1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4

S
O
C1S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
I N D E X
December 27, 2006
Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate actions to
declare items surplus, authorize Maintenance
Department to remove them
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve bond of Edward Allen North, Deputy
Constable #1
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate actions to
approve or acknowledge continuation of County
Clerk's E & 0 Bond and Employees' Government
Crime Policy
Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
addition of budget line item for pre-employment
screening/background checks, authorize funding
for same
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
moving $550 from Custodial & Ground Supplies to
Uniforms to purchase steel-toed boots and proper
safety eyewear for Maintenance personnel
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on new
Safety Policy for Maintenance Department
1.8 Consider/discuss report from the Kerr County
Historical Committee
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve loan to purchase three pieces of leased
Road & Bridge equipment, authorize County Judge
to sign documents for same
1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
remove two cattle guards on Bear Creek Road
1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
concept to revise Lot 5 & 6 of Shalako Estates
PAGE
5
9
10
10
11
12
18
19
21
32
36
37
3
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
I N D E X
December 27, 2006
1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
concept of Revision of Plat for Lot 96 of
Kerrville South II, set public hearing for same
1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
Concept plan for 14.22-acre tract on Johnson
Creek in Precinct 4
1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
City of Kerrville's response to Kerr County
Commissioners' proposed Joint Dispatch Study
Committee
1.15 Consider/discuss, set public hearing on a
petition to amend or abandon an easement along
south side of Lake Ingram in Precinct 4
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve appointment of deputies of Tax Assessor/
Collector's Office
1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate actions to
approve bonds as required by Texas Tax Code
1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve official bonds of elected officials
1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate actions to
approve the Official Public Bonds for elected
officials
4.1 Pay Bills
4.2 Budget Amendments
4.3 Late Bills
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments
--- Adjourned
PAGE
40
42
63
76
100
100
102
102
103
107
113
113
114
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
9
On Wednesday, December 27, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
P R O C E E D I N G S
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. Would everyone stand and
join me in a moment of prayer, followed by the pledge?
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's
any member of the public that wishes to be heard on any matter
that is not a listed agenda item, this is your time to be
heard. If you want to be heard on an agenda item, we would
ask that you fill out a participation form. They're located
you do that. It does help me, though, when we come to a
particular agenda item, if you've filled out that form, to
hopefully not miss you. But if you've not filled out a form
or if, for some reason, I've overlooked you, when we get to
that item, if you'd get my attention in some way, shape, form,
or fashion, and we'll give you the opportunity to be heard.
iz-z~-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
5
But as to any item that is not a listed agenda item that you
wish to give us something about, why, feel free to come
forward at this time. Seeing no one coming forward, why,
we'll move on. Commissioner Letz, what do you have for us
this morning?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just happy we got rain
finally. And I lifted the burn ban as of this morning.
That's all I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 9?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Considering, Judge, that
this is probably my last Commissioners Court meeting, I need
to -- to say some kudos and mea culpas.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In front of everybody?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes. First, I want to
thank the Commissioners for -- for mentoring me and aiding me
over the last four years. You've been very helpful to me.
And mostly I want to thank you for being patient with me. I'm
fully aware that your job of being patient with people is not
always easy. I appreciate it. I've got high hopes for this
next Court. It occurs to me that this is one of the most --
will be one of the most experienced courts ever. Every
Commissioner will have at least eight years experience, and
for the first time in three decades, we'll have a judge that
has more than four years experience. So you, all together,
can produce some really good work, and I have high
iz-z,-oe
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
6
expectations that that will happen. Again, thank you for your
-- your help, and more importantly for your patience.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner 1?
County and all the Texas hill country, and just want to lift
everybody up when we're having our time of prayer and remember
all those folks. That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was a great Christmas
season. I had the opportunity to enjoy it with family, as
most of you did, I'm sure, and that's a wonderful thing to do,
a wonderful time of year to do that. I want to reflect just
for a second on Commissioner Nicholson, too. I want to thank
you for your service to Kerr County and this Court. You and I
didn't get -- always get started on the right wavelength, but
we certainly ended up that way, and I admire you. I think
you've -- I think you have great principles. You had some
really good ideas that we managed to accomplish, some more
easily than others. But you're a principled man, you're a
dedicated man, and you've been very good for this Court, and I
want to publicly thank you for your service.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
iz z~-oF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I also would like to express my
thanks to the one I call Brother Dave. We came on together,
and we shared some ideas. Some ideas we were divergent on,
but we managed to work through those. We both realized that
we can work together and disagree, and he, of course, upholds
that principle and has done well with it in working with us.
He brought a lot to the Court on the basis of his experience
dealing with personnel, personnel management, things of that
nature, which personally I thought was very, very helpful and
needed. I know he thinks there's still outstanding issues in
that regard, and I'm sure he will continue to give us his
thinking about those particular subjects. And I -- and I
solicit his -- his doing that, because I think from the
position that he occupies now, and having been here, he has a
better appreciation of how those things might better work for
the benefit of all of Kerr County. I thank him for his
service. I wish him well. I know he and Neva have got things
they're going to try and do now that he's not shackled to the
Court, and I wish them all the enjoyment in the world, and we
appreciate your service, Brother Dave.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Join me, if you would, please.
(Applause.)
iz-_>~-oh
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also to let him know that
committee assignments are available, and he's not going to be
gone forever. I have some ideas -- you know, plans which --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Particularly the library.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I have some plans for
where Dave can help serve this Court and the community
further.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thanks for thinking abcut
~ me, Jon.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to say a quick
one. Dave, thank you for your service to us, and -- and
you've brought a fresh -- many times a fresh way of thinking,
and sometimes a little strange. (Laughter.) Well, to me,
anyway. But we appreciate it very much. And I think -- I
think we have a little gift for you before you leave here
today, so don't -- don't walk out in the middle of the
Commissioners Court meeting.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, can I have a pencil?
Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's -- one more item that I
would like to mention. We recently had our annual jail
inspection that's conducted by the Texas Commission on Jail
Standards. That -- that inspection has gone well in previous
years, and this year, again, it went very well. Sylvia
12-27-06
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
9
Foraker, the Jail Administrator, this was her first year at
the helm. She and her staff stepped up and did a wonderful
job. I have been privileged to attend those inspections, at
least portions of them, and do the outbriefing with the
inspector. And try as he may, the inspector was unable to
detention facility, so I think that's a testament to the fine
work that Sylvia and her staff and the Sheriff and his
supervision of those folks, and you folks need to be aware of
the good work of those people out there. Let's get on with
the agenda. First item is to consider, discuss, and take
appropriate actions to declare the following items surplus and
authorize Maintenance Department to remove them from the
County Clerk's office and provide for disposition of same.
There's a Canon typewriter, Canon micro reader-printer.
Ms. Pieper, other than your agenda item, do you have anything
further?
MS. PIEPER: No, sir. These are unrepairable, and I
I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
iz-z~-ob
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
i (No response.)
MS. PIE PER: That motion does carry. Thank yo a,
Ms. Pieper. Next item is to consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to approve the bond of Edward A11en North
as Deputy Constable, Precinct 1.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any further question or discussion? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to
Item 3; consider, discuss, and take appropriate actions to
approve or acknowledge the continuation of the County Clerk's
errors and omissions bond and employees' government crime
policy. Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: It's just what it is, Judge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion?
iz-z~-o6
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
11
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there any change over what
you've previously had?
MS. PIEPER: No, sir, it's the same. The
governmental crime policy I believe is set up by statute as to
how much it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or discussion
on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 4, if we might; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate actions to approve the application to appoint
deputies to the office of County Clerk. Ms. Pieper again.
MS. PIEPER: Judge, I'm not sure this actually needs
y'all's approval, but the way I read it, it doesn't hurt, and
I it's something that I do every four years when I'm re-elected.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Question or discussion? Ms. Pieper, are
all of those individuals specified in the -- in the material
which you submitted exactly as specified in the position
schedule --
iz-z~-oe
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
12
MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- which we previously approved as to
name and the amount?
MS. PIEPER: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's the only question I
I had.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this your entire staff?
MS. PIEPER: That is my entire staff, minus my two
part-time. I don't believe I put those on there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are they considered deputies?
MS. PIEPER: No, they are not deputized.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to
Item 5; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
addition of a budget line item for pre-employment screening
and background checks for 2006-2007 Human Resources budget,
and authorize the funding for the same. Ms. Hyde?
MS. HYDE: Currently, we do not authorize or do not
have the funding for background checks on our prospective
employees. I do believe that we need to do background checks.
12-27 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
13
We need to have them fingerprinted and done background checks
before they're approved to be hired for Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I asked you the question
when you first brought it up; I'll ask you the question again.
Is this something that the law enforcement agency under the
Sheriff cannot do for us?
MS. HYDE: They cannot do that. If the personnel
are working for the Sheriff, they can -- the Sheriff can do
it, but if they don't work for the Sheriff, he has stated that
they can't.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MS. HYDE: He will, however, do the fingerprinting
for us for free on final application.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For free?
MS. HYDE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wonderful.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Unless it's for you,
Commissioner.
JUDGE TINLEY: How benevolent. What -- what do you
estimate you need in the way of funding for this new line
item?
MS. HYDE: It will cost $35 to $95 per background
check.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question -- go ahead.
JUDGE TINLEY: How many are you looking at over
12-27-Oh
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
14
the --
MS. HYDE: Ten.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the remaining course of the year?
MS. HYDE: Ten to 15.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So, we're needing --
MS. HYDE: About $500.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- about $500.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ask the next question now,
"Where do you suggest we get that money?" Where do you
suggest we get that money?
MS. HYDE: Well, there is no budget for H.R., as you
all are well aware, so I was also told that we can look at the
general fund.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, could we transfer
perhaps from Kerr County Commissioners Court Contingency line,
$500 to set that up?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We could, but I have a question
before we -- the question is, why can't the Sheriff do it?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can run a local one and an
in-house one, but unless it's an applicant for law enforcement
or it's an applicant that's going to be spending all their
time in the Law Enforcement Center or jail, it is illegal for
me to use the state computer system to run one. You have to
go through the state; otherwise, I can lose our system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
12-27-U6
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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Ms. Hyde, how are things
Well, I believe that in the past, we've
had some applications for employment that once we got them
into an interview process and we began asking some open-ended
and searching questions, we found out that we had, in fact,
had some folks that had been arrested and had had felonies,
and yet they were still applying for open positions within the
county. So, I think that this will help us when we do the
prescreening process, rather than get to the final application
process.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's some examples of
someone from employment?
MS. HYDE: At this point, we do not want felons. It
is mostly to do with criminal background; it's not personal.
It has	nothing	to	do with a	personality.	It	has to do	with
whether	or not	a	person has	been convicted	or	arrested,	and do
they, in fact -- are they telling the truth on their
application? When the application process is out, it asks
specific questions, and a background check can show if that
person is, in fact, being truthful.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, the -- spending the
12-27-06
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
16
money for these background checks will theoretically result in
a better quality work force in the future?
MS. HYDE: Yes, sir, it should help.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there any circumstance where
do in society, that we would go ahead and hire a felon?
MS. HYDE: Well, I'm sure that we would want to
someone could apply as a deputy. But in the courthouse, we
take in a lot of money, so if there is a convicted felon, I
think we would want to discuss it internally and make a
determination, especially through policies and procedures,
rather than just allow people to come in and work for us that
could, in fact, be a convicted felon.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I support -- I mean, I
definitely -- I like the fact that it's a good truth detector
on the applicant, and like the fact of knowing it. But I'm
not sure that -- it depends on the situation, that you would
want -- I mean, just automatically disqualify anyone for being
a felon, depending on the circumstances.
MS. HYDE: Well, I mean, you could be -- the laws
have changed, so I'll use 20 years ago when I was getting out
of high school. Pot was the -- was a flavor for a lot of
iz=~-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
17
folks, so I think that the amount of pot has changed. Back
then, I think, you know, a small bag was considered a felony
with intent to resell. So, if a guy or a gal perhaps had a
felony for that 20 years ago and has been completely clean
since, I think that we have to use our common judgment and
common sense to look at it. Has he or she continued on that
road, or have they cleaned their act up? Et cetera, et
cetera. Again, I think that'd be something we'd want to talk
about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's something that we
do a rewrite of our personnel policy. I'd let them put it in,
both Sheriff's Department and the County Attorney, on what our
policy should be in that area. I don't have a -- a definite
feeling one way or the other.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think you need to run those
checks. And you're talking about criminal checks, 'cause it's
not unusual to have somebody move from another state where
they've had a lot of problems. Maybe they've had, you know,
100 hot checks or theft cases, or registered sex offenders or
something like that. Unless you run those checks, you don't
find that out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd move approval of the
request of the H.R. Director to establish a line item of $500
for background checks, and transfer $500 from Commissioners
iz-z~-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
18
Court Contingency to that line item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any further question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One more thing. I think
you're going to find that -- that federal law prohibits the
discrimination against people on the basis of criminal history
unless the -- the offense is job-related. And I'm not going
to pretend to define what that means. I think it means that
if -- if I've got a -- a conviction for hot checks, that
that's not related to my application for a job working for
Road and Bridge. That's all.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of that motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
MS. HYDE: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 6, if we might.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to move $550
from Maintenance, Custodial and Ground Supplies, to Uniforms
line item to purchase steel-toed boots and proper safety
i_-z~-o6
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
eyewear for Maintenance personnel. Mr. Bollier?
