1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,r., 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, November 24, 2003
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
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
2
I N D E X
November 24, 2003 PAGE
--- Commissioners' Comments 3
1.1 Resolution to authorize execution of TexDOT
	General Aviation Terminal Grant a$~~{Q	11
1.2	Proclamation declaring November as Adoption Month	23
1.3	Elect commissioners to Kerr County Emergencya ~~,~	
	Service District No. 1 Board of Commissioners	24
1.4	Elect commissioners to Kerr County Emergency $ ~~	
	Service District No. 2 Board of Commissioners
~	26
1.5	Consider replacing 1993 Chevrolet used by C.I.~
~	28
1.6	Consider changes in Flood Damage Prevention Order	
	#26463 a ~~Z O	31
1.7	go out for annual bids on
Allow Road & Bridge to	
	/
paving materials 2. ?T T Zl p'/	46
1.12	Privately-maintained road name changes Z Q `~ Z Z	48
1.13	Discuss singular review for Subdivision in ETJ	
	and possible proposed committee a $ yZ-3	~ 3
1.14	~
Resolution of thanks to Riverhill Country ClubrZ$~L	/
769
1.8	PUBLIC HEARINGS for Alternate Plat Revisions	71
1.9	Alternate Plat Revisions for Falling Water,~b YZ 3	
	Lots 138A and 139A, Volume 7, Pages 75 & 76 l	73
1.10	Alternate Plat Revisions for Falling Water,	
	Lots 125A and 125, Volume 7, Page 52 a s 7 Z ~	74
1.11	Alternate Plat Revisions, Greenwood Forest,	
	Lot 8, Block 6, Volume 3, Page 123; and L
~ts	
	t
16 and 17, Blcck 6, Volume 5, Page 92 ~ T ~~~	76
1.15	Revisions to Kerr County Parks and Recreatio ~ ~
,	~
	2.
7
Master Plan, 2003-2008; authorize plan to be	
	forwarded to Texas Parks and Wildlife, extend	
	letter of thanks and appreciation to KCVB	78
1.16	Discuss legal restrictions to the Commissioners'	
	Court plan to rule on proposals made by elected	
	officials to grant merit pay increases	81
1.17	Consider establishing merit pay policies	87
1.18	Set date for Commissioners' Court Workshop for	
	strategic planning K ~ ~ Lq	89
1.19	Approval and award of bid for County Insurance	
	coverage to Texas Association of Counties a~?~/3c~	108
1.20	Discuss approving Mutual Aid Agreement with Z ~ Y3(	
	AACOG to continue accessing regional assistance	127
1.21	Approval of Resolution opposing unfunded mandates,	
	authorizing referendum to b placed on March 2004	
	primary election ballots OZ ~~3~	128
1.22	Approve contracts between Kerr County and the	
	Comfort VFD, Castle Lake VFD, and Hunt VFDp~~~.33	133
	Approval Agenda	136
---	Adjourned	146
3
1
..,, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,.,, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, November 24, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: It's 9 o'clock, so I'll call
to order the special Commissioners Court meeting scheduled
and posted for this date, November 24th. I believe,
Commissioner Nicholson, you have the honors this morning.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Please join me in
prayer.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Please be seated.
If there is any member of the public or anyone in the
audience that wishes to address the Court about any matter
that is not listed on the agenda, this is the time for you
to come forward and do that. If -- if you wish to address
the Court on a matter that is listed as an agenda item, we'd
ask that you wait until that item is called, but if you have
anything you want to say to the Court about anything that's
not on the agenda, we'd -- we'd be happy for to you come
forward at this time and tell us what's on your mind.
Seeing no one moving towards the podium, why, I gather
there's none. Commissioners' comments. Number 4?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, it's a
11-,-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
4
beautiful morning in west Kerr County, and white-tailed
bucks are running and turkeys are strutting, and we got our
first good, hard freeze of the winter. The other thing I
wanted to report, just as information to the members of the
Court and others who may be interested, that you may be
aware that there's been a debate over the past few weeks
over whether the County changed the holding rule for -- for
animals in the shelter from 48 to 72 hours. The genesis of
this debate was the appearance of a 72 -- a 72-hour rule in
the County's Rabies and Animal Control Rules document, and
that was an error. The basis of that was, we were relying
on an old document.
You may recall, Commissioner Baldwin, in
1997, the holding period was changed from 72 hours to 48
hours, and at that time, that change was penciled-in on the
courthouse documents. And then in August of this year, the
Commissioners Court considered and took action to revise the
Animal Control Order, and that action took place following a
number of meetings between me and Marc Allen and the Humane
Society and quite a number of Kerr County veterinarians and
others who are interested in animal welfare. And, based on
the input from these meetings, me and Marc Allen brought a
proposal to Commissioners Court to do two things; one,
change the rabies shot cycle from one year to three years,
and two, to change the fee schedule. The Commissioners
11-~'4-G3
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
5
Court discussed these two issues. We held a public hearing
on the proposed changes, and we passed a court order by
4-to-0 vote to authorize these two changes. A change in the
minimum holding rule was not an issue. It was not proposed.
It was not discussed. It was not a part of the public
hearing, and it was not a part of the court order.
Apparently, there are some who are making an attempt to get,
through a procedural error, what they cannot get through
legitimate political process, to change the 48-hour rule to
72 hours. In my view, these efforts are disingenuous.
The facts on the issue of the 48-hour rule
versus a 72-hour rule are these: One, the County's Animal
Control facility operates at capacity most of the time.
There is no more room for more animals. Changing the
holding time to 72 hours would require the construction of a
larger facility. Two, changing the holding time from 48 to
72 hours will not result in reducing the number of animals
that are destroyed. The number of animals that come out of
the end of the pipeline is a function of the number of
animals that are put into the pipeline. The cause of the --
of animals being destroyed is irresponsible pet owners.
And, three, no pet owner who obeys the Animal Control rules
will have his pet destroyed. That's an update on that
issue, and hope that the -- it might serve to -- to end the
debate.
ii-~4-o3
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
6
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A comment on that.
Commissioner, I appreciate you bringing it to the Court, and
I think that everything that you said is 100 percent
correct. I -- I believe that it's been said at this table
several times that we'd like to have 72 hours, but, again,
it -- it's the cost of adding on to the facility. But it
has been 48 hours, and that's where it is, and if there is a
debate, that debate needs to be in this room, not out on the
streets. And it kind of angers me to hear that, that
someone is trying to go around the rules and do those kinds
of things, and -- but, anyway, I appreciate you doing that.
I want to talk a little Tivy football. Had a big victory
Friday night against New Braunfels. You know, New Braunfels
last year was defeated in the state championship game, and
came back and Tivy beat them twice this year; beat them
17-to-7 last Friday night. And the next game is this coming
Saturday night, and I think its 8 o'clock back in the
Alamodome. Last week, I understand there was a 17,000
crowd, which is a pretty good crowd for a 4-A high school
football game. But this Saturday night, the Alamodome,
against Calallen, which is -- during -- all during the year,
they were number four and five in the state, and they're
1_ ~4-03
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
7
huge and great and all that. So, anybody looking for some
good high school football, you can find some Saturday night
in the Alamodome. There are eight teams left in the entire
state on our level, and Tivy is still one of them and still
in there scrapping. Good bunch of kids. And that's all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You weren't numbered
among those 17,000 in the Alamodome?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I was.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, I was. I didn't
count but 16,500, but --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- I read there were
17, 000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just wanted to check.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 2?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a few thoughts
with respect to the happenings and activities of the weekend
here on the courthouse lawn on Saturday night. It was a
wonderful party and a grand entry into the holiday season,
and it's really always interesting to see how, when
different groups and individuals put their minds and
shoulders to work toward a common purpose or goal, good
things can happen. So, I want to extend my thanks and
appreciation to the Christmas Lighting Corporation for all
11 ^_4 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
8
of its hard work in acquiring the lighting and getting it
up, and the community service people and the jail inmates
that the Sheriff provided to help them put that up, as well
as the Kerr County Maintenance Department. Thanks, too, to
the downtown merchants and Main Street people for their
efforts in putting on the Christmas parade. The parade is
in its third year, I believe, and every year it's gotten
bigger and better, and who knows, one of these days it might
rival Comfort. I don't know, maybe one of these days. And,
lastly, to Wells Fargo Bank for its participation in what
they number as the 24th annual Christmas program that they
have sponsored here. So, you put all those components
together, and it truly was a grand, grand entry into the
Christmas and holiday season, and I commend all of them for
their efforts.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 3?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Likewise, I'd like to
commend everyone that had a part in the events Saturday
night here at the courthouse with the parade and lighting
and all of that festivities. A football note; Comfort
continues to win as well. They had a -- I think had a
record -- almost a record; probably was some sort of a
record, 545-yard rushing in their 61-to, I believe, -26
victory. And so they're continuing on to the playoffs
again. And the final note is, this weekend is Christmas in
1 Z - ~ f - ~ J
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
9
Comfort, which is a -- anyone who has not been to that
event, it's pretty amazing for a town as small as Comfort to
put on a -- the holiday festivities as large as this. It's
kind of food booths and entertainment, things of that nature
going on all day, and culminatinq with a parade -- a night
parade on Saturday night. And one of the -- you know, I
think the -- probably the Fiesta Night parade's probably the
only parade around here that rivals it in size and events.
In fact, there are some -- I forget the name -- the queen's
coronation float out of San Antonio always comes to the
parade. They don't go everywhere, so that's kind of a big
deal. It is a -- anyone who has not been, I really
recommend you go, 'cause it is a -- a big event, a lot of
fun. Something like, probably, 80 entries or so. And
interestingly, just a footnote, this parade is put on by one
individual in Comfort; his name is Gary Schwab. His, I
guess, passion is this parade, and he is the organizer, puts
it on totally, organizes the entire thing by himself. And
he and his wife Janice have done a fantastic job, and he'll
be dressed as Santa Claus at the end of the parade. Anyway,
big crowd; get there early. They anticipate 12,000, 15,000
people. A lot of people come in big buses. I know
Fredericksburg has three or four buses coming down for it.
Good event. Hope everyone can turn out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. On the Animal
'_1-_4-03
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
10
Control issue, when it was brought to light, I have asked
the County Attorney's office to look into what procedures,
if any, this Court needs to look at in order to make
whatever changes the Court might deem appropriate with
respect to the issues concerning the Animal Control
regulations. So, I'll await hearing from the County
Attorney as to what -- what procedures we're required to
follow.
I'd also like to echo Commissioners Williams
and Letz; kudos to people that were responsible for the
parade and the ceremony and lighting here at the courthouse.
It came off, as far as I know, without a hitch. The parade
was great. It proceeded orderly, and there were a lot of
folks, and the weather was fantastic; we couldn't have
ordered it in. I told Steve Brown after the ceremony that
since he was in the weather business, he ought to take
credit for it, if nothing else. But it really came out
fantastic. And especially want to thank everybody from our
courthouse staff and -- and the Sheriff's trustee inmates
that participate in these things. Frankly, I don't think
the thing could be done without the cooperation of everybody
that was involved in it. And -- and, of course, the
Christmas lighting people and the -- the community service
people participate and are the driving force behind it, but
we appreciate all of their efforts. And that's all I have,
11-24-0?
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
11
and let's move on with the business at hand, First item on
the agenda is the consideration and approval of a resolution
to authorize the execution of a grant agreement pursuant to
the Texas Department of Transportation General Aviation
Terminal Grant. Good morning, Mr. Pearce.
MR. PEARCE: Good morning, Judge and
Commissioners. What you have before you today is a
resolution to execute grant agreements and to continue with
proceeding for a terminal -- General Aviation Terminal
grant. Back when I got on board in -- I believe it was
April-May time frame, we went through a number of capital
projects that we were looking at and kind of reviewed them
with the Board. Some of the priorities that were given at
that particular time was a general aviation terminal, and
that was the second priority. First one was an instrument
landing system, but we're not ready to pursue that. They
asked me to go out and try to pursue obtaining funding at
that particular time. I talked at great length with TexDOT.
TexDOT has a state project where they will do a fifty-fifty
match for a general aviation terminal, which is up to
$600,000. And, of course, that means a local match of
$300,000. From there, we talked with the E.I.C.
corporation, and it fit into their criteria; they were very
exited about it and unanimously approved the match funding
for $300,000 to match that.
11-?~-0?
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-~
25
12
Once we obtained that funding, we jumped in
an airplane and literally flew up to Austin, proceeded to
tell them we had the match funding, waited for their
response. TexDOT did respond within two weeks, and said
that, yes, we will be funded for a terminal. And,
additionally, we were able -- because of our quick response,
we were able to tap into some discretionary money, and they
will proceed going to the Transportation Commission so we
can start the design within the next 60 days, and that means
consultant selection, doing a design. By about the time we
complete all of those phases, I envision that we could have
the package ready to bid for construction, about August time
frame. When it goes into the second phase of their -- their
fiscal year, which is September, they will go to the
Commission again for the construction phase, and we
literally could have this building on the ground within 14
to 16 months. It's a real success. It's a gateway to the
city, to the community, to Kerr County, to the airport. I
call it -- it's a transition facility for people on the
ground to go in, and a gateway to our area, or a transition
from ground to go back into the air. We do not have one of
those facilities right now. We do not have a facility that
meets our criteria, or to the level that we think we need,
and we ask that you approve this. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Pearce, thank you
11-~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
13
for your report and thank you for bringing this to our
attention. A couple questions. First of all, the $300,000
is, as they say, in the bag? We have that from the E.I.C.?
That's a guaranteed funding?
MR. PEARCE: It's a guaranteed funding. The
acceptance was already approved. The contract is already
let, and we have it in a -- in the bank, so to speak.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it's been blessed
by City Council?
MR. PEARCE: Blessed by City Council.
Contract has already been signed between the two. We have a
project fund; it's completed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The second part of
the question would be, what additional funds from TexDOT
have you been able to identify, other than the $300,000
match? You indicated there's some additional funds that
you've been able to tap into for planning and early design,
perhaps, or whatever?
MR. PEARCE: This is -- this is part of
that -- excuse me. This is part of that $300,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, just part of
the 5300,000?
MR. PEARCE: Yes. So, what you end up with
is a project cost of $600,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which includes the
it-~~-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
14
soft money up front?
MR. PEARCE: Includes the soft money up
front, which is design, the geotech, all of the -- the
preparations, the bid packages, and then the remainder is
the construction. Normally, what happens is the geotech,
engineering design, complete process runs between $50,000
and $60,000. So, in essence, the construction portion of
the building will be right around $540,000 -- 500 --
$540,000 to $550,000. The range of the -- there's a number
of different terminals that have been accomplished in the
state for the last five years. We took a snapshot of that.
The range for the types of facilities are running between
$98 and $134 a square foot. So, in essence, you would --
meeting the public facility criteria, there's a number of
issues we have to do there, but you would end up with a
facility in the neighborhood of a 4,800 to 5,500-square-foot
facility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Given that we're
still having some unresolved issues between the two owners
and the Airport Board, how do you envision -- how do you
envision the planning process to unfold? Give us a thought
or two on that.
MR. PEARCE: We'll have a selection committee
that will actually select a design consultant, once we go
out for a Statement of Qualifications. The individuals have
1 1- ~' 4- 0 3
15
1
~- 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to submit their qualifications at that particular time. We
do a selection committee for the design consultant. It all
falls under the TexDOT criteria. They monitor this whole
process. We award points. Really, the best individual --
the best-suited, we will select them. Then we have to
negotiate a fee with them. Once we negotiate that fee, we
go back to TexDOT, TexDOT reviews it, accepts it or denies
it. Once we're ready, at that point, it's a contract with
that design engineer. They do the project, complete it.
Once it's ready to go for bid, then we go out to bid for the
facility, and then it's low bidder who meets the
qualifications, unless there's a reason that we need to
discriminate from them, and that is that they don't meet the
qualifications or they have a track record in the past that
doesn't -- questionable, if you will. This is a pretty
boilerplate-type process. TexDOT has had this program in
place for about 10 years right now. They have constructed
approximately 50 facilities around the state; simple process
that they follow. We just -- we have to work hand-in-hand
with TexDOT as we go through, very similar to how we did the
entrance road relocation, the runway overlay, those type of
projects. The only difference is, this is state money; it's
not federal money, which is a real good opportunity.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Pearce, I'm
11-"'9-~3
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
looking at the resolution here and the sign-off page on it.
I'm assuming that the County Attorney is prepared to advise
this Court whether this is a good document or not, but I
don't see any -- I don't see -- I see where the Mayor has
signed off, the City Clerk and the City Attorney has signed
off, but I don't see any County signatures on here. And --
MS. SOVIL: We added those after you made --
he made those copies.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I'm not privileged
to the same documents that you all are?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think at the bottom of the
page, that page just -- just below those two signatures on
the left.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. And the only thing
that's been added is -- is, below that, where the County
Attorney has approved the original sign-off on it, so you
don't have the sign-off of the County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's on the original. It's
on all the documents here before the Court for execution.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, you have -- do
you have it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have it? Do
11-29-,,~
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
~--~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you have it? We don't have it. And how in the hell do you
expect us to make a decision if we don't have the right
documents? That's what I'm saying. And I certainly
wouldn't vote for it if it didn't -- if those
weren't available. Now, my only other question to you, when
you hopped in the airplane to run up to Austin, was anybody
at this table invited to go along?
