1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
,.., 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, September 22, 2003
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: FAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A. "BUSTER" BAI~DWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "B-ILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
~i
~i
1
~--~ 2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
to
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
T ~1 ~ F X
September 22, 2003
PAGE
--- Commissioners' Comments 4
l
1.1 Approve facility lease to Triad Holding s I~ ~ 6
1.2 Approve proposed annual 20Q4 budget for Kerr
Emergency 911 Network p2 3/~ 13
1.3 Consider whether Kerr County Subdivision Rules
apply to land partitioned by legal action 25
1.4 Set public hearing for plat revision of Lot ,
Village West industrial Park, Phase IVp? G.7~~ 43
1.9 PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed salary, expenses, other
allowances of elected County or Precinct officers
for FY 2003/20~~4 d 0 31 ~ 47
1.10 Set salary, exi~enses, and other allowances of
elected County/Precinct officers for FY 2003/?_004 48
1.5 Clarification of term, "roads shall be designed".)
in Section 7 of Kerr County Subdivision Rules2 8 348
1.6 Allow Road and Bridge to use unencumbered balance
of 2002/2003 to complete the sealcoat projects 58
1.7 Consider going out for formal bid on buzz bara~2 v61 /I,,
1.8 Consider approving sign policy for private roads 62~~5/'Z
1.14 PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed FY 2003/2004 Kerr County
budget 73
1.15 Adoption of the proposed FY 2003/2004 bud ~3 Z3 77
1.21 PUBLIC HEARING - proposed FY 2003/2004 tax r ~ ~3Z{100
1.22 Adoption of tre proposed FY 2003/2004 tax rat~e~~ L~1
1.11 Consider and discuss setting Sh rriff' and 102,
constables' fees O~ ~~p1~ 120, 137
1.12 Request budget amendment in Election Departments ~3 2(Q
for constitutional amendment election expenses 104
1.16 Action and/or remedies to cure complaints regard-
ing storage behind the Extension Service office 106
1.17 Reappointment of Charles Lewis as Kerr County's
representative to the 91]_ Board p2~,~,2'? i08
1.18 Begin process Lo change Main Highway to
Highway 27 111
i.13 Request for approval of Kerr County jury selec- a d 3 Z
tion plan to comply with Texas Government Code 132
1.19 Discuss draft of new contract for O.S.S.F.
administration between U.G.R.A. and Kerr County 140
1.20 Burn ban status a ~.33C7 151
1.23 Transfer 2.1 acres of land owned by Kerr County
to the Mountain Home Volunteer Fire Department 152
1.24 Consider joining Association of Rural Communities
in Texas (ARCIT) for 2003/2004 155
1.25 Establish policy concerning use of courthouse
facilities 159
1
,.-.. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3
I N D E X (Continued)
September 22, 2003
PAGE
1.26 Approval of parking spaces striping plan for
	courthouse parking a ~~ 3 ~	164
1.27	Acknowledge September as Destination Dignity	
	Month as requested
11 Country Community	
	~ ~ 3 3 Z
M.H.M.R. Center	167
1.28	Approve resolution to apply for Indigent Defense	
	Grant program p? 33.3	168
1.29	Nomination of up to five candidates for	
	submission to Kerr Central A prais 1 District
~
~	
	for board member of KCAD p~
3 3	169
1.30	Designate day of the week on which Court shall	
	convene in regular term each month oc ~~.3~-	172
1.31	Authorize County Attorney to investigate, take	
	any necessary or appropriate action to recover( ~ ~J?
	balance of unreimbursed funds expended for health	
	care service
s provided to former County employee	174
4.1	~~yy
Pay Bills pS 337	177
4.2	,,))
Budget Amendments ~,33 ~ -^a dc37' ~	179
4.3	Late Billsa 8.3~/	189
4.4	Approve and Accept Monthly Reportsa ~~ ~Z	190
3.1	Action as may be required on matters discussed	
	in Executive Session ~ ~~ (~'?v	191
---	Adjourned	193
---	Reporter's Certificate	194
25
1
--- 2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-.~ 13
14
15
16
1 j
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
Cn Monday, September 22, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr Ccunty Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning. I'll call the
meeting to cyder. This is a meeting -- special
Commissioners Court meeting, as posted for Monday,
September 22nd, at 9 a.m. It's just a smidgeon after 9:00
now. I'll call on Commissioner, Precinct 4 to open things
up for us.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Please join me in
prayer.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Please be seated.
P_t this time, if there is any member of the public or
audience who wishes to address the Court on any item that is
not listed as an agenda item. If you want to address the
court cn an agenda item, we would ask that you fill out a
participation form. There should be some forms at the back
of the room. It's not mandatory that you do so, but we
prefer it in order that we can schedule the time
acccrdingly, and rnosr_ importantly, not miss you when -- when
that item comes up. So, if it's an agenda item, please fill
out one of these participation forms. With regard to any
9-~~-03
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
item that is not iist_ed on the agenda, is there any member
of the public that washes to come forward and address the
Court about any matter at this time? There being no one
indicating a desire to speak, we'll move on to
Commissioners' comments. Commissioner 4?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No comments.
JUDGE TINLEY: One?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No comments.
JUDGE TINLEY: Two?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No ccmments.
JUDGE TINLEY: Three?
COMMI,'~SIONER LETZ: Can't go with no
comments.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Come on, Jon.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just -- I just have to
make a note about the Comfort football team, who so far is
3-and-0 this year. And it's a 2A school, but has beat two
3A schools so far. So, they're in line for another
outstanding season. And -- and I might also say, Kerrville
Tivy won ir. decisive fashion. as well.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Center Point won,
and Ingram is the only one in the county that got beat. But
would you say that Comfort squeaked one out?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: it was close.
9-~~-r.
1
~-- 2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~--~
25
6
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I'd say so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it was a W.
JLDGE TINLEY: Is that it? Thank you,
gentlemen. Let's move right into the matters that we've got
ahead of us this morning. Item 1 is consideration and
approval of a facility i.ease for Triad Holdings, as sole
general partner of Triad Manufacturing, Limited, doing
business as B.A. Products. Mr. Pearce?
MR. PEARCE: Thank you, Judge and
Commissioners of the Court. What you have before you today
is a lease for what is commonly known as B.A. Products.
They're a manufacturer of bird feeders, fish feeders;
relocated approximately two years ago from Ingram, started
off as a small company, gradually migrated up to a number of
-- I believe it's 19 right now. Their business is expanding
rapidly. They're busting at the seams, so to speak. We
have a facility on the airport which will support their
expansion right now. It's 2,500 square feet, which they've
asked to lease and to have it coincide with the main
facility lease. The market rates of comps in class is in
the area of $3.14 per square foot. They've signed the
lease. They want it for four years, with an additional
clause in the lease, should we be able to enclose an
overhang portion and fund that., they will also take that
area for $3.14 a square foot. As you're aware, we are
u_ _„3
1
2
3
4
5
E
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~-,
25

working with E.I.C. 1..o c:aptu.re additional funding for that.
In essence, what this lease does, it takes us from $1.80 per
square foot to $3.14 per square foot for four years on an
existing facility that they're -- they're in. With your
support, we ask that you sign that. We'll forward it on to
the -- the City here for tomorrow night's meeting. Any
7 ~ questions?
COMMISSIUNER BALDWIN: Mr. Pearce, the $3.14
a square foot is the market today. What -- what is -- what
rate do we have with them. presently?
MR. Pi;ARCE: Currently, we have a rate of
$1.80 per square foot.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going from $1.80
to $3.14?
MR. PEAR.CE: Yes, sir, absolutely. How the
rate was established was before my time, but we --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
MR.. PEARCE: -- we spent a lot of time with
Chris Barley, the president. We looked at all of the comps
in class of the area. I asked him to take some time ever
the last couple months and do some comparisons on his own.
He called me back and said, actually, we're more than fair,
and signed it on the spot.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. The only final
comment I have is, talking about the additional I, 950 feet
g-__-n3
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
,,.., 13
"~4
i5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
of trying tc cbtain E.I.C. money to upgrade that facility,
that is what E.I.C. money is for.
MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir, absolutely. The
existing lease right now, this will actually cover two
areas. It covers the existing area, 2,50C square feet, and
should we have support of the funding for the additional,
they'll also lease that portion for $3.14 a square foot.
COMMISSIUNEK WILLIAMS: And that is a space
lease as opposed to a ground lease?
MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the unenclosed space
now, is that presently being utilized by B.A. Products?
MR. PEARCE: No, it is not. What we have
under there, it's a .roof that actually goes over some ground
area. We park some mowers and some other things --
equipment cut there at this current time, but being adjacent
to the facility that they're in, it will work perfectly for
them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have a feel for the
cost of what it's going to take to -- to enclose that
particular area that's currently under the roof but not
otherwise --
MR. PEARCE: $24,?00. We have a very
detailed quote on th,~t to enclose that. E.I.C. has done
careful analysis. What that would amount to, basically,
9-:: .:-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
lg
20
2~
~~
23
24
25
9
shculd we de that, we would have a 2.2-year payout return on
cur investment, and a four-year lease, which is pretty --
pretty competitive.
JUDGE TINLEY: What -- what is your feel
about the receptiveness of E.I.C. to coming forward and
giving us assistance on this project?
MR. P1~ARCE: I don't want to speak on their
behalf --
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand.
MR. PEARCE: -- but it was very favorable.
The folks that I had talked to, both during the E.I.C.
meeting and even prior to and afterwards, said it was
really, in their terms, a no-brainer. The payback of two
years, two-year payback for -- for the investment, an
increase of four positions, the increase in inventory, if
you took all that into account, actually it'd probably be
about a one-year payout return on our investment. Sc that's
a pretty good return.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any expectation that
you perceive from E.I.C. that lease moneys will be returned
to them until the amount they've expended for those
improvements has been returned. to them?
MR. PEARCE: No. This is -- this is
actually, I guess, for the best term, is a -- hope I term
this correctly -- forgivable loan. Basically, there is no
~___-~s3
1
,,._ 2
3
4
5
6
7
~3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-~
25
10
payback to them. This is -- this is a grant from E.I.C., if
you will, because it does exactly what they would like to
do, and that is entice businesses to expand and grow; it
does give something back to the community in the way of
jobs, tax base, those type of things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I hate to bring up
anything possibly negative, 'cause it's a good financial
deal, clearly. My question, though, is -- and I note that
the County Attorney -- there's two County Attorneys in the
room. The question is really directed at them. Do we have
any -- on leasing property at the airport, can we just lease
with someone that comes t:.o us and wants it? Or do we have
to do some kind of proposal and every time we go up to --
you know, when you talk about leasing, it's always a -- a
difficult question as to what our authority is.
MR. PEARCE: If t might interject a couple of
things there, basically, on a -- a federally-funded airport,
we have some certain criteria under our grant assurances
what we -- we need to fulfill. The primary one is that it's
open to the public, it's open to everybody, that we charge
market rates, and we tr_y to obtain self-sufficiency. With
that ir. mind, that's how we obtain our -- 90 percent of the
funding. As far as advertising each individual lease, no,
that is not what we are required to do. We charge a market
rate for that facility. We negotiate a market rate, and
-__--~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^, 13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
2i
22
23
24
25
11
we -- we process it through there. For instance, because of
the fact teat the property actually reverts to the ownership
of the City and the County at the end of most facility
leases, if a business had to relocate there, not knowing
every time the lease renewed whether they could stay or not,
that's where yeu'd cap the develcprnent on the airport. It
would actually die where it stands. So, as long as we have
the space, we do not discriminate. We charge equal and fair
values. If anybody else wants to relocate, we have space.
We have 540 acres, and I'm here tc talk to anybody who's
interested. We will continue to proceed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have any kind of a
-- I guess a -- I guess it's public from the standpoint that
all our County and City records are public, but a public
information sheet of available properties at the -- or kind
of a description of +.~That's there so that the public is
aware? And anyone car. kind of come at any time and -- you
know, to any of our facilities out there? Kind of a status
of ail the properties out there?
MR.. PEARCE: Yes, we do, and we have a status
of the cost, we have a status of the -- where it has been
platted, the types o= acreage. Or.e thing that's a little
bit different cn airports is, they're treated very much
like -- as far as pl~~ttin~, very much like a college campus,
in that -- that you dcn't say t:.his space is strictly for

~~2
1
'^ 2
3
4
5
F
8
9
10
11
12
^ 13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.-~
25
lease, because you don't. know the types of facilities that
the individuals are going to come into. So, you accommodate
each individual when they're going to do a development. It
may be a 15,000-square-foot hangar, it may be a
40,000-square-foot hangar. We'll lease that plot to a
company, their development -- their specific development,
and it's sited, it's surveyed, and that's the way it goes
from there. If that makes sense.
JUDGE TINLEY: By way of further explanation,
Commissioner, Kerr County's not. actually leasing that
property. Kerrville/Ker_r County Joint Airport Board is
leasing the property. Kerr County and the City of
Kerrville, as the record title owners of the property, are
merely confirming that lease, so we're not actually doing
the deal. We're just kind of ratifying it, is what it
amounts to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I understand that
part of it. I just want to make sure that we're -- that
it's an open playing field for everyone in the public, and I
want -- as Mr. PearcE~ taas saying, I think it is the -- you
know, kind of the property is available always for
negotiation and to the public.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would move
approval of the lease facility to Triad Holdings, Inc., sole
general partner of Triad Manufacturing, doing business as
9-~~-r3
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1G
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2~
B.A. Products, as proposed by the Airport Manager.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I assume that carries with it
the authority cf the Judge to --
COMMISSIONER WLLLIAMS: To sign same.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sianat>>rP? wP ha«P :~ „-,~+;,,,-,
and second to approve the lease and authorize the signature
of the Judge on the same. Any further question or
discussion? A11 in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank
you, Mr. Pearce.
MR. PEARCE: Thank you, Judge. And if I can
ask you for those four copies, I'm trying to get those over
to the City.
JUDGE TINLEY: Very good.
MR. PEARCE: Appreciate that.
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item will be consider
and discuss approval of proposed annual budget for 2004 for
the Kerr County 911 -- Kerr Emergency 911 Netv,~ork.
Mr. Amerine. Good to see yeu this morning.
MR. AMERINE: Gccd morning. State Health and
9-.2-03
14
-- 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
--- 13
14
15
t6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Safety Code, Chapter 772, requires the Executive Director of
Kerr Emergency 911 Network to present an annual budget to
all the jurisdictions that are applicable. In this case, it
would be the City of Ingram, City of Kerrville, and the
Co~~znty. E~udge~ materials were presented to the County some
weeks ago for review, so I'm going to try to hit on a
summary here, talk about the fundamental changes in focus on
this budget versus last year's budget.
First of al.l, Let's talk about the revenue
that 911 receives. All of our revenue comes from service
charges for all residential and commercial land lines, as
well as a surcharge on wireless handsets. The wireless
handset income comes from the State of Texas, as it's
divided out based upon population density, so it's not
necessarily a representative one-for-one service charge that
we receive there; however, it is a one-for-one service
charge for all land lines. We project in this budget about
a 1 percent growth, ~~nd in talking to the State and to
various cellular and land line providers, it would appear
that we have significant growtri in the wireless handset
area, with a stagnant growth in. the handset -- or the wired
phones, so we'rc not looking at a big growth in revenue in
the next year. As a matter of fact, if -- if you look at
the projections of revenue for the end of this year, it kir:d
of undershoots what was originally forecasted last year when
y-_~-n_s
15
1
---- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1~
16
17
18
19
`' 0
L
21
22
23
24
25
the budget was put together.
Last year's focus on the budget -- not being
here, I'm taking thi:~ from talking to my staff and the
previous board members or current board members -- was fsr_.us
on providing the staff necessary to finish addressing in
2003. This is a rather significant investment, both in
capital costs for materials, as well as payroll. And, God
willing, we're going to get through that this year. We've
had good progress so far after the mailing of the cards.
And with that being said, the emphasis going forward has to
address three improvements to oar 911 system, those being
improvement in wireless capabilities for 911 system, and
improvement in the d„ta that we currently have housed in the
911 system and a replacement o1: the PSAP, the Public Safety
Answering Point equipment, which is new seven years old and
reaching the end of~ts usability. I'll go through each of
these items, and then I'li -- I'll hold off and let
questions be asked.
Our budget's brcken up into rive major
categories, the first being payroll expense. Last year's
budget payrcll was budgeted at 196 -- $798,588. I've
projected that at the end of this year, due to voluntary
attriticii and some other changes, that we'll actually only
spend $188,283. ruVe'll have a $10,000 surplus over what was
budgeted. Next year's payroll expense budget is actually
5-~~- _~ 3
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
l~
l~
18
19
20
21
22
2 ~
Z4
25
less than this annualized budget. We're budgeting $182,103.
In that figure are raises for cur current staff. The
voluntary attrition 1 mentioned earlier was not replaced
with another full-time member, but a part-time member who
will probably work only six months of next year to finish up
some of the addressing maintenance. Raises for my staff are
based on three weighed criteria: Parity with the average
income of various ski_11 sets within Kerr County. The basis
of that study -- salary study was the Kerr Economic
Development Foundation Salary Wage Assessment for 2003.
Each skill set has a low end and a high end wage per hour,
and a 4C percent weighted criteria was given to this study
for adjusting my staff's income.
Another portion of the raise was based upon
merit. Cn the current staff members that I have remaining,
we looked at the hours they put in, the kind of work that
they've done, the development that they have --
self-development tha'_ they've gone through to provide
quality work for 911. And, finally, and the least
important, but it was a factor all the same, was a parity
comparison to the other 911 entities that are -- that are
districts within Texas. And, as you saw in my summary --
and this is -- I say this and it sounds ready dramatic. I
don't mean it to be, because these salaries are based upon
district size, and we're one of the smaller districts, so I
~-__-~ .
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
1G
-,
l~
12
13
~~4
15
16
1
18
19
20
21
22
want to say that so the press doesn't misquote me on what
I'm about to say. With that being said, the fact that we're
one of the smaller districts, we're still in the bottom
12 percent of what we compensate our staff for in the state
of Texas.
The other funds that you see there, overtime
wages, as you notice, will be decreased somewhat. Payroll
taxes, medical insurance, which increased by 20 percent this
year, other expenses, and contract labor correspond and are
either increased or decreased based upcn the payroll
increases that we provided. That budget overall is $16,000
less than what was budgeted in 2003. Any questions on
payroll?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How much is the
average - how much -- what percent of increase are the
current employees getting?
MR. AMERINE: The average increase percentage
was 15 percent. That's not -- that's varied. Some people
got a little bit more, some got a little bit less, based
upcn merit. Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Part of that -- that
increase -- let me m:alce sure I understood what you said.
You basically restructured your office, reassigned duties,
reducing staff, and in doing that, some of the savings you
redistributed amongst the remaining employees?
23
24
25
;,_-~ _„~
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
"~~
18
19
2G
21
22
23
24
.--~
25
MR. AMER.INE: As a matter of fact, job
descriptions were rewr~tten. The responsibilities of the
individual who voluntarily resigned were redistributed
amongst my staff, and appropriate with that, of course, is
being paid for what they do. So, yes, those job
responsibilities were reapportioned. Thove raises weren't
strictly based upon the skill sets they brought into this
year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: With that being said, I
mean, I think that you're -- what you've done is something
that this Commissioners Court this year has supported, and
along with salaries, from the standpoint of reorganizing,
trying to become more efficient and overall reducing the
budgets. however, T Brill have a concern that we don't --
that, basically, government employees of a county are
associated with or c~~mparable to County employees. And this
just being said, that., you know, in future budgets, I don't
have a problem with what you're doing this year, because I
think there's a restructuring, but I think that there is a
need for parity between County employees and ether entities
that are very closely re-~ated to the county.
MR. AMERINE: Agreed. And the 911 staff has
-- the Board of Managers and the Executive Director are
sensitive to that. As a matter of fact, when we used that
salary study from the County, we didn't shoot for mid-line,
~~- -n~
19
^~~
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you know, what the n.id-range was for those skill sets. We
actually shot for the lower range; to get up to that lower
range is what -- where we went. Also, I think most
organizations do this, even public organizations. Every
several years, you have to take a look at where you are in
public service versus the community, and make sure that your
salary stays competitive so that you don't lose staff. And
I don't anticipate doing this every year, this salary
assessment. As a matter of fact,
strictly merit raises based upon
after we do the hardcaar_e upgrades
this was a one-time adjustment in
people ~.ahere I think they need to
on payroll?
next year I plan on doing
chat funds are available
that we need to. I mean,
my initial tenure to get
be. Any other questions
Now, this next line item, operations of the
PSAP, this is where the reap significant change -- the focus
on this budget went. iJast year, like I said, we staffed up
considerably in both part-time contract and permanent staff
to -- to do addressing fo.r Kerr County. Next year, our
staff will be reduced ~~nd we`ll be focusing strictly on
infrastructure upgra.iF~s t:o provide the level of service that
we need for our citizens, and that will be PSAP upgrade,
additional services that we have to contrac~ with
organizations such as Intrado for wireless location
information, and other enhancements to our 911 system. More

1
2
3
4
5
h

8
9
10
11
12
-^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
L 'J
of an infrastructure expense than personnel expense. This
budget actually exceeds 2003's budget by $16,000, and the
biggest budget line item is the introduction of Intrado
service charges, which run about $1,550 a month.
Further explanation of what we get from
Intradc, right at this point in time, they're about the only
show in town on providing location information for our
wireless handsets. `t'his is really important for Kerr
County. Despite our size, 40 percent of my calls -- I've
menticned this before to the Court -- comes from wireless
handsets. That's abcut 6,000 calls a year. Today, with our
current PSAP, our current hardware and interconnectivity,
what we receive is a pseudo phone number which tells us only
that this is a wirelE~ss call. We get ne name of the
customer or the citizen. We get no call-back number. We
get no location. This is a real problem, and it's a prcblem
for a couple reasons. Because we all know cell calls drop
frequently, and it's difficult for our dispatchers to call
back and even reestablish who they were speaking with. We
need to get -- we actually have until 2005 to qet to
compliance with Phase 2 wireless location, but we're going
to shoot for that next year. It's important.
More and more people -- as a matter of fact,
in this addressing project, I -- to duress a little bit,
I've talked tc a number of citizens who have foregone having

