1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
29
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, November 28, 2005
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
t,~
v )
~O
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4

1
..~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"' 2 4
25
I N D E X
November 28, 2005
PAGE
--- Visitors' Input 4
--- Commissioners' Comments 6
1.1 Consider approving interlocal agreement with
	Dallas County for holding their forensic	
	commitment hearings	10
1.2	Consider adopting new voting system in compliance	
	with the Help America Vote Act	10
1.3	Consider approving rental fee for electronic	
	voting equipment as per Texas Election Code	12
1.4	Consider approval of Electrical, Plumbing, HVAC	
	and Pest Control bids	21
1.5	Consider authorizing Employee Health Benefits	
	insurance consultant to advertise and solicit bids	
	for stop loss insurance for 2006	25
1.6	Consider advertising for bid to lease two backhoe	
	loaders	35
1.7	Consider final revision of plat for Lots 21 & 22 of	
	The Horizon, Section One, Precinct 1	40
1.8	Consider setting public hearing for revision of plat	
	for Tract 152-A of Spicer Ranch No. Three, Pct. 1	40
1.9	Consider setting public hearing for revision of plat	
	for Lots 5-9, Block 8 of Greenwood Forest, Pct. 4.	43
1.10	Consider Kerr County Subdivision Rules & Regulations	45
1.11	Consider Kerr County Water Availability Requirements	49
1.12	Consider possible project nominations from Kerr	
	County to the Statewide Transportation Enhancement	
	Program (STET)	71
1.13	Consider approving form contracts with County-	
	sponsored entities, authorize County Judge to sign	76
1.14	Consider approving form contracts with volunteer	
	fire departments, authorize County Judge to sign	78
1.15	Consider/discuss construction project at the Animal	
	Control Facility	88
4.1	Pay Bills	89
4.2	Budget Amendments	94
4.3	Late Bills	--
4.4	Approve and Accept Monthly Reports	97
5.1	Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee	
	Assignments	98
5.2	Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads	101
Adjourned 108
3
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
On Monday, November 28, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. Let me call to order the regularly scheduled
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled for
this date and time, Monday, November 28th, 2005, at 9 a.m.
Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Please rise and join
me in a word of prayer followed by the pledge of allegiance.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Merry Christmas.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kind of like --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ho, ho, ho.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appears that Commissioner
Baldwin's getting himself positioned to be Santa this
season.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, he's got his
beard ready.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS
at Belk yet?
I'm ready.
Have they hired you
11 "ft US
4
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm shooting for
Walmart. Going to the top.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Walmart.
JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, if there's any
member of the audience or the public that wishes to be heard
on an item that is not a listed agenda item, you're
privileged to come forward at this time. If you wish to be
heard on an item that is a posted and listed agenda item,
we'd ask that you fill out a participation form. It's in
the back of the room. It's not essential. It helps me to
not overlook you when we get to that item. But if you don't
get one of those filled out and you feel like you have some
input to a listed agenda item, when we get to that item, get
my attention in some form or fashion, and we'll be sure and
give you an opportunity to be heard. But if there's anyone
who wishes to be heard on any item that is not a listed
agenda item, please feel free to come forward at this time.
MS. MITCHELL: As you all know, I'm --
JUDGE TINLEY: Name and address, please.
MS. MITCHELL: Kathy Mitchell, Kerrville.
911 Peterson. I'm the Vice President of the Kerr County
Child Service Board that y'all appointed me to, and what we
are doing this year for the kids, we have 85 at this time --
85 Kerr County children under the supervision of Child
Protective Services, so what we're doing is we are asking
ii-ze-os
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for sponsors to sponsor a child or whatever. So if you know
of anybody or you want to sponsor somebody, just get with
me. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sponsor to do what?
MS. MITCHELL: Buy Christmas presents for the
children.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have a -- is
there -- have y'all set an amount, or --
MS. MITCHELL: Yes, we have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- a suggested amount?
MS. MITCHELL: Yes, we have, $25. What we
have is, we have -- we have the children listed as numbers,
since it's confidential, and we've gotten a list from them
what they would like for Christmas. And if you decide you'd
like to sponsor one, we will give you an envelope with a
child's age and male or female, and what they would like.
Or you can choose -- you can just send the money, and then
we'll go out and purchase the presents.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That sounds better.
MR. ODOM: Put me down as one.
MS. MITCHELL: I will. Thank you.
DODGE TINLEY: Thank you. Is there any other
member of the public that wishes to be heard on any item
that is not listed as an agenda item? Seeing no one else
i~-~a-o5
6
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
coming forward, we'll move on. Commissioner Williams, what
do you have for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought the
Christmas parade was a very good one this year. Gets better
every time we go, and particularly for the little folks who
work their way to the front of the crowd and enjoy the
lights and all that good stuff. And the people who decorate
the courthouse and put together the parade are to be
commended, 'cause it's -- a lot of hard work goes into it,
and it's a nice way to set off our season.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner 3?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: First, I think there was
a Christmas in Comfort -- so I was told, anyway. I did not
make it this year, but I heard it was a great success, as it
has been. The parade was great, a lot of folks in town
spending money. And on a personal note --
JUDGE TINLEY: Ah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the birth of my second
son. There he is right here. (Showed photograph.) He was
born -- he's one week old today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hold him up.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thank goodness he
doesn't look anything like Letz.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He does have that red
11-28-05
_i_

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tint to him.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, he does.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Blockhead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: His name is Augustus
David, and he will go by Gus.
MR. ODOM: How big was he?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He was 9 pounds, 13
ounces, 21 inches long.
MR. ODOM: Good size.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And his brother is
adjusting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Slowly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Football. He's going to
be a football player. Think so.
MR. ODOM: I think so. Going with A & M,
right?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For what? For what
reason? (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will have to say a note
on that. My brother-in-law, who, if you know him, is a
rather big Aggie -- strong Aggie supporter, decided that he
had to determine whether Sam, my oldest son, was going to be
an Aggie or a Longhorn, so he put two batting helmets on the
floor of the living room at his house and told him to go
pick one, and he picked the Aggie helmet, unfortunately.
11-za-n5
.............__._,i_.. _. ~ _ _._.._.
8
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
So, we --
MR. ODOM: Good child.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not sure if that's
a very reliable test or not, but after the weekend, I'm sure
he's changed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: After you threw it
away, right?
JUDGE TINLEY: Have we found a more
scientific approach?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, the score.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Nicholson, do you
have anything for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. The Hunt
Volunteer Fire Department had one of its several fundraisers
this last week where it cooks and sells turkeys, hams, and
briskets to raise funds. I went by there. I'm reminded
that throughout the county, and particularly in west Kerr
County, we've got a really good, fine group of volunteers
that provide a lot of protection at a real reasonable cost
to the county. We've got three good fire departments in
west Kerr County. That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner 1?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll just pick up on
ii-~a-os
f _
9
1
"` 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
these two guys. The Ingram Warrior basketball team is
ranked number one in the state, so -- and they play -- I go
out and see them a couple of times a year. They play real
quality basketball. If you like the upbeat, fast-paced
basketball, that's the place to go. These guys up here are
a little bit slow. What's interesting is, years ago, there
was a -- Ingram had this kid; the last time they won the
state championship, they had this kid by the name of Troy
House that is still the all-time leading scorer in Texas
basketball history. And the coach out at Ingram is the
number three all-time leading scorer, so it's kind of a -- I
mean, there is some quality basketball out there. Hunt
Elementary has a game tonight, and then the Comfort Bobcats,
football. They play in the semifinals this week, and I'm
here to tell you, when you -- when you reach the semifinals,
you're getting down to serious -- the kids go home. That's
some pretty serious stuff. So, we're real proud of our
local Kerr County kids. That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I also want to
express my appreciation to anyone that had anything to do
with the -- the courthouse lighting project and -- and the
event that took place here a week or so ago. It was attend
by seemingly a much larger number of folks this year. It
seems to get a little bit bigger every year, and that's what
it's all about. It's for the citizens and the children of
ii-<e-os
10
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 area, and I'm glad to see it improve every year. But,
particularly, I want to thank the courthouse lighting group
that spends a lot of time and a lot of money, by the way, in
making sure all these lights are up to snuff and get put up
every year. Let's move on with the agenda, if we might.
The first item on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action approving the interlocal agreement
between Kerr County and Dallas County for holding their
forensic commitment hearings. Ms. Pieper.
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, generally my deputy
just sends out the mental health commitment hearings to all
the counties, but Dallas County felt it best to, I guess,
have an actual forensic commitment contract, so their County
Attorney sent us a contract. It has been approved by our
County Attorney, so now we're requesting your approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agreement. Any question or comment? All in
favor that 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 2; consider, discuss, and take appropriate
ii-~w-os
_____..
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
11
action to adopt the new voting system in compliance with
Section 301(a)(3)(B) of the Help America Vote Act.
Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: I'm getting ready to send in our
preclearance to Washington, and in doing so, I found a law
that says that the County Commissioners need to adopt our
votinq system. So, I'm asking you to adopt the eSlate and
eScan, which is also known -- and the Ballot Now system,
which is known as Hart's Voting System.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you're asking us
to approve the electronic system? Is that what you're
asking?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir, the one that we've
already purchased.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The specific one, though,
right? Correct?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, the one that we've been
working on for several months in getting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the new voting system as per the agenda item.
Any question or comment?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think on this, I
just -- my only comment is, I think we need to be more
1i ~e us
___.__.._~. _. ~ _W .__._ .-.._
12
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
?~
specific as to exactly the system that we're doing, 'cause
this is -- voting is a pretty important issue and can
certainly have national ramifications, as we're all aware,
so I think we need to be real clear that we're -- that the
motion, when it's written, specifically says that eSlate,
voting system accessibility, and eScan voting system, which
is general HAVA compliance, for in-person voting on election
day and during early voting by personal appearance, and the
Ballot Now system for early voting by mail, an integrated
system known uniformly as the Hart Voting System.
JUDGE TINLEY: I gather you're suggesting
that the motion should be amended to provide exactly that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have any objection to
that, Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I have no
objection to it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Very well. The motion as
modified, any question or discussions? All in favor of that
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 3; consider, discuss, and take appropriate
ii za-os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
~~
23
2q
25
13
action approving the rental fee for the electronic voting
equipment as per the Teras Election Code. Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: Well, Section 123.032 and
123.033(e), that is attached for your information, it
states -- and I have it underlined for you as well -- that
the rental price for the entities that -- let me give you
the list of entities. This does -- the entities would be
the Kerrville ISD, Kerrville city, Ingram ISD, Ingram city,
Center Point ISD, Hunt ISD, Headwaters, the Republican
party, Democrat party, and Divide ISD, which I have not got
ahold of Divide yet. But this 123.032 (d) states that we can
charge 10 percent of the purchase price for each day the
equipment is leased. So -- and then for just the primary,
it will be $5 for each unit of the electronic voting system.
So we need to -- basically, the -- we need to discuss what
percentage we're going to charge the entities.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me see if I can
understand this. When we're speaking of 10 percent of the
purchase price, does that mean that all of those entities,
as a group, pay 10 percent? Or that each one of them --
MS. PIEPER: Each one individually.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, how much would
Divide ISD, that might have a handful of voters, pay for
the --
MS. PIEPER: In trying to figure out what
11-~N-us
14
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
they may rent, I'm thinking probably just one eSlate machine
and one D.R.E. machine; that would make them compliant, and
that would probably be $700 total.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For an election? Or
per --
MS. PIEPER: No, 10 percent per day. It's
going to be $700 a day, so that's what --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I look at it -- I
mean, I think we should recoup a portion of it, but I don't
think we should make money out of this, and it appears to me
that we're getting to the point that we can make money out
of it if we charge the full 10 percent.
MS. PIEPER: Right. That's why we need to
discuss -- I've talked with other clerks to find out what
their court is doing. Some are doing as low as 2 percent.
Some are doing 5 percent. I mean, it's just -- there's a
different amount all over the state.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think you
have to have a cost that covers your cost of handling, and
hopefully build up some reserve for replacement or repair.
MS. PIEPER: Exactly. Because I don't
know -- the Secretary of the State, I'm trying to work with
them for the rental contracts, and I'm not sure if -- if one
of our machines was to break, if they're going to be liable
for that.
it-~e-as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~4
25
15
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The state?
MS. PIEPER: No, the entity renting the
machine. Or if that will fall back on Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it should be -- I
mean, it would have to be Kerr County. We have to build it
into it. Unless they -- unless they break it intentionally,
you know, by negligence or something along that line. I
mean, just wear and tear, it happens to break on their
watch, they shouldn't have to buy it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go back to Commissioner
Nicholson's example on Divide. If they're holding an
election for their district, they obviously are going to
have an election day for whatever number of residents
they've got. What about early voting? Would they be using
those machines during the early voting period?
MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I think -- you
know, and I haven't really thought through this at great
length, but a fair way to me would be to take the -- we know
the total number of registered voters in the county, and
then take a percentage of -- we can figure out how many are
in the Divide school district or all these different
entities; we can figure out the number of voters that are in
that entity and just take a fractional percentage and
multiply that fraction by 10 percent or 5 percent or some
ii ze os
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~,
23
24
25
number. That way, Divide is paying a much smaller
percentage of 10 percent, and whereas the county-wide
elections are paying a much, you know, larger -- City of
Kerrville will be paying a larger amount than Divide. And
that, to me, is fair, and kind of helps recoup the cost.
And I guess I'd like to have this back on the agenda and
kind of figure out, under that scenario, how much money we
would -- are talking about charging. I'd like to see a
dollar figure, 'cause I don't want us to get to the point --
'cause I don't know right now as to whether it should be 10
percent, 5 percent, or 1 percent. I need to look at the
cost of the machines versus how much money we're --
MS. PIEPER: Well, I have that attached also.
But in this Schedule A that -- that shows all the prices, I
don't know what -- I don't know enough about the system or
had the training on the system to know exactly what they
will be using.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, typically -- we
use Divide as an illustration because it's small, but
typically, what would K.I.S.D. utilize for a school board
election?
MS. PIEPER: They will have early voting.
They would probably have one D.R.E. machine and one eSlate
machine as well, and then during election day, they normally
have three polling locations.
ii-za-~ s
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, another option might be
to utilize a ratio of taxable property values, as opposed to
registered voters.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Divide gets hurt
pretty bad on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, either
one will work. I'd rather do it with -- I think it's
probably fairer to use the registered voters. But I think
we need to look at -- you know, I guess what I'd like to see
is what the cost of one unit is or one -- or a D.R.E., and
what's the other one?
MS. PIEPER: eSlate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: ESlate. What each cost,
and then a general estimation of how many that each of these
entities would use.
MS. PIEPER: During early voting, I'm
estimating they will have one eSlate and one D.R.E.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And one machine
is 60,000?
MS. PIEPER: One -- it shows one eSlate is
2,500.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 2,500.
MS. PIEPER: And one eScan is 4,500.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm sure we've been
all over this debate before, but this Help America Vote Act
1~-ae-os
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
has all the characteristics of an unfunded mandate. Somehow
we struggled along for 199 years in this county without
Washington's help. Now, all of a sudden, we -- we need a
complex electronic device to get through our elections. But
we've already talked about that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, how long -- early
voting generally lasts --
JUDGE TINLEY: Ten days.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- ten days for these
entities?
MS. PIE PER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, those machines are
7,000 -- 700 a day times 10 would be the minimum. We're
talking about 7,000 for early voting, you know. And then on
the election day, it would be whatever the -- that amount
is. I just think you need to look at that; need to know the
ratios.
MS. PIE PER: Right. If we -- because if the
price is too high, they won't contract to rent from us;
they'll go directly from a vendor.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I mean, I think
-- and they're all -- everyone is -- you know, we're all
taxpayers in the same community.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I go back to
what you said. I don't think we need to make money. I
ii-za-os
19
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
lG
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think we need to cover our costs. Do we currently charge
anybody for any voting apparatuses, or --
MS. PIEPER: No, sir, we don't.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With no -- nothing?
MS. PIEPER: Nothing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, we're taking a
leap in a direction we've never been before. I think we
have to be justified -- be prepared to justify our costs,
our handling costs, and a small amount for repair and
replacement. And beyond that, I think we shouldn't go.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, could you have
a -- at our next meeting, put this back on the agenda and
bring both the ratios based on registered voters and
property values, and let us take a look at that and see how
it breaks down for each of the entities?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That would be good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I'd like to
see also the numbers run on 10 percent and 5 percent. See,
5 percent, in my mind, is going to be more palatable to the
whole thing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, and I think I
would agree in that direction, maybe even less than
5 percent.
i~-a-o5

