1
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, August 13, 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

~J
Oo
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I N D E X
August 13, 2007
--- Visitors' Input
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
declare the old plastic election tubs surplus
and authorize the sale of such on eBay
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve Project Change Document Number 2 between
Hart Intercivic and Kerr County to change annual
billing cycle date for election equipment warranty,
support and license agreement, with cost of change
at $1,556.88, & authorize County Judge to sign same
PAGE
6
10
11
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to place
all recorded plats that are presently located in
County Clerk's Office with County Surveyor to be
archived as permanent records 12
1.4	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	authorizing Information Technology Department to	
	immediately hire a full time I.T. specialist	15
1.8	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action	
	concerning preliminary and final plat of Las	
	Colinas of Kerrville	20
1.5	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on new	
	license agreement with Kerrville Christmas Lighting	
	Corporation, and terms and conditions of any such	
	agreement	42
1.6	Request Court's approval of annual agreement with	
	Kerrville Christmas Lighting Corporation for	
	authorization to decorate the courthouse grounds	
	this coming holiday season	42
1.7	Request Court's approval for new archway for this	
	year's Christmas lighting event	42
1.11	Public Hearing concerning revision of plat for	
	Lot 1, The Homestead @ Turtle Creek	58
1.13	Public Hearing for revision of plat for	
	Lots 50 & 51 of Highlands Ranch	58
25
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
August 13, 2007
		PAGE
1.9	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for	
	concept of Northfork Ranch Subdivision	59
1.10	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to name	
	a private road in accordance with the 911 guidelines	65
1.12	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action concerning	
	revision of plat for Lot 1, The Homestead at	
	Turtle Creek	66
1.14	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for re-	
	vision of plat for Lots 50 & 51 of Highlands Ranch	67
1.15	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	renovation plan for pole barn at Hill Country	
	Youth Exhibition Center (Ag Barn)	68
1.16	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding	
	renewal with Texas Association of Counties for	
	insurance coverage as to auto physical damage,	
	auto liability, general liability, crime, law	
	enforcement liability, property physical damage,	
	and public officials' liability	68
1.17	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	adopt a policy in which entities funded by Kerr	
	County should give a cost-of-living adjustment not	
	greater than the rate given by the County or other	
	published rates	71
1.18	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on	
	implementation of the burn ban	74
1.19	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action regarding	
	allowing, free of cost, use of Youth Exhibit Center	
	chairs and tables to "The Ranch" radio station for	
	their 4th annual Camo Claus party on Dec. 13, 2007	76,
		82
1.20 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
Commissioners Court Coordinator assuming
responsibilities for Plateau Water Planning Group
(Region J) 80
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
I N D E X
August 13, 2007
PAGE
1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to adopt
the final draft of the Feasibility Analysis for
Regional Water and Wastewater Services for Center
Point and Eastern Kerr County, Texas, as submitted
to Texas Water Development Board 84
1.22 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
review the new Kerr County Environmental Health
Department plat .filing requirements and make
amendments if necessary
1.23 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action
regarding request from Headwaters Groundwater
Conservation District to drill a Lower Trinity
monitoring well in the Kerrville South area
1.24 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
approving a contract with Sprint to provide
wireless computer access to Kerr County Juvenile
Detention Facility
1.25 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
approving the per diem rate of $90 per day per
child for Kerr County Juvenile Detention Center;
approve Judge Tinley to sign off on contracts for
counties contracting with Kerr County for secure
preadjudication detention services for '07-'08
1.26 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
change status of a part-time employee at the
Juvenile Detention Facility to a full-time
employee position
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
1.27 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
appoint Environmental Health Department Manager
(Executive session as needed)
--- Adjourned
88
105
114
115
116
119
124
148
155
156
158
160
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
On Monday, August 13, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Let me call to order this regular meeting of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court scheduled and posted for this date and
time, Monday, August 13, 2007, at 9 a.m. It is that time now.
Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would everyone please stand and
join me in a moment of prayer, followed by the pledge.
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's
any member of the audience or the public that wishes to be
heard on any matter that is not a listed agenda item, this is
your time to be heard. If you want to be heard on a listed
agenda item, we prefer that you fill out a participation form.
They can be found at the back of the room. It's not
essential; helps me to know that we do have people who have
input on particular issues you, and helps me to be mindful of
that so that I don't miss you. But even if you don't fill out
a participation form and want to be heard on a particular
issue, get my attention when we get to that item, and we'll
give you that opportunity. But right now, if there's any
8-13-07
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
member of the public or the audience take wishes to be heard
on any item that is not a listed agenda item, feel free to
come forward at this time. Seeing no one coming forward, I'd
like to recognize Mr. Mel Ferguson from Senator Troy Fraser's
office who's with us today. And when I saw him earlier this
morning, I told him I'd hoped he brought a handful of checks.
I don't think he's got that. Maybe he's got something that is
maybe not quite as good, but some good news.
MR. FERGUSON: Thank you, Judge, for recognizing me,
and Senator Troy Fraser sends his regards to Commissioners
Court and thanks you for all the support and communications
that you've had with him over the past year, and even since
the legislative session. Here with no agenda items, I'm a
little light on money. But I can write you a check, but
please don't cash it until next Monday. But thank you for --
for recognizing me this morning. About a year ago, I was
asked at another Commissioners Court to do a rain dance for
the hill country area. I did that, and now I can't find the
off button. I wish I could. But we greet you from sunny and
dry Marble Falls as well. Thank you, gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Ferguson. Okay.
Commissioner Letz, what do you have for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't believe I have anything
we have a long agenda. Let's get started.
8-13-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Only one thing. I want to put
-- I'm going to put the burn ban on in western Kerr County
this morning, because we have not had any rain. The fire
departments have called and asked that that be put on because
of drying conditions and tall grass, and we don't want to have
any -- any wildfire or anything like that get away
unnecessarily. People need to be cautious and careful and
respect the burn ban.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I don't have anything,
thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm amazed. At a loss for words?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll bring up something, then
if you -- being that you put it that way. I will -- if we
don't get a little rain, I will be following Commissioner 4's
footsteps here pretty quick.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I feel still kind of safe
in mine. I see people burning, but I haven't heard of
anything getting out of hand, so I think we're still in pretty
good shape in my area.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner 2?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe the good Lord smiles
8-13-07
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on Precincts 2 and 3 more than he does 1 and 4. So, we'll be
-- we had rain, and we'll keep the burn ban where it is for
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Let's go to work.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I had a couple items I wanted
to mention. Some good news. We were successful in obtaining
some of the Comptroller capital credits from electric
cooperatives here in Kerr County that were not properly
allocated, and we got close to $1,300 there, so that's some
money that was literally found. I also want to recognize, and
the public to be aware of some of the work that our Treasurer,
and with the assistance in some respects of our -- our H.R.
Director have been doing. We -- we had a penalty imposed on
us for the first quarter of '06 by the Internal Revenue
Service, and here recently, after paying that penalty, which
is almost $12,500, our Treasurer was able to get us a refund
of that amount by filing the proper Schedule B's that had to
be filed in order to do that, and I believe it was last week,
we got word that we got those funds back. So, that was good
news. The other good news was, we had some issues with the
I.R.S. as a result of the first quarter of this year. Those
issues have been resolved, and the -- what would have been
penalties imposed against Kerr County, in fact, were resolved
without any penalties being imposed. We did have one bit of
8-13-07
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
bad news. A $1,900 penalty was imposed for the fourth quarter
of last year because of some late payment issues with payroll
taxes, and that, of course, I don't think we're going to be
able to get reversed. But we're working on that issue also.
We'll try and seek recovery of that. But, all in all, the --
', the Treasurer's been doing some good work on that. Also,
we've managed to obtain some recoveries from the -- the
insurance people that we had done business with in the past as
a result of premiums having been paid for employees who ceased
to be employed by the County, and for some reason, they were
continued to be paid, and there's been a number of those
recovered. Ms. Hyde, our H.R. Director, in cooperation
with -- with Mindy Williams, our Treasurer, has managed to get
some of those funds. So, all in all, that's been a -- a good
exercise, and I just wanted to have the public aware of their
good work and the fact that they're trying their best to hang
onto your tax dollars and make sure that they're -- they're
safeguarded. Let's get on with our agenda. We've got a long
one today.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before -- Judge, before we start
on that, I believe you and Commissioner Williams have to be
somewhere after noon, and also, just so you're aware, the
Airport Board has changed its meeting time, and it will now
meet on -- at 3 o'clock today, and subsequently at 3 o'clock
the second Monday of the month. So, anyway, that's just for
8-13-07
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
information. And if, for some reason, we do start running
late, we may see you tomorrow here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. If --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe we can get through it.
JUDGE TINLEY: If I see you leaving, you just want
me to know why?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The first item on the agenda
is to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
declare old plastic election tubs surplus and authorize the
sale of same on eBay. Ms. Pieper?
MS. PIEPER: Gentlemen, these are election tubs that
were used with our prior election equipment. They no longer
meet the election laws, and we no longer use them, and I just
wanted to get them declared surplus and get them out of my
office.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you,
8-13-07
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
Ms. Pieper. Next item is to consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to approve the Project Change Document
Number 2 between Hart Intercivic and Kerr County to change the
annual billing cycle date for the election equipment warrant,
support, and license agreement, with the cost of change at
$1,556.88, and authorize the County Judge to sign same.
Ms. Pieper again.
MS. PIEPER: This is just so that once a year, when
I get my bill from them, we can pay it. Because the way it is
now, it's coming to too early. So, I'll just -- this is
basically changing our billing date, but because of that, then
they're prorating a month or two, from what I understand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, it says here, cost
of change, 1,556. Is that a proration or, I mean --
MS. PIEPER: Yeah. That's, like, two months, I
I think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's really not costing us
more; we're just --
MS. PIEPER: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just rolling that cost forward.
MS. PIEPER: Exactly.
JUDGE TINLEY: Into the later billing cycle.
MS. PIEPER: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why would you have
November 1 instead of October 1?
8-13-07
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. PIEPER: Well, I requested October 1, but for
some reason they want November 1.
JUDGE TINLEY: No additional funds; it's just a
matter of rolling it forward?
MS. PIEPER: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion on the motion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. We'll go to Item 3;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to place all
recorded plats that are presently located in the County
Clerk's office with the County Surveyor to be archived as
permanent records, with future original plats, after recorded
with the County Clerk's office, being given to the County
Surveyor for permanent retention. Commissioner Oehler, I
think this was -- you were the lead on this item; is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I went by and talked to
Lee Voelkel about it one day, and then I went by and talked to
8-13-07
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
Ms. Pieper about the same issue, and she -- it was going to be
her recommendation to do it this way, I believe.
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But, you know, she can scan
the originals now, and where people can pull them up online
I' and she can make copies whenever people need them or whatever.
There's -- nothing will really change, except we'll get rid of
the -- it's going to be easier to access them, and we'll have
the permanent hard copies be placed with the County Surveyor,
whoever that may be in the future.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the only question I
had. A hundred percent supportive of this issue. I know that
our surveyor -- the County Surveyor's been there 77 years at
this point, but at some time there will be a new County
Surveyor. Will these records be automatically transferred
over to the new person?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, is the answer. I move
for approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any question or discussion? Ms. Pieper,
these plat cabinets that you've got --
8-13-07
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
MS. PIEPER: I was just going to say, can that
motion include the seven plat cabinets that I have?
JUDGE TINLEY: Seems like that's the proposed way
for these records -- the originals to be stored. You have to
transfer not only the plats, but the containers that they're
in.
MS. PIEPER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a minor point. Who's
paying to move all that stuff, now that we're moving -- we're
moving cabinets now.
MS. PIEPER: Our County Surveyor.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: County Surveyor's going to move
these cabinets? Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: What a guy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What a guy.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With a helper.
JUDGE TINLEY: He raised his hand.
MR. DON VOELKEL: We had talked before about now
that we don't have to keep those originals on file, and that
now that we're going to scan them -- we were limited by the
size of the cabinet for the size of the plat; 21 by 26 were
the biggest plat size do we and that's what I was going to ask
Jannett while we're all here. Do you think we can now go back
to the 24 by 36, which is the normal plat size, so we can get
more on them? Since she's not limited with space. And in
8-13-07
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
that same vein, do we still have to submit films, since we're
not -- since she doesn't keep films any more?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not an agenda item for
today.
MR. DON VOELKEL: I know, but can we talk about that
to maybe --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll put it on the agenda.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Okay. Next time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other 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. We'll move
to Item 4; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
authorizing the Information Technology department to
immediately hire a full-time information technology
specialist. Mr. Trolinger?
MR. TROLINGER: Good morning. As you know, we've
budgeted in budget workshops for the additional Information
Technology specialist. But with Brad's absence -- extended
absence, I feel that it needs to be pushed up in order to
cover the -- the requirements -- 24/7 requirements of the
Sheriff's Office, et cetera.
8-13-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you've also -- your support
in-house at the Sheriff's Office is going to be no longer
available to you as of --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Last Friday.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- middle of this week?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Last Friday.
JUDGE TINLEY: Last Friday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have money in your budget
to pay the salary for two months, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The Auditor -- believe it or
not, the Auditor did call me and asked ask me about that --
the new Auditor. And we had budgeted last year -- I don't
know how much it would cover; we had budgeted last year the
20 -- I think it's 23,000 for the software maintenance for
this year that we did not ever get into the contract with.
But that is still under Software Maintenance in my budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I wouldn't expect that we'd
get a bill for it since we didn't have a contract with them.
MR. TROLINGER: And that's correct. And the
Auditor's reviewed the budget and essentially found that money
in the Sheriff's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What would the starting
8-13-07
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Grade 26, $40,704. But commensurate with experience, I've
anticipated -- I've actually budgeted for 42,9 approximately.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You've budgeted for 42,9?
MR. TROLINGER: Well, approximate -- I've
approximated in next year's budget, during the workshop,
42, 900.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, if the person -- if you
find this person and you put him on the payroll, he'll go on
at 40,700?
MR. TROLINGER: That's the -- that's what I'm
anticipating. But depending on experience and the right
person, I want to have the flexibility to offer a little bit
more to get the right person to, you know, for instance, move
from out of town. This is not a -- you know, this is not a,
"Go follow me and do this." This is a position that
essentially is my mirror.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, all we're talking about
today is two months salary? Two months?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two months.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Two months salary.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so, if we transferred
that 23 out of Software Maintenance in the Sheriff's Office
into this -- your line, then we're safe for the two months?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir.
8-13-07
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then you can fuss over 42
or 42,9 or all that later.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're going to have this
posted on the web site and advertise? How do you plan to
handle it?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes. Both -- both advertisement and
the web site, I believe. I'm not 100 percent on the newspaper
publication, if that's required, but it will be on the web
site.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the only -- I'm not sure
how we have changed our hiring format since we have the H.R.
department down there exactly, but I think that we need -- you
need to make sure it goes through that department, as -- as
opposed to just doing it on your own.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. I developed the -- the
requirements for information technology specialist working
with H.R. and a few other counties that gave me some input,
and have a --
JUDGE TINLEY: Job description?
MR. TROLINGER: -- have some background. And the --
~ yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TROLINGER: The job description.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
8-13-07
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 OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item as indicated. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, are we talking about
transferring money from Point A to Point B?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know if there's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In this motion?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, just approval to go
ahead, but when it comes time to transfer, there will be a
budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other item is, the
intent is that this person is going to be working with the
Sheriff's Department closely, correct?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Long-term?
MR. TROLINGER: I anticipate that the person will
actually be stationed at the Sheriff's Department and, for
instance, come to the courthouse for half a day, be out at
Probation, Animal Control, et cetera. They're going online
next year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But that's not going to be a
Sheriff's Department employee; it's going to be your employee;
8-13-07
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
is that correct?
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No -- I'm seeing a no.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, he's not going to be a
Sheriff's Department employee.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: But the bulk of his work, obviously,
will be at the S.O., at the Law Enforcement Center.
MR. TROLINGER: Just as a matter of convenience.
That's where the -- you know, besides the courthouse, the
majority of the users are at.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 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: That motion does carry.
MR. TROLINGER: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 5; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action -- let's defer on Item 5
for just a moment. That dovetails with 6 and 7. We'll come
back to those, and let's go to Item 8; consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action concerning the preliminary and final
plat of Las Colinas of Kerrville. Mr. Odom?
8-13-07
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Las Colinas of Kerrville was
the first subdivision under the legislative mandate for
one-stop shopping for the developer. The concept was done by
the Court back in December of '05. In January of '06, the
City of Kerrville took over the platting of everything in the
ETJ. The development inspections were done under the City's
supervision. The City approved the final plat at their last
meeting. We're here today because a portion of the plat is
outside of the ETJ and in the County's jurisdiction;
therefore, the Court needs to approve both the preliminary and
final approval for Las Colinas of Kerrville.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The reason that I'm in
support of this was that this was one of those subdivisions
back in the olden days when the guy came to this Court and got
approval or disapproval and paid all the county fees, and then
he'd go over to the city and do -- go through the same
process, pay the fees at both places. And, as we all know,
that -- that is a nutty way to do business. So, the City,
through negotiations with Commissioner Letz and myself, have
taken the ETJ program, and they have approved it. This thing
is built. You know, we've penalized this developer more than
one way, and it's already built, and there's one street that
is outside the ETJ, and I don't know how many lots. Seems
like there's 12 or 15 lots or something that's actually in --
inside -- outside the city and in the county, and what can you
8-13-07
22
1
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~ say? It's done. The thing's built.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think it's important to
add that the developer did what the County and City told him
to do. It was just -- it fell, kind of, through the cracks in
that under the -- at the time it was assumed that -- should
never assume things, but it was assumed that the agreement the
City and the County had that the -- if it was a majority in
the city, they would do it; majority in the county, the County
would do it, but it would be the -- the policy. But then that
policy turned out to be not proper, or not able to do it,
because the City doesn't have any authority outside the ETJ.
