1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
7q
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, October 24, 2005
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

O
Q
~...
z
1
2
3
4
5
H
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
October 24, 2005
--- Visitors' Comments
--- Commissioners' comments
1.2 Consider, discuss and approval of proposed
2006 budget for Kerr Emergency 9-1-1 Network
1.1 Review and approval of Community Plan for
submission to AACOG
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
Final Notice from 9-1-1 on addresses
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
Water Availability Requirements, Subdivision
Rules and/or modification of Court Order 29006
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for the
concept plan of Las Colinas of Kerrville in Fct. 1
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for the
Final Plat of Ledqe Stone Subdivision in Pct. 2
1.6 Public Hearing for Revision of Plat for Lots 34-37
of The Reserve at Falling Water in Pct. 3
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
setting purchase price for copy of 2005-2006
budget at $20.00
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve Contract Amendment No. 1 between Kerr
County and Department of State Health Services,
and authorize County Judge to sign
l.ll Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
proposed Memorandum of Understanding for con-
struction of the Animal Control Facility
1.10 Request approval of the Kerr County Jury selection
plan as amended to reflect changes required by
HB-75 and SB-1704
1.12 Consider/discuss, act on issues involving con-
struction of expansion of Animal Control Facility,
its parking lot and sidewalks
PAGE
5
10
14
22
26
32
36
43
49
50
52
55
59
62
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
~~
'3
24
25
I N D E X (Continued)
October 29, 2005
PAGE
1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
	resolution thanking Mr. Charles Lewis for his	
	service on the 9-1-1 Board	68
1.14	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	nominate and/or appoint new representative to	
	Kerr County 9-1-1 Board	70
1.15	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	Subdivision Rules & Regulations and Water	
	Availability Requirements	72
1.16	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	Kerr Central Appraisal District proposed budget	
	amendment	83
1.17	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	Termination Notice received from Mutual of Omaha	
	with regard to Employee Health Benefits Program	88
4.1	Pay Bills	114
4.2	Budget Amendments	117
4.3	Late Bills	---
4.4	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	122
5.1	Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee	
	Assignments	123
Adjourned 128
4
1
_.. 2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
__ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~^ 2 4
25
On Monday, October 24, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled and
posted for this date and time, Monday, October the 24th,
2005, at 9 a.m. My good friend, Pastor Al Schultz, is here
this morning, one of our representatives on the Library
Board, and I'd like to turn it over to him for a word of
prayer, if you'd please stand.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JODGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. At this
time, if there's any member of the audience or the public
that wishes to be heard on any matters which are not listed
agenda items, you're privileged to come forward at this time
and tell us what's on your mind. If you wish to be heard on
an agenda item, in connection with any listed agenda item,
we'd ask that you fill out a participation form. They're
located at the book back of the room. I think we've got
plenty back there. It helps me when we get to that item to
not miss you so that you have the opportunity to speak on
that item. If you fail to fill one out, when we get to that

5
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
item, if you want to be heard, get my attention some way,
shape, form, or fashion. Wave your arms. You can get my
attention, but we'd -- we'd ask that you fill out a
participation form if possible. But if there's anybody that
wishes to be heard on a matter which is not listed on the
agenda, well, feel free to come forward at this time. Yes,
sir? Please come forward, and if you'll give your name and
address so that the reporter can get it down.
MR. SHOEMAKER: My name's John Shoemaker. I
live at 150 Deer Park Lane in Center Point, and I have a
couple of items here I'll pass out. I have some questions
about some of the activities that have occurred at the
airport over the last several weeks.
JUDGE TINLEY: We can pass those out for you.
MR. SHOEMAKER: I've got a couple extras, if
someone needs one.
MS. PIEPER: May I have one, please, sir?
MR. SHOEMAKER.: Sure. The first one was
sparked on Wednesday of, I guess, week before last. The
Airport Manager instructed a licensed aircraft, piloted by a
licensed pilot, not to land and refuel at the Kerrville
Airport. That same aircraft and others similar to it have
landed at the airport in the past. My questions are, what
authority does the airport -- gives the Airport Manager the
right and the power to do this?
lu-d4-OS
6
1
" 2
3
9
5
r
7
8
9
10
11
12
°° 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Z4
Let me back up and tell you that I'm a pilot
-- a commercial pilot, an aircraft owner, and taxpayer, and
all of these things make a lot of input into my life. I
believe you will notice that on every application for grants
to improve the airport, that it specifically says that
licensed aircraft cannot be denied use of that airport.
This is what I'm asking about. Has the F.A.A., Department
of Transportation, TexDOT been notified? And then I come to
the question of how much federal money has the airport
received in the last five years? And that leads us to
number four, which is, has an airport official investigated
whether or not the Kerrville Airport can be required to
return all federal money for refusing landing to legal
aircraft? And then the obvious, will this kind of publicity
be beneficial to the airport?
Most of you probably by now know that it was
the Met Life blimp who was denied landing out here, and, of
course, they are en route -- or they were en route to
California. And we'll probably hear from Mr. Madden Monday
night about the fact why you're not allowed to land here.
They landed here in the past. And my concern is, when I'm
flying to California, when I'm ready to land and I'm out of
fuel, will some airport out there say, "No, you're from
Kerrville; we don't allow people from Kerrville to land at
25 this airport"?
_. us

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~4
?5
The ser_ond item is about the roads at the
airport. They're used by automobiles, 18-wheel trucks and
various unregistered vehicles, forklifts and so forth. My
question is, who owns them? Who's responsible for
maintenance? The section near the fuel farm is in terrible
condition. In case one of those forklifts runs into me, who
do I call? Who responds? Who -- who writes the tickets?
Second page says, as an aircraft owner, commercial pilot,
flight instructor, and taxpayer, I have several questions
about the operations. Almost daily there are three or more
vehicles simultaneously on the runways and taxiways. These
vehicles include the Airport Manager's private truck.
Monday, after I had started writing these, there were six
City trucks and a lawnmower on the runway simultaneously.
They were completely blocking the runways. Numerous
airplanes were trying to take off and land. They would not
get out of the way. The large aircraft that was trying to
take off, a Challenger jet, sat there and waited as long as
he could till his clearance was about to expire, and then he
took off, like anybody else would have to do. His wingspan
is 56 feet wide. The airstrip is 100 feet wide. Vehicles
on either side of him had less than 10 feet clearance
between the vehicle and the airplane that's going 200 miles
an hour.
Now, my questions. Is the airport -- Airport
1'J-::9-~'~5
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2g
21
22
23
29
25
Manager's personal vehicle covered by enough insurance to
pay for this jet? We're not even going to talk about the
loss of life and other things that ~~ould be associated with
it. Do the vehicles monitor the unicorn frequency that is
required according to the airport regulations? I'll come
back to them in a minute also. Have the people in the
trucks and on the tractors received any training on aircraft
procedures, vocabulary, and responses? What are they
supposed to do? Does the Airport Manager try to reduce the
number of vehicles nn the runway to the least number
necessary? I think I know the answer to that one. And the
one that really worries me are the bottom ones. Federal
officials, the F.A.A., send me a letter just about once
every six months that says when I see something unsafe, I'm
expected to report it to the proper authorities. If it's
the Airport Manager that's being unsafe, rude, or
unresponsive, to whom do I report it and what course of
action can be expected? Airports are funded by taxes. And
my question is, who do I go to? Which of my elected
officials has the authority over the airport and its
management? Where does the buck stop?
I'd certainly like for some of you people to
address these things. I have a copy of the old airport
rules here. It's 36 pages long. The new airport rules,
which I got from the City, is 83 pages long, eight pages of

9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
forms which are nor used, seven pages of which are blank.
Hidden in there is the information that we need to operate
the airport. And I would like to see that the rules are
enforced or -- or changed or edited so that they can be
enforceable. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Shoemaker.
Under the law that we're required to play by here, since
this is not a listed agenda item, I'm sure you understand,
we cannot engage in a dialogue and -- and respond to these
things. But --
MR. SHOEMAKER: Yes, sir. And my purpose is
to make you aware of the circumstances, and so that we can
start following up some of these circumstances. Some of us
have been trying, you know, rather unsuccessfully, to -- to
get some of these things addressed, and that's -- that's my
purpose of being here. If it requires putting it on the
agenda and coming through or whatever we need to do, I'll
certainly be glad to do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: We -- we appreciate you beinq
here today and bringing these matters to our attention. And
I think I can give you reasonable assurance that they will
be looked into.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: You bet, sir. Is there any
other member of the public or the audience that wishes to be
it~_a~ ns
10
1
L
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
heard concerning a matter which is not a listed agenda item?
Anyone else? Seeing no one else coming forward, we will
move into the Commissioners' comments. Commissioner
Baldwin, do you have anything for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. I'm excited
about this agenda, and let's roll our sleeves up and get
going.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a couple
things, Judge. First of all, I'm not going to respond
in-kind to what Mr. Shoemaker brought to our attention, but
I am going to tell the Court that I will place on the agenda
an item -- on the airport agenda an item that deals with
personnel performance review of the Airport Manager. I
think it's a topic that's been there before. It needs to be
addressed, and -- and I will -- I will address it at -- in
the proper form. I'd like to take a moment of my time here
this morning, Judge, to -- to single out a couple people. A
great big tall fellow who wears a black hat, and everybody
knows him as the Kerr County -- former Kerr County
Republican Chair, is -- stand up, Tom Mock, and put your
damn hat on, will you? He is about to leave for Iraq. Now,
you would wonder if anybody in his right mind would
willingly go to Iraq.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But isn't there --
. -z9-_~
11
1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
l~
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~4
25
MR. MOCK: Key word was "right mind," right?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I was
going to bring up. Plus the -- isn't there an age limit of
some sort? (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not sure about that,
bur_ Tom is going to go over to Iraq on the first of what he
believes will be two sir.-month contracts to train law
enforcement officers, and I just want to publicly thank him
for his service to Kerr County and the Kerr County
Republican party, and wish you godspeed. Come back safe.
Thank you, Tom Mock.
MR. MOCK: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Secondly, I'd like to
introduce a lady who's going to take Tom Mock's place. She
does not wear a black hat. She has blond hair. She was
born in Waco, Texas. Her name is Cecile Folly -- Folley
McKenzie, and -- did I tell you? I wasn't born in Waco, but
I lived in Waco a long time, so that makes us -- there's a
kinship there.
MS. McKENZIE: Yeah, that's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: She obtained her
doctorate from the University of Houston, taught at the
graduate level at Houston Baptist, was chosen in Gray's
Order, which is for those who achieve excellence, from
i ~-. a U S
12
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
University of Houston. And Cecile is going to take Tom
Mock's place as the Kerr County Republican Chair. Stand up,
Ce~,ile; let everybody see who you are. We welcome you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Better looking, too.
MR. MOCK: You're exchanging a G.E.D. for a
Ph.D.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you both very
much for coming. Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just want to get back
quickly to Mr. Shoemaker on his -- on his comments. In
addition to what Commissioner Williams said about the listed
item, our next meeting will be -- it's the first --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: First Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: First Tuesday of
November, and I think we can answer some of these. Anyway,
that will be an agenda item; we can answer a lot of these
questions for you in that situation. You know, which will,
I think, help, 'cause I am concerned about your issues as
well. For your information, Commissioner Williams and I are
the representatives from the Commissioners Court on the
Airport Board. That's the only comments I have today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner
Nicholson?
iu-~~-us
13
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L5
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The only -- I join
in welcoming Ms. McKenzie to the Chair of the Republican
party. Very impressive credentials. And I also lived in
Waco, and I lived on McKenzie Street; may have been named
after your great-grandfather. But welcome to the
chairmanship.
MS. McKENZIE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's -- hunting
season is coming up, and west Kerr County is abuzz with
hunters loading up their feeders and getting their deer
camps in order. And, of course, we always welcome them.
They come from all over the state and even out of state, and
they leave a lot of money in Kerrville and west Kerr County.
I hope they'll be careful with their fires. We lifted the
burn ban again, but as you know, the conditions are still
pretty ripe for -- for wildfires, so we need to be careful
of that. The West Kerr Chamber of Commerce annually has a
hunter's barbecue on opening Saturday, the first Saturday in
November, and this year that'll be held at -- it gets bigger
and better every year. It's really an interesting and fun
event to be at; a lot of very valuable prizes in the
drawings. So -- and good barbecue, so if you have an
opportunity that Saturday afternoon, get out there and join
the hunters barbecue. That's all I've got.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where will it be?
iu-z? us
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ingram Park.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ingram Park.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I, too, want to
welcome Ms. McKenzie to her leadership position in the local
Republican party and wish Tom Mock good luck and godspeed,
and I certainly don't envy what he has before him to do, but
I'm glad we've got people that are willing to accept the
challenges that he's taken on in that -- in that situation.
Let's get on with the agenda, if we might. We have a timed
item for 9:15; it's a bit past that now. Item 2 on the
agenda is to consider, discuss, and approval of the proposed
2006 budget for the Kerr Emergency 9-1-1 Network.
Mr. Amerine, good to have you with us this morning.
MR. AMERINE: Thank you. Commissioners
Court, citizens, I'm Bill Amerine, Executive Director for
Kerr 9-1-1. Annually, I come before the Court ro present a
proposed budget for review and approval by the Court. This
year's budget, again, is a balanced budget. We're putting
an emphasis this year on upgrading our equipment, which has
-- will be 10 years old this year. No longer leading edge.
I don't even think it's making a ripple in the mud pond at
this point, but it works. We've allocated, over the last
three years, $200,000 towards this. We'll be paying cash
for this upgrade, and we'll still have an adequate capital
reserve going forward for 2011, when we'll probably have to
In-.'9 f15
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
'S
face this again. I stand ready to answer any questions the
Court has on any of the line items in our budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone have any questions of
Mr. Amerine? Mr. Amerine, on Phase 2 wireless --
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- I know that for a
significant period of time, there was considerable
discussion about that possibly being a tremendous cost to
local governments and local 9-1-1 jurisdictions. It appears
that that didn't turn out to be the case. Can you give me
an explanation for that?
MR. AMERINE: In a roundabout way.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. AMERINE: I brought a fact sheet, and I
think this will help out, if I can present this to the
Court. Would the County Clerk also want a copy?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. AMERINE: I think the answer to the
question, Judge, is that it all depends on who our wireless
carriers are in our jurisdiction. And -- and perhaps,
living in the hill country, specifically in Kerr County, has
been an advantage to us financially as far as what the cost
would be for Phase 2. I know that our districts that are
northwest and east of us who have the larger carriers --
SBC, Verizon -- as their local providers of service have had
t„-~~-os
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
rather hefty Phase 2 bills, and we're talking about in the
tens to hundreds, and then in some cases, millions of
dollars. That is to offset the cost of those providers
upgrading their networks to be able to provide that location
information for Phase 2.
Our carriers in this area are Five Star
Wireless, Verizon, Sprint, Nextel, and Cellular One. Sprint
and Nextel are doing self-recovery. In other words, they're
-- they're passing that cost through their bills back to the
customer rather than coming to 9-1-1. We don't know quite
yet what the cost recovery will be for our local carrier,
Five Star Wireless. I'm working with the General Manager
over there on that. We've already paid the up-front costs
for Verizon. It was less than $6,000, one-time forever fee.
And Cellular One is going to ask for a waiver on Phase 2;
they're not quite ready in their network, so we don't quite
know what their costs are going to be. So, there are some
uncertainties. Where our really big costs are is in Phase
1, and that's what this fact sheet goes into some detail
about. Phase 1 is a prerequisite step to getting the
network ready for being able to do location information for
wireless 9-1-1 calls. These will require the Kerr 9-1-1
District to have contracts for nonrecurring and recurring
Tees to provide that service.
Every one of the carriers seems to have a
1n ~9-~5
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~3
24
25
different methodology, which is allowed by the F.C.C., on
what that will be. The fairest probably is based on circuit
we're looking at with Sprint. That one is less fair, in my
mind, but -- and quite costly. Our cost in the first year,
service, and that's going to be every year, we're going to
be facing a fee like that. It will get less in 2007,
because there's some up-front nonrecurring fees that you pay
to start that service.
So, we're looking from this point forward at
paying somewhere in the order of $66,000 to $70,000 a year
for Phase 1 service. The only thinq that will change that
is a substantial change in technology that we currently see
today. However, in all fairness to the wireless providers
and what we're trying to do at 9-1-1, we collect 50 cents a
month from every user of a cell phone in Kerr County whose
bill -- whose billing address is here. And when you look at
the average across Texas, ar least, there usually is a
50/50, 60/40, somewhere in that neighborhood, split between
what the district keeps of that 50 cents and what they give