21
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
land-wired phones in their homes and are using their cell
phones. And that makes it ever. more critical, when people
have crises or emergenr_ies in their home, that these
wireless phones will provide location information. So, this
expense is absolutely necessary to get to us where we need
to be. Any questions on the PSAP operation?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: With the expenditure of
that $18,604 cn the Intrado, does that mean -- basically
mean that all cell phones, you know where they're coming
from?
MR. AMERINE: We have 11 cellar providers in
our area. Seven of them provide services right new in some
degree of density for Kerr County, and depending upon their
technclogy -- and there's three different cellular
technologies out there. ewe suspect that even with this
expense, we'll only get about -- and I'm going to say that
about 5C to 60 percent of those users will get all the data
that I mentioned. A ll of them will provide call-back number
and name of the cust,~mer or the citizen. Not all of them
will provide the same level of accuracy or any location at
all. We suspect, fcr those like Sprint, who uses GPS chips
in their handsets, that we'_1 get good location information.
T-Mobile and Verizon use what we call cell tower
triangulation, which is an issue. In a sparse density area
like ours, there aren't that many cell towers to actually
-__- ;~
22
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
a
10
11
12
13
i4
15
16
17
18
g
2 V
21
22
23
24
^
25
triangulate a good lccation, but we will get a lot more
information. than we're getting now. Even getting within 100
meters, which is what they say you can get with
triangulation, is better than riot getting any location
infcrmation at all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bi11, is this
hardware, software --
MR. AMERINE: It's both.
COMMISSIONER WILLIP.MS: -- or service? Or
all of the above?
MR. AMERINE: All of the above. There's
going to be an upgrade to our server system to be able to
store that information. It will be some hardware trunks and
other intercennectivi_ty with our local phone companies, as
well as probably a major company like SBC. There will also
be a service cor.trar_t and scme up-front engineering costs
with Intrado. Out of our capital funds we have set aside,
we're probably going to have to spend just under $17,000
just for Intrado to come in and do the engineering, see what
it will take tc facilitate that local operation. That's not
part of this budget, 'cause it's capital and not out of
revenue, but that is set aside for the purpose. Any
questions? P.ny other questions en operations?
Direct: services are just the cost of doing
business, and this is where I was able to find most of our
a-~~-os
23
1
-^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
-,
_,
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
savings. Rather than looking at building contingency line
items for worst-case scenarios, we looked at in the budget,
as you see in my summary workup, of what I really
anticipated we'd need to have to spend to support those
areas. This budget comes in almost $17,000 under what was
previously budgeted in 2003. Again, this is a refocus of
slimming down the orcxanizatior. to facilitate these
infrastructure upgrades I mentioned. Any questions on any
of this specific ones"? Now, one note where we saved quite a
bit of money this year, we have got a signed lease with the
City of Kerrville. They wil]_ be putting -- on 1 October,
they're transferring the EMT organization, along with the
billing for that, in our building over there, and that's
going to allow us to save about $11,000 a year on rent cost,
plus I think that's a good partnership between the City and
the 911 organization. It's a real good location over there
for them fer that -- for that group. Any questions on that
budget line item?
Finally, this is the miscellaneous, and
that's just kind of the catch-all for all the things that we
had difficulty categorizing anywhere else. Awards, dues,
public education and advertising, local meetings,
telecommunication costs. That might seem misplaced, but
that's really the cent of all of our phone service at our
facility, at our office, as well as the network that we have
~~-__-.:
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for our computer system over there. And then, of course,
sundry. That is a $:',104 savings over last year's budget.
Final budget presented is $345,940 which is a 519,000
surplus over 2C03's budget, and with a nominal 1 per_r.ent
increase in revenue, we will have a surplus at the end of
the year -- this is a balanced budget -- of just under
$10,000. Assuming that there's no growth -- the worst-case
scenario -- in our revenue, we'll still have nearly a $5,600
surplus at the end cf the year. Now, one of the questions
asked by -- I believe it was the City of Ingram, what do we
do with those surpluses"? Periodically, like this year, we
need -- we are carry.~ng some sL;rplus in our operating
revenue. We move that over to capital, and then we earmark
that for future upgrades, future hardware and enhancements,
those kind of things. We're not -- we're not in the
business of saving that money and then making money on
interest right now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the total reserve
you have in that capital account?
MR. P.MERINE: Currently, right now we have
approximately $90,00,1 in a cash capital account, and we have
slightly over $129,000, I believe, in a C.D. $55,000 of the
$90,000 that I mentioned, the cash, are earmarked for the
PSAP upgrade that I rner_tioned and the Intrado service
engineering. That leaves about a $40,000 cash reserve
-~~-03
25
1
-^ 2
3
4
E
g
9
1C
;,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,,,,_ 2 4
25
there. The $129,000 C.D. we don't touch. That's our
contingency C.D. If there was a catastrophic failure of the
PSAP cr a fire at Kerrville Po]_ice Department that wiped out
all of our equipment, that money would be needed to replace
that equipment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Amerine, I just
want to personally commend you for this budget. This is so
far superior to what we've had presented to us in the past,
it's just like daylight and dark, and I thank you for that.
MR. AMERINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move we
approve the annual budget -- 2004 annual budget for Kerr
Emergency 911 Network.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the -- that the annu~~l proposed budget for 2004 Kerr
Emergency 911 Network be approved. Any further questions or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
iNo response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next
item is consideration of whether the Kerr County Subdivision
Rules ably to land partitioned by legal action, and if
-_.-03
26
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
access road shall be built to Kerr County standards. The
County Engineer has asked that this be item be placed on the
agenda, and we do have a speaker who has asked to be heard
on this matter, and he will be recognized. Mr. Johnston?
MR. JOHNSTON: Morning. Property in question
is a little over 200 acres. It fronts -- only fronts
Highway 27, a small area, I think 120 foot wide. You have,
I think, a sketch in there that shows the dimensions of the
property. This was owned, I guess, by a partnership, and it
was subsequently split to the two partners by a partition
deed which is on file in Kerr County. So, the land's
legally divided and it has two portions, owned -- the larger
portions, yellow and orange -- by the two sides, and the
common area, the access, which is the blue, is -- contains a
road, as such. Not a county road or anything, but just a
driveway-type road accessing the two parcels. The question
came to me kind of on a piecemeal process. They -- I got
calls for specific questions, and finally we went out and
we -- Commissioner G~illiams and I looked at the -- at the
site and visited with the -- two of the parties, anyway,
involved; there's three total. And we kind of came to the
conclusion that this has been divided, and probably the
Subdivision Rules don't apply. That if there's subsequent
division of each parcel or any cf the parcels, then the --
then it needed to be subdivided and proper road built to
9-~~-03
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--- 1 3
14
i5
16
17
lg
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the -- to tre property. But right now, it's just a
driveway-type access and two large parcels used primarily
for agricultural use.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think one point,
Franklin, that was brought to our attention when we met with
ene of the property owners was that property owner number 2,
identified as Number 2, has intentions of selling that
parcel and his ownership in 3, and the property owner number
1 remains the same. So the question comes up as to whether
or not Number 3 represents a road that has to be brought to
County standards.
MR. JOHNSTON: That was one of the questions
he had.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As a result of the
fallout of the sale.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that one of the
questions, or is that the question?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's predominantly
the question.
MR. JOHNSTON: First question is, does there
need to be a subdivision plat filed after this partitioning
deed has been filed? And, two, does that road, which is in
-- you know, not to Kerr County standards right now, I would
say, need to be upgraded to the Subdivision Rule standards,
or can it be left as it is for like -- you know, like a

28
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,4
15
16
l~
18
19
~0
L
21
22
23
24
25
ranch road?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Johnston, if we -- if the
answer to the first question is no, the Subdivision Rules
don't apply, and therefore it doesn't have to be platted as
a subdivision, do we even qet to the second question?
MR. JOHNSTON: I think that would answer the
second one also.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's my thinking.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Johnston, the --
the property identified in blue, which is the road easement
and agreement, does that serve any -- any properties other
than those identified as 1 and 2?
MR. JOHNSTON: No, it's just strictly -- it's
owned in common by 1 and 7, and only for their access.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it clearly is not
subject to platting. I mean, it's under H of our rules; a
tract is divided and all parts transferred to persons who
own undivided interest. That's clearly what they did. Had
a partnership, it was divided, and they had an undivided
interest. They split it up. It's not subject to
Subdivision Rules.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way we
thought it read, but we wanted to get the sense of the Court
~n it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. But as soon as --
~-~~-03
29
1
~--~ 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
L
21
22
23
24
25
but if they do anything, when they -- you know, if they sell
it again or do something, that road at some point, you know,
would likely have to be brought up, upon their taking --
MR. JOHNSTON: If it's redivided, right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or if either --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even if the road changes
its character, if they deed that road to a -- you know, I
guess change the deed on that road, I think it very well
might trigger platting, which would require that it be
brought up to standards. As long as they're just the only
two parties using the road, as -- as the partnership has
always had that, it doesn't, but as soon as they start
changing ownership in that road, it probably would trigger
platting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or if either property
owner 1 or 2 had an intention of subdividing, that would
trigger it as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: So, if 2 sold his property and
half of his interest in 3, then that may -- or I guess we
need to decide today, does that trigger the road upgrade to
the minimum standard?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think if they
sell it as it is, but if they change that into a -- you
know, something with the easement, it could. If they're
9-__-93
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
lq
15
16
17
}g
19
20
21
22
23
24
z5
just selling what they currently have, I don't think it
would trigger the platting, but if they change something,
whether by sort of a subdivision -- I mean, dividing it or
giving -- you know, I guess some other access to that road
beyond what it currently is.
COMMTSSIONER WILLIAMS: For a new owner --
parcel number 2 is up for sale, so if somebody who purchased
number 2, if they had intentions of changing it
subsequently, that would trigger platting and so forth.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only when they
subsequently did it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's what we were --
Commissioner Williams -- the conclusion we came to, but we
wanted to get the Court's conclusion also for the parties
involved. I think someone else may have a comment.
MR. ODOM: I do. I want to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. --
MR. ODOM: I would like -- I agree if they
change it, but the wording will say "I would like." Can we
change that to "shall" change it? I mean, be specific that
the road would be upgraded if they subdivide that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think if they
subdivide, it's subject to our Subdivision Rules.
MR. ODOM: Okay. And they will, and they
-_~-c.
31
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
i2
--- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
shall. Not, "I would like them to." I just heard you say
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
MR. ODOM: I just want to make sure, if
someone came back in the records, that they are -- they
dor_'t misinterpret that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're subject to the
rules. They're subject to all the rules.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Hart?
MR. HART: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. William Spencer Hart has
filed a participation form to comment in connection with
this matter. Mr. Hart?
MR. i~ART: I filed this primarily to seek
clarification. I represent a client that's in the process
of buying this property, and he doesn't plan to subdivide
it, but he wanted to be sure that the day he bought it, that
it was in compliance with the k.err County rules. And I
think what I'm hearing today is there would be a ruling that
it could be conveyed to this third-party -- my client is Jay
Colvin and a company he owns, and that's -- that's the
primary thing, is he doesn't want to have to acquire it --
we do have a suit pending in district court where this is
the issue. Does it have to be up to county road standard?
And I think y'all are clarifying it that it does not have to
-__-03
32
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
~6
17
18
19
GO
21
22
23
24
25
be up to county road standards when he acquires it. Is
that --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I'm hearing,
Mr. Hart.
MR. HART: Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: As long as owner number 1
conveys the entirety of his tract and his interest in the
road as it now sits, or owner number 2 does the same thing
on an intact basis, what I'm hearing is that that doesn't
trigger any of the Subdivision Rules. Some subsequent
action of resubdividing either one of those tracts or
repositioning that road very well could, though.
MR. HART: I see. Okay, thank you, Your
Honors.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No action is
required; just a clarification.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Colvin has a
question.
MR. COLVIN: Commissioners, I just wanted to
make one comment, 'cause I'm. part of the subject, but I
think that y'all --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's your name?
MR. COLVIN: Jay Colvin. Excuse me,
Commissioner Nicholscn and Commissioners. This goes back to
Mr. Muller. And y'all have been told some things by
-- ~
33
1
'' 2
3
c
6
7
8
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
i8
19
20
21
22
23
24
„-..
25
Mr. Muller that I wasn't privileged to and -- and no part
of. And the Rickerts and the Beddicks I don't think were
any part of it, so it's not their problem either. But this
is also something that's going to affect a lot of people in
the county in time to come, so this has to be given some
thought, this ruling, because anyone that can come before
Commissioners Court or apply this rule for partitioning in
the future can just come up here and say, "I've got a piece
of property and I'm going to partition it; then we don't
have to subdivide it." And these Subdivision Rules have
been given a lot of thought over the last many years, and I
know y'all put in a lot of time, so this is directly because
of me that this is here.
And I've met with Commissioner Williams, and
also County Engineer Franklin ~7ohnston, and there's a letter
that is not part of public record that I've asked them to do
this back _n August, I believe is when we met, to try to
handle this situation. And this particular piece of
property is part of a -- a lawsuit now, because I've tried
to get the Rickerts to sell me the property according to a
contract, and that's why they -- and I'm glad that they're
doing this to get this cleared up, but it's going to affect
a lot cf people in the county and these regulations if this
law is applied in some way. So, I'm asking everybody to
give that a lot of consideration. And that's the only thing
-__-o~
34
L
3
4
5
6
i
8
9
10
~~
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~--
25
I want you to be aware of; that is part of a lawsuit. It is
part of Muller's plan a long time ago, maybe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't care about Mr.
Muller's plan. I have a question, though. Reading this
again and listening, maybe I misunderstood something here.
Okay. If it's a tract, as I read the rules, which is state
law, once it is -- if two people own a piece of property and
they go tc -- they divide it any way they want, they have
undivided interest in it. If they divide it amongst
themselves, platting is not required, but once it's sold, it
is, 'cause I would think that is further development. I
mean, the provision reads -- I'll just read it. "A tract is
divided and all parts are transferred to the persons who
owned undivided interest in the original tract and a plat is
filed before any further development of any part of the
tract." That means as soon as it's sold again, platting is
required. And I think -- and t:hat's not what I just said.
That's -- when I read it closely, further development would
mean further sale, I would think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well --
JUDGE TTNLEY: Tn its entirety? Is that how
you're interpreting --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I think if either
part gets sold.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At some point, it
9-~~'-~ 3
35
1
2
3
4
5
E
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
li
^~8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
has -- through sales, it has to become a subdivision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, because if you
don't, what you can -- I think, you know, you could have --
you know, anyone who has undivided interest, you can divide
it and then you can avoid the platting. What Mr. Colvin is
saying I think is correct. You can kind of bring in some
undivided interest -- you could bring in a hundred people,
undivided interest, and then say, oh, we're going to, yeu
know, divide it a hundred ways, and then each one of those
hundred people can sell their tract, and then it can be done
a hundred times. So, _ -- the only logical way to interpret
the rule, to me, is what. as soon as that first sale happens,
you have t~ plat it, after the division. If they just
divide it -- divide their undivided interest, they don't
have to; it's not subject to platting. But as soon as one
of those parties that owns a new divided interest sells,
that it does recruire. Mr. Motley, do you have any --
MR. MOTLEY: I'm not sure if you're selling
what was partiticned by the court. If it's partitioned into
two parts and you're selling what was partitioned by the
court ~.n its entirety to another buyer, that constitutes
subdivision, and have you to lay out the lots and -- and
such as that in order to be subdivided, as I understand the
state and the county rules. I think it would have to be
laying something out, lots and setting out roads, parks, et
~~-~~-03
36
~` 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
~~
12
13
14
,5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
cetera, in order to be subdividing. If it's sold in its
entirety, that would be a different situation, it seems to
me, ar.d then if that purchaser wanted to then break it up
into lots, et cetera, in order to -- to sell lots for
subdivision purposes, it seems to me that would certainly be
required at that point.
COMMI:~SIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's what we
said originally.
MR. HART: Gentlemen, Mr. Motley made a very
interesting point, that if it's "partitioned by a court."
This property wasn't partitioned by a court. This was
partners in a real estate venture dividing their property.
This wasn't a court-ordered partition of the property, and I
just want to clarify that, because l kr_ow one of the
regulations you're looking at is Chapter 12, Section
12.02(8) of the PropE~rty Code, and that applies to a
partition by a court. It doesn't apply to a partition of --
by two individuals.
23 only.
,,.~ 2 4
25
`'-__-o~
MR. HART: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think, in looking at our
JUDGE TINLEY: Voluntary partition.
MR. HART: Voluntary partition.
JUDGE TINLEY: Of the undivided interest
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1G
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Subdivision Rules, the -- when a plat is filed before any
further development of any part of the tract, I guess then
the issue is, what constitutes development? If -- if we've
got a hole that we need to close, maybe we need to put a
subterfuge provision in there that -- that you can't -- you
can't use undivided interest to -- to avoid the application
of these rules to permit the requirement that you file a
plat. But in the ordinary situation, I think, unless and
until -- as long as these tracts that are being partitioned
out to the respective owners -- unless there's actual
development, as I understand that term, as long as they
remain intact, they can be sold on and on and on to
subsequent owners, intact and in their entirety. But once
one of those owners decides to engage in any sort of
development, as defined under these rules, then you trigger
the application of these rules.
If -- the problem may be that we might
need -- when we revisit refining or amending or adopting new
Subdivision Rules, that we need to put in a subterfuge
provision that they'll not be utilized in such a manner so
as to avoid the application of rules by acquiring property,
an undivided interest in multiple owners for the purpose of
effecting a subdivisior_ without the application of the
rules. I'm getting some nods of some heads; 1 guess I'm
being understood. Or maybe I'm just -- people are being
~-=~-03
38
1
L
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.~- 2 4
25
kind to me.
be nice to you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we all want to
JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't necessarily
agree with everythin;~, but I agree with you. As long as it
stays intact, it's intact. But once it starts breaking up,
you get, you know, to David's law language of alleyways and
streets and byways and highways and all that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a change of
ownership as opposed to a subdivision of the land; is that
what you're saying?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WIT,LIAMS: Jay had his hand up,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Jay, you had --
MR. COh~'IN: Well, I just want to alert the
Commissioners Court, because I don't want to be a party to
scmething that you're not aware of. And I'm not a party
by -- voluntarily a party, but there's a letter
circulating -- has nothing to do with me either, but there's
a letter that I come in contact -- been given to me, and I
didn't get it till last Friday, but I did show it to County
Engineer Franklin Johnston. And, see, they were using your
name as -- that you had already determined this road as
+-. -^3
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
legal, as-is. And that -- using Commissioner Williams,
saying it's determined, which is not true. But that's the
way some attorneys are interpreting this, and it's not fair
to you as a body, or Commissioner Williams or County
Engineer Johnston. Or the County Surveyor either, for that
matter, Lee Voeikel, who's the one that actually alerted me
to this a long time ago. He said this should be determined,
because he thinks that some people actually take advantage
of these things. And since I was trying to buy this land,
you kno~,a, he said, "Are ycu aware of this?" And I said no.
He said, "Well, these things can actually come back to haunt
you later. If the County Commissioners so chose, they could
actually come back and say you need to file a plat, and that
could be very expensi_ve."
Well, I already had that in my earnest money
contract, that they would have to make it legal, whatever
the law was. Just prove to me that it was legal. So we
sought an amend -- not ar. amendment, a variance, if one was
required. If none was required, we didn't care. We just
wanted a determination. So, if the road is legal, that's
fine with me, or if the property's legal, that's fine. We
just wanted a determination. So, the sooner the better, far
as I'm concerned. We've been trying to buy the property for
seven months or eight months now, nine months. But if it's
legal, we~just want a determination. And I'm sure other
- ~~ ~
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
people are in this position. And I can give you a copy of
this letter; I don't mind.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jay, not that it has
any bearing on what we're talking about, but out of
curiosity, what is the nature of the litigation which you're
involved in this property? What is the nature --
MR. COLJIN: I bought -- I have an earnest
money contract that requires the -- and it's a matter of
public record, the earnest money contract. Isn't that
correct, Spencer?
MR. HARM: It is. The court -- the case is
pending in district court. And we wanted to be sure that
the property, upon h.is acquisition of it, was compliant with
the laws of Kerr County, the subdivision laws. And that's a
condition of the -- previously, the County Engineer had
indicated that we would have to seek a variance for an
unpaved country lane, and that there might be some --
MR. COLVIN: County lane.
MR. HART: County lane? Actually, it is
country lane.
MR. COLVIN: Okay, excuse me.
MR. HART: But at this point in time, it
sounds like that variance is not necessary so we'll be able
to resolve the lawsui~ and close the sale of the purchase.
MR. COLVIN: But if you want to see the
_-_~-r~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
"~ 3
14
15
i6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
r„, 2 4
25
41
contract, I can make a copy, but it's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't want to see
it.
MR. HART: The wording is the property be
delivered compliant with the laws of the State of Texas and
County of Kerr. And he just wanted to be sure that when we
acquired it, he wouldn't have to then come in with some
compliance. And, at this point, I think we're of an
understanding that the engineer and your actions today will
make it in compliance.
MR. COLVIN: It goes back to this flag lot
deveiopmPnt problem that we had with -- a concern I had with
Mr. Mu11er, 'cause I own property -- or my family owns
property on both sides of this property, and I've been
alerted to the possible problems, and so we just asked them
to go down here and go through this process. Well, then
they didn't want to go through the process, 'cause they said
it was going to take time. I said, "Just takes one
Commissioner's meeting to put on it the agenda and let them
read it, and then they go back, do another one." They
didn't want to do that. They wanted us to buy it without
that. So we met with y'all, and you suggested amendment --
or a variance. And we thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I want to make a comment.
Our rules are exactly the same as the state laws, so if
°-~._-0 i
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 ~'
1g
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there's a loophole there, there's -- it's a state loophole
that we can't close.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably true.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there is a
loophole there. But, rereading the state law and cur
language and the terms that are defined, which is
"developer" and "development" --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could we not footnote
that section somehow?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think we'd be
prevented from -- from making a statement of the spirit of
the Subdivision Rules, and -- and indicating that subterfuge
methods not be utilized to try and avoid the application of
the rules. I think the spirit of the rules is what you're
trying to get compliance with, anyway. Even though there
may not be a like provision in state rules, I -- I think
it's merely an expression of -- of intent that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But state rules are
pretty clear, and wren counties tried to eliminate flag lots
before the State did it, they were knocked down. So, I
mean, the State -- yo~.~ rani make rules that restrict the
State. "You can change them, but that's the reason the whole
flag lot issue had to be resolved by the Legislature, not by
individuate counties. It's pretty clear, our language is
exactly the state law.
~-~~-u3
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
,g
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it would be
worth our time, though, to ask the County Attorney to look
into it and see if there is --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do, too.
COMMI~SIONF,R BALDWIN: -- see if there's a
way tc do that.
MR. MOTLEY: I didn't hear what he said, what
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll get with you when
we go over the rules. I think that's what's you said,
Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I thought the
Judge had already asked the question. We about through with
that? I want to make a comment. These two gentlemen that
are up here, Mr. Colvin is a third-generation Hunt boy, and
his lawyer over here is the former Tivy great, Bill Hart.
So, these guys didn't just blow into Kerrville and fall off
a turnip truck or anyth_ng; been here a long time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But Mr. Colvin has seen
the way and has mewed to the eastern part of the county.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
MR. COLVIN: Moved to Kerrville.
(Discussion off trre record.]
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that all we have on
Item 3? Very good. We'll go to Item 4, set a public
g-_~-n3
44
'- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
..-. 2 4
25
hearing for plat rev~sion of Lot 1, Village West Industrial
Park, Phase 4.
MR. JOHNSTON: This is an alternate process,
less than four lots, plat revision. So we need to set the
date of a public hearing, and then do the peat all at that
time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The comment I have on
this -- and I think this is really just more direction to
the County Attorney on the process. You know, the intent of
our rules was to allow minor revisions to go through at one
time, and I think the County Attorney can already set a
public hearing, you know, without coming to the Court.
Otherwise, if you don't allow him that flexibility, we
totally negate the reason for having -- they have to come to
Court twice; once to set the public hearing, and once to
hold it, which is no different than coming, you know, like
they're doing in the old process. So I think that the --
under these situations, I think the County Attorney, you
know, implied, has the authority to set these public
hearings in the future. Just my point cf view on it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. When would you
like to have the pub,iic hearing?
MR. JOHNSTON: Was Ltiat something we need to
clarify teo in the rule changes, how we set the public
hearing?

