1
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
Regular Session
Monday, March 12, 2007
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
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4
`~
v
r
a
z
1
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 N D E X
March 12, 2007
PAGE
--- Commissioners' Comments 5
1.1 A Child's Place Learning Center, Inc., a non-profit
childcare center, requesting waiver of rental fee
for Exhibit Hall and chairs for 5/23/07 10
1.2 Consider/discuss approving funding for May 12, 2007
election, $20,576 to be taken from Workers Comp 13
1.3 Consider/discuss approving polling locations in
accordance with Chapter 43 of Texas Election Code 16
1.4 Request to plant tree in courthouse courtyard for
35th anniversary of the Women's Chamber, in honor
of Marj Nicholson and Dolores Livingston 17
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
concept for revision of plat for Lots 3 & 4 of
R.H. Ranch, set public hearing for same 21
1.7 Public records - map of Tivy Mountain Cemetery --
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
concept of Ranger Commercial Park 31
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on appoint-
ing county members to Joint Dispatch Committee 50
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to appoint
Tom Jones to Child Services Board 52
1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to adopt
a resolution authorizing Kerr County to file an
application with Texas Water Development Board for
funding for Center Point Wastewater Project 53
1.11 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
proposed renewal of lease space occupied by 216th
Judicial District Community Supervision and
Corrections Department 56
1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
request to declare March 18-24, 2007, as National
Agriculture Week in Kerr County, Texas, & adoption
of resolution in support of same 60
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X (Continued)
March 12, 2007
PAGE
1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to adopt
a resolution of thanks to Lt. Gen. Murphy A. Chesney,
USAF (Retired) 61
1,14 Considerldiscuss, take appropriate action to adopt a
resolution in support of HB 654, which will establish
community psychiatric hospital services on Kerrville
State Hospital Grounds 63
1.15 Consider/discuss take appropriate action to rescind
Court Order No. 26682, adopted October 10, 2000,
establishing a "No Wake" zone on Flat Rock Lake 7C
1.18 Considerldiscuss, take appropriate action on possible
litigation regarding Environmental Health Department
(Executive Session) 75
1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to review
organization of maintenance, custodial and HCYEC
(Ag Barn) and determine Final organization of same
(Executive/open session)
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to pursue
a proposal concerning economic development
(Executive Session)
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
78
80
86
91
91
92
103
4
1
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: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Stand, if you would, 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 audience or the public that wishes to be
heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, you're
free to come forward at this time and tell us what's on your
mind. If you wish to be heard on any of the agenda items,
we'd ask that you fill out a participation form. They're
available at the back of the room. It's not essential, but it
does help me to know that there's someone that wishes to be
heard with regard to that particular agenda item, so that
hopefully I don't miss them when we get to that item. But if
we get to an agenda item, if you wish to be heard, if you
haven't filed a participation form, if you'll get my attention
3-12-07
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
I have a couple things this
county. We had about 4 and a half inches. It can let up for
a while; we don't need a whole lot more today, but certainly
thankful for what we got. Second, I think everyone will
probably remember at our last Commissioners Court day, it was
a little bit dryer, and I think it was that same day we had a
pretty good fire burning just north of town, and I wanted to
~ say a couple comments about it. That fire was not as out of
control as I think a lot of the public thought. It was a
controlled burn, got out of control a little bit, primarily
due to the weather forecast being quite wrong that day. The
weather forecast, if you looked it up, the Weather Service
showed it was going to be at about 30 percent humidity with
very light winds. As it turned out, it was 5 percent humidity
with rather strong winds. So, I don't want it to be -- it
shouldn't be a reflection of controlled burning, prescribed
burning, whatever you want to call it. There -- it did cross
some fence lines. It got some other property -- the neighbors
3-12-07
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
surrounding it were aware the fire was going on, and there was
a little bit of tension, I think, between a couple people out
there and some law enforcement people. But aside from that,
One other comment I wanted to make today was the --
representative from Jeff Barton's office. And Jeff Barton,
for those who don't know, is a former county commissioner from
Hays County; has been, I guess, a subdivision guru for years.
He's -- I think he was a commissioner when I first got
elected, and has a consulting firm now and works with a lot of
counties. And his office called to -- they knew we had
rewritten our rules, and just asked some questions. They've
read through them and wanted to kind of go through some
intent. And at the end of the conversation, I asked him, I
said, "Okay, you've probably read a lot of other county rules.
What do you think of Kerr County's rules? Are we going in the
right direction or wrong direction?" And they said, without
question, they thought Kerr County was going in the right
direction, and they thought we were innovative, and they
thought we were looking forward. They liked our approach on
water availability. They liked our approach on drainage, and
they hope other counties follow us. Which I thought was good
news, 'cause we have taken a little bit different approach
3-12-07
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
than a lot of the surrounding counties; we get some criticism
JUDGE TIN LEY: Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I'll say just a little
the one problem I think we still have is the fact that a lot
of people are not calling into the Sheriff's Department to let
them know they're going to be burning or doing a prescribed
burn. And in some cases, they're not notifying the volunteer
fire departments, and so that cause -- causes some trouble
whenever they have to be looking for a fire that's a legal
burn, and that's not a good thing. We need to encourage
everybody that's going to do a burn like that to call. Even
I
if the burn ban is off, it would be a good idea to call and
let people know that you're doing some burning, so that they
know where it is and -- and will be aware in case it does get
out of control.
Other thing is, we're still working -- the committee
is working on the Highway 39 and 1340 bridge projects. TexDOT
has -- has met with some of the committee members on numerous
occasions to discuss aesthetics and landscaping and guardrail
3-12-07
8
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
design and -- and just gathering information and having input
on those bridge projects being as nice as they could possibly
be. And TexDOT has bent over backwards, in my -- my opinion,
to accommodate the committee's requests, and have done
everything they can do to insure that the projects will be
pleasinq -- as pleasing as possible. You're not going to
please everybody in that area; you're going to have some mad
people. Some people are still mad. But we do have to realize
that there are safety issues at hand, and -- and TexDOT can
only do so much, and they are doing it. They have
accommodated us in every form and fashion with information,
and just assisted in what -- everything that has been asked
for, and we have to thank them for that. We look forward to
going forward with this in the -- in the fall. Some of the
projects are going to be delayed, because they don't have all
the information they need to complete the plans for -- for
letting. Anyway, that's about all I have today in that area.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I don't have anything
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Couple quick notes. First,
3-12 07
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
newspaper about Headwaters Underground Water District and
their desire to make nice with Texas Water Development Board
in terms of their model, and they're going to seek input and
questions, but that remains to be seen. Glad you didn't use
all the money up at TexDOT, 'cause I had a call from -- from
Mike Coward, and they seem to have a few bucks left in their
off-system bridge fund, and I'm going to be meeting with them
tomorrow to talk about how we might improve the low-water
crossing underneath the Center Point Dam, which for us is Park
Street, and a street that is very difficult for -- for Leonard
to keep maintained because of the water and so forth and so
on. So, Leonard, if you have any time available tomorrow at
1 o'clock, meet me over at Center Point Park, and we'll be
meeting Mike Coward, and we'll talk about how maybe that might
end up becoming a bridge. That's it, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baldwin said
whether that means he is or is not excited about all the work
he's got ahead of him for next week. Before we meet again,
Kerr County will play host to the west Texas County Judges and
Commissioners Association. That's next week. We'll have
visitors in town from as many as, I believe, 110 counties?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 118.
3 12-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: 118 counties, ranging all the way to
the nanhandle. Could be four commissioners and the
possibly some family members, since we're ]ooking at a spring
break situation. We're going to have a lot of visitors in
i town. We owe a lot of this to Commissioner Baldwin, who is
the current president of the West Texas County Judges and
Commissioners Association, and he's been working hard over the
last several months to put this thing together, and -- and
it's really going to be a good economic shot in the arm for --
for Kerrville and Kerr County, and it's going to cause some --
cause some work here for Commissioner Baldwin, members of the
Court, and I think Commissioner Oehler's been tagged as the
chef at the host court night, where they're going to have a
fish fry and so forth. And so there's going to be
participation. But I think Commissioner Baldwin deserves
recognition for his efforts in getting this function here, and
I think everybody's going to have a good time. They always
seem to like to come back to Kerrville. So, we appreciate
your efforts.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's get on with the agenda. First
item on the agenda is A Child's Place Learning Center, a
nonprofit child care center, is requesting waiver of the
rental fee for the Exhibit Hall and chairs for Wednesday, the
3-12 07
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23rd of May of this year, all to be used to host the Pre-K
graduation promotion ceremonies for children ages 4 and 5, and
the hall will be used from 3 p.m. until 8:00, including setup
and cleanup. Is Ms. Smith with us this morning? I don't see
I
her.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I have a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What does our Exhibit Hall
rules say about nonprofit?
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, my recollection is --
is that there's a different rate structure for nonprofit, as
opposed to for-profit or commercials. St's effectively, if I
recall correctly, approximately half, but it's a significant
reduced cost structure for -- for nonprofit. My recollection
of the -- the waiver of all fees deal with, I think, functions
that Kerr County puts on, or possibly other governmental
entities.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, this is a half-price
issue, and they're asking us to waive the other half?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's -- that's essentially where we
are, as best I can determine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did I -- did I state it essentially
correctly, according to your recollection?
MR. EMERSON: To the best of my recollection, but I
3-12-07
12
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
haven't read those rules in a while, so...
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It appears to be a -- a
graduation ceremony for a small school here in town, and I
think that that is one of those things that we need to support
and -- and do everything we can to see that it happens, and
provide a -- a place for them to do that. So, I move that we
approve this.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second for
approval of the agenda item. Is there any further question or
discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a comment. I mean,
I'm going to vote against it. I think if you do this, you
might as well waive it for all nonprofit. I don't think you I
can pick and choose. Either it's all or nothing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I bet you I can. A
graduation of a school is different from a -- a toenail
clipping club, in my opinion, so I can pick and choose.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would also -- I would also
hope that their request indicates they will do -- they will
bear the expense for the setup and cleanup. Using the hall is
one thing. Setup and cleanup expenses is something else.
3-12-07
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see that in here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I didn't either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would like to see that as
part of the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you willing to include that as
part of your motion, Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am. I think that's a good
~ thought.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are they going to reimburse for
personnel being out there during the -- at the facility?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, they'd have to reimburse
the County, 'cause it's a county expense.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion?
All in favor of that motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Oehler voted
in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Letz voted against the motion.)
i JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. We'll move to
Item 2; consider and discuss approving the funding for May 12,
2007 election. Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, I talked to the Auditor last
3-12-U7
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
week, and he said that he found the funding for this in the
Workers Comp line item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll move we -- is there going
to be a budget amendment coming through today? Do you know?
MS. PIEPER: No, not yet.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There's no expense yet. They
probably don't need --
MS. PIEPER: We had to get the funding before we
could do the budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take the whole $20,756 out
of Workers Comp?
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'1] move those funds come out
of the Workers Comp line item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item of $20,576, funds to be taken from the
Workers Compensation line item. Any question or discussion on
the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: i just have a question of the
clerk. Why do you find it necessary to -- to have this in
Spanish?
MS. PIEPER: Because it's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For our benefit? Or --
MS. PIEPER: No, sir. It's a requirement of the
3-12 07
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
Texas Election Code.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the first agenda item
wasn't in Spanish.