MR. BOLLIER: I do believe that my personnel need
these safety -- these steel-toed boots and proper eyewear.
And it's just to work safely. That's all I have.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. 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. Next item,
consider, discuss, take appropriate action on a new safety
policy for the Maintenance Department, that being one pair of
safety boots and eyewear to be included annually for each
employee, not to exceed $125; if additional are needed due to
loss or destruction, the employee would be responsible for
replacement, and the items would be required eye and footwear
as part of the job. This is obviously related to the item
that we just talked about, isn't it?
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no problem with it, but I
think my preference is going to be -- where'd Eva go?
iz-z~-oF
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to come under the old, more all-encompassing --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Some of that may already be
there, Commissioner, under the accident prevention policy that
the County had through TAC, through worker's comp. It`s a
very thick policy that covers a whole lot of different
equipment that employees are supposed to be issued.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Sa I think you can
probably require it without a court order, Tim.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree, Commissioner. I
think it should be stated as a part of the personnel policy
handbook that's being worked on by Ms. Hyde now. And then the
-- the money for that equipment gets built annually into your
budget, based on what you think your turnover might be or
whatever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you can proceed without
MR. BOLLIER: I can proceed without a court order?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe so. As -- as
supervisor of -- manager of that department, I think you have
the right to require your employees to conform with safety
policy, which obviously that is.
iz z.-ob
21
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
MR. BOLLIER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. BOLLIER: Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Let's move on to Item 8;
consider and discuss report from the Kerr County Historical
Committee. Mr. Schellhase, good to see you here this morning.
MR. SCHELLHASE: I have to apologize to the Court
for not having this report in timely so that you could review
it and study it, have all your questions prepared for me with
regards to the activities of the Historical Commission for the
past year. But due to the Christmas holidays and me being out
of town, and the Commission did not meet until the 18th to
make the final decision on the board of directors and the
leadership, so therefore, I'm presenting these at this time.
The membership this year for the board is expanded
substantially with regards to those people that have requested
to be members of the Historical Commission and participate in
those activities, which we're providing you under Leadership.
For the coming year, Haskell Fine will be the chairman, Joe
Luther will be the vice chairman, and Lew Williams will be the
secretary. The specific committees that have been assigned so
far for the coming year are those shown. The only significant
change is Irene Van Winkle will be doing the Oral History for
us, and Paul Parks will be taking up a new activity we have
for this year for the Junior Historical Leadership Program
12-z~-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
22
which has been established with the Kerrville Independent
We've had some substantial changes in the marker
changed that procedure, and now we can only submit an
application between December -- the first part of December and
the 2nd of January, which means we can only accumulate all
this data and prepare them for submission during this period
of time. So, therefore, there's none submitted at this time,
although we have four that are pending; La Hacienda, the
Guthrie Building, the Kerrville Times, and the Page House. We
think that's going to be a real handicap on getting markers.
We're not for sure how that program's going to work overall
because of the fact that we'll have to wait until they process
the entire batch that comes in at the end of the year, which
is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15,000, 20,000 statewide.
They'll then come back to us and tell us whether or not we
need additional information. If, in fact, we do, then we have
to wait another year to submit that application -- resubmit
it.
So, it looks like to me it's going to be a long,
drawn-out process, but we'll continue to work within that
framework. The guidelines have not been published yet. We
iz z~-ae
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
23
hope to have them in the next few weeks. Again, they'll be
going into effect very soon. The major project, as presented
to the Court several weeks ago, will be the landscaping and
the improvement for the parking around the entrance to the
Union Church Building. Those funds are -- as we've indicated,
now have underway. Oral history is on somewhat of a
standstill at this time, due to the lack of time that Ann
Bethel has devoted to that and the process of switching that
over to Irene. Irene has been doing a lot of work for the
that she's presented over the years, which we think gives her
a great background in being able to participate in this
program and help us out a whole lot in that program. As of
right now, we have -- I believe it's between 55 and 60
completed programs that are on the library shelf, available
for those people to research those programs as they so choose.
We've presented to you the budget that you gave us last year
and those expenditures, how they were spent, with the
exception of about $11 that we had left over to turn back to
the County.
For 2007 projects, budget-wise, we presented the
budget as we foresee those funds being expended. The Union
Church Building will not be the recipient of any of those
funds for the coming year, except for minor repair. There's
12-'7-n5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
some equipment replacement that has to be done in the church
itself -- in the building itself. The sound system has
suffered some damage, and the front door needs refinishing
again, all of these that we've discussed with Alyce, so she's
aware of what we have to do. In addition to the Union Church
building, the activities for the coming year primarily are
going to be devoted to trying to finish the project that we've
been working on for numerous years, and that's the GPS
location of all of the cemeteries. We do have our plat
finish that program up for us.
The photo project that we started two or three years
ago, we're still trying to get that underway a little bit
better than it is at this time, and that's to establish photos
year by year of Kerr County, of what -- what exists at the
time, and being able to compare it back to years in the past.
We do not plan on doing a calendar this year, as in the past.
The sales on those have slipped substantially. The membership
has improved somewhat as we presented for the coming year.
The video and the presentation for historical presentations is
going to be a high item for the coming year also. As I said,
we'll continue to work within the historical marker guidelines
that are being presented and try to work those programs that
we now have.
12-27-06
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
25
The significant item that we have at this time is
the marker for the newspaper, the Mountain Sun, from the
existing building on McFarland Street, when that building was
no longer the Mountain Sun, to the Guthrie Building. That
request was turned down by the State saying we could not
locate it on the building because it is not a building marker,
but a subject marker. Which we knew ahead of time, but
thought we'd try anyway. We then went to the City to request
that we place this marker in the island -- in the landscaping
island in front of the Guthrie Building. The reason for this
is the Guthrie Building was the original newspaper publishing
house. The City has turned us down -- well, I shouldn't say
the City; Mindy Wendele has basically turned us down for
location of this marker in front of the Guthrie Building,
although we had approval from all of the other members of City
staff. Our only recourse now is to return that marker to the
City Manager, but I will before the end of the -- or the
beginning of the coming year. That's the only marker left in
the works. We do not want that going back to the State to put
in the archives. We feel like it's a part of Kerr County
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: General Schellhase, may I ask
iz-z~-oti
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
a question about all that? Now, the Guthrie Building is the
one right over here on the corner?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it was established when?
I can't remember either. 1800 and --
MR. SCHELLHASE: Early 18's, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- something. And why would
Ms. Wendele file an objection for that? I don't understand
why.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Let's see.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the objection?
MR. SCHELLHASE: I got her phone number for you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you'd have presented this
earlier, I'd have had an opportunity to visit with you about
it.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't understand. If --
MR. SCHELLHASE: I think the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- the City staff has
approved it, she -- what is her -- what is her status?
MR. SCHELLHASE: She feels like that we don't need
to start locating stuff within those decorative islands that
we have pavers located in, as I understand it. I have not
spoken to Mindy yet; I only spoke to Dennis Kneese, who heads
that department up and is responsible for that, who informed
1'-_'7-U6
27
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
me that all City staff approved it except Mindy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, help me understand
something, or somebody help me understand. What is her
authority in this?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Main Street Program manager.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And --
MR. SCHELLHASE: And the landscaping and the islands
and things fall under the Main Street Program.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. City government's a
strange animal. I don't get it.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Well, we haven't given up yet.
But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. SCHELLHASE: -- just so the Court knows the
status of that, in the event we have to return this to the
state, which we would like not to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with you, General.
That's an important marker to retain.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I'm wondering, would
the -- would the state Historical Commission permit mounting
that marker on a pole? An iron pole, in the proximity of the
building. Not necessarily in that little area that
Ms. Wendele turned you down on, but in proximity to the
building, but not on the building. Because that's where --
iz-z~-o6
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that's the site that the newspaper started.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Unfortunately, the building is
located on the property line all the way around, and that's
our problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I got you.
MR. SCHELLHASE: We -- we started to locate it on
the Main Street side in a small grass area, and then ask
forgiveness, but -- that might happen. But we felt like the
appropriate place was, in that we couldn't put it on the
building, would be located in the front of the building, where
we do have a bench sitting right there. The City has allowed
a -- a light to be located in the planting area around the oak
tree there lighting the building, so we think there's
certainly a precedence for us to put that marker in front of
the building.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you.
MR. SCHELLHASE: But that's the only item that we
have hanging in the wind with regards to historical markers,
and we will iron that out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before you leave historical
markers, good time to ask the question. Does the City,
through the -- their sales tax, fund Historical Commission in
any way, or have they ever?
MR. SCHELLHASE: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have y'all requested? The
12 27-06
29
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
reason I bring it up is that, I mean, it's supposed to be kind
of a -- an economic improvement and development, all that
stuff is used for those funds, and a large percentage of the
work that the Historical Commission's done is in the city
limits of Kerrville. In fact, most of the ones listed right
here are -- or not -- La Hacienda isn't, but there are
buildings in Kerrville which clearly enhance what the City's
trying to do. It seems they should help participate in some
of this, you know, as well. And they fund a lot of other
things through their 4B sales tax, and this would be a similar
type thing that they should fund, in my mind, or at least
consider.
MR. SCHELLHASE: I guess you're making reference to
the hotel tax. There is a certain amount of those funds that
can be given to historical projects, of which the Historical
Commission was the recipient of $15,000 at the very beginning
of the restoration of the Onion Church building, to move the
building. That came from those funds.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. SCHELLHASE: So I would assume there may be, you
know, specific projects that may be eligible for --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was just wondering if they can
cover operations. They seem to do -- anyway, it might be
something to pursue for some additional funding.
MR. SCHELLHASE: We -- the C.V.B. publishes the
iz-z~-oe
30
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
brochure, or participates in the publishing of the historical
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. SCHELLHASE: So there's funds in that case.
We're still located in the building behind the library on the
second floor. We still hope to, in the coming year, do the
renovation to the downstairs part of that building so we can
use it for -- adequately for interviews and recording of the
oral histories. As you know, the longer we wait doing our
oral histories, the less we will have. We've lost several the
past year, and I figure to have that project moving as rapidly
as it could. We do participate with the Kerr Arts and Crafts
Foundation. We have the -- the display over there once a
year, of which we put up the historical photos and/or
particular -- pick a particular subject and highlight it.
This year it will be all of the historical pictures that we
had made for the 150th celebration which will go on display at
our time, which I believe will be in March of this year. And,
of course, our publicity keeps being prepared by Lew Williams,
of which we've done a good job in the past year in coverage.
We'd like to request the approval of this report as submitted,
and which will, in turn, approve the directors and officers
for the coming year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval and acceptance
iz-z~-o6
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the report as presented.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second -- third.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One more quick question. What's
the Family Ranch Program?
MR. SCHELLHASE: The state of Texas publishes a
volume each year of those ranches that have been in a single
family for over 100, 150, 200 years. In order to have Kerr
County listed in that, we must apply for that. The cost is
$50, and we prepare that list that goes in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. SCHELLHASE: If we don't give them $50, even
though the ranches have been over that length of time, they
just drop it out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments?
General, I want to thank you and the Historical Commission,
and -- and also the Chamber and Joe Herring and Brian Bondy
and all those other folks that were of immeasurable assistance
to us in our sesquicentennial celebration. But for the
efforts of all of those organizations, including yours, I
don't think it would have been nearly as effective and nearly
as successful, and I really appreciate your help.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Thank you.
12-'7-06
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? All in favor of
the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, General.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Let's move to Item
9; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve a
loan to purchase three pieces of leased Road and Bridge
equipment and authorize County Judge to sign documents for
same. Mr. Odom.
MR. ODOM: Good morning. Hope everybody had a good
Christmas. We came to you several weeks ago to explain our
situation about obtaining new leases and ask permission to
purchase three pieces of equipment we've leased for the five
years. The Auditor has obtained a loan for all three pieces
at a good rate. At this time, we ask you to approve the loan,
give us permission to pay off the equipment, and allow the
Judge to sign any documents needed to complete the process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is all budgeted?
MR. ODOM: All budgeted. They -- basically, what --
you know, before that, they were talking about doubling our
lease rate, and based upon what Tommy's come up with, the
5 percent interest rate, I've got it amortized over 84 months.
12-^7-06
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That note, minus the current lease that I have, is the
difference of $613.41 a month. So, yes, I can -- can handle
it in this budget, and next budget we'll make that adjustment
there. But that's better than having $2,400 to $3,000 a month
extra for a piece of equipment for these -- I mean, they're in
good shape.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Seems like a good business
decision to me.
MR. ODOM: I think it's just a good business
I decision.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. I'm glad -- glad you took a
look at that option.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. And we will work -- and as I
told the Auditor, we will work toward -- over the next two
years, the equipment that we have the lease or the notes on
will be paid off. And probably after next year, the second
year from now, I'll start making principal payments on that
note, and I hope by four or five years, that I'll have it all
paid off ahead of time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How old is it? These all --
MR. ODOM: Five years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Five years?
MR. ODOM: Five years, all of it. We've had about
1,600, 1,700 hours on the maintainer, so it's been a really --
they're good equipment. They're not worn-out.
i2-z~-o6
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
l9
~0
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Just barely broke in, huh?
MR. ODOM: Just about, as far as heavy equipment's
concerned.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWSN: Second.
THE CLERK: I have no motion.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll second that motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just --
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another question. On these, is
the -- have you looked at -- I mean, I know that the
maintainer is in good condition right now, but if you start
getting repairs -- repairs, as you know, are extremely
expensive on this type of equipment. What's the difference,
buying this versus turning it back in? Can you just turn it
back in or re-lease a new piece?