45
1
2
S
4
5
6
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess so.
MR. JOHNSTON: Doesn't really say. It does
take twice coming to court to do it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sounds like it's
already clear to Commissioner I~Ptz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can make it clearer.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we're here, so let's set
a public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. I'll move we
set a public hearing for 10 a.m. -- how much advance notice
do we need, Thea?
MS. SOVIL: 14 days?
COMMISSIONER BALD6^~IN: Commissioner, there's
a suggested --
MR. JOHNSTON: 14 or 30?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- date in your -- the
memo.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's 30. 30, I
believe.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think the second meeting ir.
October would meet that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I make a motion we
set a public hearing for October 27, 2003, at 10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEX: Motion made and seconded that
~-~~-c;
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
~~
12
13
14
15
i6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a public hearing be set at 10 a.m. on October 27, 2003, on
the plat revision for Lot 1, Village West Industrial Park,
Phase 4. Arty questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One comment. We can
clarify it in our -- well, to rn.e, it is clear, but we can
clarify the risk to them of not coming twice is that if
there's a problem, it's not going to get approved and it
will have to come back at a second meeting. So, there's a
little bit of risk to a person. doing the developing, that
everything is ir_ order. And it could be a minor thing, just
an error on a plat, typo-type thing can require it to come
back. But it doesn't really affect this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion?
MR. VOELKEL: Can I make a comment, Judge?
Just so you're aware of it -- I know Buster will love
this -- this is another one of those ETJ deals, so we're
also going through the City of Kerrville for their approval.
Just so you're aware of that fact. And I don't know why I
get stuck with all the ETJ plats.
JUDGE TINLE`I: Your brilliance, I'm sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because you're a
smooth operator. (LaugY!ter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
u-~_-03
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.-, 2 4
25
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Does that
clock say 10 o'clock now?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, it does.
MR. JCHNSTON: Pretty close.
JUDGE TINLEY: One minute till. We have a
timed item for "~0 o'clock, and my view of the clock from
here indicates that it's 10 o'clock, that being a public
hearing, so I will recess the Commissioners Court meeting,
and I will open and convene a public hearing on proposed
salary, expenses, and other allowances of elected county or
precinct officers for the fiscal year of 2003 and 2004.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 10:00 a.m., and a public hearing
was held in open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the
public that wishes to address the Court on the item upon
which the public hearing has been called? Any member of the
public that wishes to address the Court on the proposed
salary, expenses, and other allowances of elected county or
precinct officers fo.r Fiscal Year 2003/2004? I see no one
stepping fcrward or otherwise seeking attention on that
9-~~-.,_
48
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
"~~
18
19
20
21
22
23
„_ 2 4
25
matter, so I will close the public hearing.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:01
a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
J[IDGE TINLEY: I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting, and we will go to Item 1.10,
consideration and discussion of setting the salary,
expenses, and other allowances of elected county or precinct
officers for Fiscal Year 2003/2004.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval of the
salary schedule submitted.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the proposed salary, expenses, and other allowances of
elected county or precinct officers for Fiscal Year
2003/2004 as submitted be approved. Any further questions
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Let's come
back to Item 5, consider clarification of the term "road
shall be designed" in Section ? of. Kerr County Subdivision
Rules. We have the County Engineer with us again.
- - _ - Q i
49
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
7S
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. JOHNSTON: This was brought to my
attention by the County Surveyor. He wanted to clarify that
term in light of the -- does that mean that road contractors
can lay out a road i.n a subdivision, or does it have to have
an engineer -- professional engineer design the road, using
the term "design" with a full set of plans and profiles and
cross-sections and all that, like they do on a state
highway?
JUDGE TINLEY: NIr. Johnston, if I`m reading
these provisions correctly, they state "in accordance with
the specifications set forth in the Kerr County Road Design
and Construction Specifi.cations."
MR. JOHNSTON: Alm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: From that, I'm given to
understand that there are some uniform design and
construction specifications that are in existence for
various classes of roads, I presume.
MR. JOHNSTON: We have that. We have all the
materials specified. I think when they talk about design,
they're talking about the cuts and fills and that type of
thing, which necessarily can't be a part of the general, you
know, rule; it has to be site-specific on the -- on a road.
So, thai_'s what they`re asking. Does that have to be
designed by an engineer, or the way we've been doing it by
tradition:
-_~-_s
L
'^ 2
3
4
5
0
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1.
18
1 OJ
20
21
22
23
,,., 2 4
25
50
JUDGE TINLEY: You say design and
construction specifications. Do they riot provide for
certain criteria for curves or radiuses or shoulders and --
MR. JOHNSTON: They do. They're all --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that sort of stuff?
MR. JOHNSTON: They do.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you merely apply these to
MR. JOHNSTCN: That's true. They apply to
the slopes and the -- about everything you reed except
actually drawing it out on a plan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see the need to
have an engineer prepare it, but I see that it's -- I don't
think our rules require that, but I think it would be pretty
difficult to meet our rules without an engineer doing a lot
of it. I mean, you've got to meet -- I mean, the -- the
material has to be built to certain standards that are
established by the State. You have to have the grades
established, ycu have to have drainage issues. And I -- you
know, but I think that if they could -- it's potentially
possible for a developer to qet drainage studies and get a
lot of different information and do the road design
themsel~,~es, ar.d I think that meets our requirements.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the language may be
more appropriately phrased, "roads shall conform to and be
-~~-o~
51
1
---~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
constructed in accordance with the specifications set
forth." And as long as they comply with the -- as long as
they comply with the design and construction specifications,
that's adequate.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My thinking is they
build the roads, and if they can satisfy the County Engineer
that they've been constructed to our requirements, then
that's good enough for me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like the Judge's
new suggested language. When we do the rules, update the
rules, that will take care of that argument in the future.
MR. JOHNSTON: All we're asking is
clarification. I think Lee may have some comments also;
he's on the way up.
MR. VOELKEL: Maybe a question. I'm not real
clear. Lee Voelkel is my name, County Surveyor. Are you --
what you're saying is that you will allow a road contractor
to go in there and build a road by himself; basically just
go out there and start bulldozing and blading and grading
and putting inside slopes, and whatever -- whatever grade of
the road is up to him, and then. is it Mr. Frank Johnston
that's going to come along once the road is built and sign
cff on the road? Is that -- is that as simple as it's going
to be for private roads?
9-~~-u3
52
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"„ 2 4
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that if they
don't build it to the standards, it's not approved.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think all those things you
mentioned are in the rules.
MR. VOELKEL: I guess my question is, who
verifies that it's been built that way if an engineer has
not designed it? In other words, is Frank going to be able
to tell that that road is less than 12 percent grade? Or
what proof is he -- what scientific data does he need, I
guess, to be able to verify those things, site slopes
3-to-1? If the contractor's just going out there building
the road, can Frank just come out there after it's built,
look at it, and say that's adequate? Is that all it takes?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the issue of
inspection you're bringing up is a good point that we need
to probably look at. I think the issue, though, of an
engineer designing it, the same thing can happen -- you can
have an engineer design it and turn it loose to a
contractor. What's to guarantee that it's going to be built
to the specifications of the engineer? So, I think the fact
that an engineer didn't design it isn't the issue, as long
as they follow the specifications and conform to those. But
it is critical that we have an inspection procedure that
guarantees that it's built to our standards.
MR. VOELKEL: And the inspection would be
-~~-o~
53
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Johnstcn cr somebody outside, or either?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're getting
ready to look at that shortly in coming meetings.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think in any -- in any
event, my preference would be to have whoever files that
plat, the record owner of the property, certify to the Court
by the filing of the plat, tendering the plat for filing,
that all of the roads and drainage, whatever there may be,
are built in accordance with and conform to the Kerr County
road design and construction standards, so that we've got
some -- some accountability there.
MR. VOELKEL: I hear you.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's always the way it's
been.
JUDGE TINLEY: V~lhether that goes back on --
MR. JOHNSTON: The owner --
JUDGE TINLEY: The owner then has -- can look
to maybe a contract engineer that he hired to design it or
whatever, but we're going to demand the accountability, I
would think. At least that would be my preference.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think the other
part of that -- and this is -- and we would have probably
done it today, except we had a very long agenda -- our
meeting with the County Attorney as to what enforcement
powers the Court has when someone doesn't build them to our

54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
specifications. What -- what's our options? And I think
there are some situations where that may have happened, and
we've -- we just -- we don't -- I don't have a real clear
idea as to exactly what our options are when a developer
doesn't build to standards that we require, and it slips
through. Whether we -- you know, certified os not, our
rules are pretty clear as to what you have to do. What
happens when they're not is the issue.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think that's always been the
case. When they're inspected, it's always up to the
developer to prove that it meets the standards by testing
which we require, by the drainage already designed and
signed off by engineers, and hydrology. Also slopes, that
type of thing; if there's a question, that they do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that
certification that the Judge mentioned is a final thing to
make the developer responsible for all of the -- all of
those things one more time.
MR. VOELKEL: Right. And, in reality, he
would have to hire a professional to be able to prove those
things to him if he's doing it right, correct?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the County
Engineer wculd, in the course of this process, sign off on
that; is that right? If they have met our standards and our
design. criteria.
:-~~-o?
55
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
21
22
23
24
25
MR. JOHNSTON: Have to show that they met
them all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But the key to the
whole thing -- none of this -- in my opinion, none of that's
going to work until we apply enforcement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not just Road and
Bridge's, but all across the county spectrum, is that we
don't enforce things like we should. And until we get to
that point, I mean, it's just a moot point, in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just so much
verbiage.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just words.
JUDGE TINLEY: That one pretty well wrung
out? Mr. Plangman? You -- you had a couple questions?
MR. PLANGMAN: I got one question in there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't you come forward,
Mr. Plangman?
MR.. PLANGMAN: Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Give your name to the court
reporter.
MR. PLANGMAN: I'm Jewell Plangman, 625
Rimrock Road. I'm a civil engineer, and I don't understand
how you're going to find out whether it meets specifications
if you don't have plans to draw up and show you what
9-~2-G3
56
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
drainage is supposed to be and how it's supposed to be, and
the construction of it. That's just my point of view. I
think you need plans as well as you need specifications,
'cause it -- County Engineer has a hard time if he doesn't
have some plans to go by. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Plangman. As I
indicated, my thinking would be all of that burden should be
placed upon the developer in order for the project to go
forward. And what he does is up to him, but we're going to
have to be satisfied, number one, that it's done, and number
two, that he's accountable. And then, as Commissioner
Baldwin said, we're going to figure out a way to enforce it
before we get through.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think one more person wanted
to speak on that. He has something different to say.
JUDGE TINLEY: Please come forward and give
your name to the reporter. We'd be happy to hear from you
on this matter.
MR. HARVEY: My name is Les Harvey. My local
address here is 212 Clay Street. I was interested in this
issue because it mainly has to do with driving safety of the
public. The Kerr County rules are very specific on what
materials are to be used, how those materials are to be
installed. There are multiple Kerr County road
classifications, and it has to do with width, thickness of
G-~~-„~
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-..
25
base material, surface topping, right-of-way width. I'm
also a civil engineer, and -- but what is not in the Kerr
County rules is design criteria for vertical and horizontal
alignment for different classifications based on acceptable
speed of that classification. For example, a minor
residential street may have a 30-mile-an-hour speed 1imiL.
For vertical and horizontal alignment for a
30-mile-an-hour -- 30-mile-an-hour speed, there is certain
design criteria that is entered into construction plans that
some road contractors may be familiar with that criteria,
some may not. My only concern is that when roads are
constructed and inspected for installation compaction,
dimensions, widths, the one thing that is unseen is -- is
radiuses for curves and roads. Are reverse curves in roads
long enough to be safe for a particular driving speed'? It
also has to do with vertical alignment, and not grade. It
has tc do with sags and crests in roads, because those sags
and crests have to be at a certain length for that driving
speed for a safe stopping distance. I'm not concerned about
the materials that are used, the dimensions of the different
classifications. I'rn just concerned that roads might
continue to be built that are not crafted or matched well
with their driving speed. My while issue has to do with the
driving safety of the public. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. We
~, ~~-o~
58
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
L
"' 0
21
22
23
24
25
appreciate your comments. Anything else on Item Number 5?
If not, we'll move on to Item 6, consider allowing Road and
Bridge to use unencumbered balance of 'C2/'03 to complete
the '02/'03 sealcoat project program. Mr. Odom.
MR. ODOM: Good morning, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, sir.
MR. ODOM: In reference to this item, in the
past we have done this, and then currently in the last
couple of years, the Court has cut us off at 1 October.
We're working very hard to complete our scheduled sealcoat
projects; however, we may not be able to complete all of
them. And I know -- I think I've addressed the Court that I
saw at least two to three roads that I would not get into
the current sealcoat program, and it is still looks that
way. What I'rn asking the Court at this time is to consider
allowing us to use all unencumbered funds in this '02/'03
budget year to complete the work through the month of
October, because I'm -- probably, that's when this weather's
going to cut us off; it's getting cool very quick. I can't
say specifically hew much it would be, whether there would
be any, because we've already paid the bills and everything
goes into a pool. And my authority is -- is to -- because
I've already programmed this next budget year on line with
what we projected, I would ask the Court to allow us to
extend that time. Don't cut me off at 1 October; let me go
9-_~-03
59
1
'" 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
2~
22
23
,,_ 2 4
25
in a little bit intc the budget year, unless GASB's got
something I don't know about for accountability.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's all right to do that. I
would just like to -- to go ahead and budget that amount, or
an estimated amount f_or '03/'04.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's cleaner
that way too. I mean, I'm not sure if we can carry over
like that. I think Tommy's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Determine what the
unencumbered amount is that he feels like he needs tc
complete this current-year sealcoat program, do a budget
amendment, throw that into his '03/'04 budget?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
it, Mr. Odom?
JUDGE TINLEY: That will work for you, won't
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Either way?
MR. ODOM: Either way. I don't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: I know the rain's been
catching you here the last week or so.
MR. ODOM: Right, sir. Every time we turn
around. And in August, we had it for a week; Yiad 5 and a
half inches of rain up there in the Hunt area while we were
doing work in Hills 'n Dales. And just, you know, messes
°-~~ 03
1
2
4
5
h
-,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
you up. You have to start over, cover that up, and it's a
hard guess with hurricane season.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If y'all would just
stay in Precinct 1, you wouldn't have the rain problem, see?
Just work in Precinct 1.
MR. ODOM: Precinct 1.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or 2.
MR. ODOM: We'll consider that in the new
process.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. ODCM: But I understand. I will try to
give them an estimate. I can give an estimate.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll get with the Auditor
and figure out what -- what those numbers are, and then we
can -- we can amend the budget to increase what you've got
for your sealcoating project --
MR. ODOM: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- for next year.
MR. ODOM: That will be fine, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: That will work for you?
MR. ODCM: Because what we don't do this year
is going into -- I've already worked it into next year's
budget, so they'll be done. They have a high priority on
that. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have anything
9-22-G3
61
1
'" 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
IO
11
12
.~-- 13
14
15
1E
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~.., 2 4
25
further on Item 6? Let's move on to Item 7, consider going
out for formal bid on a buzz bar. Mr. Odom again.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. In the budget process,
in workshops and all, we discussed this. This is one item
that, at this point, I am not finding that it would be in
the governmental purchase, so I'iti asking for permission of
the Court, in the next budget year starting 1 October, if I
could go out for bid for this specific item if I cannot find
a comparable -- I'm looking at this point. There may be a
way to do it, but the way it was presented, the
demonstration of tha~ vehicle, those people were not in the
program. They said they were, but they were not in that
program.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHCLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
permit the Road Administrator to go out for formal bid on
the buzz bar. That's a piece of equipment for clearing
brush.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion? A11 in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
a-~_-03
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,_ 2 4
25
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Thank you,
Mr. Odom. Next item is your item alsc, Item 8, consider
approving the sign policy for private roads.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. In the last week, we
met in a little workshop, two Commissioners and 911
Director, and we were going over the sign program and what
was projected and some questions we had. The Court -- the
two members had asked. us to bring this agenda item to the
attention of the Court to see if we can pass on this -- our
recommendation. Private road signs shall be given green
blanks with 4-inch white reflective letters for name, 2-inch
for suffix and geo region, strip of red reflective tape
that's placed atop the sign to signify that there's a
private road. That's how we can tell now, and our people,
when they go up, they see a green sign with a red strip on
top, that says it's a private road; there's no question
about it. In the past, the Court has directed us that we
charge $70. What we've seen, our costs have gone up; that
we would like to have $100. A private sign installed on a
public right-of-way, for us to do it costs us about $100.
That's our cost, you know. And the nameplate, if the -- if
the pole is there and we -- or if they wish to put it on
some structure, that cost on the sign, reflective tape and
all, is $30. The sign and hardware to be installed by the
G-~~-~.~
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-^ ~3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,.~ 2 4
25
owner on private property runs about $70, our labor for
that. The cost of the sign includes replacement and/or
repair for three occasions or instances. After the third
time, the property owner is expected to pay for replacement
costs. In the past, we gave them in perpetuality for a
private road. And so we've charged $70. We have score of
them that are going as much as -- in some cf the areas --
weii, you know your own precincts in the -- 'cause you hit
some of them. We're going and we're doing this for
perpetuality, and we say that on private roads, for
taxpayers, I think we should limit it. And I think three
times is fair; then they come back and pay again if they
wish to have it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think three times is more
than fair.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do, too. I think
MR. ODOM: But it is getting to the point of
being ridiculous on score of them, and it's not right to ask
taxpayers to do that on a private road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of the
new pol-icy.
MR. AMERINE: Can I make a comment before you
make the mcticn?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
G-~~-~3
64
1
'" 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLE`_': Motion made and seconded. Now
we'll have some discussion. Mr. Amerine, do you want to be
heard on this?
MR. AMERINE: Please. It's not directly to
address the subject of the dollar amount, but this thought
came to mind after we had our workshop last week about a
phenomenon, even though it's rare, that creates a public
safety issue in the naming of private roads, in that we did
this last year to serve public safety, to address people off
these private roads, and a very slight phenomenon has
occurred. And I don't know whether this is appropriate for
this motion or not, but I'd like to see some wording added
to the policy behind when we name private roads. What's
happening is people wart to name and sign their private
road, but they want to be addressed off the main
intersection road, almost like a prestige plate that they
want to have that creates a public safety issue, because
people are looking for addresses directly off that main
road. So, I don't know whether it's an appropriate thing to
ask for or not, but I'd almost like to see Road and Bridge
say if you want a road named and signed, then you must be
addressed off that road. Otherwise, what we have is
emergency service people screaming down that major county
road and going right past that named road looking for an
address that they're not going to find. Just a thought.
°-~~-03
65
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
i2
--- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
2~
L
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALD~ti'IN: I agree with you, I
do. And I also agree with you, I don't think it's
appropriate for today.
MR. AMERINE: Okay, I just bring that up. I
didn't know, with the wording that was being done on this,
whether this was an appropriate time to bring it up, but
it's something that I think needs to be addressed with Road
and Bridge and whether they approve these named roads or
not.
JUDGE TINLEY: On your standards that you
have for addressing, you have the ability to plug those
things in there, and I think that would be a starting point
for where, maybe, that ought to be.
MR. AMERINE: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then if it needs tc come
here, we -- I even have a question whether it needs to come
here, since you have the right to amend your addressing
standards and rules.
MR. AMERINE: I see. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think you can handle that
there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- well, I think
?-__-03
66
2
3
4
5
6
-~
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
standpoint. I think that the -- we probably ought to have
a -- when people get a private sign, they have to be advised
of what Mr. Amerine is stating; that when you get this sign,
your address is now going to be that road, not the other
road. And I think when they're doing the -- if they make
them sign an application to get it, that's the time where
they need to be aware of these -- make them sign something,
because I think that we -- you know, otherwise, how will --
how is the public going to be aware of this policy?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If it's in their
rules, they become aware.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they're aware of the
rules, but in reality, who's going to look at the addressing
guidelines rules for 911? It's not going to happen. I just
think, from a public standpoint, we ought to try to make the
information as available as possible. And if -- and we
should require, I think, people that request a -- I think we
do -- to sign when they request a private road name, when
the public does. If we mandate it or do it, then it's done
by us, but I think that they cught to be -- you know, the
request -- they ought to be told what.'s happening when they
do that.
MR. AMERINE: I don't think -- that's why I
bring this up. I don't think folks realize that when they
request that their private ranch road or private drive be
G----~'
67
1
~'^ 2
8
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
named and then they want to sign it, that they -- without
creating an address change for them, that creates a public
safety issue. And we've had, ;ust in this addressing area,
probably a handful of folks who have warted to name and sign
the road that have gone through the process. Then, after
the fa; t, when they receive the address card with an address
off this road, they're upset; they want to maintain their
original address. With that being said, we certainly -- and
I'll take Your Honor's recommendation. We car. adjust our
address guidelines, since we're part of that process of
approval, and advise folks at that time, but I didn't know
whether Rcad and Bridge's policy needed to be amended as
well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think this -- this
policy is fine the way it is, but I think this issue needs
to be addressed. Ar.d I -- and as to your -- the addressing
guidelines, while they are under the authority of 911 tc set
those guidelines, it's been done in the past two ways.
Originally, the Court approved those guidelines. Whether we
had to or not is unclear, but we did. But, clearly, I think
if -- you know, make sure that the Court gets an update of
those guidelines.
MR. P.MERINE: Certainly.
,..~ 2 4
25
JUDGE TINLEY: "'here may be some coordination
that needs to take place. Another policy where Road and
-__-~~~ 3
68
-~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-.. ,~ 3
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bridge, when they're requested to make one of these private
roads signs, that they be provided with some sort of
documentation from your office that, in fact, that is the
address this person has been --
MR. AMERINE: Given.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- given. And that's where
the two of them would tie in at that point, I would think.
COMMISSIONER BALDL~IIN: Or the naming of the
road. G7hen this Court names a road, then that document is
sent out with their rules on it. Either -- either way, sign
or -- probably sign as well. Ycu'd have more contact with
the public on the sign than you do changing the name,
wouldn't you? Yes, is the answer to that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that we need
to -- once we've dine so many of these road naming changes
this year -- this has beer. an abnormal year. I think that
we need to get back with Road and Bridge, 911, and this
Court, and develop a policy to handle it so there's a good
paper trail and a good, clear understanding between all of
the entities as to exactly how we're going proceed with name
changes. G~e've just had so many this year that it was --
ycu knew, it was kind of let's get them done the best way we
can.
MR. AMERINE: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
~-~'~ ~3
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
discussion on the motion concerning the Road and Bridge sign
policy f_or private roads?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. ODOM: Yes, too. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The question I have is,
the -- and it's kind of an Auditor/County Attorney question.
The money for signs are deposited to Road and Bridge, you
know --
MR. ODOM: To that line item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- to the line item,
15-611-45"i. Or_e, I don't know that we can do that, 'cause I
think all fines -- all money we get, I think it goes into
the general fund, or can we put it in a specific line item?
MR. ODOM: You have precedents already set.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm not following you,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The money we
collect for -- say we get $100 for naming a private road.
Where does that money go? Does the money go right back into
the same line item, or go into the general fund and then
come --
MR. TOMLINSON: We11, I can --
MR.. ODOM: We have a program now with -- with
corrugated metal pipe, when we put them in. And the reason
we did that --
~-_=-„ z
~c
1
2
3
4
5
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
2~
22
23
,,,.., 2 4
25
MR. TOMLiNSON: I think it probably needs to
just go in Road and Bridge revenue, and then increase their
budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- we just need to
make sure, however that's handed, that it's handled the way
the Auditor feels it needs to be handled between the funds,
because it's -- I kzi~w many times, most revenue we receive
goes into the general fund, whether it's our general fund or
possibly your fund.
MR. CDOM: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But not into --
MR. ODOM: In the past, when we upgraded our
policy to provide service to the people with driveways, when
they paid for the pipe, then, of course, we didn't have no
way to know how many we're going get iz~ a year. Then the
Auditor takes that money and puts it back into that line
item. That's the same program we've had for several years,
so we could control what's going on. The people are just
paying for the cost of the pipe. Then we put it in, so we
could have control of, you know, the flowage, the ditches
and all. So, the same thing here -- what we're asking here
would be the same t'ning we've been doing for several years.
If the Court has no problems, we've been doing that for
several years now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine.