18
1
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
1i
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
back to the wireless providers for their costs for providing
that service. When you look at our formula, this $66,000 to
$70,000 is about half of what we'd collect.
Now, I told you I was going to come all the
way around the bush. That doesn't mean that Phase ~, even
though we've done all the up-front costs -- paid all the
costs, is going to be free to 9-1-1. There's going to be an
intermediate cost for us with T.C.S. and Entrado. These are
intermediate database providers who will actually house the
location information before it's sent down to our answer --
our call center. Those fees are going to run something on
the order of $1,250 a month, and there's an up-front $9,000
engineering fee. So, there will be some Phase 2 costs, but
it's just not nearly as much as what we had anticipated.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Any other
questions for Mr. Amerine?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to be
sure I understand, Bill. These are one-time costs, or
recurring costs?
MR. AMERINE: What you have in your hand are
the Phase 1 costs, and they are recurring every year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They do recur?
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a couple
questions.
i~, _~ ue
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1<^
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 L
23
24
25
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Bill, I really
appreciate this detailed --
MR. AMERINE: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- summary by line
item of what you've done. It makes it a whole lot easier to
understand where the money's going.
MR. AMERINE: I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In thinking about
your staffing level, you're down to three people now.
MR. AMERINE: Including myself.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Including yourself.
And that would be expected with the near completion of the
addressing project. I'm wondering -- and I look at the
vision for 2006 and sort of a work plan outline of what you
intend to do here. I wonder if -- how three are necessary.
It's hard for me to envision what happens day-to-day --
MR. AMERINE: I understand.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- in your office,
and probably 'cause I just don't understand it. But
compared to other systems our size, is three justified, or
could it be lower?
MR. AMEF.INE: Well, in all honesty, there are
systems that are somewhat larger than ours that have a
full-time director, a full-time GIS person, and a part-time
~u _~- ~5
20
1
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
offi~~e manager. There are also some that are about our size
or smaller that have a full-time director and a part-time
office manager and no GIS. In talking to the Board of
office manager and our GIS position, and they were not
comfortable with my estimation of the workload. Partially
because we -- with this new system that we're purchasing,
we're buying a mapped ALI, and what that means is that
instead of just getting textual data when a 9-1-1 call comes
in to the call center, there will also be a graphic map that
will pop up with an icon showing the exact location of the
call, or approximate location of the call if it's wireless.
Our current GIS layers that we manage are going to need some
work, and we're not quite sure how much work at this point.
The vendor who we have selected is going to
give us a roadmap to get that data migrated to the new
system, so that's going to require my efforts and the
efforts of the GIS person, and my Board felt let's just go
ahead and keep that person budgeted for the full year. If
we find by the middle of 2006 that we don't need a full-time
GIS person, then we can reduce that position. The same goes
with our office manager. However, I've already had
conversations with her, as well as the GIS person, that even
though they're flzlly budgeted for 2006 based upon the
io-za-os
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
current workload, at any given time in that year, we might
actually go to reduced hours or actually a layoff and
outsource one of those jobs or do away with it altogether.
I actually -- when I come to see you next year about this
time, I think you'll see a full-time director and a
part-time office manager. Our goal is to make sure that the
maximum amount of our revenue that we collect goes back into
the network to provide the best possible 9-1-1 service for
our citizens.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a good
answer. I can tell you thought that out pretty carefully.
Second question has to do with the salaries. 110,000 for
three people would -- would be a lot in Kerr County
government. Can you tell me what those salaries are?
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir, I can.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Or approximately?
MR. AMERINE: I have another fact sheet I can
pass out to the Court. I'll keep one for myself so I won't
lie to you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. AMERINE: You're welcome. The director's
salary -- my salary is moving from 51,000 to 52,000. That's
a 1.96 percent increase. There was no salary increase in
2005's budget. We maintained salaries at a frozen level for
these two years. The office manager is going from 27,8 to

z2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28,8, and the GIS is going from 29,000 to 30,000.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all I have.
DODGE TINLEY: Any other questions for
Mr. Amerine?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move we
approve the proposed 200E budget for the Kerr Emergency
9-1-1 Network.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JnDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the proposed 2006 budget for Kerr Emergency
9-1-1 Network. Any questions or discussion? All in favor
of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
Jt~DGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
DODGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank
you, Mr. Amerine.
MR. AMERINE: Thank you.
DODGE TINLEY: Let's go back now to Item 1,
which is review and approval of the Community Plan for
submission to AACOG. Mr. Stanton?
MR. STANTON: Good morning. I'm appearing
here before you this morning on behalf of the Kerr County
Communit;~ Planning Committee. We've been working on trying
to put together a plan to present to AACOG outlining the
io-za-~
2~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
needs that we feel li}:e are for Kerr County for this
upcoming year. If you can -- I know that you're just now
getting a copy of this. If you can flip to Page 8, that
will outline actually the people that participated in the in
committee and the planning and development of this plan.
Basically, what we're doing is outlining the priorities to
AACOG and to the governor's office for grant approvals. If
you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them.
The priorities are listed out on Page 11. The priorities
for the juvenile section are started out on Page 11. For
victims -- victim issues, it starts out on Page 17. Law
enforcement is on Page 19, and then homeland security is on
Page 25.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Stanton?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: The plan is the basic
springboard document for trying to achieve maximum points
for grant funding which comes through AACOG; is that not
correct?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, depending on the
placement of the priorities in each group, depending on the
number of points you receive for that -- that -- during the
scoring of the grant issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the -- the ability to
place an application for grant funding under your number one
1'.. 9 0 S
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
priority in your community plan gives you greater points
than if it were to fall under your section priority; is that
not correct?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, that's
true.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, giving you a leg up, in
essence?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a -- a timing
reason why this needs to be approved today? Is there a
grant pending? Or --
MR. STANTON: No, sir. What it is is that
they have to be submitted to AACOG by October 1st. The plan
has to be -- not October, I'm sorry. September --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: November.
MR. STANTON: November 1st, I'm sorry. I've
been working on this for so long -- November 1st. It has to
be presented to AACOG by November 1st.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And right after
November is December.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, thank you.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this document -- is
this scored in any way?
iu-~4-n,
2s
1
3
4
J
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
MR. STANTON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this just something
that you use as a guideline as you go through the AACOG
scoring and funding program?
MR. STANTON: What we do is -- is sometime in
November, I will have to present this -- this plan to AACOG,
and then they -- once they start receiving grant
applications, they will look at our community plan.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-huh.
MR. STANTON: Based on priorities. They'll
assign it certain scores depending on the priorities set
forth by the plan.
JUDGE TINLEY: To that end, Commissioner, I
can assure you, we tried to make the priority one item as
broad as possible to encompass virtually anything we might
submit grant applications for.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cool.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is good. Move
adoption of the plan as presented by Mr. Stanton.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
the adoption of the 2005-2006 Nerr County community plan.
MR. STANTON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
io-~a-us
26
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~3
~4
25
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's
move now to Item 3, if we might. Consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action on final notice from 9-1-1 on
addresses. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, thank you.
Before Mr. Amerine starts talking, I just wanted to remind
you guys that this is the one more time that we're going to
try to get folks to get -- get their system in place. And
we have budgeted for the postage for this particular -- I
can't remember how many there are.
MR. AMERINE: I'll go into that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. AMERINE: I'll try to be brief. I
provided, back on the 10th of October, a summary of where
we're at on the addressing, and I broke it out by community
or exchange. And in my estimate of what I would require
from the County for this final notice, I said we'd need 900
to 950, and that's an error. In actuality, even though
there's 880 remaining phone numbers that don't have
addresses assigned to them, you'll notice that 38~ of those
are City of Ingram, and we have a different arrangement
In-'n-ns
z~
1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~l
22
23
24
25
through an interlocal with them to handle that, so you can
subtract from the nurnber of envelopes and postage that 380
from that 900, so we're looking at something on the order of
600 envelopes and postage.
And just for the public's edification, if you
will, 9-1-1 is not ceasing all addressing operation. We
have mailed out numerous notices in conjunction with the
County of kerr, as well as the City of Ingram. We've done
phone call-outs. We've done any number -- I can't tell you
how many notices the post office and others have mailed out
trying to bring people forward to get these remaining phone
numbers addressed. Both phone companies have been helpful
on that. This is really our last proactive effort to reach
out and touch these people to get their phone numbers
appropriately addressed. However, we're finding that more
and more people, seeing these blue signs go up, are coming
to us on their own, and we'll continue to deal with
addressing in that way for new properties, subdivisions, and
these e~reptions that we find from time to time. So, I just
don't want folks to think that our addressing is done when
this is done. That's not the case. Any comments at all on
the final wording of this letter?
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me make an observation, if
I might, Mr. Amerine.
MR. AMERINE: Yes, sir.
is z9 n~
28
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: The next to the last
paragraph, which refers to if the above phone number is not
dial-tone or dial-out r_apable, contact us so that we can
remove it. Then the next text you have in there says,
"Please contact Kerr Emergency 9-1-1 to correct this
situation." In my mind, that refers to the non-dialout,
non-dialtone items. I'm thinking it may be well to put in
before that last paragraph to contact you that 9-1-1 needs
your physical address so that emergency services may reach
you without delay when you need them, and then contact us.
Because the reason this is being sent is primarily for those
that -- that you don't have an address on.
MR.. AMERINE: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's an observation, and
that's just the way I happen to read the notice.
MR. AMERINE: I'll be glad to add that in
there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Might be confusing to someone,
that that refers to only the non-dialout --
MR. AMERINE: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- type.
MR. AMERINE: I do think there's a number,
and I couldn't give you even an educated guess of how many
of these remaining 880 are actually going to be security
keypad gate codes, that are going to be non-dialtone
1 U- ~ 4- U S
29
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
~2
23
24
25
DSL-type lines, those sort of things. They're just billing
numbers. They're -- they're not at all truly 9-1-1 capable
lines. The reason why we have that comment in there is
people need to let us know that, because the phone companies
cannot or they will not let us know that those are not 9-1-1
capable, so we need some way to remove those from our
emergency database. I see you crinkling your mouth, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the phone service
providers are unwilling to provide that data to you?
MR. AMERINE: I've asked Valor -- and Valor,
I might say, has done an admirable effort. As a matter of
fart, they removed over -- I don't know, 11,000, 12,000
phone numbers from our database that were pager pin codes
and others. Hill Country Co-Op, on the other hand, has not
been able to provide us with that information. I'll just
leave it at that. We've asked them numerous times.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIGNER NICHOLSON: Bill, does this mean
that, for example, my computer line might be one of the
problems?
MR. AMERINE: If you have a dial-tone
computer line that's not registered with an address, yes,
sir. And let me tell you why that's important,
Commissioner. A lot of folks have phones hooked up to the
back of their computers, so that, because it is a regular
lr-~4-u5
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L G
23
~9
25
phone line, they can dial out. A lot of folks will also
move their computer to another room and then use that as a
primary phone line. If it's dial-out capable, we're
concerned that 9-1-1 -- because you might dial 9-1-1, and if
it's not registered with your physical address, we get
nothing at the call renter. So, we'd like those folks to
give us a call. It's a simple matter if you already have a
physical address, and we'll get that associated with your
phone number.
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:	What's your timeline
for this, Mr.	Amerine?	
	MR. AMERINE: As soon	as we get the
materials, we	're ready to send these	out. Typically, we get
about a 30 to	40 percent callback, as	I said in this
estimate. We	hope to resolve in the	county, not including
Ingram, out o	f these 500 or 600, some	where on the order of
300 to 400 --	or, I'm sorry, 200 to 3	00 of those, and I
think that's	pretty good. Right now,	compared to other
counties, we'	re right in the run as f	ar as having compliant
phone numbers	. We're almost 98 perce	nt between the city and
the county.	That's very good.	
	COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'	ll -- I'll make a
motion that w	e approve the letter as	amended.
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:	Second.
	DODGE TINLEY: Motion	made and seconded for

31
1
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 notice letter as indicated. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do have just a brief
comment, if I might. I'd like to just take this opportunity
to thank Mr. Amerine and 9-1-1 for getting this addressing
project done. In my mind, this is the final step in it, and
we're now done. As you drive around the county, certainly
in my precinct, there -- everyone is -- you know, has gone
along with it. I didn't get that much complaint out of the
constituents about having to change addresses, and most
people are putting up the blue signs. I'd like to thank you
and 9-1-1, and pass it on to your board, if you would,
please.
MR. AMERINE: I'll do that. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question for
Mr. Amerine. Of the -- how many is left that's -- that's
not registered with us?
MR. AMERINE: 880.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And, precinct by
precinct, which one might have the lesser -- lesser number
out of those 800?
MR. AMERINE: I don't think I -- the
Commissioner's here, but I think it's Precinct 1.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Precinct 1 has the
least. So, what I'm hearing is that the folks in Precinct 1
are willing to participate in these government activities