MR. ODOM: I could re-lease a new piece, but that
note, instead of $1,100, $1,200 a month, would end up
doubling. So if you put that together, that's -- that's
double the price, and all I need -- I -- what I intend to do
is adjust my maintenance budget a little bit each year as I go
along to take care of that, in case we do have, you know, some
1'_'-27-06
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
going to have that money to sit there. And I believe that I
in good shape for this next year. Then the chip spreader,
$232,000 is paid off in three years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right.
MR. ODOM: And I feel like I have -- we can handle
that. I will adjust that budget out over the next five years
to -- you know, to address anything that we might come up
major with.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess what I'm saying is,
continue to look at it -- I'm sure you will -- that, you know,
another 84 months, which this is, plus the five years, that's
putting 12 years on some of this equipment, and that stuff
starts becoming unreliable, and I don't want us to end up
where we were four or five years ago with a bunch of old John
Deere equipment that's not in good shape. So, I mean, I think
sometime during the term of this, it may be appropriate, once
you get some of the things paid off, to sell them -- surplus
these, sell these, or trade them in and get something new.
MR. ODOM: That is what -- if I get them paid off
early, that is -- is what I'm contemplating now, that I will
still have residual value that will be significant on each
piece of equipment, and then we'd pick up from there. I'd
offset that. Right now, they're real proud of the yellow
paint. And things axe really good. I think over a little bit
12-z~-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
36
of time, commercial will start coming down over the next two
years. I think we'll be in good shape.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good addition. I
just don't want to keep the stuff too long.
MR. ODOM: I don't want to keep it too long. That's
the reason we went to the program, but I'm going to keep my
residual value through just three or four years. We'll be in
good shape.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions? Comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Item 10,
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to remove two
cattle guards on Bear Creek Road, located in both Precincts 1
and 4.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. During the last year, there's
been three accident reports involving the cattle guards on
Bear Creek Road. Fortunately, the only damages have been to
vehicles and cattle guards, and no serious injuries to the
citizens. The purpose of the cattle guard is for open range.
The landowners surrounding the ones on Bear Creek all have
high fences. Therefore, they serve no purpose, and leaving
12-27-06
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
37
them in place on this highly traveled road increases the
County's liability. We feel that it's in the best interest of
the citizens of Kerr County to remove both cattle guards on
Bear Creek, so at this time, we ask permission to do so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you on the -- on
the issue of the livestock -- the livestock issue and the open
range issue, that there's literally no livestock roaming up
and down the road, so it's not a -- we're not -- the cattle
guards are not functioning in that way. In my opinion,
because of the increased traffic there, it -- we actually have
reached an emergency level. That road out there, you can go
down the road, and then all of a sudden, it -- when you get to
the cattle guard, it turns into basically one lane. So it's,
without a doubt, a safety issue, and I move for approval of
this item.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any further question or discussion? All
in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to
Item 11, consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
concept to revise Lots 5 and 6 of Shalako Estates, as set
iz-z~-oh
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
forth in Volume 5, Page 66, Plat Records, and located within
Precinct 4, and set a public hearing for the same. Mr. Odom.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Currently two lots in Shalako
totaling over 22 acres, with no improvements except for a
private 40-foot roadway easement used by Tract 7 that was
established years ago when Shalako was put together. The
owner wants to cut a 1-acre lot out of his 22 and keep the
rest. There is a water system available for the new lot.
Even though this does not meet the minimum lot size, it does
meet the average, and the lots adjacent to his in Shalako
Estates Phase 2 are all approximately 1 acre. Therefore, the
individual that -- the owner feels that this is an appropriate
division for the area, and asks that the Court approve the
concept as presented and set a public hearing date for
February the 12th at 10:05 a.m.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't understand why this
doesn't meet our minimum requirement. We have 1-acre minimum
lot size with a water system.
MR. ODOM: Well, 1 ar_re -- it's 3 acres with
O.S.S.F. There is not a sewer system in there for 1 acre.
And it's not in the ET J; it's not in the high density area.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1 acre for lots served by
community, public, or shared water systems and served by
O.S.S.F.
MR. ODOM: Read again?
iz-z~-o6
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1 acre for lots served by
community, public, or shared water systems and served by
O.S.S.F., if such O.S.S. F. can be installed in compliance with
current order for Kerr County.
MR. ODOM: And have the average of 3 acres.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, and the average is --
MR. ODOM: Yeah, that's my point. I mean, it
does -- to say this is just 1 acre, I just wanted to bring it
to the Court. I mean, it meets the average. You could have
the 1-acre lot. I mean, of course you could, as long as you
have the average of 3. And that's what I'm saying, that it
does meet the average of 3. It`s 22 acres, and it just can go
21 acres out there and an off-size lot for 1.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, yes. I mean, it meets
I the rules.
MR. ODOM: It meets the rules.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move that we set a public
hearing for the revision of Lots 5 and 6 of Shalako Estates,
Phase 1, Volume 5, Page 66, in Precinct 4 for February the
12th at 10:05 a.m.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to set the
public hearing as indicated. That's in '07. Any further
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
12-27 G6
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.) I
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 12; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
concept of revision of plat for Lot 96 of Kerrville South II,
as set forth in Volume 4, Page 64 of the Plat Records, and set
a public hearing for the same.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is in Precinct 1. Lot 96
is 6.46 acres. There's currently a house and one manufactured
home and two septic and a well. Manufactured home was
installed for a family member who has passed away. They want
to sell the manufactured home and approximately 1 acre, and
retain the 5.46 acres with the home and well. Even though
they currently share the well, there's a public water system
available for installation, and it's one lot. There's a water
system out there. There's adequate road frontage for both
lots, and this division meets the average of 3 acres.
Therefore, we recommend that you approve the concept to be
done under the alternate plat process and set a public hearing
for February 12th at 10:10.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is the same situation; it
meets the rules.
MR. ODOM: Meets the rules.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only thought is that I
iz z~-oh
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
asked you not to put anything in my precinct on this agenda,
but you did anyway.
MR. ODOM: I like you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know you like me, but I --
that still ticks me off, that you don't follow directions like
that.
MR. ODOM: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
I
as indicated and set a public hearing for February the 12th,
2007, at 10:10 a.m. Any question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only -- only comment is, it has
to go through Environmental Health, as all subdivisions do.
With the two septics on that -- depends how they're
configured, that there could be a problem with that.
MR. ODOM: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's up to Environmental
Health to look at that mobile home.
MR. ODOM: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
iz-z7-oe
42
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 13; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
a concept plan for a 14.22-acre tract on Johnson Creek, and
located in Precinct 4.
MR. ODOM: Right, sir. This 14.22 acres has an
existing house with well and septic. After purchasing the
property, they drilled a second well and added three septic
systems. They want to divide 14.22 acres -- and this will
include the road; that's all-inclusive of the road -- into
three lots, making an average of 9.74 acres. The note that
they have on the plat says that all the owners would mutually
own and share in common these two wells, which has been a
requirement, basically, to certify that someone couldn't cut
another person off. As presented today, this concept meets
the rules, and we ask you to accept the concept and go forward
with the preliminary.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How does it meet the rules?
MR. ODOM: With --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How does it meet the rules
~ if it's --
MR. ODOM: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How does it meet the rules,
Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure. I'm looking at
this plat, and I'm -- there's a lot of stuff on this plat.
iz-~~-oe
43
1
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: While you're looking --
MR. ODOM: What happened -- well, the realtor is
here. Tommy is here. Tommy, why don't you come up here?
Basical]y, they have had this 14 acres, and my understanding
is they went and put three or four septic systems in here
prior to. The question we had -- we had Miguel -- I don't
know if Tish is here or not. Miguel's not here. We asked
Tish to be here. In the meeting -- our concept meeting, we
discussed this was a problem to get septic through to make
sure this road met their specifications, as well as Headwaters
and their well system. And one of the things, this is a
shared well concept, which is still good until January the
8th, I believe is when we have the public hearing to -- to
revise it. So, it's basically a shared well. I would say
it's contingent on Headwaters approving the concept as well as
O.S.S. F. But Tommy's here to speak a little bit better.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you seen this
correspondence from Headwaters?
MR. ODOM: No, I haven't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Their board voted against this.
MR. ODOM: They did? Is Gene here?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, he's filed a participation
form. We're going to get to him in just a minute.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just for purposes of -- of me
1^-27-06
44
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
knowing where we are here, is -- is this the property that the
California group --
MR. ODOM: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we have a 14-acre tract and
we're trying to divide it into 8.36 and 2.15 and 2.4?
MR. TAYLOR: Correct. What it is, they're all
wanting to build them a house on it, and it's an investment
group. I know in the future they're going to want to sell, so
before they went and they started doing all this, I told them
they needed to try to plat it in order to -- because in the
future, they're going to -- I don't want it coming back on me
if they try to cut any of this up and sell it, and not meeting
the criteria at that time. So I told them before they moved
forward any more, they need to try to go ahead and get it
platted and make sure they meet all the requirements so they
could sell it at a future date.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, my only question is --
is to Headwaters and what they have -- what is their
opposition?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. If you gentlemen will defer
for just a moment, we'll get Mr. Williams up here. He's filed
a participation form. Come on up, sir.
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm Gene Williams, General Manager of
Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District. The letter was
lz-a~-o~
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
submitted to you as an action from the board of directors last
meeting, to urge you to deny this platting. And it seems that
maybe the plat that I've been supplied was divided into four
lots; may be different from what Mr. Odom has stated in his
letter. But, at any rate, the Headwaters Board would urge you
to deny any replatting of less than 5-acre tracts where
individual wells will be used.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the reason, this
5-acre issue? i
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; That's the issue?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're not -- their proposal is
not to use individual wells. Their proposal is to use what is
allowed under our current rules, is a shared well, which gets
them to a 3-acre average. I mean, I don't think we can -- you
know, I mean, under our current rules, I don't think we have
the ability to deny it, because they're meeting the rules.
And they're talking about there will be a condition put on the
lots that they cannot drill individual wells.
MR. WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As we've done in several other
ones recently. Now, it is possible that this rule's going to
be changed in January, based on the outcome of the public
hearing and what the Commissioners decide to do, but at the
is-a~-oa
46
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
moment, the rule allows this.
MR. WILLIAMS: All right. Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Unless I'm missing something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Was your board under the
impression that this division of plat would require four
i wells?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Was that the impression your
I board had?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. At some point in time, yes,
that's a possibility, since there's no regulation of --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not what was
represented here.
MR. WILLIAMS: -- since there's no regulation of
shared wells from -- from the state or From Headwaters.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We acknowledge the -- the issue,
and we're trying to correct that issue and eliminate that word
in the new -- what has been proposed is that you have to have
a licensed system under T.C.E.Q., but that's not the current
rules. I understand Headwaters' concern. I think there was a
loophole that we created in our last rules. But at this
point, that loophole exists, and we can't deny it because of a
loophole. Until we change the rules, and we're in the process
of doing that.
MR. WILLIAMS: We were also following the current
iz-z~-o6
47
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
water availability rule by the County that it does require
5 acres.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it doesn't.
MR. WILLIAMS: Does not?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not if you're having a shared
well. That's the problem. It's -- and shared wells aren't
regulated, like you mentioned. That's why we're in the
process of trying to change that. I mean --
MR. WILLIAMS: That's the opposition. We don't
acknowledge the shared well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The next step in the
process is to hold a public hearing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This one? No, this one's a --
this is a new one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Concept plan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, you know, I think it's a --
the only issue that I see is that this is -- what's the
word? -- being slipped in right before a public hearing, you
know. But that's -- 'cause the public hearing is set for
January 8th, which will change this rule and will make this so
you couldn't do this.
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, that's --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I move to approve the
12 27-06
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
concept plan for a 14.22-acre tract on Johnson Creek in
Precinct 4.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the concept plan as indicated by the agenda item. Any
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Question. Leonard, O.S.S. F.
people are not in here, obviously. Do you have any idea what
their status is?
MR. ODOM: At this point, they -- the question I
have, does it meet it? Is it too close? If it's within
5 feet of the road or any easement -- I don't know where the
lateral lines are, but you can see it; they're not marked. If
they're less than 5 feet, then it would be in violation. My
understanding is that these septic systems are already in, and
they are trying to make this road work past that. I do not
have an answer. Miguel was there at that meeting. We had --
they were going to change things up to try to make it work,
what they presented earlier, and this is the new concept that
-- that they came up with. To me, it looks like it works.
Unless -- everything would be contingent on Miguel -- or Tish
was supposed to be here to give me an opinion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When you use the word that
they are "in," does that mean that there is a tank in the
ground and there's sprinklers?
1^_ 27-06
49
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
MR. ODOM: Yes. Yes, sir. These things -- two
wells were put in, as well as the septic systems that are
designed on the 14 acres.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How do we -- how do we get to
that point before we even approve this thing? I'm a little
mystified by that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is only approval of
the concept.
MR. ODOM: We`re approving the concept. The
preliminary is going to come forward, and we'll find out for
sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: After they've already put the
systems in?
MR. ODOM: They're going to go back to -- if the
Court doesn't approve it, they're going to go back to
14 acres. But right now, as it's presented right here, it
looks good to me. I'm not an O.S.S. F. person, and I've asked
for an opinion; I haven't got it yet. Miguel's gone. So --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, they're going
to have to meet all our subdivision rules to get final
approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And that includes O.S.S.F.