~1
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
i7
18
19
20
21
22
23
~, 2 4
25
MR. ODOM: Now, the other one is -- that we
discussed also, that Road and Bridge will begin installing
private signs on reads that have never been -- had a name as
time permits. Ir. other words, not wait till January. Since
we have a private road, I see no reason why we couldn't go
ahead and do this, instead of waiting into December sometime
before we start installing those name changes. But if we
have a private road, we see no reason why we -- once the
name is approved by 911, we could put it in and save that
congestion and that time during December.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this is an answer to
the current moratorium?
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
COMMISSTONER LETZ: This is lifting that
moratorium?
MR. UDOM: Lifting that moratorium for
private roads, not the name changes on the others. That we
would have on --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we ought to make
that as a specific motion under this item, because it is
listed on the attachment, so it's clear. Otherwise, it's
going to be lost in the -- in the minutes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe so. The
attractive part of it, you know, we have a number of --
because of the moratorium, we have a lot of signs that need
G-~~-u~
72
2
3
4
5
E
7
R
9
10
11
12
--- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to go up, and with this program, we can -- between Christmas
and New Year's -- of course, they're down to kind of a
skeletal group anyway, a little downtime for them. We can
go from, like, one sign guy to several sign guys, and they
can go out and put up signs en masse and knock this plan
out. That, to me, is the attractive part of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's on the pub lic roads.
MR. CDOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
MR. ODOM: On public roads.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I'll make a second
COMMISSIONER BALDrvVIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion upon the motion? A11 in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under the same private
road sign policy, I make a motion, that we rescind the
moratorium on installing private road signs effective
immediately.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
9-~~-U3
73
1
-"` 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made ar.d seconded that
the current moratorium for prohibiting the installation of
road signs be suspended effective immediately fcr installing
those signs on private reads. Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
MR. ODOM: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. We'11 now go to
Item 1.14. I will adjourn the Ccmmissioners Court meeting,
and I will convene and open a public hearing on the proposed
Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Kerr Conr.ty budget.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 10:34 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 TINLEY: Is there any member of the
public that wishes to be heard relative to the proposed
2003/2CC4 Kerr County budget? Mr. Schellhase? Come
forward, please, sir.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Walter Schellhase, 529 Water
Street. I'm here to address the budget for Dietert Senior
Center. In the past, we've -- you, the Court, has given the
~-~~-o;
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,..-. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
center a tota- of $20,000; $5,000 dedicated to
transportation, $15,000 for nutrition and other programs.
This year you have chosen to reduce Dietert to $7,200, and
transportation to AACOG, $7,800. I think your math is wrong
ir, some sense. AACCG evidently has provided you with some
sort of an overall amount of money they need to continue to
operate transportation, which Dietert could not do because
AACOG would not provide the adequate amour_t of money to do
it on a brea'.~-even basis, so Dietert gave up that program.
There is no reason for me to believe that the
counties involved in this will pay the amount of money that
the counties have been assessed, I would assume, as opposed
to investigate as to the cost of conducting that
transportation. It's hard for me to understand how you can
discontinue a program from the needy, the elderly, the
Dietert Center as a whole, to reduce the amount of money
from $15,000 to $7,200, which is about a 56 percent
reduction, and at the same time increase the amount of money
for transportation to an agency that is funded by the
federal government and the State, and to have County funds
being given to an agency that proposes a program, and we all
automatically assume those moneys have to come from County
funds to make that prcyrarn function.
Dietert is in a hard place for moneys right
now, as well for 2004. It would appear we're going to have
-~~-u3
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
O
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a $170,000 deficit. Those deficits have to be fixed in some
fashion, which will obviously be the reduction of services.
One of those that wi11 help us redo that was a reduction of
transportation, which was costing a considerable amount of
money annually. There was no indication that AACOG had
additional moneys to do this job. In fact, we were losing
about $30,000 a month. It would appear that AACOG has
arbitrarily assessed the five counties involved probably
somewhere along than amount of money, and Kerr County has
arbitrarily taken on a $7,800 amount of money to pay to
AACOG. I see no reason why AACOG should be provided any
money from County funds, when all of the other agencies in
the area are short funds.
The Commissioners Court made a decision to
reduce those funds provided to social services
across-the-board. b4e hope it was across-the-board. If all
of those social services are reduced by at least 56 percent,
perhaps what's happened to Dietert is not any different than
what's happened to the other social services. There's been
some discussion and articles in the paper about the Court's
decision, and perhaps we should not be providing social
services funding whatsoever. Perhaps that's true. That's
not for me to decide, but fvr the Court. But, however, it
is for me to bring to your attention that Dietert provides a
great service to this community, and to cut those funds is
5-~~-os
76
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
..-~ 13
14
i5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not proper at this time, especially with the crunch in other
areas, when at the same time you're assuming another
obligation of AACOG at a higher rate than we had in the
past. So, therefore, I would like to request that this
Commissioners Court adjust the budget and put the $15,000
dedicated to that line item back in Dietert for the purpose
of nutrition and other functions. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Is there anyone
else who wishes to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this a public
hearing?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Mr. Harris?
MR. HARRIS: My name is Walter Harris. I
happen to be the Court-appointed representative on the
Council of Aging at AACOG. I just want to say, I ditto what
the general said, and I don't think I could add anything to
it. I do not think that we should be sending County money
down to AACOG. I think they should be deleted, and that
money be reimbursed back to Dietert Claim. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Is there
anyone else who wishes to address the Court on the proposed
2003/2004 Kerr County budget at this public hearing? Anyone
else? No one else stepping forward, I will close the public
hearing on the proposed 2003/2004 Kerr County budget, and I
will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting.
G ~~-o~
~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
~ 5
16
17
18
19
2G
21
22
23
24
25
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:38
a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And we'll move to Item 15,
consideration and discussion of adoption of the proposed
2003/2004 Fiscal Year Kerr County budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have -- do
have a comment, that I agree with most everything that was
said this morning in regards to the -- that particular line
item. Personally, I think that at some point, that we might
get -- get to the point to where we would cut services or
funding to Dietert. But just -- you know, and I commented
earlier during the budget process, when we were talking
about those other social services, that it's difficult for
me to just cut them off automatically, because that affects
their budget and their planning and everything else. So, if
-- you know, if we have thoughts about decreasing the
funding to them, I would think that we would -- we would
continue the funding this year, and tell them -- and then
send them a message that the cut in funding could happen
next year, to -- in order to give them time to prepare and
-- and do their planning and their budget. Nc->w, restoring
the line item from $x,200 to $15,000, that would -- that
would change the bottom line of the budget that the public's
been looking at for the last week or so, and I -- I
-^~-o~

78
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
personally I think that that's a bad thing to dc, is to
change -- to come in here this late in the game and change
the bottom line. So, I am in favor of restoring the Dietert
money, but I'm not in favor of changing the bottom line.
So, ir. order to do that, we would have to move something
around inside the budget to -- to accomplish that feat.
That's all I have to say right zicw. I mean, that's my
thoughts. And if -- if we agree that we need to move -- you
know, not change the bottom line and move money around in
the budget, then I have some further thoughts, but if we're
not going to get to that point, I'd like -- I'll just hold
my thoughts until then.
JUDGE TINLEY': Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Court will
recall, I raised -- raised that issue -- excuse me -- during
budget discussions and pointed out that there were, as
Mr. Schellhase noted, two line items, one being the $5,000
public transportation, which Dietert gave up doing public
transportation, and the other being $15,000. I believe,
Judge, you told me in that discussion that it was your
decision to take the $15,000 and cut it at the point that
you did, giving Dietert 72 and transportation 78, as per the
formula that was provided for transportation. And, in so
doing, tree $5,000 that had been there for public
transportation fell down in through the cracks and went
- _ _ - ~i i
a .rte ~ .~ ~~ _ ~ ~. f
~g
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
away. The easier way to have done it would have been to add
$2,200 or $2,800 to the $5,000 in public transportation,
bringing us up to the formula suggested for reimbursement of
public transportation, and leaving Dietert alone in terms of
its nutritional programs and other senior programs. So, I
support what Commissioner Baldwin said. I've always been a
supporter of Dietert in that regard, and if we can find a
way, without going back and redoing the entire budget, to at
some point later in this process, after the budget has been
placed, restore that level of funding, I'm in favor of that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we prohibited at this time
from -- from making changes to that budget? I don't think
we are.
certainly
of, "Well,
the budget
community.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
don't want to giv
those idiots are
again," which is
WILLIAMS: We're not prohibited.
BALDWIN: No, sir. I just -- I
a foot -- foot to the thinking
up there bumbling around with
-- is a conversation out in the
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Again?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As usual. And that
conversation -- this year, I even had some close friends
come and say, "Are y'all through with that budget yet?
What's taking so long?" I tell you, that angers me a little
bit. Because, by god, the public better be happy that we
G-~~-c~
~ a +r. - r
1
2
3
5
6
-,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-,
25
80
take care of every penny that comes across this table. And
I take that very seriously, and I know you guys do too. So,
I really don't want to hear that any more.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From concerned
friends, friend or foe. My ears are going to close off to
that nonsense.
	JUDGE TINLEY: I'm somewhat like you;	you
can't have	too much discussion about	an item. When you get
concerned	is when there's no discussi	on.	
	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:	That's exactly	right,
I agree.	The -- but I think that we	could change it.	It
just doesn	't look good.		
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: I	have a question	which
kind of --	ycu know, I agree. Well -	-	
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:	What page are	you on
there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 64, which is
County-sponsored activities. As I look back, we've
discussed this page quite a bit. And we've done -- we
changed it around quite a bit, and when I looked at it
again, it's actually different than I thought it was.
The -- out of all the County-sponsored activities, the final
proposal that's in the budget -- well, the final budget
numbers we changed, basically, or we didn't -- changed two
G-~_ ";
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1C
~,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
entities; Big Brothers/Big Sisters were completely deleted
for funding. They had been at $3,000; new they're at zero.
And Dietert Claim went from $15,000 to $7,117. And the
public transportation number went up. First question I have
is really probably directed best to Commissioner Williams as
to the public transportation, $7,883. Do we have to fund
that, is the basic question. What happens if we don't give
AACOC any more money? Because they certainly get enough
from the federal government, it seems.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, a lot -- a good
portion of this has to do with their ability to match the
federal mcney by reason of whatever form that's come down
through feds to TexDOT, and it also has to do with the
formula for reimbursement of transportation. The
transportation program of Kerr County is changing in that it
is nct -- it is no longer serving just seniors. It is going
tc be serving, as it always should have been serving,
anybody who has a need fcr public transportation, and a
formula for that for the number of trips and the distances
and so forth, and the fare structure will change as well.
Senior transportation is funded under a separate line item,
and those dollars come down, and there is -- there is not a
set reimbursement for that. There can be a set
reimbursement for, however, other transportation. My
understanding is that it's used -- this 7 hundred -- 7883 is
G-,~_u3
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
'' 0
L
21
22
23
24
25
based on formulas for all counties. Not just Kerr County,
all counties who participate in the Regional Transportation
Program. It is not used for administrative, but is used
essentially to draw dcwn funds or match funds where needed
and when available, and this wculd be our proportionate
share of the whole pot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So there is not an option
to cut that AACOG funds? I mean, if you cut the AACOG
funds, it totally cancels Kerr County out of the public
transportation?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It could take us out
of the regional program.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could or would?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. I
don't know.
AUDIENCE: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. Would
or could.
COMMISSIONER
directors back here telling
COMMISSIONER
MR. AMERINE:
silent. Managers are speak
COMMISSIONER
close to being right.
BALDWIN: We've got some 911
us you can't.
WILLIAMS: I can't what?
Managers. Directors are being
ing.
BALDWIN: I think you're pretty
9-<: -' - U
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER	LETZ: I	mean,	if -	- I mean --
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	Ts~ho	is?	He is or I
am?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Both of you. You're
saying you dor:'t know, and he's asking the question, would
we be X'd out of it? This is our portion cf -- prorated
amongst the counties.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We have resolved to
participate, and we've been given a formula nor
participation. Most of those dollars go to help AACOG match
the federal and state funds available for public
transportation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: T mean, it -- I don't --
I've never understood AACOG and how the various COGS around
the state work. I mean, they -- some CCGS seem to get a lot
mere for their counties than our COG does for our county.
Why that is, I don't know. Maybe I should go to one of the
AACOG meetings, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, a lot of that
has tc do with there being 11 rural counties surrounding one
humungous, biq urban center, and the funds are -- are
divvied up proportionately to that.
JLDGE TINLEY: Ms. Woods? Do you have any
sense of -- of whether or not we would be deleted from
service for the Rural Transportation Program if we were not
9-~'~-03
84
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to make our assessed contribution or some significant
portion of that to AACOG?
MS. WOODS: I don't believe we would be
deleted, simply because they've made a significant
investment here already with the transportation center. The
two ways that we received transportation funding was through
the 5311 program, which was the Rural public Transportation;
we got approximately $69,000 for that service. The aging
portion of it, we received about $20,000. The whole concept
with -- as I understand the Alamo Regional Transit, is to
promote public transportatien, and that's certainly the
lion's share of the funding. If they desired to pull out of
Kerr County, they would be losing at least $69,000, and the
aging money would not ac to them either. So, I think they'd
be very interested in staying here. `They've got commitments
with Kerrville Bus Company to operate that center, and they
are planning to dispatch out of this center for Gillespie
and scme cf the other counties, so I would not think they
would pull out. They would lose that money, and I don't
think AACOG likes to lose any money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't think they do
either, and I think you make a valid point. They've got an
investment Here, and wYrether they would or could alter the
service to Kerr County is something that we'll have to wait
and see. What we had originally structured was -- and has

85
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
,_ 2 4
G5
been structured for a long time, was $5,000 to public
transportation. So, the issue before the Court only was
whether or not to increase that by $2,800 -- $2,883. The
original issue wasn't to cut Dietert from 15 to 7. That
happened here as an action of the Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that -- I
mean, on that point, that the -- you knew, it was divided
up, ycu know, I guess by the Judge's original
recommendation, and we agreed with it, to take $15,000,
divide it up between public transportation and Dietert. My
feeling is -- I mean, and I kind of share Commissioner
Baldwin's feelings that it is nct appropriate, in my mind,
to cut some of these agencies without notice, which
essentially we have done this year. But, at the same time,
I think that the -- the time, in my mind, is coming when we
need to stop funding all social agencies except those that
are part of county government. And "part" may be a -- like,
the one that comes to mind the most is Historical
Commission. It's something that, by statute, we have -- and
I think there's an obligation for those types of
organizations, to fund them. I am not aware of how Dietert
falls into that category as to something that -- that we
have to, by statute, you know, have Dietert or fund Dietert.
That being said, I'm not sure there's that tie with some of
these others as well, so I don't have a problem with

86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
l2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
restoring Dietert to their amount of $15,000. However,
Dietert and all the other agencies are going to have to
prove to me before next budget year why they should get
County funds and why they're entitled to County funds,
rather than it being just something that is good to do for
the community, because that doesn't work any more for me. I
think we need to be consistent, and I don't think we have
been consistent in the past, and we need to change that.
As to where the money comes from, I mean, I
agree with Commissioner Baldwin; I don't want to increase
the budget. Right now, I'd take it out of public
transportation. Put the -- restore $15,000, put public
transportation to zero, and see what AACOG does. And my --
you know, what Ms. Woods is saying about the transportation
center, I suspect that there's some things that the City or
County have done to help with that -- I don't remember all
the details of how that facility got built. I'm sure we
were involved, and that can be our contribution.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, if you remember,
when we were talking about -- when AACOG first requested
this -- this money, I brought up the point of that they get
funds -- you know, they get their little -- when this
federal -- when federal grants come through -- block grants
come through there, they rake off a little or a lot into
their pockets, and now they're coming to the local counties.
9-__-03
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
i6
1 ,'
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And, to me, that was a double-dipping issue. They sent us a
letter stating that I was wrong about that. I know you find
that hard to believe. But seemed to me that -- that their
letter explained it like Mr. Williams explained it; that it
was our -- our portion. of the grant process.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
Draw-down to help make the match.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right, the
matching part of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The administration of
the -- of the programs is a very modest amount of money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And, of course,
what Mr. Letz is saying, let's just pull it out of there
and -- ar.d really hold AACOG accountable and find out what
they're really about, I'm not against that kind of thing at
all.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm thinking that we
probably can renege on our paying our fair share to AACOG.
It's a question of whether we should. I wonder what would
happen to this program if all of the other government
entities reneged on their commitment to it. So I'm not
gaming to support that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I won't support the
reneging either. The original request for budget that the
Court had was for $15,000 for Dietert, and public
-~_-03
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1G
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 `7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,--
25
transportation for $5,000. That was the original request.
All that would have been required of the Court at that time
would have been to increase the public transportation
portion by $2,883, as per the request, for the match, and
leave Dietert alone, and that's where I think we should be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge -- I mean, not
Judge. Commissioner, I don't -- the fact that it was
requested doesn't mean we need to do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've changed many
requests, and Big Brothers/Big Sisters requested $3,000.
They get nothing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean
MS. WOODS: May I add something? The City
also gave us $5,000 towards public transportation last year,
and to my knowledge, they're not -- they're certainly not
giving Dietert any money for public transportation, so there
might be access through City funds to support whatever the
allocation for AACOG --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know whether
there is -- whether the City has been given a proportionate
sharing request. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's probably not wise
to zero out the transportation. It's not a smart thing to
_-__-03
89
1
.-. 2
3
4
5
6
i
8
9
1G
11
12
.-,. 13
14
15
16
i7
18
19
`' 0
G
21
22
23
24
25
do.	So, we can -- tae can go ahead and	adopt the	budget the
way	it is, and then come back next wee	k and make	a budget
ame	ndment when the budget is one week	old. Or we	car_ go in
and	find moneys somewhere else in the	budget to -	- to lift
up	to the $15,000 new, today.		
	COMMISSTONER WILLIAMS:	I think --	
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or we can -- or we can
adept a budget today that's bigger than the one that we
approved two weeks ago -- or last week.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Or we can leave it
as-is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or we could leave it
as-is. I'd like to restore them up to the $15,000, find it
scmewhere else in the budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: The Auditor's trying to get
your attention, Mr. Baldwin.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sorry.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'd just like to make one
comment about -- about the difference between -- I mean,
there's been some conversation about social services, and I
don't have it in front of me and I haven't read it recently,
but I think that the state constitution allows county
government tc fund -- to fund services for the youth and
aged, so I t7~ink we can -- ~ think county government can
fund Dietert Claim as a -- as a program for the aged under
-_~-~~~3
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
~4
15
16
li
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the constitution, and not under a contractual basis.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we're doing
anything illegal. I think we can fund it. The issue we
have is, how do we pay for a big increase, with which fund?
MR. TOMLINSON: But I think there's a
difference between what's a service that the constitution
allows, rather than a -- than a service that we contract
with.
COMMISSIONER
but what I'm saying is, take
greatly subsidize youth that
their programs; they provide
Why don't we fund Y.M.C.A.?
there's a youth --
LETZ: Well, I agree with that,
Y.M.C.A. They have sub -- they
can't afford to participate in
free access or reduced costs.
I mean, there's -- I mean,
MR. TOMLINSON: I think we could.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we -- I think we
could. I don't think we should, is what I'm saying.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Woods?
MS. WOODS: May I add something? Perhaps
it's not clear. We use the county money for our Meals on
Tsdheels program. We do about 15G meals a week. 80 percent
of those are seniors are over age 8i, and they can -- we ask
for a donation, but only about, I think, 40 percent of them
can contribute to that program. AACOG provides us roughly
$70,000 tcwards that program, and it costs us approximately
1
^` 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
1
~3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-..
25
91
$150,000 to operate that; it's about $1,000 a year per
person. So, we use that county money for our Meals cn
Wheels pregram.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Strictly?
MS. WOODS: Yes. Those folks can't -- they
don't have the resources, and they certainly need us or
they're not going to eat, or will require a higher level of
care. So, just so its clear so y'all understand how we use
that money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Meals on Wheels is a
?srogram I can see that governmer_t should be involved in.
Those are folks that are -- can't get out of their home.
They need help, and that's what government's about, in my
cpinion. Meals on Wheels is a great program. Great
program. I'm all for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In looking for places to
come up with the money, 'cause I'm not in favor of -- I'm in
favor of restoring Dietert, but I'm not in favor of
increasing the budget. I see the Nondepartmental
Contingency as an option. I see Professional Services in
the Commissioners Court line item as an option. There's
$25,000 in Contingency, $12,500 in Commissioners Court
Professional Services. Contingency's probably a better
spot, if we're going come up with the money, 'cause it's
kind of a catch-all. And I don't know -- I can't think what
~-__-G3
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
else we have that we -- I guess not a required or kind of
a -- not designated as of this point. Really, the only two
items that I -- or only item is really Contingency.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What were the two?
Contingency --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Nondepartmental
Contingency is $25,000 currently.
JUDGE TINLEY: Professional Services.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Professional Services
under Commissioners Court is $12,500. Both of those are --
are funds that we use each year, and therefore, unknown ones
that we -- Contingency is obviously for contingencies.
Professional Services is, we know we're going to have
lawsuits, generally, and that's what it's used for, to cover
the lawsuits. Just an estimate. I think Contingency's a
better source, unless some other Commissioners come up with
other areas. And, you know, it's a -- I think -- well,
that's my opinion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move that we
amend the budget -- well, wait a minute. Nct amend it, but
move to restore the $15,000 to Dietert Senior Services,
and -- and adhere to the funding request of $7,883 for
public transportation, which would amend lines 410 and 420
under County-Sponsored Activities, and that those funds be
transferred from Nondepartmental Contingency and/or
-__-~ ?
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.~-. 13
14
15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Professional Services as required.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that the budget otherwise
be adopted?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you going tc tell
us -- I want to know how much is coming from each one of
those lir_es .
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good question. Let's
see.
JUDGE TINLEY: $7,883.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, $7,883 gees
back to Dietert.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And $2,883 gets added
to public transportation.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's already there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Already there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'n's already there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Okay. So,
then, all we're really talking about is $7,883 to restore
Dietert to its position of $15,000, and that can come from
Nor.departmental Contingency, or split equally between
Nondepartmental Contingency and Professional Services.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Contingency is
a-~~.-03
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
better. Take it all out of Contingency.
COMMISSIONER GILLIAMS: That's okay with me.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's your motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take it from -- take
it from Nondepartmental Contingency.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ckay.
CUMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The only change would
be to the Dietert line item.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that $7,883, or is
that $7,800?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: $7,883.
COMMTSSIONER BALDWIN: Where's the 83 come
from?
COMMISSIUNER LETZ: That's the amount to get
Dietert back to $15,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLTAMS: That's the amount
required to get Dietert back to the $15,000. If you look at
the two numbers right now, the 410 and 420, those two total
15. So, all that's required to get Dietert back to $15,000
is $7,883 to be taken from Nondepartmental Contingency.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. Or third or
whatever.
JTJDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion made and
seconded that the Fiscal Year 2C03/2004 Kerr County budget
G-~_-„
95
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be adopted, with the following chance: That Dietert Claim,
Line Item 410, under County-Sponsored Activities, be
increased by $7,883 to a total of $15,000, and that those
funds be taken from Nondepartmer.tal Contingency, that beinq
Item 571. The current $25,000 will be reduced by the
$7,883. Any further questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment that I have,
really -- we'll probably vote in favor of it; however, we
are taking Contingency down quite low to do this. And the
one area or item in our budget that's probably going to take
that hit is Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center. We're
probably taking money that possibly is going to be needed
for studies, doing some work out there, and deleting that.
So we, possibly, to help Dietert, are deferring action,
likely, on that -- on gettinq tcc far along on something
that needs to be done out there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, something out
there also could come under Professional Services,
particularly if we get an engineering --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You could. I suspect
that's going to be used up by lawsuits.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I'd like to
reiterate something that Commissioner Letz alluded to
-~~-n~
96
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
earlier, that -- that all funds that we spend on
nonessential government services are -- or services that are
not esser:tial to Kerr County government are under the
microscope, and between now and this time next year, we need
tc rationalize why we're spending that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion? A11 in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We'll
break now and we'll reconvene at 11:15, and at that time
we'll take up the ti:r~ed item for 11 o'clock.
(Recess taken from 11:06 a.m. to 11:20 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's reconvene. It's a
little after i1:i5 now. The Auditor brought something to my
attention cn the budget item on 1.15, and before we leave
that item, let's hear from him.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1.15?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. That's the budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the item that we were
on when we took our break.
9 _~-03
97
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lg
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR.. TOMLINSON: Okay. Earlier -- earlier,
there -- there was an agenda item to carry over an
unencumbered fund tc Road and Bridge, and I think the -- the
way to handle that is to increase the '03/'04 budget by the
amount that they requested. And Leonard gave me that
number; it's 14,OC1~ --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much?
MR. TOMLINSON: $14,622.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 622?
MR. TCMLINSON: Yes. We can -- we can add
that amount to the budget line item for Asphalts, Oils, and
Emulsions. It's 15-611-552.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you're suggesting that,
because of the earlier discussion with Mr. Odom, we need to
amend the budget to add that item to it on -- on the
previously uncommitted funds to add that to his coming year?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's correct.
J`JDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: I do have another issue, too,
I'd like to run before the Court. It has to do with -- with
training classes for the First Responder program. That --
that program is underway, and if we -- under the '02/'03
budget, we bt::dgeted sufficient funds to complete that
program. Because of the timing situation, they're not able
to complete the program under this current budget year;
G- ~-o
98
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
'' 1
L
22
23
however, there are not enough funds budgeted for '03/'04, to
complete the program. What remains in the '02/'03 budget is
$4,128.
JUDGE TINLEY: 4,000 what?
MR. TOMLINSON: 128. In order to complete
the program and pay the instructors for the classes, we need
to increase the '03/'04 budget by that amount, by the
$4,128. It's the same issue, essentially, as what we did
for --
JUDGE TINLEY: Road and Bridge.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: The Auditor wasn't clear that,
as part of that change that we were making to Dietert, that
we were also adopting the budget, and that's the reason he
didn't wave his arms or scream loudly before, or he would
have had that in on the -- on the previous motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me take a crack
at it, see if we can get something before the Court to act
on. I move we amend the Fiscal Year 2003/'04 Kerr County
budget by 14 thousand six -- $14,627? Is that right?
MR.. TOMLINSON: $14,622.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 622, for Road and
Bridge, and add that amount to the line item for Asphalt and
Emulsions, and add $4,128 for First Responder --
MR. TOMLINSON: Expenses.
,~ 2 4
25
G-_- -~-
1
~-^ 2
3
4
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2~
22
23
24
25
99
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The First Responder
program. And that would be what line item?
MR. TOMLINSON: 10-630-502.
JUDGE TINLEY: 502, Training.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say it again?
MR. TOMLINSON: 10-630-502.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Add the $4,128 to
Line Item 10-b30-502.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second the
motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the '03/'04 Kerr County budget be amended to provide -- to
carry over $14,622 ar.d add that to Asphalt, et cetera, Line
Item 552 in the Road and Bridge budget, and carry over
$4,128 -- actually, it's not a carry-over. It will be an
increase in L~ne Item 502, First Responder 'T'raining. Any
further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just a comment. I
don't know that I totally agree with the First Responder
issue, but I'm goinq to go along with it. And this is the
shortest budget in history that -- before it was amended.
Hasn't even made it to October 1 yet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question, before we vote
en that. Ana I can't remember the details. One of these --
the tax rage or this vote, that has to be a record vote?
y-_~-o3
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
"~8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
One of them have to be a record vote.
JUDGE TINLEY: Tax rate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tax rate is, but not this
one, okay. There's a way out of amending the budget. If we
didn't vote right the first time, we'd have to do it again
anyway. But we did it right, evidently. All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We'll now
go to Item 21. I will recess the Commissioners Court
hearing, and we will open and convene a public hearing ~n
the proposed 2003/2004 Fiscal `r'ear tax rate for Kerr County.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 11:26 a.m., ar.d a public hearing
was held in open court, as follows:)
F U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the
public or the audience that wishes to be heard on the
proposed Fiscal Year '03/'04 tax rate for Kerr County?
Anybody that wishes to be heard on that item? There being
no one seeking attention on that, I will close the public
hearing on the proposed Fiscal Year '03/'04 tax rate for
°-. -03
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~,,, 2 4
25
101
Kerr County, and I will reconvene the Commissioners Court
meeting.
(The public hearing was concluded at 11:27
a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And we will take up Item 22,
consideration and discussion of the adoption of the proposed
'03/'04 tax rate for Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move adoption of the
'03/'04 tax rate -- as presented?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably same as the
last one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As previously presented,
and I'll read the rates. The total tax rate is .3`121. That
is broken out as General Fund, .2472; Fire Protection,
.0096; Public Library, .0171; Parks, zero; Indigent Health,
.0198; Certificate of Obligation, .007; 1998 tax
anticipation note, .0185; Jail Bonds, 1994, .022; Permanent
Improvements, zero, for a total M & 0 rate of .3412. Road
and Bridge operating, .0309. Total Road and Bridge, .0309,
for a total county rate of .3721.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
COMMISSIONER Tn]ILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Who did you pick up as
seconding that? This one or this one?
9-~~-U3
1
•-~. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
102
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion made and
seconded that we adopt a proposed Fiscal Year '03/'04 tax
rate for Kerr County as read into the record. Any question
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand, and we'll take a record vote.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Commissioner 1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 2?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 3?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 4?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Aye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does the -- does the law
require that the chair vote on the motion on the record?
The motion does pass. Next item will be Number 11, consider
and discuss setting the Sheriff's and constables' fees as
required under L.G.C. Section 118.131. The Clerk had
brought this forward on the setting of fees. That's an
annual requirement, is my understanding. Is that correct,
Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: That is correct, Your Honor.
And I have spoke with the Sheriff, and he does not wish to
~-__-03
1
•- 2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
-,
Il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
103
raise his fees, but I have not heard back from the
MR. PICKENS: Your Honor, due to the fact
that I had a death in the family, I've not really had a
chance to discuss with Ms. Pieper in reference to this. I
talked to Constable Ayala; he's supposed to be on his way
over right now to present his opinion on wanting to raise
the fee on the writ of possession, on the standby. He has a
little more information on that than I do at this time.
JUDGE TINLEY: I gather what I'm hearing is
that you'd like to defer this matter until later on in the
meeting, come back tort and pick it up after Constable
Ayala has an opportunity to be here; is that correct?
MR. PICKENS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone on the Court have any
objection to that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None whatsoever,
Judge. Do you think that they could provide us with a -- a
document that -- like the Sheriff's fees were laid out?
JUDGE TINLEY: Hopefully, we car. -- we can
get them to do that.
MR. PICKENS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Yeah, the constable is
indicating when they get it in-hand, they'll get some copies
made anal get it to us. Well, we'll not take any action on
u-~~-03
--- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,-,
25
104
Item 11 at this time, but rather come back to it. We'11
move onto Item 12, consideration and discussion cf request
for budget amendment for specific line items in the Election
Department for the constitutional amendment election
expenses, and authorization for the Treasurer and the
Auditor to pay the election expenses on or before
September 24th of this year. This is the current budget
year we're dealing with, fortunately.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'm curious
about something. Why -- why is this -- this budget
amendment an agenda item and not in the -- with the other
budget amendments? I'm dust curious why it --
MS. PIFPFR: Commissioner, I can answer that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I appreciate that.
MS. PIFPFR: Prior to the election, I came
before y'all tc find out how we were going to fund this, and
I was told at that point, once the election is over, then
come back. So now I'm back, ar.d I am requesting the budget
amendment. And if we take everything out of the Election
Expense line-tem out of Machine Repair, that will cover all
of our expenses.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the request of the County Clerk for a budget amendment for
5 - ? - 0 3
1
.-- 2
3
4
5
6
.~
8
9
10
11
12
._. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,--.
25
105
the payment of the constitutional amendment election
expenses and authorization for the Treasurer and County
Auditor to pay those expenses on or before September 24th of
this year be approved. Any further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I wondered
from the Auditor, does this have your seal of approval?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item,
consider and discuss a request for approval of the Kerr
County Jury Selection Plan to comply with Chapter 62 of the
Texas Government Code, and adding provision of House Bill
2188. What happened to District Clerk? She was here a
moment ago.
SHERIFF HIERHCLZER_: I can see if I can go
get her.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's just pass on that item;
we'1i come back to it. Next item. We'll move on to Item
1.16, consider and discuss action and/or remedies to cure
°-__-u3
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
106
complaints regarding the storage behind the Kerr County
Extension Service office. This is a carry-over item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be mine.
Yes, sir?
MR. MILLER: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good morning. How are
you?
MR. MILLER: Good morning, Judge,
Commissioners. Y'all had asked me to come back today and
tell you what our plan was to stop your telephone calls.
We've gone out for a bid for about 140 feet of cedar fencing
to cover the Highway 27 side, wrapped around the corner to
the gate on that storage yard, ar_d also to -- about -- it's
about 12 or 14 feet on the Extension Agent office side,
which would blank what you would see driving down the
highway around that thing. I have not got any bids back at
this point, but my board has approved the funds to go
forward and do that. We still haven't worked a schedule for
October 5th. Going to try real hard to get the materials on
hand and get it installed on that date.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're going to try
real hard to get the fence and --
MR. MILLER: Installed by that work date,
yeah, when I have Chuck Dickerson's crews coming to help us
on October 5. We are going to set up our front entrance to
G- ~ ~- ~ ~
107
1
--- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
",4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the site that day. We may be able to do both, get the cedar
arbor and fencing installed, and get the fence panels up
too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just a side question
here. Who is Chuck Dickerson's people?
MR. MILLER: The probationers, or -- or the
-- what do you call them?
JUDGE TINLEY: Community service workers.
MR. MILLER: Community service workers, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rusty, are those yours
or are those Chuck Dickerson's?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They won't be the
in-house outside trustee program we have. They are probably
some -- municipal court does order community service for
people to pay traffic fines and things like that, so it
could be some of that. It could be some of the County Court
ones that were also ordered community service. I think a
iot of that's kind of a mixture that Danny Edwards runs over
at the probation office, but it won't be in-house ones.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How high is that fence
going to be?
MR. MILLER: 6 foot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6 foot? Have y`all
checked to see if 6 foot gives a good blockage?
MR. MILLER: It's as high as the barbed wire
y-2~-n3
108
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-,
25
strand is across the top of that at this point. It's not
going to cover -- I know the ticket booths are taller than 6
foot, but I can't -- it's going to get ugly-looking if we
get much taller.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right..
MR. MILLER: It will block probably 80 or 90
percent of what's in that yard.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: None, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- for Mr. Miller, or any
comments? I gather we don't need to take any formal action
here. That was mainly just an update, wasn't it,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Yes, sir,
it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Miller. We
appreciate you being here.
MR. MILLER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move on to Item 17,
consider and discuss the reappointment of Charles Lewis as
Kerr County's representative to the 911 Board of Managers.
You don't want me to tell them about our discussion, do you,
Chuck?
MR. LEWIS: Just the big one, sir.