And, therefore, it got into -- but the developer was never
told this. The developer did everything he was asked to do
and built everything in compliance, basically, with our rules
anyway. So, I mean
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one problem with it.
Not -- not with the plat or the subdivision, but with the
name. And, for some reason or other, the name seems to have
fallen through the cracks, because it duplicates in large
measure the name of a subdivision that has been in place in
Kerr County since 1984, I believe. And most recently as last
week, we had the first of what will probably be a lot of
confusion over time with respect to visitation to Las Colinas,
whether it's Las Colinas of Kerrville or the other Las Colinas
on Medina Highway. And I'm not sure how this happened,
8-13-07
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
whether it happened in our piece of the review process or
whether it happened with the City in its review process, or
whether it happened with 911, but the fact of the matter is,
there is another Las Colinas, and it is causing the
beginning -- it has already begun to cause confusion as to
location for deliveries. And if it's deliveries of mail or
packages or visitors today, it can be confusion with respect
to the delivery of emergency services tomorrow. So, I don't
know what we do about it, but there is a duplication that
should never have happened in terms of the name. Not -- the
subdivision.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. I understand.
First of all, 911 doesn't have anything to do with naming of
subdivisions; that's something that we approve or disapprove.
They name -- they approve the street names. And I would think
that -- that if emergency services received a call to one or
the other, that the duplication is not in the street names. I
don't know what this argument -- I keep hearing about this big
fight brewing over the name of the subdivision, but I don't
see -- you know, all I'm concerned with is the health and
safety of our citizens, and in my mind -- and, Rusty, correct
me if I'm wrong -- that if emergency services are called to a
particular street, then, you know, this subdivision and the
one on the Medina Highway will have different names of
25 ~ streets. And -- even though the name's technically not the
8-13-07
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
same as well. But I don't -- I don't see the problem. Now,
if -- if the gentleman out on Medina Highway doesn't like --
doesn't like the name of this subdivision, maybe, you know, he
needs to go through his channels to have it changed. But, I
mean, I don't -- I don't see the problem in it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, we need --
MR. MOSTY: Judge Tinley, could the gentleman from
Medina Highway speak?
JUDGE TINLEY: Momentarily, Mr. Mosty. We'll get to
you. Are you through, Mr. Odom?
MR. MOSTY: I'm speaking on this item.
MR. ODOM: Excuse me. I waited for any questions to
me, but I'll just defer my time to him and then come back.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Give your name to the
reporter.
MR. MOSTY: My name is Richard Mosty; I live at 131
Las Colinas in Kerrville. And I appreciate that. 911 ought
to go to the right location. But last week, we had some
furniture being delivered, and we gave them our address, phone
number, 131 Las Colinas. They looked it up and they called my
wife and said, "Your gate doesn't work." And so she said,
"Okay, I'll come down; I'll open the gate for you." So, she
goes down, opens the gate, and there's nobody there. She gets
on the phone with them, says, "Where are you?" "We're out on
Sheppard Rees Road." Now, it's furniture. And -- but the
8-13-07
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
people made a mistake. And if 911 makes a mistake, it's not
going to be a funny item. You know, I said in jest, what I
might do is -- I still own all my subdivision. I might just
apply for it to be renamed Riverhill of Kerrville. If that's
different enough, then I could do that. So, I think it's
something that if -- in a perfect world, there might never be
a problem, but there could be, and my -- I live on Las Colinas
Drive. And, as a matter of fact, they told me I couldn't -- I
wanted to name it Mosty something-or-other, and they said no,
', there are too many Mosty names in Kerrville, and that might
cause confusion. Well, the confusion is I think what the
Court ought to be avoiding. And I'll take any questions if
you have any.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the only question-slash-
comment, this is a little bit unusual, because the County
wasn't really involved with this. This was intended -- the
developer was told to work with the City of Kerrville, which
the developer did. Have you talked to the City of Kerrville?
They're the ones that approved the name.
MR. MOSTY: I get the same -- I get the same story
from everybody. "We don't check that; there's nothing we can
do about it." I will say this. Mr. Odom, when this very
first came up -- this has been now two years ago -- the
developer wanted to reserve the name, and Mr. Odom pointed out
to the Court at that time that there was already a Las Colinas
8-13-07
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
Subdivision. So, it's not a -- it's not a new subject.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I guess -- this
developer -- I understand your issue, but I also say the
developer -- the County hasn't -- wasn't really a party to
this, and we told the developer the County wasn't going to be
a part of this deal. And just an actual -- as I said earlier,
it is the inability for the City and County to do what we had
intended to do because of some legal issues with the City that
it's even back before us. And I don't know that -- I mean, if
the -- for this -- if we don't approve it, then we're going
back and -- and not approving something that we told the
developer we would approve, basically, and then he has to go
back to the City again.
MR. MOSTY: You're just talking about a name, not
talking about approving the development itself. You're
talking about the name.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but I --
MR. MOSTY: That's the only issue. And I don't have
any issue with the development or anything about it. I don't
know anything about it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Richard --
MR. MOSTY: The name is the only issue, and it's --
in my mind, it's a safety issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- well, it is -- I see
it a little bit different than you do. If -- if a call comes
8-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
27
in to 911, and it's a call to Rusty, as an example, they're
going to say, "I'm having a heart attack and I live on San
Juan Mission South." They don't say, "I live in Las Colinas
of Kerrville" or "Las Colinas."
MR. MOSTY: So long as no mistakes are made,
Mr. Baldwin, that's -- that's true. Last week, the furniture
company made a mistake. And if we can -- if we can be certain
that no mistakes will occur, there will never be a problem --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't guarantee that. I'm
not real concerned about -- I don't mean to be rude, but I'm
not concerned about furniture or mail or any of that kind of
12 I stuff.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MOSTY: I could care less about furniture.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: People that Rusty and the
ambulance service and those people can handle, that's what I'm
concerned with.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If I can't -- I think there
could be a big issue because of one thing. Because the name
of Mr. Mosty's road is Las Colinas Drive. So, when 911 comes
in, okay? Say somebody in Mr. Mosty's subdivision calls 911,
and, "I live at 150 Las Colinas." Just because of the --
the -- not massiveness, but popularity of that Las Colinas
Subdivision out there, that's the first place everybody's
going to think of. Not Mr. Mosty's drive. They're going to
think I live on Las Colinas, and they're going to take off out
8-13-07
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there. So, I think it could have a potential --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right, sit down.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question. Do we have the specific
authority under our Subdivision Rules and our platting
requirements with respect to the name of a particular
subdivision?
', MR. ODOM: Off the top of my head, I would -- I'm
~~ not a lawyer, but I don't recall anything like that, other
than road names to be cleared by 911. So, I -- I don't know
if there's anything binding about the subdivision name.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the Clerk has that
authority, actually.
MS. PIEPER: I was thinking; it seems like there's a
statute in the Property Code that the developer is supposed to
check with the County Clerk for a name -- the same name, which
nobody ever does. But seems like there is a statute in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the County Attorney
think about it?
JUDGE TINLEY: County Attorney's thinking.
MR. EMERSON: That -- well, basically, that you guys
are all right. I don't think there's anything in 232 that
specifically talks about the name of a subdivision. Strictly
talks about the technical requirements of the subdivision.
But Jannett's absolutely correct, that I think -- I forget
8-13-07
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
what the statute is, but there is a Property Code statute
about reserving names and property rights associated with
reserving that name.
you?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only thing --
MR. EMERSON: Is that answer ambiguous enough for
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, it is, thank you. I'm
trying to sort through it right now.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only difference is, Mr. Mosty's
subdivision is also named Las Colinas, but also his road is
Las Colinas. Now, if he wanted to go through the real trouble
of renaming the road, it may solve some of the problems.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think there's any
roads in this other one named Las Colinas. I don't think.
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
24 not us.
25
8-13-07
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there anybody that
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't -- what do y'all want
to do? What's the right thing to do? I don't know that
it's -- from what I just heard just now, it's not up to us to
make these kinds of decisions of names of subdivisions.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe it would be proper for
the County Clerk to contact both parties and see if they might
want to -- one of them rename, so that there wouldn't be a
conflict. Sounds like she's the one that has the authority,
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in the audience?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'll make a comment on
that, just a little bit. 'Cause I met with the developer
along with Commissioner Baldwin. I think probably the reason
he's not here is 'cause I said this is a ministerial duty from
our standpoint. I don't see that we have any issue with this,
and I probably -- probably told him he didn't need to come, I
think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, I think it's not a
lack of interest here, because this issue -- this is the first
I've heard of the issue of the names. You know, being -- it
wasn't discussed when I met with Mr. Richards, his attorney,
the attorney for the development.
MR. DOMINGUES: I'm Charles Domingues. Commissioner
Williams, I do not have any -- that much insight into what
went on in naming this. I do know that they went through the
approval process to get this name when this subdivision
started two years -- over two years ago.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would that have been?
What would that approval process have been?
MR. DOMINGUES: Through the County Clerk, from what
I understand.
JUDGE TINLEY: What happened to the County Clerk?
8-13-07
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. GRINSTEAD: She's on my computer.
MR. DOMINGUES: But I don't know for sure. I wish I
did, but I don't.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: First, to straighten out the
confusion, I don't have any problem with the plat -- the
subdivision. It's just the name. And, to me, it's a safety
issue as well.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we -- the County Attorney's
got some comments he wants to make.
MR. EMERSON: Well, I'm --
JUDGE TINLEY: It occurs to me maybe this thing
properly is in his lap for the time being until we give him an
opportunity to sort through the various issues involved and
see what the legal ramifications are. We -- we may want to
hang this thing on the hook.
MR. EMERSON: And I'd be more than happy to do that,
Judge. But in clarifying what happened two years ago, I can
tell you, because I was at that meeting with Mr. Baldwin, is
that we talked to the developer for an extended period of
time. It was determined at that point the development was
going to be within the ETJ of the city. We had the agreement
with the city, and he was referred over to the city at that
point. Now, I also seem to recall that when the original
concept plan was presented to this Court, Mr. Odom and Truby
8-13-07
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
presented to the Court that there was a name problem, and it's
my understanding that that issue was supposed to be addressed
through the City. But the County was notified at that time
that Jannett had a problem with the name.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our rules do address it, by the
way. Our rules say the proposed name of the subdivision shall
not have the same spelling as or pronounced similar to the
name of any other subdivision located wholly or partially in
the county. Subdivision names must be checked for duplication
by the County Clerk.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If it's a subdivision in the
county.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, yeah, but this is in the
county.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: ETJ.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the ETJ is county more than
city from -- well, it depends on which way you look at it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I look at it your way; it's
in the county.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- you know, but the
question comes, is this a -- is this different enough, when
you add the "of Kerrville"? And that's -- you know, it may
be. I mean, there's lots of subdivisions that are -- you
know, The Estates of Walnut Strings, The Preserve at Walnut
Springs. I mean, people do that intentionally a lot of times
8-13-07
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for geographic reasons for whatever name. I mean, Las Colinas
of Kerrville or Las Colinas. I mean, those -- to me, those
are two different names. May there be confusion? Possibly.
But it does -- I mean, they're different. That's why I'd make
it the County Clerk's decision, not mine.
MR. ODOM: May I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
MR. ODOM: -- say from my memory on this -- and this
goes back December, probably November when we talked about it.
But I remember right before January, we gave a list of roads
-- or subdivisions that would be affected or not affected at
this point, and this was one of them that was going to be
affected. It was turned totally over to the city. I'm not
trying to escape or put the blame on them, but I remember
there was a list of subdivisions or -- or concepts or
preliminaries that were going forward at that time, and then
this was one of them that hit right at that point, and that
that was -- that was one of them, if not the -- not the one at
that point that was going to be turned over totally to the
City.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's part of the -- I
mean, the point we haven't been involved in this. I mean,
it's a City -- if there's a conflict there, the City has
approved it, in my mind. I mean, this is -- we told the
developer to work with the City. That's what our rules say.
8-13-07
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
And the developer did what he -- we told him to do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't -- and that, to me,
includes name change. I understand Mr. Mosty's concern, and
the City should have listened to him or should have taken it
under consideration. Maybe they did and decided that it
wasn't close enough, but --
MR. MOSTY: I don't live in the city, and I don't
know -- I don't even know any of this. I just happened to
find out that this was on the agenda today. Nobody --
nobody's ever contacted me about anything.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And -- but I think the -- I
mean, to me, it's a city issue because, I mean, they can -- I
mean, there's lots of subdivisions that are in the city or in
the ETJ that may be a duplicate to the county; may be close or
may not, you know. It's -- there's no person in the county
that has ultimate control over that, other than possibly
Jannett, but I don't think she has any influence in the city.
So, I mean, they certainly can look at names.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if this Court refused to
take any action today and sends it back to the City, would
that be the appropriate way to move it?
I
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so. I think the
developer did what we told him he needed to do. I mean, I
think the developer -- I don't think it's right for us to tell
8-13-07
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the developer by, you know, action of this body to go work
with the City; you're in the ETJ. He does everything we've
told him to, then for us to come back and say we're -- that
we're not going to approve it when the City has approved it, I
don't think that's right. I mean, I understand Mr. Mosty's
concern, but we're doing -- the developer did what we told him
to do, and for us to not do this I don't think is -- is right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And us -- us denying him that
would be -- we would be taking a stand for the City. We just
', need to take a -- do what we're supposed to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, there may be -- I
personally feel this is a far enough -- different enough name.
But, you know, I can also see Mr. Mosty's concern that it is
similar. But all I can say is that, I mean, we told the
developer that the City is handling this; it's in the ETJ, and
it was several months ago when it was determined by the City
Attorney that they don't have this authority outside the ETJ,
you know. But the City went ahead and acted. The City
actually, I think, thinks they do have authority. Well, the
City Council thought they had authority to approve it. It was
at the very end as to who signed because of floodplain and
some other issues, it had to come back to Len.
MR. EMERSON: For what it's worth, Jonathan, it's my
understanding that at least until recently, nobody knew that
the subdivision overlapped the ETJ line. I know at least two
8-13-07
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
more to add to this?
MR. DOMINGUES: Well, I might add one thing.
There's a street here in Kerrville that has been named
Guadalupe Street since the year zero, and there's also a
subdivision just outside the city limits that's Guadalupe
Heights, and there's several subdivisions named with
"Guadalupe" in it. And I would like to ask Rusty if he knows
of any problem that has happened because of this subdivision
name and street names being the same. And there's several of
them.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But -- there are several, but
I
there is a big difference in Guadalupe Street and Guadalupe
Heights. The problem I personally think you're going to have
is -- is Jonathan's right, there is a name difference a little
bit. But on that very beautiful entrance up there off
Sheppard Rees, all it says on that sign is "Las Colinas." And
what I know, just from all the years working patrol and being
in charge of the department, if somebody calls, says I live --
cause normally, your major road going just -- major road going
in a subdivision a whole lot of times is the same name as the
subdivision; it's that drive or whatever. And if somebody
from Mr. Mosty's road on Las Colinas calls, and it says, you
know, 131 Las Colinas, I just about promise you that unless
8-13-07
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they get enough information to really say Highway 16 South or
something also, you're going to have people drive to Sheppard
Rees, just because of the -- of how knowledgeable that new
subdivision is and how prominent it is. It's beautiful, and
that's what they're going to go to.
MR. DOMINGUES: Yeah, well at one time, Guadalupe
Street and Guadalupe Heights were also new.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I mean, you have a lot of
things. You have a First through Fifth Street in Kerrville;
you have a First through Third Street in Center Point, a First
through Sixth Street in Ingram. Okay? And they do cause
confusion at times. I'm not saying you don't. But I can see
these people running out to -- to Sheppard Rees when a call
comes in on -- on Las Colinas.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don't see the
analogy between Guadalupe and Guadalupe Heights, because there
is no street involved in Guadalupe Heights that's named
Guadalupe Street or Avenue, so I don't see the analogy there.
But I do see a potential problem, because somebody's going to
call up for a 911 call, and they're going to give an address
on Las Rincones South; they're going to say, "That's in Las
Colinas," to help whoever they're directing or trying to get
directions to, so I do see a potential problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't disagree with the
potential problem. I'm just saying I don't think -- I think
8-13-07
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's wrong for us to change it at this point or to try to get
involved in it, because I think that it's the -- I mean, I
didn't even know that the developer had a sign up in his
thing, but that even makes it more so. I mean, he's -- you
know, for us just to arbitrarily, after he did what we told
him to, change the name, it's going to cost that developer
huge sums of money, and he did what we told him to do. And
that's just -- if I was him, I'd sue us, you know. I mean --
I COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He did what we told -- he
did what we told him to do in terms of plat review, which was
to have the City do it. You're correct. So, somewhere,
however, the process broke down, because the name was not
double-checked. And Mr. Domingues represents that the County
Clerk was a part of the process for determining that
subdivision name. I don't know whether Ms. Pieper was or not.