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
and trying to save each other's lives.
MR.. AMERINE: Commissioner, in all fairness
to your -- your fellow Commissioners, a large part of your
constituency lives in the city of F:errville, which already
had registered addresses.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Let's vote.
(Laughter.) No, that's a step backwards here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do want to echo
what Commissioner Letz said, though. Prior to Mr. Amerine's
arrival in this job, I'll bet you I heard, every single
week, almost every single day, complaints about 9-1-1. I
haven't had a person or constituent talk ro me and complain
about 9-1-1 in a long, long time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hear, hear.
MR. AMERINE: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate your efforts and
that of your staff an~~ the board. 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.)
JOpGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let
us move, if we might, to Item Number 4. Consider, discuss,
and take appropriate action on Water Availability
iu-au-us
33
1
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Requirements, Subdivision Rules, and/or modification of
was under that court order. The intent was to -- as the
minutes reflect, to basically suspend the portion of Water
Availability Requirements that require test wells to be
drilled. The court order came out and suspended all water
availability requirements, and that has caused some
confusion, and I apologize for not catching this earlier.
Really, it was two or three weeks ago when I finally
realized where the problem was and why there's confusion
between how I interpreted that suspension and how Road and
Bridge was interpreting that suspension, because they were
going by the court order and I was going on what the intent
of the court order was.
So, to rectify that situation, and based on
the easiest way to solve this is to modify court order --
clarify -- I'll clarify Court Order 29006 and add that we
specifically are only suspending paragraphs 1.04 and 1.05 of
the Water Availability Requirements. Other than that, the
Water Availability Requirements remain in force, and I will

34
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~3
24
25
ma}:e a motion to that effect.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1.0 -- go ahead.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second
to -- to modify Court Order Number 29006 to provide that
only 1.09 and 1.05 of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Water Availability
Requirements.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- under Kerr County Water
Availability Requirements be suspended.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: That'll be the modification to
Court Order 29006. I think I got that right, didn't I?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now -- yes. Now, if I
can ask the County Attorney, does that solve the problem?
Do you --
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have an agenda item
a little bit later on, I can't remember which one it is,
that actually has a copy of the water availability rules in
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. The reason I put
in-an-os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My question is, does
what did we just reinstall the 1.04 and 1.05? Exactly what
is that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1.04 was the requirement
that test wells be drilled in all new subdivisions, and 1.05
required Headwaters to do some water availability analysis
on community water systems, so those are the two things that
were suspended. There's some other provisions in state law
that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we're taking the --
those two items and bringing them back into --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we're taking those
two items out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, very good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And everything else in
the Water Availability stays in.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I'm with you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or
comments? All in favor of the motion as indicated, please
raise your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let us
io-a-o°
36
1
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2G
2I
,~
23
24
25
move now to Item 5. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action for the concept plan of Las Colinas of Kerrville
located in Precinct 1.
MR. ODOM: You might pass this around. You
received something with -- with the agenda item, but we
received this Friday afternoon. It looks like -- Greg
Richards was supposed to also be here to represent, but I
think Mr. Domingues is here. This concept plan was
presented; it's in the ETJ of the City of Kerrville.
They're planning to have community water, and they're
proposing to have 57 lots, which comes to about 2.4 acres.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Average?
MR. ODOM: Average. If you take the 55 --
what you received previously was the fact that Lots 56 and
57 were not shown, but actually you've got 55 lots that are
going to be buildable there, and they average about
1.3 acres, but on community water, and they propose to have
-- with T.C.E.Q., to have community water for this. If you
take -- the average of these 57 lots is 2.42 acres, is the
average. I believe that Mr. Richards and Mr. McRae were
wantinq to see -- present this to the Court to see if it was
acceptable. We are in the ETJ. We're not quite -- what
they originally presented to us was to build the roads; that
the City gave their permission to do that. In listening to
what just transpired, that 5 acres is that minimum, the

37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
divisible by. But we've had others, and I told them that
this is the concept and present it to the Court so they
would not spend a lot of money to -- if they have to
redesign it, if that's the direction of the Court. But it
is 2.4 acres, and I will turn the time over to
Mr. Domingues, if he wants to add anything or delete
anything.
MR. DOMINGUES: I'm Charles Domingues, and
you did a great job. I'm really here to answer any
questions, if you have any. I believe that Mr. Odom
presented everything that -- kind of like it is. There are
some additional copies here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Charles, how -- what
is the -- what is the size of 56 and 57?
MR. DOMINGUES: I'm not sure, sir.
MR. ODOM: Around 50 acres apiece.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 50 acres?
MR. UDOM: Approximately.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Approximately. And
adding -- adding those two, adding 56 and 57, 100 acres into
the original plat, it averages out 2-something?
MR. ODOM: 2.42.
MR. DOMINGUES: 2.4.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is the access
for 56 and 57 for a road?

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
~0
L 1
2 2
23
~4
25
38
JUDGE TINLEY: 55 looks like it's going to
come right off here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see it here.
JUDGE TINLEY: And 57 is a flag.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is indeed a flag,
a huge flag.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I've talked to
Greg Richards daily last week on this -- on this
subdivision, and I think what they've done is -- is
something that I would be certainly willing to support a
waiver on, which is the same as we have done on our -- on
the other subdivision that was out in Precinct 4, and also
in the ETJ. The problem that we're in right now is that if
we can get the issue -- if we could get the issue resolved
with the ETJ in the city of Kerrville, one, this would never
even come to this court. But we haven't resolved that. We
now have two months to get that resolved, and hopefully --
and I think the City is aware of that timeline, and we'll go
towards that effort. And this certainly complies with the
minimum standards in the city of Kerrville from the lot size
standpoint. Additionally, this is consistent with the
proposed changes to our Subdivision Rules that hopefully
will be on our agenda at our next meeting, and it's
consistent with the waiver we granted at the last -- at our
last meeting to a subdivision near Greenwood Forest. So, I
iu-z9-as
39
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
~ L
23
24
25
certainly would -- I support a waiver of the lot size for
this subdivision.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to ask Leonard
a question. In your presentation, you said something about
that the City had approved the streets?
MR. ODOM: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Didn't you say
that --
MR. ODOM: What I was saying was that they
approved the lot size. And what they -- if memory serves
me, back in August, when we first met on this, is that they
wanted to come to us because they weren't going to inspect
the roads. And, if you remember that discussion we had, we
were talking about the layout of the roads and all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. ODOM: So that's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with Commissioner
Letz about this ETJ thing. They're either involved in it or
they're not, and I -- I rani tell. I don't know. Is the
City involved in this subdivision or not?
MR. DOMINGUES: Mr. Baldwin, the City is
involved in the fact that they want to make sure it's all in
compliance with their subdivision regulations as far as
extraterritorial jurisdiction regulations. The key thing
that they were mostly interested in was the length of
iu _~ us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
a
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
40
cul-de-sacs, trying to maintain, or -- or as close as
possible, the maximum 600 foot.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, just on an
aside related to this ETJ issue with the City, I visited
with the City Manager last week, and he has assured me that
there will be a commission meeting for Commissioner Baldwin
and I to attend as the court liaison before the end of this
month.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Before the end of this
month?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what he told me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is October.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the last week. We
have this week to get it done. That's what he assured me.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all don't share that
with us.
MR. DOMINGUES: He was asking about access to
the --
MR. ODOM: Access to those two lots.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As the concept plan,
Leonard, do we -- since this is a waiver, we probably need
to do a court order to approve a waiver of the minimum lot
size to a --
iu-_~-u5
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
29
25
MR. ODOM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- 2-acre average?
MR. ODOM: 2-acre average.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or greater. A minimum
2-acre average.
MR. ODOM: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question -- go ahead.
State it, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was a motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, sir, it was.
JUDGE TINLEY: And we had a second here?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: To approve a waiver?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: To --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From the lot size.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- lot size of less than 2
acres?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2 minimum.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 2-acre.
JUDGE TINLEY: 2-acre minimum, all right.
Any question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
1n ~9 rv,s
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How does this comport
with what we may end up doing on Agenda Item Number 15?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is consistent with
the proposed change -- the proposed rule change. Item --
the next agenda item is -- there was some -- I wanted to
make sure that we were all on the same page before I do a
final version of the Subdivision R.u1es. That's why that
agenda item's on here. I'm not recommending any change from
what we've previously looked at, but I want to -- so, this
will be consistent with what I'm recommending under the
later agenda item.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Letz,
speculate about the -- the outcome of the dealings between
the City and the County on the ETJ. After that's through,
developers will only have to deal with one entity, not two?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, that's correct. In
the ETJ, ynu know, I'm a little less certain, after my
conversation with the City Manager -- the new City Manager,
but I think it's probably because he's not familiar with
anything other than the changes over in the City. But the
direction we have been moving is that the ETJ and the City
of Kerrville will be pretty much divided out. The majority
of it will be the responsibility of the City of Kerrville,
but there are certain more remote areas in the ETJ that will
remain the responsibility of the County. But developers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
~3
24
25
43
will only deal with either the City or the County, and there
will be a clearly defined map.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Got you. That would
be a big improvement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. ODOM: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or
discussion on the motion? 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.)
DODGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
MR. DOMINGOES: Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 7.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for the final
plat of Ledge Stone Subdivision located in Precinct 2.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. The developer was
wanting to try to get this through, and at this time he has
not completed the project. I would ask the Court -- I have
no problems with the final, contingent on the project being
completed. He has -- the entrance and the sealcoat is not
done yet. He's had it tested, but I haven't got the written
results, but everything should be all right. It's a good
project, but at this time, I would ask the Court to finalize
i a ~s
44
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
it on -- contingent that the project is complete. I have
the Letter of Credit, and for the maintenance bond and all
the things, but it's just not a r_omplete project, and I -- I
do not feel like I would want to sign it until it's
complete, sealcoat's done.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How long?
MR. ODOM: I believe that it will be this
week.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This week?
MR. ODOM: This week is what I'm hoping.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would it, I guess, cause
any kind of significant delay if we postpone approval till
nest week? And what's in the back of my mind whenever we do
a contingency final approval, we have one, I believe, that
still hasn't been finalized.
MR. ODOM: That's true.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And once we give a -- I
mean, which is Buckhorn, the drainage issue. We still
haven't ever -- we did a contingent approval, and we've
never got it done, so I'm reluctant to do contingent final
approvals. This is a little bit simpler, and --
MR. ODOM: It cleans it up if we don't do it.
But they asked to put it forward, and I was hoping last week
that it would get done, but --
COMMISSIONER. WILLIAMS: I thought the
io-^~-~~
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
stormwater issues on this one had been addressed.
MR. ODOM: Stormwater?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stormwater.
MR. ODOM: That's not the issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, I was just
making the comparison to the other one because we did the
same thing, a contingent approval, and then things never get
completed sometimes. Not that there's a stormwater issue
here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If he's -- if they're --
I have no problem really approving it. Just -- I think it's
a --
MR. ODOM: I would prefer, when I come to
you, that it's complete.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's --
MR. ODOM: And I was asked to present this as
such, and the only way that I could see to present it would
be on a contingency that it is complete and that I feel
comfortable signing off.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is incomplete?
MR. ODOM: Sealcoat. The entrance hasn't
got -- that to the highway right there is not complete yet.
And the other thing is the Sealcoat.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I don't see the
In-_4-n5
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
letter of credit in our packet, but you say -- I heard you
say you had it.
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry, it should be. But -- I
do have a -- I think we received that one probably at the
end of the week, before we did it. That's my copy -- I'm
sorry -- to the Court, but I would --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does the delay in
approval -- does the delay in the approval in any way affect
the developer's ability to move forward?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can't sell any lots.
MR. ODOM: Can't sell any lots till I give
him a final. I mean, that's no different than where he's at
now. But you start -- start setting precedents, and then we
have a bunch of these, and it's hard to keep up with -- with
it. I can't force him to do it. They have a year from the
time we start the preliminary. So, till it's finalized is
the only way to do it for the sign-off, or have the Judge
sign it -- you authorize the Judge to sign it.
JUDGE TINLEY: How would the developer be
jeopardized if we were to put this back on the agenda for
final, say, our first meeting in November, and --
MP.. ODOM: I don't think it would be -- I
don't think that would -- Mike?
MR. COMEGYS: Well, it wouldn't jeopardize --
we're just at a -- we're just at a point right now where
io-::4-os
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we're going to have to complete it this week as far as
sealcoat, the road, and that's basically where we're at.
The entrance is -- the front entrance is complete. That's
as far as stones and everything laid up. The process is
just to subgrade, which is being done right now, and
hopefully by Wednesday we'll sealcoat it and we're done.
And so we're trying to get our process started right now on
building some projects. And we've got people waiting, and
we just want to --
DODGE TINLEY: So what I'm hearing from you,
then, is a -- essentially, a three-week delay would
prejudice you for the period of time that -- once you're
complete and Mr. Gdom tells me it's okay to sign off on the
plat, if it's on conditional, and -- and the remaining
portion of the three weeks, you'd be hamstrung.
MR. COMEGYS: Yes, sir.
DODGE TINLEY: And can't move forward with
your project.
MR. COMEGYS: Well, that's -- and we're just
trying to get it before the slow down of the Christmas
holidays. We're frying to -- we've got people waiting, and
we just want --
JUDGE TINLEY: You want to get it off the
books. I don't blame you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, he does, and
io-%4-os
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
lz
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L
that's a three-week delay. I'm just wondering why a
conditional approval pending a final report by Mr. Odom
would not be satisfactory before you sign the plat.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Make a motion; let's
find out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I just
moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
conditional approval of the final plat of Ledge Stone
Subdivision located in Precinct 2, subject to the condition,
being Mr. Odom's approval of the sealcoating and entrance,
as the final requirements before presentation.
MR. ODOM: And also your authorization to
sign such?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before he signs. You
have to report before the Judge signs.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. ODOM: I have no problem with that.
DODGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
~. If - _ ~ - '.~ ~i
49
1
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-,
23
24
25
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. It is
now 10 o'clock --
MR. ODOM: Before -- on this item here, may I
make a comment? That Mr. Crenwelge's not here; he had an
emergency that had to do with family and he had to leave,
and did not have the routing slip and all like that all
ready this time. So, all we're asking is that the public
hearinq be held, no action be taken. And hopefully every --
I believe everything's all right, but he had to take his
wife to M.D. Anderson. And I understand that she is -- it
was not malignant and she's in good shape.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Too much information, but
it's okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's all we have on the
agenda anyway. So, at this point, I will recess the
Commissioners Court meeting, and I will convene a public
hearing for the revision of plat for Lots 34 through 37 of
The Reserve at Falling Water located in Precinct Number 3.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was
closed at 10:01 a.m., and a public hearing
was held in open court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the
public that wishes to be heard with respect to the revision
of the plat for Lots 34 through 37 of The Reserve at Falling
zo-.n-n=
50
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Water located in Precinct 3? Any member of the public that
wishes to be heard with respect to that plat revision?
Seeing no one coming forward or otherwise trying to gain my
attention, I will close the public hearing for the revision
of plat for Lots 34 through 37 of The Reserve at Falling
Water located in Precinct 3.
(The public hearing was concluded at
10:02 a.m., and the regular Commissioners
Court meeting was reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting, and we will move to Item 8.
Item 8, consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
setting the purchase price for a copy of the 2005-2006
budget at a cost of $20.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much is it today?
MS. PIEPER: A dollar per page, and it's this
thick.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's asking how much is
the -- what was it last year? Is that what your question
is?
MS. PIEPER: $20 is what we had been setting