MR. ODOM: For design.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
iz z;-o6
50
1
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: It's fine with me. This is unique; I
concern is -- it's one that we frown on historically, is that
when developers go -- or property owners go and do things
before they -- and then come back afterwards for approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, the cart before the
horse here.
MR. ODOM: The system is not the problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, you know, I don't know that
they can't -- the septic issue is not something that's really
addressed in our subdivision rules, so -- you know, even
though they're kind of doing it kind of backwards here. One
thing I would -- the way I look at this, this concept shows
three lots, and that's kind of what I think we're looking at.
But I think knowing that there is a rule change proposed --
whether it's going to go through or not in January, I don't
know. But if this was reconfigured to have larger -- get the
lots at least, you know, two at 5 and one just under 5, it
would probably go a long ways to improve the situation. And
the reason being that it gets very close to meeting -- if they
just need individual wells, they're getting closer to -- you
know, they have two lots that meet the individual well
requirements of Headwaters and our water availability rules,
and it would have one lot then as 4.22 acres, which is a lot,
12-27-Ob
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
And also, it
would give more flexibility, I think, to the property owners.
They would only have to have an individual well on one lot,
and then a shared well just between two people, as opposed to
MR. ODOM: I can present -- you have a point,
ar_ unwever. they meet the criteria here. And
see if we can come up --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're meeting the criteria,
but I think they're also a little bit in a limbo situation,
because technically, they're not going to have preliminary
plat approval until we look at our rule change, and it's -- I
think historically, we have looked at preliminary plat as the
date -- the rules you go by. So, if we do our rule change
prior to their coming with a preliminary plat, which we will
if we do the rule change, they're going to be in a little bit
of a tenuous situation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wanted to ask the realtor a
question -- actually, two. Where is this? Is this next to
the Cailloux property?
MR. TAYLOR: To which property?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Cailloux-owned property.
MR. TAYLOR: I don't -- I don't know that property.
12-27-06
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. TAYLOR: This would be located right there at
Henderson Branch where you turn to go down --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right there on the left?
MR. TAYLOR: Correct. It would be just past that on
I the left.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, next door to the
Cailloux's. Now, I'm just curious about this. Is -- you said
there was a company and their board of directors individually
are buying this?
MR. TAYLOR: Well, I don't know exactly how they're
structured. I know there's several partners that have
purchased the property. Jack Warnebo is the one that I deal i
with directly, and they've got a partnership set up in
California with a group of guys; they're all wanting to build
a home out here so when they come in, they're not staying in a
hotel or somewhere. They do have one residence here already,
but if more than one of them comes in at a time, they don't --
there's not enough room for all of them. They'd like to bring
guests down to show our -- our hill country to, try to get
them to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A real estate company?
MR. TAYLOR: No, they're not a real estate company,
so to speak. He's bought a few pieces of property.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Partnership?
i~-?~-oa
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
MR. TAYLOR: I don't know the legal terms, as far as
what they are. He's just an individual investor I've been
working with, but he has a group that is backing him out of
California.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. It has
nothing to do with the -- I was just curious about all that.
MR. TAYLOR: That's fine. And what they're doing,
they were already -- originally, when they started and they
I
were going to build these houses, they -- we tried to get a
survey to mark out the pieces of property for the bank to
have -- show where the loan -- where the house was going to be
built for the loan purposes. After talking to the surveyor,
he said, "Y'all really need to probably go ahead and plat all
this." Because being an investment group, different ones may
want to sell off at different times. Otherwise, you're going
to have to sell -- excuse me, sell off all at one time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are any homes under
construction now?
MR. TAYLOR: No, they've put everything to a stop
once we found out all that out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are there any septics in the
ground?
MR. TAYLOR: Yes, sir. There -- there's an old
septic at the existing residence.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the existing?
12-2~-Oo
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
MR. TAYLOR: There was a house on the property when
they bought it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TAYLOR: Down here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are there any new septics?
MR. TAYLOR: Correct, there are three new septics on
the property.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In anticipation of
positioning a home?
MR. TAYLOR: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on this subdivision of
land?
MR. TAYLOR: Correct. Well, they put -- they are
putting it all in. They had all picked out where they wanted
to put a house, and then when they went to the surveyor and
tried to get everything lined out so they could get the loans
to build the homes, that's when they found out that we ought
to go ahead and subdivide everything for legal purposes, so in
the future they could sell and not have to worry about it at
that time. So, once they -- once they hit that spot, they'd
already -- we had everything in, as far as what they wanted to
do with the surveyor. After we got those lines in, they went
back out, started putting the septics in, and after that is
when we were told that we need to move forward and probably
try to plat it.
12-27-D6
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not a bad idea.
MR. TAYLOR: From the surveyor. Well, I mean, it's
one of those things they didn't think about. They were just
looking at a group of people having a house, and didn't think
about if any of them wanted to get out before the other ones,
that they couldn't cut off a piece and sell it. They'd have
to sell the whole 14 acres with all four homes, and that would
be a difficult sell.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, the facts are that they
have two wells and three septic tanks, and they're going to
have that whether we approve the subdivision or not.
MR. ODOM: It's already there.
MR. TAYLOR: It's four.
MR. ODOM: Four septics?
MR. TAYLOR: Four septics.
MR. ODOM: And two wells.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My letter says three,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess my concern is that both
wells, as shown on this plat, are on the same tract. So, by
reconfiguring their lots, they can clearly get two wells and
two lots in total compliance, and one would be very close; it
would be .23 acres under the 5-acre minimum.
MR. TAYLOR: From how it was explained to me -- and
I could be interpreting it wrong, 'cause I'm not real good on
a lot of this. The existing well -- the oldest well down
iz-z~-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
56
there with the existing home falls back, because it's
grandfathered in where it doesn't have to be on the 5 acres
per their requirements, because it was drilled before those
rules and regulations came in. But the new well that they
drilled up towards the front of the property, up by Highway
27, needs to be on 5 acres. We originally had four lots with
this -- the 8-acre tract divided into a 5-acre tract and then
a 3 and a half-acre tract. But they went ahead and put
everything just in one lot to try to make it a larger -- and
then they figured it would be easier to sell the two -- I mean
the one lot with two homes rather than --
MR. ODOM: Yeah. And lot one was a father/son,
right?
MR. TAYLOR: Correct.
MR. ODOM: Father/son was on Lot 1.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess -- I mean, I understand
that part of it. I'm just saying that from a -- a long-term
standpoint, it would -- it's going to help a whole lot if you
get those wells on two different tracts, 'cause it's going to
be a real problem down the road. Because, you know, the
shared water systems, while they're currently allowed in our
rules, they're probably being taken out -- recommended to be
taken out, because they cause problems. This is an ideal
situation where I see a problem developing on it. So, if you
get the wells on -- you know, we don't want to -- at least I
iz-z~-oH
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
57
saying. I agree with that to -- a lot. The problem I see is,
if we're under -- we're trying to do everything under
everybody's rules and regulations, except for everything isn't
on the same page right now. They started this back in
September. It's just taken a long time to try to get it to
this point. Yes, they are trying to get everything in so they
can move forward. That's why we're here today. They're not
trying to be sneaky and, I mean, go around -- we're trying to
meet everybody's requirements, and what we have here is just
the best way that we could come up with it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think Commissioner Letz is
trying to give you a suggestion here.
MR. TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A helpful hint and a
suggestion that the rule is likely to change. And you'd come
nearer to being in compliance with a rule that is likely to
change if you were to heed his suggestion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- I'm trying to work
12-27-06
58
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with y'all. I just don't see how it causes a problem, the way
that I see it, if lots are configured to make two 5-acre lots
where the wells are, or maybe two 5-acre lots and put -- if
you can ideally put the grandfathered well on the -- the
smallest tract.
MR. TAYLOR: Yeah, I understand that. But with the
septics already being in the ground and the wells already in
place -- if they weren't there, it would be a lot easier to
move everything around, but I can't -- I mean, we've played
with this a long time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the owner's fault.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think what Commissioner Letz is
trying to indicate to you, even though a concept plan may be
approved today under current rules, the normal date at which
you're pegged for precedent is the date that you file your
preliminary plat, and by the time you do that, the rules may
be considerably different. So, what he's saying is --
MR. TAYLOR: Doesn't matter?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- even though we approve a concept
plan today, we need to tell you in all candor up front that
this whole thing may be totally out the window come 30 days.
MR. TAYLOR: I appreciate that. That's not how it
was explained through the whole point up to here. That's the
first that anyone has said of any of that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd say that approval here
12-2~ 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
59
of your final plat by this Court is probably in a great deal
of jeopardy. Sounds to me like it's not going to happen.
MR. TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I don't see -- and, I mean,
I'm trying to work with you.
MR. TAYLOR: I understand. And I'm put in -- I'm
put in a bad situation also.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, you are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you try to reconfigure lot
lines to get 5-acre tracts, we've been pretty lenient on how
people configure lots in this court to get to the 5 acres. I
know you do have some septic rules, but it sure would make
sense to me to try to get that existing grandfathered well on
the smaller acre -- on 4.27 acres, and the new well on a
5-acre tract, and leave the other 5-acre tract, and then
you're pretty much free to do what you want.
MR. ODOM: He could divide this into four lots,
right? 5-acre tract on Lot 1 up there, right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three lots.
MR. ODOM: No. Are you saying put this into three
lots?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in three lots now.
DODGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All I see is three lots.
MR. ODOM: I understand, but the father/son --
i~_~-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
60
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, there's four.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see three lots. Where are
four lots?
JUDGE TINLEY: There's three. One comes all the way
I down.
MR. ODOM: You've got a problem with the septic
systems and the well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, this one comes all the
~ way down.
MR. ODOM: You've got the father and the son. If
you divided that, you'd still have one, two, three, four lots;
one at 5, one at 3.36, 3 stays the same and 2 stays the same,
right? You would still have the average of 3 acres or more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're saying if we change our
rules, they're going to have to go to a 5-acre average. The
rule that's been proposed is going to make this be a 5-acre
average on January 8th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm even more confused
now, if that's possible.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've got two maps here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The one that -- the map that
was in support of the document sent over here by Headwaters
shows four lots.
MR. ODOM: That was the original that they came in
to us with, right. Then they came back with this; they
iz z~-o5
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
i _
changed it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. They got -- see this dividing
I line?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right there, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: And these have changed a little bit.
MR. TAYLOR: We moved the road a little bit to try
and get a little bit further away from the septics, and then
we put the cul-de-sac on, 'cause it was not there. We'd gone
in to Len, and he'd noted a bunch of changes that needed to be
on the plat that -- that he saw at that point. We went back
and made a bunch of those changes and resubmitted for concept.
JUDGE TINLEY: Looks to me like if you try and
accomplish the objective that Commissioner Letz is talking
about, the difficulty is going to be 2 and 3 with the two
residences on the -- looks like it's going to be the southeast
side of the road, and something's going to have to be done
there. That looks like your difficulty. Of course, you got
one septic system that there'll be access to.
MR. TAYLOR: I think I've got an idea. I mean, I
I don't know --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1 mean, it's not ideal.
MR. TAYLOR: That's what I was --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's ideal for putting lots on
two sides of the road, a private road, and I think we could --
you know, that would work if you could configure those lots
12-27-06
62
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
somewhere along those lines.
MR. TAYLOR: That's what I was looking at, was
something similar. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't have to be -- that's
just an idea, quickly just looking at trying to divide that
up.
MR. TAYLOR: We got a five, this is five, and then a
two.
MR. ODOM: A two.
MR. TAYLOR: I notice --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's something for you to go back
to your people with, though.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, just kind of a --
JUDGE TINLEY: The point is, you need to be on
notice that things are apt to change materially come the first
of next month. And your start date for legal purposes is
probably going to be after that, and I don't see how you're
going to be able to come back here before then. Do we have a
motion?
THE CLERK: I have a motion and second.
JUDGE TINLEY: To approve the concept plan?
THE CLERK: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Under existing rules?
THE CLERK: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or
12-^_7-G6
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
discussion on the pending motion? The pending motion is to
approve the concept plan under the current rules. All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Whoa. Question. Why would
we do that?
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If I made the motion, I
withdraw it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll withdraw my second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further by any member of the
Court on this particular item?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's been so long ago, I
can't remember who made the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's -- thank you, gentlemen. Let's
move to Item 14. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action on City of Kerrville's response to the Kerr County
Commissioners' proposed joint dispatch study committee. I put
this on the agenda. As you recall, we passed a resolution
several months ago to appoint a committee, suggesting the
appointment of the committee by both the City and the County
for purposes of taking a look at joint dispatch, and the City
considered that. The Council took action on it, and the
response is included within your materials. The -- the
response of the City recommended limiting the number on the
committee to seven, from the Sheriff's Department, Kerrville
12 27-06
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Police Department, Kerrville Dispatch, Kerr County Dispatch,
and 911 Director, Kerrville Fire Department, EMS, and the
The original -- original resolution which we
City Manager, the -- our County Auditor, and representatives
from one or more -- from either the Commissioners Court and
City Council -- actually, both. It appears that the City
Council took their action in response to a request by the
Kerrville Police Chief, Chief John Young, in reducing the
numbers on the committee. I -- I was curious, after reading
an article in the local newspaper, about his rationale, in
which he said, "I have no problem participating in the
committee. I have a problem with the makeup of the committee.