1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. The -- and she
could get it back in here today, maybe. How big of a hurry
are we in now?
MS. PIEPER: We're not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay.
MS. PIEPER: Not until May, when the school
board elections.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: The other consideration might
be, rather than having it on a per-diem cost, it could be a
per-election cost.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Per-election cost.
MS. PIEPER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just a single cost.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And my last comment,
Jannett, on this, we ought to list Headwaters as Headwaters
Groundwater Conservation -- the full name or an acronym for
the full name.
MS. PIEPER: Normally, with them, I contract
to do their elections.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just saying, from the
name standpoint, we don't want to say "Headwaters," 'cause
they're -- we ought to use their legal name, 'cause we're
using the ISD's and all that.
MS. PIEPER: Okay.

21
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And not that I -- I can't
think of, really, a time when we would do an election for
Upper Guadalupe River Authority, but it sure would be good
to include them in here in case they, for some reason, do
something, so we don't have to go back and scramble.
MS. PIE PER: Well, basically, the order that
y'all produce for the rental will be for any entity, other
than the primaries. The primaries, it's a flat $5 fee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right. That's
good, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you very much. Let's
move on to Item 4, if we might. Consider, discuss, and
consider approval of electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and pest
control bids. Mr. Holekamp.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Good morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Morning, sir.
MR. HOLEKAMP: Y'all have any questions on
the bids or proposals?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the HVAC's?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Okay. HVAC's, I would -- they
all have their positives. As y'all did last year, you -- we
accepted all three of them, or whatever it was last year,
and let me choose. Because one -- one particular vendor is
much better at one facility versus another, as far as
knowing the equipment and where it's located and what it
i~ _a us
22
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
serves.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Same thing with pest
control? Or --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Oh, pest control is a little
more diffir_ult. It -- there again, as we have a vendor
that's been here three years, I know their practice record,
but they are not the low bid. Low bid is Hill Country Pest
Control. There's a couple of things there that -- the
questions that, if we go with the low bid, I need to get
answered as far as they -- they have a little note in here
that any additional service per month or certain pests,
there would be an additional charge, but it doesn't say what
the additional charge is. So, Terminix's track record with
us is very good, and so is Starkey's. Hill Country Pest
Control, there's no reason why they won't perform at the
level that any other pest control in this town can do --
could be, and I would probably select them based on it's the
best bid. But I would really like, before we -- I would
like to be able to sit down with those folks and find out
exactly what that additional charge would be. I think
that's real important.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do either of the
other two also have additional charges?
MR. HOLEKAMP: Yes, but they spell them out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
ii-~~-n=
- ., _,~
23
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HOLEKAMP: They spelled them out in the
bidding. Like, Terminix is $30 for extra service for
unlisted pests, and Starkey has an attachment showing
warranty on services. He -- he really didn't indicate in
Starkey's an additional charge, but all of them have it, as
you have listed pests that -- that are covered. So, at this
time, I would probably recommend Hill Country Pest Control.
This, again, is -- I would -- if it doesn't work out as far
as the -- I get the answers that I need, and also the
background check on the person that's going to be doing the
exterminating, because over in the jail there are some
sensitive areas that they'll have to go, and I -- I have to
be real careful about who goes back there, and I think the
Sheriff would appreciate us being kind of careful on who we
turn loose with the sprayer back there. So, those are
little question things that I -- I feel like that we -- we
have a right to cancel a contract if it doesn't work out,
and/or vice-versa; if they don't like the terms that we...
On the plumbing, we only had one bid, and those folks have
done us an excellent job. I would see no change. Same
thing with electrical. D.W. Electric of Kerrville has done
an excellent job with providing service that we need.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I'll make a motion
that we accept D.W. Electric for our electrical --
contractor?
li-~e-cis
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
MR. HOLEKAMP: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Electrical contractor,
Whelan Plumbing for our plumbing contractor, Hardin Heating
and Cooling, Compton's, and Trademark for HVAC to be used at
the discretion of the Maintenance Supervisor, --
MR. HOLEKAMP: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- and Hill Country Pest
Control first, Terminix second, and Starkey third for pest
control services, based on further communications from the
Maintenance Supervisor.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the bids as indicated in the motion. Any
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just a comment, that
I -- particularly on the pest control service, I think we
ought to have a very good and specific reason if we decide
not to go with low bidder.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or
comment? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
ii-ae ins
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. The
next item on the agenda is Number 5; consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action to authorize the employee health
benefits insurance consultant to advertise and solicit bids
for stop loss insurance for the 2006 employee health
benefits program. I put this back on the agenda. There
were some members of the Court that had some questions, and
Mr. Looney is here with us today, and he would be the
gentleman that would be able to answer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What were the
questions?
MR. LOONEY: Good morning, Judge,
Commissioners. I am impressed; thank you very much. This
is --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're actually
early.
MR. LOONEY: I'm very impressed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What were the
questions?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One of the questions
was, is the local agent service included in this bid?
MR. LOONEY: Local agent services?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
MR. LOONEY: The stop loss insurance, when
you bid stop loss coverage, an agent is associated with that
ii-ze-os
~_ _ - ..~ .~ r ~ ~
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
GJ
contract, and that's part of the negotiation. Now, you have
services provided by the agent to provide the services for
that portion of the contract. Does that make sense?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that local agent
one who is selected by the underwriter, or by Kerr County?
MR. LOONEY: By the County or by the
underwriter? Typically --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who selects the local
agent?
MR. LOONEY: The local agent, typically, when
a bid goes out and we submit a bid to the industry, we ask
the insurance company to name a single agent that will
represent that product for this particular area, and then
that agent	then	-- if	that	contract is	awarded, that	agent
is assigned	to	service	that	contract.	We typically	don't
get in a position where we have multiple agents assigned to
one bid. That puts the emphasis back on the Court to select
the agent, then, in relationship to that contract. If you
want that responsibility, then when we write the request for
proposal, we'll allow all agents to be assigned to that
11-2~-UJ
__._.._ _.._._.~..~.._._~____._....~- . ~ r ~ ~ ~ t
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
particular product. They have to be licensed with the
company. They have to be accepted by the company, certified
by the company as to be eligible to participate with that
company. However, after an award is made, then it would be
your selection as to who the agent would be to service that
contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Looney, can you --
okay, we're doing, I understand, the stop loss coverage, but
only that. Does that mean that our -- our agreemeii~ wl ui
Wallace and Associates is part -- is already -- I mean, that
relationship is going to pass on regardless of who we have,
or is it -- or are they the --
MR. LOONEY: They are the agents assigned to
the administration portion of the Mutual of Omaha,
administrative services portion of the contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which we're not bidding.
MR. LOONEY: Which we're not bidding. That's
a three-year contract. We -- we agreed to three years, and
we have specific rates in our contract for a three-year
period. The stop loss underlying insurance contract can
vary. Even though we do have a three-year renewal portion
at our option under the Mutual of Omaha contract, we have
that option, but that is not -- we were going to put it out
for bid to determine whether or not that underlying
insurance product was properly priced going forward for next
li-'8-OS
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How -- I guess I'm
confused. I guess I have a difficult time envisioning how
you change the stop loss carrier without changing the
underlying insurance, because it seems they have to work
together.
MR. LOONEY: They do work together, but it's
a reporting function. The claims administration, you have
claims administration that handles the claims on a daily
basis.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. We've done that
for three years.
MR. LOONEY: We got that on Mutual of Omaha
for three years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: They collect the data on the
claims, the volume of the claims, whatever they experience
the exposure is, and then that data is transferred to the
insurance company to determine whether or not there is
anything at risk or any losses incurred. Very same product,
very same situation that you had in the past with other
carriers, because you've changed stop loss carriers a number
of times in the past.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. LOONEY: The impact is that there's no
L 1 2 P- U S
tea` - +~ r _,_~_~. ~
29
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
impact on the employees, because they have the same
networks. They're dealing with the same administrative
people on the claims side of it, so there's not any impact
on the employee going forward, with the exception if you
make changes in the employee contributions. The same
physicians are available and so on. The only impact is on
the insurance for the specific, which is the individual
deductible or the aggregate -- which is the deductible and
its aggregate. So there's no, really, impact on the
employee.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The difficulties
that we've experienced over the past year generally are in
-- in the areas of enrollment and claims administration and
complying with ERISA, administrative kind of things. And so
I think what I'm hearing is that the local agent for the
stop loss insurance doesn't have any role in that.
MR. LOONEY: Not very much at all. Very
little role. They're agents assigned to the underlying
insurance coverage, and there's really not much more than
the awarding of the contract to them on being the low bid in
a situation. Very little service required of them. The
service generally is between the insuring company and the
administrator. That's where the service element on that
piece of it occurs.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, any difficulties
li-~~ as
30
1
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 experiencing in those areas I mentioned, we need to
deal with Mutual of Omaha?
MR. LOONEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And in that area, going a
step further, I mean, there's been some personnel changes at
Mutual of Omaha, as I understand it, that we think will
help, maybe. Mr. Ochoa, I think was the gentleman's name,
is no longer with Mutual of Omaha. If they're -- if the
County still experiences problems between -- somewhere
between Wallace and Associates and Mutual of Omaha, --
MR. LOONEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- what is our recourse?
MR. LOONEY: Your recourse there is to go to
the market and request for proposal, request for
qualifications for an agent to service your Mutual of Omaha
contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we can do that
without changing our three-year commitment with Mutual of
Omaha?
MR. LOONEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess that gets me
back to my original question. Why wouldn't we do that now?
MR. LOONEY: There's -- you can do it now if
you'd like. You can do it at any time you want. Now, the
difference is, you have -- there's certain processes that we
ii-ae us
31
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
go through when we do a request for proposal. As I stated a
while ago, one of the things that we do is we ask the
insuring company, the stop loss insurance, to name a
specific agent. That's what -- in the past, that's what
we've done, so that there's only one agent associated with
one proposal. If you don't want to follow that track, you
can request for proposals and then have a separate request
for agent qualifications, and then you assign the agent to
that particular proposal format, or if you want to assign
that agent to the entire package of insurance, then you can
do that also. It's not required that you do that at an
annual anniversary date; you can do that at any time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, at any time during
the year -- I mean, I understand Wallace and Associates has
made changes and so has Mutual of Omaha made some changes,
and if things are working better than they did a good part
of last year, you know, I would not be in favor of making
any change. If they are not, I'm going to want to make a
change, and I don't want to wait for another year.
MR. LOONEY: You can do that at any time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We just have to do a
request for --
MR. LOONEY: A request -- request for
qualifications is typically what we do, 'cause we do an
analysis of the individual based on the qualifications, as
tl-ze-ns