51
1
3
9
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it at.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we have to reset it
every year?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think we can
do that. I think that that's accessible under the Public
Information Act, and that price is set at 12 or 13 cents a
page.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 13 cents a page?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's somewhere in
that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they're requesting it
under the Freedom of Information Act, they can -- we can
charge them, but if they come in and request the budget, we
charge them less.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's --
MS. PIEPER: I have different -- different
laws and codes that set my prices.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think -- I mean, I
wouldn't know why we couldn't set the price of the budget,
if that's --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're just --
MS. PIEPER: If you come and request a court
order --

52
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~l
??
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're not trying to
discourage people from looking at the budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're lowering the price,
nor increasing it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. All right,
I'm good. I'm good to go.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think by setting it at this
price, based upon what she would otherwise have to charge
under her statutory authority, it's considerably cheaper.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I understand.
DODGE TINLEY: Okay. 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: The motion does carry. Let's
move to Item 5; consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to approve the Contract Amendment Number 1 between
Kerr County and the Department of State Health Services, and
authorize the County Judge to sign same.
MS. PIE PER: Gentlemen, this is just
basically an amendment that says that Kerr County is in
agreement that we will charge the -- the same rate for a
birth or death certificate or marriage license that the
1 0-~ 4- u 5
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
State Department of Health Services is charging, which is --
by law, they set the rate anyway, so... For some reason,
they're wanting this amendment signed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval, and
authorize the County Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or comment?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. I notice
that the -- in the backup, that the last one of these that
was provided to us was signed by Judge Denson in 1997.
MS. PIEPER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have we not done it
since then?
MS. PIEPER: No. This will be an amendment
to this contract.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
Pat Dye.
Okay.
It's also signed by
MS. DYE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Has the County
Attorney -- does he have any thoughts about anything?
(Laughter.)
MR. EMERSON: That's a pretty wide-open
question.
i~, _G us
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L [.
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is. I mean, if you
wanted to discuss volleyball or anything like that, I'd -- I
just kind of wanted to open it up.
MR. EMERSON: Well, we can start out with
that. But as far as this contract's concerned, the only
other thing that's changed is the term of the contract has
basically changed from a -- currently it's open-ended, to an
annual contract.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the contract that's in
existence now, the open-ended one signed back in '97,
provides that Kerr County is reimbursed $1.83 per each
record. I'm having a problem figuring out -- are you -- are
you satisfied that that continues under the amendment?
MR. EMERSON: Well, if I'm reading it
correctly, we're the receiving agency, not the performing
agency. Is that correct, Jannett?
MS. PIE PER: That is correct.
MR. EMERSON: So we're -- we were -- at that
time, we were paying the State $1.83.
MS. PIEPER: That is basically for us to
access their re~~ords in Austin. That is the remote site.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Same question, though.
In the -- in the contract, is that $1.83 still in there?
r.-~~-o
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MS. PIEPER: I was thinkinq it was $1.80, is
what we're paying.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever the number
is.
MS. PIEPER: But, yes, that is -- that's
probably in here.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that will continue on an
ongoing basis under this amendment? Is that your
understandinq?
MR. EMERSON: That's my understanding.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. Any further
questions or comments about the motion? 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: The motion does carry. Let's
move to Item Number 10, if we might. Request approval of
the Kerr County Jury Selection Plan as amended to reflect
the changes required by House Bill 75 and Senate Bill 1704.
Where's our District Clerk? Our District Clerk is not with
us at this point. why don't we pass on that item for now,
and we'll come back to that. We'll go to Item 11.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on a proposed
Memorandum of Understanding for construction of the Animal
in _e o°~
56
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Control Facility. Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Previous court order
contained a directive that we develop a Memorandum of
Understanding between the citizen who donated the funds for
the construction of the addition to the Animal Control
Facility and Kerr County, and we've done that. And the
County Attorney has reviewed it and approved it, and we're
now bringing it bark -- the MOU back for approval by the
Court. And I'll make a motion that the Court approve the
Memorandum of Understanding for construction of the Animal
Control Facility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve a Memorandum of Understanding for the construction
of the Animal Control Facility. I assume that includes my
signature on it?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion on
this motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On the agreement
itself, the next to the last sentence, I want to read that.
"It is agreed that so-and-so will pay all expenses, fees and
costs associated with the kennel expansion." Does that
in-~a-us
57
1
G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
include sidewalks?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a -- that's
an issue for another -- another discussion on the same item.
In my -- my opinion, it does not include sidewalks.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It includes just
the -- associated with the kennel.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. And then the
next -- the next sentence, "It is agreed that Kerr County
will provide such services and products as are approved by
the Commissioners Court," paid out of the budget. What does
that mean? I don't know what that means.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That means that we
are incurring some expenses, in-kind expenses to help out on
the project. We've had Road and Bridge people out there
preparing the -- preparing the site. And there won't be
Road and Bridge expenses, as far as I know, unless we can
get into issues of sidewalks and other -- other issues. And
I think you probably know that I've asked the City of
Kerrville to waive the $500 permit fee, and that's on their
agenda for tomorrow night to make a decision on that. My
rationale there was that was money being transferred back
and forth between partners, and it would not be
inappropriate to waive the fee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
in ~g ns
58
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you for your
explanation.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the Road and Bridge
participation, at least initially, was to do some work on
some fill issues that had to be done out there, and then
some site work in preparation for the foundation of the
structure that's going to be constructed. I believe that's
all they've done to this point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have a maintainer
stored there right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: They did a good job. It looks
great.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The timing is good.
It's -- I r_an't speak for Mr. Odom, but it's the time of
year that we can more easily free people up to do that kind
of work than we can during the prime road service in the
season.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super project.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Great project.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our thanks to the donor.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
iu ~9-u=,
59
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
>1
22
~3
24
25
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's
return, if we might, to Item Number 10. Request approval of
the Kerr County Jury Selection Plan as amended to reflect
the changes as required by House Bill 75 and Senate Bill
1704.
MS. UECKER: That's the original, Judge.
Kerr County has a -- a jury plan under Chapter 62 of the
Government Code, and this is just to make the changes that
were required by the Legislature to that plan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are the changes?
MS. DECKER: One of the changes is to add
duties of postponement of jurors to allow postponement.
That duty's added to the clerk of the court. And that's --
that one is Chapter -- I mean Senate Bill 75 -- House Bill
75. And then the -- no, that was Senate Bill 1704. And
then House Bill 75 required some designated -- the Court --
the Judge of each court to designate who their designee
would be to either excuse or postpone jurors. I don't know
why it wasn't in the same bill, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Neither bill addresses
payment for service or anything?
iii-Z9-OS
Eo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MS. DECKER:	1704 did,	yes.	
COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	1709.	I'm looking,
looking, looking --
MS. DECKER: But that fee is not required to
be in the jury plan itself.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just don't see --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just in the county
budget.
MS. DECKER: Right, just in the budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've already taken action
with regard to that particular portion of Senate Bill 74.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me what we
budgeted for, then. We went -- went from what to what?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We went from 6 to 40.
That's beginning the second day of service. Is that
correct?
MS. DECKER: Yeah. Yeah,
12 that are actually selected. And then
day. But everything else stays at 6 for
report but don't serve. So, the way it
didn't have to increase the budget quite
thought we originally were going to have
was clarified.
but only for those
15 for the first
those that just
turned out, we
as much as we
to, because that
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kind of like that --
you know, those folks come up here and serve our community,
~a .a us
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
~~
23
24
25
and we don't even buy them lunch.
MS. UECKER: Right. Yeah, it was kind of
scary when the first draft said, you know, everybody gets 15
the first day and 90 the second. Of course, we're all --
the counties are going to be able to request a reimbursement
grant from the state for 34 of the 40 based on the funds
available. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Linda, I know you have no
reason to -- I mean, why it's done this way, but why did the
Legislature have two bills that kind of said the same thing?
And, I mean, it's just --
MS. UECKER: I don't know. That's what I
just said; I have --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know it's somewhat --
MS. UECKER: I have no idea why.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's no wonder they don't
get things done up there.
MS. UECKER: One came out -- although they
were actually totally different bills, one came out of the
Senate and one came out of the House side.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. UECP:ER: And I'm surprised they didn't
combine them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval.
1u-79-us
E2
1
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: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're not going to want
any more people to do this now, are you? Just kidding.
MS. UECKER: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said no. That's --
it's on the record.
MS. DECKER: I realized this morning, in
working on timesheets, that I have three people that get
three weeks vacation a year, and I'm going, "Whoa, no wonder
we've been short lately." So -- anyway, bye.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or
discussion on the motion? 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: The motion does carry. Let's
move, if we might, to Item 12. Consider, discuss, and act
on issues involving construction of the expansion of the
Animal Control facility, its parking lot and sidewalks.
Commissioner Nicholson.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I put this on the
agenda in order that if there were any movement along -- on
0 - ' 9 - 0 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
L L
23
24
25
63
the project that required decision making, that it'd be on
the agenda. And, as it turns out, I'll just be able to give
you an update, because we don't yet have our building
permit. It's moving along, but there was a number of
questions involved in the application that we filed, and
then there continues to be questions about sidewalks and
parking spaces, so I really don't have anything to offer
right now. I expect, before the next meeting, that the --
that the permit will be approved and -- and I'll be able to
come back and provide you more information and ask you to
make decisions, if any decisions are needed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Has the Court formally
requested a waiver of the fees? I think it may be something
helpful. I don't think we can do it on this agenda item.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's on our agenda.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, it was not
formal; it was a conversation between me and the City
Manager. And his response was, "I'll have to take that to
the -- to the City."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, on that
agenda item that's anticipated to be on the city agenda, is
it the topic of the sidewalks and parking also, or just the
waiver of fees?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just waiver of fees.
io->9-os
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We've not yet been told by the city officials what their
position is on sidewalks and parking areas. We have -- for
your information, we are prepared to expand the parking lot
some, because we're doing the dirt work out there. And the
current parking lot was probably adequate. As you all know,
it's a little tight at times getting in and out, but our
plan is to, I think, approximately double it. The city
zoning laws base parking lot size on square footage of the
facility, and I'm not -- not yet -- don't yet have the
information about whether or not our plans are sufficient to
meet their formula.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion to
authorize the Court's liaison to the Animal Control
Facility, Commissioner Nicholson, to request any waivers as
he deems appropriate with the City of Kerrville regarding
the construction of the animal -- of the expansion to the
Animal Control facility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
authorize Commissioner Nicholson, who is the Court's liaison
to Animal Control matters, to request such waivers as he may
deem appropriate with city officials in connection with this
project. Any questions or discussion on the motion?
Commissioner, the roadway that goes off of Loop 539 into the
facility, if my recollection serves me correctly, that was,
is-za-os
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
[. L
23
24
25
at least at one time, designated as a nonpublic roadway. I~
that still the case, as far as you know?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. I've got Road
and Bridge people asking that question, "What is the status
of that road?" A real early plat plan indicated it was not
a public road. Common sense tells me that it's very public,
because athletic fields and -- and the waste facility is
down that road, but that designation still may exist. I
don't have the answer to that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess my question goes to
the issue of the ordinance relating to -- and this may be a
nonissue by the time it gets there; I don't know. If that
is the official designation of that roadway, nonpublic, how
that falls or does not possibly fall under the ordinance
relating to sidewalks.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In my discussions
with the permitting officials, it was indicated to me that
that road did fall under the sidewalk ordinance.
JUDGE TINLEY: Under the ordinance?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That was very
preliminary. I don't think he had had time to look up the
status of the road or anything like that, so that could
change. But that was part of one conversation that I've
had.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we're talking
lu-~9-i~5
56
1
G
3
4
5
F
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about -- we're going to build a sidewalk down the -- this
road that you're addressing right now to our property line?
Or how -- is that -- I didn't know we were talking about --
I thought we were talking about a sidewalk out on the loop.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Worst rase is we'd
have to build a 5-foot-wide sidewalk down both property
lines, one on the loop and one onto the road. I think it's
called Landfill Road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Appropriate. Now, is
our next-door neighbor, the sewer plant -- have they -- have
they gotten their sidewalk put in so we -- I don't want to
build a sidewalk that just kind of goes out there to
nowhere. I would want to connect onto something.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner,
there's a lot of people that don't want to build sidewalks
to nowhere; churches, developers, individuals. And the fact
is that if we build one or both of those sidewalks,
they'll -- they'll never be used in the foreseeable future.
I can't imagine somebody wanting to stroll down to the dump
to go around to the solid waste facility. I mean --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about mentioning in
that regard that currently the sewer plant will be
grandfathered; if they do an expansion, they will be
required under their own rules to put in a sidewalk in front
of the sewer plant, I would suspect, but I'm not sure. But
1n-2q-n_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
67
I would note that they did require, and there are sidewalks
in front of the new high school that don't go anywhere
either, so it's part of the long-range plan to get sidewalks
onto Loop 534, I guess.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That may be something
the Chamber of Commerce my want to consider, you know,
walking tours or strolling down the sidewalks near the sewer
plant and the animal shelter. (Laughter.) I'm going to
give that some thought, myself.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be a heck
of a stroll, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It would be a good
stroll. Judge, I'm going to shut up. Did we need to vote
or anything?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not into strolling,
Commissioner, so I'm not going to come in on that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about a mosey?
See, we can add mosey.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm better at moseying.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Stroll-slash-mosey.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or ambling.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ambling. See, there's
no end. This is a great country.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be a long
amble from the Animal Control Facility to the high school.
i~-.v o5
68
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have us a motion
before us. Any -- any further question or discussion on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same time -- same
sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let
us move, if we might, to Item Number 13. Consider, discuss,
and take appropriate action on resolution thanking Mr.
Charles Lewis for his service on the 9-1-1 Board. Which one
of you gentlemen want to run with it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is Mr. Letz'.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As y'all will recall, we
appointed Charles Lewis to the 9-1-1 Board, I believe, two
terms ago to fill -- to serve two terms, I believe. He did
a great job. We have since appointed him to another board,
and his term expired on the 9-1-1 Board officially on
September 30th, and he's agreed to serve until -- you know,
until we have a replacement appointed, and that will be the
next agenda item. But I thought we should recognize his
service, so I offer as a motion the resolution: "Whereas for
15 years, Kerr Emergency 9-1-1 has provided emergency
1 0- ~ 4- O S
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
notification services for the citizens of Kerr County; and
whereas oversight for policies and direction of this vital
service through the years has come from a dedicated Board of
Managers representing all political subdivisions and
emergency service providers in Kerr County; and whereas
Charles Lewis, Precinct 3, Kerr County, has provided the
Board of Managers his insight and experience in all aspects
of their deliberations during his years of service; now,
therefore, be it resolved that Kerr County Commissioners
Court does hereby extend its thanks and appreciation to
Charles Lewis for his willingness to serve the people of
Kerr County and his dedication to the betterment of Kerr
Emergency 9-1-1. Adopted this 24th day of October, 2005."
That is a motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second
for adoption of the resolution as into the record. Any
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I talked to Charles this
morning and invited him, but he was out working on his
tractor and -- and kind of was up to his elbows in grease at
that point in time, so he passed on coming, but expressed
his thanks for the resolution.
JUDGE TINLEY: I was going to inquire why he
wasn't here with us this morning. It's always good to see
iu-'9-os
~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
him. Appreciate that explanation. 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: That motion does carry. Let's
move to Item 19, to consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to nominate and/or appoint new representative to the
Kerr County 9-1-1 Board. I think that's titled the Board of
Managers of the Kerr Emergency 9-1-1 Network, is the
official title, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I believe that's
correct, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Baldwin and
I, as liaisons to Kerr 9-1-1, took it upon ourselves to
search out a new appointee to that board. And I apologize;
I said I'd have a resume of the individual, but I did not
receive that in time, but I'll give a brief background on
the person we're recommending. We met with him last week.
He's anxious to serve. It's Hugh Jons. He's known as the
son of -- frequently, as Rit Jons' son. He practiced law
for a while in San Antonio, and now has joined his father
with the law firm here in Kerrville. He and his wife Kamme

