1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Monday, November 26, 2007
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct . 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4
v
-~
-.._.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
November 26, 2007
--- Visitors' Input
--- Commissioners' Comments
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve contract with Kerr County Soil & Water
Conservation District & allow County Judge to sign
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
contract proposed by Court-Appointed Special
Advocates (CASA) for funding
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
final plat of Longbow Subdivision
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
variance for roads in Phase II and III of
Headwaters Ranch
1.5 Public Hearing on Taxation of Personal Property
in Transit
1.6 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
tax goods-in-transit personal property as defined
in Texas Tax Code ~ 11.253 by Kerr County, Texas
1.7 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
authorize Community Resource Group of Austin,
Texas, to conduct new mail survey of persons
living in the service area of proposed wastewater
collection system for Center Point & Eastern Kerr
County; provide same to TWDB in support of pending
application for EDAP financial assistance
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
how to allocate excess funds from t:he 06/07
Library budget
1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action for
concept of The Estates of Center Point
1.13 Consider/discuss and authorize Sheriff to dispose
of three county vehicles
1.14 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
the purchase, rather than the lease, of the
NICE CallFocus III Recorder System from Voice
Products, Inc.
PAGE
6
8
9
19
23
31
31
36
40
43
48
49
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X (Continued)
November 26, 2007
1.9 Public Hearing for revision of plat for Lot 67,
Cypress Springs Estates, Phase 2, Section One
1.10 Public hearing for revision of Kerr County
Subdivision Rules and Regulations
l.ll Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve new Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations
1.15 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
future airport governance agreement with City
of Kerrville
1.16 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve salary for secretarial position at the
Extension Office (Executive Session as needed)
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
Commissary Audit presented at November 13th
meeting to be sent to the Jail Commission
1.18 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
Tax Assessor's Audit
3.1 Action as may be required on matters discussed
in Executive Session
4.1 Pay Bills
4.2 Budget Amendments
4.3 Late Bills
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments
5.2 Reports from Elected Officials/Department Heads
1.19 Hearing on Appeal of J. Nelson Happy to the
issuance of a floodplain permit to Martin
Marietta Materials Southwest, Inc., for a
"haul road" as specified in the permit appli-
cation; appropriate action as may be required
--- Adjourned
PAGE
53
54
54
57
61
62
62
65
65
81
82
82
87
106
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
On Monday, November 26, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., a special
P R O C E E D I N G S
Kerr County Commissioners Court posted and scheduled for this
time and date, Monday, November the 26th, 2007, at 9 a.m. If
you'd please stand and join me in a moment of prayer?
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Please be seated. At this time, if
there's any member of the public that wishes to be heard on
any matter that is not a listed agenda item, feel free to
come forward at this time and be heard. If you wish to be
heard on a listed agenda item, we'd ask that you fill out a
participation form. They can be found at the back of the
room. I think there's some forms back there. If we happen
to get to an item that you wish to be heard on, and you've
not filled out one of those forms, just get my attention in
some form or fashion and I'll see that you have the
opportunity to be heard. But right now, if there's any
member of the public that wishes to be heard on any matter
that is not a listed agenda item, please feel free to come
11-26-07
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
forward at this time and tell us what is on your mind.
Seeing no one --
MR. OVERBY: Yes. County Judge and --
JUDGE TINLEY: Better hurry.
MR. OVERBY: Quickly. Guy Overby, the president of
the Kerr Economic Development Foundation. And just quickly,
I just would like to come before the County Commissioners
Court this morning and -- and just extend an invitation to
you, to the County Commissioners. We have a special meeting
planned at the Hill Country Shooting Sports Center on
December 13th, Thursday. This will be an open public
meeting. This meeting is just an invitation for our full
board of directors that will be there, plus our economic
partners. That meeting will be from 11:45 to 1:15 that
Thursday. We have a special meeting planned that day. Not
only do we have lunch there for our -- our guests and our
economic partners, but our program that day will be with the
U.S.A. National Shooting Team that will be representing the
United States in Beijing, China next summer. So, we have a
special program planned that day. Our meeting will be in the
Air Hall facility. We hope that you can come and attend and
be there. It'll be a really good meeting opportunity for our
community to be there. I do know that there are several
folks from the U.S.O.C. Olympic Committee and U.S.A. Shooting
planning also being there, so I just wanted to come to the
11-26-07
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
County Judge, Judge Tinley, and extend an invitation to the
'~ Court. And, like I said, it's an open public meeting. We
hope to have as many folks come and join us and enjoy that
special day. Appreciate that very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Overby.
MR. OVERBY: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there anyone else that has a
matter they wish to bring to the Court's attention that's not
in connection with a listed agenda item? If not, we'll move
on. Commissioner Baldwin, what do you have for us this
morning?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I don't have much --
much news out of the -- out of the community, other than I
wanted to say happy birthday to Commissioner Oehler on the
other end of the table. Today is his birthday. And I think
he has a -- one of those champagne shower things for
10 o'clock this morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Public is invited, of course?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For us, I guess. I don't
know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He's taking it, or he's
offering it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not sure yet. I'm going to
be there, though.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
11-26-07
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It was a great holiday
weekend; it's good to be back. Let's go to work.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Christmas in Comfort went on
Saturday, and the parade, even though it was a little bit
damp, a little cool. But, actually, the attendance was
pretty good, from what I hear. Most people did pretty well,
and the rains were certainly welcome. I think it was pretty
general throughout the county. Burn ban is lifted in -- I
know in my precinct; I think in all precincts till Wednesday.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Oehler?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Only thing I really want to
mention is that, all the elected officials and everybody, I
think, if it's okay with the Court, the Christmas dinner for
the employees and department heads and all, I'd like to do
that on the 18th of December. And I'll take care of doing
all the cooking and all that thing. We just need to gather
up a little -- some funds from various places to pay for this
meal. Other than that, I don't have anything.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One place being the
Commissioners?
11-26-07
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Commissioners and other
elected officials and department heads.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the 18th? 18?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 18th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where's it going to be,
downstairs or at the Ag Barn?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Ag Barn.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ag Barn.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's get on with our agenda. First
item on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to approve contract with Kerr County Soil
and Water Conservation District and allow the County Judge to
sign the same. This contract is one of our regular contracts
that we deal with, and I assume the County Attorney has
approved the form? It's the standard form that we've used in
past years.
MR. EMERSON: I haven't seen this year's, but if
it's the same as last year, then yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just want to make a comment,
that the Soil Conservation folks, they do a lot of good in
11-26-07
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
I~ this county, and just a real good program overall. I think
they really help throughout.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 2; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
contract proposed by Court-Appointed Special Advocates, CASA,
for funding by Kerr County to CASA. I placed this on the
agenda at the request of Ms. Oehler, who's the, I believe,
Executive Director at CASA. The contract was originally
prepared by Ms. Grinstead and forwarded over to CASA, and if
the Court will recall, at the last meeting, the matter was
before the Court. I asked that it not be considered at that
time because I thought there were some budgetary problems,
and I wanted to check on it. And, sure enough, in checking
on it, I ascertained that funds were not budgeted for that.
There was a change made in the budget from previous years.
However, the actual language on the budget was a little
confusing, and in talking with the Auditor, she indicated it
needed to be styled that way for some carryover reason from
the previous year that I still don't understand. But that
11-26-07
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
budget item, as can be seen from the information on the
proposed budget, I deleted that item, and instead inserted
our AACOG dues. That's where we came up with that odd dollar
figure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: And AACOG was added to that budget
account on our current year's budget. When Ms. Oehler was
called and advised that this was a clerical error and no
contract should have been prepared or submitted, she asked to
appear before the Court, and she's here today. Ms. Oehler?
MS. OEHLER: Thank you for letting me come on such
short notice. I'm not going to take any of your time. I've
prepared a packet that I'd like you all to look over. That
includes our working agreement with 216th, the 198th, the
Kerr County Court at Law, and the Child Protection Court of
South Texas, as well as the report I sent Judge Tinley at the
end of October. There's also a program evaluation done by
the judges, the attorneys we work with, our working agreement
with C.P.S. I think there's enough stuff there for y'all to
look at. Statistics, currently, as I'm sure you're aware,
the number of children that are in C.P.S. care in Kerr County
has more than tripled in the last five years. I've given you
the last three year's statistics on my cover letter. When I
spoke with the Judge's court coordinator, she told me that we
had been taken out of the contract for the first time in 18
11-26-07
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
years because we didn't provide a service to the county, and
I believe we do. I've given you not only the -- this
information, but also my board of directors or contact list,
provide a service. Our budget this year is $170,000. Kerr
County's $3,000 contribution is just a token, but it's very
important because we can't show local support without it.
So, I -- several years ago, we -- we kind of had this same
discussion. There was an Attorney General's opinion that
David Motley sought clarifying to you all that you could,
indeed, fund CASA; in fact, encouraging you to fund CASA. I
have that opinion, if anybody would like it. I submitted a
copy of our audit to Judge Tinley and to the County
Treasurer's office. If anybody else would like a copy of it,
it's public information. We always have clean audits. Alan
Massey is our auditor. So, I would just ask to you take some
time to look over this and then perhaps reconsider funding
CASA, because it will be hard for us to seek the kind of
funding we need from the federal government and from private
foundations if we can't -- Kerr County, the main county we
serve, doesn't support us. So, I'd be glad to answer any
questions you have, but it's not my intent to argue with you
11-26-07
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
today about this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have any
questions for Ms. Oehler?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question, probably
more directed to you. Just from the budget standpoint, why
did you feel that they don't serve a --
JUDGE TINLEY: Two reasons, Commissioner. The --
my best understanding is that CASA has made a transition to
providing services to C.P.S., and is no longer providing
direct services at the request of the district courts in
connection -- in connection with domestic cases which they're
handling. That's the information they gave me. Are they
wrong, Ms. Oehler?
MS. OEHLER: Well, we don't provide services to
C.P.S. The Legislature and the Texas Family Code make it
very clear that our position is to monitor C.P.S. for the
courts. Now, if what you're saying is, do we do custody home
studies for the district courts any more, not for four years.
Because the C.P.S. case load, which is almost all of our
federal funding for victims services, has gotten so large.
Just on that cover letter right in the middle, you can see
just in -- you can see in Kerr County, that the number of
children in C.P.S. care in the county three years ago was, I
think, 96, and so far this year, we've already served 168.
So, those cases last a year, and our volunteers are tied up
11-26-07
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
monitoring those children in foster care and making regular
reports to the courts. We do nothing without court order, so
I'm not quite sure what you're saying, Judge. It's true we
don't do custody. It's true we don't do juvenile court,
because those children are not victims. Although we do have
a working agreement that if the judges feel like a child is
being abused, we'll do a home study. There's one on there --
I guess maybe it's off now -- for Judge Brown last week. But
the majority of what we do are for the children in C.P.S.
care, children who are wards of the state. And 60-some-odd
percent of the children we served last year, in your fiscal
year, which I gave you a report, were Kerr County kids. And,
so, we do -- we have working agreements with those courts,
and we work directly at their pleasure and only under signed
court order. We don't work for C.P.S. We don't do anything
for C.P.S.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me approach this a different way
so that I can have a better understanding of it, possibly.
MS. OEHLER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: You say your charge is to provide
oversight of Child Protective Services, and that is the basis
for your federal funding?
MS. OEHLER: We have federal funding for victims of
crime. The Texas Family Code clearly outlines what CASA
does, and that is to provide advocacy for children who are in
11-26-07
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
Child Protective Services custody, wards of the state of
Texas. And, so, what our volunteers do is they read records,
they visit children in foster care, and they follow cases and
they file written reports for every single court hearing that
is held in an abuse and neglect child suit in the four
counties. Kerr County is 66, I think, percent of what we do.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that's the basis for your
federal funding, is C.P.S. cases?