She's shaking her head no, which tells me somebody dropped the
ball.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, let me ask you, if I might,
is it not the case that when a call comes in to 911, by virtue
of their GPS work that they've done and all the mapping of
their streets, when they punch in whatever address and street
name, it's going to kick it up on that map and it's going to
show you on an expanded screen exactly where that is, if it's
off out here in the southeast part of the county -- southeast
or southwest or wherever it may be?
8-13-07
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know what the city has
that kicks up on 911, okay? When it comes in to the Sheriff's
Office, transferred from the city, all it is is a printout
that says the address. That's all you get. You don't get any
map, any GPS coordinates, location or anything else. All our
office is going to get is 130 Las Colinas, and that's -- I
don't see it as being a problem with all the residents inside
the Las Colinas Subdivision, 'cause those are different names,
those streets. I see it being more of a problem -- and a
potential problem with Mr. Mosty, with his -- the name of his
road being Las Colinas; that it assumes it gets back there.
But we don't have the mapping; never have had. That's not the
county's part of the 911.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does that not exist at 911?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It -- it could. It's never
been anything that the county's --
JUDGE TINLEY: You don't know whether it exists at
911?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I don't know what the city
has. I know what part of the 911 that we have -- we get, and
have always got, and it's just the street name and that's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you have no idea what they get at
the PSAP over there?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
8-13-07
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
get.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, this Court is
responsible for naming of the streets or approving naming of
streets, not naming of subdivisions. I move for approval of
this agenda item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second for
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Only thing I can say about it,
it seems to me that there needs -- you know, it's one of those
things that has happened, and that was not maybe researched
enough by the City in the beginning. And it seems to me that
it would cause -- cause a safety code -- safety problem in the
future, health and safety. And the only thing I can say is, I
would encourage one of them to maybe make a change to where
there would not be a conflict. And I know that's not
palatable for either one of them, but to -- to address the
safety issue, I think it would be a good idea for them to deal
with it and change it on their own.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that. I think the
-- and I think we need to look at maybe revisiting the ET J,
8-13-07
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
not -- there are many, many similar names. There's -- you
know, "cypress" is another word that's used in countless
'i subdivisions. There's lots of other words that are used that
are similar. And for --
JUDGE TINLEY: Kerrville South.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, there's -- this
is not a unique problem. It probably needs to be looked at.
And I don't see this as any worse or any better than any of
the other ones, but I think the reality here is that the
developer did what we told him to do.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER:	Well,	that'	s	the way you have
to view it. I mean, once you -	- it's	kind	of	like meeting --
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
I bound to do.
22
23
24
25
(Commissioners Baldwin, Letz and Oehler voted in
favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioner Williams voted against the motion.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
8-13-07
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Court's approval or annual agreement with Kerrville Christmas
Lighting Corporation for authorization to decorate the
courthouse grounds for this coming holiday season. Let me go
ahead and call Item 5 also. Consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on new license agreement with Kerrville
Christmas Lighting Corporation and terms and conditions of any
such agreement. And I think I'll go ahead and call 7 also,
since it's part of the bigger matrix. Item 7, to request the
Court's approval for new archway for this year's Christmas
lighting event. Archway will be metal frame similar to
existing displays and span over the sidewalk in front of the
courthouse. Mr. Bond?
MR. BOND: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good to have you here today.
MR. BOND: Thanks for taking time to see me. I
think you guys have copies of the drawings of the archway?
You have that in your paperwork?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. Yes, it's part of the package
that was given to every member of the Court.
MR. BOND: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Bond, let me ask you. At the
outset, I'm given to understand that -- that our maintenance
people have raised an issue with you or some of your people
8-13-07
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
concerning some electrical infrastructure, primarily up on
this part of the --
MR. BOND: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- of the courthouse, dealing with
putting in new circuits and safety and fire --
MR. BOND: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- issues up there, have they not?
MR. BOND: Yes, they have. Tim -- we worked with
Tim on that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I just want to say up front that I
see that as absolutely essential --
MR. BOND: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- to -- to going forward with any
Christmas lighting of this courthouse. 'Cause I see it as
a -- as a safety and fire issue that needs to be addressed.
And if it's not addressed, --
MR. BOND: Judge, I can --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- I see a problem.
MR. BOND: I can elaborate briefly on that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
MR. BOND: What has happened over the years -- and
I've only been involved for a couple of years, so I've seen it
in the last couple. As the -- as the wires age and they rub
on the parapet around the outside of the building, weather,
you know, wind, whatnot blow on those, it wears those wires
8-13-07
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
out, so we replace them periodically. But also on top of the
', courthouse, we actually last year had a lot of the community
service folks up there helping, and the prisoners helping set
that up. And without supervision, they were splicing wires
together and -- and in unsafe ways. So, last year especially,
when Tim took over that position, he witnessed that, more so
than it has been in the past. So, for whatever reason, last
year's setup was -- was especially unsafe. It hasn't been so
in previous years; it's been done differently. We've looked
at a number of different electrical companies to come out and
put in conduit around the perimeter.
JUDGE TINLEY: New circuits?
MR. BOND: And new circuits, so that that will take
care of that issue. So, it shouldn't be a problem this year.
I'm working with Tim directly on that to make sure that --
that it's done up to his codes and requirements, so that'll be
taken care of, agreed. Yeah, we don't want to have a fire;
that's certainly not our intention, so we're with you on that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, great. Thank you.
MR. BOND: As far as the other two items, I don't
know if anybody has any questions about the new archway, or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I do have questions
about it, but I -- I can't get past 5 and 6. They seem to be
the same thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Really, yeah, they are.
8-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
45
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So, I'm going to
choose 6 with the corrected names and -- and this is basically
the same agreement that we've been running?
MR. BOND: Every year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We just change the name of
the personnel.
MR. BOND: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Et cetera. Well, I move for
approval, Judge, unless you want to do that. Did you -- would
you like to make the motion?
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, you go ahead with your
questions.
JUDGE TINLEY: On the -- on the previous one, we had
an end date of sometime in January, as I recall -- January 14,
which I think got dropped in the word processor.
MR. BOND: Oh, did it? Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. We've got a beginning date,
but we don't have an end date. And I'm not sure, from a
calendar standpoint -- I'm sure you want to --
MR. BOND: That was a typographical error. I
25 ~ apologize.
8-13-07
46
1
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: -- you want to do it on probably the
second or third weekend in January.
~~
MR. BOND: Yes.
~I~ JUDGE TINLEY: Or ending on the Sunday, whatever
i
date that is.
MR. BOND: I don't have a calendar in front of me
either, but that would be fine. We'll be taking them down the
week after the 1st, following the -- the New Year's holiday.
So, it will be the next weekend that we do take down. We
usually finish that in one weekend.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, it would be the 7th or
8th or something?
MR. BOND: 7th or 8th would be fine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you move it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, not really.
JUDGE TINLEY: Kinda, sorta?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sorta.
MR. BOND: If y'all would like to put a date on
there, and then --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What was the old date?
14th, wasn't it?
JUDGE TINLEY: 14th, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we need a date, or can we
say the -- by the following Sunday after the 1st?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's kind of a drop-dead
8-13-07
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
date, to get it down by that certain drop-dead date.
MR. BOND: Why don't you give us until that
following week, the 14th, just in case we need an extra
weekend to get it finished?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, by the end of the second
MR. BOND: Yeah, that's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: End of the second Sunday.
MR. BOND: The second Sunday after the 1st.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, I think that language is
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That way we can leave it on; we
could change both of the dates every year. We can go to --
', MR. BOND: Jody said the 13th is a Sunday.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. If you just say at
the end of the second week after the 1st, then you don't have
to worry about what the date -- actual date is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second Sunday in January, and
'' you start -- and it goes up the fourth Sunday of October.
MR. BOND: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or fourth Saturday.
MR. BOND: The only caveat I would say is if we have
two weekends of terrible weather or something like that, that
could possibly put us out, but other than that --
8-13-07
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't stretch it. Don't
push. What -- now, who's going to -- who's going to prepare
this with the new language?
MR. BOND: I'll be happy to do that, if you want me
to submit it back. And then do I need to come back again?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to approve it
today; then you're going to bring back the real thing, and
then the Judge signs it at that time. Huh? Yeah.
MR. BOND: I don't have to come back to court to do
that? Just bring it? I'll do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda items as indicated. All in favor, 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. Looks like
the archway is a separate issue here now.
MR. BOND: Yes. That's a new display that we're
looking to do this year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a couple questions.
MR. BOND: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Main Street side or Sidney
8-13-07
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
Baker side? Or is it lighted, and if so, where's the
electrical come from?
MR. BOND: The electrical is already existing, and
yes, it will be lighted. In the -- in one of the drawings,
you'll see kind of a front view of it, with the sponsorship
signs on either side. We will have small spotlights shining
up on those to illuminate those, and it will be facing out the
front, the main -- out towards the hospital on the front
sidewalk. I consider that the front, I guess. And it will be
just inside those two trees on this side of the parking lot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I have no problem with
the archway at all; I just have a -- a general comment. It
seems in recent years -- I don't know -- I don't want to come
across as dated, but a little more of a lack of coordinated
design. It seems like there was just, like -- you know, we
had snowmen over here and reindeer here, and things that
weren't working over here. And, you know, it just seems to me
it -- you know, it would be -- I'd like to see kind of -- sort
of a theme -- not necessarily a theme, but I don't know, kind
of a direction of where it's going with Christmas lighting. I
mean, y'all have done a great job, and it's certainly getting
colorful, but it's -- hodgepodge is what comes to mind. And I
think we can -- it's more the direction I think you're going.
If you just take this back to your group and try to get more
of a direction, I think it would be beneficial.
8-13-07
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BOND: Well, the good news is we've got some new
blood coming into the group. As you know, this has been a
tradition that's been going on for a number of years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. BOND: Probably 10 or 12 years now, I think.
And we've had to kind of work through the difficulty of
getting new ideas in there. So -- so that's where we're
headed. I agree, and I think that's something that we're
trying to do. We're trying to recruit some new younger backs
to do these things. It's a pretty good amount of work, as you
know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it just seems that it's a --
MR. BOND: Well, the displays themselves are -- are
very -- they age, of course, every year, and they weather.
The other challenge, of course, is they're very expensive to
purchase. So, as we -- as we move into new ideas -- like, the
archway is one step in that direction, kind of like a gateway
I' that lets -- you know, it's an entrance into the lighted area.
You know, we're going to try to move towards newer, better,
more cohesive designs as we go forward.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just think -- I mean, I think
it's -- I don't want to try to mimic Johnson City,
necessarily, but I think that they're -- they've stuck with a
8-13-07
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
theme there, and I think it works for them. I think we
have --
MR. BOND: One of the challenges that we face here,
too, is that this is all a volunteer-type deal. In Johnson
City, they've got their electrical company doing all that work
for them, so it's a different scenario. I wish we had the
i same --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. BOND: -- resources that they have there too.
But we don't, so we're --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Bond?
MR. BOND: Yes?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not as nice as Mr. Letz.
I -- I have a problem personally with a permanent -- what do
we call it? -- archway out there in front of the courthouse.
To me, it's -- I mean, I love Christmas, and I think it's a
wonderful thing.
MR. BOND: The archway would not be permanent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I see -- I see concrete
footing, and I see --
MR. BOND: Just the anchor points on either side of
the sidewalk. When we take it down every year, we'll take the
archway down. The anchor points will be there just so we have
a place to anchor it on an annual basis.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You took my argument away on
8-13-07
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
that. I tell you what I really dislike more than anything is
I
-- is the sponsorships. Our courthouse is not for sale.
MR. BOND: I understand.
i
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I really dislike that a lot.
MR. BOND: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I will vote against this
because of that issue. But --
MR. BOND: Let me --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- it's pretty. It's a
pretty thing.
MR. BOND: Let me clarify, just if I can. Every
year up till now, we've had sponsorship signs in front of
displays anchored in the ground.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I didn't like them,
I either.
MR. BOND: Well, those are what help fund the -- the
', annual lighting. We -- you know, we obviously have to raise
funds to do that, and they -- people sponsor those displays in
order to give us funds to do the upgrades and electrical work
that Judge Tinley asked about a minute ago. So, being
self-funded, we have to raise funds in some way or another,
and this is the way that -- this is much more downscale; it's
not so sloppy. There's not signs everywhere all over the
courthouse yard; it's just in this one place. We wouldn't
have those other small signs. This is going to replace that,
8-13-07
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
and this is just sponsorship of the lighting ceremony itself.
Every year we have Wells Fargo come out and put on the
program, and this -- they underwrite the entire lighting
event, so they're the keynote sponsor for the entire deal.
So, I understand what you're saying. The courthouse isn't for
sale. This is certainly not intended to -- to insinuate that
at all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, and in some people's
minds, some people look at it that way, though, is my point.
And this is the -- all of the people's building here; it's not
just...
MR. BOND: Sure, I agree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Even those folks that don't
like Christmas, and there are some.
MR. BOND: I understand.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you know what I'm saying?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are two out there
right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, both of them don't like
I this .
MR. BOND: Well, you know, I don't -- I don't have a
response to that, other than I don't know how else we're going
to continue to do what we do, other than just -- we have to
have a funding source somewhere.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you notice the -- our new
8-13-07
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
gazebo has arrived in its package out there?
MR. BOND: I did see that, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And it will be up very soon,
and it's going to be nice. It's going to be lighted on the
inside with ceiling fans, and that would be cute with some --
don't put a bunch of reindeer all over it and that kind of
thing, but some pretty lights.
MR. BOND: I can't claim responsibility for all of
I the other --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Some white lights. Some
tasteful, classy looking lights.
MR. BOND: We will decorate the gazebo. I've
already spoken with Tim.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good place for Mr. Santa
Claus to sit, too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Be a good place for Santa
Claus to sit.
MR. BOND: Going to be a great addition out there,
so I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Emerson, do you see some
potential liability issues with this archway out there and
people playing Tarzan off of it and things of that nature?
MR. EMERSON: Could be, Judge, especially being
right on the walkway.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
8-13-07
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
MR. BOND: Well, we've got it 7 feet high at the
lowest point. At the top, it's actually 9 feet high. Is
there any heighth requirement that you could put on it so that
it won't be a potential hazard?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I wouldn't have thought
of that -- that issue. I mean, as long -- I'm assuming
it's -- I saw concrete footings; it's secure. People can play
Tarzan, swing off the gazebo we're putting up, too, and fall.
So, I mean, I -- and jump off the cannon and break a leg. I
mean, you know, as long as it's done in a -- you know, a safe
structure, designed by, you know, someone who manufactures it;
it's not, you know, just thrown together, I think that --
MR. BOND: No, it's going to be welded steel, so
it'll be sturdy. And that's the reason for the concrete
footings at the bottom, is that exact -- we were very
concerned with safety, making sure that it's not going to fall
over and blow in the wind or anything dangerous.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The span of the sidewalk is
MR. BOND: It's actually 8 feet across.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Eight?
21
22
23
24 footinc
25
MR. BOND: Eight.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Goes a foot beyond on each
MR. BOND: Yes, the footing itself is a foot. There
how wide?
8-13-07
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will be four steel bars. It's three-dimensional. If you look
at the other drawing there, you can kind of see the
three-dimensional. I've got a company in Center Point that's
agreed to build it for us. It will be powder-coated with
white paint, just like all the other displays are. And,
truthfully, you know, if safety is an issue, then every
display that's out there on the ground is -- are safety
issues. So, with that in mind, I think this is far -- far
more safe than some of the other things that we already have
on the grounds.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had some more comments?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir. I was just going to say,
all the safety issues related to all the displays could be
resolved with an indemnity clause on the contract, Judge.
MR. BOND: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That would be good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that -- well, I like -- I'll
second, with an amendment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The amendment is that we add the
indemnity clause to the agreement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I accept that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
8-13-07
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
57
particular motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who's writing that clause in?
MR. BOND: I'l1 put one in, and then you guys make
sure you approve it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Make sure the County
Attorney likes it.
MR. BOND: I'll go through you, then. Good enough.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That'll work.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion on ',
that motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This thing comes down with
the lights two weeks after Christmas?
MR. BOND: Yes. It goes up with them and comes down
I with them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: 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 is approved. Okay, I will
now recess the Commissioners Court meeting, and I will convene
a public hearing concerning the revision of Lot 1 in The
Homestead at Turtle Creek, as set forth in Volume 6, Page 309
of the Plat Records, and located in Precinct 2.
8-13-07
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
58
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:05 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open
court, as follows:
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Does any member of the public wish to
be heard concerning the revision of Lot 1 in The Homestead at
i
~' Turtle Creek, as set forth in Volume 6, Page 309 of the Plat
Records?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one coming forward or
otherwise seeking recognition to be heard, I will close the
public hearing concerning the revision of Lot 1 at The
Homestead at Turtle Creek, as set forth in Volume 6, Page 309,
Plat Records, and located in Precinct 2.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:05 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And it being 10:05, I will now call a
public hearing for the revision of plat for Lots 50 and 51 of
Highlands Ranch, as set forth in Volume 5, Page 233 of the
Plat Records, and located in Precinct 1.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:05 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open
court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
8-13-07
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
Page 233 of the Plat Records?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one coming forward to be
heard or otherwise seeking recognition for that purpose, the
Court will close the public hearing concerning the revision of
plat for Lots 50 and 51 of Highlands Ranch, as set forth in
Volume 5, Page 233 of the Plat Records.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:06 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting, and we will take up Item 9.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Item 9 being consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action for the concept of the Northfork Ranch
Subdivision located in Precinct 4.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. In your packet, you have a
letter from Sam Poorman explaining what the concept is. "We
respectfully submit a concept plan for eight lots to be known
as Northfork Ranch Subdivision. In compliance with the Kerr
County Subdivision regulations, we are planning to build a
'paved country lane,' which is designed to serve eight or less
lots. All of these lots will be restricted against further
subdivision. As shown on the concept plan, there is an
8-13-07
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
additional parcel of 20 acres that fronts on State Highway
1340 that Section 1.03.C exempts from platting requirements.
