WILLIAMS: I'll be glad to go back and
check, if we want to just set this one aside for the time
being.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Only place I'm aware of any
5-13-02
1
~.. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-.
2S
13
surplus is the County Attorney's office, because the third
position in the County Attorney's office was unfilled for
about three months --
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- of the budget year.
MS. WILLIAMS: I can go back and look there.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's a possible source of
some funds. I attempted to use the money to hire
Mr. Pollard to work on the tower leases, and you guys didn't
like that, so --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We like it now.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- you might take a look at
that.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At least see what's
there, because that's an item that we're not going to spend
it. I mean, it's --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. Mr. Bonner wasn't
hired until February or January, something like that, and so
there's --
MS. WILLIAMS:
months surplus, okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE
So probably three or four
Yeah, in the salary line
item.
i3-oz
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
MS. WILLIAMS: I'll go back and look at that
one.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. We'll set that one
aside for the time being. Budget Amendment Number 2 is for
the District Courts.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. We have a court
transcript that we need to pay for out of the 216th District
Court. And, again, they are out of money in their line
item, but Mr. Tomlinson asked that we move it out of the
198th District Court transcript line item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Third.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any further questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 3 is
for the County Treasurer's office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. The County
Treasurer asked that we do a budget amendment to move money
to her Part-Time Salary line item. She has someone working
5 13-02
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
15
there until the chief treasurer's position comes available,
I guess, the lst of June, and she's running short of funds
in that area, so she'd like to move it out of her Deputies
line item to Part-Time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 3. 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. Amendment
Number 9 relates to County Court at Law.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. We have an order to
pay a court-appointed attorney. And, again, they have
expended the moneys that was in the budget for the
Court-Appointed Attorneys line item. They do have some
surplus under Special County Court at Law Judge, and they'd
like to reclassify $4,000 of that into their Court-Appointed
Attorneys line item.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
-13-02
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve
Budget Amendment Request Number 4 for the County Court at
Law. Any other questions or comments? If not, all in
favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Number 5
again relates to the District Courts.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Again, we've got
some court-appointed attorney timesheets that we need to
pay, and we also have some court-appointed services. I
believe one is probably an investigator, and one was expert
fees involved in one of the cases. We were able to find
moneys in the 216th and 198th courts to move around
correspondingly, and they would like to go ahead and move
the moneys for the court-appointed services in the 216th out
of their Special Trials in the amount of $304.43. And in
the 198th, they'd like to move the $1,250 from Special
Trials to their Court-Appointed Services in that budget.
And Mr. Tomlinson would like to move money out of the 198th
District Court Court-Appointed Attorneys line item to the
216th Court-Appointed Attorneys line item in order to pay
these orders that we have pending at the present time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
-13 G'
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
I7
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
24
2~
17
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 5 for the District
Courts. 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. Do we have
any late bills, Mindy?
MS. WILLIAMS: I have one late bill. I also
have one additional budget amendment that came in late.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Mindy.
M5. W1LLlAMS: You're welcome. This is
Commissioner Baldwin's little deal.
JUUGE HENNEKE: Budget Amendment Number 6 is
for the Commissioners Court.
M5. WILLIAMS: Would you like to explain this
one, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As you know, we fund
the First Responders, and for some reason, they have gone
over budget. And in order for us to cover that, I have gone
s-is-o1

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
18
into my personal conference line, so -- I'm through going to
school. Whether I get certified or not, that's beside the
point, but we've gone into my conference line to pick up
that $28.02. Aren't I a nice guy?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. I'll
second that motion.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 6. Any other
questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you mean, I
was late?
JUDGE HENNEKE: If not, all in favor, raise
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MS. WILLIAMS: We didn't get it in time to
make copies, let's put that it way.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Late bills.
Ms. W1LLiAMS: Yes, we have one late bill.
I'm sorry I don't have copies for you, but what it is, it's
a reimbursement to Judge Henneke for his seminar expenses
s-i--u
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
19
when he attended the Probate Judges' seminar in Galveston.
It's in the amount of $546.50. It's going to come out of
Line Item 10-426-486, and there are ample funds in there to
cover this expenditure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve
a late bill in the amount of $545.50 payable to the County
Judge for reimbursement of expenses in attending the Probate
Judges' conference. 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.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I have a
question of the Auditor.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mindy, don't take my
comments or questions as being picking on you, 'cause I
didn't know you were going to be here this morning; I
thought Tommy was going to be here. But I've had telephone
calls, and I think you've confirmed there have been visits
to your office regarding the recent auction of County
-13-U2
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1y
20
21
22
23
29
25
20
surplus materials --
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- and supplies,
equipment and whatever. And, from what I understand, there
was a dump truck on the approved list that was put to
auction, and the auction went forward on the dump truck and
the bid was accepted. There was no reserve bid, I believe.
MS. WILLIAMS: Not that I know of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
MS. WILLIAMS: Not that I know of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No reserve, so
whatever was bid was the high bid. The bid was accepted.
The person making the bid was advised that he had
received -- he had won the bid, and was instructed on what
to do --
MS. WILLIAMS: That's what I understood, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- to close the deal,
and came to the Auditor's office with the proper funds and
so forth, I believe is correct, and was told that the truck
-- dump truck was removed from the list.
MS. WILLIAMS: Actually went -- no, sir.
When he came to the office, it was after he had been
notified that the dump truck should not have been on that
surplus property sale list. It was an error. It was never
supposed to be on there. It got on there by mistake; it did
5-13-02
21
f

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
not get taken off in time. And he was notified that -- that
the truck was not to be sold. He came to our office after
that time, and, in fact, I believe it was later that
afternoon.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, I stand
corrected in that regard. I guess the question is, I'm not
sure what the law says about this, if an item is left on --
a bid -- a bid is -- bid is taken and accepted, and then
later the item is pulled, is that -- for lack of a better
word, is that kosher?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that's an issue. The
other issue is that this discussion -- this item was not
posted on this agenda, so it's something that we will have
to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can't take action
on it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- take a look at, come back
to at a later date.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. We'll
dispose of it at a later date, then. I think we need to
know. The people, in good faith, had made the bid, and the
bid was accepted.
MS. WILLIAMS: I'll check on the funding for
Budget Amendment Number 1 and give it to you later.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, thank you.
s-is-o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
22
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, I would
entertain a motion to waive reading and approve the minutes
of the Wednesday -- Monday, April 22nd meeting of the Kerr
County Commissioners Court, and the Monday, April 8th
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have a
correction for the Monday, April 22nd.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In those minutes, I
had -- in the opening remarks, I was talking about cedar
eradication and the program going on in San Antonio, and I
meant to say G.B.R.A., and it landed in our minutes as
U.G.R.A., and I'd like to change the "U.G.R.A." to
"G.B.R.A."
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any objection?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Without objection, that
correction is noted.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, then, I would
entertain a motion to waive reading and approve the minutes
of those two meetings as corrected.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
-13-~J
23
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
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court waive
reading and approve the minutes of the meeting of April 8th,
2002, and April, 22nd 2002, as corrected. Any questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. At this
time, I would also entertain a motion to approve and accept
the monthly reports as presented.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
approve and accept the monthly reports as presented. 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. All right.
We'll turn immediately to the consideration agenda, then.
The first item for consideration is consider and discuss
5-1J-ii?
24
1
,.-,. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'
.-~	13
	14
	15
	

1	16
	17
	18
	19
	20
t	
	21
	22
	23
,.~.	
29
	25
adoption of the proclamation declaring Mental Health Month
in Kerr County for the month of May, the year 2002, and also
presentation by Dr. Sam Junkin on behalf of Hill Country
M.H.M.R. Dr. Junkin, welcome.
DR. JUNKIN: Thank you. Judge,
Commissioners, it's been a privilege now for several years
to be your representative to the board of the Hill Country
Mental Health/Mental Retardation Center. Just very quick
background to lead to this resolution that we ask you to
consider today. The Hill Country Mental Health/Mental
Retardation Center is made up of ten mental health clinics,
eight mental retardation centers, six early childhood
intervention centers serving 19 counties across this part of
Texas. Within Kerr County, Hill Country offers mental
health services at the Kerr County Mental Health Clinic,
mental retardation services at the Kerrville Special -- Kerr
County, pardon me, Special Opportunity Center, and early
childhood intervention services. You would be interested in
knowing that when we were organized, actually administration
was split between Kerr County and Hays County, San Marcos.
All services -- administrative services are now being
consolidated to Kerr County.
During the past year, Kerr County mental
health clinics served 1,101 individuals suffering from
mental illness in our county or our immediate area. Of
-i~-o~
1
~.~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,-. 13
1
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
.-.
25
25
these, 155 were under the age of 18, which tells you
something about our population. Kerr County's Special
Opportunity Center served 132 individuals who have mental
retardation, and the early childhood intervention program
served 83 individuals under the age of 3 who are at high
risk for having developmental delays. In total, the Hill
Country served more than 1,300 individuals in Kerr County
facilities alone during this past year. At the present
time, we are doing some renovation that is necessary, and
most of our services will soon be fit in the former Ultrafit
building over on the other side of the river.
The total Hill Country Community Mental
$24 million. There are more than 500 employees in this
19-county area. In Kerr County, there are more than 96
employees with a salary base of approximately 2 and a half
million dollars, so there is quite an impact for these
services in Kerr County alone. In February, the Hill
Country expanded services by entering a contract with the
Texas Council on Offenders With Mental Impairment for the
delivery of services, coordination to juvenile offenders who
are suffering from mental illness and have been placed under
some form of community supervision. The program is designed
to help these juvenile offenders learn how to manage their
mental illness and positively to impact recidivism.
5-13 0^
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
z6
On June 1st, the Hill Country will expand
services by entering a contract with the Texas Commission on
Alcohol and Drug Abuse to deliver substance abuse services
in Kerr County. Initial services will include the operation
of a detoxification center for adults and residential
facility for male adolescents. Again, it is hard for us to
acknowledge, but these are truly devastating problems that
we face, and this new service will have a positive impact on
that. Throughout our services, we strive to help consumers
learn the skills and connect with the local resources that
will assist them in coping with their mental condition and
help each consumer become as independent and as productive a
possible citizen in -- in our area. We've come a long way
in the last five years. Some of you know of this history
and have kept up with it well.
Recently, our center was featured as a case
study in the National Journal of Disabilities for a
consumer-driven and individualized approach we designed and
implemented in the delivery of supported employment
services. We also are featured in a chapter of a book
entitled How to Deliver Hccountable Care. This chapter
discusses the implementation of management and data analysis
strategies we use in the Hill Country, and the resulting
improved quality, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of
services to local consumers. And recently, Linda Parker,
s i~ ~_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
our chief executive officer, whose official title is
Executive Director, was featured as a presenter in a
national symposium, National Behavioral Health Care
Conference, which was held in Chicago at the end of March.
Again, her presentation focused on the utilization of
management strategies and data analysis for the delivery of
high quality, cost-efficient services.
It is fair for me to defer at this point to
Linda Parker. She has given us almost unbelievable
leadership as we have sought to become much more
cost-effective in the way we deliver services, always to
focus on the good of those who are being served, those in
our population whom we recognize to be some of the most
at-risk and the least able to help themselves. We come to
you today -- Mrs. Parker is here with me. We come to you
today to present you a resolution to be considered.
Nationally, this is Mental Health Month. Now, actually, you
will remember that we serve not only mental health, but
mental retardation and early childhood services, so mental
health is only one part of it. But, nationally, this is
Mental Health Month, and we ask you to consider this
resolution. Judge, I'd be happy to read it, if you wish. I
think you have copies, but if you wish, I will read it for
you quickly, or if you just wish to consider it as it is
presented.
5-1~-0~
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: All the Commissioners have
copies of the proclamation. I believe we can just go ahead
and consider it. Does anyone have any questions for Dr.
Junkin or Ms. Parker?
DR. JUNKIN: Come stand up here with me, hold
me up.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Welcome, Linda.
MS. PARKER: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: At this time, I'd entertain a
motion to approve the proclamation naming the month of May
as Mental Health Month in Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court adopt a
proclamation naming the month of May as Mental Health Month
in Kerr County. Any other questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a comment I'd
like to make. I remember seven or eight years ago when we
were getting this ball rolling out in the community, they --
they made a promise that they would put forth great efforts
to serve the alcohol and drug abuse folks, and you're
finally getting to it, and I appreciate that so much.
That's the biggest problem we have in our country today,
and -- and, really, my point is -- is that you've kept your
s i~ oa
29