MS. OEHLER: That's the basis for our federal
funding, is victims services. And children who are in C.P.S.
care are considered victims, so, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And that is what portion of
your budget Ms. Oehler?
MS. OEHLER: Our budget is about 60 percent public
sources. That's Texas Attorney General, Victims of Crime
from the Governor's Division of Criminal Justice -- that, and
then the counties, the counties we work with, Texas CASA
grants us. And then the other 40 percent of our budget is
Sterling Turner, Kronkosky, Swan Foundation. We do a very
good job. I think that our program evaluation from judges,
attorneys, and our own volunteers evaluating us as a program
will tell you that. We spent $3,000 last year on blue jeans
and tennis shoes for kids from Kerr County. Our money
doesn't go towards salary; it goes towards operating expense,
kids, travel. We reimbursed our volunteers $17,000 in travel
11-26-07
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
last year, 'cause they travel not only to all four counties,
but they go all over the state visiting kids in foster care.
Sometimes they're the only adult who are visiting kids in
foster care that know the children, because C.P.S. can no
longer travel out of region to visit their kids. So, if
we've got a Kerr County kid in Houston, the C.P.S. worker
from Kerrville can't go to Houston. There has to be a worker
in Houston who doesn't know that child. But our volunteer
can go down and check out where they are, make sure they're
okay, talk to doctors, and let Judge Dubose know, or in
the -- in the instance of a trial, let Judge Ables or Judge
Prohl know. I think if you speak with those judges, you
would be reassured that our people do a really good job and
that Kerr County is served.
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I'm not questioning the quality
of your work. I'm questioning who and in what manner it's
done. Any my best understanding was that you did not provide
direct services to either of the district courts during this
past year, other than through the C.P.S. mode. Is that
incorrect?
MS. OEHLER: No, that's -- well, other than maybe
two custodies and an adoption where the judges felt like the
kids were at risk, that's true. But those district courts
are the presiding courts, as you well know, of that Child
Protection Court of South Texas. Those cases were pulled out
11-26-07
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
of your courts because y'all were so busy, and so now there's
a Child Protection Court sitting in Kerr County. But Judge
Ables, Judge Prohl, and Judge Brown sign off on every order.
So, we provide service to Kerr County children in C.P.S. care
to those -- for those courts, but that's pretty much all we
do, because of the size of the caseload.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that's the C.P.S. connection
that I was speaking of?
MS. OEHLER: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. OEHLER: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And as you indicated, you
provide no services to the juvenile court?
MS. OEHLER: We haven't provided services to the
juvenile court since shortly after you took office, because
you didn't particularly want it in the beginning, and then
later the C.P.S. caseload had just grown so much, and that
program had died, that's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. And you notified me that --
MS. OEHLER: Yes, sir, I did.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that you would no longer provide
services? Okay. Thank you, ma'am.
MS. OEHLER: Yes, sir. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions for Ms. Oehler?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I understand that --
11-26-07
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
first of all, I mean, I'll just make a comment in general,
that all of these County-sponsored activities, as we list
very hard. We've tried to -- the Court has, you know, direct
workings with primarily the juvenile court, is kind of our
rule of thumb, and -- you know, at least in this area of
services. But at the same time, it seems that you do provide
a service to the youth of Kerr County, and if all you need is
a token amount so you show support, I don't have a problem
with that and reevaluating this. We can look at it next
year, but maybe funding it at a $1,000 level this year, and
then relooking at it next year. If that -- if that's what
you need, and it's kind of -- that's what I heard, I have no
problem with that. We can take it out of Commissioners Court
Contingency and look at this again a little bit more. If --
you know, where do you draw the line? I mean, you know,
we're an arm of state government. C.P.S. is -- is, you know,
part of state government, not -- certainly not an arm of it;
it's part of it, and so there's definitely a relationship
there. You do provide a service, I think, with the C.P.S.
program state-wide. I think the advocacy group is important.
So, I mean, my recommendation is that -- and I make a motion
that we fund it at $1,000 this year, and take the funds out
of contingency -- Commissioners Court Contingency.
11-26-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a second. Any question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Thank you,
Ms. Oehler.
MS. OEHLER: Thank you, Commissioner Letz.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that include the agenda
item? That talks about contracts; it doesn't talk about
money. Are we approving the contract as well that says
$1,000? Is that what the issue is?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Approval, to me -- I would say
it's all-inclusive, but I'll add to the motion, if it's all
right, that it's subject to the County Attorney looking --
reviewing the form of the contract.
MR. EMERSON: That's fine, but the agenda item
itself says "contract for funding."
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. OEHLER: Thank you all.
11-26-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll move to -- we have a timed
Item, Number 3, as it were -- we ran over a bit -- for 9:15.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for final plat
i of Longbow Subdivision, and located in Precinct 2.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Good morning. 38 to 30, I
think that was.
JUDGE TINLEY: What? (Laughter.)
MR. ODOM: Gave you three. Aggies.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You looking for a coach?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In basketball, too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Got rid of a coach.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you guys looking for a
coach?
MR. ODOM: N.I.T. championship.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I even wore the appropriate
colors today.
MR. ODOM: I had them on all week.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Odom, I'll be the first to
acknowledge that the University of Texas was seriously
outplayed.
MR. ODOM: They were seriously outplayed.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly what happened.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. 88,235 was the attendance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Were you there? Were you
among them?
11-26-07
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
MR. ODOM: I was among them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Now that we have
that in the record...
MR. ODOM: This property was sold as metes and
bounds as a 10-acre tract. When the survey was done, it was
9.95 acres including the right -- road right-of-way at Willow
Bend Drive. The existing home, well, and septic are shown on
Lot 1. There are no improvements on Lot 2. At this time, we
ask for a variance to Lot 1 -- and I think I have this -- she
has this backwards.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, I think so.
MR. ODOM: I believe that we're asking for a
variance for lot size of Lot 2 as 4.52 acres, making Lot 1
5.01 acres. And approve this final plat for Longbow
Subdivision done under the alternate plat process.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're asking for a variance
on Tract Number 2, which consists of a residence, storage,
septic, well.
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Already in place?
MR. ODOM: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ODOM: Because the other one should meet the
unimproved lot...
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
11-26-07
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. We do have a participation form that's been filed.
Mr. Williams? If you wish to be heard, please come forward.
MR. WILLIAMS: Gene Williams from the Headwaters
think, last week, and just wanted to make the comment that it
does not meet the Headwaters rules on 5-acre spacing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought your rules were
for lots on which you were going to give a permit to drill a
well, as opposed to a lot where a well already existed.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we would consider a replat a
new plat, so thereby, it should retain 5 acres with any well
that's already existing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I understand your --
Headwaters' position on this, but I think the key is that the
intent was -- for purchase of this property was to have a
10-acre tract that they could divide.
MR. ODOM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that was a -- you know, I
wouldn't say a clerical error, but it was -- wasn't a
surveyor. Surveyors don't make mistakes, do they? But it
was just probably they thought it was, you know, a 10-acre
tract, and it turned out not to be, so I don't see that it's
that big of a problem on this one lot being retained large
11-26-07
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
enough to get a well permit.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
~I JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or discussion on
the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question here.
Leonard, have you heard from Mr. Williams or anybody else
from Headwaters before this moment?
MR. ODOM: No, I haven't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gene, this is horrible,
walking in here at the last moment when we're fixing to vote
on this damn thing, and you walk in here and want to change
it. No way, cat. That doesn't work.
MR. WILLIAMS: The surveyor brought this to our
office last week and asked us to sign off on it, and I
assumed they were going to come back and pick it up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to third the
motion, if I have the opportunity.
MR. WILLIAMS: Didn't see it on the agenda till
this morning.
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.
11-26-07
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. It is 9:25
now, so we'll take up Item 4; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action for a variance for roads in Phase II and
Phase III of Headwaters Ranch located in Precinct 4.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Let me go ahead, and then if
they have any questions... Headwaters Ranch submitted a
concept for approval of Phase I, and the Court gave them
permission to make the road a paved country lane instead of a
local road because of the lot sizes and projected traffic
volume. Developer's now asking for a road variance for
Phase II and III, and none of these phases have a preliminary
at this time. So, I'll turn it over to the developer to
answer any questions you wish to -- I don't see a problem
with it, but...
MR. POORMAN: Yeah. What we're asking this
variance -- the reason we're asking it is, the definitions in
the subdivision regs for local road, it has to do with the
number of lots first, and we do have more than eight in each
of these; there's 10 in the second and 12 in the third. But
the other criteria is, it's the lot size or the traffic
volume, and the traffic volume for the local road is 60 to
400 vehicles or more per day in volume. For the country
lane -- a paved country lane, it is for less than 60
vehicles. All of these roads are cul-de-sac roads. There
11-26-07
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
are no through roads. The lot sizes are 20 acres. We do
restrict them to one residence per tract. I just don't see
where there's going to be more than 60 vehicles on that road.
If it was -- if there was a home built on every tract in
there, and each household had four vehicles, we still
wouldn't be over 60 vehicles per -- in traffic volume per
day.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, you would. But aside from
that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I was waiting for the
answer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: With four vehicles -- the
average person goes in and out twice a day. That would be
80, easily. And that's with no guests, no deliveries, no
garbage, nothing else. So, anyway -- but that's just 'cause
you said four.
MR. ODOM: That's by his deal. But normally you
would use two. Based upon the household, which is two. And
if you were close to the city or to the municipality of
someplace, Ingram or whatever, then that would be higher.
But you're in the middle -- you're a long ways from
everybody --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: -- out there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: These tracts are not to be
11-26-07
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
divided, either. That's part of the covenants?
MR. POORMAN: That's part of it also.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay, thank you. Seems like
if you're going to divide them, that's going to give -- you
wouldn't make it.
MR. ODOM: Some of these lots face 1340 anyway; two
of them do, and -- on each phase right there. So, there's a
-- you know, the probability of them having that -- and we
discussed before that, you know, to -- to put everybody under
the same rules, and instead of putting them outside of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm confused by the letters.
We're talking about lots, or phases.
MR. POORMAN: Phase II has 10 lots and Phase III
has 12 lots.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there's a letter in here
dated November 15th, 2005, related to these two lots, if I'm
not mistaken, in the backup material. There's a -- we had a
letter -- or is that letter just about the other one?
MR. ODOM: That was to the Phase I.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So that doesn't -- okay.
MR. ODOM: Has nothing to do with Phase II or III.
They just came up with Phase II and III.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My personal feeling is that if
you make an exception here, you might as well change our
rules. I mean, this is no different than any other
11-26-07
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. The difference in the cost to the developer is
not huge here. We're talking about 2 inches additional base
and 2 foot additional width to upgrade those types of roads.
Yes, that is money, but if you're not going to -- if the
Court's not going to go by the standards we set, well, then
we should change our standards. I mean, giving a variance
doesn't make any sense to me. In 2005, we didn't look at
traffic count; that was a fairly new thing that we came up
with at the last revision. I don't believe we did in 2005.
The engineers looked at it. Both Mr. Wells, and I think
Mr. Harvey helped with this. In their mind, the -- the
number of lots and traffic count numbers mesh in here
according to state standards and traffic studies and all that
stuff that I know nothing about, but that's why we have the
engineers to give advice on those. So, you know, I don't
support a variance, but I'm just one person.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The Court's variances are
there for a reason, for people that have a hardship of some
sort reaching the threshold of our rules. Now, you know, I
don't know that -- that they've reached that level. I have
no idea. You know, you -- if you're going to sit there and
argue	about	whether	each family	has four cars or	three	and a
half	cars,	and one	of them is an	electric, and --	you	know, I
don't see that reaching any level of debate. I'm with Jon on
11-26-07
27
1
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 issue, that we either have the rule or we don't, and I'm
just not sure that Mr. Poorman's argument reaches the level
of authorizing a -- a variance from the rules.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the road intended to be
private, not County-maintained, Mr. Odom?