1
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
have two children living in the county out on Scenic Valley
Road. I think he will make an excellent appointee. He
comes from a family with a lot of community service,
graduate of Tivy High School, and I would offer Hugh Jons as
a nominee to the Kerr 9-1-1 Board of Managers. That's a
motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
the appointment of Mr. Hugh Jons to the Board of Managers,
as Kerr County's representative to the Board of Managers of
Kerr Emergency 9-1-1 Network. Any question or discussion?
Mr. Baldwin, did you note that that young man is a lawyer?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I met with him
the other day and checked his teeth and everything.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's a -- this is a
young dynamo.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I just didn't want that
to come as any surprise or concern to you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Didn't want that to
leak out in public, but okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
io-za-us
~z
1
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~l
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Why
don't we take about a 15-minute mid-morning recess. We'll
give the court reporter a break. We'll be in recess.
(Recess taken from 10:30 a.m. to 10:48 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to
order, if we might. We were in recess for a few moments, so
we'll resume with our agenda. Let's go to Item 15,
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
Subdivision Rules and Regulations and Water Availability
Requirements.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this back on the
agenda just 'cause I wanted to make sure that everyone was
on the same page as to what I was going to probably have in
our new draft of Subdivision Rules. I think at our next
meeting I'll have it all put together. Somewhere, Kathy
just gave me a copy of some other papers I was going to hand
out, and I don't know where I put them, but I'll deal with
that. If you look at page -- or item in the backup
material, 1.03, entitled "Acreage Requirements to Meet Water
Availability," this mirrors the proposed language in the new
Subdivision Rules that we looked at in April, and I'll just
go over it real quickly. It's a two-step process, the same
In _~ o~
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
,~
23
24
25
73
as we currently have. If you're going to have individual
water wells and individual septic, it's 5-acre minimum and a
5-acre average. If you're going with a community water
system, then -- and it doesn't make any difference on the
septic. Community water system, it's 3-acre average, but a
1-acre minimum. If you're in the ETJ or the area
immediately around Center Point and Comfort, it's a 1-acre
minimum, 2-acre average, and that's what we just did with
the gentleman earlier today.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, just
for understanding, under A.2, you said 3-acre average, but
1-acre minimum?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have to look at --
Paragraph A is the average --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- portion, and B is the
minimum.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this is -- and the --
what it's cited for, and this -- and, you know, I've talked
with Gordon Morgan and Gene Williams in the audience today
at some length, and I think Headwaters has seen these
before. The issue that we are in is that, as I understand
lu-ze-..s
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~,
23
24
2 S
the Headwaters' rules, they can do pumping limits, they can
do spacing, but they have no authority for subdivision --
for lot size. That's just not within their authority. Our
authority is -- if we base it on water availability, we do
have the authority to set lot size. And I'm citing, on the
previous page on 1.02, the State Water Plan by the Water
Development Board, Region J's water plan, the Trinity
Aquifer Groundwater Availability Model, the Edwards-Trinity
Groundwater Availability Model; and also Headwaters' rules.
So, we're not basing it solely on Headwaters. We're not
basing it solely on anything. We're saying we're looking at
overall water availability in the county, and we feel that
these lot sizes -- these minimums are the best we have right
now on the -- what the minimum lot sizes should be.
I put it on here mainly because at the last
Baldwin and, I believe, Commissioner Williams had the
question as to whether -- and Headwaters came up; that if
they had the -- under municipal water system, if they had a
permit from T.C.E.Q., why shouldn't we let them do whatever
they want, basically, to go a 1-acre minimum on both of
them? And I guess the answer I have to that is that
T.C.E.Q. doesn't care about water availability. They look
at how much water a well can produce, as I understand their
rules. There is no relationship or correlation between how
iu z4 os
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
~~
~~
much water may be there. If that well produces it, they're
going to give that permit, and then the well -- the
community water service is going to have to work with
Headwaters on pumping limits, potentially. So, they're --
they're really -- it's different.
I talked with Mr. -- this is an e:cample as to
how it can get really confusing when we start trying to get
too complicated with this. I talked with Greg Richards
about their subdivision, and he made a comment that the well
they're going to be relying on is a Lower Trinity well, I
believe 65,000 gallons a day. You figure all that math out;
you end up with, you know, something like 1.23 or 1.2-acre
lot sues, certainly more than sufficient based on that
amount of water. What I told him was that if we start
trying to base our lot sizes on wells and formations, then
we're going to have different lot sizes for a well going
into Glen Rose, a different one in Middle Trinity, a
different one in the Edwards Trinity, a different one in the
Edwards. If you're in the alluvial sand, it will be a
different size again, and I think that will be going down a
road of pure confusion in this county from a subdivision
standpoint.
So, I think we need to come up with -- you
know, not look -- looking at the county as a whole right
now. I think down the road, we're going to get to the point
lr~-z9-n=
76
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
IL
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that we're probably -- it's going to make sense to probably
have different lot sizes in west Kerr County than east Kerr
County because of water availability and the formation, but
right now I don't think we have enough science to justify
it. So, that's how I kind of came up with the lot sizes
that I'm recommending. I'll just leave it at that. And,
you know, this is what I'm going to pursue with -- or
proceed with on our Subdivision Rules, unless y'all want me
to go a different direction.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question.
COMMISSIONER BALGWIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The issue of proving
out availability, then, is gone?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Proving out individual
lot sues is gone. It's been depending on the science,
basically, that's been generated through the state water
plan, is what we're basing it on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if a developer
comes up and says, I have a parcel of land with "X" number
of acres and I want to subdivide it into 1-acre lots; I have
available a public water system that currently is licensed
and is not up to -- not servicing sufficient patrons to
reach its -- anywhere near its capacity, we don't get
involved in that issue?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. We just say your
iu-z9-us
77
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
average is this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. My question is
a cousin to that one, and it -- on the page -- on Page 1 of
the -- this document, under General, Number (2), that says
to me that -- that we are requiring people to prove that
there is adequate quality and quantity of water. If I'm
wrong, just tell me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I'm just looking at
it. I think the intent is that the way -- and I haven't --
we need to read it again, and probably read it with the
County Attorney, 'cause he, I don't think -- he has not
looked at this, I don't believe. The intent is saying that
it -- based on the minimums that we're setting forth, you're
deemed to have, in all likelihood, adequate water. There's
no guarantee. I mean, till you drill a well, you just never
know. But if you -- the minimums are set to make sure that
there is adequate water throughout the county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the second
sentence -- following up on Commissioner Baldwin's, the
second sentence that kind of raises the issue again.
"Failure to satisfy the Water Availability Requirements
shall result in the denial of approval of the plat." So,
who's going to prove out adequacy or inability to -- to
provide the adequate resources?
i~~-?.~_o~,
78
1
2
3
4
5
H
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where were you reading?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The second sentence
in 1.02.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 1.01.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, 1.02
satisfy --
Failure to
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That says that -- I mean,
as I read that, the intent is to say that -- that's giving
the teeth to the County to set the lot sizes. If you don't
-- I mean, if you have the lot sizes as set forth on the
second page, you're deemed to have adequate water supply,
based on the groundwater models for this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, you know -- he gave
me a thumbs-up. Wow, that's a rarity. So, that's kind
of -- that's the direction we're going. And the -- I just
wanted to make sure that we're all on the same page on this,
because it is a change in -- I guess I failed to realize how
complicated this all is, because I write this stuff and
spend a lot more time on it than the rest of the Court
probably does, so I just want to make sure that everyone is
clear where -- you know, where we're going with our
Subdivision Rules. I think they'll be on the agenda at our
next meeting.
iii-_a-~~s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L S
79
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I've got another
question. On Page 3 at the top, under C, --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- these areas, these
high-density development areas. I mean, I -- I see what
you're talking about. I see how the city ETJs are
established.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But when we get down
to the Center Point and Comfort area, I don't know that --
you know, I mean, who's going to come along -- when the
plat's laid on the table, who's going to decide whether this
property is in or out, or part of it's in or out of this --
this Center Point area, one -- 1-mile radius from 27 to
Farm-to-Market 480?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before you answer, I
have the same issue, and I had marked it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you like to ask
the question instead of me?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, that's okay. I
just want to follow up and point out that the -- that the
anticipated plan for a wastewater system would be greater
than a 1-mile radius from the intersection of 27 and 480.
It would, in fact, go from that point to Verde Creek, and
that's probably closer to a mile and a half or more.
t~_- ~-ns
80
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^"' 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
..r 2 4
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those -- the reason
Center Point and Comfort are listed is because they're not
municipalities, so they don't have ETJs. If that distance
should be a mile and a half, if it should be 2 miles, it
doesn't really make any difference to me. The -- what we're
saying here is that, you know, the -- development-wise, is
that, one, I think from a water availability standpoint,
there is a higher likelihood or a reasonable likelihood that
the city of Ingram and the city of Comfort are going to get
hooked up to some sort of surface water in the nett 20
years, whether it comes through the city of Kerrville,
whether it comes through Canyon Lake or through the water
improvement district in Kendall County, however it gets
there. We're still not sure, but there's a likelihood, and
surface water coming on board. And the other reasoning is
that -- it's not really related to water availability, but
it makes sense from a development standpoint to have it a
little bit higher density in those areas. Clearly, I think
that it -- everyone would agree that community water systems
are better -- are better stewards of the aquifers than a
bunch of individual wells, and that's why there's smaller --
or allow a greater density when there is a water system.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not debating your
10-29 a°~
81
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1~
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
logic. I just want to point out the distance would be
greater than 1 mile.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the Center Point area,
you know, the -- the boundaries, you know, I think we need
to make them fairly simple. But if it needs to be a mile
and a half, that -- that's consistent, in my mind.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. I'll measure
it, and we'll know for sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One more question. On
the Comfort area one, you have a mile from State Highway 27
and Broadway Street, and then the note, "This intersection
is within Kendall County." Are you comfortable that we are
applying our rules in another county?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our rules -- the way I
interpret this -- and I'll go with Rex on this -- is that
while the point that we're measuring from is in Kendall
County, though it's very close to the Kerr County line, our
rules only apply to the Kerr County portion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just because it's
not -- it's a clear intersection, as opposed to trying to
pick a point on the side of the highway.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see it now, okay.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, one
10-24-05
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~2
23
24
25
more question on C. To qualify as high-density, you have to
be in one of these four areas and have central water and
sewage?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, not all of those
four areas currently have current public water systems or
sewage?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. So if someone's
going -- I guess to follow up, if someone's going to go
outside of Comfort and put in individual wells, they're
5-acre average, 5-acre minimum. Doesn't change that. It's
only if it's a community water system. And, as I mentioned
to you before, if there's a need to add Hunt, we can add
Hunt as well. There's -- there's a -- Hunt also is not an
incorporated area. Just, that's -- I'll leave that up to
your discretion.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I don't know
how the consensus will be out there. Probably be, "No, we
don't want high-density development."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My preference, I think
we -- my feeling is we should probably add it to be
consistent, and if people don't want to do it or do want to
do it, it's up to them; gives them the fler.ibility. You
know, that's --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We'll probably learn
in-z9 os
83
1
2
3
9
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
something about that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think -- do you
want any action today?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I just want to make
-- I just want to clarify this language a little bit.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There is
improvement, but it's a little more clear to me, at least.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further by any member
of the Court on that particular agenda item?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But this just -- as I
said before, I believe, God willing, we'll have the
Subdivision Rules draft on the agenda at the next meeting,
or at least to hand out at the next meeting to the County
Attorney, 'cause it's going to take him probably a while to
go through them and make sure we're all in compliance.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that
agenda item? We'll move to Agenda Item Number 16, consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action on Subdivision Rules
and Reg -- excuse me. Consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on Kerr Central Appraisal District's