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
word, and I appreciate that very much.
MS. PARKER: Thank you.
DR. JUNKIN: We're excited about this new
adventure, although we must always remind ourselves that
mental health/mental retardation are the two central foci.
And this -- this new initiative with alcohol and drug abuse
must not detract from those others, but can add to it. And
what we find is that so many of our clients are
dual-diagnosed -- is that the right word? They not only
have mental impairment or some sort of mental difficulty,
but also have drug and alcohol abuse, and so we'll be
working at it directly. We have an official copy of the
proclamation, Judge. I'd just give it to you.
MS. PARKER: I would like to thank the
Commissioners Court for giving us Dr. Junkin. He's been a
true leader and a great supporter, and also someone that
listens when there are a lot of problems and I need a
shoulder to lean on. So, thank you very much for appointing
I him.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You're welcome. Any other
questions or comments? We probably need to officially adopt
the proclamation. All in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
5 ld 0'
30
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
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries.
MS. PARKER: Thank you.
DR. JUNKIN: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you very much. Next
item for consideration is Item Number 2, consider and
discuss status of Sheriff's Department radio project and the
approval of the remaining leases. Sheriff Hierholzer.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think you helped put
this one on the agenda this time. I'll start out by saying
two of the leases have already been signed, and that's the
two with L.C.R.A. that were signed a few months ago. But
these last two leases have involved a little bit more, as
the Judge knows, and Tom Pollard helped on it, and I think
one of the other sides intend to get Scott Stehling to work
on it, and just -- there's just been pretty good involvement
in trying to get these done. And it is imperative that we
get them done quickly, and as I found out last week from
Dailey Wells, they said that at the end of this month, if we
do not have them done by the end of May, that the
infrastructure costs on this system is going up 15 percent.
So, it is something that we need to get finished and get
rolling. I mean, we've been working on them since last
October, when the whole system was approved, and it's
just -- it -- I think the Judge may agree with me that it's
been more of getting all the attorneys together and finally
s-1~-~_
31
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
having us sit down. And you've got the lease with the phone
company and then you've got a sub-lease with the landowner,
and the same thing out west. And I think the Judge told me
the other day that you do now have the -- the leases in
place, and he knows what the costs are. I haven't read them
yet. And see if we can get this approved and get the ball
rolling. This was our final hurdle of getting Dailey Wells
to actually start the implementation of the system.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What constitutes
infrastructure costs that would be subject to 15 percent
increase?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Fifteen.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I said 15.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know. Okay?
That's just what they notified me. They just called and
said the infrastructure costs would be going up 15 percent
just due to everything. You know, not just us; it's just
that cost on it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone have any questions?
Basically, what we're doing here is we're leasing space on
two radio towers owned by Five Star Cellular, one out west
and one in Center Point.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And I think we're going to
pay $2,000 a year to Five Star Cellular for each of those
5-i3-az
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
1/
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
32
towers -- tower sites. On the west, as additional
consideration, they've asked us to build a caliche road and
a fence for access to the site. In the east, the underlying
landowner has asked for a $2,500 signing bonus and $250 a
month additional rent.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only additional
equipment we had to use is, the one out west, under the
original considerations, we were hoping to be able to use
the same building out there that the phone company uses, but
after the meeting with the phone company, what they do is
those are prefab buildings, and if they decide they don't
need their building at one site, they just go in with a
crane, lift up the whole building and move to it a different
site. And if they were to have allowed to us put our
equipment inside that building, it would have tied down that
building forever on that site if they ever wanted to move
it, so they wouldn't allow to us do that. So, you had a
building on that one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are these amounts within
the -- I guess, the amount that we had in the project bid?
JUDGE HENNEKE: The only -- well, these
amounts were not included in the -- in the bid, because
these are separate from what Dailey Wells is doing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Now, we will have to pay for
5-13-02
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
11
22
23
24
25
the additional building out west. We'd have to find the
money for that somewhere. Originally, the -- the lease
payments for the two tower leases was going to be $4,500 a
month, but since we have to put the building out west, Scott
Parker and his company backed off of that one $500 a month,
so it's down to $4,000 a month for the leases for the actual
use of the towers, and it's going to be an additional $3,000
for rent for the use of the eastern land. So, it's going to
cost us a little more -- the annual cost is going to be
$7,000, as opposed to $4,500, so we went up $2,500. We will
point out that we're using the L.C.R.A, towers at no cost.
For three years?
SHERIFF HlERHOLZER: Three years, I believe
is what's in those leases. The only thing, the building
itself, just to give you an idea, they've got to put a
building also on the east end, but that's in the bid pack,
'cause that site never had a building. And Dailey Wells'
bid cost on that building, I think, was $6,000. It's not
that -- you're not talking a $20,000 building or anything.
It's just a concrete sealed building with its own
electricity and heating and cooling system to keep all the
equipment operating.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's the's tower?
Where is that located?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just about across from
5-13-G2
34
c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ly
20
21
22
23
24
25
Starlite out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's a smaller tower.
The four towers that will end up being used are that one
across from Starlite, the one phone company tower out west
off Highway 41, the large tower -- L.C.R.A. tower off
Cypress Creek Road at Red Rose Ranch, and then the other
L.C.R.A. tower, which is the one we're currently using, the
only tower we currently have, which is off of Upper Turtle
Creek Road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only question is
this one sentence in here, I just want to make sure we're
all saying the same thing. Kerr County to construct road
and fences. Does that mean that we will contract someone to
go in and build a road? Or will County-owned trucks and
tractors go in and build roads?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think the contemplation is
we'll see if we can get Road and Bridge to do it. And this
is legal, because we have a lease and an easement into the
tower. We're not constructing a private road for someone's
individual benefit. This is for our use in maintaining the
tower site, and also construction.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The part on that is,
that entrance where that tower is is currently the main
entrance to that ranch, and you have to wind around and get
-1~-c,
35
1

r-+
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
down to where the tower site is, and the tower site's
actually fenced off. If you go straight from Highway 41
through a corner of their property, it's about a 100-yard
road right there. A11 -- and it's already fenced on one
side, which is the corner of the property, and it just has
to be fenced up the other side, so you're talking about --
estimate about 100 yards of high fence, and all they wanted
was just caliche put down in between, just so you could get
in and out of there. And then they're going to refabricate
the chain link fence around the tower itself, to move the
gate getting into the chain link part from where it is
currently to that site. We're not doing that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This -- this extra
$250 per month to the landowner goes -- goes on so long as
we're on the tower?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or the lease.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we approve the two
remaining leases that are before us today.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner Letz,
second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court approve the
leases and license agreements for the remaining two towers
and authorize County Judge to sign same. Any questions or
comments'
-i? n
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~4
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Last comment. Some of
y'all may wonder why we hadn't used or didn't opt to use the
tower on the Hall ranch out there. There were some
unforeseen costs once Dailey Wells came up and studied it,
and Trott Communications also looked at that. That tower
has to be brought back up into compliance, which is either
repainting that -- stripping and repainting that
300-some-foot tower, or putting the lighting -- the new
lighting system on it that's required by F.C.C., and the
lighting system itself would be $15,000. I think it would
probably be at least as much, and it was -- they wanted to
deed the tower itself over to the County, but the property
and the building still remained on ownership with the Halls,
and we're also going to get a lease -- a rental -- monthly
rental fee on it. And Trott also told me that most
towers -- they said there's some exceptions; some of them up
around New York are still there after 70 and 80 years, but
the tower life of most towers themselves is about 45 years.
That tower on the Hall site was constructed in 1968, and it
was more of a cable TV tower than a microwave-type tower.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We have a motion and second
on the floor. Any other questions? If not, all in favor,
raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
5-13-02
37
i-.
1
.-.
1
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
1/
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. All right.
Next item, Item Number 3, consider and discuss authorizing
the Sheriff's Department to apply for a Tobacco Compliance
Grant through Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts to
purchase LCD data projector, laptop computer, and digital
camera.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think y'all got most
of the backup that goes along with this. You know that our
department is very aggressive in -- progressive in applying
for grants to come up with things. Since we have S.R.O.
officers and D.A.R.E. officers in each of the schools -- in
your backup, up it says that there's one officer that will
go to D.A.R.E. school this summer. He graduates this week,
and so he will be our third D.A.R.E. officer, which is also
down at Center Point. And each of those officers, they --
they'll be teaching D.A.R.E. classes, and the one at Tivy
also teaches a law enforcement class in that school. This
grant idea was brought to us by one of the superintendents
in the school that recommended we try and do it, and what it
is, is -- is just for updated equipment, being -- being the
LCD projector and laptop computer hooked to it so that they
can teach those lesson plans, and especially the -- the
tobacco and alcohol plans in a little bit more vivid method
to all the kids in the school districts than just standing
s-13-0 _'
38
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
up at a podium and handing out brochures and things like
that. So, I don't know whether we'll receive this grant or
not, but I agreed that it was an excellent idea to apply for
it to upgrade those technologies. So, I'm asking y'all to
apply. There's no matching funds or anything else. It's
just a grant we'll get.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we approve the
Kerr County Sheriff's Department applying for the Tobacco
Compliance Grant for the -- from the Comptroller of Public
Accounts.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Williams, that the Court
authorize the Kerr County Sheriff's Department to apply for
Texas Compliance Grant from the Texas Comptroller of Public
Accounts. 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. Item Number
4, consider and discuss reallocation of leftover funds in
the Capital Outlay in order to purchase a computer for
Personnel Office.
s-1?-Gz
39

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What this is, is this
year alone -- of course, the Sheriff's Office has been out
there since '70 -- I mean '96. A lot of our computers are
going down. A lot of the computers that we had were from
the old county system from back when we were over here, and
then the former Sheriff switched over to that LEM system for
a while, and we are having several computers with serious
problems. Several of them are just totally out. We had
i seized three computers right before I took office, which had
been awarded to us. We have already put those computers to
use, even though some of them are a number of years old.
They're used in our booking area. Still, we had to kind of
rob Peter to pay Paul. We took one of the computers out of
our officers' squadroom to put into the Personnel Office at
this time. I have even -- I replaced a home computer that I
had at my house, and I donated the one I did have to our
office, so that it's also being used. We don't need fancy,
high-dollar computers. We just need computers that will tie
into this Ableterm system.
What I'm asking, we had some unexpended funds
of over 2,000 -- or $2,092 in Capital Outlay we did not use
because we got a little bit cheaper break on some things
when we actually bought them. But all I'm asking is that we
be able to go to Walmart or wherever and buy one computer
that will be compatible with our system, and I would
5 13-u _'
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
y
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
definitely expect it to be way below $1,006 to -- to put
into that Personnel Office.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This -- you said --
or told me earlier that this is a replacement for a computer
that went down?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The one in the squadroom
we changed over into this. We've had several go down that I
haven't ever come, and so we've been just kind of
relocating. So, yes, if you get around to it, it is,
because the one in the -- in the Personnel Office we had to
move to another location to replace one that went down in
there. So, it's -- it is, Jonathan, it's a replacement.
We're not adding more computers to our system. We've lost
several, and next year we're going to have to seriously look
at -- look at some computer problems. We're trying to go
more and more computerized so that we get away from this
paperwork that we have in all these file cabinets.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only thing -- I mean, I
-- you've convinced me to go along with this, even though I
wasn't keen on it early on, but you mentioned going to
Walmart. I know you were just saying Walmart; I think you
really --
SHERIh'F HIERHOLZER: I meant that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- you need to get with
Shaun. And I --
5 13-0.'
41
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
l6
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I was going to say the
same thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to
make -- I mean, buying the cheapest isn't always best when
it comes to computers. We need to get computers that will
work with our system, and he can build them, I believe.
Didn't he build one recently?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Very, very clever, and
probably much better.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Beauty of working it
through Shaun -- and I'm totally in favor of the request,
but the beauty of working it through Shaun is that you will
insure compatibility with the Ableterm system, and you'll be
able to make sure that he knows what's there, so that if
there is maintenance required, I would --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- highly recommend
that you do that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, Shaun knows that.
He works -- he's got one of our computers right now that was
down, that I hope to get back pretty quick, because he's had
it over a week now. But we're still doing that, and we do
work with him, and he understands. He's been out there a
lot in the last few weeks.
5 13 ~~2
42

/'~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You may be able to end
up with a lot more computer for the same money.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's just the ones they
had gone to before when they were replacing computers, in my
opinion, they were spending two to three times what you need
to spend on a computer. I just want to get away from some
of that. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, did I hear you
say the reason you have money left over in your Capital
Outlay is because of smart shopping throughout the year? Or
why do you --
SHERIFF H7ERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- why do you suddenly
have some money left over?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, some of it was
when we equipped the cars, you know, we got into the Capital
Outlay with the car equipment and the new cars. We used
some old equipment. We also got better prices on some of
the newer equipment, and then Tommy realigned some of this
stuff after the budget to where some of the equipment
maintenance came out of different line items and in
different areas than I thought it was originally going to
come out of, okay? And, in doing his realignment, it's
dropped some of my line items a little bit lower than what
I'd like to see, but it left some in other places, too.
5-13-u
43

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
2I
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. Not
that I like what I just heard, but that's good. You've
obviously been -- you're a smart shopper, saving the County
money. I appreciate that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, like I said, we do
-- we try and do a lot using seized computers. I've used
one from my house. I mean, just trying to do that, but we
are at a point in those computers that we've had out there,
that we're going to -- I'm going to have to seriously look
at replacing quite a few computers in the upcoming budget
year. Then I'll probably come back, 'cause there's some
other things with seven years out there now. I had three
cameras go out last week in the jail, and there's no funds.
So, next budget --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'd better vote; it's
getting bad.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, I'll make the
motion that we approve the reallocation of Capital Outlay
funds to purchase a computer and computer equipment for the
Personnel Office in the Sheriff's Department, with the
proviso that that be coordinated through Shaun, to --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- to make sure we're
5-13-02
44

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
getting the best bang for the buck.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court
authorize reallocation of leftover funds in the Capital
Outlay budget for the Sheriff's Department in order to
purchase a computer and computer-related equipment for the
Personnel Office in the Sheriff's Department.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, usually we
actually put an actual number in the -- when we're
transferring, we actually put an actual number. Are we
saying here that we're transferring the remainder of the
Capital Outlay funds, everything over?
JUDGE HENNEKE: This is actually not a
transfer. It's just adding a computer to the approved list
of --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We don't have to come
back as a budget amendment, right?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, because he's got the
money in his budget. Just do the line item.
SHERIFF HLERHOLZER: All we're going to do is
whatever the computer costs. It won't be that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see what you're
saying. You're just adding the computer to the -- to the
Capital Outlay line.
s-i3-oz
45

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1/
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. 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.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank you.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Sheriff. Item
Number 5, consider and approve the final development plan
for Cedar Ridge Mobile Home Park, Precinct 1. Franklin?
Commissioner Baldwin, I guess.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin. You were
right the first time.
MR. JOHNSTON: Actually, when this was put on
the agenda last Tuesday, I was out of town. The owner came
in and requested it. Subsequently, I inspected the site,
and it's not ready for my approval yet. I think we'll pass
on this till such time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And I'm glad
you're doing that; it would save me to do it. I'm having a
hard time understanding why -- why we do it this way right
here, and I guess we need to sit down and have a visit about
it. But if, in your letter to Mr. Barney here, you're
telling him that the detention and drainage structure needs
to be constructed, the roads -- something needs to happen to
-13 ~i?