MR. PEARCE: No, they were not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would ask you, from
this point on, you include the County in everything you do.
MR. PEARCE: Does that mean I do not proceed
with pursuing grants and development of the airport unless
somebody's there?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that is exactly
what that means. That means that we have an appointee here
that -- that goes to the board meetings, and I want him at
least advised of it and where he can come back and report to
this Court. Do you have a problem with that, Mr. Pearce?
MR. PEARCE: No, it's not a problem. I'm a
little bit, I guess, amazed that we had two Commissioners
that knew that we were --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're half-owners in
the thing, and we want -- we are a part of it. We have not
been a part of it, and we're trying to get a foothold in the
thing and be a part of it, and we're going to be a part of
11-~' 4-G3
18
1
,.-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it from this point on. That's all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me add a thought
here, following up on Commissioner Baldwin's comments. I
think the Commissioners' concerns are valid, but it also
goes to -- not to say that I didn't know what's going on. I
did know that we were pursuing this grant. I thought he was
aware, too, because County Judge also knew. It does -- it
does make or bring emphasis to the point that we need to
iron out the unresolved issues of governance so that the
Court and the City Council and everybody are clearly aware
of not only what you're doing, but the decisions that cause
you to spring into action, and that is the transfer of
whatever authorities need to be transferred to make the
Airport Board not advisory, but an action board. And the
last time we met and talked about any of that, Judge Tinley
and I were involved in the meeting right here in this
courtroom with representatives of the City, and we talked
about governance, and governance has to be changed to the
extent that it becomes an authoritative board, and
representatives of this Court or representatives of City
Council become action members or voting members of an
Airport Board. I know that's not in your purview, but it
needs to be on the record that this issue needs to be taken
care of. Commissioner Nicholson is also aware, so I think
it's time, Judge, that we do resolve this issue so that we
__-~4-03
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 "7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
make certain all of our colleagues are on board and the same
path, and we're all working toward the same goal, which is
to make that an economic development generator, as it should
be, and as it's headed in the direction to be. I think the
terminal itself is a wonderful addition and will cause the
airport, at some point in time -- if it doesn't make it
before we have the building, that airport will be
self-sustaining by the time we get that building, and I
think that's a goal we all ascribe to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, let me ask one
more question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You have the County
Attorney's signature added on yours. The document -- is the
document exactly the same that I have here?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not -- I'm not sure,
Commissioner. The -- very frankly, the -- I've got to
assume that it probably is, but I don't know that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I would assume that as
well.
JUDGE TINLEY: I invite to you look at it
here. It's the original that was tendered to me. It
appears to be the same, with the exception of a sign-off
spot to the right of the County Clerk's signature for
approval by the County Attorney, which is on all of these.

20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
...-.
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One more
explanation -- comment, Commissioner. When this document
came in -- wasn't it Thursday or Friday? When was it?
Wednesday or whatever last week, Ms. Sovil brought it to my
attention that the County Attorney would need to review it,
and there wasn't a line for signature. I suggested to her
to suggest to the Judge that we add a review line for the
County Attorney on the original document, send it to the
County Attorney for review and so forth. The fact that it
didn't get copied with that line on it, I think, is an
accident and not intentional, but it was reviewed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. Well,
while I'm chewing here, the -- and your comments, everybody
at this table except Commissioner Letz and I know everything
about it, so would you please -- would you please bring the
information to this table so that we'll all know what's
going on?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll be happy to. If
I failed to do so, I apologize.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just going on your
comments. You named everybody but him and I.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only comment I
have --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I assumed you read
the paper, Commissioner. It was in the paper.
11-~4-03
21
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: No, I didn't read the
paper. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to commend you
for pursuing the grant and getting it. All said and done, I
think, you know, the -- myself and I presume the whole Court
is happy with receiving the grant and the fact that we're
having a terminal built, but I think you also probably -- I
don't disagree with what my colleagues have said, but I
think you understand that the -- I think the frustration is
that this Court has been trying to get the City to get this
governance issue resolved for over a year now, and we seem
to go at a snail's pace. And I think if you can just take
that back to City Manager and say, hey, you really need to
get, you know, the mayor to get with Commissioners Court and
get this resolved, so you don't get beat up every time you
come over here, Dave. I know you don't appreciate it
either.
MR. PEARCE: I'm just trying to get money and
build the airport.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson, do you
have anything to offer?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, sir, I do not.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would offer
11-24-~3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
for action Commissioners Court approval of resolution to
authorize execution of a grant agreement pursuant to Texas
Department of Transportation for General Terminal Aviation
Grant as presented to Commissioners Court, and authorize
County Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
the approval of the agenda item, and authorize County Judge
to sign the same. Any further question or discussion? With
regard to the omission of the County Attorney's approval
line, I think what had happened was, when we got that
in-hand -- the originals in-hand, I think the copies had --
Ms. Sovil had already run off copies to go in our respective
agenda item books, and as a result, it lacked that item.
From the priority standpoint ~f trying to iron out the
remaining issues at the airport, I met -- earlier this
month? This month with the City Manager, and our primary
discussion at that time dealt with airport matters. And he
and I have both, I think, concluded that that's an item
we're putting on the front burner to try and get that
resolved, so that we've got these lingering issues with
respect to those airport matters resolved and nailed down,
and that therefore everybody can move forward.
Lastly, I -- I'm very happy to see E.I.C.
look favorably upon this, and I applaud their efforts. I
1"~-~4-03
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
23
think this is truly a project that falls under the purview
of economic improvement and economic development, and I
think that whole airport complex is going to be a
significant economic generator for this area in the years to
come. And I know that's Mr. Pearce's thought, and he's
looking down the road at having a pretty significant
complex, not just aviation, but a lot of second- and
third-tier operations out there. In fact, we've already got
some. But I really think it's -- it's an appropriate E.I.C.
project, and I appreciate their looking at this thing
favorably. Any other questions? Comments? 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. The next
item on the agenda --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Dave.
Judge has it for signature right here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item on the agenda is
consider and discuss approving proclamation proclaiming
November as Adoption Month. This item came to me from the
governor's office, and I put on it the agenda accordingly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, is there a -- I
mean, the proclamation attached is the one from the
li-~~-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
24
governor. Have you prepared one?
JUDGE TINLEY: I have not yet prepared one.
There would be some very minor changes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. SOVIL: The lady from C.P.S. was supposed
to bring one this morning. Judy -- the one that signed the
letter.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judy Houston?
MS. SOVIL: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've not seen it,
Commissioner, but there would necessarily need to be some
very minor modifications.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That may be coming. Why
don't we pass on this until we get the actual letter? And
she'll probably be here later this morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have a problem with
that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, I think it's
wise.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We will return to
that item. The next item on the agenda is consider and
discuss and elect the Commissioners to the Kerr County
Emergency Services District Number 1 Board of Commissioners.
Commissioner Nicholson.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We have two items on
11-~9-03
25
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
the agenda that pertain to -- to Commissioners for our rural
emergency service districts. You'll recall that Ingram
Rural Fire Prevention District is -- has become Number 1,
and now we have a new Number 2. This one deals with an
Ingram -- a proposal to reelect Mr. Kenneth Wood --
reappoint, I'm sorry, Mr. Kenneth Wood, Bruce Bond, and
Donald C. Oehler as Commissioners of the district to serve a
new two-year term. If you've been out in the Ingram area
lately, you have seen that new fire -- firehouse is under
construction. As Buster said, larger facility, and will
allow them to respond quicker and in a more efficient way to
fires. And, from what I can see, that between the volunteer
fire department there and the -- the District Number 1,
they've done a terrific job of raising money and improving
their capability to fight -- fight fires. All that
editorial is to say that I recommend the -- the appointment
of -- these three men's appointment as Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
the appointment or reappointment, as it were, of the
following persons to serve as Commissioners on the Board of
Commissioners of the Kerr County Emergency Services District
Number 1; that being Kenneth Woods, Bruce Bond, and Donald
C. Oehler. Any further questions or discussion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
11-'4-~3
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
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item
on the agenda is consider, discuss, and elect Commissioners
to the Kerr County Emergency Services District Number 2
Board of Commissioners. That would probably be more
appropriately known as the Mountain Home District, would it
not, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's -- that's
probably a good term. It's officially the Kerr County
Emergency Service District Number 2. And we have nominees
in front of you, and you have their resumes, to -- to
appoint five Commissioners for an additional term.
Procedurally, today we'll appoint five Commissioners, and on
January 1, we will act again to determine the terms of those
commissioners. Some will be one year, and some will be two
years. These five -- Cleo Meadow, Bruce Oehler, John
Gibbens, F.C. "Corky" Henson, and Wesley Patton -- all meet
the qualifications of the act. They all reside in the
district. From my point of view, we're very fortunate to
have such a good combination of experience among these
Commissioners, including business and finance experience,
firefighting experience, government experience. I think the
mix will make for a good Board of Commissioners. I've met

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
with each of them, and I'm very impressed that -- and very
thankful that they're willing to serve in this capacity. In
fact, I might, just as an aside, say that Commissioner
Oehler just celebrated his 50th birthday last weekend.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'd heard that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I've counted
backwards, and he wasn't -- when he first served in an
elected capacity, he wasn't old enough to vote. (Laughter.)
Some of the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't think he was
that old.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I did.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Three of the
nominees are here with us, as is Mr. Bernard Syfan, who's
been very instrumental in helping to form this -- this
emergency service district. So, I -- I move that we -- we
approve the nominations of Cleo Meadow, Bruce Oehler, John
Gibbens, F.C. "Corky" Henson, and Wesley Patton as
Commissioners of Kerr County Emergency Service District
Number 2.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second -- third.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve as Commissioners for the Board of Commissioners of
Kerr County Emergency Services District Number 2 Cleo
11-z4-~?
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Meadow, Bruce Oehler, John Gibbens, F.C. "Corky" Henson, and
Wesley Patton. Any further questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Comment. Judge, thank
you. I don't know all of them, but I know three of them
real well. Super quality. This thing's going to work;
there's no question in my mind.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, please signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Notion does carry. Thank you,
gentlemen, for your willingness to serve, and we'll shuffle
you up come January, I suppose. The next item on the agenda
was placed there at the request of the Sheriff, and he's
requested that we --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Put it back on now. The
County Attorney did get his research done.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Next item is
consideration and discussion of replacing an older '93
Chevrolet used by his C.I.D. with a '98 Ford Taurus, to be
purchased with moneys available in his Seizure and Donation
Expenditure accounts. Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What this is, is the '93
i - ~ 4 - 0 3
29
1
-°, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Chevrolet. Y'all will recall, it's a maroon Chevrolet
Caprice that we have had for a number of years. It had
belonged to a highway patrol sergeant here first. Once he
got through with it, it was traded in. It's one of those
the County did purchase from D.P.S., and mileage is up about
2,000 -- or 200,000 on it. And the mechanic at the shop
says it's literally a bucket of bolts rolling down the road
and shouldn't be on the road, so we're at the point of
having to get rid of it. It's been in service for a number
of years. Ran across this vehicle by accident, really. The
sticker price that I saw posted here at the courthouse, I
saw the vehicle parked out front. It's the same type of
vehicle we've been putting in C.I.D. It's a '98 with 76,000
or something miles nn i_t, in excellent shape. The price out
of -- taking about $1,000 out of our Seizure account, and
the remainder out of Donation account. We can purchase this
vehicle and won't have any budgetary impact at all. The
main reason I brought it to the Court is because it is owned
by a spouse of one of the employees, and there were some
legal questions I had under that, whether we could actually
purchase something owned by a spouse. Late last week I had
contacted the County Attorney t.o do some research and let us
know and make sure it was legal to do it this way, and I
originally was going to pull it, 'cause I hadn't had that
response yet; David's been swamped. But David walked in a
11-~4-03
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
while ago and told me he has got an opinion on that, and
does have one that he'll voice today. So, if he does, I
would still like to go forward with it, okay?
MR. MOTLEY: It's a purchase. There's
nothing to prohibit the purchase. The fact that it's an
employee's spouse is -- even if the property were considered
community property, it's okay. This book -- this vehicle is
well below the book value -- Blue Book value. It's an
arm's-length transaction; there's no evidence of insider
trading, insider dealing, or overreaching by the Sheriff.
In any event, it's a -- it's a -- it's a fair purchase, and
I don't see anything wrong. And we have no bidding problem;
the price is $3,500, so we're not required to bid it. So, T
don't see a thing wrong.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Any the only other thing
I would add, I need to take -- be able to have the authority
to take it out of that Donation expenditure. Seizure
account, I don't have a problem, but the way the Auditor has
our Donation account set up is that it is a budgetary line
that goes in there, that authorizes the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much comes out of
25 that line?
11-~9-03
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: $2,500.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $2,500 out of the
Donation?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And $1,100 out of
Seizure?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, $1,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $1,000 out of Seizure.
That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item, with $2,500 to come out of the
Donation line item and $1,000 to come from the Seizure
account. 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. The next
item on the agenda is to consider changes in Flood Damage
Prevention Order 26463. Mr. Johnston.
MR. JOHNSTON: Good morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, sir.
MR. ~OHNSTON: I was reading through the
Flood Prevention Order, and there's three items that I
1 1-~ 4- G 3
32
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
thought I'd bring to your attention for possible
consideration of making a change, first item just being an
update from "T.N.R.C.C." to "T.C.E.Q." Second item appears
to be somewhat of a conflict in the -- as you read through
this, there's development allowed in the special flood
hazard area, in the fringe areas, as long as it does not
increase the base flood elevation more than 1 foot. And it
seems to me that once development is -- is completed, as we
go along, ultimately the base flood elevation will be plus 1
foot, all developments finished. And so, therefore, I make
this recommendation; that we change the order to read
"elevated 1 foot above the base flood elevation for
construction in the fringe area of the special hazard area,
Zone A." As an aside to that, the City of Kerrville
currently has 1 foot above the B.F.E., and I understand
they're considering changing to it 2 foot above the B.F.E.
The third item being under the subdivision part, new
subdivisions that have lots within a flood hazard area, that
we should have the recommendation that they have 1 acre at
least outside of the special flood hazard area, to minimize
construction in that area. The whole purpose is not to
build in those areas. This will pertain only to new
construction.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is -- Franklin, is the
third item -- is that part of the Subdivision Rules, or is
11-29-G3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
33
that part of the flood prevention, or part of both?
MR. JOHNSTON: That's Section 5. Section C
is in the flood prevention order pertaining to new
subdivisions. And, concurrently, if you agree with this, it
probably should be also in the new Subdivision Rules.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question, Frank.
,,.., 24 it' s --
25
11-?9-n3
MR. JOHNSTON: What I'm saying is, if there's
MR. JOHNSTON: Xes?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The -- there's a
chart that you show -- that you provided the Court --
MR. JOHNSTON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- showing
potential -- potentially reduced insurance rates. Is that
really true? 'Cause there are some significant savings to
homeowners or property owners by reason of our doing this.
MR. JOHNSTON: That is my understanding.
We're not iri the insurance business, but as a result of
this, actually it would, I understand, change that rate to
very -- to minimize that rate, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And my second
question has to do with the change -- subdivision rule -- I
believe it's subdivision rule change, isn't it, Jonathan, on
the 1-acre thing with --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I don't think
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
„~ 24
25
a lot in the fringe of the -- of the Zone A on a subdivision
plat, instead of the entire lot -- which I think we don't do
that now. I think we -- you know, we usually have some
property outside of that. But codify it and say that of
that lot that's in the floodplain, at least 1 acre of that
would be outside the floodplain.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that goes to my
question. For example, out on Wharton Road, we have --
we've had, within the last two, three years -- three years
maybe, construction of some homes which are obviously in --
in the floodway -- not the floodway, but the flood --
whatever it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fringe.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Fringe area. And I
guess they were constructed through the -- to the current
rules in terms of septics and so forth and so on. But with
this change, my question is, would they have been permitted
with this type of a change?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, if it was a new
subdivision and they -- you know, the lot was entirely
within a floodplain, it would -- wouldn't -- you know, if
you approved this, it would have to have acreage outside of
that also.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This change, for
example, where a person owned a lot currently that's in the
11-"4-G3
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
35
floodplain, or part or all of it, would this change cause
that lot to become worthless?
MR. JOHNSTON: If it's already platted, it
wouldn't have any effect on it. It's only new subdivisions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just new --
MR. JOHNSTON: All the rest would be
grandfathered in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I don't
have any problem with that. I think it's probably a good
idea, but if we passed that 1-acre part now, it's going to
be in conflict with our current rules, because it is
possible, if you're under a septic -- I mean, a centralized
septic and centralized water system, to have -- there's no
minimum in our current rules, even though we're going to
change that. But there would -- therefore, if there -- if
the lot's less than, you know, an acre in size, they
couldn't -- they could never get a 1 acre. I mean, it seems
to me it's a conflict with our current rules. I think it
wouldn't be when we change the rules, but I'm just
wondering -- I think it's a pretty rare scenario that, you
know, it would happen, but it would be a potential conflict,
as I see it.