proposed budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, you're going to
have to help me find the budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 2 of their
in z9 ns
84
1
z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
letter.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the letter, I think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The whole thing?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, essentially to
add the boldface underlined section. I believe it has to do
with their need to appropriate some monies so they can begin
the process of looking for a new location and so forth.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, just a general
comment while we're getting started on this. My preference
would be in the future to have -- both when we approve their
budget and the budget amendment, to have a representative
from that Appraisal Board, whether it be our designee or the
Chief Appraisal -- I mean, doesn't make any difference to
me. Just come so we can keep a good dialogue with that
office, as opposed to -- but on this item, I visited with
our representative, Mr. Lewis, and he's totally supportive
of this, and it makes sense to me. And, as I understand it,
what they're doing, they have acknowledged that that
building is in need of either a total redo from a
repair/remodel standpoint, or they plan to move at some
point, and this is to allow them to start building up a
reserve fund for that purpose. They had a surplus in last
year's budget of $26,117, and this is -- this action would
be required to move that amount of money to a reserve fund
for that particular purpose. Is that correct, Judge?
In-tea-ue
85
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Creating a reserve account in
order to take care of whatever their building site
requirements are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We basically had this
same conversation last year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me see if I can
understand it. It says on Page 1, underlined, "This
proposed amendment does not require any additional
contributions from the taxing entities." Where does the
money come from?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a surplus. Rather
than refund the money to us or our account, they're going to
keep it in a reserve fund.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And set up a special
account.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It comes from us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, the account will be funded
with surplus funds left over from the Appraisal District's
2009 operating budget.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But the point, as
Commissioner Letz says, we can have a refund or we can
approve this amendment.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think one of the
1u-29-n5
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~1
22
23
24
25
options is that they'll give us a refund.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That sounds
familiar.
JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't see that here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As I recall, the way this
works is that the entities that contribute vote on it, and
if a majority of them approve it, it's passed. If a
majority don't approve it, it would be refunded. So -- but
bottom line is, that building is in need of work. And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They've outgrown that
building.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: They've outgrown it, so I
think it'	s a good use of tha	t reserve	fund.
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	Move approval of the
budget am	endment --		
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	Second.
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	-- for Kerr Central
Appraisal	District.		
	JUDGE TINLEY:	I have	a motion for the
approval	of the budget amend	ment.	
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	Jon Let? seconded it.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Did you	second?
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: I	didn't, but I will.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	There it is.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Okay.	
In-~q-ns
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~ G
23
~4
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I knew he would.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second
for approval of the Kerr Central Appraisal District's
proposed budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, they have very
specific language that they would like us to use, I guess.
Should we read that into the record?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I saw that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: "To approve Kerr Central
Appraisal District's budget amendment to add a reserve
account for costs related to any potential building purchase
or relocation, building renovation, and any associated
moving or move-in costs. The account will be funded with
surplus funds left over from the Appraisal District's 2009
operating budget." That was the motion I seconded.
JUDGE TINLEY: Was that the motion you made?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I accept that. I
made it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. As to that motion and
second, did we have 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: That motion does carry. We'll
10-_'9 OS
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
go to Item 17. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action on termination notice received from Mutual of Omaha
with regard to employee health benefits program. I placed
this on the agenda very, very belatedly, just shortly prior
to it being posted Thursday afternoon, as a result of,
shortly before that time, receiving a copy of a letter to
the Kerr County Treasurer from Mutual of Omaha titled
"Termination Notice," in which letter Mutual of Omaha stated
they had not received premium payment for the due date noted
in the letter, and therefore, coverage has been terminated,
the effective date of that termination being specified as
October the 1st, 2005, some approximately three weeks prior.
The letter did go forward to state that immediate steps must
be taken in order for Mutual to consider reinstating that
coverage, and it required, for reinstatement to be
considered, the delinquency should be received by November
the 3rd, 2005, and after that date, it may not be allowed.
Because -- because we did not have another meeting prior to
November the 3rd, I was -- I placed it on the agenda at the
last moment, as you know.
Since that time, there have been some other
materials received in connection with this item, and I have
tried to provide those to the Court. One item in particular
was an e-mail from a representative of the -- of the County
Treasurer's office which was received late the following
lu 2q n5
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
morning. That e-mail appears to have been sent to virtually
everyone here in the courthouse, includinq myself, and I
suppose all the other -- all the Commissioners, and
reference Agenda Item 17. And it reads, "Please ignore
Agenda Item Number 1.17 set for Monday, October the 24th,
2005, Commissioners Court. There was no need to place this
item on the agenda. If the person who received the
information and placed it on the agenda had talked with our
office staff, it would not have been placed on the agenda."
The prediction that it would not have been
placed on the agenda had that discussion occurred is
incorrect. It would have been placed on the agenda anyway.
As a matter of fact, it was on the agenda before the flurry
of activity that subsequently occurred. The -- as all of us
on the Court are aware, the Commissioners Court has no
direct authority over the operations of the Kerr County
Treasurer's offi~~e or its staff. We, however, do have an
overall responsibility to the employees of this county in
all the departments, and also to the taxpayers and citizens
of this county. I am left to wonder, and I suppose the rest
of you are left to wonder what, if anything, would have
occurred with regard to this item had this item not been
placed on the agenda. Would this Court have been made aware
of it? I'm reminded of the recent I.R.S. levy that had
occurred for the second time, and which we were not aware
io-z9-ns
90
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
until we found out later from a third-party source, much
like this, rather than from the Treasurer's office. The
thing that I'm concerned about is that termination date is
October the lst, as stated in the letter. What happens to
claims processing? What happens to claims coverage? The
premium was also for our stop loss insurance, which covers
any health benefits in excess of the $90,000 stop loss.
What if there had been, subsequent to October the 1st -- and
there may have been; I don't know this -- an employee of
this county who had incurred a serious medical problem or
had an accident requiring extensive health care service? My
experience on reinstatement of coverage is oftentimes when
reinstatement is accomplished, there's a reservation of
rights in which the provider will except to any claims which
may occur during the intervening period. I'm concerned
about the exposure that the County and the taxpayers were
put to as a result of this activity, and I'm concerned about
our employees.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can tell you, Judge --
DODGE TINLEY: I would --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- just real quick --
JUDGE TINLEY: I would note that -- excuse
me. I would note that in a subsequent communication from
Mr. Malek with Mutual of Omaha, who I believe his title is
Regional or District Representative, he indicated that he
lu-'4-GS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
91
was going to override the suspension of service on
processing claims, notwithstanding the language in the
termination notice. I don't know if there's a good
explanation as to why this occurred. I cannot conceive of
anything that would be satisfactory to me. But -- I just
can't. I -- I don't know what our situation is with regard
to our health benefits program. I'm advised that the -- the
premiums have, in fact, been forwarded. Whether or not
they've been received, I don't know that. Whether or not
there's a lapse in coverage or a gap in coverage, I don't
know that. As indicated, I don't know whether there's been
some intervening health care issues, serious ones, which
have visited our employees since October 1. I see the
Sheriff nodding his head, as though we may have one of those
in his situation. He's holding up two fingers, indicating
maybe there are two. I don't know where we are. I'd like
an explanation of how this, in fact, even occurred.
MS. NEMEC: I believe you have a request from
someone to speak on this issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Anybody on the Court
have anything at this time? A participation form has been
filed by Ms. Judy Carr from the Treasurer's office.
MS. CARR: Judy Carr, Chief Deputy, Barbara
Nemec, County Treasurer. In reference to the e-mail, I was
directed by Barbara Nemec to send the e-mail because of all
io z9 0~,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
,,
23
24
25
92
the phone calls we were receiving from concerned employees.
Gentlemen of the Court, I will read a memorandum addressed
to the Court dated October 24th regarding Agenda Item Number
1.17, Mutual of Omaha Termination Notice. This memorandum
will be provided to the Court upon completion of my address.
This memorandum will address all your concerns. I take full
responsibility for the delinquency in the payment of the
Mutual of Omaha insurance premiums for the months October
and September 2005. The fact that the termination notice
had been issued was a complete surprise to Barbara Nemec and
me. We learned of this action when we read the agenda for
today's court.
First, ethical companies do not terminate
service with a consumer without notice. This was the first
notice. To-date, the Treasurer's office has not received
the notice in the mail or by any other means of transmittal.
Secondly, please observe that the notice states, in all
caps, "If you have already mailed your premium, please
disregard this notice." This is -- it is apparent that this
is not the final notice for termination. The last paragraph
of the notice states, "If your records do not agree with
ours or if there's some misunderstanding regarding this
matter, please contact Lynne Donnelly, Delinquency
Coordinator, at 902-351-5834." This is exactly what I did
around 8:15 a.m. Friday morning, October 21st. Ms. Donnelly
iu-za-os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
93
stated these notices go out regularly. This is not unusual;
it is a formality.
I state again, this termination notice was
found when I read the agenda item. Ms. Donnelly reported to
me that if we had not communicated with her by November the
3rd, as stated in the notice, we then would have received a
final notice giving us 48 hours to pay the delinquent
billings. If we did not pay within those 98 hours, the
policy then would be terminated. This is how ethical
business practices are conducted, with notices and an
opportunity to resolve any issues. Ms. Donnelly faxed the
attached letter on Friday afternoon. It explains the manner
in which we will resolve these issues. And I -- for the
record, I would like to read the letter that she faxed. The
fax cover sheet: "Judy, here is a fax of the letter I have
put in the mail today. A copy of this letter was e-mailed
to the San Antonio Group Office. If something was discussed
by either Karlene or myself that has not been mentioned in
this letter, or you need further verification, please
contact one of us as soon as you are able. Lynne Donnelly."
It's addressed to Kerr County, Attention:
Judy Carr. References our group policy number. It was
faxed October 21st, 4:54 p.m. "Dear Ms. Carr: Per our
telephone conversation this morning, we have agreed that you
will overnight $45,192.53 to my attention for the payment of
in-z9-ns
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~2
23
29
25
your September and October medical stop loss, life, and
A.D.& D. premiums. This payment is the amount previously
stop any further delinquency action. We'll consider your
account active, in good standing, and will not cancel your
policy. We discussed the reason for the delinquency that,
in part, was caused by unresolved billing issues. You had
been previously instructed by Mr. Jaime Ochoa of Mutual of
Omaha to submit all changes, additions, and terminations to
him for forwarding to the appropriate department. This
process did not work, as you stated terminated employees
from April were still being billed in the months of
September and October, and several new employees had yet to
appear on those bills.
"I instructed you to gather all information
that you had previously submitted to Mr. Ochoa and e-mail or
fax that information to the billing representative for your
group, who is located at the home office of Mutual of Omaha.
After our discussion and agreement for payment, during which
we exchanged telephone and fax numbers, you were connected
to that billing representative who discussed outstanding
billing issues and developed an action plan with you to
resolve those issues. According to your billing
iu ae os
95
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
outstandinq addition changes and terminations to her
attention. Full credit will be given to all outstanding
A rebilled November invoice
original November invoice that was mailed to you on
10-17-05. Karlene has changed the bill run date from the
17th of each month to the 10th of each month, allowing for
additional time to review your bill and submit a payment.
You are to continue to pay as billed each month, submit the
necessary adjustments to Karlene, and review your following
bill to insure that those adjustments have been made.
"In conclusion, you are to submit full
are to e-mail any outstanding additions, changes, or
terminations to Karlene Larson, your billing representative.
Your billing date has been changed to the 10th of each
month, allowing for additional time to review your billing
statements. Mutual of Omaha considers your account in good
standing. No delinquency or termination action will be
taken. For further billing or premium issues or questions,
you are to contact either the Policy Owner Service Center at
1-800-365-1181, Karlene Larson, your billing representative,
or myself. You may also submit billing adjustments via fax
iu ~~ ,
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
to 402-997-1991. Please let us know if there is anything
else we may do to assist you. If you have any questions,
feel free to contact me direct at 402-351-5834 or call our
800-number and ask to be connected to my extension.
Sincerely, Lynne Donnelly, Group Delinquency Coordinator,
Policy Owner Services Division."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the date of
this letter, Ms. Carr?
MS. CARR: The date of that letter is