We don't need representatives from the City Manager's office,
the County Auditor, from the County Commissioners, or from the
City Council. Oftentimes when we have these entities on a
committee, we don't get anything done." Be curious to know
what his City Manager's thought was to that comment, but -- I
guess next time I see him, I'll ask him.
It occurs to me that -- that the parties that are
going to be paying the bill, that being this Court and the
City Council, I think, have a material stake in what that
committee does. With representatives from this Court and the
iz-z~-o6
65
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
Council, I think it's appropriate that they be there. The --
of course, our Auditor was on there for the basis -- or at
least, as proposed by us, because of the funding issues. The
City Manager because of -- he's overall responsible for
management over at the city. So, I tend to think that our
suggestion that those four folks -- or four types of
representatives are appropriate on the committee. I'm also
curious as to what committees that Chief Young has been on
that had representatives from the city and the county that
didn't get anything done because of those representatives
there. I'd be interested if he could tell us about that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Particularly in Kerr County.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, yes, it would have to be in
Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't know and don't care
what they do in Dallas.
JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't ask.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm just saying, if
that's what he's referring to, his previous stint in the city
of Dallas, I couldn't care less what they did up there, how
well they get a]ong.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't recall Chief Young being
on any committee the County's been a part of.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's my point. I don't know the
experience factor from which he's speaking here when he says
iz-z~-oF
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
that when we have these entities on a committee, we don't get
anythinq done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I mean, I think to -- the
letter came from the City of Kerrville. If they choose not to
have the City Council members and the City Manager on the
committee, fine, but we will have a Commissioner and the
Auditor on our -- representing us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's just the way I look at
it. I don't see any reason to change it. I think it goes to
a fundamental difference in how we govern between counties and
cities, is that Council views themselves -- and it is -- I
think it's a policy matter. They don't get involved in the
details. We do get involved, and we actually manage over
here. Therefore, you know, we need to be involved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have a representative
government, and I would expect our elected representatives
that -- that represent the county to be there and be part of
the decision-making body. And I really like the idea of the
Auditor being there. I think that that is very wise to track
numbers and be able to give advice on numbers and how we
function over here, et cetera. My only question is, are we
going to have one commissioner or two? That's the only
question I have.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When I drafted that
12-^_~-06
67
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
resolution and sent it over to 911, the Judge and I talked
about inclusion. The whole purpose was not -- not to bollox
it up and make it not workable. The whole purpose was to try
to have as many of the decision makers who influence the
funding and operations together as possible so that we didn't
leave anything materially out. Now --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, Commissioner Oehler-elect
is in the audience; he might be a fine person to...
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think he would too.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, you've been giving
these kinds of assignments to Number 4 for four years now.
Why not -- why stop now?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; Would you accept this
assignment, Number 4? (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then it goes with the chair.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, it goes with the chair,
JUDGE TINLEY: I think when Commissioner Williams
and I were talking about the resolution and makeup of the
committee, I think our -- our basic thinking was we wanted to
get the major stakeholders involved, because if they weren't
involved and if a plan or a proposal came back that there
wasn't at least that input on, that may have prevented the
work of the committee from being effective.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
12-2~-G6
68
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: And so that was our whole rationale
behind it. And that's -- at least seems to be exactly
contrary to what Chief Young believes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway...
JUDGE TINLEY: Or may have some experience about
I somewhere.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Also, Judge, did we act --
did we adopt this, or did we just draft it and send it over?
I don't recall that we've acted on this before. We drafted
it, sent it to 911, and sent it to -- talked to all the
various participants, sent it to the City for its review.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I think you're
correct that it was a draft, I think the reason being we
didn't want to unilaterally name the committee.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We wanted to get input from the
City. Well, they've given us input, and I think it's probably
more appropriate for us just to mention the County
representatives to the committee, that we do have ability to
do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Now, you know, if it makes
anybody feel any better, a member of the Council and a member
of this Court can -- can obviously function in ex-officio
capacity. If that makes anybody feel any better.
i COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: As an adviser?
12-2~-06
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
70
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, and watchdog and so
forth. Adviser. Instead of being an actual participant. The
bulk of all these decisions and discussions are going to take
place between the Sheriff and Chief of Police and the 911
going to find solutions to the things that are wrong with
dispatch, and dispatch is not working very well and needs to
be fixed. And this is an effort to make an attempt to find a
solution to what's wrong with dispatch, and what discourages
me is that you get the same kind of response from the City
that you've got. I don't have high hopes that things are
going to be different in the future. But you still have to
try.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
appropriate for us to formalize that resolution with specific
representatives on it and send it on over, to see what their
response is to the resolution as officially adopted by this
Court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, what's that -- what did you
iz-z~-o~
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
just say, Judge? We want -- we're adopting the resolution as
written?
JUDGE TINLEY: I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or as we recommended?
JUDGE TINLEY: Either that, or modified to -- with
-- as you indicate, if they want to eliminate the City Manager
and representatives of the City Council. But, here again,
like Commissioner Williams and I talked earlier, and as he
indicated just a moment ago, those are the folks that are
going to actually have to put plan into effect and pay the
bill, and I think -- I think they're essential to the whole
process. You know, I don't want to be presumptuous and
eliminate them from the process. If we're going to include
ourselves, I think, necessarily, it makes sense that they're
going to be included.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Judge? My input, I think you
have to have City or Commissioners and Auditor, because there
is a -- a pretty large expense on this. Now, did the City
actually -- City Council actually say that they did not want
to see that? Or just was that the Chief's comments in the
paper?
i JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have a letter.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a letter from the City
indicating the Council suggested that the makeup of the
iz-z.-o6
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Because of the -- the salaries
and benefit differences, building expenses, all that that
could very well come out of it, the committee's not going to
do much good without some representation on financial impact
that it's going to have. Otherwise, myself and the Chief,
Fire Chief can all sit around and talk about it all day long,
but without getting down to the dollars and cents and people
being on that committee that can have an input into how it
would be financed, I don't see it ever going anywhere anyhow.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was the whole purpose
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree.
also.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can show real quick where,
listened to some of our 911 tapes in the past, where victims
wouldn't have to duplicate what they're telling the dispatcher
and things like that. I can show that part. But the expense
part, you know, is something that we need somebody that knows
~ exactly what all the benefits are, and salaries and building
is-z~ 06
72
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
costs and things like that, to be able to get into it. I
think you need that. And I would also agree that I think
Commissioner Oehler would be a very good rep on this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, looking back at their
letter versus our resolution, the two -- up here on 7, the
City's letter recommends that we add the Kerrville Police
Department Dispatch representative, or -- and the Sheriff's
Department Dispatch head, so there were two different people
that they're adding those two, and they're basically deleting
two. So, they're really not decreasing the size of the
committee; they're just changing the committee. You know, and
I think we do definitely need to have the Auditor and a
Commissioner on there. If they don't want to have a City
Councilman on there, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me propose maybe a
little modification to the language and see where this takes
us. As opposed to identifying City Manager, County Auditor,
representative of Kerr County Commissioners Court, City
Council, maybe we can simplify it a little bit by -- by saying
a representative of City staff. That would then be at the
decision of the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Manager.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- City Manager. County
Auditor, staff, and ex-officio members of Kerr County
Commissioners Court and Kerrville City Council.
12-27-06
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no problem, but you need
to add, to get in line with what they're doing, the
representative from K.P.D. Dispatch and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah. I wasn't planning
to take those out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we don't have those in.
I'm saying we don't have -- we didn't include K.P.D. Dispatch
and Kerr County Dispatch. We said Sheriff and Police Chief,
thinking that that would include those two, but they didn't
look at it that way.
COMMISSIONER EALDWIN: I still think -- wouldn't
you, being the representative on the committee -- you would
represent that Dispatch person, would you not?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We11, I think -- I think the
Chief and I need to be on the committee. But I can understand
where the City's coming from with the representative like
their Dispatch Coordinator and my Dispatch Coordinator,
because of the technology differences and things like that,
that would have to be able to work together, that those people
would have more of a knowledge of --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I agree with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Dispatch representative -- City of
Kerrville Dispatch representative and Kerr County Dispatch
representative, okay.
iz-~ 00
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
]8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill, I don't know if I agree
with you that -- that the elected official would be just in an
advisory role.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it's something for us
to talk about, you know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'm talking about it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know you're talking. I'm
talking about the rest of us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, 7 just --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Buster? On the two Dispatch
people, they could be brought in just as advisers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'll talk later. Go ahead.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The two Dispatch people could
be brought in as advisers over technology differences.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the only way I can see
I it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Instead of them being actually
a part of the committee.
JUDGE TINLEY: Be a resource to that committee.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that certainly, you know, would
seem to be appropriate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And, see, I see the
Commissioner being more than that, being a part of and in
every discussion and every decision, being a part of that.
iz-z~-o~
~5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
More than being just an adviser.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think the difference is --
it goes back to what I said, is that we are much more involved
in day-to-day operations, and there's absolutely no point for
this committee to go in a direction that this Court obviously
isn't going to support.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, and I think that City
staff is much more inclined to -- I mean, they're going to do
a lot of what we do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And if they choose to do it
that way, that's fine. We just know that we want to do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the resolution as drafted,
the inclusion of the people that it has, is appropriate, with
one possible modification; that we allow the City Manager to
designate his representative. So, it would just be City
Manager or his designated representative. But other than
that, I think it includes who needs to be there on the
committee. Now, resources, you can gather all of those that
you want.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, at any time. You
don't -- they don't have to be named here. Like, the County
Attorney is an example.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What we're doing on the
12 27-D6
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
other --
JUDGE TINLEY: Exactly. On our economic development
strategy committee, we probably got as many resources to the
committee as we do committee members. But those, we can bring
in and out as we need them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we adopt
the draft resolution with the modification that after the word
"City Manager" in the second Resolved, we add "or designee."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a 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: That motion does carry. I will
forward it to the Manager and Council. Let's take about a
15-minute recess.
(Recess taken from 10:34 a.m. to 10:57 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we
might. We were in recess. We'll consider Item 15; consider,
discuss, and set a public hearing on a petition to amend or
abandon an easement along the south side of Lake Ingram in
Precinct 4 as described in Volume 2, Page 992 of the Land
iz-~~-oe
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
77
Records of Kerr County. Commissioner Nicholson?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to make a motion
that we set a public hearing on a petition to amend or abandon
an easement along the south side of Lake Ingram in Precinct 4,
described in part in Volume 2, Page 442 of the Land Records in
Kerr County. And can we set that hearing for January 22nd at
10:30 a.m.? Am I right that January 22nd is our second
meeting in --
THE CLERK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And I've got more comments
to make.
JODGE TINLEY: Okay, we have a motion to set a
public hearing. Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, I'm hesitant
about this issue, because I don't know everything I probably
need to know. I need to know things like -- and that's a
beautiful picture. Have y'all seen this? We just got it, and
I hadn't seen that before. But the tract of land actually in
here, I hadn't been able to take a look at it. I want to
know, who all does this affect? How many people it affects,
how does it affect them, et cetera, et cetera, before I --
before I am willing to go anywhere with it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, let's talk about it
some more.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
iz-z~-o6
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
7a
JUDGE TINLEY: Wait a minute. The motion we have is
to set a public hearing, and that's the only thing that's
included in the motion is to set a public hearing on this
matter, as set forth in the agenda item for January 22nd,
2007, for 10:30 a.m.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I'll second so we can --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The motion so we can discuss it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What we have here is that
some 50 years ago, Kerr County gained an easement along the
south side of Lake Ingram, a 20-foot easement from the dam to
somewhere in the area of the Hawkins property, which would be
also known as Camp Sierra Vista, and what's the other one?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rio.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Rio Vista. I'm not -- I'm
not too sure how far upstream it runs. The easement was for
County maintenance of Lake Ingram, and it included language
that says an additional easement for public ingress and egress
for all lawful purposes. Now, what's at issue here is whether
or not the easement grants the public unlimited access to this
20-foot easement for all lawful purposes, or whether it's
intended to be simply a maintenance easement. The County
Attorney, of course, will speak for himself, but I think it's
his opinion that the language of the easement does give the
i__~-06
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
<23
24
25
public right of access and egress to that 20-foot easement.
It -- it's further complicated by the fact that it
acknowledges that the landowners along that stretch have the
-- have the right to construct a fence across that easement,
that boundary -- that side of the lake up to the public.
There -- I don't -- I've got an envelope full of
petitions, Commissioner, signed by some of the landowners
there, and I don't know exactly how many pieces of property
they own. This property is pretty valuable property. It's
been subdivided a number of times, as you would expect, over
the last 50 years. But the essence of the issue here is that
we have some residents who would like for us to find that the
public does not have access to this 20-foot easement. we have
others who would like for us to find that it -- it's more or
less a county park; that there's unlimited access for any
lawful purposes. It's pretty complex. I can't tell you that
I have an opinion or a solution to it. I told Commissioner
Eggar that this was going to take the wisdom of Solomon. I
think that's pretty close to right. I think it's an issue
that does deserve a public hearing without prejudicing the
decision that might be made by this Court on the issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner, does -- and I may
be way off base, but doesn't the State already grant access?
iz-z~ oF-
80
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
I mean, we can't take anything to allow people access to the
river, on the shores? I mean, people could walk along there
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Again, I'm going to have to
ultimately defer to the experts, but I've studied that issue
and there's some -- generally -- generally, along a river, the
public has very limited access, and only from the river. I
happen to ]ive on the river, so I have a little bit of
interest in this and have studied it some. For example, if
you're canoeing on the North Fork in the vicinity of my back
yard, you have a right of portage. You can get off of the
river only for the limited purpose of moving your boat on down
the river. Doesn't give you a right, in my opinion, to stop
and camp there or picnic there, or -- so this is different
than that. If -- if this easement intended to grant the
public ingress and access -- ingress and egress for all lawful
purposes, then that's above and beyond what the state law
allows.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I can tell you that over
property owners along that stretch of the river about what
they call trespassers, or rowdy trespassers. I think the
Sheriff's probably heard more about it than I have. They're
down there on that part of the river and engaging in
iz-z~-oe
81
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
undesirable conduct and other disruptive behavior.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says Contour Number 1690. I
presume that's elevation 1690?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the elevation of that
lake when it's full?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 1690 is approximately the
water's edge, normal level.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Normal level. So this is 20
foot above normal.