MS. PIEPER: Yes, sir, it was.
I
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It was? I don't see it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you talking about the graduation?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The graduation.
MS. PIEPER: Oh, no. No, 7'm sorry, not the
graduation item, no. I thought you were talking about last
week's agenda item.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. Why -- why is it
required by you that --
MS. PIEPER: Anything that I --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me finish. The agenda
item request paper is -- be printed in Spanish?
MS. PIEPER: (Witness nodded.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For our benefit?
MS. PIEPER: For the benefit of Hispanics, I would
assume. That's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: English and Spanish.
MS. PIEPER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know.
MS. PIEPER: Anything I do in English, as far as
elections, I have to do in Spanish as well.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
3-12-U7
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But not all of your
business, just election business?
MS. PIEPER: Right, that is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments 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. We'll move to
Item 3 quickly. Consider and discuss approving of the polling
locations in accordance with Chapter 43 of the Texas Election
Code.
MS. PIEPER: Last week's agenda item, Precinct 2 was
designated as the Extension Office, and it is booked, as well
as the Ag Barn. Therefore, we are requesting the Union
Church.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion on that 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.)
3-12-07
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
79
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry.
MS. PIEPER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move to Item 4, which is a
timed item at 9:15. It's just a smidget past that now. Do
you need a definition for "smidget," Commissioner Baldwin, or
do you remember the last one I gave?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to see it in Spanish.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see. (Laughter.) Item 4 is a
request to plant a tree in the courthouse courtyard for the
35th anniversary of the Women's Chamber, in honor of Marj
Nicholson and Delores Livingston. Ms. Wollney?
MS. WOLLNEY: Sirs, we want to honor Marj Nicholson
and Delores Livingston. They have been charter members of
almost all the organizations here in --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Speak up, please. Speak up,
~ please.
MS. WOLLNEY: Marj Nicholson and Delores Livingston
have been volunteers and charter members of almost everything
here in Kerrville, and we would like to honor them by planting
a tree by our time capsule in the courtyard of the courthouse
for Arbor Day.
JUDGE TINLEY: The time capsule -- refresh my
recollection. Where that is, please?
MS. WOLLNEY: Over by -- on this side of the
memorial.
-iz-o~
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no problem with a tree.
I think the location is -- I mean, I really -- we're getting
ready to do some -- hopefully some renovation of our grounds.
I'm not sure that's the best location. There are some outside
that we've had to remove a bunch of trees that died all along
the sidewalk and perimeter. Probably some better locations,
in my mind.
MS. WOLLNEY: What location would you suggest?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just somewhere along the
perimeter where we're -- you know, along Main Street,
possibly. I know there's some big holes outside the --
between the sidewalk and the street.
MS. WOLLNEY: Well, that would be good, because we
don't want the roots to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. WOLLNEY: -- interfere with the time capsule.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This -- you know, and you can
get with our Maintenance Department or someone and figure out
a location. I know we do have some pretty big holes out on
the street, both on the Sidney Baker side and the Main Street
side.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One tree for two people?
MS. WOLLNEY: Mm-hmm.
3-i2-o~
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what you're --
MS. WOLLNEY: Yes. Delores Livingston was the
chairman of the time capsule that is there, and the Women's
Chamber has done courthouse lighting and the lighting at
Tranquility Island, the beautification of Kerrville for 35
years. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, those two ladies have
I done --
MS. WOLLNEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- a lot of stuff in
Kerrville for a long, long time.
MS. WOLLNEY: Yes. They are charter members. They
have remained a member the whole 35 years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wow.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When do you anticipate doing
I this?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Arbor pay.
MS. WOLLNEY: Whenever it's approved by y'all. And
I thought I would get with Dennis Kneese with the City;
there's a tree out there, and then arrange to have a planting
done.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What does Dennis Kneese have
to do with it?
MS. WOLLNEY: Well, the City has those trees out
there that need to be planted.
3-12-Oi
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're providing the tree?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You'll get one of those
I trees?
MS. WOLLNEY: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, they are significantly larger
than what you would get if you went to a local nursery.
They're already pretty well grown out in some respects.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do you plan to have it
professionally planted so that it doesn't die two days after
it's in the ground?
MS. WOLLNEY: Yes. We've been planting trees, Bill,
for years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Maintenance supervisor's
sitting right there in that blue shirt. You need to get with
him.
MR. ODOM: More than happy to dig the hole, right?
i MR. BOLLIER: I'1] be more than happy.
MS. WOLLNEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- and a second for the approval of
the agenda item, with the location to be determined on the
3-12-07
zl
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
]6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
outer perimeter, as may be determined by the Maintenance
people. Any question or discussion on that 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. Thank you,
Ms. Wollney.
MS. WOLLNEY: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move to Item 5; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action on concept for revision
of plat for Lots 3 and 4 of R.H. Ranch as set forth in Volume
3, Page 84, Plat Records, and set a public hearing for the
same.
MR. ODOM: Yes. Good morning. That --
JUDGE TINLEY: Morning.
MR. ODOM: Which is in Precinct 4. R.H. Ranch is
located at the end of Byas Springs, which we also used to call
Beach Road, past the end of county maintenance. The platted
subdivision road is Dybowski Road. The current lots are
100-acre lots. The developer wishes to divide them into
50-acre lots, all fronting a platted road that is privately
maintained. I believe the concept to revise Lots 3 and 9 of
R.H. Ranch meets all the current rules, and therefore, I ask
the public hearing be set for April the 23rd, 2007, at 10 a.m.
3-1~-07
zz
1
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 this could be done off metes and bounds. It is under
1.03, the exceptions, which 10 acres or more on a private
road. We don't -- shouldn't have any problems. We don't
maintain that. It will be the responsibility of the people,
as it is out there now, to maintain that road.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Are we still tagging those
plats that we do that way? You know, that it will not ever be
served by county maintenance unless it's brought up to
standards? Is that --
MR. VOELKEL: Our office is doing that now as a
public right-of-way. There's a note on there that the
maintenance is not --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just so everybody that buys
out there knows that that is the case.
MR. ODOM: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So they don't come back and
say, "Well, you're going to take it over."
MR. VOELKEL: Correct. Good thought.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move for the motion as
recommended by the Road Administrator, and the public hearing
be set for --
MR. ODOM: April 23rd.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- April 23rd at 10 a.m.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second, but I have a question.
MR. ODOM: Okay.
3-12-07
23
1
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: You said it's exempt for what
reason?
MR. ODOM: Under 1.03, if you're on a private road
and 10 acres or more, you can sell it off metes and bounds
without platting it.
I COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's already platted.
MR. VOELKEL: It's a revision of plat.
MR, ODOM: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, that's what I'm --
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry. It's a revision of plat. I
had in my mind it was 1.03.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's revising a plat, and
currently there's -- they're dividing them that way. How
old's the plat?
MR. ODOM: 1971, Z believe is what I remember from
that, Commissioner. And I apologize. My --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You threw me on that one, but
I'm still trying to --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, metes and bounds
wouldn't have been correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause -- but is it exempt from
bringing that road up to standards? Because --
MR. ODOM: It is a -- well, that's a good question.
But, however, it is an existing road. It is not maintained.
It says it's private from there back and all that we read on
3 l^_-07
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that, and it's existing.			
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Doesn'	t make any	
difference. I mean, the fact that it's pri	vate	doesn	't make
any difference, according to our rules. It	may	have	-- I
mean, I think that they have to bring that	road	up to	
standards. I don't -- or we have to give a	waiver.	I don't
see how -- unless we have an exemption for	less	than	four lots
or something. But I don't think --			
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We had one	--		
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We have one	for	five	or less,
I don't we?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but you still have to make
a road.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We did that in the last
meeting for part of the Love Ranch. Only had 30 foot. This
is a 50-foot, which is --
MR. ODOM: That was 50, but we did make them upgrade
that easement. But the reason we did that was because they
divided into two or more parts, and they laid out an easement.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mm-hmm.
MR. ODOM: And that easement changed hands from one
owner to four owners. So, therefore, they had to build a
road, and that's the reason we made them come up. But, you
know, we're not -- there's no easement. It is a private road.
I'm not taking a position, other than if we're comparing
3-12-~~
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
apples and oranges, I -- it's not the same. Love Road was a
different situation where you had an easement to one person
that owned 500, 600 acres. You divided it up, so therefore
you had to bring that up to standards.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just don't see any waiver for
it -- I mean, any provision for it. I mean, if it's less than
eight lots, it can be an unpaved country lane, but it's still
got to be an unpaved country lane.
MR. ODOM: You're saying the existing road needs to
be brought up to county standards?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To minimum standards, yeah. I
don't see -- I mean, yeah. I don't see why you wouldn't. I
mean, I don't see why this is any different than any other
subdivision.
MR. ODOM: At this point, I haven't brought myself
to agree with you, but -- well, the acreage exemption would be
one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's in a platted subdivision.
If it wasn't in a platted subdivision, they could do what they
want under state law, but it's in a subdivision, and it's sort
of going under our Subdivision Rules. Am I missing something,
Rex? Or --
MR. EMERSON: I'll be happy to research it for you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What kind of road is it now? I
~ mean, the --
3-12-07
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Caliche road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Caliche?
MR. ODOM: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The point is that Byas Springs
just ends. Basically, this road continues on, and has gone
into these two lots for a long time.
MR. ODOM: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And since the '70's.
MR. ODOM: I've been here 16, and we stopped where
our pavement is, that we had that checked, and that's where we
stopped our maintenance.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not very far at all from the
end of that pavement to where their -- their deal is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- I don't see that we
have a provision without giving a waiver to keep them -- I
mean, make them --
MR. ODOM: We'd have to make that part of the
motion, then. Evidently, we'd have to give an exception.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But I wouldn't be
inclined to do it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. I mean, that would be
the legal way to do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A variance?
MR. ODOM: A variance. If they built a country lane
3'12-07
z~
1
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 they could use caliche material and bring it up, and I
have discretion to look at it to see what's there, then I
could do that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'd go for that.
MR. ODOM: Now, they were not going to leave the
road; they were going to bring it up to, you know, a decent
standard, is my understanding when we discussed it before.
They were going to blade it up, It wouldn't be like it is
now. But to sealcoat and all like that, they just --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They don't need to sealcoat.
MR. ODOM: Well, I don't think they do either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's unpaved, less than eight
lots, so unpaved country lane. But it needs to be -- and you
may give a fair amount of --
MR. ODOM: Jimmy?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll withdraw my motion and
we'll redo it. How's that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Is it necessary, if we're just
setting a public hearing and that's the only formal action
we're taking, that we resolve this issue right now?
MR, ODOM: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think they --
MR. RENO: Can I say something?
JUDGE TINLEY: You'11 need to come forward and give
us your name and address, please, sir.
3-iz-o~
za
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
MR. RENO: My name is Jimmy Reno, and I represent
road out there is in pretty bad shape. The people -- either
party is planning on improving that road. It hasn't had
anything done to it, to my knowledge -- I don't know if ever.