October 21st, 2005. Faxed to us October 21st, 2005.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions -- I'm sorry.
MS. CARR: I'm not through, sir. A
termination notice, of course, is a serious matter,
something to be concerned about. If this item was not on
today's court agenda, if there were different circumstances,
and if -- when the Treasurer's office received the notice, I
would have done exactly the same thing I did Friday. I have
many years experience in accounts receivables and payables.
I know what to do. Ms. Donnelly wrote in her letter and
told me verbally during our phone conversation on Friday
that the termination notice was e-mailed to San Antonio
office and to Wallace and Associates. The letter is dated
October 20th, last Thursday. The deadline for submitting
agenda items, according to Commissioners Court agenda
request guidelines, is 5 p.m. the previous Tuesday, which
io-z9-;~~
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
was October 18th, two days before the date of the e-mail
letter to Mr. Malek and Mr. Wallace.
Judge, you have explained why there has been
made -- been an exception to these guidelines. Evidently,
according to Ms. Donnelly, either Mr. Malek or Mr. Wallace
sent the notice to the Judge. Why was the Treasurer's
office not notified by Mr. Malek or Mr. Wallace? Why are
they not willing to work with our office, at least to offer
assistance if needed? Ms. Donnelly told me she placed the
original letter in the mail to our office, and we should
receive it sometime this week. She also stated that she was
surprised that our agent, Wallace and Associates, did not
notify our office, but rather that of the County Judge.
Please note that on October 19th, Wallace and Associates
taxed a copy of the County's account summary and account
detail. These documents show that, in addition to the two
delinquent invoices, there is also a current invoice for
November, which is due November the lst. Our office
received this invoice Friday. This invoice is also
referenced in the letter from Ms. Donnelly. We are not to
pay this invoice and wait for a revised invoice showing all
the County's credits for terminated employees.
The reason I had not paid the September
invoice is that I had been working with Jaime Ochoa, our
account executive with Mutual of Omaha, and I was awaiting
io ze ns
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
23
24
25
an adjusted invoice. Some of the terminations dating back
to April 2005 had not been taken off our billing, and we had
been paying for those as far back as April. As of this
date, the credit amounts to $6,202.07. This does not
include the employees terminated within the month of
October, which will also be claimed on the November invoice.
Perhaps the reason we had not received the revised September
invoice is that Jaime Ochoa is no longer with Mutual of
Omaha. Kerr County employees saw the agenda -- who saw the
agenda began to call our office concerned that their
insurance had been canceled. This is very upsetting to
employees who have claims, who have ill children, disabled
family members, retirees, people with scheduled doctor
visits, tests, examinations, and possibly even surgeries
scheduled. A phone call or trip to our office is all that
it would have taken. There was no need to put this on the
agenda. Communication between us would have worked.
I feel, again, this has been a personal
political agenda toward Ms. Nemec. This, however, has
affected me, my responsibilities, my physical, mental, and
emotional health. I might add that I am currently under a
doctor's care for this stress. This has affected the
Treasurer's office as a whole. This has affected Kerr
County, the citizens in the community, who are taxpayers,
and not to mention the employees, who are also taxpayers.
io ,9-ue
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
This type of action hurts us all. All I ask is that next
time, please come talk to us. We are here as honest and
loyal employees of Kerr County. Our employees, our
retirees, and all the citizens in the community deserve the
truth. Mr. Zeke MacCormack of the San Antonio Express News
called me Friday afternoon regarding the termination notice.
His article is in the Sunday edition. There was no mention
of this item in the weekend edition of the Kerrville Daily
Times. With all due respect, if the Treasurer's office was
not continually having to defend our department, maybe then
we could have time to do our jobs. I have no further
comments.
DODGE TINLEY: Anyone have any questions for
Ms. Carr?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have -- not for Ms.
Carr, but I have a question for the County Attorney. Based
on the way this is styled, is it possible for us to go into
executive session on a personnel matter?
MR. EMERSON: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't think so? If
you would put a personnel item on our next agenda, it will
be for personnel in the County Treasurer's office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'd like to ask
a question. Mr. Malek is in the audience. Given the
information that we have just received with respect to
io-a9-vs
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
100
someone in Mutual of Omaha communicating with Ms. Carr
and/or Ms. Nemec, what prompted your letter the day before
that letter that she just read was issued?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What was your
question?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What prompted the
letter from Mr. Malek the day before the letter that Ms.
Carr just read and gave us?
MR. MALEK: Carey Male k, Mutual of Omaha.
I -- this all started before the letter actually went out.
I was trying to circumvent it, because when you get 60 days
in arrears, a lot of things start to happen. They want to
turn off claims, which is what I want to avoid. That's
probably the worst possible thing that we could have happen.
So, I'm trying to intercede before all this stuff goes out,
so I just wanted to assure the Judge and everybody that
we're not going to turn the claims off. That was really the
purpose of -- of the letter that I wrote them. And that
it's a serious matter when you are behind, and it wasn't the
first time. And, you know, basically, I'll draw the
parallel to a credit card, 'cause I think everybody really
understands this; everybody has a credit card. If you have
a credit card and you do not pay your bill, they turn the
credit card off. They don't necessarily terminate your
credit -- credit card. That's the second step; that's the
is-;~-~5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
~~
23
24
25
101
termination. That's what I think she was referring to when
they're talking about, you know, terminating your account.
What I wanted to avoid is not just terminating the account,
'cause I don't -- I didn't think we were going to get to
that point. I wanted to keep you still being able to use
your credit card, and so that was what prompted that. So,
that's the reason why I wrote the letter. So, I hope that
explains that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Were you -- well,
maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Were you in -- in
communication with Lynne Donnelly, the Group Delinquency
Coordinator?
MR. MALEK: Yes. Yeah, she's required to
send that letter out, because she doesn't have any premium.
And so she -- you know, I was trying to stop the whole
termination process.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Was she aware of your
letter of the 20th?
MR. MALEK: Yes, she knew that I was going to
-- was going to write a letter. But she's required, as the
company representative from the home office, to -- to send
the letter out to explain the whole process of the
termination and what you have to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Were you aware of
what she was going to write the next day?
io-z~-o e.
102
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MALEK: Absolutely. I knew it was going
out. It had -- it's required to go out so, you know, if
there is a termination, we say, "Okay, we did notify you
of a termination on that date." That's the official date
that the company would use if -- if there was to be any
action.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What prompted your
second correspondence to Judge Tinley dated October 20?
MR. MALEK: Can I see it? I'm not sure which
one that is. A couple of things went back and forth.
(Document was shown to Mr. Malek.)
MR. MALEK: Oh. Well, this is just
basically -- I just put it in e-mail format, and sometimes
that's not acceptable, so I put it into a -- a letter
format. That's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But that letter
doesn't say what your other one says.
MR. MALEK: The -- I'm not sure which -- are
you talking about the letter from the home office?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, yeah. There's
the letter of the 20th. That's not over your signature.
MR. MALEK: I didn't write that one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Okay.
MR. MALEK: So, you know, mine's just a
summary of -- hey, look, I'm not going to let this happen;
iu-~~~-os
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we're not going to shut off claims. You know, I just need
to come and get some money, and then everything's going to
be fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you get your
money?
MR. MALEK: I haven't seen anything yet. I'm
certain that something -- some communique was done between
Ms. Donnelly and the Treasurer's office, so I'm satisfied
that everything's moving in the right direction.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the health care
coverage of the Kerr County employee group in force and
effect right now?
MR. MALEK: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's go back. I do have
one question. The -- the reason all of this started was
because the County did not make payment of this premium?
MR. MALEK: Yes. You're -- you're more than
60 days in arrears. That creates a lot of panic in the home
office, because things start to -- you know, termination
starts to happen, so that's why these go out. We don't do
very many of them. So, that's kind of why I got involved.
Jaime -- Jaime left last week, or -- Friday or -- Thursday
or Friday of last week, so that's the only reason I'm here.
Normally he'd be handling this part of it. So -- and then I
can't answer about what was going on between -- up until
in z9 ns
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that time, 'cause I'm not sure what it was, what he was --
who he was talking to and what he was trying to accomplish.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is it typical or
untypical that premiums may be withheld pending
reconciliation of the account?
MR. MALEK: I would say untypical. There is
a portion of the bill that allows you to make those
adjustments on it. Now, most people will say, "Oh, this
person should have been off," and cross them out. And then
there's a section in the back of the bill that you write out
that this person's terminated, this person's added, and then
you can balance it out yourself. You don't have to have a
perfect bill. I mean, goodness knows that when I get my
credit card, as much transactions as transpire with -- with
my spouse and what we do, there's always credits on there.
And I know how much I think I -- and I pay that bill, and
then the next month it's usually balanced out. So, I guess
I would say it the same way; you can't not pay your bill
just because you don't agree with every charge that's on
there. So, let's just look at it that way. I think that's
an easy way to make an analogy to make it -- because the
insurance laws are a little more complicated than a credit
card, and there's certain requirements that you have to have
done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Recognizing that
is-'9-a5
los
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
,~, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mutual of Omaha is a very large company dealing with a lot
of employer groups, most of which are probably larger than
this one, is it typical or untypical that reconciliations of
employees being taken off or added to the monthly statement
would go as long as going back to April without being
MR. MALEK: It's very typical.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is typical?
MR. MALEK: Yeah. People add and drop all
the time. I would say on a group of 200 people, you
probably have 10 to 20 adjustments a month, so it's
constantly, you know, in a state of flux. So, you never --
you can never get a perfect bill because of the timing the
bills are sent out. They're sent out ahead of time, and so
at the time that somebody actually would have terminated,
you would have had your bill 15 days ahead of time. And now
we're going to be sending it even earlier, so we're going to
have even more of those occur. Now, a lot -- again, it
depends on the turnover. So, you'll never get a perfect
bill, unfortunately. We'd love to try to do that. We're
getting more -- closer to realtime as the inter -- as the
Internet and this becomes, you know, more automated. But
you do have two ways to get your bill; we mail you one, and
it's posted on the Internet so that you can just go and grab
it off the Internet, so you have more than one source of the
0- 2 9- O S
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
bill.
JUDGE TINLEY: How common is it for an
insured to withhold complete payment because there are some
adjustments to be made?
MR. MALEK: It's not common. We typically
will -- somebody will pay at least a partial payment. It's
not exactly balanced out. They pay what they think they
owe. And that's more than general. It's -- again, I'll go
back to the credit card. I usually pay what I think I owe.
When you see how many transactions you have, it's -- it's
understandable that it's not always going to balance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I mean, I guess
I've got a lot of questions, but I really -- they're more on
the personnel side, and I can't qo into them until our next
meeting. I'm not trying to run off Mr. Malek, but I think
we understand what happened. I think we understand.
MR. MALEK: Yeah. I just --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're in good standing.
MR. MALEK: Just everything -- no employee
has been denied health care coverage. You know, I just want
to make sure that everybody understands that. We have not
cut claims off. Everybody's processing. We're still
processing claims. We're verifying eligibility; that's
still going on. Just want to make sure that you understand
that. If it came to that point, I would definitely be
10 l9 US
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
standing here before you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the Sheriff
raised his hand and indicated that there were a couple
instances in his department that may be questionable in
terms of a claim. Would you like to enlighten us about
that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I know that after
October 1st, I have had a spouse of one employee and a --
and an employee that are going to have some very major
claims, and I just want assurance that those claims aren't
going to be rejected, since it was after that October 1st.
MR. MALEK: No, they're -- we have -- the
payment, as I understand it, is in the mail. Check's in the
mail, I guess, is the way to say it. No, everything's fine.
Again, we did not lapse any of the coverages. We haven't
stopped. We haven't stopped verifying coverages. So,
everybody who's insured now who was insured on October 1st
is going to be covered, so you have my assurance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
DODGE TINLEY: Any other questions for
Mr. Malek?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I want to --
I've got some comments. The -- I think what I'm hearing
here is that we've averted a disaster by getting the check
in the mail. We may or may not have had a satisfactory
1n-.g-ns
108
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2^
L
23
24
25
explanation of how we got more than 60 days behind on our
payments. But I think I'm seeing a bigger picture here, a
pattern in practice where just about every month we're
dealing with some sort of a failure in the Treasurer's
office. We've dealt recently with a failure to make
payments to the retirement fund -- I think that's what it's
called. Maybe something else. And then, looking at that,
we discovered that that was the fourth time that had
occurred. We've dealt with failure to make payments from
payroll --
MS. NEMEC: Excuse me, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me finish.
MS. NEMEC: No, I will not. This belongs in
executive session.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: County Attorney? They are
talking about the performance of my chief deputy.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, I'm not. I'm
talking about the performance of your department.
MS. NEMEC: No, of my chief deputy. Those
are her duties.
JUDGE TINLEY: Continue, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyhow, I mean, I
tend to agree that this is not appropriate discussion based
on this agenda item. I don't think it's really -- I don't