JUDGE TINLEY: It appears to me that that instrument i
actually grants two easements, the 20-foot easement south of
1690, then it states, "together with an additional easement i
for public ingress and egress for all lawful purposes on,
over, and across our said land," that being the property. So,
it appears to me that it not only grants an easement to that
20 foot that's immediately south of contour 1690, but also
access to that particular easement property off what was the
Morehead property as of August 1955. So, I think we may have
more issues here than what we originally thought we had,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, where are you reading
that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Right in the middle of the -- of the
instrument itself,
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Now, that -- Judge, of
iz-z~ o~
82
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
course, it does need further study, but that could be peculiar
to this particular piece of property. That language may not
be peculiar to ail pieces of property. I would be very
surprised that Kerr County sought an easement that allowed
ingress/egress over all of those properties that went down the
river, but that could be true.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there is a grant from the
then-owner -- presumably the then-owner of the property.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That single property.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Morehead.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Whatever -- whatever Ms. Morehead
owned at that time, in August of 1955.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And this --
JUDGE TINLEY: To have access to that 20-foot --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- easement adjacent to the river, in
a public road across her property, and -- and that one is not
defined.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is an example of the
easements. Presumably, you'd have to look at a number of --
more of these, but I don't think Mrs. Morehead owned all of
the property from the dam to the Hawkins property. But she
may have; I don't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know. I don't know what --
i2-z~-oh
83
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
what the state of the title was back in August of 1955. But
it talks about easement for public ingress and egress, and I
think that's telling, in and of itself.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Actually, I don't -- I mean, I
guess I don't mind having a public hearing on it. I don't --
I'm not sure i want -- if you want to hear the opinions of
everybody, fine, but from there, I don't really know where we
go, and I don't think I have near enough information. Public
land. The County Attorney's office, I suspect, will need some
advice on it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, he's going to have some fun
on this particular agenda item. I think my question at this
time is, since the only thing before the Court at this point
in time is the setting of a public hearing, is it appropriate
for us to receive public comment at this time, or wait until
the public hearing? I certainly don't want to jeopardize
these people's right to be heard, but that's generally what
the purpose of the public hearing is for, is for the public to
make their thoughts known on it. I -- I apologize if any of
you came here today with -- with the thought in mind that
there was going to be formal action taken today, 'cause
obviously there's not. Before we can proceed forward and take
any formal action on that easement, we must have a public
hearing under the law, and that would seem to me to be the
1~-27-06
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
appropriate time. But if the Court wants to --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- give these people an opportunity,
I'm certainly not -- not objecting to it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Their purpose may be to
influence the Court to hold or not hold a public hearing, so
it might be useful to hear what they have to say.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it would be.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I mean, I want to start my
decision-making process, and can't do that without input.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Mr. Carl Mertz?
MR. MERTZ: My name is Carl Mertz. I live at 1050
Freedom Trail in Kerrville, 78028. I have known Mr. Cobb
since 1983, and I personally know that they have used this
easement for four generations. They don't have loud, rowdy
parties. It's a family-oriented activity. We fish, swim,
and/or just sit around and talk and enjoy the -- the shade of
the cypress trees and enjoy each other. There's no
drunkenness or disorderly conduct that I have observed ever.
It's definitely a family-oriented activity. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Bob Davis?
MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir. Bob Davis. I live at 386
Cade Loop, just -- the property that was granted this
12-2~-06
85
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
easement. And I bought the property with the understanding
that I would have access to the river, and I believe that's a
significant part of the value of my property there. It's --
first, having a public hearing, I'm afraid that what that's
going to do is open up to the public an awareness that there's
this easement that they can use to get to the river, and we're
going to suddenly see an enormous amount of traffic increase
on -- on Cade Loop. I would prefer that the petitioner,
Mr. Isom, make some negotiated private agreement with those of
us who purchased property along this instrument, rather than
exposing it to the public. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, you know, if it says
"easement for public ingress and egress" -- if it's public,
it's public.
MR. DAMS: Yes, sir. And to-date, it's really kind
of private, because nobody really knows about it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. DAMS: Except the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: However, it's still public.
MR. DAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hey, we found a place to go
picnic. We can have a county picnic down there.
MR. DAMS: Yeah. We'll look forward to seeing you
there, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. (Laughter.)
iz-z~-ob
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: I guess your message to Mr. Isom is,
if he wanted this to remain a private thing, he may be going
the wrong direction by opening it up?
MR. DAM S: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretty smart.
JUDGE TINLEY: Jerome C. Cobb?
MR. COBB: Hi. My name is Jerome C. Cobb. I live
at 389 Cade Loop Road. I'm a nurse at La Hacienda. This is
probably going to be one of the few times that a citizen comes
in and asks to you do nothing and spend no money. (Laughter.)
So, what I'm asking you to do is do nothing and spend no
money. You've got some paperwork in front of you there. The
best part of that paperwork is the picture on the back, okay?
Which talks about the Morehead property. Well, that's
Ms. Morehead, okay? Ms. Morehead is standing on the riverbank
with my dad, my mom, some real good friends, and they're out
enjoying the public waterfront that we're talking about. My
family has used that public easement for generations, like
Carl said. And the -- the effect of abandoning that public
easement would be to make it probable that I cannot use it, or
my family could not use it in the future. There is an
easement granted to all residents for Rio Vista Addition. It
goes from the county road all the way down to the waterfront.
From that easement down the east side of the Rio Vista
Addition, you can get to the public easement that runs 20 feet
is-z~-oE
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
along the waterfront for about 275 feet across Mr. Isom's
property, and any person that owns property in the Rio Vista
Addition has the right to use that. Additionally, there's
property to the south of the Rio Vista Addition that has the
right to use the easement that gets down to that public
waterfront. The effect of extinguishing that easement would
be to prevent anyone that owns that property from using that
waterfront. Now, historically, Roberta Morehead was a
spinster, a very devout Catholic lady. She was a very
generous person. She and my mom and dad became good friends,
and she gave my folks about an acre of land. She gave my
folks the right of ingress and egress to the Guadalupe River.
It wasn't a specific point; it was a broad, general access
when she gave that. That ingress and egress qot to the public
easement for 20 feet along the waterfront. We have used that
20 feet along the waterfront, and I personally have maintained
it for -- since '89. Before that, my father maintained it.
It was owned by other people. They were absentee because of
family problems, and with their permission, we crossed it, we
used it. And about a year ago, Mr. Isom moved in from San
Angelo. He sought to restrict our access to it. we went to
court and we got a settlement about access to it. And
abandoning that easement would kind of impair our settlement,
and I would prefer that you do nothing and spend no money.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me ask you a question,
iz-z~-oF
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
if I might, Mr. Cobb, just for clarity. You're, I think,
correctly seeing that what's at issue here is two different
kinds of easements. One is an easement that allows you to get
down to the waterfront.
MR. COBB: That's really not a question here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So you're speaking about
the 20 foot along the waterfront easement, and you're
encouraging this Court not to tinker with that?
MR. COBB: In 1955, the citizens of Kerr County
entered into an agreement with the landowners along the river,
okay? And, essentially, the agreement was if you'll give us
an easement, we'll build you a lake. All right. And the
citizens of Kerr County paid for the lake, and the landowners
along it got the benefit of having a lake, and in return for
that, they gave an easement. All right. The request here is
now to kind of breech that agreement and abandon that
easement, that, you know, Kerr County had -- the citizens of
Kerr County had paid for, and I ask you not to do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Cobb, do you -- is it
your opinion that that 20-foot easement goes around the
entirety of the Ingram Lake?
MR. COBB: Sir, I don't know. That's the literal
truth. I can only speak to the easement that Roberta gave,
and I know that she let people use it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it does.
12-2~-G6
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
MR. COBB: I don't know. I know that the 1690
contour is shown on a plat, and it goes up almost to the --
the slab at Rio Vista, but it doesn't get there. And the 1690
is the top of the dam. That's the level of the top of the
dam. And I've seen survey markers that show the 1690 curve
beinq right at lake level now. There was an easement granted
from the river south to the 1690 contour. This was before the
lake was made. That easement gave the County the right to
flood that land to the 1690 contour. Then an additional
easement of 20 feet along the 1690 contour, which is the lake
-- you know, the water line, runs along the lake.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you, sir.
MR. COBB: Can I answer any more questions?
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Cobb. We appreciate
you being here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there any more? I'll
withdraw my second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just a moment. We have some other
participants here. You wish to be heard, sir?
MR. ISOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Please come forward, give us your
name and address.
MR. ISOM: I'm Gary Isom, and I'm the owner of that
property that we were discussing today.
1.2-^7-Q6
90
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: Okay. All right, sir.
MR. ISOM: And that easement 9s specified from just
it's about 3 feet up from the water's edge. This would
give -- if we don't do something about this, I mean, this was
going to give -- I could put a caterpillar in there today on
my property and walk it down through this 20 feet and push out
piers on everybody else's property, the way this is stated in
this. If we can't come to something here, please let us know
our rights down here. I mean, I don't know if -- I mean
people pull on my land with boats and they get out, they put
their coolers, they put their radios. And I can't even go
down there, and they're in my back yard; I can't even tell
them to turn it down or pick up their beer cans or whatever
they're doing. And I see this being a problem in the long
run.
And, like I say, it's going to be a big issue; it's
not going to be something we can just -- you know, just going
to say yes or no to. These people, the Cobbs, I have
personally told them they can come and go on our property
before it got -- like I said, the easements go right through
the Be11's place and on down to -- all the way down to the
dam, and I've researched that over here at the courthouse.
iz-z~-oF
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
29
25
Has anybody got any questions? But I just wanted to say what
the actual deal is here. There's not -- it's not being heard.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got a question for you.
Let's gets back to this bulldozer thing.
MR. ISOM: Yeah,
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What -- now, what can you do?
MR. ISOM: If I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can push people's boat
docks away?
MR. ISOM: If I unloaded a bulldozer on my property
today, there's a 20-foot easement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
MR. ISOM: All the way to that lake dam. And with j
this, I can go ingress and egress; I guess I could just take a
bulldozer and clear my 20-foot all the way to the dam.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't recommend that.
MR. ISOM: Well, I know that, but the way this is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see what you're saying.
MR. ISOM: And Commissioner Nicholson has said the
same thing. No, we don't recommend that, but someone could
actually do it with this easement. But -- but, please, like I
ask, please give us our -- tell us what our rights are down
there. If we can't settle this thing, you know, with a yes or
a no, I mean, could you give us some -- a liability release if
someone gets hurt, cuts theirself, or what -- do we need
i?-~~-o~
92
1
L
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L L
23
29
25
restrooms down there? I mean, things that we need to do in
this, you know, aren't just as simple as we -- yes or no.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You seem to know that -- that
this easement runs from Rio Vista bridge all the way to Ingram
Dam.
MR. ISOM: It goes from my property -- I've
researched it -- all the way to the dam.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All the way to the dam, but
you don't know if it's on the highway side or --
MR. ISOM: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You don't know?
MR. ISOM: No, sir. Commissioner Nicholson and I
just worked on that side.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I can't -- I can't
imagine us abandoning something unless we abandon the whole
thing. I mean --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I think that
the -- what I said previously a few moments ago, I withdraw my
second. And it's not really to say I'm not going to look at
this at all, but I do think that it's -- it's probably not the
appropriate time to do a public hearing on it. I think it
does draw a lot of attention to it, which is probably not a
good thing for any of the residents there. I probably would
like to let the County Attorney look at it a Little bit and
get some input from him. Then we can look at it at our next
1"L-2. 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
meeting or the one after that. I understand your frustrations
MR. ISOM: I've talked to the County Attorney about
d we've discussed it a little bit. That's why we're
here. But, I mean, you know, we just want to know what we can
and can't do down there. I mean, can I put a patio down
there? Without -- I mean, and it be just a place for
everybody that stops their boats to come party. I mean,
there's -- what can we do with our property? We pay eight or
~ ten times the money that Kerr County land is bringing to live
on this river, and I know Mr. Nicholson's familiar with that.
And ~f it doesn't -- I mean, if we can't do anything with it,
maybe we can get our taxes adjusted. I don't know. I mean,
is there -- the issue can go on and on on this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are there -- and I'm not -- it's
not my part of the county; I'm not real familiar with it,
other than driving by on the road. I'm not familiar with your
side of the river, the lake. Are there multiple -- how many
property owners are on that side?
MR. ISOM: There's approximately -- I'm going to say
there's probably -- I have got about eight of them on that
side.
i~-z~-oe
99
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: About eight on the south side?
Do they have piers and other things --
MR. ISOM: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- on there?