We would like the Court's permission to include this parcel in
the Northfork Ranch Subdivision without being required to
increase the road specifications to a 'local road,' which is
designed to serve 9 to 60 lots. This lot will also be
restricted against further subdivision if included in the
subdivision. We appreciate your consideration and look
forward to working with the Commissioners Court."
As you see on the concept, straight back is to be a
County-maintained road. Our rules say if it's nine -- or
above eight, that you go to local road, so a legitimate
'i argument might be, since it cannot be subdivided, is to have
this one lot enjoined into these eight instead of having
someone outside the subdivision. That way they all have --
you don't have the -- I don't believe, the ability to restrict
this one lot. Putting it into the subdivision, they'd be
restricted by the restrictions and covenants. Makes sense,
but-then again, it's a variance from our rules, and I told him
to come to y'all to discuss it. Otherwise, they legally could
do 1.03.C and sell that 10 acres or more right off 1340.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I'd be in favor
25 ~ small road than to put another entrance onto Highway 1340.
8-13-07
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: And that would be something they would
have to go to the state anyway, and I told them that, to get
permission to go into 1340.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I'd give them a -- to give
them a variance, they've got to come off the new road.
MR. ODOM: Got to come off the new road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They can't use 1340. I don't
know that -- you know, otherwise, I mean, to me, I think
that's the reason to do it. I think they need to use that; I
think it's the logical way to do it, and I assume the terrain
allows for that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What does that do to the
construction -- the type of construction of the road?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just narrows it by 2 feet,
~ basically.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, just a little bit narrower
I road.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're not going to have that
many people traveling it, 'cause you don't have that many
lots. And -- and I don't see it's a problem at all. I have
no problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Be a country lane?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Be a country lane.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Paved country lane. And they
could --
8-13-07
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
name. There's another subdivision up on North Fork, on North
Fork -- North Fork River Bend Ranch.
MR. ODOM: We have already --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh my god.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Might want to name it
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Get the handcuffs. We can't
MR. POORMAN: I talked to the County Clerk and Truby
checked -- double-checked. And, I mean, if that is a problem
with the Commissioners, I don't want to go through what y'all
went through earlier. I mean, if it's a big problem with
y'all and you think we're too close to any other names, we
really don't have a problem changing it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think you ought to change
it, from my perspective, just so it wouldn't -- something like
we just went through won't happen. And there is -- because
there is one that's similar, of course. It's North Fork River
Bend. But, you know, you get into the same thing you --
people running into law enforcement agencies and emergency
services agencies, and they may not be able to distinguish.
If they don't get, you know, a printout of the GPS and all
that stuff, they might not be able to -- they might go to the
8-13-07
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
wrong one. We don't want that to happen. A lot of it's a
health and safety issue, but, you know, that's about all I
could say about it, I guess. It's pretty simple.
i MR. POORMAN: I don't think that we'll have a
I
problem changing the name. I mean, we kind of went over this
with Truby.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You can call it Sam Poorman
MR. POORMAN: I could put your name on it,
Commissioner Oehler.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I already have a road with my
MR. POORMAN: And getting back to the entrance off
of 1340, we have applied for a permit for that road, entrance
there for our driveway permit. And that was one thing that --
I
that they were worried about; that they would not like to see
any entrances coming onto 1340. They would like that access.
I said, "Well, we need to see what the Commissioners say
first." If we -- it would be better, I think, for everyone if
they do come off of this road we're going to build in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd be in favor of doing a
variance to keep it in and not have the access -- or the
entrance on 1340.
MR. ODOM: So, we could say basically in your
8-13-07
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cannot have entrance off State Highway 1340.
MR. POORMAN: Right. And I don't think that's going
to be a problem.
MR. ODOM: And that wouldn't affect --
MR. POORMAN: I think that's what's the State's
going to want us to do also.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
i
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: Makes sense.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Since there's a --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do we need to grant a variance
at this point?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to put that --
since it's a variance that we're approving it, also say that
we're approving the variance under this concept. I'll make a
motion to that effect.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second.
JUDGE TINLEY: And what about the name?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The name needs to be changed
if -- I mean, no reason to encourage confusion when we do
catch them.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Accept the change.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just --
JUDGE TINLEY: Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Just for fun, where's
8-13-07
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
the other North Fork subdivision?
MR. POORMAN: The one that we're doing?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, the other one.
MR. POORMAN: I think that one is about --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: River Bend Ranch, right there
by Lone Star Crossing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, I know where that is.
Where's yours?
MR. POORMAN: Ours is about 3 and a half miles
before you get to --
MR. ODOM: Leinweber.
MR. POORMAN: -- 41, on 1340.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. Oh, I saw the name Klein
I on here.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Past the Kerr Wildlife up
I there on --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Wow. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or discussions on
that 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: That motion does carry. Let's go to
Item 10; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
8-13-07
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
name a private road in accordance with 911 guidelines.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. We're having a name change
requested. 911's looked at it. There was no name on this
existing. This is up off Sheppard Rees. It is going back
between those apartments that are up there. And the name --
requested name is Blessed Lane South.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Blessed Lane South. I move
for approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. 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. We'll move
to Item 12; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
concerning the revision of plat for Lot 1 at The Homestead at
Turtle Creek, as set forth in Volume 6, Page 309, Plat
Records.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is a revision of plat
being done under the alternate plat process. It does not
create an additional lot, but adds to the greenbelt at the
entrance of the subdivision. Therefore, I recommend approval
as presented.
8-13-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
67
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of revision of
plat for Lot 1, Homestead of Turtle Creek, as presented.
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.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 14; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for
revision of plat for Lots 50 and 51 of Highlands Ranch, as set
forth in Volume 5, Page 233, Plat Records.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This is also an alternate plat
process. The landowners are moving a property line, and no
new lots will be created. Therefore, I recommend the Court
approve this plat as presented.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. 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.
25 ~ (No response.)
8-13-07
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We will move
to Item 15; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
the renovation plan for the pole barn at the Hill Country
Youth Exhibit Center. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we'll probably pass on
this, 'cause I don't see the person that was going to bring
the plan here, being Roy Walston. Maybe he forgot that I told
him he were doing this. I did not visit with him again. So,
anyway, we'll put this on our next agenda. This isn't
critical; I just wanted to get an update to the Court as to
where he was on his efforts.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's move to Item 16;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action regarding
renewal with Texas Association of Counties for insurance
coverage as to auto physical damage, auto liability, general
liability, crime, law enforcement liability, property physical
damage, and public officials' liability. I put this on the
agenda in consultation with the Auditor. Essentially, this
includes all of our coverage, with the exception of our health
benefits package. I would remind the members of the Court
that we have a -- almost a $53,000 credit coming on our
liability or a portion of our liability coverage. If we go
with other underwriters or group carriers, however, we won't
be able to get the benefit of that credit, so I think it
behooves us to strongly consider Texas Association of
8-13-07
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we renew
our policy with Texas Association of Counties for auto
physical damage, auto liability, general liability, crime, law
enforcement liability, property physical damage, and public
officials' liability.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item as indicated. Any further question or
discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment/question, that I
would ask the former Auditor to turn this over to the H.R.
Department for handling in the future. I think -- I don't --
I mean, this was done -- it doesn't make sense, to me, this
being an Auditor function. This should be an H.R. function.
Unless -- I see both sides looking at me like I'm crazy.
But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it seems to me that this is
a -- it should go to the H.R. Department.
MS. HARGIS: We can do it jointly. The problem is,
we keep up with fixed assets, and we're in -- there's a lot of
paperwork involved in that which we fill out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, this needs to stay with --
MS. HYDE: We keep up with the worker's comp and
8-13-07
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
injuries and things like that, so --
MS. HARGIS: We can work together.
MS. HYDE: -- I think we just need to work together.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MS. HYDE: If that's okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: The Auditor -- the Court authorized
the Auditor to be the liaison with -- with Texas Association
of Counties, and it's always been the responsibility of that
office to -- to report any claims or any correspondence with
them for -- for property and liability claims. And we have --
we have a schedule of all the mobile equipment, all the -- the
vehicles, and all of our computer equipment with them for
coverage. So, it's a very -- it's a week's process of trying
to renew this coverage.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it makes sense to leave it
kind of where -- or y'all work together. Okay, that's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. There's some interplay that
comes in with -- from the H.R. standpoint, when they're
dealing with driving records of employees, for example, that
are operating equipment and things that involve personnel
issues, so there necessarily, I think, needs to be
collaboration.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Disability and workmen's
comp, those type issues.
MS. HYDE: They're just -- if you just leave the
8-13-07
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
"irrr
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Auditor as the mouthpiece and the go-getter and all of that,
I'll -- I'll just work with her.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Item 17; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to adopt a policy in which entities funded
by Kerr County should give a COLA not greater than the rate
given by County or other published rates. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This came out of our workshop.
And then Jody called me, and there was some confusion as to
what the agenda item was, so I restyled it this way. And
then, after reading through the agenda over the weekend, I
think we ought to probably pass on this, and I'll prepare a
resolution that we can then adopt, and present it at the next
~ meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question,
though, on this one. A COLA not greater than the rate given
by Kerr County, or other published rates?
8-13-07
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I put that on there for the
agenda standpoint as -- that's a good -- glad you brought that
up. You know, a lot of these entities that I'm talking about
-- mainly the Appraisal District is the one that's in my mind.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's who we're after.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. They're funded by
K.I.S.D., Ingram schools; you know, multiple entities fund
that. And I don't want to be a little bit -- okay, say no
one -- they can't give anything -- I mean, you know, it has to
be exactly what the County gives. I mean, I think it needs to
be in the range of what all of the entities give. I mean --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, when you say "other
published rates," you're talking about the local government
entities? You're not talking about some --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either that, or we could --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- New York-something?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or we could say some New York --
or Bill always comes up with some numbers, and the Judge comes
up with numbers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about that which is
published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Statistics for the Consumer Price Index for -- what is it, the
Southern Urban Area which we're in? That's where we get our
number, basically, when we're looking at COLA.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so you're saying that
8-13-07
73
'r~r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some entities -- government entities, quasi or not, exceed
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, I believe they do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Which I guess my --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right now, for example.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that -- I mean, I
think -- I think it's real important that these entities get a
control on some of this stuff. I mean, I think it's just not
right. But I think that the -- you know, if one year we give
a 2.8 percent and -- and the City gives a 3 percent, or 2.6,
whatever, you know, I don't think that -- I'm not going to say
I'm going to vote against the Appraisal District budget just
because they're not exactly what the County does, but I think
they need to look at what the entities that support them --
they should follow that. Maybe we should put an average of --
you know, not exceed the County's, or average of the entities
that support that budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're going to bring a resolution to
us. By way of information, at the Court's suggestion from the
last meeting, I have prepared a letter to the Appraisal
District which asks them to modify their -- their budget
proposal and to adopt an appropriate COLA. I don't think I
further defined it after that, but that will probably go out
in the next day or so. They don't even meet to take a look at
their budget until August the 23rd, I think it is, and then
8-13-07
74
1
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'll come back to us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, all I can do -- we can get
a resolution together. I may even send the resolution that we
adopt to the other entities in the county; ask them to do a
similar resolution, you know.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to be a little bit out
ahead of that also. I'm sending a copy of this letter to all
of those funding jurisdictions, with a few minor exceptions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just doesn't seem fair that
the Appraisal District would put maybe even in excess of
double what we are probably able to do for our employees.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And they do it consistently.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Way more than what the school
district's able to pay their employees and teachers and all.
I think it's time for them to step back and take a look at
what they're doing, and it's not fair to the rest of the
I entities.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any more on that item? Let's move to
18; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
implementation of the burn ban. I think it's that time of
year again that we roll that thing over.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move approval.
8-13-07
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let Commissioner Letz explain
what we're doing in case the press is going to pick up on
this. We're not putting the burn ban on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have adopted a -- I guess a
policy for some time in the county that we keep a burn ban in
effect year-round. Every 90 days, we put it back in, and then
it's up to each Commissioner for their precinct to lift it or
impose it, based on the conditions in their precinct. And I
think, based on our earlier discussion, Commissioner Oehler is
putting the burn ban on in his precinct, but the other three
precincts will not have a burn ban at the present time.
JUDGE TINLEY: That is posted on our county website,
however.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And we've also got, I believe,
a hotline that answers those questions. Any other 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. We'll move to
8-13-07
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Item 19; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
regarding allowing free of cost use of Youth Exhibit Center
chairs and tables to The Ranch radio station for their fourth
annual Camo Claus party on December 13th, 2007. I put this on
the agenda at the request of The Ranch Radio. As you know,
they have sponsored it for the previous three years for
military families, primarily, a Camo Claus celebration party,
as it were, for -- for families and children, and there are
gifts given to the children and so forth. And they have asked
that they be allowed to use our tables and chairs that we have
at the Youth Exhibit Center. It's as specified in the backup
materials.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is at Kerrville Aviation?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes -- yeah, it's held at Kerrville
use of it out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is one of those really
tough ones, in my mind. I think it's a great cause, but I
just have a -- you know, we've got to get to a point at some
point that we quit allowing free use of county equipment and
property. But I can certainly -- you know, this is one that's
as worthwhile as any that I can think of.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you look at it, the
company that's doing it, Ranch Radio, is a for-profit group.
But the -- I'm assuming that the party is -- to do what?
8-13-07
77
1
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: For members of the military and their
families.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Active members?
JUDGE TINLEY: You've got active and reserve
components both that are involved. The -- you've got the
people out of San Antonio, the recruiting command that are
active in it, and they also have other sponsors who help
them -- I think Cecil Atkission, for one, has been an active
sponsor, I think since year one. They fund a lot. They
provide gifts to the children of the soldiers, members of the
family.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just -- I've never been
invited to it. I see that you have. (Laughter.) I think
maybe if -- if we were -- if the Court was invited to
participate in a personal way, it would make it a lot easier
on me. But --
JUDGE TINLEY: I was not aware that you had not been
invited, Commissioner. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you don't have to
apologize. But I also see it as this is one of those kinds of
things that we need to participate in. That, you know, if --
if it is, in fact, honoring our military folks and giving
gifts to the children of those, particularly those that daddy
or mama's gone serving our country, that's the kind of thing
8-13-07
78
1
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 supposed to be doing, so I'm in favor of this.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't have a problem with
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I want my invitation.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'll personally see that that
happens, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would make a motion so
long as Commissioner Baldwin gets an invitation. But they
want to know if they need to bring their own trailer, to call
them, or whether we do that. I think they ought to bring
their trailer.
forth.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And take them back and
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the way it's worked is
similar to some other events; they're stacked on a trailer out
at the Youth Exhibit Center. They merely come latch onto the
trailer; they move it on out to where they're going to set up.
When they get through, they stack them back, they bring it
back and -- and park the trailer with the tables and chairs on
there. I think that's the way it's worked in the past.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, while we're on this
topic, I want to let the Court know -- I put this on the
agenda for next time, but we've been offered a donation of
chairs -- I think I mentioned this to you. The City has
8-13-07
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
leased part of the Blackwell Fire Station to the Christmas
Lighting Corp., and there are a number of chairs, I think --
I'm told a couple hundred chairs stored there, and they need
to be moved. And the City has agreed -- this is a memo I've
got from General Schellhase -- the City has agreed to donate
these chairs to the County for the use of storage, and if we
move them from the Blackwell Fire Station and store them and
so forth and so on. So, we have some more coming, and I
understand they're in very good shape. And I'll put this on
for next time; we can vote on it separately.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Rex, is there any legal
problem with doing this -- legal issue with donation,
basically, to a --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Radio station?
MR. EMERSON: I think that's a mixed bag. You're
allowing county property to be used for a public entity that's
a for-profit entity. Now, the event itself is nonprofit, but
you're kind of walking a fine line there. I don't -- I don't
think anybody would challenge that this isn't a good cause and
it doesn't go to the benefit of the children of the soldiers,
but it's a foggy area. How's that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Foggy area. I'll move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item.
8-13-07
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: As long as they haul them and
use them and bring them back in the same manner they picked
them up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: With our trailer?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Their -- our trailer? Their
trailer?
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They need to sign some kind of
document saying how many they took.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't see that as a problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And responsible for damage.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Damage or anything, they
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further question or
discussion on that item? 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.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The next one's a quick one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next item, consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action on Commissioners Court Coordinator
assuming responsibilities for the Plateau Water Planning
Group, Region J. Commissioner Letz?
8-13-07
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A slight word was left out of
there; I think it's probably my fault. Should have said the
administrative duties of the Plateau Water Planning Group.
Currently the administrative office is at U.G.R.A. They've
had a change in personnel, and Ray Buck has asked me if it was
possible to move that from U.G.R.A. over to the County.
Previous to being over at U.G.R.A., my wife did it for about
three or four years. It's not a huge time-consuming thing.
Currently, U.G.R.A. is being paid $250 a month for this
service. That's just mainly to cover the incidentals.