109
1
2
3 it.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
~i5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Just the big one.
MR. LEWIS: Then I don't have to worry about
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. You put this on,
Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda
because Charles' -- or Chuck, as we finally know him, his
term is expiring. I think it's the end of this month or
something like that, or close to the end of this month. And
I think he's served us, you know, fantastically. I think
he's really taken the bull by the horns out there; he's gone
through a lot of difficult periods and a lot of work out
there and getting things organized, and has done a great job
along with our other County representative. And I'm very,
very happy to reappoint him, or make a motion to reappoint
Chuck Lewis as our representative for the 9`~i Board.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm very, very happy
to second that motion. And it seems like 911's been in
place for about 15 years, and since we have put Chuck and
his faithful sidekick on -- on that board from Commissioners
Court is when they got around the corner and started really,
really getting things done. So, this Court should be very
proud of our appointments on that -- on that particular
board.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
9-= -03
1
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But today, especially
Mr. Lewis.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
Mr. Charles Lewis be reappointed as the Kerr County
representative to the Kerr 911 Board of Managers. Any
further questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One brief comment. And
this is just, you know, something that really -- I really
appreciate, being on this Court, that both Mr. Harris and
Mr. Lewis have done, is they frequently come to our meeting.
When. we have items on our agenda related to 911, they come,
and I wish that all of our appointees would be as diligent
and do as much, and give us, you know, the feedback that we
like to get -- enjoy get~ing, and representing the boards
they're serving. I really do appreciate the amount of time
y'all spend with us, sitting here listening to us talk about
a lot of things that aren't related to 911.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate the service of
both of you gentlemen.
MR. LEWIS: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further comments?
Questions? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
('1'he motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
9-~~-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,-_.
25
111
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item,
Item 18, is consideration and discussion of beginning
process to change Main Highway to Highway 27.
rOMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda;
it's a little bit more of a -- because it's cne of the
larger changes that I see since we did the addressing -- or
since we sent the cards out, anyway. Three years ago, under
the guide -- naming guidelines and guidelines that we were
operating under, we tried to put a name on every highway,
state or -- I think every state highway in the county. And,
in doing so, we kind of grasped at some of them, cause some
of them didn't really have names. Highway 27 west of town
is commonly known and referred to as Junction Highway, but
Highway 27 east of town really didn't have a name. It was
at one point kind of referred to as San Antonio Highway, but
that was -- that's really gene by the wayside in the past 20
years, too. It's just known as Highway 27.
But, because our guidelines said we had to
name them, we created a name and called it Main Highway, and
then I really never thought about it again. And in the
last, sort of, subsequent years -- well, we sent the cards
out, and all of a sudden I heard about it by a lot of
people, that where'd "Main Highway" come from? And I, you
know, pretty much called 91i and said, "Where'd we come up
Q-".-03
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,r-. 2 4
25
~_
with that name?" They gave me a little bit of history on
that. But I think that the purpose of oar naming and
addressing is for public -- EMS service. That's the bottom
line. And Highway 27 on the east side of Kerrville is known
as Highway 27, and that is the best name, in my opinion, to
call that name and to address it accordingly.
There is a little bit of an issue because of
the city limits and what the City chooses to call Highway 27
as it goes through the city of Kerrville. So, my
recommendation is that we change the name -- at first, I
wanted to do it at Loop 534, but then it became an issue
that the Veteran's Hospital is -- right at that point, it's
called Memorial Boulevard still, and rather than make it
real difficult, it seemed easier to me to change it at Third
Creek, where Highway 27 crosses Third Creek. The numbering
system will stay the same; it's just changing the name from
that point to the west. And I guess we really have to talk
to the City a little bit about it. I tried to look at
street signs as I was driving back and forth to my
residence, and the City has chosen not to put any street --
any names nn every street that they have in the city limits
past Loop 534. But I presume that it's Memorial Boulevard
for a ways. Koad and Bridge is addressed as San Antonio
Highway.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right. So is
+-_~-o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~--- 13
14
15
16
17
18
1
20
21
22
23
24
25
1i3
the Ag Barn.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So is the Ag Barn.
Little League across from the Ag Barn is not San Antonio
Highway, to my knowledge. They're Highway 27. So, anyway,
I think we need to try to simplify it best we can, and I put
it cn the -- really, the agenda to kind of give 911 a little
bit of direction as to where we were going and what needed
to be done with communication with the City as to what our
desires were, to kind of clean up this naming Highway 27 in
the eastern part of the county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we hear from Bill
Amerine about that? Only question I had -- you touched on
it -- had to do with where do we start? Do we start at
Memorial? Do we start at Spur 100 or Third Creek? And I'm
just --
MR. AMERINE: If we look at Main Highway or
Highway 27 as a stand-alone highway, it really makes no
difference, public safety-wise, what we call it. My
problem, from a public safety perspective, is that as you
traverse this county, we have or.e cor.tir_uous roadway,
Highway 27, that now has six names, and the road signs
aren't there to communicate when they change. I haven't
gotten any confirmation from the City of Kerrville that
they're going to consolidate the three names that they
currently use for Highway 27, which are Broadway, Memorial,
u-_~-,_
	1
^'	
"	L
	3
	4
	5
	6
.~
8
9
10
11
12
~-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2~
22
23
24
25
114
and Main, into Main, which was what the guidelines
established. So, if we -- if we go back to Highway 27, I
want to address this, because we talked about it in the
workshop. It affects about 170 addresses that we have done,
but from a publir_. safety perspective, for those folks who
are out in the county, I just don't see a big issue. My
concern is more still with the city of Kerrville and the
three or four names that we have for that same roadway, and
within the city limits. Does that address your question,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, sort of. I
guess I just wanted to know where we begin. Do we begin at
Memorial, at the loop, or do we begin at Spur 100, or do we
begin at Third Creek? And is it just Highway 27, or is it
Highway 27 East?
MR. AMERINE: I think it's Highway 27 East,
as far as the cor_versations that we've had se far. And I
don't think we can really make that determination until we
sit down with the City Planner in Kerrville and actually
have the same discussion with them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. AMER~NE: Because whatever we decide,
again, is going to be somewhat meaningless if we don't have
concurrence with Kerrville.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with
y-~:-03
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-.
25
~~5
Commissioner Letz, we ought to change it.
MR. AMERINE: And just kind of complementary,
as a matter cf practice, we're finding in this whole
addressing effort that there are some road name changes that
were made that we're having ser_.ond thoughts about. And the
Litmus test here is, does it serve public safety to change
it? If it doesn't, then I think we need to back off and let
people's addresses stay the same. The basic guidelines are
that odds are on one side, evens are on the other, and
there's a norma~ progression of numbers for the houses. And
that's what I keep telling the Commissioners when they ask
me, "Can we look at this?" As long as it serves that, I'm
okay. And I think that that guideline I just mentioned
applies to Highway 27.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And one cf the reasons, I
think, for the -- when I say safety issue, we don't know
what City of Kerrville is doing, so if you leave it Main
Highway, you're going to have potentially Main Street,
Memorial Boulevard, Main Highway, and then you get into,
right across the county line, your Main Street in Comfort
again, and that's a different road in Comfort. So, anyway,
there's too many Mains right there, I think. You know, so I
think it's confusing there, and I think it was a bad choice
to begin w~th years ago. And the other part cf it is, if
somebody, you know, calls in on a cell phone, I feel they're
G-~~-c~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--. 1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
2G
21
22
23
24
,--.
25
116
going to refer to that like a -- you know, a person other
than a -- you know, a resident, they're not going to know
Main Highway. They're going to say, "Where are you?"
"Highway 27." You know, if they -- and so I think it's
going to be more descriptive to most of the public.
MR. AMERINE: And just one last thought. I
don't think we need to take this thing that we're going to
do with Highway 27 and try to then apply uniformity across
all of our state highways, because Bandera Highway and
Medina and some of the others are commonly known by the
residents for the entire length of those roads as that, and
changing those would actually cause a disruption for them
from a public safety --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I think you
have to lock at each highway -- look at them individually.
I think farm-to-market roads, the same thing. They're
better served --
MR. AMERINE: Some are better served by
names; some are better served by numbers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is the -- is Highway
27 from Third Creek to the city limits or to the county line
at Comfort, is that all in one geo-region?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
MR. AMERINE: It's two.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you're going to
-__-03
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,^ 2 4
25
have Highway 2i East-West, or East-Nor~h, or East-South?
MR. AMERINE: Nc, I don't -- yeah, we'll
have -- we'll have the unique addresses to make sure that we
-- in case there's -- there won't be any duplication of
numbers. You're making me think here. There won't be any
duplication of lot numbers. That's all right, because
regardless of where we start -- and this is still to be
discussed -- the sequence of numbers will continue,
regardless of the geo-region, all the way out. But to
answer your question, yes, there will be two geo-region
qualifiers at the end of the address, because we traverse
two geo-regions going out that direction.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're going to hear
about that.
MR. AMERINE: Well, people -- once we explain
the purpose of the geo-region -- a lot of those folks, when
they've seen the cards, are confused. "Well, there's no
North Road or South Road or East or West Road." Once we
explain to them that that's not a street directional
indicator; that that -- because we don't display a community
on the 911 display when. they dial 911, that that indicator
helps us point to the right part of the county for emergency
services, I haven't had anybody say, "Well, that's a stupid
thing. Let's not do that." So we may -- initially, you'll
hear some criticism about that geo-region indicator, but
_ -_~-~~3
il8
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.~
25
once they understand what it's fcr, they get it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe you should just
use the geo-region indicator and Ieave off --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The east?
COMMISSIONER RAI~DWIN: -- the east part on
27.
MR. AMER.INE: That's what I would reccmmend,
yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That fine. That's good.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The one comment I'd
like, because it seems to us in our public safety part of
it, where we are is, I would work more on the City's problem
from city limit sign to city limit sign. Personally, our
officers always have responded, and what we get it as is
pretty well the city limits sign easy. From there on, it's
Highway 27 West. We don't like San Antonio Highway, 'cause
we have San Antonio Street goir_g through downtown Center
Point, which messes officers up. But I think if you stay at
the city limit sign east, Highway 27 East; from there on,
city limit sign wes~, and it's Highway 27 West, it helps us.
And then get with the City on correcting what they have
going through town.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is the city
limits?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Past the airport. That's
-_~-~~
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
,~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,~.
25
119
the problem. See, but they refer to it by cne or two more
names. 'Whey have San Antonio Highway in there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's why I'd work with
them, try and combine all those into one man name.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It doesn't make any
difference to me where -- I don't have a problem with -- but
the City does need t~ work on their names.
MR. AMERINE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We dcn't have any control
over the City, but we do have control over the county.
MR. AMERINE: We probably need to do that
right away. I have talked to Paul Menzies, the City
Planner, about this particular issue after we met last week,
and so this won't be a surprise to them when they sit down
Lc discuss it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that we need
a -- a moticn at this point. I think it was more a
discussion item to kind of give direction to 911. And when
it comes back, it will come back as a road name change.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It shouldn't come as
any surprise to us, considering how many name changes have
been made in the last two or three years in the interest of
implementing 911 and public safety, so that doesn't bother
me that we have to come back and make some adjustments.
And, in fact, I'll probably be back in here in a week or so
-~_-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
120
with a proposal to restore the name Sleepy Mountain Road.
Sc --
	JUDGE TINLEY: I see.		
	COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON:	And	if there's a
handful o	f them, that should be --		
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:	Did i	t awaken and
somebody	called it to your attention?		
	COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON:	Yes.	
	JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. At	this	point,
gentlemen	, is it your pleasure to wade	into	Item 19, and
then try	and get through with that ar_d	come	back at about
1:30? Or	do you want to go to lunch no	w and	come back at --
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:	I see	the constable
came in back there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The constables came
back in.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, do they have all the
information together?
MR. AYALA: Yes, sir. On our fees, there's
just one item that I'd like y'all to consider.
JUDGE TTNT,FY: We're bark on 1.11. Item 11,
okay.
MR. AYALA: That being the writ of
possession, which is the second part cf the -- of the
121
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
eviction process where we actually go out and physically
move the tenant out onto the street. I'd like to see us put
a four-hour minimum on -- on that fee. I think the current
fee's about $205.
JUDGE TINLEY: $200, it shows here.
MR. AYALA: $200, okay. There are times when
we -- we've been tied up for two cr three days in that
process.
JUDGE TINLEY: When you say a two-hour -- you
mean four-hour maximum, not four-hour minimum?
MR. AYALA: Yeah, four-hour maximum.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. AYALA: And then fiqure out an hourly
rate after the four hours.
JUDGE TINLEY: Standby.
MR. AYALA: A standby, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What, four at $50,
and then another rate? Or what are you talking about?
MR. AYALA: Well, the $200 is the actual fee
for the writ of possession, where we actually go out and
physically remove the property from the residence. A lot of
times the landlords are not punctual. They don't get there
when they say they're going to get there; they don't have
the help that they say they're gcing to have. Therefore,
we're there for a day or day and a half sometimes. The
~~ ~3
122
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
21
22
23
24
25
longest one I've been on is two and a half days. And I just
think that if we limit -- if we put a set time, that the
landlords will be more punctual, and if it takes longer,
then, you know, we can charge more for them for the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What will you charge if
it takes longer?
JUDGE TINLEY: Hourly rate.
MR. AYALA: Travis County charges $50 an hour
over four tours, and that's starting to be a normal type
limit.
JUDGE TINLEY: Four-hour maximum, hourly
standby rate thereafter of $50 an hour?
MR. AYALA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are all the writ of
possessions in the county executed by constables?
MR. AYALA: Yes, sir. It's the second and
final part of the actual eviction process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we have authority to
-- to put a time limit and hourly rate on this?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. All
I've ever seen is these actual figures. I don't know
anything about time frames and et cetera. That's a County
Attorney question, I think.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have not ever seen an
actual time figure on any of these. They're straight fees.
y-~~-o~
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--- 13
14
15
,E
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We looked at all of them across the state, and Kerr County's
right about the median; some things are a little bit higher,
some things a little bit lower. That's why I haven't asked
for any kind of changes until maybe next year, when we look
at where we stand statewide. But the publications I seen
that come from the Comptroller's office, I have one cf those
publications at the office, but I hadn't seen in those
publications whether it publicized an hourly rate on top of
your fees.
JUDGE TINLEY: Constable, you had indicated
that Travis County --
MR. AYALA: Travis County, Houston County --
or Harris County, some of the bigger counties have gone to
this because of the time involved in some of these deals
when you're evicting somebody. You know, they tie up one or
two officers for several days on some -- in some instances.
Therefore, I think the commissioners courts, if I
understood, in those two counties are the ones that set the
rates.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I hate to rely on Harris
County. Harris County allows constables to contract out.
The Attorney General has explicitly declared that
unconstitutional. So --
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, if I can say
something also, prior to issuing a writ of execution, we get
Q-~~-os
124
1
~^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
i6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the money up front, so if we go en an hourly rate, then
we're not going to know how to calculate that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You get the $200 up
MR. AYALA: Right, when they come in.
MS. PIEPER: I aet $200 up front before we
issue airy kind of execution.
MR. AYALA: And that's the way it works in
justice court.
JUDGE TINLEY: But, if I'm understanding the
constable correctly, once the four hours is run, he's off
the clock and he leaves the premises, and if the landlord's
not there to -- with whatever bonds that are required or
whatever facilities are needed to place these items, why,
the constable just takes a walk after four hours.
MR. AYALA: Or they can pay "X" number of
dollars per hour to be there on a civil standby.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could we require, in
a situation like that -- and I guess I'm really kind cf
asking my question through you to the County Attorney or to
Justice E~liott standing there -- could we require that if,
in a situation where the constable had spent four hours in
an attempt to -- to do this service, and was stood up, so to
speak, that would require that -- that would be the end of
that writ of possession, and the landlord and whoever with a
~,-~~-n~
1
^ 2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
2~
1
22
23
24
25
125
property owner would have to come in and get a new one? As
opposed to going to an hourly rate?
MR. MOTLEY: I don't have any idea. You
know, I -- I've not had any advance notice to research this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Neither have we.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The one thing I do see
in here, Harris County -- I don't see where they have that
added fee. I do see where their writ of possession fee is
$100, where ours is already $200.
JUDGE ELLIOTT: That was the original reason
I wanted to --
;Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE ET~T~IOTT: The constituents in Precinct
1, the landlord specifically, they're very tired of the fact
that if they have to evict someone for nonpayment of rent,
they're just throwing another $200 away for a constable to
come out and stand by. The constable's not required to move
anything out of the house. The constable is there as a
standby security procedure, security while someone else
moves the things out, so that if the tenants came back and
said, "Hey, what are you doing?" and tried to start trouble,
there would be a law enforcement officer there at the scene.
That's the purpose of the fee. They feel that $200 is
excessive. And, if anything, I would recommend that the
Court lower the fee to $100.
9-~~-i!3
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.~-. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The other comment -- I
looked up Travis County. Travis County does have writ of
possession; if move-out time exceeds two hours, an
additional fee of $35 an hour is set. But their original
filing fee and everything was $130, where ours is already
$200. That's why I didn't recommend we change anything and
add more language into it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- well, my
question still goes. You know, do we have authority to do
an hourly rate? I mean, just because Harris and Travis
County -- I think, frequently, counties have to get specific
authority, and until we know we can do it --
MR. AYALA: Nine out of ten of those writs
are, you know, one- or two-hour deals, but occasionally --
and I'm going to have one probably next week moving a
junkyard out on 173 that may involve several days of being
out there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Landlords are
already burdened by deadbeat renters.
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Yes, they are.
MR. AYALA: Yeah, they are.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm sympathetic with
them. I don't want to burden them any more. $200 seems
like a lot of money, to me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we -- is there
9-2'-03
127
1
-~-, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a way to have a scaled rate of $100 for up to four hours,
and $200 for over four hours? That way, if it's -- I mean,
generally, you're going to have a -- the larger the
property, the larger the -- I mean, I would think the longer
it would take, the larger the -- I guess, the amount at
issue, or back rent will likely be. But that also -- that
would help, I think, people that just have a small
apartment; they're just -- you know, they're already, like
what Dave said, stuck with a deadbeat renter.
MR. AYALA: I agree with Judge Elliott, and
the tenants are burdened first. And the first part of
eviction is $62?
JUDGE ELLIOTT: That's correct.
MR. AYALA: And then they get five days, and
then if they're not out, they have to come in and pay $200
for the writ, so they are burdened. And I agree with him
about lowering the writ fee to -- to $100. Because, like I
say, nine out of ten of those people are out usually with no
problems. There's just a handful of instances where, you
know, it takes all day or two days to get those people out.
And -- and we have to stand by that whole period of time
until they're out.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Personal opinion with
where our fee scale's been compared to all the other
counties around, and without getting into having to keep
9 ~~-ii 3
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
track of hourly stuff and things like that, I think our fees
right now are -- is very equitable and cover most of the
costs that we could -- any of us could end up being. We
just try and arrange it with landlords. That's what I would
rer.ommend, that they have everything in order and ready to
go before the constable, or even sometimes our officers, get
there to make sure that there isn't a hesitation at the
scene. But, looking at the -- the 2003 fee scale, I see
writ of possessions is going anywhere from $50 up to $200.
This County set theirs at $200. I think that would cover
any of the hourly costs or extra time we have to spend on
those. I don't see raising it or lowering or changing our
whole fee scale.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would still rather
split it. I mean, if someone -- if most of them -- I mean,
it's a way to encourage them to cooperate by lowering it to
$100 for those that can do it with less than two hours. And
if it's over two hours, make it $200. And I -- seems to me
that we have that ability. I mean, we can set it at $200,
the whole thing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like the 5100 part
for sure. I'm just not real clear Motley's going to say we
can do the -- after so many hours, you can change it and all
that. I would be uncomfortable about adopting it until we
get a nod of some sort. But I like the $100 thing. I think
a - ~ ~ - 0 3
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's a major burden on people.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would -- Mr. Motley,
do you have any idea how long would it take to research this
as a possible --
MR. MOTLEY: I -- like I said, I don't know.
The question that Commissioner Williams asked initially
about the -- whether or not you would terminate one writ of
execution and get another, I think that places an inordinate
burden on the landlord and the justice court. I don't think
that's a good idea. I would -- I don't think it would take
terribly long to research it. I would have to find the
appropriate section of law and see what amendments were made
in this last session and take a look at it. I would assume
that Harris County and Travis County are proceeding lawfully
in what they do by having an hourly rate over a certain --
what I was interpreting y'all were saying was a minimum
amount for up to four hours of standby time, but I -- you
know, I'd have to take a look at that. And, I mean, I can
run and try to do it now if you want me to do that, but --
well, I don't know how long it would take to get something
on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have to do it
before October, or can we do it --
MS. PIEPER: October 1.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Has to be done by October