MR. ISOM: Yeah, most of them do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they're pretty much -- and
they -- because they own the property, they can do what they
want, so you can certainly build a pier if you want on the
property. You can put a fence up, from what it says.
MR. ISOM: Well, we've got that agreement with Mr.
Cobb. I didn't --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand that.
MR. ISOM: I didn't want to go, you know, that way.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right. But, I mean, you
could put a fence and gate -- anyway, there's things that you
-- you obviously do control the property.
MR. ISOM: Mr. Cobb and Rio Vista has a 28-foot
strip -- 27.9 feet down my property to the river, and it's
been given to them from that deed. 1 went ahead and gave them
a turnaround where they can actually turn a car around, and
give them a 12-foot further easement to back a boat in. I
mean, it's not -- he's got access to the river.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. ISOM: I mean, I don't know what else they want.
But -- and if this deed states something that's not -- you
1?-27-06
95
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
know, that we need to know about, it should be in there.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner --
MR. ISOM: Unless you have a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's some pretty
elaborate improvements on that 20 foot. Recently, a patio was
built, by a home owner that cost tens of thousands of dollars,
and I guess that homeowner did that with foreknowledge that me
and Commissioner Baldwin can go out there and hold a barbecue
on that patio.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would -- not being an
attorney, I look at Rex -- I wouldn't think you can. I think
you own that patio, and people own the right to get on that
land, but that patio -- you own it. But I don't -- you
know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Get that
property, then. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't own
doesn't own the property; the County owns
easement for the public to use it. Not to
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the
us.
patio off our
-- but the County
-- there's an
use the --
patio's impeding
MR. ISOM: You can leave your boat there. Is the
public allowed to use your boat? Same thing. Anyway... In
iz z~-oe
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that case -- can I say one more thing? In that case, could we
just cement the whole thing and then be private?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know.
MR. ISOM: I mean, that's not -- that's just...
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, you obviously
have had visits with the County Attorney about this issue.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And, again, I think the
County Attorney's opinion is that specific language does give
access to the public. Whether or not that was the intent at
the time is in some doubt, but based on what some of the
people who've been out here forever are saying, that likely
was the intent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner -- Commissioner
~ Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does your question, which I
think is a very interesting question, does it go back to the
time when Kerr County did some work out on Lake Ingram?
Which, if my memory serves me correctly, was on the north side
of the lake; we did some maintenance out there.
Commissioner-elect Oehler probably remembers that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He probably knows more than
he's leading us on to know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When we drained the lake --
iz-z~ oe
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and I don't remember how long ago -- 15 years ago, and we
drained it for maintenance purposes, we did get down in
that -- in that dry lake and do a lot of maintenance, took a
whole lot of materials out, and I think Mr. Odom told me we
did it from the north side, the highway side. It doesn't mean
we might in the future not have a need to do it from the south
side. I don't know. But I think that's our interest, I
think, in the easement, is in case we need it for maintenance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I would think, but it --
times have changed greatly. But, you know, from what it says
in the document, and some of the local residents say it's
probably the intent of Ms. Morehead to give the public the
right to use the land, because it was a County-built lake.
But, you know, Ms. Morehead probably never envisioned the
population we have now, either. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Interesting questions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: You withdraw your second?
THE CLERK: I have a motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: You still have a motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll withdraw my motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion is withdrawn. Any further
action by any member of the Court on this issue?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The fact --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not at this time.
i2-zv-os
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The fact that we're not
going to have a public hearing on the matter somehow doesn't
tell me that you've heard the last of this.
JUDGE TINLEY: And I suppose you're not going to
stick around to hear it, either. (Laughter.}
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: See this? It's addressed
to Dave Nicholson; it's crossed through and it says
Commissioner Oehler. I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Makes sense.
JUDGE TINLEY: Now, let's move to Item 17, if we
~ might.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just let me make one more
I comment.
JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER BALDV3IN: I think this is an
interesting deal, and I think there is more to it. I remember
Commissioner Griffin bringing a similar issue with -- in that
same area to this Court, and I remember him saying that that
easement is all the way around the entire -- including that
area down by the dam and the store, those boat docks and all
that is really public property all the way -- all the way
around that lake.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: As an easement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Easement. I'm sorry, an
easement. And I just -- I find -- I'm interested in that, and
iz z~-oh
99
1
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 think we ought to get to the bottom of it, because it's
become a private property issue.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, very much so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we need to get to the
bottom of it and make some decisions.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Anytime you deal with
private property issues, you're dealing with very emotional
situations.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. So, I agree, I
don't think it's over either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does the County Attorney have
any comment?
MR. EMERSON: Well, really a request. If anybody
has any documents, please forward them to me. And, further,
my limited comment, based on the information I have, is that
each of those properties were purchased with that easement in
their deed records, so theoretically, the property owners
should have had full knowledge of the easements that were
there, and it's really going to be a policy issue for y'all.
So, T'l1 do the research, but Merry Christmas; it's going to
be your decision.
JUDGE TINLEY: Somehow I knew the answer. Anything
else? Let's move --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank all of you for your
input and comments.
1^_-27-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 17; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to approve the
appointment of deputies of the Tax Assessor/Collector's
office. Ms. Bolin?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You skipped 16.
JUDGE TINLEY: I know I did.
MS. BOLIN: In light of the fact that I was on the
November ballot, I have to go through this swearing in again
on January lst. And this is a list of my current employees
and their current salaries.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's as per the position schedule
that the Court adopted?
MS. BOLIN: The last one that I received, yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. 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: We'll move to Item 18; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate actions to approve the bonds as
required by Tax Code Section 6.28(a) and Texas Local
iz z~-oF
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
101
Government Code Section 88.01 for the Tax Assessor/Collector
and deputies.
MS. BOLIN: This is -- I did not know that
Ms. Pieper was going to put this on the agenda, so mine goes
under hers. She's got all the bonds listed in Item 19.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, this --
JUDGE TINLEY: The reason I called that one was
because of the deputies.
MS. BOLIN: Okay. The second bond that I gave you
is -- it's the real thick one; it's the one that -- the one
Commissioner Letz has. Yes, sir, that's the one for my
employees, and it is required and it's statutorily set out, my
amounts.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to approve both?
MS. BOLIN: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I think we do, because you got
the deputies covered under 18 and the official -- public
official's bonds are covered under 16 and 19, so I think we
need to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I make a motion to approve the
agenda item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? All in favor
iz-2~-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
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 me call
16 and 19 together. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to approve official bonds of elected officials; and
then 19, consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
approve the official public bonds for Pat Tinley, County
Judge; Spencer W. Brown, County Court at Law Judge; Linda
Uecker, District Clerk; Jannett Pieper, County Clerk; Barbara
Nemec, County Treasurer; William H. Williams, Commissioner
Precinct 2; Diane Bolin, County Tax Assessor/Collector; Bruce
Oehler, Commissioner Precinct 4; Vance Elliott, Justice of the
Peace Precinct l; Dawn Wright, Justice of the Peace Precinct
2; Kathy Mitchell, Justice of the Peace Precinct 3; William
Ragsdale, Justice of the Peace Precinct 4; Lee C. Voelkel,
County Surveyor.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have all these bonds in
place?
JUDGE TINLEY: This one just came in.
iz-z~ 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
103
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have them all?
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on
the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Was there a second?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I seconded.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Any member of the
Court have anything to discuss in executive or closed session?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We've been getting some
letters back and forth on the insurance issue. Do we need to
talk about that? Nevermind.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else that we may have
for executive or closed session? If not, let's move on down
to the approval agenda. Do we have the Auditor with us?
Somebody go scout up the Auditor. Thank you, Ms. Hyde.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Looking through the bills,
it's obviously that time of the month for Windstream to -- and
iz z~-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
104
that made me -- made me wonder where the -- where Rusty's
phone system and everything is.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The -- remember, last -- the
Commissioners Court approved it with some wordage, and then
they gave the County Judge authority to sign it once that
was -- so I gave it back to Curtis. It had to be sent up to
Dallas or wherever their corporate... We got it back a week
and a half ago, something like that, same day as the jail
inspection. Got it back, the County Judge signed it. Rex
also approved that the changes were done correctly, and now
I'm waiting on the equipment to come in. Contract's been
signed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, just any day now we're
going to get --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Once we're through the
holidays, we'll be up and going.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Super.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Then I'll have to add a few
additional lines themselves to that equipment, but it'll be
all right. We'll move it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anyone have any questions on
any of the bills? We have a motion?
THE CLERK: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I had -- had one this
iz-z~-o6
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
105
morning. I went -- on Page 25, under Whelan Plumbing, jail
repairs -- water heater repairs, $1,400. And I think you can
buy some brand-new for that kind of money instead of repairing
them, but -- so I went and talked to Tim, and he told me that
there was this big elaborate hole that had to be knocked in
the wall and lots of copper stuff replaced and all that, and
that made me start thinking. Is our jail falling apart,
Rusty? Or where are we? Are we going to need to start
thinking about replacing air-conditioners and -- and water
heaters and --
MR. TOMLINSON: This was an insurance issue.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This issue you're talking
about, we -- we don't have water heaters. we have boilers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it just triggered my
thinking. I've got this one cleared up in my mind.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that one, the State came in
and changed their requirements. Last year it got approved,
and it has to be inspected before every jail inspection. Got
approved fine last year; this year they claim there had to be
some new types of valves that had to be installed, because the
state requirements changed over the year, so that's what a lot
of that was. Back to your question, though, your main
question about -- no, the jail is not falling apart. The
problem we have is that jail is now -- '95 -- about 12 years
old. We're going on the 12th year, okay? We have over 20 --
iz z~-oe
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. EMERSON: The problem you have is, you're
outside of the agenda item with no agenda item.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, you're talking about --
MR. EMERSON: You're not talking about bills, about
paying for the facility. You're talking about a water heater.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thanks, Sheriff. Appreciate
it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Get ready.
MR. TOMLINSON: Sit down.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. See, that answered it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Get ready.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That answered it, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, Commissioner Baldwin,
just for your information, this is a -- I've asked Tim, in my
other conversations with him, and I think I asked Alyce too,
we want long-range what they're looking at in their
department. We asked them here in court a couple times, and
this is one of the reasons, because I know that there are
issues at the jail.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Be careful what you say; you
may get outside of the agenda item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rex will slam you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm just talking -- I'm on the
Commissioners' Comment section right now.
iz z~-o~,
107
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 BALDWIN: Oh, I see.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're already on Item 5?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Buster asked me under the
public comment section.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, y'all are in for it now.
Okay, that was the only question I had.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second to pay the
bills. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget
amendments. Budget Amendment Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Budget Amendment 1 is for the County
Auditor's office, to transfer $45 from Conferences to Books,
Publications, and Dues.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
12-27-06
108
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
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request Number 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: Two is to recognize $449.88 under
insurance proceeds.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
MR. TOMLINSON: For the Sheriff's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is to recognize 2,461.69
from Texas Association of Counties for damage to their
telephone system at the Sheriff's Office.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, their telephone system --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That was that lightning strike.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second. Any
iz-z~-oh
109
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
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 4.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay, 4 is for the Juvenile
Detention Facility, a request from the director to transfer
187.11 from Kitchen Supplies to Miscellaneous.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 5.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 5 is for Nondepartmental, to
transfer $177.50 from Liability Insurance line item to Bonds.
I have with it a late bill payable to Lee Voelkel for the
177.50 to reimburse him for his bond.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
12-2~ 06
110
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
and issuance of a hand check to Lee Voelkel, reimbursement for
177.50. 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.}
JODGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 6.
MR. TOMLINSON: Six is for the 216th District Court,
I to transfer 8,839.72 from Court-Appointed Attorney line item
to Court-Appointed Services. It's for the Seard case.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For what?
MR. TOMLINSON: Seard.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I've got a question.
Tommy, in the bills, wherever 216th is -- hold on -- in the
regular bills that we just approved, there is a lot of --
well, not a lot, but some Seard stuff. There's a couple of
psychiatrists, a couple of medical doctors, seems like.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's what this is for.
12-27-06
111
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 BALDWTN: And this is exactly the same
thing?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's in addition to what you see
here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bear in mind, we are not -- not
one-quarter of the way through the budget year, and
Court-Appointed Services is gone. We just added $9,000 to it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. But you heard our --
you heard our senator stand up there and say that that's okay,
that they're going to balance that budget and everything's
going to be just fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what he said.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So --
JUDGE TINLEY: I must have forgotten about that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- we should not be whining
about this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Got some more?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah. Okay, this is -- Number 7 is
iz ~~ 06
llz
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
for the Treasurer's bond. We need to increase the line item
for Bonds in the Treasurer's department by $1,320 -- excuse
me. I'm recommending that we transfer that from Liability
Insurance line item in Nondepartmental.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion?
MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, excuse me. I do have a -- I
need a hand check.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: Payable to First Insurance Agency
for $1,420.
JUDGE TINLEY: 1,320?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it 14 or --
MR. TOMLINSON: 1,420.
JODGE TINLEY: 1,420, oh.
COMMISSIONER WILLlAMS: This says 13.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the increase is 13. The
current expense is 14, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But you already have 100.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion to approve Budget
Amendment Request Number 7 and issue a hand check to First
iz-z~-oh
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
Insurance Agency for $1,420, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
I
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Any further
budget amendments?
MR, TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any late bills, other than mentioned?