So, they're probably looking at putting -- it's about a half a
mile of road, and they're probably looking at spending
somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 just on road and
materials, crowning it and making it. It's not awful, but
it's just needing some materials. That's -- they know going
in -- one of the questions was do they know, you know, going
in that it's a privately maintained road? Yeah, both parties
know that it's a privately maintained road. The County's
never going to take that over. The only reason that we were
thinking of splitting that -- those two tracts up is for
monetary reasons, of course. I mean, they lay out in a
position where they are easily split up, and it's easier to
sell 50-acre tracts than lOD-acre tracts. And that being
said, that's kind of the background on that. It's that we
know -- we've known all along that it's a privately maintained
road. So -- you know, so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sounds like they're willing to
spend the money to get it to what's going to meet our minimum
requirements anyway.
3-12 07
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
	MR. RENO: Well, I	don't know what that --	I don't
know the	cost of that, so --		
	MR. VOELKEL: Have	to look at that. Be more than
$10,000	or $20,000, probably.		
	MR. RENO: Yeah, I	think it's going to be	more than
that, to	o. That's all I have	to comment on.	
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the Judge's	point is,
all we'r	e doing is setting a	public hearing at this	point,
right?			
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I think -- yeah, set
the public hearing and let Len go out and look at the road,
I
see if there's credit we can give. I'm sure there's some kind
of base there; the old road's holding up. There's some kind
of base credit there. Depends on the width of it. They can
look at it and see what the cost is going to be. But it's --
you know, I don't see a way to do it without doing a variance.
MR. ODOM: Since this is not five or more lots, they
would not need a drainage study; am I correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. Although you need --
MR. ODOM: That's one thing that you wouldn't look
at.
MR. VOELKEL: If the road is brought up to county
standards, then the County will take over maintenance?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
MR. VOELKEL: It no longer is a privately maintained
3-12-07
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
30
road at that point, correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, it would be still, unless
they want it to be paved. If it's unpaved, the County won't
take it over. If they bring it up to a paved country lane,
we'll take it over.
MR. VOELKEL: But isn't there a provision for a --
it has to be paved for the County to maintain it?
MR. ODOM: That's right.
MR. VOELKEL: Okay, got you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they brought it up to that
standard, then the County would take over maintenance of it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Be a difference in right-of-way width
too, unless there was a variance there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. It's --
JUDGE TINLEY: They're quoting 50, and the unpaved
country is 60.
MR. VOELKEL: Okay.
MR. ODOM: So, we'll go ahead and set the public
hearing for that, and then they can make up their mind what
they're going to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: I apologize to the Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the date on the
public hearing, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Date of the public hearing, I
3-12-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
believe that we set a public hearing for March -- no, for
April the --
MR. ODOM: 23rd.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- 23rd at 10 o'clock on the
concept plan for revision of plat, Lots 3 and 4, R.H. Ranch.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was the motion that I had.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had a second to that,
Commissioner Letz, I believe?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on
that 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 go to
a timed item at 9:30, if we might. It's a bit past that now.
Public records, a map of Tivy Mountain Cemetery. Teri
Botello. Any member of the Court have any information on this
item, other than the agenda item as indicated?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll pass any consideration of that
item till further mention. We'll go to Item 6; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action for concept of Ranger
3 12 07
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
Commercial Park located in Precinct 2.
MR. ODOM: Is this -- I'm sorry, I can't hear.
MR. VOELKEL: It's all right.
MR. ODOM: Not only am I going brain dead, I can't
hear any more. So sorry. I -- well, this is a preliminary
plat for the property which we're calling now Ranger -- it was
called Ranger Park. They're changing the name to Ranger
Commercial Park. And I talked to Mr. Brinkman and Lee here.
I don't know if they wish to go through -- maybe I can turn
the time over to Lee and let him talk. Any questions, then
I'll come back. But there are some discrepancies in here, and
I've addressed that, and I've had a letter from Lee. So, I'm
not quite sure whether they wish to go forward with this
concept or to do that, and I think they're concerned if
they're committed -- and I don't think they're committed on a
concept whatsoever, so I think it's best to talk about it.
But I'll leave that to Lee to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The agenda item says
concept. Are we doing concept or preliminary?
MR. VOELKEL: This will be a concept plan.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. VOELKEL: What we did, we wanted to be real
sensitive that this discussion this morning of a concept plan
doesn't affect the integrity of a preliminary plat that's
already been approved, if that makes any sense. And I've
3-1^-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
lots, a new road with a cul-de-sac. At the point of approval
of the preliminary plat, as my letter outlines, there were
some exceptions that were given for the development of that
subdivision. And, again, this is a -- is a commercial park,
as opposed to a residential,
There's now been some thought about adding some
on the concept plan, and take care of most of the
exceptions -- or I should say improve upon most of the
exceptions that were granted before; i.e., additional
right-of-way, additional road width, base on the road, things
of that nature, although there's still concern about having to
do a -- a drainage plan for the entire property. And, as
you'll see on the concept plan drawing, there was a road that
was extended to the west for possible development in the
future, although there's no -- no other thought to that right
now about any more land being available, just to put that on
the plat. And the fact that that road would not have to be
improved at this time. So, that's what's before you today,
again, is just a concept plan to see if that would be
acceptable with the County.
3-12-G7
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Lee, I think you ought to
this got back to us and Ms. Cunningham's no longer involved,
and blab, blab, blah, blab, blab, all that stuff.
I
MR. VOELKEL: To my knowledge, Ms. Cunningham still
owns the property. Maybe Harvey Brinkman can address that a
MR. BRINKMAN: Harvey Brinkman, 821-A Earl Garrett,
confusing this -- this sounds. The -- there's a gentleman
named Jack Fulton that intends to buy out Mrs. Cunningham and
take over the park, and it has not happened. It's supposed to
happen this coming Friday if things proceed like we're hoping
to. If they don't, she's still in -- in the process. And
I -- my understanding, she'd have -- still may have to pave
the road and -- you know, from the preliminary plat, and then
go to a, you know, final plat. When we -- when I got to
looking at it in a -- the economics of it made more sense to
put together more land with that road, where you'd have more
property to offer for a mini industrial park, commercial park
in the Center Point area. And when we started workinq toward
that goal, the -- we ran into some obstacles in reference to
the concept plan, and we -- we felt like -- well, and one
thing I did mention to some of the gentlemen earlier, I did
purchase the 6.H6 acres to the west of this on Friday of last
3-12-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
week from Mr. Thomason, so I am the owner of that part of the
property. The other part is kind of in limbo as to who really
will own it, you know, once we get past this stage.
The things that we hit -- you know, and I
appreciate -- we did check with Mr. Emerson in reference to
the fact that if -- if the property does change, the
preliminary plat does go with the -- the owner, not -- I mean,
it's a land deal, not an ownership deal, is the way I
understood it. And that's the way we were -- it was passed
on, and we want to continue in that regard. But we were
trying to improve the park by widening the road. As a
commercial broker, I look at different properties around Kerr
County. In Kerrville, we don't have any 80-foot
right-of-ways. I think the closest one we have is right in
front of the jail. You know, that might be the only 80-foot
right-of-way around, but it's 60 foot going into that 80-foot
right-of-way by KPUB. So, everything you do, you can't allow
big vehicles into it very easily. With this park -- and even
with the airport industrial park, it's a 60-foot right-of-way,
which I do not understand why they did it that way, but they
did.
As y'all know, TexDOT's going to be moving into that
eventually. With it, we were trying to just do
asking for, to make it into a better park. The idea of the --
3-12-07
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
36
when I talked to Mr. Thomason about the right-of-way going off
to the left of that -- you know, or another road easement, it
was just -- I was trying to think ahead a little bit, that we
would be there. If it doesn't happen, I guess we'll have to
just, you know, give it back to the landowners, whoever they
may be at the time. The thing that hit us the hardest was the
drainage study. When I checked with Vordenbaum, I was quoted
a price of $8,700. As I have said aloud to several people, I
would rather donate my half of that $8,700 to the County and
let that go into a fund for a bigger drainage study of Center
Point in that area. My understanding also, there are
gentlemen looking	at	doing	another	warehouse	park across the
highway from this,	on	the	same --	on the west	side, again, of
Center Point. They bought -- how big?
MR. VOELKEL: 28.
MR. BRINKMAN: 28 acres from Mr. Thomason. And if
drainage study for the whole thing. Another piece of property
on the other side of the L.C.R.A. power line there, toward the
ballpark going into Center Point was also sold a couple of
years ago; a guy was going to do a -- a storage units there,
and backed off because he -- his study said that it was too
early to do it. I -- you know, again, I'd like to go to him
and say, "Let's do a drainage study for the whole area that
we're trying to incorporate," instead of me piecemealing
3-i2-~~
1
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
something like this. That's just my feelings on it. The deal
is, is where we are right now, we will go forward with the
other gentleman -- other person.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me shed a little light
Commissioner Letz had some objections to some of the things
that the Court ended up granting as variances, more
particularly because the applicant was under -- for lack of a
better term, sort of under time duress, thinking they had to
get out of their location and move their business, and they
were --
MR. BRINKMAN: Correct.
that we probably shouldn't have done. So, this gives us an
opportunity to correct those, not the least of which is the
right-of-way being -- going from 50 feet to 80 feet, and the
cul-de-sac going from 50 feet to 60 feet, and the set
right-of-way -- the setback going from 10 to 20 feet and so
forth. So, a lot of those things have been corrected in this
particular concept that Mr. Brinkman is bringing before the
3-12-07
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
38
Court. Let me talk a little bit about the drainage plan. My
based on -- on water considerations, 'cause you had a pretty
good rainfall in that area.
My recollection is, over the last major flood we
had, Mr. Thomason had a lake up there on the hill above the
property, and the dam to his lake broke for the second time, I
believe, and the water came cascading down and did some flood
League fields. Didn't come down through this particular piece
of property, if my memory serves me correctly. Now, some of
it obviously did, but the bulk of it came down and did some
damage to the Little League fields and did some damage to
storage sheds across the highway at 27 by that -- by that
watercourse that TexDOT had put in on Highway 27, and did some
damage back in there on -- was it Harless Street or Bowlin
Street? Whatever it is back in there. So, it wasn't
necessarily this particular piece of property that was -- was
victimized from that last major rainfall. But I would think
that it might not be a bad idea to take a look and see what
happened as a result of last night's rains, because we had 4
to 5 inches or more in that area, and you get a pretty good
3-12-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
idea of what the water sheeting off that hill will do on this
particular piece of property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- and I've talked to
Lee about this at some length last week. First, I mean, on
the -- I think this is a very good plan. I mean, I like to
see -- hopefully, Mr. Brinkman will continue. I like -- you
know, I don't see any reason -- I think there was some
discussion where that road needs to be built that would tie
in. I don't see that our rules require that. In fact, we
actually do require that you allow for -- getting into or
access to unsubdivided land, neighboring, which I think you're
doing, so I think you're actually complying totally in that
area. In the drainage area, I really like the approach
Mr. Brinkman says about doing a regional study, 'cause the
problem is not this property. The problem is the drainage
above it and the way it funnels down.