130
1 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
MS. PIEPER: By law, these must be accepted
by October 1 and reported to the Comptroller's office.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I would recommend
that the County Attorney -- we're going to be in here for a
little bit this afternoon. If the County Attorney can give
us an answer by -- before we leave today, we can
maybe change it. If not, we'll leave it as-is for this
year, look at it for next year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't see it as a
problem that has to be solved today if we can't get all the
information we need.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want to do
something that's not right, not legal.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, you want to defer taking
any further action, come back to this later on today?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Later. And if the County
Attorney's office can look at this between now and the time
we leave, great. If not, we'll just, you know, adopt it,
leave it the way it is.
MR. MOTLEY: I'll see what I can get for you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. At this point, it's a
bit after straight-up noon, so why don't we go ahead and
adjourn, and -- and reconvene at 1:30'?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Recess.
-~~-o~
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Recess. Excuse me, recess.
Not adjourn, recess.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're recessed.
(Recess taken from 12:04 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It's 1:30 now, and we
will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting scheduled for
this date, Monday, September the 22nd, 2003. We recessed at
about lunchtime, and -- let me see where we are now,
gentlemen. Do we want to go ahead and -- we don't have the
County Attorney, so we don't know what we're going to do on
constables' fees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Linda's pointing at
herself.
MS. DECKER: I'm here.
JUDGE TINLEY: You weren't here when you were
supposed to be.
MS. DECKER: Hey, you told me you'd know
where to find me if you needed me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I remember that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Still know where to find you.
MS. DECKER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: I thought you'd want to
participate in some of these other discussions that we had.
MS. DECKER: What? I don't think so.
5-~_-c~
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 13 so we
won't have to dally any longer. Consideration and
discussion of request for approval of the Kerr County Jury
Selection Plan to comply with Chapter 62 of the Texas
Government Code, and add provision of House Bill 2188.
MS. UECKER: Okay, thank you. Although Kerr
County already has a jury plan in place for the electronic
provisions of Chapter 62 for pulling and maintaining jury
lists, this is an update based on the fact mainly, because
the old plan was done back in 1980 -- '81 or '82, as I
recall, and included specific algorithms that were applied
only to the computer system that we were using at the time,
the state system, and no longer complied with what the
Software Group was dcing. So, what I did -- and the reason
this is a very important issue is, in trying a capital
murder trial, the first thing a good attorney will do in a
capital murder trial is -- is subpoena the clerk and the
jury plan to make sure that the jurors were selected as per
the plan on file. And that's actually happened to me. And
at the time, fortunately, you know, our plan was in good
form. But I know there's been other cases where the plan
has not been, and the indictment was quashed and they had to
start all over.
Now, the other thing I did on this -- well,
the first thing I did was made this plan more generic, but
-~_-03
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it still very much complies with Chapter 62.001. Also,
House Bill 2188 passed this last session. That was actually
filed by Travis County, and it was bracketed for a while,
but it allowed Travis County to communicate and post all of
their jury summonses, reassignments, forms for claiming
exemptions on their web site. Well, at some point, they
removed that bracket of Travis County so it could apply to
all -- all the counties in the state. And, although Travis
County's application of House Bill 2188 is very much -- is
very different as to what I -- I intend to use it for, it
still allows us to -- let's say if we have jurors that have
attached their e-mail addresses, we can -- we can send them
responses to requests for exemptions, postponements, any
type of exemption or request for excuse, you know, if we
wanted to. I'm not saying that we're going to use this as,
you know, a policy, but it would allow us to do that if some
juror were to e-mail us and say, you know, "I need a jury
excuse. Can I get one?" And we can respond. This would
allow us to legally make that response. So, that's how
we -- and that is on the second page.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Linda, does that mean
that -- that your office is given that authority to respond
riow? As opposed to a district --
MS. UECKER: Not assignments, no. And
sometimes in -- in specific cases, the Judge may send back a
~-__-o~
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
list that says, you know, we need these jurors back on
certain-certain date. It's not the court administrator's
responsibility to do that, it's ours. So we could, if we
had their e-mail addresses, do that via e-mail or even fax.
It doesn't make us legal now as far as doing the faxes.
It's actually Paragraph 3 and 4 on the page that's signed by
both of the judges, "Jurors selected under this plan may
appear in response to a jury summons by..." and then the
next paragraph is the jury selected under this plan, the
county officer designee. What it does, whatever the
correspondence is, it legally allows us to correspond with
jurors for whatever purpose. And the reason this came to my
attention was I was asked to do a presentation last week in
Austin on the importance of the jury selection plan, so
while I was in the process, I went ahead and rewrote our
plan, 'cause I was getting a little nervous about not being
in compliance with several high profile cases coming up the
next year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Linda, on Item 1, source
of names --
MS. DECKER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- one of the sources is
driver's license.
MS. DECKER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In Texas, do you have to
9-~~-03
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2G
21
22
23
24
25
be a citizen to get a driver's license? I mean, a U.S.
citizen?
MS. UECKER: I don't think so, no.
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. UECKER: You do have to have a Social
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'm just
wondering -- I mean, if we're using a driver's license list,
are they disqualified if they're not citizens?
MS. UECKER: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're using driver's
license as a potential -- as a list.
MS. UECKER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just wondering, how
do you know -- I mean, I think you have to be a citizen to
serve on a fury.
MS. UECKER: You do, and that question is on
the return form. There's -- there is two new automatic
exemptions that came into effect, I think, two years ago.
One is, are you a resident of the state of Texas, and are
you a citizen? And if -- if you answer no to both of those,
you're automatically off the list. Now, it's the
responsibility of the Secretary of State and the D.P.S.
office to make sure that those two lists come together and
duplicates are taken off of the list, but it doesn't happen.
a-~^-03
136
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Sometimes. Because -- and the reason there's duplicates is
because if you go and get your driver's license under
Jonathan Letz, and you're a registered voter under Jonathan
Paul or whatever, or just Jon Paul, your name's going to
show up both ways on a potential jury list. But D.P.S. is
supposed to clean up those lists for the Secretary of State,
not by name, but by identifier; Social Security, date of
birth, stuff like that. But they're still having problems
with that, but it's getting better. It's getting a lot
better.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Permitted exemption
because of age is age what?
MS. UECKER: 70.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 70.
MS. UECKER: We highly encourage Kerr County
citizens not to claim that exemption, number one, because we
have a very high amount of jurors that are called that are
over 70 because of our population base, and two, we feel
like those are our best jurors. And all of the -- on Page
1, the source of name, method, official in charge, those are
all requirements of the statutes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move approval of the
Kerr County Jury Selection Plan as presented by the District
Clerk.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
9-~~ u3
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve the Kerr County Jury Selection Plan as presented to
the Court by the District Clerk. Any further questions or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
MS. DECKER: Okay. I think you have the
original, don't you, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Next item, I note
that we have the County Attorney here. Are we ready to hit
the issue of constables?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I suppose we're about as
ready as we'll ever be.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We'll go back to
item 11, then, and do whatever we're going to do on that
one.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I reviewed the statute,
and -- in question. It's 118.131 of the Local Government
Code. And in essence, really, what it says is that the --
the Commissioners Court may set fees that are not higher
than necessary to pay the expenses of providing the
services. That is basically the cap on the fees. May set
___o~
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
these fees once a year. They do have to be, I would say --
you know, again, not tied necessarily to pay the fees. And
we attempted to try to -- we attempted to contact Travis
County Attorney's office during the lunch hour. We didn't
have any success. After lunch we contacted them. We were
not able to find anyh~dy readily available who knew anything
about these fees and how they had done that. I think Webb
County has done something similar. We did not try to call
Webb County, given the time constraints of being back here.
The -- you know, you could argue that setting a fee says it
has to be -- not necessarily -- it does not necessarily say
it has to be a flat fee, only that it has to be set and
published. I mean, I think you could argue that. It does
have to be a fee that is set in advance, and for no more
than what it costs to do the service. So, I don't think I
gave you exactly -- but I found no authority nor Attorney
General's opinion, no statutory authority, no other
authority that specifically spoke to the issue of hourly
fees on top of a minimum or anything to that effect. And we
were not able to confer with these other counties to see by
what authority they were doing this. So, I don't know if
that answers your question or not, but that's what I was
able to find out on that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I don't want to
do it.
G-??-~~
139
.-.
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Me either. It
doesn't -- these incidents of protracted move-out periods
don't occur every often. A two-tier system or hourly system
would not be employed very often; be difficult to
administer. I think we got a solution looking for a problem
here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. If we do
anything, we need to lower this $200 to $100, but I'm ready
to rock and roll.
MR. MOTLEY: One other issue that came up in
discussion was charging fees for unsuccessful service or
unsuccessful attempt. There is an A.G. opinion that says
the Court may set a fee for that. So --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, if it becomes a
problem, we'll look at it. It's not a problem now.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we need to take
action on 1.11?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we set
the Sheriff's and constables' fees as required under L.G.C.
118.131 at a rate as submitted and documented with the
agenda item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
we adopt the -- the Sheriff and constables' fees as
-~~-n3
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
presented to satisfy the requirement of the Local Government
Code, Section 118.131. Any further question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We now go
to Item Number 19, discuss draft of new contract for
O.S.S.F. administration between U.G.R.A. and Kerr County.
Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda
for a couple reasons. One, I had a draft of a contract.
But, two, and probably more importantly, I knew it was on
U.G.R.A.'s agenda last Wednesday to discuss this issue, and
I wanted to be able, because of the time that we're faced
with, with October 1 right around the corner, to have
something on the agenda so we could discuss O.S.S.F.
administration. Based on what U.G.R.A. didn't do, and some
conversations with Greg Etter, what they're planning to do,
you know, in the near future, it does not appear to me they
are going to proceed with setting or adopting new rules.
They're going to continue to leave status-quo with their
1980 rules for the time being, as I understand it. That
being said -- and my position all along, certainly, on the
~-^~-03
1
-'-~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
141
committee has been that one of the -- whoever administers
the rules has to be a -- I guess, a party that is
responsible for the rules. And that being said, I think
that we need to bring the O.S.S.F. administration back to
Kerr County. Therefore, I see no need to continue on this
agenda item.
I do think that -- and I have visited with
some members of the U.G.R.A.'s board, and also their General
Manager. They're aware of what I was going to say today
and, you know, they didn't have any problem with it. I
think that time is of the essence. I think that there -- I
think, based on the letter that we received from Greg Etter,
October 18th is the actual cutoff date. I think there's
some flexibility in that, 'cause there needs to be some
transition. We really were not going in this direction;
didn't -- I didn't think we were going to go in this
direction till the past couple of weeks, when things rapidly
started happening. I think that U.G.R.A. has expressed
strong willingness to continue to work with the County and
do everything they can to facilitate this transition, and I
think they still want to be involved and have an input in
the rules, but they showed no indication that they were
going to submit their new rules. And, therefore, I think
it's -- in the whole county, it's going to be up to the
County to administer.
_-__-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
142
So I think -- you know, I don't know whether
we can really do it under this agenda item or not. We
probably could, because it's part of the -- where we're
going with the administration, but I think that we need to
set up a -- my recommendation would be to set up a committee
to figure out how to do that, and to meet with U.G.R.A. a
little bit. There is staff mover there that's going to be
affected. I think we need to, you know, get into a pretty
high -- or fast mode as to how we're going to set up a
program in the very near future. Kind of -- that's kind of
what I have to say.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we need to
leave the committee in place that's in place.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just move forward.
You guys are doing an excellent job. You're doing exactly
the opposite of what I would want you to do, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That makes two of us.
So you might as well keep on doing it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, at least there's no
ramping up; they're already up to speed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Already there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not quite sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Once we get it back,
they can be in charge of it.
9 - _ _ - ~ 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
143
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We tried to tell them,
didn't we?
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess you guys can keep on
keeping on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I guess
Commissioner Nicholson and I will meet with some staff or
board at U.G.R.A., or their committee members and
potentially with some of their staff that deals with this,
and kind of figure out where we may be going. I think
Mr. Etter probably is already -- talked to him this morning;
he was aware of what was going to transpire here today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, this time frame
draws nigh and critical, et cetera, et cetera. So, when --
when will you come back for -- with real, firm
recommendations?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to
probably -- well, next week we can. I mean, if we want, if
we're doing a special meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next meeting is --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next meeting, I think we
can have a -- a roadmap. But I think that it -- and the
other part of that we'll need to have at that meeting is an
RFQ -- RFQ's, whoever we're going to hire to administer
this, whether it's the current person or not. I think we
need to get that ready to go out as soon as possible. And I
9-~~-U3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
144
think we may, you know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why -- why would we
need an RFQ if we're going to take it back?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, who's going to
administer it? Who's going to be head of that department?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just be an employee
hire.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a hire? Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I -- what you've
said is exactly my -- my thinking, Commissioner. In
anticipation of that, I did contact Greg Etter and asked him
to provide us copies of anything in their files that would
help us in our effort to employ somebody or some persons to
operate an O.S.S.F. and floodplain program, so he said he
would do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Incidentally, one issue
is on administration of floodplain. I forgot that.
Something we -- we tend to forget to talk about frequently
is floodplain administration. There is no reason it needs
to be tied with O.S.S.F. And, in my mind, it is really
better suited where it is across the river, because it is a
river function. I mean, the reason for the floodplain
administration is the Guadalupe River in this county; I
mean, probably 90 tributaries. So I really think that, you
know, if they're willing to keep it, it's something that I'm
9-~~-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
l---
25
145
in no anxious -- no hurry to get that back.
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the sense of -- that
you gained about their continued administration of
floodplain program based upon the discussions that the two
of you have had?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Currently, Stuart Barron
is the only one licensed or certified, whatever you have to
have, whatever designation you have to do to be a floodplain
administrator, but I believe they have another person on
staff, Scott Loveland, who is very close to being certified.
I think they would probably -- and my feeling is, from
talking with Greg Etter, that they think it fits very well
in their shop. But I also told him, I said, it is a County
function, r.ot a River Authority° function, to be head of that
program, so we're talking interlocal agreement. Whether --
you know, in any event, as I understand it, it's a County
function, not a -- like I say, not a River Authority.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know it's a minor
item, but we just approved the budget, and there's no money
in the budget for a full take-back of the administration of
O.S.S.F. I assume the subcommittee, of course, has thought
about that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't think I've
thought about it. I don't think there's any option.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner,
9-~~-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
..... 13
14
1~
16
17
18
19
20
2i
22
23
24
25
146
I've -- some time ago, and again in the last few days, I've
put together some numbers that are admittedly pretty rough;
they're estimates of what it would take, and I estimate that
we could reestablish an Environmental Health Department and
include O.S.S.F. and Solid Waste in that department, staff
it with three people, and -- and the cost would be more or
less what we're paying U.G.R.A. plus the cost of our Solid
Waste function today. So I think, with three people, we can
do it, and I think we can do it at -- at no more than our
historical cost.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not -- I think it's
going to cost us quite a bit more.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So do I.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- I mean, I think
that there's a -- especially if we're going in the direction
on new rules, we are cutting almost all of the -- or the
large part of the revenue side out of it completely, and the
expenditure side certainly isn't decreasing, so I think it
-- I think it's going to cost more. It's just going to be
something that we're going to have to deal with. But if --
I mean, if U.G.R.A. is -- they have chosen, up to this
point, and they're not pursuing it based on their inaction
on Wednesday, to pursue updating their rules.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm curious,
Commissioner, as to why U.G.R.A.'s failure to update rules
°-~'2-0 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
147
or continue an authorized agent status, why that has a lot
of bearing on what we do, considering that we enact rules
for the entire county.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the reason it has
bearing, to me, I think one of the problems in the
administration of O.S.S.F. in the past, since I've been a
Commissioner, has been that there -- basically, the County
rules are being enforced by a third-party. And I think it
-- it was -- and it caused a disconnect between this Court
and the administration of the rules, because they're being
administered by basically a contract person. And I think
that it -- that is the root of almost all of the
difficulties that both entities have had with the agency,
because, I mean, it's -- you know, it's just a bad match. I
think that if you're going to be responsible for enforcing
them, you need to be running them, and I think that hasn't
been the case.
Now, they have -- you know, as I understand
it, and this is a -- you know, one loose end that we have no
control over tying up. U.G.R.A. has and is going to
continue to have authorized agent status in Kerr County.
And the area -- I talked to Ken Graber again, and he said
they're going to keep on having it. You know, and I asked
Ken that, and -- but it's something -- you know, I can't
change what U.G.R.A. has in that their status they're going
9-^^-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^... 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-,
25
148
to choose, as I understand it, and based on them not
pursuing anything else, to leave it as a status-quo, which
is basically going under County rules. But they're not
willing to -- as I understand it, not willing to subsidize
or help pay the cost. And if they're not going to pay the
cost, you know, it's a County program, and I don't think it
has worked well having the administration done by a third
party, which they are. Now, I was under -- during the --
the reason there's a change in my position is, I was hoping
that U.G.R.A. was going to update their rules, adopt the
same rules the County had, and then we would basically have
the O.S.S.F. Rules as a partnership, and they would be
responsible for their 1,500-foot area and they'd be
responsible for the cost of that as well. There -- they
have -- are not pursuing down that path any longer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was pointed out to
me a couple of days ago that one of the reasons that the
County sent it over there in the beginning was for
convenience reasons, one-stop shopping theory. A person
that's dealing with all these issues can go there and get --
get all their stuff done. And, you know, now we're kind of
spreading it out, which I -- I don't see that as that big of
a deal, but may -- may be -- we may have to stumble around
with it for a little while, especially if you have the
O.S.S.F. program over here and the floodplain program over
y-~_-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
149
there. And what else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well permitting
someplace else.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, you know, just
talk something out. There's no reason that this department
can't be officed over there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's probably
true. I'm just -- I'm just saying, you know, keep that in
the back of your minds. If that's something that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think at the time when
that was made, I think you're right, Headwaters was also
there, and Headwaters may be moving back over there. I
don't know if that's going to happen or not. But, I mean,
there is some convenience there, but it's -- I mean, to me,
we are a little bit under a reactionary standpoint now. I
think they're not going to pursue it; therefore, it's our
rules. And they're the ones that sent us the letter saying
that they're not going to renew the contract, so it's kind
of -- it's in our court at this point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I admit I've not
talked to any members of the board, but I had a discussion
with Mr. Etter after he wrote the letter to the Court
telling us cf what his board's action was in terminating the
existing contract. But I specifically asked him if that
9 __ 03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,.-.
25
150
board action meant that U.G.R.A. was opposed to a new
contract that embodied the things that you two had been
working out with them. He said it was not -- he did not
believe that it was an impediment to it. They were doing
this because they were cutting the cord and wanted everybody
to know they were not going to continue to do this under the
current terms of the current contract. Therefore, the best
way to cut that cord is to do it. But it didn't preclude
them doing it again. However, having said all that, if I'd
been sitting over there taking all there abuse they've taken
for the last two years, I'd tell the Kerr County
Commissioners Court to chuck it, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think that
the -- you know, and I don't know when you talked to
Mr. Etter. I mean, I think the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last week.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But before or after the
meeting? I think it makes some difference, 'cause I was not
at the meeting. There was a lot of -- evidently, quite a
bit of discussion there. And I don't want to put -- I'm not
trying to put words in their mouth, but, I mean, I talked to
Mr. Etter three times, I think, on Friday, and which I'm
trying to figure out where we need to go to get a program up
and running. And he knew that this was on the agenda, as it
was styled to use the draft contract. And out of all those
9 ~~ 03
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
conversations, I came out of it saying what I said earlier,
that I think it's coming back to the County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whatever.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's a disconnect
here, too. What the facts are is that the U.G.R.A. Board
had a recommended contract on their table, just as the
Commissioners Court had a recommended contract on its table.
And it was a contract that was richer for U.G.R.A. than it
had been in the past, but we would assume a larger share of
the costs. Neither the U.G.R.A. Board nor Commissioners
Court has acted on those recommendations developed by two
U.G.R.A. Board members and two County Commissioners. In the
middle of that, the U.G.R.A. Board votes to terminate the
current contract. That's what I call bad-faith bargaining.
They didn't act on -- on the recommendations. They chose to
blind-side this Court by -- by sending us notice that they
were terminating the contract.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the bottom line is, we
can't discuss this contract if we're not going to consider
doing it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move on to the next
item, Item 20, consider and discuss the burn ban status.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I recommend that we
cancel the burn ban.
9-~~-U3
152
1
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 NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the burn ban be canceled. Any question or discussion? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item,
consider and discuss the 2.1 acres of land out of Survey 656
owned by Kerr County and the transfer of that acreage to the
Mountain Home Volunteer Fire Department, and authorize the
County Judge to sign the appropriate documentation to
effectuate the sale. Commissioner Nicholson.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's 2.1 acres of
land located on Highway 27 in Mountain Home that's
contiguous to the Mountain Home Volunteer Fire Department
property. This is property that was purchased by Kerr
County about 40 -- no, more than 40 years ago; 50 years ago.
And it was leased to the Texas Department of Transportation
for 40 years, and then we got it back in 1990. We've used
the property, our Road and Bridge has, intermittently to
store materials in there working out in that part of the
county. The Mountain Home Fire Department is -- has had an
interest in acquiring use of that property. The property,
by the way, has a building on it also, kind of a dilapidated
9-?~-G3
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,_ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.--.
25
building, and their interest in acquiring that property
is -- well, they're interested in rehabilitating that
building so they can use it in connection with their
Volunteer Fire Department, but would not be willing to do
that -- to go to those costs unless they had some assurances
that they had a -- were going to have a long material
interest in it.
We've talked about a situation where that
could be beneficial to both Road and Bridge Department, as
well as the Mountain Home Fire Department; where we could,
either through a long-term lease or transfer of title of
that property, give them the assurances they need in order
to invest, and they could use it for their purposes and our
Road and Bridge Department could use it for a place to put
equipment, put materials, and also erect a water tower that
would be used by both the fire department and the Road and
Bridge Department. In fact, Mr. Odom's working now on
acquiring a 10,000-gallon tank that, if we can work this
out, would be placed there, and it would -- it would be a
productivity improvement for his department in that when
they're working that part of the county, the water would be
more accessible and quicker. And it would also be used by
the fire department to -- to fill up their tanks. The quid
pro quo in all this would be that we would continue to have
use of the property, we would have a source of water, and
~-~~-0.5
154
1
--~ 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 fire department would have their assurances that they
have a long-term interest in it.
As it turns out, we're -- we are still taking
a look at the -- how we would go about transferring title or
whether or not that's the right course, and we need more
time on it. So, instead of asking you today to approve a
long-term lease or transfer of title, I'm simply telling you
-- informing about what our intentions and desires are for
that property, and we'll bring it back at another time.
David, do you --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You touched on one of
the questions I was going to have, which was why not a
long-term lease?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My -- I would favor a
long-term lease, I would think, because it is a -- I mean,
who knows what's going to happen with that volunteer fire
department or our needs from a Road and Bridge standpoint?
So, I think a long-term basis is sort of better suited, in
my mind, if it works with them.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, working with
the firefighters out there, David and I will -- we'll r_ome
up with a specific recommendation, come back next
Commissioners Court meeting. You okay with that?
MR. MOTLEY: There's also, I think, going to
be some fencing and the refilling of that tank as part of
9 - ~ - G 3
155
1
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 consideration.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: You're -- I've seen you nod
your head a few times. This is a program that you feel like
is one that's worthy for everybody?
MR. ODOM: I think it's worthy for everybody.
I think it's a quid pro quo. N1y -- my point would be that I
think that they need to build that security fence around
this entire 2.1 acres, and then I can, on a quid pro quo
situation, base out that area that I want to stockpile and
put that water tank in there for everybody's use, for the
citizens -- particularly to protect the citizens out there.
Water's quite scarce out in that area. But I -- to me, I
think it will -- it's a win-win situation.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ODOM: And we would be able to use those
facilities -- that building if we needed to, but it would be
on a basis of when we're in that area working those deals.
I just think it's logical. Thank you.
Jt7DGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anything further
on that item? Let's move forwards to Item 24, discuss and
consider joining Association of Rural Communities in Texas.
I put this on the agenda because of the invite that we
received. I would note that there's a cost involved, $300.
9-~2-03
156
1
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 only other thing that I would offer is that this
association is becoming a larger voice because of the
increase in their membership numbers. I don't have those
numbers for you, but from pieces that I've seen over the
past few months, their membership rolls have been
increasing. It's not just counties, it's counties and
cities, primarily iri the rural area. As I'm sure
Commissioner Baldwin knows, the -- the voice of -- the rural
voice is rapidly vanishing in the state of Texas. The
Legislature, the metropolitan interests are pretty well
taking that over. We all sometimes have questions about
Texas Association of Counties, because of the heavy
concentration of the metropolitan interests even there. So,
it's -- it's optional. If you want to, fine. If you don't,
why, that's fine too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have a
question here. I kind of know about these folks, but I know
that the metro-rural war is coming. Been watching it for
years. It's coming, and it's begun to really heat up here,
and on the -- on the invoice page --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- down below Kerr
County, there down below the middle there with Fred
Henneke's name on it. Anyway, it says the dues have
remained the same this year as we increase our services to
-z?-o~
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~--
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you. What services? You know, I'm not asking you, 'cause
you probably don't know. But are they more than a lobbying
effort for rural counties? Or --
JUDGE TINLEY: We get an immense amount of
paper from those people.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Lots of paper, I see.
We11, if I -- you know, we took a look at this a couple
years ago. I can't remember. It seems -- I still haven't
figured out what they do, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's a lobbyist
group.
JUDGE TINLEY: Primarily, I think that's
correct. Any motion to be offered?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. Let's
talk through it here a little bit. You know, you have Texas
Association of Counties, which is -- I mean, they do lots of
things, but included in that is the lobbying effort. But --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I can tell you,
they lean toward the big counties. When it comes to
approaching legislators and dealing with issues, it -- they
have more money; that's exactly what they're going to do.
And I don't -- I don't know that the rural counties really
have much of a voice out there at all. And this is a major
9-_~-~3
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~l
L
22
23
24
25
deal coming down the pike. This is going to be huge before
it's over with. So, wish I knew more about it. I mean, I
wish I could recommend something. But I know that we
need -- we need more representation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How frequently do
they meet and so forth, Judge? Do you know, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't -- I don't have the
benefit of that information. Do you want to just pass on it
now, maybe take a look at it later?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we pass on it
and ask Judge Evans, our neighbor to the south, to come up
here and explain to us what they do?
JUDGE TINLEY: He's on the board.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I mentioned
his name.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think that's an
excellent idea, if we can get him over here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, if it's not worth
him coming over here, maybe it isn't worth us joining.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Maybe. I just don't
know if he ever travels that far or not. You know those
Bandera people.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We don`t have a motion
y-2z-o~
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He goes to San
Antonio. I see him every month.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to Item 25,
discuss and consider establishment of policy concerning use
of courthouse facilities. I put this on here, gentlemen.
As -- as you know, I'm -- I am the, quote, maintenance and
courthouse facilities liaison, and so use of courthouse
facilities requests come to me. And I was -- I attempted to
find a policy. I've not been able to find one, and I would
like some sort of guidance from the Court as to what the
policy and parameters are. And I -- I made a couple of
references in there that whatever policy is adopted, I think
it needs to be nondiscriminatory; that is, if you let one
civic group use it, you got. to let them all. If you let one
religious group use it, you got to let them all. You let
one political group use it, you got to let them all. And
another concern about -- about the aspect of using it after
normal business hours, where you got some additional
considerations that I think need to be taken into account,
and that is security, and whether or not you need to have
people here to lock up after them and so forth. You may
have overtime or compensatory time for County employees.
But I'm just looking for some guidance from you gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you
something. Do you have requests to use the actual inside of
a-=2-~~3
160
1
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 building?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't know that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What kind of --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think one of the first
requests I had was from a political group, and by -- when I
got back with the political group, I was -- I was in a
position to decline their request on the basis that, you
know, if we did it for this political group, you know,
the -- the American Green party, the Communist party,
whomever, you know, would -- should have the same privilege.
But when I called these -- called the number back, the
individual told me that they had made arrangements to meet
somewhere else. Notwithstanding that, I went ahead and told
them that it's probably just as well, because I was probably
going to have to decline.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would balk at using
the inside of the facility, because you're dealing -- like
you said, you're dealing with the security issue. Our
cleaning people have a schedule; I wouldn't want them to
have to hang around till 10:30 at night just to lock the
doors and that kind of thing. That's bordering on
ridiculous. So, to me, that shuts off using the inside of
the facility. To me, that's -- we don't even have to have
-__-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
161
that conversation. But the outside of the facility is a
little different story.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, yeah. There are a lot
of groups that -- week before last, I think, the people that
do the United Way wanted to put their sign up over again on
the corner. I saw that as a no-brainer. Occasionally, I
think Board of Realtors, the Golden Girls or some of those
high school groups, band boosters maybe, want to do a garage
sale. I tell them to work it out -- just coordinate it with
the Market Days people, and they've always worked that out.
And that's not too much of a problem, because you don't get
into these other issues. But I -- I can -- I can see a
problem if you open the door, even if you just do it during
-- during normal business hours. If you open the door, I
think you've got to be nondiscriminatory, and that -- that
-- that could lead to no telling what.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good idea
to have a policy. I thought we -- I thought we adopted one
by court order a couple years ago, but maybe I'm wrong. But
the -- I mean, I'd recommend you come up with a draft and
bring it to the Court. I mean, I think it needs to be
nondiscriminatory. You mentioned that the United Way sign
is a no-brainer, and I think it's been up there every year
that I've been a Commissioner. But the other side of that
is -- I never really had thought about it -- is that there
9-__-~3
162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
?_ 2
23
24
25
-- what's to prevent, you know, every other organization to
put up their sign for -- related to fundraising or, like I
say, Y.M.C.A. wanted to put up their Little Dribblers
registration sign on our courthouse lawn. So I don't have
any problem with any of them doing it if they want to, but I
think we ought to designate where that's done so we don't
get them stuck all over. I mean, or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The problem is not so
much in putting them up. They forget to take them down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or maybe, you know,
charge a fee if they don't; I mean, if we have to do it. I
think the -- I don't have a problem with letting most of the
public use our courthouse square, but if they cost the
County money, and meaning all the citizens of the county
money, I think that organization should have to pay for
whatever they do or don't do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think a policy
ought to be that the courthouse itself is restricted to
county courthouse business. The grounds are open for civic
and other purposes, and set some guidelines for that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think as part of
that policy, I would like to see a -- a moratorium on
anything else being added to the courthouse square.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Such as?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Cannons, trees,
9-~~-03
163
1
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: Birdhouses.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- birdhouses.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Big cactus.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I say that just
joking, but I'm quite serious. I mean, since I've -- it's
very easy, I think, to -- whoever is having to make a call
to the liaison can say we have a moratorium. We'll find
another place to put it. But it's very hard for us to --
once they get their foot in the door and get on our agenda,
it's real hard to say no. And we end -- that's how we ended
up with a cannon and a birdhouse, and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's been saying that
since the day he walked in here.
JUDGE TINLEY: How many has he told no?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I recall he voted in
favor of the cannon.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right. That's
what I say; it's hard to vote against them when they get
here. I'm trying to head them off before they get on the
agenda. I did vote against the birdhouse.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's true.
We11, personally, I think that we should appoint the
Administrative Assistant to the Commissioners Court to work
up a -- a program and then bring it back to Commissioners
9-~~-03
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Court at some point.
JUDGE TINLEY: A draft for that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A draft, mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: She's the only one
around here that really knows what goes on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, as part of the
policy, there should be a -- I don't know how often it is;
I'll leave it up to them, her discretion or his discretion
as to the -- when to post it or to put it in our box as to
what the schedule is on the courthouse lawn. I don't know
if it's monthly or biweekly or what it is, but it's just
nice to know, you know, what events are going to transpire
on the courthouse. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't know.
MS. SOVIL: If we know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, of course, we
want to wait to adopt this, and I'm going to put the Ten
Commandments out here in the hallway. We want to wait -- a
big one -- wait till we get through with that, and then we
can adopt this thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. No motion on that one.
We'll move forward. Discuss and consider approval of
parking spaces striping plan for courthouse parking. I
think the plan is to do the striping next Sunday; is that
y-zz-o~
165
1
2
3
correct, Mr. Odom?
4
5
6
here, and --
MR. ODOM: I hope next Sunday.
JUDGE TINLEY: Weather permitting, of course.
MR. ODOM: Weather permitting.
JUDGE TINLEY: They got the topping done out
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Looks great.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looks good.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Excellent.
JUDGE TINLEY: What they've done is, on the
striping plan, across the front of the south side, they're
going to all diagonal parking there, which would increase
the number of parking spaces. And then, on the east and the
west side, on the inside curb, they're not permitting any
parking there. They're not going to have any parallel
parking. But the net -- there will be a net increase of --
MR. ODOM: 31.
JUDGE TINLEY: Of -- got 174 under the new
plan, and 143 under the current plan.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we're talking about
eliminating the -- what kind of parking do we have out there
23
24 inside
25
-~~-03
MR. ADLER: Diagonal and parallel. On the
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Diagonal being
right now?
166
1
2
3
slanted?
4
5 diagonal.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
circle there.
MR. ODOM: Slanted.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Slant in?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Facing the street,
MR. ODOM: Facing the outside radius of the
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But you're not talking
about a straight pull-in?
MR. ODOM: No, it will be at an angle. And
then --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cool.
MR. ODOM: -- like the Judge said, on this
end that faces Sid Peterson, where it's parallel parking,
we'll eliminate that and come in at a diagonal there.
That's where we'll pick up about ~l spaces all together.
We'll still have the same parking that we have behind you,
and then employee parking. But we can add the spaces
because of that.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All the way around?
MR. ODOM: All the way around. Except on
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you proposing to
eliminate -- does this plan propose to eliminate parallel on
the inside of the interior road?
9-_2-03
167
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 portion that's in the middle out here, that will be
diagonal on both sides right there.
JUDGE TINLEY: But on the inside curb on the
east side and west side, there will be no parking?
MR. ODOM: No parking.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, where are you
going to park, Bill?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Under the tree like I
usually do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Park there anyway? I
think it's a great plan.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
we approve the parking space striping plan as presented for
courthouse parking. Any further questions or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: A11 opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item,
consider and discuss acknowledging September as Destination
`'-__-03
168
1
'^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
r..., 2 4
25
Dignity Month as requested by the Hill Country Community
Mental Health/Mental Retardation Center. This was presented
to me by the Hill Country Community M.H.M.R. Center. This
is -- would be pursuant to the Governor's proclamation, and
the County would just follow suit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
we acknowledge September as Destination Dignity Month, as
requested by the Hill Country Community M.H.M.R. Center.
Any question or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item
is consider and discuss approving resolution to apply for
Indigent Defense Grant Program. This is in search of bucks
for Indigent Defense in connection with criminal and
juvenile cases. The allocation that they've made presently
is a little over about $22,500, but we've got to apply for
it before we can get the money.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. I think it's
_~ „~
169
1
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 TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
we approve the resolution to apply for the Indigent Defense
Grant program. Any questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, is this a new
program, or have we done this in the past? Or --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's probably one that
we've been involved in before. There are so many different
ones that came into being as a result of the Fair Defense
Act and House Bill 7 that I hadn't tried to match them up,
very frankly. If I saw we could get some money, I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was just curious.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- put it on. Any further
questions or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item,
consider and discuss nomination of up to five candidates for
submission to the Kerr Central Appraisal District for board
member of KCAD. This is part of the nomination process, and
KCAD wrote us a letter, and we've got to submit those by
October 15.
COMMISSIONER NICHOL5ON: I've got a couple
questions, Judge, if I may.
.-~~-~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
170
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What are the duties
of a board member? Is it like a typical board that set
policy and review things, or are they actively involved in
the appraisal process?
JUDGE TINLEY: Our illustrious Tax
Assessor/Collector will enlighten you, everything you need
to know.
MS. RECTOR: Since I am currently on the
board, the Board of Directors oversees the function of the
Appraisal District; i.e., hiring a chief appraiser, budget,
that type of thing, just like Commissioners Court oversees
county government.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They are not
hands-on involved in determining values?
MS. RECTOR: No, that's what the Appraisal
Review Board does. We are totally separate from that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, this is a
typical board that's involved in policy --
MS. RECTOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- reviews?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Very similar to 911
Board.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, Paula, you're
9-~~-03
171
1
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 member today?
MS. RECTOR: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And are you willing to
serve again?
MS. RECTOR: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Generally, I mean, as I
recall, it's a weighted voting system, and Kerr County has
enough weight to get one member. And we put all of our
votes on that one person, and Paula Rector continually
serves on that. I'll nominate Paula Rector --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- to be our appointee or
nominee.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
we send forward our nomination of Paula Rector for -- as our
candidate for submission to the Appraisal District for its
board membership.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I think -- I think
that we apply all 907 votes to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Every vote we got.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. That's good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
9-~^-03
172
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
•~-
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY:' Motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As a comment, the -- I
don't know if Commissioner Nicholson knows or not, but the
school districts have a large control over that board,
K.I.S.D.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 'Cause they collect
most of the taxes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have the biggest
budgets.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item, consider and
discuss designating a day of the week on which the Court
shall convene in a regular term each month during the next
fiscal year. This is required by Section 81.005 of the
Local Government Code.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is today a regular
meeting or is today a special called?
MS. SOVIL: Special.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Special, I think.
JUDGE TINLEY: The agenda which I have says
it's a special meeting. So, the first Monday -- I mean the
second Monday is regular, and the fourth Monday would then
be special.
9-~~-03
173
1
.-~. 2
3
4
5 though.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do different?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
MS. SOVIL: Wait a minute, I have something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I already made a motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hasn't been seconded,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can discuss it after.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What did you want to
MS. SOVIL: Oh, I don't want to do anything
different. I think in your motion you need to declare that
October 13th and November 10th are holidays that fall on
Monday, and you got to say that those -- except -- save and
except those two days have to be on Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not what this
is about. This is about establishing a regular day.
MS. SOVIL: That's correct. And it's on
Monday, and those Mondays are holidays.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, Thanksgiving Day
in Canada.
month, right?
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second Monday of each
COMMISSTONER LETZ: Second Monday, and if the
first Monday -- I mean, if the second Monday of each -- of a
month happens to fall on a holiday, the regular meeting will
0-_~-03
174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be on the preceding Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Preceding or following?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Following. Following
Tuesday, sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: T seconded that
motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: ~7otion made and seconded that
the day of the week for our regular meeting is the second
Monday of each month, unless that day is a designated
holiday, in which case it will be the following Tuesday.
Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item,
discuss and consider authorizing the County Attorney to
investigate, take any necessary, appropriate action to
recover balance of unreimbursed funds expended by Kerr
County for health care services provided to a former County
employee. I think the Court will generally recall the
incident that -- that's in question here. Bottom line is,
Kerr County has expended about approximately $200,000 --
authorized a total of 400, but approximately $200,000 of
9-^~-C3
175
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
which it has not received any reimbursement for. If there's
any way that we can get that money back, I'd like to get it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with you 100
percent, so far.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is any -- "take any
necessary ~r appropriate action," does that include
litigation?
JUDGE TINLEY: I suppose the way it's worded,
it could include that, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I want to know
what the options are. I mean, what -- you know, I have no
idea how we could recover the money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who would we be
suing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. I mean,
because that's why I think the -- I mean, the County
Attorney -- if we need to pass a motion or an order to get
the County Attorney to pursue what we can do, if anything,
I'm in favor of doing that. But I don't want to just go --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- you know, take any
action necessary.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think the -- I
understood him to say exactly that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
9-~~-03
176
1
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: To find out --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What we can do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do an investigation
and find out what we can do.
JUDGE TIN
you'r.e saying, you're --
forward and look at what
us to attempt to recover
done, then come back and
direction? Or --
BEY: If I -- if I understand what
you want the County Attorney to go
potential options are available to
that money, and once that has been
report to the Court for further
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the County Attorney be authorized in accordance with the
language of the motion. Any further question or discussion?
A11 in favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. I don't
think we left any. We finally got everything -- went back
and picked it up, haven't we, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want to take
9-~2-03
177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
care of the approval agenda before we go into Executive
Session?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, why don't we do that?
Let's move on to the approval agenda. First item is to pay
the bills. Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: Good timing on my part,
wasn't it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, excellent.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're trying to catch you
unprepared, but we didn't quite make it, did we? Anybody
have any questions about any of the bills?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have a
comment, that this reimbursement to me is the same one the
Court approved two weeks ago, but a check was not issued.
And maybe the Auditor can tell you why it's back on the
agenda.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we did the amendment
before we wrote the check.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. You did that
all right; you did the amendment, but the check was never
written.
MR. TOMLINSON: Are you sure?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm positive.
MR. TUMLINSON: I'll check on it for you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we're not going to
9-_~-u3
178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approve it again?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Same amount so, this
one comes out --
MR. TOMLINSON: Is it on there again?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
MR. TOMLINSON: Is it on there again?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was told by the
Treasurer's office that the reason they did not issue a
check was because you didn't ask for a check -- a hand
check.
MR. TOMLINSON: Oh. Tt's my fault, then.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But it's already been
approved, so does that came aff the list or what?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, let's leave on it there.
That way I'm for sure we'll get you a check.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we'd be
approving $139 twice?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's a good
question. We've already approved payment, but payment
hasn't been made.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'd like to just leave it
there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And I promise
you I'll only take one check.
y-^~-03
179
1
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 TINLEY: You're on the record there.
Okay. Do I hear a motion approving the bills?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the bills be approved and paid as presented. Any question
or comment? All in favor, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY:
Budget amendments. Budget
Amendment Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is for Rabies and
Animal Control. The request is to transfer $1,000 from
Utilities line item to Radio Repairs. I have with that a --
a need for a hand check payable to Advantage Communications
for $3,884.25.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much?
MR. TOMLINSON: $3,884.25.
JUDGE TINLEY: Try again?
MR. TOMLINSON: $3,884.25.
JUDGE TINLEY: Current expense, $1,139?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I'm paying -- part of
this payment is from another -- another budget. I held --
9-~'~-03
180
1
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 TINLEY: 3,884 --
MR. TOMLINSON: 25.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: We had a lightning strike on
some radio equipment. This is a repair of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second -- third.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
Budget Amendment Request Number 1 be approved and a hand
check to Advantage Communication in the amount of $3,884.25
be issued. Any questions or discussion? All in favor,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget
Amendment 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: Two is for Indigent Health
Care. First of all, I have payments of $74,709.66 to health
care vendors, $3,361.93 to third-party administrator, and
$134.23 to the hospital for our -- the remaining part of our
share of our person's salary, our Indigent Health Care
person's salary for this fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We obviously ran out
~-~~-o?
181
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of money.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, we did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And will this carry us
through the year?
MR. TOMLINSON: This is for the rest -- the
remainder of the year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Missed it by one
month.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I move we pay
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
Budget Amendment Request Number 2 be approved. Any further
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have one more amendment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? One more amendment,
okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: While he's handing
that out, I want to talk about Indigent Health Care just for
9-~2-„3
182
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,..,,, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a second. At some point, used to -- Tommy used to hand out
the list of people that were on the -- on the Indigent
Health Care rolls, and you could see -- you could see -- we
could sit up here and see how the -- basically, how the
system worked. You know, who was using it and what kind of
services were being used and who we were paying, you know,
the hospital here and ttie pharmacy there and that kind of
thing. You could kind of see it. And I'd like for us to go
through that one time just so everybody could be clear how
the thing works and how it -- and how the program works.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did we discontinue
it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I think he quit
handing out the list, because -- for a number of reasons.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Confidentiality.
MR. TOMLINSON: Confidentiality, names on the
list.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you could delete the
names and show where -- the amounts and what it's going to.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, we do have a different
list of who the vendors are.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, on your -- on your list
of bills there towards the back, it tells you who the
money's going to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Are you
-~_ 03
183
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
saying that we're not allowed to see the names any more?
MR. TOMLINSON: Not in a public meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm not talking
about handing it out to the press. I'm talking about, as a
Commissioner, like -- like we used to.
MR. TOMLINSON: Nat in a public meeting, no.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Okay. We'll
talk about it later, then.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I think it was
good to -- when we -- you know, before we realized that we
couldn't do it, I think it was a good -- I agree with
Commissioner Baldwin. And I'm -- I understand con --
confidentiality -- can't even say it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Confidentiality.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, whatever that word
is. But if they're accepting government funds, public
funds, why is it confidential who gets it?
JUDGE TINLEY: 'Cause the law says it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's the answer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm going to
tell you, there has been -- there has been -- there's been
some of those that have come across this table, though, that
we -- that I or others -- other members of this Court have
recognized as not -- not eligible for indigent care, and
y-~~-G3
184
1
-~-~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.~ 2 4
25
have taken that name to the administrator over at the
hospital, and those things have been fixed. And so you'll
be able to recognize some people that you know that are not
indigent by any stretch of the imagination.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Former Commissioner
Lackey used to make that comment often.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. So it was just
-- I wanted y'all to see it, but obviously we can't -- you
can't see what you're paying for; it's confidential
information. Meet you in the broom closet with a
flashlight.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Budget Amendment
Request Number 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: This amendment is to increase
the Alternate Housing line item by $20,458.23, and it's a
result of -- of a Title IV-E state funding that the County
received. So, I'm -- the request is to increase the amount
of the -- of that line item by the amount of the grant.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: These are flow-through
funds? Or are these --
MR. TOMLINSON: They're -- it's a direct
payment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're Kerr County
money, or -- is it Kerr County money?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Yes, it is. State
g _~-o~
185
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
funds, but when we receive it, it's Kerr County money.
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, they come to the
Juvenile Board. I mean, don't they?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the ultimate control, I
think.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right. Yeah, that's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I made a motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second. And I'll
have some comments.
JUDGE TINLEY: Second, okay. Any question or
comments?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is the budget
item we talked about and put together a budget where we had
a budget of $130,000, and we overspent that by some $65,000.
And if -- if I understand, this is -- when we have a
juvenile in front of one of our courts, this is the funds
that goes toward incarcerating that juvenile.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or placing him in what we call
alternative placement, or out-of-home placement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not incarcerate.
JUDGE TINLEY: Alternate placement.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Aside from you, what
a-~?-~~
186
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
..-. 2 4
25
other judges are involved in that process?
JUDGE TINLEY: Possibly Judge Brown, and
Judge Prohl has on occasion handled Kerr County cases. But,
for the most part, it's myself.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This $20,000 is some
money that we're getting from the State to offset part of
those costs?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's not the right
time to talk about it, probably, but it does occur to me
that Kerr County brings in a lot of juveniles from around
the state at the Hill Country Youth Ranch and 3-H Ranch,
K'Star, and they hopefully are able to help salvage -- some
of them get in trouble, and then we pass them on. And --
and what I'm saying is, we're spending money to take care of
children from other counties.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, in some respects, that's
where some of it goes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is the wrong
place for that discussion.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you're talking about if
they come in to, say, the youth ranch or the 3-H, and then
they erid up in our juvenile justice system, yeah. If you
consider them as being out-of-county. Now, we do have a
number of -- of children that are in our detention facility
5-~_-„~
187
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,..., 2 4
25
that are from, out-of-county, but those are placed by the
courts in their county, their own home county, and we
receive -- we receive payment from those counties for every
day that those children are incarcerated.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If the State of
Texas places a child from San Antonio with one of our local
youth facilities, youth ranch, 3-H or whatever, and that
child winds up in our -- our judicial system, we're paying
those costs, and my question is, could we get that other
county, the place the child comes from, to pay those costs?
This is not the right police for the discussion.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see where you're coming
from, and that's an extraordinarily good idea. And I've got
some of that same problem with respect to guardianships
which they're asking to be created for individuals who are
at the State Hospital, who are now residents of our county
because they're physically located here, but are really
residents of other counties. And I've got that same issue,
yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quick, before we vote on
it, since we brought it up talking about the juvenile
housing, several years ago, I think when the County first
took over that facility, we tried to get up to speed; the
Court went out there and went -- basically went on a tour of
9-~~-u3
188
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,~, 2 4
25
that facility. We haven't done that in a while. Might be a
good thing to do again, because it's very educational as to
what -- how that facility is used, and it gives you a lot
more -- or gave me a lot better appreciation of the value of
that facility, because I think it's an extraordinarily run
and good facility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the expansion
complete?
JUDGE TINLEY: It is not complete; it's
underway. Actually, they're in middle of a building program
that would double the capacity of that facility out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe when that -- maybe
when that expansion is complete would be a good time to have
a court -- you know, take it on a tour of the facility,
'cause it really -- I think it's a -- it's a real good
opportunity for us to see what's going on out there.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think Ms. Brown would be
excited to give everybody on this Court a tour of that
facility. Any further question or discussion on this Budget
Amendment Request Number 3? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Any late
9-~~-03
189
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.-.. 2 4
25
bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. We're going to spend
the 20.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MR. TOMLINSON: We're going to spend the
$20,000 that we just approved.
JUDGE TINLEY: I figured that.
MR. TOMLINSON: I have two invoices from
Pegasus Schools, Inc.; in Lockhart, one for $2,827.82 -- I
actually have two of those the same amount. One from Gulf
Coast Trade Center for $2,325. I have one from Rob Roy
Post-Adjudication Facility in San Angelo, $2,073. Another
one from Ever-Change in Hondo, Texas, for $3,696, and from
Hays County for $2,759. The total is 16,508.64. I need
hand checks for those.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
late bills, as outlined by the Auditor to Pegasus, Gulf
Coast Trade Center, Rob Roy, Ever-Change, and Hays County be
approved, and that hand checks be authorized and issued.
Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
~?-03
190
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
..-, 2 4
25
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. I have
before me monthly reports from the District Clerk, County
Clerk, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4, Justice of the
Peace, Precinct 1, and Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2. Do
I hear a motion that those reports be approved as submitted?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the reports as designated be approved as submitted. Any
further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Do we have
any other monthly reports? Any reports from Commissioners,
elected officials, department heads? Road and Bridge is
gone. Maintenance is not here. At this time, I believe
there was a desire to go into closed or executive session to
discuss one or more of the items that was enumerated on the
agenda; is that correct? I ask that -- that the room be
vacated, except for Commissioners and the reporter. The
Court will go into -- go out of open session as of 2:45, and
we will now go into closed session, executive session at
5-,,-~~
191
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~,., 2 4
25
that same time.
(Discussion off the record.)
(The open session was closed at 2:45 p.m.,
and an Executive Session was held, the
transcript of which is contained in a
separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: We will end the executive,
closed session at 4:20 p.m., and we'll now go back into open
session. Do I hear any motions or actions to be taken as a
result of the matter in executive and closed session?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would offer
a motion that Commissioners Court ask the Administrative
Assistant to post an agenda item for a special called
meeting on Friday morning, at a time to be determined by
your contacting our appointments to the Airport Board to
determine the best time, and that will be a meeting at that
time Friday morning for the purpose of discussing airport
governance matters.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioners, are
we going to limit it to Friday morning or Friday afternoon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Friday sometime.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Friday, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just do it as Friday at a
time you will determine, having talked to Dr. Davis,
Mr. MacDonald, and Mr. Miller. Whatever time works for
9-~~-G3
192
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those three gentlemen, that will be the time of the meeting,
and it will be for Friday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Should we -- should we
consider an alternate date in case those three guys are busy
and can't do it on Friday?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's pretty likely
that one of them will be busy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At least one of them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we can get two
out of the three.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we need to go
ahead with it.
MS. SOVIL: What is the posting?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Posting a special
meeting of Commissioners Court.
MS. SOVIL: I understand that, but what --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Agenda item?
MS. SOVIL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Talk about -- the
item is airport governance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: To discuss status of
governance of matters at the Kerrville/Kerr County Airport.
MS. SOVIL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a motion.
9-2~-~~
193
1
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: And I seconded it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further discussion
or questions? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Anything else
that we need to -- anybody has to offer in the way of formal
action as a result of the executive or closed session?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we do anything for
the City of Ingram? Mountain Home? We did --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're about to do
something to the City of Kerrville.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further,
gentlemen? If not, I'll declare the meeting adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 4:25 p.m.)
9-~~-03
194
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,., 2 4
25
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR I
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 29th day of September,
2003.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: `
Kathy Ban' Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
a-~^-03
Order No. 28316
Lease to Triad Holdings, Inc.
On this the 22 day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-
o to approve a Facility Lease to Triad Holdings, Inc., Sole General Partner of
Triad Manufacturing, Ltd., d/b/a BA Products.
Order No. 28317
Approve proposed 2004 Annual Budget for Kerr Emergency 9-1-1
On this the 22 day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to
approve the proposed annual 2004 budget as presented for Kerr Emergency
9-1-1 Network.
2
ORDER N0.28318
Public Hearing for Plat Revision Lot 1, Village West Industrial
Park, Phase 4.
On this the 22 day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner
Nicholson, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to set a Public Hearing for Plat Revision of Lot
1, Village West Industrial Park, Phase 4 for 10:00 a.m. on October 27, 2003.
3
ORDER N0.28319
Salary and Expenses of Elected County or Precinct Officers
On this the 22 day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by
Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to approve the
salary, expenses and other allowances of elected county or precinct officers for FY
2003/2004 as follows:
OFFICIAL	PRESENT	PRESENT	PRESENT	PROPOSED	PROPOSED	PROPOSED
	SALARY	SUPPLEMENT	TRAVEL	SALARY	SUPPLEMENT	TRAVEL
CONST.#1	$29492		$-0-	$29492		Vehicle
CONST #2	$29492		$-0-	$29492		Vehicle
.- CONST #3	$29492		$-0-	$29492		Vehicle
CONST #4	$27340		$-0-	$29492		$-0-
CO.ATTY	$64386	$33900	$-0-	$66996	$33900	$-0-
CO.CLERK	$40243		$-0-	$42249		$-0-
CO.JUDGE	$39673	$20679	$-0-	$40665	$20916	$-0-
CO.TREAS.	$40243	$800	$-0-	$42249	$829	$-0-
DIST.CLK	$40243	$2164	$-0-	$42249	$3000	$-0-
J.P.#1	$32055	$-0-	$-0-	$33856	$-0-	$-0-
J.P.#2	$32055	$2000	$-0-	$33856	$2050	$-0-
J.P.#3	$32055	$2000	$-0-	$33856	$2050	$-0-
J.P.#4	$32055	$2000	$-0-	$33856	$2050	$-0-
SHERIFF	$45885		Vehicle	$51735	$-0-	Vehicle
TAX						