Really, we're talking about posting three or four agendas,
answering a few phone calls during the year, stuff like that.
It's not a huge burden. Anyway, so I've asked Jody. She's
talked to Tammy over at U.G.R.A. She thinks that she can pick
it up without any problem, and I'll make a motion that we
approve the court -- Commissioners Court Coordinator serving
as administrative officer for the Plateau Water Planning
Group.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does Plateau intend to
continue compensating for that service?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any further question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that will be done through
8-13-07
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
82
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: That motion does carry. Why don't we
take about a 15-minute recess.
(Recess taken from 10:33 a.m. to 10:53 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we
might. Before we move on to Item 21, it's been indicated that
some additional action may be necessary on Item 19, the --
regarding the allowing the free of cost use of Youth Exhibit
Center chairs and tables to The Ranch radio station for their
fourth annual Camo Claus party on December 13, 2007.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, first, I have a new -- I
think the way that we, I think, should approach this, I think
that it's more appropriate for us to give a 75 percent
discount, which is in our policy, which puts the cost down to
about $50. And I'm sure that there are people I -- think one
person's already told me that they will contribute to help
donate to meet that $50 cost. That way, the County is not
8-13-07
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
donating these chairs without really having a little bit of a
problem, and we're also within our newly adopted policy. And
I think that either The Ranch or others in the public can
donate the $50 if they so choose. So, to start that off, I
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rescind the court action.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then I'll -- after that,
I'll make a second motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second to
rescind the prior action by the Court taken on Item 19. Any
further question or discussion? All in favor of that motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. You have
some additional items you want to offer, Mr. Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we offer
a 75 percent discount on the rental of the 350 chairs and 58
tables, which is pursuant to our policy that we grant up to
that large of a discount occasionally to nonprofit
organizations or nonprofit events, and that the funds -- the
8-13-07
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25 percent that is due really come from donated funds or
through The Ranch or some source.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any further question or discussion on that
particular item? 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 21; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
adopt a final draft of the Feasibility Analysis for Regional
Water and Wastewater Services for Center Point and Eastern
Kerr County, Texas, as submitted to the Texas Water
Development Board. Commissioner Williams.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Judge. I placed
this on the agenda since our work has been completed with
respect to the feasibility analysis, and all the required
public hearings have been held, and so this is the final draft
which has been submitted to the Texas Water Development Board.
They only had two comments or questions. Both questions have
been responded to and footnoted in the PDF file that was sent,
the electronic file, and so I would move approval of this. I
wish I had a pretty copy for everybody, but we ran out of
8-13-07
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pretty copies and didn't want to pay for getting more done.
', So, this is what's on file now for the next step in front of
I
the Texas Water Development Board. Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do have -- I have a
question, --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- Commissioner. At what
point would the decision be made on who treats the effluent?
Is it going to Comfort, or does it come to Kerrville? At what
point will --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, what point the final
decision will be made will depend on how the Water Development
Board reviews and receives our proposal for that option. We
have in place a letter of intent between Kerr County and
Kendall County Water and Improvement Control District Number 1
to negotiate that kind of an intergovernmental agreement, so
we'll wait for the T.W.D.B. to formally say this is the
option; that they agree with this, or this is the preferred
option, and then we can move forward.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Within a year?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I hope so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is going to be -- in
8-13-07
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reality, this is going to be before us many, many more times.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I'm sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Many times.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And at some point, that bridge
is going to have to be crossed, and we're going to have to
have real negotiations about who's going to operate the
system, who's going to treat the effluent. That will have to
be done during these discussions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And to further answer your
question, I did send a draft letter of intent for
consideration by the City of Kerrville, which we detailed in
that letter that the preferred option is going to Comfort;
however, if circumstances do change, then we'd like to have
the option of sitting with them and negotiating an
intergovernmental agreement. I forwarded that to them for
their comment, and if they determine to comment and bring it
back, I'll put on it the Court's agenda at the proper time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The reason behind my question
was, if you go to Comfort, that's basically gravity flow, as I
understand it. If you come back to Kerrville, we're talking
about purchasing pumps and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's all uphill.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- lift station. And, you
know, at what point do you build that cost of a lift station
8-13-07
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in -- in our --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's built into these
numbers already.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's already there?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Because there are
two separate numbers. The collection system is one number,
', and that holds either way you go. But the cost variable to
come west is a little bit less, because the distance is
shorter than the one going east, but the operational costs to
come west on an ongoing basis, forever, are higher if you have
to pump it uphill the rest of your life.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you can't expand it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you can't hook anybody
up. Those costs are already in here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
', JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 22; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
8-13-07
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
review the new Kerr County Environmental Health Department
plat filing requirements and make amendments if necessary.
Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What this Court, I believe --
and that's why I'm here. I put this on the agenda for
clarification of what we meant the Environmental's role would
be in the revised plat process. Seems to be a little bit of
confusion in Environmental Health of the order that we passed,
that -- that to my belief -- I don't have a copy of the order,
but what I understood out of it was that the -- the revised
plat process was supposed to be very simple. It should be
taken to the Environmental Health office as part of the
process for signing off, so that it could be passed on and be
done very quickly, and then no fees involved in that or
anything. And I just want clarification if that's -- if
that's the case. That they're not really to review it;
they're supposed to make copies of that, put it in their file,
and sign it and send it on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What does it mean? What
does it mean exactly when they sign off on it? I mean, does
that --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just means that they've
accepted -- that it has been sent through them and that they
sign off on it, send it on, so that it doesn't require any
review. But they can keep it in their -- keep a copy in their
8-13-07
89

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think a good example, the two
revisions that we did today were -- there was no reason for
Environmental Health really to do anything. One was shifting
a lot line 120 feet or so. I mean, it barely went like this.
Acreage didn't change in the lot. And the other one was a
change in lot at The Homestead where we got a little bit of a
greenbelt; didn't affect that, because those are on central
sewer -- or I think it's central sewer down there. Yeah, it's
got to be. Is it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They're on septic.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On septic? But either way, it
isn't going to affect anything, and I think it's a little bit
of a judgment. Environmental Health looks at it. Those two,
to me, should have been looked at, "Yeah, these are fine"; put
it in the file. There may be some, when you're doing a major
lot line shift, "Well, we need to go out there 'cause of the
size of this lot, the drainage," that they need to go out to
review it, and at that point there should be a fee. That's
the way I look at it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's the point.
But, basically, it would just -- if we're shifting and making
one lot out of two, it doesn't affect the O.S.S.F. at all. If
they're shifting a lot line, one becomes smaller, maybe it
puts in question the amount of acreage necessary for a
8-13-07
90
wrrr
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
drainfield. Maybe at that point they might have some
concerns. Yeah, they ought to register those concerns. I
think what we've experienced, and we talked about this before,
is that we've held up some of these things because the -- I'm
not sure why. Because there really isn't an issue; it didn't
affect O.S.S.F. relations at all.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. And, generally, a
surveyor's going to catch that. When they move lot lines,
they're moving them for a reason. They're doing it -- maybe
there is a drainfield or something that's encroaching into an
easement. They may be correcting that problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: More so than creating the
problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And so that's why I think we
wanted the revised plat process to be very smooth, very easy
to do, and no fees really required. Just make it simple,
inexpensive, and pass it on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is wrong with what
you're saying?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Nothing that I can figure.
But there's been a little debate between Tish and I over this
issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see.
8-13-07
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Which is why it's on the
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, I can see if you're
removing a lot line under any circumstances, the only need
that Environmental Health has is informational purposes only.
If you're moving -- moving a lot line, if there's not a
permitted system on either of the existing lots that are
affected by that, I guess the issue there is, do we have a
responsibility to the lot owners or the developers to -- to do
an analysis of that, if there's not existing drainfields or
systems, to do an analysis to be in a position to say, yes,
you will in the future be able to put one on both of these
lots or either of these lots? Or is that an issue for the
landowner or the developer? My thinking is, if -- if there's
not a system on either one of those lots, it's not something
that we should be Big Brother about. If there is a system,
obviously, there needs to be a look to see that there's not an
encroachment into a clear zone or sanitary zone or whatever.
But, other than that, that's merely informational also, if
there's no existing system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I think there's a -- a
T.C.E.Q. regulation that requires O.S.S.F. review of all
plats, so it's not in our Subdivision Rules, but it's in --
it's a T.C.E.Q. requirement. And I think that that
25 requirement -- you know, the smaller the lot -- and this is
8-13-07
92

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
where the subjectivity comes into it in the O.S.S.F.
department. And, I mean, if you're on a 5-acre lot, in my
view, there isn't a 5-acre lot anywhere in this county you
can't put a septic system on. It may have to be an expensive
system, depending on where they want to put it, but you can do
it. If you get down to a -- a 1-acre or some of the smaller
lots, it becomes an issue a little bit, and I think that --
you know, as to what you can do. Generally, I think you can
put in a system, albeit it can be very expensive. I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not suggesting that we bypass
O.S.S.F. -- the Environmental Health. I'm just suggesting the
degree of attention that needs to be given to it by them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree, and I think on
larger -- on the -- like, the one -- the other one we did out
in your area, that 20-acre lot, that shouldn't -- that doesn't
require anything, really, from my standpoint, other than have
a file so you have accurate information, which actually can be
accessed also through the County Clerk's office. Those two
revisions we did are almost a no action, but there are some,
like, you know, the name change, Las Colinas of Kerrville;
that one, those are smaller lots, and that probably needs --
if they're going on septic, which I -- I don't know if they
are or aren't, but if they were, that was one that may need
some review.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The thing is, you're not going
8-13-07
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
to be able to move lot lines very much on that to have even a
revised plat, because the lots are so small already. And
they're 1-acre lots, what I saw on there; those are just
barely big enough to be lots, and so there's not much change
that's going to occur anywhere on those, unless you pull a lot
line out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a discretion that
-- you know, the intent is real clear from the Court, but I
think there's a little bit of discretion that has to come out
of the Environmental Health Department.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The problem is --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wasn't the whole intent when
we did this to begin with to sort of get a handle on illegal
subdivisions? And I think we've gotten off track in that
regard by -- you know, our review has stopped the process to
some extent. Wasn't that original --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's -- definitely,
that's part of it, and the intent was never to stop a permit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have -- Environmental
Health has found a lot of situations that we have fixed. It
was more to put Leonard's group on notice that, hey, there is
a problem here, and this looks like it may be an illegal
subdivision. But it was never intended to hold up a permit.
8-13-07
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
MS. HULETT: May I say something about that? When
we receive a plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. HULETT: A replat. But I did want to mention --
go back to the -- to addressing those plats that we received
recently, the Highlands Ranch being specific to that. There
was an issue there that we had to have Lee Voelkel address --
the surveyor to address, because we were concerned that the
setback to the edge of the spray disposal area possibly was
not met, so -- with the change of the lot line. So, we do
have issues that -- that -- and a lot of times we receive
their -- their plats that don't really tell us if there's any
improvements on those properties. They don't show if there's
any septic systems on those properties. We have to do a
septic license search to see if we have any information about
a particular property to see if there is a septic system
that's on there, and we want to make sure that it meets the
setback requirements when they make those lot line changes.
But there are some locations that we have no information about
the septic systems, because they're not a permitted system.
So, we need to make sure where that system is located before
~I they start moving lot lines. So, I just wanted to make that
I comment.
8-13-07
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, certainly, if there's an
existing system on either of the properties or both of the
properties, you need to make sure that -- that there's --
there are adequate setbacks and so forth.
MS. HULETT: Right. That -- that's really what we
are trying to do as a part of our review. We want to make
sure that it meets the minimum lot size requirements that are
set forth by the state, and also that the minimum setback
requirements are met as well.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that particular
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not really. It's just -- you
know, I just wanted clarification, because I don't want this
kind of stuff to be re -- you know, if it's not necessary to
be reviewed to the n'th degree, it doesn't need to be reviewed
all the time. You know, and there's got to be something --
some trigger that -- maybe it's if there are existing systems,
that we need to make a policy change on. But, you know, this
has come to me from the Voelkels saying, you know, gosh, this
is supposed to be easy. We're not supposed to have to wait
all this time to make these minor adjustments.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And we had this problem
before, especially if we're moving a lot line. That should
never be an issue.
8-13-07
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I can't see where that would
ever be an issue of having to do a full review. Miguel, we
had -- we did that very same thing with him when he was still
here, and -- and we got into quite a discussion. And so, you
know, if you can have one -- if could you have one on each
lot, if you pull out a lot line, you now only just have one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The --
MS. HULETT: I do not have an issue with removing
lot lines. My issue is when a lot line might be moved. We
want to make -- especially when the plat that they are
submitting for a change does not show any improvements on it
at all; we're not even told that there are any improvements on
the lot, and we don't discover this until we do, for example,
the septic license search. And that's how I found out that we
had one on this particular one that we just did, and that
there could have been an issue with the setback. So, those
are my -- my concerns. I feel we -- if it's our obligation as
a department to insure that the proper setbacks are made so
the homeowner is protected, and we don't have an issue come
back later where it could be a problem.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Seems to me like it should be
MS. HULETT: But they need to provide us the
information, and if they don't -- that's what I've been
8-13-07
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
97
up the process.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know, that's the part that
-- you know, and maybe they are -- they are needed at some
point, evidently. But they can't just take that revised plat
issue and go right out there and do a complete review of it to
make sure that all that's done. It takes time. So, that also
slows down the process.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- one thing we really
haven't talked about, though you touched on it, is the fee
structure. We don't have a -- currently, subdivisions with
less than five lots is a $20 flat fee to O.S.S.F., and if it's
more than five, it's $50. And then there's a per-lot fee of
$5 per lot, and it's $15 per lot if the lot size is 5 acres.
Now, we've never really addressed -- I presume those fees are
in place right now. On revision, we don't say that they're
not in place, so currently, under what we have adopted, there
are fees that need to go on revision of plats. I'm just
8-13-07
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
they are required to make -- to pay some fees.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question. On the submission of an
alternate plat, there is not a present requirement that any
permanent improvements or -- including septic systems, be
noted -- existing improvements or septic systems to be noted
on the plat to be submitted, is there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard?
MR. ODOM: Sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On plats, are septic field --
existing septics required to be noted on it?
MR. ODOM: Not that I know of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We require wells, and that's it,
right?
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Structures -- I think
structures.
MR. ODOM: Structures, but on alternate plat, it's a
little bit different. It's not like you're going through a
preliminary. Preliminary should show all that, but if you're
doing an alternate plat, you're changing that line, you really
don't -- I don't have anything to say that you have to do
that. That's the reason we want them to go through it, has
25 ~ been our argument.
8-13-07
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't it --
MR. ODOM: We eliminate the preliminary plat under
the alternate plat process.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is alternate plat and revision
of plat the same thing?
MR. ODOM: It's essentially when you're moving a lot
line or something. It depends on the size of the -- the
number of lots.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: These are already in existing
subdivisions that already had sanitary areas that were
proposed at the time of the preliminary plats.
MR. ODOM: That's right. That was --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, you know, a lot of that
stuff already exists. It's just a matter of -- you know, when
you're adjusting -- a minor adjustment, I'm not sure that it
really comes into play that much.
MR. ODOM: To us, it's --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Unless we were to pass some
kind of -- and add to the requirements of what the surveyors
need to do. If there are existing systems, maybe they should
locate them on the plat to show that they're -- they're not --
that the revised part of it is not going to affect the --
MR. ODOM: Right, because they're going to go
through the original preliminary, and then if there's a
revision to it, it may not show any houses on that.
8-13-07
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
MS. HULETT: That's right.
MR. ODOM: So, they really -- it is up to them to
identify where that structure's at and where that field may be
at if that's moving a line, so it -- you know, we're not
affecting --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If we can get that done, then
that will take the review process completely out of it.
MS. HULETT: Make it a lot easier for us.
MR. ODOM: That's what we need to do.
MS. HULETT: Right now we go back to them to get the
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- Leonard, I think that
on the revision of plat, they're required to do -- everything
that they are required to do on a regular plat should be --
should be noted on it. I mean, they can't just put a piece of
paper with -- change the line. They've got to note the
structures and things on that plat. That's according to our
rules.
JUDGE TINLEY: Structures to include septic systems?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, whatever -- I mean, I have
to go back and look at that provision, but they're not -- they
don't get -- it's not like you get -- it's the same
requirements for revision as a regular plat, from all of the
documentation information.
MR. ODOM: Okay. Well, how am I going to know that
8-13-07
~„-
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
101
there's a house on 1340 out there? I mean, if I have the
plat, I depend upon them to provide me all that information
that I need, so I'm assuming when they give me that and it
doesn't show a structure, that I'm in good shape.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I know. I'm just saying
that it's not -- the County's -- the surveyors aren't
providing the information that's required, and we don't know
that sometimes. I mean, we're not going to -- we can't go out
and inspect every --
MR. ODOM: That's the reason she can check her
records to see if there is a facility there.
MS. HULETT: I will only know that if there is a
licensed septic system. I won't know it if it's an
unpermitted system. I won't have any records to that effect,
and that's what my argument has been, why it's very important
that we get this information, and not just, you know,
rubber-stamping and approve something without knowing that,
where those are, to prevent that problem from coming up in the
future.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does it show on the plat the
existing O.S.S.F. systems?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Not the ones I've seen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They show wells. I don't --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think there is
either.