'--
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1a
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
the roads, something needs to happen to the signs, U.G.R.A.,
Headwaters, and the 911 and telephone, on and on and on and
on, I would rather see all that done before it even comes in
here. I mean, you're coming in here with a letter that's
saying you need to go do these things. Pick up a phone and
tell him to go do those things, and then I'll take it to
Commissioners Court.
MR. JOHNSTON: Like I said, there's a
misunderstanding, 'cause I wasn't here to really put it on
the agenda. He came in and it was --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: -- it was put on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll let that go,
then. I'm not going to let it go next time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with Commissioner
Baldwin's point. We need to look, 'cause we have not -- is
this the first? The first that we've dealt with development
plans, and in visiting Headwaters, they had some confusion
with it as well. We need to look at that and figure out --
maybe get a different routing slip or something when it
comes to these development plans, because these are not
plats. They come to us one time for one approval, and --
and, Franklin, I'm not even to the fee structure; I'm not
sure there's even authority for the fee structure. I'm not
thinking of looking at that, but anyway, these are -- it's
5-i3-02
47
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
different than a subdivision plat.
MR. JOHNSTON: It is different.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And a different part of
the Code that we qet our authority to do it, so it's a -- we
probably need to work through a, you know, format.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think there's a --
and a broader issue is -- is that I would personally like to
see these -- anything, subdivision plats or whatever, not
come to the court until you are ready to recommend approval.
Or that there is an issue that cannot be resolved between
you and the developer or whatever, and that you need to
bring that to the court for resolution, and that that would
be the only two times we would see anything, preliminary or
final, but that it not come to Court until you're satisfied
that all of the --
MR. JOHNSTON: And it wouldn't have --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- your matters have
been met and you're ready to recommend approval. Because
id's sometimes a little contusing to me when you -- we have
it on the agenda, you get to the podium, and I'm wondering,
is FLanklin in favor of it or is he not? And I would just
like to have it where, when it comes to the -- when it's on
the agenda, either you have said that -- you have told us --
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIr'r'iN: -- implied to us that
5 13-0'
48

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
y
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2J
it's ready for your approval, or that I can't handle this,
and you guys are going to have to do it.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the only two
times I'd like to see them.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Before we go to the next
agenda item, though, on a larger issue, there was a lot of
talk not too long ago about the Court being opposed to
manufactured homes, and that we adopted the State's
manufactured home infrastructure requirements because we
didn't like manufactured homes and we wanted to stop growth
in the county, and I'm glad to see that we have the first
one that's worked its way to us. It's just a process. It's
I
not a bias, it's a process. It's a process designed to
protect the people who live in manufactured home rental
communities, so I'm glad to see that the lie has been put to
that allegation and that we have the first one that's
actually made its way to us. Okay. Let's move on to Item
Number 6, consider the preliminary plat for Hidden Hills Two
in Precinct 2. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Johnston.
MR. JOHNSTON: This one goes with the next
agenda item. In fact, it may be easier to do 7 first. This
one depends on a road that's being considered in Number ~.
We can do this one and then kind of consider them both at
5-13-03
99
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the same time.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Well, let's go ahead
and call up Item Number 7 simultaneously, which is consider
the preliminary revision of plat for Hidden Hills, Precinct
2. Explain them both together.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right. Item 7 extends a
road -- a private road called Hidden Hi11s Ranch Road, as
indicated on the plat. I don't have a total length on it;
it's half a mile or so, with a cul-de-sac in the existing
Lot 11. And Lot 11 is broken up into three lots, being
25 acres, 30 acres, and 92 acres, and it's served by this
I road addition.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So, we're being asked to
approve the preliminary plat and then to approve a revision
to the preliminary plat; is that correct?
MR. JOHNSTON: There is a revision to the
existing subdivision, Hidden Hills. The next one is
actually property adjacent to it. That would be --
JUDGE HENNEKE: I see.
MR. JOHNSTON: -- incorporated into Hidden
Hills. 1 think that's the procedure. And the adjacent
property will be -- have access off this road that we're
approving now.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Does anyone have any
questions regarding these two?
5-i~-n~
50
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
MR. JOHNSTON: Don Voelkel used the wrong
terminology here; he used "replat" instead of "plat
revision". That will be taken care of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the proper
terminology?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Revision of plat.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Revision of plat.
That's what it says on Number 7, revision of plat.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Does anyone have any
questions? If not, let's --
MR. JOHNSTON: It's called a plat revision.
I guess we'll have to set a public hearing for the final
plat for the rest of it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's go, first of all, with
Item Number 6, consider the preliminary plat for Hidden
Hills Two in Precinct 2. Do we have a motion to approve the
preliminary plat for Hidden Hills Two in Precinct 2?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved, Judge.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
approve the preliminary plat for Hidden Hills Two in
Precinct 2. Any questions or comments? If not, all in
favor, raise your right hand.
-13-ri
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
51
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Item Number 7 is consider the
preliminary revision of plat for Hidden Hills in Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does this -- this
doesn't require a public hearing, does it? It does?
MR. JOHNSTON: It's a plat revision, yes,
sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. What date are
we looking at here? Notifications have to go out, so we're
looking about the first meeting in June?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second meeting in
June. The date of that would be?
JUDGE HENNEKE: 24th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's right.
MS. SOVIL: 24th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 24th. I would move
consideration of the preliminary revision of plat for Hidden
Hills Subdivision in Precinct 2 and set a public hearing for
same for the Commissioners Court meeting on June 24th, at
10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
s i9-uz
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Williams, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court
approve the preliminary revision of plat for Hidden Hills
Subdivision in Precinct 2 and set a public hearing for same
for 10 o'clock a.m. on Monday, June 24th, Year 2002, here in
the Kerr County Commissioners Court.
MR. JOHNSTON: Might also want to add that
the -- all the owners in Hidden Hills have -- have amended
their covenants and restrictions so that the people in
Hidden Hills Two, since that's an addition to the
subdivision, can use this road as access.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's on file.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
DODGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Let's see if
we can't go ahead and get Item Number 8 in before we have
the public hearing. Consider the final plat of Cutoff
Business Park with the following variances: Lot size,
drainage, utilities installation, driveway intervals,
Precinct 4. Commissioner Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. And the Court
will remember that this is one that we had -- we've had
5 13 0'
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 S
several times on the agenda, but the last time, I think
there were two or three issues that needed to still be
addressed, and I assume those have been --
MR. JOHNSTON: I think the maintenance Letter
of Credit was not present that last time. I think that has
now been presented. I think a copy is in your agenda.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And then we had agreed
to the variances and that sort of thing, but had not taken a
vote.
MR. JOHNSTON: Everyone on the mylar has
agreed -- has signed off except the -- the City of Ingram.
It's been through their City Council, and they have a little
memo they sent out that -- that they've approved it subject
to the Commissioners Court approving it and approving the
agenda -- the variances. So, it's a chicken-egg deal going
on here. Is the mayor of Ingram here? The mayor was
supposed to come today to sign it. I guess we can approve
it subject to their signing it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What did get resolved on the
drainage issue?
MR. JOHNSTON: We had a letter from the
engineer that designed it, said it was installed or is
designed. I think that settles that question.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It was installed or designed,
but does it -- the issue of the runoff --
- 1 3 ~
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, it runs into a public
waterway, Nichols Creek, and then it runs into the river.
And his study indicated it wouldn't really raise the
floodplain in that area or actually change --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That was -- the
critical issue on that was that it would not raise the
floodplain in the area when we signed off on that.
MR. JOHNSTON: Our rules say the actual
runoff through a subdivision should -- should be decreased
due to water impoundment. This one did have that, but it
didn't really increase it; it just kind of went through.
That's what the variance is all about, 'cause to really meet
our rules, it would have had to reduce to it 80 percent of
the -- from the pre-construction to the post-construction.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Which I never quite
understood.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's what the variance is
about.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, I would move that
we approve the final plat of Cutoff Business Park with the
four variances that we had discussed earlier, and authorize
the County Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second, with a comment.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Letz, that the Court approve
s-i~- ~.
55

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
the final plat of Cutoff Business Park in Precinct 4 with a
variance as to lot size, drainage, the location of
utilities, and the spacing for the commercial driveways.
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My comment is, our
Subdivision Rules really don't contemplate commercial
developments in the county, and the revision we're looking
at, we talked about modifying that a little bit, and we'll
bring that up at the public hearing. So, while we're
granting the variances here, I think after we do the
subdivision review, it will kind of explain why -- or why we
did that, because these need to be looked at on a
case-by-case analysis. Using the rest of our subdivision
rules as a guide doesn't make sense, because there are
different types of developments, so I think these various
issues will be addressed in the modification of the
subdivision rules and discussed at the public hearing.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
comments?
MR. JOHNSTON: Do you want to add anything
about signing -- or have the Judge sign it after the mayor
signs it, City Council --
JUDGE HENNEKE: Our procedure is that I'm the
last signature, so we've approved it. Once he -- once he
signs it, then I'll sign it. So, any other questions or
5-i3 oa
56

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comments? If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. At this
time, we will recess the Kerr County Commissioners Court
meeting and conduct a public hearing concerning the
abandonment of Pier 5 Drive in Precinct 4.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 10:04 a.m., and a public hearing
was held in open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE HENNEKE: Public notice of this hearing
has been given three times in the past three weeks, pursuant
to an application of the owners of property for the
abandonment of Pier 5 Drive South in Kerr County. Anyone
wishing to address the Court on the issue of the abandonment
of Pier 5 Drive in Precinct 4 may come forward and do so at
this time.
MR. TERRELL: Morning. My name's Tom
Terrell. I represent Mr. and Mrs. Wardroup and Mr. and
Ms. Mertl. And this is Mr. Simpson here?
MR. SIMPSON: Yes, sir.
MR. TERRELL: All right. I think we can cut
this short, gentlemen, by announcing that the parties are in
agreement. Is that correct?
5-13-n2
57
1
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. SIMPSON: Yes, sir.
MR. TERRELL: And that, generally, the
agreement is the parties have gone out on the ground, have
marked a place right here -- is this right?
MR. MERTL: Where the road turns --
MR. TERRELL: Right here.
MR. MERTL: Yeah, that's it.
MR. SIMPSON: At the end of his fence there,
right.
MR. TERRELL: Everybody agree on that point?
Okay. Anyway, they have agreed that -- this is the Mertl
property -- that a line can be drawn from this corner of the
Mertl property eastward across the road. Mr. Simpson owns
all this in here, and that this portion north of this
line -- that would be -- that way can be discontinued and
abandoned, but that the application as regards the lines
south of that Cade Loop would be denied, and its existence
as a dedicated public road would continue in effect for that
south portion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If my memory serves
me, that's what the good Commissioner from Precinct 9
suggested to happen.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, and actually,
I'm going to compliment all of the people --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you don't take the
-i~-~~~
58
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
credit, I am.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I'll take the
credit. But the people involved got together and -- and
they came up with a workable solution, and that's the way it
ought to work. And I applaud --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- everybody
concerned. And I think that -- that what we'll have to do
is, when we come out of the public hearing, is we're going
to have to probably come up with a way to get this legally
defined. But, I appreciate everybody's effort on it.
MR. TERRELL: In this connection, in fact, I
have drafted a document called a Roadway Deed and Agreement,
which is only an agreement between the parties. I've also
done a little rough draft and order to Commissioners Court,
which I guess I should give to Mr. Motley here.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We may want to defer
that -- Judge,	you may.		
	JUDGE HENNEKE:	We're in a public	hearing
now. We need to
MR. TERRELL: All right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there anyone else who'd
like to address the Court on the issue"? Mr. Simpson?
MR. SIMPSON: I just wanted to clarify that
this would not affect our ability to be able to -- as it is,
5 1'-02
59

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
that's an entire subdivision that we've bought. It's
subdivided into 12 lots. And, in case we did want to still
sell a lot, that abandoning that public road is not going to
reduce our ability to do so, is it?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No, it stays -- stays
as a private road.
MR. SIMPSON: So it's just going to be a
private road; we'll still be able to sell a lot if we need
to, so people have an easement down to it. That's my only
question.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone else who'd like to
make any comments during this public hearing regarding the
issue of the abandonment of Pier 5 Road'?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a comment on
Mr. Simpson's point, though, and Mr. Terrell may want to
respond. In the agreement that -- whatever you draft to
abandon it, it needs to stay a road. You don't want to
abandon it to the point that there's not a road there any
more. If you're considering at some point -- if you
eliminate that access completely and then you need to give a
right-of-way to someone, that right-of-way's going to
trigger having to replat that subdivision.
MR. SIMPSON: I don't want to have to do
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: YOU need t0 make Sure
5-13-02
60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 S
that you're -- maybe through agreement. I'm not sure that
you're -- you know, the abandonment language, be very
careful that there's some sort of a right-of-way or
something there still.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Not vacate the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're not vacating.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Not vacating it. It's
abandoning.
MR. TERRELL: The problem -- I agree, we need
some language where he reserves it as a private road.
JUDGE HENNEKE: By definition, it will be a
private road if we abandon it as a public road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other comments during the
public hearing? If not, we will close the public hearing
and reconvene the regular scheduled meeting of the Kerr
County Commissioners Court.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:10
a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
DODGE HENNEKE: The next item for
consideration is Item Number 10, which is to consider
changing the status of Pier 5 Drive from public to private.
Commissioner Griffin.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. And this is
- 1 3 - ~
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
L S
where I think we probably need to get the help of the County
Attorney, perhaps, because we are either -- as I understand
the statute, we're either shortening the road or we're
abandoning a portion, and I think it may be able -- we may
be able to do that either way, but I think we probably need
to make sure we have the language right for that order. And
perhaps what Mr. Terrell has written would be a good
starting point, but I would like to get the County
Attorney's review of that to make sure we're doing it in
accordance --
MR. MOTLEY: The idea is that they're just
going to abandon the maintenance of the road? The County's
going to abandon maintenance?
MR. MERTL: You don't maintain it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's not a
county-maintained road. What we're going to do is abandon
it as a public right-of-way, as according -- according to
the agreement that was reached. We've abandoned the public
right-of-way, but we are not vacating it as a road. We
still maintain -- I just want to make sure we get that right
in the language of the order. And --
MR. JOHNSTON: Might need a survey to get a
legal description of what part we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Exactly. So there may
be more to this than meets the eye, is all I'm saying, and I
5-13-G2
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
62
think we need to make sure -- we just need to defer this to
perhaps the next meeting to act on that order, to -- to make
sure that everything is correct.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, either that, or we go
ahead and -- and --
MR. MOTLEY: I thought it was just right at
the property line, what they were talking about, putting a
gate further north, and then south of that point, leaving it
as-is.
MR. TERRELL: We have a defined corner of the
Mertl property, then just go east. I don't think we need
the expense of a survey.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Well, I think everyone
understands where we are. When we have the proper
documentation, we'll bring it back to court for the official
order changing the status of Pier 5 Drive from the agreed
upon point north into the Simpsons' property from public to
private, but continuing it as a road. Okay?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And, David, I'll get
with you with some of the other backup that you may not
have.
MR. MOTLEY:
MR. TERRELL:
regular meeting?
JUDGE HENNEKE
Okay.
Well, will that be at the next
We'll shoot for that, yes,
5-13-0'
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
63
sir.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You bet.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right. Next item is Item
Number 11, consider and approve road name changes for
privately maintained roads in Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, these are
names submitted and obviously approved by the landowners,
property owners. They're private. They comply with the 911
guidelines, and I would move their adoption.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
approve road name changes for privately maintained roads in
Precinct 2. For the record, the existing road name of
Reagan Lane East is being changed to Kindred Trail East.
That's in the Elm Pass II subdivision. And the unnamed road
3012 East is being changed to Purple Star Drive East. 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. Item Number
12, consider and discuss request by the Pipeline Group to
reduce the current charges for use of the Ag Barn at last
s i3 0_
64
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
year's cost. Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. As you see
in the note in the -- in the packet, I'd received a phone
call from the Pipeline Group that has been coming into Kerr
County for a number of years and putting on classes that I
understand some of our local volunteer fire departments go
to, and I understand that some of the Road and Bridge --
Kerr County Road and Bridge Department goes to, and it's
safety courses on things that are underground, underground
facilities. And they come in and they teach all of those
classes free of charge, and also provide a meal for all
those that attend. And -- and we're all invited, as well.
But their request is -- and I'm sorry, I don't know what
the -- what the price is for this year, but last -- last
year, their request is that -- that we go back to last
year's prices, which was a $172 rental fee out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is -- is
from a -- to make it easier, to me, we ought to either waive
all the fees, or they go to the 25 percent or 75 percent
reduction. I mean, trying to set different fees for
everyone, to me, is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's fine. I
don't think that that's a big deal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, if it's
serving county fire departments, volunteer fire departments
s-i~-~z
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
65
and our County staff, I think we should waive all the fees.
I don't think we should charge anything, really. I mean,
but I think I am opposed to having a -- different than our
scheduled fee. I think we can adjust the category they go
into, but I don't think we should create a new structure
just for one entity.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm -- I'm sure that
that would be fine for them. I think that was just their
first thought, is let's go back to what -- you know, we're
willing to pay what we did last year. I don't know that,
but --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What does it take to
get into the 75 percent?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 75 percent may give
them a break -- may give them a better deal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would just be a
nonprofit, but not Kerr County. Kerr County is free, but
nonprofits use it at 75 percent reduction. Isn't that
right, Bill?
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is Pipeline Group a
nonprofit?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not a nonprofit. To
me, it's more in the category of county use, personally.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Franklin, does your
s i~-=_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
66
organization use -- go to this function?
MR. JOHNSTON: They do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-huh. And some
volunteer fire departments, I don't know who else. Those
are just two entities.
MR. JOHNSTON: They prevent people who do
underground -- do excavation from digging the pipes or phone
lines or that type of thing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: City telephone
company, all those. Letz needs to go to it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, it -- I agree,
it's a good cause and we probably need to take a hard look
at that. If it's -- if it's benefitting our employees and
volunteer fire departments, et cetera, perhaps we should --
they should be in the category of having the fee waived.
Does that make sense?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It does to me. Let's
try that in the form of a court order and see what happens.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I move that we waive
the fee for this group.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that
motion.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Griffin, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
5-13-02
.-~
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
L J
24
25
67
waive the fee for the use by the Pipeline Group of the	Hill
Country Youth Exhibition Center for a safety program	
regarding underground facilities to be held on August	6,
Year 2002. 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.	
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.	
JUDGE HENNEKE: Gentlemen, at this time	I'm
going to suggest we take our break.	
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with you.	
JUDGE HENNEKE: And reconvene at 10:35.	
(Recess taken from 10:20 a.m. to 10:35	a.m.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll reconvene this regular
session of the Kerr County Commissioners Court. The next
item for consideration is Item Number 13, which is consider
and discuss bids received and award a construction contract
for the 2002 T.C.D.P. Wastewater Project, Phase I, in
Kerrville South. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, in your
absence on Thursday, we had a commission -- special
Commissioners Court meeting at which we accepted the bids
5-13-02

