1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, June 26, 2006
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
ABSENT: H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1

v
-9
O
<J
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
2
T U ll F' Y
June 26, 2006
PAGE
--- Visitors' Input 5
--- Commissioners' Comments (,
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
approval of Hill Country Alternative Dispute
Resolution Center
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve completed "Texas Yes!" program contract for
2006 Texas Arts and Crafts Fair marketing program
1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
reaffirm Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations
1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
reaffirm Kerr County Water Availability
Requirements
1.10 Public Hearing concerning revision of plat for
Lots 13 & 14, Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on TCDRS
Plan Options and Plan Rate for 2007, have County
Judge sign same
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
implementation of Process Works, Inc.; have
County Judge sign same
1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
revision of Lots 13 & 14 of Cypress Springs.
Estates, Phase I
1.12 Request to amend interlocal agreement related to
subdivision review/approval on the ETJ to allow
extension of time for City to amend its
subdivision regulations
1.5 Consider/discuss preliminary plat of Falls Ranch
Subdivision, Phase I
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set
public hearing to abandon, vacate and discontinue
Privilege Creek Ranches
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
revision of Lots 4 & 5, Byas Springs Ranch
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
construction of roadway & drainage study for
Megan Manor
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
extend preliminary plat of Waugh Acres
1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
clarify Court Order # 29223 concerning illegal
divisions of property in Pct. 1 & 2
1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
realignment of Upper Turtle Creek Road
10
19
24
42
43
43
44
46
48
51
70
71
72
78
86
93
3
1
°' 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I N D E X (Continued)
June 26, 2006
1.15 Consider/discuss County Treasurer's notification
that her office will discontinue human resources
functions as of August 1, 2006
1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
request of County Judge for County Treasurer to
provide true copies of all information exchanged
between Treasurer's office and IRS and Social
Security Administration between 1-1-03 and present
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
authorize County Auditor and members of
Commissioners Court to have access to information
maintained by IRS which relates to Kerr County
1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
quote for sidewalk construction at Kerr County
Animal Control facility
1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
accept funds remaining after disbanding of Hill
Country Garden Council for use in replacing/
upgrading plantings at Kerr County War Memorial
1.22 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
contract with consulting engineer for subdivision
review
1.23 Retirement of Tax Assessor-Collector effective
August 31, 2006; consider/discuss, take appropriate
action to appoint successor (Executive Session)
1.24 Consider/discuss Maintenance Department supervision
(Executive Session)
1.25 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to make
nomination for vacancy on the KCAD Board of
Directors
4.1 Pay Bills
4.2 Budget Amendments
4.3 Late Bills
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
PAGE
95
103
113
117
120
121
125
129
129
135
3.1 Action as may be required on matters discussed
in executive session 136
Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments
137
--- Adjourned 144
25
4
1
°~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~°- 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, June 26, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., a special
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order this regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled for
this time and date, Monday, June the 26th, 2006, at 9 a.m.
It's past that time now. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would you please rise and
allegiance to our flag.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's
any member of the public or the audience that wishes to be
heard on any item that is not a listed agenda item, well,
you're free to come forward and tell us what's on your mind at
this time. If you wish to be heard on a listed agenda item,
we'd ask that you fill out a participation form. They can be
found at the back of the room. If there's not some there,
why, I think we can get some there pretty quick. Or if, for
some reason, when we get to that item, if you haven't filled
out a partition participation form, if you wish to be heard,
if you'll just get my attention some way, shape, form, or
fashion, I'll -- I'll recognize you. It helps if I do have
6-26-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
the participation form, though; helps me to be alert that
what's on your mind, sir.
MR. BRUNER: Morning, Commissioners. My name is Ken
Bruner. I'm president of the Bear Paw Ranch Homeowner
the residents of The Horizon Subdivision. We want to let you
all know that we are organizing a coalition of homeowners,
people who are already on the ground who have sunk their
retirement savings into homes here in Kerr County because of
its great beauty and because of its attractiveness, many of us
coming from places besides the San Antonio area, all around
Texas; indeed, around the nation. We're very concerned and
will be watching with great interest the progress of any
proceedings in public policy or decision-making bodies related
to the L.C.R.A.'s proposed power transmission plans. We
believe at the outset that they have, in fact, violated their
own standards by not taking into consideration the aesthetics
of the Hill Country. Several of their routes have been
proposed as planned along high points in the county to
n-26-06
6
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
interrupt both view-shed, watershed, and aviation access, some
of which is critical to some of our neighbors in the outlying
districts who are counting on that helicopter in time of need.
I'm sorry Commissioner Baldwin's not here. I wanted to
express our public thanks to him for having responded to us
and forwarding our concerns on to the functioning engineer,
project manager at L.C.R.A. We also communicated with
Commissioner Tinley, and have not yet heard what y'all might
think of this and what your participation in it as an advisory
to other public agencies; P.U.C., L.C.R.A., so forth. So, we
just want to let you know that we're out here. There is much
of it we don't like, and we will be hopefully working with
you, with other appointed and elected public officials to
achieve the shortest, least cost, and least intrusive
provision of that power to the apparent growth of our county.
Thank you for the opportunity to be heard.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Is there any other
member of the public that wishes to be heard on any item that
is not a listed agenda item? Anybody else that wishes to be
heard on anything that's not a listed agenda item? Seeing no
one else coming forward, we'll move on. Commissioner
Williams, what do you have for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't have a lot, Judge,
but -- probably didn't have anything till I finished reading
the Express News yesterday afternoon or yesterday evening, and
E-zF-o~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
to and behold, in a section way back in the back of the
colleague, Commissioner Baldwin, is quoted extensively. I was
going to have a little fun with him about that, but since he's
not here, I'll just save the article and give it to him on
another day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't believe I have anything
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A week ago, Saturday and
Sunday, we got anywhere from 1 to 2 inches of rain in Precinct
4. Remember, it has 600 square miles, so it can have a big
rain one place and very little in another place. Yesterday we
got more rain, anywhere from just a little more than a trace
to up to an inch, and I have lifted the -- reluctantly lifted
the burn ban. I think it's still -- still hazardous. Our
volunteer fire departments have been taxed pretty good lately,
but a lot of -- some people out there standing ankle-deep in
mud, so I've lifted the burn ban. I'm just hoping everybody
will use good judgment, and that we won't have a big problem.
That's all.
6- gi b- O n
8
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. I'd like to take
this opportunity to give some recognition to one of our County
employees, by virtue of some work that she is doing in
emergency preparedness, emergency response. As I'm sure most
of you know, during Katrina and Rita, there was a major
difficulty trying to evacuate people that had domestic animals
when they did not know what the fate or future of those
animals was going to be, particularly elderly people that had
companion pets and of that nature. As a result, they refused
to be evacuated, and exacerbated the -- the emergency service
requirements that had to be provided, and made things a whole
lot more difficult. One of the lessons learned from those
disasters was that what we need to include in our emergency
plan is some function where these domestic pets can be
provided for, so that these owners will have some comfort zone
knowing that there is some procedure in place and plan in
place that their pets will be adequately cared for and -- and
documented, and they'll be reunited with them if they're
evacuated to a different place.
Christine McIntyre with our County Attorney's
us a pretty long time, who also heads up the local Diamond
Dachshund Rescue of Texas -- got ahead of the curve and has
established and has received training, along with a few other
individuals that she recruited. It's called CARRT, which
6-^_F-Oo
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'~' 2 9
25
stands for Companion Animal Response and Rescue Team. And I
think at this time, she's got the only one that's certified in
the state of Texas. And this past weekend, they had an
exercise out at the Youth Exhibit facility to go through a
drill for a disaster to refine their procedures of how they're
going to do this. No one leaned on Ms. McIntyre to do this.
She came up with this plan, came to me, and I said, "Run with
it. I think it's a great thing." She has been running with
it. She was trained by some certified instructors, and her
plan is to get this team solidly on the ground, to then train
another team, and try and spread this throughout Texas, so I
think she deserves significant recognition for this work. And
I -- this will become, I have been told, a mandatory part of
every emergency plan in this country for -- for emergency
preparedness and response, so I think she needs that
recognition, and I'm happy to give it to her today. Let's
move on with our agenda, if we might.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, if you will, please.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I had a voice message on my
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- before we came into court
I believe her voice was very bad, and asked that we take care
n-z6 06
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
of Items 3 and 4, but asked that, quote, we hold up till next
meeting on Items 15 and 16.
JUDGE TINLEY: 15 and 16?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Appreciate that heads-up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's consider Item 1, if we might.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on an approval
of the Hill Country Alternative Dispute Resolution Center. I
assume that's the contractual agreement that we have, Mr.
Reaves?
MR. REAVES: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. Your
Honor, Commissioners, I'm here today as a representative of
the Hill Country Alternative Dispute Resolution Center. I'm
glad to report that the volume of activity kept up in 2005,
but it has just -- it's currently 150 percent of what it was
last year. So, through May of this year, we're -- we're
doing, I think, some 63 cases compared to 40-something through
May of last year, and we have enjoyed a pretty good success
rate with the volunteer mediators. We have a small enough
volume that we can find out a little bit about each case and
try and figure out who the best mediator is to try and
recruit, and we have people that have been very generous with
their time in doing so. We have done a lot of C.P.S. cases.
We did 22 last year; we've already done 21 this year, and that
6-^6-06
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~-- 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"` 2 4
25
11
is one item that we get little to no remuneration for,
depending on the court and whether they -- the people have any
cases we had, and according to the associate judges, they tell
me that's like a five-day trial for each one that they would
have had to have anyway. So, I'm glad to report that.
had built up in A.D.R. funds in Kerr County was -- was going
down, and our allocations were matching that. Thanks to your
action in endorsing the Legislature action of permitting a
raising of A.D.R. fees, that has turned around. I think we --
we'd probably only have collected 13,000 a year in A.D.R. fees
without your action, but thanks to the action that you took,
we're looking at about 18,000 a year or so being raised. As
of the 25th of May, there was some 19 and a half thousand in
the A.D.R. fund. Given straight-line projection, I expect
there's a little over 21,000 in there now, and we're
~ requesting your consideration of the 21 -- $17,000 allocation
with our -- our contract. Do you have any questions, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: The contract which you submitted was
b-G6-06
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
MR. REAVES: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Has that contract not yet been
approved?
MR. REAVES: No, sir. No. Last year we came here
in April, and my understanding was that the longer we wait,
the better, because the funds become more clear as to exactly
what we have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We could come earlier next
year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, I was kind of surprised
to see it was during this fiscal year, and I thought -- you
guys have been crippling along over there without the benefit
of these funds that are dedicated by court filings for the
A.D.R. function.
MR. REAVES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Might be -- next year, to follow
up on that, Judge, it might be better to come earlier, and we
can do an adjustment late in the year to get additional funds
to you, or just go based on projected. I mean, we could
probably do something like 15,000. Then if you need
additional later in the year...
MR. REAVES: Great.
JUDGE TINLEY: I noted in looking at your
financials, when you said this was kind of a bottom-out year,
6-26-06
13
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
bouncing off the bottom operating at a loss over there.
MR. REAVES: Well, keep in mind, 13,000 of the -- of
that -- of the loss compared with 2004 was the smaller --
We had 33,000 from the Court in '04,
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
glad to report that that has been done. We've got contracts
providing for quarterly allocations of A.D.R. funds collected
from Gillespie County and Kendall County and Bandera County,
which are, with Kerr, the four most active counties. So,
that's going to make a big difference. Last year, all year,
the total amount that we collected from the other counties was
11 and a half thousand, and through April of this year, we've
already collected 15 and a half from the other counties. Now,
I don't think it's going to be straight-line like that the
rest of the year, because there is some that had been
collecting for a while and had not made an allocation before,
but I think it's some of -- they -- all these other counties
also, as with this Court, approved the increase in A.D.R.
fees. So, you know, knock on wood, things are looking up
financially, particularly with our increase in volume of
cases.
5 25-06
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
JUDGE TINLEY: The new allocations that these other
counties are making, are they essentially tied to what their
revenue stream is on that portion of the court costs which is
mandatorily dedicated to A.D.R. functions?
MR. REAVES: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, the 17,000 is
budgeted, is it not?
JUDGE TINLEY: Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: I looked before I came in here, and
there's -- we budgeted 12,500 for -- for this fiscal year. I
think, as I recall, that was based on -- on what was available
at the end of the year. And during the budget process, we
really didn't know -- we didn't know much about the change in
the revenue. So, I think we budgeted based on what we
anticipate we would collect for this year. So, I also look at
the cash -- it was 19,000 and change through May, so there --
you know, Mr. Reaves is probably close to being correct about
there being at least 21 at the end of the year. We would have ~
-- we would have to do a budget amendment in order to pay them
more than 12,500.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I think the way that it's
styled, I think we can do that budget amendment under this
agenda item. "Take appropriate action" I think would come
under that portion of it.
h-z6-oh
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DODGE TINLEY: Mr. County Attorney, could we include
the budget amendment to increase that portion of the budget?
We've got the revenue stream for it up to 17,000, as called
for in the contract?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can come back and do it at
the next meeting as well, but, I mean, just --
MR. EMERSON: I would be more comfortable if you did
it at the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we approve what we
know is in the budget, and then come back and amend it next
meeting?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We might be able to get a
better analysis of the figures and how those are trending with
that new increase into the A.D.R. fee supplement.
MR. TOMLINSON: I might suggest going ahead and
paying them what we budgeted --
DODGE TINLEY: Yes.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- at this point. And then in
waiting till October and getting a balance, that way we could
go ahead and budget it for -- for '06-'07, with the remainder
of the funds available for '05-'06, plus what we anticipate
collecting in '06-'07. We're happy to delay part of the
payment until October, so we would not have to do a budget
amendment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This contract's for this fiscal
5-26-Oti
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
16
year, so to me, we would approve this contract and come back
and do a budget amendment to get them up to the 17,000, and
then I think do what you're talking about, maybe, for the next
fiscal year. I mean, 'cause if we wait till after October --
MR. TOMLINSON: I think it boils town to whether or
not the Court wants to do a budget amendment for this year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say that again?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think it boils down to whether or
not the -- the Commissioners Court wants to do a budget
amendment for 'OS-'06.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As opposed to just doing it
in new budget year.
MR. TOMLINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would be -- I mean, I guess it
doesn't make any difference, but I would rather get the money
to them as quickly as possible and do a budget amendment this
year, and then look at next year and our next year's contract.
And I make a motion to approve the contract as submitted.
JUDGE TINLEY: With what funding level?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At 17,000, with the only payment
to be made what's currently budgeted, until a budget amendment
is approved by the Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it.
6-26 06
17
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: We have a motion and second. Any
question or discussion on the motion? A11 in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you,
Mr. Reaves.
MR. REAVES: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE TINLEY: Incidentally --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Excuse me, Judge. I've got
one question for Mr. Reaves.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: First, I really appreciate
the A.D.R. It's a winner.
MR. REAVES: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good for litigants and
courts and taxpayers and everybody. I can't remember what
program fees are, where you have here Program Fees for
Mediation. The participants pay a fee to use the process?
MR. REAVES: They do, Your Honor. And, for example,
in a district court or county court case, it is $175 per
party. Now, that's all day if necessary, and sometimes into
the night. And there are lesser fees for J.P.; I want to say
it's $60 per person. I'm hoping if we get -- do well enough
6 2 6- O b
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in the future, that we could lower the J.P. fee down to
something -- something really nominal, like $20 or so, to make
it accessible to more and more folks.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's a bargain.
MR. REAVES: Thank you, sir. It's a pleasure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Your C.P.S. cases, which I know are
very, very contentious cases, you calculated -- I believe you
said 17 out of the 22. That's a 77 percent-plus settlement
rate. As to your other cases, what's your settlement rate, if
you recall, roughly?
MR. REAVES: Well, last night I figured it out. I
thought you might ask me that, and I had -- we settled -- we
have some 71 cases as of today that we've mediated. Now, all
-- of that number, all but seven either settled -- most of
them settled on the day of mediation, and there are a couple
others that subsequently settled as a result of the mediation,
and so that's up about 90 percent.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think that's about the
national average of mediation of the figures that I've heard,
is 90 percent success rate, which is phenomenal. You sure
can't get those kind of odds anywhere else. And as
Commissioner Nicholson said, it's a -- it saves money for the
litigants, the taxpayers, the courts, their time. They're
overburdened.
MR. REAVES: We do a lot of family law, because
b-^_6 06
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
19
that's just a reflection of what's in the courts. And it --
of the family are -- can go on with their lives. You know,
it's a great -- great feeling. Thank y'a11 very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Reaves. Appreciate
you being here today. Let's move on to Item 2, if we might.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve the
completed Texas Yes! program contract between Kerr County and
i Texas Department of Agriculture with respect to the 2006 Texas
Arts and Crafts Fair Marketing Program. I placed this on the
agenda at the request of Mr. Bob Miller concerning some grant
funds that he made application to the Texas Department of
Agriculture under the Texas Yes! program, I believe $10,000 in
connection with the marketing and advertising for this
immediate past Texas Arts and Crafts Fair.
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. Good morning. I'm Bob
Miller with the Texas Arts and Crafts Educational Foundation.