MR. ODOM: No.
MR. POORMAN: No, they're going to be
County-maintained.
MR. ODOM: County-maintained.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see the need for --
based on what Commissioner Letz said in terms of the
difference of the roadbed and the road width, I don't see a
need for a variance.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, only thing we did, we
set a precedent, I think, in the last one by granting them --
they had one extra lot in the first phase. And I talked to
Mr. Poorman last night, and I said, you know, where does it
stop? I mean, where do you draw the line on -- you know, we
gave you a variance one, basically, because it -- they did
front the highway, but we made it mandatory for those -- that
access from those two lots that front the highway be to
that -- will be a County-maintained road. So, I don't know,
you know, whether -- I mean, does it come back next and say
there's going to be 12 lots or 13 lots, and we want to get
this thing a variance? You know, if -- if we let them access
11-26-07
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
those front two lots from 1340, then he would only have eight
lots within the subdivision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that correct?
MR. POORMAN: In Phase II, yes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: In Phase II. Then Phase III,
you're going up to how many lots?
MR. POORMAN: There's 12 lots in there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Twelve lots in there. Well,
that would be 10, then, that would be accessed. So, I mean,
you're going --
MR. POORMAN: Our only contention is the number of
vehicles that are going to use the road, and the County's
going to maintain this road, so if they want to maintain the
full size, then we don't have a problem with it, you know.
If y'all don't grant us a variance, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that -- you know, I
have no problem at all going back to Mr. Wells and having him
look at these numbers to make sure, in his mind, that they're
consistent, that the 60 vehicles meshes with eight lots. And
if that is not correct, I think we need to make an
adjustment. I think our rules need to be consistent, and I
think -- I have a question that they are right now.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, the only -- the only
argument that I see for doing this would be the fact that the
11-26-07
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lots can't be divided based on the covenants, and so you're
not going to increase the number of lots and that over a
period of time. But by the same token, our rules say eight
lots, and this is in excess of that. I mean, the last time,
the one lot difference, you know, I could sort of see that,
but this is -- I don't -- you know, I really don't think,
because --
MR. ODOM: I say, well, change the rules, if we're
going to have these larger lots, and not have, you know, say,
more than 15. But you got to put a number on it somewhere,
and you've got to stick with it, I think. And I agree with
Commissioner Baldwin; it's not hardship, I don't believe, for
this to happen. And the variances are there for minor
adjustments, I believe, and not -- not something that could
be considered --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have a public hearing in 25
minutes to look at changing that rule.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. And maybe -- you know,
maybe that's something we should do. But I think we need to
change our rules instead of just continue to grant variances.
MR. ODOM: Basically, what you're telling me is
that Phase II and Phase III is a no-no. You're going to go
to a local road.
MR. POORMAN: That's fine.
MR. ODOM: That's what he really needs to know from
11-26-07
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
the Court. Will there be a variance for a country lane, or
will it be a local road?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't sound like it.
MR. ODOM: Doesn't sound like it to me. He can
keep the Phase I under the local road?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, yeah. We granted that
one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is, is.
MR. ODOM: What it is, it is. Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe we ought to look at
changing it. You know, if we're going to amend the rules,
that's fine. Maybe we come back, see what happens after the
public hearing and after we address the Subdivision Rules,
and then maybe it would be allowed. It might not.
MR. POORMAN: Okay. All right. Thank you,
Commissioners.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody on the Court have anything
further to offer in connection with that particular item? If
not, we'll move on to our 9:30 item, Item 5. At this time, I
will recess the Commissioners Court meeting and I will open a
public hearing on the taxation of personal property in
transit in Kerr County, as that term is defined in the Texas
Tax Code, Section 11.253.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 9:40 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open
court, as follows:)
11-26-07
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
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard in connection with the taxation of
personal property in transit in Kerr County, as that term is
defined in the Texas Tax Code, Section 11.253?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one seeking an opportunity
to be heard, I will close the public hearing, and I will
reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting.
(The public hearing was concluded at 9:40 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And we'll go to Item 6, to consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to tax goods-in-transit
personal property, as defined in the Texas Tax Code, Section
11.253 by Kerr County, Texas. I put this on the agenda
because there was a legislative enactment that exempts the
taxation of -- of goods in transit, as that term is defined
in the noted Tax Code section, unless the Commissioners Court
in a particular county specifically takes action to tax that
property on or about January 1st of 2008. It's an annual
thing that must be done every year in order for that
exemption not to apply in a particular county. You will see
a -- in your material, I believe there should be a -- I
thought there was a resolution attached there.
11-26-07
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Somewhere I saw it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a resolution, though,
that -- that the taxes remain in place?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's right, that the exemption
from taxation not apply in Kerr County in 2008.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Meaning the tax -- that it
is taxable.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. It would continue to be
taxable.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Whatever the goods in
JUDGE TINLEY: As that term is defined in the Tax
Code.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I understand. I
haven't read the Tax Code, but I'm assuming that is actually
some kind of -- something that you can put your hands on,
that you can feel. Or is this some kind of -- another
Austin, feel-good, sit around the table and sing Kumbayah?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For example, Mooney
Airplane Company. They import engines for their aircraft.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
11-26-07
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: High-priced engines. And
they're -- they're shipped in here; they're here for a period
of time. They ultimately go in an aircraft, and the aircraft
is completed and sent out someplace else.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, they're taxed while
they're sitting on the ground.
JUDGE TINLEY: As inventory.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And can you think of another
example in Kerr County?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm not sure about the --
the plastics company out here. That might be an example.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: James Avery may have
something -- they may have some things that are -- if they
have -- I don't know how, because it's gold. Because if they
have something -- anything that's in the process of
manufacturing has a value, like, especially if it is gold, at
least the value of the gold. And I don't know -- you know,
it's that type of -- I'm guessing. I mean, I'm kind of
trying to figure out who else manufactures around here. We
don't have a lot of manufacturing, but those are examples.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that going to be revenue
for the county or the state?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And schools, I guess -- oh, I
11-26-07
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
don't know. Does this cover -- probably not schools. This
does cover schools. But the change is to leave it as it is,
not exempt it. It's not adding a tax or anything. All we're
doing is saying we're just going to leave the law the way it
has been historically.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I want to do.
So, by -- by passing this court order, nothing changes?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's correct. We would continue
to tax that property just as we have in the past.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's my desire, by golly.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: And a second to adopt the order to
tax tangible personal property in transit, which would
otherwise be exempt pursuant the Texas Tax Code Section
11.253.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, one other question,
now. So, this is an annual event that we have to do in
order --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- to do this. Who is
going --
11-26-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: The County Attorney is saying no.
My understanding, it was. Maybe I'm --
MR. EMERSON: No, the wording in the statute is
that -- I'm sorry, bear with me while I find it -- the goods
in transit remain subject to taxation by the taxing unit
until the governing body of the taxing unit, in the manner
required by official action, rescinds or repeals its previous
action.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's better.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Put it in stone.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't imagine us trying to
track the thing every year. We can't even keep up with each
other's birthdays. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good point.
JUDGE TINLEY: That makes it even --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- even less --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm liking it.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- less difficult, doesn't it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm liking it more and more.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other question or comment
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.
11-26-07
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
36
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 7; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
authorize Community Resource Group of Austin, Texas, to
conduct a new mail survey of persons living in the service
area of the proposed wastewater collection system for Center
Point and eastern Kerr County to establish the current median
household income and provide same to the Texas Water
Development Board in support of pending application for EDAP
financial assistance. Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is on the agenda,
our second submission on this topic, what is the median
household income, and it has to be below 75 percent of the
state on median average, they wrote back and said they didn't
like what we sent and that they have some questions about
whether or not the median household income is, in fact, the
way it was represented. We represented that it is around
66 percent of the state median, and that was based on the
2004 survey that was conducted by the Community Resource
Group for this Court, and updated for inflation since 2004,
and that number still came in at 66 percent.
So, a couple members of the review team have
11-26-07
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
contacted the -- that they want us to do this again, so I
contacted Community Resource Group in Austin, the folks who
did it for us before, and they agreed to do it again at a
cost of $2 per household survey, which would be a mail survey
preparing the report, and giving it to us for submission to
Water Development Board. The gentleman who does this work
for us is a young man named Mark Pearson, and I received this
e-mail from him this morning. He said here -- in sending me
the income survey contract for our consideration, he said I
had a brief conversation with Amanda Lavin at the Water
Development Board. She's the one who wrote the original
letter to which I responded, and providing information. And
she intends to discuss the possibility of waiving the repeat
survey with the two members of the survey team who said we
ought to do it again, and she'll do so after the holidays.
Don't know whether or not it will get waived, but
in the event it does not get waived, we are required to move
forward with a new income survey. I believe it's important
that we provide the authority to do that, and Community
Resource Group will do it for $2 per -- per household that
they're surveying. Commissioner Letz, I'd like for this new
survey to include not only the core area of Center Point
where the wastewater collection system would be, but also
11-26-07
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
38
some of those subdivisions that are in Precinct 3 to the
north, I believe, on Highway 27. I think those -- those
communities as well would provide support to our intention
and so forth. So, the action of the Court would be -- what
I'm requesting is to approve a contract, which I have a draft
of it on my e-mail today for the County Attorney to take a
look at. The cost would be $2 per -- I can't imagine it
going over $2,000. That's 1,000 homes surveyed; I don't see
that being more than that. And I'm going to ask for
approval. Move approval of that agenda item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second, with a question.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second.
Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question is, and we will
delineate -- it's based -- well, we don't -- it's the service
area for the proposed project?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all we're surveying?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're not surveying just
randomly out there. This is a very specific survey.
~i
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And part of the reason is
'', that you can't go to the census blocks in 2000, because
they're skewed because of some of the higher income levels
and homes and so forth that are in those two census blocks,
11-26-07
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
so we've had to separate out the core area of the -- of the
-- for the survey purposes and take all that extraneous stuff
out which skews the number. And by adding in those in your
precinct, I think we'll be in good shape.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Did you not say that
the lady is going -- pursuing waiving this whole program?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what this e-mail
says.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we're going to do it
anyway?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In the event they don't
waive it, then we have to be prepared to conduct the survey.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. So -- so we're going
to approve spending the money today, and just kind of set
that aside in case we need it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not going to spend it
unless they do?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If we have to do it, we'll
I
do it. If we don't have to do it, we won't spend the money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that it's a
wise thing to include anything in Precinct 3, because all
those people down there are so, so rich. That number's going
up very, very fast. (Laughter.)
11-26-07
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll try to --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, I'm not sure you're
doing the right thing there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll try to avoid that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Isn't that true, Judge? I
mean, you get down there, just -- you can smell money when
you leave Center Point. Lane Valley Road is a good place.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can smell money?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, then, Commissioner, your
motion is contingent upon the fact that it is required and
not waived?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My motion is to approve
conducting the survey, and funding it through the line item
that I identified for the Court, Account 409-571. Go ahead
and approve it and fund it, and if we don't have to do it, we
won't spend it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Other questions or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 8; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
how to allocate excess funds from the '06-'07 library budget.