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
68
that were submitted for the Kerrville South sanitary sewer
project, T.C.D.P. Contract 721075, which would be for the
construction of Riverhill sanitary sewer bypass and the
Rolling Green lift station abandonment. I have
correspondence here from Tetra Tech, Inc., engineer on this
project, and they are recommending -- let me read it into
the record, the three -- the three bids. Compton
Enterprises bids a total of $301,355, which is a base bid of
$221,675, and additive alternative number 1 of $79,680.
D.W. Contractors bids on the base $191,140, and on the
additive, $110,470. And M.B. Bender Company bids on the
base $260,113.5, and on the additive, $154,160. The
engineer on the project recommends that the low bidder,
Compton Enterprises, L.L.C., with a base bid of $221,675 and
an alternate additive of $79,608, for a total bid of
$301,355, be -- that the bid be awarded to Compton
Enterprises in the total amount of $301,355, and I so move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
award the bid for the Kerrville South sanitary sewer
project, T.C.D.P. Contract 721075, Riverhill sanitary sewer
bypass and Rolling Green lift station abandonment, to
Compton Enterprises for a total bid of $301,355.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Comment. Just --
s-i3-oz

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2L
23
24
25
69
Commissioner Williams reading all those numbers, I don't
know if everyone is aware how close those bids were.
Compton's won that -- won their bid by $255. And $255 on
300 -- over $300,000 bid is a pretty close bid. Pretty
competitive.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You bet it is.
JUDGE HENNEKE: 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. Next item,
Item Number 14, consider and discuss amending the Kerrville
South construction fund budget to provide funding not to
exceed 56,200 Tor attorney's fees to develop the regional
wastewater treatment contract between the U.G.R.A. and the
City of Kerrville, with any unused funds to be returned to
the construction fund.
CUMM15SlUNER WILLIAMS: This has been --
Judge, this has been reviewed by the Grantworks folks, who
say this expense is an appropriate expense. It is for the
attorney's fees to draft the contract between U.G.R.A, and
the City of Kerrville for the treatment of the effluent that
comes from this project. And, as this item says, if all of
that $6,200 is not used, the remainder would be returned to
5-i~-nom
70

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the construction budget fund. I so move.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second the
motion.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court
amend the Kerrville South construction fund budget to
provide funding not to exceed $6,200 for attorney's fees to
develop the regional wastewater treatment contract between
U.G.R.A. and the City of Kerrville, with any unused funds to
be returned to the construction fund. 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. Next item,
Item Number 15, is to consider and discuss authorizing
Grantworks to submit the 2001 T.C.D.A. Comprehensive Plan to
the Office of Rural Community Affairs for their review,
concurrent with the County's final review of the documents.
Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last Thursday also,
Judge, in your absence, there was some discussion about
designation of Silver Creek Estates -- and that was the only
one referenced in those discussions -- being categorized in
-i3-°=

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
24
25
~1
the plan as a colonia. And I asked the Grantworks folks
present to take a look at that and come up with some
suggestion as to how we can accommodate the concerns of the
folks who live in that particular area. This morning, when
I cleaned out my e-mail box, I had an e-mail from
Mr. Hartzell of Grantworks, who is present today and will
speak on this issue also, and it says, We can designate
certain marginal, quote, unquote, colonia areas such as
Silver Creek Estates, Quail Run, Fawn Run, so forth as,
quote, potentially eligible rural subdivisions, unquote,
instead of colonia areas. It would serve the purpose of
differentiating between these areas and those with serious
identified needs, such as Kerrville South, Blue Ridge, Wood
Creek, Hill River, et cetera, while still giving the County
the flexibility it needs in using grant funds at some future
date for those areas if and when we determine to do so. We
can also simply eliminate certain areas from the plan if the
Court wishes.
To be honest, part of the reason we left in
the more marginal colonia areas was that we had information
on housing, land use, drainage, water, et cetera, et cetera,
et cetera, and figured it would be useful for the County and
U.G.R.A. to have it for future reference. This brings us
back to the previous idea of renaming the marginal areas to
something which would be less offensive. It also goes on to
5-13-0
72
i
1

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
say that, Be advised that we can make any changes prior to
court on Monday. I don't think we lose face by reevaluating
our designations, since several colonia areas do not fit the
public image very well, despite meeting the H.U.D.
definition. Mr. Hartzell, would you like to expand on that,
please?
MR. HARTZELL: Sure. Gifts, as well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Box of stuff.
MR. HARTZELL: Oh, yeah. Yeah. My name Eric
Hartzell of Grantworks in Austin. This is Robin Sisco from
Grantworks also. Thanks for having us here today. Yeah, I
heard from Dave Tucker, who was present on a different issue
at the last meeting, about the issue, and so that was my
response to the Commissioner. I have a -- have you had --
oh, she's handing it out to you, great. Within the handout
that Robin's passing around, there's a little bit more
explanation of what this particular grant program, the
Community Development Block Grant program, considers to be a
colonia area. It's sort of a similar situation to the term
"rural." Every program, every agency, every entity has a
different definition for what is rural. Colonias have
multiple definitions, depending on which program you're
talking about.
The way that the C. D.B.G., Community
Development Block Grant program, defines Colonias is on the
s-i3-~~
73
.-~
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
second page of the handout: An unincorporated community
with 10 or more housing units with density of at least one
unit per three acres in the developed area, and it is
thought to have a low to moderate income population of at
least 51 percent. That can be verified through census data,
or it can be verified prior to a construction project
through a door-to-door survey. Then the other criteria
would be a significant portion of substandard housing, or
lacking centralized water or sewer service. And these are
the areas, again, that are the most likely to qualify for
grant assistance from the Colonia Fund or the Community
Development Fund or any of the other programs that are out
there for water and sewer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Eric, let me
interrupt for a minute and ask you a question. What are the
benchmark numbers for low to moderate income?
MR. HARTZELL: The benchmark income numbers
for low to moderate income are -- man, I don't have that
with me. 1 believe in Kerr County, a family of four is
533,000, maybe a little bit higher than that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
MR. HARTZELL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If I might interrupt
again, Eric?
MR. HARTZELL: Yeah.
s-13-02
74
1
~^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~.. 13
i 14
15
I
16
` 17
1 18
19
20
21
22
23
.-- 2 4
25
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That "or" -- 'cause I
went and looked this up, too, after our last meeting. That
"or" in there is a big conjunction, because if you just lack
centralized water or sewer services, and low to moderate
income, 51 percent, that meets the definition. It doesn't
have to have substandard housing.
MR. HARTZELL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Quote, unquote,
substandard, which I know concerns some people. And so
it's -- it's -- if you have a colonia designation, it
doesn't necessarily mean that that area even has substandard
housing --
MR. HARTZELL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- necessarily.
MR. HARTZELL: It means it qualifies for the
grant programs.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN:
grant program, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS
Eric.
It qualifies for the
Okay. Thank you,
MR. HARTZELL: Okay. Then -- so what we did
is, on certain areas such as Silver Creek, and I believe
there are three other areas that we redesignated after
looking at the data, these areas have the density and they
lack the services, but they are -- they don't have the
5-13-n2
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ly
20
21
22
23
24
25
75
housing problems that Commissioner Griffin -- Commissioner
Griffin mentioned, and so we redesignated those areas as
potentially eligible. They would require a -- they may have
qualified for assistance at some future date, but they would
require a door-to-door survey of incomes before any kind of
project would be able to go forward there. And that was
sort of in anticipation of -- of what had happened at the
previous meeting, and we went ahead and made that change
already.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You made -- or in your
e-mail, I guess, you mentioned a different definition or a
different term -- different terminology.
MR. HARTZELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the terminology
again?
MR. HARTZELL: Potentially eligible area. I
couldn't think of a good one. That was about as close as I
could get without --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A P.E.A.
MR. HARTZELL: A pea, there you go. I --
it's an area that's not a colonia, but it's possibly
eligible for some of these programs.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you have made
those modifications to the Kerr County plan?
MR. HARTZELL: Yes, we have.
5-13-u
1
...,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
zl
22
23
29
25
76
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I guess your --
your summary sheet, then, would reduce it from the previous
summary you gave us where you identified 15 potential areas.
Now you're identifying 13, and you're saying there are four
potentially eligible areas.
MR. HARTZELL: Right, there are 13. Because
at the workshop that was held with the U.G.R.A. and the
Commissioners Court about two weeks ago, two and a half
weeks ago, there were two additional areas identified by, I
believe, one of the Commissioners? Yes. And these areas
were, indeed, qualified -- qualified for the program, and so
those were added. So now we have a total number of areas --
total areas of 17, four of which we've redesignated as
potentially eligible, and 13 of which remain definitely
eligible.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we were to find
additional areas or pockets or something happens, can we add
-- how hard is it to amend --
MR. HARTZELL: Easily. Very easy to amend
the list. This is not an official designation by the Court
or by the State. It's a working document that can be
modified at any time. It can be -- it's used for reference.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we use the other
terminology everywhere, or do we have to call the other ones
5-i3-02

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
77
colonias? And the reason -- only reason is that it is an
offensive term to some people. And --
MR. HARTZELL: Yeah. It's a -- it's a
Colonia Plan funded from the Colonia Program, so it would be
kind of hard for us to get away with it. We could -- what
we could do possibly is, we'll turn in -- what we turn in to
the State for their review could use that terminology that
they require, and then we could come back later and modify
the language in the County's plan.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This may be something
we want to take up with Harvey, and say that -- you know,
that, how about working on this next time around and just
come up with a different name? It --
MR. HARTZELL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- would work.
MR. HARTZELL: An either/or name, maybe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think whatever's in the
State plan should be in the County plan. I'm not in favor
of having -- just to make it like we're not calling
something -- either we're calling .it or not calling it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I tell you, this
"potentially eligible," those words really give me
goosebumps. It makes me so happy, it feels good.
(Laughter.)
MR. HARTZELL: Great.
5-13-0'
I
.-~
1

Y
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
~s
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all we're doing
here.
MR. HARTZELL: Right. Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're feeling good.
MR. HARTZELL: It's semantics.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Playing
Dr. Feel-Good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And
goosebumps -- this is goosebumps words, sure.
MR. HARTZELL: Sure. The whole point of the
plan is to identify those areas that may be eligible for
assistance -- might need the assistance and might be
eligible for the assistance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is the review by the Office
of Rural Community Affairs a requirement of the grant?
MR. HARTZELL: Yes. That's the order -- yes,
it's a requirement. It's the final stage. Their -- what
they will do is, they will review to make sure that all the
elements are in place. They won't review it for content,
per se.
JUDGE HENNEKE: What is the benefit of
submitting it for review by the Office of Rural Community
Affairs before the Court accepts and approves the final
document?
5-13-02
79
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
24
25
MR. HARTZELL: Because you can do that
concurrently. And what will happen is, at the very end,
after you've done your review and the State has done its
review, any changes can be made at once, and then it will
come to you for final approval with the State's -- the
State's changes would be structural, or, "You didn't address
this requirement of your contract." It's not going to have
anything to do with your content. I'm more worried about
content with the Court and structure with the State, so I
want to make sure that we make all corrections at once.
JUDGE HENNEKE: All right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Saves from us having
to do it twice, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can I amend the --
well, I'll make a motion which would amend a couple things,
and see if this will do it. That we authorize Grantworks to
submit the 2001 T.C.D.A. Colonia Comprehensive Plan as
amended to the Office of Rural Community Affairs for its
review prior to the County's final review of the document.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
authorize Grantworks to submit the 2001 T.C.D.A.
Comprehensive Plan as amended to the Office of Rural
Community Affairs for their review prior to the County's
s-ia-u2
80
1
,-~
1