We've had -- I think this is our third trip back on this
grant. Pardon me. Department of Agriculture has changed.
First thing they wanted to do was come back and have y'all
join. After we joined, I think we found out you had already
joined.	But the contract had	not been	approved by the --	by
you all	in the court at that	point, I	think based on some	
reservations that Mr. Emerson had. I was here today to try to
6-2E 06
20
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
see if we couldn't get by some of those and get that contra:.t
approved. One of the things I looked at last time I talked to
insurance policy; have been from square one, by virtue of --
that we lease the property from you all. And I think that
probably handles most, if not all, of the risks that were
detailed in the letter to Judge Tinley from Mr. Emerson back
in May. Mr. Emerson can probably speak to that better than I
can, since he --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM5: Well, Mr. Emerson probably
will speak to it. There was an issue, as you recall, with
another Texas Yes! application grant, and it was called to our
attention by the County Attorney that the requirements of the
grant were that the Court was to be the administrator of those
funds. And we sort of backed up and said no, we didn't think
we wanted to do that, because of the nature of that particular
request and how -- how the funds were going to be utilized and
so forth and so on, and we weren't going to be disbursing
those funds. There is, I think, a basic difference in that
request that the Court backed away from and your request.
Let's see if I can shed a little light on it. First of all,
you lease county property, and your event is on county
property. Your event has already taken puce, and you have
expended the money for advertising, for which you're asking
reimbursement.
6-26-OF
~l
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. MILLER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that correct?
MR. MILLER: That is correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And as such, then, you would
be able to provide the Auditor with sufficient documentation
as to the expenditures, that they had been appropriately made i
as per the grant requirements?
MR. MILLER: Right. We could actually provide him
with a copy of all of the things that we used as support that
would go to the Texas Department of Agriculture with this.
This is a reimbursement grant; we have to prove to them that
we have spent the money and that everything that -- like the
use of their logo and their mark has been approved ahead of
time. All those things have been done, and then are submitted
as a package to them for reimbursement. I'll be happy to
provide him with a copy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I think there are some
signal differences between your application and the one that
the Court backed away from in the past. That's the point.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Miller, if the communication
which I got from Texas Department of Agriculture is correct,
this is a -- a last-ditch measure, and if we don't do
something with it today, you're going to have to eat that
$10,000 --
MR. MILLER: I may have to --
6-26-06
22
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE TINLEY: -- you've already expended?
MR. MILLER: I may have to eat it anyway. You and I
are both on notice that they have canceled the contract. I've
been back in contact with them. They have agreed to
reconsider it based upon nothing was done in a timely manner.
We got the contract less than 30 days before the event, which
was a no-no to begin with. We worked with them for months
before we had a contract. So, anyway, they're taking another
look at it, but there is no guarantee at this point, even if
you approve the contract, that we will be reimbursed those
funds.
JUDGE TINLEY: At best, we're on borrowed time. ~
i MR. MILLER: We're on borrowed time, and I think
we're laying the groundwork for next year, 'cause we'll go
back and make that same grant application for next year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before I make a motion, I
want to turn to you, County Attorney and Judge. Is there
anything else about this, other than the issues regarding
administration and certification of the expenditures as
correct, anything else that we need to be aware of?
MR, EMERSON: Nothing -- nothing different than the
original memo relative to the other contracts.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would move approval of the
Texas Yes! program contract between Kerr County and Texas
Department of Agriculture with respect to the 2006 Arts and
6-26-06
23
1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Crafts Fair marketing program, qualified by Mr. Miller
submitting proof to the County Auditor that the expenditures
are in order.
JUDGE TINLEY: Authorization for me to sign the
I same?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think just another comment to
follow up a little bit on what Commissioner Williams said.
The other difference here is this is a -- the other one that
we backed away from was an individual, whose private finances
are private. This is a nonprofit where the finances are
public, and there's a big difference there on -- on the -- you
know, seeing how the funds are used, and to the whole public,
not just us. And there obviously is a relationship with this
facility, as we own the property. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
6-26-Oo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
MR. MILLER: Thank you, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MR. MILLER: Appreciate it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move, if we might, to Item 20.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to reaffirm the
Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Commissioner
Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At our last meeting, I went
Court approved new Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations, and authorized myself to make some changes.
"Minor" changes, I think they were referred to. Those have
been made. And I still think they're minor changes. Almost
all the changes are at the request and advice of our
consulting county engineer, but because there are changes, I
thought it was better for the Court to reaffirm the final
document. There may be some formatting changes and some
checking on pages and things of that nature, but the actual
document itself will not change any more. And I wanted that
just to go -- you know, bring it before the Court and get this
reaffirmed. I will point out a couple -- where some of the
changes are again, 'cause some of them are -- you know, I
think they're certainly important. I'll just go through them
real quick; won't hit all of them, but I will hit some of
them.
o' 26-06
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Under the definitions on Page 10, we added a
Kind of gives a definition of what total acreage -- how it's
defined. On Page 12, this is some additional language that
our -- the county consulting engineer thought we should add.
This kind of strengthens a little bit about when work can be
started and drainage plans and things of that nature. That
all has to be done after preliminary plat is approved; nothing
can be done prior to preliminary plat approval. Also, it
refers -- talks a little bit about drainage plan and road plan
and profiles.
Page 13, this is a little bit, you know, of a change
on where the -- we currently had it set up where we increased
our overall subdivision fees and hoped that that would absorb
the cost of the engineering review. Our engineer says he
thinks this is a much better approach; that he'll keep track
of it on a subdivision-by-subdivision basis, and the developer
of a subdivision will pay for the engineering review fees for
that subdivision. And I think he'll keep an accurate total.
He'll give us the bill prior to final plat, and then that
check has to be paid before we do final plat approval. So, on
Page 16 and 17, a lot of highlights, but what we really did,
there was some discussion about community water systems;
E z6-o~
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
modified that language, and now it says -- instead of saying
"community water system," it's "community, public, or shared
water system." Then we also added language about "No
individual water wells will be permitted on any lot," where
they're using a water system to get the lower lot size.
That's a plat note. That same thing is on those two pages.
On Page 18, this is new. It was felt that our -- we
were trying to create a table to quickly look at what the
requirements are, and this is what I came up with. And I
think it kind of gives the water source, sewage disposal
system, and the area of the county. Then go across, and you
can see minimum lot size, maximum number of lots in that
subdivision, kind of a quick reference for people to look at.
Then there's a -- under notes, it says you need to look at the
actual language in some of the specific requirements. But I
think this is a good addition, just to make it real clear on
our minimum lot size and the maximum number of lots permitted
in a subdivision.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like the table,
Commissioner. It might be helpful for those who are
interested, though, if you just quickly step through those
categories.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. The -- the categories,
subdivision type, and it lists water, water source, sewage
disposal system, area of the county, and other -- minimum lot
6-z6 oh
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 [.
23
24
25
I can't imagine we're going to
have community sewage and individual wells, but if a developer
did want to do that, it would be a 5-acre minimum lot size,
and the maximum number of lots would be total acreage divided
I by five. If you have a community water system and on-site
septic outside high-density development areas, minimum lot
size is 1 acre. Total acreage in subdivision -- I mean, the
maximum number of Lots is total acreage divided by three.
If you're on a community water system and on-site
septic within the high-density area, minimum lot size is 1
acre, and the maximum number of lots is total acreage divided
by two. If you're on a community water system and a community
sewage system outside the high-density area, the minimum lot
size is 1 acre; maximum number of lots is total acreage in the
subdivision divided by three. If you're on a community water
system and a community sewage system within a high-density
development area, minimum lot size is one-quarter acre, and
the maximum number of lots is total acreage in the subdivision
divided by two. A little bit further, under 5.O1.F, building
6 26-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
setbacks for road right-of-way went from 20 feet to 50 feet
off the lot lines, and that was at the request of our
consulting engineer mainly. If you have to increase
right-of-ways or other issues, that additional 30 foot does
make a big difference, and really doesn't -- isn't going to
impact the construction.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if you got -- if we've
got a residence structure that's 100 feet wide, and you have
to have 50 feet setback on either side, you have to have at
least 200 feet of lot to build on.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's coming from the
I roads.
JUDGE TINLEY: From the street.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not the edges of the
~ property.
JUDGE TINLEY: But on the smaller lots, quarter-acre
lots, I can see where that might be a real challenge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think you can always
give a variance. I mean, on those, when you get into those
high-density developments, I think we're going to have to look
at those almost on a case-by-case, and that's permitted
elsewhere in the rules.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 22 --
r 2ti 06
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
29
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's one on 20.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's a -- I'm not going
to hit all of them. That's just talking about -- we added
what road plan and profile drawings are required. It's local
roads, collector roads, and arterial roads, and that's listed
again later as well in a table. Page 22, no change here. 1
put this on just to make sure that everyone's in agreement
that, for drainage requirements -- I'll just read it. If you
have -- subdivisions with minimum lot size of 20 acres or
total number of lots less than five shall be exempt from
drainage requirements. I just put that in there 'cause it
changed from our current rule to -- or our previous rules, our
previous 2002. That's what -- there's a note. Page 24, I
just put that as a note. At the bottom, 5.06.H, we used to
have a standard -- I think it was a five-year for drainage
structures, what size of storm frequency you're looking at.
The engineer recommended we break that out into four
categories based on the size of the drainage area. The bigger
the drainage area, the higher the requirement is on drainage
structures.
Then, on Page 25, used to be a three-year storm
frequency; it went to a five -- or two-year. Used to be
two-year. He recommended we go to a five-year storm
frequency. Trying to be a little bit more consistent on what
we use in storm frequencies throughout. Page 26, the top part
6-26-06
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
30
is really just a wording change up there, but the bottom part
under 6.02.A is the specific language about the engineering
review being charged back to the subdivision. He goes over
that in some detail. And then, below that, we increased the
number of prints that are required to be submitted, and
increased the time to 28 days that the information needs to be
submitted. This allows for the engineer to have time to look
at it. Page 27 through 28, no changes in content, just
the same. And the same on Pages 30 through 37 -- 30 through
32. Those are just changing the order and kind of making it a
little bit more consistent, using consistent language and --
but no change in the content at all.
Page 33, it specifically says that as-built drawings
are required for drainage and for construction. Those are the
bottom two changes. This is talking about roads here, but
there is another section we didn't bring in about drainage.
We have as-built drawings; it's on the bottom. We didn't
require that. On Page 34, alternate plat process, I increased
that. Used to be four or less; it went up to five or less.
some of the other requirements, trying to use five as the
breaking point for a lot of things. Then --
JUDGE TINLEY: Earlier you said less than five, and
6-_'F-OE
31
1 less?
2
3
4
5 than
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Less than five.
JUDGE TINLEY: Less than five?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I got them all to less
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lower on that page, increased
the number of days to 28 days. On Page 39, again, it's
talking about plan and profiles, drawings required for
arterial, collector, and local roads. They're not requiring
them for country lanes. On Page 91, that's the same change we
made earlier about drainage; it's just reiterated again here.
It's almost a dup]icate of the language. On Page 42, this is
something we discussed a lot, and -- but changed this a lot
again, on the type of the base material. We added a general
note underneath it now. It's all, you know, the types.
There's Type A for arterial road, Grade 2; collector roads,
Type A, Grade 2; local roads, Type A, Grade 2; country lanes,
Type C, Grade 2. But under all of it, "Equivalent base
material may be approved by the County Subdivision
Administrator if such material meets equivalent testing
criteria performed by a licensed testing laboratory." The key
word here is "may." Gives the discretion up to Leonard.
And this was one of the ones that really I hadn't
thought of this, but our consulting engineer brought this up.
6-?6-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
There are situations when, if we require base to be hauled in
on an existing county road that's "X" miles long, we may
destroy our current road getting this base material out to a
new road when there is probably adequate material on-site.
So, this is a -- the reason for this is -- the criteria I
think Len will probably use is, what's the damage going to be
to county -- to existing county roads by hauling base to
several locations? And I thought it's a pretty good approach.
On Page 45, we just listed the definitions on Page 45. We
used to have all the criteria listed under each one. And then
if you go to Page 46 is a table that gives all the road
requirements broken out, From the last time we discussed it,
this is -- all the changes on this were based on
recommendations by Wayne Wells. He thought we were too
restrictive on the number of lots, where the breakdown for the
local road, collector road, and arterial, so we've increased
some of those. He thought we were also too restrictive on the
average daily traffic counts, so we increased those some.
I think the reason we got off a little bit on that
is, I was copying from other subdivisions and different
terminology. He said that we were being a little bit
unreasonable there. We made some other changes that he
recommended there as well. And, really, one of the more
important changes here is underneath the table, the paragraph
that starts with "Design speed." This gives the -- a little
h-2e-u5
1
"' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
'- 2 4
25
33
bit more flexibility. I know there's some engineers here; I'd
better be careful what I say on this one. Getting on very
speed and alignment of vertical and horizontal components,
design speed, vertical curve, "K" value - crest, vertical
curve, "K" value - sag, and then stopping site distance and
minimum horizontal curve, all those items may be coordinated
to provide lesser figures. For example, a collector or
arterial road may have lowered speed limits, which must be
properly signed, to adopt -- to adapt -- it should say adapt;
its a typo -- adapt to existing topography that dictates
design constraints. Kerr County shall make final
determination on such design modifications.
What all that says is that these items are all
things. And it gives a -- based on our consulting engineer,
flexibility to work with the design engineer as to -- as long
as they're meeting, you know, this really is not subjective.
It's engineering formulas that they use, but it gives them
~ flexibility that says if you change one, the others are noted
to change as well. And the intent is the overall framework,
so if you have a fast road, you're going to have higher
criteria. If you put a slow speed limit or a curve on a road,
you can do that and change some of the criteria. All of this
E-26 05
34
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
was Mr. Wells' work. And I think, on Page 49, on (e), we
added some language that we really were saying if it's a
previously constructed road that we're accepting in the
system, little bit more specific, that road has to be in full
about that testing. And then below that, we were ambiguous
previously as to how long a road had to be under a maintenance
bond before we accepted it. It was kind of unclear, so we've
changed it to basically it has to be bonded for two years
after it's accepted. We previously had one year in areas and
two years in areas. And then last page, Page 53, just a note
about the ET J, noting that we have an agreement with the City
of Kerrville, and that we are working on an agreement with the
City of Ingram.
Another thing that I'll hand out related to
subdivisions is the fee schedule, Appendix F. Jannett sent me
an e-mail after last time the Court looked at this and said
that I had missed a whole bunch of fees that the County Clerk
collects. I think I've got them all included in here now,
probably with the proper names. Also, we added language about
engineering review. Then on the second page, Environmental
Health, we made some -- really, changed the wording more than
changed the content right there, modified that a little pit as
well. The other appendices, there's no change to. There
is -- I need to get with Truby a little bit about organization
6-26-06
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of those. I did -- in the text of the agreement, rather than
have some certifications that state this is required in the
body, and some in the appendix, I went ahead and put them all
in the appendices. We just say in the body to see the
appendix for certifications that are required, but that way we
these certifications.
The -- and I forgot to go over one, but I don't know
And I'll -- Leonard and I have talked about this,
floodplain boundary lines on our final plat, because those are
subject to change. He thought we probably should not do that,
because it's confusing to the public. I think Leonard and I
both talked with Don. We -- I can agree with that, but I
think it is more -- it's better to leave it on, personally. I
think I would rather see that floodplain line on there. They
have to look at the date, because it may be -- it's probably
not going to get less restrictive; it may get more
restrictive, but I think that if I take it off the plat, it's
worse than having a too restrictive or not restrictive enough
floodplain line on the plat. I think things change, and
people have to have some -- I mean, they have to look at these
things, and that will be checked when they do -- again, when
they start doing septic and other permitting. So, I left that
E-z6-o6
36
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
lanquage in there, even though we thought about taking it out
a little bit. That's it. I know it didn't sound like minor
changes when I went through them, but they were pretty minor.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
MR. SCOTT: I have a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Come forward; give us your name and
address and any comments you have on this item.
MR. SCOTT: I'm Harrison Scott from Kerrville, and I
just had a question about the functional classification that
you were mentioning, the local collectors, arterials. Is that I
compatible with the Federal Highway Administration's
~ definitions?
I
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Compatible? I think every
County uses -- I might refer to Leonard, but counties have --
or are required to have a minimum classification by state law.
MR. SCOTT: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And this -- I mean, we break it
down further, as many counties do.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah. Where we're impacted right now is
county roads are functionally classed higher than local that
are inside the Kerrville urban boundary, but outside of the
Kerrville city limits. And further, when Kerrville hits -- or
Kerr County hits 100,000, it's going to be a metropolitan
statistical area, and federal rules will govern, so we want to
make sure that those functional classes are relatively the
6-26-U6
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
same. That was just an observation I wanted to point out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Related to the City of
Kerrville, we are in agreement with the City of Kerrville. we
realigned ours to get very, very close to the City of
Kerrville.