ASS/COLE
..-_	
$40243		
$-0-	
$42249		
$-0-
7
ORDER NO. 28320
Advertise for Bids for Buzz Bar
On this the 22 day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-
0 allow the Road Administrator to go out for formal bid on Buzz Bar.
4
ORDER NO. 28321
SIGN POLICY FOR PRIVATE ROADS
On this the 22 day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by vote of
4-0-0 approve the Sign Policy for Private Roads as follows:
Private road signs shall be green blanks with 4" white reflective letters for name,
2" for suffix and Geo Region. A strip of red reflective tape is place at the top of
the sign to signify that it is a private road.
The charge for private signs shall be:
1. Private sign installed on a public right-of--way $100.00
2. Name plate only $ 30.00
3. Sign and hardware to be installed by the owner $ 70.00
on private property.
The cost of the sign includes replacement and or repair for 3 occasions or incidents, after the
third time the property owners are expected to pay replacement cost.
Money for signs to be deposited into the Road & Bridge line item 10-611-457 to reimbursement
for supplies.
5
ORDER N0.28322
Reseeding Mortuary Road Signs
On this the 22 day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by
Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to prohibiting the
current moratorium installation of road signs be suspended effective immediately for signs on
private roads.
ORDER N0.28323
ADOPT THE KERR COUNTY BUDGET FOR FY 2003/2004
On this the 22 day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner
Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to adopt the FY 2003/2004 Kerr County with the
following change: That Dietert Claim, Line Item 410, under County-Sponsored
Activities, be increased by $7,883 to a total of $15,000, and that those funds be taken
from Non-departmental Contingency, that being Item 571. The current $25,000 will be
reduced by the $7,883.
13
ORDER NO 28324
AMENDED ORDER TO ADOPT THE KERR COUNTY BUGET FOR
FY 2003/2004
On this the 22 day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to
be amended the '03/'04 Kerr County budget be to carry over $14,622 and add that to Asphalt,oil
& emulsion Line Item 552 in the Road and Bridge budget, and increase in Line Item 10-630-
502 by $4,128 First Responder Training
14
ORDER N0.28325
ADOPT THE TAX RATE FOR KERR COUNTY FY 2003/04
On this the 22 day of September 2003, upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by
Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote to adopt the FY2003/04
Tax Rate for Kerr County at a rate of.3721.
17
ORDER NO. 28326
BUDGMENT AMENDMENT
FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ELECTION EXPENSES
On this the 22 day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded
by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to approve
budget amendment for specific line items in Election Department for Constitutional Amendment
Election expenses and authorization for County Treasurer and County Auditor to pay said
election expenses on or by September 24th, 2003 by taking $680.55 from line item 10-402-456
Machine Repair and $7,522.67 from line item 10-402-569 Election Expense and put $328.15 into
line item 10-402-430 for Notices, put $145.71 into line item 10-402-330 for Election Supplies
and put $1822.97 into line item 10-402-210 for Ballot Expense and put $5906.39 into line item
10-402-108 for Judges & Clerks.
9
ORDER N0.28327
APPOINTMENT OF
KERR COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE 9-1-1 BOARD
On this the 22 day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by vote of
4-0-0 to reappoint Charles Lewis as Kerr County's representative to the 9-1-1
Board.
is
ORDER N0.28328
Kerr County Jury Selection Plan
On this the 22 day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote
of 4-0-o to approve "Kerr County Jury Selection Plan" to comply with
Chapter 62 of Texas Government Code and adding provision of HB
2188 as presented by the District Clerk as follows:
- KERR COUNTY JURY SELECTION PLAN
A plan for the method of selecting jurors by mechanical and electronic means was originally adopted in
1984 and amended in 1988. It is therefore recommended to the Commissioner's Court of Kerr County,
Texas that the following plan for the electronic selection of person for jury selection be adopted in
accordance with Chapter 62 of the Texas Government Code. This plan shall supersede any plan
previously adopted.
I. SOURCE OF NAMES
Pursuant to Section 62.001, Government Code, the source of which names of prospective
jurors will be taken will be~
1. The names of all persons on the current voter registration list from all the precincts
in the county.
2. All names on a current list to be furnished by the Texas Department of Public
Safety, showing the citizens of Kerr County who hold a valid Texas driver's license,
and the citizens of the county who hold a valid personal identification card or
certificate issued by the department other than persons who are disqualified from
fury service.
The source of names shall not include those persons listed in a register of:
1. Persons exempt from jury service under Govt. Code 62.108, permanent exemption because of
age.
"' 2. Persons exempt from jury service under Govt. Code 62.109, permanent exemption because of
physical or mental impairment or inability to comprehend English.
10
3. Persons exempt from jury service under Govt. Code 62.113, because the person is not a citizen
of the United States.
4. Persons convicted of a felony, residing outside the county or who has been duplicated on the
source list as a potential juror. Govt. Code 62.001(f).
II. METHOD
Persons shall be selected for jury service at random with the aid of electronic equipment in a fair,
impartial and objective manner from the source of names as specified above.
III.OFFICIAL IN CHARGE
The clerk of the district courts of Kerr County, Texas is designated as the official to be in charge of the
selection process, and shall have the duties and authority set forth herein.
IV. SELECTION OF JURORS
The selection of the names of persons for jury service will be made with the aid of electronic equipment.
Once the prospective jurors for the year have been loaded in the system the presiding judge from time to
time shall order the clerk to summon however many jurors are needed for a particular jury day or week.
Upon receipt of instructions from a District Judge or a designee to select a list of prospective jurors for a
certain day or week, the clerk or the designee will instruct the computer program to summon the number
of jurors ordered to be selected. The jurors so selected and qualified may serve interchangeably in all
courts of Kerr County.
,.. V. NOTICE TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS
The Judges of the District Courts, County Court at Law, County Court and Justice Courts shall provide, in
a timely manner to the District Clerk, information regarding the required jury panels for the respective
courts.
A true and complete written list showing the names and addresses of the persons summoned to begin
service on a date specified by the courts shall be printed and kept by the District Clerk until said list has
been used.
The Clerk shall summon by first class mail all persons randomly selected and listed for a particular day or
week in a particular court to appear as jurors.
Jurors selected under this plan and Govt. Code 62.0111(b) may appear in response to a summons by (1)
contacting the county officer or a designee responsible for summoning jurors by computer [electronic
mail] (2) by calling an automated telephone system or (3) by appearing in person.
A juror selected under this plan, the county officer or a designee and the Court or a designee may provide
or exchange information as allowed above to: (1) determine qualifications under 62.102, (2) determine
exemptions under 62.106, (3) submit requests for postponement or excuses under 62.110 and (4)
exchanging information of juror reassignment under 62.016.
All costs incident to this plan shall be paid from the appropriate designated fund maintained by the county
for paying the costs of jury trials.
11
VI. ADDITIONAL JURORS
If the Presiding Judge determines that the number of jurors previously selected for any designated date is
insufficient, he shall direct the Clerk to prepare a supplemental list containing a specified number to be
called for jury service in addition to those previously selected. Such additional persons shall be selected,
listed and summoned in the same manner as those previously selected.
VII. RECONSTITUTION OF JURY SOURCE
At a time each year, on or before December 31, the jury source shall be reconstituted from the certified
list provided by the Secretary of State under the provisions of the Government Code.
VII. RECOMMENDATION
It is hereby ordered that this plan for the selection and management of persons for jury
service with the aid of electronic or mechanical equipment pursuant to Government Code
62.011 be submitted to the Commissioner's Court of Kerr County for approval and entry in
the minutes of the Court. The plan will become effective immediately upon passage.
Ordered this the day of , 20
Stephen B. Ables, Judge Emil Karl Prohl, Judge
-- 216th Judicial District Court 198th Judicial District Court
Kerr County, Texas Kerr County, Texas
WHEREAS, the District Judges of Kerr County have recommended to the Commissioner's
Court of Kerr County that the herein proposed "Jury Selection Plan" be officially approved
and adopted for Kerr County, Texas and;
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED by the Commissioner's Court of Kerr County, Texas
that the proposed "Jury Selection Plan" is hereby officially approved and adopted to become
effective immediately and ORDERED to be recorded in the official minutes of this Court on
the 22 day of September, 2003 by Court Order No. 28328
12
ORDER N0.28329
SHERIFF AND CONSTABLE FEES
On this the 22 day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to
setting the Sheriff's and Constables fees as required under LGC § 118.131 as follows:
Notices:
Subpoenas	$60.00
Summons	$60.00
Writ of Attachment	$200.00
Writ of Garnishment	$200.00
Writ of Sequestration	$200.00
Order of Sale (Tax Warrants) $200.00
Writ of Possession	$200.00