MR. TOMLINSON: I have two. They're both payable to
First Insurance Agency, and they're both for $925 for Diane
Bolin's surety bonds.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the late bills 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: Motion does carry. I have been
presented with monthly reports from Justice of the Peace
Precinct 3, Justice of the Peace Precinct 4, District Clerk
z2-~~-oc
114
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
]6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for November '06 and amended November '06 report, Justice of
the Peace Precinct 1, and County Clerk, both general and trust
funds. Do I hear a motion that these reports be approved as
presented?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 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. Reports from
Commissioners in their ordinary or liaison assignments.
Commissioner Baldwin, do you have anything for us?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Merry Christmas.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one quickie, Judge.
As a condition of the grant from the Texas Water Development
Board, at the midway point of the engineering -- preliminary
engineering effort, there's a requirement to have a public
meeting for purposes of taking input and advising the public
as to the breadth and scope of the proposed wastewater
collection system for the community of Center Point. That
meeting will be held on January 11 at 7 p.m. in Center Point
iz z~-oF
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
]6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
cafeteria. I'll be present. I hope Commissioner Letz can
make it. A representative of Water Development Board will
likewise be present, and the engineering group from Tetra Tech
will be present.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's January the 11th?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 7 p.m.
JUDGE TINLEY: Center Point cafetorium?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. That has been
advertised once, will be advertised again, and we'll see if we
can convince the newspaper to develop a story as well.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we finally managed to keep one
of them here, didn't we?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll be in touch. I know
their number.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 3?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two comments. I've already
forgot one of them, so that's already gone. (Laughter.) But
one comment is -- actually, it's from Karen, just a comment
that she noticed that it sure would be nice if the city of
Kerrville had Christmas decorations up on their streets as
Center Point and Comfort have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Used to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment from my wife.
iz-z~-oe
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 WILLIAMS: She's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the -- the other one just
i went right out -- it left, so must not be that important.
That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Fredericksburg doesn't have an
attractive lend-lease program for Christmas decorations any
more?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. Don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Get Paul Harvey to advertise
I it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is good. That's a good
memory. That's been a while. So, the second one was probably
the courthouse really dresses up with Christmas lights, if
they would work. Is that the second?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They were -- they were on again,
off again.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: On again, off again. I
haven't seen them all on yet. Bet it's nice.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got some -- we've got some
significant electrical component issues we're going to be
addressing shortly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Getting off base here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I do have a picture for you
if you want, a digital night one. You asked me to procure it.
iz-z~-od
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of the courthouse? I'll take
I it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I took it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? Forgot the other one,
I huh?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You tried to delay, but it's
gone.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 4?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One thing. At the
direction of the Court, I did Meet with TexDOT concerning our
request that they reconsider the construction of the bridges
in west Kerr County on Highways 39 and 1340. We were unable
to arrange a meeting -- I met with the district engineer;
unable to arrange a meeting before the end of the year at a
time that was convenient for the area engineer and
Commissioner Oehler, but the district engineer did promise
that he would arrange that meeting after the first of the
year. I think what I learned from that meeting is that the --
is that TexDOT was going to very carefully consider our
request, and they were open to and would listen to the input
of all the citizens, and then they were going to go ahead
and -- and complete their projects as planned. So, I have --
I have no hope that we'll get any help on Cade Loop, and I do
believe that they'll go ahead and construct these higher
bridges out on 39 and 1340.
i2-z~-oh
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Was that a new epiphany,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm a slow learner,
Commissioner.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Commissioner, my hearing works
about the same way yours did in a discussion I had with TexDOT
representatives, and that's the same conclusion that I came to
after a pretty short discussion.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else you got for us? Let me
get to reports from elected officials, which would include the
Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh.
JUDGE TINLEY: He didn't stand up; the two-second
rule is invoked.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Unless he asks, I just...
JUDGE TINLEY: Any reports from department heads?
Any other reports? Commissioner Nicholson, if you don't take
anything else away from this four-year experience, would you
please take your nameplate there, with our gratitude?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A part of that story is
that you're not going to have to pay for a new nameplate.
Commissioner Oehler brought his back. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you really?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
iz-z~-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
119
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, you're going to be with
us January 1?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you will still be an
active, seated County Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Until Commissioner Oehler
I rises.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we still have time to jab
you all we want.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think you -- you know,
considering the library and Animal Control and TexDOT and a
few other things, I don't need any more help.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the time for
January 1, Judge?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 10 o'clock.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I've heard. I thought
Commissioner Baldwin was the ringleader on that operation. He
was four years ago, I know that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. EMERSON: Two years ago.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was? Well, actually, I
don't see any reason for us to even go to the thing. Our --
the thing that we do as a Commissioners Court is approve the
bonds. The bonds have been approved, so we'll just stay at
12-27-06
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
120
home.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll be there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why is that?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think I'll probably be there too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, you have to be sworn in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have to raise our right
hand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No reason for a meeting, is
there?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No reason to have a meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't it have to be
posted?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it's always been part of
the -- of the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hoopla.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- the hoopla, is
Commissioners Court goes into session and approves the bonds,
and higher powers than me have decided that we don't do it
that way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, isn't it a posted
meeting?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For what reason?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm getting nods of yes.
iz-z~-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
121
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For what reason?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because we're all gathering
together in the same room, I guess.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but only if --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not conducting
business.
MS. UECKER: Why do we have to do that, anyway?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't know. Tell us.
MS. UECKER: You don't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't.
MS. UECKER: I don't plan on being here, because I'm
still the District Clerk until the new one's sworn in. So I
can be sworn in on the 2nd.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. That is
correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, from the posting standpoint, I
would rather post a meeting that didn't need to be posted than
not post a meeting that did need to be posted.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Keep him off your back, in
other words.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it's just conservative
judgment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good approach.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's my intention to post that the
Commissioners Court will be meeting on that day, if for no
12-?~-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
1L2
other reason to swear in the elected officials who take office
effective January 1, 2007.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good move, Judge.
MS. PIEPER: At what time?
JUDGE TINLEY: 10 a.m.
MS. BOLIN: Where?
JUDGE TINLEY: Unless some of you would like it at
7:00.
AUDIENCE: No.
MS. BOLIN: Or 12:01 a.m.?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Everybody show up in a good frame of
mind at 12:01.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Straight from Frank's Lounge.
MS. UECKER: Unless you can have it down at the bar.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything else? We'll stand
adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:55 a.m.)
12 27 06
123
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
I
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR I
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my
capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court
of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place
heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 2nd day of
January, 2007.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: _ _ _________ _
Kathy ~kg~ puty County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
iz-'~-o6
ORDER NO. 30071
DECLARE EQUIPMENT AS SURPLUS
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Declare the following items surplus, and authorize the Maintenance
Department to remove them from the office of the County Clerk and provide
for disposition of same:
Cannon Typewriter
Cannon Micro Reader Printer
ORDER NO. 30072
BOND OF EDWARD ALLEN NORTH, DEPUTY CONSTABLE
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Bond of Edward Allen North, Deputy Constable, Precinct 1.
ORDER NO. 30073
CONTINUATION OF COUNTY CLERK'S E&O BOND AND
EMPLOYEES GOVERNMENT CRIME POLICY
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve and/or acknowledge the continuation of the County Clerk's E&O
Bond and Employees Government Crime Policy.
ORDER NO. 30074
APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTIES TO THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
CLERK
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the application to appoint deputies to the office of County Clerk,
LCGS L001.
ORDER NO. 30075
BUDGET FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENING/BACKGROUND
CHECKS FOR 2006-2007
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the request of the Human Resources Director to establish a line
item, Background Checks (10-493-317) in the amount of $500, and transfer
this amount from the Commissioners' Court Contingency line item.
ORDER NO. 30076
PURCHASE OF STEEL TOED BOOTS AND SAFETY EYEWEAR FOR
MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve moving $550 from 10-510-350 Maintenance, Custodial & Ground
Supplies to 10-510-316 Uniforms to purchase steel toed boots and proper
safety eyewear for Maintenance personnel.
ORDER NO. 30077
KERB COUNTY HISTORICAL COMMITTEE REPORT
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve and accept the report from the Kerr County Historical Committee.
ORDER NO. 30078
EQUIPMENT PURCHASE BYROAD & BRIDGE DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the loan to purchase 3 pieces of leased Road & Bridge equipment,
and authorize County Judge to sign documents for same.
ORDER NO. 30079
REMOVAL OF CATTLEGUARDS ON BEAR CREEK ROAD
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Remove two cattleguards on Bear Creek Road, located in both Precincts 1 &
4.
ORDER NO. 30080
CONCEPT TO REVISE LOT 5 & 6 OF SHALAKO ESTATES
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set a Public Hearing for February 12, 2007 at 10:05 a.m. for the Concept to
revise lots 5 & 6 of Shalako Estates, Phase I, Vol 5, Page 66, in Precinct 4.
ORDER NO. 30081
CONCEPT OF REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOT 96, KERRVILLE SOUTH
II
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set a Public Hearing for February 12, 2007 at 10:10 a.m. for the concept of
revision of Plat for Lot 96, of Kerrville South II, Vol. 4, Page 64, Pct. 1.
ORDER NO. 30082
JOINT DISPATCH STUDY COMMITTEE
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Adopt the draft Resolution with the modification that after the word "City
Manager" in the second Resolved, we add "or Designee".
ORDER NO. 30083
APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTIES OF TAX ASSESSOR/COLLECTOR'S
OFFICE
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the application to appoint deputies to the office of the Tax
Assessor/Collector.
ORDER NO. 30084
BONDS FOR TAX ASSESSOR/COLLECTOR AND DEPUTIES
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Bonds as required by Tex Tax Code 6.28(a) and TLGC 88.01
for the Tax Assessor/Collector and Deputies.
ORDER NO.30085
OFFICIALS BONDS FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Official Public Bonds for:
Pat Tinley, County Judge
Spencer W. Brown, County Court at Law Judge
Linda Uecker, District Clerk
Jannett Pieper, County Clerk
Barbara Nemec, County Treasurer
William H. Williams, Commissioner Pct. 2
Diane Bolin, County Tax Assessor/Collector
Bruce Oehler, Commissioner Pct. 4
Vance Elliott, Justice of the Peace Precinct # 1
Dawn Wright, Justice of the Peace Precinct #2
Kathy Mitchell, Justice of the Peace Precinct #3
William Ragsdale, Justice of the Peace Precinct #4
Lee C. Voelkel, County Surveyor
ORDER NO. 30086
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, came to be
considered by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said
Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	111,244 51
15-Road & Bridge	$	37,914.81
18-County Law Library	$	1,972.09
31-Parks	$	25.98
41-Records Archival	$	17,600.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$	53,956.39
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	3,759.73
TOTAL
$ 226,473.51
Upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner
Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the
claims and accounts.
ORDER NO. 30087
BUDGET AMENDMENT #1
COUNTY AUDITOR
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-495-315 Books, Publications, Dues
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $45.00
10-495-485 Conferences - ($45.00)
ORDER NO. 30088
BUDGET AMENDMENT #2
GENERAL FUND
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-370-300 Various Refunds
10-580-454 Vehicle Repairs/Maint.
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $449.88'
+ $449.88"
*-To recognize funds received from the following: Texas Association of
Counties - DOL: 11/14/06
ORDER NO. 30089
BUDGET AMENDMENT #3
GENERAL FUND
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10370-300 Various Refunds
10-560-420 Telephone
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease

+ $2,461 69*
*-To recognize funds received from the following: Texas Association of
Counties - DOL: 09/16/06 (Expense paid from 2006-2007 budget)
ORDER NO.30090
BUDGET AMENDMENT #4
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
76-572-499 Miscellaneous
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $187 11
76-572-351 Kitchen Supplies - ($187.11)
ORDER NO. 30091
BUDGET AMENDMENT #5
LATE BILL
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to issue a hand check in the amount
of $177.50 to Lee Voelkel for reimbursement for County Surveyor Bond
Renewal (12/31/06-12/31/10) and transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description
10-409-206 Bonds
10-409-205 Insurance -Liability
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $177 50*
($177 50)
*-Establish new expenditure line item for County Surveyor bond.
ORDER NO.30092
BUDGET AMENDMENT #6
216th DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/()Decrease
10-435-401 Court Appointed Services + '8,839 72
10-435-402 Court Appointed Attorney - ($8,839.72)
ORDER NO. 30093
BUDGET AMENDMENT #7
LATE BILL
COUNTY TREASURER
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to issue a hand check in the amount
of $1,420.00 to First Insurance Agency for CNA Surety bond for Barbara
Nemec -Policy #13735577 (12/31/06-12/31/10), and transfer the following
expense codes:
Expense Code Description
10-497-206 Bonds
10-409-205 Insurance -Liability
Amendment
Increase/Q Decrease
+ $1,320.00`
- ($1,320.00)
*-Due to increased coverage on County Treasurer bond.
ORDER NO. 30094
BUDGET AMENDMENT #8
LATE BILL
TAX ASSESSOR
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to authorize the Auditor and the
Treasurer to issue two (2) hand checks: One (1) in the amount of $925.00 to
FIRST INSURANCE AGENCY for CNA Surety Bond for Diane Bolin -
Policy #70138209 (01/01/07-01/01/09), one (1) in the amount of $925.00 to
FIRST INSURANCE AGENCY for CNA Surety Bond for Diane Bolin -
Policy #70138208 (01/01/07-01/01/09.
ORDER NO. 30095
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 27th day of December, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports:
JP #3
JP #4
District clerk -November, 2006 and
Amended November, 2006
JP #1
County Clerk -General and Trust Funds