MR. SCOTT: Don't tell me that, 'cause they've got
funding entities. I've got a new functional class that I just
got from Federal Highway Administration. I'll make it
available.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the collector, arterial, and
local are -- we've adequately got them defined within our
rules so that anyone who's working towards those roads or in a
plat situation knows exactly what we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure the federal
rules -- we did make an effort to get them as much -- almost
in exact line with the City of Kerrville because of the ETJ
issue, so we're very, very close there. We increased our
standards throughout. I mean, our roads are -- you know, we
-- how we came up with our classifications in that uses, I
mean, the uses or the -- we looked at other counties a lot to
see what they're doing around us, and every county has
different requirements. Ours is different from every other
county.
MR. SCOTT: It's actually signed off by the Federal
F-26 OF
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
Highway Administration and TexDOT on every urban plat where
that functional class goes in, and that's -- that used to
be -- one of my departments is TexDOT, so that's why I'm
saying it's -- it's something that we would want to look at
and make sure that we're in that right funding entity so that
when we get there, and where we are already there, that we can
get that funding that we're needing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would say I do know -- I have
talked to Mike Coward at TexDOT about some of our
classifications and right-of-ways. I think we're pretty much
in the right -- we'll check it. I would suspect that we're
pretty close, 'cause we've -- our -- I know our right-of-way
widths are certainly what TexDOT's are.
MR. ODOM: And traffic count would be totally
different than -- than Highway Department; our arterial and
their arterial traffic counts would be phenomenally different.
MR. SCOTT: Right. That's covered under county
roads, parish roads, and city streets. They have -- they have
different traffic volume groups.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can look at it and make sure,
'cause I think it's a good point that we -- if there's some
kind of federal issues, we ought to be alerted, you know,
where we can.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me make another comment or
observation, Commissioner. You mentioned about keeping
F-26-06
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
floodplain down on the plats and continuing to require that.
I think that's a good idea, 'cause that may be the only source
of information for the average individual that goes to look at
a plat. I assume that all of that floodplain data is
basically -- that's been furnished by FEMA. What -- what are
your thoughts about maybe including as a plat note that the
floodplain data is based upon --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's on there.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- 2004 FEMA determinations, or just
to identify it, to put that individual on notice?
MR. ODOM: Well, normally, that -- I think what
Jonathan was trying to say was that we didn't want to come up
with a definitive B.F.E., because it may change. And let's
assume that it's very quickly. I mean, we have -- we put that
note on there, the plat note, July the 19th, 2000. That's the
most current FEMA that we have. And we try to designate on
the final plat that the individual that has Lot 1 or 2 or
whatever's in the special flood hazard area would contact the
Floodplain Administrator for B.F.E. -- or for floodplain
information. So, what we were trying to do was not to have a
plat that may be 70 or 15 years old -- and I've seen some of
those come in -- and it has a -- a prior July 19, 2000
floodplain, and that's probably changed some. But that's
where we were going. We would still show it on the final
plat, that line that FEMA is showing, and we would designate
6-'6-06
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
40
that, and then -- then a B.F.E. would be determined, either in
an unstudied area or A.E. in a floodway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The plat note --
JUDGE TINLEY: The plat does not have a note on it
that -- that specifies the -- the FEMA determination date, of
wherever that --
MR. ODOM: It does -- it does put that on there. It
says it's in Zone X, July the 19th, 2000, or A.E.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, that solves the problem.
MR. ODOM: That's the most current information we
have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Couple comments. I'll say
again how fortunate we are to have Commissioner Letz do all
this work on Subdivision Rules. For those who aren't close to
the process, he's put many, many hours into it. It's a very
thorough document. We appreciate it. And then on another one
of -- just a comment on fees. During the budget process, I
i want to look at some of our fees, particularly those fees that
are charged where the user-pay concept may be applicable, like
O.S.S.F. and maybe some other things, and see if we can't move
it those fees upward to where taxpayers in general don't pay for
I services that are used by a small part of the population. So,
I'll bring that up in the budget process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've adjusted these fees, but
6-26-06
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the reason we do it as an appendix attachment is so that it's
easy to change it, so we don't have to search through the body
and change all those fees. We do it all on one page, so it's
an easy process to update fees.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I, too, want to thank
Commissioner Letz. This is a yeoman's service. A lot of work
went into this, and it's got here. He's done a really fine
job. Appreciate it. Hope you don't have to do it anytime
soon.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I hope I don't have to ao it
again in my career.
AUDIENCE: Give him a raise.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move approval -- or I'll
move approval to reaffirm Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to reaffirm
the approval of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations. Any question or discussion on the motion? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 21, if we might. Consider, discuss, and take
~-z6-oe
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
appropriate action to reaffirm Kerr County Water Availability
Requirements. Commissioner Letz again.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This one will be quicker. I
didn't highlight the changes. The only changes that were made
are on Section 1.03, and the same language change that we made
related to community public or shared water system are made,
and also the individual well language that we added on
Subdivision Rules were added.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What page? Page 3?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's 1.03. It's on -- yeah,
Page 3 and 4. But it's all the same changes that we approved
in our Subdivision Rules.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval of Kerr County
Water Availability Requirements.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for final
approval of the Kerr County Water Availability Requirements.
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: That motion does carry. We have a
10 o'clock timed item. At this time, I will recess the
ti 26-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:01 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open
court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
Lots 13 and 14, Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I, as set forth
in Volume 7, Page 12, Plat Records, and located in Precinct 4?
Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing,
and I will reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:01 a.m., and
the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: If we might, let's move to Item 3.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on the Texas
County and District Retirement System plan options and plan
rate for 2007, and have the County Judge sign same. This
~ matter was put on the agenda at the request of the County
Treasurer. I had received a request from a participant in
that plan specifically to have the Court consider a lump-sum
payment option for retirees that is not presently a part of
the plan, but which plan participant jurisdictions can adopt.
6 2 6 0 6
44
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
I communicated this to the County Treasurer. The Treasurer
said that the entire plan needed to be placed before the Court
for the coming year, and she was going to put that item on the
agenda. So, I had thought and had hoped that a member from --
a representative of T.C.D.R.S. would be able to be here so
to repost this for a subsequent date.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a time limit on
this, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Generally, we've got until
December the 15th, as I recall, in order to finalize our plans
for the coming year. These are based on calendar-year
adoptions, according to my recollection. Based on past
communications that -- that we had from T.C.D.R.S., my
recollection is that we've got until December the 15th; it
must be in their hands by that date. But I think what
prompted it was the -- was the request by a participant in our
plan to consider as one option to the plan a partial lump-sum
distribution to retirees, and I'd really like a member of the
T.C.D. R.S. to be here to explain that to us, 'cause I -- there
may be some ramifications that we need to consider.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We bring that back next meeting?
DODGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think we'll just bring that
back. Any member of the Court have anything further on that
item? Let's move then to Item 4, if we might. Consider,
6-_6 06
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
45
discuss, and take appropriate action on implementation of
Process Works, Incorporated, and have the County Judge sign
the same. This particular issue was placed on the agenda at
the request of the Treasurer. It involves our -- our employee
health benefits programs, specifically dealing with that plan.
The reason it's being brought in midyear is because the
administrator of our health reimbursement account -- the
"bennie" program, as some of the employees know it as -- has
been changed midstream from our current provider over to an
administrative organization known as Process Works. This was
done by our third-party administrator. In reviewing the --
the information that was presented on the so called
implementation workbook, I participated in that conference,
and my recollection is that -- that the allowability for HRA
funds to be used for payment of insurance premiums is, in
fact, allowed for the retiree medical premiums. The one
that's been presented indicates no. I'd like to have that
clarified -- at least that clarified before we go forward.
It's about the middle of Page 3, under HRA Plan Benefits,
Section V of the workbook that was presented to you. It's
checked no, but my recollection is that that was discussed
during that conference, and -- and earlier, it was decided
that retirees could use any accumulated HRA benefits up to the
maximum for payment of -- payment of premiums.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, has Mr. Looney looked at
6-26-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
this? I mean, that's -- it seems like there's a lot of
information on here, and seems that we need to make sure it's
consistent.
JUDGE TINLEY: He was involved in the conference,
Commissioner, and since -- since seeing this -- I was out of
town, as you know, at the tail end of last week, so I didn't
see it till this weekend. Mr. Looney wants to be here to look
at where we're going from a budget standpoint at one of our
meetings in July, and I do want to run this by him, and that's
another reason that I'd like to defer action on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you want to leave this
packet --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. And if there's -- does any
other member of the Court have anything further on this?
Let's move, then, if we might, to Item 11. Consider, discuss,
and take appropriate action for revision of Lots 13 and 14 of
Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I, as set forth in Volume 7,
Page 12, Plat Records, and located in Precinct 9.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Good morning.
DODGE TINLEY: Good morning, sir.
MR. ODOM: This revision was done under the
alternate plat process. However, the information we received
shows that Mr. Voelkel has not furnished the clerk with the
tax certificates, and requesting a waiver for fees and report
~-^6-06
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
97
for septic. I have Miguel here; I believe he's in the back.
Lee had just talked to me outside and said that those tax
certificates were taken over to the County Clerk, so we find
no problems with this revision, but leave the matter of the
fees to the discretion of the Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Related to the fees, I received
a memo from Miguel on this that he had no problem with waiving
the fees. And I think the -- the reason was, there are
licensed systems on both of those tracts already, and there's
really not going to be any change. Is that correct, Miguel?
MR. ARREOLA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see any reason to waive
the fees. (sic) There's no review for Environmental Health to
do in this situation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No reason to charge the fee?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No reason to charge. By law,
they have to look at the plat, but, I mean, it's nothing --
MR. ODOM: I recommend that the Court accept this
revision of this plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move -- do you have --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Waive the fees?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can we waive the fees under
this subject description?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we can't do -- we can't --
6-z6-o6
48
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
without waiving the fee, we can't approve it, because you have
to pay the fee before you can approve it. And I would think
we can, but that's up to Rex.
MR. EMERSON: I think y'all have done that before.
MR. ODOM: 7 think -
MR. EMERSON: Same or similar descriptions.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Probably can do it
administratively, okay. I move that we approve the revision
of Lots 13 and 14 of Cypress Springs, Phase I, Volume 7, Page
12, Precinct 4.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
as indicated. Any question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The motion does include a waiver
of the fees?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comments? A11
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: A11 opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to
Item 12; that is a timed item scheduled for hearing at 10:10.
It's just past that now. The item is a request to amend
interlocal agreement related to subdivision review and
ti-~6-06
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
99
approval on the ETJ to allow an extension of time for the City
to amend its subdivision regulations. This matter was placed
on the agenda at the request of Mr. Pau] Menzies with the City
of Kerrville. Mr. Menzies?
MR. MENZIES: Good morning, Judge and CommissLoners.
I hope I provided enough information to you regarding this
item. Y'all will recall that back in December of last year,
you signed an agreement with the City to allow the City to be
the sole review and approval authority for subdivision plats
within the city's ETJ. Now, part of that agreement also
required the City to amend its subdivision regulations, its
rural subdivision -- rural section of the subdivision
regulations to be more in line with the County's subdivision
regulations. One of the things that the City wanted to do in
reviewing this was to place that -- those proposed revisions
before the homebuilders association. We did that in April,
and we are still awaiting their recommendation. Hence, we're
I
not going to be able to amend those subdivision regulations by
the July 1st deadline, which is the reason for the request to
extend that deadline until October the 1st. I don't have a
copy of the revised interlocal agreement. If you all approve
it this morning, I'll make sure that the Judge gets it this
week.
JUDGE TINLEY: Simply stated, you're just asking for
-- to extend the deadline Eor you to accomplish that from
F-26-06
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
June 30th to September 30th?
MR. MENZIES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Part of this -- you know,
Mr. Hofmann talked to me about this briefly, and I have no
problem with this. They're -- we put a -- to make sure it
happened, we put the time certain date in the agreement, to
make sure -- mainly to get the City and the County's rules 9n
line in rural areas in the ET J, or under the City's rules.
They're very close already. And just some minor changes need
to be made, and the City's trying to do that, and I think the
~ City did the right thing by going out to the public to try and
get input on their rules before they modify them.
COMMISSIONER WSLLIAMS: This would be a resolution
that, likewise, goes to the City Council tomorrow night?
MR. MENZIES: Yes, I should have said that. The
City Council will consider this tomorrow night also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're -- we don't have the
resolution now.
MR. MENZIES: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we
extend the deadline for the City to -- or the deadline under
the interlocal agreement related to subdivision review in the
ETJ from the City to make some review of its rural rules until
September 30th, 2006, and the City provide a resolution
stating same.
6-?F 06
51
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: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. 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. Thank you,
Mr. Menzies. Let's go now to Item 5, if we might. Consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action for preliminary plat of
Falls Ranch Subdivision, Phase I, and located in Precinct 3.
Mr. Odom.
MR. ODOM: Thank you. We received the drainage
study and the preliminary plat which we forwarded to James
Wells, our consulting engineer, to review. We then forwarded
his findings and concerns, as well as mine, from Mr. Wells and
myself back to the engineering firm. They addressed all of
them and sent us a revised copy of both the plat and the
drainage study. You also notice on here the road names are
not on here, but they have been working with that, and working
with 9-1-1 to resolve that. That could be -- that will be
resolved at the final plat. There's a note that no
construction will begin until Privilege Creek Subdivision has
been abandoned; two, that the road profiles and flow lines
have been studied by our consulting engineer. Also, a note to
6-26-06
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
the Court that several individuals have been to our office to
check the development of this property. Their concerns are as
follows. One was the amount of traffic it would put on
Kendall County roads. Two, that Kendall County has not been
made aware of these plans in our county. Three was water
availability, and four, a printed copy was not available on
the Internet. There may be people here, I don't know, that
are here to discuss it. They said that they would be, so I
tell the Court that. But as we have the rules and what we've
been following and drainage study, we recommend that we move
forward to approve the plat and the drainage study as
presented to you. I'm open for any questions, or I have the
engineering developer here, or --
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have any
questions for Mr. Odom at this point?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The preponderance of this
development as proposed is in Kerr County; is that correct?
MR. ODOM: It is all in Kerr County. There is
proposed in the future, but everything here is in Kerr County,
the Kerr County line from Kendall County all the way into Lane
Valley.
DODGE TINLEY: Any questions by any member of the
Court for Mr. Odom? We have some participation forms that
have been filed in connection with this issue. Mr. Barsalou?
MR. BARSALOU: Yes, sir.
6-^_6-Oh
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Did I pronounce that correctly?
MR. BARSALOU: Barsalou.
first time I got anything right. I appreciate that. If you'd
come forward and give us your name and address, we'll --
MR. BARSALOU: Okay, good. I've had a little eye
problems recently from -- I had some cataract surgery that was
very successful, and I hope you don't mind if I refer to my
notes throughout this. I appreciate the Commissioners Court
hearing me today. I am Trey Barsalou of Kendall County, and I
reside in the Champee Springs Ranches Subdivision at 877
Camino Cantera, Boerne, Texas. I am a real estate broker by
trade, and have been licensed in the state of Texas since the
late '60's. More recently, I've been involved in the
planning, sales, and development of large-lot subdivisions
located in Kendall County. I'm a resident of The Quarry at
Champee Springs, the developer of that subdivision, and
president of the homeowners' association. My home is located
approximately a quarter of a mile from the proposed Falls
Ranch Subdivision, and I use Turkey Knob Road every day.
I was informed recently of this proposed subdivision
to be located in both Kerr and Kendall Counties. This
subdivision would be adjacent to the Champee Springs Ranches
Subdivision, of which The Quarry of Champee Springs is a part.
I understand the developer proposes to open a major arterial
6-26-06
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
road from Highway 27 between Comfort and Center Point, and to
connect this road to Turkey Knob Road, which is located
They
learned of this proposal -- proposed development only when
contacted by residents in my subdivision. I believe a
representative of Kendall County may be present today.
Several aspects o£ this proposed development are of
great concern to my -- to my neighbors and to me. The secrecy
in which these plans have been carried out with respect to
Kendall County is a concern. Another concern is whether this
Court has the authority to approve a subdivision plat
dependent on access from a road located entirely within
another county, and without its consent. The cul-de-sac at
the end of Turkey Knob Road ends approximately 40 or 50 yards
from the gate at the entrance to the Bowman property, the
present Privilege Creek Ranches -- excuse me -- Subdivision,
and lies wholly within the platted Champee Springs Ranches
Subdivision. I understand the Bowmans were informed by
Kendall County officials, when they platted the Privilege
Creek Ranches Subdivision inside of Kerr County, that Kendall
County was not authorizing any access to that subdivision from
Turkey Knob Road. Have any officials of Kerr County contacted
Kendall County to inquire if that is not true?
6-26-05
55
1
°' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
And then other concerns, the apparent disregard of
the deed restriction prohibiting ingress and egress to and
from Ranger Creek Road and Turkey Knob Road by and from any
property outside the Champee Springs Ranches Subdivision and
the Bowman tract, which is a part of the proposed Falls Ranch
Subdivision. A 1-foot non-ingress/egress easement was imposed
by a prior owner of these lands (see Volume 555, Page 666 in
the Kendall County Property Records) and exists around a
portion of the proposed subdivision precluding such access
from properties beyond the Bowman tract. I believe the
Bowmans purchased their land subject to that restriction, just
as I did mine. If you look at the language of the
restriction, it clearly states that the restriction was
established for the purpose of protecting the value,
attractiveness, and desirability for the properties owned by
my neighbors and me, and for the mutual benefit of the owners,
and is to run with the title of our properties.