MR. JOHNSTON: That may be all we're talking
about. We're talking about lots in the floodway or the
floodplain, so -- you know, in that fringe area, which is in
li-^_4-03
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
36
Zone A floodplain, so we're trying to keep people out of
that area anyway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But what I'm
saying is, though, that we're putting a -- this -- this is a
stricter rule than our Subdivision Rules have, and I don't
know that -- if that's a conflict or not. I mean, if you
look at our Subdivision Rules, and all of a sudden you go --
and this would say you couldn't do it. Subdivision Rules
say you could do it. That's my question, as to whether you
can have a -- if this can be --
MR. JOHNSTON: If this concept's, you know,
something you agreed with, I think we probably would carry
through and come back next time, or -- I think you're still
working on your changes, right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but that's what --
I'm just saying, can we? I don't know if it's wise to make
this change until we change the Subdivision Rules. Do both
at the same time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bring it back at the
same time we do the Subdivision Rules, 'cause I agree with
what you're saying.
MR. JOHNSTON: What's the date -- date on the
Subdivision Rules? They've been kind of floating around for
a while.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 20 years.
11-34-03
37
1
--. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,.-, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..-.
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 20 years. We've been --
I mean, the -- I was kind of waiting on feedback from the
draft that got back, and I haven't gotten any, so I guess
everyone agrees with what I wrote. I was thinking that I
was going to get some comments from somebody, but I never
have, so they'll be on our next agenda to set the public
hearing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Johnston, how would this
affect a -- a situation where there's a bunch of fill
brought in to build up an area to bring it above base flood
elevation or -- or in order to put improvements on it? Your
plat's going to show something in the -- in the flood
fringe, and then the owner of the tract decides they want to
build close to the water course, whatever it may be, and --
and bring in a bunch of fill in order to build up that area
where it's above base flood elevation, put in improvements.
How is that going to interconnect with the --
MR. JOHNSTON: For them to bring fill in to
bring that above the B.F.E., they have to get a permit from
the -- from the County. They'd have to have an engineering
study and -- you know, several things they have to do in
order to get that permit. And this would -- if they built
in this 1 acre that's outside that limited area, they
wouldn't have to do any of that. Actually saves them money
during that -- the construction.
11-~ 4-r.3
38
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,--
25
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand that. But,
assuming that they don't --
MR. JOHNSTON: If they still wanted to add
fill, they'd have to go through the same engineering study
as they do now if they want to add some construction or just
add fill. If you add fill in that area, you have to get a
permit, prove you're not raising the B.F.E. more than 1
foot.
JUDGE TINLEY: How would that affect the
calculation of what does or does not fall within the -- the
fringe area or not?
MR. JOHNSTON: I'm not sure I understand what
you're saying.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you're going to start
out with some property that is in the -- below the base
flood elevation.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you going to come back and
recalculate, for purposes of this 1-acre rule, if there's
fill brought in to -- to enhance the elevation for placement
of improvements?
MR. JOHNSTON: I think what we're saying is
that, you know, there's a line somewhere on the -- that's
always shown on the subdivision that this is a floodplain
line. We're saying if there's a lot that's partially within
li-~~-o3
1
2
3
4
5
6
r
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,._. 2 4
25
39
that line, that they need to have at least 1 acre outside
that line to build on -- put their septic on to build on.
So, they're actually not infringing on that floodplain area.
Not putting fill in that floodplain area.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, what you're saying is, it
would be unlawful for someone who owns a lot like this to
build up the elevation in an area that would otherwise be
within the -- below the base flood elevation in order to
construct those improvements? Is that what I'm hearing?
MR. JOHNSTON: It wouldn't be unlawful. They
could still come back and go through the permitting process
and get a permit to do that. But I think, by doing that, we
would encourage them to build on the higher area. The whole
point of this is to keep people from being washed down the
river during a flood. That's keeping them out of the hazard
area.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I -- I
probably are aware that we've had a number
in spite of encouragement, they desire to
they can possibly get to the water course.
means building up the base flood elevation
fill, a lot of folks do that.
think you
of people that,
oe as close as
And if that
by bringing in
MR. JOHNSTON: Based on engineering study.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, can I just
1 i - ~-' ~ - [1 ~
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
step back one notch and ask a question?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just for my
enlightenment, if nobody else, how is the base flood
elevation established? Is that established by survey, which
would be commissioned by somebody wishing to do the
development? Is it established by FEMA maps? Just how is
it established?
MR. JOHNSTON: All of those things.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of the above?
MR. JOHNSTON: Best available information.
On the river, it's all been mapped and there's profiles, and
elevations are pretty well established. On tributaries, you
know, of a river, some of them are unstudied, and there are,
you know, individual surveys, contour maps, different ways
to establish the B.F.E.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, following up on
Judge Tinley's question, then, if some developer came in
with a plat, and your best available information indicated
that there was a B.F.E. problem there in terms of them
meeting 1 acre plus in his subdivision plan, and he
announces as part of his -- or says to the Court as a part
of his development and approval plan process, he would raise
the elevation another "X" by bringing in fill, would that
change it, and is that permissible?
11-'4-03
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. JOHNSTON: They can get a permit to put
fill in the fringe area. They can't raise it over a foot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: That pertains back to 2; can't
raise it a foot after development.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A little answer -- bit in
answer to your question, I mean, as I understand it, FEMA
has their maps; that is the base flood elevation. But a lot
of times, and in our Subdivision Rules, the surveyor, which
is basically the developer, has to establish where that is.
I mean, if there's not a mark near there, they have to spend
money on the surveying to get that -- you know, for them to
go up the river channel or whatever and find that. Once
FEMA goes into an area and there's a disaster, and I've had
a number of -- or two of them in my precinct in the past
couple of years, FEMA goes in and they will then, on these
tributaries, like on Cherry Creek, they've established that
B.F.E. way up into the headwaters of Cherry Creek, Holiday
Creek, Cypress Creek, a lot of other creeks, because they
went there, they took -- basically looked at the high water
mark. They said, "Okay, this is how high" -- they came out
right after the flood. Water got up to here. That's it.
That's deemed Lo be the record flood.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That almost makes
sense. If --
11-'9-03
1
r
1
1
1
--, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
MR. JOHNSTON: They're called flood recovery
maps, and those establish it for those areas, so that's a
hodgepodge. I think on subdivisions, though, it should
clarify that it is up to the surveyor to establish that
B.F.E. and put on it each plot, or partially.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my confusion, a
little bit, is maybe I don't understand this exactly right.
If you're going to go build something in the floodway,
you're going to -- in the --
MR. JOHNSTON: Floodplain.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, flood -- the
fringe.
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- and you do that;
you get the permits to do it. Then the base flood elevation
right in that area goes up one foot.
MR. JOHNSTON: It goes up no more than.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, see, it goes
-- you know -- okay. And what I'm thinking of is just --
just use an example that I understand, the Little League
field. When we built the concession stand over there, it
was 1 foot before these rules came in, but it was 1 foot
above the B.F.E. Now -- okay. Say they went in there, and
someone goes around there and builds something. Say Road
and Bridge goes and does something right upstream in the
11-~4-03
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
43
floodplain and puts some fill in, and all of a sudden, the
B.F.E. is raised a foot because of that. Well, then, all of
a sudden, the concession stand is -- is in the flood -- in
the -- below or equal to the base flood elevation point,
then.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's exactly my point number
2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that a problem? I
mean, it seems if you do -- three or four things happen, it
seems like, slowly. If we allow any construction in a --
you know, in a fringe area, you know, over five or six
years, you wouldn't -- you'd maybe raise the elevation
5 feet.
MR. JOHNSTON: Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause it's cumulative, I
would think. And that's --
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think you can raise it
over 12 inches from the -- wherever it was originally
established.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But each time --
first person does a little bit of something; it goes up a
foot. Then someone else goes up in Hunt and raises it. I
mean, does it go all the way down the river?
MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think it keeps going
from where it was before. I think it's still going by that
11-z9-o~
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
44
same --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The first one. So, we're
not raising the B.F.E. every time we do something in the
river -- in the fringe?
MR. JOHNSTON: But, however, people that
base -- base their construction on -- at the B.F.E., what it
is now, and then people raise it, you know, they're
eventually going to be a foot underwater.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, potentially. If
it's truly a displacement of, I mean, a foot. If it's going
to cause a true foot rise in the elevation.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which is pretty doubtful,
really.
MR. JOHNSTON: Somewhat similar to predicting
the weather; you don't know exactly what's going to happen,
but that's the theory behind it.
JUDGE TINLEY: What presently is the theory
of people bringing in fill to increase elevations on a
particular tract, assuming they come to you and get a
permit?
MR. JOHNSTON: They have to have an
engineering study and show that it will not raise the
established B.F.E. more than 12 inches.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
11-z4-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
45
MR. JOHNSTON: In order to get the permit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See how much you've
learned already?
MR. JOHNSTON: Only been a couple weeks.
COMMTSSIONER WILLIAMS: Hasn't even been to
school yet.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, seems to me that
Item 1 and 2 we can do today. Item 3, I think, really ought
to be done at the same time we do the Subdivision Rules,
just so there's not a conflict.
MR. JOHNSTON: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
Items 1 and 2 of the recommended changes in the Flood Damage
Prevention Order Number 26463, as proposed by the County
Engineer, be approved. Any further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. Judge, I want
to be on the record as being an owner of a lot that's in the
floodplain, and I'll be guided by the County Attorney as to
whether or not I should limit my participation in this
discussion. You don't have to do that now.
MR. FEARY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's good, 'cause I am
too. If we have too many more, we're not going to be able
11-~4-03
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
46
to vote.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wait a minute. You
already got an established residence.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's a building
site.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Potentially.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looks like you're
going to save insurance money if we approve this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Letz
voted in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let the record reflect that
Commissioner Nicholson abstained from voting on that item.
Next item on the agenda is consider allowing Road and Bridge
to go out for their annual bids on equipment by the hour,
paving aggregate, asphalt emulsion, corrugated metal pipe,
black base Type AA, cold mix Type CC, and road base
materials. Mr. Odom.
MR. ODOM: Good morning, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, sir.
1i-29-~~
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
MR. CDOM: I just want to let the Court know
that I'm not involved in the airport whatsoever. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yet.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What about Christmas
lights?
MR. ODOM: Not Christmas lights.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard, are these
seven items here exactly the same as last year?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or is there any new
things that we're bidding on, or anything that's been
deleted from last year?
MR. ODOM: The only thing that's -- base is,
this last paragraph here. Everything else is the same that
we've had over the years that -- when I go out to bid, so
there's not anything new; it's all the same. We had -- last
year, the Court had allowed us to go ahead and keep the same
bids. The law allows us to keep the same bids. And we kept
those bids for this last -- for this year time, so we're --
we're proposing to go out in January for the new bids.
Given enough time, we think that oil -- well, I'm
speculating. I think the potential prices will come below
$28 a barrel, and that's what I'm hoping for. It's too high
right now. And I believe if the president will give them a
little time, I think it'll come down. That's reflected in
11 ~9-G3
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
my budget; I calculated on doing that with the budget. So,
what we're asking is that we have permission on January the
12th, I believe, 2004, at 10:30, to bring in a bid package
to be opened.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion
approval of agenda item. Any further
discussion? All in favor, signify by
hand.
moved.
Second.
nade and seconded for
question or
raising your right
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Thank you,
Mr. Odom.
MR. ODOM: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item is going to be Item
10 -- no.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 10:30.
JUDGE TINLEY: Item Number 12, consider
privately maintained road name changes in accordance with
the 9-1-1 guidelines.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You really are trying
to get out of it.
MS. HARDIN: I tried. Today we have 14 more
ii-~~-~~
49
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
private road streets -- road names. I believe there's five
in Commissioner Baldwin's, one in Williams', and all the
rest of them are in Nicholson's. I'm assuming that we have
two more court dates this year, and you'll have some more on
both those court dates.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question.
I'm probably going to sit here arrd embarrass myself, but I'm
getting kind of accustomed to that. Eric Drive South is in
the county?
MS. HARDIN: That's what 9-1-1 tells me. It
runs right beside -- I think there's a Texas Avenue that
goes up to the State Hospital, and it's towards the mall
from that, but they tell me it's within the county and not
the city limits.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Great. That's the
only question I have on the whole package.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One question, Truby.
This one that I have on the agenda, that's off of Elm Pass
II?
MS. HARDIN: No, it's off of Elm Pass.
Just --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Off of Elm Pass
MS. HARDIN: Yeah, just right after Verde
Park Boulevard.
11-~4-03
~ - ~ - - - -
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
50
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. No
problem.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Truby, what's our
level of confidence that -- that people are not going to be
dismayed by these changes?
MS. HARDIN: I have -- I have no level of
confidence. All of these were submitted to me from 9-1-1 by
the property owners.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess, you know, to
follow up on Dave's comment -- I'm only bringing this up
because I had one of my constituents make a comment -- was
that these names will be their address. And I know -- and I
had one of my constituents in the same situation; you know,
we named his road going to his house and several others, and
he thinks he lives on Cypress Creek Road, and he now lives
on Sauer Lane or something like that. But, anyway, I just
-- I mean, I hope 9-1-1 is letting these people understand
that, you know, we're changing the names, but also that it
does change their address. Their address will be on Padre
Pio, as opposed to whatever road they were on, which is
fine. And I think 9-1-1 -- it helps 9-1-1 find them, but I
think that -- you know, I'm not positive that every -- that
the residents understand that's part of this process. I'm
not sure I understood it until fairly recently, but it's --
just for what it's worth.
11-^`-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
51
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure 9-1-1
does it. I know Truby does
of the same thing where she
know, if you change this to
happen, that's going to bec
out, 'cause they don't want
knew about it.
it. I've had two illustrations
called me back and said, you
so-and-so, or you allow it to
ome their address. Whoa, time
their address changed. So, I
MS. HARDIN: I believe 9-1-1 is explaining
that to everyone who calls in and wants their private
driveway named.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I think it does
help find it. I think in time, it'll be beneficial.
MS. HARDIN: If they want to continue to be
off of Cypress Creek, then they would tell -- then they
would tell them just don't name the driveway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they didn't
particularly care one way or the other. They were surprised
when they were notified what their addresses were.
MS. HARDIN: In most of the cases, even if
the road name is not changed, their numbers are still going
to change, so they will have a change of address.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move for
approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
11-~4-~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
52
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
the agenda item be approved. Any further question or
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One of my
constituents, the one that lives at my house, asked me
yesterday if our address was going to change, and I told her
it was. And she pointed out that we live on 1340 and our
property fronts on 1340 and our mailbox is on 1340, but
we're going to be living on Bluff Hill Drive. I mean, that
will be our new address.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you could decline
that. You could not have it approved, and still be living
on 1340.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: How many other citizens do you
have living on Bluff Hill Drive?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One other.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ever think about two
addresses? Yours on 1340 and hers on...
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.
it-z4-o3
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Next item
on the agenda is discuss and consider singular review for
subdivision in ETJ, and possible proposed committee in
connection with the same.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. As you
gentlemen know, that anytime today, under today's rules,
anytime someone needs to do a subdivision on a property
change in the city ETJ, he has to go to both government
entities. And, if you remember, there's a gentlemen from my
precinct that was in here last year that did that, and it
took him almost -- and he wanted to buy the property next to
him to add to his property, and it took him almost one year
and several thousand dollars to go through this process,
which just --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He went through it
twice.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He went through it
twice. You know, we made him jump through hoops, which is a
horrible and terrible thing. And what, to me, is more
terrible than that i_s we haven't done anything about it.
We're sitting here rocking along, and if somebody else comes
through with that same situation, they're going to go
through the same thing, and we -- we should be -- have a
good spanking for allowing this thing to happen. So, the
11-~4-0:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
new law, as we all heard and talked about, is coming down
the pike, and I want to read just a short paragraph here so
that everyone can understand, and it's out of this material
that I've made copies for you.
"Legislation passed during the 78th Texas
Legislature has County under the gun to complete interlocal
agreements with municipalities regarding the regulation of
extraterritorial jurisdictions, unincorporated areas
contiguous to city limits. If they can't, a new law
requires them to take the matter to arbitration and set a
timeline for that to take place." In other words, we're
supposed to get with the City and work out a set of rules,
and the way I understand it, it can either be our rules,
their rules, or a combination of the two. If we cannot come
to any kind of agreement, if we don't by a deadline, then it
will go to arbitration, and some third party, the way I
understand it, will make the decision for us. Again, that
would be a horrible thing. House Bill 1204 is a follow-up
to House Bill 1445, passed during the 77th session. That
called for the development of a singular set of regulations
and a singular party to approve the permits and collect
application fees.