So, I think that -- I think we, at some point, are
going to need a drainage study, and I really don't see any
reason why one developer should be required to pay for it,
when really it's -- the neighbors are going to benefit
certainly as much as he is. I don't know -- I really would
like to see if it's possible to get some other people to
contribute to that study, because the -- any study's going to
have to look at that drainage basin, or that -- Mr. Thomason's
lake broke several years ago. As development comes in here
3-1?-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
like this type, there's going to be a great increase of
impervious cover; roofs, roads, et cetera, so I think just
because it didn't flood last night doesn't mean it's not going
to flood. I think you really have to look at what's going to
happen in this area, especially if more commercial development
of this type comes in that area. But I really -- I mean, I
would like to find out if -- if Mr. Brinkman can rally some
support from some of his other people, and in the same -- at
the same time ask for a contribution. And Mr. Odom may want
to contact Mr. Wells and see if he'd do the drainage study for
the County.
MR. ODOM: That was in the back of my mind.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And he's on our payroll -- or he
gets paid hourly. He's qualified, I think, to do a drainage
study and look at -- let the County do a regional study. If
there's going to be multiple people contribute to it, I'd
like -- probably rather have y'all work with him directly.
Kind of better for the developers to work with him, but I
think he'd be a good person to use, and it's to the benefit of
this whole little area in Center Point. So --
MR. BRINKMAN: I mean, during my discussion with
Mr. Thomason -- I don't like to speak for him -- he told me he
is digging -- he won't put another dam back. Now, I mentioned
off-site retention ponds and such like that, because it just
makes so much sense. We have good -- you know, great draws in
3-12-07
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
41
Kerr County. To, you know, contain water eventually, because
of creation of impervious or whatever, you know, cover all
over. But when I talked to Mr. Thomason, he said he was
digging a giant hole back there. I'm not sure if he's doing
some mining or what, but -- you know, and I hate to speak for
him, again, you know, but he said that, "Hey, I've got a
better deal than a dam going on." And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's good, 'cause the dam
wasn't a very good deal.
MR. BRINKMAN: Well, and maybe that's -- but I just
was trying to think a little bit ahead of -- just like this
particular park, like you said, Jonathan, that I -- I look
forward to working with the other people. The buyer on the
property at this point is not eager to donate, I don't
believe. I will have to arm-twist or something like that. I
believe strongly that if I put up a bond or however y'all
would look at this to go forward with the regional type study,
I'll be glad to do that, you know, this week, with the
Commissioner's Court's approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How would you like to
proceed on that issue? I'm sorry, Judge, I'm looking across
you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. I think the first
step, I'd like to -- maybe if Len could contact the County's
consulting engineer and see what he thinks a study would cost,
3-iz-o~
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
42
because the -- I mean, the reality is, the drainage issue
isn't on this tract. It's how the water's coming down above
it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, you know, I think it needs
to be looked at, but I -- but it's -- I mean, I don't know
that a drainage study at this particular property -- if you
were just to do a study on your property, I don't think you're
going to have as much of a drainage issue. I don't know if
Vordenbaum is looking at above or beyond, and our rules are a
little bit unclear, in my mind. I don't know how far up the
basin you go in a drainage study. I mean, my thought was
always that you look at the -- the site that you're
developing, and in this case, that's somewhat irrelevant,
because the water's not coming from that site; it's going to
be coming from above it. So, our rules are a little bit --
kind of mixed up. Obviously, if someone's building, you know,
II up around Hunt, we don't require them to do a whole South Fork
of the Guadalupe River drainage study. I mean, you have to
kind of look at these things --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, is this development
going to cause a change in the drainage? Maybe the drainage
goes around it? Or does it just come up --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, just the drainage -- it
might. It's a field with a big draw behind it. I mean,
3-12-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
it's -- all the water behind it from a pretty large drainage
area goes onto this field. I don't know that anyone's done --
basically, probably 1-foot contours is what it's going to take
to figure out exactly where that water's going. I think
Bill's recollection is correct; my recollection was the same,
that that last big flood, that water went to the east of this
tract of land.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But as development goes in
there -- you know, if you change things a foot, it could
!i totally change where that water's going to go. Obviously,
this road's going to have some impact.
MR. ODOM: If you change that master plan, then
you're going to have that, but I -- I like the idea. What
we're talking about is not a dam. We're talking about a
detention pond back up in there, and I -- maybe we could get
Wells and Mr. Brinkman and some other people to look at a
master plan of drainage. Because if this is successful, and I
hope it is -- and it may be -- but it sounds like a good plan.
I would imagine it would open up -- and I would like to see
the drainage done overall, and particularly if it's across the
field. The water's got to go somewhere.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. It's --
MR. ODOM: It's going to the river.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But the detention -- if it
3-12-0~
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
44
is, in fact, a detention pond, it is still on Mr. Thomason's
plan, you're going to have water detention as -- and you're
going to have credit to the people downstream, particularly on
the river from there on down. It's going at a certain
distance. They will benefit, and the flood stage will drop a
little bit, 'cause you have less feed. So, the hydrologist
needs to look at it to see, but I -- I think, personally, if
you were putting the park in, I think you need the drainage
study. But that's eight; that's five or more.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think Mr. Brinkman is making an
effort to significantly improve the viability of this
commercial development, and at the same time, as a part of
making that have the opportunity to be more successful, I
think he's making it more attractive to the County with the
improved right-of-way width and the dedication of the
cul-de-sacs and things of that nature, the spur out for future
development. And it occurs to me that the -- the neighbors in
have some responsibility in the future. He's got other lands
certainly is -- makes sense to me that the economy of scale
3-12-07
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
would be that you'd want to get all these folks in that area,
and on a per capita basis, it would be much, much more
reasonable to them to participate in a study of the entire
i area.
MR. ODOM: It markets their land a whole lot better.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, sure. And they they've got
-- they've got --
MR. ODOM: Even if it's raw land, it's --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- ahead of their development.
MR. ODOM: Pre-development. It will change a little
bit, but you'll have a master plan overall. The raw land will
be worth more, because you'll be able to talk to it and show
it. So, I think it's a win-win. That's up to the Court. But
as it is right now -- and I also want to say that I went back
in the minutes. There is to be a cul-de-sac on that five
lots. There is a cul-de-sac; that's in the minutes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. Yeah, but this is
improved. What's being shown here --
MR. ODOM: What I'm saying, if you went back to the
original preliminary, we said in there for that final that
there would be a cul-de-sac at that end.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
MR. ODOM: So, I hear that there's not to be, and
there's some other things in here that I don't recall or see,
but it's totally irrelevant. If they go back to preliminary,
3-12 0~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
I want to make sure you understand that there will be a
cul-de-sac at the end.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, the drawing clearly
shows a cul-de-sac, and it's an improved situation over what
was presented to the Court at a previous time. I would move
approval of the concept plan, and urge Mr. Brinkman to
participate in an area watershed study as future development
comes about.
MR. VOELKEL: Commissioner, may I make a suggestion?
And maybe Harvey can enlighten, too. Why don't we -- what you
said, that's fine, but maybe come back in two weeks and give
Mr. Brinkman some time to talk with some of the people
involved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine.
MR. VOELKEL: And bring it back to the Court again,
see what we can do on drainage.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second, and I have a
comment.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second as
indicated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my comment is that, I
mean, I think it's important to get a drainage study done
here. I also understand that because that preliminary plat
was approved with five lots, that this development can go
3-12-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
forward without anything. I mean, so I think Mr. Brinkman's
really coming out and offering to put up some funds to get a
drainage study done, which I think is a very good idea. And I
really hope -- you know, so that's why I'm supporting this.
It's kind of in that gray area as to adding the three lots to
it. Then you start -- that does trigger a drainage study, but
I think a drainage study on this property is meaningless.
What needs to be done is a regional plan to find out where the
water's coming from above where the dam broke recently.
MR. ODOM: If I can also make a comment on top,
that's what I'm talking about. The cul-de-sac is -- original
preliminary plat calls for a cul-de-sac.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Calls for -- as I recall,
though, it calls for a cul-de-sac in very general terms. It
was -- I didn't like the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't like what happened. It
called for a gravel area, not a paved cul-de-sac.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was just --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a piece of property. It
was in a lot that wasn't deeded.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was a turn-around in
gravel in one of the lots. So this is a distinct cul-de-sac;
that's an improvement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wasn't real happy with the
s-iz-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
48
last option.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Seems to me like we don't have
any choice; we need to approve this. He doesn't like the
approved plan. I don't think we'd be doing the approved plan.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They'll come back with a
preliminary.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know, but the original
preliminary that was approved --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is much improved over
I that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No question about it.
Vastly improved.
JUDGE TINLEY: From a concept plan standpoint, I
think Mr. Brinkman would be safe in talking to those property
owners in the area, particularly those that might have some
thought in mind about developing the property at some time in
the foreseeable future; that -- that the consensus of the
Court appears to be that we really prefer very strongly a
regional type drainage plan, an area drainage plan, as opposed
to a single property. Would that be safe to say, gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, regional plan. And all
I'm talking about is one that you can draw a line up there, a
one-page regional plan basically from the Little League park
to Mr. Thomason's driveway.
3-12-0~
49
1
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. VOELKEL: Entire drainage area for there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: From that watercourse where
-- at 27, where 27 has that watercourse through there, for the
state watercourse, westward to, say, Mr. Thomason's line.
MR. BRINKMAN: Since you bring up TexDOT, when the
Bank of the Hills put their ATM, you know, in Center Point, --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MR. BRINKMAN: -- there was a drainage issue there,
and TexDOT got involved. I'm not sure if TexDOT needs to be
involved in any of this. I don't know what's out there for --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was more a ponding
issue because of the crowned road -- because of the crown of
the road kept the water impounded there in that area.
MR. BRINKMAN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This one, that water does
drain off into that watercourse TexDOT has right there on 27.
But -- so it's a little bit different.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Little different. But I think
what the -- as development happens, more water's going to be
running off.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think TexDOT does need to be
brought into what's going on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
3-12-0~
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At some point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to
Item 8; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
appointing county members to the joint dispatch committee.
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Judge. In the
backup, we -- the copy of the resolution in there outlines who
is to be on this committee. It is obvious to me that we're
really not ready to put a list of names on the table and vote
on them. So, what I want to say to you, now that -- you know,
that we have our attention on this thing and we can focus on
it today, in two weeks, let's come back with -- obviously, the
Kerr County Sheriff is an easy one. We have to get someone
from a volunteer fire department, someone from the First
Responders, and choose a Commissioners Court member, and it
could be one or two.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County Auditor.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, County Auditor's pretty
3-1^_-07
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
simple. We know who he is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, on the volunteer fire
department and First Responder, I see that as being one rep to
represent both of them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct, yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. So we're looking at two, maybe
three, depending upon if Commissioners Court has one or two
representatives --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that we need to designate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Any ideas on the volunteer fire
department? Any in y'all's areas?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I'd be happy to present
names in the next two weeks before we get back in here, and
I'll get a -- get a memo out to everybody with my
recommendations, and then we can play phone tag and whatever
back and forth to get it -- until we settle on who we want on
the agenda.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Might want to be careful.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Don't send me any of those.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, you're absolutely wrong
about that. I can send you all I want to. You cannot respond
3-12-07
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
back.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't want to respond back.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Open Meetings Act is
something that everybody gets scared and runs from. That is
just absolutely not true. So...