We were told when we purchased our properties in the
Champee Springs Ranches Subdivision that there would be no
additional traffic on Turkey Knob and Ranger Creek Roads
because of these deed restrictions. Obviously, that was very
appealing. However, the proposed preliminary plat shows Lane
Valley Road to have been extended across the proposed Falls
Ranch Subdivision. First, I'm not aware that this has ever
been approved by this Court. The road across the Bowman tract
6 26-06
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
56
was approved by this Court as Privilege Lane in the prior plat
approved for the Privilege Creek Ranches Subdivision. Second,
in the concept plan presented to you on May the 8th,
back-to-back cul-de-sacs were shown at what appears to be the
approximate boundary between the Bowman and the F1ach
properties, and which apparently recognized the restriction.
Now the developer in the preliminary plat obviously
intends to extend Lane Valley Road across the non-access
easement and violate the restriction, even though two -- even
though two separate developments were discussed with you on
May the 8th. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure
out what the object of this scheme is meant to be. For those
who have not been informed, the plan appears to be to create a
major arterial which could open up as much as 20,000 acres in
Kerr County to development, and whose traffic will then be
dumped onto Turkey Knob Road in Kendall County, which would
bear all of the expense of maintaining and upgrading this road
for the traffic generated by the Falls Ranch Subdivision and
later developments. My neighbors, who all live in a
large-tract, heavily restricted subdivision, would also have
to deal with the increased traffic coming from outside their
subdivision, and on roads not presently adequate to meet that
increased demand. My neighbors and I have made substantial
investments in the -- in the purchase and improvement of our
properties, and in reliance on these restrictions imposed for
6-26-Ob
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
And I'm concerned that -- that there has been
meaningful water availability studies done for this proposed
development, and which, in this time of severe drought, would
seem foolhardy had they not been. Has a stormwater drainage
study and a traffic impact study been done, including the
impact on Turkey Knob and Ranger Creek Roads in Kendall
County? The foregoing would show what consequences of such a
development would be on the current residents of Kerr and
Kendall Counties. Have these studies, if any, been made
available to the public, and where can I get a copy? I know
my neighbors and I are concerned about how many more welts can
be drilled in close proximity to our own wells without
affecting our only source of water. Kendall County required
me to limit the number of wells in The Quarry at Champee
Springs to one per tract, and we have a minimum acreage of
25 acres per tract.
And I'm disturbed, and it is questionable to me
whether the concept of cluster housing as proposed by the
developer will be successful. You don't have to go far for an
example of an unsuccessful attempt to market the same concept.
The Gardens at Tapitio Springs is a good example of consumer
reluctance to move from a traditional small-lot subdivision in
the city to a supposedly large-Lot subdivision, and yet end up
6-26-06
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
58
living close to neighbors in a cluster. What experience does
the developer have in such developments? Have they been
successful before? Has any effort been made by Kerr County to
check out the developer and his track record?
And, finally, the obvious conflict of interest for
Commissioner Letz and the monetary reward that will fall to
him and his family by virtue of the increased value of his
property, which is adjacent to the proposed Falls Ranch
Subdivision, should you approve this preliminary plat. I
further understand he has been responsible for the drafting of
the new subdivision regulations in Kerr County, which are
unclear to me as to whether they are -- are presently in
effect. Which version of the regulations on your website are
now in effect? These are important issues, and any haste to
approve this proposed plat, combined with the prior secrecy
with respect to Kendall County, will only make the public more
suspicious of these circumstances. I hope you will give what
I have said serious consideration. I would request that a
copy of my remarks be made a part of the record for this
hearing. Judge Tinley, can I give you a copy of these
remarks?
JUDGE TINLEY: You may, and they are in the record
by virtue of the verbatim record being taken by our reporter,
sir. Let me quickly respond to a couple of the things that
you mention. Thank you, sir. I think the Subdivision Rules
6-26-06
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and regulations that are in effect are the ones that were
approved here this morning. They're in place. We have them
in final copy, and they are available now for distribution,
public view, posting, whatever. I think -- I think we've got
that issue solved.
MR. BARSALOU: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: They're in place now as a result of
the court order just moments ago. Thank you, sir.
MR. BARSALOU: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have another participant that has
asked to be heard, Mr. Robert Eason with the Kendall County
Attorney's office, representing the Kendall County
Commissioners Court. Thank you, sir. If you'll give your
name and address to the reporter?
MR. EASON: Morning. My name is Bob Eason, and I'm
Assistant County Attorney for Kendall County. I live in
Boerne, Texas. The Kendall County Commissioners Court asked
me to come speak to you and let you know of their concerns
with this subdivision. We're certainly concerned with the
effects on our water, and -- but more specifically at this
time, with traffic concerns. It's my understanding that Lane
Valley Road, the plan is to extend Lane Valley Road to connect
with Turkey Knob, and then on down to Ranger Creek Road.
Turkey Knob and Ranger Creek are in Kendall County, Texas, and
are our main access to Interstate 10. They also -- the
6-26-06
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Commissioners asked me to advise you that our current
subdivision regulations have a rule that requires that if a
subdivision is going to use access through another
subdivision, they must first have a traffic study done, and
that it be approved by the Commissioners Court. Our
Commissioners are somewhat concerned that they have not been
contacted with these plans, the plans that are going to
certainly affect the use, the traffic, the expense of
maintaining roadways, and the safety of our citizens. We'd
ask you to consider these things before you approve this.
Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any other member of the
audience or public that wishes to be heard with respect to
this agenda item?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, can I make one comment?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In reference to the gentleman
that made the comment about conflict of interest of myself,
I'm quite offended by that. I think if you would look at the
court record, I have disclosed the fact that this property is
going to be bordering my -- part of my ranch, and I am
receiving some compensation for it. I have abstained from any
vote and discussion related to the subdivision, and I have
filed an affidavit of record with the County Clerk's office as
required by law, so I think I'm in full compliance, and I'm
6-^6-06
61
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 offended that a representative of Kendall County would
come in here and make the accusation against myself.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A couple comments, Judge.
My understanding of the law is that if a proposed subdivision
meets our subdivision standards, we must approve it. We don't
make value judgments about economic viability or those sorts
of things, so if this -- if it's determined that this project
meets our subdivision standards, then we approve it. That's
my opinion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question, Judge.
Is there a representative of the developer in the audience?
MR. BLUME: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Would you address the Court, please?
MR. BLUME: Sure. Yes, sir. My name is Greg Blume.
I live in Harris County and Hays County, Texas. I'm with
Edward Neil Development.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is your plan for
advising Kendall County Commissioners Court of this
subdivision and its size and scope and -- and, to the extent
that you know, the impact on any roads that might be in
Kendall County? What is your plan?
MR. BLUME: The -- the current plan, from the
beginning, has been to contact Kendall County at the time that
we're platting within Kendall County. Kerr County, in the
earliest discussions with -- with Road and Bridge, already has
6-26-Gb
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
a responsibility for property that's within Kendall County --
within Kerr County; that's part of the subdivision that we
approved the replat on back in March. So, it's not a function
of -- of coming up with something that, to a large degree,
didn't already exist. What I also know, and I haven't
reviewed it personally, but our engineer also participated in
-- in work in other projects that had access and served by
Ranger Creek, and that the easement size, the existing road on
Ranger Creek and Turkey Knob allows for a turn lane access to
be done, and can handle -- again, I'm not an engineer, sir,
but significantly more traffic than a developer could
logically anticipate ever being added. And so, we've not
directly made contact, number one. Number two, we'll make
contact when we are working within their jurisdiction.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of the proposed
I
subdivision that is before us is within Kerr County?
MR. BLUME: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing yet within Kendall
County?
MR. BLUME: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But the roads, as laid out
in the preliminary plat, do they connect to Turkey Knob, as
the gentleman who spoke indicates?
MR. BLUME: That's correct. The southeast part of
the property is --
G-26-06
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
63
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would connect?
MR. BLUME: Would touch, connect to -- that's
I correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. What --
MR. BLUME: As it does currently. I mean, it's not
a new addition; it already -- the road that's there now,
there's an existing County-approved road that's there now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. BLUME: It's just privately maintained, but it's
a County-dedicated, County-approved road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And what -- what has
the developer done with respect to water availability and
I
assessing water availability?
MR. BLUME: We -- we talked with a number of the
drillers in the area and reviewed drilling logs, and we're
very encouraged by that and didn't see anything that raised an
issue, number one. Number two, we're asking for no variances.
As I understand it from the -- the conservation district and
the County work in conjunction, and by setting the rules that
you have, they're designed specifically to address the
priorities and, as I would see it, the duties that the County
has to protect the public interest. Water availability,
obviously, in this area being a very significant part of that.
So, what we are doing is, by checking that, by having a study
done -- Turner, Colley and Braden did a preliminary study for
6-26-06
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
us, and their position was that at this point, they didn't
~ recommend that we go further with a more detailed study at
Now, if we were doing a high-density -- the word was
finest and largest, you know, traditional tract type
development companies that I was aware of. Used to buy lots
from them at one time when I was a builder. The term "cluster
homes" I'm sure means nothing at all -- it's a gross
exaggeration from anything that's been anticipated here, and
if -- if an uneducated person used that who's not in the
development business, it likely could be a casual mistake.
But for somebody who's a professional in the industry -- none
of us can know somebody else's motives, but it would appear on
the surface to be something to incite something beyond the
reality. So, we are working off -- there's not a lot, nor do
we intend in any way to ask for anything other than the
minimum, to exceed the minimum. Right now, as the preliminary
li plat, I think we're close to 9 or 10 --
MR. KOLACNY: Nine.
MR. BLOME: -- acre average. We've got a
significant part greenbelt areas. Let's face it, people don't
come to the Hi]1 Country to be in truly defined cluster homes,
and more importantly, your ordinances don't even allow for it.
6 26-Ot
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lU
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My understanding of a
cluster home are several of them gathered together, all of
which are on small acreage -- small parcels of ground, and
they're gathered together for the purpose of making more green
area. That's always been my understanding. I don't know if
that's your understanding.
MR. BLUME: Mine is that it would be like patio
homes, small --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of the lots that you're
proposing in Kerr County are 5 acres or above?
MR. BLUME: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is minimum lot size.
~ Thank you.
MR. BLUME: If I --
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have any
~ questions?
MR. BLUME: Your Honor, may I address one other
thing on that point? There was a comment made about secrecy,
which I likewise am offended. I've met with Mr. Barsalou in
his own home and walked through, talking about what we were
doing and the potential for his son's building company to
possibly build there. So, if there's been any secrecy, then
your -- your requirements for a public and open meeting act
would be considered secrecy, too. I would tend to -- 'cause
we've had a face-to-face meeting on this. So, again, I can't
6-26-06
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
question somebody's motives, but I don't -- the facts don't
seem to stand up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have one other --
MR. BLUME: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- one other comment. I'm
going to go through you to the County Attorney.
MR. BLUME: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There was some mention of
deed restrictions, which is really not in our bailiwick to
determine. That's a civil matter; is that correct?
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
I
i JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? Any other questions
for this gentleman?
MR. EASON: May I ask a brief question?
MR. BLUME: Yes, sir. Do you have a question for
I us?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir.
MR. EASON: Would you please say again what you did
about the Turkey Knob? Did you -- did I misunderstand you?
Did you say that it is a privately maintained county road, and
that it currently goes into Kerr County, or not wholly
contained in Kendall County?
MR. BLUME: Let me clarify your question, sir, Are
you asking me if I said that Turkey Knob is a privately
6-26-06
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
67
maintained road? No, sir, I did not. I apologize if that's
how it came across. The road that is in Privilege -- in Kerr
County, Privilege Creek Ranch, currently, as it was platted, I
think, what, five or six years ago, is a -- is a Kerr County
dedicated road, but it is being -- it is to be maintained by
the owners of those 11 lots.
MR. EASON: Does it extend into Kendall County?
MR. BLUME: I don't think -- I think it stops at the
~ line.
MR. KOLACNY: Right-of-ways touch.
MR. BLUME: The access back and forth definitely
I does. But --
MR. EASON: Access from?
MR. BLUME: But I don't know physically which road
structure, how -- how accurately that comes down to a survey
point.
MR. EASON: Are you saying that Turkey Knob is
connected somehow already to Privilege Creek Road?
MR. BLUME: Yes, sir. Yes.
MR. EASON: It is?
MR. BLUME: Yes, sir.
MR. EASON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MR. BLUME: Okay.
MR. ODOM: Maybe your engineer ought to address
6-26-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
68
that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone else want to address these
issues? I thought I saw some request for recognition. Yes,
sir? If you'd come forward, give us your name and address,
and give us your input on this subject.
MR. SMITH: Yes. My name's Harold Smith, Kerrville,
Texas. I did not fill out a form, because I didn't know
anything about this issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's fine.
MR. SMITH: I have no interest one way or another on
it, but just as you tabled other issues, it would seem to me
that you may want to do that with this issue. You were asked
specific questions in addition to these subdivision rules
about whether certain studies had been made or had not been
made. The developer gave you responses that were general. "I
talked to drillers who told me certain facts." I would
suggest that what you need is some written engineering studies
on these items which says for sure one way or the other.
That`s all i have to say.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, I'm going to move to
approve the preliminary plat of Falls Ranch Subdivision, Phase
I, in Precinct 3. And is the next step to set a public
hearing? No?
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
6-2E-06
69

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just approve the
i preliminary plat?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it, but I have a
question.
JUDGE TINLEY; A11 right. Motion made and seconded
to approve the preliminary plat for Falls Ranch Subdivision,
Phase I, located in Precinct 3.
~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll address the question to
i you, Judge, since Commissioner Letz has recused himself on
this. I don't want to engage him in a discussion. On water
availability, at final, do we require any other documentation?
JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding of the water
availability is, as long as they meet the 5-acre requirement,
then it's a matter of them going to -- that's a presumptive
water availability finding from our standpoint. Then they go
to Headwaters as to whether it`s exempt or nonexempt.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't require a document
with science that -- that confirms or denies? I did not think
so, but I think it's --
JUDGE TINLEY: Five acres -- 5 acres is that
determinative factor.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see.
JUDGE TINLEY: Five acres.
6-26-05
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
70
i COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the point I wanted to
~ get in the record. We don't require definitive documents.
~ Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or discussion
on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(Commissioners Williams and Nicholson voted in favor
of the motion.)
I
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
I (No response.)
I JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Emerson, with one abstention --
we have three voting; two of the three have approved. Does
the motion carry, with one abstention?
i MR. EMERSON: That's my understanding, Your Honor.
JUDGE TINLEY: Very well. The motion is approved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is preliminary.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, preliminary plat only. Why
don't we take about a 15-minute recess?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a great idea.
(Recess taken from 10:42 a.m. to 11:03 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we
might. We'll be in session. We'll go to Agenda Item Number
6; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to set a
public hearing to abandon, vacate, and discontinue Privilege
e ze oe
71
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
Creek Ranches as recorded in Volume 7, Page 136 and -7 of the
Plat Records, and located in Precinct 3.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Enclosed is a letter asking
the Court to vacate the Privilege Creek Ranches Subdivision
contingent upon approval of the preliminary plat of Falls
Ranch, which the Court just did. Therefore, we ask to set the
public hearing date to abandon, vacate, and discontinue
Privilege Creek Ranches, as recorded in Volume 7, Page 136 and
137, for August the 14th, 2006, at 10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to set a
public hearing for August the 14th, 2006, at 10 a.m., to
abandon, vacate, and discontinue Privilege Creek Ranches, as
recorded in Volume 7, Page 136 and 137. Any question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Williams and Nicholson voted in favor
of the motion.
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 revision of Lots 4 and 5 of Byas Springs Ranch, as
set forth in Volume 5, Page 250, and located in Precinct 4.
6-^^<6-06
72
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: Yes, sir. We have -- previously, we had
a public hearing for this revision, which was done on January
the 23rd, 2006. However, the owners were out of town, and I
believe out of state, and it took a while to get the
signatures that were necessary. We find no problems with the
revision, and ask that you approve it at this time.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve the
revision of Lots 4 and 5 of Byas Springs Ranch, Precinct 4.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the revision of Lots 4 and 5 of Byas Springs Ranch, as set
forth in Volume 5, Page 250, Plat Records, and located in
Precinct 4. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to
Item 8; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
construction of roadway and drainage study for Megan Manor,
and located in Precinct 4.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I don't know if there's
anybody from Vordenbaum Engineering here or not. I don't see
anybody. I didn't see Kevin. I brought this to the attention
of the Court. Megan Manor was recorded in Volume 5, Page 231,
6-~6-06
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
March 26th of 1986, but was never built. This is located off
Upper Turtle -- cutoff? Where am I at?
MS. HARDIN: Goat Creek Cutoff.