8-13-07
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
102
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But the original -- when they
file plats in the beginning during the platting process, they
have to locate the areas on that for the disposal sites.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure, to show the setback.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right, to give the setback
requirements and all that. So, if there's an existing home,
in most cases, I would say, on an approved plan that came
through the Court, and those setbacks were made on those lots,
they were, you know, adhered to at the time.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the solution, Commissioner,
would be, if current Subdivision Rules do not require as part
of a plat revision that any existing septic systems that are
adjacent to whatever activity's going on with the moving of a
lot line -- obviously, if you're removing a lot line, it's --
it's immaterial, but if you're moving a lot line, if they
locate those on the plat -- and, of course, the plat's going
to be to scale -- that that solves the issue, licensed,
unlicensed or otherwise, if they're located on there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our rules require all septic
systems to be located on the plat.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bingo. That's the answer.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the answer to it right
there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if they're not shown on there,
8-13-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: It is.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree. It should not have
to hold up our department from doing their job, having to do
the surveyor's job.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they don't do it properly and
there's a problem, then the surveyor needs to get hung with
having to fix it -- deal with the landowners, 'cause we're not
-- I mean, 'cause our rules say -- I mean, what it is, it says
the location, dimensions, names, description of all existing
or recorded structures, wells, water, oil, or monitor, and
septic systems. It's real clear.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that takes care of the
problem, then. Surveyors need to start doing that. Then our
department, all they have to do is sign it and send it on.
JUDGE TINLEY: If she gets a plat that there's a lot
line being moved, and the plat does not disclose there are
structures or septic systems or wells or whatever, she's
entitled to rely upon the fact that there are none. Bingo,
and it's --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Bingo, you're done.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if you -- if you find some,
I -- like, if you check and there's a licensed one that's not
8-13-07
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you keep on doing this..."
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're going to get -- we're
going to say you're a bad boy. (Laughter.) I think when it
comes back to court, we just reject it for a 28-day period.
Once or twice of doing that, delaying it for their people --
~I, their customer, then they'll learn.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Who's going to say
that to them? Do you want to send a copy of the rules to all
the surveyors?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a letter reminding them
what section says it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I don't have
a problem with it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Good idea.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, probably a joint
'~, letter would be best, just real simple; say that, you know,
it's on Page 25 or so is where it -- all the -- it's the form
and content of preliminary plat. And I think if it's on
preliminary, it's on the other. I mean, I think it goes
without saying, it needs to be on there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That takes care of the
8-13-07
105

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just say that our
interpretation --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They just haven't been doing
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is the form and content of
both preliminary and final plat that needs to be on there, on
revisions.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Have we kicked that one hard
~ enough?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And all plats. All plats,
whether they're revisions or not. I mean, I'm done.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go to Item 23; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action regarding request from
Headwaters Groundwater -- Headwaters Groundwater Conservation
District to drill a Lower Trinity monitoring well in Kerrville
South area. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, thank you, sir. I'm
going to ask Mr. Williams to come up and make his
presentation, and while he's on his way up here, I have two
questions of Mr. Voelkel, who is not in the room, but I see by
his legal notes in here that, yes, that is county property
that we're referring to. And my other question, to Mr. Odom,
is if you know specifically where this well is going to go?
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. They've flagged it, and I have
8-13-07
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That doesn't do anything to
what you want to do in that particular area?
MR. ODOM: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, super.
MR. ODOM: Right behind the right-of-way and back
out of the way of the road substantially.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. ODOM: I have no problems.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can go ahead and go to
sleep now, and y'all wake me up when it's time to vote, and
I'm happy.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Williams?
MR. WILLIAMS: Buster, the correspondence that I
gave you with all the easement on the well, we have
considered, since that time, that it might be beneficial to us
and to the County to dual that well in the Middle and the
Lower Trinity, not just the Lower Trinity well, and it would
be a reduced cost to us to be able to dual it, the purpose
being that the Donna Drive well about a block away does not
belong to Headwaters. It's an important well, because it's
been considered an area of depletion in Kerrville South, and
that's kind of in the center of that area. And we feel it
would be beneficial to have a monitor well, especially in the
8-13-07
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Lower Trinity, but if -- if you did permit us to drill the
well, to give us permission also to dual it Middle and Lower
if we desire to do so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, if we let you drill a
well, it's your well; you can put -- complete it in 10 zones
if you want.
MR. WILLIAMS: It wouldn't affect the easement or
the property. Be in the same well bore; it would be two --
two 2-inch casings inside the same well bore. And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Drill all the way to China
if you want to.
MR. WILLIAMS: We put a 10 -- 10-by-10 fenced area
with a satellite hookup on it where it could be monitored
online on our web site.
JUDGE TINLEY: Question. Is this well going to --
is this 150-foot area that's detailed here, that's going to be
a controlled zone around this well, is that 150-foot radius
going to be totally on Kerr County property?
MR. WILLIAMS: No, sir, it wouldn't.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we're doing something here --
we're being asked to do something here that's going to
potentially impose some sort of a restriction or easement on
the private property rights of adjacent property owners, then,
are we not?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, we would -- we would rely on
8-13-07
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
county Environmental, if -- if someone sought to -- on private
property, to put a septic system, and to give the same
consideration to the well that they would in any other
situation, which in a Trinity situation, we only require
50 feet from the septic drainfield for the well. 'Cause we
cement all the way to the water-bearing formation from the
surface.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. Are you --
are you telling me that -- let's see, it's a 10-by-10 fence
around this well?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And part of that is on
someone else's property?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
MR. WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's not what you're
~ asking?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, there's a radius of 150 feet from
the well bore.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a restricted zone, where this
agreement would have Kerr County agreeing that we would -- we
would not drill a well or presumably allow the drilling of a
well within 150 feet. And, as a for instance, let's suppose
that the Kerr County property line is 25 feet, for example,
8-13-07
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
from where this well bore is. You're restricting 125 feet of
somebody's property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not restricting it,
~ though.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if we agree that we will not
drill or allow the drilling of a well, we can certainly agree
for ourselves, but the -- the requirements for not putting a
septic in close proximity to a well is not 150 feet; it's
either 50 or 75 feet, depending upon what formation you're in,
is it not?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, it's 100 feet for an Edwards
well.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: Fifty feet for a Trinity well.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: But yes, the easement would only
include Kerr County property.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, then, unless the 150-foot
radius is entirely on Kerr County property, we really can't
agree to anything beyond our own property line, can we?
MR. WILLIAMS: Correct. That is all you would be
agreeing to, is what you would do on Kerr County property.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But are we imposing a
restriction on an adjacent property owner because of what
we're doing here?
8-13-07
110
1
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. WILLIAMS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, as long as -- are we
50 feet from the property line?
MR. WILLIAMS: We're close, close to 50 feet from
I it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we're 50 feet from the
property line, the only -- you know, the septic's the only
issue on a well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would Headwaters give a --
MR. WILLIAMS: We could make sure we are 50 feet
I from it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That solves the problem. I
think that way that we're not -- 'cause that way, as long
as -- the septic issue is the only one that really concerns
me, 'cause that's a County function. Plus that's -- I mean,
if someone wants to drill a water well over there, that's
within y'all's purview anyway.
MR. WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, Judge, it says that the
grantor, which is Kerr County, agrees not to drill a well
within 150 feet. I'll agree to that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or install a septic tank.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or install a septic tank.
We're not going to do that. I don't know what the neighbors
8-13-07
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are going to do, but we're not. Am I practicing law again?
MR. EMERSON: I'd say you're doing an outstanding
job.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you very much.
(Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Another eight or ten years at this,
and we'll see if we can't get you a license.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But is it going to restrict
the neighbors from being able to put up anything close to
that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was my question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He said he can get 50 feet from
the lot line.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If you can get us 50 feet, I
guess that makes it okay, then.
MR. WILLIAMS: I think we can. Leonard? Fifty feet
from that fence?
MR. ODOM: You want to make a liar out of me? I
don't know.
MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. All right.
MR. ODOM: I would assume that you could. You know,
off -- off Bobby Keller's property right there, I would assume
that you could.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The other issue is that we can
always give a variance, 'cause we control location of septic
8-13-07
112
1
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: Don't muddy the water.
JUDGE TINLEY: They control the wells.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, to me, it seems
like this is a -- it's a good joint working effort. I think
-- I think it needs to be located 50 foot from the property
line so we're not clouding that issue. And I think it's a --
yeah, we need a good monitor well. I like the fact that
they're actually completing it in both; I think it's better.
If you're going to do it, you might as well complete it in
both.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Another issue, too, is the
fact that it is a monitor well; it's not going to produce any
water for the public, and so at some point, if somebody needs
to drill a well in that same area that would be a public water
supply, you could give a variance, because it's really not a
producing well to the general public for any water system.
It's just for monitoring purposes only.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- I think the purpose of the
request is -- is appropriate. I just don't want to get
ourselves in a suit by indirectly restricting or imposing an
easement on some adjacent private property. That's the only
thing I'm trying to avoid.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you 100 percent.
Leonard, would you assist him in looking at this 50-foot
8-13-07
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
issue?
MR. ODOM: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I think that we need to
approve it, and then if Leonard comes back and says no, they
'~ can't do it, then don't sign it. Simple as that. How's that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To approve it on --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Condition.
JUDGE TINLEY: Conditional basis.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Conditional basis.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is a motion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second as
indicated. Any further question or discussion on that motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it's a good
partnership here.
JUDGE TINLEY: 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.)
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Thank you.
We'll move to Item 24; consider, discuss, and take appropriate
8-13-07
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
action to approve a contract with Sprint to provide wireless
computer access to the Kerr County Juvenile Detention
Facility. Mr. Stanton? I kept looking in the back of the
room for you, and you were already up here.
MR. STANTON: I don't believe we have to do this.
I've talked to Mr. Emerson and talked to some -- we are able
to piggy-back onto the state contract to be able to do this,
and we're getting it at a very reduced rate and everything
else, and we don't have to sign a contract, and we're
contract-free to be able to do it. So, I think we can pass on
this one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Great.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But you're doing it with
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: The only question -- other question I
had about it was, we've got some broadband wireless that our
I.T. people are working on, and we want to get that under one
network if possible.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. STANTON: I talked to Mr. Trolinger, and he
didn't have a problem with it, and said that it was a very
reduced rate; it was a good deal, and that Sprint provided the
best coverage for this area as far as the affordability.
8-13-07
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move to Item 25, then.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on approving
the per diem rate of $90 per day, per child for the Kerr
County Juvenile Detention Center and approve Judge Tinley to
sign off on contracts for counties contracting with Kerr
County for secure preadjudication detention services for
2007-'08.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the current rate,
$90?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
MR. STANTON: I have a question about that one real
quick, Judge. Is there any way -- is there any way that, if I
give you the blank contracts, that I could get you to sign off
on them to begin with? And that way, I could send the
contracts out with your signature already on them. That way,
they can sign them, make copies, and send them back, and it
8-13-07
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the County Attorney?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got no problem with that.
MR. STANTON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: If they sign that, it's -- you know,
it's just as easy as them signing it second as them signing it
first.
MR. STANTON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With us filling in the name
of the county, right?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Basically.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll move to Item 26;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to change
status of a part-time employee at the Juvenile Detention
Facility to a full-time employee position. I guess the
question is, is that something we can pursue in open session,
or do we need to go to executive, and then if action is taken,
do it back in public?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Didn't we talk about this during
the budget workshop? Is this the one --
MS. HYDE: Yes.
8-13-07
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Do we need executive?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm ready to go.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We couldn't talk about a
particular person by name or anything.
JUDGE TINLEY: Not at this point. I mean, he's got
the employee position that he has in mind, and we would merely
be expanding -- that's the one that I presume that he's
talking about that is being utilized considerably?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And he wants to convert that position
to a full-time position.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And where does the other half
~ money come from?
MR. STANTON: We have the money to cover the -- it
would cost $4,463 for the remainder of this budget year, and
I've got that in my budget already to cover that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. What's the
8-13-07
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pleasure of the Court? Does the Court want to go ahead and
wrap up all of the other open items and then come back to 27
as an executive session item?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm not real sure we need
executive session on it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've got one -- don't you
I have one?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, we need one from Rex.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need one.
MR. EMERSON: I have one on a litigation update.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We may need one. Are we going
to do anything on 27?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I hope so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We might want to discuss it
briefly in executive.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's do it right now, and
I then do it --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He wants to pay the bills first.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I thought you wanted to
go eat lunch.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, no. We're going to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We got a lot to do before we
go to lunch.
8-13-07
119
1
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: We're going to wrap this puppy up
before anybody leaves, including you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to Section IV,
payment of the bills.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay our bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for payment
of the bills. Any question or discussion? Okay. Let me see
what I've got here. We just replaced another compressor at
the jail, apparently. We ought to have almost all new
air-conditioner compressors out there by now, shouldn't we?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's actually close to 20
units up on top up there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Twenty up there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Seems to me like nearly every month
we've been replacing air-conditioner compressors. Okay.
Jail, Page 28, $2,700 to Justice Benefits Incorporated. Looks
like we got an award, but we had to pay $2,700 for it.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What? I missed part of that,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: S.C.A.A.P., Fiscal Year 2006 award.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: But we had to write a check for
$2,700 to get it? Is that it?
8-13-07
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. They -- it's their
j percentage. I think the -- something like 19,000 that we got.
Part of that for that company doing all that compiling is the
27.
MS. HARGIS: It's their -- I think there's a grant
fee.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The fee that they get for
compiling.
JUDGE TINLEY: This is a portion of a larger sum of
money that we got that we paid to someone to assist us in
getting those funds?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. We get the entire amount,
which was, I think, this year somewhere --
MS. HARGIS: 23, I think, even.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 23,000 this year? And then
their portion they get is 2,000 of that 23,000. So, the
County made 21,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Page 30, we have a $543
battery.
MS. HARGIS: That's --
JUDGE TINLEY: VHF battery?
MS. HARGIS: I think that's under radios.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Oh, okay. That's going to be a
8-13-07
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
number of batteries for the jail portable radios, not just
I one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, constable.
JUDGE TINLEY: That shows under Constable
Precinct 2.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, that one, I don't know.
I thought you were talking -- 'cause we did order them for the
jail. We normally order 10.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that miscoded, by any
I chance?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that also came out --
that's Advantage Communications; that's not where we get those
batteries from, so that's going to be something different.
That's not --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sit down, Rusty.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: -- the Sheriff's Office.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you want to look the bill
up? What's that number, 6600? Tommy?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 86600.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, get up here. I don't
know how to read these things any more; it's been too long
since I've looked at them.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. TOMLINSON: 66-what?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 6600.
8-13-07
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: 6600 even. I remember signing on it.
MR. TOMLINSON: I'm going the wrong way. I don't
see a	66 anywhere.		
	(Discussion off the record.)		
	MS. HARGIS: Is there another box	down th	ere?
	COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, but	it's the	same --
	MS. HARGIS: Yeah, there is 63 --	yeah.	Yeah, it's
here.	Hang on a second. 6600, it's right	up here.	Hang on
just a	second. Getting close. It's right	in here,	but
it's -	-		
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This must be a big one.
MS. HARGIS: They're not all here. There's 6500 --
here it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're supposed to mark where
you pulled it out.
MS. HARGIS: It's the next to the last.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: Looks like we may have bought one
radio.
COMMISSIONER
portable VHF --
MS. HARGIS:
COMMISSIONER
MS. HARGIS:
JUDGE TINLEY
BALDWIN: Portable -- one PR-400
Radio.
BALDWIN: 32?
Bought a radio.
Didn't buy a battery; we bought a
8-13-07
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
radio.
Good gosh.
MS. HARGIS: He bought one battery.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Battery is 65 bucks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Sheriff, what's your backup
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That may have been the --
JUDGE TINLEY: Dailey Wells, capital outlay, backup
radio system, 17,663.65.
MS. HARGIS: What page is that on?
JUDGE TINLEY: 32, I'm sorry.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: May have been part of the --
oh, that's that 17,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's the emergency UPS system
that the Court authorized to replace. The one that was there
since '94 had gone out, and a couple months ago, the Court
authorized it, and it's now up and running, and we have power
no matter what happens. Dispatch. That's what that is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Page 60, District
Administration. Whose district is that that we're paying for
cell phones, 172 bucks? Looks like it may be for two months.
8-13-07
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: For -- it's for the District Courts.
JUDGE TINLEY: For what?
MR. TOMLINSON: For the District Courts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Districts Courts.
MR. TOMLINSON: That's money that comes from the
other counties.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, this is not an income; this is an
expenditure.
MR. TOMLINSON: I know, but we're expending funds
that come from the other counties to pay for those
expenditures.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is flow-through money.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay, thank you. Any other
questions? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Okay. We've got,
looks like, about 26 budget amendments so far. Budget
Amendment Request Number 1.
MS. HARGIS: Budget Amendment Number 1 is for
Software Maintenance, 10-403-563, $8,916.01 increase, and a
decrease in Line Item 41-634-411, Old Records Preservation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
8-13-07
125
1
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: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. 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. Budget
Amendment Request 2.
MS. HARGIS: Budget Amendment Request 2, increasing
Line Item 10-429-570, Capital Outlay, by $1,000. Decreasing
10-429-456, Machine Repair, by $450; decreasing 10-429-309,
Postage, by $658; decreasing 10-429-317, Search Programs, by
$855.20.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you read the wrong
I column.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move over a column.
MS. HARGIS: All right, 250 and 300. Okay, I'll
I learn.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wonder what the capital
outlay is for.