Let's see. In areas with ETJ's that extend
3.5 miles or more from the city's boundaries, agreements
must be completed by January 2004. If the ETJ extends less
11-~4-03
55
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
than 3.5, then we have till January 1, 2006. All I'm saying
is -- is that we need to get this thing on the table and --
and working. If you -- I don't know how much of the
article -- I guess the whole article hit, but they
interviewed several different counties across the state, and
some of them are fairly large. Tom Green County, I spoke
with the other day. Comal County down here, Hays County,
Tarrant County, and Parker County, they have -- they're
having a hard time meeting -- meeting both the City and the
County's needs. They're beginning to struggle a little bit.
Comal County made an agreement with the City of New
Braunfels, and now, after seeing what it's -- it's caused in
that county, they're backing out of it and trying to build
their own set of rules.
So, with all that said, what I would like to
do is for the Commissioners Court to authorize the Kerr
County Attorney to get to work on this thing. And I -- and
what I would like to see is actually a -- a small committee,
two-person committee from the Commissioners Court, and a
two-person committee from the City Council, and their two
attorneys sit down and start -- start putting the program
together. Maybe list those areas that we think maybe we're
going to be far apart on, those kinds of things, and just to
get -- just to get it in motion. I would -- I would hate to
think we'd be sitting here some December realizing the
11-^_4-03
56
1
.-~ 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
following month we need to put it together, and we're not
there. So, that's all I'm doing, is just trying to get it
in motion, get it going. And do you agree with that?
MR. FEARY: Yes, absolutely. As he said,
Commissioner Baldwin showed me a copy of this article
probably -- over a week ago, for sure, and started calling
some of these counties. And tYiere -- there's kind of a
widespread panic among the state, "What are we going to do,
now that we have to do it?" And some of -- of them are
coming in pretty quick. So, I agree that it's something to
get moving on. I've requested copies of some of these
agreements, so we'll at least have a starting point of what
they look like and get some input as to what -- what kind of
problems that they've had.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I
thought the Court was aware of it, but if not, I mean, this
is -- it has been working. I've met with the City Manager
several times and City Attorney several times on this,
and -- and it's -- the biggest holdup right now has been,
for probably the last six months -- I think, Commissioner
Baldwin, this is probably the second or third time we've put
this on the agenda, or we've discussed it, anyway -- is that
the City -- and I don't know if they've finalized their new
ordinances, passed them or not. They've been working on
that for a long time, and we are revising our Subdivision
11-24-U3
57
1
,.-.. 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Rules right now. It's going to have some pretty significant
impact on some of the drainage issues. And I think the
thought has been that we need to get, you know, those two
rules -- need to have the rules from both entities done
before you can go too far.
But, based on my -- and I still agree with
that, but based on the discussions I've had with the City, I
think it would be very useful if the Court -- and a
committee's probably the best way to do this -- comes up
with what it wants and what its view is, and present
something to the City. Because the City does not agree with
me anyway, and I doubt that they agree with the Court
entirely. And that doesn't mean there's something -- and I
think that the other thing that would be very helpful --
probably the most helpful thing is really get the County
Attorney involved, like Commissioner Baldwin said, and find
out, you know, if we don't go with the city rules, don't go
with our rules, and come up with some hybrid, what that
means. Now, I am going to be extremely adamant that areas
in my precinct that are in the ETJ that are clearly never
going to be developed in my lifetime do not need to go by
city rules, period. But I also do acknowledge that if you
get up, you know, just beyond the city dump and out 534
right up there, right off Cypress Creek Road right there, I
think the City needs to have a say in those areas.
11-~4-Oi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
So, I don't know -- you know, I'd like to
know more about what the flexibility on the hybrid set of
rules can be, and if we can, you know, kind of draw
boundaries around -- okay, the City has this area, the
County has this area, and you have one -- I mean, it's
only -- they're submitted to one person and then split based
on the rules, or how we can do that. That's the area that I
am unclear on, because I think it is going to be a -- not an
easy -- if we have to come up with one set of rules for the
whole area, it's going to be real difficult.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think what you
said, Commissioner, focuses attention on what Commissioner
Baldwin said. I think there is a need, probably, for us to
have a study group that gets together, after having
identified the issues that are important to us, to talk with
the City about it. Whether it's one set of rules or two, I
don't know at this point, but I have the same concerns you
do. And I think ETJ and the development therein is going to
affect my precinct probably to a higher and greater extent
than any of us here, and so I do have some major concerns
about it, deep down. And that article that Commissioner
Baldwin presented talked about some of the things that
Parker County had to say about it, their county judge and
others. Creating a one-stop shop is not all that good,
because counties still have to sign off on ETJ applications,
11-^4-03
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
59
as -- as that county judge sees it. And the agreements in
the county call for the county to control the ETJ approval.
I like that, but I think down in there also, it talks about
the issue that, "In many cases, unlike Parker County, cities
are given the power to regulate ET,7's." But, however, under
that scenario, development of roads is becoming an issue.
Stormwater takeoff, as you talk about it, is an issue, and
there's probably half a dozen others that we just have not
identified today. So, I think the Commissioner's suggestion
is a good suggestion, and I think you ought to be one of
them that's in there because of your knowledge of
Subdivision Rules and so forth and so on. Whoever else is
on there is up to the Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know why I always
need to be on the committee.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You're an expert on
too many things. This is a high priority for me also
because of the law, but even more importantly, to prevent
any more people like Commissioner Baldwin's constituents
having to jump through all these hoops. I have one
question. Is the City of Ingram an issue here?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It has its own ETJ.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they use our rules, I
believe. I believe they've adopted a -- they just adopted
our Subdivision Rules.
11-_4-03
60
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 BALDWIN: You don't know that?
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, they have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's really not --
well, I think it's an issue from the standpoint that we need
to --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They need to be
involved in the process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They need to be involved
in the process. We need to have an interlocal agreement
with them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They have conflicting
ETJ's with City of Kerrville.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, this -- this
committee, besides the Kerrville City Council members, needs
to -- Ingram needs to be invited to join the process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, to me, the --
you know, I think by the -- I don't know what the City's
timetable is on their ordinance rules and all that stuff.
I'm -- you know, they may have already done them, for all I
know, but I think that we will have our Subdivision Rules
pretty much finalized by January, sometime in January. By
the end of January, say. And I think if -- you know, kind
of between now and then, I don't see a whole lot of point in
11-?4-~~
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
61
meeting with the City. I'd like to get, really, our ducks
in a row first so we have something we can go talk to
them -- so we know the law backwards and forwards -- or
actually not that we know; the County Attorney knows that
law backwards and forwards. I think I just would much
prefer to be in a -- I won't say -- "upper hand" is probably
not the right word, but, you know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Prepared.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Prepared. I want us to
be prepared before we go meet with the City. And then I
think, you know, we need to, once we get prepared, bring the
City Council on board as well. But I think that if we're
not in the driver's seat going in, it could be difficult.
Could be a bad situation. But I think that the timeliness
is very important; I agree with you and Commissioner Baldwin
that, you know, the law is fine, that we have to do it for
the law, but we need to be doing it for the citizens, and
it's the right thing to do, and that would have the ability
to do something that is beneficial to the citizens.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, what I'd like
to see is -- and I'll make a motion in just a second, but
what I'd like to see -- I'm not sure you need to include all
this in a court order, but to ask our attorney to contact
the City Attorney and ask them to do what -- what we're
saying to do. Now, does that need to be in a court order,
11-~4-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
62
or does the court order actually -- just simply needs to be
the appointment of our committee?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I suppose as a formal
action, you could recommend the creation of a committee to
include these various players, and that our -- our players,
or the committee from our Court consist of whomever. We
certainly have no authority to mandate what they do, but
I -- I feel certain that -- that they'd be responsive to it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move --
JUDGE TINLEY: My recollection is, on the
rewrite of their Code of Ordinances, I believe the last time
they indicated that they were shooting at March or April, if
I recall correctly, but I'll defer to your motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we appoint
Commissioner Letz and Commissioner Baldwin to be our
committee, and ask our County Attorney to contact the City
Attorney and to tell them what we're doing and what our
desires are, and ask them to appoint two members from the
City Council to meet with us at a future time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question.
Should we also include in our -- in this directive an
23
.-. 24 sorry.
25
"i1-~4-03
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: City of Ingram, I'm
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that, plus
inclusion of --
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
63
administrative people on our side. Because you know they're
going to bring not only the City Attorney; they're going to
bring the planner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we will -- we'll
drag along who we want to.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I don't think they
need to be specifically named, 'cause they could -- it could
change. But I definitely want to include the City of Ingram
in that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And their attorney.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And their attorney.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second the motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a suggestion as
well, and the suggestion is that we put a time there for
them to make their appointment, and I would say
February lst, March lst. I mean, sometime so that they
don't just have it, so there's -- they have a date they're
supposed to have something back. Maybe, say, January 31st.
I think that's a reasonable time period for --
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that acceptable?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, you know, it's
just --
ii-~~-o~
1
~- 2
3
4
5
6
1
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..--.
25
64
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's just not a big
COMMISSIONER
going to happen if we don't
COMMISSIONER
is that, you know, we form
down and make our list, and
meet. If they're not ready
COMMISSIONER
LETZ: I just think it's not
May not happen with it.
BALDWIN: Well, the way I see it
cur committee and then we sit
let them know when we want to
to go, they're not ready to go.
LETZ: All right, that's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any -- any -- we got a motion
and a second. Any further question or discussion about the
-- about the motion? Franklin Johnston?
MR. JOHNSTON: I think the City of Ingram has
been working on this for a couple years, and they went
through two -- two cycles already. I've seen drafts. I
don't think -- we still don't have an agreement with them.
I think the first draft, they took our rules and changed
"Kerr County" to "Ingram," and then they found out many of
the laws that apply to the county don't apply to the city
and vice-versa, and so then they tried to write their own
rules and summarize our rules in a couple paragraphs, and I
think that's very confusing. So, I don't think they have it
quite yet. They've been working on it. And number two is
that very soon the City of Kerrville's ETJ will more than
double in area. It'll actually go to 2 miles, area-wise,
11-^9-G3
	1
~--	2
	3
i	4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
and be more than it is now, so that will affect a lot more
people.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a question for
more enlightenment. Is the city -- small cities like
Kerrville under the same legislative gun that the counties
are under?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're aware of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because if they're
not, then there's no reason on their part to want to do
anything.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're very much aware
of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: City/county is
written -- actually written in the law.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- I think that
they're both under it, and I'm -- I'm sure, with the
development work that's been done by the County Attorney's
office, as you mentioned, Commissioner Baldwin, it would be
very helpful to bring in the representatives from City of
Ingram that have already done a lot of this work. The more
information we get, the better.
ii-~~-o~
66
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we -- we don't
want to wait until the City of Kerrville and the City of
Ingram gets down to the end of theirs, and then we step in
and say, "Oh, well, we don't like that."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, let's kind of --
if we're not too late now, let's get in, work it with them
so there will be a plan and everybody will be happy and
become one with the earth.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think another one of the
open questions is, Mr. Johnston mentioned that soon the ETJ
will go from 1 mile to 2 miles. That's a break of 25,000.
I don't think -- I'm not aware if anybody has the answer. to
the question whether or not you can use interim estimates
between the -- the official census that's taken every 10
years. I think that question is still on the table. But,
certainly, probably by the 2010 census, that'll put them
over, but whether or not it can be done earlier than that, I
don't think anybody knows the answer just yet.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know what that
procedure is. I've not been furnished with a definitive
answer on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a good
point. That should be part of the County Attorney's charge,
11-~4-03
67
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
to give us an answer to that, because it does have an impact
as to, you know --
JUDGE TINLEY: If he can give us an answer to
that. I'm not -- I'm not sure that answer is out there,
very frankly. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe the answer is to go
to the Attorney General and ask for an answer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I want to point
out some -- the brilliance of our Legislature here. There
are 60 counties that are exempted from this law. Those
counties with a population of 1.9 million or more, which is
Harris County, city of Houston, and those counties that are
within 50 miles of an international border. I don't get it.
What difference are they from everybody else? I don't
understand that. And, you know, I just -- I know there's
nothing we can do about that, but I just wanted to point out
that that's very brilliant, I think. If you live 50 miles
from something, you don't have to play by the rules that
everybody else does.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the Harris County, I
think, is obvious.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Houston covers all of Harris
County. But I think the 50-mile probably has to do with
special colonia legislative acts that have been on the books
11-24-03
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for some time, and they've been stacking on from session to
session, where they're imposing all sorts of various
requirements for colonias which are all outside the cities.
I'm only assuming -- surmising.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sure you're
exactly right. I may not be the guy to be on this
committee, 'cause I think that is just -- borders on nuts.
And, I mean, I think -- I think ETJ's are crazy to begin
with, so I don't know if I need to be the guy on this thing
or not.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think you've got
the right qualifications.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I'll be a good
county representative?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what the
Legislature's done, they have created three sets of
subdivision rules in the state; one for counties like Kerr
County, just kind of regular, old counties -- actually, four
sets. Then they have one set for Harris County. They have
one set for 50 miles to the border, and one set for
economically distressed, which I have never figured out.
And -- you know, and they're totally different rules for
all. So, there's four different sets of subdivision rules,
and the further they perpetuate this idiocy, the worse it
1 1 - ~' ~ - ~ 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
gets. But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can we quote you?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just did. 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. The next
item on the agenda is consideration and discussion and take
appropriate action on a Resolution of Thanks to Riverhill
Country Club for its cooperation and assistance in
permitting the Rol_li_ng Green Lift Station sewer bypass to be
constructed across the Riverhill Golf Course for the benefit
of Kerrville South Wastewater Project.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I tried to
bring the Court up-to-date, basically, on where the project
is in the backup information, and we are about 85 percent
complete with the first phase. They should be out of the
Riverhill Country Club with that bypass probably by the end
of this week, and most lines are laid in Phase I, and
hookups can begin very shortly. I thought it would be
appropriate for the Court to express its thanks and
appreciation to Riverhill Country Club for giving us the
11-~4-03
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
70
easement and negotiating an easement and allowing -- working
with us to facilitate the construction work to run across
the golf course, and so I tried to embody all those thoughts
into both the backup and the resolution, and that's kind of
the sense of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move adoption of
the resolution as presented.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second -- third.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item and the resolution. Any further
questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Were there any injuries
due to golf balls during the construction?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If there were,
Commissioner, I'm unaware of it, or I would have reported it
to the Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, my question is,
are you sure you don't want to hold off on this until your
election cycle?
23 it.
,_ 2 4
25
11-~4-03
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll remind them of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-,
25
71
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.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is it 10:30 yet?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty close.
JUDGE TINLEY: Knocking on the door. Let
me -- let me have us go back to -- do we have anybody here
on 1.2 yet, on the second item? On that Adoption Month
thing? It doesn't appear so. Let me go back to Item 1.8,
and I will now recess the Commissioners Court meeting.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 10:30 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: And I will convene a public
hearing for alternate plat revisions -- public hearings, as
it were, for alternate plat revisions as follows: Falling
Water, Lots 138A and 139A, Volume 7, Pages 75 and 76, which
is a combination of lots. Next one is Falling Water, Lots
12A and 125 in Volume 7, Page 52, also a combination of
lots. Third one is Greenwood Forest, Lots 8 in Block 6,
Volume 3, Page 123, and Lots 16 and 17 in block 6, Volume 5,
11-'_4-03
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
72
Page 92, those being a combination of lots. And the last
one is Riverpark Estates, Lot 37, Volume 4, Page 42, and
that's a variance for lot size. Do we have any member of
the public hearing with us today that wishes to be heard or
address any of those alternate plat revisions as just
indicated? Any members of the public? We have the County
Engineer, Mr. Franklin Johnston.
MR. JOHNSTON: I have one item to bring to
your attention, which is Item B. On Lot 12A, that should be
124A. Apparently, the "4" was dropped in the newspaper
publication, so I don't know if we have to -- you know, if
we have to redo that, or if we can accept it with the
change -- you know, with this announcement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My feeling would be we
can proceed. I think it's a typographical error, and --
MR. JOHNSTON: If I might bring one more
item, there is no 12A in the subdivision, so it should not
be confusing.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Proceed.
JUDGE TINI~EY: Appreciate you pointing that
out. You indicated there is no Lot 12A?
MR. JOHNSTON: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the lot immediately
adjacent to 125 is 124A?
1 1- ~ 4- C 3
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
MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And, of course, the -- the
publication -- did it clearly indicate that it was a
combination of lots? On the Commissioners Court order, it
indicated that, so that would seem to at least cause a
question in someone's mind, if they were looking at it, and
probably come to the conclusion that it was a typo, wouldn't
you think, Mr. Johnston?
MR. JOHNSTON: I would think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anyone else wishing to
-- any other members of the public wishing to speak on these
alternate plat revisions, as covered by the public hearing?