32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
opposed to a product itself.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: There is the concept of -- you
know, the term is "award" a contract, when we award
contracts. So, in the past, we awarded the contract to
Mutual of Omaha and to the agent. The agent, Mr. Wallace,
brought Mutual of Omaha to the table. He's the one that
brought them to the table. We awarded him the contract as
an agent and the contract to Mutual of Omaha as an award.
Now, what you're talking about the possibility of doing is
taking that award away -- that product away from the
individual that brought it to the table and moving it to
someone else. To do that, the basis for that movement is
the definition of service. If you don't feel that you're
getting the qualified service from that other particular
agent, tkien the award can go to another servicing agent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the local agent
under contract to Kerr County or under contract to the
insurance company?
MR. LOONEY: The award -- the contract that
you award would be to a particular agent. The agent would
be paid by the insurance company based on a certain
certification or qualifications of that particular agent,
but the Court would make that award.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
ii-ze-os

33
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion to
authorize the Kerr County employee health benefits insurance
consultant to advertise and solicit bids for stop loss
insurance for 2006 employee health benefits program.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item as indicated. Any question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just want to make a
comment. Our present -- god, I've lost his name again -- in
Seguin.
MR. LOONEY: Don Wallace.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Wallace has hired
a local agent, and we have sat down with him a second time
in this room with Mr. Wallace and the local guy, and the
local guy is not only on call to us, but he is scheduled in
this building once a week. So, to put some of the fears to
bed, I think we need to let that run for a little while and
see if that's going to work. And I feel confident that it
is, so it's going to be okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or
comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
ii-aa-ns

34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2q
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank
you for being here, Mr. Looney.
MR. LOONEY: Thank you, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: When -- when might we expect
the ability to take some action on your -- on your
solicitation? I realize we're running a little late.
MR. LOONEY: We're running late. This is
going to be a quick turnaround. We hope to have it totally
completed in three weeks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, what we need to
probably be looking at, then, is the last -- last meeting of
the year, I suspect, or second meeting, fourth Monday in
December?
MR. LOONEY: Yes.
MS. MITCHELL: Tuesday, December 27th.
JUDGE TINLEY: December 27th?
MR. LOONEY: We do have a contract in place,
and it is renewable, so it's not -- it's not as if we would
be without coverage if we don't, you know --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. LOONEY: -- have another bid that's less
than.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Appreciate you pointing
ii-zs ns
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
<1
22
23
29
25
that out.
MR. LOONEY: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. The next item
on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to advertise for bid to lease two backhoe loaders.
MR. ODOM: What I passed out was some
supplemental information. There's a bid packet that I
didn't have for Monday. Monday came up quick for me, and I
wanted to verify specifications. The current ones I had
were 4~6, and this is a 420; nomenclature changed a little
bit, so I wanted to make sure I had it all right from the
last five years ago. Basically, what had happened -- well,
what I wish to do, and I asked the Court to allow us to go
out to bid for two backhoes. Originally, I thought about a
914 loader. We're having problems with having backup in the
yards, particularly Spur 100. There's an old W-11 backhoe
which is probably 25 years old, somewhere around 1980 model,
and it's obsolete and you can't get parts, so I'm down. So,
we originally thought about changing a five-year lease for a
914 and bringing in the 910, but the more I thought about
it, I -- which is a loader in -- Douglas' loader, and which
I would have -- and that is a 1990 or '91 loader. But we've
spent money on it in that interim, from the time I
originally proposed to do the exchange or thought about it
in the budget process, and we spent money on it, so we feel

36
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
like we can accomplish what I want to do with two backhoes,
and the lease money is there. They're four-wheel drives.
They're currently the same that I have in the yard with the
hammer. And then I can change out Douglas' old backhoe --
it's 21 years old -- and still have my backup in the yard to
load asphalt base, different things like that in Spur 100.
But there are times that we're down. And I have the money;
it's there. It is also an option of which I can put a
swivel on it. It is a power tilt situation on the end of
the backhoe, and I would almost have a Gradall. I could do
the things that I can do with Gradall with a whole lot less
money.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're wanting to
add --
MR. ODOM: I'm wanting to lease two backhoes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- two backhoes? And not
do --
MR. ODOM: Not do the 914 at all. And I'd
still do it with the same money.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have any problem
with doing that and authorizing the agenda item, but we need
to come back at our next meeting for a budget amendment,
'cause this is changing Capital Outlay. And I don't see a
problem; I just think that we need to keep our budget clear
that we're deleting one item in Capital Outlay and adding
11-'8-05

37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
two new ones.
MR. ODOM: Well, this was a lease. It wasn't
under Capital Outlay items. This was a lease item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not Capital Outlay?
Okay.
MR. ODOM: It was a lease item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But you're trading in
one?
MR. ODOM: I'm trading one in, and which
is -- she gave you the supporting documents Monday. She
forgot to put in the trade-in on that backhoe, and that's
the reason I'm showing a difference. I wanted it to be
clear to the Court that I wanted to trade in and use that
money toward the payment -- knock down the note on those two
loaders.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard, is it -- just
for fun here, --
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- does the extension
of the dually -- is that about the same? Or do you --
MR. ODOM: The extension -- the depth of
work -- I mean the depth of that bucket will stay the same.
What I'm talking about is a power tilt. That --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
MR. ODOM: -- gives you the ability to take
ii-ze-us
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that bucket and turn it 90 degrees and sit there and pull
out where we're behind mailboxes things like that, that they
can't get in now. The only thing we can use right now is a
JCB, which is open -- you know, it's running an hour, and I
work on it two hours. And -- but I'm thinking that I can
have that ability to use it instead of having -- still allow
Gradalls to do the work that I want them to do. But it
would give us --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Things have changed,
Gordon. 911's, 924's, Gradalls, et cetera, et cetera. I
doubt if there's anybody at this table that knows how to
start one of those things, much less know what you're
talking about when we get from the 911's and the 914's.
MR. ODOM: There's a nomenclature for a
loader, and that's what I'm saying. It just changes the
sizes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll take your word
for it. I want to go riding on it, though.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: After I qet through
with our ambulance.
MR. ODOM: But I would ask the Court to give
us permission to go out for this five-year lease, and then I
will run this past Rex and all, but it's the standard that
we've been using for the last several years for backhoes and
~~ ~s-ns
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12-H's, the motor graders.
JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, what you're
saying is that rather than acquire one loader, you can
acquire these two backhoes for the same money by --
MR. ODOM: That's right, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- trading in a piece of
equipment that's pretty well obsolete when it comes to
repair?
MR. ODOM: Comes to repair.
JUDGE TINLEY: And still have the same
capability, plus some more?
MR. ODOM: Plus some more.
JUDGE TINLEY: And more versatile type
capability?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval to
authorize Road and Bridge to advertise for the bid to lease
two backhoes instead of one loader, as was specified in the
budget discussions.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
~i-~a os
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's
move to Item 7, if we might; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action for the final revision of plat for Lots
21 and 22 of The Horizon, Section One, as described in
Volume 6, Page 323, Plat Records, located in Precinct 1.
MR. ODOM: I would ask the Court to grant
final platting for this revision. It is taking two lots and
bringing them into one and creating 15.65 acres, and I think
that is -- is a good move.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
DODGE TINLEY: A11 opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
DODGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's
move to Item 8, if we night. Consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to set a public hearing for revision of
plat for Tract 152-A of Spicer Ranch Number Three, as set
ii _a os
91
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
forth in Volume 3, Page 85, Plat Records, and located in
Precinct 1.
MR. ODOM: Before you, you have the proposed
revision of the plat. This piece of property falls under
the Kerr County Subdivision Rule 1.03.B as exempt from
platting as a family division of property. However, the
owner prefers to plat. What has happened is that two
brothers -- and you can see two structures on this property,
and what you have is the Scottows -- Bill and Edith Scottow
wish to subdivide this, even though it falls under that
exemption, because they have a brother, and in case
something should happen to the brother, they felt like this
would clear some -- you would have a situation with an
outside party, so they wanted to plat this. We see no
problems of platting this. It has a water supply by Aqua
Texas system, and under the new rules proposed, the S.Ol.D,
5B, that it would be 3 acres, so two lots would be
acceptable, and we would ask the Court for permission to set
a public hearing for January the 9th, 2006, at 10:15 a.m.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Leonard, just for my
own edification, on the plat here we have Tract 152-A --
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- and B on the
original plat, and now we've gone to R and S. Now, why is
that? Why not a C and a D? Is there --
ii-aa-n5
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- some magical
reason?
MR. ODOM: 152-B, which is not part of --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
MR. ODOM: -- not part of this piece of
property.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right, I understand
that.
MR. ODOM: And I don't know. You have -- you
would signify them one way or another in the -- I guess they
chose that number. I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I don't have any
problem with it. I just wondered if there was some magical
something going on here.
MR. ODOM: No. You had an A and a B, and
that B is totally a separate entity.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
MR. ODOM: And so, you know, that's probably
appropriate. I don't know of any reason technically why
that would not be acceptable. Jonathan may know something I
don't, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner Letz, do
you see any problem with the family issue?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. I think anyone has
11-J~-nS
43
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
an option	to plat	whenever they	want. They just don't -- in
this case,	they're	not required	to. I see no problems with
it.			
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we set a
public hearing for this item for January 9th, 2006, at
10:15 a.m. in this courtroom.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion -- excuse me. Did you
second that, Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
set a public hearing for revision of plat for Tract 152-A of
Spicer Ranch Number Three, as set forth in Volume 3, Page
85, and located in Precinct 1, for January the 9th, 2006, at
10:15 a.m. before this Court. Any question or discussion?
All in favor of that 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. The
next item is consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
to set a public hearing for revision of plat for Lots 5
through 9 in Block 8 of Greenwood Forest, as set forth in
Volume 5, Page 92, Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4.
11-2P-p5
49
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
LO
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is a revision of
plat. By doing this, we're taking five lots and making them
into four. We're increasing the size of them from
approximately a half acre to about eight-tenths of an acre.
A little bit more frontage, from 100 to 125, and I would ask
the Court to set a public hearing for this alternate plat
process for January the 9th, 2006, at 10:20 a.m.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One question. Is
January the 9th the soonest we can hold a public hearing on
this?
MR. ODOM: Has to be 30 days. And I think
Truby probably worked this with Kathy, so --
MS. MITCHELL: No, she hadn't, but let me
look real quick here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be. It's going
to be --
MS. MITCHELL: Mm-hmm.
MR. ODOM: It should be, yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is the
direction we'd like to go, turning five lots into four, so I
don't see that there can be any problems with it, so I'm
going to make a motion that we set a public hearing for
revision of plat for Lots 5 through 9, Block 8 of Greenwood
Forest, Volume 5, Page 92, Precinct 4, and that hearing be
ii-_s o5
r
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~5
held on January the 9th at 10: --
MS. MITCHELL: 20.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- 10:20 a.m.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
set a public hearing as indicated in the motion. Any
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's
move to Item 10; consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action on Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'm not quite as
far along as I had hoped to be, mainly because of Augustus
being born.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's no excuse.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No excuse. I thought
I -- I received comments from Miguel, and also received
comments from Leonard. I don't -- a lot of those are
more -- are basically minor-type changes. They're nothing
real significant; just a couple of them with Leonard are --
have a little more substance to them, but still, they're not
ii-ze-ua
.i..... - - ......~_,...._....... __. . ~
46
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
great changes. And I have not had time to get with Rex, so
I would really just like to pass on this one today. And I
would say, you know, if anyone has any written comments, I'd
like to get them, and I can try to incorporate those, or if
anyone has any comments of things that they think I'm
getting way off the deep end on these new rules, let me
know, and at our next meeting we'll have a revised draft.
There are two members I see in the public
that I suspect may be here for this item. I'll make a
comment on the process. What we're doing at the moment is,
we're -- I've pretty much taken it upon myself to rewrite
the subdivision rules. At our next meeting, hopefully they
will come back before the Court and be approved by the
Court. Then they will go out to the public for a 30-day
period, at which point that will culminate with a public
hearing on them, and then any comments from the public
during that period or at the publir_ hearing will be taken
under consideration by the Court. And then after that
public hearing, bring them bark before
approval, so there's going to be ample
for, you know, the public to get -- to
us input. We're just -- we're trying
anyone is welcome to get a copy of the
off of right now. But rather than get
the Court for final
amount of time to --
look at them and give
to -- and, certainly,
draft we're working
a bunch of drafts out
there before the Court, at least if we can get the five of