f
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
zo
zl
22
23
24
25
final review	of the document. Any	questions or comments?
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	Eric, are you sure that
you added the	ones -- well,	I assu	me that you -- the ones --
the two that	I brought up.		
	MR. HARTZELL:	The	Blue Ridge -- Blue Ridge,
I believe, wa	s one. It's be	tween	Ingram and Kerrville.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	No, that's not mine.
	MR. HARTZELL:	That	wasn't yours? There was
one over by C	omfort.		
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	The one by Comfort.
	MR. HARTZELL:	Yeah	.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	And -- okay. There was
another one o	ver near that,	halfwa	y between Comfort and
Center Point,	too. I'm not	sure -	- over there where the
old, uh --			
MR. HARTZELL: There were two areas north of
Center Point'?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think I had
identified one of those.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where the old rodeo arena
used to be, back behind Calvary Temple Church.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Behind Calvary Temple
Church? I didn't identify that one.
MR. HARTZELL: I don't remember that one.
What's the exact location? And we can go look.
5-13 02
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: About halfway between
Comfort and Center Point, there's a little church there
called Calvary Temple Church.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Behind there on the north
side of 27, Nickerson Farm. It's --
MR. HARTZELL: It's off of Highway 27 on the
north side behind the Calvary Temple Church?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a road there.
MS. PIEPER: Nickerson Farm Road.
MR. HARTZELL: Nickerson Farm Road.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think the road is Nicks
Road.
MS. PIEPER: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You'll check that
out?
MR. HARTZELL: Yes. Eighteen areas, then.
Okay. Yeah, we'll go check right now.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Before we vote on this, we
have a request by Mr. Lewis Cosby to address us on the
issue. Mr. Cosby, are you in the courtroom?
MR. COSBY: Yes, sir.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Come forward, please, sir.
MR. COSBY: Morning, gentlemen, and thank you
for allowing me to speak this morning. And I wanted to tell
you thanks for this. I appreciate it. Commissioner
-13-02
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Williams, thank you. Mr. Hartzell, thank you also, sir, for
taking another look at this. I appreciate that. And, as
long as we can -- as the newspaper -- I'm sure they're here;
both newspapers are here. If they'll get the word out, that
will make me feel a lot better about my property values if I
decide to sell something. But, again, thank you very much.
JUDGE HENNEKE: You're welcome. Thank you,
Mr. Cosby. Any other questions or comments? If not, all in
favor of the motion, raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carries. Seeing
Ms. Mindy in the audience, did you have an answer for us on
that first --
MS. WILLIAMS: I think I do.
JUDGE HENNEKE: We're going back here,
gentlemen, to Budget Amendment Number 1, which was for the
Commissioners Court in the Professional Services area, if
y'all want to turn to that.
MS. WILLIAMS: I was able to look at the
budget, and I talked with Rusty Hierholzer. I believe that
we will be able to move money out of his Jailers Salary line
item. He's had a few positions that he's not been able to
fill for a while, so he has a surplus there. The amount
5-13-0.
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
that we need to move out of his line item, which is
10-512-104, would be $7,957.87. That covers the two that
are on his department. And I also found that we have moneys
left over from our independent audit. We have a $700
balance left over. I'd like to move $161.10, which will
cover the other item, the -- I believe it was Nancy Cavazos,
deductible. And that line item is 10-409-900. Those two
items together come up to $8,118.97.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nancy Cavazos?
MS. WILLIAM5: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know -- I thought the
name was --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: His mother.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Good work, Mindy.
MS. WILLIAMS: I tried.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to
make a motion that we approve that suggestion.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1 as outlined, and
those funds identified by the Auditor's office. Any
questions or comments? If not, all in favor, raise your
right hand.
s-i~-oz
84
1
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
	(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
	JUDGE HENNEKE: Opposed, same sign.
	(No response.)
	JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion carried.
	MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
	JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you, ma'am. The next
item is Item	Number 16, which is a public hearing on the
proposed revi	sions to the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations.	We're a bit early on this one, so before we
actually conv	ene the public hearing, perhaps Commissioner
Letz has some	introductory comments he'd like to make.
	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Stand up in your
chair, Jon, come on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only introductory
comments I really have on this is, I think we've -- the
Commissioners have all seen the revisions. They've been
announced to the public to look at, as well. And I
approached it a little bit different than the way we do
something in our public hearings; I did not put an action
item on the agenda. We'll do that at our next meeting. I
really wanted -- because this is a confusing document and
there's lots of very small changes, I wanted us to have an
actual completed, revised document that we vote on, as
opposed to hoping we get everything incorporated into it.
But, other than that, I really don't have any comments.
_-z3-o~

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
85
There's a few additional ones that I can either talk about
now that are pretty minor scope, one of them being the
commercial subdivision that we didn't really talk about
earlier, but that is my -- my copy adds language there. And
I really just want to get the public hearing over with so we
can receive comments. I don't think we're changing anything
of substance, really.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I have a question.
Can you sort of outline for us, in two minutes, sort of the
broad areas that have been changed, like commercial
subdivisions, just so that we get a flavor for -- and the
public can get a flavor for what's in there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's changing?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, let's do the Water
Availability Requirements first. That's -- these are in
order also; it's part of the public hearing and the
revisions. There, we're just making some name changes
regarding Headwaters and cleaning up -- cleaning up some
language on the number of connections. And the other change
that we have not talked about before this is under
sufficiency of water, and the language there came up due to
a meeting I had with Cameron -- actually, no, with Cameron's
board members out at Headwaters. And it was -- our language
says a well is deemed to be sufficient -- I'm
5-i3-viz
86
1
~- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-.	13
~	14
~	15
~	16
~
1	17
	18
1	
	19
	20
'	
	21
	22
	23
,.-,	
24
	25
paraphrasing -- if it produces 8 to 10 gallons per minute.
And the discussion was, is it 8 or is it 10? So, let's just
10 gallons per minute will be sufficient or -- or not. So,
that's something -- more of a clean-up type thing. I don't
know why we put that range in there originally.
On the Subdivision Rules, themselves, the --
under commercial driveway, which is one we talked about this
morning, we currently have language regarding condominiums,
land developments, cluster homes or cluster developments,
and I just -- I just added to that paragraph commercial
subdivisions, and we'll delete commercial subdivisions
everywhere else in the rules, because I just don't think --
I think you have to look at each commercial subdivison
independently. That will mean that we will, you know, not
definitely have rules for commercial subdivisions, which is
probably good, considering we had to grant four variances to
get one through this morning. And I think -- and that we'll
put some other language in that same provision that we will
use as a guide. The rest of the Subdivision Rules, we're
not throwing them out the window for these other
special-type developments, but we're going to have to look
at them on a case-by-case basis.
Another major change is on the certifications
s-i~-n,
87
1
.-~ 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-.	13
	19
~	15
	16
	17
	18
i	
~	19
	20
'	
	21
	22
	23
..-~	
29
	25
by Headwaters and by U.G.R.A. And we're pretty much only
asking them to look at the plats that they need to look at.
Right now, they're pretty much reviewing all plats. And,
from a Headwaters standpoint, if -- you know, the only time
they will look at a subdivision is if there's a question on
water availability, basically, interpreting well
information, or let's say public water system with less than
16 connections. Other than that, they're not going to look
at it. It's going to be deemed that if it has -- if it
meets our Subdivision Rules and has the acreage exemption
requirement, water availability, they don't need to look at
it. I think that will save time, and also save developers
money. Every time one of these goes to one of these
agencies, it's a $25 or different fee. And similar with
U.G.R.A. and the on-site -- or our Designated
Representative, Stuart, and the on-site sewage facilities.
They're really not going to look at that many of them,
unless there is less than 5-acre subdivision tracts. If
it's a 5-acre minimum, they don't individually have to go
out and look at each plat -- each subdivision. There would
be language added to each plat that just puts on notice that
prior to construction, the owners are required to, you know,
meet with our -- or be in compliance with our on-site
septic, but they don't look at it ahead of time.
Floodplains will still go through Stuart Barron, our
-i~-oz
88
i
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
representative on floodplains. That will be because of the,
I guess, legal requirements there.
And the other area of major improvement or
major -- I hope it's improvement, is putting in an alternate
plat approval process. It's kind of going back to what we
used to call a minor replat or a minor plat. And I think
there is room for this when we read the State rules. And it
basically says that if you're doing a subdivision with less
than four lots, it can come to the court one time. There's
not a preliminary and final; there's just a final. And this
would also apply for a revision, if you're just making a
revision that's only affecting four plats or four lots or
less.
MR. VOELKEL: No, is it four lots or less, or
under four lots? I think less.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Less than four lots.
MR. VOELKEL: So, actually three lots.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three lots or less on
both of those. And the same thing, revision. They can come
to the court at one time, but the revision still will have
to have the public hearing if it's required currently.
That's something we can't waive if it's a State requirement,
but it should make it a little bit easier. And also, I
might add that it's not mandatory. If the Commissioner of
the precinct wants it to come for a preliminary, if there's
4 i3 v
1
.-. 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~ 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2i
24
25
89
some kind of request that's a little bit strange, the
of each precinct's option. Just some modifications to the
routing slips, that kind of -- and that's something that,
really, when we're finally complete with the revisions and
they're approved by the Court, I'll get with Truby and we'll
go through, make all those routing slips, you know, comply
and work with the -- the rules. And I think the -- there's
a question on cattle guards that we talked about earlier.
I -- from relooking at it, I think our language is pretty
good on cattle guards, I think. But on some road cuts and
some depths, we may look at that, try to make it a little
bit more uniform; probably raise to it 30 inches, because I
think utility companies require about 30 inches instead of
the 36 that we require. That's pretty much it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. At this time, we will
recess the Kerr County Commissioners meeting and open a
public hearing on the proposed revisions to the Kerr County
Subdivision Rules and Regulations, as very quickly outlined
by Commissioner Letz.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 11:04 a.m., and a public hearing
was held in open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE HENNEKE: Is there anyone who would
s i~ az
90
1
.-, 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,,.,	13
1	
	19
	15
	16
	17
	18
`	19
	20
	
	21
	22
	23
.-.	
24
	25
like to address the Court on the issue of the proposed
revisions to the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
MR. VOELKEL: My name is Don Voelkel, and I
just had a -- a question of -- you mentioned the routing
slips and all, how you're trying to tackle them, and I think
it's a good thing we've been doing these. I have a question
about the way -- I didn't notice anything in here changing
the preliminary/final plat, as far as the processes and all,
and maybe I've been misinformed over the years. The way I
read the regulations and the routing slip for final plat,
you have to make the application, submit the plats, get all
the signatures on the routing slip, and you have to submit
it 30 days before the meeting, and that's what it says in
the Subdivision Regulations. And the Subdivision
Regulations on the preliminary plat, it doesn't say 30 days;
it just says submit them to the -- to the Road and Bridge
Department. And in the past, we've gotten those in -- and
it used to say seven days, I think, on the old routing
slips, but somewhere it just changed to 30 days.
And I was trying to submit the one I had this
April. Actually, it was going to -- I had
5-1~,-ez
91
1
~.. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.--	13
~	
	14
	15
	16
	17
	i8
	19
	20
	
	21
	L 2
	23
.-.	
29
	25
it on for -- tried to get it on the first or second meeting
in April, and Truby informed me, "No, it has to be 30 days.
You have to wait 30 days." And I said, "Well, that's not in
the Subdivision Regulations, I know it says it on the
routing slip." And I said, "Why do we have to have 30 days
a]1 the -- you know, the signatures gotten and everybody
reviews it, but I didn't understand the 30 days for the
preliminary. And she said, "Well, we have to have
notification." I said, "Well, I'm notifying everybody. I`m
taking the routing slip around; I'm getting all the
signatures, delivering plats to everybody. I don't
understand why it has to be 30 days." That was my question,
and I didn't see anything in this that specifically
addressed that, and I think it's a confusion from what it
used to be to what evidently is now on the routing slip.
And I didn't know if that's something that
came from y'all, or it -- I don't know why that 30 days came
in on the preliminary, and -- and that's why I wanted to
discuss it, see if y'all felt the need for 30 days before
each meeting. Because this shifted us with -- we should
have been getting final approval sometime in May to
June 24th, and what -- and the reason I'm mentioning this
is, my clients are time-sensitive, money-sensitive. Time is
s is-uz
92

1
2
3
4
5
6
8
y
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
money, and they -- if they have to wait an extra month, it
just costs -- my clients have -- they haven't sold anything
out here, but they have people lined up to buy these, just
waiting on the approvals. And I just wanted to get y'ap's
opinion on it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with you on the --
I'm with you on the preliminary. The -- I don't understand
why we would have this long time frame. But on the final, 1
do.
MR. VOELKEL: Right, and it's in the regs
that way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Need to dot all the
1's, cross all the T's, make sure everything's done
properly. But I agree with you on the first one.
MR. VOELKEL: And I think -- this is my
opinion. That's why I wanted to bring it up to y'all. i
don't see the need for 30 days, especially when it's on us
to notify everybody in the first place. Once we get all the
signatures and everything -- and it used to have seven days
on the original routing slips, that I -- I don't know if --
if they were in place for when Frank came in, or the ones
that originally came up. We had to get the -- submit it to
them seven days prior to the pre-meeting, and then before
the meeting make sure that he gets all of the -- the routing
slip with all the signatures. And then, all of a sudden,
-~3-a
93
1
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
zl
22
23
24
25
the 30 days showed up on the routing slip, and I didn't
really know anything about it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we -- I don't --
Road and Bridge, as I recall, when we had our committee --
MR. VOELKEL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- several years ago, it
was changed at that point, because seven days was too much
for Road and Bridge. I mean, it depends on how the seven
days fell. It was too quick, and it was just changed to 30
days, as I recall, just because that's what we did on the
other one, on final plat approval. I think it needs to be
-- and I don't have any problem with going with a shorter
time at all. I think it's -- you know, as long as Road and
Bridge can get it done reasonably in a shorter period. It
takes a week to get it on the agenda, so, I mean, one week
gone just to get it on our agenda.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN; What I was thinking
while -- while we`ve been talking is that -- is that -- and,
Franklin, I'd like to hear your opinion on this, but I
think, like, 10 days on a preliminary might be enough,
because you -- you just need to review it and make sure that
all the paperwork is there. We're going to get a shot at it
during the preliminary -- or during the discussion on the
preliminary plat, so maybe something like 10 days would
work. And then, because there is this is built-in week just
5 1 3 V 2
94

•--
1
2
3
4
5
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to get it on the agenda, which is -- that would leave maybe
three or four days for --
MR. JOHNSTON: Well, if you think about it,
if you have 10 days, that only gives us three days actually
to look at it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's what I'm
saying.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say 10 working days.
Then you've covered it.
MR. VOELKEL: Well, but once I get it to him
10 days prior, he still has 10 days. It's not like he ends
his review in three days.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right.
MR. VOELKEL: He still has the full 10 days.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: All I'm saying is,
preliminary plat, if you had it 10 days in advance of the
court meeting that it's proposed for the preliminary plat,
that would give you three days to make a quick review,
"Yeah, it looks pretty good," and you've still got the rest
of the week to say, Hey, make sure you got the letter, or
the -- whatever it is that may be required. I think maybe
10 days would be workable for a preliminary, and then the 30
days for the final,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So --
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Does that sound
s-i? o
95

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reasonable, Franklin?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah. I think the problem
also we're having is we -- it didn't give us time to get
feedback from -- you know, if there were any from U.G.R.A.
or Headwaters. Any of the other groups involved, you know,
couldn't turn around that fast and actually make a comment.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the reason I
say, for getting a preliminary plat on the agenda, you could
go ahead, if it looks like it to you and in your judgment
that it's going to be okay, to get it on the agenda. If
things don't work out over the next -- that 10-day period,
when it comes up on the agenda -- that's what I'm talking
about, when you stand up and say, "We didn't get there on
this one. We're going to have to put it off another
session."
MR. JOHNSTON: However, you said this morning
you wanted my approval before it went on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, what -- what I'm
saying is that on a preliminary plat, if you can't get all
the squares -- 99 percent of the time, I think you will on
the preliminary.
MR. VOELKEL: I think some of the onus needs
to go to not just me and Lee, but all the surveyors, to --
don't get it to Frank unless you think it's ready to go.
And there's always little minor things, like I had that --
-13-02
96
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1I
12
13
]4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
instead of "replat," I should have "revision." That's
things we can fix in the next 30 days, you know. We've got
a lot of time to fix it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure.
MR. VOELKEL: But it should be the onus on
the surveyor to say, "Hey, don't take it to Frank unless you
expect it's going to be pretty close," And we have all the
regulations. I mean, it's something -- we're getting to the
point where we're getting pretty close. It's just some
minor little things.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Most of those
preliminary plats, I think you could look at, and in
realtime, and say, "Partner, it ain't ready," you know.
"Bring it back when have you so-and-so and so on." It's --
MR. JOHNSTON: Right, and that works well
with the Voelkels and local surveyors that know the routine,
but we get some in from -- you know, a guy from San Antonio
or Houston or someplace.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. JOHNSTON: Boerne.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And those, you may
have to make a decision right then, "I can't do it in 10
days. Therefore, it ain't going."
MR. JOHNSTON: Maybe there's some discretion
in how long we can take.
5-13-C2
97