If not, I will close the public hearing, and I will
reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:32
a.m., and the regular Commissioners Court
meeting was reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And the next item is Item 9,
consider alternate plat revisions for Falling Water, Lots
138A and 139A in Volume 7, Page 75 and 76, for combination
of lots.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any further --
1 1-. 4- 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
74
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A, B, C, D?
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A, B, C, D?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just A.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, just A. Just A. Any
further question 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. Next item is
consider the alternate plat revision for Falling Water, Lots
-- that's going to be 124A and 125, Volume 7, Page 52, that
also being a combination of lots.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 124A.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Yes, 124A and 125.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item, as corrected, being Lots 124A
and Lots 125. Any further question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a quick comment,
that I just want to show my thanks to the developer on this,
Mr. Crenwelge, for going back and forth so many times,
providing jobs and work to people in our community. You
11-~4-03
75
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
know, we split and divide and split and divide. Every time
he goes through the process, we're providing jobs. I just
want to thank Dale. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have others in the
audience that wish to come forward and express their thanks?
MR. VOELKEL: I do have -- I'm Don Voelkel.
A few years ago, when the Court was talking about these type
of replats where we were combining lots, the Court -- and I
think it was Glenn Holekamp who was behind it. You may have
been on there too, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know. Is it
good or bad?
MR. VOELKEL: It's good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah, I'm there.
MR. VOELKEL: We were trying to make it --
the Court was trying to make it easy for people to do this,
make it simple and inexpensive, because it does away with
another building site, another septic tank, another water
well. And at the time, they tried to make it -- I think we
made it where it was just a flat $50 filing fee. There may
be some extra fees for -- you know, for recording fees and
stuff. But on these two items, I had to -- they -- the
owners had to pay almost $300 in fees just to combine these,
like the U.G.R.A., which now -- now it's not a factor any
more, since the County -- and I just didn't know if it's
11-	^4	-03	
			r ~ ,~
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
still something that y'all would be interested in trying to
figure out a way to streamline that, make it simpler for
people to -- to combine them, because, for the community,
for the public health, I think it's better if they do that.
But it's up to y'all. I mean, that's something that, in
y'all's next workshop for subdivisions, I'd be interested in
trying to figure out a way to make it --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get it drafted, give us a
comment in a hurry.
MR. VOELKEL: Okay. That's what -- I'll get
back with you and we'll talk about it. Thank y'all, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Any further
questions or comments? 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 the alternate plat revision for Greenwood
Forest, Lots 8, Block 6, volume 3, Page 123, and Lots 16 and
17, Block 6, Volume 5, Page 92, that also being a
combination.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve
the alternate plat revisions in Greenwood Forest.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
11-~4-03
_ ~. is . r ~`
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. 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: As a matter of curiosity,
gentlemen, I note that there's no agenda item for Riverpark
Estates. Am I to conclude that that matter was previously
approved, but it was only subject to a public hearing, but
otherwise requires no approval?
MR. JOHNSTON: We have -- we went through the
public hearing, I think --
MR. DIGGES: She was just here.
MR. JOHNSTON: There's one thing on the --
the plat that needs to be worked out. Had to do with septic
systems.
MR.
MR.
on that. Probably
JU D
submitted now that
MR.
DIGGES: Yes.
JOHNSTON: O.S.S.F., and they're working
be coming up next meeting or so.
~E TINLEY: Okay. So, that item will be
the public hearing has been concluded?
JOHNSTON: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Very good. We'll stand in
11-z4-os
78
1
,.-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recess until 5 till 11:00.
(Recess taken from 10:37 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I'll call us back to
order. We will reconvene. The next item on the agenda is
Item 15, consideration, discussion, and appropriate action
on revision to the Kerr County Parks and Recreation Master
Plan for 2003-2008, authorize any plan adopted to be
forwarded to Texas Parks and Wildlife for record and future
use and support of possible grant applications, and
extension of our thanks and appreciation by letter to the
Kerrville Convention and Visitors Bureau for its assistance
in preparing the plan.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That kind of sums it
up, Judge. What you have before you is a -- is a revised
document. The changes that are -- although modest, are
identified for the Court in the background information.
None of them are substantial. I hope you had a chance to
check them all out. And if you have questions about them,
I'll be happy to review each one with you. And, finally, I
would -- I would like to -- the court order to authorize a
letter of thanks to the Convention and Visitors Bureau,
because without its help and assistance, we would not have a
final plan this good to be able to send off to Texas Parks
and Wildlife.
11-~4-03
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-,.
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I
really appreciate the way this report's presented. With the
highlighting, it makes it real easy to see what's happening.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've only got one
question on Page 12.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 12, okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just about the
middle of page, under Objectives, third dot. Question is,
what is a festival grounds facility?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That is the intended
facility that Texas State Arts and Crafts -- Texas Arts and
Crafts Fair people intend to build on the property that was
leased to them by Kerr County. It was shuffled around in
the -- in the objectives there. I think we very first had
it as a goal, and that's where Mr. Scallon of L.C.R.A. comes
into play. He suggested, rather than it being a goal, it
would be better to be included among objectives. And I do
appreciate his input, because he's the guy, for L.C.R.A.
purposes, that reviews plans such as this as the basis for
grant application approval, so -- or considerations. So,
that's -- that is it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion with respect to the proposed document?
1 1-' 4- C 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
80
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I would offer
a motion for approval
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- as per the agenda
item, to do the things -- record and send it to Texas Parks
and Wildlife, as well as a letter to C.V.B.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion's been made and
seconded. I, too, want to thank Commissioner Williams for
his work. We did some work on this several months ago, as I
recall, and then I think he's been doing some work with
L.C.R.A., those people, and they have a very, very
significant grant program going on specifically for parks.
They've been -- been very beneficial to us in the past at
helping us, and hopefully with specific needs, maybe we can
get their assistance in the future. So, I suspect
Mr. Roland Pena possibly had some input also.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yes, he did.
JUDGE TINLEY: Local community service
representative that has moved to Kerrville recently. He
serves, if I recall, 23, 24, 26 counties, and has been of
invaluable assistance to a number of city projects here in
the area, and I'm sure he was of considerable assistance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He really was, Judge.
He's the one that brought Paul Scallop down here to help
with the review; he made that appointment for us.
11-29-0~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-- 1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or
discussion? Comments? 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 Number 16, consideration and discussion of legal
restrictions to the Commissioners Court plan to rule on
proposals made by elected officials for the purpose of
granting merit pay increases to County employees.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This was a
carry-over item from the last meeting, and we've asked the
County Attorney to research a legal issue, and the question
posed to the County attorney is, does the Commissioners
Court have the legal authority to rule on proposals made by
elected officials to grant merit pay increases to employees?
MR. MOTLEY: I'm going to tell you that I've
done quite a bit of reading of the authority that Ms. Decker
had provided last meeting. I'm actually going to need to do
some more research before I give you an opinion. What I can
say so far is that the cases and A.G. opinions and such that
I've read mostly speak to the limit of the Commissioners
Court to influence the name of the particular individual to
fill a county office, or a position in an elected official's
ii-~~-o3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
office. These opinions are talking basically about the
restrictions in that way. They do not talk about
restrictions -- the County Commission -- I mean, the County
Commissioners have the authority to create new offices, even
mid-budget year, and can accomplish that at times using the
transfer provisions under the budgetary guidelines. These
cases talk about certain emergency situations and what's to
be done in that situation. But, so far, I'm not seeing
anything that says that this plan, per se, is not legal, but
I would like to do more work on that before I give y'all an
opinion.
And I've read most of what all Linda had
submitted, but I haven't gone out and done any independent
research in the area. I know that the State of Texas has a
plan where they do give merit pay, and I've not looked into
the Administrative Code provisions to see what they base it
on and how they do it, but I know generally that the state
has a similar plan, and so I'd like to look into that and
see how they're doing it. I think they call it -- they have
enhanced compensation awards, incentive bonuses, and
retention bonuses, and I believe those are given at times
other than employment anniversary date and -- and annual
budget commencement date. So, I think I need just a little
bit more time on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: David, on that, I'd be
1 1 - ~ 4 - U ~
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
83
very interested in what the state -- I mean, if the state
already has the things you just mentioned, the bonus and
retention awards, very interested in seeing what those --
MR. MOTLEY: Are based on?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, just what their
policy is.
MR. MOTLEY: Yes. That's what --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because, I mean. It's
something that if -- you know --
MR. MOTLEY: Well, something else I'd like to
do, and I have not done it, would be to talk to other
counties in the state and see if anybody else -- of course,
you usually start out with the big counties, because
they are most likely to have dealt with something like t~iat,
but to confer with other counties and see what they might be
doing along these lines with the -- with this type --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My specific question
to that would be, does the -- is there an elected board,
like the Commissioners Court?
MR. MOTLEY: How do they do it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do they make the final
decision? That's where my hangup is.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, maybe I'm
misunderstanding, but I was thinking that procedure was
proposed. And I realize the procedure can -- the policy
11-24-G3
84
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
could be amended, perhaps, but the idea of the procedure is
to allow county elected officials, and I suppose department
heads, to bring forth, through nomination -- a written
nomination, the name of a person or persons who have done a
job -- an outstanding job, something above and beyond their
ordinary duties which has resulted in a better job
performance on that person's behalf, or on behalf of the
office, or done something which would save county time,
county money and such. Just to -- to allow employees to
work more efficiently. And that's the goal to be rewarded,
and that those applications be submitted to the Court. The
Court would look at the entire submission of these names and
say that they feel like this one and this one are most
meritorious, contact those department heads or public
officials, and say we approve of probably a one-step raise,
and transfer that amount of money from this new budget item
into their account, let them ultimately add the pay.
So it might be that, by doing it that way,
that the Commissioners Court is insulated from actually
making the decision as to which named person gets the raise.
In other words, just give the money to the elected
officials, and should they decide to go ahead and do it,
they go ahead and do it. If the money's not spent in that
manner, I would assume it would go back in the general fund
for use next year. But I think that provision -- that's
11-24-a?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
e-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
85
somewhat different from some of these A.G. opinions that we
were looking at. They were -- commissioners courts were
trying to -- there was one, for example, very recently where
the Commissioners Court wanted to establish an Office of
Homeland Security on a county level. I think Denton County
wanted to do that, and they did that. They transferred the
funds over to do it, put it in the Sheriff's Office, and
then the question was, could they then -- how much influence
could they exert on naming the individual to run that office
or to be that person? And they said they can create the
office, they can transfer the funds, they can put it under
the Sheriff's authority, but that's it. They cannot -- and
it's just a zero. There's no authority of Commissioners
Court to influence the naming of the person who would fill
that office or to suggest the name or anything.
So, once it's under the Sheriff's authority,
its the Sheriff's job in that case. And I know we're not
talking about the Sheriff's Office here, but that's one of
the ones that I had referred to, which is Isaacs -- I don't
remember -- I don't remember the number, but one of the
opinions that Linda had given me to look over. I just
haven't finished looking through those. I've got most of
them done, but I want to also do same other independent
research, like Jonathan was suggesting; go see what the
state is doing. Look at -- maybe find other counties doing
"~~-_z-03
1
-- 2
3
4
~ 5
I
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
86
this and, you how, see how they are justifying it under the
laws and the Constitution. And that's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for
Mr. Motley?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have any
questions of Mr. Motley, but I want to say some things here.
Fund Number 117?
MS. UECKER: Could we ask the County Attorney
to do -- request a specific opinion on that issue itself?
'Cause, evidently, there's not one that -- did you look at
JM-430?
MR. MOTLEY: 430 or 439?
MS. UECKER: 430. Here's a copy.
MR. MOTLEY: I've got it. I've got them all,
yeah. I just have to look at it. That's one of the three
that I have left to go through that I have not read.
MS. UECKER: Read Page 2 of that one.
MR. MOTLEY: I looked at it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have anything to offer
in connection with Agenda Item Number 16?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I suggest that we
defer 16 till our next Commissioners Court meeting, and I
think there's probably no real reason to talk about 17
either, because if we don't have the authority to approve
their increase -- merit increases, then we don't need to
i1-~4-03
87
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 a policy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With all due respect,
Commissioner, I think we ought to talk about it. I do want
to share with the Court some thoughts, so I'd like the Judge
to call it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further on
Item 16? If not, we'll move on to Item 17, consideration
and discussion and establishment of merit pay policies and
procedures. You have nothing further to offer on that,
Commissioner Nicholson?
(Commissioner Nicholson shook his head.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to thank
Commissioner Nicholson for what he's done in bringing this
topic to the Court. I appreciate the work he's done, but at
that point, he and I kind of go on a different path. So,
I'd like to put this into play. I'm a strong advocate for
the establishment of a Kerr County Commissioners Court
policy that awards merit increases to deserving Kerr County
employees. Such a policy, if properly constructed, can
create strong incentives for employees to improve their job
performance. I believe merit increases should be awarded
for extraordinary job performance within the individual
employee's department, notwithstanding possible cost
reductions or future positive budget impact. Having said
11-~4-C3
88
1
~-.. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that, I believe Commissioners Court should review for merit
increases only those employees who work directly for
Commissioners Court. All other employees should be reviewed
for merit increases only by their elected official or
department head.
To accomplish a merit policy of this nature,
each year Commissioners Court must determine the amount of
funding to be allocated for a merit increase pool. By a
formula that takes into consideration the number of
employees in each department, payroll, or maybe some other
considerations, the -- the department -- each department,
elected officials and department heads, will be advised
their proportionate share of the merit increase pool
available to them. This applies, likewise, far employees
who report directly to Commissioners Court. I'd like to
emphasize that any policy we adopt, nothing in this policy
should convey to an elected official or a department head
that their proportionate share must be awarded if, in truth,
after evaluation, they honestly believe no one -- no
employees merit consideration. I say that because it would
be all too easy for department heads to put everybody's name
in, thinking that- everybody did a good job, and that, of
course, is not the intent or the purpose of the merit
increase. But the ultimate decision would be the decision
of the elected official or the department head solely, not
ii-~~-o~
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Commissioners Court. Finally, a merit policy designed in
this fashion will eliminate needless contention between
elected officials and department heads and Commissioners
Court, and I would hope would satisfy the intent of the law
and the Attorney General's opinions regarding this matter,
which would save the County Attorney additional research.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else to be offered in
connection with Item Number 17? Any motion to be offered in
connection with Item 17?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like for us to
study it, Judge. I'm not going to make a motion today, but
come back -- perhaps Commissioner Nicholson and I can get
together, see if we can fashion a proposal or a policy from
the bones of the two different thoughts.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good idea.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further? We'll move
on to Item 18, consider, discuss, and set a date for a
Commissioners Court workshop for strategic planning.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I frequently find
that -- that I have a need to -- to discuss issues with
other Commissioners, and I'm pretty restricted and limited
in my ability t.o do that because of the Open Meetings
requirement. And I saw today -- in today's meeting a couple
of examples of issues that we might be dealing with if we
had an opportunity to sit down and -- and enumerate the
11-?9-G3
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
issues that are important to each one of us, assign some
priority to those issues, and -- and come up with some sort
of a plan about how we're going to deal with them. Probably
in every Commissioners Court meeting, there's some issue
that we might have moved along a little faster, a little
better, if we had the opportunity to spend some time
together and address the issues. So, what I'm proposing is
simply that we --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pipe break or what?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He spilled his
coffee.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That 5-gallon jug he
carries.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm proposing that
we set a time, and I'm suggesting maybe late January, to sit
down in a workshop and spend a few hours -- two or three
hours or however long it takes, get out on the table the
kinds of issues that we think we ought to deal with next
year, and developing some plans for doing that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would recommend we do
it earlier rather than later, because I see that there are
several things I know that we've talked about, some we
already talked about during the budget process, and we
11-~4-3
91
1
,-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have -- and we keep a pretty full plate, it seems. But I
think there are some things -- we definitely need to get
really some good discussion on some items, really, prior to
May, when everyone's working -- starts getting involved with
budget process. And most of our decisions do affect budget,
so I think that will be a good time, sometime in the -- you
know, maybe in between the first and second meeting in
January.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A great example would
be the singular review of the E.T.J. That would be a
perfect -- perfect place for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just brainstorming, going
around, and bring -- have it set up so we can bring things
back to a following agenda.
JUDGE TINLEY: I would think that we would
not want to do it any later than January, because what I've
observed is, as we get focused on the budget process, if we
haven't already thought about it and kind of had it in the
pipeline for budget, it ends up being shoved into the
following -- following year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, it would seem January or
before.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I think it would
be good, you know, if we think -- all think about it, and
ii-?4-~~
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
maybe at the next meeting, set it, and set the topics we're
going to discuss. We could have a general discussion as
well, but if each of us bring things that we'd like to
discuss, that way at least we'd be thinking -- you know,
kind of get an agenda set up so we just don't --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question,
Judge, but before I ask my question, Ms. Uecker had her hand
up.