MR. ODOM: Goat Creek Cutoff, I'm sorry. Goat Creek
Cutoff. But it was never built. Back in September 2005, we
were contacted by Vordenbaum Engineering as agent for a new
owner about what was needed to develop it and have the County
maintain the road. We checked with legal -- with Rex, and
were told that they could build it as platted, and I believe
that legal -- their legal counsel had contacted Rex, I
believe. Therefore, I've been working with Kevin Spragin on
the drainage and road construction. I've been out there
looking at their construction of the roads, and enclosed is
part of the drainage study which I forwarded to Mr. Wells.
Once the roadway is completed, they will ask the Court to
accept it for maintenance.
Under the 1984 Subdivision Rules, 8.08.A states,
"Where a subdivision is traversed by a water course, drainage
way, natural channel, or stream, there shall be provided an
easement or right-of-way conforming to the limit of such water
course, plus additional width to accommodate future needs and
maintenance. A note shall be affixed to each plat advising
each property owner that the County will not assume vegetation
maintenance responsibility on the drainage easements and
prohibiting them from fencing or construction improvements in
6-26-06
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
these easements which will be detrimental to its intended
use." The owner on this plat`s statement reads that he
"dedicates to Kerr County, Texas, for the use of the public
forever, all streets, alleys, parks, water courses, drains,
easements, in all of the aforesaid public places and all other
public places therein shown for the purpose and considerations
therein expressed."
The question becomes, who has responsibility for the
I maintenance of the drainage structures and public easements,
and can the Court require the owner to establish a homeowners'
association or have them file approved restrictions or
covenants? So, the question is, I can tell you when they come
in, and I showed you -- you had copies of this drainage
structure that I showed. Who's going to maintain that?
Should it be in the restrictions and covenants?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is this drainage
structure?
MR. ODOM: It is a detention pond for this
subdivision.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's up in the top
III left-hand corner?
I
I MR. ODOM: That's correct.
I
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. And they're showing
-- they're showing bar ditches? Is that what I'm seeing?
MR. ODOM: They show bar -- it's been changed some,
E-26-06
7s
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 they do show it going there, basically from the -- if you
take that first structure as you go down towards the
cul-de-sac, that first one, that's basically the design, the
drainage study. That's what they've done now. He originally
had it here. I will have Mr. Wells look at it, but as far as
he is concerned, he's bringing everything back down to this
first drainage structure and coming back into the detention
pond. His figures show that there's 93 prior to this
construction. It was 93 CFS, and I think after this
construction it's going to be released 90 CPS, so he's showing
the numbers to be less than what was originally coming off the
area because of this detention pond. But I wanted you to look
at the structure; it's right next to our road. And when it
gets down to it, is it going to be Lots 15, 16 and 17 of being
responsible for this detention pond, or is the County going to
be responsible? Or should the homeowners' association, as a
group, be responsible?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All I can tell you is, it's
not going to be the County.
MR. ODOM: That's what I wanted to know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Right now it's the developer's
responsibility, as I see it.
MS. HARDIN: I'm sorry. Mr. Spragin called on
Friday, and Len hadn't talked to him. He said that it would
be ownership of those three lots, and that they would put
6-26-06
76
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
something on the deed of each of those lots that they were
responsible for the maintenance of it.
MR. ODOM: All right.
MS. HARDIN: So we don't have anything in writing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll have to do some
modification of the prior one as well. The owner's statement
on the plat that you read to us dedicates for the use of the
public forever streets, alleys, parks, watercourses, drains,
easements, all the -- whatever, whatever. Does that not have
to be modified?
MR. ODOM: I would say the final plat would show --
would reflect that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- that language, I
think, is the same language that -- until we accept the
responsibility, that -- I mean, that's a standard plat note
that we have a lot of times.
MR. ODOM: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And people try to say that means
we accept it for maintenance, County roads, and that
doesn't -- the plat note says they may be dedicated, but until
we accept it, it's not dedicated to us.
MR. ODOM: Because I could say something, or put it
in writing and file it with the clerk, that does not bind this
Court whatsoever, unless it was a court order accepting that.
We do have 8.08.A that specifically states we shall not.
6-26-06
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
77
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I think that, you know,
that's a -- the plat note that's on there originally is --
MR. ODOM: I think is irrelevant.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- unfortunate, but I think it
doesn't mean anything until we accept it.
MR. ODOM: But I think that if they do put it on --
put it on the notes, that's fine. 15, 16, 17 can take care of
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
MR. ODOM: As part of their property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The more clear it is, the
I better.
MR. ODOM: I'd agree. Thank y'all. That's what I
wanted. It's coming. It's no sense to have this complete and
ask for you to take -- or for us to take maintenance of it
without this being clarified.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we don't need action on this,
I then.
MR. ODOM: No, sir, I just needed direction.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do have one question.
MR. ODOM: All right, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You said this is a detention
basin, not a retention basin?
6-26-u6
~a
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: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ODOM: So it means that the difference --
"retention" means you're going to hold it, you're going to
build a dam. It is the same principle that Flat Rock Lake is;
that is a -- that is a detention. All it does is slow up the i
water, and you go downstream.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ODOM: It releases a certain amount of water,
and his design is such that it will be less than what was
originally there before it was put in. And I think he's
showing 98 versus 93 after it's built, release of it. Have to
make -- I think I said 93/90, but looking at the figures, it's
98/93.
~ JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have anything
further on that particular agenda item? If not, let's move to
Item 9; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
extend the pre]iminary plat of Waugh Acres located in Precinct
2.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. About a year ago -- let me get
the right item here. Well, from memory, before -- about --
sometime in 2005, we had a preliminary. He went through the
construction. I went out and inspected all of that. We got
down to the point to get a final, and then ~t was prohibitive
of -- of the individual to do it on three lots. There was a
6-26-DE
79
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
problem trying to get the money for three lots to finish the
drainage study. That time we waived -- we had come to the
Court back in March, I believe, and pointed this out to the
Court, the same time as Center Point. But under the new
rules, that it -- these three lots fall under that exception,
it is not needed to be a drainage study. There's only three
lots here involved instead of five, and I would ask the Court
that you would extend that one year extension for that
subdivision to allow him to finish the final plat.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Refresh my memory. Where
does the water for these three lots come from, domestic water
supply?
MR. ODOM: I believe that this was a community off
an existing well.
JUDGE TINLEY: You use the term "community off an
existing well." Is this a community well that serves the
entire area, or are we talking about a shared well situation?
MR. ODOM: Well, it's a shared well situation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Has to be a shared well.
MR. ODOM: It's a shared well, but it's under 15.
By our definition, it's under 15 lots, so therefore we call it
a community water system. But it is a shared well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, there is a dwelling on
F-z6-or
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
80
what would be Lot 1?
MR. ODOM: Lot 1. Yes, sir, on Lot 1.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a dwelling there.
MR. ODOM: And there's nothing on 2 and 3.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And there is a well on --
MR. ODOM: Lot 1.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- Lot 1.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, it's the intention of, I
assume -- am I correct that the owner of this tract is living
on Lot 1?
MR. ODOM: He owns the property. He lives in
California. That was the other --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He owns the property.
MR. ODOM: He owns the property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, though, the problem I
have here is that the -- it can't be under one preliminary
plat rules and another final plat rules. I mean, I don't
think you -- he's either under our old rules or new rules. If
he wants to go under the new rules, he has to refile a
preliminary plat. I don't see how you can split -- Rex is
nodding.
MR. ODOM: He's nodding yes? If this had been -- if
he had come to back to us, which he should have -- we asked
him what he's going to do, and he said at this point he didn't
6-26 06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
know, back in March when we came to -- to the Court to do
that. If he had asked for it, I would assume that we would
have extended it, just like we did Center Point schools. That
I was on the same --
III COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we extend it's, he's under
I our old rules.
MR. ODOM: You're right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
I COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what I'm saying is, if he
wants to try to get under our new rules, he needs to do a new
preliminary plat. Which, you know, means he has to pay the
new fee for preliminary plat.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm trying to look ahead here. I --
the same notes I made to address that water issue, we ran into
this out there off Goat Creek Road here just a meeting or two
ago, and -- and Headwaters people came in and said we got a
real concern. If we -- if we got some sort of squabble going
between these three owners or four owners -- I forget how many
it was on that one, but we don't -- we don't want a bunch of
wells drilled on tracts under 5 acres.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is the same issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: Exactly the same issue, as I see it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's the other reason to
make a decision to go under the old rules or new rules, 'cause
there are some plat restrictions that have to go on there
6-26-06
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about no individual wells on these lots under our new rules.
So, you can't have a hybrid; he has to have one way or the
other.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so too.
MR, ODOM: I don't like to take sides. That's not
I my job.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You don't like to what?
MR. ODOM: I don't like to take sides on anything.
Here's a man that went through -- and I know what you need.
This is three lots, and here's a man that's built the road to
our desire. It was a good road; got his drainage off of it.
Came up to get hit for $12,000 on the lots. You're already
pricing yourself out of it. Now we have a rule that gives him
-- and we agreed that he could do the shared well before, the
Court did. And now we're going to come back and make the man
replat something, probably not even get it done. I mean,
there's a lot of expense.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's going to cost him $20 to do
a new preliminary plat under our new fee structure for less I
than five lots.
MR. ODOM: But what about the water?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The water is the issue.
MR. ODOM: We L1, if --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have to treat it the same as
we did last time. I mean, you know, and he's going to have to
6-25-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
83
go through Headwaters. We're going to put a plat note that
says no individual water wells. If they're going to try to
serve water with a shared well, there's a plat note that says
no individual lot will have a water well. And, you know, if
Headwaters chooses to enforce that, that's up to Headwaters.
But we're going to put the plat note on there under our rules.
MR. ODOM: Can he or not -- can he have a shared
well as they envisioned before?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: For these three lots?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: With a plat note on it.
MR. ODOM: No new wells.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If he's going to be selling
these, that's what two of these lots are going to do when they
buy it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a deed restriction, I
think, that's also required.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's not going to be a
well on Lots 2 and 3.
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only going to be a well that
exists on Lot 1.
AUDIENCE: Are you going to charge for that water?
6-2F-oE
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
84
If he does, it's a utility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
i COMMISSIONER LETZ: Less than --
AUDIENCE: If he charges for the water, the other
I two lots, it becomes a utility.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not under --
AUDIENCE: Under Texas law, he has to meter those
lots.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not unless he gets up to 14
connections.
MR. ODOM: 15.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's between him and P.U.C.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not an issue.
AUDIENCE: I've been through it already.
MR. ODOM: So, in other words, what I'm trying to do
is be fair, be ethical with an individual, So he can -- if he
goes to a preliminary plat -- and this gentleman lives in
California, okay? So it's tough to communicate, trying to
get -- he goes to a new preliminary plat, files that, and he
puts a note on here that there will be no wells on Lots 2 and
3. He can go with his final, right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He just has to follow our rules.
I mean, you know.
MR, ODOM: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're asking for an
~-z6-oe
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
extension under the old rules?
MR. ODOM: That's what I was -- extension. I
I
thought that you could -- we could waive the drainage study on
the thing and just let him go for with it with a final. I get ~
a no, so he has to go to preliminary. I thought that was the
simplest way to do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I doubt that the $20 bill
will inconvenience him too much.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which number is this?
MR. ODOM: Thank you. Well, at least -- I
appreciate that, that I've got direction. I can try to help
him. He built a good road. It was a good road.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. I don't think there's
any action going to happen on this, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have anything
further to offer on that?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I have trouble
communicating with those Californians and other hostile
foreign governments also.
MR. ODOM: It is a different world. I lived out
there twice when 7 was a young man getting out of the army.
Sent there twice by the corporation. The second time I got
off an airplane stopped in San Antonio and said, "I like this
place."
6-ze-oe
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 13, if we might.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to clarify
Court Order Number 29223 concerning illegal divisions of
property in Precinct 1 and Precinct 2.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I believe Miguel was here.
Still here?
MR. ARREOLA: Yes.
MR. ODOM: Okay. We recently had two requests from
Environmental Health for determination as to whether
properties in question were in violation of Kerr County
Subdivision Rules. Both properties' surveys were done after
December of 2000. We have attached surveys of those two
properties for you to have a better understanding of what this
is about. The first property in Precinct 1 was an increase of
.02 of an acre because a manufactured home was over a property
line, was the way that it was explained to me. Am I correct
in that, Miguel?
MR. ARREOLA: I'm not completely sure.
MR. ODOM: Well, that's what I heard. In other
words, they changed a line and moved it. So -- and this
doesn't show it, but I think it was a previous home on a piece
of property, so it was moved two-hundredths of an acre, which
is essentially around 800 square feet, okay? The second
property in Precinct 2 was a decrease of .OS of an acre, and
appears to concern a drainage ditch easement that is different
6 26-06
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
87
than the original plat. I believe that the original plat was
i in 1986 or 1987 -- I think '86. It showed the drainage
easement. Under the new plat, it shows that the drainage
easements are deleted from that. So, there's your
five-hundredths of an acre deletion. Each of these was done
by different surveyors. And, of course, even that .02 could
have been different because it was manually done versus GPS
now, so that there's a discrepancy of 700, 800 feet is very
possible with that line. We felt that it would be extreme to
hold the septic permits for such a small amount of property,
as well as a costly burden for such a minuscule amount of
land. I talked with Commissioner Letz, and we both felt that
that was not the intent of Court Order 29223. We also, in
that aspect, talked to another Commissioner, and there was a
different opinion, so therefore, we thought we'd bring it to
the Court and ask the Court to consider this issue and give us
a clear understanding of how to proceed with such matters.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you've talked to two
Commissioners, but you haven't talked to me. Which was the
other one? Who was the other one?
MR. ODOM: The one right next to you. There was --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh.
MR. ODOM: We have just --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. What did my colleague
decide about this issue in my precinct?
6-26-06
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
88
MR. ODOM: One agreed, one disagreed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see. Where's that leave
I us?
MR. ODOM: I'm looking at Precinct 2. There is that
mobile home park that's down there that we had a discussion
about, you know, his drainfields and stuff like that,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- a general comment --
that this has come up a lot recently. And I think I talked to
-- and some bigger tracts. And my opinion is -- I think I've
talked to Rex about this -- adjusting lot lines does not --
does not trigger platting. That's not the intent of Chapter
232. I mean, if you're -- whether it -- you know, you're not
dividing, you're not creating a new tract. It's not a
division. I mean, you're moving things a little bit. And I
don't think it should even be subject -- I don't think it is
subject to our Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would agree with that.
So, did I just break the tie?
MR. ODOM: You just broke the tie. I think that
that's very logical. We're not -- somebody's not benefiting
by going out here and doing it. We're talking about
correcting something in the field, and therefore, that would
allow them not to hold up a permit for septic.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I think Miguel's
following what the exact court -- our court order said, and I
6-'5-06
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
just think that in the -- of that --
MR. ODOM: Strict interpretation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just have to look at it. It's
not too strict an interpretation; it's just that adjusting lot
lines I don't think is creating -- it's not a subdivision.
MR. ODOM: I think it's solving a problem and taking
the burden off the property owners for the error that's been
made, and it's just being corrected. It's not --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think if we need to
clarify that prior court order to address it in the future, I
think we should do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it's changing the
court order. I think it's maybe --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Clarifying.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, getting a -- and if Rex
agrees that adjusting a lot line is not creating a
subdivision, and get a -- I mean, and therefore, it's -- the
court order is good. It's just the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The interpretation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- interpretation of what the
subdivision is.
MR. ODOM: And to answer your question, Commissioner
Williams, that I felt like I'd had two; had I gone to a third
one, I felt I might be in violation of some rule. By the time
I get a quorum of --
6-'6-06
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
90
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know why you didn't
go to the third Commissioner; then you could have told me the
i result.
MR. ODOM: Well, I listened to the ying and the
yang -- whatever. Yin and yang, right. (Laughter.) Whatever
I
I the Chinese say, whatever they call it.
I JUDGE TINLEY: You had a comment, Mr. County
Attorney?
MR. EMERSON: I was just going to say, subject to
I common sense application. Because I can move my lot line over
500 feet and say I'm just adjusting my lot line.
I
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But even if you move it
1500 feet, is that creating -- is that a subdivision? You're
not creating a tract; it's not a division. You're not
I
dividing -- there's no -- you're ending up with two tracts of
II land from two tracts of land. I don't see how that's a
I division.
MR. ODOM: I think I would look at the volume of the
~ land involved in that. And -- well, you could be over 2
acres. And if you had over 2 acres, at 500 feet, it wouldn't
take too much more to go another --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's an interesting
i question, because we have it a lot out on ranches --
MR. ODOM: We do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- frequently, and I know
6-'6-06
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
91
i
Voelkel Engineering has had several recently of people, either
on -- some of them on true ranches, and some on some large
tracts, and they're making adjustments to their boundaries.
And I just don't see those adjustments on boundaries -- on
property lines as subdivision,
MR. ODOM: I wish we had the ordinance power, you
I
know, that Kerrville's got, where you can -- property owners
there can adjust something. I think we should. But statutes
don't give me that. Anyway --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway, I think that's
something -- maybe Rex and I can look at that a little bit,
clarify it. But at this point, I think Rex --
MR. ODOM: Maybe Harvey Hilderbran could put
something in, Kerr County could do something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The assistant's back there;
just go back and write it out for us.