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody have anything further on that
particular agenda item?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So I'll bring it back in two
I weeks, and --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- we'll be ready to make a
motion and vote.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Let's move to Item 9;
consider, discuss, take appropriate action to appoint Tom
Jones to the Child Services Board. Commissioner Baldwin?
That's not the Tom Jones from -- from across the pond that all
the ladies know so well, is it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No. This guy can actually --
actually sing better than that Tom Jones.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In my opinion, that is a
fact. So, I move that we approve Tom Jones as a member of the
Child Service Board.
3-12-0~
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Obviously, you know him. Any
information on him?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He is -- he's been in this
courtroom in front of us before. He's a semi-retired guy.
What he does is, he's a volunteer-type person in this town.
He's younger than I am, and he does a lot of -- does a lot of
volunteer type things, this type of stuff, and he understands
grants and, you know --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- all those things.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second 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.)
i JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Let's move to
Item 10; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
adopt a resolution authorizing Kerr County to file an
application with the Texas Water Development Board for funding
for the Center Point Wastewater Project from the T.W.D.B.
Economic Disadvantaged Area Program. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. This
could be the first of many applications we've filed for
3-12-07
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
funding with various agencies that have pots of money for the
Center Point/Eastern Kerr wastewater collection system. I had
the opportunity to join with Al Groves at Tetra Tech, and we
met with Texas Water Development Board last week, and they do
particular community for infrastructure-type projects, and
they are accepting unsolicited applications. I don't know how
they can term -- how that terminology fits, since they've told
us about it, but they are soliciting unsolicited applications
for this particular project. The engineering study that Tetra
Tech is currently working on, first draft should be out within
another week or so. That becomes the basic -- the basic part
of an application to T.W.D.B., or anybody else, for that
matter, for funding.
What we talked about at the meeting of Texas Water
Development Board was the concept -- the concept of the
collection system, which T.W.D.B. likes, the concept of which
direction the flow would be taken east -- either east or west,
and the -- we indicated to them that the preliminary
engineer's study is going to favor the approach of taking the
flow eastward to Comfort to the W.C. & I.D. They like that
approach, and so we are encouraged to file an application.
That's the resolution that would authorize us to proceed with
this application or others that may come -- opportunities that
3-iz-o~
55
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
come about, and give me the authority to perfect the
application and the Judge to sign same. Move the approval of
the resolution.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second for
approval of the resolution as indicated. Any question or
discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was fine until -- I guess how
you define "perfect the application." I hope any applications
come before the Court. I mean, this resolution is kind of to
get things going, but I think I'd like to kind of -- before we
start committing, I'd like to see them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: "Perfect" in my terminology
is to get it ready, put all the component parts together.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Get the application ready, bring
it back to the Court to approve or disapprove, as we may.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have any problem
with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I want to make sure we're
not -- we're not --
JUDGE TINLEY: Giving the green light for
henceforth?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. No green light for
3-1?-07
56
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
henceforth.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comments on the
motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 1.11; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
on a proposed renewal of lease space occupied by the 216th
Judicial District Community Supervision and Corrections
Department at the Thad Zeigler building at 431 Quinlan Street.
I put this on the agenda when the -- as a result of the
landlord -- the property owner contacted me about the need to
update this lease agreement. We had a lease agreement in
effect. It went until actually September 30th, 2000, and it
had a holdover provision with the rent to be payable as it was
indicated at the termination of that lease, which was $2,400 a
month. It has continued to be that for six, seven years now
without any increase. The amendment to the lease would -- the
first year, this year, would remain the same because of
budgetary considerations. Next year, it would increase
18.75 percent. Thereafter, during the term of the lease,
5 percent. Presumably, the 18.75 increase next year would be
to compensate for the approximately six, seven years that it
3-1^_-07
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
didn't increase at all. It was presented to me by the
landlord. I submitted it to the County Attorney and he had
some input in it. I think there was one item on indemnity
that he wanted to be sure that got modified, but other than
that, a format for purposes of continuing. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Remains the same this year.
Next year, it's going to go up how much?
JUDGE TINLEY: 18.75 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then an automatic 5 percent
escalation?
JUDGE TINLEY: For the next two years -- well,
actually for the next year, I guess. It's -- it merely renews
for three years, First year is 18.75. The next year is the
5 percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge? Have we given any
consideration to the possibility of -- of 216th Adult and
~ 198th Adult and anybody else moving into the refurbished
juvenile detention facility? Stop paying rent?
JUDGE TINLEY: To my knowledge, I've not been
wrassling with that subject. Others may have been.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The thought keeps noodling
through my head. That's the reason I brought it up.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would be the
possibility? Or would that make sense, let's put it that way,
3-12-07
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for us to refurbish that building and use it for Kerr County's
purposes; Adult Probation, Juvenile Probation, make office
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think at some point -- well, I
It might be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we probably -- we have
this thing hanging out there possibly with T.Y.C., but I think
at some point in the near future, we need to, maybe during the
next budget cycle, look at hiring someone to evaluate that
building and what else it -- what it can be used for. I mean,
I don't think I have any desire to get into the youth
detention operation any more than we're currently in it, which
means we do have a vacant building out there. I think we need
to do something with it. But I think -- so I think your idea
is good, but I think the timing -- I think we still need to go
on with this, but maybe three years down the road. It'll take
probably six months to nine months, and probably do a -- to
look at it, try and get a report, and then another six to nine
months to do anything out there to renovate it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was really the purpose
of bringing it up. I know that we couldn't get anything done
and accomplished in the time frame necessary to continue the
lease. I realize that, but maybe we should start thinking
3-12-07
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about that as a possibility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think at budget, we ought to
look at what other options for that facility are.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To answer your question, yes,
that has been laid on this table before. We have had a small
discussion about it, and it was just -- things were so stormy
that everybody was scared to touch it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to look at it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question on this is -- is I
have no idea what rental rates are in Kerrville. I mean, and
I just would like to -- and I think we need to kind of
ascertain that these are fair market rates. And I just don't
-- I mean, I don't know really how you do that. I don't know
who keeps that information. But, I mean, an 18 percent
increase seems high, but at the same time, in five years we
haven't had an increase.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a pretty good sign.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- and I think maybe -- you
know, I don't have a problem with proceeding with this at this
time, 'cause I think we probably need to get something done,
but I think we need to come up with some mechanism to know
what the fair market rates are. We continue to lease space
around the city.
3-12-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, would you entertain a
motion?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, if you want to make one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to make one, if you
don't mind.
JUDGE TINLEY: Please let me hear it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move that we approve this
~ agreement.
JUDGE TINLEY: Subject to the modification that the
County Attorney --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second as
indicated. Any question or discussion on that motion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to
Item 12; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on a
request to declare March 18 through 29, 2007, as National
Agriculture Week in Kerr County, Texas, and the adoption of a
resolution in support of same. This matter was submitted to
me by the Commissioner of Agriculture, --
3-12 07
61
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: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Mr. Todd Staples, who took office
in January of this year as the new Commissioner of
Agriculture, succeeding Susan Combs, who became Comptroller.
Apparently, March 18th to 24th is National Agriculture Week in
Texas, and they've asked us to join with them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item and the adoption of the resolution. 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.) I
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.}
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move to
Item 13; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
adopt a resolution of thanks to Lieutenant General Murphy A.
Chesney, United States Air Force, Retired. Commissioner
Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I put
this on the agenda at the request of General Walter Schellhase
to say thanks and extend our thanks and appreciation to
Lieutenant General Murphy Chesney upon his retirement. He is
already retired, but he's now leaving Kerr County, and what
3-12-07
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we're doing is saying thanks for his service to -- to all of
us, particularly to the veterans. General Schellhase, would
you like to speak to this a little bit, please?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Walter Schellhase, 529 Water
Street. General Chesney has been a member of the Hill Country
Veterans Council Board of Directors since its inception about
15 years ago. He's former director of the V.A. Hospital here
in Kerrville, retired lieutenant general, and is a medical
doctor. He's provided an endless amount of information and
guidance to the Hill Country Veterans Council, has played a
great role in keeping the Veterans Hospital open. He's
testified before numerous committees on behalf of the medical
staff in the evaluations of the information required in order
to rate the hospital. He's been instrumental in obtaining
information of what's going on at the hospital on a regular
basis, and we feel that it's a great honor at this time to be
able to honor him on the 20th, which we'd like to request that
the Court present him this resolution on his transfer from
Kerrville to the San Antonio to the Air Force Retirement
Village. He and his wife plan on remaining there for the rest
of their lives.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The luncheon for him is
March 20th?
MR. SCHELLHASE: March the 20th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the
3-12-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
resolution. There is one correction that needs to be made,
and I'll ask the administrative assistant to make that. It's
in the Resolved, second -- let's see, the fourth line. It
says "kept." Should say "keep." And we'll get that corrected
and signed after the break, and so we can present that to
General Chesney.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second in
support of the resolution. Any questions or discussion
further? 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. General
Schellhase, where is that luncheon going to occur?
MR. SCHELLHASE: That will be at the Cracker Barrel
at noon on the 20th.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item is consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action to adopt a resolution in support of
House Bill 654, which will establish community psychiatric
hospital services on the Kerrville State Hospital grounds. I
put this on the agenda at the request of -- partially at the
request of the Hill Country Community M.H.M.R, folks and
Commissioner Hilderbran -- or not commissioner, Representative
3-1'-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
Hilderbran, who is carrying the legislation. What it would do
is, it would create separate psychiatric inpatient services
for civil commitment patients at the Kerrville State Hospital
grounds in an effort to try and give more psychiatric
inpatient services availability to patients within the
19-county Hill Country Community M.H.M.R. cachement area.
Currently, as I'm sure most of you know, as of
January '05, they have designated all of the beds at Kerrville
State Hospital to be forensic beds, "forensic" being those
patients that are committed from the criminal courts across
the state. There was a crunch for the need for those beds.
the use of 16 beds -- 12 or 16, depending on who you listen
to, for civil commitment inpatient beds. We've been utilizing
those, but a more permanent solution is needed, because
they're going to eventually absorb all those beds at Kerrville
State Hospital that are presently being utilized for forensic
beds. This would allow one building out there which is
currently not being utilized to be renovated and made suitable
for inpatient civil commitments, and -- and the operation
would be by the Hill Country Community M.H.M.R., the same
folks that do our outpatient mental health services. It's a
more permanent solution than what we got now, and if we don't
get a permanent solution, we're going to be out in the cold
3-12-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
again.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item as a resolution. Any question or
discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to give you an
opportunity to talk a little bit more.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Several -- you alluded to
that there was a building out there that presently has not
been used. Has not been used. Several years ago, I was on a
tour out there, and there were two of those buildings that
were not being used at all, and I never have been able to get
my mind around why not. Why aren't those buildings being
used? I know that they need a coat of paint and probably some
new screws in the light fixtures and that kind of thing, but
they were the same buildings as the ones being used,
basically.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, actually, there are
more than two. They got several buildings out there that
aren't being used. All but one of those buildings has -- has
asbestos problems, and there would have to be significant
3-12-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
66
environmental remedial work done before they could be used.
abuse facility out there. It's a building at the very, very
back of the campus, and it does not have asbestos problems, so
that's the reason that we're zeroing in on that particular
building. Number one, it's somewhat isolated, and that's the
preferred result. Also, that building, once -- the bill now
calls for 16 beds. we are in hopes that that will increase as
approximately 40 patients, which is almost the same number of
acute care civil commitment beds that we had previously before
this big forensic bed crunch hit us back in January of '05.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I appreciate that
information, but that leads to another question on my part.