JUDGE TINLEY: Brad's not available today to tell us
that, I don't think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
8-13-07
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
MS. HARGIS: Number 3, Juvenile Detention Center, an
increase of Budget Number 76-572-104, Detention Officer, by
$6,000; an increase of Line Number 76-572-201, FICA Expense,
by $460; 76-572-202, Group Insurance, by $560; 76-572-203,
Retirement, increase of $530; 76-572-450, General Maintenance,
an increase of $4,700. 76-572-331, Vehicle Transportation,
decrease $560; 76-572-332, Food, decrease $2,000; 76-572-333,
Residential Medical, decrease of $700; 76-572-420, Telephone,
decrease of $2,000; 76-572-440, Utilities, a decrease of
$ 6, 990 .
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. Kevin, is this
going to take us to the end of the year?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of this?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
8-13-07
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 4.
MS. HARGIS: Budget Amendment Request 4, Tax
Assessor/Collector. 10-499-216, Employee Training, increase
of $150; 10-499-485, Conferences, increase of $150;
10-499-570, Capital Outlay, decrease of $300.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would it be easier to just
read the line item description?
MS. HARGIS: If that's what -- that's fine with me.
It's easier.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if it makes a
difference to have to read the codes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
MS. HARGIS: County Clerk, Notices, Replats.
JUDGE TINLEY: Whoa. Whoa, we're not through with
8-13-07
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think.
THE CLERK: We have a motion and a second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Any further question or
', discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. It occurs to
me that -- would it be possible for us to handle these much
like a consent agenda, where any of them we have questions
about, we could -- and I'm -- of course, not today, because
we're not set up for that, but by passing a court order, that
we could -- any member of the Court could pull or raise
questions about any one of these, and then otherwise, just
pass them as a block group. Just a suggestion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would favor that approach,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Budget Amendment Request 5.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wouldn't.
MS. HARGIS: Number 5 is County Clerk. Notices
Replat, increase of $277.04; decrease in Overtime of $277.04.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
8-13-07
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? Jannett? If you're still
in here, kudos to you. She's kept her overtime intact. By
golly, she hasn't used any of that. 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: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
~ Request 6.
MS. HARGIS: Road and Bridges Revenue, Road and
Bridges Expenditures. Increasing Surplus Sales by $1,774.59,
increasing Capital Outlay by $1,674.70.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 7.
8-13-07
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: County Treasurer, Conferences, increase
of $30; Part-Time Salaries, decrease of $30.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 8.
MS. HARGIS: Road and Bridge, Equipment Repairs,
increase of $13,030.95. Upper Turtle Creek, decrease
7,115.03; Town Creek, decrease 1,795.99; Weatherby, decrease
4,119.93.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
~ approval. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we go to the consent agenda
format, I like the kind of backup that Road and Bridge has on
these larger ones, so that we understand what the reasoning
is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think that's always a good
8-13-07
131
1
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 idea, to know the whys and the wherefores behind an amendment,
unless they're pretty self-explanatory. 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: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 9.
MS. HARGIS: Justice of the Peace Number 2,
Conferences, increase of $400; Postage, a decrease of 50;
Office Supplies, a decrease of 150; Machine Repairs, a
decrease of 100; Miscellaneous, a decrease of 100.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's, just for fun, pretend
that this is my budget, not somebody else's, so I'm not
picking on anybody. Just a question. And -- and the middle
of the year -- or, really, at the end of the year, I'm
transferring money to Conferences. Are you tracking to see if
I've really been to enough schools and enough hours to be
8-13-07
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
certified, or am I just out having fun now?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not, no.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does anyone?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wouldn't the documentation
for that accompany -- go to the Auditor when the request for
payment or admission fees --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think anyone tracks it.
But I have -- I mean, we budget the same for all the
constables, or J.P.'s, in this case, or any other position,
really, enough to get their required schooling. And I have a
bit of a problem if, all of a sudden, one person is jumping up
$400 and taking it out of -- because there's excess money in
other line items.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How did the other J.P.'s get
theirs done for 1,000?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wasn't part of this the
education of the clerk that came on board?
MS. HARGIS: This is a new -- isn't she a new
justice, though? Wouldn't hers be increased?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's 3.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's 3.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is 2; this is an old hat.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I did not say that. That was
8-13-07
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
when we get our little certificates from these schools, we
should turn one in to the County Clerk for records, and I'm
assuming for this purpose.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not a bad idea.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think Texas Association of Counties
actually keeps track of you having your hours or not having
your -- your continuing education. I'm not aware of anyone
within the county government here that -- that keeps a
I master --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There's not.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- master list of that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't the law firm offer
to do that?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, the law firm actually
does it; TAC doesn't do that. The lawyer, Jim --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Allison.
I COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Jim Allison does that. But,
anyway, I just --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather know what the reason
is, but I'm ready to go to lunch.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's not a good reason.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is a motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion?
8-13-07
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin and Williams voted in favor
of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(Commissioners Letz and Oehler voted against the
motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we have two for, two against?
The chair votes in the negative.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well --
JUDGE TINLEY: Budget Amendment Request Number 10.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wouldn't it be better to --
well, it's the same thing, nevermind. Go ahead. Somebody
~ will question it. I mean, she'll be asked that question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Believe me, she'll be here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It'll come back.
JUDGE TINLEY: Budget Amendment Request Number 10.
MS. HARGIS: Number 10 is Rabies and Animal Control.
Vet Services, an increase of 500; a decrease in Vehicle Gas
and Oil by 500.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Question
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
8-13-07
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 11.
MS. HARGIS: County Auditor, Software Maintenance,
increase of $125; Group Insurance, a decrease of $125.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget amendment
request 12.
MS. HARGIS: 12 is Nondepartmental. Lease Copier,
increase of $465; a decrease in Books and Publications by
$465.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Question
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
8-13-07
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 13.
MS. HARGIS: Budget Amendment 13 is Commissioners
Court. Notices, an increase of $223.92; FICA Expense, a
decrease of $223.92.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Question
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request 14.
MS. HARGIS: 14 is Custodial and Grounds. Uniforms,
increase of $144.04; Utilities, decrease of $144.04.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
8-13-07
137
fir''
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed same sign. Motion
carries. Budget Amendment Request 15.
MS. HARGIS: The Hill Country Youth Exhibition,
Building and Grounds Maintenance, an increase of 1,453.74;
Capital Outlay, increase of 1,975; Operating Expenses, a
decrease of 1,975; Utilities, a decrease of 1,453.74.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you know what we're buying
with capital outlay?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't have a clue.
MS. HYDE: They had to redo the park -- they had to
redo the park.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Park?
MS. HYDE: Where those people went out --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, the park repairs, where we
had some irresponsible people, after the rain, going and doing
donuts and tore it all up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tore what up?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The park.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We have that problem
periodically. We're trying to keep it locked more nowadays, I
believe.
MS. HYDE: This is the second time.
8-13-07
138

1
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: Trying to discourage that from
happening, but every time it rains, we have people that they
have to go tear up public property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Give me more deputies.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which would that be? The --
the addition to the Building and Grounds Maintenance or the
Capital Outlay?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have caught some.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Building and Grounds
Maintenance. Part of it's Capital Outlay. I'm not sure what
that's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I wondered.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do y'all want to look? I
know how to do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Look it up. We'll go on to the
next one.
MS. HARGIS: Actually, I have it here.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Seems like Tim told me about
this, but I can't remember what he said.
MS. HARGIS: They purchased -- I believe they
purchased a trailer, or -- yes, a land trailer.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I remember that.
8-13-07
139
1
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: Okay. Yeah, we authorized the
I trailer.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We did?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, that's right.
MS. HYDE: Different one. There should be another
one for that, 'cause we've got two of those.
THE CLERK: Nothing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Nothing yet?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
MS. HARGIS: Sheriff's Department.
JUDGE TINLEY: Number 16.
MS. HARGIS: Employee Medical Exams, increase of
$150; Office Supplies, increase of $540.70; Dispatchers, a
decrease of $690.70.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
8-13-07
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor, signify by
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 17.
MS. HARGIS: County Jail. Employee Medical Exams,
increase of $150; Operating Supplies, an increase of 1,805.32;
Prisoner Medical, an increase of $3,778.78; Prisoner
Transfers, an increase of 1,447.72. A decrease in Jailer
Salaries of 7,181.82.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He needs to -- we need to not
let him do this. We need to continue to take other
amendments -- other money out of this line.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Maybe not give him so much
next year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I've just about filled all
those openings, Commissioner.
JUDGE TINLEY: Other questions or comments? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
8-13-07
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request 18.
MS. HARGIS: 18 is Agricultural Extension Service,
an increase of Office Supplies of 500; a decrease in Postage
of 500.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 19.
MS. HARGIS: 19 is Juvenile Detention Facility. An
increase in Professional Services of $664.99; a decrease in
Property and Liability Insurance of $572; a decrease in
Kitchen Supplies of $92.99.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
8-13-07
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approval. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Professional Services would
be psychological -- something?
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably, mostly, yeah. Contract
medical; they have nurses on a contract basis now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That comes out of that one?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it does.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That will wipe this budget
out. Hopefully it goes to the end of the year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All
in favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
~ Request 20.
MS. HARGIS: 20 is Environmental Health. An
increase in Office Supplies by $300; Books and Publications,
increase of $250; a decrease in Postage of 300; a decrease in
Public Education by $250.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
8-13-07
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request 21.
MS. HARGIS: This is for the General Fund,
Constable, Precinct Number 1. Various Refunds, an increase of
$50, and then in Miscellaneous, an increase of $50, to
recognize a donation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've just got to figure out who
keeps giving him money every month. I'm glad they are, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Somebody's set up a tithe to
him, it looks like. 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 does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 22. Commissioner 4, your wish has just come true.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I see that.
MS. HARGIS: This is the 216th District Court and
8-13-07
144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
County Jail. An increase in Office Supplies of $100.27;
Court-Appointed Services, an increase of 562.50;
Court-Appointed Attorney, an increase of 14,469.89; Civil
Court-Appointed Attorney, increase of 1,190. Jailer Salaries,
decrease of 16,322.66.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Any comment from the Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. We had the openings.
JUDGE TINLEY: 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: Second verse of that song. Budget
Amendment Request 23.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Don't count on it for long.
MS. HARGIS: 23 is the 198th District Court and
County Jail. Court-Appointed Attorney, increase of $9,505;
Civil Court-Appointed Attorney, increase of 1,393; Telephone,
increase of $26.74; Court Transcripts, increase of $596.50. A
decrease in Jailer Salaries of 11,521.24.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
8-13-07
145
1
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: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're at 300,000 for
Court-appointed attorneys this year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One thing I wish; I wish y'all
could find other line items to use that extra money than
defense attorneys.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know anything worse
than paying defense attorneys with jailer salaries money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Seems like there's a
relationship there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, but it ain't the right
~ way.
THE CLERK: We have a motion and second.
JUDGE TINLEY: 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 24.
MS. HARGIS: 24 is the Jury. Interpreters, an
increase of $438; Office Supplies, decrease of $438.
8-13-07
146
1
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: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request Number 25.
MS. HARGIS: Building Maintenance. Capital Outlay,
increase of 1,514.85; Operating Equipment, decrease of
1,514.85. This is for a shredder.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? A11 in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request Number 26.
MS. HARGIS: 26 is the County Auditor. Conferences,
$575.15; Group Insurance, a decrease of 575.15. I have -- I'm
8-13-07
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
going to	the Legislative conference that Tommy doesn't
normally	go to. But I	was requested to go to that, so I
didn't h	ave anything in	there for that.
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: So moved.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: So moved.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Second.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Second -- third.
	JUDGE TINLEY:	Motion made and seconded. Any
question	or discussion?	
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question.
Is that	next week?	
	MS. HARGIS:	This week.
	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: In Austin.
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: This week.
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Oh, yeah, this week.
	COMMISSIONER	OEHLER: Wednesday, Thursday, and
~ Friday.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you want to go have dinner
with us Wednesday night?
MS. HARGIS: I guess so.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not a condition of
~ approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes or no, lady.
MS. HARGIS: Yes, if it's free.
8-13-07
148
1
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: If it's free.
JUDGE TINLEY: 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. Do we have
any other budget amendments?
MS. HARGIS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any late bills?
MS. HARGIS: Yes, we have several of those.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: All right. We have a late bill to
Kerrville Daily Times in the total of 1,205.12. This is for
ads for employees. We're already late with these. They
didn't send them to us, and so we don't want to incur any more
late fees. They are where we advertise for employee
vacancies, and they're just now sending us the bills from June
and July.
JUDGE TINLEY: But you say we don't want to incur
any more late fees? Have they already charged us some?
MS. HARGIS: For June.
JUDGE TINLEY: But they just now sent us the bill?
MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
8-13-07
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: I ain't in favor of paying them any
I late fees.
MS. HARGIS: Well --
JUDGE TINLEY: May not be in favor of paying them
anything.
MS. HARGIS: All right, we'll look into that one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, let's authorize paying it
without the late fee.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. Are you moving to pay
it without the late fee?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
MS. HARGIS: Okay. We have another one to the Back
40 Supply, Incorporated, and that's for the trailer. In order
for us to pick it up, we have to give them a check.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved. This is the --
MS. HARGIS: The new trailer we're talking about.
JUDGE TINLEY: 16 -- how much?
8-13-07
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HARGIS: It's $1,945 --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is after --
MS. HARGIS: $1,975.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just to mention, there is a
court hearing that a D.P.S. auto theft is doing, and by the
end of this, we're -- those little metal flat trailers for
hauling lawnmowers and that, that you buy, like, at Tractor
Supply, the Sheriff's Office may be the owner of one of those
that have been stolen and redone. I don't know if you want to I
anticipate it, but -- you know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, let us know if you prevail.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I didn't know if you want
to wait and purchase one or not.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've already committed to purchase
this particular item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A week late, I think.
THE CLERK: We need a vote. And we have --
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question?
THE CLERK: Judge? We need a motion and a second on
I this one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second -- so moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. And
8-13-07
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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.
MS. HARGIS: We have another late bill. This one is
for W. Hardy Davis; this is for a psychological assessment for
$150.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's my new employees, the
~ psych.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Question
or discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Is that the end
of the late bills?
MS. HARGIS: No, I wish it was. I'm sorry.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Keep shooting them.
MS. HARGIS: Okay, we have another one for W. Hardy
Davis for $150.
8-13-07
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
152
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that all of them to Hardy Davis?
MS. HARGIS: Seems to be, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
MS. HARGIS: The next bill is to Walmart for $201,
and this bill is to avoid paying late fees, paying it on time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
MS. HARGIS: The next one is Chevron for $499.86.
Again, this is -- all of these are basically to avoid late
fees. This is our -- our gasoline bills.
8-13-07
153
1
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: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? Are the departments not
getting these bills in on time, or what's the problem here?
MS. HARGIS: I have to check into it, Judge. I
don't know.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Chevron is probably one of
ours. As soon as we get them in, we code them and send them
across, Judge.
MS. HARGIS: The Chevron bill came in on the 2nd, so
it will be late if we had to wait for the next meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Question or discussion? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Any more?
MS. HARGIS: These are all utility bills. Exxon,
$527.94, and Shell, $671.06. Again, these came in first of
the month, and if we wait till August the 28th, they will be
late.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
8-13-07
154
1
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: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Is that them?
MS. HARGIS: I have two more. This is the office
supply -- or Office Max; this is for $528.09. Again, the late
fee is $94 if we don't pay it now.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's about 20 percent, the way I
calculate it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pretty hefty. So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and sectioned for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
MS. HARGIS: And we have one more, contract services
for the Juvenile Detention Center for Wanda Brown for $367.50,
and these were services for July.
8-13-07
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~m-
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
MS. HARGIS: That's it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. That's it for
late bills, right?
MS. HARGIS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I've been presented with
monthly reports from Constable Precinct 4, Constable Precinct
1, J.P. Precinct 3, Justice Court Precinct 2, and Constable
Precinct 2. Do I hear a motion that these -- excuse me, Road
and Bridge, May and June of '07. Do I hear a motion that
these reports be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the reports as presented. Question or discussion? All in
favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
8-13-07
156
v~r+
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Do we have
any reports from any of the Commissioners in connection with
their designated liaison or other assignments? One?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Two?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Three?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a quick comment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a real quick comment on
the -- I made the statement earlier about the O.S.S.F.
platting and requirements. We're -- I'll put that on our next
agenda. It's ambiguous in two sections as to whether the
alternate plat process language about O.S.S.F. -- how it's
handled, so I'm going to put on it the agenda to clarify it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is it clear in one and not in
the other?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's
and I didn't -- it just went right over m
it. You have to put -- the septic has to
preliminary plat, but not the final plat.
preliminary plat under the alternate plat
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
-- Leonard said this,
y head when he said
be noted on the
And you don't do a
process.
8-13-07
157


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
2`
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's language that says
you have -- it has to be certified by O.S.S.F., so I think we
just need to add in the certification -- or add a
certification or a statement from the surveyor, yes or no,
they're on here. And if it's yes, then it has to go through
O.S.S.F.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Four?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I could report for an hour,
but I'm not going to do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I'll take that as a no. Any
other elected officials have reports? Okay, at this time, we
will go out of open or public session at 12:12 to go into
executive session to get a report on litigation matters and
consider a couple of personnel items, and we'll come back into
open session hopefully pretty shortly and wind this thing up.
(Discussion off the record.)