MS. UECKER: Oh, I just wanted to tell you
about something that takes place in Williamson County, and
I've asked about it several times, and their County Attorney
has researched it and has found it all legal, but they do an
elected official retreat and strategic planning workshop
that lasts two days, and they kind of -- they go off-site
where everybody can just sit acid, you know, do a lot of
strategic planning and discussing. I don't know how they do
it, but -- and I questioned it several times, and they say
it's legal, and they've found a way -- the proper way to pay
for it out of some fund. I don't know. But, you know, if
you wanted to check, that's one county that does it that
way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dave, I guess my
question has to do with identifying and prioritizing issues.
If you want to work on Number ~, I don't have any problem
with long-range planning at all. In fact, I think it's an
11-^9-03
93
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
appropriate way to go. But are we talking about just
identifying and prioritizing issues? Or are we talking
about developing a long-range plan?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's probably the
start of a -- I don't know about a long-range plan. I know
it would be the start of a plan for what we're going to
pursue in 2004. I would see us, for example, as having a
flip chart here and each of us indicating what issues we
think need to be dealt with, what's important to us, and
then a process of sorting that out and getting some
consensus; for the amount of energy and time we've got,
we're going to work on these 6 or these 12 or whatever,
and -- and some others that drop by the wayside due to a
lack -- lack of consensus that they were important. But we
would leave there with some framework for follow-through and
working on those issues.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reason I asked is
because about, I guess, three years ago now, I introduced a
fellow to the Court who assists courts and municipalities in
developing long-range plans, and the Court didn't show any
particular interest in doing that. Not -- and, again, I
think long-range planning makes some sense.
JUDGE TINLEY: Since we'll be doing it on a
workshop basis, we would not be restricted, I would think,
from identifying up front -- I mean, we could bring those to
11-~4-C3
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
the table at the time, any of them that any of us had, and
it wouldn't be necessary to -- to identify them up front in
the agenda item, for example. Might be helpful, but I don't
think we'd be limited to those, would we?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I know a pretty
simple process that's probably the same process that the
consultants you were talking about would use, where it's
just a matter of brainstorming, listing the various
opportunities, and then going back through those
opportunities and seeing if there's any -- how much energy
there is for them, and wind up with a prioritized list.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One of the things we
may -- kind of, from your last two comments -- may want to
do is bring someone in to help facilitate. I don't mean a
paid person; there are a lot of people I know in the -- out
of the corporate world that are very, very -- have done this
many, many times, and if you've been to -- any kind of a
vice president or higher of any major corporation, you will
have gone through this hundreds of times. And I think it
would probably -- it may be ber_eficial to -- you know, to
keep it from being dominated by one commissioner, and that
-- you know, 'cause it tends to he whoever leads the
discussion tends to have a whole lot of input in it.
There's also people like Bill Blackburn's done it
frequently; he may be able to do it. Dennis -- he does it
11-~4-03
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
more for a fee, I think. There's lots of people in the
community. So, that may be an option, to bring someone in.
I prefer a volunteer.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a good
suggestion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And have them facilitate.
JUDGE TINLEY: I dare say, we've got a number
of people that are retired or semi-retired here that have an
abundance of those skills, and that would be --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- happy to lend their
services, and I'd be most appreciative of any of that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: L.C.R.A. may have
somebody to help us. And you and T have attended committee
meetings where we've had outside facilitators to help us get
the job done in an efficient way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: L.C.R.A.'s a good option.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We could find out
from Roland who on their staff will do this. They'll do it
for you; they'll come on down, I've seen them. They've led
discussions like that innumerable times.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it would be --
we'd get a lot more out of it if we brought in a third
person.
11-~4-~3
96
1
,.-.. 2
3
4
5
6
~,
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you might want to
consider TAC as well. I don't know that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: TAC also, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- that they have
long-term planning or -- I know they do some planning.
JUDGE TINLEY: They probably have a real good
handle on the kind of projects, priorities, problems,
various aspects of things that face county governments and
policymakers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But getting to
Mr. William's question about short-term versus long-term, I
can guarantee you that onr_.e you get into it, you're going to
have both.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As an example, our
talk about the road on the south side of the river going to
Hunt. That is, obviously, a long-range that, as we recently
saw, that is becoming a reality.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mm-hmm. That's a
good example. Maybe something we need to do in 2004.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. There are a
lot of them; there really are. And the point the Judge
makes about a professional or semi-professional person to
help us, perhaps without fee for service, the point you make
11-~4-03
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
97
about TAC knowing county law, county government, so forth,
as opposed to a lay person whose intentions may be good and
well -- well-positioned, but not quite as familiar with the
nuances of county government as we would like, I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can have both, have
TAC come in and have a -- you know, as an adviser as to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or L.C.R.A. Either
of those two could probably guide us through the works.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like -- I think we
ought to either work at setting a date today or at our next
meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: If we're going to be trying to
scout out some professionals, I think the earlier that we
can try and get a date nailed down, we -- that may be
beneficial to try and secure those people.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See this?
JUDGE TINLEY: Or even do a tentative date at
this point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: And try and ascertain the
availability of these kinds of people. And, from the
standpoint of TAC, I have found those people to just be
extraordinarily available. They make themselves available,
and always come over here, sometimes when we didn't know
that they were coming. And other times that we've
11-~4-r3
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
requested, they've always been -- been here and made
themselves available in some way, shape, form, or fashion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They should.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, they --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As much money as we
send aver there. The -- this is a form of planning right
here. I mean, I think we ought to go ahead and set our
meeting in January, and then our next meeting actually come
up with some topics and then have a report on going with TAC
or L.C.R.A., and I couldn't care less which. TAC is just
more county government-geared. Next meeting, make that
decision of who we -- who's available and who we'd like to
use, but go ahead and set that meeting in January now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with setting
a meeting and see if we can find who's going to help us.
I`d like to defer on putting the list together till a little
bit later, give us all enough time to think about it and
have it ready. Have it ready maybe the meeting before the
actual workshop for presentation to the Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we ought to try
to have the list ready at our next meeting. I just think
our next meeting -- I mean, that -- the second meeting in
December is a bad meeting because of Christmas, and that
week is the week of Christmas. And we always -- we seem --
we always have last-minute things that we have to get done

99

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
before the end of the year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Think about it.
Between now and the second -- and the first meeting in
December is Thanksgiving. We got -- you got one day before
the agenda or two days before the agenda, because it's
crowded around the holiday. I'd really like to push it a
little further back. You have plenty of time to think about
it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to get my
calendar.
JUDGE TINLEY: Looks like we've about got a
consensus that we're going to try to zero in on a date.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, you know, we
could do both. Next meeting, we could come up with some
topics. Following meeting, come up with some. The first
meeting in January, come up with some topics.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, just so long as
we're not forced, you know, into making a narrow window that
excludes things.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I don't want to exclude
anything.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either.
JUDGE TINLEY: And from the facilitator's
standpoint, I -- I think it would be beneficial if we had
somebody from TAC that could give us the input from the
11-~~-~?
1
-~- 2
3
f 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
100
county government -- the legality, the problem areas and so
forth, and then possibly another facilitator, or maybe two.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Can I offer a
suggestion, Judge? Going along with what you're talking
about, Buster. Could we -- could we attempt to identify
either or both, have somebody invite that person down to our
next meeting, and give us a little sense of how they would
guide us, and what -- for us to put together in anticipation
of a meeting?
JUDGE TINLEY: Put an item on the next agenda
for plan -- for strategic planning session.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Plan the planning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that would be
good, because if you -- you know, I think someone from TAC
and someone from L.C.R.A., if we can get them down here,
would be real helpful. We could also, you know, visit with
others in the community as well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they can tell us
what they'd like for us to do to prepare to make the meeting
more successful.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Got that,
Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'll do them both. I'll get
25
11-~4-~3
101
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 rolling. Give us a date, Commissioner. What's the
middle -- middle of January?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have my
January calendar. I don't even buy green bananas; I don't
know if I'm going to last till January. (Laughter.)
MS. SOVIL: January 12th is the meeting date.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 12th and 26th is meeting
date. Week of the 19th?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute, Jon.
That was a classic statement there. Man, we need to honor
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I heard something about
green bananas, and I just kind of --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, that is so funny.
I'm going to use that rascal.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Be the 12th, would it
not?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we got a meeting the 12th.
Be the 19th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 19th or the 20th. 19th
is a Monday.
JUDGE TINLEY: What about an alternate date,
other than Monday?
ii-2~-03
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, your schedule --
JUDGE TINLEY: Could we go to Wednesday?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The 21st?
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got a docket on the --
unless we're going to do it in the afternoon. I could do it
the 13th in the afternoon. Well, I've got --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's go to the
following week. I think I've got --
JUDGE TINLEY: 26th?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah -- no, 19th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Other than the
court date.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the week we're working
on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 19th or 20th or 22nd --
19th or 21st?
JUDGE TINLEY: If we're going to do it on the
19th, we need to start early, 'cause I have a juvenile
docket mid-afternoon. 21st, I've got all day available.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's go with the
21st.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that a regular
court date?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, that's a Wednesday.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we want to shoot for 1/21?
11-24-03
103

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: I won't be surprised
if we don't want to spend all day doing this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Maybe all day.
You could have lunch.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commencing at what? 10:00?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 9:00?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 9:00.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could we discuss
Mrs. Uecker's thought just for a moment, about going to a
neutral site with the elected officials at some point? I'm
not talking about on this day or any particular day. Just
the -- just the thought of having a "think tank" type thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like the idea.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could we ask the
County Attorney --
JUDGE TINLEY: Get the benefit of a lot more
thinking.
COMMISSTONER BALDWIN: Excuse me?
JUDGE TINLEY: Get the benefit of a lot more
thinking.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just can't see how
you can do that. T mean, we wouldn't be making decisions,
but we'd certainly be discussing county business with more
1 1-~ 4- ~ 3
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
than two of us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Workshop.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The City does it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I know.
Everybody does it but us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: U.G.R.A. does it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. I even got a
suggestion for a good spot.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe we got the same
one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's in my precinct.
I mean, here in Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My precinct --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably get a free
meal out it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got one right here
in Kerr County in my precinct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I said it first. Is
-- my question would be, is it legal to do it?
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. MOTLEY: I certainly haven't looked into
that particular question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But everybody does it.
11-?4-03
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MOTLEY: You know, it may be that other
governmental entities have more authority in that area than
the counties do. I think it's a good idea. I think maybe
-- I don't know if was Buster that maybe said the idea about
having the TAC people come and discuss in general how
something like that ought to proceed and how they could
facilitate the meeting. I think that would be a good idea.
I'm sure that's something that they do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're saying we can
do it, or can't do it?
MR. MOTLEY: I'm saying it's a question of
first impression on me right here in the courtroom today,
and I would -- I know that other people do it, but I've not
specifically researched whether or not it's okay for the
County to do that, because I didn't have any, you know,
prior advance notice. That's something that just came up in
the body of the meeting. So, I'd have to look into it, and
if you want a specific authority for it, I'd have to
research it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're talking about
the Commissioners Court being able to go off campus and
huddle under an oak tree.
MR. MOTLEY: We had talked about, at one time
in the past, having the Commissioners Court meet for a
legitimate meeting in other places, and if it's not a county
__-24-03
106
1
~- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
annex building or the county courthouse, I believe the
opinion was that it was not legal to do so -- not lawful to
do so. But this is not a regular, convened meeting of the
Commissioners Court. In other words, it's just planning,
and there's no action to be taken or no real, you know,
deliberation to be had. I think that's a different
situation. You're not taking votes, and just going to be
tossing around ideas about things such as this road you were
talking about south of the river, and -- and those ideas of
things that all the Commissioners think would be wise to
have on the radar screen for the future. I think that's
going to be one of the critical issues, is how the meeting
itself is conducted. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It would be a
workshop. A workshop situation.
MR. MOTLEY: Okay. But, you know, I'm going
to check it out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Correct me if I'm
wrong. I seem to recall, when you did that research, it had
to do with whether or not we could conduct this meeting at a
location in Kerr County other than this courtroom.
MR. MOTLEY: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And your conclusion
was we could not do a regular term outside of this room. We
could do a special, and we were talking about -- the venue
~1-~4-03
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
i9
20
21
22
23
24
25
was the Union Church. Now we're talking about a workshop at
which no action would be taken, just brainstorming.
MR. MOTLEY: Yeah, I think that's exactly
what I said. I believe that's exactly --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we -- when you
talk to TAC, to save David from doing a whole lot of
research, see if they can give us the authority.
MR. MOTLEY: I feel like it's okay, but,
again, I've not, you know, done any research on this prior
to this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we need a motion for
that date? Or are we just going to -- by consensus?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think you need a
motion for that date.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion that we
have a tentative date of January 21st at 10 a.m. -- I mean,
excuse me, 9 a.m. for a strategic planning workshop.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At a location to be
determined?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
11-~4-03
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,... 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Item 19 is
consider and discuss approval and award of bid for county
insurance coverage to Texas Association of Counties.
Mr. Auditor? As most of you know, we -- we received only
one bid with a couple of alternates, but only one bid for
our insurance package, that being all of the insurance with
the exception of the employee health insurance package,
which is being separately bid and is due back in the first
part of December. These particular -- this particular bid
covers all of the other insurance coverage.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think all of you have two
pages that -- that I call Analysis of the TAC Insurance
Proposal. Everybody have that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. TOMLINSON: I did this to try to
determine the options that -- you know, that we wanted to
consider. And what I did, I went back to -- to the year
2000 and looked at the -- the loss specs for each one of
those years, for -- for 2003, this year, to see what would
happen if -- if we chose one deductible or the other. And I
guess we can start with the auto liability, and it shows
that the current deductible is zero, and then it shows
11-~9-G3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-._
25
109
the -- what's proposed, with the zero deductible.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy --
MR. TOMLINSON: For $1,000 deductible --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before you go any
further, would you just help me with -- what is in Column 2,
the numbers in Column 2?
MR. TOMLINSON: Column 2 is the zero -- is
the same as what's current.
JUDGE TINLEY: Current deductible.
MR. TOMLINSON: Current deductible.
JUDGE TINLEY: There are three proposal
The last -- 2, 3, and 4 are proposals.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay. Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: They propose the same --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. TOMLINSON: They propose the same
deductible as we currently have.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. And all I wanted to do
is show you what the -- you know, the premium was now, on
the current policy. Under Auto Liability, really, I think
it boils down to the number of claims that we have, and in
2000-2002, we had a substantial amount of claims. You can
see that if we -- if we use the $1,000 deductible, we
will -- we would have had a net loss of $2,384. With a
1'~-?4-03
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$5,000 deductible, we'd have had a net loss of $11,614. And
in 2003, we had -- only had, as I remember, three losses.
So, under the $1,000 deductible, we'd have a net loss of
$132, and a gain -- net gain, with a $5,000 deductible, of
$1,871. So, you know, I think that's the issue today, is to
try -- try and decide which deductible we want to go with.
It appears to me that under -- under this coverage, you
know, as many -- as many vehicles as we have, I mean, the
chances of having three or more accidents with a third party
is pretty great.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This includes the
Sheriff?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Definitely.
MR. TGMLINSON: And as -- and, I mean,
even -- even with a $1,000 deductible, we would have lost
$132. So, I mean, it's personal opinion, but I -- I think
that, for auto liability, that zero deductible makes -- is
the best option.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll be paying an additional
approximately $3,700 in premium?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: But, based upon our loss
experience, what we'd have to absorb in the deductible you
think would be in excess of that?
11-~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
~„~ 2 4
25
111
MR. TOMLINSON: I think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just based upon the actuarial
data that you have?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: Auto physical damage. For
2000 -- I didn't go back further than 2000 on auto physical
damage. But we had -- we had losses paid of $7,125 under
the current deductible, which is $250 for comprehensive and
$500 for collision. In all cases, I mean, if we go to the
$1,000, we would have had a net gain of $5,539. I think
that might be an option that we'd want to try.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: Let's see. For general
liability, in the year 2000, we had no losses at all. In
'Ol, we had total losses of $3,296. In 2002, we only had
losses of $275. And none of those were -- were over -- over
the proposed limits. So, that indicates to me, with as few
losses as we have, that -- that the $10,000 option would be
what we should do. I mean, again, this is my take of it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Based on actuarial data.
MR. TOMLINSON: On the data that we have to
look at.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What comes under this
11-~4-03
112
1
-~-, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Slip and fall, road damage.
If a --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rock falls off --
MR. TOMLINSON: -- rock falls off a truck and
hits the pavement and crashes into a --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Windshield.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- windshield. Those are the
typical losses that we've had. And, you know, that's --
they've just been very few, and really, we have not had --
we have nct paid actual losses. Most of this is attorney's
fees, and attorney's fees come out of the deductible. So,
of all the payments that we make, it's almost totally
attorney's fees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we had a $10,000
deductible, how much -- how much -- I mean, if they're
claiming, like, $6,000 in damages or something like that,
does the insurance company still handle it?
MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. TOMLINSON: They handle anything that we
send to them. And -- and they negotiate, and they're -- my
experience with the people that -- that do the adjustments
for TAC, which is a company called Barron's, claims
adjusters, they -- they do a thorough job. And, I mean,
they just don't -- they're not free with our money; I'll put
11-~9-G3
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that it way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Each claim we might
have under this category would be subject to $10,000 --
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would we not be
better served to stay at five, based on the amount of
savings?
MR. TOMLINSON: We have zero now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know.
MR. TOMLINSON: I mean, that's why we're
here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just thought --
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm basing my opinion on what
I see as what the -- you know, what the data shows. I mean,
you know, we all know that -- that risk assessments are --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is risky business.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- are risky, yes. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, one -- you lose
the savings several times over with one occurrence.
MR. TOMLINSON: You could. Yeah, you really
could.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess that's my
point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Historically, we haven't
11-24-~3
114
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
had the occurrences.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think Commissioner Williams'
point is that, to get the benefit of $5,000 less deductible
on each claim, it costs us 1,700 bucks a year more, roughly.
I think that's your point, isn't it, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my point. Or
the savings that we might have are just a little bit less,
but we still are not laying out five grand every time you
have a claim, and you never know when it's going to be a bad
year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. And with attorney's
fees being includable in -- against your deductible, you can
have a pretty -- you can have an absolutely worthless claim,
but you can chew up five grand or ten grand in attorney's
fees sometimes, depending on the bent of the claimant's
lawyer, I suppose.
MR. TOMLINSON: I did visit with -- with the
TAC representative, Victor, our -- TAC's representative. He
didn't actually tell me this, but from our conversation, I
gathered that not many counties have a deductible on their
general liability. But, you know, you don't always know
what their experience is, either. But that's kind of what I
heard him say. He didn't actually tell me that, but ...
Okay. Do you want to go on to property?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm.
11-24-03
115
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
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Our current deductible
is $1,000. In 2000, we had $8,567 in losses. We would have
had a net loss of $1,752 with a $5,000 deductible. In 'Ol,
we only had $724 in losses, so, under that scenario, we
would have gained $5,091. And in 2000, we had $11,000 in
losses, and we would have only had a gain of $91. These
losses are -- typically arise from, like, lightning strikes
with radio equipment. We had a loss with water damage out
at the Extension Office in the Ag Barn. We do -- we do have
an addition to our property coverage for -- for equipment
breakdown that -- that we took advantage of two times.
That's the only damage -- you know, property damage that --
that I -- in the last three years that I can recall. Now,
there is -- there is potential savings in premium to go to
the $5,000 under -- you know, depending on the number of
losses, of course. So -- so, again, I mean, that's --
that's $6,800 savings in premium to go from $1,000 to
$5,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Depends if we're going to
have a good year or bad year.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One year you come out
ahead; two you don't, or not much.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Never know.
MR. TOMLINSON: Go on?
ii-~~-os
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: You -- did you have any
suggestion on the property damage?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, no, I -- I think we
just need to stay where we are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stay where we are?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. That's about a toss-up,
looks like to me.
MR. TOMLINSON: It could go either way, so I
don't see a lot of advantage of changing that.
JUDGE TINLEY: About $1,300 more.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Public officials.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What does this
cover?
MR. TOMLINSON: Wrongful employee
terminations, discrimination.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the Sheriff,
usually.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Now, wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it is. That's
usually where they come, is out of the jail.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Huh?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They usually come out of
the jail.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't believe I've had
i1-24-03
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any.
MR. TOMLINSON: We have had some -- some
controversial claims under this coverage. We had -- from
'00 to this year, we had -- we had five incidents. We
actually had no losses in any of those. Our -- TAC's
attorneys have -- have done a great job for us. And, you
know, we only -- you know, if we're going to $15,000, we
only have a $2,200 savings. Our current deductible is
$10,000. Their only other proposal is 15. I think, you
know, those kinds of cases are -- or claims could be severe.
The legal representation, again, for that one claim could --
could eat that $2,200.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Twice.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, almost any claim
will eat that.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just because of the -- I
mean, the nature of them. You get into lawsuits, and most
-- I'm not talking about Rusty -- most of them come out of
the jail for things that happen out there with the inmates.
And -- and we've never -- I mean, over the past few years,
we haven't had any losses, but we still have to defend these
things. And with the jail population remaining high, I
think we ought to leave it where it is.
1_-~4-03
1
r- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you're
recommending staying at 10?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think -- yes, I think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: And, of course, then we get to
MR. TOMLINSON: Go to law enforcement.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- liability.
MR. TOMLINSON: The law enforcement
liability, I mean, we've had -- since '99, we've had 15
claims. Eleven of those have been settled. We had three
claims over the deductible. Our total claims paid for in
that period of time is $148,384, so I don't think there's
a -- I mean, any reason to go to 15.
JUDGE TINLEY: We11, the Sheriff has assured
me that, notwithstanding that, that those claims are
plummeting, that his operation out there is such that --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I will address a little
bit of that.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that those claims are
really coming down, and -- and I think -- I think the
numbers are showing that they are coming down, in fact.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, in reality --
JUDGE TINLEY: I say a part of that in jest,
but those numbers are coming down, and I think it's
basically a testimonial to how well that operation is run
'~ 1 - ~ 4 - 0 3
119
~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
out there. I think it's directly reflective of that. And I
think the numbers statewide will reflect that he's -- he's
got good people on board, and they've got some good policies
in place. And, just like that last inspection that was
done, absolutely stellar marks, and I think that bears on
the number of claims that we're going to get.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, in reality, out
there we have had a couple that we felt there could be a
claim made, or somebody could file something on, so we went
ahead and notified the insurance company and let them be
aware of it, sent them the paperwork, but nothing ever came
of it. Other than those two, there has not been a claim
filed against that jail since April of 2000. Every one of
these are prior to April of 2000 that have been taken care
of, and that this money teas been paid out, so there have
been no claims made against the jail or the Sheriff's Office
since April of 2000, which I am very proud of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Tommy, the lawsuits that
arise out of the jail, do they go under public officials or
under the law enforcement?
MR. TOMLINSON: Law enforcement. This --
this also covers the detention facility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under the public
officials, what -- where do those claims come from?
MR. TOMLINSON: Mostly it's employee
11-~4-u3
120
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
discrimination.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What?
MR. TOMLINSON: Employee discrimination.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: E.E.O.C. claims,
something like that?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Or it could be, you
know, wrong -- claims for --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Termination.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- wrongful acts against
citizens, as far as their, you know, property. Maybe
infringement on -- you know, county road on their -- their
private property or, you know, something similar to that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think most of those
are going to be, like, E.E.O.C., where we terminate
somebody. And I've had one, I think, that the County didn't
have a loss on, but where they were terminated, and then
they immediately filed an E.E.O.C. claim claiming
discrimination or something like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
MR. MOTLEY: Tommy, would that last one, the
public officials, would that cover, say, for example, the
members of Commissioners Court if somebody came in and filed
some sort of lawsuit about them granting a variance under a
subdivision or something?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
__-24-03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
	8
	9
	10
	11
	12
~~	13
	14
15
16
17
18
19
121
MR. MOTLEY: Would it protect them from
whatever ministerial decisions they made and such?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right. That's
correct.
MR. MOTLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's two issues that
I would like to bring up in the overall. On the first part,
on auto physical damage, to be honest, especially in our
department, with deer and things like that and these newer
cars, we can't hit a deer that you're not going to be over
that $1,000. And we've had several of those in the last
month, unfortunately. A lot of guys don't like my policy on
that, but they do get judged on whether it's preventable or
not. But I think staying at the $500 on that would be
beneficial, and not going to the $1,000, because every one
of them we hit's going to be over $1,000 pretty well, with
these newer cars now, because the whole body's part of it
and you replace everything. The only --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Liability?
20
21
22
23 money.
24
•--
25 about fc
JUDGE TINLEY: Physical damage.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: On physical damage --
MR. TOMLINSON: We had a gain. We made
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- I know we've had
11-24-03
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
122
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. That's kind of --
it's almost $10,000 -- $9,000 cheaper to go with $1,000.
So, it just depends on how many deer you hit.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the last one we
hit -- and this is not at a high rate of speed or anything
else, but it is in one of the newer cars -- happened about
two weeks ago; an officer oii the way to the jail with an
inmate in the car on 534, and that one did $1,800 damage to
that one car. One deer. And then we had an officer back
into a car there by KPUB, and didn't do anything to the car
that was backed into, and did $2,300 damage to the County
car, because that whole body shifts, you know, and they have
to replace -- it's just the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the difference in cost
to us is $500 per, and you're looking at 16 different
occurrences, in essence, in order to make up that $8,000.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just something -- and
y'all can decide. The second one that I have is on the law
enforcement liability. And maybe we can get some assistance
from the Commissioners Court with TAC or -- or whatever, but
we had not lost a law enforcement claim, even all those old
ones prior to my taking office. We haven't had any new
ones. But we've had -- with the company that we've been
insured with, the attorney that represents us is on -- is
doing a remarkable job for the county, okay? Those losses
11-29-03
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
123
and those total costs are, of course, attorney's fees, as we
all know, but there has not been a claim successfully filed
against the County, against law enforcement. And the only
problem with that is the new insurance company, whether it's
through TAC or whatever -- I understand there's a lot of
other benefits to it, but unless we maybe get TAC to absorb
that attorney as one of the attorneys that they hire to
represent or whatever, we're going to lose the benefit of an
attorney that knows this county, knows what our record is,
knows what our policies are, and has done an outstanding job
of representing this county and does nothing but represent
law enforcement on claims made against the counties.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think all we can do
there is recommend --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They didn't submit a bid,
so we can just recommend that fact.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, they didn't bid it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All we can do is
recommend to TAC that they contact this law enforcement --
law office.
MR. TOMLINSON: TAC has their own -- the
attorneys that -- not their own attorneys, but they assign
cases to an attorney.
JUDGE TINLEY: We don't have any authority to
11-~4-03
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
124
direct who they use in their claims defense processes, but
we can certainly give the benefit of our thinking, and they
may want to take a look at this guy, and --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's what I would
JUDGE TINLEY: -- look at his experience,
and -- you know, a lot of their stuff is in different --
different court areas and different districts, and it may
well be that they want to take a look at him. But that's
all we can do, is recommend at this point. In either case,
I would note that our law enforcement liability coverage,
even remaining the same, is going to go down over $4,400.
And with a bit higher deductible -- you know, that's over
4 percent right there, and if we go with a higher
deductible, it'll come down even more, approximately --
what? 8 percent? 9 percent? So, I think that's moving in
the right direction. What is your recommendation on the law
enforcement? To keep the deductible at $10,000?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I thought it would be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion,
Judge, that we award the insurance coverage to TAC, and set
the deductible limits as follows: Auto liability, zero;
auto physical damage, $1,000; general liability, $5,000;
property damage, $1,000; public officials, $10,000; law
11-~4-03
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
125
enforcement, $10,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Does this become
effective January 1?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it would.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 'Cause with the auto
liability going up, it could definitely have an effect on my
budgeted amount for automobile repairs, with the deductible
going up. 'Cause the rest of that comes out of my --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Auto liability didn't go
up; it stayed at zero.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Or damage. Okay, I'm
talking about the auto physical damage. Is it --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take it out of your
salary, Sheriff.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Not my salary.
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, that premium's going
to come down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That premium --
MR. TOMLINSON: We're going to gain $8,000.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I'm talking about
when the deductible goes from $500 to $1,000, that extra
$500 comes out of my automobile repair budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You got 16; you leave it
11-~~-0~
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
at 16.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If I come back for a
budget amendment, please understand.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second that
motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve and accept and award the bid for county insurance
coverage for the categories indicated to Texas Association
of Counties, with deductibles as follows: Automobile
liability, zero deductible. Automobile physical damage,
$1,000 deductible. General liability coverage, $5,000
deductible. Property damage, $1,000 deductible. Public
official's liability, $10,000 deductible. And law
enforcement liability, $10,000 deductible. Any questions?
Comments? 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. Do you
want to forge forward, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No -- yes.

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
127
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not going to be
finished, because we have comments, we have budget
amendments, we have --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- bills. We got at
least 30 minutes to go. I mean, I'll go through it, but I
just -- I don't know how long Kathy --
JUDGE TINLEY: Item 20, consider and discuss
approving mutual aid agreement with AACOG to continue
accessing regional assistance. This item was a requirement
under that recent grant funds that we got for the trailer
and these other emergency --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Homeland security.
JUDGE TINLEY: Homeland security related type
items. And it's on the agenda because I think it's
something we've got to do, 'cause we've already taken the
money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I'd like to
have the honor of making the motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded that
we approve mutual aid agreement with AACOG to continue
accessing regional assistance. Any question or discussion?
11-~4-G3
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
128
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 does carry. Next item,
consider and discuss approval of a resolution opposing
unfunded mandates, and authorizing a referendum concerning
same to be placed on the March 2004 primary election ballot.
Those don't necessarily have to be included all as one.
They can be subjects of separate action by the Court, if
any.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we should do
it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we should do
it at some point. I mean, I understand what an unfunded
mandate is, but I'm not real clear of what specific laws --
I mean, who's going to make the decision on what -- which
law is an unfunded mandate?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's my concern.
'Cause I see -- I mean, and one of them -- Region J is a
good example. I mean, part of that -- it's all state-
funded, except administrative costs have to be borne by
local entities, of which Kerr County contributes to that, so
I think -- you know, but I bet -- I don't think they see
that as an unfunded mandate, 'cause they don't say we have
ii-?~-o?
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
129
to do it. But if you're going to -- I mean, but you kind of
do have to do it, too, so it's kind of -- you know, it's --
and I don't know the -- I think Senator Fraser and
Representative Hilderbran have both said they didn't have
any unfunded mandates, but I -- seems to me I've seen a few
over the last legislative session. So, you know, I think
it's a good idea. I'm in favor of --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- doing this.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think this whole thing
springs from -- they were preparing before this last
Legislature to have a constitutional amendment on the ballot
to -- that would direct that the Legislature not pass any
legislation requiring local governments to take any action
without appropriating the necessary funds with which they
could take that action, in essence. And that, of course,
didn't pass, 'cause it didn't get on the ballot, but I think
that's where it sprang from. "Mandate," to me, means you've
got to do it; you don't have any choice. What you're
talking about, technically, you got a choice. Now, how
realistic that is may be another question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: But you do have a choice.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I expect that the
authors of the bill, if there were one, would -- would, in
11-~4-G3
130
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
their definitions, define what "mandate" is. I don't expect
that it would cover -- it can't -- everything that really
winds up costing us money that we don't have any choice
about. Given a choice, I'd like to eliminate all of it, the
actions of the legislation that winds up costing us money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I recall a discussion
about -- wasn't it representative -- the representative,
Buster, out of Fort Worth? And some of us heard his
presentation at --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I think this is
necessary to move the -- to move the boulder down the road a
little bit.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it probably
won't get everything done that needs to get done, but it's a
start.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move adoption
of the resolution as presented.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
adoption of the resolution.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And is that all we're
looking fcr, cpposing unfunded mandates? I'm sorry, and
authorizing -- are we saying here, Judge, authorizing
referendum or authorizing inclusion of this topic on the
11-~9-03
131
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
forthcoming referendum?
JUDGE TINLEY: Authorizing the -- a
referendum requesting the voters as to whether or not to
approve a resolution, as it were, that the Legislature not
pass unfunded mandates.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But, in actuality, we
would be authorizing the inclusion of that question on an
already scheduled referendum.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, it's not scheduled, 'cause
it didn't pass.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're scheduling one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're scheduling one
in March in the primary. That's what I'm talking about.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're not asking
for a separate referendum?
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Authorizing inclusion
of this item on the ballot in March, which is already
scheduled.
JUDGE TINLEY: Already -- it would be added
to the ballot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's what I
11-24-03
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
132
seconded.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question 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. Next item,
consideration and discussion --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait, Judge. Wait
just a second. In this packet is a -- looks like a press
release in here that you could take and put your -- the
County Judge's name in the slots for release. Would you be
interested in using this document as well to release to the
press?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 'Cause it's one --
this is one of those things that we need to start banging to
let the public know what this is all about.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would recommend we
give the press release, filled in, to the reporter sitting
out there right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: With the Judge's name?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it would be
Kerr County Commissioners Court.
11-~~-u3
133
1
.- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, there's quotes
in here that you need to add the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Attribute the quotes
to the Judge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, there you go.
That's where I'm going.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got that, Glenda?
JUDGE TINLEY: Kind of flies in the face of
the old adage, "not trying to put words in your mouth."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we just did,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Anyway, there's a
press release there if you wanted to use it. I apologize
for the interruption.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item, consider and
discussion approving contract between Kerr County and
volunteer fire departments and authorize County Judge to
sign the same. Following departments: Comfort Volunteer
Fire Department, Castle Lake Volunteer Fire Department, and
Hunt Volunteer Fire Department.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the noted contracts, and authorize County Judge
11-~9-03
134
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
to sign same. Any further --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One quickie question.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- further question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jonathan, is Castle
Lake that one that serves down there in the tip of the
county?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, out of Bandera
County. Actually located in Bandera County.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second question.