11-26-07
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hoping from the -- that I would know what that figure was
from our last Tuesday Library Board meeting, so that we could
have a number to work on, but that number was not provided
because they don't have the final -- the final number yet
from the -- from the City of what the excess is. But there
is some excess funding left from last year's budget. Because
I did, I guess, raise enough stink over there to think that
we need to get either credit or reimbursement for funds that
aren't used for the purpose they were budgeted for at the end
of the year. And rather than just let it roll into the
City's general fund, our portion of it should be, I think,
either credited or given back, or we should decide what we
want done with those excess funds. I do not have a figure,
so I think we should probably put this off until the next
', meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Just to give you a little
update of what is going on. And, of course, the library
would prefer that that money be put back into the library in
some form or fashion, which I believe we can designate that
however we'd like to once we find out what that figure is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This story sounds very
11-26-07
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From a few years ago. And I
agree with you; probably the right thing to do is to roll it
back in there, but I would like to have a pretty firm
agreement or an understanding with the City, whether it's a
credit or reimbursement, or have we gotten it yet, or maybe
did we get it? And -- you know, you have all those things
cleared up before we make any kind of --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We are going to get -- we are
going to get confirmation, I assure you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there going --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My preference would be a
credit, and just reduce our commitment for this year by
whatever that amount is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's my preference. I don't
-- I'm not real inclined to leave it sitting over at the
City's accounts.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I -- I don't believe
that's the right thing to do. Now, if we wanted to make a
contribution to the library funding each year instead of a
percentage payment based on what it's been in the past, then
I think, you know, if they have funds left over, that's
different.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's different.
11-26-07
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But if we have an allocated
amount based on a percentage, I think if there's a percentage
left, we ought to have our percentage credited. So, that's
where we are.
JUDGE TINLEY: If they're rightfully our funds, we
need to make that decision, not somebody else.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly.
JUDGE TINLEY: I agree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further action on that item?
Let's move to Item 12; consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action for the concept of the Estates of Center
Point located in Precinct 2.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. This concept is a 23.74-acre
tract comprising 11 lots and one road. The tract is located
off F.M. 480 just past Verde Hills Drive, in the high-density
area of Center Point, and will have community water. Even
though the name is not a duplicate, it might be easily
confused with Center Point Estates. We wanted to bring that
out to you. The number of lots comprised in high density is
divisible by two, so the 11 lots are appropriate. It has
community water from Wiedenfeld. He has a letter that he can
supply that water, and the developer wanted to present this
before and see if there's any problems.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have some questions about
11-26-07
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
44
it. First of all, it appears from the subject -- the
vicinity map that the subject property quite likely is within
the proposed service area of the sewer collection system, and
if that is the case, I'd like to know what would be the
potential for the subdivision to be hooked up to the sewer
system when and if -- when it becomes available. Can we get
some enlightenment on that?
MR. ODOM: I'm not quite sure. I did present that
to the surveyor to talk to his client.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's the surveyor and
who's the developer?
MR. ODOM: Gary Brandenburg.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gary?
MR. BRANDENBURG: Morning, gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Morning.
MR. BRANDENBURG: Essentially, I don't know if I
know the answer to that question either. It's hopeful that
that can be accommodated.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it can be
accommodated if the developer wishes to have it accommodated.
We can work out similar arrangement -- arrangements similar
to what we've done in the past where there were septics in
place. And this is a little different in terms of you're
talking about doing septics; septics are not yet in place.
But this is to the north of Verde Creek; is that correct?
11-26-07
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BRANDENBURG: Correct.
MR. ODOM: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would put it in the
proposed service area.
MR. BRANDENBURG: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, I'd kind of like to
have some -- some discussion about that, some commitment that
that might be the potential for the future. Secondly, the
name kind of troubles me. The Estates at Center Point is
tremendously confusing with Center Point Estates. And we've
been down this road with names of subdivisions similar but
not exact in the past, and I would like to avoid that if at
all possible in the future.
MR. BRANDENBURG: I agree. I forewarned them of
this name. I said, you know, we can at least, you know, give
it a whirl. But he is prepared to, you know, have, you know,
an alternative name, obviously. And in regards to the sewer,
I'm sure he'd be very open to that. He wants to put kind of
higher-end homes in this area, and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What size lots are we
talking about?
MR. BRANDENBURG: Generally around 2 acres.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Two and less.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two and less, yeah. Yeah,
11-26-07
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
46
I see it, 11 out of 23.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that all your questions,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the moment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This will be -- depending --
you might want to make sure you stay around till 10 o'clock,
because this will be subject to our new rules, and there will
be significant additional requirements, based on our new
rules, --
MR. BRANDENBURG: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- for this development, from
engineering, being -- a letter from Mr. Wiedenfeld isn't
enough any more. Now we have to have full engineering cost
estimates per lot, and there will be probably a requirement
for a full water availability study.
MR. BRANDENBURG: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the -- those -- but they're
outlined in here. Also, there's a likelihood of a -- unless
we change it right after considering the public hearing,
there will be a fire suppression requirement of a storage
tank. I think it's 2,500 gallons, pretty minimal, with a dry
hydrant hooked up to it, but those are all things that are in
our draft rules.
MR. BRANDENBURG: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So be sure that you're aware of
11-26-07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
that, 'cause you would be under the new rules, whatever we do
approve.
MR. BRANDENBURG: Sure. I will convey that on to
them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's, you know, not
overly burdensome, just more requirements of stuff that
probably needs to be done anyway.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like those two issues
addressed, Gary. I am -- I am really very reluctant to put a
stamp of approval on a subdivision within the service area on
septic when we know that the future is going to provide
sanitary sewer system.
MR. BRANDENBURG: Sure. I will get the answers to
those questions, and I'll --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. BRANDENBURG: -- recycle this through.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the name of the
subdivision.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the name as well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It looks good. Other than
that, it looks good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Gary, what you want to do
is, when you decide on a new name, I'll give you Rusty's home
number and you can call him and just run it by him, you know,
11-26-07
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
48
just to be a good neighbor kind of thing.
MR. BRANDENBURG: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you can't find him, call
me.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's a better phone call.
Call him first.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that it on that one, gentlemen?
MR. BRANDENBURG: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move to Item 13; consider,
discuss, and authorize the Sheriff to dispose of three county
vehicles.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is the same agenda item
that was on last time on the three cars. Rex did do some
research, and under the Local Government Code, it does
authorize us to trade surplus property for something of same
or equal value.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. 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
11-26-07
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
to Item 14; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. This is one of those in
the budget during the -- in the budget process, we had put in
under lease agreements to acquire a new recording system for
the dispatch office and all phones, 'cause the old one has
been way outdated and is not worth it. And that was approved
during the budget, $5,576.60 a year for a five-year lease
term. The entire -- and that included maintenance. But the
entire purchase of that system was $12,960.56, and after the
County has decided to do the short-term/long-term obligation
bonds, you know, for a lot of the stuff, I talked to the
Auditor and the County Judge, and we really kind of came to a
decision it would be more beneficial to the County to
purchase this thing outright. And the first year maintenance
is, of course, under warranty, and then you pay about $2,000
to $3,000 each year after that for maintenance. But I think
an outright purchase would be better included in with that
long-range deal. But because I was going from 5,500 that had
been approved for a lease-purchase -- lease payment this year
up to $12,960, I just wanted Court approval to do that
purchase instead of leasing.
JUDGE TINLEY: When you roll the maintenance costs
11-26-07
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
II in, have you calculated the total savings over a five-year
period, Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I did not calculate the total
savings. There was definitely a savings, but I did not
calculate what that would be, 'cause, you know, I don't have
a calculator, unless you do, that you would like to add it
I uP•
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That might be an interesting
number to have.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You have the Year 2, 3, 4, and
5 on maintenance, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you -- and while he's
doing that, though, Rusty, you can apply this same kind of
thinking to your vehicle issue, huh?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, the vehicles on the
trade-in and that, and the maintenance on them, I'm not sure
we'd come out as well. We can look at it and see. It's just
coming up with -- if you're purchasing, you know, five
vehicles a year, you're spending 150,000, 170,000 out of the
budget in one year purchase, where we spend 30-something a
year for purchase, you know -- or on that lease. So, it just
depends on where you want to go with it.
JUDGE TINLEY: It'd be almost a $6,000 savings.
11-26-07
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6,000?
JUDGE TINLEY: Almost, yeah. Yeah, it's about
5,800.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: In three years?
JUDGE TINLEY: Five.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Five years.
JUDGE TINLEY: Five. `
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And then it would also deduct
-- since it's going in the short-term/long-term deal, it
would free up the 5,500 in my lease agreement that's already
in the budget. It could go back.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We could use that for
Court-appointed attorneys.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Probably will be sooner or
later anyhow.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it makes sense to go
ahead and purchase.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do, too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just -- I just -- the
question I have is, where's the 12 grand?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It would be in -- the Auditor
would have to do it as part of that long-term obligation
funding.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $12,960 purchase?
11-26-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Be considered a capital expenditure
to be included in the cost of our long-term.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:. I see. Got it. Second.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And in the motion, we -- well,
we don't need the lease contract any more. Just be able to
go ahead and get it, because we do have problems with our
current one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bill, did you make a motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll so move it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I heard talking down
there; I didn't know who did what.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I thought Buster did.
JUDGE TINLEY: He seconded.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I seconded.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Then I'll move it so
somebody can second it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: By golly.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second to
approve the purchase.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second the motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: As opposed to the lease we
previously budgeted. Any further question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
11-26-07
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
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go
back to our 10 o'clock. At this time, I will recess the
Commissioners Court meeting and open a public hearing for the
revision of plat for Lot 67, Cypress Springs Estates, Phase
2, Section One, as set forth in Volume 7, Page 172, Plat
Records, located in Precinct 4.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:06 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: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard on the revision of plat for Lot 67,
Cypress Springs Estates, Phase 2, Section One, as set forth
in Volume 7, Page 172 of the Plat Records? Seeing no one
coming forward, I'll close the public hearing for the
revision of plat for Lot 67, Cypress Springs Estates, Phase
2, Section One, and I will reconvene the Commissioners Court
hearing.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:06 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I will recess again the
Commissioners Court hearing and call a public hearing for the
revision of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
11-26-07
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
Regulations.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:07 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: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard concerning the revision of the Kerr
County Subdivision Rules and Regulations? Seeing no one
coming forward, I will close the public hearing for the
revision of the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations
and reconvene the Commissioners Court meeting.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10:07 a.m.,
and the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And we'll go to Item 11; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to approve the new Kerr
County Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I visited with Rex a little bit
after our last meeting based on some comments that I made
about I needed to do some tweaking, and I -- I guess with
some confusion, he received some calls -- a call or calls
about changing some little bit. I really think the best
thing to do is to adopt our rules as they are. I think we
can then -- the things I was talking about changing really
were page numbering. The requirements of a letter of credit
are listed. There's a form that we have not received from
11-26-07
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Water Development Board that would be attached as part of our
final copy. So, my recommendation is, and I'll make a motion
that we approve the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations as proposed. And then -- that's it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second to
approve the proposed Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations. Questions or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just from the discussion
standpoint, the draft -- nothing's going to change. Amore
reader-friendly version will be available probably in about a
month. It takes about that long, or -- you know, to go
through a number of proofreadings, making sure that
references back and forth are all consistent, and get
everything put in. But, certainly, until then we can go
through the current draft version, and the rules are in place
now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is substantially just
the addition of section -- a new section, 5.09?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 5.09, and then there's a
requirement for all subdivisions to add, for fire suppression
purposes, a storage -- water storage tank, as based on the --
less than 50 lots, it's 2,500 gallons with a dry hydrant, and
then over 50 lots, I think it's 5,000 gallons. Pretty
minimal on that side, but that is something that I think is a
11-26-07
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
good thing that we can now require, and I think incorporate
some of the previous changes that we made related to platting
and things of that nature, size of plats and that, because
they're already approved. So, yes, it's basically -- it's
just that one section. And those -- well, the other part of
that change is that the -- for. individual wells, you have to
now have greater than 5 acres, as opposed to 5 acres or
greater. It's a real slight change there, and anything less
than 5 acres will require, whether it's individual wells or
standpoint. There will be more engineering required. There
will be a full water availability study required by Chapter
230. That is a good and bad thing, in my opinion.
I know there's some members from Headwaters here.
of. That is, if a developer comes in, and -- anywhere in the
minimum, we will have to approve it. And Headwaters is going
to have to figure out how they're going to regulate
subdivisions on a much smaller spacing, potentially. I
visited with Rex about that, and that's how he sees it too.