Do we have any idea of the cost of that asbestos problem, to
fix it? I mean, has anyone ever looked at it? 'Cause, I
mean, to me, you know, it may be a way, clearly, to use some
of our -- not our, but probably the city's economic
development funds to -- to help start cleaning that stuff up,
3-12-0~
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
67
if there's a chance of getting more of that hospital utilized.
I mean, that would be a great source of some of those funds to
be used, in my mind, if there's some sort of assurance that
And it would
the county budget to go into fixing that problem if there's an
assertion on the other side that they were going to be filled.
Might be something interesting to look at at some point.
JUDGE TINLEY: I, frankly, don't know, Commissioner,
if there have been any even ballpark estimates of what it
would take to do environmental remedial work on any one or
more of those buildings. I can certainly make inquiry of --
of the people at the State Health Services and see if they've
got a ballpark figure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be interesting to find out,
because it's -- I'd hate to see this be a reason that the
hospital isn't more utilized.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, what's amazing about it
that I know of, just sitting there doing nothing. And, you
know, remember last week, we heard those horror stories of
police officers at 2 o'clock in the morning --
3-12-07
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
68
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Going --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- packing up and driving
I to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Lubbock.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- Lubbock and taking a
police officer off the streets here in Kerrville and Kerr
County. And it just -- you know, those things don't make
sense to me. I'm sure that those fellows over in Austin are
much smarter than I am, can see -- have reasons for that, but
I just -- boy, I just don't see it. Seems like there's some
way that some -- I'm with Letz, you know. There's -- there's
got to be some way that we can even participate in -- in
encouraging them.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We could enter into a
partnership.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: City/County partnership. You
know, we -- we fix those problems, make those buildings more
usable, get more beds assigned here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, is this the building
that we earlier had agreed to rehabilitate the road --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- surface to?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. Our -- our previous commitment
would be to -- to build a separate roadway. It would be
3-1?-U7
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
enclosed by a separate fence at the back of the facility, so
that it was a separately accessed unit. And I -- Mr. Odom and
I had gone out there early on, and he indicated it was
something that was quite doable by his department, if that's
what the Commissioners wanted to do. And I think it's
certainly in our interest to -- but just by way of economics,
the -- the crunch hit in January of '05, and it hit pretty
suddenly. Not much in the way of advance notice. In 2004, in
that calendar -- calendar year, when you run the numbers about
what we generated in court costs in handling cases for other
counties who committed patients out there to Kerrville State
Hospital that we handled, plus in what our costs were if we
would have to pay those same costs ourselves, separately and
apart, it amounted to a cool quarter of a million dollars, so
it's -- it's in our interest a number of ways to have as many
beds available out there as is possible. We're set up to
handle those cases. We do handle them. We handle them
efficiently and properly, and I know all of the judges within
the catchment area that would otherwise be charged with that
responsibility, every time I go to one of these meetings that
we have -- our annual meetings, for example, and I'll hear
some more next week, "Thanks for taking care of handling those
cases for us." They're tickled to death to let us take care
of them, and they just send us a check. They're -- they're
just happy as can be to do that, and it's a whole lot easier
3 12-07
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
for them. They know what the -- they know what the routine is
here. It's very simple. It works. And every time they've
got to send one -- a couple of their law enforcement officers
to Big Spring, Lubbock, E1 Paso, San Antonio, Austin, it's a
burden on them too. So, we need to do what we can to increase
the civil commitment beds here, and this is a good start on
it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
THE CLERK: We have a motion and second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go to
Item 16; consider, discuss, and take appropriate -- excuse me,
Item 15; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
rescind Court Order Number 26682, adopted on October the 10th,
2000, establishing a no-wake zone on Flat Rock Lake.
Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is simple. The Court
Order 26682 adopted in October of 2000, the verbiage on that
court order is somewhat confusing, and it would suggest that
we did, in fact, adopt a no-wake order, which we did not do.
3-1?-0~
71
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
My backup statement tells the whole story. Sheriff Hierholzer
had ordered the sign removed from Flat Rock Lake Park at
somebody's request, I think Parks and Wildlife, because we did
not establish a no-wake zone. So, to avoid further confusion,
the sign is down, and I am just moving that we get rid of that
court order and go forward. Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second as
indicated. Any further question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do have a question. What
-- what was it that we did the first time that wasn't right?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we did a lot of
talking, and you may recall there was a public hearing here
and the courtroom was packed, absolutely packed, and a lot of
people were really objecting to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought that was
firecrackers. No, I'm joking.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, we had that one, too.
Anyhow, that particular day, we approved a motion to define
the boundaries of the lakes. And the way the -- the way the
clerk wrote up the court order, it -- I'm not being critical,
Jannett; it just happened -- that it looked like we had
adopted a no-wake zone, when, in fact, all we did was define
the perimeters and the boundaries of the lakes. And we had
maps and so forth to support that. So, what we -- the reason
3 12 07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7z
we took it off the agenda back then was because there is a
body of law that gives authority to Texas Parks and Wildlife,
and you had made the point, rightfully so, that we're not
going to buy Rusty some canoes and have him go out there with
life vests on patrolling the lake. And that's correct, we
weren't going to do that. We were going to defer and let
Texas Parks and Wildlife do whatever it is that they're
supposed to do. That's the reason we did it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, "no-wake," that means
that -- that means that no gasoline motors --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No-wake lake would be
similar to what's been in force on the U.G.R.A. Lake or the
city lake for many, many years. Trolling motors or sailboats.
But, in fact, on both Ingram Lake and Flat Rock Lake, and to
my knowledge, then and now, there is some on the Center Point
lake also, we have power boats. And power boats pull skiers,
and we have jet skis and we have things of that nature, and
those things create wakes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Including jet skis.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
THE CLERK: We have a motion and second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
3-1?-0~
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
73
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let me go
back quickly and revisit Item Number 7. Is anyone here with
regard to the map of the Tivy Mountain Cemetery?
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, very well. Why don't we take
about a 15-minute recess, and we'll come back and finish up.
(Recess taken from 10:30 a.m. to 10:46 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come back to order, if we
might. We were in recess. That brings us to Items 16, 17,
and 18, all of which indicate at least the possibility of
executive session. Does any member of the Court have anything
to offer on any of those three items before we go into
executive or closed session?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm going to be on the lawyer
side this time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a switch.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did those -- well, it's
either him or him. I mean, dealing with a lawyer every time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you suggesting we have you in a
I crossfire?
3-12-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it necessary that we go
into executive session on all three? That's my question. As
an example, economic development, the issue on economic
development.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At this time, it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I've talked to Rex about it.
He understands.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rex understands?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, he understands my point of
view.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just wanted to ask the
question to make sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which should be good enough
to keep you out of trouble.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's good enough with
me.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. At this time, we will go out
of open or public session, and it is 10:48, to go into
executive or closed session.
3 12 07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
75
(The open session was closed at 10:48 a.m., and an
executive session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We are now in closed -- or,
excuse me, open or public session, and it is 11:56. Does any
member of the Court have anything to offer with respect to
matters discussed in executive or closed session?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which item is it, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I guess it would be the --
under the litigation.
JUDGE TINLEY: Item 18?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. The Court will call, for
purposes of public or open session, Item 18; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action on possible litigation
with regard to the Environmental Health Department.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would offer as a motion
that we authorize the County Attorney to proceed with
litigation against Mr. Dejuan Abel for O.S.S.F. violations in
Precinct 2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 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.
3-12-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
76
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we have
any more -- any other items to be offered in connection with
Item 18?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do we need to authorize the
Environmental Health Department to -- to issue letters to all
the people who are operating currently without a license, to
bring or see to it that all documentation necessary to license
those systems be presented to Environmental Health?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's part of their -- that
is part of their normal charge of operation.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But in this case, we may not
-- they may not know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- they're not licensed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's for the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- installers and designers to be
notified?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Installers and designers to be
notified that --
JUDGE TINLEY: Copy to the landowner?
3-12-07
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 OEHLER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Landowners of all properties
that are presently operating without a license.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we're authorizing them to
do their job.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Basically.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're making a strong
suggestion that they better do it.
MR. EMERSON: Can that motion approve the follow-up
letter from the County Attorney's office, and then before any
litigation is considered, we'll bring it back to y'all?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, there's some things
like Solid Waste, seems like to me the law actually outlines
the time frame. You can send a letter out, and then you wait
"X" amount of time before you send another letter out and that
kind of thing. Is that the -- is that the case here?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we send out -- we would
say Environmental Health is sending out one letter, and then
"X" amount of days later, you send one out? I mean, do we all
know that?
3-12-07
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
78
MR. EMERSON: Why don't you just do this? Authorize
Environmental Health to follow the statutory guidelines for
notice to the property owners.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do your job?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I can do that. That's my
motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that was my second, I think.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further 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: Do we have any other items, anything
else to be offered in connection with Item 18 or other items
discussed in executive or closed session?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion on Item 16,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go ahead and call, for
purposes of open/public session, Item 16. Consider, discuss,
take appropriate action to review organization of Maintenance,
Custodial, and Hill Country Youth Exhibit Center and determine
final organization of the same.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we
3 1?-07
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
79
adjust our organization in the -- in those three departments
as follows: That Maria be in charge of the custodial group,
Tim Bollier will be Maintenance, and Alyce Davidson will be
over the Ag Barn. And those employees should get with our
H.R. Director to go over the job descriptions and work out the
details, as she was present for that discussion, and that all
those employees will be nonexempt -- what are they now?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They are non -- they're
exempt now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. They will all be
nonexempt employees.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second that, but I want
to ask a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Any
question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that -- this be the
first step in perhaps a two-step process to look at all these
issues that we perhaps talked about, and get with H.R. on all
that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it is. I believe my
wording is they will be supervisors, not managers, and I think
we will look -- continue to look at an overall management
structure that will include those three groups.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Plus perhaps others.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And possibly others.
3-12-07
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Point of clarification, Commissioner.
On the maintenance function under the supervision of
Mr. Bollier, does that include courthouse grounds?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That includes courthouse
grounds. And the intent is that that maintenance will be
housed -- or Maintenance will be housed in the office
downstairs in the courthouse, and Ms. Davidson will move her
office to the Ag Barn. And she may also be doing some work
with the Extension Office, time permitting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ag Barn or Extension?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's say Ag Barn right now.
She may want to adjust that. i
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other questions or
comments on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Any other --
anything else to be offered in connection with any of those
agenda items? Okay. We'll move to Section 4 of the agenda.
Number 1 is payment of the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a couple of
questions. On Page 6, I just -- it needs some clarification.
Help me understand this thing -- how this thing works. You
3 12-Gi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
have Mr. Motley that looks like he -- there's a number 9 out
there by -- it looks like a number of hearings, maybe, the
number 9. And he gets 665, and then you have the J.P. that
hears 10 and gets 350.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is -- what I'm seeing here is
that lawyers make more than judges? Is --
JUDGE TINLEY: The J.P.'s that hear the probable
cause hearings are compensated on the basis of $35 per case,
flat rate per case.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Therefore, you have $350 for 10
cases. On the mental health hearings, the ad litem lawyer
represents the patients in both probable cause hearings and
civil commitment hearings, and those are done on an hourly
basis.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Depending upon the amount of time
that the lawyer spends, and I approve the payment of the
lawyer on a case-by-case basis.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly what I'm
asking you. You answered it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One other question.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir.