This says we got a contract for Hunt, but the contract
that's included is for Ingram. Are we approving Hunt or are
we approving Ingram's?
JUDGE TINLEY: Ingram's already been
approved. Or is it -- no.
MS. SOVIL: It's Ingram. I picked up the
wrong one.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So we're approving
Comfort, Castle Lake, and Ingram?
MS. SOVIL: Yes, sir. I think we're
approving Comfort and Castle Lake.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think that's all we
can approve. We're going to have to add that other one back
on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My question was, I
11-~'4-03
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~,., 13
14
20
21
22
23
24
25
thought we'd already approved Hunt a month ago or two.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, we did.
MS. SOVIL: We did, but it was in the last
budget year. They haven't signed the new one yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: They can't. The money's not
eligible to be drawn till after January 1 anyway, is it?
MS. SOVIL: Not with the fire departments.
That only was county-sponsored contracts.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Hunt got theirs in
late. I don't think we approved it yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, what are we --
we're scratching Hunt and approving the Castle Lake and
15 Comfort?
16
17
18 motion.
19
JUDGE TINLEY: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to third that
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Motion made and
seconded that we approve contracts between Kerr County and
Comfort Volunteer Fire Department and Castle Lake Volunteer
Fire Department, and authorize the Judge to sign the same.
Any further question or discussion? All in favor, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
11-~4-03
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
136
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to -- I'm
assuming by our discussion here that Ingram will be back on
the next agenda with the proper posting? Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Moving right along.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We don't have anything
to go into executive or closed session, do we, gentlemen?
If we do, speak up now. Okay, looks like we get to the
payment of the bills. Mr. Auditor.
MR. TOMLINSON: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. 409,
Nondepartmental. Lowe's Companies, Inc., $76.01, computer
supplies. Who would be charging computer supplies to
Nondepartmental?
MR. TOMLINSON: It would be for the -- for
the system.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't that be
under Information Technology, 408?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, the maintenance for the
system -- big system is in 409.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is --
really, it's just more of a comment, you know, to see what
11-~4-~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
137
happened to it. And I notice under Nondepartmental, there
are three charges to the Travis County Medical Examiner, and
I had remembered, during the budget process, that the J.P.'s
were going to organize and have the Travis County Medical
Examiner come down and give a workshop on how much -- I just
wondered if that has happened.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 665, Ag Extension.
Walmart.
roasted?
MR. TOMLINSON: What p
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
JUDGE TINLEY: 8.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
age is that?
Roaster ovens?
What page?
I'm sorry, Page 8.
Who's getting
That's for -- for the kitchen
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They do their -- in the
Ag Extension office, they do cooking seminar things up
there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably also in connection
11-~9-G3
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
different.
JUDGE TINLEY: That comes out of --
MR. TOMLINSON: That comes out of the Ag
Barn.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
for a free meal when they roast a tur
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
about food right now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:
bills.
I guess we can go by
key.
Let's don't be talking
Move we pay the
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded we
pay the bills. Any further question 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 carried. Budget
amendments. Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 1 is for
contractual obligation fund, sinking -- sinking fund. We
budgeted $500 for administrative service fees for this debt,
for the debt service. When we got our bill, it was $1,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Who'd we get a bill from?
11-~4-G3
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
139
MR. TOMLINSON: Bank of New York. They're --
they're the trustee or the paying agent on those bonds. And
we -- I gave -- actually gave them a call to see if they
didn't make a mistake, and they said no, that's not a
mistake.
JUDGE TINLEY: You talked to somebody with a
Jersey accent and they said no way, huh?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Things are tight in
lower Manhattan, huh?
MR. TOMLINSON: So, anyway, that -- I don't
see any choice but to -- if we want our debts paid, to -- to
do a budget amendment of $500 from Surplus from that sinking
fund.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1. That doesn't
include a hand check, does it?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question 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.)
1 1 -~ 4-Ci 3
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Notion carried. Budget
Amendment Request Number 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is for Justice of
the Peace, Precinct 2, in Nondepartmental. We -- we've
installed the software for -- for J.P. 2's office, and in
the process, we discovered that the printers that she had in
place would not do the job. So, to get that up and running,
we -- it was necessary to purchase a printer that would do
the job, and so I'm -- I'm asking for a budget amendment to
move $749.56 from Contingency in Nondepartmental, and $980
from Computer Software in J.P. 2's budget, and increase the
Capital Outlay by $1,729.56.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any hand check on that?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any further
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what the
contingency money's for, isn't it?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
~i-~9-os
141
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: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
MS. SOVIL: Sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any late --
MS. SOVIL: You took the 5500 out of Surplus.
Don't you need to declare an emergency on that Number 1?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, you do. That's right.
You're right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who moved it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I did.
JUDGE TINLEY: Jonathan did.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My motion includes --
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go back to Budget
Amendment Request Number 1. Commissioner Letz, would you
restate your motion, please?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To declare an emergency
and take $500 out of Fund 59, Surplus Reserve.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve Budget Amendment Request Number 1, and in doing so,
to declare an emergency and take $500 from Fund 59, Surplus
Reserve. All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
11-~4-03
142
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: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Apparently
we don't have any late bills. Okay. Don't have any minutes
today. I have before me monthly reports from Justice of the
Peace Precinct 1, Justice of the Peace Precinct 2, and
District Clerk. Do I hear a motion that these reports be
approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion moved -- made and
seconded that monthly reports, as presented by Justice of
the Peace Precinct 1, Justice of the Peace Precinct 2, and
District Clerk be approved. Airy further question 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 does carry. Do we have
any reports from any of the Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do have one report
briefly on -- related to Region J. I had a meeting last
week with our consultant, Mr. Ashworth, and then the -- Ron
Patterson and some of his staff, Ron Langley from
11-~9-03
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Headwaters, Greg Etter from U.G.R.A., and myself, and kind
of just plotted out really how all of the entities --
governmental entities in Kerr County can work together and
get some real meaning -- meaningful research and study done
on the Trinity Aquifer, and also the spring flow. Region J
has some money budgeted for that. U.G.R.A. is looking at
it, and so is Headwaters. So, anyway, I just -- really good
meeting, and I think that out of that will come a -- a plan
for the entities to put in some additional funding, probably
next budget year, to try to -- because it's clear that the
State's not going to do all of it by themselves. And -- but
there seemed a real willingness from all the heads of all
those entities to try to get some meaningful science on the
Trinity Aquifer so we can do some real water planning in the
future as we -- we've been trying to do it, but the State
has just a limited amount of funding they're going to give
to that purpose. So, it was a good meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jon, the next time --
Ashworth?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: John Ashworth.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: John Ashworth. The
next time he is around and ding some kind of presentation,
will you let us know?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's one of the most
i1-24-03
144
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
fascinating, intelligent guys that I've ever seen when it
comes to that aquifer. He -- he may be the only guy
breathing that understands that thing, and he has a
fantastic, fantastic presentation on it. Very good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Worth going to see
him.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He is good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the only comment I
have.
JUDGE TINLEY: And Ashworth is with T.W.D.B.?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, Ashworth is -- he was
formerly with T.W.D.B. He's now with LBG-Guyton and
Associates, and he's the -- because of his knowledge of the
Trinity Aquifer, Region J hired him as our lead consultant,
and then he works very closely with Frees and Nichols for
their surface water issues. But it was a good meeting. It
was kind of -- I wanted to give everybody a little time to
let all the new heads of all these different entities in
Kerr County get their feet on the ground, and I think we'll
be able to really come out with a -- hopefully a plan
sometime in the spring as to a study that I think Ashworth
might be very involved with the designing. That will help
the City of Kerrville, all the county residents, Headwaters
and U.G.R.A., because it'll finally be some definitive work
11-24-03
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on the Trinity and talking about recharge and getting some
additional wells put in, and it won't be done by ourselves.
Water Development Board will clearly be involved with it,
but it'll be a way to hopefully greatly enhance the Trinity
model that the Water Development Board had previously that
leaves a lot to be desired.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Perhaps do the study
of the model of the lower, which they did not do the last
time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's being included. A
lot of it's spring flow and recharge. So, there's some --
two critical components as to where the City goes in the
future, long-term. They're looking at a well field in
probably the western part of the county, but it's critical
that we know as a county, if they put a well field out in
the plateau, is that going to just drain the water out of
the springs? And if it is, there's no point in doing it;
it's a waste of money. So, just things like that, and
there's no science on that, so it's kind of going in that
direction. But I was really happy to have all the entities
working together and come up with a new approach, and
everyone now seems willing to, you know, conceptually agree
to putting money up to help get this study done. And it
obviously is cheaper to do one good study than a bunch of
little piecemeal studies.
11-29-03
146
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: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, there is one item.
We have never acted on Item 1.2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's right, the Adoption
Month.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's one of those
things -- certainly, I'm in favor of the -- the concept, but
I really don't know that, without a -- I don't know
the great importance, other than saying that we're in favor
of it. Certainly, I am, as a Commissioner, and I think the
Court probably is, recognizing people that adopt. But I
don't see any point in really acting on it if we don't have
anything -- something to act on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which item?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1.2.
JUDGE TINLEY: 1.2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Adoption Month.
Designating November as Adoption Month.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? If not, we'll
stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:24 p.m.)
11-~4-03
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~.
2~
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 1st day of December,
2003.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : ~'
- -- -t~ ----------------
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
11-~4-03
ORDER N0.28416
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
GENERAL AVIATION TERMINAL GRANT
On this the 24th day of November 2003 upon a motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-
0-0 to approval of Resolution to authorize execution of Grant Agreement pursuant to the
Texas Department of Transportation General Aviation Terminal Grant and authorize the
County Judge to sign the same.
ORDER N0.28417
EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
On this the 24th day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to
appoint the following to serve as Board of Commissioners for the term of 2 years
beginning January 1, 2004
Kenneth Wood
Bruce Bond
Donald C. Oehler
ORDER N0.28418
EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT N0.2
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
On this the 24th day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-
0 to appoint the following to serve as Board of Commissioners to serve until December
31, 2003
Cleo Meadow
Bruce Oehler
John Gibbens
F.C."Corky" Henson
Wesley Patton
ORDER N0.28419
SHERIFF VEHICLES
On this the 24th day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-
0-0 to replace the 1993 Chevrolet used by CID with a 1998 Ford Taurus SE to be
purchased with $1000 available in the Seizure Account and $2500 from the Donation
Expenditure budget line.
ORDER N0.28420
CHANGE IN FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDER # 26463
On this the 24th day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 3-0-
1 to approve the changes of #1 & #2 only in the Flood Damage Prevention Order # 26463
as recommended by the Kerr County Engineer/Floodplain Administrator as follows;
1. Article 4, Section B (6): Change TNRCC to TCEQ
2. Article 4, Section B (9) currently states:
(9) When a regulatory floodway has not been designated, the Floodplain
Administrator must require that no new construction, substantial
improvements, or other development (including fill) shall be permitted
,_... within Zones Al-3 0 and AE on the community's FIRM unless it is
demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development,
when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will
not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than
one foot at any point within the community.
As development progresses in the "A" Zone, the "ultimate base flood elevation" will be
one foot higher than the current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Base Flood
Elevation, BFE.
Therefore the base flood elevation in Article 5, Section B from "elevated to or above the
base flood elevation" will be changed to "elevated one foot above the base flood
elevation."
ORDER N0.28421
ROAD AND BRIDGE
ANNUAL BIDS
On this the 24`h day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-
0 to allow Road and Bridge to go out for annual bids on Equipment by the Hour, Paving
Aggregate, Asphalt Emulsions, Corrugated Metal Pipe, Black Base Type AA, Cold Mix
Type CC and Road Base Material.
ORDER N0.28422
ROAD NAME CHANGES
On this the 24th day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-
0-0 to approve changes with the Privately Maintained Road Name Changes in accordance
with 9-1-1 Guidelines as follows;
OLD Name
1825
4025
4034
1972
1773
4035
4042
2189
Bobcat
4039
Rough Hollow Crk Nw
Ingram Industrial Blvd W
Park Place W
4041
NEW Name
Eric Dr. S
Treehouse Terr S
Retreat Rd S
Sarahs Barn Rd S
Walters Way S
Mahon Rd S
Levi Ln NW
Padre Pio Dr W
Houston Schumacher Rd W
Gardener Ln W
Larkspur Ln NW
Cindy Jacks Dr W
Lisa Ln W
Juliana Bluff E
ORDER N0.28423
SUBDIVISION IN ETJ WITH APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE
On this the 24th day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to
appoint Commissioner Letz, Commissioner Baldwin and the County Attorney to have
them meet with the City of Ingram, City of Kerrville and the City Attorneys to discuss a
Singular Review for Subdivisions in the ETJ.
ORDER NO. 28424
RESOLUTION OF THANKS
TO RIVERHILL COUNTRY CLUB
On this the 24~h day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-
0 to approve a Resolution of Thanks to Riverhill Country club for its cooperation and
assistance in permitting the Rolling Green Lift Station sewer by-pass to be constructed
across the RHCC golf course for the benefit of the Kerrville South Wastewater Project.
ORDER N0.28425
ALTERNATE PLAT REVISIONS
FALLING WATER, Lot 138A & 139A, Volume 7, Pages 75 & 76
(Combination of lots)
On this the 24th day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-
0 to approve the Alternate Plat Revision and Combining of lots in FALLING WATER,
Lot 138A & 139A, Volume 7, Pages 75 & 76
ORDER N0.28426
ALTERNATE PLAT REVISION
FALLING WATER, Lots 124A & 125, Volume 7, Pages 52
(Combination of Lots)
On this the 24~h day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-
0-0 to approve the Alternate Plat Revision and Combining of lots in FALLING WATER,
Lots 124 A & 125.
ORDER N0.28427
ALTERNATE PLAT REVISION
GREENWOOD FOREST, Lot 8, Block 6, Volume 3, Page 123 and
Lots 16 & 17, Block 6, Volume 5, Page 92
(Combination of Lots)
On this the 24`}' day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Nicholson,
Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to
approve the Alternate Plat Revision and Combining of lots in GREENWOOD FOREST,
Lot 8, Block 6, Volume 3, Page 123 and Lots 16 & 17, Block 6, Volume 5, Page 92
ORDER N0.28428
REVISION TO THE
KERR COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
MASTER PLAN
On this the 24`h day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-
0-0 to approve the Revisions to the Kerr County Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2003-
2008 and extend thanks and appreciation to the Kerrville Convention and Visitors Bureau
for its valuable assistance in preparing the revised document.
ORDER N0.28429
COMMISSIONERS COURT WORKSHOP
On this the 24th day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-
0-0 to set a Workshop for strategic planning for January 21, 2004 at 9:00 AM.
ORDER N0.28430
AWARD BID FOR COUNTY INSURANCE COVERAGE
TO
TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
On this the 24th day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-
0-0 to award the bid for County Insurance Coverage to Texas Association of Counties
with the following deductibles;
Auto Liability -0-
Auto Physical Damage $1000
General Liability $5000
Property $1000
Public Officials $10,000
Law Enforcement $10,000
ORDER N0.28431
APPROVAL OF MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT WITH AACOG
On this the 24th day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-
0-0 to approve the Mutual Aid Agreement with AACOG to continue accessing regional
assistance.
ORDER NO. 28432
RESOLUTION OPPOSING UNFUNDED MANDATES
On this the 24~h day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-
0-0 to approve a Resolution opposing unfounded mandates and authorizing referendum
concerning same to be placed on March, 2004, primary election ballot.
ORDER N0.28433
VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS
On this the 24`h day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-
0 to approve the contracts between Kerr County and the following Volunteer Fire
Departments.
Comfort Volunteer Fire Department
Castle Lake Volunteer Fire Department
ORDER NO. 28434
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
On this the 24th day of November 2003 came to be considered by the Court various
Commissioners precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
10-General for $106,996.12, 15-Road and Bridge for $98,728.30, 18- County Law
Library $664.19, 28-Records Management & Preservation $713.56, 50-Indigent Health
Care $53,855.99, 70- Permanent Improvement $5,581.52
TOTAL CASH REQUIRED FOR ALL FUNDS: $ 266,539.68.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the
Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to pay said Accounts.
ORDER NO. 28435
BUDGET AMENDMENT
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, SERIES 2001
On this the 24`h day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Letz,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-
0-0 to Declare an emergency and take $500.00 from fund 59 surplus funds and move
into line item 59-648-665 to pay for administrative service fees for debt services.
ORDER NO. 28436
BUDGET AMENDMENT
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE #2
On this the 24`h day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
Seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-
0-0 to take $980.00 from line item 10-456-562 and $749.56 from line item 10-409-571
and put $1,729.56 into line item 10-456-570 for the purchase of a printer.
,--
ORDER NO. 28437
APPROVE MONTHLY REPORTS
On this the 24`h day of November 2003 upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin,
Seconded by Commission Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0 to
approve the monthly reports from the following offices;
Justice of the Peace #1 and #2
District Clerks Office