47
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
us and Rex and Leonard in agreement, it's probably easier to
let us hash it out for a while and then get comment from
everyone else in the community. So, that's the process.
But at our next meeting, we will -- probably we will make a
number of copies available at a nominal charge, if any
charge at all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner, this is
not the working draft, is it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are you looking at?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I mean --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, that's the
working -- which one? Is it -- does it say 11-13-OS on top?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the working draft.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, is there any
way we can figure out how to either interline or red-line
these so we know what the changes are?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Judge asked that last
time. The problem is that there are so many changes. I
mean, I'd say over 50 percent of the paragraphs have been
modified, and the changes may be very small. But I could go
back and highlight the paragraphs, I guess. But I don't
know if any one of y'all have used the correction mode on
Word.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Takes forever.
ii-za-os

48
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: It gets so confusing, you
end up with so many notes and so many lines, and, you know,
one's in blue ink and one's in red ink, that to me, I can't
follow it any more. And at this point, I've changed it so
many times that I don't think Word can catch up to what I've
done. I really -- I mean, I can -- I'll be glad to
highlight where the major changes are, but there -- it's
literally -- I mean, I think Leonard -- he's, I know, read
it word by word, based on his comments, and there's changes
throughout. I mean --
MR. ODOM: There's changes. It's better --
and it is better.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. So it's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it something that
we need to consider having a workshop, and sit down and go
over -- all of us go over line by line?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we do that at
our next meeting? That's a good idea. If I can get the
comments in, I think Commissioner Nicholson has a lot of red
stickies on his copy. I can incorporate those that I can
in, and then I can go through and -- 'cause, like I say, I
really need to get with Rex as well before that, and then at
the workshop at our next meeting, maybe that afternoon we
can do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that would be
ii-ze-os
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
^0
21
22
23
24
25
helpful, because, frankly, I'm lost.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I really don't have
very many comments, Jonathan, and they're -- maybe one or
two of them are. Would it be okay if I just gave you this?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be great.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't -- most of
them are questions. They're not really suggestions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The questions, though, I
really -- I like getting those, because it means that
something's not clear to you, usually. That's what a lot of
Leonard's comments were. You know, "Is this what you're
trying to say?" And that's probably as helpful as anything
else. But I think we can certainly go through a workshop
and go through it page by page and get -- you know, kind of
highlight where the changes are. Incidentally, I --
Commissioner Baldwin and I are meeting with the City on the
ETJ issue again, and we're also trying to look at -- they're
looking at our rules and their rules to see if we can get a
little bit closer in some areas as well, so that might be an
adjustment. So, that's kind of where we are.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other member of the Court
have anything further to offer on Item 10? We'll move
forward. Item 11, consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action on Kerr County Water Availability P.equirements.
Commissioner Letz again.
ii-_~ os
r. r a._ . _..W.~._i ~ ~~.~
50
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This one, if I can find
my stack of stuff --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This one's different.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This one's different. We
have -- we have made some changes. I'd like to hand out a
new draft of this one, and I will explain what the change
is.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is since -- the
change is since the last one we --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- we saw? Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a couple other
copies. Give one to Rex, too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here's an extra one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oops, I need one copy
back, Rusty.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here you go.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I need a copy. The --
we'll get you copy. I had quite a bit of contact with some
members of Headwaters Board. Their board has not taken a
definite position, to my knowledge, but I am listening --
I've listened to several of the members that have -- have
provided me comments, primarily by e-mail, and they're --
you know, and I guess a lot of that goes down to whether or
not we should implement a portion of -- I call it Chapter --
i~ ze-ns
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2L
23
24
25
TAC 230, and I think everyone received a copy of TAC 230
last week, which is about a 20-some-page document, I
guess -- 15-page. And after talking primarily with Jim
Hayes about this at some length, I came up with a kind of a
solution and changed the wording quite a bit based on a lot
of his comments, and hopefully I made it a little bit
clearer.
Under water availability requirements,
there's now two options for the developer. One option is to
go with minimum county-wide acreage and lot size
requirements, which are the same as we had previously.
Option two, I've just termed it individual subdivision water
availability. Under this, the developer, at his option, may
choose or can choose to prove water availability under
Chapter 230. If they do that, you know, the way I read the
rules, a couple of things happen. One is a comment that I
think Headwaters is going to need to take formal action on,
if it's included, that they may grant higher pumping limits
in this situation because there's a water availability
study. I'm not sure if they can do that. That was a
suggestion from Mr. Hayes.
The other option is that the -- or other item
is that, to me, if we're asking developers to go out and
drill wells and get a geologist or engineer to prove water
availability, that is the water availability, then, and our
1 i- ~ R- V F.
52
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
county-wide minimums no longer hold. So, the acreage -- the
lot size limits are going to be based on that water
availability study. You know, I don't -- in my mind, I
can't understand how you can require a developer to go out
and do a -- a full water availability analysis on a piece of
property and then say, "We're glad you did that, but now
you're going to use the county-wide rules." You've got to
-- whatever that study proves is what that subdivision
should be -- lot size should be based on. And I tossed the
ball back to Headwaters and said they've got to figure all
that out, because I don't think we're equipped with the
knowledge to look at a water availability analysis such as
Chapter 230 and know what it really says. Personally, I
can't imagine a developer wanting to do that, because
they're going in, they're spending a lot of money with no
knowledge as to what they're going to get at the out -- at
the back side of it. But if they want to do it, I have no
problem with letting them do it, and if that helps
Headwaters, that's great.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tell me why, again --
I think you just explained it, but I can't get my brain
wrapped around it -- why you would want to give anybody the
option to adopt 230. I mean, I -- I can't find anything in
here I like, anywhere.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't either, but some
11 ! 8 i~5
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 G
23
29
25
people -- I mean, and I would say some of Headwaters Board
like it. Evidently, not that we want to be like other
counties, but Kendall County, Gillespie County, and Bandera
County have adopted a form of 230, parts of it. What I
don't understand in those counties is that they also have
minimum acreage requirements, and I'm not real sure how you
do the two things. I mean, if you require a water
availability study, that should be the determining factor.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see how you can
ask them to do a water availability analysis and then say
King's X, we're going to use our county-wide -- what we want
to do anyway. So it's kind of, you know, an option that
some on Headwaters thought was a good idea. I'm not sure
all of them do. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Jon, I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- it is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- I see this 230
thing as a way to control growth.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, 'cause nobody
can do this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I look at --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't understand
how --
11-za os
54
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~5
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I look at 230 as two
things. One, I don't know how an engineer or geologist
would be comfortable ever signing off on that. That's one
-- you know, assuming -- but that assumes that all
consulting engineers and geologists are ethical and good
people, and when you wave -- when you put dollars in front
of them, I can see consulting engineers and geologists
potentially signing off on something. And I think that
that's what I see as a big problem with it, is that the --
it gives the consulting engineers and geologists the ability
to say what water availability is. And, yes, they're
signing off for a 30-year term, but in reality, what's that
mean?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What does that mean?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. It means that if
there's no water in five years or 10 years or 30 years,
water runs out, it means that someone can file a complaint
with their governing state licensing board and try to get
their license revoked. It doesn't help the people at all;
maybe some civil damages they can go after or something
against the geologist, but I don't -- you know, I mean, I
just -- I don't have a lot of confidence that the State's
going to ever jerk a geologist or engineer's license because
they missed on a water availability study that no one -- I
mean, it's so vague. I mean, how would you know what's --
11-lA-Ob
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1~
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2q
25
how much water is actually there? And it's -- and Chapter
230 has covered it by saying in their opinion. well, as
soon as you put the word "opinion" in there, you know, it
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Couple points. One,
in my way of thinking, that the minimum acreage rules that
we have had in the past and currently have do serve to
protect water availability issues, but they're also, in
addition to that, a way of managing growth, as Commissioner
Baldwin said. Controlling growth. And I think that's
desirable. If -- I'm thinking if you go to 230, that
introduces a whole lot of subjectivity into it. The minimum
acreage rules are pretty straightforward, pretty cleancut.
We occasionally get a complaint about -- about them, but
they're easier to administer, I think, and fairer, and have
less subjectivity than allowing case-by-case determinations
of water availability.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, in -- I don't
want to say in -- "in defense" is probably not the right
term, but in support of Headwaters' position, and their
rationale is -- and I don't want to speak for them, 'cause I
know there's several of the members here today, one general
member and one board member. I think they're very accurate
in saying that drilling test wells and observation wells is
the best way to determine water availability in a specific

_.. _.__.._..~.._____ r.
56
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
?5
location. I mean, I think there is a value to that, and I
think they would like to get the science from that. I mean,
it'll help in a county-wide mapping project that they are
working on at Headwaters. So, I mean, there -- and there
are areas of the county where our county-wide rules may be
too stringent or may be too lax, and I think if you do
drill -- or go drill some test wells on an individual
subdivision, you have a better understanding of that
specific area. And that's why -- you know, so I don't have
a problem with leaving it in here at all. I don't think a
developer is going to probably do it, but if they do, they
can.
And where I can see that it would be a help
to a developer, or where a developer may do it, there are
some recent very large wells been drilled in the Trinity up
in the Ingram area generally. A developer may be able to --
or think they can go into that area and do a much higher
density development than our county rules allow, because
there may be -- there's argument, anyway -- there's enough
water in that area, based on some recent wells, to justify a
higher density. And, you know, the developer may want to do
that. The question comes back, in my mind, is that I don't
want the Court -- or I don't want myself, anyway, as a
Commissioner, to be the one to have to look at these studies
and see what the minimums should be. So, I --
ii-~~-n~
~. _.
57
1
G
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I'm tossing it back to
Headwaters, on them to decide that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me give you an
example. You know, like, the number of proposed houses, the
average number of people per house, the amount of water used
per household, and we kind of know all that stuff. Kind of.
But can you imagine you and I sitting down and deciding the
characteristics of the aquifers, plural, and their hydraulic
relationships?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are they dated?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are they --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On a day-to-day
basis.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, I mean,
who -- who's going to decide the hydraulic relationships
between two aquifers? I know there's people that do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But do they live in
Texas?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think the -- I
mean, the answer is they do, but that's why I also said
that -- that reviewing that data and making the intelligent
decisions isn't going to come from the Court. From this
Commissioner, anyway.
11 ?s-n5