3-iz-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
82
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Could -- probably that
attorney is in exactly the same hearings as this J.P.?
JUDGE TINLEY: In all probability, he was in
hearings held by those J.P.'s. There could be some
cross-over. We change each month, and so there -- there may
or may not be -- there probably is some correlation. Whether
it's total correlation depends on how that gets turned in, and
how it gets funded out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the attorneys are
Court-appointed?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You appoint them?
JUDGE TINLEY: I appoint them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And on Page 1, the
Commitschner's Court -- that's Spanish -- the next to the last
i one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who, what, where, why, how is
I that?
'~ JUDGE TINLEY: E.B.A. litigation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was one of our expenses, our
deposition costs in the E.B.A. litigation. That's the last
3-1'_-07
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bill to come in, I think.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Page 10, probably been this
way for a while; I just never really noticed it. Why, under
civil court appointments, are the names not listed, where
under Court-appointed, they generally are?
MR. TOMLINSON: They could be juveniles.
JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm-mm. No, those would not be.
Those would be C.P.S. cases, and they're just listed by case
numbers.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, that's true. That's what I
meant.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mine come under -- the ones I approve
in juvenile come out of the Juvenile Probation line.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then my question is, why do the
different civil --
MR. EMERSON: In your -- on C.P.S., probably the
easiest way to explain it, Jonathan, is that on any particular
case, you may have three to five attorneys all on the same
case, representing different parties in the same case. So, I
mean, if you put down -- if you put down, you know, "In the
Interest of Jim Jones," or whatever the kid's name is, number
one, you have the juvenile's name in there, which you really
don't need in there, and number two, it's not goinq to make
3-12-07
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
84
any sense anyway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But most of these civil court
ones listed here are C.P.S. cases? Is that what you're
saying?
MR. TOMLINSON: They all are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They all are? Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: We don't pay for any other civil.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I sure am glad.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one quick one, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Page 91, on the Youth
Exhibition Center. The last item, Pioneer Research Corp.,
building and grounds, something or other. What's that all
about?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't -- I'd have to look at it to
see. I don't know. I don't remember what it's for. Building
and grounds. I mean, if you have time, I'll go look.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Maybe you can give me
the answer someday.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, you can come by right after.
I have them in my office.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Tell me later.
3-12-07
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
85
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move to pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the
bills. Any question or discussion? Page 29, Jail
Maintenance. A/C repair, almost $5,000. How about -- I
thought we had replaced every single A/C unit out there by
i now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, they're all failing this
year.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, this --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're just starting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, lord.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think -- 'cause I remember
this is one of the things that when --
MR. TOMLINSON: We did -- we replaced one or two not
long ago, because of light -- of --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lightning.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- lightning issues. It was some
time ago, but they were within the last year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they're -- most of them
are --
MR. TOMLINSON: It wasn't all of them, no.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're replacing -- a bunch of
them, as I understand it from both Maintenance and the
Sheriff, are in very bad shape; they're at the end of their
3 12-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
86
life, 15 years or so, plus or minus.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, isn't five grand a
little bit steep to fix an air-conditioner? How much does an
air-conditioner cost?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: A bunch.
MR. TOMLINSON: About that much.
JUDGE TINLEY: 4,900-plus dollars.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is this a new one? Is that
what you're saying to me?
JUDGE TINLEY: God, I'd hope so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It just says repairs here.
Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget amendment
requests. Budget Amendment Request Number 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: One is for the 198th District Court,
requesting a transfer of $3,798.01 from Court-Appointed
Attorney line item to Civil Court-Appointed Attorneys line
item, for C.P.S. cases.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
3-12-0~
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
87
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? This is going to get
worse before it gets better, isn't it, Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Got a few months left here,
though, looks like.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request Number 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 2 is for the 216th District
Court. We're transferring $2,698.33 from Court-Appointed
Attorney line item to Special Court Reporter. I have
an invoice from Debra Gifford for a transcript for the
Hernandez case.
JUDGE TINLEY: In that amount, $3,640?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're needing a hand check?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
3-12-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
88
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hold on just a second. I saw
that person's name in the regular bills.
MR. TOMLINSON: You probably did.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I did. Must be a
different bill. Or is that the same bill? Be a different
bill, wouldn't it?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, it could have been one from
her for -- in another court or something.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: That one's only $300 in the bills we
approved. Any other question or comment? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 3 is for Road and Bridge.
And we're actually -- we're increasing the budget here for --
for revenues that they've received, $130 for traffic control
and $124 for asphalt/oils, and $2,182.45 for culvert pipe.
We're increasing those line items by those amounts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So these, the people are paying
3-12-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
89
for --
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is stuff we received
revenue for?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just putting it back into
their line items to be expended?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 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.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'd rather have more of these
I kind.
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Do you have any
further budget amendments?
MR. TOMLINSON: I do have one. It was for this
election services that you previously approved.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The 20,000-plus for election
services out of Workers Comp?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
3-12-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
90
MR. TOMLINSON: And I have 10,576 to Judges and
Clerks, and 9,000 ballot expense, 500 to election expenses,
and 500 to notices.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This election is a
constitutional amendment so that people over 65 that have
frozen taxes can have their taxes even made smaller.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's nice.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's what this is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: If they didn't gain any benefit from
the -- from the reduction of the mandated cap on -- of a
dollar fifty down to where it's going, they --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- they come in for another dip at it
so as to get it lower, yeah. Any other question or comment?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Any more
3-1? 07
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
91
budget amendments?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. I have a late bill --
JUDGE TINLEY: Late bill? Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- I need a hand check for, and it's
payable to Northern Parts and Services for $103.09.
JUDGE TINLEY: 103.09?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. It comes out of Maintenance
Department.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of a late bill hand check to Northern Parts and Services for
$103.09. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Any more
late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have been presented with monthly
reports from Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3 and Justice of
the Peace, Precinct 1. Do I hear a motion that these reports
be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
3-12-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
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: That motion does carry. Any reports
from Commissioners in connection with their liaison or
committee assignments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one, Judge.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why? Are you hungry?
JUDGE TINLEY: Late for barbecue at Buzzie's.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Won't take but a minute.
After our joint meeting with the City Council, Commissioner
Letz and I had an Airport Board meeting the next day, and I
guess I could best describe it as -- it was a -- it was pretty
close to being a love-in. We agreed on everything, got a lot
of things done. Subsequent to that, at the KEDF luncheon on
Thursday -- I told Judge Tinley about this -- I'm in line to
get my meager little sandwich, and the mayor is right behind
me, and he says to me, "You know, Commissioner," he said, "I'm
-- about that -- about that Airport Manager reporting to the
board," he said, "you know, I'm having a hard time getting my
3-12-07
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
mind wrapped around how we can do that." I said, "Well,
Mayor, if you and I just get together, maybe I can help you
get your mind wrapped around it." The only thing about this
story that has any importance at all is that he's thinking
about it, and he and I are going to meet, and we're going to
talk tomorrow -- Wednesday to see if we can help him get his
mind wrapped around that issue.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do you need a mediator?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I might just comment on the
love-in. The City Manager and the Airport Manager were both
absent, which might have had something to do with it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Might have had a lot to do
with it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other -- just an item
JUDGE TINLEY: We only want to hear about love-ins,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This might be a little
contentious; at least it was when it happened. I was at a
Headwaters meeting wearing my Region J hat last month, and
there was a letter -- or they had a -- in the reports, a
document that I took great offense to that was totally
misrepresenting the Region J numbers, and I kind of got in a
little bit of a discussion with the Headwaters board, probably
lost my temper a little bit. But, anyway, the end result of
3-12-07
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it is that I'm on their agenda for Wednesday to critique that
actual memo, line-by-line. And -- and the memo was written by
Feather Wilson, so it may be interesting. But I would say
everyone can't attend; probably wouldn't want to attend
anyway, but it's a -- some of their -- it was just a big
stretch from the -- what he was doing. The question he was
asked was comparing actual water -- groundwater usage compared
to Region J estimates, and the answer -- what he talked about
had nothing to do with that. It was talking about -- he tried
to say that actual -- he made the leap that actual usage was
permitted usage, which is -- is meaningless. I mean, you
know, there's lots of permits issued that are never used.
And, anyway, so that's -- that was the basic part of my
disagreement with it, and we're going to go over it at some
length on Wednesday.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, that's when the love-in occurs,
on Wednesday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wednesday. That's all I have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I just think, you know,
after our meeting with the City the other day -- you talked
about the love-in. You were talking about --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, the Airport Board.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, that was the Airport
Board. I think we really need to give some thought to maybe
3-12-07
95
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
following up on us taking various things, and we don't have
this budgetary argument every year over who takes what and
who's paying what and all that. You know, I think we need to
look hard at -- at actually taking responsibility for -- you
know, if they want the library, let them have the library.
We'll take the airport. Or, you know, we'll -- whatever we
figure out as a group to do. But I think there's some merit
to that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you something
about that. There's folks in town saying the same thing.
Personally, I think the library, they own it anyway. But the
airport, when we say we'll take it, does that mean that they
sign over the deed?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The ownership?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Their 50 percent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Huh?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Their 50 percent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay. I just wanted
to --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: However it comes out. But I
just think we need to look at that. You know, they did --
they brought it up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a -- I don't know
3-12 07
96
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
that -- I think the airport can function without going to that
step, but I don't have a real problem with that step. And I
think I made the -- I don't know if it was there or at a
subsequent discussion about this. I think the airport is very
different than the library. I think the airport is -- serves
the county, whereas the library serves primarily the city, and
I think there's a -- there is a big difference.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's more of a rational basis for
the County having total control of the airport.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: 'Cause it serves not only the county,
but also the city.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the counties around.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There is a survey going out on
some of the Internet right now from the advisory -- Library
Advisory Board, trying to get feedback from the citizenry on
what they think the library should be, and they've been given
a list of questions. T. Scott Gross put it together, and I
got it on my computer yesterday. And they're asking for input
from the citizenry to just basically say what they think the
function of the library is, and how -- you know, one of the
questions is, how often do you use it? What do you use it
for? Lists the whole thing, you know, what the usage you
would be doing. And also, they said in there that the County
may be cutting some of the funding, and in the upcoming year,
3-1^_-07
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 so how would we -- how would we regain -- or where would
we find the money to replace what was lost? Those kind of
things.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How widely is that being
circulated?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't know. I think it's --
I don't know how you do that publicly, that survey, out on the
~ computer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's linked with somebody.