(The open session was closed at 12:12 a.m., and an
executive session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're now back in open or
public session. It is 12:33. Does anybody on the Court have
anything to offer with respect to matters considered in
8-13-07
158

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
executive session?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I move that we appoint Ray
Garcia as interim manager of Environmental Health.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is there a probationary
period in this thing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He's just interim.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just interim.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. There's no time frame
tied to that?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And as interim, he is coming on
full-time?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Full-time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Full-time interim manager at the
same salary level as the current interim manager in that
department.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's a motion?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or discussion on that motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Will there be -- will there
8-13-07
159


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- is there any necessity of changing the previous acting
manager's salary?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That may be a separate --
JUDGE TINLEY: Separate motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MS. HYDE: Separate motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any further 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: That motion does carry. Any further
action?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Motion that Tish Hulett be
thanked for her services as interim manager, and that she be
-- she go back to her previous job of being the D.R. and --
D.R./inspector in Environmental Health.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At the salary she held
before?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: At the salary she held before.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
8-13-07
160
`~r+

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
2~
2~
2`
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Any further
business to come before the Court today? Hearing nothing
further, we'll be adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 12:36 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS I
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 17th day of
August, 2007.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : __ -~~u'~~ ------- ------
Kath~~~~nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
8-13-07
ORDER NO.30421
DECLARE OLD ELECTION TUBS SURPLUS
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Declare old plastic election tubs surplus and authorize the sale of same on Ebay.
ORDER NO. 3 0422
HART INTERCIVIC ANNUAL BILLING CYCLE DATE
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 that:
Approve the Project Change Document Number 2 between Hart Intercivic and
Kerr County to change the annual billing cycle date for the election equipment
warrant, support and license agreement with the cost of change at $1,556.88, and
authorize County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO.30423
RECORDING AND RETENTION OF PLATS
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioners Oehler. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Place all recorded plats, including the 7 plat cabinets, that are presently located in
the County Clerk's Office, with the County Surveyor to be archived as permanent
records. All future original plats, after recorded with the County Clerk's Office,
will be given to the County Surveyor for permanent retention.
ORDER NO.30424
HIRING FULL TIME INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize the Information Technology Department to immediately hire a full time
Information Technology Specialist.
ORDER NO.3 042 5
FINAL PLAT OF LAS COLINAS OF KERRVILLE
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 3-1-0 to:
Approve the Preliminary and Final Plat of Las Colinas of Kerrville, Precinct 1.
ORDER NO.30426
KERRVILLE CHRISTMAS LIGHTING CORPORATION ANNUAL
AGREEMENT
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 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 Annual Agreement with the Kerrville Christmas Lighting Corporation
for authorization to decorate the courthouse grounds for this coming holiday
season, after making a change the ending date of the Contract to read "at the end of
the 2nd week after the first of the year", such change to be made by Kyle Bond,
and then bring the Contract back to the Judge for signature.
ORDER NO. 30427
ARCHWAY FOR CHRISTMAS LIGHTING EVENT
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 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 new "Archway" for this year's Christmas lighting event, such archway
to be metal frame similar to existing displays and will span over the sidewalk in
front of the courthouse, with an Indemnity Clause to be added into the Agreement.
ORDER NO. 30428
NORTHFORK RANCH SUBDIVISION
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Concept of Northfork Ranch Subdivision, granting a variance to come
off of the new road which would be a Country Lane, not off of FM 1340.
ORDER NO. 3 0429
NAMING OF PRIVATE ROAD
Caine to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve naming private road, located off of Sheppard Reese at Duplexes, Blessed
Lane South.
ORDER NO.30430
REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOT 1, THE HOMESTEAD @ TURTLE CREEK
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 that:
Approve the revision of plat for Lot 1, The Homestead @ Turtle Creek, Vol 6,
Page 309, Precinct 2.
ORDER NO.3 0431
REVISION OF PLAT FOR LOTS 50 & 51, HIGHLANDS I~1NCH
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. "The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the revision of plat for Lots 50 & 51 of Highlands Ranch, Vol 5, Page
233, Precinct 1.
ORDER NO.30432
RENEWAL OF INSURANCE COVERAGE WITH TEXAS ASSOCIA"hION OF
COUNTIES
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the renewal with the Texas Association of Counties (TAC) for insurance
coverage as follows:
Auto Physical damage
Auto Liability
General Liability
Crime
Law Enforcement Liability
Property Physical Damage
Public Officials Liability
ORDER NO.30433
IMPLEMENTATION OF BURN BAN
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Implement the Order Restricting Outdoor Burning as presented.
ORDER NO. 30434
THE RANCH RADIO USE OF YOUTH EXHIBIT CLN"1'ER EQUIPMENT
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 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 use of the Youth Exhibit Center chairs and tables by "The Ranch"
radio station, free of cost, for their 4th annual Camo Claus Party on December 13,
2007, with the radio station to be responsible for hauling the tables and chairs, with
their trailer, to their location and return.
ORDER N0.30435
PLATEAU WATER PLANNING GROUP ADMINIS"I'RATIVF OFFICER
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. "1'he Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Commissioners' Court Coordinator serving as the Administrative
Officer for the Plateau Water Planning Group (Region J).
ORDER NO.3 043 6
MOTION TO RESCIND COURT ORDER #30434 FOR Tl-IL RANCH RADIO
USE OF YOUTH EXHIBIT CENTER EQUIPMENT
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Rescind Court action under Court Order #30434 (which approved the use of the
Youth Exhibit Center chairs and tables by "The Ranch" radio station, free of cost,
for their 4th annual Camo Claus Party on December 13, 2007, with the radio
station to be responsible for hauling the tables and chairs to their location).
ORDER N0.30437
THE RANCH RADIO USE OF YOUTH EXHIBIT CEN'T'ER EQUIPMENT
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. 1'he Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Offer a 75% discount to The Ranch Radio on the rental of the 350 chairs and 58
tables (for use at their 4th Annual Camo Clause Party on December 13, 2007)
pursuant to our policy (that we grant up to that large of a discount occasionally to
nonprofit organizations or nonprofit events), with 25% due to come from donated
funds or The Ranch.
ORDER NO.30438
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR REGIONAL WATER AND WAS'T'EWATER
SERVICES
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner T3aldwin. 'fhc Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Adopt the final draft of the Feasibility Analysis for I2cgional Water and
Wastewater Services for Center Point and Eastern Kcrr County, rI'exas, as
submitted to Texas Water Development Board.
ORDER NO.30439
DRILLING OF LOWER TRINITY MONITORING WELL
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District (IIGCD) to drill a Lower
~L'rinity monitoring well in the Kerrville South Area, on a conditional basis of
having Len Odom, Road & Bridge Administrator, look at the 50' easement.
ORDER NO.3 0440
KERR COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER PER DIEM RA"I'E AND
CONTRACTS FOR PRE ADJUDICATION DETENTION SF,RVICES
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Lear. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the per diem rate of $90.00 per day per child for the Kerr County Juvenile
Detention Center and approve Judge Tinley signing off on Contracts for counties
contracting with Kerr County for secure pre adjudication detention services for
2007/08.
ORDER N0.3 0441
JUVENILE DETENTION PART-TIME EMPLOYEI: S"l'A"1't1S CI IANGE
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 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 change of status of a part-time employee at the Juvenile Detention
Facility to a full-time employee position.
ORDER NO.3 0442
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Caine to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, came to be considered by the
Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10 -General Fund	$	203,949.76
14-Fire Protection	$	10,416.67
15-Road & Bridge	$	54,186.34
18-County Law Library	$	2,289.24
19-Public Library	$	36,972.25
26-JP Technology	$	5,650.00
33-District Records Management	$	878.67
41-Records Archival	$	43,750.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$	31,958.34
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	5,779.09
81-District Administration	$	172.08
82-SO Law Enforcement	$	69.98
TOTAL	$	396,072.42
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.3 0443
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 1
COUNTY CLERK
RECORDS ARCHIVAL
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description
10-403-563 Software Maintenance
41-634-411 Old Records Preservation
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $8,916.01
- ($8,916.01)
ORDER NO. 3 0444
BUDGET AMENDMENT #2
COURT COMPLIANCE
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/()Decrease
10-429-570 Capital Outlay + $1,000.00"
10-429-456 Machine Repair - ($450.00)
10-429-309 Postage - ($300.00)*
10-429-317 Search Programs - ($250.00?"`
ORDER NO. 30445
I3UDGET AMENDMENT #3
JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 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:
Expense Code Description
76-572-104
76-572-201
76-572-202
76-572-203
76-572-450
76-572-331
76-572-332
76-572-333
76-572-420
76-572-440
Detention Officers
FICA Expense
Group Insurance
Retirement
General Maintenance
Vehicle Transportation
Food
Residential medical
Telephone
Utilities
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $6,000.00
+ $460.00
+ $560.00
+ $530.00
+ $4,700.00
- ($560.00)
- ($2,000.00}
- ($2,000.00}
- ($6,990.00}
ORDER NO.3 0446
BUDGET AMENDMENT #4
TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description
10-499-216 Employee Training
10-499-485 Conferences
10-499-570 Capital Outlay
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $150.00
+ $150.00
- ($300.00)
ORDER NO. 30447
BUDGET AMENDMENT #5
COUNTY CLERK
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description
10-403-430 Notices Replat
10-403-112 Overtime
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $277.04
- ($277.04)
ORDER NO. 30448
BUDGET AMENDMENT #6
ROAD & BRIDGE -REVENUES
ROAD & BRIDGE -EXPENDITURES
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 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
15-350-500 Surplus Sales
15-611-570 Capital Outlay
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $1,774.59*
+ $1,674.70*
*-To recognize unbudgeted Road & Bridge Revenues received for period of 7/18-3 I/07 (eBay
sales), and allocate balance of funds needed to pay for purchase of mobile home for Ingram Yard
and transporting of said mobile home.
(Re: Court Orders Nos: 30271-5/14/07 and 30417-7/23/07)
ORDER NO. 3 0449
BUDGET AMENDMENT #7
COUNTY TREASURER
Caine to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Coact unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description
10-497-485 Conferences
10-497-108 Part-time Salaries
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $30.00"
- ($30.00)
*-Registration expense for 2007 Legislative Update & Open Meeting/Open ]Zecords workshop -
Uvalde (8/7/07)
ORDER NO. 30450
BUDGET AMENDMENT #8
ROAD & BRIDGE
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 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/()Decrease
15-611-450 Equipment Repairs + $13,030.95
15-611-588 Upper Turtle Creek - ($7,115.03)
15-611-594 Town Creek - ($1,795.99)
15-611-595 Weatherby - ($4,119.93}
ORDER NO.30451
BUDGET AMENDMENT #9
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE #2
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court did not
improve, by a vote of 2-3-0, to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description
10-456-485	Conferences
10-456-309	Postage
10-456-310	Office Supplies
10-456-456	Machine Repairs
10-456-499	Miscellaneous
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $400.00
- ($50.00)
- ($150.00)
- ($100.00)
- ($100.00)
ORDER NO. 3 045 2
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 10
RABIES & ANIMAL CONTROI.
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 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
10-642-229 Vet Services
10-642-331 Vehicle Gas, Oil & Maint.
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $500.00
- ($500.00)
ORDER NO.30453
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 11
COUNTY AUDITOR
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 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:
Expense Code Description
10-495-563 Software Maintenance
10-495-202 Group Insurance
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $125.00)
- ($125.00)
ORDER NO. 30454
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 12
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 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
10-409-461 Lease Copier
10-409-315 Books, Publications, Dues
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $465.00
- ($465.00)
ORDER NO. 30455
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 13
COMMISSIONERS' COURT
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 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
10-401-430 Notices
10-401-201 FICA Expense
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $223.92
- ($223.92)
ORDER NO. 30456
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 14
CUSTODIAL & GROUNDS
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Williams/Oehler, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description
10-510-316 Uniforms
10-510-440 Utilities
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $144.04
- ($144.04)
ORDER NO. 30457
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 15
HC YOUTH EXHIBITION
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 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:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/()Decrease
10-666-450 Building & Grounds Maint. + $1,453.74
10-666-570 Capital Outlay + $1,975.00
10-666-569 Operating Expense - ($1,975.00)
10-666-440 utilities - ($1,453.74)
ORDER NO. 30458
I3UDGET AMENDMENT # 16
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description
10-560-220	Employee Medical Exams
10-560-310	Office Supplies
10-560-107	Dispatchers
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $150.00
+ $540.70
- ($690.70)
ORDER NO. 30459
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 17
COUNTY JAIL
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense cosies:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/()Decrease
10-512-220	Employee Medical Exams +	$150.00
10-512-331	Operating Supplies +	$1,805.32
10-512-333	Prisoner Medical +	$3,778.78
10-512-335	Prisoner Transfers +	$1;447.72
10-512-104	Jailer Salaries -	($7,181.82)
ORDER NO.3 0460
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 18
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letr, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description
10-665-310 Office Supplies
10-665-309 Postage
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $500.00
- ($500.00)
ORDER N0.30462
BUDGET AMENDMENT #20
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 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:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/()Decrease
10-640-310 Office Supplies + $300.00
10-640-315 Books, Publications, Dues + $250.00
10-640-309 Postage - ($300.00)
10-640-435 Public Education - ($250.00}
ORDER NO. 3 0463
BUDGET AMENDMENT #21
GENERAL FUND
CONSTABLE PCT. # 1
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 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
10-370-300 Various Refunds
10-551-499 Miscellaneous
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $50.00*
+ $50.00'`
*-To recognize donation of funds to Constable Pct. #1 for use in his budget.
ORDER NO.3 0464
BUDGET AMENDMENT #22
216TH DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY JAIL
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 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:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/()Decrease
10-435-310	Office Supplies +	$100.27
10-435-401	Court Apptd Services +	$562.50
10-435-402	Court Appt Attorney +	$14,469.89
10-435-403	Civil Crt Appt Attorney +	$1,190.00
10-512-104	Jailer Salaries -	($16,322.66)
ORDER NO. 30465
I3 UDGET AMENDMENT # 2 3
198TH DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY JAIL
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, 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/()Decrease
10-436-402	Court Appt Attorney +	$9,505.00
10-436-403	Civil Court Appt Attorney +	$1,393.00
10-436-420	Telephone +	$26.74
10-436-497	Court Transcripts +	$596.50
10-512-104	Jailer Salaries -	($11,521.24)
ORDER NO.30466
BUDGET AMENDMENT #24
JURY
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 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
10-434-496 Interpreters
10-434-331 Operating Supplies
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $438.00
- ($438.00)
ORDER NO.30467
BUDGET AMENDMENT #25
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 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
10-513-570 Capital Outlay
10-513-569 Operating Equipment
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $1,514.85"
- ($1,514.85)
*-Reallocate funds from Operating Equipment to Capital Outlay ['or purchase of
commercial shredder.
ORDER NO.30468
BUDGET AMENDMENT #26
COUNTY AUDITOR
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Letz/Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense codes:
Expense Code Description
10-495-485 Conferences
10-495-202 Group Insurance
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $575.15
- ($575.15)
ORDER NO. 30469
LATE BILL
COMMISSIONERS' COURT
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to approve payment, without a late fee, and issue a hand
check in the amount of $1,205.12 to the KERRVILLE DAILY "TIMES for ads for
employees 6/07.
ORDER NO.30470
LATE BILL
HC YOUTH EXHIBITION
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to issue a hand check in the amount of
$1,975.00 to BACK 40 SUPPLY, INC. for a Utility Trailer Ser #34425.
ORDER NO.30471
LATE BILL
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 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 $150.00 to W.
HARDY DAVIS for Psychological Assessment-MILZ 7/07.
ORDER NO. 30472
LATE BILL
COUNTY JAIL
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letr, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to issue a hand check in the amount of $150.00 to W.
HARDY DAMS for Psychological Assessment-Zachary 7/07.
ORDER NO. 30473
LATE BILL
COUNTY JAIL
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to issue a hand check in the amount of $201.00 to WAL-
MART COMMUNITY (5515) for 6/07 supplies.
ORDER N0.30474
LATE BILL
COUNTY JAIL
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Oehler/Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to issue a hand check in the amount of
$499.86 to CHEVRON for 7898787341707 Fuel.
ORDER NO. 30475
LATE BILL
COUNTY JAIL
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letl, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to issue a hand check in the amount of $527.94 to
EXXON for 718732826447.542707 Fuel ($34.00 from 10-560-487 and $493.94
from 10-512-335) and a hand check to SHELL in the amount of $671.06 for
061567579707 for fuel ($170.33 from 10-560-490 and $500.73 from 10-512-335).
ORDER NO.30476
LATE BILL
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Lett, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to issue a hand check in the amount of $528.09 to HSBC
(6415) (Office Max) for 070706 Office Supplies.
ORDER NO.3 0477
LATE BILL
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILI"I'Y
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 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 $367.50 to
WANDA BROWN for 7/12-8/07/07 Contract Service.
ORDER NO. 30478
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports:
Constable Pct #4
Constable Pct # 1
JP #3
Justice Courts Pct #2
Constable Pct #2
ORDER NO. 3 0479
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MANAGER
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Appoint Ray Garcia as the Full-Time Interim Manager of Environmental Health at
the same salary level as the current Interim Manager in that department.
ORDER NO. 30480
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT D.R./INSPECTOR
Came to be heard this the 13th day of August, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Thank Tish Hulett for her services as Interim Manager, and that she go back to her
previous job of being the D.R./Inspector in Environmental Health, at the salary she
held before.