,~
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
MR. VOELKEL: But give the local surveyors 10
days.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We11, but the thing
is, the guideline is 10 days minimum. Now, if there's
something that's critical, you know, then maybe it may take
longer.
MR. JOHNSTON: Could be real complicated to
say, "Wait a minute, we need time to look at it." I think
there's some discretion time in there. We might need to --
MR. VOELKEL: But the thing is, if you go
with the 30, then you don't have any discretion, and Frank
can't look at this and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The rules don't say 30.
The rules don't have a date.
MR. VOELKEL: Right, it's just the routing
slip, and I don't know where that -- if it's part of the
rules by the fact it's in there, but that's what I want to
hopefully clarify.
MR. JOHNSTON: Period of time as -- you know,
as determined by the County Engineer or something. Give
them a chance to look at it. If it's simple, it can go
right on through. If it's complicated, I want to take more
time to evaluate iY_.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. And on the
-i~-o,
98


1
`I
r
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
l6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
routing slip, it says a minimum number of 10 days.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Eleven.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Eleven days, okay.
Well, now we're negotiating. But, anyway, with the point
that there should be a way of -- in the preliminary platting
process, of sort of speeding this process up a little bit so
we can at least get to the point where we can start doing
the dirty work on it.
MR. VOELKEL: And then you still have the 30
days.
MR. JOHNSTON: Back when it was seven days,
what they would do is bring it, you know, on Tuesday. It
went -- or Monday, when it went on the agenda. And, you
know, totally -- we didn't have any idea what it was, and
then all we had was the rest oP the week to try to figure
out what it was, and sometimes we couldn't do that.
MR. VOELKEL: I think the 10 days or 11 would
be better than the seven.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I really think 14. And
the reason I say that is, I'm trying to get -- I just think
-- I just -- there's a lot going into these, and it's a
preliminary. When it comes to the Court for the preliminary
approval, we're pretty much setting what's going to be --
what the subdivision's going to look like, and there's a lot
of drainage issues and looking at the topography, I mean,
5-13-0 _'
99

f
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
all kinds of things that Franklin needs to look at. And I
think also -- you know, I just think we need to give Road
and Bridge or Franklin ample time to look at it, and a week
should be enough. But I think that Franklin -- if it's a
certain situation, I think it's at his discretion when it
gets on.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think 14 days minimum, or
determined by the County Engineer.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Most of the time, the
ones that you are processing -- and particularly the local
Yolks know what's going to be on there. If the stuff on the
routing slip is not done, it can't get on. You know, you
just kick it back, and most of the time they're there.
MR. VOELKEL: That's -- I just wanted to
throw that out, because it just seemed like something that
would be more workable, and, like, leave it up to Frank. If
it's a -- you know, lot of streets going in, lot of drainage
infrastructure, he might want more time than 14 days, and I
don't have a problem with that. But the minor ones are what
I think would be a lot simpler to -- if we use that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: But what we should do is make
it a minimum number of 14 days, and then make it clear,
though, that when it goes on the agenda is up to the
discretion of the County Engineer.
COMM155IONER GRIFFIN: Mm-hmm.
5-13-0.'
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2~
MR. VOELKEL: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So we don't have a situation
where somebody drops one that's, you know, 2,000 acres and
700 lots --
MR. VOELKEL: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- on Franklin 14 days in
advance, and says, "No, it says it will be on the next
agenda." Give him the ability to -- to hold them off while
he takes a look at it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Minimum of 14 days, but with
some discretion as to when it actually goes on the agenda.
Any other comments regarding revisions to the Subdivision --
MS. PIEPER: Judge, I have a suggestion.
Wrien the developers know that they're having revisions of
plats, if they can bring in addresses of the landowners at
that point, it would be a lot helpful.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: A revision of plat?
MS. PIEPER: So we can do the public notice
and notify all the landowners by mail.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That would probably be
something really worthwhile.
MS. PIEPER: And if you still have the fees
in there, that needs to be taken out as well.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right.
-13-U2
101

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On original revision of
plat, the -- add language that the addresses of all --
MS. PIEPER: The names and addresses of all
the landowners of the subdivision be brought to court at
that time.
MR. VOELKEL: Yeah, submitted with the
preliminary plat. She asked me this morning to get those
for the ones I had. I told her I'd take care of that. If
it's part of the regulations that I have to bring them in,
she doesn't have to keep asking us for it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's a good idea. Good,
timely issue.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That will save some
time also.
MR. VOELKEL: Right.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have one. More of a
question, really, to Franklin, and also the Voelkels, 'cause
they're both here. Concept plans. It seems that those --
you know, I don't get very -- I don't get any of them any
more, and for a while we were getting them. Is that
something that we should delete, or put a requirement that
if tYiey're a certain size only? And a lot of the
subdivisions we've been getting recently, they've been
probably less than 10 lots, anyway. Probably less than
5-13-0_
102

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
y
10
11
12
13
14
l5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that, a lot of them, and probably no reason for a concept
plan. Would it be helpful to put a -- tike, if it's a
subdivision of 10, 15 lots or more, then we do have a
concept plan; if it's less than that, we don't need one? Or
do we need one at all?
MR. JOHNSTON: 7 think we need the idea of a
concept plan. I think some of them -- some large
subdivisions, it's probably a good idea to do it. Some of
them are just kind of -- you know, people want to do
something that kind of doesn't fit the rules, and I'd rather
bring it in here, talk to the Court about it, you know,
before they go to the expense of doing the actual survey on
it.
MR, VOELKEL: On behalf of the -- we tell our
clients that's the first step. And I know we've had several
of them -- I think Bill, I think Larry, we've had some in
there. I think it's a real effective tool, because it lets
the -- I make the owner come in, because they're there and
they can ask questions and then -- and then Franklin or the
Commissioner can ask questions of them. I think it's -- I
wouldn't restrict it, 'cause I think I want all my clients
to come in and be able to sit down with -- especially with
Franklin and the Commissioner involved, because that way
everybody lays everything out, what you plan on doing.
'Cause otherwise, you get to the preliminary plat and
5 13-0'
103
1
.-~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
]3
.-.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Franklin gets it cold. That's one of the reasons I think,
if you do that process, it gives Frank, you know, a heads-up
and he knows what's coming when he gets the preliminary
plat. That's why I felt like 30 days was, you know, kind of
preliminarily at the conference, and then he's able to take
the preliminary plat and say, "Well, yeah, they did what
they said they were going to do." And I don't have a
problem with 14 days, either. I mean, I think Frank needs a
little bit more time. He's not in there every day, so he
needs a couple of days leeway, and I think giving him 14
days -- but, by the fact that he's already had the
preliminary concept -- and, Larry, Bill, y'all know I've had
some with y'a11 recently. It gives everybody a chance to
review it.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We're talking about
one of the things that I've just sort of come up on, and in
fact have discussed it with -- with several of the
developers and the surveyors and all around, and that is, it
is so much easier if they will sit down with Road and Bridge
and me, and I don't care if it's nothing more than a scratch
pad, and saying, "Here's what I want to do." And you can
immediately discover some things that just won't work, and
so you save them a lot of time. If -- if everybody did
that, I think the subdivision process would be much quicker.
s-i3-ua
104

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And that is to have a preliminary meeting; not so much a
fancy, drawn-up plan or anything, but just if nothing more
than just a -- a working plat with some lines drawn on it
that says, "Here's what we want to do."
MR. JOHNSTON: I think it's part of the
process to do that.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Make that as part of
the process. I think we can do that. I think we solve a
lot of problems. I know it sure has for me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with Don and
Larry, that there is value in the presentation of a
preliminary, whether it's a formal presentation or an
informal get-together. On the couple occasions that we've
done that, we've identified problems up front that perhaps
the developer hadn't known about.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's just amazing how
much easier the developer will accept that when he hasn't
spent any money yet with anybody.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They will accept those
cYianges and try to get it the way we want it in the rules.
And if -- but once you start spending the big bucks on the
Voelkels --
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You know, once you
5 13-~2
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
start spending -- they start spending money, they're much
less likely to be amenable to saying, "Well, wait a minute.
Can't this work?" You know, "It looked good. My engineer
thought it was good, and ..." Well, no, it just doesn't
meet the rules.
MR. VOELKEL: And it just helps get you in
the right direction so that you and Franklin and I have the
chance to tell this man or woman what -- what the
requirements are, so that they don't present something to
Franklin that's not going to work.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other comments on the
proposed revisions to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations?
One more time, any other comments from the public during
this public hearing on the proposed revisions of the Kerr
County Subdivision Rules and Regulations? Hearing none, we
will close the public hearing on the proposed revisions to
the Kerrville -- Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations, and reconvene the regular meeting of the Kerr
County Commissioners Court.
(The public hearing was concluded at 11:21
a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: Commissioner Letz, you'll put
5-13-02
106

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that back on the agenda at such time as you've got
everything --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Should be next meeting.
It's pretty much done. The only person I need to speak
with, other than Road and Bridge, is Stuart Barron on the --
some language on the plat, the certification -- actually,
not language, but it's the certification.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay, very good. Let's turn
to the next and last item on the agenda, Item Number 17,
consider and discuss restructuring the Kerr County Courts
Collection Department to include the promotion of Brad
Alford to Chief Collections Officer effective July 1, 2002,
at an annual salary of $27,000, and create a full-time
Collections Officer at a pay rate of Grade 17. Further,
discuss requirements for number two position and potential
candidates for the position of Collections Officer effective
June I, and in executive session. Commissioner Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir, thank you.
And, gentlemen, you remember several years ago Mr. Duncan
came in and the County Court at Law Judge came in and
proposed this program, and my first thought was, "Oh, no,
another program." And we had actually even talked about
letting the thing run for one year -- my thoughts were
letting this thing run for one year, and if it wasn't at
least paying for itself, it needs to be thrown in the trash
s-i3 oz
107

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and forgotten forevermore. But, at the end of that first
year, I saw the success of it, and have since become a huge
fan of the program. I've seen Mr. Duncan and -- and the
department making presentations all over the state. I went
to Austin and saw that they became an associate member of
the Texas Association of Counties. And, so, what I'm saying
is -- is that I think it's an absolutely fantastic program.
And now Mr. Duncan is going on to greener pastures, if you
can call Florida greener, and it's time to restructure that
department. And, to me, as you see in our notes in the back
here, that approximately 80 -- $80,000 a month stays --
because of collections, stays in Kerr County, and that's
pretty exciting. Those are pretty exciting numbers, in my
opinion, so I -- I'm excited about the possibilities of what
can happen with the Collections Department here in Kerr
County.
Now, what I'd like to do first is deal
with -- deal with Brad Alford's position first, an actual
court order, and then talk about the number two slot. Now,
I know I put Brad Alford's name there to move him up to the
Chief Collection Officer, and at an annual salary of 27
grand. To be honest with you, I'm not real clear where I
got that number, but it was put together by somebody who
knows more than I do; I can tell you that. But I think that
we should have a discussion about that. I spoke with him
5-13-0~
108
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
last week, and he said to me that he would -- he would be
very happy with the $27,000. It's a salary increase for
him, and he would be very happy with the opportunity to
serve us as the chief collector.
JUDGE HENNEKE: I'll jump in here and say
Brad has been doing the -- he's been the number two, and
actually the actual collector, 'cause Russ Duncan is never
here; he's always off running around the state doing his
thing, for at least a year, and has -- has a lot of
knowledge about the systems and the programs and the method
by which the Collections Department actually goes about
bringing in the -- the sheaves, so to speak. And, since
Russ has decided to abandon us -- and I personally will
never forgive him for that, but --
(Laughter.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: -- I think the only logical
candidate for the Chief Collections Officer is the man who's
essentially been -- been doing the work down in the trenches
down there for a year, year and a half or whatever it is,
which is Brad Alford. Mr. Duncan?
MR. DUNCAN: May I address the Court,
Honorable Judge, Commissioners? I -- you know, I look at
the position as most qualified. I'm not much on the
political end of the spectrum in hiring people. When I hire
somebody, I look at somebody who can do the job and will
5 13-02
109
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
continue to do the job. And Mr. Alford's current salary,
not counting benefits, runs about $22,989, and so that's
somewhat of -- about a $4,000 boost for him. But, to go out
at this point in time and try to find someone with his
qualifications and background is going to be a tough
situation, so I would strongly ask this Commissioners Court
to consider Mr. Alford for that position. Also,
Mr. Baldwin, I'd like to make one correction. You gave us a
6-month sunset clause at the original part of the collection
program, not a year.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Quicker.
MR. DUNCAN: To get off the ground.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a little bit
long, but --
Mx. DUNCAN: But, anyway, that is my
thinking. Just to give the board some -- Commissioners
Court something right now, 1 went back to 1980 and ran a
report to current. There's been $5,789,665 that has been
assessed in the County Court at Law alone. Of that, what is
currently paid is $5,202,573, which leaves an outstanding
balance of about $587,091. That's about a 99 -- 89 percent
collections rate. Now, I must tell you, there's a hidden
agenda there. We have worked very hard back through '91,
because trying to work old money is difficult, and trying to
keep up with the -- 'cause you want to get the current money
-is o?
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
110
first. So, a lot of this money -- that's this $500,000 --
is back from '91 back, and you need to keep on working on
it, 'cause that money is doable. I don't give up. I don't
want to turn it over to a collection agency or anything
else. I think that money's doable, but we collect a lot of
money. And I must tell you -- County Attorney's office is
here -- the assessments from 1997, when we started this
thing, to current, has -- or '96, has just about tripled. I
mean, the fines have gone up significantly. Used to be a
fine was $150, $200. Now we're looking at $500 to $1,500 in
Tines. Court costs have moved up. Every time we turn
around, the Legislature is edicting a new court cost on us.
So, our court costs have gone up significantly, and I guess
will continue to do so. But we have made some inroads now
with that $2 transaction Tee I got through the Legislature.
Every time anybody makes a payment, $2 goes into the fund.
That is also helpful. And with that, I will sit down, shut
up, and be at your pleasure.
CUMM155IONER WILLIAMS: Question. The backup
material talks about the fact that your department collects
about $92,000 per month. That's well over a million dollars
a year. Is that --
MR. DUNCHN: That's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- that is the case?
MR. DUNCAN: Yeah, that's the case. And
s-i3-az
1
.,^, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,.,, 13
14
15
16
17
18
ly
20
21
22
23
24
,.~,
25
111
that -- the tough money is Linda Uecker's money. District
Clerk money -- district courts, a lot of the people go to
prison; a lot of people go to state jail. We've got to
catch them when they come out. We've got to work the parole
we have to track down more, and there's a whole different
set of rules. In County Court at Law, you don't pay me and
I can always go and get the Judge to issue a capias, an
order for incarceration, put you in jail. You sit out at
$50 a day, and then the Sheriff can bill you for $20 a day
of that time sitting in jail. And in district courts, it's
a subject of interpretation of the Code of Criminal
Procedures, and the District Attorney's office and our
district courts have chosen to interpret them that they
can't do that, even though I think you can. And we're
working in the Legislature this year to change some of that.
I've got about three pieces of legislation working to clear
that stuff up. But the money -- that money can go up. I
mean, we -- we have come a long way. We started from
scratch, and we've had to make a lot of inroads and a lot of
changes and work in a lot of strange places with a lot of
different people, like the Legislature, and -- but we're
getting there. And I think this next legislative session,
we'll see some things done that will enhance collections
s is-n?
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
112
significantly.
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question for the
Judge, then.	Currently, the law does not require us to
budget these	moneys; is that correct? But under the new
GASB rules,	we have to budget for a certain amount of this
money; is th	at correct?
	JUDGE HENNEKE: I think --
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or do we do it?
	JUDGE HENNEKE: We budget for it now. This
is not an un	budgeted -- this is not a slush fund.
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have to track it.
Under GASB,	we're going to have to track it a lot closer.
	JUDGE HENNEKE: Track it differently.
	MR. DUNCAN: Your bond rating.
	JUDGE HENNEKE: If you take -- the
uncollected	fines and court costs will now be an account
receivable.	
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, that's what I
was --
MR. DUNCAN: That's very important.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Used to offset your assets.
It's a whole different concept; seems strange to me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We budget based on
your track record, an average of what you do?
MR. DUNCAN: Yeah. My budget last year --
5-1~-u^_
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
original budget ran out to about $62,258. That's including
a $6,000 commitment that we have every year from the
Probation Department.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is -- and
it's, you know, nothing -- not a personal issue. It's more
just a slot, you know, classification. We need, I think,
to -- whoever we put in as head of this department is going
to be more like a department head. I think we need to look
at all the other department heads that work for the
Commissioners Court and make sure -- and then look at the
duties and make sure that we're not paying -- you know,
getting out of line with basically the people -- number of
people they supervise, and we're basically not hurting
ourselves. I don't know what the salaries are off the top
of my head. I know, clearly, this is not like a Road and
Bridge function where we have a huge -- but I think we need
to make sure that we're not getting ourselves in trouble by
just arbitrarily pulling a number out of the sky.
MR. DUNCAN: I sat down with Barbara Nemec
and went over this position with her, and we looked at
everything from our dogcatcher up to our computer person,
and -- and the numbers that came up were what was suggested
by her department, being the personnel person, rather than
just picking some number out of the air, kind of.
5-13-02
114