So, the water availability study that the developer prepares
or has prepared will trump our minimum lot size for water
11-26-07
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
wells, and our averaging. So, how much of that will happen,
you know, who knows?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Remains to be seen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's proved to be available,
you know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's there. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. It's --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's the way it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that's the way it is.
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 15; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
future airport governance agreement with the City of
Kerrville. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I put this on before I
I' saw the agenda for the City of Kerrville for tomorrow night,
and they have an agenda item which is to -- let me find how
they have worded this. I'm not sure what they're planning on
11-26-07
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
Item 6 on this, interlocal agreement for joint management of
Kerrville/Kerr County Airport and pending request for opinion
from Texas Attorney General regarding the governance and
management of the airport. I'm not sure what they're going
to do with that, but I really -- my intent was to authorize
you to write a letter to the City again asking them to get
off high center and appoint two people to work with
Commissioner Williams and myself on the long-term governance
agreement. You know, if they are going to start down that
road, I see no reason to write a letter to them, but if they
don't, I do. And that's kind of what -- where I was at. And
this is, again, based on what the other comments I made at
the last meeting, that the Airport Board members really want
this issue solved, and at least want discussions to start,
and don't see any reason to postpone discussions any further.
And that's -- and Mike Hayes put this on their agenda. He
was at that meeting; he heard the same comments I did.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And what Commissioner Letz
said is correct. The Airport Board, three members trying to
function is -- is severely handicapped in their ability to
conduct their business, so it's time for us to be able to sit
down and negotiate an interlocal agreement, and hopefully the
Attorney General will respond to the County Attorney's
request. In that context, the County Attorney sent me an
11-26-07
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
e-mail -- you probably got it too, Commissioner -- with
respect to the Attorney General had sent a request for a --
for a position statement -- right? -- from the Airport Board.
MR. EMERSON: Right, from multiple agencies.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And I forwarded that
information to the three members of the Airport Board and
indicated to them that the Attorney General's request was for
a position statement from the board. Not the City, from the
board.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Did the County get a request
for a position statement?
MR. EMERSON: No. But we asked for the original
I three.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We asked for the original
opinion with supporting three. They've asked for position
statements from the City, the Airport Board, the Texas
Municipal Airport Authority, TexDOT, and two or three other
agencies.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the -- it seems to me that a
request is different than a position, that we've made. So,
if we want -- if the Court chose to write a position, we
could. I mean, there's no reason not to do it, but we just
weren't asked to do it.
MR. EMERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, what we're really
11-26-07
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
25
asking is, does the authority that was approved by the voters
37 years ago still hold? Because -- or has it been negated
because of the neglect of populating that board?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But the position
statement is, do we have a leaning one way or the other? Do
we -- would we like it to stand or not to stand? And that's
a lot different than just asking the question, in my mind.
And since they're asking for a position from the other
entities, I think that we should probably give a position
too. At a future meeting, we can discuss that. But on this
one, I guess, basically, I think I just -- I'll make a motion
to authorize the County Judge to write a letter to the City
asking them to appoint members to negotiate with the
Commissioners Court on long-term governance issues related to
Kerrville/Kerr County Airport, and just ask the Judge to only
send that letter if they take no action tomorrow to go down
this path.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and second as
indicated. Further 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: I'll enlist the aid of Commissioner
11-26-07
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
Baldwin if it becomes necessary.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think what you have to
do -- what immediately comes to my mind, what you have to do
is tie that with the medium income in Center Point. And --
after you throw in the Comfort folks, and then, I mean, it
should become crystal clear.
JUDGE TINLEY: And it will all shake out then,
won't it, Commissioner? That's exactly what I was thinking.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would that be before we get
to Lane Valley Road or after?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we go to just -- at that point,
we go north of 27.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're right, we do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll move to Item 16;
consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to approve
salary for secretary position at the Extension Office. I
guess the first question I have, Mr. Walston, Ms. Hyde, is,
is that something that we need to defer to executive session,
or can we talk about this in the clear? You're shaking your
head no. What does that mean?
MS. HYDE: We have names.
JUDGE TINLEY: You have names?
MS. HYDE: There will be names. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we need executive session.
11-26-07
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
MS. HYDE: Please.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We'll defer on that item,
then. Item 17; consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action on the commissary audit presented at the November 13th
meeting to be sent to the Jail Commission, with attachments
being in the November 13th meeting binder. The Auditor has
entered this item. Yes, Ms. Hargis?
MS. HARGIS: On the last agenda item, I didn't have
that you could approve the particular one, and this one has
to be approved by you and then forwarded to the Jail
Commission. This is a mandatory requirement. So, this was
an error on my part I just am trying to correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval of the agenda item. 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: That motion does carry. We'll move
to Item 18; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
the Tax Assessor's audit. Internal audit for the Tax
Assessor's office has been completed, and recommendation is
that the Court consider additional security for Ingram Tax
11-26-07
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
Office, the audit being attached for the Court's review.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Only thing I'd ask, if you get
into the security discussion, that that be moved to executive
session.
JUDGE TINLEY: I assume that's permissible,
Mr. County Attorney?
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that's the only part of
it I wanted to discuss.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, let's go to exec.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any statutory requirement
that we -- the Court take formal action to approve that
particular audit?
MS. HARGIS: No, there is not. But I did want to
mention in Court that that department did come out with a
very clean audit. We didn't have any opinions on any of
their work, except they were being done in a very excellent
manner, and we're very proud of that department. We just
wanted to discuss this one other item.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: And since we are going to include this
kind of thing in our long-term debt, we thought we would add
that at that time, any costs that might occur.
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Bolin, you indicated -- with
11-26-07
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
that glowing report that you just got, I'm not sure you can
improve on that. You may want to --
MS. BOLIN: The only thing I request is a copy of
the audit.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I think we can get you that.
Okay. The security item, we'll defer. Okay. Does the Court
-- what's the Court's pleasure with regard to the routine
items at the tail end of the agenda versus the executive
session items? Any preference?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take it up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, let's do them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. At this time, what we'll do
is we'll take our mid-morning recess. We'll be in recess for
about 15 minutes. We will then go into executive session, so
except those that need to be present, your recess is going to
be considerably longer than 15 minutes for the rest of you,
and then we'll come back into open session. So, at this
time, we'll be in recess.
(Recess taken from 10:20 a.m. to 10:37 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if
we might. We were in recess -- mid-morning recess. At this
time, will recess the public or open session of the
Commissioners Court, and we will go into executive session.
Our recess is at 10:37. We'll go into executive or closed
11-26-07
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
session. The first item will be on Item 17 -- excuse me,
Item 16.
(The open session was closed at 10:37 a.m., and an
executive session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we are back in open or public
session at 10:59 or 11:00, whichever. Any member of the
Court have anything to offer with respect to matters
considered in closed or executive session?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, I move we approve the
request from Mr. Walston to hire one Elsa Villareal as a
secretary for the Extension Office; she has 15 years
experience, at a 14-3 level, and the amount is $24,471.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second.
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 carries. Any other
matters to be offered by any member of the court as a result
of what was considered in executive or closed session?
Hearing none, we'll move forward and go to Section 4 of the
agenda, payment of the bills.
11-26-07
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a few questions. And
mother always said when you're paying the bills, start on
Page 1. I believe she said that. The -- let's see. Acer
Computers, those last two, I just want to make sure there's
not a duplicate here. There's 10 computers and 10 computers,
and the amount out to the side is exactly the same.
MS. HARGIS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we're purchasing 20
computers?
MS. HARGIS: Well, we're going to purchase 60
altogether, but this is just the beginning.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: This is a part of that
program?
MS. HARGIS: And this is going into -- to be held
into our long-term capital program. We just released these.
This is the only thing I've released.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Page 9, the County
Court at Law, the bottom, the last one is Robert Henneke?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that a -- is that an
attorney at law?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm, sure is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so it's not the same as
our good friend, Mr. Henneke?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, this is -- this is his son,
11-26-07
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
client's name is Roy Rogers.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I picked up on.
MR. EMERSON: They did bring Trigger to court.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Got to start somewhere.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: Even for the -- for the minor sum of
$157.50, I assume that Roy Rogers was acquitted, being the
good man that he was in the white hat.
MR. EMERSON: I don't think I'd bet on that one.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The County Attorney probably
convicted him.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I kind of smelled something
here with that Henneke name, and the Roy Rogers name really
triggered it.
JUDGE TINLEY: No pun intended?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No pun intended.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No pun intended. Trigger.
The next page, Page 10, the top one, National Court Reporters
..A.. .
MS. HARGIS: Association.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Association.
MS. HARGIS: Probably her annual dues.
11-26-07
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Her annual dues into her
membership for some national something. Is that a
requirement to be -- to work in Kerr County?
JUDGE TINLEY: I seriously doubt it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let's spend some of that
~ money.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 12.
JUDGE TINLEY: Been a busy little boy lately,
haven't you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As soon as the turkey was
gone, he went to work.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Too much time at home.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we go back to Page 10?
This one's really pushing the limits of what we normally
approve. I mean, we're -- we talk about these association
things, but an association for a court reporter? It's not --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: National.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A national one. I mean, I
don't think so. I just -- I mean, I -- and, I mean, it's --
we do dues for, you know, associations for, really, only
people that are required to do it, as far as I know. Unless
there's some requirement that she has to have this for CEU
purposes or something like that, I say no.
11-26-07
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
MS. HARGIS: I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it might be that she -- you
know, kind of like our association that we join, that's how
we get our CEU's, go to the convention. So if that's it --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You would think that would
be more on a state level, though. Or that's what I would
think.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think there is also a Texas
Shorthand Reporters Association, I think is what it's called.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, just depends on
the purpose of it as to why she has to be a member.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to pull that one, then?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay, we're back on Page --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 12, the bottom one.
Hanna Security and Investigation. This is 198th District
Court. For what reason would they -- or one of you --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The defense attorney's private
investigator. Defense attorney's motion to have an
investigator appointed to help investigate for his client.
And the Court would have gone .along with that and appointed
an investigator.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Say that again? He's --
11-26-07
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Court appointed an
investigator to assist the defense attorney.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Defense attorney?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, an already employed
investigator --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We ain't doing it for a
defense attorney.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We don't do it for defense
attorneys.
JUDGE TINLEY: And customarily, those fees are
approved by the District Judges, or whatever court that case
is pending in.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, Page 20. This is kind
of an interesting information type thing, where -- this is
payment to the City of Kerrville for water. Where are these
places?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Ag Barn is one of them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 317 Sidney Baker is Ag Barn?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 317?
JUDGE TINLEY: Travis street is going to be Union
Church.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, okay. Good.
11-26-07
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 317 Sidney Baker is probably
the courthouse.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought it was 700 Main.
JUDGE TINLEY: They probably show it as coming
across from Sidney Baker, though.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We didn't use much water,
though, did we?
JUDGE TINLEY: Tim's got the toilets where they're
not leaking.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, y'all feel comfortable
that's what that is? It's the courthouse?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, there's three different
buildings there, you'll note.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I do notice that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know what the YM code there
is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you think?
MS. HARGIS: I don't know. I'll check it out. I
have --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would suspect we have
three meters here; one for the annex, one for the
courthouse -- old courthouse, and probably one for the
irrigation.
MS. HARGIS: Irrigation, there usually is one,
11-26-07
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
yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, but this is 700 Main;
don't forget the right address for this building and all of
its facilities on this square. Okay.
MS. HARGIS: Well, a lot of times they -- they use
the address on the street where it's located so it makes it
easier for the meter readers. They know what street --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Makes it easier for them,
~~ yes .
MS. HARGIS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Page 30, about halfway down,
Kerr County Juvenile Facility, medical. Tell me what that
is. We are paying -- just to make sure I'm seeing this
correctly, we are paying the Kerr County Juvenile Facility
for some kind of medical bill?