58
1
G
3
4
5
F
7
8
9
10
11
l~
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-~
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From here either.
rOMMISSIONEF, LETZ: So I think it needs to --
if we're going to have something like that, it`s got to go
to the groundwater conservation district. That's what oar
neighboring counties have done; they've given it back to the
groundwater conservation district to, you know, review it.
And that's what I attempted to do here, is saying that if
they're doing a water availability analysis, that they're
going to have to work with Headwaters and come to basically
an agreement as to what that analysis shows, and then if
it's a higher density or a lesser density, that will be what
it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's the
underlying issue. You and I have both had a lot of
discussions with the same board member from Headwaters, and
probably may know, chapter and verse, what his concerns are,
and one of those concerns has to do with a much greater
availability of water in the western part of the county than
perhaps in the eastern part of the county. And some of the
development that we've been talking about or anticipating is
taking place in the eastern part of the county, and that
creates a concern. What I'm wondering, of course, is -- is
whether or not Headwaters is willing to accept those extra
responsibilities that would be -- that are sort of embodied
in this three-page memorandum that we both got. And -- and
n-..e os
1
~. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
"` 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
23
24
~5
59
what are those standards that are being referred to?
How could we, for example, enter into a
memorandum of understanding with Headwaters for a period of
ten years, having reviewed it after the first two years,
with any -- any reasonable knowledge that whatever that MOU
is going to say will hold forward for the remaining eight
years? Because you don't know what the -- whether or not
we're ever going to have another drought of record or how
things are going to change. But the one thing in this
memorandum that I think deserves some consideration -- I'm
not saying -- I think it all deserves consideration, but the
one point that keeps being made over and over again has to
do with full disclosure. That seems to be a high-priority
item in the mind of some folks about our setting the rules,
so that the buyer of property has the opportunity for full
disclosure as to whether or not water is available under the
piece of property that buyer is contemplatinq purchasing.
I'm not sure how we deal with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, Commissioner, on
that point -- well, first of all, a lot of that memorandum
-- I read it. 1 thought about it for a coupe of days, and
I incorporated it and reworded -- I mean, a lot of that
memorandum just doesn't work. I mean, I'm not doing a
memorandum of understanding for ten years, or even one year,
for that matter.
11-'a-n5

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
60
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The whole -- the
memorandum is based on 230.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; So, anyway, I wasn't too
hung up on that. I tried to -- you know, I thought about it
and made some adjustments based on the overall reading. I
did add --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In your new draft?
COMMISSIONER. LETZ: In the new draft, on the
]ast page, the new section titled "Plat Certifications."
And this goes back to that disclosure statement that you
mentioned. "All subdivision final plats shall contain the
following certification: 'Kerr County Commissioners Court
does not certify that complying with Kerr County Water
Availability Requirements insures the developer or
prospective lot owner that adequate groundwater is available
under any subdivision or lot."' That will go on every plat
from now on. And B is, "All subdivision final plats with
lots that are served by community water systems shall
contain the following certification: 'Individual water
wells shall not be permitted on any lot in this
subdivision."' That gets from the point that if someone is
-- and it gets to a -- and these are both points that
Headwaters brought up.
On this one, they could have a water system
in a subdivision, and then there's nothing that says they


61
1
_.,
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can't go drill their own individual water well, and you get
into a double-dipping situation on pumping limits and
allowables and all that, and also on lot size. I mean,
we're -- we're doing our lot size driven on water
availability, so I think those -- those certifications
support that. Izi the water availability requirements,
there's other language several times about no warranty, and
also of --	you	know,	we	're not	saying there'	s water
anywhere.	And	there'	s	another	provision in	here that
clearly states out the fact that -- well, that Headwaters
has pumping limitations, and under -- in some aquifers, and
the fact that they are drilling a well doesn't mean they're
going to be able to pump unlimited water. I mean,
basically, I'm putting them on notice of saying there are
pumping limits based on Headwaters' rules that we have
nothing to do with, and that may limit the amount of water
in a subdivision, even if you go with the county minimums.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Even though in one
location of the county, the volume of the well may be much
greater than it would be in another location?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And -- yeah, and
I'm not changing anything. I'm just putting people on
notice -- developers, 'cause I think more people will
probably read this from a developing standpoint -- of
Headwaters' rules. We're just saying be aware that
11 28 CS
-.__._.__.._._.__ t~.. ~. ~ ~r -`.
62
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
Headwaters does have pumping limits on certain aquifers, and
I left it as broad as possible in case they add new aquifers
or change pumping limits, 'cause that -- I think the pumping
limits are under Headwaters' control, and that may affect
what you do on your lot. So, anyway, this is the same
situation as the other Subdivision Rules. Everyone can read
it. If we leave this as it is currently, I think we do need
an order or a -- I guess a court order or whatever you call
it from Headwaters agreeing to this, because they are
mentioned, you know, under -- that if a developer chooses to
use 230 under water availability.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we'll bring it back.
Well, they have a copy; they can kind of mill it around,
look at it a little bit.
JUDGE TINLEY: As the Commissioner indicated,
we've got some representatives from Headwaters. Do you
gentlemen wish to weigh in at this time?
MR. MORGAN: I think I do.
JUDGE TINLEY: Come ahead.
MR. MORGAN: Gordon Morgan, representing not
the board, but only as a member of the board. We've had
this come before the board in an original draft. We have --
as a board, have not looked at this draft. Under B, the
Individual Subdivision Water Availability, 1, 2, and 3,
11-2k-U5
~~ ~ j
63
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
there are about three things that I'm concerned about as an
individual board member.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're speaking from
the new draft, Mr. Morgan?
MR. MORGAN: Yeah -- yes, sir, on the new
draft. Number one, it says, "Shall not be subject to
acreage requirements set forth in Section 1.03." I think
there has been a lot of effort put in over the years past to
establish the acreage requirements, and I think that has
been agreed upon by previous boards. I think it had been
agreed upon by previous Commissioners Courts. I would
question throwing that away, which that section indicates it
could be. The second one, it talks about Groundwater
Availability Certification for Platting. I'm not really
sure what you're asking Headwaters to do to certify and how
they're going to certify it. I think the track record on
that has not been real great in the past. I wouldn't want
to hang a whole lot on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two, if I can just make a
comment on that, that is the terminology used in Chapter
230, and it is -- basically, the intent here is for
Headwaters to approve the water availability study presented
under 230.
MR. MORGAN: Under 230, okay. And the third,
it says, "Headwaters may grant greater pumping limits." I
i.-~a-os
1l .. r u .~_._.~ +..
64
1
~. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
°` 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
_. 2 4
25
think that opens the door. That would be very, legally,
hard to defend. In your comments, Mr. Letz, speaking about
if they can prove the water's there, who's going to have the
legal ability to restrict them from using it? That's
certainly debatable. No one at this point in time even
knows who owns the water, so I think that is a -- a
statement or a result of that one section that I think would
be detrimental. As a suggestion, if you all want to proceed
further on it, you might consider taking individual
subdivision water availability, that B section, and make
that subject to approval by Headwaters Board. The
Headwaters Board has not seen this, so, you know, if you
want to take action or do anything in a positive manner on
the rest of it, but leave that one section subject to the
approval -- which is kind of what you said at the end,
approval of Headwaters Board.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, we're certainly
not going to take any action today on this. I would -- my
view is that if we leave B in, Individual Subdivision Water
Availability, Number 1 and Number 2 have to be in, from my
standpoint. Three can be deleted, because we're getting
into something -- really, I'd probably rather delete it,
because it's not our business what pumping limits are.
That's your business. So, I would probably agree that 3
under B should be deleted, probably in its entirety.
n-_~ ue

65
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
MR. MORGAN: But in extensive discussions and
in-depth discussions, I'm not sure what the board will
ultimately decide to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. MORGAN: Since it's never been presented
to the board.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So that's just --
you know, this is a different option. But I think that the
-- you know, I think it's -- I think we need to be very
careful in this county. And I'm, you know, really speaking
to both Headwaters and Commissioners Court. All I speak for
is Commissioners Court, is that our rules follow the law,
because I think that we have found out in recent months that
as development goes on in this county at the pace it's gone
on, it we're not following the law, we're going to get
challenged on it. And we've had some threats in that regard
in recent months, and that's why I think that it -- if we do
Chapter 230, you have to get rid of the minimum lot sizes.
You have to let it go, and I don't see how you can. To me,
they're not consistent. You have to either have one or the
other, and if you go under 230, I just think that you have
to let that acreage -- that water availability study
determine the lot size, and I think it is a dangerous road
to go on, because I think you're going to get developers
that will potentially --
11- 8-G5
y.. ..i.._. - __~....__..~._~. ~ ~~.
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MORGAN: And in a positive manner, I do
want to thank you for all your work. I think this is an
improvement. It does help with some questions and problems
that Headwaters had. We want to thank you for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My intent is real clear
on this. My intent was to get the ball back in Headwaters'
court and let them really understand what they're asking us
to do.
MR. MORGAN: We appreciate that. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, this
Part B, you're presenting this as an option; you're not
necessarily endorsing it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. I wanted -- I
wrote this to get this before Headwaters, 'cause several of
their board members -- and they haven't voted, to my
knowledge, but it's more than one -- like Chapter 230. So,
as I read 230, this is what 230 means, and -- from the
County's perspective. And I wanted to know what
Headwaters -- and if Headwaters likes that, I really don't
have a problem with it. But I just can't imagine that they
would want it, but anyway --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think I'm going to
have a real problem with losing the acreage requirement
rules. I think that's served us well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
1 1- .'. F- G S
r . ~ - ~....__~-
67
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 NICHOLSON: But I'm open-minded.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I do think -- I'll --
my final comment or note on this is that I think the plat
certifications were not on here before; I think those are
good. And I think the wording has changed quite a bit, even
though it is -- hopefully doesn't say anything different,
but I think it's a lot clearer. And I made those changes
based on the comments that I received from certain members
of Headwaters Board, so I appreciate their comments.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're going to bring this
back?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This will be back on our
next meeting, and we'll hopefully have this -- we'll have
the same track through approval as the Subdivision Rules.
And, Judge, before we leave this item, I want to go back to
the other one real briefly, if I may.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we have anything
further on the water availability? Commissioner Letz wants
to go back and revisit Item 10 briefly; consider and discuss
and take appropriate action on Kerr County Subdivision Rules
and Regulations. Let's do that quickly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I can find my draft of
it -- thank you. In this draft, when I started working on
it, we didn't have a -- Len doesn't have a title as it
relates to subdivision rules, and I created one for him.
i~-,y_~=
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
But there's no more pay. And I can't remember what I called
it. It's a County Subdivision Administrator or something
like that.
MR. ODOM: Administrator designee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: County Subdivision
Administrator is a term that I think, if we go through with
this draft, it makes so sense until we formally take court
action to appoint Len as that person. But I thought it --
it didn't, you know, make sense to name in here Kerr County
Road and Bridge Administrator into that slot.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's a function
he's already performing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's already performing
it. He's already doing it; it's just to make it simpler to
the public. And that way, if we change it from the Kerr
County Road and Bridge Administrator, we can just give that
designation to another person.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where is it noted in
here?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's throughout, but it's
on Page 11.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, Len would have
two titles.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Under 3.02 --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three. Floodplain
11-_8 u5
~. ~ .,W,.......i- ...
69
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Administrator.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Floodplain Administrator,
too.
MR. ODOM: Floodplain.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the first sentence
there, the County Subdivision Administrator. So, anyway, I
just wanted to point that out. The other thing that I
wanted to briefly point out, a while back, I asked Rex to
research something for me, and it was based on something
that was done in Kendall County that I thought was a pretty
good idea, and I will pursue it if the Court thinks it's a
good idea. It's a -- for any time a tract of land is
divided, whether it's in a subdivision or outside a
subdivision, an affidavit has to be filed of record that
advises the -- and file it in the Deed Records, that advises
that this division took place. And it's a -- with it comes
a plat of the piece of property. This is just one that was
done in Kendall County. There is a location plat, and then
this is just an area plat. And the purpose of it is to -- a
couple things. One, when they go to get an O.S.S. F. permit,
they've got to have this, and this gets it out of the way
early on.
The other thing it does, it is a way for us
to look at county road entrances and access to it and let us
have some input as to where those roads get located. Road