But the only people that would read that are library users.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, I know. That's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rather than -- taxpayers
don't look at that kind of stuff.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think it's going to be --
there's also going to be that same survey printed in the open
newspaper, and ask for people to send in responses.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that would be good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think one other point, going
back to the airport. I want to make sure we mention this,
that Dr. Davis has let it be known that he will not -- does
not want to be reappointed, so there will be a vacancy coming
up, and the Airport Board is publishing a notice to receive
applications to fill that vacancy. I wanted to let the
members of the Court know, if they have anyone they think
should apply, get in touch with Bill and I, and we can get you
3-1^_-07
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
a copy of that application.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's one of the two
reasons why the mayor and I are meeting Wednesday, to firm up
that application so that it clearly reflects that it's the
Airport Board that's seeking applicants, and not the City and
not the County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the process there is that
the applications are going to be sent to Dr. Davis, as chair
of the Airport Board. They're not going through our
contractor, who's the City.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How long has Dr. Davis served
on that board?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Long time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Long time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A long time. I would say 12
years, maybe 14 years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bet you it's more than that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Long time, maybe longer than
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We need to say thank you to
I him.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, we do. His term's up
I in June.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to do a resolution.
He's done a lot of work, been very, very helpful, so a lot of
3-1^_-07
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
service.
JUDGE TINLEY: May want to think about getting
Harvey to slide one through.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a good idea.
JUDGE TINLEY: Those look a little prettier than
what we're able to come up with. They got all those fancy
gold seals and ribbons.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they frame them too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was thinking more in the
lines of, like, a weekend in Vail or something. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's -- we could ask him if
he'll let us use his condo at Ruidoso.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ruidoso? Is that where it
I is?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And fly us out there in his
airplane.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm out of here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else, gentlemen? Wait a
minute, we got a County Attorney here.
MR. EMERSON: I need to yak for about one minute
under our part.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: Couple of things. And, number one, if
3-i>-o~
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
y'all need anything done next week, it's probably not going to
happen. We have three jury trials, so just be forewarned if
itself goes, we got two issues going. County Court at Law,
we're just barely holding our own. We're still going through
some growing pains from Odyssey, so we're disposing of cases
at about 101 percent, as opposed to 108, 109, where we were.
So, hopefully we'll get that back up. Also related to
Odyssey, hot check collections. Number one, this issue's been
talked about, but because of more people using debit cards,
ATM cards, more stores doing like Walmart and Hastings, where
they automatically give your check back to you and it's a
withdrawal straight out of your checking account, the numbers
of checks coming in from merchants has dramatically decreased
over the last five years. We're very quickly approaching the
point at which the hot check program, instead of being a
money-maker for the County, will be a break-even or an expense
to the County. So, at some point in the future, y'all need to
consider whether you want to continue to offer this as a
service to the citizens, or you want to tell the merchants to
pursue private collection agencies for their hot checks.
Doesn't mean we won't be prosecuting hot checks; it just means
we're not going to be handling the collection function. So,
that's something to consider.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Rex, would that be something
3 12-07
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that we can -- there will still be some checks out there, but
would that be something that we could pass over to the
Collection Department?
MR. EMERSON: That's a thought. Except that the
statute mandates that it's through the County Attorney's
office.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	I see.	Okay.
	MR. EMERSON:	So, you	know, t	here might be some way
to work	around that, bu	t that --	that's	the limitation.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	And if	we don't collect and
file --	but you do file	on them?		
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Mm-hmm.		
	MR. EMERSON:	Yeah.		
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN:	Contin	ue filing on them.
	MR. EMERSON:	We'll co	ntinue	filing hot check
charges,	but you get down to the	basic	collection effort.
And --				
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. EMERSON: -- you know, we get a set amount per
dollar value of the check, and it's quickly reaching the point
at which it will no longer cover expenses. So, it's something
to consider. Related to that is the Odyssey system -- I think
every segment of that has been installed except the hot check
collections segment. We've -- from our standpoint, we've held
it off as long as possible, because we weren't sure we wanted
3-12-07
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it, quite frankly. The system we use right now costs us $500
a year; that's the only expense to it. Odyssey costs $52,000
up front, plus an annual maintenance cost.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, your hot check program is -- it
does what you need for to it do?
MR. EMERSON: It does exactly what we need it to do.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's just not looped in with the rest
of the system.
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Other than your office, is there a
need to loop it in anywhere?
MR. EMERSON: Only Probation Department, when
they're trying to check restitution or trying to see if John
Doe has paid restitution as part of their probation. But that
can be handled through standard correspondence, like we're
doing now. I have basically told John -- told John that as
far as I'm concerned, I don't want to pay $52,000 for a hot
check system that may be obsolete in two years when we're not
covering -- covering expenses.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would agree.
MR. EMERSON: If y'all disagree with me, then please
let me know. Otherwise, we're not going to go to Odyssey on
the new system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that approach.
JUDGE TINLEY: Makes sense. Anything else? We'll
3-12-07
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:28 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my
capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court
of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place
heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 15th day of
March, 2007.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: _ ~~ i'KA,~--____ ______ ___
Kathy ~`anik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
3-12-07
ORDER NO. 30175
WAIVER OF EXHIBIT HALL RENTAL FEE FOR CHILD'S PLACE
LEARNING CENTER, INC.
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-1-0 to:
Approve waiver of the rental fee for the exhibit hall, but that the Child's
Place Learning Center, Inc. will bear the expense for the setup and cleanup.
ORDER NO. 30176
FiJNDING MAY 12, 2007 ELECTION
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Fund the May 12, 2007, in the total amount of $20,756, by taking the funds
out of the workers compensation line item.
ORDER NO. 30177
APPROVE POLLING LOCATIONS FOR MAY 12, 2007 ELECTION
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Change the Precinct 2 polling location, for the May 12, 2007 election, to the
Union Church.
ORDER NO. 30178
TREE PLANTING IN COURTHOUSE COURTYARD
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin/Oehler. The
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the planting of a tree in the courthouse courtyard for the 35th
Anniversary of Women's Chamber, in honor of Marj Nicholson and Dolores
Livingston, with the location to be on the outer perimeter of the courthouse
grounds, as may be determined by the Maintenance Department.
ORDER NO.30179
CONCEPT FOR REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOTS 3 & 4 OF R. H.
RANCH
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve, as recommended by the Road Administrator, the Concept for
Revision of Plat for Lots 3 & 4 of R.H. Ranch, Vol 3,Page 84, located in
Precinct 4, and set a public hearing for April 23, 2007 at 10:00 a.m.
ORDER NO. 30180
CONCEPT OF RANGER COMMERCIAL PARK
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Concept of Ranger Commercial Park, located in Precinct 2, and
urge Mr. Brinkman to participate in an area watershed study as future
development comes about.
ORDER NO. 30181
APPOINT TOM JONES TO CHILD SERVICES BOARD
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Cour[
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the appointment of Tom Jones as a member of the Child Services
Board.
ORDER NO. 30182
RESOLUTION FOR FUNDING CENTER POINT WASTEWATER
PROJECT
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Resolution to file an application with the Texas Water
Development Board for funding of the Center Point Wastewater Project
from the TWDB Economic Disadvantaged Area Program, and authorize the
County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO. 30183
LEASE TO 216TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
AND CORRECTIONS DEPARTRMENT
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the renewal of the Lease Agreement with the 216th Judicial District
Community Supervision and Corrections Department at the Thad Ziegler
building at 431 Quinlan Street, Kerrville, Texas, subject to the modifications
made by the County Attorney.
ORDER NO. 30184
NATIONAL AGRICULTURE WEEK MARCH 18-24, 2007 IN KERB
COUNTY
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the request to declare March 18-24, 2007, as National Agriculture
Week in Kerr County, Texas, and adoption of Resolution in support of same.
ORDER NO. 30185
RESOLUTION OF THANKS TO LT. GEN. MURPHY A. CHESNEY,
USAF (RETIRED)
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Resolution of Thanks to Lt. Gen. Murphy A. Chesney, USAF
(Retired), after the correction of the word "kept" in the Resolved paragraph,
4th line, to "keep", as indicated by Commissioner Williams.
ORDER NO.30186
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF HB 654 FOR PSYCHIATRIC
HOSPITAL SERVICES
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Adopt the Resolution in support of HB 654, which will establish community
psychiatric hospital services on Kerrville State Hospital Grounds.
ORDER NO. 30187
RESCIND COURT ORDER NO. 26682 FOR NO WAKE ZONE
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Rescind Court Order No. 26682, adopted October 10, 2000, establishing a
"No Wake" zone on Flat Rock Lake.
ORDER NO. 30188
LITIGATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize the County Attorney to proceed with the litigation against Mr.
Dejuan Abel for OSSF violations in Precinct 2.
ORDER NO. 30189
LITIGATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize the Environmental Health Department (to follow statutory
guidelines for notice to the property owners) by issuing letters to all people
(installers and designers, with a copy to the landowners), who are operating
currently without a license, to bring or see to it that all documentation
necessary to license those systems be presented to Environmental Health.
And, approve the issuance of a follow up letter from the County Attorney's
office before any litigation is considered.
ORDER NO. 30190
ORGANIZATION OF MAINTENANCE, CUSTODIAL AND HCYEC
DEPARTMENTS
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Adjust the organization in the 3 Maintenance departments as follows: Maria
Venegas will be in charge of the Custodial group, with her office to be
located in the lower level of the Courthouse; Tim Bollier will be in charge of
Maintenance and Courthouse Grounds, with his office to be located in the
lower level of the Courthouse; and Alyce Davidson will be in charge of the
Ag Bam, with her office will be located at the Ag Barn. These employees
should get with the Human Resources Director to look at the job
descriptions, and to work out the details as required. Also, these employees
will all benon-exempt.
ORDER NO. 30191
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, came to be considered
by the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and
Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	105,736.66
14-Fire Protection	$	11,416.67
15-Road & Bridge	$	18,443.99
50-Indigent Health Care	$	31,202.55
58-Cert of Obligation S 2005	$	431.00
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	668.04
TOTAL
$ 167,898.91
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner
Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the
claims and accounts.
ORDER NO. 30192
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 1
198th DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-436-403 Civil Court Appointed Atty
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $3,748.01
10-436-402 Court Appointed Attorney - ($3,748.01)
ORDER NO. 30193
BUDGET AMENDMENT #2
216th DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-435-494 Special Court Reporter
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $2,698.33
10-435-402 Court Appointed Attorney - ($2,698.33)
ORDER NO. 30194
BUDGET AMENDMENT #3
ROAD & BRIDGE
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/QDecrease
15-350-540 Street Signs Proceeds + ($130.00)*
15-350-500 Surplus Sales + ($124.00)*
15-350-520 Culvert Pipe Proceeds + ($2,182.45)*
15-611-457 Signs/Traffic Control ~ $130.00
15-611-552 Asphalts, Oils, Emulsion + $124.00
15-611-554 Culver Pipe 8 Bridges + $2,182.45
*-Unbudgeted Road & Bridge revenues received for period: 11/02/06-
01/23/07
ORDER NO. 30195
BUDGET AMENDMENT #4
ELECTION SERVICES
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, 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/QDecrease
10-402-108	Judges & Clerks	+ $10,576.00
10-402-210	Ballot Expenses	+ $9,000.00
10-403-330	Election Expenses	+ $500.00
10-402-430	Notices	+ $500.00
10-409-204	Workers Comp.	- ($20,576.00)
ORDER NO. 30196
LATE BILL
COUNTY MAINTENANCE
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to issue a hand check in the amount
of $103.09 to NORTHERN PARTS & SERVICE for INV-523662 Door
Latch/S&H.
ORDER NO. 30197
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports:
JP #3
JP # 1