JUDGE TINLEY: What happened, I'll bet you,
Commissioner, is that the juvenile facility had a medical
issue with one of the Kerr County residents, took the child
for medical treatment, incurred an obligation, paid it, and
then, under the contract, there's a requirement that Kerr
County reimburse the facility for those costs, and I'm sure
that's a reimbursement for that particular individual.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I thought that same
thing, but generally when we see that kind of thing, the word
"reimbursement" shows up somewhere --
11-26-07
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- in this line.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why it wasn't -- you know, it would
seem like we'd pay it direct, but I think under the contract
that we have to place our children there, they incur the
cost, they pay it, and then we reimburse.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. That's all my
questions, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Page 28. Sheriff, did you
buy some narcotics?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'd like to sometimes.
JUDGE TINLEY: $760 worth?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That is what we call our --
our fund that -- you might say, to purchase some -- our
undercover buy money and expense money for the narcotics
unit. We keep so much in there.
JUDGE TINLEY: You apparently advanced some money
into the fund?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We keep a cash --
JUDGE TINLEY: And you're being reimbursed?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. Because what we do is
keep cash in a safe for -- if they have to go out and need
buy money, and then we have our own accounting and all of
that. That's our undercover funds.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, this comes to you as custodian,
11-26-07
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
then, and -- okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. All right. All right, let's
go to Page 40. Fritztown Diesel. We spent $10,000 to
refurbish a '68 Ford, or repair a '68 Ford?
MS. HARGIS: I think it's a piece of heavy
equipment.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Probably a Ford tractor, Ford
loader, Ford backhoe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: '68? Even at that, I didn't
think we had anything that old in our fleet. I don't know of
any '68, that old.
JUDGE TINLEY: I could buy one of those for half of
that, couldn't I?
MS. HARGIS: I mean, we can look this one up. I
wasn't made privy to this one, so I --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, while we're there,
this -- Bruce, this Jerry Adam, building a fence around the
yard out at Ingram, I'm sure that's what's that means.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's exactly what it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, it -- I haven't been
by there in -- or haven't looked at it in a week or so, but
do we have a nice gate put in, and a security -- I mean, is
that --
11-26-07
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Looks nice.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- secured now?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It does look nice. He put
some no-climb fence wire up, I think about 6-foot, 6 and a
half foot fence. And I believe they installed some pipe
frame gates, double gates across the new entrance going up on
the top of the hill, rather than the old one that was unsafe.
It does look nice.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fantastic. Great. Let's
look at Fritztown, Judge, while you're --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Surely that wasn't all he
charged; he did a lot more work than that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This must have been --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a gate there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. It really -- they've
cleaned it up. They've cleaned up a lot of those fence lines
and things, made it look presentable.
JUDGE TINLEY: 68 Ford, brought truck into shop,
drained oil, removed oil pan, found cylinders 4, 6, and 8,
piston scarred up, removed cylinder head, put a
remanufactured engine in it. That's what they did.
Remanufactured engine was $7,000 of that. Labor was about
2,300.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Old Ford -- '68 dump truck, I
11-26-07
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
take it?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what it sounds like.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know which particular truck.
It just says 68 Ford, and it's referred to as a truck.
MS. HARGIS: Leonard's not here, so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That old green one could be a
'68.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a Chevrolet, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you want me to call and
find out?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, call him.
JUDGE TINLEY: The only other comment that I'd
have, in Indigent Health Care, we had an 80 -- 84 -- $86,000
dollar hit starting the year, and I was told that there were
a bunch of -- bunch of that had been held, and that's why it
was so high. I notice this one is slightly over 62,000. We
keep going like that, we're going to run out of money pretty
quick, folks.
MS. HARGIS: Keep in mind, we have those two -- two
patients that are -- one's cancer, one's a heart patient.
JUDGE TINLEY: Under the Indigent Health program?
MS. HARGIS: (Nodded.) And their bills were --
last month, 20,000 was one of them, and the other one, I
think, was 13. So, they're probably in here again. I was
11-26-07
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
very surprised we had an indigent for a heart transplant, but
we did.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Inmate medical has skyrocketed
this year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Yeah, I notice our
prescription bill is the biggest single item on the Indigent
Health care. It's 14,5.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, but there's some regular
medical bills on serious surgeries and that from inmates that
are even being done in San Antonio. They're inmates that are
going to be some major hits.
MS. HARGIS: Now, we do have some catch-up with
CVS; there were some wrong codes put on that. So far, I've
been told it's around $1,200.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's the number of the
truck, not the year model. It said Road and Bridge Unit 68.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Unit 68 is the truck?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: (speaking on cell phone.)
Leonard, 68. Number 68.
(Discussion off the record.)
(Commissioner Williams left the courtroom.)
MS. HARGIS: You need to get some better
11-26-07
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
descriptions in here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the VIN numbers on there.
It's -- there's a lot of information, not necessarily the
year. It's got the VIN number, got the mileage on there.
60,000 miles is all that's on there.
MS. HARGIS: So, it's got to be Unit 68.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: RBU, Road and Bridge unit.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Boy, you got him wound up now.
He was flying high with A & M.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have any comments with
regard to the bills?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I second it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the
bills. Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No -- oh, yes. Bye,
Leonard. That's right, Number 68. It's not the year of it,
and it's the -- the distributor.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, the asphalt distributor? Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not a 40-year-old
truck.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's not a 40-year-old truck.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. Any further question or
discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion,
11-26-07
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
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. No budget
amendments, right?
MS. HARGIS: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wow.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have any late bills?
MS. HARGIS: None.
MR. EMERSON: Can I make one comment? I'm sorry,
can I make one comment associated with bills?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. EMERSON: There's been several elected
officials that have talked about this. Is there any chance
that I.T. can have their own budget next year for computers?
Because the money's budgeted to our departments, but we have
zero control over which piece of technology is purchased,
where it's purchased, when it's purchased.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: How much.
MR. EMERSON: It just shows up and we get the bill.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the way I think it
should be. I think it all should be in his deal. And --
JUDGE TINLEY: We actually discussed that last --
actually, two years ago for the first time.
11-26-07
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 Williams returned to the courtroom.)
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, there was a deal that
y'all wanted to be able to keep track of what departments
were spending what, and I understood that. But I agree
totally with Rex. When I have no control over a line item,
i don't even know when, how, or what's going to be purchased,
it's not right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also, you don't know, then,
if there's a little excess around that you have one big -- it
might be a pretty sizable amount of money. You may compare
purchases.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Actually, I don't know if it's
being purchased and I'm being charged for it and it's being
used over here or where. We have no idea.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But aren't you brought into
it in terms of what's going to be purchased by discussions
with I.T. during the budget process?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. He has his recommend --
see, my recommendation for Sheriff's Office this year was a
total of about 23,000. His recommendation this year was
40-something thousand in I.T. purchases, 'cause he wanted to
replace computers that I didn't personally think were
negatives, okay? The 40-something thousand was what was
budgeted, which will be in the long-term/short-term
obligation, and then after that, I have no idea what
11-26-07
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
computers he's going to replace, what he's replacing them
with, or -- I have no control over when or how much he's even
spending. I don't know. I just think it would be a whole
lot better for that to be in it's totally separate budget,
'cause it really hurts us trying to keep track.
MS. HARGIS: Doesn't matter to me. However y'all
I want to do it.
MR. EMERSON: Good luck, Bruce.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have a good time.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thank you.
(Commissioner Oehler left the courtroom.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we through whipping that
horse? Okay, we'll go to Item 4; approve and accept monthly
reports as presented. I've been presented with monthly
reports from the District Clerk; Justice of the Peace,
Precinct 2, as amended for October 2007; and Justice of the
Peace, Precinct 4; and Constable, Precinct 3. Do I hear a
motion that these reports be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 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.)
11-26-07
82
1
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 Commissioners in connection with their
liaison or other assignments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a question to Rex related
to the Attorney General opinion. With those -- with that
number of position statements coming out, is that likely
going to even drag it out closer to the six-month period? Or
is this a good sign that they're looking at it real quick?
MR. EMERSON: It's probably going to drag it out,
because they'll give them 30 to 60 days to respond, and then
after everything's gathered back in, they'll evaluate it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I was -- that's
what I thought, but I thought I'd be optimistic. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Better known as "hurry up and wait."
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any reports from elected
officials? Mr. County Attorney?
MR. EMERSON: One brief one. A while back, this
Court authorized myself and Eva Hyde to pursue repayment of
overcompensation to a Road and Bridge employee that was no
longer employed by the County. We do have a written
agreement that's been signed, and a first payment toward
that, and at the next Commissioners Court, I'll present the
11-26-07
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
agreement for the Judge's signature.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have a question.
Have we set the date for our second meeting in December?
MS. HARGIS: Yeah, can we move that one?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
MS. HARGIS: Can we move that second meeting in
December -- it's on the 26th. Can you move it to the 27th?
JUDGE TINLEY: Which is the first business day that
I week.
MS. HARGIS: I know. The Judge is arguing with me,
but it is kind of a bad day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Would you care to preside at the
meeting on the 27th, if it's held on the 27th?
MS. HARGIS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd prefer the --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the way it'll have to be,
because I won't be here on the 27th.
MS. HARGIS: That's why you wanted the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 26th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, what -- historically,
what we've done in that meeting is limit it to paying the
bills, so that we can wrap up the end of the year and we have
electricity when we come back in in January. But if you
start letting all this nonsense get on there and piling up,
11-26-07
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
then both of y'all need to be here. I can answer that
j question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think what would solve
the problem is, the Judge won't be here for this meeting; one
of us decide what's on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: There you go.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'll be here.
JUDGE TINLEY: I won't be here on the 27th.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll be here on the 27th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three of us can walk in and
pay bills and walk out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like your idea.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's what we always
did. I don't know when we started letting things get on
there, but that's all you need to be doing at the end of .the
year.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you're going to do it on the
27th, sounds like the senior member of the Court controls the
agenda. And you walk in --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That always hurts his
feelings.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm talking about it in terms of
years of service.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, I see. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which is you.
11-26-07
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does that change the
dynamic any?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It does?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to change your position?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MS. HARGIS: So?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't let anybody on the
agenda.
MS. HARGIS: Okay, what's the day? The 27th?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't care.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're going to put Buster in
charge of that Court meeting?
MS. HARGIS: December 27th?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 27th.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine.
MS. HARGIS: Jonathan's got to clean up Santa
Claus.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Makes no difference.
MS. HARGIS: Thank you. There is one other thing
I'd like to put on the next agenda.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
MS. HARGIS: We need to talk to the financial
11-26-07
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
adviser. And after we have the meeting tomorrow, I think we
should be able to sit down with him and start those
discussions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Meeting tomorrow?
MS. HARGIS: Tomorrow you're talking about the Ag
Barn design, I believe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, we were, but Bruce isn't
going to be here.
MS. HARGIS: Oh. Well, let's just go ahead and
have Henderson come, because I think we need -- we can get
the paperwork ready without the amount, okay? And decide
what type of a vehicle we're going to use. Let him present
that, 'cause I'm concerned that -- people are wanting me to
release other things, and I'm hesitant to do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What meeting do I have
tomorrow? Do I have a meeting tomorrow?
MS. HARGIS: Well, I guess if --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that what you said?
JUDGE TINLEY: Check your calendar.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. What time? Get with me
after this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other reports? We'll be
adjourned.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 1:30?
JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me, let me retract that. We
11-26-07
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
87
(Recess taken from 11:25 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's come to order, if we might.
being a hearing on the appeal of J. Nelson Happy to the
issuance of a floodplain permit to Martin Marietta Materials
Southwest, Incorporated, for a haul road as specified in the
permit application, and appropriate action as may be
required. Commissioner Williams, do you have any initial
comments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, Judge. This is a
matter that was originally brought to the Court two weeks
ago, November 14th or November 12th, and was continued at the
request of Mr. Happy at that time for this matter to be
brought to the Court this afternoon at 1:30 p.m. Prior to
the Judge opening the hearing for any comments that might be
forthcoming from the two participants, I want to read into
the record a statement of my position on this matter. During
the course of this year, I have been engaged with Mr. J.