~. _... - ....~.._.W.._....Ja.. ..
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and Bridge has some say in that. It also is a tipoff that,
hey, this is an illegal subdivision. We'd be tipped off at
that point. It's an interesting idea. Re:: has looked at
it. We do have the authority to do this, in his opinion.
And if y'all would like to look at it, I can get with Kathy
and we can come up with a version for Kerr County so y'all
can look at it a little bit more. If you think it's a
stupid idea, I'll just throw it away.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I don't think
it's a stupid idea.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What would a
subdivider be required to do if they follow that, as opposed
to what we're doing now?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is in addition.
This is more -- this would go more to the property owner. I
mean, the subdivision plat would be all it is. Really, this
-- this catches divisions outside of subdivisions, so if you
were just to --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Would it increase
costs to the seller or the buyer?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. They're going to
have to get -- I mean, all of the data is already available,
and if they are going to apply for a well permit or a septic
permit or any other, they're going to have to do the same
thing, so it's kind of getting all that done at that point.
11-28-G5
... ..._._....Jr.r....-~......_._.....-..~. ~
71
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
But if they're just buying a piece of raw land, there is a
little bit of costs that they wouldn't -- you know, that
they're going to have to have. But, you know, the cost of a
survey is, you know, not really -- the survey's going to
already be done. It's just really having a surveyor prepare
a plat.
JUDGE TINLEY: Normally done anyway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it's normally done
anyway. I really don't think -- it's a minimal extra cost,
in my opinion. I heard one "continue looking at it."
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we ought to leave it
as an option. We may not end up with it, but certainly
leave it as an option.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will get with Kathy and
we'll get something on our next agenda specific to Kerr
County. Okay, that's it. Thank you.
DODGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we take about
a 15-minute recess.
(Recess taken from 10:24 a.m. to 10:41 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to
order, if we might, from our mid-morning recess. We'll go
to Item 12 on the agenda; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on possible project nominations from Kerr
County to the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program.
ii-za-vs

72
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
Project nominations will be received by TexDOT between
Commissioner Williams?
the program is to encourage diverse modes of travel,
increase community benefits of transportation investment,
strengthen partnerships between state and local governments,
and promote citizen involvement in transportation decisions.
If that's not heavy enough for a Monday morning, I don't
know what is, but the purpose of it is to tell everybody
about it. If you have projects that you'd like to place in
the nomination, they will be received by TexDOT anytime
after November 1, which is now, and closing opportunity is
April 28th, 2006, and then they weigh all those and make
some decisions as to whether or not they're worthy of
consideration.
I went up to their web site and pulled down
that you need to have considered, they do consider provision
for facilities for pedestrians and bicycles, provision for
safety and education activities for pedestrian and
bicyclist, acquisition of scenic easements and scenic and
zl-za-ng
_ ~ .,
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
historic properties, scenic or historic highway programs,
landscaping and other scenic beautification, historic
preservation, rehab and operation of historic transportation
buildings, structures, or facilities, including historic
railroad facilities and canals, et cetera, et cetera, et
cetera. And if have you any, you know their address.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you -- I had a
question, then it disappeared all of a sudden.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a comment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Canals. I got lost on
the canals.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got drowned in the
canal?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill, I'm glad you
brought this. I think that this is one of the tools that
TeYDOT uses to put together their long-term plans.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And secure funding.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I know that former
local engineer Tucker was really, really good at these --
with these things, and he has secured large amounts of money
to be used in this -- in our local district, including Kerr
County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're absolutely
ll-~S u5
~_ ~...

~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
correct, Commissioner. And these are some interesting
categories that we should really think about. And if we --
we have time to think about them, and if they are worthy of
consideration, the Court can officially nominate them and
send them forward.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: About a year ago, we
met with TexDOT representatives -- seems like it was up in
the courtrooms, and we were doing some prioritization of
needs for Kerr County, and they wrote up a list. And one of
the -- as you know, one of the projects I've got involved in
is fixing the Cade Loop low-water crossing by either raising
it or building a bridge on the other side. It wound up on
the priority list somewhere, third, fourth, fifth; I don't
know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As did your south
side river project on 39.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That could be
connected together.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But this -- this
program is not -- that sort of thing doesn't qualify.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, these are
enhancement-type programs that sort of tie to general
transportation needs or priorities, but they're not part of
that original prioritized list.
ii-ze-os

~s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ZO
21
~2
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, a question I had,
are these generally funded 100 percent by TexDOT, or is
there some sort of a county match on them?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Frankly,
Commissioner, I don't know. I believe they're funded by
TexDOT. I've not seen anything that indicates the county
has to put up a match.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I appreciate you bringing
it, 'cause one of the things that I -- as you were reading
out that 10-point or 12-point list, things that perked my
interest is the right-of-way enhancement for scenic
easements and things. We have many right-of-ways that are
very, very narrow throughout the county on county roads.
I'm not concerned -- some of them are on TexDOT roads. I'm
thinking more on county roads. And, you know, in my
precinct, I've taken the practice that if we can -- if a
landowner comes to us about a problem, we'll get with Road
and Bridge and try to figure out a way to improve the
right-of-way, trade out land for fencing or something along
that line. And I'm wondering if some of those projects may
be eligible for this, and that we could go to some of the --
or, you know, most of these bad problems are in scenic
areas. Because --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. One that comes
to mind is C.P. River Road.
ii-ze-os
.~ ~.
f
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Scenic drive, but it
also has some problems.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, that might be an
area to pursue if it is 100 percent Ter,DOT-funded. Even if
it's 90 percent.
DODGE TINLEY: The program information
indicates "eligible for reimbursement of up to 80 percent of
allowable costs," with county being responsible for the
remaining portion of the cost share, including any overruns.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see it now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That may be -- even at
that, it may be worthwhile pursuing some of these roads
where we're spending some money every year on improving
right-of-way, and maybe getting them on the list. I'll get
with Leonard and maybe we can submit some.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That's what
it's there for.
DODGE TINLEY: Anything else on that
particular agenda item? Let's move to Item 13, if we might.
Consider, discuss, and consider approval of form contracts
between Kerr County and the County-sponsored entities, and
authorize the County Judge to sign same as they are
returned. I put this on the agenda. We have the
County-sponsored agencies or entities in our budget, and we
ii-'e-o5
~~
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
have tried to have them on a contract each year. The County
Attorney has approved the form of contract in order for
these entities to be funded.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the
contract between Kerr County and the County-sponsored
entities as presented.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded.
Does that -- I assume that includes, on return, my
authorization to sign the same?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any question or
discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question, Judge. A
question was brought to my attention during the break time,
and that is, do we release any funding before the contract
is all complete and signed and in our hands?
JUDGE TINLEY: I would think not.
MS. MITCHELL: No, we do not.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the same question
would be for the next item with the fire departments.
MS. MITCHELL: No, no funds are released.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that the answer?
MS. MITCHELL: That's the answer. We do not
release any funds.
iz-aa-os
~a
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm very happy.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we need the ground
rules for the funding. And that would make --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- make every bit of logic to
not release it until we have those ground rules agreed to
and established. 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: That motion does carry. Let's
move to Item 14; consider, discuss, and approve form
contracts between Kerr County and the volunteer fire
departments and authorize County Judge to sign same. Again,
as with the last agenda item, we have form contracts that we
have had each year with the various volunteer fire
departments, in connection with the funds which we have
budgeted for release to them.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a question,
related to the exact same question I asked on the last one

79
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
about the funding. Do we have a contract with Junction?
MS. PIEPER: No, sir, it's not been returned.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did we release any
funds to them --
MS. PIEPER: Not to my knowledge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- this last year?
MS. MITCHELL: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. MITCHELL: According to Mindy, the funds
were not released. Until we get the contract back and put
in writing that they are requesting the funds, like it
states in the contract, the funds are not released.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Buster, let me ask a
question to see if I understand what your -- what your look
of puzzlement is. Junction is responsible for serving far
western Kerr County. That means that far western Kerr
County doesn't have fire service? That's -- I mean, if they
won't sign the contract, they don't have volunteer fire
service.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, here we jumped
through all these hoops and had great debate and gnashing of
teeth, if I remember, and either they're covering it and
don't need any money -- I mean, I don't get it. Everybody
else is beating the door down wanting money.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I can't --
11-t8-n=
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wasn't the debate
over emergency services?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm, and fire.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And fire?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And fire, correct.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did we budget money
for Junction? Or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I thought we just
had a mutual aid agreement with them and we didn't pay them
anything. My memory's not good?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that may be the
case. That may be it. I thought -- I thought we put money
there, which I'm sure we did.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I was thinking --
MS. PIEPER: Either way, we didn't get a
signed contract back, and I mailed it out three or four
times.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the important part
today is we don't have a contract.
MS. PIEPER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to have a
contract with them, or they don't have any -- Y.O. Ranch
doesn't have coverage.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll help you with
n -ze-as
81
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. Is Lee --
JUDGE TINLEY: Lee Hall?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Lee Hall fire chief?
MS. PIEPER: One of the Halls are. I don't
know which one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's Lee.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. I'll look at
that. Another issue is -- and we've been over this
before -- the Paragraph 3 that requires a list of volunteer
firefighters who are eligible for workers comp. Hunt Fire
Department, under its umbrella policy, provides its own
workers comp, so they'll just tell us you don't need a list.
And somehow I wish I could get the other fire departments to
consider whether or not they ought not to have a similar
policy, so we could also get their firefighters off the
workers comp list. But, anyhow, that's an aside. Hunt
found that it -- for the same price as the other coverages,
they get workers comp, so they don't go on our list.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, I would
think that if the -- if they don't provide the list of the
employees, then they're not covered. It doesn't void the
contract or anything. I mean, it's --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's what I --
that's my thinking.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it is, and I
ii-z~ us
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
?1
2~
23
29
25
don't --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They're probably
just --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wonder if any of the
fire departments are sending in a list of their employees.
Some of them are?
MS. PIE PER: Some of them are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would suspect others
are doing exactly what Commissioner Nicholson is saying, is
that they're just being covered under their own policy.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They just don't
mention it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And don't mention it.
'Cause I think Comfort falls in that category. I don't
believe they sent a list in.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Isn't that something
that we need to know? If --
MR. EMERSON: Just means they're not covered.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If they do not send a
list in, they are not covered?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it doesn't --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what you're
saying?
MR. EMERSON: That would be my guess. 'Cause
if a county doesn't have a list of employees, we can't very
ii-a-os