109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
think what he's saying should be in executive session, but I
don't think that it's qualified under -- it's a very
specific agenda item related to a termination notice, and I
want to go down the same road. I have the same questions I
think you're going towards, but I don't think we can discuss
them the way the agenda item is posted.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I've asked for
it to be on the agenda in two weeks.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I
don't have any questions. I see a pattern of practice of
unacceptable performance in the Treasurer's Department. Not
by any one individual, by the function.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioners Court?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It really --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Treasurer.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In the Treasurer's
office. And it reflects badly on the performance of Kerr
County government. I'm not proud of the way we're running
our government, but we're continually dealing with issues of
malfeasance like this. And I think that, in addition to
having an adverse impact on employees, it adversely impacts
the taxpayers. We know we paid fines and penalties that we
shouldn't have, and our relationship with Mutual of Omaha is
damaged by it. I don't want to continue month after month
iu-~9-os
110
1
2
3
9
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to be in here resolving problems in performance in the
Treasurer's Department. And I -- I understand what the
state law is about being arm's distance from elected
officials, so I don't have any recommendations for it, but
something's got to change.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the
Commissioner's comment prompts another question. Mr. Male k,
are there any fines or penalties attached to this?
MR. MALEK: No, no fines or penalties.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MS. NEMEC: And in defense of my employee,
when she is told by a representative from Mutual of Omaha
not to pay a billing and to await a -- a rebilling that will
take care of all the adjustments that we've been paying in
April, Marr_h, May, June, and July for terminated employees,
and she is told that she will get a resubmitted billing in
the mail, not to pay that one, what is she to do but to
trust what Mutual of Omaha has told her?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That is the same
personnel you just told him you didn't want to talk about.
If we're going to discuss it --
MS. NEMEC: I'm not talking about her
performance. I'm talking about what Mutual of Omaha has
told her to do. There's a difference.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Ms. Nemec, I don't
1 0 2 9 0 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
111
recall her saying that, except with respect to the November
'OS billing which just came out.
MS. NEMEC: Exactly. That was Jaime Ochoa,
who is no longer with the company, who did not submit our
terminations to Mutual of Omaha. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: The train wreck here was
September and October 'O5, which is --
MS. NEMEC: That is when she was waiting for
the resubmitted billing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further with regard
to this item?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, Judge.
MS. CARR: Judge? Commissioners, I would
just like to state that things like this happen. It's --
it's sad that they do. It's unfortunate that they do. My
main concern is that Mutual of Omaha, our agent, and our San
Antonio group office does not communicate with us. They do
not try to help us. Why didn't Mr. Malek contact us and
say, "Your account is past due. What's happening? Can I
help?" Not a single word. We have not seen or heard from
him until today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Carr, when your
electricity bill is not paid, you get a notice they're
fixing to pull the plug.
MS. CARR: Yes, sir. We got a notice, a
io zv os
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
112
first notice. At that notice, why didn't he contact us?
JUDGE TINLEY: If you don't get the billing
at the first of the month, don't you go to scrambling and
call that electric company and say, "I've misplaced my bill;
I want to qet square so I'll have power this month"?
MS. CARR: I was directed by Jaime Ochoa,
Mutual of Omaha account executive, to not pay that bill, to
make the revisions. I'd been sending him the terminations.
I never received the billing.
JUDGE TINLEY: The instructions which he gave
you, you indicated were as to the November '05 billing; is
that correct?
MS. CARR: No, sir.
MS. NEMEC: No.
MS. CARR: That was the September billing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's not what I heard
you say a while ago.
MS. CARR: Well, maybe I said it incorrectly.
Would you like for me to reread it?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's quite all right.
MS. CARR: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further from anybody
on the Court? Any member of the Court have any action to
offer with regard to Item 17?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have -- sorry, I do
10-_'9-OS
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
have two more comments. I really don't want to answer -- to
get in a dialogue here, but going back to things that were
said, some of these that -- look at our mail service. The
letter that -- the termination letter we got that the
Treasurer's office says they have never received was sent to
the Treasurer, so for some reason the Treasurer isn't
getting mail that's addressed to her. That's one concern,
and I don't know how we solve that. But --
MS. NEMEC: They hadn't mailed it yet,
Commissioner. They had not mailed it yet. She said we'd
receive it this week.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. That answers that
question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other comment?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I'll wait till next
week -- or next meeting, rather.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have anything to
offer with that agenda item? Let's move to item -- first
off, do we have anything to cover in executive session
that's appropriate for this time?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did we take care of
1.5?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There was no action on
it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. If not, we'll move on
1_-?q-05
1
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
G1
~~
23
29
25
114
to the approval agenda. Payment of bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second to
pay the bills. Any question or comment?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One question, on
Juvenile Detention Facility.
JUDGE TINLEY: What page?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, that would be Page
21.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The last item, San
Saba Cap Company for $461 for collapsible koozies. I'm -- a
koozie, is that the thing you put your cold drink can in?
Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that part of the
marketing budget?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER. BALDWIN: So, they carry these
things with them out to these conventions with "Kerr County"
written on them?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Question on Page 18,
Judge. This is our monthly $25,000 payment to the public
in z9 ns
1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
115
library.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One-twelfth of
$300,000. And my question is, is there anything more to be
learned about the expenditure of our $91,400 reserves? You
have asked the City questions about how -- how that result
arises. Have you gotten a response?
JUDGE TINLEY: I have not gotten a response
from that communication, Commissioner. I appreciate you
bringing that to my attention. The -- the $25,000 here, I
think, was set up this way because we got a letter from the
Interim Assistant City Manager, who's also the finance
director, that -- actually, a bill for that amount via
letter, if I'm not mistaken. Isn't that correct,
Mr. Tomlinson?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How much have we approved
so far? What's our --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we
approved --
JUDGE TINLEY: 55.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- amendments for 55.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I misspoke. I was
thinking about that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, are they
in-,e-os
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
going to send us a -- I don't know who I'm asking, Tommy or
the Judge or the -- just up in space. Are they going to
send us an amount -- I mean, because the deal was, we were
going to come up with this amount of money, which we have
355,000. They were going to look at the budget and see --
and then get back to us. So, are we just going to pay based
on the -- on the 300,000 for a while, and then at some point
we'll get a bigger invoice? Or do you have any idea?
MR. TUMLINSON: I think we ought to adjust
the neat levy of payments accordingly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 355. And get -- and so
we're starting to bill at 355 until we do something else?
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That makes sense to me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But when we left the
joint meeting with the City Council, it was my understanding
that the Library Director was going to report back to both
bodies what, if any, cuts could be made to adjust his --
adjust his budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We haven't heard from
him either, have we?
JUDGE TINLEY: Based upon the shortfall
difference between our 355 and what they were originally
requesting from us.
10-29-OS
117
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
-,
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've not heard back on that.
Any further questions or comments on the motion? 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. Budget
amendments.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm passing one out.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a Budget Amendment
Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: This is a request from Becky
Harris at the Detention Facility, to transfer 5,482 from her
Part-Time Staff line item to her Cooks line item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I asked the
administrative assistant to put a memorandum in everybody's
bor., I think, this morning from Ms. Harris that indicated
the reason for this budget amendment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, it's eliminating one
part-time position, and we're getting -- getting rid of the
retirement that would be attached to that also this way by
transferring that.
1~ -~9-os
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This doesn't change
the bottom line of the budget?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I move approval of
the budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any question
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm still thinking,
trying to figure out what we're doing here. We are
increasing the step and grade of a cook at the same time?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, you're changing the --
the compensation to one of the cooks out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But isn't -- I mean, I'm
not in favor. I'm voting no.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm voting no.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Time out. Time out.
Call the vote back, Judge. Time out. I've discussed with
her the need to examine the pay and the grade, and, if
necessary, to revise the job description to accomplish what
she would like to see done, and that will be -- she's
supposed to work that out with Ms. Nemec and bring it to the
Court the next time.
iu-ze-os
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ZO
21
L L
23
24
~5
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a $6,000 increase
per year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, I think it's -- I
mean, a cook is a cook. As I -- you know, under -- you
know, I can see -- I can see if, due to experience level,
you may -- what's the current cook at out there? Does
anyone know?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The salary?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 16-1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 19,566. I don't know
the step, I'm sorry -- step and grade.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, if it's -- if we
need to go up to a -- you know, if we're changing -- we're
changing the whole -- by doing this, we're changing the
whole -- all cooks forever are going to be 17's, and I'm not
sure that's what we want to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's the
reason it's important for the job description and the slot
to get changed accordingly, because my understanding --
maybe the Judge has a different understanding -- is that
this person will also be doing food management, ordering,
all of the stuff that goes with that. So, it's -- the total
job description has changed tremendously. Not this chief
cook.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just coincidentally,
tu-..a-os
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
,~
23
24
25
I know something about executive cooks. They've got a whole
lot of education/training at culinary school. If it's true
-- if this person is truly an executive chef and they know
about purchasing and economics and all kinds of food
management things, I don't -- that does not say that I have
an opinion about whether or not we need one of those people
or not, but I do know that they're paid very highly.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm told that's what
she envisions in the new job description. That's what this
individual will be doing. Am I correct, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. In addition,
elimination of waste. There's considerable savings to be
had in elimination of excess food prepared, waste and so
forth.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not trying to
justify the additional cost. And I really -- again, I
really don't know if the individual is an executive cook or
not, or if we need one.
JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding of what's
happening is that, rather than have one part-time, we're
eliminating that part-time. This individual is absorbing
that as well as some food management functions.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On second thought, I
withdraw my second to that motion. I'm not looking for ways
to increase costs at the Juvenile Detention Facility.
in-~~-rs
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'm -- I may be
in favor of it, but I just don't like the way it's been
presented. I think if -- you know, if it's management going
in, that's kind of one thing. And -- but if it's a -- I
just don't -- I would like to look at this again in two
weeks or three weeks.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, one of my
negatives -- I will vote no if I have the opportunity to
vote on this. The reason is, is that it's going to impact
future budgets. And we -- we say that it doesn't change the
bottom line of the budget right now, and it does not; I
understand that. Next year, you're going to go back in and
put the same amount into the part-time line, and then the
$6,000 more salary, so it does impact future budgets.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the way I look at
it, my logic -- what?
MR. EMERSON: I may be lost somewhere in this
confusion, but it's my understanding that all the positions
and schedules for the employees are set by the
Commissioners, and how do you change the positions and pay
grades for an employee without an agenda item?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's kind of where I
am. I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that's why this
needs to accompany an agenda item that has a new job
io-z~-os
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1~
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
description and an explanation. So, I -- let's just pull it
today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And come back with it
in three weeks with the entire package.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the comment would be,
in my mind, if this person has extraordinary experience,
maybe you'd raise the -- the grade, but leave the -- or
leave the -- raise the step and leave the grade where it is,
whichever one's the second number.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's work all those
details out and come back.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any more budget
amendments?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's all I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any late bills?
(Mr. Tomlinson shook his head.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I have before me monthly
reports from Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1; Justice of
the Peace, Precinct 4; County Clerk and District Clerk. Do
I hear a motion that these reports be approved as submitted?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the reports as submitted. Any question or
1 0- 2 9- U S
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
comment? A11 in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Do we
have any reports from any of the Commissioners relative to
their liaison or committee assignments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only one thing I
would ask, Judge, we still need some people to serve on the
Senior Advisory Committee. We're not represented there at
all.
JUDGE TINLEY: At AACOG, you're speaking of?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, at AACOG, I'm
sorry. And just -- where'd the press go when you need them?
We need people to serve in that capacity.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, how old do we
have to be to be a senior, Bill?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can make it.
(Laughter.) If you volunteer, we'll put you there.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll give you an exemption,
even.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to get my
Social Security in January; I know I'll be qualified then.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In your case, we'll
is-z9-as
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
make an exception. We'll take you now.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a couple of
reports.
DODGE TINLEY: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: First, on the
library, I did attend the Library Advisory Board meeting on
Tuesday. And going into that meeting, I wasn't sure if
the -- if the City had named their appointees to the new
board or not, and they -- if they had, we didn't know about
it, so we didn't -- weren't able to get started with the
newly reconstituted Library Board, but we will in a future
meeting. The Friends of the Library are working on
resolving their charter, or whatever it is, issues so that
they can appoint someone who's a member of the board to be a
member of the Library Board. Other than sort of having the
feeling that it's a new beginning and maybe we can iron out
some -- some of the difficulties we had if we all work hard
at it, there wasn't much of anything to report there.
On another issue -- and I'm not a liaison to
the West P:err Volunteer Fire Department, but I just want to
report that all of you are aware that there's a -- a fairly
significant disagreement about -- between the Emergency
Service District Number 2 and the Mountain Home Fire
Department about how they should work together. Some of it
may have some past historical background, and some of it may
lu Z4 05
125
1
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be legitimate new issues, just learning what their roles
are. And parties from both sides and the press, in letters
to the Editor, ask for Commissioners Court involvement, or
to help them out with that. I've talked to, I think, all
the people that wrote letters and people on both sides of
the issues on the board of the ESD and on the board of the
Volunteer Fire Department, and what I've said to them -- and
in my opinion as Precinct 4 Commissioner, that Commissioners
Court or myself don't have any authority with those two
groups, other than the appointing members to the ESD board
and to make a contract with the volunteer fire department
for their services.
So that we didn't have -- in my opinion, we
didn't have any official role in trying to help them work
out their differences. I think they understand, and
probably even agree with that. The upshot of it is that
there's some reason to believe that they may be coming
closer together or better understanding each other's
concerns. There's some work going on to be more open about
the records of the fire department, and that's occurring
now. And I have agreed that I'll attend both of their next
meetings, the fire department and the ESD, be of whatever
service I can be. So, that -- that's an update where we are
on that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Any other member
lU-4-US
126
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
of the Court have anything to report on their respective
assignments? Elected officials? Any other reports of any
kind or character?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question.
Are we real comfortable that we have insurance coverage?
Everybody's real comfortable with that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what the man
said. Are you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWI
not even sure who we have coverage
the thing as a termination notice.
And then we get a -- I don't know.
into it, but it's just --
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
v: Hell,
with any
It says
I'm not
We got a
I don't -- I'm
more. I read
"termination."
going to go back
problem, is what
we got.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We got a problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Malek said that
we had coverage. So, until we deal with the problem, we
have coverage.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Part of my anger is
that -- is towards him and his organization, too, though.
Why send out a damn termination letter if you're not going
to terminate? What is that? Is that a game of some sort to
encourage you to make a payment? That's a lot of silliness
in that.
io z9 os
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
??
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's just -- it's
industry practice, and from -- to set them up for a legal
position, is what it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, maybe. Maybe we
need to terminate our relationship with them, then.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's every insurance
company. Have you ever -- I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And Mr. Wallace?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm trying.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know you are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It happens. But, I mean,
the bottom line is it should never get to that point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Speaking of Mr.
Wallace, I have a meeting tomorrow with Mr. Wallace and
the -- his new guy here in Kerrville and the Treasurer's
office. I think I do. I did up until this morning. I have
that meeting set up for tomorrow to try to get us all
together and get the program going. So, I may be leaving
town; I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we know who the
new guy is?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't recall his
name.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Todd Peters.
JUDGE TINLEY: Todd Peters.
io-z9-os
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Todd Peters, uh-huh.
I never met him. I understand he's a nice young man, and
willing to work with us. He just -- we have to get him
physically over here to sit down with us for a few minutes.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If he's the same one I'm
thinking of, Buster, he used to be a County employee.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Used to be what?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A County employee.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Really?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further, gentlemen?
We'll stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:06 p.m.)
ia-z9-,~s
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 28th day of October,
2005.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY : ____ _ _ _~jc~ei~-~ _ ____ _
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
In-z9-as
ORDER NO.29438
APPROVE PROPOSED 2006 BUDGET FOR KERR EMERGENCY 9-1-1
NETWORK
Came to be heard this the 24th day of October, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Proposed 2006 Budget for the Kerr Emergency 9-1-1 Network.
ORDER NO. 29439
APPROVAL OF COMMUNITY PLAN FOR SUBMISSION TO AACOG
Came to be heard this the 24th day of October, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Adopt the 2005-2006 Kerr County Community Plan for submission to
AACOG.
ORDER NO.29440
TAKE ACTION ON FINAL NOTICE FROM 9-1-1 ON ADDRESSES
Came to be heard this the 24th day of October, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Final Notice Letter, as amended, for the Kerr Emergency 9-1-1
Network.
ORDER NO. 29441
DISCUSS WATER AVAILABILITY REQUIREMENTS, SUBDIVISION
RULES AND/OR MODIFICATION OF COURT ORDER NO. 29006
Came to be heard this the 24th day of October, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Modify Court Order No. 29006 to provide that only 1.04 and 1.05 of the
Kerr County Subdivision Rules & Regulations, under the Kerr County Water
Availability Requirements, be suspended.
ORDER NO. 29442
DISCUSS CONCEPT PLAN OF "LAS COLINAS OF KERRVILLE" IN
PRECINCT 1
Came to be heard this the 24th day of October, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve waiver of minimum lot size to a 2-acre average.
ORDER NO. 29443
DISCUSS FINAL PLAT OF LEDGE STONE SUBDIVISION IN
PRECINCT 2
Came to be heard this the 24th day of October, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Grant conditional approval of the final Plat of Ledge Stone Subdivision,
located in Precinct 2, subject to the condition, being Mr. Odom's approval of
the sealcoating and entrance, as the final requirements before presentation
and report to the Judge, before the Judge signs same.
ORDER NO. 29444
SET PURCHASE PRICE FOR A COPY OF THE 2005-06 KERB
COUNTY BUDGET
Came to be heard this the 24th day of October, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set the purchase price for a copy of the 2005-0606 Kerr County budget at a
cost of $20.00.
ORDER NO. 29445
APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 BETWEEN KERB
COUNTY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES
Came to be heard this the 24th day of October, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Contract Amendment No. 1 between Kerr County and the
Department of State Health Services and authorize County Judge to sign
same.
ORDER NO. 29446
DISCUSS PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY
Came to be heard this the 24th day of October, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Memorandum of Understanding for construction of the Animal
Control Facility and authorize County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 29447
APPROVE KERB COUNTY JURY SELECTION PLAN
Came to be heard this the 24th day of October, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Kerr County Jury Selection Plan, as amended to reflect the
changes required by HB75 and SB1704.
ORDER NO. 29448
ACT ON ISSUES INVOLVING CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXPANSION
OF THE ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY, PARKING LOT AND
SIDEWALKS
Came to be heard this the 24th day of October, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize the Court's Liaison to the Animal Control Facility, Commissioner
Nicholson, to request any Waivers as he may deem appropriate with the City
of Kerrville regarding the expansion to the Animal Control Facility.
ORDER NO. 29449
DISCUSS RESOLUTION THANKING MR. CHARLES LEWIS FOR HIS
SERVICE ON THE KERB EMERGENCY 9-1-I BOARD
Came to be heard this the 24th day of October, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Resolution thanking Mr. Charles Lewis to thank him for his service
on the 9-I-1 Board.
ORDER NO. 29450
DISCUSS NOMINATION AND/OR APPOINTMENT OF NEW
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE KERR COUNTY 9-1-1 BOARD
Came to be heard this the 24th day of October, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Appoint Mr. Hugh Jons to the Board of Managers, as Kerr County's
representative to the Board of Managers of Kerr Emergency 9-1-1 network.
ORDER NO. 29451
REVIEW KERB CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT'S PROPOSED
BUDGET AMENDMENT
Came to be heard this the 24th day of October, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Kerr Central Appraisal District's Proposed Budget Amendment
to add a reserve account for costs related to any potential building purchase
or relocation, building renovation, and any associated moving or move-in
costs. The account shall be funded with surplus funds left over from the
Appraisal District's 2004 Operating Budget.
ORDER NO. 29452
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 24th day of October, 2005, came to be considered
by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and
Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	158,051.99
14-Fire Protection	$	4,382.50
15-Road & Bridge	$	75,304.87
18-County Law Library	$	208.00
19-Public Library	$	25,000.00
20-Road Districts	$	5,724.08
31-Parks	$	45.16
76-Juvenile Detention Facility	$	21,744.98
Total
$ 290,461.58
Upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner
Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the
claims and accounts.
ORDER NO. 29453
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 24th day of October, 2005, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports:
J.P. # 1
J.P. #4
County Clerk
District Clerk