Nelson Happy in compiling a feasibility study of local
business for investment purposes. The business referenced is
wholly unrelated to mining or wholly unrelated to county
11-26-07
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
government. However, to avoid the appearance of impropriety
or the appearance of a conflict of interest, I will recuse
myself from participation in this hearing before
Commissioners Court, and any action that may be forthcoming
thereafter. That's it, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: So you'll not be further
participating; is that correct, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Unless the
parties want me to vacate, I'll sit here and listen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The -- the matter before us
is a matter under the rules which comes before us as somewhat
of a -- a quasi-judicial body. It's an appeal for the
granting of a -- a permit by the Floodplain Administrator,
and as such, will involve whether or not there was compliance
or noncompliance with the rules. That being the case, I've
noted that I have three different participation forms that
have been filed. I've actually got four, but one of them
involves the lawyers for one of the parties.
AUDIENCE: I'll drop one off in just a second,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: And my reason for mentioning these
is, in the capacity in which we are sitting as a
quasi-judicial body, as it were, this -- this is not a matter
of policy, but rather a matter of determination of whether or
not there was compliance with procedural rules of the Court.
11-26-07
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
I'll be happy to file these participation forms, which
indicate the preference of the party that filed it as to
for anyone except the principals and/or their attorneys to be
making a part of the record in this case. So, if you wish to
file a participation form, feel free to do so, and we'll be
happy to make them a part of the record in this case. Now,
with regard to the procedure here today, number one, it will
be limited to the agenda item as it is styled, which is
the -- the issuance of a floodplain permit to Martin Marietta
Materials Southwest, Inc., for a haul road as specified in
that permit application. The Floodplain Administrator
The appeal before the Court
When we open it up, there will be 15 minutes
allocated to each side, with the appellant, or the party
bringing the appeal, going first, with the respondent then
responding. There will be no rebuttal. The -- the
preliminary issue before the Court -- there was a matter
filed this morning seeking to disqualify the floodplain
administrator. The matter is before this Court now; the
floodplain	administrator is not	presently	involved.	This
Court will	decide that issue.	Therefore,	I determine	that
the disqualification of floodplain administrator is not
11-26-07
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
material to these proceedings, and in fact is moot, since it
comes before the Court now. So, I will open up the hearing
on the appeal with the appellant, Mr. J. Nelson Happy. You
may proceed, sir.
MR. HAPPY: Thank you, Your Honor. If it please
the Court, my name is Nelson Happy. My wife Mary is with me
today. We are the owners of the H.M. Naylor Ranch, which is
the subject of this hearing. I'd like to do a couple of
little administrative things first. One, Your Honor, if I
could pass to the Court some additional materials for the
Court's consideration.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MR. HAPPY: The first is a letter of support from
Mr. Haskell Fine. And Mr. Joe Luther of the Kerr County
Historical Commission is here today if there are any
questions about the historical nature of the home. I'd like
to start with the maps which are attached to my reply brief,
and just briefly review those with the members of the Court
so that you'll be sure where this property is. Map Number 1
was prepared by Martin Marietta. In fact, all of the maps
were prepared by Martin Marietta. And it shows the proximity
of the airport to my ranch, and also to Martin Marietta's
proposed mining activity, which is the 104-acre tract. Since
this map was prepared, the Airport Loop Road has been
relocated, and now is directly across from the proposed
11-26-07
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
25
Martin Marietta mine, so if that helps you orient where this
Go on to Map Number 2, which shows the location of
the various mines already in the vicinity of the Martin
Marietta mine. And you can see there the Edward Wellborn
Ranch, which is right across the road from ours, and Mr. and
Mrs. Wellborn are here today, because this concerns them as
well as us. Probably most important about Map Number 2 is
you can see the yellow portion where Martin Marietta said
"future pit area," and then storage -- "stormwater detained
within," I think. It's hard for me to read. But that is
what Martin Marietta has filed with the floodplain
administrator to show where their new pit is going to be
located. And you can see right on top of it to the left is
where our house is, and in the middle of the circle, and in
addition, the perimeter of the ranch that we own.
Map Number 3 is the detail of our particular
property, showing where Martin Marietta's new proposed mine
is, where the prevailing winds come from over the proposed
mine. Map Number 4 is a piece of information that was given
to me by Martin Marietta's employees that show four quadrants
of their intention to mine. You can see also our house a
little better and how close the proposed mine is to our
house. Map Number 5 shows how the proposed mine sits with
respect to the 100-year floodplain. You can see in the dark
11-26-07
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
area the floodplain. There's a white line that says "limit
of detailed study." And the proposed haul road is very, very
close to that line, and you can see on Map Number 6 where the
proposed haul road is located.
If you go back to Map Number 2, you can see a red
area where Martin Marietta has apparently obtained an
easement next to the Drymala property, and they intend to use
their haul trucks to go from their current operation site
through that red corridor through the new proposed haul road
and enter the pit. And you'll also notice that under the
plans, that the pit is -- is going to be almost just -- just
a few hundred feet from the H.M. Naylor Ranch and our house.
I want to also ask you to take judicial notice and include in
the record all of the matters that I've filed up to date. If
you could include that with the record, so, Your Honor, that
I wouldn't have to read all that material into the record.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's -- having been filed,
it becomes a part of the record.
MR. HAPPY: Thank you, Your Honor. And I've tried
to summarize the points that are made in my brief to just a
few because of the time -- the short time limitation on this
issue. First of all, Martin Marietta chooses to call this a
haul road rather than an application for permission to mine.
I actually am in this same business in the Dallas metroplex
and have haul roads and haul trucks on my property. We are
11-26-07
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
regulated by M.S.H.A., which is the Mine Health and Safety
Administration. If I were to tell an inspector for M.S.H.A.
that my haul road and my haul truck had nothing to do with
mining, that those were just incident to building a road, I
would probably end up in the hoosegow, because the definition
of mining under federal law includes an area of land from
which minerals are extracted, and private ways and roads
appurtenant to such occurring. So, a road, particularly a
haul road, is integral to a mining operation.
Now, this Court has determined that there should be
joint order between the City of Kerrville and Kerr County
which regulates the uses of the area that the aircraft hazard
zone encompasses. Now, regardless of whether you agree that
this application is about a haul road or a mine, the fact is
that the joint order and ordinance in 1992 deal with changes
in uses that occur in the property which is within the flying
zone of the airport. Under the ordinance, and I've quoted it
in my brief, a change of use requires the permission of the
City Manager of the City of Kerrville. Now, at the time
Martin Marietta applied for this permit and the time that it
was considered by Mr. Odom, we did not know about the
existence of this joint order and ordinance. It wasn't cited
by him. He didn't review it. I didn't know about it. It
11-26-07
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
just came up very recently as we were doing investigation for
this case. And no one has attempted to comply with that
ordinance and order in order to get approval from the City of
Kerrville for a change of use in this agricultural area. I'm
confident that Martin Marietta will not claim that they are
not going to mine this particular area in the flight path.
So, one of the most important parts of this Court's
prior order is that you must, before granting a permit, have
all of the appropriate permits from state, federal, and city
jurisdictions before this Court can act. So, this matter
should go back to the City of Kerrville, should be referred
to the City Manager, and the proposed new use of this
property in the flight zone should be considered before you
make any determination about the propriety of the permit.
Secondly, the U.S. Corps of Engineers also has jurisdiction
in the floodplain and with respect to wetlands. Martin
Marietta, in letters to Mr. Odom, indicated that there is a
wetlands on this property. I have reterrea tnis maL~er ~v
the U.S. Corps of Engineers, and today I received an e-mail
from them saying that they were opening a case to investigate
their jurisdiction with respect to the wetlands. So, as of
this moment, the U.S. Corps of Engineers has not made a
determination that it is appropriate for Martin Marietta to
operate in this area until the Corps of Engineers has ruled
on it.
11-26-07
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
And, as a matter of fact, Martin Marietta has cited
transportation projects in mines, and that specific order
requires the Corps of Engineers' chief engineer to refer this
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for comment before
the Corps of Engineers will make a decision of what to do in
this wetlands, if, in fact, this property is near a National
Register home, which, of course, ours is. So, the Corps of
Engineers has not had an opportunity to rule on this issue,
and under this Court's rule, Corps of Engineers approval is
necessary before you can proceed.
My last point is to briefly say that the -- that
this Court has judicial discretion to make a determination
under Section C(2)(d) about the compatibility of a proposed
use with existing and anticipated development. And all of
you, I'm sure, have been out to this part of the county, know
what is happening with the airport, the development there,
the potential impact of a mining operation on the future of a
precision approach to the airport that has not been
considered by the F.A.A., the advance of the airport
industrial park, which specifically prohibits mining, and the
fact that there are growing single-family uses in this part
of the county which mining is antithetical to. Finally --
and I know Commissioner Letz was involved in this. This
11-26-07
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
property is in the ETJ of the City of Kerrville, and is a
gateway to the city. The City is attempting to protect and
beautify these gateways, and its jurisdiction should be
considered before any decisions are made that will permit the
building of a haul road by Martin Marietta to facilitate
For Martin
Marietta, we have Mr. Figueroa.
MR. FIGUEROA: Good afternoon. My name is Rodrigo
Figueroa, and I'm here on behalf of Martin Marietta
Materials. I'd like to take a few brief moments to make a
few statements. Y'all recall that on May 14th, 2007,
Mr. Nelson protested the grant of the floodplain development
permit issued to Martin Marietta by the Kerr County
Floodplain Administrator, alleging that the permit had not
been granted in compliance with the Kerr County Flood Damage
Prevention Order. Mr. Nelson raised, as he continues to
raise, several legal issues regarding the grant of the
permit, and as a result, you directed the County Attorney to
investigate the legal issues raised by Mr. Nelson and provide
a recommendation to you regarding Mr. Nelson's protest. You
also allowed both parties, Mr. Nelson and Martin Marietta, to
submit briefs to the County Attorney setting forth and
supporting each party's position regarding the permit.
Since that time, Martin -- I've submitted a brief
11-26-07
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
numerous materials, and including a brief, to the Kerr County
Attorney. And the Kerr County Attorney, again, since that
time has had occasion to review both briefs and review all
the legal issues raised by Mr. Nelson, and has recommended to
you -- made a legal recommendation that the permit -- the
floodplain development permit be reinstated to Martin
Marietta as originally granted. Now, under the -- the terms
of the Kerr County Flood Damage Prevention Order, your
decision -- the issue -- the only issue properly before you
today is whether or not the permit was granted to Martin
Marietta in compliance with the terms of the order. And as
we've detailed and further set forth in Martin Marietta's
brief, the Kerr County floodplain administrator clearly
complied with the terms of the order. He had a -- a
few-month period of due diligence, and he issued -- validly
issued the permit to Martin Marietta in compliance with the
terms of the Flood Damage Prevention Order. The -- it has
been a little bit over six months since Mr. Nelson's original
protest on May 14th, 2007, and as recommended by the County
Attorney, Martin Marietta respectfully requests at this time
that the permit be reinstated and reissued as it was
originally granted.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Does any member of
the Court have any questions of either of the participants at
11-26-07
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do not, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have just one question, and
it's to Mr. Figueroa. In your brief, you have a -- there's a
letter. It's Exhibit E, a letter from F.A.A. relating to the
excavator not being a hazard to aviation or navigation.
Where was that taken, at what point on your property? Was it
near the -- I mean, was it on the haul road?
MR. FIGUEROA: It's on the haul road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It has a point listed as a -- a
long./latitude point, so it is on the haul road?