83
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
well cover them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's fair. We
ask them for them. If they don't want to be covered... Oh,
lord.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other 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.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was reading -- as I was
raising my hand, I was reading this, and it says here, under
Consideration, "Kerr County shall provide workers comp
coverage."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Under this contract. I
mean, that sentence doesn't have anything about -- the next
sentence talks about a list. Shouldn't that be changed,
then, to say we may?
MR. EMERSON: That's fine with me. I mean, I
used the form contract that Kerr County's had in existence
for a long time, and that's a policy decision for y'all on
whether it's "shall" or "may."
~i za o5
89
1
2
3
9
J
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, to me, it should
say may provide, and then the last sentence should be
modified to say that if the volunteer fire department sends
in a list, they shall be covered.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, that would
clear it up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would clear up that
sentence, to me. Can we --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If I make a motion,
I'll modify it to include those changes to Paragraph 3.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let me see where we
are. We've approved it. You're moving to modify the form
contract to provide that --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: In Paragraph 3, it
will say, "Kerr County may provide workers compensation,"
and then the last sentence will say --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll make that
conditioned, then. If we're going to say we may provide it,
it has to be conditioned on something, so we may provide it
only if the volunteer fire department provides a list of its
employees in a timely fashion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or we can say "shall" by
saying, "shall provide it if we receive the list."
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whichever.
i1-~e-u5
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let's change it from
-- let's use "will." Kerr County will provide it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like "shall."
MR. EMERSON: "Will" and "shall" mean the
same thing.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Contingent upon
receiving a list of eligible firefighters, something like
that.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got that, Rex?
MR. EMERSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What -- just for
clarification, what do we do with the previous order that we
just passed?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This one modifies it.
JUDGE TINLEY: This will modify it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This actually
modifies --
JUDGE TINLEY: Modifies the form of
agreement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about -- should we
rescind -- should this order rescind the previous one, and
then do a contingent?
11-28-05
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In my opinion, that's
the way you would do it, to clean it -- get it completely
cleaned up. I don't know. I thought the County Attorney
would jump all over that, but I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's busy making
notes. Will, may, or shall.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Nicholson
made a -- we have a -- the first one was made and voted on.
This one --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me make this
one. It's a motion to rescind the previous order and make
this order.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second
to rescind the previous order relative to the volunteer fire
department contracts, and to modify that contract as
indicated in the motion to the County Attorney, and upon
approval by the County Attorney, authorize the County Judge
to sign same.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now -- now, does that
modification go out for -- to the fire departments for their
approval or head-nod, sign-off? Or, "This is it, buddy;
take it or leave it"?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is it, buddy.
11-^_H US
87
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 NICHOLSON: I see the County
Judge sending them, saying, "Here's the deal, and here's
what's changed. Money's the same as last year, and we've
changed this paragraph."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see it that way as
well.
	JUDGE	TINLEY: Any	further question or
discussion	? All in	favor of the m	otion, signify by raising
your right	hand.		
	(The	motion carried	by unanimous vote.)
	JUDGE	TINLEY: All	opposed, same sign.
	(No r	esponse.)	
	DODGE	TINLEY: The	motion does carry.
	COMMI	SSIONER NICHOL	SON: One more question.
I see the	Auditor's	here. Do you	know offhand if all the
contracts	have paid	out -- if all	the fire departments have
asked for	--		
MS. WILLIAMS: For last budget year?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
MS. WILLIAMS: No, sir, I believe there was
one that didn't get paid out because we never got a contract
back.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who was that?
MS. WILLIAMS: I believe it was Junction.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We just talked about
it-ze ns
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
them.
MS. WILLIAMS: I can verify that, though. I
can go check it to make sure.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good. Well, you
don't need to do that right now, but we're going to work on
that.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll get back in
touch with you.
MS. WILLIAMS: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 15, consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action concerning the
construction project at the Animal Control facility.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, again, I
don't have anything to offer on this. I put this on here in
case there were recent developments that needed a decision
made, so I'll just pass on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you update us on what
the City decided to do on their permit? Or do we know?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We got a permit a
couple weeks ago.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did it -- are sidewalks
in the permit or out of the permit?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm told they're in.
I haven't gotten a copy of the permit yet.

89
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~5
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just curious.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to learn
more about that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Was it reciprocal or
paid for?
JODGE TINLEY: Paid for.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have
anything to offer on that, either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just want the press to
be aware that as soon as the City does any upgrades in the
sewer plant, we expect sidewalks in front of that sewer
plant. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause all we're doing,
we're just making a modification to the building.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that sidewalk
be next to the one at the Animal Control shelter?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, connected to our
sidewalk.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Does any member of the
Court have any items that they feel necessary to go into
executive or closed session about? Let's move on to the
approval agenda, if we might. Payment of the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the
bills.
it-za-os
90
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 5
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second to
pay the bills. Any question or discussion? On Page 16,
Indigent Health Care -- we don't need to actually look at
anything specific there, but were we not modifying our
procedures where our -- our claims verification was going to
be done in-house?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, that's what we're
planning on doing this budget year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: We've run into a bit of a
problem. The contract with our third-party administrator is
a two-year contract. The County Attorney has looked at it.
If we were to cancel that contract, we would have to pay her
out her percentage for what we would pay during the year,
and at this point, I don't think that's very feasible, so we
are probably going to have to run it this year. And I need
to get with you, because I think you were saying you were
going from the date that it was accepted. I think it says
on there the date of commencement, which we put as
September lst of 2004, so I'm hoping that the contract will
run out September next year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's VeriClaims?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.

91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so we're just
going to keep running this, then?
MS. WILLIAMS: We're going to have to keep
running with her, I think, because I honestly don't think
that it's going to be cost-effective for us to cancel the
contract now and pay her out --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I don't want --
MS. WILLIAMS: -- her percentage.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't want to do
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How does that affect
the budget, Mindy?
MS. WILLIAMS: We had, I believe, $12,000 set
aside for the program that we were looking at. We will have
to move that up to our Third-Party Administrator line. That
gives us about 22,000. We're probably going to be a little
bit short, but we'll just have to play it by ear and see
where we are at that time.
DODGE TINLEY: Any suggestion been made about
maybe finding some accommodation or middle ground on the
claims administrator releasing the balance of that contract?
MS. WILLIAMS: I have not mentioned anything
to her yet, for the simple reason that when the gentlemen
were here showing us the program that we were interested in,
there was a mention made that I believe they have taken
11-~'H-US
..._...________.._~_..._..~.~.,.~_....~... _~ ~ .~.._. ~~ _..__.__. L..
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
quite a bit of her business already, and I don't think she'd
be too happy with us.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is Indigent Health Care
Solutions?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: What about the jail? Are we
obligated to cover the jail medical through the Indigent
Health Care program? Or are we able to do that separately
and apart right now through Indigent Health Care Solutions?
MS. WILLIAMS: I think we're doing it
separately and apart. I don't believe -- when -- when an
inmate goes in, I believe if they are needing medical, they
apply for indigent health care, and our person at the
hospital tries to work them through as soon as possible.
They're either eligible or they're not. So far, we've been
doing pretty good. I think we've been paying it through
Indigent Health Care instead of having to pay it out of the
Sheriff's budget.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Some are eligible, and
they do -- we try and get them qualified for it, or apply
for indigent health care as soon as they come into the jail
and have any kind of medical, 'cause it also affects our
prescription medications. But if they don't qualify, which
a lot of them don't, then yeah, we're stuck with hospital
bills. Enormous hospital bills.
ii-:.e o7
~ r_r. _..a...«.d___m.__.._
93
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mindy, general question,
just on the M.D. Anderson item. Is there -- are hospitals
beginning to use more of a policy of charging back to the
counties, or is this just because it's a large -- fairly
large bill, that M.D. Anderson is choosing to bill this back
to Kerr County?
MS. WILLIAMS: To be perfectly honest, I'm
not sure about that one. I probably need to check with our
Indigent Health Care Coordinator over at the hospital, but I
believe that this person was approved for indigent health
care. I do not know if she was at M.D. Anderson when
something else was diagnosed, discovered, whatever, that the
services were rendered down there instead of it being done
here locally.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If a -- and this is a --
if you know the answer to this. No, I'd better not ask it.
It's not an agenda item; we're getting off the agenda.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That person definitely
is a citizen of Kerr County?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A resident of Kerr
County.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- I mean, the
rule is, though, that the County pays for it where the
ii-~u-us

94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
cG
23
24
25
person lives, correct? If it's indigent?
MS. WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, whether they go to
Bexar County or wherever, it can be billed back, but
usually it's -- usually they're not, it doesn't seem.
MS. WILLIAMS: They try to keep them local.
If they can get the services here, they should be taken care
of here. Like I said, I don't really know the whole
background on this person that went to M.D. Anderson.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other 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. Budget
Amendment Request Number 1.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Okay. This was an
invoice that we received in our office the 14th of November
for the facility. It was a September invoice, but since we
have already closed our books for last budget year, we
cannot encumber it back at this point. They had purchased
two refurbished Motorola mobile radios to use as base radios
in the facility, so that they're portables, where they can
li-_R ns

95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~4
25
talk to each other. They turned this bill in, and they were
asking our Maintenance Department to pay for it, and I had a
little bit of a problem with that, because it's really not
maintaining the facility; you are adding equipment. So, I
was going to ask the Court to allow us to move money out of
the Detention Facility's Miscellaneous line item, and create
an Operating Equipment line item within their budget to pay
for this invoice.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 1. Any question
or comment?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with the way
you're handlinq it.
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree 100 percent
with how you're handling it. My only question is, what was
the reason that it wasn't turned in properly to affect last
year's budget?
MS. WILLIAMS: I don't know. I think it
probably slipped their mind. They turned it in with a bunch
of other bills; they didn't realize there was a September
invoice date on it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
11-tfl OS

96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2q
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comment?
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. Budget
Amendment Request Number 2.
MS. WILLIAMS: This budget amendment, we got
the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality water rights
bill in, and it had gone up a little bit from the previous
year, and we just didn't budget enough money. So, I would
like to have the Court's permission to move $6.20 out of
Nondepartmental Property Insurance line item up to County
Water Rights line item so we can take care of the bill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any question
or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. Was it --
did we fail to budget $6.20, or was there -- was it -- what
was the actual figure that it went over what we had
budgeted?
MS. WILLIAMS: $6.20. The bill was actually
11-ze ns
.__.~..~..---._._e_.,_...~. ~ . ~ ~ _.._.r_.~_..~_.._a ~-~
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$231.20.
COMMISSIONER
MS. WILLIAMS:
all I have, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY:
MS. WILLIAMS:
JUDGE TINLEY:
MS. WILLIAMS:
JUDGE TINLEY:
BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
You're welcome. And that's
Okay. No late bills?
No, sir.
Okay.
Thank you.
I have been presented monthly
reports for --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to vote on
that, I think. Did we vote on that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
MS. THOMPSON: We need to vote on it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I apologize. Budget
Amendment Request Number 2, we have a motion and a second.
Any further question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We have no
late bills, according to the Auditor. I have before me
monthly reports for the District Clerk, revised September
'O5, District Clerk for October 2005, and the County Clerk,
1 1- 1 H U S
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
~4
25
not designated. I assume that's October '05. Do I hear a
motion that these reports be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to
approve the designated reports as presented. Any question
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Does
any member of the Court have any report in connection with
their liaison or committee assignment or otherwise?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Took the opportunity
the other day to again visit the construction site at
Kerrville South wastewater project, and had an opportunity
to talk at great length with the city inspector, who was out
there working with the contractor. This contractor is
moving forward beautifully. All of the major pipes are in
the ground in all the streets, Loyal Valley, Shannon, George
Muck, and Frederick, and he's now putting in the manholes,
and the next step will be to take the service lines to each