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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's where the $27,000
came from.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, Barbara -- the
County Treasurer is where the $27,000 came from?
MR. DUNCAN: Yeah, somewhere along that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Grade 17, and what
step?
MR. DUNCAN: Grade 17 would come out to
$22,500 annually on the new position.
JUDGE HENNEKE: That's Step 1.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Step 1?
MR. DUNCAN: That comes out to -- with
benefits -- with benefits and perks and all that good stuff,
about $2,494 a month.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again, Russ.
Seventeen equals 22 what?
MR. DUNCAN: $22,500 annually. The monthly
salary plus benefit package comes out to $2,494 a month.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, is the -- are the
duties envisioned for that person comparable to duties in
someone like Jannett's or Linda's office?
MR. DUNCAN: They're almost -- they are a
deputy kind of person. The only thing we don't do that --
that I don't do, and I don't want to ever do, because it's
just duplicating effort, and that is the money end of it.
i3-~~
115
1
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
You know, you got another audit trail, you got all kinds --
we've had past problems in that area, and we would -- we are
the contract people and we are the assurance people. We
still hold them accountable to pay the money to either
Ms. Pieper or Ms. Uecker, and we don't want to go there. We
just don't want to go to that place. But ours is tracking,
auditing, follow-up, and -- and instant monitoring of what's
going on.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Grade 17, as I understand it,
is the same as Jannett's administrative accounting clerk?
MS. PIEPER: Administrative.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Administrative clerk.
MR. DUNCAN: Sammie.
JUDGE HENNEKE: And comparable position in
Linda's office operations. So, I mean, that's how they kind
of viewed the -- they have a lot of responsibility, far
above just a regular clerk. And --
MR. DUNCAN: And this job is -- if you take
these two jobs and you look at whoever your Chief of
Collections is and your assistant collections, they're doing
the same thing. I mean, the Chief of Collections has just
got more reporting duties and some other duties that go
along, but -- but basically day-to-day operation, it's
monitoring. They're auditing, monitoring, setting up
agreements.
s 13-0
116

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If -- I guess my concern
is that we're ending up with no clerks, then. I mean,
we're -- how do you run the office if you don't have a clerk
person, or do you just not need a clerk person?
MR. DUNCAN: You don't need a clerk person.
We've tried that, and it would just get in the way. We'd
like -- see, by reviewing and auditing their own files, we
know what's going on, and it's kind of a hands-on operation.
If -- if you got a clerk in there, it's kind of a loss of
time and effort. This way, it's really concentrating so
triat it's hand-on. Like, I look at the files every day and
I run an audit trail; I know who's delinquent and who's not,
and that's very important to do. If I got a clerk, then
it's just another communications area to get into.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And my last question,
right now, what do we have in this department? We have --
MR. DUNCAN: Me and Brad.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And what's your pay?
MR. DUNCAN: My -- you don't want to know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: From a budget standpoint,
I want to know.
MR. DUNCAN: Budget -- for budget, my salary
is $15,160 a year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: God, how'd he get that
high?
-i~-oa
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
JUDGE HENNEKE: But you get three from
that --
MR. DUNCAN: I get three from Probation.
JUDGE HENNEKE: So it's actually 18.
MR. DUNCAN: So it's -- actual current budget
is $18,700.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And Brad currently gets
$22,000?
	MR. DUNCAN: It's $22,989.		
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: $22,000, so	we're	going
from	a -- proposed going from an 18 and a 23 t	o a 22	and a
27.	Round it off.		
	MR. DUNCAN: You're looking at	$8,000	plus
perks	and bennies. You're looking at another	30 per	cent, so
you'r	e looking right at $12,000 a year. But I	think	it's
money	well spent. I mean, if you want my two	cents	worth.
	COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If you offset	that
with	the revenue that comes in because of it,	that -	-
	MR. DUNCAN: Yeah.		
	COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- that'	s a ch	eap
deal.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Inexpensive.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Inexpensive.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I used to think it was
cheap.
5 :3-02
1
.-~ 2
3
4
5
F
7
8
9
10
11
12
' ,^ 13
19
15
16
17
18
( 19
` 20
21
22
23
24
25
118
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN
won't get another one cheap.
We got him cheap. We
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
comments?
MR. DUNCAN: Thank you, Judge.
JODGE HENNEKE: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
MS. DECKER: I have a couple comments, if I
may, Judge.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Sure.
MS. UECKER: Of course, you knew I would,
right? Of course, no one is a bigger fan of Russ Duncan
than I am, and we've tried to do everything to -- from
stopping the closing on the sale of his house here and
purchase of his house in Florida to try to get him to stay.
But my comment is about the assistant's position that he
calls "deputy." The law does not provide for a deputy
collections officer or any department head -- in any
department other than the District Clerk or the County Clerk
or the Sheriff's Department.
MR. DUNCAN: That's true.
MS. UECKER: That position does not have to
be bonded, where deputies do. And I have a little bit of a
problem with the 17-1. I'm not saying that they don't
deserve it, but my question is -- and I assume it's going to
5 13-.~~'
I
4
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
119
be set at that probably because it's a man. And I'm sorry
if that offends you, but that's probably the situation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is offensive.
MS. UECKER: I know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm serious about
that. That's not part of this deal.
MS. UECKER: Well, whatever. We'll see. The
problem I have with it is, I looked at that job description.
It's somewhat less required than that of a deputy clerk,
either County or District, and yet the entry level there is
-- is much lower, and we have to be bonded. So, it's just a
thought. I want you to keep it in mind come budget time.
I'm not saying that, you know, that person doesn't deserve
that salary. I just keep seeing some -- a little bit of
discrepancy in the job description versus the salaries. And
that's just a comment, and that's just my opinion. I
haven't talked to the County Clerk about it yet.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any other questions or
comments? Do we have a motion, Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I move that we
promote Brad Alford to Chief Collections Officer effective
July 1, 2002, at a pay rate of grade 17-1.
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, that's the deputy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
JUDGE HENNEKE: It's $27,000.
5-13-~_
120
I

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, the 27. I'm
sorry, I'm reading two different places here. At $27,000.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Judge, do we need to
tie that to a grade and step?
JUDGE HENNEKE: No, because it's a department
head.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, I withdraw that.
JODGE HENNEKE: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Baldwin, second by Commissioner Griffin, that the Court
appoint Brad Alford as Chief Collections Officer effective
July 1, 2002, at an annual salary of $27,000. Any questions
or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's the money coming
from?
JUDGE HENNEKE: I think Brad's salary will be
covered by the fact that Russ is not going to be here.
They'll pick up just over $9,000 from Mr. Duncan's
departure, which will cover the -- you know, his increased
salary till the end of budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no money in the
deputy's salary line item for that. The question will be
where the next one is coming in, where the assistant's is
coming from.
s-1<-~~

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
24
25
121
JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll work on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I'll go along with
that at this point.
JUDGE HENNEKE: 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.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, as far as this
number two position at Grade 17-1 or Grade 17-something, I
went down and spoke with Mr. Alford last week, and he -- you
know, just to feel him out, what he was thinking. I didn't
want to -- I didn't want us to be doing something -- or do
something that would offend him, and, you know, kind of work
the thing out before it got here. And he has a couple of
people in mind. I've had a couple of people that have
approached me wanting the position, and -- and I tell you,
I'm just going to kind of throw my hands up. Here's the
deal. I -- I've fallen in love with the program, and I
think that it is a bright light in Kerr County, that it can
do a lot of things. It collects a lot of money, but my
favorite part of it is that there are people being held
accountable that go through our courts and are fined, and
we're holding them accountable, and that's one of my
-13-0
`'
I

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
29
25
122
favorite things toward -- about this entire program. And I
got to thinking about it. Who would I choose? Who would
I -- if I could choose anybody on the face of the earth that
I know of that would fit in this program to enhance this
bright and shining light, who would it be? And the -- my --
the best person that I can think of is our secretary, is
Thea. She's the person that is -- understands courts,
understands the system, the County system, and understands
this program. And it would -- you know, if there's any --
any way that we could work that out, if she would consider
the position, that would be the best thing for this entire
county, in my -- just my opinion. Now, I haven't talked to
Thea about it. You know, that's just my opinion; I don't
have to talk to Thea about it. That's the way I think. I'm
paying her a compliment, and I think that she -- it would be
the -- she would be the best person for that position and do
the best thing for the entire county. That's my opinion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you're entitled
to your opinion. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we probably
need to talk about this in executive session in terms of
personnel.
COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Do we have the names
of other -- or --
5-13-02
123
`~
I
1
r~
^
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: I don't. Brad -- Brad
is gone on some trip or something.
MR. DUNCAN: Brad is at a Crimestoppers
convention. And according to personnel rules, if we hire
in-house, we haven't got to post. If you don't hire
in-house, you consider others, you need to post it for some
time, according to what Barbara told me. So, I would --
if -- you know, I would -- I serve at your pleasure, so I'll
do whatever. And I've had a number of inquiries from
different people. I haven't looked at anybody yet, more or
less because I'm waiting to see what your pleasure is, but I
would --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A number of people
all being within the system?
MR. DUNCAN: No, some are outside the system.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Some are outside the system.
MR. DUNCAN: I think there's a female jailer
out at the Sheriff's Office who has called to inquire, and
I've -- I told her to make up a resume, but don't do
anything till I hear what the pleasure of the Court is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many people?
MR. DUNCAN: Four.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Four? Cool.
MR. DUNCAN: And that's at the pleasure of
the Court, so -- but I --
5-13-0

.-~
!~
r
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
124
MS. PIEPER: You need to decide what their
pay is before you go publicize any of those so they know
what to tell them.
MS. UECKER: Wouldn't that department head
have to hire their own staff?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Perhaps we ought to take
up -- set the grade and step to that as a 17 so we'll have
that one out of the way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we have a motion to that
effect?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was it?
JUDGE HENNEKE: To set the -- the number two
position at Grade 17.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move it.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I second the motion.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Motion by Commissioner
Williams, second by Commissioner Baldwin, that the Court set
the grade for the collections officer at a pay grade of 17.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I have, I
really -- I'm uncomfortable. I won't go for it right now,
'cause I'm not convinced that that's where that should be.
I think we really need to -- this is going to have -- this
5-13-u2
1
.-,
E
1
1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Z1
22
23
24
25
125
vote will be a budget impact. We don't have the money in
the budget for this item, and it's a -- to me, I just want
to make sure. I'm not sure -- I'm not at that point right
now, that this is where it needs to be. I haven't even seen
the job description.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Any more questions?
MR. DUNCAN: This -- the original job
description for that was done on that Nash study that was
done some time ago, and I think that's what our personnel
person was looking at, is the job description that was
submitted to the board -- to the Commissioners Court by
Nash. And I think that was the level it was set by -- by
their study, and so that's what she's going by. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, actually, that
is not such a great big important issue to deal with here
today, I don't think. I mean, we can -- I just don't see
why that's so important to do it today. I think that that
is -- that we can go back, and let's satisfy Commissioner
Letz' concerns. I'm kind of a little bit concerned about it
too. I actually haven't looked at it, and I really think
that we do need to really take a look at it and get -- get
with the Treasurer and get some thoughts on it. I just --
I'm a little uncomfortable.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll withdraw the
motion.
5-13-02
126
I
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
zs
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You withdraw the
second?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll withdraw the
second.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Can't have a second without a
motion. All right. Do we need to go into executive session
to discuss the requirements on the candidates?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would like that.
JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. At this time, the
Court will go into executive session to discuss the
potential candidates for the position, this number two
position in the Collections Department, and we'll reconvene
after completion of our executive session.
(The open session was closed at 11:47 a.m.,
and an executive session was held, the
transcript of which is contained in a
separate document.)
JUDGE HENNEKE: The Court having concluded
the executive session, we'll now return to open session. Nc
action is required as a result of executive session. Is
there any other business to come before this court? If not,
we stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:11 p.m.)
s-~~-~~
127