MR. ODOM: I think I see his pen moving back there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Maybe we can take care of that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've clarified that, right?
MR. ODOM: Well, let me ask this. Are you going to
give -- make a motion to do this? Or it's clarified? I just
use common sense?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not a subdivision.
MR. ODOM: No. Well, I'm talking about
two-hundredths, five-hundredths. I don't know what that may
6-26 U6
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
be if it's greater or something, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: Miguel, you had a question or
concern?
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. Basically, what we've been
doing is, whenever -- we go by metes and bounds or subdivision
plats, and when we find a discrepancy from the original to the
one we just got, what we do is just present it to Road and
Bridge for determination, and they're the ones telling us yes
or no. Are we to continue doing that? Even if it's a small
portion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My view is, you're -- you should
probably still do that, 'cause the intent of the rule is to
find illegal subdivisions, I think. But I think Leonard has
the discretion to look at it and say, "This is not a
subdivision," and then just verbally tell you. Then it
doesn't have to come to the Court. If it's not a subdivision,
it's not a subdivision.
MR. ODOM: Not a subdivision.
MR. ARREOLA: Like in this case, he responds to us,
"No problem," and we keep going?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go on, correct.
MR. ARREOLA: Is that a good procedure to continue
doing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
6-26-06
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ARREOLA: All right. That's all I have.
MR. ODOM: Takes care of it. Thank y'all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that particular
agenda item? Let's go to Item 14; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action for realignment of Upper Turtle Creek Road
located in Precinct 1.
MR. ODOM: I thought I was through.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You are, almost.
MR. ODOM: Commissioner Baldwin is not here. So, in
November of 2003, Franklin Johnston and Commissioner Baldwin
met with Tony Hardin concerning the realignment of Upper
Turtle Creek Road in order to move it away from a home. Also,
to move it out of pig pens and something else -- sheep farms.
It was really a bad, dangerous situation. Mr. Hardin was told
he would have to prepare the survey to dedicate the new
roadway, as well as construct the new road. I just wanted the
Court to be aware that the road is near completion, and that
we will be coming back with field notes and asking for
approval to quitclaim the old road back to the landowner and
move the county maintenance to the new roadway. It's just for
information, that it's happening.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll just exchange the new
right-of-way for --
MR. ODOM: For the old.
6-26-06
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Releasing and quitclaiming back to
the adjacent landowner of the old road.
MR. ODOM: That`s correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two landowners. Two
landowners now under the new alignment, whereas it was only
one before. Is that correct?
MR. ODOM: Well, right now it'll still all be on
Tony's. What you're seeing there was what was proposed when
we looked out there, but everything will be within Tony's
right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ODOM: We made some corrections out there and
made it work.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON; Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What are we voting on?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The alignment.
i MR. ODOM: Just --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Reaffirming.
MR. ODOM: -- reaffirming that this is coming up to
you. I just didn't want you to be cold turkey and get hit
with it. I wanted you to know ahead of time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't require approval?
6-26-06
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
95
MR. ODOM: It doesn't require approval, just
information.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I withdraw the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, motion is withdrawn. Anything
further on that agenda item? Let's go to Item 15, if we
might. Consider, and discuss County Treasurer's notification
that her office will discontinue human resources function as
of August 1, 2006; obtain clarification from Treasurer of what
functions or activities comprise or fall under human resource
function; obtain clarification from Treasurer of the specific
duties or functions which are currently being performed
outside of her office and which she believes are required by
law to be performed by her office and should be returned to
her office; and consider and discuss adequacy of staffing and
resources provided to County Treasurer's office and its
performance.
As indicated by Commissioner Williams earlier, we
obviously cannot complete totally this particular item. My
concern is, we're operating under a deadline. Two weeks ago
the County Treasurer served notice on us that, effective
August 1, 2006, that her office would no longer provide human
resource function for Kerr County. I think the Court needs to
know exactly what falls under, quote, human resource function,
and if we don't know that, we can't figure out how we're going
to fill the gap and -- and provide those services that are
6-2E-U6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
96
In
get specific delineation of what those duties are so that
we'll know how that's going to affect other departments and so
forth. And it has budgetary concerns; it has
ability-to-function concerns, and -- and I think we're on a
pretty doggone close tight time frame here.
I also had, as I've expressed to members of the
Court, some questions about the legality of -- of -- of the
notification and whether or not the Commissioners Court can
prescribe duties to elected officials or departments if those
duties are not mandated by law to be performed by specific
elected officials or officers of county government. I've
asked the County Attorney to look at those issues, and lacking
some very clear on-point authority to the questions that I
raised, I -- I would hope that he would be able to get an
Attorney General's opinion generated -- a request for Attorney
General's opinion. That, of course, is -- is if there is no
clear on-point authority. I've had periodic postings from
him, and at least as of the last one, he hadn't found anything
clearly on-point. I don't know where we are today, but I
6-26-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
75
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
97
think we need those answers, and I think the State of Texas
needs those answers to the questions that I raised.
MR. EMERSON: Do you want an update on that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir, if you wouldn't mind.
MR. EMERSON: The -- to bring the rest of the Court
up to speed --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, be great.
MR. EMERSON: That issue was proposed and discussed.
I called the Texas Counties Association -- Texas Association
of Counties. I notified David Brooks, who's the county
government guru in Austin. I notified the Attorney General's
department and the Texas Department of District and County
Attorneys. To date, I've had a couple of conversations with
the A.G.'s office. Their Intergovernmental Affairs attorney
says, "Good question. Never been addressed by the A.G.'s
office before. Possibly, under limited circumstances, the
Court could do that." David Brooks says exactly the opposite.
"Elected officials are elected, for lack of better words,
parallel to each other in organizational structure, and not
underneath the Commissioners Court. The elected official is
not obligated to do anything other than what is assigned in
the statutory duties as designated by the Legislature. And
the Commissioners Court can request the elected official to
~ perform an additional duty, but they are not bound to do
that."
6 ' 6 0 6
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
98
I have not received an answer back from TAC or the
there. There's some implied powers of the Court in the Texas
Supreme Court case of Titus County versus Agan. There's a
couple of inferences to Commissioners Court authority in
several A.G.'s opinions, but each of those is qualified in its
own particular way that doesn't fit entirely within the
elected officials scenario. So, we can go to the A.G.'s
office, but you're looking at six to eight months to get an
answer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS
involved in the human resource component, so that we would
have a -- a better idea of what would be transferred up here
and how it could be assimilated directly under the Court.
We're going to meet -- what did we say, Dave? Next week?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Wednesday, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wednesday this week to begin
that process. Then, after -- after assessing all of that,
6-26-06
99
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
which involves human resources, all those elements of that
department, then I think we would probably prepare some sort
of a statement or a report or a recommendation to the Court
which would take us into hopefully the next budget year. I
understand your concern with respect to the deadline that was
set forth in the Treasurer's note to -- to the Court, but I
would think that a -- a reasonable discussion would be held to
reasonably be -- cause that date to slip, too, or to move to
the end of the budget year so that we can coincide with any
plan that we might develop as to how to handle this with stuff
in the future. Am I correct in that, Dave -- in that
assessment?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, you are correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My second comment has to do
with a court order with regard to how the human resources
function got to where it is right now. If somebody knows
something different than what I'm about to say, they can
certainly correct me. My understanding is that the Court,
many years ago, determined that they would move that function,
and the Treasurer agreed to accept that function in the
Treasurer's office as a part of her operation. So, that being
the case, unless somebody knows something different than that,
it seems to me that a court order which would memorialize a
willingness of an elected official to assume additional
responsibilities which are not constitutionally provided for
6-26-06

100
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
is a lot different than a court order ordering something to
happen, if I make myself clear.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, if I -- I
think a lot of the discussion is interesting, but I think the
reality is that we either need to get -- someone has to do
human resources August 2nd, you know.
JUDGE TINLEY: One.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or August 1. And I think
that -- I mean, I think that -- I don't know that we have
enough time to do it properly, and my preference would be for
the Treasurer to make -- to do what Commissioner Williams
said, keep the function until the end of this budget year. I
think that needs to be asked and determined A.S.A.P. If not,
we need to get a very specific list from the Treasurer as to
what she thinks -- what she's not going to do after that date.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we have not received that.
She just lumped it as a human resource function. So, I think
we need to know that, and -- either way, we need to know that
answer, but if she's going to keep on doing it till the end of
the budget year, I think we need to get that clarified. If
not, we need to have a special meeting in July.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think Commissioner
Nicholson and I can determine both what's involved, and that
it can't possibly be moved in -- within the time frame as --
6 z6-o5
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
as suggested, and that there should be an extension of that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There should be an extension,
maybe. We may want an extension, but we`re not the ones
that -- that says we're not going to do the work. That's up
to the Treasurer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe we can determine
that and cause that to happen.
COMMISS7ONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Right now, we have to be concerned
that that's what we're looking at, is August 1. And with
regard to your comment about the -- the circumstances under
which that court order occurred, I -- I don't know the
circumstances. I wasn't present when it occurred. All I know
is there was a court order that designated that the Treasurer
perform specific functions under the category of personnel
officer, and by which she was designated as personnel officer.
And so we're dealing with a court order which is in existence
that -- that presumably is at least part of what she's giving
us notice of that she's not going to perform after August the
1st. But, as Commissioner Letz says, we need to know what
that void -- what that void is going to be so we can make sure
that it gets filled. That's an important thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had indicated that -- that there
had been some initial discussions, apparently, regarding i
r zF-o6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
102
extending her performance of --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. No, I didn't say that.
I believe we can handle that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe we can -- we can
take that as a request from this Court that it's just not
possible to do this by August 1, and that that date needs to
slip to September 30.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who's going to make this
request?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who is going to make that
request?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner Nicholson and
I.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good. So, it will come back
i soon.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if the answer is no --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If the answer is no, we'll
have it on the agenda next time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we have time. If
the answer's no, we need to have a special meeting, I believe.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If that's what's needed. Do
you see it differently, Dave?
5-26-06
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, sir. I can't imagine
an elected official abandoning these duties in the middle of a
budget year. We've planned for and budgeted for those duties
to be performed there, and if she's going to abandon it
effective August 1, maybe or maybe not we can handle that. I
don't know. It's kind of critical. It's got to do with
whether or not people are going to get paid in August. It's
going to cause harm to -- to Kerr County employees and
taxpayers if we have to patch this thing together. And quite
a bit of --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the point you make
is valid, and one of the distinctions has to be the human
resource function excluding payroll. Payroll is a separate
animal. Payroll preparation and payroll disbursement of
funds, that's a separate animal. So, I think, you know, we
need to -- to look at all these issues and talk them out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- but y'all -- you two are
going to meet with the Treasurer at some point -- or within
this week, it sounds like, and determine if she's going to
give us an extension, and you'll notify us if the answer's no?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll put that as number one
on our list of several.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further on that item? Let's
move to Item 16; consider, discuss, and take appropriate
E-26-06
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
104
order requiring County Treasurer to provide the County Judge
and Commissioners Court true copies of all filings, documents,
letters, notices, and any and all other exchanges of
information, including those on electronic media, by and
Administration between January 1, 2003, and present date. I
put this on the agenda, and the Treasurer, of course, does not
need to be present today for us to consider this item.
Approximately a year ago, I had requested
information from the Treasurer relative to some I.R.S. issues.
I believe it was in July of last year, if I'm not mistaken,
when it first came up, possibly August. I attached some
things to your agenda book indicating my request. I got two
copies of two I.R.S. checks; got absolutely no other
documentation. More recently, in regard to an issue with
I.R.S. and Social Security or both that arose, I requested the
County Treasurer to provide me with certain information. I've
provided copies of my memorandums to her in that respect.
I've received nothing. I received a telephone assurance that
on June the 8th, I believe, which was a day after I finally
imposed a deadline on her of June the 7th that I hope to have
that material, on that date, she called and left a message
that she would have it to me that day. I've not seen it. I'm
6-26-06
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
105
requesting that the Court adopt an order directing the
Treasurer to furnish the requested I.R.S. and Social Security
information to me, all of that information, and that she
furnish it by -- today's the 26th. I would hope by the 5th of
July should be adequate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are we seeking here,
~ Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: The memorandums that are attached to
your materials indicate that I was seeking certain information
relative to some I.R.S. problems and some Social Security
problems. I think this Court needs to be in the loop and to
know what -- what the information is concerning those
problems.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is the copy of these
I.R.S -- U.S. checks here? What is that all about? The
document in our backup, the checks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's what she sent me last
year with regard to a request that I have copies of all
letters or documentation which explain or otherwise refer to
that refund that she -- this is all I got.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does this have to do with
the -- the issue that the Sheriff brought to us at one time?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, sir. No, sir, it doesn't.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Something different?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think this may have something to do
0 26-06
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
106
with the levies that -- that I.R.S. -- the seizures that
I.R.S. made on Kerr County property. I think it may have
something to do with the failure of the Social Security
Administration to post Social Security wages for Kerr County
employees for 2004, which was ascertained the latter part of
last year or the early part of this year. She advised me
about additional -- as noted in the May 16, '06 memo,
additional new or renewed problems with Social Security or
I.R.S. I asked for her to provide me with information there.
I followed that with a memo approximately 15 days later asking
for copies. I've not gotten them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What were the new problems
that you reference in your -- in your memo of May 16th,
Paragraph 1?
JUDGE TINLEY: She advised me verbally that she was
suggested that she seek the assistance of the Auditor's
office, and offered my help in any way that she thought might
be helpful. I asked that she answer certain questions about
those issues in order that the Court might be better informed.
I've not received answers to those questions. I also, in that
same memo, alluded to the situation the previous year and what
the status of those were. And on my follow-up memo of May 31,
I asked for copies of all of those documents, both relating to
6-^_6-06

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
last year and to the more recent ones, and asked her to
provide me that by June 7th this year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I have no -- I mean, I --
is, do we need to be specific enough in a court order of what
you want? And that's -- I mean, and when I read your memo, in
your memorandum of May 16th, it doesn't say -- I don't know
that	it's	specific enough	for	me to	understand exactly what
you	want.	And I think I -	- I	kind	of understand the drift of
it,	and I'	m wondering if -	- if	the	approach may be to require
the Treasurer to be present at our next meeting, and we can at
that meeting discuss exactly what -- you know, if she hasn't
provided us with anything satisfactory to that point, I just
want to make sure that we know specifically what we're
requesting.
COMMISS7ONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think -- I think the
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, she hasn't indicated to me that
she does not understand what I was asking for. In fact, on
her verbal message of June the 8th, she merely said, "I will
have that information for you today." It's not too
6-2E-06
__ . .~.,.
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
forth, including those on electronic media, between the
Treasurer's office and I.R.S. and/or the Social Security
Administration. She probably maintains two separate files;
forward, that's what I want to see.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, it occurs to me that
budget officer of the county can't get the information. Have
you thought about doing an Open Records Act request?
JUDGE TINLEY: I was hoping that wouldn't be
necessary, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You'd think it wouldn't be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't know we had -- we may need
to do a line item in my budget for copies to pay the Treasurer
for Open Record request responses. Maybe that's -- maybe
that's what I should have done. I've been quite lenient from
a time standpoint. And on Open Records, I think I'm talking
about 10 days -- calendar days, not working days.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have -- I guess my hesitation,
I have no idea how much information this is. You're
requesting all -- I mean, as I read this, you're requesting
6-26-06
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
all information between Kerr County and the I.R.S. and Social
Security Administration since January 1, 2003. To me, that's
potentially a huge amount of information. And I -- I mean,
clearly, I think you have, as every member of this Court has,
a right to that information. I'm not saying you shouldn't
have that. I'm just trying to figure out if you put it in --
I mean, I'm trying to figure out how -- I know why you wart
it. I'm trying to figure out a way --
JUDGE TINLEY: I would think everybody on this Court
would want it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Sure, I want -- I mean,
I have no problem with the information. I'm trying to figure
out -- I don't know how much we're talking about. If it's,
you know, enough files to fill up half of this room, I mean, I
think it -- I don't know that I want copies of all that. I'd
rather, you know, have access to it, or have them bring them
up. And I don't even -- we don't need to spend so much money
on copies. If it's a small amount, you know, yeah, I don't
have a problem with doing a court order and getting copies of
everything.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I don't think it's a
small amount. It may be a file that's -- that's that thick in
each case. The -- the filings are done on a -- probably a
quarterly basis. Then the information that transpired back
and forth, the letters, notices, things of that nature, I
6-^6-06
110
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
don't think we're talking about a lot of information. If
there is a lot of stuff going on back and forth, I think
that's bad news, and that's what I'm concerned about. I don't
know what the news is.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, you asked for a
written summary. That doesn't sound like it would be
something that thick. A written summary would be an
itemization of the communications between the Treasurer's
office and these two entities. So, if you had that written
summary, or we had it, then we could decide if -- how much
detail is needed.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'd really like to analyze the
documents myself, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The agenda item says "all
copies."
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it says all. You know,
that's what I was looking at more than the memo.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, you're right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the two backup
memorandums, the Judge -- I have a problem with a couple
things.
COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Well,	but that's not --	I mean,
the backup's not what	the Judge is	requesting. What	the Judge
is requesting here is	copies of all	the data.	
6-26 06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
111
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know. I'm making
reference to something in the backup. I want to make a point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Item -- Item Number 2 in the
May 16th memorandum from the Judge to the Treasurer, "The
period and/or filings involved in such problem." In your
subsequent memo of May 31st, "copies of all letters, notices,
and filings." My question is, are we talking about the
personal data involving every employee that is embodied in a
filing to the I.R.S.? Or are we talking about a specific
problem with respect to the timing of a filing, and what
that -- what problem that might create? What are we talking
about?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the honest answer,
Commissioner, is I don't know. It could be relating to
individuals. Because, for example, the '04 failure of
employees to have Social Security wages reported that was
discovered in late '05 or early '06, I'm -- I'm not concerned
about individual personal data. That, certainly, is
redactible. I have no problem with that. I want to see the
relationship to Kerr County and the I.R.S. and what
difficulties there may have been, what resolution, if any, has
occurred, what difficulties may currently exist.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How about -- I mean, would this
be acceptable, I mean, to your -- I still have a hard time
6-26-06

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
112
putting my hands around exactly what you want, or what records
are down there.
JUDGE TINLEY: The answer is, I don't know what I
want without looking. I'm kind of like the Supreme Court
Justice; I can't define pornography, but you show it to me and
I'll tell you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would it be -- how about if we
pass a court order requiring -- or requesting the County
Treasurer to be at our next meeting and provide this
information, and if she doesn't provide it with enough -- then
we do either an Open Records request or something along that
nature, providing that you are -- in reference to your
previous memo.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the simplest thing for me to
do is just make an Open Records request of the Treasurer, and
let you guys figure out how I'm going to pay her for it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, the Open Records
request can be to inspect records. You don't have to ask for
copies of them. Once you've inspected them, you can decide
which copies that -- whether or not you want copies.
JUDGE TINLEY: I was certainly trying to avoid that,
Commissioner, as I said.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't a simpler process
be to -- to have this discussion with the Treasurer present?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I thought we -- I
6-26-06
r..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
113
mean, require her to be at our next meeting and resolve it.
And if we -- and if the Treasurer does not provide everything
that the Judge or any other member of the Court wants --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then do a court order.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do a court order and -- you
know, and require it.
DODGE TINLEY: Does any member of the Court have a
motion they wish to offer in connection with this agenda item?
Hearing none, we'll move on to Item 17. Consider, discuss,
and take appropriate action to authorize County Auditor and
members of the Commissioners Court to have access to
information, documents, or records which are maintained by the
Internal Revenue Service and which relate to Kerr County. I
put this on the agenda last August, as I recall. Because of
difficulty exactly like the kind I just described, that the
Auditor and members of this Court need to have access to that
information. Right now, the only person authorized to have
access is our County Treasurer. At that time, during the
discussion, the assurance was given by the County Treasurer
that, "Oh, if you need any information like that, you just ask
for it and I'll get it for you." I've asked. I haven't
received it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with this one. I would
just make an addition, and I think possibly as to the members
of the Commissioners Court or their designee have access. And
6-26 06
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
114
I'm thinking about where we're going with the human resources
function. I think it's up to -- that's coming back to the
County. I think this type of information is part of that
function. And I don't know that -- you know, I'm a little
uncomfortable having too many people have access to that
information. I don't know if it's -- you know, how we control
it, but I think -- but I clearly do agree that more than one
person in the county needs to have access to that, especially
in the light of the Treasurer's memo. Tommy, do you have a
question or comment as to this?
MR. TOMLINSON; I was just going to add that -- that
the forms -- the I.R.S. forms are individual-sensitive as far
as an application to the I,R.S. for this purpose, so you'd
have to name the person that you -- that you want to give
authority to have access. In other words, it would have to be
my name or your name or your designee's name.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: So, I mean, it can't be --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: General.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- general. It can't be an office.
You have to -- you have to specify the name of the individual.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have an opinion as to who
-- I mean, in light of where we're going with the human
resource function right now and the deadline we have with the
-- I mean, we don't know what the Treasurer's going to do on
r-2F-06
115
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
August 1st. Who should be this person?
MR. TOMLINSON: I just have a general comment. I
just -- I don't think it makes good business sense --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Say again?
MR. TOMLINSON: -- in general for there to be or.l}~
one official in the county have access to those records. I
don't care who it is. There just needs to be another person.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another person.
MR. TOMLINSON: 1 don't care.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mind -- in my opinion, I
think we should limit it to a degree, and I think that the --
by court order, I would -- my preference would probably be the
County Judge and the Auditor.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that would be my
preference.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we take
the necessary steps to have Tommy Tomlinson and Judge Pat
Tinley authorized to have access to information, documents,
and records maintained by Internal Revenue Service which
relate to Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And Social Security
Administration?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And Social Security
Administration,
6-^6-06
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I second.
MR. ODOM: Commissioner? I don't have a dog in this
fight on this, but you said Tommy. How about the Auditor?
'Cause Tommy may not be Auditor.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, he's the Auditor now.
We'll have to give a new name later.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, he should be
designated the County Auditor.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we still need to name --
JUDGE TINLEY: We do it on the form. If you want to
designate the County Judge and the County Auditor, then
whoever that person ~s, from time to time, we do it by name.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the intent of my motion,
is to have those two positions.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I seconded that motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We have a motion and second.
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.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
MR. SCOTT: Can I make a comment before you close
e-2e-o5
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for lunch? I'll make it a quick one. Harrison Scott again
from Kerrville. I think if there's going to be this
realignment and stuff, her salary is not State-mandated. I
think a dollar a year night be a good consideration, 'cause
she's been nothing but an embarrassment, and eating up your
time in gobs. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll be in recess for lunch. We
will reconvene at 1:30.
(Recess taken from 12:04 p.m. to 1:31 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order. It's
1:30 now. We'll go to Item 18; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on quote for sidewalk construction at Kerr
County Animal Control facility. I have been furnished a quote
by the one that's been doing the concrete work that our
benefactor has been paying for. I think a decision was made
on a policy basis earlier that we would not ask the City for a
waiver of its sidewalk requirement. If -- is my recollection
correct on that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we asked and we were
I denied.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We asked for a waiver of
the -- of the fee.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And they denied it. But
6-26-G6
1
G
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
we -- our discussion was that they're requiring individuals
and churches and businesses and everybody else to build these
sidewalks to nowhere, and so we shouldn't ask for better
treatment than other people are getting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, but they're granted
waivers.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They have?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me throw something else in the
mix. I -- in looking at the agenda for the Council tomorrow
night -- and i don't have it in front of me -- there is an
ordinance to be considered by them which includes a waiver of
sidewalk requirements in rural areas, I believe is what it was
styled as. The sidewalk out there, I think, has some
correlation with TexDOT, is what I'm led to believe.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, you built it in
TexDOT's right-of-way. I think that's the only --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, maybe that was it. So, I
guess -- I really wish I had better information for you. I
just noticed that yesterday when I was reviewing some things,
that the agenda item that the Council is going to deal with
tomorrow night deals with waiver of sidewalk requirements in
rural areas, or something -- I'm paraphrasing. May not be as
accurate as I'd like, but --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you'd look at anything
r- Z b- fi b
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
119
that's been built in the last few years, mainly that church
out there on the loop -- is that Calvary Temple? They got a
They
j good enough; there may be people falling off in the ravine, so
they put an ugly barricade up there at the end of it -- the
City did -- to keep people from going off the end of it,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there a time imperative
here, Commissioner? Are they putting the heat on us or
something?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we defer?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think they won't -- one
thing you can -- you might face if we don't build it is that
they	won't grant us an	occupancy	permit.
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON; We got a building permit,
but they have to check it and make sure we've complied with
all their regulations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Silly -- I shouldn't say silly
question. I probably shouldn't ask it, but I will anyway.
The half-inch rebar, 12-inch centers, 5 inch thick, is that a
6-26-06
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
120
city requirement?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mm-hmm. It's a good
sidewalk,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was going to say, most
sidewalks can be done with --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Better than any driveway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- with mesh and 4-inch. I
didn't know that -- I mean, that's -- that is a road or a
driveway type, or even a house.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could drive a truck on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I figured it probably would
stick, but that is a city --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You may recall that they
did decide that we didn't have to build a sidewalk to the
dump; that that's private property, and so that's not covered
by their regulations. So, that --
JUDGE TINLEY: The road that goes down the side, on
the landfill road there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd like to defer this until we
see what the City does on their --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would too.
i COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- agenda.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir. Anything else on
that item? If not, we'll move to Item 19. Consider, discuss,
and take appropriate action to accept funds remaining after
h-26 05
121
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
disbanding of Hill Country Garden Club for use in replacing or
upgrading plantings in Kerr County at Kerr County war
memorial. I was contacted by Ms. Ross Stone on behalf of the
Hill Country Garden Council, who had -- which has recently
disbanded, and they were the organization that was initially
responsible for doing the landscaping and planting out at the
war memorial. They have about $250 remaining in the till, and
they want that to come to Kerr County for use in upgrading or
replacing plants out there at that war memorial. I've been
tendered a check for the $250 from the Hill Country Garden
Council for that purpose, assuming that the Court accepts it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion we accept the
check for $250 from the Hill Country Garden Council, and
authorize the Maintenance Department to expend funds on the
memorial -- war memorial.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. 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.)
DODGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Appreciate
their thinking of us. Next item is Item 22; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to contract with
6-zo-o6
____ --
122
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
consulting engineer for subdivision review.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; Let me get to it. All right.
The -- in the backup, there is a very simple contract prepared
by Mr. Wells. Ran them through the County Attorney's office.
He had no problems with it; he liked the simplicity of it. He
says he could add three or four pages of legalese if we
wanted, but he didn't see any reason for it. And the only
thing we did think about was that we needed to add some
language to the end of that last paragraph related that
Mr. Wells is an independent contractor, not an employee of
Kerr County. He has this on his computer. That language will
be added and be brought back. I'll make a motion we accept
the contract to consult -- to accept the contract to contract
with Mr. Wayne Wells as our consulting engineer for I
subdivision review, subject to the addition of additional
language in the last paragraph related to independent
contractor, and authorize County Judge to sign same.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion signify by -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The compensation rate seems
pretty reasonable to me compared to some other --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Shhh.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't have anything else,
6- c 6- G 6
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
123
Judge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't look a gift horse in
the mouth.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know why I brought
that up.
JUDGE TINLEY: What are you picking up your computer
for when that was said?
MR. MACCROSSAN: What?
JUDGE TINLEY: You're going to alert everybody about
how we beat people down up here. Any other questions or
comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a very good rate.
It's a rate that he is comfortable charging. He charges
Gillespie County the same, and that's why he came .to us at
that rate.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not a rate to get the foot
in the door, and then it goes way up next year? I've seen
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It -- he did go up $5 an hour
from his current -- from the last-year agreement with
Gillespie County.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if his rates go up too much,
we can find somebody else.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comment? All
6-26-06
...__.____. ~ - r
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
124
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.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard, before you leave, on
that, y'a11 are getting along fine?
MR. ODOM: Yes. I like Mr. Wells.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Working together?
MR. ODOM: Working together. He uses common sense,
is pragmatic, and I think it's good so far.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is he an Aggie, Leonard?
MR. ODOM: No, sir, he's not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
i MR. ODOM: But that doesn't make him a bad person.
j JUDGE TINLEY: Not automatically, right? Okay.
Let's go to Item 23, if we might. Retirement of the Tax
Assessor/Collector effective August 31, 2006. Consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to appoint successor to
Paula Rector as the Kerr County Tax Assessor/Collector.
Ms. Rector?
MS. RECTOR: I apologize for being a no-show when I
put this on the agenda the first time. I was flat on my back,
I had --
s-'s-o6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
125
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is styled as executive,
Judge.
MS. RECTOR: -- a bad back. Yeah, I had asked for
executive session --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. RECTOR: -- on this also.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is everything you had to present to
go to executive?
MS. RECTOR: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Why don't we defer on that for
right now, then. I think we may have another item that is
going to go into executive session, and we'll get back to both
of those items.
MS. RECTOR: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go ahead and call the next
item, if I might. Consider and discuss Maintenance Department
supervision. Is all of that going to be in executive session?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's appropriate,
Judge, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll defer that one and come
back to it. We'll go to Item 25; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to make Kerr County nomination for vacancy
on Kerr Central Appraisal District Board of Directors. I put
this on the agenda when I received notification from the
Appraisal District that there was a vacancy, and that there
6-26-06
___ ~ ~
126
1 was a certain timeline upon which we had to make
2 accommodations. With regard to the interplay of the action on
3 the Tax Assessor, I'm not sure whether we want to consider
4 this particular item, because there are limitations on who you
5 can appoint. You cannot appoint an employee within -- if I
6 read the requirements correctly, you cannot appoint an
7 employee or nominate an employee of the taxing agency. An
8 official representative of the county government -- as an
9 elected official, you can do that, but the way I read it, you
10 can't nominate an employee. Is that correct, Ms. Rector?
11 MS. RECTOR: That's right.
12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on this one, I would
13 recommend that we either fail to nominate or send a letter to
14 the District supporting the nomination of K.I.S.D. It's kind
15 of an agreement -- unwritten agreement that these -- Kerr
16 County has a slot. out there and K.I.S.D. has two, I think --
]7 two or three. Two?
]S MS. RECTOR; Two.
]9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: School district probably could
20 stack this board if they want. They have, by agreement --
21 unwritten agreement, not chosen to do that. And this vacancy
22 is due to the death of Mr. Dozier, so I'd recommend that we
23 not -- either not act, or send a letter of support of whoever
24 K.I.S.D. chooses to nominate.
25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I prefer that approach,
F-26-06
~__J. ~ ._ . it r ~ ..r..__--. ,._ ._ __
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
127
because that was their position.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it keeps from ruffling
any feathers anywhere along the line.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have another nominee on that
board at the present time?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have Chuck Lewis.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the best we could hope for, is
one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I think so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we have a pretty good
one. He's trying.
MS. RECTOR: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What's the Court's pleasure?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think the Tax Assessor, by
law, is a nonvoting member of that board.
MS. RECTOR: That's correct, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So that will continue. We
won't lose that ex-officio position.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Then we have our one
nominee.
We'll have one nominee as a
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS
voting member.
F 26-OF
._...___--a~~..~..~.+ ate- --.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
128
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have a motion to offer?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that Kerr
County send a letter to the Kerr Central Appraisal District
supporting the nomination of K.I.S. D.
JUDGE TINLEY: A nomination -- any nomination they
may offer?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With a copy to K.I,S.D.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And authorize County Judge to
sign same.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any 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. Is it the
Court's pleasure to take up the approval agenda now, and then
go into executive session? Or go into executive session now?
I think we can probably go into executive now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's do the approval so the
Auditor can pay the bills.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to pay the bills early?
y-2F-OE
__._. ___.___ ._,..~..a.e-._. __
129
t
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm ready if you are.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll go to the approval
agenda quickly. Payment of the bills is the first item there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the bills. Any 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: Motion carries. Budget amendments.
Budget Amendment Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 1 is from the Tax
Assessor/Collector, and it's signed by Paula Rector to
transfer $3,543 from Deputy Salaries to Software Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a question. Just one
quick question. Everybody else is not paying any software
maintenance. What's the deal here?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, this --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this something special?
MR. TOMLINSON: Part of it is for -- this is for the
voter registration.
G-26-06

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
130
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: Part of it is. And I think under --
under the contract with T.S.G. for the Odyssey program, we
did -- the software -- the maintenance did not cease on this
particular --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Got you.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- software.
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 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is for the 216th District
Court. We need to transfer $5,828.90 from Civil
Court-Appointed Attorney line item, with $770 to Special Court
Reporter, and $5,058.90 to Court-Appointed Attorneys.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
the Budget Amendment Request Number 2. Any question or
comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
ti 26 06
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
131
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is for the 198th District
Court. We're requesting a transfer of $1,508.50 from Civil
Court-Appointed Attorney line item into Court-Appointed
Attorney line item.
~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request 3. Any 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: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
~ Request 4.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 4 is between the County Jail
I and Commissioners Court. This is approval of the Sheriff to
transfer $3,835 from Software Maintenance in the jail budget
to Professional Services in the Commissioners Court budget.
It's for the purpose of paying William Beltrone for the audit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
6-26-OF
132
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 WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request 4. Any 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: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
~ Request 5.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 5 is for the County Jail, to
transfer $251.64 from Software Maintenance to Vehicle
Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER wILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request 5. Any question or comment? A11
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 6.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 6 is between Juvenile
Detention Facility and Detention Maintenance. This was
approved by Kevin Stanton to transfer $3,189.17 from
6 - ' 6 - Q b
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Otilities, with $1,014.70 to Maintenance and Custodial, and
$2,164.47 to Detention Repairs.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request 6. Any question or comment? A11
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
DODGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. The motion
carries. Budget Amendment Request 7.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 7 is a request from Linda
Uecker, the District Clerk, to transfer $1,000 from Telephone
line item to Office Supplies.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for Budget
Amendment Request 7. Any 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: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 8.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 8 is between the Hill Country
Youth Exhibition Center and Courthouse and Related Buildings.