Forcible Detainer
..-,	
$200.00
Service Fees:
Small Claims Citation $45.00
Justice Court Citation $45.00
All Other Courts' Citation $45.00
Other Service Fees:
Brady Bill $10.00, Fingerprints $5.00, Execution/Processing Arrest Warrant $50.00, Record
Management $5.00, Courthouse Security (Real Property Filing) $1.00, Courthouse Security
(Criminal Cases) $3.00, Courthouse Security (Civil Cases) $5.00, Writ of Execution $200.00,
Posting Written Notices $60.00, Temporary Restraining Orders $60.00, Injunctions $60.00,
Notices $60.00, Precepts $60.00, Writ of Restitution $200.00, Sheriff s Bailiff Fee $15.00.
ORDER N0.28330
BURN BAN CANCELLED
On this the 22 day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by
Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to cancel the burn
ban.
16
ORDER N0.28331
Parking Spaces Striping Plan for Courthouse Parking
On this the 22 day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, Seconded
by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to
Approve the parking spaces striping plan for the courthouse parking as submitted.
18
ORDER N0.28332
DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER AS DIGNITY MONTH
On this the 22 day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, Seconded
by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to
acknowledge September as Destination Dignity Month as requested by the Hill
Country Community Mental Health and Mental Retardation Center.
19
ORDER N0.28333
INDIGENT DEFENSE GRANT PROGRAM
On this the 22 day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by
Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to approve the
Resolution to apply for Indigent Defense Grant Program.
20
ORDER N0.28334
NOMINATION OF PAULA RECTOR TO THE
KERR CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD
On this the 22 day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by
Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to nominate Paula
Rector for submission to Kerr Central Appraisal District for Board Member of
Kerr Central Appraisal District.
21
ORDER N0.28335
TERMS OF COMMISSIONERS' COURT FOR FY2003/04
On this the 22 day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by
Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to designating the
the day of the week for the regular meeting will be the second Monday of each
month, unless that day is a designated holiday, in which case it will be the
following Tuesday and the fourth Monday of each month for a special term on
which the court shall convene in a special session during the fiscal year 2003/04,
as per Section 81.005 Local Government Code.
22
ORDER N0.28336
AUTHORIZE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO INVESTIGATE
FUNDS FOR HEALTH CARE SERVICES
On this the 22 day of September 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, Seconded by
Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to authorizing
County Attorney to investigate or see what options are available to recover balance
of unreimbursed funds expended by Kerr County for Health Care Services
provided to former Kerr County Employee.
23
.._. ORDER N0.28337
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
On this the 22ND day of September 2003 came to be considered by the Court various
Commissioners precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
400-County Judge $38.99, 401-Commissioner Court $2,394.13, 403-County Clerk $1,425.16,
404-Records Management $342.45, 408-Information Technology $54.08, 409-Non Departmental
$2167.37, 427-County Court at Law $1878.00, 429-Court Collections $459.99, 434-Jury
$350.00, 435-216th District Court $708.57, 436-198th district court $2669.50, 450-District Clerk
$237.94, 455-JP#1 $272.07, 456-JP#2 $619.34, 457-JP#3 $368.63, 458-JP#4 $522.82, 475-
County Attorney $1011.63, 495-County Auditor $171.47, 497-County Treasurer $1463.62, 499-
Tax Assessor/Collector $1062.98, 510-Courthouse & Related Buildings $2784.09, 511-Jail
Maintenance $1273.67, 512-County Jail $15,213.49, 513-Parks Maintenance $944.16, 551-
Constable #1 $1153.81, 552-Constable #2 $17.66, 553-Constable #3 $72.67, 554-Constable #4
$22.53, 560-Sheriff s Department $10,886.70, 570-Juvenile Probation $3384.35, 571-216th Adult
Probation 2092.63, 580-Department of Public Safety $28.28, 581-DPS-License & Weights
$181.48, 630-Health & Emergency Service $1140.00, 640- Environmental Health $268.78, 642-
Rabies & Animal Control $1899.62, 660-County Sponsored Activity $1800.00, 665-Agriculture
Extension Service $2266.42, 666-HC Youth Exhibition Center $3334.53. 661-Fire Protection
$11,000.00, 600-Administration-Unit System $516.26, 611-Road & Bridge26,980.89, 662-Parks
$1360.00, 641-Indigent Health Care $79,689.23, 592-District Administration $537.14. Total
Cash Required $186,964.77.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to pay said Accounts.
24
ORDER N0.28338
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR
RABIES & ANIMAL CONTROL
On this the 22ND day of September, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to
Transfer $1,000.00 from line item 10-462-440 Utilities into line item 10-642-453 for Radio
Repairs and authorize a hand check in the amount of $3884.25 payable to Advantage
Communications.
25
ORDER N0.28339
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR
INDIGENT HEALTH CARE
On this the 22ND day of September, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to
Transfer $63,631.50 from Indigent Health Care Surplus Funds and put $134.23 into line item 50-
641-100 for Administrative, $60,135.34 into line item 50-641-200 for Eligible Expense and
$3361.93 into line item 50-641-486 for Third Party Administrator.
26
ORDER N0.28340
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR
JUVENILE PROBATION
On this the 22ND day of September, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to
increase the Alternate Housing line item by $20,458.23 from money received from a grant from
Title IV-E state funding to the County.
27
ORDER N0.28341
LATE BILL
On this the 22ND day of September, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to
Pay the late bills as follows; Coast Trade Center for $2,325. Rob Roy Post-Adjudication Facility
in San Angelo, $2,073. Ever-Change in Hondo, Texas, for $3,696, and Hays County for $2,759.
The total is 16,508.64 to be taken from Alternative Housing line item.
28
ORDER N0.28342
APPROVE MONTHLY REPORTS
On this the 22"d day of September, 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to
accept the following reports for the month of August and direct that they be filed with the
County Clerk for future audit:
.^ District Clerk
County Clerk
J.P. #4
J.P. # 1
J.P. #2
29
ORDER N0.28343
LEASE AGREEMENT AGENDA ITEM
On this the 22°d day of September, 2003 upon made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0,
to post an agenda item for Friday September 26`h 2003 for the purpose of a lease agreement to
discuss matters in relationship to Kerr County & the City of Kerrville.
30