1

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
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY 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 17th day of May, 2002.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
Kathy Ba3iik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
5-13-0
ORDLF2 IVO.._7505
CLAI:P~S AND ACCOUNTS
On this the 13th day uF Nay ;_00c, came to be considered by
tt-ie Court various Commissioners' precincrts, which said Claims
and Acco~_mts ar-ee
i~--General for 3107,c97.r'3; 14-F=ire 1='rotection for- 38,333.33;
iS--Road R R'.°idge for '3~0,7~3.57; 18-Co~_mty Law Library far
Sc98.00; 19--F'~ahlic Library for $31,431.3.3; '~-Road Districts
for b~S.G~; c3-S~_ivenile State Rid F~_md fur 81, 666.5; :'7-Juv
.-. Intensive Pr-og-State Aid F=~_ir~d for 347.86; ~~-Indigent Health
Care far !63c, 384.51; 7~-Permanent Imprrovemerrt for ~6, 847, v2;
83-5+_ate F~_inded--~'lEth Dist Attorney for 31,334.08; 86--5t ate
F~_~nded-•16~tF~~ Dist F'roh fur 36, 940.5; 87-S'ta'te
1=~_rnded--Camm~.+nity C;orrect:ions for 34, 905.1;
TOTAL CASH REGIUIRED FOR ALL FUNDS: 3`C~,6i.9.88
Upon motion made by Commissioner Griffin, !aecunded by
Commissioner Baldwin, the Co~_~rt unanimously approved
by a vote of 4-0-Qi, to pay said acco~_mts.
OI~,DER NQ.'r'75 3E;
BUDGET RNENDI'dENT
'16th/19f3th DISTRICT CCIURT
On this the 13th day of Nay 2~~:_, upon motion made t,y
Commissiuner~ Leta, seconded ry Commissioner L-~al.dw:in, the Coiar-t
~~nanimoi~sly approved 6y a vote of 4-Qi-Qi, to transfer `~79.~7k~
From Line Item hdo. 1~i'~-436-497 Court Transcr-ipts to Line Item
No. ir<7-43~-497 Co~_ir t Transcripts.
ORDER N0. c:7537
BUDGET RI'~ENDMENT
COlJN7'Y TRERSURER
On ti'iis ttre 13th day of htay r'00:_, ~-ipon motion made by
Commissior~er• Let z, seconded by Cnmmissioncr Williams, the
Coy-~r-t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, 'to i;r-ansfer•
L1#,J.JB.J~ from Line Item No.10-497--10~+ Deputy to Line Item
No.10-497-108 F'ar•t-time salary.
ORDER ND. x:7538
AUDGET RIhENDMENT
CDUNI"'/ COURT RT LRW
Dn this the 13Th day of May c~~:_, upon motion inacie by
Commissioner 6riF'fin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the Coy"irt
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to tr-ar~sfer• ~4,~+Z~~ZY.t~~
r'rom Line item I'Jo.l~-4'27-415 Special CCRL J~"idye to Line Item
No. lrb-4'7-4N2 Court Rppt Rttorney.
ORDER N0. 27539
SUDGL"T Rh1ENDP~IENT
198T'H/216TH DISTRIC"f COURT'
On this the i31;h day of P~1ay 2~~2, upon motion made 6y
Commissioner- Williams, seconded by Commissioner Griffin, the
C:o~.irt i_~nanimously approved by a vote of 4-Qi-0, to transfer
31,25t~.k"~~ From Line Item No. 1~-43F~--%+17 Special Trials to Line
Item No.iO-~+36--441 Court Appointed Services, X304.43 from Line
Item No.10--435-417 Special Trials 'to Line Item Na.10-435-401
Coy-irt Rppointed Ser-vi.ces; 8•+,482.43 fr-~om Line Item
IVo.10-43E-402 Court Appointed Rttorney to Line Item
No. i0-435-%+02 Coy"irt Appointed Attorney.
CIRDER IV0.=7~,44'~
BUDGET RMENDhiF..NT
CCIMMISSIONER'S COURT HEALTH 8 EMERGENCY SERVICE
On this the 1:it1-~ day oP May ='V~~c, ~..y~on motion made by
Connnissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the
Co,_irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-~-0, to transfer
3c8.0c from Line Iterti No. i.V~--e,:iQ~-5~'c F:ir~st Responder's Exp to
Line Item No.lk'~-4k~1-48G Conferences.
ORDER NO.:_7a%+1
LATE PTLt_
FREDRICN, HENNEKE
On this the 13th d~:y of I''tay cQiO:'_, ~_rpon motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, secondecl by Comrniss:ianer Letz, the Coi_irt
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-fir, to pay the followir-~g
late bill to Fredrick Henneke in the amo~_mt of 'bJ46.J0 from
Line Item IVo.1~-4.6-486 Reimb~_~r•sed "p'robate 7~.idyes" seminar
expenses. The Co~_mty fl~_rditor and L-he Co~.mty Treasurer- ar-e
hereby authorized to write a hand check in the amo~_rnt of
3~J4r1.JQ~ rnade payable to Fredrick Henneke.

ORDER I'J0.::75•+c:
RE'P'ROVE TO ACCEPT h1INL1TES
AND WAIVE RERDING
On tF~is the 13th day oP May c00."_', ~.rpun motion made by
Commissioner Paldwin, seconded by Commissioner Let z, the Court
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, waived r-eadiny and
appr-~uved the following min~_rtes; I•;er~r- Co~_rnty Commissioners'
Co~_rrt R.eg~.rlar Session, f4anday, Rpril 8th, 'rear c~0c-9: N0 R.M. g
Kerr Co~_rnty Commissioners Court Special Session, hlonday, Rpr-il
._'cnd, `rear' c"~Lri~lcJ-9 A. M.

ORDER N0.27~4~,
RE'P'ROVE RND RCCEF'T P+I~NTHLY' REPORTS
.~-~
(fi th:is tt-.e 13th day of May 200:., upon motion made by
Commi<.asianer- GrifF:in, secondo-d by Camniissioner• Baldwin, the
Coi_rr-~t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to accept the
following r-epor-ts and direct that they be filed witl-~ tt-~e
County Clerk for' fu't~_~re a~_idi~t.
Jannett Pieper, Cv~_rnty Clr=~ li
General-Rpril '2002
Tr~_rst--Apri 1 2002
Linda Uecker, District Clerk
Rpri1 2002
W. I~. Hierhl:_er•, Sheriff
Civil Report--Rpril 20Q~2
Vance Elliott - J.P. #kl
Rpril 2002
Dawn Wri gt-it - J. F'. #
April 2002
Raber t Tenc:I-~ - ,]'. F'. #3
Apri 1 20Qi2
Wil1:i~~~m Ragsdale J. F'. #4
Rpri1 2002
DRDER N0. S7S'+~+
RF'F'ROVRL OF F'ROCLAMAT'IOPJ DECLRRIPJG MAY 2iZ~d'E AS
^ MENTRL NERLTN RWARENESS MDNTN
do this the 13~t1-~ day o~f May cd~Zir', ~spon motion made by
Commissioner Griffin, seconded by Commissioner I_etz, the Co~_~rt
~_inanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-0-0, to adapt a
proclamation naming the month of May as Mental Ne<~lth Month in
t;err Co~_~nty.

ORDER NCI. X7545
AF'F'ROVAI_ DF SHERIFF'S DEF'RRTMENT RADIO F'RCIJECT
AND REMRINING LEASES
On this the 13tF~ day of May c002, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner Lets, seconded by Commissioner- Griffin, the Cuurt
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-Qi, the leases and
license agreements for- the remaining two tcwer-s ai-~d a~_ithor•ize
Co~_irrty J~_~dge to sign same.
ORDER N0.~7546
RF'F'ROVAL AUTHORIZING SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
TO AF'F'L'r FOR A TQPACCO C:OMF'LIANCE GRRNT FROM THE
TI=XAS COMF''TROLLER OF F'l1Rl_IC ACCOUI~ITS
On this the i3th day of play ::@@., ~aporr motion made by
Commissi.nner- Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner, Williams, the
Cn~.irt unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@, attthori_iny
the Kerr Co~_irrty Sheriffs s Department to apply 'For' Texas
Compliance Grant from the Texas Comptroller of P~.~blic
Acco~_~nt s.
Of2DEft IV0.27U47
iaF='1='ROYAL fiUTHCIRIZII'~IG ftEALLOCA"PION OF
LEFTOVER F'UNDS' IN CAPI'T'AL OUTLAY
On this tY~e 13th day of Nay ~@@~} upon motion made 6y
Commissioner- GriFf:in, seconded by Commissioner t_etz, the Co~_~r•t
unanimously approved by a vote of 4-@-@~ a~_~thor•i frig
reallocation of leftover- funds in the Capital 0~_~tlay budget
for the Sher:i~Ff~ s Departmen{; i.n order- to pi.rrcha~e a compi_iter~
and compi_~ter--related eq~_iipment for the personnel office in the
Sheriff's Department.
•~-
ORDER fJO. ~75~'r0
RF'F'I',OVAL Of= F'RELIhtINARY 4='Lr~T
FOR HIDDEN HILLS TWA
On this the 13th day of May._1Z~IZ~:_, ~_rpnn matior-~ made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Comniissianer• Griffin, the
Co~.ar-t unanimously appr-oved by a vote of 4-0-Q~, the pr-elim:inary
plat for- Hidden Hills l'wo in F='rec:inct ~_.
r
nRDER No. ~~n;t'3
PRELIMINARY REVISION OF FLAT FOR HIDDEN HILLS
AND SET PUELIC HEARING
Cn this tt-~e 1. nth day of f4ay :'_~0c, ~_~pon motion made by
Commissioner- Wilaiams, ser_onded by Commissioner Letz, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-~, the preliminary
revision of plat for- Hidden I-ills Subdivision in precinct
and set public hearing for same for i~ o'clock a. m. orr Monday,
June cwth, `rear c471t~i~, here in the Herr County Commissioners
Co~_~rt.
ORDER IVO. c75,`~~
AP'P'ROVAL OF FINAL F'LRT OF' GUTOFF= 13U5INESS F'ARf=~
4JI'FH THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES
On this the 15th day of May ~~ib', upon motion made by
Commissioner GrifFin, seconded 6y Commissioner Let z, the
Cour-t i_~nanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-Q~, the 'Final plcKt
of C~_iL-off R~_isiness F='ark in Precinct %+ with a variance as 'Lo
lot size, drainage, the lucatian of ~_sF:i:lities, and ttie spacing
for• the cummer•cial d~-iveways.
,~

ORDER NU.~7551
RPF'ROVAL OF RUAD NAME CE-IANCES FUR
PRIVATELY h1AINTAIPJED ROADS IfJ F'C"f, '~
On i;l-~is the 1311-~ day of May c~N_, upon motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by L'ommissioe-~er Haldwin, tl-.e
Co~_n-t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, the road name
changes for- privately mair-~tained roads in Precinct c.
EXISTING., RORD NAME REQUESTED NAME CHRNGE PCT
Regan Ln E Kindred 1'Y`1 E c
301c: E Purple Star Dr E c

ORDER NO. c7`;Sc
R[='[='ROVAI_ WRIVIN6 FEE FOR USE OF r~G--EARN FAClLI"F'i
^ L1Y F'IF'ELIIVE OROUF'
Or. this the 13th day of May c0~~=, ~_ipon motion made by
Commissioner GriFFin, seconded by Commissioner Paldwin, the
i:o~_ir-1: unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, waiving the fee
for the i.ise by the Pipeline Gro~_~p of the Hill Co~_mtry `ro~_~th
Exhibition Center for a safety program regarding ~_inderyro~_ind
fac_il:ii:ies to be t-~eld on p~_ig~_ist 6, 'rear 2~@:.
ORDER No. c_755,:,
AWARD CONSTRUCTIOIU CONTRACT F(lR THE :'002
7CDF' COLONIR FUND WASTEWATER F'ROSECT
PHASE 1, KERRVILE SOU'T'H
On this the 13th day of May 2002, ~_Ipor~ mvtior~ made 6y
Coniirlissiorrer Williams, seconded by Commissivner• Paldwi.n, the
Cvl_Irt 1_Inanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-0-0, awarding the
bid for the Ker-~r•ville Svutt~l sar~iitary sewer project, T.C.D.[='.
Contract 721Q~75, River-hill sanitary sewer bypass and Rolling
Green liFt stat-ivn abandon, to Compton Enterprises For• a total
bld laf `~3~i, .i JJ. ~~
ORDER IVO. ~7~54
ar'F'ROVaL aNEPJDING IiERRVILLE SOUTH
CONSfRUCTIOPJ FUND PUI)GET
On this the 13th day of Nay :-~~t'~r, upon motion made by
Commission-per Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, t: Fie
f:o~ar•t unanimously appr-oved by a vote of 4-0-0, cmendir-~g the
Kerrville So~_~th constr~.ic't:ion 'Fund b~_~dget to pr-ovide f~_inding
not to exceed ~c,,=~~ for attorney's fees to develop the
regional 4Ja5'teWa'fl?1'"' treatment eontr-act 6etweeri U. G. R. a. and
tt~e L'ity of Kerrville, with arry ianttsed fi_mds to be r•et~_irned to
the constr~.~cl;ion fi_md.
ORDER MO. C./JJJ
AF'F'ROVRL AUTHORIZIPJC-i GRAIVTWURItiS "f0 SUBMIT THEc001 l"CDA
COLOMIA COI~F'REHEMSIVE F'LAIV
On this 'the 13th day of May :_00E, ~_ipan motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Griffin, tl-~e
Ca~ar-t unanimously approved by a vote of 4-Q~-0, a~_ithor-:i:_ing
Gr•antworks to s~_~6m:it the c~Z~1 T. C. D. A. Comprehensive Flan as
amended to the Office aF Rural Cammur-~:ity Affairs far their
review pT'1GT` to the County's final review of tt-~e don_uner-~t.


ORDER N0. c7JJG
DUDGET fiNEPJDNE:NT
CDI~IhtISSIOPJERS' COURT
Or. tt-~is the 13tt-~ day of Nay c~Vrc, upon motion made by
Commissioner Paldwirr, secarrded by Canimissioner Griffin, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, t-o Y,r-ansfer
~t3,11l3.97 witl-~ €7, 957.c37 from Line I'Fem No. 10-51c-1Q~4 Jailer-
Salary; 3~1E.1. a47 From Line Item No. SQr-4t~9-4N~ Independent Audit
to Line Item No.10--4~1--486 F'r•ofessional Services.
ORDER I~IO.'75~7
iaF'F'P.GVAI_ OF RESTRUCTURIhIG T'O THE KERR COUNTY
COLLECTIOiJS DEPARTMENT TG IfJCLUDE BRAD ALFORD'S F'ROMO"fIOhJ
On this th-~e 1Cth day of May :_0G2, upon motion made by
Commis=_ioner Baldwin, seconded try Commissioner GriFfin, the
C:our~t unanimously approved 6y a vote of 4-0-Qr, appointing
Prod Alford as Chief Collections Officer- effective Suly 1,
cQ~4~c a~t an a~nn~_ral salary of X27, ~~0.