L ~+ i
99
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the property fronts. And when that's completed, then the
City- will run the testing on the lines as they are today.
Then they'll begin construction very soon on the forced main
that takes the -- takes the wastewater up to the trunk line
that goes from Nimitz to the city's main trunk. So,
basically, he's well on schedule. Hasn't had any rain
delays. The rain that came this weekend probably won't
delay him. It came while he wasn't on the job, so all
things are looking pretty good out there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anyone else?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, library. I'm
told that -- that the Kerrville City Council has reappointed
David Wampler as their Councilman representative to the
Library Board. And they've named their two other members of
the board, and I don't -- they're -- I'm told they're
current board members, but I don't know their names. Next
time the board meets, on -- whatever; the second Tuesday, I
think, in December, or one of them, and I expect that the
new board will begin their process of trying to organize
their business and carry out their charter. That's all I
know about that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, if I could go back
to an item, several months ago we appointed a committee of
old geezers.
11 _R-os
~ ,V._.,,, + ._. ___
100
1
2
3
9
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: March.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: March? Can we get an
update, do you think? Do they -- are they far enough along,
to your knowledge, Commissioner, to give us an update?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do not have an
answer to that. I've been thinking about that. I don't
have an answer to your specific question, but I would -- I
would think that they -- yes, they have -- they can report
some. I know they've done some things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My memory is March,
though, is when they come back with their full report.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't remember.
MR. EMERSON: I think that's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't remember how far
it was. I just think that it would be -- if we're going to
be meeting with the City in the first couple of months of
'06, it would be nice if they could have this thing hurried
up to have that done prior to that meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I'll take care
of it.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. I gather that
Commissioner Baldwin is the official liaison to the old
geezers?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
11-^_8-OS
~ Lr_ ~ ._.._~...~__ ~--
101
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He kinds of looks like an
old geezer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Getting there. I
communicate well.
JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly appropriate. Any
other reports from elected officials? Department heads?
MS. PIEPER: Me.
DODGE TINLEY: County Clerk, Ms. Pieper.
MS. PIEPER: My election equipment is going
to be delivered December the 19th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Merry Christmas.
MS. PIEPER: Thank you. Staff training will
be December 20th through 22nd, and we will start mock
elections and testing of this equipment on January the 3rd.
But my problem is, is I don't know where I'm going to put
this equipment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Juvenile Detention
Facility?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: May have an opening
at the J.D.F.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How biq is it? How many
machines do we get? Put it that way.
MS. PIEPER: Well, we're getting 24 eSlate
machines and 21 D.R.E.'s. I mean, it's going to be a pretty
good size. And --
11-~'S-US
102
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 would -- I don't --
have not been in that storage room kind of back behind
the -- across the hall from the Environmental Health.
There's a room ba~~k in there with some storage space. I
think that that would be a good location, if there's room in
there. And maybe you can get with Glenn and see if he has
enough money his budget to build a secure area for those
machines. I mean, that would be the first thought of what I
would say to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you talked it
out with Glenn?
MS. PIE PER: No, I haven't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You might get with him.
MS. PIE PER: I mean, months ago I came in and
we had talked about -- well, last year. I think it's more
than months. Last year. Because at one point, I --
under -- going downstairs, I had -- the County Clerk's
office used to have a storage room there, but the Historical
Commission society took that over a couple of years ago.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd get with Glenn and
see -- I think this clearly has to be in a very secure
location, wherever it goes. We don't want someone -- you
know, they're not supposed to ever touch these machines.
'Cause I suspect --
MS. PIEPER: Right. And after an election,
11-2d-'~~5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1J
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
103
then the ballots have to stay locked up for 22 months.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd get with Glenn and
maybe come back at our next meeting and see -- if it's going
to require some direction from the Court, we can do it at
the next meeting. If not, maybe we can just get something
working.
MS. PIEPER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone else?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have an issue
I'd like to -- I'm glad the Sheriff's here with us today,
and I wanted to bring up an issue and see if we couldn't get
an update report. A couple of weeks ago, we had this -- an
alarm go off with regards to the Treasurer's office and the
Social Security issue. And I had the great honor and
privilege to sit down with the Sheriff and the County
Attorney and some other folks, and to talk about this issue,
and I think the Sheriff was doing somewhat of an
investigation on it. At least that's the way I would
categorize it. And I'm just wondering if you'd bring us an
update on what you've done and what you're going to do.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, and I think, as
you stated, yeah, I did an investigation. I felt I had to,
because after the last Commissioners Court, and it was
brought up, and I called Social Security to find out what my
earnings were for the year 2004, and found out I didn't have
ii-ze-os
104
1
__ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~° 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"` 2 4
25
any, or it didn't show it. And I couldn't find out the rest
of my employees. So, I believe the next day was payday. I
put a memo in the paycheck saying to contact -- for them to
each contact Social Security office and find out what their
earnings were, 'cause it had showed the last time I had any
was in 2003. Well, once that memo went out and everybody --
95 percent of employees started calling Social Security, it
didn't take 35 minutes before I got a call from Austin from
Social Security saying, "What's going on?" And -- and that
started the investigation. She told me that no employees of
Kerr County, you know, y'all included, showed any earnings
since 2003, unless you had other jobs or other employment.
And what it turned out to be is -- is it
checks -- everybody's check. All Social Security -- it was
all paid, everything. And by March of each year, the
Treasurer's office is supposed to file a report to Social
Security and a W-2 report, and it gets accepted, and that's
how it gets verified then by Social Security, and that's how
it goes onto your -- your paychecks -- or into your earnings
report. And in doing my investigation, I found that, number
one, the report had been sent in January, before the
deadline. So, the Treasurer's office -- Ms. Nemec did file
it with Social Security Administration. But it's an
electronically submitted report and everything. Then it's
li-za-ns
105
1
"` 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"` 2 4
25
checked for errors at Social Security, and it was returned
in March -- in April, and it had not been returned back to
Social Security, so they were showing no earnings. It
concerned me, especially since there was an employee who had
just left the Treasurer's office, as y'all recall, at that
same time, and because of the other prior mistakes that we
had all run across. I was concerned over, could we possibly
have an embezzlement? Could we possibly have any criminal
activity going on in the Treasurer's office? So that's
where I initiated my investigation from.
I had to -- we met with -- two of the
Commissioners and I met with the County Attorney and our
outside auditors to see what it is exactly I should be
looking for, or with the type of system Kerr County has, is
it very easy to embezzle money from Kerr County? And we
found out, one, it's very difficult to embezzle money
because of the way the Treasurer's office and Kerr County
has all our accounts set up. It's almost impossible, unless
you go back to a comment that Commissioner Nicholson had
made in the last agenda stuff, was that unless you had a
phantom employee or a temporary employee that was paid too
long, or two employees in cahoots with each other, it would
just about be impossible to embezzle money. So, I focused
the investigation on that type of situation, and after
meeting with our outside auditor, he agreed that that was
i~-za-n e.
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
106
the best place. And so I got all the employment records --
or not employment; payroll records for the last year from
January 1st, 2005, through September 30th, 2005, and started
lookinq at every paycheck, every payday, all the overtime,
everything else that was ever done. Employment dates,
whether somebody could have been paid more or -- or anything
like that. And I found in that no inclination at all that
there would have ever been any kind of criminal activity,
embezzlement, so I felt real comfortable with that.
The Social Security report has since then
been submitted. We had to get -- Ms. Nemec was very
cooperative with me in the investigation, gave me anything I
wanted, all the reports. She actually does some
documentation that I was surprised to find. Her office
keeps a three-ring notebook of every employee, and if there
is any kind of change in a paycheck, it is handwritten in
that employee's sheet in that three-ring notebook on what
the change was, how much money was changed and why. And
that's every pay period on every employee, and that's
hand-documented, not computer. I was really surprised to
see that; I didn't realize that. And then some things --
she's even had our Auditor, or Mindy at that time, when they
were making the report for Social Security, getting the tax
rate set, she would have -- she would put it in and then
have somebody else in the Auditor's office also doublecheck
ii-c?-~~
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
107
her work, and then they both initialed each employee's sheet
in that three-ring notebook to make sure it was done
correctly, and they verified each other's by
double-checking. And I visited with Tommy at that time, and
Mindy, and we really came out pretty well.
Now, there is one aspect that I think this
County and the Commissioners should seriously look at and
seriously start considering some things at, and it wouldn't
be on a theft deal, so I would -- didn't look at it. But
being a department head and knowing overtime, I was shocked
to see that there was one department that, for that year,
the County's overtime spent was about $89,000 for last year
from January to September. Over $56,000 of that went to one
department, and that concerned me. And it was not the
Sheriff's Office or the jail, combined. I thought I had a
lot of overtime in the Sheriff's office and jail. That
combined was $25,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: May I ask what
department?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Juvenile Detention. And
that was before the hurricanes, before any of that. This
was till September. That's a whole -- and you had some
employees that had some very large paychecks for overtime.
And I just -- I know how my department does overtime; we
scrutinize it extremely seriously, and my budget for that is
ii-ze-o5
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
108
very little.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that overtime,
Sheriff, or compensatory time?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Far as I can tell, it
all goes in as overtime. But that would be where I'd be
concerned. But as far as the Social Security stuff, I think
all that checked out real well. I think, yeah, there were
some -- some lar in getting the report resubmitted. I did
find where the former employee had made a lot of notes on
paper about how to get it submitted. The former employee
had been dealing with the lady that I talked to in Austin
with Social Security. But it was all the former employee's
notes, and was not our Treasurer's notes. Which do show a
lack in either supervision, or the former employee didn't
let the Treasurer know exactly what was going on; I don't
know. But all the handwriting that I found in regards to
Social Security was under the former employee, okay?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anything else?
Any other business? We stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:25 a.m.)
ii-ze-os
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
109
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 30th day of November,
2005.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
Kathy B nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
11-R-0_
ORDER NO. 29480
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN KERR COUNTY AND
DALLAS COUNTY FOR FORENSIC COMMITMENT HEARINGS
Came to be heard this the 28th day of November, 2005, with a motion made
by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Interlocal Agreement between Kerr County and Dallas County
for holding their forensic commitment hearings.
ORDER NO. 29481
ADOPT NEW VOTING SYSTEM
Came to be heard this the 28th day of November, 2005, with a motion made
by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Adopt and approve new voting system in compliance with Section
301(a)(3)(B) of the Help America Vote Act. The eSlate (Voting System
Accessibility) and eScan voting system (General HAVA Compliance) for in-
person voting on election day and during early voting by personal
appearance and The Ballot Now system for early voting by mail. (An
integrated system known uniformly as the Hart's Voting System).
ORDER NO.29482
APROVAL OF ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HVAC AND PEST
CONTROL BIDS
Came to be heard this the 28th day of November, 2005, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Accept D. W. Electric for electrical contractor, Whelan Plumbing for our
plumbing contractor, Hardin Heating and Cooling, Compton's, and
Trademark for HVAC, to be used at the discretion of the Maintenance
Supervisor, and Hill Country Pest Control first, Terminix second, and
Starkey third for pest control services, based on further communications
from the Maintenance Supervisor).
ORDER NO. 29483
AUTHORIZE EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS INSURANCE
CONSULTANT TO ADVERTISE AND SOLICIT BIDS FOR STOP LOSS
INSURANCE FOR 2006 EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM
Came to be heard this the 28th day of November, 2005, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize the Kerr County Employee Health Benefits Insurance Consultant
to advertise and solicit bids for Stop Loss Insurance for 2006 Employee
Health Benefits Program.
ORDER NO. 29484
ADVERTISE FOR BIDS TO LEASE TWO (2) BACKHOE LOADERS
Came to be heard this the 28th day of November, 2005, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize Road and Bridge Department to advertise for the bid to lease two
(2) Backhoes, instead of one (1).
ORDER NO. 29485
FINAL REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOTS 21 & 22 OF THE HORIZON,
SECTION ONE, VOL. 6, PAGE 323, PCT. 1
Came to be heard this the 28th day of November, 2005, with a motion made
by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve final revision of Plat for Lots 21 & 22 of The Horizon, Section
One, Vol. 6, Page 323, Pct. 1.
ORDER NO. 29486
SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR REVISION OF PLAT FOR TRACT
152-A OF SPICER RANCH NO. THREE, VOL. 3, PAGE 85, PCT. 1
Came to be heard this the 28th day of November, 2005, with a motion made
by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set Public Hearing for revision of plat for Tract 152-A of Spicer Ranch
Number Three, as set forth in Volume 3, Page 85, and located in Precinct 1,
for January 9, 2006, at 10:15 a.m. before this Court.
ORDER NO. 29487
SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOTS 5-9,
BLOCK 8 OF GREENWOOD FOREST, VOL 5, PAGE 92, PCT. 4
Came to be heard this the 28th day of November, 2005, with a motion made
by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set Public Hearing for revision of plat for Lots 5-9, Block 8, of Greenwood
Forest, Vol 5, Page 92, Precinct 4, for January 9, 2006, at 10:20 a.m.
ORDER NO. 29488
APPROVE FORM CONTRACTS BETWEEN KERR COUNTY AND THE
COUNTY SPONSORED ENTITIES
Came to be heard this the 28th day of November, 2005, with a motion made
by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Contract between Kerr County and the County-sponsored entities
as presented and authorize County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 29489
APPROVE FORM CONTRACTS BETWEEN KERR COUNTY AND THE
VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS
Came to be heard this the 28th day of November, 2005, with a motion made
by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Contract between Kerr County and the Volunteer Fire Departments
as presented and authorize County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 29490
APPROVE FORM CONTRACTS BETWEEN KERR COUNTY
AND THE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS
Came to be heard this the 28th day of November, 2005, with a motion made
by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Rescind Order No. 29489, relative to the Volunteer Fire Department
Contracts, and to modify Contract Form to include in Paragraph 3 to provide
Kerr County will provide Workers Compensation only if the Volunteer Fire
Department provides a list of their employees, said Contract Form subject to
approval by the Kerr County Attorney and authorize County Judge to sign
same.
ORDER NO.29491
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 28th day of November, 2005, came to be
considered by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said
Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	375,818.44
15-Road & Bridge	$	38,056.60
18-County Law Library	$	654.90
26-JP Technology	$	500 84
31-Parks	$	531.06
50-Indigent Health Care	$	60,129.21
76-Juvenile Detention Facility	$	34,531.50
81-district Administration	$	1,678.13
Total
$ 511,900.68
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner
Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the
claims and accounts.
ORDER NO. 29492
BUDGET AMENDMENT
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY
Came to be heard this the 28th day of November, 2005, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
76-572-569' Operating Equipment
76-572-499 Miscellaneous
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $897.50
- ($897.50)
*-New line item for budget.
ORDER NO.29493
BUDGET AMENDMENT
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Came to be heard this the 28th day of November, 2005, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-409-405 County Water Rights
10-409-480 Property Insurance
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $8.20
- ($6.20)
ORDER NO. 29494
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 28th day of November, 2005, with a motion made
by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports:
District Clerk -Revised September, 2005
District Clerk -October, 2005
County Clerk