6-2n-06
~ ~ ~ r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
134
We're transferring $1,128.82 from Building and Grounds
Maintenance in the Exhibition Center budget, with $931.97 to
Supplies in Courthouse and Related Buildings, and $196.85 to
Repairs and Maintenance in Courthouse and Related Buildings.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request 8. Any 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: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 9.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 9 is for Indigent Health
Care. We need to transfer $2,213.86 from Eligible Expenses to
the Third-Party Administrator line item. Along with that, I
have three bills from VeriClaims, Inc., which I need to treat
as late bills. One is for $1,563.60, one is for $915.70, and
the final one is for $234.56.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for Budget
Amendment Request Number 9 and hand checks to -- late bills
and hand checks to VeriClaims for $1,563.60, $415.70, and
6 26-06
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
135
$234.56.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or comments? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Do we have any
more budget amendments?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's it -- that's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any late bills other than as
I indicated?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've been presented with monthly
reports for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, and Justice of
the Peace, Precinct 4. Do I hear a motion that those reports
be approved as submitted?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the reports as submitted. Any 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.)
6 26-06
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Let us return now --
we'll go out of open or public session, and we will go into
executive session to consider two agenda items. We'll first
consider Item 24; consider and discuss Maintenance Department
supervision.
(The open session was closed at 1:53 p.m., and an
Executive Session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We will go back into public or
open session. It is now 2:51. Does any member of the Court
have anything to offer with respect to any of the items that
we discussed in -- in closed or executive session?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, Judge. I'd like to --
it's my privilege and pleasure to offer a motion for the Court
to appoint Diane Bolin -- let me see; I've got to do this --
Isabel Diane Bolin to the position of Interim Tax
Assessor/Collector effective September 1st, 2006, until after
the canvassing of the November 7th vote.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: General election.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or comments?
MS. RECTOR: She missed it.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
6-^6-06
~-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
137
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
i (NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Anything else
to be offered as a result of matters discussed in executive
I
session? Hearing nothing else, why, we've got two more -- two
more items before us. One is the information agenda. The
other is a budget workshop. Let me go ahead and handle the
information agenda. Do we have any reports from any of the
i Commissioners in their liaison or other assignments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I got two things on my
mind. One, you probably know that Al Schultz has resigned
from the Library Board. He's our -- one of our two
County-appointed members, so we need to replace him. It's not
on the agenda. I don't particularly have a nomination in
mind, but I wanted to let y'all know about it, and I'll put it
on the agenda for next time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No. I want to -- I want to
give you a copy of a summary of the Animal Control report.
These are the reports that the Animal Control supervisor
collects on animals, and I've kind of condensed that data to
try to help us understand what kind of performance we're
getting out of Animal Control. And what it -- what this says
6-^6-06

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"" 2 9
~5
138
is that -- that the number of animals picked up is going down.
That's good news, and we probably attribute that to good work
on educating the public about their responsibilities to their
animals. Population is larger. And the number of animals
being adopted is -- is up markedly; 10 percent so far this
year, 7.8 percent three years ago. That's quite a significant
increase, and I -- I credit that to -- to Janie's efforts to
work with anybody that wants to work with her, but
particularly some of the other animal facilities around to
enlist their help in placing the good animals that come into
the Kerr County facility.
And the adoptions are up markedly; again, 47 percent
increase for the year-to-date this year versus three years
ago. Well, I just talked about adoptions. Euthanizations are
down. Again, that's a function of fewer animals coming in and
more of them being adopted. So, that's -- all that's all good
news. Now, the year-to-date data. At the end of the year,
the changes won't be as dramatic as they are now, because this
is the kitten and puppy season, and we'll be getting in -- in
this next three months, we'll have more activity on the
average than we've had the last nine months. That's all. I
did give a copy of the reports that I used to make this to --
to Paul -- the City Manager, Paul --
JUDGE TINLEY: Paul Hofmann.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- Hofmann.
6-26-06
139
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: I noticed in that regard, there is an
item on their agenda to consider terminating the Animal
Control Services contract.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I met with him, and he
asked me if we thought we might be flexible in renegotiating
the part of the contract that -- where we don't accept the
duty of picking up dead animals. And I said we're flexible;
we'll talk about any part of any contract. So, that's a
formality. They put that on there so that he could have a
chance to try to renegotiate that. I'm not in favor of doing
that. Certainly, we need to -- to listen to the case and --
JUDGE TINLEY: Communicate.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- and be reasonable.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment I have is related
to the Airport Board. I think there was an article in the
paper today, which I haven't read, but I think we made great
headway, Commissioner Williams and myself, and the rest of the
Airport Board on going in a direction of getting the Airport
Board to be in charge of the airport. Which I know we thought
we did that two years ago or three years ago, but the
management contract was rather vague, and I think we really
tightened up -- a lot more accountability is going to be
required. And both Councilman Coleman and Mayor Smith were
h-26-O6
140
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
very supportive of the -- I think it's the accountability to
the City -- to the Airport Board. So, I think it's a -- great
headway was made.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It was a good article, and
the two of you were quoted as making really good arguments. I
think you made some -- according to the article, it sounded
like you made your case.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We tried very hard to do
that. There was an interesting exchange of memorandums among
board members. Commissioner Letz and I worked together on a
joint -- joint position paper, as did other -- other members
of the board. The only two City Council guys did not, but the
reality was, we're talking to them about some things they
needed to hear, and so I think the result is that we all
agreed that we have a good framework. Governance agreement's
a good framework. And it's sort of a matter of just getting
everybody to realize it's just not another department of the
City. It is an autonomous board, has the authority to run a
jointly-owned and operated facility, and we'll work toward
that goal. I think that's fair.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The bad news -- I don't know
what the paper said, but the bad news was that the -- the cost
of operating that airport is going to be looked at much more
of an actual cost versus a -- a guestimate, which has kind of
been used for past couple years, and that may increase the
6-26-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
141
County's contribution.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I would say that's
maybe a temporary phenomenon, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And it goes to a point that
you were making earlier about other supervision of things, and
realignment of departments. I think Commissioner Letz and I
are working toward positioning the County to -- to make a
serious run at doing -- I would say the outside work, if you i
will, for lack of a better definition. The outside work, and
probably splitting up that whole bulk of responsibility where ~
the City takes care of the function and reporting and that
kind of stuff, and work some of the outside work. I think
I we're trying to get ourselves in a position to do that. It
won't happen in this initial upcoming budget year, but I think
we could be in a position to do that a year from now.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For what it's worth, I
applaud your efforts. You're going in the right direction,
and I'm pretty impressed with the progress.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I had the opportunity to
spend three and a half days in -- in the tourist mecca of San
Antonio attending a National Association of Regional Councils.
What that is, is COG members from all over the United States
of America gathering together with board members, policy
e-z6-o6
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
makers, as -- as in conjunction with executive directors of
COGS. And we talk a lot about the regionalism and how we make
things happen on a regional basis and share those dollars that
come down from the feds and the state in a better manner, and
in some cases, hopefully trying to educate the feds that we
down here might have some input as to how things should
happen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I might also add on that note
that, by chance, I was at the same hotel in San Antonio that
he was staying at, because this past Monday we finalized the
adoption of Gus; had to be in District Court early Monday
morning, and figured rather than spend time traveling, stay in
a hotel. But, anyway, bottom line, I was -- I was at that
hotel, and while Sam spent the afternoon jumping in the
swimming pool, we didn't see Commissioner Williams, so he had
to be in a meeting; he certainly wasn't at the pool.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would add, too, you didn't
leave a voice message on my machine that you were available to
take me out to dinner, either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right. I was out -- we
flew in under the radar in San Antonio and back out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, you did.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does that have anything to do with a
German being in charge?
6-26-06
143
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
i COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could be.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I thought -- I thought we had the
airport situation solved 35 years ago when we created that
airport board. Apparently we didn't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll keep tweaking it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Keep working on it.
JUDGE TINLEY: I was paid a visit by the mayor of
the City of Ingram and the City Attorney. They wanted to
discuss with me the possibility of exploring having Kerr
County maybe do same of -- number one, handle their O.S.S.F.
requirements, and number two, explore the possibility of our'
Road and Bridge Department looking at the rehabbing of some of ~
their streets, some of that street work that they've got to do
out there. I told both Leonard and Miguel of these
discussions, and if they have any concerns, I need to know
about them. I think the first issue that we had to get
resolved is for Leonard to get a better understanding of what
it was Ingram was wanting done, and then once he gets a handle
on that, he can tell us if he's -- if that's something that he
can realistically do in his department, and -- and what the
requirement's going to be if he has to do it. So, initially
pitched that out in the open a few months ago, I guess, when
we were talking about the City of Kerrville maybe looking at
6-26 06
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
144
some of their street rehabilitation requirements, but we'll
see where that leads. Certainly, it's open for discussion.
It might give us a way to better spread the cost of some of
this equipment that we've been buying. That gets pretty
expensive, and we got someone else participating, helping us
pay for it. Don't know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I do have one other
quickie.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that is that the -- the
contract for -- for Kerr County with Texas Water Development
Board is back, signed by Water Development Board and the
Judge. There are a couple small tweaks I have to make on the
I RFP scope of work, which I'll do, and we should be in a
position to, through Grantworks, publish that RFP very
quickly.
JUDGE TINLEY: Wonderful. Anything else on the
Commissioners Court meeting? We'll stand adjourned from the
Commissioners Court meeting, and now let me convene a
workshop. Why don't we take a few minutes before we do that,
say five, ten minutes, maybe.
(Commissioners Court was adjourned at 3:04 p.m., and
a budget workshop was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
6-_6 06
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
145
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 29th day of
June, 2006.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: ___ ___ ___ _____ _
Kathy ik County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
6-26-06
ORDER NO. 29744
RENEWAL OF CONTRACT WITH HILL COUNTRY ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve the Contract as submitted at $17,000 with the only payment to be
made as to what is currently budgeted ($12,500), until a budget amendment
is approved by the Court
ORDER NO. 29745
APPROVE COMPLETED "TEXAS YES" PROGRAM CONTRACT
BETWEEN KERR COUNTY AND TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE WITH RESPECT TO 2006 TEXAS ARTS AND
CRAFTS FAIR MARKETING PROGRAM
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve the "Texas Yes" Program Contract between Kerr County and the
Texas Department of Agriculture with respect to the 2006 Texas Arts and
,._ Crafts Fair Marketing Program, qualified by Mr. Miller, submitting proof to
the County Auditor that the expenditures are in order, and authorize County
Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 29746
REAFFIRM KERR COUNTY SUBDIVISION RULES AND
REGULATIONS
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve to reaffirm the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
ORDER NO. 29747
REAFFIRM KERR COUNTY WATER AVAILABILITY
REQUIREMENTS
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Give final approval of the Kerr County Water Availability Requirements.
ORDER NO. 29748
REVISION OF LOTS 13 & 14 OF CYPRESS SPRINGS ESTATES,
PHASE I, VOL 7, PAGE 12, PCT 4
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve the revision of Lots 13 & 14 of Cypress Springs Estates, phase, I,
Vol 7, Page 12, in Precinct 4 and waive the fees for OSSF approval.
ORDER NO. 29749
AMEND INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RELATED TO SUBDIVISION
REVIEW/APPROVAL ON ETJ TO ALLOW EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
CITY TO AMEND ITS SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Extend the deadline under the Interlocal Agreement related to subdivision
review in the ETJ from the City to make some review of its rural rules until
September 30, 2006, and the City provide a resolution stating same.
ORDER NO. 29750
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF FALLS RANCH SUBDIVISION PHASE I,
PCT 3
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 2-0-1 to:
Approve the Preliminary Plat of Falls Ranch Subdivision Phase I, in Precinct
3.
ORDER NO. 29751
SET PUBLIC HEARING TO ABANDON, VACATE AND
DISCONTINUE PRIVILEGE CREEK RANCHES, VOL 7, PAGE 136-137,
PCT 3
Came to he heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 2-0-1 to:
Set a Public Hearing for August 14, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. to abandon, vacate
and discontinue Privilege Creek Ranches, as recorded in Vol 7, Page 136-
137, in Precinct 3.
ORDER NO. 29752
REVISION OF LOTS 4 & 5 OF BYAS SPRINGS RANCH, VOL 5, PAGE
250, PCT 4
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Approve the Revision of Lots 4 & 5 of Byas Springs Ranch, Vol 5, Page
250, located in Precinct 4.
ORDER NO. 29753
ACCESS TO INFORMATION, DOCUMENTS OR RECORDS
MAINTAINED BY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND WHICH
RELATE TO KERB COUNTY
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Take necessary steps to have the County Auditor and the County Judge
authorized to have access to information, documents and records which are
maintained by the Internal Revenue Service, and by the Social Security
..._ Administration, which relate to Kerr County.
ORDER NO. 29754
ACCEPT FUNDS REMAINING AFTER I}~SBANDING OF ITILL
COUNTRY GARDEN COUNCIL FOR U E IN REPLACING OR
UPGRADING PLANTINGS AT KERR CO TY WAR MEMORIAL
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Accept the check for $250 from the Hill Country Garden Council, and
authorize the Maintenance Department to e~Cpend funds on the War
Memorial.
ORDER NO. 29755
REVIEW CONTRACT WITH CONSULTING ENGINEER FOR
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Accept the Contract with Mr. L. Wayne Wells as our consulting engineer for
subdivision review, subject to the addition of additional language in the last
paragraph related to independent contractor, and authorize County Judge to
sign same.
ORDER NO. 29756
MAKE KERR COUNTY NOMINATION FOR VACANCY ON THE
KERB CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Authorize Kerr County to send a letter to the Kerr Central Appraisal District,
with a copy to KISD, supporting the nomination of KISD, and authorize
County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 29757
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, came to be considered by
the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and
Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	104,432.89
15-Road & Bridge	$	28,818.32
18-County Law Library	$	480.09
26-JP Technology	$	2,825.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$	49,612.89
58-Cert of Obligation S 2005	$	28,037.50
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	6,801.63
TOTAL
$ 221,008.32
Upon motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner
Letz, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to pay the claims
and accounts.
ORDER NO. 29758
BUDGET AMENDMENT
TAX ASSESSOR
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-499-563 Software Maintenance
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $3,543.00
10-499-104 Deputy Salary - ($3,543.00)
ORDER NO. 29759
BUDGET AMENDMENT
216TH DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/QDecrease
10-435-402 Court Appointed Attorney + $5,058.90
10-435-494 Special Court Reporter + $770.00
10-435-403 Civil Court Appointed Atty - ($5,828.90)
ORDER NO. 29760
BUDGET AMENDMENT
198TH DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-436-402 Court Appointed Attorney
10-436-403 Civil Court Appt'd Attorney
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $1,508.50
- ($1,508.50)
ORDER NO. 29761
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COMMISSIONERS' COURT
COUNTY JAIL
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-401-486 Professional Services
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $3,835.00
10-512-563 Software Maintenance - ($3,835.00)
ORDER NO. 29762
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COUNTY JAIL
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-512-454
Vehicle Maintenance
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $251.64
10-512-563 Software Maintenance - ($251.64)
ORDER NO. 29763
BUDGET AMENDMENT
DETENTION MAINTENANCE
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-515-350 Maintenance & Custodial
10-515-451 Detention Repairs
76-572-440 Utilities
Amendment
Increase/pDecrease
+ $1,014.70
+ $2,174.47
- ($3,189.17)
ORDER NO.29764
BUDGET AMENDMENT
DISTRICT CLERK
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-450-310 Office Supplies
10-450-420 Telephone
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $1,000.00
- ($1,000.00)
ORDER NO. 29765
BUDGET AMENDMENT
COURTHOUSE & RELATED BUILDINGS
HC YOUTH EXHIBITION
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-510-350	Supplies
10-510-450	Repairs & Maintenance
10-666-450	Building 8 Grounds Maint.
Amendment
I ncreaselQDecrease
+ $931.97
+ $196.85
- ($1,128.82)

ORDER NO. 29766
BUDGET AMENDMENT
LATE BILL
INDIGENT HEALTH CARE
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes and issue hand checks in the amount of $415.70, $1,563.60 and
$234.56 to Vericlaims, Inc. for June 10, 2006, June 6, 2006 and June 15,
2006 Fee on Claims Paid:
Expense Code Description
50-641-486 Third Party Administrator
50-641-200 Eligible Expenses
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $2,213.86
- ($2,213.86)
ORDER NO. 29767
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 the following monthly reports:
JP #1
JP #4
ORDER NO. 29768
RETIREMENT OF TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR EFFECTIVE
AUGUST 31, 2006; APPOINTMENT OF SUCCESSOR KERR COUNTY
TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR
Came to be heard this the 26th day of June, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-0 to:
Appoint Isabel Diane Bolin to the position of Interim Tax Assessor-
Collector effective September 1, 2006, until after the canvassing of the
November 7, 2006 General Election.