MR. FIGUEROA: It's on the haul road.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And up 36 foot?
MR. FIGUEROA: Exactly. Took the -- the tallest
equipment that Martin Marietta will have on that property,
and we took it at its tallest point and submitted that
information to the F.A.A. Now, under the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the property or on the haul
road?
MR. FIGUEROA: We took it on the property, just out
of an abundance of prudence and caution. Under the F.A.A.
regulations, we were not required to submit that form, but in
order to address any concerns that you may have regarding
Martin Marietta's construction of the permit, we voluntarily
submitted that to the F.A.A., letting them know what the
11-26-07
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
tallest point of equipment was going to be, fully extended.
And they have, in turn, issued a clearance that -- in other
the property, including the equipment they will have on the
haul road, will not in any way cause a hazard to air traffic.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- and your property
adjoins Highway 27, basically, right at Airport Loop Road,
very closely -- within 100 feet of that intersection?
~ MR. FIGUEROA: That is my understanding.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That is in conflict with what
TexDOT Aviation has told the Airport Board recently. They
were told they can't put anything in that area, and they even
have to remove -- we have to remove a telephone pole at that
intersection. And that was not on the haul road at that
point, but, you know, it's not a haul road issue. It's a --
I don't think it's even necessarily germane here. But I
question that. And TexDOT Aviation has told the Airport
Board recently they cannot -- we wanted to put a sign there
that was about 8 foot tall, and we were told absolutely not.
So, use on that property -- you know, the haul road's lower
down, so it may not have that elevation, but up in the
northern part, I think there's some problems. Did you talk
to the City of Kerrville specifically about the ordinance
related to the airport?
MR. FIGUEROA: It is my understanding that the City
11-26-07
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's -- I don't mean to
be splitting hairs, but the letter was from the City of
Kerrville. City of Kerrville doesn't own the airport. It's
governed by the Airport Board, and I don't see anything
from -- it's almost a round-robin issue with that. But
the -- the City's legal staff will make the determination,
but coming from the city -- the City's letter responds to
nothing about the airport, and they don't have the authority
to respond for the airport. So, the issue is that Mr. Happy
is alleging that this is a change in use; the haul road is a
change in use of that property, and I'm wondering if the City
has ruled on -- well, if you haven't asked anybody from the
Airport Board, whether it came from the City or the Airport
Board, about the haul road being a change in use of that
property --
MR. FIGUEROA: We do not. The haul road is a --
structure, which is what the haul road will be, is governed
-- is accepted from the permitting requirements of the
ordinance as set forth in our brief. Any structure below
75 feet in height does not require a permit under the -- the
airport hazard zoning ordinance. And, again, the
construction here will be of the haul road, which is a
11-26-07
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
structure. And, again, out of an abundance of prudence and
caution, we not only looked at the structure itself, but
what's going to be on that structure, took the highest -- the
tallest equipment Martin Marietta will have at its heightened
peak, and it would still be covered under the exception to
the ordinance -- to the permit requirements under the
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER	LETZ:	Okay.	That'	s not	my
understanding of that,	but --	I mean,	I'm	under	the
understanding if you're -- if you're right at the O.F.A., the
area to land, the main runway, I don't think you can go up at
all. I mean, an 18-wheeler can't be on -- they're judging
the height -- the problems that we're having on approaches
right now off the top of the height of the back of an
18-wheeler, so I don't -- the 75-foot number, I have a
question about that, because I don't think that covers this
particular O.F.A. Maybe it covers part of the airport
ordinance. But that's why I asked if you have anything from
the City Attorney relating to the ordinance as related to the
airport, because that's the legal staff the airport uses, is
the City Attorney. Anyway, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin, do you have
any questions?
11-26-07
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not at this time, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Thank you, sir. The
Chair will entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's it? That's the big
hearing?
JUDGE TINLEY: That was it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If I'd have known that, I'd
have come in earlier. I just want to make some comments, and
I'll be happy to make a motion. Mr. Happy, in his
presentation, mentioned the Corps of Engineers possibly
opening a case today. Talked about the Historical Commission
locally, as well as the National Landmark program. Talked
about F.F.A. -- F.A.A. and the local airport and those kinds
of things. And I just want to say that of the hundreds, and
possibly even thousands of times that I vote as an elected
official in this room, I never base my vote on what might
happen or what could happen or what should happen, or maybe
is going to happen. I have to base my votes on the things
that I know are real. And what I know is real -- you know,
Mr. Happy also talked about relating this haul road to actual
mining. Well, I can't -- my mind won't go there. What I see
is a private owner -- private property owner building a road
on his private property. Now, it's my understanding that if
they do get into mining from that point, then that's an issue
11-26-07
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
that another government body has to take up. It's not this
body. All we're dealing with is this road that I see as a
private company building on their private land. So,
therefore, I think that they comply with the terms of the
order, and I will -- I will make that motion that -- however
it should read, Judge. I'm not sure that --
JUDGE TINLEY: That we affirm or uphold the
granting of the permit by our floodplain administrator?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That would be my motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Very well. We have a motion on the
floor.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Got to read some more before I
can make a second. I'll comment in maybe a few minutes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Would it be helpful if we
took a recess?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, if we could, about 10
minutes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we take us about a
10-minute recess.
(Recess taken from 2:02 p.m. to 2:12 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if
we might. We were in a short recess. There's a motion
11-26-07
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
before the Court to affirm or uphold the issuance of the haul
road permit to -- by the floodplain administrator. Is there
a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I will second it and make a
comment, please, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion is made and seconded.
Question or discussion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason for my wanting to
read this a little bit more carefully during the brief recess
was, the airport's very important to me, and it's been --
I've served on the Airport Board for a while, and still keep
very involved in it. And things that happen near the airport
are -- have a great impact on the future of that airport.
The issue before us right now is a -- it's a haul road. The
City's 2002 comprehensive plan that was referenced in the
letter of October 26 of 2006 from Gordon Browning, City of
Kerrville, said this site was suitable for industrial use.
That being said, a haul road -- and I'm assuming a little bit
about, you know, change in use. And I've read through the
city ordinance -- or the Airport Board ordinance data a
couple times, but it -- changing use could be changing use of
the property, not whether it's -- from their standpoint, not
a change in the person living on it who sold it or something
like that.
So, from the airport standpoint and the city
11-26-07
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
standpoint, there is not a change in use with a haul road by
itself, and that's why I'll -- you know, I'll affirm the --
note, though, that the -- the mining issue, while this Court
has no -- the Commissioners Court does not have any authority
issue, the airport, through input through the Airport Board,
which is an independent body, we do have some input. And
there's -- I have a lot of concerns about a mining
operation -- which	is not	before	the	Court right	now, but a
mining operation on	this	site.	And	I do not see	anything in
the backup and all the piles of paper that I've received on
this matter saying that this has been cleared by the Airport
Board. And I think that is going to be a major hurdle, to
get a mine put in as shown on some of these plats. And the
part that I see the biggest problems tend to be up towards
Highway 27, where I know that we were just told -- or the
Airport Board was just told that we cannot put an 8-foot sign
identifying that airport. So, I think there are some other
issues that need to be dealt with, but the haul road issue, I
don't see from the documentation I have here that there's any
reason that we should not approve that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion
on the motion? If not, all in favor of the motion to affirm
and ratify the issuance of the haul road permit by the
11-26-07
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
floodplain administrator to Martin Marietta Corporation,
please signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Abstain.
JUDGE TINLEY: A quorum of three. The ayes have
it. The motion carries and the permit is affirmed.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Gentlemen, is there any further
business to come before the Court in connection with the
regular meeting of the Court which was originally convened
Monday, November 26th, '07, at 9 a.m.?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not to my knowledge, Judge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nothing that I know of,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: That meeting will be adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 2:17 p.m.)
11-26-07
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
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR ~
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 30th day of November,
2007.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : ---, - -- -
Kathy anik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
11-26-07
ORDER NO. 30623
KERB COUNTY SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT CONTRACT
Came to be heard this the 26th day of November, 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 Contract with Kerr County Soil & Water Conservation District, and
allow the County Judge to sign same.
ORDER NO.30624
COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES (CASA) CONTRACT
Came to be heard this the 26th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0:
Fund the $1,000.00 to Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) this year from
the Commissioners' Court Contingency, subject to the County Attorney reviewing
the form of Contract.
ORDER NO. 30625
FINAL PLAT OF LONGBOW SUBDIVISION
Came to be heard this the 26th day of November, 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 Final Plat of Longbow Subdivision, Precinct 2.
ORDER NO.30626
TAX OF GOODS-IN-TRANSIT PERSONAL PROPERTY
Came to be heard this the 26th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Adopt the order to tax tangible personal property in transit, which would otherwise
be exempt, as defined in Texas Tax Code § 11.253 by Kerr County, Texas.
ORDER NO.30627
MAIL SURVEY BY COMMUNITY RESOURCE GROUP OF AUSTIN, TEXAS
Came to be heard this the 26th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize Community Resource Group of Austin, Texas, to conduct a new mail
survey of persons living in the service area of the proposed Wastewater Collection
System for Center Point and eastern Kerr County to establish the current median
household income and provide same to the Texas Water Development Board in
support of pending application for EDAP financial assistance, and fund it from line
item, Account 409-571, and if we don't have to do it, then we won't spend it.
ORDER NO.30628
SHERIFF TO DISPOSE OF 3 COUNTY VEHICLES
Came to be heard this the 26th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0:
Approve authorizing the Sheriff to dispose of 3 county vehicles.
ORDER NO. 30629
PURCHASE OF NICE CALLFOCUS III RECORDER SYSTEM
Came to be heard this the 26th day of November, 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 purchase, rather than the lease as previously budgeted, of the NICE
Ca1lFocus III Recorder System from Voice Products, Inc.
ORDER NO.30630
KERB COUNTY SUBDIVISION RULES AND REGULATIONS
Came to be heard this the 26th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations, as proposed.
ORDER NO.30631
AIRPORT GOVERNANCE AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF KERRVILLE
Came to be heard this the 26th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Authorize the County Judge to write a letter to the city of Kerrville asking them to
appoint members to negotiate with the Commissioners' Court on long-term
governance issues related to the Kerrville/Kerr County Airport, and ask the Judge
to only send the letter if they take no action at their meeting on November 27,
2007.
ORDER NO. 30632
COMMISSARY AUDIT
Came to be heard this the 26th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0:
Approve the Commissary Audit presented at the November 13th meeting to be sent
to the Jail Commission, with attachments being in the November 13th meeting
binder.
ORDER NO. 30633
SALARY FOR SECRETARIAL POSITION AT EXTENSION OFFICE
Came to be heard this the 26th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Oehler. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the request from Mr. Walston to hire Elsa Villareal as a secretary for the
Extension Office, she has 15 years experience, at a 14/3 level and the amount of
$24,471.00.
ORDER NO. 30634
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 26th day of November, 2007, came to be considered by
the Court various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and Accounts are:
Accounts		Expense
10-General Fund	$	114,538.01
14-Fire Protection	$	1,000.00
15-Road & Bridge	$	52,146.79
18-County Law Library	$	6,157.74
31-Parks	$	17,062.56
35-JPO Grant G	$	1,105.12
41-Records Archival	$	99,975.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$	62,080.63
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	2,787.02
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	
TOTAL	$	356, 852.87
Upon motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the claims and accounts.
ORDER NO.30635
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 26th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Williams, the Court unanimously
approved by vote of 3-0-0 the following monthly reports:
District Clerk
JP #2 Amended October, 2007
JP #4
Constable Pct. #3
ORDER NO.30636
FLOOD PLAIN PERMIT TO MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS
SOUTHWEST, INC.
Came to be heard this the 26th day of November, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously
approved by vote of 2-0-1 to:
Affirm or uphold the issuance of the haul road permit by the Floodplain
Administrator to Martin Marietta Corporation.